Preview
1 RYAN M. JANISSE, #266944 E-FILED
rjanisse@gmlegal.net 12/5/2019 1:33 PM
2 GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE Superior Court of California
Post Office Box 28901 County of Fresno
a
J Fresno, California 937 29 -8907 By: R. Montez, Deputy
Telephone: (559) 448-9800
4 Facsimile: (559) 448-9899
5 Attorneys for Defendant Sophia Norman
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO, CENTRAL DIVISION
10
11 META CARPENTER, Case No. 18CECG00011
t2 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE
13 V. DISMISSAL
t4 SOPHIA NORMAN, Date: December 18,2019
Time: 3:30 p.m.
15 Defendant. Dept.: 403
t6
t7 I
INTRODUCTION
18
t9 This is Meta Carpenter's ("Meta" or "Plaintiff') third attempt at filing a
20 motion (the "Motion") in relation to the Settlement Agreement signed by her and
2t Defendant Sophia Norman ("Sophia"). Like the other two motions, the Motion fails on
22 multiple fronts. In fact, it is unclear whether the Motion is an opposition to Sophia's
23 Motion of Entry Judgment filed on October 3,2019 or a separate motion. Either way, the
24 Motion is faulty and should be denied.
25 As a refresher, Meta and Sophia attended mediation and were able to reach
26 an agreement to settle the lawsuit. The agreement was memoialized by a Settlement
27 Agreement signed by both parties on May 24,2019. The Settlement Agreement called for
28 (i) Sophia to pay Meta ($3,500) within 45 days of the Settlement, (ii) the filing of a
GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE
A PRolEssto]_Ar- CoRft)R{noN
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
13082-0000\50
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 9]729-890? I095. I
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOT]ON TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 Request for Dismissal, (iii) Sophia to provide proof of financing for a Ford F-150 truck,
2 (iii) Meta, Sophia and an attorney from Sophia's counsel's office visiting Sophia's storage
a
J unit so that Meta could retrieve certain items identified in the Settlement Agreement (the
4 "Settlement Items"), ifthey were even at the storage unit within 30 days of the Settlement
5 Agreement; and (iv) the delivery of certain other items to Meth when the parties met at the
6 storage unit. Meta apparently now wants to vacate the dismissal even though she cashed
7 the Settlement check and continue with the litigation even though she is the one solely
8 responsible for never meeting at the storage unit. Sophia has been in complete compliance
9 with her obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Payment was timely remitted, a
10 Request for Dismissal With Prejudice (the "Dismissal") was timely filed and Sophia has
11 offered seven different dates for Meta to go to the storage unit to retrieve the Settlement
I2 Items.
13 Meta has failed entirely to provide proper written notice of the Motion.
t4 Meta has also not carried her burden of providing competent evidence to support an order
15 to vacate the Dismissal. Like Meta's previous motion, the Motion is nonsensical, contrary
T6 to the facts and devoid of supporting authority or competent evident. As such, the Motion
t7 should be denied.
18 II.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
T9
A. Meta Has l'ailed'l'o Give Proper Notice Ot' I'he Motion.
20
2I Code of Civil Procedure $1010 holds:
22 Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other
than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon
23
which it will be made, and the papers, ifany, upon which it is
24 to be based. Ifany such paper has not previously been served
upon the party to be notified and was not filed by him, a copy
25 of such paper must accompany the notice. Notices and other
papers may be served upon the party or attorney in the manner
26
prescribed in this chapter, when not otherwise provided by this
27 code. No bill of exceptions, notice of appeal, or other notice or
paper, other than amendments to the pleadings, or an amended
28
GILMORE MACNESS JANISSE
pleading, need be served upon any pafi whose default has
A PRoltissx )N,\ l- CoR h)R,uloN
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
I3082-0000\501
095. I
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907
2
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 been duly entered or who has not appeared in the action or
proceeding.
2
(ccP $1010)
a
J
Notices must also contain the date, time and place the motion will be heard.
4
(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1 l0(b).
