Preview
Peter L. Weber - 218473
Allen Kuo - 281775
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
} 5 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94108-5530
Tel: (415) 788-1900 FILED
: 393- Superior Ce of Californi
Fax: (415) 393-8087 Monee oan fa,
Attorneys for Defendants 04/11/2016
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and jerk or tneieourt
BRIAN CARIDEO Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602
Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT
v. LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND
SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO
corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California professional TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16
corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT, an individual;
BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual; and DOES 1 Date: April 20, 2016
through 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Defendants.
Reservation No. 01250226-03
DOF: August 16, 2013
Trial Date: None
Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO hereby
request that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents, which are attached:
Exhibit “1” — Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David Brillant
and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16.
Exhibit “2” — Second Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David
Brillant and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16.
-1-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J.
BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16Exhibit “3” — Notice of Plaintiff's Late Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David
Brillant and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16.
California Evidence Code section 452(a) allows this Court to take judicial notice of the
decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States. Evidence Code Section
452(d) allows this Court to take judicial notice of records of any Court of this state or any court of
record of the United States or of any state of the United States. Evidence Code Section 452(h) allows
this Court to take judicial notice of facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and
are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable
accuracy.
Furthermore, California Evidence Code section 453 states that a request for permissive judicial
notice is conditionally mandatory if sufficient notice of the request is given to the adverse party, and
the Court is furnished with sufficient information to take judicial notice of the records requested. Cal.
Evid. Code Sec. 453. Here, Defendants have given statutory notice of this request pursuant to the
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 and has furnished the Court and the adverse party of
the documents.
DATED: April 11, 2016
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
By
Peter k, Weber
Attorneys for Defendants
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
PLW.21061129_1.doc
>
-2-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J.
BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare:
Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or
interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10 Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94108.
On April 11, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW
FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail.
The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class
postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San
Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows:
VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through
v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic
service list.
Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff
BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
1315 Seventh Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff
HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
588 Sutter Street, Suite 560
San Francisco, CA 94102
Charles S. Redfield Attorney For Defendants
LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN
505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC.
San Francisco, CA 94111
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on April 11, 2016.
teal
Hannah K. Lincecum
ae
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J.
BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16EXHIBIT 1
to Request for Judicial Noticeuw
Peter L. Weber - 218473
Allen Kuo - 281775 ELECTRONICALLY
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor ee
San Francisco, CA 94108-553: County of San Francisco
Tel: (415) 788-1900
Fax: (415) 393-8087 O27, feese,
BY-GARY FELICIANO
Attorneys for Defendants Deputy Clerk
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602
Plaintiff, STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM,
Be DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN
SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE
corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California
professional corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT, | Date: February 26, 2016
an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual; | Time: 9:30 a.m.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Dept.: 302
Defendants. Reservation No. 01250226-03
DOF: August 16, 2013
Trial Date: None
Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed
their Motion to Strike and served all parties on January 29, 2016. Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS’
Opposition was due on February Il, 2016. As of February 16, 2016, Plaintiff YOSHABEL
CLEMENTS has failed to file and serve an opposition to Defendants’ motion within the statutory
period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b).
Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes
the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4" 1403, 1410.)
Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of
-1-
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN
CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety, including an Order stating that:
1) Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO are
dismissed with prejudice;
2) Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO are
awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statute.
DATED: February 16, 2016 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
By
Peter LNWeber ©
Attorneys\for Defendants
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
PLW.21038506.doc
on
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN
CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.CP § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare:
Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or
interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94108-5530.
On February 16, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID
BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail.
The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class
v postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San
Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows:
Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff
BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
1315 Seventh Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff
HANLIN LAW FIRM ‘YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
588 Sutter Street, Suite 560
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ramsey F. Kawar Attorney For Defendants
LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN
505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC.
San Francisco, CA 94111
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on February 16, 2016.
Hemal fl)
Hannah K. Lincecum
3h
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN
CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.CP § 425.16EXHIBIT 2
to Request for Judicial Noticeuw
Peter L. Weber - 218473
Allen Kuo - 281775
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
S 5 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94108-553:
Tel: (415) 788-1900 FILED
Fax: (415) 393-8087 ee ee
Attorneys for Defendants 03/09/2016
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and Plork’of the Court)
BRIAN CARIDEO Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602
Plaintiff, SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
Be BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO
corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California
professional corporation; DAVID J. Date: March 29, 2016
BRILLANT, an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, Time: 9:30 a.m.
an individual; and DOES | through 50, Dept.: 302
inclusive,
Reservation No. 01250226-03
Defendants.
DOF: August 16, 2013
Trial Date: None
L INTRODUCTION
Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed and
served all parties with their Motion to Strike on January 29, 2016, and the hearing was set for February
26, 2016. Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS’ Opposition was due on February 11, 2016. Plaintiff
YOSHABEL CLEMENTS never served an Opposition, but instead appeared on the day of the hearing
to request a continuance of the hearing and Opposition filing date. The request was granted. This
Court reset the hearing for March 29, 2016. Plaintiffs Opposition was due on March 7, 2016 and
Defendants’ Reply due on March 18, 2016.
