Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/47979382/LINCOLN-v-DAYLIGHT-CHEMICAL-et-al-38-NOTICE-OF-MOTION-AND-MOTION-to-Strike-Motion-to-strike-opposition-to-AntiSLAPP-Gov-uscourts-cacd-484804
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 14:21:41
Document Index: 757034023

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1019
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#223433 29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603 Attorney FOR DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLY TAITZ INC, APPEALING DENTISTRY
CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG DEFENDANTS’DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLY TAITZ INC AND APPEALING DENTISTRY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE Date: March 7 Time: 10 AM Hon Andrew Guilford Courtroom 10D
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Defendants Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing Dentistry (collectively “Defendants”) are filing this notice of motion and motion to strike the following pleadings by the Plaintiff: Document #32 Notice of motion to strike Document #33 Opposition to AntiSLAPP Document #34 Response to 12(b)6 motion Plaintiff in this case filed his legal action on 10.15.2010
Defendants' motion to strike 1
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38
Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1020
Motion to dismiss was filed on 11.13.2010. Motion hearing was scheduled for 01.10.2011. Ten days after the Plaintiff had to respond to motion to dismiss his case, without any meet and confer the Plaintiff filed an ex-parte, demanding extra time, even though the Plaintiff used to be an attorney and knew that he was supposed to answer timely or at least request an extension timely. This court was very generous with the Plaintiff and granted his motion the same day and gave him over a month of extra time and rescheduled the 01.10.2011 hearing for 02.14.2011. On 01.25.2011 The Plaintiff filed a second ex parte motion, demanding to shorten the time for the defendants to respond. The defendants had to stay overnight and draft a response to the second ex-parte. The defendants argued that there was no justification to grant the Plaintiff's motion. Exhibit 1 Defendants opposition to Ex-parte Today the Defendants received the ruling from this Court, agreeing with the Defendants and denying the Plaintiff's motion. Exhibit 2. Your Honor's Order, denying the Plaintiff's motion to shorten the time for the defendant's to respond. Today the defendants received via ECF three pleadings from the Plaintiff, all of which were filed late and all of which De facto shortened the Defendants time to
Defendants' motion to strike 2
Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1021
respond, in reality giving the defendants no time to respond. The Plaintiff acted in bad faith and violated Local rules 6 and 7 . Additionally, the plaintiff violated the order of this court expressly denying his ex-parte motion to shorten the time available for the Defendants to respond. L.R. 7-9 Opposing Papers.5 Each opposing party shall, not later than ten (10) days after service of the motion in the instance of a new trial motion and not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion in all other instances, serve upon all other parties and file with the Clerk either (a) the evidence upon which the opposing party will rely in opposition to the motion and a brief but complete memorandum which shall contain a statement of all the reasons in opposition thereto and the points and authorities upon which the opposing party will rely, or (b) a written statement that that party will not oppose the motion. Evidence presented in all opposing papers shall comply with the requirements of L.R. 7-6, 7-7 and 7-8. According to the local rule 7-9 the opposing pleadings are supposed to be served on the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing. The reply is due 14 days before the hearing. The Defendants were served today with the pleadings for three motions:
Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1022
1. Document #33 Opposition to AntiSLAPP was filed one week late and if the defendants were to respond, they would have to respond today, having zero days to prepare. 2. Document #34 was served on the Defendants today, one week late, and if the defendants were to respond, they had to respond today with zero time to prepare. 3. Document #32 Motion to Strike represents the most egregious violation of the local rules and clear disregard of the order of this court, denying the Plaintiff's request to shorten the time available to the defendants to respond. This motion was served on the Defendants today and the Plaintiff scheduled it for February 14, even though he knows that when the party is served electronically, such party is supposed to get 28 days. If the Defendants were to respond to this motion, scheduled for February the 14th, the Defendants had to respond not later than 21 days before the hearing, meaning the defendants had to respond 7 days before being served with the Pleadings. SUMMARY Due to the fact that the Plaintiffs violated local rules 6-1 and 7-9, the Defendants respectfully move this honorable court to strike the Plaintiff's pleadings in documents 32,33,34 as being filed improperly and untimely in violation of local rules and in violation of the express order by this very court denying the Plaintiff's exparte motion to shorten time. It is the understanding of the Defendants that since this court denied the Plaintiff's motion to shorten time, this court will hear the Motion to Dismiss and the AntiSLAPP motion on Defendant's pleadings only and the Plaintiff's motion to strike is off the calendar.
