1

DEFENDANT RODNEY HOLMES’ SUPPLEMENTAL

2
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

4 REGARDING THE ‘UNVERIFIED’ COMPLAINANT

5
6
ARGUMENT:
7
The complaint in this matter should be deemed unverified by the purported plaintiff, and
8
this matter dismissed based upon the true, real and lawful Plaintiff’s such failure to verify.
9
10 First, this Court should note that what appears to be a verification of the complaint is

11 fatally flawed and should be deemed unverified as it does not constitute a true verification within
12 the meaning of the law.
13
The complaint’s verification does not contain the declarant’s vested authority from any
14
members of the corporate/entity board within the verification submitted, and fails to comport
15
with the strict guidelines covering verifications.
16
17 THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT VERIFIED BY

18 SOMEONE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.

19 Defendant Rodney Holmes is aware that a corporation, and/or a corporate entity may
20
authorize its attorney to make such a verification as an agent of the corporation. See, C.C.P.,
21
2030.250(b) However, this is not the situation in this matter.
22
23 The Attorney does not state that she is the attorney authorized to make such a

24 verification on behalf of…but rather states, that she is doing the verification because “no

25
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26 DEFENDANT RODNEY HOLMES’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND ITS SUPPLEMENTAL

27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

28
Page | 1
 1 officers of (Plaintiff) are in the County of Orange, and at no point does the attorney identify
2 exactly who (name of corporation/corporate entity) such a verification is made on behalf of, and
3
as such, this complaint should be deemed unverified, and thereafter dismissed.
4
It should be noted that at the trial in this matter, (rather next week, next month, or next
5
year) the Defendant fully intends [and hereby places on notice] to call the Attorney as a witness
6
7 in the matter, to state under the penalty of perjury, the source or sources where the information

8 was obtained which allowed the Attorney to verify the false and fraudulent components of this
9 Unlawful Detainer Complaint.
10
Defendant will also seek to mandate the Attorney waiver of any attorney-client privilege
11
or work product protections applicable, pursuant to the terms set forth in California Code of
12
13 Civil Procedures, section, 2030.250(b).

14 The Courts have construed C.C.P., 446 to permit an attorney verification only where the

15 client’s absence from the county makes it impractical or impossible to obtain the client’s
16
signature. “If the client can be reached by mail no such impossibility exists…and [the]
17
attorney verification is not allowed.” See, DeCamp v. First Kensington Corp. (1978) 83
18
Cal.App.3d 268, @ 275.
19
20 Thus Attorney Robert A. Krasney, Esq., may therefore properly be called to testify at the

21 time of trial on this matter. See, CRPC 5-210.

22 The subordination of perjury can be avoided when a corporation and/or a corporate
23
entity is allowed to verify its complaint through an attorney who is not a member of the board of
24
directors of that corporation/corporate entity.
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26 DEFENDANT RODNEY HOLMES’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND ITS SUPPLEMENTAL

27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

28
Page | 2
 1 Now that the plaintiff has been exposed, the Defendant strongly believes that the plaintiff
2 will simply seek some other sort of questionable angle to give this Court venue jurisdiction. And
3
this is in spite of the fact that the plaintiff has also failed to plead venue jurisdiction in this
4
instant matter.
5
Finally, and in closing, this Court should not allow an unlawful detainer action to go
6
7 forward when the purported plaintiff is not the owner of the property or the real party in interest.

8 This Court should not let stand, an unlawful detainer complaint that has not been properly
9 or lawfully verified. And as such, this action should be dismissed with prejudice.
10
11
12
13
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
17
18
19
20
21 Dated: October 17th, 2023 ________________________________
RODNEY HOLMES;
22 Defendant, In Pro Per
23
24
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26 DEFENDANT RODNEY HOLMES’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND ITS SUPPLEMENTAL

27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

28
Page | 3