-1-
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw
Plaintiff has once again failed to timely file and serve an Opposition to Defendants’ motion.
Plaintiff's failure is the latest instance of her and her counsel’s blatant disregard for deadlines set forth
in the California Code of Civil Procedure and by this Court.
Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This action was filed on August 16, 2013. (Declaration of Peter Weber (“Weber Decl.”), {2.)
On October 29, 2013, Defendant SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC. (“Sojourn”) filed a motion to strike
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”). (Weber Decl., §3.) On
November 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Weber Decl., §4.) On December
30, 2013, Defendant Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion was granted. (Weber Decl., 45.)
On February 25, 2014, Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN
CARIDEO filed their own Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., §6.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal of the order granting Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. As a result, the case was
stayed and the hearing on Defendant Brillant’s motion was stayed as well. (Weber Decl., §7.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion.
(Weber Decl., §8.) On January 25, 2016, Defendant Brillant attempted to re-notice the hearing on
Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, but was informed that the entire motion needed to be re-filed. On
January 29, 2016, Brillant re-filed essentially the exact motion that was filed on February 25, 2014 and
served all necessary parties. Plaintiff has had the subject motion in her possession for almost two (2)
years. (Weber Decl., §9.)
The hearing for Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was originally set for February 26, 2016.
Plaintiff's Opposition was due on February 11, 2016, (Weber Decl., 410.) On February 9, 2016, two
(2) days before Plaintiff's Opposition was due, Brillant’s counsel Peter Weber received a call from
attorney Joe Bravo requesting a continuance of the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion because
attorney John Hanlin was in trial. Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that an ex parte application would
be made on February 10, 2016. (Weber Decl., §11.) On February 10, 2016, Mr. Bravo informed Mr.
Weber that they would not be appearing that day, but would appear on February 11, 2016. On
February 11, 2016, Mr. Bravo’s office again informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing ex
parte. Plaintiff failed to file her Opposition on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 412.)
-2-
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw
On February 23, 2016, three days before the hearing and having failed to file an Opposition,
Mr. Hanlin informed Mr. Weber’s office that he would be appearing ex parte on February 24, 2016 to
request a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. (Weber Decl., 413.) On
February 24, 2016, Mr. Hanlin appeared before the Court ex parte and advised that he had not filed the
ex parte application and requested permission to appear on February 25, 2016. Even though notice
was untimely, Mr. Weber agreed to appear to oppose the application on February 25, 2016. Mr. Weber
appeared on February 25, 2016; however, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared. (Weber Decl., 14.)
On the day of the hearing, Mr. Hanlin appeared and requested a continuance of the hearing so
that he could file an Opposition. His stated excuse for not filing an Opposition was that he was in trial,
even though Plaintiff had co-counsel in Bravo & Margulies. This Court agreed to continue the hearing
to March 29, 2016. Plaintiff requested, and this Court agreed, to allow Plaintiff to file an Opposition
on March 7, 2016. Defendants’ Reply is due on March 18, 2016. (Weber Decl., 15.)
Plaintiff failed to timely file her Opposition on March 7, 2016. (Weber Decl., 16.)
On March 8, 2016, the day after the Opposition was due, Mr. Hanlin left a voicemail for Mr.
Weber advising that he would be appearing ex parte on March 9, 2016 to request permission to file a
late Opposition. Mr. Weber appeared on March 9, 2016 to oppose the ex parte application. Once
again, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared to present_an ex parte application. As of the filing of this
pleading, Plaintiff has yet to file her Opposition. (Weber Decl., 17.)
I. ANALYSIS
A, Plaintiff Should Not Be Permitted to File a Late Opposition Because She Was Previously
Given a Chance to File an Opposition and Failed to Meet Her Requested Deadline
Plaintiff has blatantly ignored the statutory deadline for filing an Opposition to Defendants’
motion. She then requested more time and was given an extension by the Court, but she has again
ignored the deadline requested by her attorney. Plaintiff should not be given another chance and
Defendants’ motion should be granted.
Defendants would be prejudiced by another continuance of the hearing as the motion was
originally filed in February 2014 and the hearing was stayed due to Plaintiffs ill-fated appeal.
Defendants were entitled to have their motion heard on February 26, 2016, which was over two years
-3-
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw
after their motion was filed. Defendants are entitled to have this motion heard on March 29, 2016.
Plaintiff was given a chance to file an Opposition and she failed.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f):
The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the
complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it
deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for
a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless
the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. [Emphasis
added.]
The hearing for Defendants’ motion was set in accordance with the statute. It was moved not
because of the “docket conditions of the court,” but because of Plaintifi’s disregard of her deadline to
file. Plaintiff has again disregarded the deadline to file, which is even more egregious because it is her
second time and because her attorney informed this Court that an Opposition would be filed on March
7, 2016.
B. Plaintiff is Precluded From Presenting Oral Argument and Defendants’ Motion Must Be
Granted
Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes
the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4™ 1403, 1410.)
Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety.
Il. © CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has twice failed to timely file an Opposition. Plaintiff should be precluded from
presenting oral argument and Defendant’s motion should be granted.
