Source: http://mauralarkins.com/fedDocketretrieved0108080.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 22:23:49
Document Index: 29968979

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4']

fedDocketretrieved0108080
[This lawyer is replacing Jeffrey Wade, Jr. Esquire]UPDATE: By February 2009, Ljubisa Kostic had left the firm and the case had gone back to Jeffrey Wade Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura LarkinsUS District Court Docket 01/15/20086 ORDERAfter Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:On 1/9/08, the Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. No settlement was reached. No further settlement conferences shall be scheduled pending the outcome of Plaintiff's motion to remand (5) unless specifically requested by the parties. All discovery is stayed until after Judge William Q. Hayes issues a ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand (5). Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 1/15/08. (mdc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)02/01/20087 Discrepancy Orderby Judge William Q. Hayes accepting document: Opposition To Motion For Remand from Defendant Maura Larkins; non-compliance with local rule 7.1 and Other: Exceeds 25 pg limit for oppositions to motions.Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/4/08. (mdc)(Entered: 02/05/2008)02/01/20088 RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Remand,filed as Opposition To Motion For Remand,filed by Maura Larkins.(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List # 2 Exhibit 1 # 3 Exhibit 2 # 4 Exhibit 3 # 5 Exhibit 4 # 6 Exhibit 5 # 7 Exhibit 6 # 8 Exhibit 7 # 9 Exhibit 8 # 10 Exhibit 9 # 11 Exhibit 10 # 12 Exhibit 11 # 13 Exhibit 12 # 14 Exhibit 13 # 15 Exhibit 14 # 16 Exhibit 15 # 17 Exhibit 16 # 18 Proof of Service)NUNC PRO TUNC 2/1/08. (mdc)(Entered: 02/05/2008)02/08/20089 REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION to Remandfiled by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.(Romero, Richard) (lao).(Entered: 02/08/2008) Note: On February 20, 2008, I called the court and learned that the Motion to Remand has been taken into submission, but no order has yet been made. On March 3, 2008 the case was remanded to state court. The case has been transferred to Judge Judith Hayes (and research attorney Monica Barry) in San Diego Superior Court Dept 68. ) USDC 07-CV _______))))) NOTICE OF REMOVAL) FROM STATE COURT [28 USC 1441,) 1442, 1443, 1446])))) (Removing Case No.) 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL)) 1. On October 5, 2007, an action was commenced against defendant by STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ, APC in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (Central Division).2. On October 21, 2007 service was made on defendant of a summons and complaint in the above-mentioned defamation action. 3. On November 16, 2007 defendant filed an answer to the complaint, and served it on plaintiff.4. Copies of the above-mentioned complaint, summons and answer are attached to this notice. All process, pleadings and orders in the case are attached, pursuant to 28 USC 1446. These consist of the complaint, the proof of service of the complaint, the defendant’s answer, and the proof of service of defendant’s answer.5. Since this removing defendant is the only named defendant in this action, no written consent from any other defendant is required in this removal.6. This Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty days of Plaintiff’s service on me of the aforementioned complaint on October 21, 2007. 7. This notices all parties that the above-entitled state court case has been removed to the United States District Court in accordance with 28 USC 1441, 1442, 1443, 1446.Basis for Removal at 28 USC 1441, 1442, 1443, 1446Federal Question JurisdictionFirst Amendment RightIt appears from the plaintiff’s complaint that this is a civil action that arises under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because defendant has a right to speak publicly about matters of public interest, specifically, the actions of public entities, and their employees and officers and lawyers. Defendant has spoken out about Plaintiff’s successful efforts to help public entities hide behind attorney confidentiality in order to cover up wrongdoing.Not coincidentally, the instant First Amendment freedom of speech case arose out of a grievous violation of defendant’s First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, when defendant was fired in May 2002 specifically for filing a lawsuit at Chula Vista Elementary School District (“CVESD”) in March 2002. Plaintiff Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz (“SASH”) was the law firm provided by San Diego County Office of Education Joint Powers Authority to CVESD in that case. SASH apparently instructed CVESD to violate the law by firing plaintiff less than two months after she filed the lawsuit, then SASH pressured CVESD employees to commit perjury and abused the discovery process (see exhibits in defendant’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, which is attached to this NOTICE). The Superior Court of California threw out defendant’s lawsuit after three years because defendant failed to file a specific motion to compel, even though the court admitted that plaintiff appeared to have abused the discovery process. There appears to be an overwhelming bias against in pro per litigants in San Diego state courts.The California Court of Appeal also has failed to enforce California state laws when school districts violate those laws (Mary Anne Weegar v. Sweetwater Union High School District, James T. Carter v. Escondido Union High School District), and has at the same time failed to enforce the Constitution of the United States. Instead, the Court of Appeal protects dysfunctional public entities that devote public resources to keeping individuals in power, often by channeling public money to defense lawyers such as SASH who help cover up the truth. Defendant Maura Larkins filed an appeal in a related case in the Court of Appeal, and shortly thereafter she informed opposition counsel of her action. The next day the California Court of Appeal called up defendant Larkins and said it would not file her case. Larkins informed the Court of Appeal that the case had already been filed, and it would be a felony to remove the case from that file. The Court of Appeal conceded that defendant was in the right, but has not revealed how many other in pro per litigants have been hoodwinked by such attempts to undermine the justice system.The United States can not continue to benefit from democracy and continued economic progress without respect for the law, particularly when violations of law are undermining our educational system. The nations of the world send their best and brightest students to graduate schools in the United States, but our own kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational system is mired in inertia and failure, in part because public entity lawyers such as SASH abuse the justice system and violate the law to protect individuals in power who put politics first and education a distant second.WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the above action now pending against her in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, be removed therefrom to this Court.November 19, 2007 Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per Notice of Removalfiled by Maura Larkins Nov. 20, 2007
