On July 25, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chaney, Steven R,
and
Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive,
Green, Brenda Lee,
for Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
01/17/2023 TUE 11:07 FAX [007/013
\y .V
AARON F. GARCIA (SB# 21 3293) a
' ‘
LAW OFFICES 0F AARON F. GARCIA :7 z
"
fir”
A PROFESSIONAL LAw CORPORATION ,
71-780 SAN JACINTo DRIVE, BUILDINGJ P _-/ s
-
. <
RANCHo MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 9.:
V
.
u
$3,,-
'
TELEPHONE: (760) 346—3788
FACSIMILE: (760)346-3799
Attorney for PLAINTIFF STEVEN'R. CHANEY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER
STEVEN R. CHANEY, an Individual, ) Case No.: CIV5822161 94
l
Plainfiff. ) OPPOSITION To MOTION T0 STRIKE
10 PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT;
11
VS. ¥ MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
12 BRENDA LEE GREEN, an individual; )
and DOES‘I through 50. inclusive, ) Date: January 30, 2023
13 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. ) Dept: S33
14
)
15
'
16 l. INTRODUCTION
17 The motion to strike portions of the complaint filed by Brenda Lee Green
18 (“defendant”) is nothing more than an attempt to delay the case and is completely
x
19 without merit. The complaint against the defendant is regarding the defendant’s acts
IE
20
21
while acting as Steven R. Cheney's
("POA"). Plain and simple. There is
(“plaintiff”) agent under a power of attorney
nothing alleged regarding the defendant's acts as
h
m
22 a trustee. Thus. as argued herein. the court has jurisdiction over the case. the parties
23 and must overrule the motion to strike.
24 II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
25 A. THE COMPLAINT CONTAINS ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE IMMUNE TO THE
26 MOTION TO STRIKE
27 1. Defendant Is Wrong That Court Lacks Jurisdlctlon
28 Agency law is governed by Civil Code provisions defining agency (see Civ. Code
§2295 et. seq. The POA attached as Exhibit A to the complaint specifically states that
1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
“ ‘x‘
UH!"
n7
3,2139 :5 z. Nu
LORUSQC EENMHWEBB NVS
IFNIOHVNHBB NVS :50 [UNHCO
\leklOfll'VGVCéflC‘ 18003 ‘JOIHEdFESé
AIBOEH
Document Filed Date
January 18, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 25, 2022
Category
Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
01/17/2023 TUE 11:07 FAX [007/013 \y .V AARON F. GARCIA (SB# 21 3293) a ' ‘ LAW OFFICES 0F AARON F. GARCIA :7 z " fir” A PROFESSIONAL LAw CORPORATION , 71-780 SAN JACINTo DRIVE, BUILDINGJ P _-/ s - . < RANCHo MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 9.: V . u $3,,- ' TELEPHONE: (760) 346—3788 FACSIMILE: (760)346-3799 Attorney for PLAINTIFF STEVEN'R. CHANEY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER STEVEN R. CHANEY, an Individual, ) Case No.: CIV5822161 94 l Plainfiff. ) OPPOSITION To MOTION T0 STRIKE 10 PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT; 11 VS. ¥ MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 12 BRENDA LEE GREEN, an individual; ) and DOES‘I through 50. inclusive, ) Date: January 30, 2023 13 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. ) Dept: S33 14 ) 15 ' 16 l. INTRODUCTION 17 The motion to strike portions of the complaint filed by Brenda Lee Green 18 (“defendant”) is nothing more than an attempt to delay the case and is completely x 19 without merit. The complaint against the defendant is regarding the defendant’s acts IE 20 21 while acting as Steven R. Cheney's ("POA"). Plain and simple. There is (“plaintiff”) agent under a power of attorney nothing alleged regarding the defendant's acts as h m 22 a trustee. Thus. as argued herein. the court has jurisdiction over the case. the parties 23 and must overrule the motion to strike. 24 II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 25 A. THE COMPLAINT CONTAINS ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE IMMUNE TO THE 26 MOTION TO STRIKE 27 1. Defendant Is Wrong That Court Lacks Jurisdlctlon 28 Agency law is governed by Civil Code provisions defining agency (see Civ. Code §2295 et. seq. The POA attached as Exhibit A to the complaint specifically states that 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT “ ‘x‘ UH!" n7 3,2139 :5 z. Nu LORUSQC EENMHWEBB NVS IFNIOHVNHBB NVS :50 [UNHCO \leklOfll'VGVCéflC‘ 18003 ‘JOIHEdFESé AIBOEH