DATED: March 9, 2016 MURPH, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
By
Peter L\Weber
Attorneys for Defendants
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
PLW.21048136.doc
-4-
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare:
Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or
interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94108-5530.
On March 9, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW
FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO
C.C.P § 425.16
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail.
The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class
postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San
Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows:
VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through
v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic
service list.
Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff
BRAVO & MARGULIES YYOSHABEL CLEMENTS
1315 Seventh Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff
HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
588 Sutter Street, Suite 560
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ramsey F. Kawar Attorney For Defendants.
LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN
505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC.
San Francisco, CA 94111
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on March 9, 2016.
By a
Hannah K. Lincecum
-5-
SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16EXHIBIT 3
to Request for Judicial Noticeuw
Peter L. Weber - 218473
Allen Kuo - 281775
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-5530
Telephone: (415) 788-1900
Facsimile: (415) 393-8087
Attorneys for Defendants
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
04/05/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY:GARY FELICIANO
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California
corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual;
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California
professional corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT,
an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: CGC-13-533602
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO
STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
Date: April 20, 2016
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Reservation No. 01250226-03
DOF:
Trial Date:
August 16, 2013
None
I INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Yoshabel Clements’ Opposition was due on April 1, 2016. As of April 4, 2016, the
Register of Actions does not reflect that the Opposition has been filed.' Plaintiff has now missed three
(3) deadlines to file her Opposition.
The parties appeared at the hearing for Defendants’ motion on March 29, 2016. Plaintiff again
asked for and received a continuance of the hearing date so that she could file an Opposition to the
! Plaintiff hand served a binder with pleadings at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2016.
-1-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16motion. The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiff to file her Opposition no later than April 1,
2016. The hearing was re-set a second time to April 20, 2016. As of April 4, 2016, Plaintiff served
some documents on Defendants, but has not filed her Opposition.
Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This action was filed on August 16, 2013. (Declaration of Peter Weber (“Weber Decl.”), §2.)
On October 29, 2013, Defendant SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC. (“Sojourn”) filed a motion to strike
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”). (Weber Decl., 93.) On
November 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Weber Decl., 44.) On December
30, 2013, Defendant Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion was granted. (Weber Decl., 5.)
On February 25, 2014, Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN
CARIDEO filed their own Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., 46.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal of the order granting Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. As a result, the case was
stayed and the hearing on Defendant Brillant’s motion was stayed as well. (Weber Decl., 7.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion.
(Weber Decl., §8.) On January 25, 2016, Defendant Brillant attempted to re-notice the hearing on
Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, but was informed that the entire motion needed to be re-filed. On
January 29, 2016, Brillant re-filed essentially the exact motion that was filed on February 25, 2014 and
served all necessary parties. Plaintiff has had the subject motion in her possession for almost two (2)
years. (Weber Decl., 9.)
The hearing for Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was originally set for February 26, 2016.
Plaintiff's Opposition was due on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 10.) On February 9, 2016, two
(2) days before Plaintiffs Opposition was due, Brillant’s counsel Peter Weber received a call from
attorney Joe Bravo requesting a continuance of the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion because
attorney John Hanlin was in trial. Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that an ex parte application would
be made on February 10, 2016. (Weber Decl., §11.) On February 10, 2016, Mr. Bravo informed Mr.
Weber that they would not be appearing that day, but would appear on February 11, 2016. On
February 11, 2016, Mr. Bravo’s office again informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing ex
parte. Plaintiff failed to file her Opposition on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 12.)
ole
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16On February 23, 2016, three days before the hearing and having failed to file an Opposition,
Mr. Hanlin informed Mr. Weber’s office that he would be appearing ex parte on February 24, 2016 to
request a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. (Weber Decl., 413.) On
February 24, 2016, Mr. Hanlin appeared before the Court ex parte and advised that he had not filed the
ex parte application and requested permission to appear on February 25, 2016. Even though notice
was untimely, Mr. Weber agreed to appear to oppose the application on February 25, 2016. Mr. Weber
appeared on February 25, 2016; however, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared. (Weber Decl., {[14.)
On the day of the hearing, Mr. Hanlin appeared and requested a continuance of the hearing so
that he could file an Opposition. His stated excuse for not filing an Opposition was that he was in trial,
even though Plaintiff had co-counsel in Bravo & Margulies. This Court agreed to continue the hearing
to March 29, 2016. Plaintiff requested, and this Court agreed, to allow Plaintiff to file an Opposition
on March 7, 2016. Defendants’ Reply was due on March 18, 2016. (Weber Decl., 915.)
Plaintiff failed to timely file her Opposition on March 7, 2016. (Weber Decl., 416.)
On March 8, 2016, the day after the Opposition was due, Mr. Hanlin left a voicemail for Mr.
Weber advising that he would be appearing ex parte on March 9, 2016 to request permission to file a
late Opposition. Mr. Weber appeared on March 9, 2016 to oppose the ex parte application. Once
again, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared to _present_an ex parte application. (Weber Decl., 17.)