MAURA LARKINSDefendant pro se Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC v. Larkins et alWilliam Q. Hayes, presidingWilliam McCurine, Jr, referralCASE NUMBER: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMC (Docket contd. below)
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ, APC, Plaintiff, v. MAURA LARKINS, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,Defendants. HomeWhy This WebsiteSDCOECVESDCastle Park ElemLaw EnforcementCTACVEStutz Artiano ShinoffSilence is GoldenSchools and ViolenceOffice Admin HearingsLarkins OAH Hearing
Lawsuits involving Attorney Daniel Shinoff
U.S. District CourtSouthern District of California (San Diego)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMCStutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC v. Larkins et alAssigned to: Judge William Q. HayesReferred to: Magistrate Judge William McCurine, JrCase in other court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 37-02007-00076218-CU-Cause: 28:1441 Petition for RemovalDate Filed: 11/19/2007Jury Demand: BothNature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & SlanderJurisdiction: Federal QuestionPlaintiffStutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC represented by Ljubisa KosticStutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz2488 Historic Decatur Road Suite 200San Diego, CA 92106(619) 232-3122 Fax: (619) 232-3264Email: lkostic@stutzartiano.comLEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRay J ArtianoStutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz2488 Historic Decatur RoadSuite 200San Diego, CA 92106-6113(619)232-3122Fax: (619)232-3264Email: rartiano@stutzartiano.comLEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRichard E RomeroStutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz2488 Historic Decatur RoadSuite 200San Diego, CA 92106(619)232-3122Fax: (619)232-3264Email: rromero@stutzartiano.comLEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDV.DefendantMaura Larkins represented by Maura LarkinsPRO SEDefendantDoes 1 through 100inclusive Date Filed # Docket Text11/19/20071 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand, from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL ( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt number 144656),filed by Maura Larkins.(Attachments: # 1 part 2 # 2 part 3 # 3 part 4 # 4 part 5 # 5 part 6)(jcj)(Entered: 11/20/2007)11/19/2007 ANSWER to Complaint by Maura Larkins, filed as part of 1 Notice of Removal.(jcj) (Entered: 11/20/2007)12/06/20072 NOTICE And ORDERFor Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 12/6/07. (mdc)(Entered: 12/06/2007)12/19/20073 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC (Romero, Richard) (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)12/19/2007 4REFILED AS 5 - MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC. (Romero, Richard) (mdc) Modified on 1/7/08 to indicate refiling status; refiled per chambers. (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)01/04/20085 MOTION to Remandby Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC. (Romero, Richard) -No Oral Argument Unless Requested By The Court.Modified on 1/7/08 - Added note re oral argument; e-mail sent to atty re CM/ECF policies re motion attachments. (mdc)(Entered: 01/04/2008) ...
Filed & Entered: 12/06/2007NOTICE And ORDER For Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PMin the chambers ofMagistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.on 12/6/07. (mdc) Filed & Entered: 12/19/2007NOTICE of Appearanceby Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APCFiled & Entered: 12/19/2007Motion to RemandDocket Text: MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC. Original complaintMaura Larkins AnswerRemoval to Federal CourtOpposition to RemandAmended Complaint
DepositionsDeposition of Ray Artianop 1-30Deposition of Ray Artianop 30-40Deposition of Ray Artianop 40-58Deposition of Maura LarkinsNotice of Dan Shinoff Deposition
Production by Larkins
...More information:Atty. Elizabeth SchulmanCVESDCastle Park ElementaryCVE President Peg Myers
5 part 5 101 pages[Part 5 includes the following depositions:Linda Watson (contd.)Teresa Coffey6 part 6 99 pages[Part 6 includes the following depositions:Richard DenmonAttorney Elizabeth Schulman,Maura Larkins
Date filed: 11/19/2007ANSWER to Complaint by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz against Maura Larkins, filed as part of [1] Notice of Removal.(jcj) Entered: 11/20/2007NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand,from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt number 144656), filed by Maura Larkins. ANSWER to Complaint in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura LarkinsThe court has placed this document on the Internet in six parts:1 Main Document 110 pages2 part 2 125 pages[Part 2 includes the following depositions:Sam GrossSanta Barbara Sheriff's CommanderGina BoydChula Vista Educators former presidentPeg "Peggie" MyersChula Vista Educators president3 part 3 100 pages[Part 3 includes the following depositions:Richard WerlinCVESD Assistant Superintendent forHuman ResourcesRobin DonlanCastle Park Elementary teacher]4 part 4 72 pages[Part 4 includes the following depositions:Robin Donlan (contd)Maura Larkins,Linda Watson
On March 3, 2008 this case was remanded to state court, then transferred to Judge Judith Hayes (and research attorney Monica Barry) in San Diego Superior Court Dept 68. Lawyers Does First Amendment allow citizens to investigate public officials? Ray Artiano deposition Nov. 8 2007 Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Maura Larkins deposition June 16 2008 Story in Voice of San Diego August 5, 2011 UPDATE: California Court of Appeal decision in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins: injunction overturned! San Diego Education Report