Document for MARITA ZWEIFLER vs. ERNEST EGAN, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
                                          CIVIL DIVISION


MARITA ZWEIFLER, et al., Plaintiffs                                  Case No; 22-CIV-0006¢

AND

ERNEST EGAN, et al., Defendants



              PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW       CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS
MARITA ZWEIFLER, et al., Plaintiffs                                                        Case No: 22-CIV-00069

AND

ERNEST EGAN, et al., Defendants




               PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW                   CAUSE        RE: SANCTIONS



Marita Zweifler affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:

1.         Marita Zweifler is one of the Plaintiffs referenced above.
2.         Marita Zweifler submits this affirmation in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause entered
 July 26, 2023 (the “OSC”).
3.         This case commenced with the assistance of counsel, SAC Attorneys LLP (“Counsel”).
4.         A review of this Court’s docket establishes that Counsel was derelict in its representation of Plaintiffs
 in that it failed to make service upon all the defendants in this case.
5.          Counsel failed to make service upon defendants Nicole Grunberg and Tara Azaroff (Nicole
  Grunberg and Tara Azaroff, collectively the “Unserved Defendants").
  6.       Plaintiffs believe this case was dismissed, without prejudice, against defendant Gioconda-Maria
  Egan, on or about April 27, 2022.
 7.        The Unserved Defendants remained unserved through the date Counsel was relieved of its
  obligation to represent Plaintiffs in this case pursuant to Minute Order dated October 14, 2022.
8.          Counsel represented Plaintiffs in this case for approximately nine (9) months following the date of
  Counsel's filing of the complaint herein.
  9.        The Unserved Defendants remain unserved through the date of this response.
 10.        Plaintiffs relied upon Counsel from on and before commencement of this case, through the date
 Counsel was relieved as counsel to Plaintiffs.
  11.      Plaintiffs continue pro se in the prosecution of this case.
  12.      Plaintiffs are aware, having read various of the docketed papers in this case, that the Unserved
  Defendants were to have been served within sixty (60) days of the filing of this case, or at such later date
  as the Court could have ordered upon appropriate request. No such request was made by Counsel.
  13.      Plaintiffs consent to the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, as to each of the Unserved
  Defendants, but only as to the Unserved Defendants.
  14.      Plaintiffs are hopeful, and would urge this Court, that in consenting to this relief, the issues raised
  by the OSC are adequately addressed and that no further action on the OSC is, or would be, necessary.
 15.       It is Plaintiffs understanding that judgment on default was entered in Plaintiffs favor and against
  defendants Ernest Egan, E Ventures LLC, A California Limited Liability Company, and Piggy 936, A California
   Limited Liability Company (the “Defaulting Defendants”), on July 8, 2022 (the “Judgment’).
   16.      It is Plaintiffs understanding that the Judgment remains extant and is valid and enforceable, but
  that the extent of the damages as will inure in Plaintiffs’ favor has not yet been established.
  17.     Plaintiffs are ready, willing, and able to proceed in establishing damages as against Defaulting
  Defendants.
  18.     Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court’s Order to Show Cause be denied, as
  moot, in all respects.

  Dated:   October 15, 2023                                                     .
                                                                            4                en




                                                                            ha      Zweifler, Pro Se