Thereafter, Mr. Hanlin advised Mr. Weber nearly every day up to the hearing date of his intent to
appear ex parte, only to retract the notice the morning of the appearance. Mr. Hanlin finally appeared
ex parte on March 28, 2016, but the Court declined to consider his request because he failed to file his
ex parte papers or serve them on counsel for Defendants. (Weber Decl., 4118.)
On March 28, 2016, a tentative ruling issued granting Defendants’ motion because Plaintiff did
not file her Opposition. Plaintiff gave timely notice challenging the ruling. On March 29, 2016 at 8:49
a.m., Defendants’ counsel Peter Weber received an email from John Hanlin, counsel for Plaintiff. The
email attached four documents:
1. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and/or to Admit into Evidence the Deposition
Testimony of Steven G. King Given in the Underlying Unlawful Detainer Action Filed in Support of
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike;
-3-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.162. Plaintiff's Request to Take Judicial Notice of the Court Records Within the Case File of the
Prior Unlawful Detainer Action of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No, CUD-11-
639673, Filed in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike;
3. Plaintiff's Notice of Lodging of Deposition Transcripts of Galo Dzib and Steven G. King
From the Unlawful Detainer Case of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No. CUD-11-
639673, in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P.
§425.16; and
4. Plaintiffs Request to the Clerk of the San Francisco Superior Court and to the Clerk of Dept.
302 that the Case File of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No. CUD-11-639673, Be
Delivered to Dept. 302 and Be Present in the Courtroom for the Hearing of Defendants’ Motion to
Strike. (Weber Decl., §19.)
At the hearing of Defendants’ Motion to Strike on March 29, 2016, Mr. Hanlin hand served Mr.
Weber a binder containing what appeared to be the full deposition transcript of Steven G. King, the
exhibits thereto, and both volumes of the deposition of Galo Dizb, as well as the exhibits. (Weber
Decl., 20.) At the hearing, Plaintiff again requested a continuance of the hearing so that she could file
her Opposition. Plaintiff was given another chance. Plaintiff's counsel John Hanlin was instructed
that he must file and serve his entire Opposition no later than April 1, 2016. The Court stated that if
the documents were not filed and served by April 1, 2016, the Opposition would not be considered.
(Weber Decl., 421.)
April 1, 2016 came and went. Plaintiff did not serve her complete Opposition on Defendants.
Notably, Defendants did not receive a memorandum of points and authorities on April 1; however,
Plaintiff did serve the memorandum at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2016, three days late.
(Weber Decl., 22.) Counsel for Defendants checked the online register for the case on the San
Francisco Superior Court website on April 1, April 4 and April 5, 2016 (prior to filing this document).
The register does not reflect that the memorandum has been filed. (Weber Decl., §23.)
Defendants’ Reply is due on April 11, 2016. Defendants fully intend to submit a timely Reply,
but Plaintiff's dilatory tactics have prejudiced Defendants’ time to prepare the Reply. (Weber Decl.
24.)
-4-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16Il. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff Should Not Be Permitted to File a Late Opposition Because She Was Previously
Given Three Chances to File an Opposition and Failed to Meet the Deadline Each Time.
Plaintiff blatantly ignored the statutory deadline for filing an Opposition to Defendants’
motion. She then requested more time and was given two extensions by the Court, but she has again
ignored the deadlines. Plaintiff should not be given another chance, any late Opposition should be
stricken and Defendants’ motion should be granted.
Defendants would be prejudiced by another continuance of the hearing as the motion was
originally filed in February 2014 and the hearing was stayed due to Plaintiff's ill-fated appeal.
Defendants were entitled to have their motion heard on February 26, 2016, which was over two years
after their motion was filed. Defendants were entitled to have this motion heard on March 29, 2016.
Plaintiff was given a three chances to timely file an Opposition and she failed.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f):
The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the
complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it
deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for
a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless
the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. [Emphasis
added.]
The hearing for Defendants’ motion was set in accordance with the statute. It was moved not
because of the “docket conditions of the court,” but because of Plaintiff's disregard of her deadline to
file. Plaintiff has again disregarded the deadline to file, which is even more egregious because it is her
second time and because her attorney informed this Court that an Opposition would be filed on March
7, 2016 and then on April 1, 2016. As of April 5, 2016, the Opposition has not been filed.
B. Plaintiff is Precluded From Presenting Oral Argument and Defendants’ Motion Must Be
Granted.
Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes
the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4" 1403, 1410.)
Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no Opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety.
-5-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16Tl.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has thrice failed to timely file an Opposition. Plaintiff should be precluded from
presenting oral argument and Defendant’s motion should be granted.
DATED: April 5, 2016
PLW.21058858.doc
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
By
Peter L.\Weber
Attorneys’ for Defendants
BRILLANT LAW FIRM DAVID BRILLANT and
BRIAN CARIDEO
-6-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare:
Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or
interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94108.
On April 5, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action:
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW
FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO
C.C.P. § 425.16
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail.
The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class
postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San
Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows:
VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through
v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic
service list.
Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff
BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
1315 Seventh Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff
HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS
588 Sutter Street, Suite 560
San Francisco, CA 94102
Charles S. Redfield Attorney For Defendants
LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN
505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC.
San Francisco, CA 94111
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on April 5, 2016.
wena
Hannah K. Lincecum
7
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT
AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
Preview
Peter L. Weber - 218473 Allen Kuo - 281775 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor } 5 ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94108-5530 Tel: (415) 788-1900 FILED : 393- Superior Ce of Californi Fax: (415) 393-8087 Monee oan fa, Attorneys for Defendants 04/11/2016 BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and jerk or tneieourt BRIAN CARIDEO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602 Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT v. LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California professional TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT, an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual; and DOES 1 Date: April 20, 2016 through 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Defendants. Reservation No. 01250226-03 DOF: August 16, 2013 Trial Date: None Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO hereby request that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents, which are attached: Exhibit “1” — Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David Brillant and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16. Exhibit “2” — Second Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David Brillant and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16. -1- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16Exhibit “3” — Notice of Plaintiff's Late Opposition to Defendants Brillant Law Firm, David Brillant and Brian Carideo’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16. California Evidence Code section 452(a) allows this Court to take judicial notice of the decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States. Evidence Code Section 452(d) allows this Court to take judicial notice of records of any Court of this state or any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States. Evidence Code Section 452(h) allows this Court to take judicial notice of facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Furthermore, California Evidence Code section 453 states that a request for permissive judicial notice is conditionally mandatory if sufficient notice of the request is given to the adverse party, and the Court is furnished with sufficient information to take judicial notice of the records requested. Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 453. Here, Defendants have given statutory notice of this request pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 and has furnished the Court and the adverse party of the documents. DATED: April 11, 2016 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY By Peter k, Weber Attorneys for Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO PLW.21061129_1.doc > -2- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare: Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10 Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108. On April 11, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows: VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic service list. Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 1315 Seventh Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 588 Sutter Street, Suite 560 San Francisco, CA 94102 Charles S. Redfield Attorney For Defendants LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC. San Francisco, CA 94111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on April 11, 2016. teal Hannah K. Lincecum ae REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT, AND BRIAN CARIDEO’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16EXHIBIT 1 to Request for Judicial Noticeuw Peter L. Weber - 218473 Allen Kuo - 281775 ELECTRONICALLY MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor ee San Francisco, CA 94108-553: County of San Francisco Tel: (415) 788-1900 Fax: (415) 393-8087 O27, feese, BY-GARY FELICIANO Attorneys for Defendants Deputy Clerk BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602 Plaintiff, STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, Be DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California professional corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT, | Date: February 26, 2016 an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual; | Time: 9:30 a.m. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Dept.: 302 Defendants. Reservation No. 01250226-03 DOF: August 16, 2013 Trial Date: None Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed their Motion to Strike and served all parties on January 29, 2016. Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS’ Opposition was due on February Il, 2016. As of February 16, 2016, Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS has failed to file and serve an opposition to Defendants’ motion within the statutory period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b). Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4" 1403, 1410.) Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of -1- STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety, including an Order stating that: 1) Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO are dismissed with prejudice; 2) Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO are awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statute. DATED: February 16, 2016 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY By Peter LNWeber © Attorneys\for Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO PLW.21038506.doc on STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.CP § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare: Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108-5530. On February 16, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action: STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class v postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows: Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 1315 Seventh Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff HANLIN LAW FIRM ‘YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 588 Sutter Street, Suite 560 San Francisco, CA 94102 Ramsey F. Kawar Attorney For Defendants LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC. San Francisco, CA 94111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on February 16, 2016. Hemal fl) Hannah K. Lincecum 3h STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.CP § 425.16EXHIBIT 2 to Request for Judicial Noticeuw Peter L. Weber - 218473 Allen Kuo - 281775 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor S 5 ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94108-553: Tel: (415) 788-1900 FILED Fax: (415) 393-8087 ee ee Attorneys for Defendants 03/09/2016 BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and Plork’of the Court) BRIAN CARIDEO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-13-533602 Plaintiff, SECOND STATEMENT OF NON- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS Be BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California professional corporation; DAVID J. Date: March 29, 2016 BRILLANT, an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, Time: 9:30 a.m. an individual; and DOES | through 50, Dept.: 302 inclusive, Reservation No. 01250226-03 Defendants. DOF: August 16, 2013 Trial Date: None L INTRODUCTION Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed and served all parties with their Motion to Strike on January 29, 2016, and the hearing was set for February 26, 2016. Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS’ Opposition was due on February 11, 2016. Plaintiff YOSHABEL CLEMENTS never served an Opposition, but instead appeared on the day of the hearing to request a continuance of the hearing and Opposition filing date. The request was granted. This Court reset the hearing for March 29, 2016. Plaintiffs Opposition was due on March 7, 2016 and Defendants’ Reply due on March 18, 2016. -1- SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw Plaintiff has once again failed to timely file and serve an Opposition to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff's failure is the latest instance of her and her counsel’s blatant disregard for deadlines set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure and by this Court. Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action was filed on August 16, 2013. (Declaration of Peter Weber (“Weber Decl.”), {2.) On October 29, 2013, Defendant SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC. (“Sojourn”) filed a motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”). (Weber Decl., §3.) On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Weber Decl., §4.) On December 30, 2013, Defendant Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion was granted. (Weber Decl., 45.) On February 25, 2014, Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed their own Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., §6.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order granting Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. As a result, the case was stayed and the hearing on Defendant Brillant’s motion was stayed as well. (Weber Decl., §7.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., §8.) On January 25, 2016, Defendant Brillant attempted to re-notice the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, but was informed that the entire motion needed to be re-filed. On January 29, 2016, Brillant re-filed essentially the exact motion that was filed on February 25, 2014 and served all necessary parties. Plaintiff has had the subject motion in her possession for almost two (2) years. (Weber Decl., §9.) The hearing for Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was originally set for February 26, 2016. Plaintiff's Opposition was due on February 11, 2016, (Weber Decl., 410.) On February 9, 2016, two (2) days before Plaintiff's Opposition was due, Brillant’s counsel Peter Weber received a call from attorney Joe Bravo requesting a continuance of the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion because attorney John Hanlin was in trial. Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that an ex parte application would be made on February 10, 2016. (Weber Decl., §11.) On February 10, 2016, Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing that day, but would appear on February 11, 2016. On February 11, 2016, Mr. Bravo’s office again informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing ex parte. Plaintiff failed to file her Opposition on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 412.) -2- SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw On February 23, 2016, three days before the hearing and having failed to file an Opposition, Mr. Hanlin informed Mr. Weber’s office that he would be appearing ex parte on February 24, 2016 to request a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. (Weber Decl., 413.) On February 24, 2016, Mr. Hanlin appeared before the Court ex parte and advised that he had not filed the ex parte application and requested permission to appear on February 25, 2016. Even though notice was untimely, Mr. Weber agreed to appear to oppose the application on February 25, 2016. Mr. Weber appeared on February 25, 2016; however, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared. (Weber Decl., 14.) On the day of the hearing, Mr. Hanlin appeared and requested a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. His stated excuse for not filing an Opposition was that he was in trial, even though Plaintiff had co-counsel in Bravo & Margulies. This Court agreed to continue the hearing to March 29, 2016. Plaintiff requested, and this Court agreed, to allow Plaintiff to file an Opposition on March 7, 2016. Defendants’ Reply is due on March 18, 2016. (Weber Decl., 15.) Plaintiff failed to timely file her Opposition on March 7, 2016. (Weber Decl., 16.) On March 8, 2016, the day after the Opposition was due, Mr. Hanlin left a voicemail for Mr. Weber advising that he would be appearing ex parte on March 9, 2016 to request permission to file a late Opposition. Mr. Weber appeared on March 9, 2016 to oppose the ex parte application. Once again, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared to present_an ex parte application. As of the filing of this pleading, Plaintiff has yet to file her Opposition. (Weber Decl., 17.) I. ANALYSIS A, Plaintiff Should Not Be Permitted to File a Late Opposition Because She Was Previously Given a Chance to File an Opposition and Failed to Meet Her Requested Deadline Plaintiff has blatantly ignored the statutory deadline for filing an Opposition to Defendants’ motion. She then requested more time and was given an extension by the Court, but she has again ignored the deadline requested by her attorney. Plaintiff should not be given another chance and Defendants’ motion should be granted. Defendants would be prejudiced by another continuance of the hearing as the motion was originally filed in February 2014 and the hearing was stayed due to Plaintiffs ill-fated appeal. Defendants were entitled to have their motion heard on February 26, 2016, which was over two years -3- SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw after their motion was filed. Defendants are entitled to have this motion heard on March 29, 2016. Plaintiff was given a chance to file an Opposition and she failed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f): The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. [Emphasis added.] The hearing for Defendants’ motion was set in accordance with the statute. It was moved not because of the “docket conditions of the court,” but because of Plaintifi’s disregard of her deadline to file. Plaintiff has again disregarded the deadline to file, which is even more egregious because it is her second time and because her attorney informed this Court that an Opposition would be filed on March 7, 2016. B. Plaintiff is Precluded From Presenting Oral Argument and Defendants’ Motion Must Be Granted Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4™ 1403, 1410.) Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety. Il. © CONCLUSION Plaintiff has twice failed to timely file an Opposition. Plaintiff should be precluded from presenting oral argument and Defendant’s motion should be granted. DATED: March 9, 2016 MURPH, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY By Peter L\Weber Attorneys for Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID J. BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO PLW.21048136.doc -4- SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16uw CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare: Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108-5530. On March 9, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action: SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows: VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic service list. Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff BRAVO & MARGULIES YYOSHABEL CLEMENTS 1315 Seventh Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 588 Sutter Street, Suite 560 San Francisco, CA 94102 Ramsey F. Kawar Attorney For Defendants. LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC. San Francisco, CA 94111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on March 9, 2016. By a Hannah K. Lincecum -5- SECOND STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16EXHIBIT 3 to Request for Judicial Noticeuw Peter L. Weber - 218473 Allen Kuo - 281775 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-5530 Telephone: (415) 788-1900 Facsimile: (415) 393-8087 Attorneys for Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 04/05/2016 Clerk of the Court BY:GARY FELICIANO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO YOSHABEL CLEMENTS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation; STEVEN G. KING, an individual; BRILLANT LAW FIRM, a California professional corporation; DAVID J. BRILLANT, an individual; BRIAN CARIDEO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: CGC-13-533602 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16 Date: April 20, 2016 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Reservation No. 01250226-03 DOF: Trial Date: August 16, 2013 None I INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Yoshabel Clements’ Opposition was due on April 1, 2016. As of April 4, 2016, the Register of Actions does not reflect that the Opposition has been filed.' Plaintiff has now missed three (3) deadlines to file her Opposition. The parties appeared at the hearing for Defendants’ motion on March 29, 2016. Plaintiff again asked for and received a continuance of the hearing date so that she could file an Opposition to the ! Plaintiff hand served a binder with pleadings at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2016. -1- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16motion. The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiff to file her Opposition no later than April 1, 2016. The hearing was re-set a second time to April 20, 2016. As of April 4, 2016, Plaintiff served some documents on Defendants, but has not filed her Opposition. Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action was filed on August 16, 2013. (Declaration of Peter Weber (“Weber Decl.”), §2.) On October 29, 2013, Defendant SOJOURN PROPERTIES, INC. (“Sojourn”) filed a motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”). (Weber Decl., 93.) On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Weber Decl., 44.) On December 30, 2013, Defendant Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion was granted. (Weber Decl., 5.) On February 25, 2014, Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO filed their own Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., 46.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order granting Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. As a result, the case was stayed and the hearing on Defendant Brillant’s motion was stayed as well. (Weber Decl., 7.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on Sojourn’s Anti-SLAPP motion. (Weber Decl., §8.) On January 25, 2016, Defendant Brillant attempted to re-notice the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, but was informed that the entire motion needed to be re-filed. On January 29, 2016, Brillant re-filed essentially the exact motion that was filed on February 25, 2014 and served all necessary parties. Plaintiff has had the subject motion in her possession for almost two (2) years. (Weber Decl., 9.) The hearing for Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was originally set for February 26, 2016. Plaintiff's Opposition was due on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 10.) On February 9, 2016, two (2) days before Plaintiffs Opposition was due, Brillant’s counsel Peter Weber received a call from attorney Joe Bravo requesting a continuance of the hearing on Brillant’s Anti-SLAPP motion because attorney John Hanlin was in trial. Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that an ex parte application would be made on February 10, 2016. (Weber Decl., §11.) On February 10, 2016, Mr. Bravo informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing that day, but would appear on February 11, 2016. On February 11, 2016, Mr. Bravo’s office again informed Mr. Weber that they would not be appearing ex parte. Plaintiff failed to file her Opposition on February 11, 2016. (Weber Decl., 12.) ole NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16On February 23, 2016, three days before the hearing and having failed to file an Opposition, Mr. Hanlin informed Mr. Weber’s office that he would be appearing ex parte on February 24, 2016 to request a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. (Weber Decl., 413.) On February 24, 2016, Mr. Hanlin appeared before the Court ex parte and advised that he had not filed the ex parte application and requested permission to appear on February 25, 2016. Even though notice was untimely, Mr. Weber agreed to appear to oppose the application on February 25, 2016. Mr. Weber appeared on February 25, 2016; however, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared. (Weber Decl., {[14.) On the day of the hearing, Mr. Hanlin appeared and requested a continuance of the hearing so that he could file an Opposition. His stated excuse for not filing an Opposition was that he was in trial, even though Plaintiff had co-counsel in Bravo & Margulies. This Court agreed to continue the hearing to March 29, 2016. Plaintiff requested, and this Court agreed, to allow Plaintiff to file an Opposition on March 7, 2016. Defendants’ Reply was due on March 18, 2016. (Weber Decl., 915.) Plaintiff failed to timely file her Opposition on March 7, 2016. (Weber Decl., 416.) On March 8, 2016, the day after the Opposition was due, Mr. Hanlin left a voicemail for Mr. Weber advising that he would be appearing ex parte on March 9, 2016 to request permission to file a late Opposition. Mr. Weber appeared on March 9, 2016 to oppose the ex parte application. Once again, no one from Plaintiff's side appeared to _present_an ex parte application. (Weber Decl., 17.) Thereafter, Mr. Hanlin advised Mr. Weber nearly every day up to the hearing date of his intent to appear ex parte, only to retract the notice the morning of the appearance. Mr. Hanlin finally appeared ex parte on March 28, 2016, but the Court declined to consider his request because he failed to file his ex parte papers or serve them on counsel for Defendants. (Weber Decl., 4118.) On March 28, 2016, a tentative ruling issued granting Defendants’ motion because Plaintiff did not file her Opposition. Plaintiff gave timely notice challenging the ruling. On March 29, 2016 at 8:49 a.m., Defendants’ counsel Peter Weber received an email from John Hanlin, counsel for Plaintiff. The email attached four documents: 1. