Order: TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                AOA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-28-2012 2:33 pm

Case Number: CUD-11-639244
Filing Date: Jun-28-2012 2:29
Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03669895
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al

001C03669895

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.F

Orestes A. Cross, State Bar No. 250471 Superior Cay of cautors
735 Montgomery St., Ste., 250 srg
San Francisco, California 94111 JUN 28 2012
Telephone: (415) 956-9200
Facsimile: (415) 956-9205 CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: Deouty Clerk
Attomeys for Plaintiff
Travis Campbell
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Travis Campbell , Case No. CUD-11-639244
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF the
v. COURT'S ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
Kimberly Hathaway, John Hoffman COMPEL DEFENDANTS’
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
Defendants. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
DATE:
TIME:
DEPT: 501
TRIAL: TBD
INTRODUCTION

The DEFENDANT in this case, KIMBERLY HATHAWAY (hereinafter
“HATHAWAY?”), is the “self proclaimed” and guardian ad-litem for DEFENDANT JOHN
HOFFMAN (hereinafter “HOFFMAN”), who, upon information and belief, has been diagnosed
by the Department of Veterans Affairs as posing a danger to himself and others.

This action for Unlawful Detainer is being brought against DEFENDANTS based on, to

include but not limited to:

1. The DEFENDANTS?’ inability to pay rent on time.

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion fa: Reconsiderationc 2

2. The PLAINTIFF’s responsibility and liability in the housing of a dangerous person
(HOFFMAN) in regards to women and children (See, Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping
Center (1993) 6. Cal.4" 666, 674. (“In the case of a landlord, this general duty of
maintenance, which is owed to tenants and patrons, has been held to include the duty to
take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third
parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.”).

3. The two year restraining order granted against HOFFMAN on April 13, 2011 (Case No.
CCH-10-571679)

4. The consistent psychological harassment and threat of physical harm to other tenants in the
building at the hands of Mr. HOFFMAN and Mr. HATHAWAY.

5. HOFFMAN’s and HATHAWAY’s habitual abuse of intoxicating substances.
PLAINTIFF TRAVIS CAMPBELL owns property at 339 Lyon St. Both DEFENDANTS reside
at this property, despite the fact that neither has ever had a signed lease agreement with Mr.
CAMPBELL.

Plaintiff propounded discovery requests upon Defendants HATHAWAY and HOFFMAN
on February 20, 2012. (See Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed 4-11-2012).
That propounded discovery included Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of
Documents. (Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed 4-11-2012, Cross Decl. 7),
The DEFENDANTS’ thirty days to respond, per C.C.P. §2033.010 and C.C.P. § 2031.210, came
and went without response. (Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed 4-11-2012
Cross Decl. { 8). In an attempt to resolve this matter without court intervention, Plaintiff sent a
meet and confer letter on March 28, 2012. That letter requested discovery responses by April 4,
2012. That letter was ignored. (Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed 4-11-
2012, Cross Decl. 9). Reluctantly, Plaintiff filled a motion to compel discovery on April 11,
2012, and was successful.

Defendants now move for reconsideration.

Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendants” Motion for ReconsiderationQ
3

ARGUMENT
A. Defendants’ Discovery Responses Must Be Compelled.

Civil Code C.C.P. §2031.210, provides that if a party defendants are required to respond to
propounded request for production of documents within thirty days. C.C.P. § 2031.300 specifies that, if
a party upon whom requests for production have been propounded fails to provide a timely
response, all objections are waived. Further, if the responding party fails to respond, the propounding
party must satisfy meet and confer requirements under C.C.P. § 2016.040 before making a motion to
compel.

DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have refiused to respond to the propounded discovery in the
thirty day timeframe required by C.C.P. §203 1.210 served to her on February 20, 2012.
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have refused to respond to the meet and confer letter sent on
March 28, 2012. The Plaintiff's only recourse to DEFENDANTS’ purposeful disregard of any
Tesponse to the propounding of request for production of documents was a motion to compel these
documents from DEFENDANTS, upon which PLAINTIFF prevailed.

Accordingly all objections concerning the request for prior discovery in this matter have been

waived.

B, A Motion To Reconsider is Improper.

No motion to reconsider may be heard unless it is based on new or different facts,
circumstances, or law. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1098 [29 Cal. Rptr.3d 249,
253, 112 P.3d 636, 639] A court may reconsider a prior order on its own motion if it determines
the law has changed. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1105 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, 259,

112 P.3d 636, 644].

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for ReconsiderationYD WA BB WN

Cc ~

At our case before the bench, there has been no change of law that would warrant
reconsideration. DEFENDANTS argue that the Court's order was made without the proper
Tepresentation of facts relevant to DEFENDANTS?’ deficient and late discovery responses

DEFENDANTS argue that they “never” received the discovery requests of February 20,
2012. As “proof” of their non-receipt, they attach the very envelope(s) they “never” received,
(Exhibit G, 3:14-22, ) Although they “sever” received the discovery request, DEFENDANTS
admit their they responded to the Plaintiff's discovery request set one was sent to Plaintiff on
April 27, 2012, and subsequently May 11, 2012, (Defendants Motion for Reconsideration, 1:27-
31, 2:1-7, 2:9-16, Ex B, C, D), well past the amount of time Civil Code C.C.P. §2031.210 provides
and well past filing date of Plaisntiff s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. DEFENDANTS’
line of reasoning, for want of a better term, demonstrates their reasoning abilities, demonstrably in
its infancy, how on earth were DEFENDANTS able to produce and respond to documents, which
they state under penalty of perjury that they “never” received? DEFENDANTS either posses an
operation time machine whereby they freely evade the laws of time and space, or Defendants have
been caught red handed lying to this court.

Moreover, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is void of any reasoning addressing the
pivotal fact in accordance with Le Francois v. Goel, as to why Defendants did not file an
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed April 11, 2012. This
glaring fact cannot be overlooked.
it
Mt
ut

Mf

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants" Motion for ReconsiderationCc ~
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Dated June 28, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,
x a /

So 4g a“
RESTES ALEXANDER CROSS
WALSTON CROSS, P.C.
Attomeys for Plaintiff

Travis Campbell

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration~ ~
eee =

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, under the penaity of perjury. declare and say:

That I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to, or
interested in, the within action. | am emploved in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
My business address is 735 Montgomery St.. Ste. 250. San Francisco, CA 94109.

On June 28, 2012, 1 served the Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration together with this proof of service. on the parties in this action:

Ms. Kimberly Hathaway and Mr. John Hoffman
339 Lyon St. #2
San Francisco, CA 94117

(xxx / BY MAIL I placed each such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first-
class mail, for collection and mailing at San Francisco. California, following ordinary business
practice. I am readily familiar with the practice for collection and processing of correspondence
with the United States Postal Service. Mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service daily
in the ordinary course of business.

/ / BY OVERNIGHT SERVICE 1 placed. in an envelope designated by the overnight
service carrier. with delivery fees paid or provided for. each such sealed envelope in a box or other
facility regularly maintained by the overnight service.

/ / BY PERSONAL SERVICE | caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the

address(es) noted above and lefi with a receptionist or other person in charge of the office at the
above address(es).

/__/ BY FACSIMILE By use of facsimile machine, I caused said document(s) to be
transmitted by facsimile machine to the number(s) indicated after the address(es) noted above. The]
transmission of the within document(s) was reported as complete and without error by the
facsimile machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2009(i), I caused the facsimile

machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

Executed on June 28, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

resies Cross, Esy?

Plaintiff Travis Campbell's Motion to Compel Discovery