5
The clear guidelines set forth in these statutes have not been followed by
6
Meta. Meta failed entirely to provide Sophia with proper notice of the hearing for the
7
Motion. The caption of the Motion shows a hearing date, but does not contain a separate
8
document which could be considered proper notice. As Meta has decided to proceed
9
unrepresented, the court is required to hold her to the same standard as if she was
10
represented by counsel. (Rappleyeav. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th975,984-985.) Meta
11
has failed to provide proper notice and the Motion is therefore procedurally faulty and
I2
should be denied.
l3
B. Meta Has
t4
15 The authority by which a litigant can withdraw a dismissal is found in
t6 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b), which holds:
I7 "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve aparty
or his legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or
18
other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her
l9 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect... unless
the court tinds that the detbult or dismissal was not in tact
20 caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
neglect." CCP $473(b)
2T
22 Meta has not provided any competent evidence to support her Motion to
23 vacate the dismissal. The declaration filed by Meta is nonsensical and any evidence
24 contained therein is objectionable. A court is justified in denying a motion on procedural
25 grounds when the motion is supported by a deficient memorandum. (Chavez v. Netflix,
26 Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43,52). In Chavez, appellant appealed a denial of her motion
27 to intervene. The Chavez court confirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion
28 because the motion was supported by a barely two page long-memorandum of points and
CILMORE MACNESS JANISSE
A PRotltss k)N,\L CoRft)lA]tor"
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
I
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907 I
3082-0000\501095.
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 authorities which contained no declarations. The memorandum of points and authorities
2 also relied on conclusory arguments which were "not backed up by any reasoned
a
J explanation." Qd.at 51). As is the case here, the Motion is supported by one nonsensical
4 declaration which contains no competent evidence. Meta makes conclusory and
5 speculative statements regarding the actions of Sophia and Mr. Janisse which are
6 objectionable. The Court should follow the ruling in Chavez and deny Meta's Motion.
7 Meta appears to reference a breakdown in communication regarding
8 executing the Settlement Agreement and a claim of "entrapment" by Sophia and her
9 counsel Mr. Janisse. Such an argument is easily combated by a review of the facts and
10 communications between Meta and Mr. Janisse.
1l A. Sophia Has Complied With the Terms Of The Settlement Asreement.
I2 Assuming the Motion can get past the procedural and evidentiary issues
t3 previously discussed, the facts show that Sophia has complied with the terms of the
t4 Settlement Agreement. As best can be ascertained, Meta seems to make the argument that
15 the Dismissal should be vacated because Sophia is in breach of the Settlement Agreement.
I6 This is not so. Sophia and Mr. Janisse have made every reasonable attempt to coordinate
t7 with Meta to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Meta has either refused
18 or ignored Sophia's good faith efforts. Despite the game playing by Meta, Sophia
t9 provided seven (7) different days for Meta to retrieve the Settlement Items from the
20 storage unit and an additional offer to set up a time to meet. (See, Janisse Dec. nfl7 ,9, lI-
2t l2). Sophia has fulfilled her obligations under the Settlement Agreement and nothing
22 further is required on her part. The following is a timeline of events which details the
23 efforts taken by Sophia and Mr. Janisse to coordinate with Meta and Meta's responses
24 thereto:
25
26
27
28
GILMORE MACNESS JANISSE
A PRot,DssoN.\L
CoRF)R.\Tx)N
POST OFFICE BOX 2890?
3082-0000\50
I095. I
I
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907
4
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 1 Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement required that Meta be paid $3,500
within 45 days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement. Sophia
2
obtained a Cashier's Check on May 28,2019 and delivered it to Mr.
J Janisse's office. The check was available for Meta to pick up at any time
thereafter. Meta was advised that the check was available and would be
4 delivered to her upon the signing of the Request for Dismissal. Meta came
5
to Mr. Janisse's office on July II,2019, obtained the Settlement check,
signed a receipt confirming her receipt thereof, and executed the Request for
6 Dismissal. The Request for Dismissal was then filed on July 12,2019. (See,
Sophia Dec., 1]fl3-4, Exhibit 2; Janisse Dec., 114-6, Exhibit 2-3).