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and/or to Admit into Evidence the Deposition Testimony of Steven G. King Given in the Underlying Unlawful Detainer Action Filed in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike; -3- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.162. Plaintiff's Request to Take Judicial Notice of the Court Records Within the Case File of the Prior Unlawful Detainer Action of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No, CUD-11- 639673, Filed in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike; 3. Plaintiff's Notice of Lodging of Deposition Transcripts of Galo Dzib and Steven G. King From the Unlawful Detainer Case of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No. CUD-11- 639673, in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. §425.16; and 4. Plaintiffs Request to the Clerk of the San Francisco Superior Court and to the Clerk of Dept. 302 that the Case File of Sojourn Properties Inc. v. Yoshabel Clements, Case No. CUD-11-639673, Be Delivered to Dept. 302 and Be Present in the Courtroom for the Hearing of Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (Weber Decl., §19.) At the hearing of Defendants’ Motion to Strike on March 29, 2016, Mr. Hanlin hand served Mr. Weber a binder containing what appeared to be the full deposition transcript of Steven G. King, the exhibits thereto, and both volumes of the deposition of Galo Dizb, as well as the exhibits. (Weber Decl., 20.) At the hearing, Plaintiff again requested a continuance of the hearing so that she could file her Opposition. Plaintiff was given another chance. Plaintiff's counsel John Hanlin was instructed that he must file and serve his entire Opposition no later than April 1, 2016. The Court stated that if the documents were not filed and served by April 1, 2016, the Opposition would not be considered. (Weber Decl., 421.) April 1, 2016 came and went. Plaintiff did not serve her complete Opposition on Defendants. Notably, Defendants did not receive a memorandum of points and authorities on April 1; however, Plaintiff did serve the memorandum at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2016, three days late. (Weber Decl., 22.) Counsel for Defendants checked the online register for the case on the San Francisco Superior Court website on April 1, April 4 and April 5, 2016 (prior to filing this document). The register does not reflect that the memorandum has been filed. (Weber Decl., §23.) Defendants’ Reply is due on April 11, 2016. Defendants fully intend to submit a timely Reply, but Plaintiff's dilatory tactics have prejudiced Defendants’ time to prepare the Reply. (Weber Decl. 24.) -4- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16Il. ANALYSIS A. Plaintiff Should Not Be Permitted to File a Late Opposition Because She Was Previously Given Three Chances to File an Opposition and Failed to Meet the Deadline Each Time. Plaintiff blatantly ignored the statutory deadline for filing an Opposition to Defendants’ motion. She then requested more time and was given two extensions by the Court, but she has again ignored the deadlines. Plaintiff should not be given another chance, any late Opposition should be stricken and Defendants’ motion should be granted. Defendants would be prejudiced by another continuance of the hearing as the motion was originally filed in February 2014 and the hearing was stayed due to Plaintiff's ill-fated appeal. Defendants were entitled to have their motion heard on February 26, 2016, which was over two years after their motion was filed. Defendants were entitled to have this motion heard on March 29, 2016. Plaintiff was given a three chances to timely file an Opposition and she failed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f): The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. [Emphasis added.] The hearing for Defendants’ motion was set in accordance with the statute. It was moved not because of the “docket conditions of the court,” but because of Plaintiff's disregard of her deadline to file. Plaintiff has again disregarded the deadline to file, which is even more egregious because it is her second time and because her attorney informed this Court that an Opposition would be filed on March 7, 2016 and then on April 1, 2016. As of April 5, 2016, the Opposition has not been filed. B. Plaintiff is Precluded From Presenting Oral Argument and Defendants’ Motion Must Be Granted. Failure to file opposition papers is an admission that the motion was meritorious and precludes the party from presenting at oral argument. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4" 1403, 1410.) Therefore, because Plaintiff filed no Opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 should be granted in its entirety. -5- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16Tl. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has thrice failed to timely file an Opposition. Plaintiff should be precluded from presenting oral argument and Defendant’s motion should be granted. DATED: April 5, 2016 PLW.21058858.doc MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY By Peter L.\Weber Attorneys’ for Defendants BRILLANT LAW FIRM DAVID BRILLANT and BRIAN CARIDEO -6- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah K. Lincecum, declare: Iam a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108. On April 5, 2016, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the within action: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16 BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as follows: VIA FILE & SERVE: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through v File & Serve Xpress addressed to all parties appearing on the File & Serve Xpress electronic service list. Joseph K. Bravo Attorney For Plaintiff BRAVO & MARGULIES YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 1315 Seventh Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 John G. Hanlin Attorney For Plaintiff HANLIN LAW FIRM YOSHABEL CLEMENTS 588 Sutter Street, Suite 560 San Francisco, CA 94102 Charles S. Redfield Attorney For Defendants LOW, BALL & LYNCH STEVEN G. KING and SOJOURN 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor PROPERTIES, INC. San Francisco, CA 94111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on April 5, 2016. wena Hannah K. Lincecum 7 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRILLANT LAW FIRM, DAVID BRILLANT AND BRIAN CARIDEO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16