Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL
JENNIFER J. LEE, DEPUTY (SBN 249357)
2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950 / FAX: (805) 568-2982
4 jenlee@countyofsb.org
5 Attorneys for Defendant,
JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN
6
7 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code § 6103
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
11 ANACAPA DIVISION
12
NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually, and Case No: 23CV02702
13 as Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of THE
BORIMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN
14 FMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and GREEN’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF OPPOSITION TO GREEN’S
15 VIRGINIA JORDAN, DECEASED, DEMURRER AND MOTION TO
STRIKE
16 PLAINTIFF,
Complaint Filed: June 22, 2023
17 v. Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
Dept.: SB5
18 ROGERS, SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP,
a California Limited Liability Partnership; DATE: October 16, 2023
19 ANGELA M. JORDAN aka ANGELA TIME: 10:00 a.m.
JORDAN HART aka ANGELA M. HART, an DEPT: SB5
20 individual; JENNIFER JORDAN aka
JENNIFER HEMPFLING, an individual;
21 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN, an individual;
AMETHYST EVE SHEFFIELD and SHEILA
22 T PRICE, Co-Personal Representatives of the
ESTATE OF HOMER G. SHEFFIELD, JR.,
23 DECEASED; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
24 DEFENDANTS.
25
26
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
///
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
1.
DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
1 I.
2 PLAINTIFF FILED AND SERVED A COMPLAINT ON MOVING DEFENDANT GREEN
3 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM WAS ACTED UPON;
4 THIS IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE
5 At the heart of the moving papers is a procedural issue. Did plaintiff comply with the
6 government claims presentation requirements prior to filing and serving the complaint on
7 defendant Jamie Cathleen Green (“Green”)? The answer is no. This issue must be addressed
8 before examining the statute of limitations, the failure to set forth facts to support the five
9 causes of action against Green, and the issue of punitive damages.
10 As set forth in the demurrer, Malear v. State (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, 224-225 is
11 instructive here.
12 • Malear presented a government claim.
13 • Twelve days later, he filed his original complaint.
14 • Two days after the original complaint was filed, his claim was rejected.
15 • Nearly three months later, Malear filed a timely first amended complaint.
16 • Eleven days thereafter, Malear served defendants with the first amended complaint
17 and a copy of the original complaint. – It is significant that service of the complaint
18 occurred after the government claim was rejected.
19 • Thereafter, the parties stipulated to Malear filing a second amended complaint.
20 The Malear Court found the premature commencement of a lawsuit and premature filing of a
21 complaint against a public entity did not deprive the public entity of its ability to consider a pending
22 government claim or cause it to incur litigation costs. (Id. at 224.) Costs are incurred after defendant is
23 served with the summons and complaint. It is service of the summons and complaint that triggers
24 various statutory deadlines. (Id. at 224-225.) The Malear Court recognized that its decision must be
25 narrowly construed.
26 “[W]e simply hold that when a lawsuit is prematurely filed before the
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 actual or deemed denial of a government claim, application of the substantial
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 compliance doctrine is generally appropriate if the original complaint is not
2.
DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
1 served before an amended complaint alleging the requisite denial of a
2 government claim is filed in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section
3 472.”
4 Here, when plaintiff served her complaint, the government’s investigation and
5 consideration of plaintiff’s claims had not been completed. Thus, plaintiff was unable to set
6 forth in her complaint any allegations as to whether she complied with the claims presentation
7 requirements. After the complaint was served, defendant incurred litigation costs: research of
8 the issues and meet and confer with plaintiff’s counsel to not only request a dismissal of
9 defendant Green but to address the additional issues raised in the demurrer and motion to
10 strike.
11 Moreover, filing a complaint to preserve the running of a statute of limitations is
12 different from the time requirement for service of the compliant. Plaintiff has 3 years from the
13 date the complaint was filed to serve the summons and compliant on a defendant. (Code of
14 Civil Procedure, section 583.210.) Given this service requirement, plaintiff could have served
15 the complaint on defendant Green after the government claim was acted upon. That did not
16 occur here.
17 Further, defendant Green was acting within the scope of her employment. She
18 received complaints about elder and financial abuse and followed-up on those complaints.