7
2 Section 9a of the Settlement Agreement required that Sophia provide Meta
8
with proof of the amount she financed the Ford F-150 within 30 days of the
9 signing of the Settlement Agreement. A letter from Noble Credit Union
confirming the original amount financed on the loan and the date thereof was
10
emailed to Meta on June 3,2019. (See, Sophia Dec., fl5; Janisse Dec., fl3,
1l Exhibit 1.)
a
t2 J On June 3,2019, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta informing her that he and Sophia
were available to meet at the storage unit to retrieve the Settlement Items on
13
June 14, 2019 or June 2I,2019 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Janisse received no
I4 response to this email until June 13,2019, when Meta emailed Mr. Janisse.
The email did not respond to the dates previously offered. (See, Janisse
l5 Dec., fl7, Exhibit 4.)
t6 4 On June 20,2019, Meta emailed Mr. Janisse with a myriad of unintelligible
T7 statements and a jumbled attempt to renegotiate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. Mr. Janisse responded with an email declining to renegotiate the
18 Settlement Agreement and reminded Meta that Sophia was in compliance
with the Settlement Agreement. (See, Janisse Dec., fl8, Exhibit 5.)
t9
20 5 On July 22,2019, well outside the 30 days contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta and provided further dates available to
2I meet at the storage unit. Mr. Janisse had confirmed that the dates of July 24,
2019 andJuly 26,2019 were available at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Janisse also noted
22
that there were dates available the following week ifhe was able to locate
23 another attorney from his firm to attend. Meta responded that "the second is
fine," which Mr. Janisse incorrectly assumed meant the second date (July
24 26), and not August2,2019. This confusion arose because Mr. Janisse
25 indicated August 1,2019 and August2,2019 were still subject to him
finding another attorney to be present. By the time the parties were on the
26 same page about the date, no attorney was available to meet at the storage
unit with Sophia and Meta. (See, Janisse Dec., fl9, Exhibit 6.)
27
28
GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE
A Pnofi isslol,\t- CoRtbR.\'Lx)\
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
I3082-0000\501
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 9]729.8907 095. I
5
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 6 On July 27,2019, Meta emailed Mr. Janisse a letter demanding payment
frorn Sophia of $764 for "Breach of Mediation Contract" or else Meta would
2
file a small claims lawsuit against Sophia. (See, Janisse Dec., fll0, Exhibit
a 7.)
J
4 7 Mr. Janisse sent a letter to Meta providing , inter alia, three additional dates
for her to meet at the storage unit. This letter also denied any breach of the
5
Settlement Agreement on behalf of Sophia and rejected Meta's demand for
6 payment of $764. (See, Janisse Dec., fll1, Exhibit 8.)
7 8. On Septem_ber 16, 2019, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta and indicated Sophia
remains willing to lneet at the storage unit. Meta did not respond toihis
8 offer. (See, Jahisse Dec., flI2, Exhibit 9.)
9 As clearly indicated by the above, Sophia has complied with the terms of the
10 Settlement Agreement. Despite repeated efforts from Mr. Janisse to coordinate a date,
11 Meta failed to make affangements during the 30-day window to visit the storage unit.
t2 Notwithstanding this fact, Sophia provided three additional dates and times to meet which
13 was communicated to Meta via the July 29,2019 letter and a fourth invitation via the
l4 September 16,2079 email. In response to these good faith efforts by Sophia, Meta filed a
15 meritless small claims action against Sophia (Case Number 19CESCO1723) demanding
I6 payment for mediation costs and three motions to vacate dismissal. (See, Sophia Dec., fl7,
T7 Exhibit 3.) Based on the foregoing, it appears Meta has no desire to actually conclude this
18 litigation. As Meta failed to capitalize onthe dates provided by Sophia, Sophia's
t9 obligations have therefore been fulfilled and she is required to do no more under the
20 Settlement Agreement. (See, Sophia Dec., !f8.)
2l m.
