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
  • 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

27 28 Keith Reyen, Esq. (CSB 127420) Bret R. Landess, Esq. (CSB 221105) Angela Stinchfield, Esq. (CSB 244805) ELECTRONICALLY OIUM REYEN & PRYOR FILED i Superior Court of California, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 910 County g San Fen i ma San Francisco, CA 94104 NOV 30 204 Tel: (415) 392-8300 Clerk of the Cou Fax: (415) 421-1254 BY: CHRISTLE ARRIO! 2 Deputy|Clerk Attorneys for Defendant Fiat USA, Inc. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. RUFUS ALEXANDER. Case No.: CGC-08-274719 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO * DEFENDANT FIAT USA, INC.’S vs - MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO IMPOSE * TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) c As Reflected on Eakiits BC. G,H6,1,and | DISCOVERY RESPONSES; REQUEST DOES 1-8500 Date: December 8, 2010 Time: 1:30 pum. Defendants. Dept.: 220 P Judge: Hon. Harold E, Kahn Complaint Filed: July 1, 2008 Trial Date: Not Assigned PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Fiat USA, Inc.’s Motion For An Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions, Or In The Alternative, To Compel Discovery Responses; Request For Monetary Sanctions, was noticed for November 18, 2010, which was continued on the Court’s own motion to December 8, 201 0. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §1005(b), plaintiff's Opposition, if any, was to be filed with this Court and served on all parties on or before November 4, 2016, nine court days before the hearing. Even taking into account the Court’s November 16, 2010 continuance of defendant’s Motion to December 8, 2010, plaintiff's Opposition was to be filed by November 23, 2010 at the latest. Page t ‘Notice of Non-Opposition Toe Defendant Fiat USA, Inc.'s Motion for an Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions, or in the alternative, to Compel Discovery Responses; Request for Monetary Sanctions27 28 Plaintiff Rufus Alexander has failed to respond to defendant Fiat USA, Inc.’s Motion, and thus defendant Fiat USA, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court grant Fiat USA, Inc.’s Motion For An Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions. Respectfully submitted,s OM REYEN & PRYOR Dated: November 30, 2010 > - Atigela Stinchfféld, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Fiat USA, Inc. . Page 2 Notice of Non-Oppasition To Defendant Fiat USA, Inc.'s Motion for an Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions, or in the altemative, to Compel Discovery Responses; Request for Monetary SanctionsRufus Alexander v. Asbestos Defendants (Fiat USA, Inc. San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 08-274719 Tam a citizen of the United States. My business address is 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 910, San Francisco, California 94104. Lam employed in the County of San Francisco where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within cause. Tam readily familiar with my employer's normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. On November 30, 2010, following ordinary business practice, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows: « Notice of Non-Oppesition to Defendant Fiat USA, Inc.’s Motion for an Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions, or in The Alternative, To Compel Discovery Responses; Request For Monetary Sanctions Rufus Alexander, In Pro Per 170 Cashmere Street, Apt. D San Francisco, CA 94124 (BY FACSIMILE) by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the facsimile number(s) set forth above, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m. x (BY MAIL) by placing a true and correct copy of the document(s) listed above enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States Mail at San Francisco, California. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) by placing a tme and correct copy of the document(s) listed above enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) and causing said envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing a true and correct copy of the document(s) listed above enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) and causing said envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is te and correct. Executed on November 30, 2010, at San Francisco, California. Wanda W. Burnett i27 28 PR VICE Rufus Alexander v. Asbestos Defendants (Fiat USA, Inc. San Francisco Superior Court Case No, CGC 08-274719 I certify that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above referenced action; that my business address is 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 910, San Francisco, CA 94104; and that on this date I served a true copy of the document(s) in the action of Rufus Alexander v. Asbestos Defendants, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-08-274719, entitled: e Notice of Non-Opposition te Defendant Fiat USA, Inc.’s Motion for an Order To Impose Terminating Sanctions, or in The Alternative, To Compel Discovery Responses; Request For Monetary Sanctions Service was effectuated by forwarding the above-noted documents in the following manner: xX Electronically on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website, pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court General Order No. 158. Asbestos-Related Case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 30, 2016, at San Francisco, California. Warde 10 Bromaikt ‘anda W. Burnett Page L Proof of Service