19 Any allegations that defendant Green made false and misleading statements in order to frame
20 plaintiff is inaccurate and not supported by the facts. In fact, defendant Green has no incentive
21 to make false or misleading statements. She was simply executing the duties of her job.
22 Finally, on the remaining issues of statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of
23 action against moving defendant, and to strike punitive damages, defendant Green refers to
24 the moving papers.
25 ///
26 ///
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 ///
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 ///
3.
DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
1 II.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For all the above stated reasons and those in the moving papers, moving defendant
4 Green respectfully requests that this Court sustain the demurrer and grant the motion to strike.
5
6 DATED: October 9, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
COUNTY COUNSEL
7
8 ___________________________________
By: Jennifer J. Lee,
9 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant,
10 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
4.
DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 (C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5)
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
3
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
4 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East
Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California.
5
On October 9, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN
6 GREEN’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO GREEN’S DEMURRER AND
MOTION TO STRIKE on the Interested Parties in this action:
7
by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of
8 Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for
9 mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of
business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States
10 Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of
Santa Barbara Central Mail Room.
11
SEE ATTACHED
12
SERVICE LIST
13
14
via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below.
15
by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
16 address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I
did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
17
other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
18 Tamineh Roshanian, Attorneys for Plaintiff: tami@roshanianpayman.com
Kenny C. Brooks and Michael McCarthy, Attorneys for Defendants, Rogers Sheffield
19 & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of Homer
Sheffield): kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com and mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com
20
21
(State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct.
22
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the
23 Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
24 Executed on October 9, 2023 at Santa Barbara, California.
25
26 _______________________
Marleen van den Heuvel
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
5.
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
SERVICE LIST
2
3
Tamineh Roshanian
4 Roshanian Payman, PC
30721 Russell Ranch Road, Suite 140
5 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7383
(818) 330-5162
6
tami@roshanianpayman.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 Kenny C. Brooks
Michael McCarthy
9 NEMECEK & COLE
A Professional Corporation
10
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
11 Encino, California 91436-2300
(818) 788-9500
12 kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com
mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com
13 Attorneys for Defendants,
14 Rogers Sheffield & Campbell, LLP and
Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate
15 of Homer Sheffield)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
6.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL JENNIFER J. LEE, DEPUTY (SBN 249357) 2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 / FAX: (805) 568-2982 4 jenlee@countyofsb.org 5 Attorneys for Defendant, JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN 6 7 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code § 6103 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 11 ANACAPA DIVISION 12 NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually, and Case No: 23CV02702 13 as Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of THE BORIMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN 14 FMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and GREEN’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF OPPOSITION TO GREEN’S 15 VIRGINIA JORDAN, DECEASED, DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE 16 PLAINTIFF, Complaint Filed: June 22, 2023 17 v. Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne Dept.: SB5 18 ROGERS, SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership; DATE: October 16, 2023 19 ANGELA M. JORDAN aka ANGELA TIME: 10:00 a.m. JORDAN HART aka ANGELA M. HART, an DEPT: SB5 20 individual; JENNIFER JORDAN aka JENNIFER HEMPFLING, an individual; 21 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN, an individual; AMETHYST EVE SHEFFIELD and SHEILA 22 T PRICE, Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF HOMER G. SHEFFIELD, JR., 23 DECEASED; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 24 DEFENDANTS. 25 26 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street /// Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 1. DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE 1 I. 2 PLAINTIFF FILED AND SERVED A COMPLAINT ON MOVING DEFENDANT GREEN 3 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM WAS ACTED UPON; 4 THIS IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE 5 At the heart of the moving papers is a procedural issue. Did plaintiff comply with the 6 government claims presentation requirements prior to filing and serving the complaint on 7 defendant Jamie Cathleen Green (“Green”)? The answer is no. This issue must be addressed 8 before examining the statute of limitations, the failure to set forth facts to support the five 9 causes of action against Green, and the issue of punitive damages. 10 As set forth in the demurrer, Malear v. State (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, 224-225 is 11 instructive here. 12 • Malear presented a government claim. 