CONCLUSION
22
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion.
23
DATED: DecembeT {,ZOT} GILMOREMAGNESS JANISSE
24
25
26 By
Ryan M. Janisse
27
Attorneys for Defendant Sophia Norman
28
CILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE
A PRol tss()\r\r- CoRF)Rr\ToN
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
13082-0000\501 095.1
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907
6
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
1 PROOF OF'SERVICE
2 Meta Carpenter v. Sophia Norman
Case No. 18CECG00011
J
srATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
4
At the time of service, I was over I 8 years of age and not a party to this action. I
5 am employed in the County of Fresno, Stateof California. My buSiness address isPost
Office Box 289070 Fresno, C1^93729-8907.
6
On Decemb er 5,2019, Iserved true copies of the following document(s) described
7 as DEFENDANT,S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO VACATE
DISMISSAL on the interested parties in this action as follows:
8
Meta Carpenter
9 P.O. Box 417905
Sacramento, CA 95841
10 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL & E-Mail:
elshadaii 1 3 @vahoo. com
11
X BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package
t2 addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed
-I
th_e_envelo.pe
for collection antl mailing, following our ordinary business practices. am readily familiar
13 with Gilmore Magness Jinisse's pra-ctice for collecting and irocessing correspondence for
mailing. On the slame day that the correspondence is [laced for colle-ction and mailing, it
t4 is depo"sited in the ordinai'y course of business with th'e United States Postal Service, iir a
seale'd envelope with postage fully prepaid.
l5
X BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of
t6 the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address kkearns@gmlegal.net to the persons at the
e-mail addresies listed in the Service List. I did not recdiie, within a reason-able time after
t7 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
T9 foregoing is true and correct.
20 Executed on December 5, 2019, at Fresno, California.
2l
22
Kearns
23
24
25
26
27
28
CILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE
A PRoFEsstoNAt, CoRTRATtoN
POST OFFICE BOX 28907
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93729.8907
Preview
1 RYAN M. JANISSE, #266944 E-FILED rjanisse@gmlegal.net 12/5/2019 1:33 PM 2 GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE Superior Court of California Post Office Box 28901 County of Fresno a J Fresno, California 937 29 -8907 By: R. Montez, Deputy Telephone: (559) 448-9800 4 Facsimile: (559) 448-9899 5 Attorneys for Defendant Sophia Norman 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF FRESNO, CENTRAL DIVISION 10 11 META CARPENTER, Case No. 18CECG00011 t2 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE 13 V. DISMISSAL t4 SOPHIA NORMAN, Date: December 18,2019 Time: 3:30 p.m. 15 Defendant. Dept.: 403 t6 t7 I INTRODUCTION 18 t9 This is Meta Carpenter's ("Meta" or "Plaintiff') third attempt at filing a 20 motion (the "Motion") in relation to the Settlement Agreement signed by her and 2t Defendant Sophia Norman ("Sophia"). Like the other two motions, the Motion fails on 22 multiple fronts. In fact, it is unclear whether the Motion is an opposition to Sophia's 23 Motion of Entry Judgment filed on October 3,2019 or a separate motion. Either way, the 24 Motion is faulty and should be denied. 25 As a refresher, Meta and Sophia attended mediation and were able to reach 26 an agreement to settle the lawsuit. The agreement was memoialized by a Settlement 27 Agreement signed by both parties on May 24,2019. The Settlement Agreement called for 28 (i) Sophia to pay Meta ($3,500) within 45 days of the Settlement, (ii) the filing of a GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE A PRolEssto]_Ar- CoRft)R{noN POST OFFICE BOX 28907 13082-0000\50 FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 9]729-890? I095. I DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOT]ON TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 Request for Dismissal, (iii) Sophia to provide proof of financing for a Ford F-150 truck, 2 (iii) Meta, Sophia and an attorney from Sophia's counsel's office visiting Sophia's storage a J unit so that Meta could retrieve certain items identified in the Settlement Agreement (the 4 "Settlement Items"), ifthey were even at the storage unit within 30 days of the Settlement 5 Agreement; and (iv) the delivery of certain other items to Meth when the parties met at the 6 storage unit. Meta apparently now wants to vacate the dismissal even though she cashed 7 the Settlement check and continue with the litigation even though she is the one solely 8 responsible for never meeting at the storage unit. Sophia has been in complete compliance 9 with her obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Payment was timely remitted, a 10 Request for Dismissal With Prejudice (the "Dismissal") was timely filed and Sophia has 11 offered seven different dates for Meta to go to the storage unit to retrieve the Settlement I2 Items. 