Stipulation,Agreement: KINGSTON WELLNESS, INC. VS. MONICA ANGELES

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                wv

27
28

Lauren A. Vazquez SBN 267880 ELECTRONICALLY

Law Office of Lauren A. Vazquez FILED
2601 Blanding Ave. Suite C-204 Superior Court of Calffornia,
Alameda, CA 94501 ene eter
Tel: 805-217-6116 10/08/2015
1-855-665-5297 BY:BOWMAN LIU.
Deputy Clerk

Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

KINGSTON WELLNESS, INC., Case No.: CGC 13-535535

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ORDER WAIVING ELECTRONIC SERVICE
MONICA ANGELES, PROVIDER FEES

v.

Defendant. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1103

Date: October 9, 2015
Time: 11:00am
Dept.: 302

Hon. Judge Goldsmith
Filed: May 27, 2014

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kingston Wellness, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, filed a complaint against
former director and officer, Monica Angeles, alleging conversion, deceit, constructive fraud, and
seeking claim and delivery of property. The Defendant is alleged to have taken cash and other
property from Plaintiff's retail store that did not belong to her. The initial Complaint was filed in
Contra Costa County on April 23, 2013. On October 18, 2013, the case was transferred from

Contra Costa County to San Francisco County Superior Court. Despite the Contra Costa Court's

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION.
FOR ORDER WAIVING ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROVIDER FEES — CGC 13-535535wv

27
28

order granting a fee waiver to Plaintiff, the San Francisco Superior Court required Plaintiff to
reapply upon transfer of the case.

Plaintiff reapplied for the fee waiver on November 18, 2013. This initial application for a
fee waiver from the San Francisco Superior Court was denied on the grounds that a corporation
is not eligible for a fee waiver. Plaintiff then requested a hearing on the application. After the
hearing, the Court again denied the fee waiver on the same grounds. Plaintiff then reapplied for
the fee waiver. The request was once again denied. Plaintiff was then forced to file a writ of
mandate in the Court of Appeal challenging the denial of the fee waiver. After the Court of
Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate, the Superior Court vacated its prior order and

granted the fee waiver on May 27, 2014.

I. PLAINTIFF IS SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S MANDATORY
ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRMENT
As of December 8, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court requires represented parties to]
electronically file and serve documents in general civil cases. Code of Civil Procedure Section
1010.6; California Rules of Court 2.253(b)(2); Local Rules of Court for the San Francisco
Superior Court 2.10. Plaintiff is a represented party and is therefore subject to the Court's

mandatory electronic filing and service rules.

Ill. ©THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE ELECTONIC
FILING SERVICE PROVIDER FEES
This application is based upon California Rule of Court 2.25(b)(6) which requires the
Court to waive the fees charged by the mandatory electronic service provider when deemed
appropriate by the Court, including the fees for any party that has received a fee waiver. Plaintiff,
after a long fought battle, has been granted a fee waiver by the Court. This application must

therefore be granted.

TH. EX PARTE RELIEF IS WARRANTED

2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION.
FOR ORDER WAIVING ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROVIDER FEES — CGC 13-535535wv

27
28

Ex parte relief is warranted because LRSF 2.10 requires an ex parte application for an
order waiving the electronic service provider fees. Additionally, pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court
3.1202(c), Plaintiff has submitted a declaration, filed herewith, setting forth the facts showing a
statutory basis for granting the ex parte application. Finally, Defense Counsel has stipulated not
to oppose or appear at the hearing on this application. This stipulation is filed herewith.

As stated in the Declaration of Lauren A. Vazquez, filed herewith, Plaintiff has duly
complied with the ex parte notice requirements of Cal. Rules of Court 3.1203 and 3.1204. Notice
was given to Defense Counsel by email on September 23, 2015. Defense Counsel responded to
the email and agreed to stipulate to this application on September 24, 2015. Pursuant to Cal.
Rule of Court 3.1206 this application was served at the first reasonable opportunity. Additionally,
Defense Counsel will be electronically served concurrently with the electronic filing of this
application and supporting documents. The transaction record of the electronic service will be
attached to the proof of service of the ex parte application and supporting documents. Plaintiff

has complied with all state and local rules regarding ex parte applications.

Iv. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this ex parte application should be granted.

Dated: September 24, 2015

Law Office of Lauren A. Vazquez

By: /s/ Lauren Vazquez
Lauren A. Vazquez
Attorney for Plaintiff

3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION.
FOR ORDER WAIVING ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROVIDER FEES — CGC 13-535535