arrow left
arrow right
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Gordon & Rees LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

wa

wn

S. MITCHELL KAPLAN (SBN: 95065)
CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK (SBN: 214110)
BETHANY A. STAHLEY (SBN: 209421) ELECTRONICALLY
JAMES K. HOLDER (SBN: 267843)

GORDON & REES LLP FILED
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 986-5900 oclerk of the Court
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Deputy Clerk

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

NOV 19 2010

Attorneys for Defendant
THE BUDD COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RUFUS ALEXANDER, CASE NO. COC-08-274719
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION
IN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT THE BUDD
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR

)
)
/ )
Plaintiff, )
)
}
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) } TERMINATING SANCTIONS
)
}
)
}
)
)

Defendants. Date: December 8, 2010

Time: 1:30 pan,
Dept: 220
Judge: — Hon, Harold Kahn

Complaint Filed: July 1, 2008
‘Trial Date None Set

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as of November 12, 2010, Defendant The Budd
Company, has received no oppositions to its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and
Request for Terminating Sanctions on November 18, 2010. Code of Civil Procedure section

1005, subdivision (b) mandates that any opposition to these motions had to have been filed and

whe1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

, il

= f82 1

ain) 14
EDpe

Baee is
Cand

"16

7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

28

26

27

28

TR BDSTOSTI RIOR.)

served by November 4, 2016, nine court days before the hearing. No such oppositions have been
received.

Defendant is receipt from correspondence lrom Berry & Berry indicating that plaintiff
was in an automobile accident. However, plaintiff is undertaking to represent himself in this
litigation. Plaintiff has made no effort to seck to continue defendant's motion, has made no
effort fo contact moving party to request an extension, and has failed to seck proper relief from
this Court, Defendant is entitled to have its motions heard — and granted — accordingly.

Accordingly, to the extent that the relief requested has not becn opposed by plaintiff,
defendant THE BUDD COMPANY requests that this Court ORDER all reliel’s requested in its
moving papers.

DATED: November 19, 2010 GORDON & REES LLP

By: _/s/ Christopher D. Strunk
CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK
Attorneys for Defendant

THE BUDD COMPANY

2.

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN LIEU OF REPLY ~28

PBREOSTHLOARDSSO5e,[

PROOF OF SERVICE

lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLLP, 275 Battery Street, Suite
2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date below, | sorved the document(s) described as
follows:

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT THE BUDD COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

oO by having personally delivered via First Legal Support Services messenger the
document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

oO by placing true copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above cnclosed in a scaled
envelope, al a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and
packages for overnight delivery by FEDEX as part of the ordimary business practices
of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows:

by wansmitling via FACSIMILE the document(s) listed above to the following:
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon

fully prepaid, in UNITED STATES MAIL in the State of California, at San Francisco,
addressed as set forth below.

& O

[am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary
course of business. 1am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE. By sending
electronically a truc and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve
Gvww. lexisnexis.com/fileandsery) for service on all counsel of record by electronic
service pursuant to the Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos
Pleadings and pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 and CRC 206(c). The transmission was
reported as complete and without error.

Rutus Alexander Plaintiff in Pro Per
In Pro Per

170 Cashmere Strect, Apt. D

San Francisco, CA 94124

i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

Executed on November 19, 2010, at San Francigee, California.
f

wel etl
Andrea K. Bean