13 Meta has failed entirely to provide proper written notice of the Motion. t4 Meta has also not carried her burden of providing competent evidence to support an order 15 to vacate the Dismissal. Like Meta's previous motion, the Motion is nonsensical, contrary T6 to the facts and devoid of supporting authority or competent evident. As such, the Motion t7 should be denied. 18 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT T9 A. Meta Has l'ailed'l'o Give Proper Notice Ot' I'he Motion. 20 2I Code of Civil Procedure $1010 holds: 22 Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon 23 which it will be made, and the papers, ifany, upon which it is 24 to be based. Ifany such paper has not previously been served upon the party to be notified and was not filed by him, a copy 25 of such paper must accompany the notice. Notices and other papers may be served upon the party or attorney in the manner 26 prescribed in this chapter, when not otherwise provided by this 27 code. No bill of exceptions, notice of appeal, or other notice or paper, other than amendments to the pleadings, or an amended 28 GILMORE MACNESS JANISSE pleading, need be served upon any pafi whose default has A PRoltissx )N,\ l- CoR h)R,uloN POST OFFICE BOX 28907 I3082-0000\501 095. I FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907 2 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 been duly entered or who has not appeared in the action or proceeding. 2 (ccP $1010) a J Notices must also contain the date, time and place the motion will be heard. 4 (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1 l0(b). 5 The clear guidelines set forth in these statutes have not been followed by 6 Meta. Meta failed entirely to provide Sophia with proper notice of the hearing for the 7 Motion. The caption of the Motion shows a hearing date, but does not contain a separate 8 document which could be considered proper notice. As Meta has decided to proceed 9 unrepresented, the court is required to hold her to the same standard as if she was 10 represented by counsel. (Rappleyeav. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th975,984-985.) Meta 11 has failed to provide proper notice and the Motion is therefore procedurally faulty and I2 should be denied. l3 B. Meta Has t4 15 The authority by which a litigant can withdraw a dismissal is found in t6 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b), which holds: I7 "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve aparty or his legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or 18 other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her l9 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect... unless the court tinds that the detbult or dismissal was not in tact 20 caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." CCP $473(b) 2T 22 Meta has not provided any competent evidence to support her Motion to 23 vacate the dismissal. The declaration filed by Meta is nonsensical and any evidence 24 contained therein is objectionable. A court is justified in denying a motion on procedural 25 grounds when the motion is supported by a deficient memorandum. (Chavez v. Netflix, 26 Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43,52). In Chavez, appellant appealed a denial of her motion 27 to intervene. The Chavez court confirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion 28 because the motion was supported by a barely two page long-memorandum of points and CILMORE MACNESS JANISSE A PRotltss k)N,\L CoRft)lA]tor" POST OFFICE BOX 28907 I FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907 I 3082-0000\501095. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 authorities which contained no declarations. The memorandum of points and authorities 2 also relied on conclusory arguments which were "not backed up by any reasoned a J explanation." Qd.at 51). As is the case here, the Motion is supported by one nonsensical 4 declaration which contains no competent evidence. Meta makes conclusory and 5 speculative statements regarding the actions of Sophia and Mr. Janisse which are 6 objectionable. The Court should follow the ruling in Chavez and deny Meta's Motion. 