On September 07, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Novalk, Llc,
and
Cirit, Denis Baran,
Cirit, Fatma Handan,
Cirit, Semih,
C-Tech, Inc,
Does 1-100,
Kim, Yun Kyung,
Kyung, Yun,
Nc Queen, Inc.,
Sargent, Sarina Berna,
for Other Real Property Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
I
V Y
,
H}
.’
" 1‘. 'x V
4"” .f‘w‘
V
$31G :L: “i. .
5
F l L E
“F Yun K. Kim S%%EUR§$5
89$; gg'gzlgngr—‘ORMA
17405 Vlctory Boulevard SAN BERwAminswfjF‘flifi'fifiWO
v .uT -'
CA
-
“ Van Nuys, 91406
Telephone: (818) 400-8864 SEP 1 5 An.
5W7
Defendant In Propria Persona BY
SANDRA PORTILLO, DEPUTY
‘NO
\OOONON‘JI-hWNv—a
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NOVALK, LLC CASE NUMBER SB 2122277
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORAR
VS'
RESTRAINING ORDER
SEMIH CIRIT; FATIMA HANDAN CIRIT; .
Honorable Wzlfi’edJ. Schnezder,
.
Jr.
DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA
SARGENT; C~TECH, INC, NC QUEEN, INC; Date; September 16, 2021
YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1 through 100, Time; 900 am.
inclusive, Department s32
Defendants
NNNNNNNNNHHH—bn—‘y—Au—nr—AHH
YUN K. KIM, incorrectly sued as YUN KYUNG HEREBY specially appears for the
OOQQMLWNHOKOOOflmm-PWNHO
purpose of opposing the Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff brings the instant Application for Temporary Restraining Order, inter alia, based
upon alleged rights to utilize signage slots located 0n Property Which is not Plaintiff” s. The
Application must be denied, for several reasons: first, Plaintiff did not provide legally adequate
notice of the Ex Parte Hearing; second, Plaintiff has not shown exigent circumstances for the
granting of Ex Parte relief; and third, and most importantly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (which has
never been served on responding Defendant) is patently deficient.
///
1
Onoosition to EX Parte Annlication
ARGUMENT
A. The Notice of the Ex Parte is Inadequate.
California Rules of Court, Rule 3. 1203 provides that “a party seeking an ex part6 order must
notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a
\OWNQUI-bUJNH
showing of exceptional circumstances. .
.” Plaintiff made no effort t0 reach Ms. Kim to inform
her of the occurrence of this hearing by telephone, instead choosing to send out an e-mail,
including a copy of the Notice of Hearing. Plaintiff’s actual moving papers were not attached t0
the e-mail. As the Court is aware, notice of court proceedings by e-mail is typically only
adequate where the parties have previously agreed to such notice. Plaintiff has not provided (and
cannot truthfully provide) evidence of any such agreement on Ms. Kim’s pan, as there has never
been any such agreement; moreover, and in any event, Ms. Kim did not receive the notice prior
to 10:00 a.rn. 0n the Court Day prior. It further should be emphasized that Court Rules require
that Plaintiff serve its application as soon at its first opportunity (Cal.R.Ct. 3.1206). Plaintiff,
however, directly flouting this rule, has chosen t0 withhold, and not serve its Application,
notwithstanding that its Complaint was filed on September 7, 2021 (8 full days prior hereto) and
presumably had been drafted even earlier. As will be demonstrated hereinbelow, this is not a
procedural defect; the only possible reason that Plaintiff could have for not serving its
Application is that it appears on the face thereof that there is no merit to the Application, and not
serving it protects it from being revealed to be meritless.
OOQONM$WNHOKDOONQM$UJNHO
B. The Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof to show circumstances meriting Ex
Parte relief.
Although Plaintiff has not seen fit to attach its Application to its Notice, a review of the
Complaint and the Notice merely recites the Shibboleth (and, in fact, recites it incorrectly) that
“the equities clearly favor the issuance of the present order”. This, of course is not the standard
for the issuance of relief Ex Pane, which is t0 be provided, per CalR.Ct. 3. 1202(0), only “upon
an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on
personal knowledge 0f irreparable halm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis. .
