Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467)
Angie Lam (SBN: 244719)
2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
3 San Francisco, California 94104
4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550
Facsimile: (415) 693-0500
5 Email: john@jkzllp.com
angie.lam@jkzllp.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7
Lisa Keith
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA
10
11 LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION
13 TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
v. AND MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
14 FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/
15 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK ADJUDICATION
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49
16 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and Date: December 8, 2023
17 DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Time: 8:30 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young
18 Defendants. Dept.: B
Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
19 FAC Filed: March 8, 2023
Trial Date: April 2, 2024
20
21 Petitioner, LISA KEITH (“Plaintiff”), in her capacity as Plaintiff of the above-referenced matter
22 hereby submits her opposition (“Opposition”) to Defendants’ (“Defendant”) Notice of Motion and
23 Motion to Extend Deadline for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
24 (“Motion”), and alleges as follows:
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S
f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ
1 I. ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
2 A. Defendants Do Not Have Good Cause to Move the Deadline to Hear Summary
3 Judgment/Adjudication.
4 1. Plaintiff propounded discovery on November 14, 2022, shortly after the initial complaint 1
5 was filed on October 25, 2022. Defendants provided their discovery responses in March of 2023 and
6 Plaintiff received Defendants’ production in October of 2023. Plaintiff also provided her responses and
7 production was completed in October of 2023. (See Lisa Keith Declaration ¶5.)
8 2. Any and all discovery and outstanding document production were completed by all
9 parties in October of 2023.
10 3. Although statute provides a motion for summary judgment to be heard no later than thirty
11 (30) days before the trial, Plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced with the abbreviated time to respond and
12 prepare an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as preparing for the
13 imminent trial at the same time.
14 4. Because a motion for summary judgment is potentially a case-dispositive motion,
15 Plaintiff needs sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.
16 (See McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 118.)
17 5. Despite Defendants’ claim that they “have been prevented from completing their MSJ
18 papers due to Plaintiff’s discovery delays and noncompliance”, this is far from the truth. (See
19 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 4:7-4:9.)
20 6. As stated above, Defendants have been provided with all of Plaintiff’s discovery since
21 October of this year. Their failure to adequately plan does not constitute good cause to move the deadline
22 at the expense of the Plaintiff and the Court.
23 7. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not believe Defendants will be able to meet or provide the
24 court with substantial good cause to allow a hearing to take place within 30 days before the trial as this
25 is yet another well-documented attempt by Defendants to further harass and oppress the Plaintiff with
26 their motion practice.
27
28
1
The First Amended Complaint was filed on March 8, 2023.
2
PLAINTIFF’S
f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ
1
2 II. CONCLUSION
3 As all parties have fully completed their production as of date, good cause does not exist to move
4 the deadline and thus Defendants’ motion must be denied in whole. If this Motion is granted, Plaintiff
5 will likely have to move for a continuance of trial.
6
7 Respectfully submitted,
8 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
9
10 Dated: December 4, 2023 By:
John S. Rueppel, Esq.
11 Angie Lam, Esq.
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S
f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF ANTIOCH AND COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
3
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of
4 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Johnston Kinney & Zulaica LLP,
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, California 94104. My electronic business address is
5 carolina@jkzllp.com.
6
On December 4, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s):
7
1. PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE
8 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR HEARING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
9
I served the documents on the person or persons listed below as follows:
10
11 Jeffrey E. Tsai
Kathleen S. Kizer
12 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
13 San Francisco, CA 94105
Jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
14 Katy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
Attorneys for Defendants
15
[X] (BY EMAIL) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, I caused the document(s) to
16 be electronically transmitted by me to the persons listed in the above email address(es). I did not receive
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
17
transmission was unsuccessful.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
19 true and correct.
20
Executed on December 4, 2023, at Antioch, California.
21
22
23 Carolina Ramos
4863-0539-2276, v. 5
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S
f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ
Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467) Angie Lam (SBN: 244719) 2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 3 San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550 Facsimile: (415) 693-0500 5 Email: john@jkzllp.com angie.lam@jkzllp.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 Lisa Keith 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA 10 11 LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION 13 TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION v. AND MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 14 FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ 15 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK ADJUDICATION FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 16 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and Date: December 8, 2023 17 DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young 18 Defendants. Dept.: B Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 19 FAC Filed: March 8, 2023 Trial Date: April 2, 2024 20 21 Petitioner, LISA KEITH (“Plaintiff”), in her capacity as Plaintiff of the above-referenced matter 22 hereby submits her opposition (“Opposition”) to Defendants’ (“Defendant”) Notice of Motion and 23 Motion to Extend Deadline for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication 24 (“Motion”), and alleges as follows: 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ 1 I. ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION 2 A. Defendants Do Not Have Good Cause to Move the Deadline to Hear Summary 3 Judgment/Adjudication. 4 1. Plaintiff propounded discovery on November 14, 2022, shortly after the initial complaint 1 5 was filed on October 25, 2022. Defendants provided their discovery responses in March of 2023 and 6 Plaintiff received Defendants’ production in October of 2023. Plaintiff also provided her responses and 7 production was completed in October of 2023. (See Lisa Keith Declaration ¶5.) 8 2. Any and all discovery and outstanding document production were completed by all 9 parties in October of 2023. 10 3. Although statute provides a motion for summary judgment to be heard no later than thirty 11 (30) days before the trial, Plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced with the abbreviated time to respond and 12 prepare an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as preparing for the 13 imminent trial at the same time. 14 4. Because a motion for summary judgment is potentially a case-dispositive motion, 15 Plaintiff needs sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition. 16 (See McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 118.) 17 5. Despite Defendants’ claim that they “have been prevented from completing their MSJ 18 papers due to Plaintiff’s discovery delays and noncompliance”, this is far from the truth. (See 19 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 4:7-4:9.) 20 6. As stated above, Defendants have been provided with all of Plaintiff’s discovery since 21 October of this year. Their failure to adequately plan does not constitute good cause to move the deadline 22 at the expense of the Plaintiff and the Court. 23 7. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not believe Defendants will be able to meet or provide the 24 court with substantial good cause to allow a hearing to take place within 30 days before the trial as this 25 is yet another well-documented attempt by Defendants to further harass and oppress the Plaintiff with 26 their motion practice. 27 28 1 The First Amended Complaint was filed on March 8, 2023. 2 PLAINTIFF’S f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ 1 2 II. CONCLUSION 3 As all parties have fully completed their production as of date, good cause does not exist to move 4 the deadline and thus Defendants’ motion must be denied in whole. If this Motion is granted, Plaintiff 5 will likely have to move for a continuance of trial. 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 9 10 Dated: December 4, 2023 By: John S. Rueppel, Esq. 11 Angie Lam, Esq. 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF ANTIOCH AND COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 4 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Johnston Kinney & Zulaica LLP, 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, California 94104. My electronic business address is 5 carolina@jkzllp.com. 6 On December 4, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s): 7 1. PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 8 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION 9 I served the documents on the person or persons listed below as follows: 10 11 Jeffrey E. Tsai Kathleen S. Kizer 12 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 13 San Francisco, CA 94105 Jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 14 Katy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com Attorneys for Defendants 15 [X] (BY EMAIL) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, I caused the document(s) to 16 be electronically transmitted by me to the persons listed in the above email address(es). I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the 17 transmission was unsuccessful. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 19 true and correct. 20 Executed on December 4, 2023, at Antioch, California. 21 22 23 Carolina Ramos 4863-0539-2276, v. 5 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S f OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLING FOR HEARING ON MSA/MSJ