7 Meta appears to reference a breakdown in communication regarding 8 executing the Settlement Agreement and a claim of "entrapment" by Sophia and her 9 counsel Mr. Janisse. Such an argument is easily combated by a review of the facts and 10 communications between Meta and Mr. Janisse. 1l A. Sophia Has Complied With the Terms Of The Settlement Asreement. I2 Assuming the Motion can get past the procedural and evidentiary issues t3 previously discussed, the facts show that Sophia has complied with the terms of the t4 Settlement Agreement. As best can be ascertained, Meta seems to make the argument that 15 the Dismissal should be vacated because Sophia is in breach of the Settlement Agreement. I6 This is not so. Sophia and Mr. Janisse have made every reasonable attempt to coordinate t7 with Meta to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Meta has either refused 18 or ignored Sophia's good faith efforts. Despite the game playing by Meta, Sophia t9 provided seven (7) different days for Meta to retrieve the Settlement Items from the 20 storage unit and an additional offer to set up a time to meet. (See, Janisse Dec. nfl7 ,9, lI- 2t l2). Sophia has fulfilled her obligations under the Settlement Agreement and nothing 22 further is required on her part. The following is a timeline of events which details the 23 efforts taken by Sophia and Mr. Janisse to coordinate with Meta and Meta's responses 24 thereto: 25 26 27 28 GILMORE MACNESS JANISSE A PRot,DssoN.\L CoRF)R.\Tx)N POST OFFICE BOX 2890? 3082-0000\50 I095. I I FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907 4 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 1 Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement required that Meta be paid $3,500 within 45 days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement. Sophia 2 obtained a Cashier's Check on May 28,2019 and delivered it to Mr. J Janisse's office. The check was available for Meta to pick up at any time thereafter. Meta was advised that the check was available and would be 4 delivered to her upon the signing of the Request for Dismissal. Meta came 5 to Mr. Janisse's office on July II,2019, obtained the Settlement check, signed a receipt confirming her receipt thereof, and executed the Request for 6 Dismissal. The Request for Dismissal was then filed on July 12,2019. (See, Sophia Dec., 1]fl3-4, Exhibit 2; Janisse Dec., 114-6, Exhibit 2-3). 7 2 Section 9a of the Settlement Agreement required that Sophia provide Meta 8 with proof of the amount she financed the Ford F-150 within 30 days of the 9 signing of the Settlement Agreement. A letter from Noble Credit Union confirming the original amount financed on the loan and the date thereof was 10 emailed to Meta on June 3,2019. (See, Sophia Dec., fl5; Janisse Dec., fl3, 1l Exhibit 1.) a t2 J On June 3,2019, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta informing her that he and Sophia were available to meet at the storage unit to retrieve the Settlement Items on 13 June 14, 2019 or June 2I,2019 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Janisse received no I4 response to this email until June 13,2019, when Meta emailed Mr. Janisse. The email did not respond to the dates previously offered. (See, Janisse l5 Dec., fl7, Exhibit 4.) t6 4 On June 20,2019, Meta emailed Mr. Janisse with a myriad of unintelligible T7 statements and a jumbled attempt to renegotiate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Janisse responded with an email declining to renegotiate the 18 Settlement Agreement and reminded Meta that Sophia was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. (See, Janisse Dec., fl8, Exhibit 5.) t9 20 5 On July 22,2019, well outside the 30 days contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta and provided further dates available to 2I meet at the storage unit. Mr. Janisse had confirmed that the dates of July 24, 2019 andJuly 26,2019 were available at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Janisse also noted 22 that there were dates available the following week ifhe was able to locate 23 another attorney from his firm to attend. Meta responded that "the second is fine," which Mr. Janisse incorrectly assumed meant the second date (July 24 26), and not August2,2019. This confusion arose because Mr. Janisse 25 indicated August 1,2019 and August2,2019 were still subject to him finding another attorney to be present. By the time the parties were on the 26 same page about the date, no attorney was available to meet at the storage unit with Sophia and Meta. (See, Janisse Dec., fl9, Exhibit 6.) 