13 • Twelve days later, he filed his original complaint. 14 • Two days after the original complaint was filed, his claim was rejected. 15 • Nearly three months later, Malear filed a timely first amended complaint. 16 • Eleven days thereafter, Malear served defendants with the first amended complaint 17 and a copy of the original complaint. – It is significant that service of the complaint 18 occurred after the government claim was rejected. 19 • Thereafter, the parties stipulated to Malear filing a second amended complaint. 20 The Malear Court found the premature commencement of a lawsuit and premature filing of a 21 complaint against a public entity did not deprive the public entity of its ability to consider a pending 22 government claim or cause it to incur litigation costs. (Id. at 224.) Costs are incurred after defendant is 23 served with the summons and complaint. It is service of the summons and complaint that triggers 24 various statutory deadlines. (Id. at 224-225.) The Malear Court recognized that its decision must be 25 narrowly construed. 26 “[W]e simply hold that when a lawsuit is prematurely filed before the COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 actual or deemed denial of a government claim, application of the substantial 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 compliance doctrine is generally appropriate if the original complaint is not 2. DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE 1 served before an amended complaint alleging the requisite denial of a 2 government claim is filed in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 3 472.” 4 Here, when plaintiff served her complaint, the government’s investigation and 5 consideration of plaintiff’s claims had not been completed. Thus, plaintiff was unable to set 6 forth in her complaint any allegations as to whether she complied with the claims presentation 7 requirements. After the complaint was served, defendant incurred litigation costs: research of 8 the issues and meet and confer with plaintiff’s counsel to not only request a dismissal of 9 defendant Green but to address the additional issues raised in the demurrer and motion to 10 strike. 11 Moreover, filing a complaint to preserve the running of a statute of limitations is 12 different from the time requirement for service of the compliant. Plaintiff has 3 years from the 13 date the complaint was filed to serve the summons and compliant on a defendant. (Code of 14 Civil Procedure, section 583.210.) Given this service requirement, plaintiff could have served 15 the complaint on defendant Green after the government claim was acted upon. That did not 16 occur here. 17 Further, defendant Green was acting within the scope of her employment. She 18 received complaints about elder and financial abuse and followed-up on those complaints. 19 Any allegations that defendant Green made false and misleading statements in order to frame 20 plaintiff is inaccurate and not supported by the facts. In fact, defendant Green has no incentive 21 to make false or misleading statements. She was simply executing the duties of her job. 22 Finally, on the remaining issues of statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of 23 action against moving defendant, and to strike punitive damages, defendant Green refers to 24 the moving papers. 25 /// 26 /// COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 /// 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 /// 3. DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE 1 II. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For all the above stated reasons and those in the moving papers, moving defendant 4 Green respectfully requests that this Court sustain the demurrer and grant the motion to strike. 5 6 DATED: October 9, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM COUNTY COUNSEL 7 8 ___________________________________ By: Jennifer J. Lee, 9 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant, 10 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 4. DEF GREEN’S REPLY TO PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PROOF OF SERVICE 1 (C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of 4 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. 5 On October 9, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN 6 GREEN’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO GREEN’S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE on the Interested Parties in this action: 7 by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of 8 Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for 9 mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States 10 Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room. 11 SEE ATTACHED 12 SERVICE LIST 13 14 via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below. 15 by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail 16 address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or 17 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 18 Tamineh Roshanian, Attorneys for Plaintiff: tami@roshanianpayman.com Kenny C. Brooks and Michael McCarthy, Attorneys for Defendants, Rogers Sheffield 19 & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of Homer Sheffield): kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com and mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com 20 21 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct. 22 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the 23 Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 24 Executed on October 9, 2023 at Santa Barbara, California. 25 26 _______________________ Marleen van den Heuvel 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 5. PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 3 Tamineh Roshanian 4 Roshanian Payman, PC 30721 Russell Ranch Road, Suite 140 5 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7383 (818) 330-5162 6 tami@roshanianpayman.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 Kenny C. Brooks Michael McCarthy 9 NEMECEK & COLE A Professional Corporation 10 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 11 Encino, California 91436-2300 (818) 788-9500 12 kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com 13 Attorneys for Defendants, 14 Rogers Sheffield & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate 15 of Homer Sheffield) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 6. PROOF OF SERVICE