On June 30, 2015 a
Judgment
was filed
involving a dispute between
Itc Financial Licenses, Inc.,
The Bancorp Bank (Incorrectly Sued As The Bancorp,,
Schuldiner, Stan P.O. Box,
and
Schuldiner, Stan P.O. Box,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Court of California
Super of San Francisco
Stan Schuldiner
PO Box 15203 DS
San Francisco, CA 94115 MAR 015-2020
CLE F THE CQURT
Attorney for Respondent BY
" Deputy Clerk
Discovery
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
CPF — 15 — 514368
ITC,
espondent’s Reply to amend judgment;
v. emo
SCHULDINER
9 AM, March 13, 2020
Dept 302
The timeliness issue was settled in Palmer v. GTE (2003) 30 Cal.4" 1265, 1277.
The order granting reconsideration and ordering costs is dated 10/10/19. ITC agrees that it
never served the order, and the register of actions contains no allegation of service by ITC. ITC
points out merely that the clerk served it. What ITC misses is that the clerk’s proof of service does}
not contain the words “upon order by the court,” and the court never ordered the clerk to make
service. Palmer held, under these circumstances, the deadlines do not yet start to run.
ITC agrees the deadline for filing a motion for new trial runs only from after service of the
order. Also, ITC agrees a motion for relief from judgment under CCP 473(b) can be filed within 6
months of the judgment. (Six months have not even run from 10/10/19.) ITC finally agrees a
motion to vacate judgment also starts running only after service.
All deadlines are satisfied.
The 10/10/19 order does not order the clerk to make service. It is therefore not even too
late to appeal the order. In Palmer v. GTE (2003) 30 Cal.4™ 1265, 1277, the court held that, if thev
clerk makes service of judgment, but the court did not expressly order the clerk to make service
and the clerk did not state on the proof of service “upon order by the court,” then the clerk’s
service is not considered for deadlines.
Moreover, as stated in the motion, Buyer was unable io get a reservation number to file a
motion because he does not have a law firm email address, and the court’s spam filter rejects his
email. As also stated in the motion, the court clerk is not answering the phone number on the
court’s website to try to get around the spam filter. Buyer has not filed any motion since 10/10/19
even with the second lawsuit.
Wherefore, this motion should be granted.
Respectfully submitted
D
Respondent, 3/3/20Proof of Service
lam an individual resident of San Francisco, CA. I am over 18. I served by first class mail on
3/3/20 the attached papers and declaration upon Mathew Wrenshall, attorney for petitioner, at
his email address of record in this action:
REED SMITH LLP
355 SOUTH GRAND AVE, # 2900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed 3/3/20.
Respectfully submitted
Respondent
Document Filed Date
March 05, 2020
Case Filing Date
June 30, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.