Preview
COLLEEN A. DEZIEL (Bar No. 164282)
cad@amclaw.com F | L E
SUPERIOR COURT
D
Wmmm
PETER B. RUSTIN (Bar No.
ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP
181734)
Cgmaéssmgawgwawo
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000 FEB 0 2 2023
Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
‘l
TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080 o FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594
BY
'
CUAUHTEMOC
©W\IO\UIBDJNH
Attorneys for Defendants CAROL VOITA; and STRONG
'
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT LLC (erroneously sued as Carol
Voita - Sole Member/Manager Strong Bridge Management LLC)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
r—t
O
LLP
4000
I— H OXANA PARAFEINIK, Case No. CIVSB2210600
7-3623
622-7594
CONNERS
>— N Plaintiff, Assigned to Hon. Joseph T. Ortiz, Dept. Sl7
SUITE
9001
3)
8L
(21 r—t DJ
vs. Action Filed: June 1, 2022
FAX
LAWYERS
BOULEVARD,
CALIFORNIA
°
r— h CAROL VOITA; CAROL VOITA SOLE - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE,
MCPHARLIN
MEMBER/MANAGER STRONG BRIDGE DISQUALIFY JUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ
r—t UI
MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES TO 2, 1 CCP SECTION 170.1; DECLARATION
OF PETER B. RUSTIN
688—0080
Defendants.
ANGELES,
WILSHIRE
Ha
(213) Date: March 8, 2023
ANDERSON,
H \l Time: 1:30 p.m.
707 LOS
TEL
Dept: Sl 7
Trial Date: None
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants CAROL VOITA and STRONG BRIDGE MANAGEMENT LLC
(“Defendants”) submit their Opposition to Plaintiff’ s Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Judge Joseph
T. Ortiz (the “Motion”). Plaintiff again, seeking to challenge Judge Ortiz’s presiding over this
mflQUI&OJNHO\OW
NNNNNNNNNHH is,
case based upon nothing more than her anger and disenchantment over the Court’s ruling on
plaintiff s two motions to compel, which were decided months ago, on November 17, 2022.1
1
On November 2022, the day after the hearing 0n Plaintiff” s unsuccessful two motions t0
18,
compel further discovery responses and for sanctions, Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge
against Judge Ortiz. The peremptory challenge was denied 0n November 22, 2022 because it was
1
2680298.] 05896-182
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE, DISQUALIFY IUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ CCP SECTION 170.1
The motion should be denied. It is untimely, and plaintiff has waived the right to
challenge Judge Ortiz for alleged bias. Moreover, 0n the merits, plaintiff has failed t0 demonstrate
any bias by Judge Ortiz, and is clearly seeking, yet again, to express her displeasure at losing two
motions t0 compel and for having sanctions imposed upon her for her spurious discovery motions.
©W\l¢\UI£DJNH This court should not countenance yet another spurious filing by plaintiff, her pro per status
notwithstanding?
II. PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING TO RELITIGATE HER UNSUCCESSFUL MOTIONS
TO COMPEL AND THE AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST HER
Even a cursory review 0f the Motion demonstrates that it is premised upon the fact that
r— C plaintiff did not prevail in her two motions t0 compel further discovery responses.3 Plaintiff is
LLP
t—t
H also furious that the Court imposed monetary sanctions against her in the amount of $2,000
4000
7-3623
622—7594
CONNERS HN (Motion, at 3-5).4
SUITE
9001
3)
OJ
(21 n— / / /
8c
FAX
LAWYERS
BOULEVARD,
CALIFORNIA
-
r—t
h
MCPHARLIN
r-t Ul untimely.
688-0080
2
WILSHIRE
ANGELES,
H ON no basis, that the Court has discriminated against her because she is not
Plaintiff claims, with
(213)
represented by counsel, and asserted that the Court has in essence ruled that “all parties appearing
ANDERSON,
707 LOS
TEL
H \l in his Court MUST have attorney representation in order to receive equal justice and fairness. ..
.” (Motion, at
2). As this Court will recall, it has never mandated that plaintiff appear through
Hw
counsel. Rather, the Court admonished plaintiff that she needed t0 comply with applicable rules
b—t
\O
and procedure to the same degree as would a litigant appearing through counsel.
3
NO As the Court will recall, and as plaintiff herself admits in the Motion, the basis for these motions
t0 compel was that plaintiff “was seeking to obtain more and was purportedly
truthful responses”
NH trying (in an unconvincing display of solicitousness) t0 give Defendants an “opponunity to correct
their misstatements” in the discovery responses. As Defendants pointed out in their oppositions to
NN
the motions to compel, plaintiff was merely dissatisfied with what the responses said, and wanted
b.)
t0 argue whether she believes them to be true or not. She failed, however, t0 point to any actual
N
failure to respond to any discovery request; she failed to comply with the requirement to meet and
Nh confer; she failed t0 provide the necessary separate statement in support of her motions and she
failed t0 articulate any basis for the Court to conclude that Defendants did not provide Code-
N UI compliant responses. For these reasons, the motions to compel were denied.
N O\ 4
Defendants note that Plaintiff has failed to pay the monetary sanctions, which were due no later
thanDecember 22, 2022. Declaration 0f Peter B. Rustin (“Rustin Dec.”) at Par. 4. Moreover,
N \l
Defendants sought a total 0f $3,351 in monetary sanctions, as opposed t0 the Court’s award 0f
'
Nw $2,000, further evidence 0f this Court’s impartiality.