27 28 GILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE A Pnofi isslol,\t- CoRtbR.\'Lx)\ POST OFFICE BOX 28907 I3082-0000\501 FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 9]729.8907 095. I 5 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 6 On July 27,2019, Meta emailed Mr. Janisse a letter demanding payment frorn Sophia of $764 for "Breach of Mediation Contract" or else Meta would 2 file a small claims lawsuit against Sophia. (See, Janisse Dec., fll0, Exhibit a 7.) J 4 7 Mr. Janisse sent a letter to Meta providing , inter alia, three additional dates for her to meet at the storage unit. This letter also denied any breach of the 5 Settlement Agreement on behalf of Sophia and rejected Meta's demand for 6 payment of $764. (See, Janisse Dec., fll1, Exhibit 8.) 7 8. On Septem_ber 16, 2019, Mr. Janisse emailed Meta and indicated Sophia remains willing to lneet at the storage unit. Meta did not respond toihis 8 offer. (See, Jahisse Dec., flI2, Exhibit 9.) 9 As clearly indicated by the above, Sophia has complied with the terms of the 10 Settlement Agreement. Despite repeated efforts from Mr. Janisse to coordinate a date, 11 Meta failed to make affangements during the 30-day window to visit the storage unit. t2 Notwithstanding this fact, Sophia provided three additional dates and times to meet which 13 was communicated to Meta via the July 29,2019 letter and a fourth invitation via the l4 September 16,2079 email. In response to these good faith efforts by Sophia, Meta filed a 15 meritless small claims action against Sophia (Case Number 19CESCO1723) demanding I6 payment for mediation costs and three motions to vacate dismissal. (See, Sophia Dec., fl7, T7 Exhibit 3.) Based on the foregoing, it appears Meta has no desire to actually conclude this 18 litigation. As Meta failed to capitalize onthe dates provided by Sophia, Sophia's t9 obligations have therefore been fulfilled and she is required to do no more under the 20 Settlement Agreement. (See, Sophia Dec., !f8.) 2l m. CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion. 23 DATED: DecembeT {,ZOT} GILMOREMAGNESS JANISSE 24 25 26 By Ryan M. Janisse 27 Attorneys for Defendant Sophia Norman 28 CILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE A PRol tss()\r\r- CoRF)Rr\ToN POST OFFICE BOX 28907 13082-0000\501 095.1 FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93729-8907 6 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 1 PROOF OF'SERVICE 2 Meta Carpenter v. Sophia Norman Case No. 18CECG00011 J srATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 4 At the time of service, I was over I 8 years of age and not a party to this action. I 5 am employed in the County of Fresno, Stateof California. My buSiness address isPost Office Box 289070 Fresno, C1^93729-8907. 6 On Decemb er 5,2019, Iserved true copies of the following document(s) described 7 as DEFENDANT,S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 Meta Carpenter 9 P.O. Box 417905 Sacramento, CA 95841 10 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL & E-Mail: elshadaii 1 3 @vahoo. com 11 X BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package t2 addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed -I th_e_envelo.pe for collection antl mailing, following our ordinary business practices. am readily familiar 13 with Gilmore Magness Jinisse's pra-ctice for collecting and irocessing correspondence for mailing. On the slame day that the correspondence is [laced for colle-ction and mailing, it t4 is depo"sited in the ordinai'y course of business with th'e United States Postal Service, iir a seale'd envelope with postage fully prepaid. l5 X BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of t6 the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address kkearns@gmlegal.net to the persons at the e-mail addresies listed in the Service List. I did not recdiie, within a reason-able time after t7 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the T9 foregoing is true and correct. 20 Executed on December 5, 2019, at Fresno, California. 2l 22 Kearns 23 24 25 26 27 28 CILMORE MAGNESS JANISSE A PRoFEsstoNAt, CoRTRATtoN POST OFFICE BOX 28907 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93729.8907