.”.
The Complaint of Plaintiff establishes—at best——a dispute of long standing between and
2
Obnosition t0 Ex Parte Aonlication
Document Filed Date
September 16, 2021
Case Filing Date
September 07, 2021
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
I V Y , H} .’ " 1‘. 'x V 4"” .f‘w‘ V $31G :L: “i. . 5 F l L E “F Yun K. Kim S%%EUR§$5 89$; gg'gzlgngr—‘ORMA 17405 Vlctory Boulevard SAN BERwAminswfjF‘flifi'fifiWO v .uT -' CA - “ Van Nuys, 91406 Telephone: (818) 400-8864 SEP 1 5 An. 5W7 Defendant In Propria Persona BY SANDRA PORTILLO, DEPUTY ‘NO \OOONON‘JI-hWNv—a SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NOVALK, LLC CASE NUMBER SB 2122277 Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORAR VS' RESTRAINING ORDER SEMIH CIRIT; FATIMA HANDAN CIRIT; . Honorable Wzlfi’edJ. Schnezder, . Jr. DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA SARGENT; C~TECH, INC, NC QUEEN, INC; Date; September 16, 2021 YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1 through 100, Time; 900 am. inclusive, Department s32 Defendants NNNNNNNNNHHH—bn—‘y—Au—nr—AHH YUN K. KIM, incorrectly sued as YUN KYUNG HEREBY specially appears for the OOQQMLWNHOKOOOflmm-PWNHO purpose of opposing the Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff brings the instant Application for Temporary Restraining Order, inter alia, based upon alleged rights to utilize signage slots located 0n Property Which is not Plaintiff” s. The Application must be denied, for several reasons: first, Plaintiff did not provide legally adequate notice of the Ex Parte Hearing; second, Plaintiff has not shown exigent circumstances for the granting of Ex Parte relief; and third, and most importantly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (which has never been served on responding Defendant) is patently deficient. /// 1 Onoosition to EX Parte Annlication ARGUMENT A. The Notice of the Ex Parte is Inadequate. California Rules of Court, Rule 3. 1203 provides that “a party seeking an ex part6 order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a \OWNQUI-bUJNH showing of exceptional circumstances. . .” Plaintiff made no effort t0 reach Ms. Kim to inform her of the occurrence of this hearing by telephone, instead choosing to send out an e-mail, including a copy of the Notice of Hearing. Plaintiff’s actual moving papers were not attached t0 the e-mail. As the Court is aware, notice of court proceedings by e-mail is typically only adequate where the parties have previously agreed to such notice. Plaintiff has not provided (and cannot truthfully provide) evidence of any such agreement on Ms. Kim’s pan, as there has never been any such agreement; moreover, and in any event, Ms. Kim did not receive the notice prior to 10:00 a.rn. 0n the Court Day prior. It further should be emphasized that Court Rules require that Plaintiff serve its application as soon at its first opportunity (Cal.R.Ct. 3.1206). Plaintiff, however, directly flouting this rule, has chosen t0 withhold, and not serve its Application, notwithstanding that its Complaint was filed on September 7, 2021 (8 full days prior hereto) and presumably had been drafted even earlier. As will be demonstrated hereinbelow, this is not a procedural defect; the only possible reason that Plaintiff could have for not serving its Application is that it appears on the face thereof that there is no merit to the Application, and not serving it protects it from being revealed to be meritless. OOQONM$WNHOKDOONQM$UJNHO B. The Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof to show circumstances meriting Ex Parte relief. Although Plaintiff has not seen fit to attach its Application to its Notice, a review of the Complaint and the Notice merely recites the Shibboleth (and, in fact, recites it incorrectly) that “the equities clearly favor the issuance of the present order”. This, of course is not the standard for the issuance of relief Ex Pane, which is t0 be provided, per CalR.Ct. 3. 1202(0), only “upon an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge 0f irreparable halm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis. . .”. The Complaint of Plaintiff establishes—at best——a dispute of long standing between and 2 Obnosition t0 Ex Parte Aonlication