2
2680298.] 05896-182
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE, DISQUALIFY JUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ CCP SECTION 170.1
Preview
COLLEEN A. DEZIEL (Bar No. 164282) cad@amclaw.com F | L E SUPERIOR COURT D Wmmm PETER B. RUSTIN (Bar No. ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP 181734) Cgmaéssmgawgwawo 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000 FEB 0 2 2023 Los Angeles, California 90017-3623 ‘l TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080 o FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594 BY ' CUAUHTEMOC ©W\IO\UIBDJNH Attorneys for Defendants CAROL VOITA; and STRONG ' BRIDGE MANAGEMENT LLC (erroneously sued as Carol Voita - Sole Member/Manager Strong Bridge Management LLC) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT r—t O LLP 4000 I— H OXANA PARAFEINIK, Case No. CIVSB2210600 7-3623 622-7594 CONNERS >— N Plaintiff, Assigned to Hon. Joseph T. Ortiz, Dept. Sl7 SUITE 9001 3) 8L (21 r—t DJ vs. Action Filed: June 1, 2022 FAX LAWYERS BOULEVARD, CALIFORNIA ° r— h CAROL VOITA; CAROL VOITA SOLE - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE, MCPHARLIN MEMBER/MANAGER STRONG BRIDGE DISQUALIFY JUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ r—t UI MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES TO 2, 1 CCP SECTION 170.1; DECLARATION OF PETER B. RUSTIN 688—0080 Defendants. ANGELES, WILSHIRE Ha (213) Date: March 8, 2023 ANDERSON, H \l Time: 1:30 p.m. 707 LOS TEL Dept: Sl 7 Trial Date: None I. INTRODUCTION Defendants CAROL VOITA and STRONG BRIDGE MANAGEMENT LLC (“Defendants”) submit their Opposition to Plaintiff’ s Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Judge Joseph T. Ortiz (the “Motion”). Plaintiff again, seeking to challenge Judge Ortiz’s presiding over this mflQUI&OJNHO\OW NNNNNNNNNHH is, case based upon nothing more than her anger and disenchantment over the Court’s ruling on plaintiff s two motions to compel, which were decided months ago, on November 17, 2022.1 1 On November 2022, the day after the hearing 0n Plaintiff” s unsuccessful two motions t0 18, compel further discovery responses and for sanctions, Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Ortiz. The peremptory challenge was denied 0n November 22, 2022 because it was 1 2680298.] 05896-182 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE, DISQUALIFY IUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ CCP SECTION 170.1 The motion should be denied. It is untimely, and plaintiff has waived the right to challenge Judge Ortiz for alleged bias. Moreover, 0n the merits, plaintiff has failed t0 demonstrate any bias by Judge Ortiz, and is clearly seeking, yet again, to express her displeasure at losing two motions t0 compel and for having sanctions imposed upon her for her spurious discovery motions. ©W\l¢\UI£DJNH This court should not countenance yet another spurious filing by plaintiff, her pro per status notwithstanding? II. PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING TO RELITIGATE HER UNSUCCESSFUL MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND THE AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST HER Even a cursory review 0f the Motion demonstrates that it is premised upon the fact that r— C plaintiff did not prevail in her two motions t0 compel further discovery responses.3 Plaintiff is LLP t—t H also furious that the Court imposed monetary sanctions against her in the amount of $2,000 4000 7-3623 622—7594 CONNERS HN (Motion, at 3-5).4 SUITE 9001 3) OJ (21 n— / / / 8c FAX LAWYERS BOULEVARD, CALIFORNIA - r—t h MCPHARLIN r-t Ul untimely. 688-0080 2 WILSHIRE ANGELES, H ON no basis, that the Court has discriminated against her because she is not Plaintiff claims, with (213) represented by counsel, and asserted that the Court has in essence ruled that “all parties appearing ANDERSON, 707 LOS TEL H \l in his Court MUST have attorney representation in order to receive equal justice and fairness. .. .” (Motion, at 2). As this Court will recall, it has never mandated that plaintiff appear through Hw counsel. Rather, the Court admonished plaintiff that she needed t0 comply with applicable rules b—t \O and procedure to the same degree as would a litigant appearing through counsel. 3 NO As the Court will recall, and as plaintiff herself admits in the Motion, the basis for these motions t0 compel was that plaintiff “was seeking to obtain more and was purportedly truthful responses” NH trying (in an unconvincing display of solicitousness) t0 give Defendants an “opponunity to correct their misstatements” in the discovery responses. As Defendants pointed out in their oppositions to NN the motions to compel, plaintiff was merely dissatisfied with what the responses said, and wanted b.) t0 argue whether she believes them to be true or not. She failed, however, t0 point to any actual N failure to respond to any discovery request; she failed to comply with the requirement to meet and Nh confer; she failed t0 provide the necessary separate statement in support of her motions and she failed t0 articulate any basis for the Court to conclude that Defendants did not provide Code- N UI compliant responses. For these reasons, the motions to compel were denied. N O\ 4 Defendants note that Plaintiff has failed to pay the monetary sanctions, which were due no later thanDecember 22, 2022. Declaration 0f Peter B. Rustin (“Rustin Dec.”) at Par. 4. Moreover, N \l Defendants sought a total 0f $3,351 in monetary sanctions, as opposed t0 the Court’s award 0f ' Nw $2,000, further evidence 0f this Court’s impartiality. 2 2680298.] 05896-182 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE, DISQUALIFY JUDGE JOSEPH T. ORTIZ CCP SECTION 170.1