Motion-Secondary: HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC VS. VICTORIA L CARD ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ar

28

STEVEN A, BOOSKA SBN 107899

ATTORNEY AT LAW ELECTRONICALLY
PO BOX 2169 FILED
OAKLAND, CA 94621 Superior Court of Cetfornta,
Telephone: (415) 397-4345 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 982-3440
Attorney for Plaintiff 02/04/2016
BY:GARY FELICIANO
File No: 20140473 Deputy Clerk:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION

HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., ) Case No.: CGC-15-544243
)
Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
See : DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE
) AND VACATE JUDGMENT
VICTORIA L. CARD, et al., )
) Date: March 1, 2016
Defendant ) Time: 9:30am
: Dept: 504
FACTS

This matter was set for trial on January 19, 2016. Ali
parties appeared. Prior to trial the court had ordered matters
deemed admitted pursuant to plaintiff's motion for deemed
admitted. Plaintiff submitted this order and based on this in
the underlying documents court entered judgment herein in favor
of plaintiff. The court requested plaintiff to prepare an order
for judgment which plaintiff did with a copy to defendant.

Defendant has now made a motion which does not provide anylegal basis with a potpourri of allegations and claims.

Plaintiff believes of this motion should be denied out of hand.

ARGUMENT

1. Defendant's motion fails to provide a legai basis or
authority and thus is improper. A "memorandum must contain a
statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence anc
arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases,
and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”
CRC Rule 3.1114. It is clear from defendant's moving papers that
she prefers no judgment be entered, but nothing more. She has
sat on her hands in this matter for months, ignored plaintiff's
discovery, motions, and this court’s orders which inevitably
lead to this judgment, and offers no explanation.

2. Defendant's motion appears to be a motion for new trial.
The grounds for granting a motion for new trial are set forth ini
CCP §657. A motion for new trial is provided only by statute and
requires evidence for one of the statutory basis. None of the
grounds appear to relate to the instant case and there appears
to be no basis for granting a motion for new trial.

VidDated:

February 4,

2016

CONCLUSION

By.

Defendant's motion does not appear to be timely made wit

any legal cognizable basis and should be denied out of hand.

a“

STEVEN A. BOOSKA
Attorney for Plaintiff