Defendants' motion to strike 4
Filed 01/31/11 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1023
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants' motion to strike 5
Respectfully submitted /s/Orly Taitz Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ 01.31.2011 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ /s/ Orly Taitz 01.31.2011
FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury and under the laws of CA that I served the Plaintiff via ECF and or mail on 01.31.2011 Dated this 01.31.2011 /s/Orly Taitz Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Filed 01/31/11 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants' motion to strike 6
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 38 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.38.0 by Jack Ryan0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescription01/31/2011 38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP, response to motion to dismiss Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 33 , MOTION to Strike in Part Defe...01/31/2011 38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP, response to motion to dismiss Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 33 , MOTION to Strike in Part Defendnts Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taiz, Inc. and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., January 9, 2011 Filing, Docket Entry No. 24 and their Request for Judicial Notice filed January 15, 2011, Docket Entry No. 26 in its Enti 32 , Response in Opposition to Motion 34 filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz Inc. Motion set for hearing on 3/7/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12.27.2011 Defendants' opposition to exparte motion to shorten time, # 2 Exhibit order by Judge Guillford denying ex-parte motuion to shorten time)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/31/2011)Interests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.2 - - 031111532355.24.2by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 29 - EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Response and Hearing - 031111636149.29.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 022811 - Dccd Guilford 10d Lincoln.pdf - Mergedby Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.4 - # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs CA candidate for office registrar form, negating his claims of TX residency - 031111532357.24.4by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 14 - Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing - 031111493271.14.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 80 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.80.0by Jack RyanCHARLES E. LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.2 - AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 3) - 031111200509.5.2by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Joinder in Request for Judicial Notice - 031111532353.24.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - Transcript of Hearing - 3-7-11by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 31 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - 031111646269.31.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.1 - # 1 Exhibit Record of some 70 legal actions in Federal courts with Lincoln as a party - 031111532354.24.1by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 35 - REPLY Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - 031111663787.35.0by Jack RyanLincoln v Daylight, Taitz, etc.by patgundCHARLES LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.0 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 1) - 031111200483.5.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 15 - EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Defendant's MTD by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 42 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION for Sanctions - 031111761226.42.0by Jack RyanLOVE AND THE LAW - Charlie Orly December 9-11-2009by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - Motion to Dismiss - 031111397982.6.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 30 - OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing - 031111641005.30.0by Jack RyanCHARLES E. LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.1 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 2) - 031111200508.5.1by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 37 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Strike - 031111666234.37.0by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 16 - EX PARTE APPLICATION for Continuance of Hearing by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 65.3 - # 3 Exhibit petition for discipline against attorney Philip Berg - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.65.3by Jack RyanLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 65.1 - - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.65.1by Jack RyanSilvers v. Google, Inc. - Document No. 36by Justia.comMY FIRST BIKE PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. MYSPACE, INC. et al - Document No. 15by Justia.comMotion Reconsideration Injuncation Federal 2009by sbhasin1United States of America v. Impulse Media Group Inc - Document No. 46by Justia.comSimilar to LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 38 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.38.0Skip carouselLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.2 - - 031111532355.24.2LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 29 - EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Response and Hearing - 031111636149.29.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 022811 - Dccd Guilford 10d Lincoln.pdf - MergedLINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.4 - # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs CA candidate for office registrar form, negating his claims of TX residency - 031111532357.24.4LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 14 - Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing - 031111493271.14.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 80 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)CHARLES E. LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.2 - AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 3) - 031111200509.5.2LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Joinder in Request for Judicial Notice - 031111532353.24.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - Transcript of Hearing - 3-7-11LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 31 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - 031111646269.31.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 24.1 - # 1 Exhibit Record of some 70 legal actions in Federal courts with Lincoln as a party - 031111532354.24.1LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 35 - REPLY Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - 031111663787.35.0Lincoln v Daylight, Taitz, etc.CHARLES LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.0 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 1) - 031111200483.5.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 15 - EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Defendant's MTD LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 42 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION for Sanctions - 031111761226.42.0LOVE AND THE LAW - Charlie Orly December 9-11-2009LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - Motion to Dismiss - 031111397982.6.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 30 - OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing - 031111641005.30.0CHARLES E. LINCOLN, III v DAYLIGHT, et al. - 5.1 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Part 2) - 031111200508.5.1LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 37 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Strike - 031111666234.37.0LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 16 - EX PARTE APPLICATION for Continuance of Hearing LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 65.3 - # 3 Exhibit petition for discipline against attorney Philip Berg - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.65.3LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 65.1 - - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.65.1Silvers v. Google, Inc. - Document No. 36MY FIRST BIKE PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. MYSPACE, INC. et al - Document No. 15Motion Reconsideration Injuncation Federal 2009United States of America v. Impulse Media Group Inc - Document No. 46Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated - Document No. 48981LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 38 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.38.0