Motion-Secondary: NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-05-2013 3:24 pm

Case Number: CUD-13-644474
Filing Date: Apr-05-2013 3:13
Filed by:

Juke Box: 001 Image: 04007736
DECLARATION

NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS

001004007736

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27

28

MARK THOMAS EDWARDS a
PRO SE -LITIGANTS

2048 Polk Street #303

SF, CA 94109 ’ t
415.240-0191 F

Be, &
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA aU PZ)
COUNTY AND CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO %, re
NAIR PATEL, ) Case No.: CUD-13-644474
)
Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION SUPPORTING
} DEFENDANT- MARK THOMAS EDWARDS;
vs.
) Jigmmeat Moti Fei son SAL
MARK THOMAS EDWARDS, ) New wR PROHIBIT IG |
) Hearing: April 24, 2013
Defendant. / } Dep’t: 501
)

Hearing Judge: Row d_ Que la cha
Action filed: February 25, 2013
Trial Date: unknown

I MARK THOMAS EDWARDS, declares:

1. That Iam legal resident of the city and county of San Francisco.

2. That I am also the defendant in the above entitled action pending by plaintiff , Nasir Patel
filed by on February 25, 2013.

3. That on date February 26, 2013 a procedural violation of both due process and equal protection

was committed by plaintiff and his agents in failure of substantial compliance with governing both
California Court Rules and Code of Civil Procedural Rules having a “prejudicial impact” on the hereof
declarant/ defendant (See attached Procedure Minutes)

4, That at March 18, 2013 hearing on defendant Motion To Dismiss and Strike/ or Stay was
correctly entered declarant/ defendant hereof and denied by the court who remain silent on the existence
that he lack jurisdiction over the above case due to violation that defendant had not been adequate service
in violation of his First and Fourteen Constitutional Amendment.

[Attached Appendix ‘A — E’]

DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 1.27

28

5. That at that point declarant/ defendant had not been prejudice by the court until he was compelled’

Respond to an invalid complaint lack legal jurisdiction over proceeding s on February 25" 2013,
ordering declarant/ defendant hereof to respond to Order within 5 days after receiving it by mail.

6. That the declarant/defendant attempt to address on regards of the violation(s) but his rights were
waived from addressing existing argumentative bases of constitutional standings.

7. on Friday March 22, 2012 nor the after neither the March 18, 2013 Court Order nor the
February 26, Court Notice of Summon and Complain filed his answer to complaint out of both
coercion and compulsory procedure tactics used against him.

[See Appendix ‘A’]

8. That defendant did not become aware that his rights were unconstitutional waive by means
of “Deceit and Unfair Competition” within means of Civil Code § 1709 and Code § 17200 of California
Business and Profession.

9. That declarant/ defendant hereof here of had been compelled to rely on all access to proceedings
, by attendance at Court Record Room Department #106 at 400 McAllister Street of San Francisco, CA .
Whereas his access to the case online as “Pro Se — Litigant” has been unlawfully restricted pursuant to
Code §1161.2 further cause injury in this matter.

10. That since the “substantial compliance” was not met by plaintiff in reference of the records of
minute order files.

a) Proof of service was not timely filed in supported of plaintiff cause of action based upon
stipulation of the by the court minute records, b) that plaintiff circumvented the process where hearing
for administrative exhaustion was currently pending on March 26, 2013 and was given notice to both
plaintiff and defendant on prior to plaintiff filing his court complaint hereof which the declarant hereof

had patiently waited the process sine it filing on November __, 2012.

11. That in according with both California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 414.40, nor 413. 13 and

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT-CIVIL, declarant/defendant is entitle to

DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 1.Both motions for Entry of Default and Default Judgment and imposed sanctions well as
declaratory relief hereof, as of procedural rights to governing court rules.

12, That By California Constitution, Article 1,§§7____ and 15___declarant/declarant cannot
Be answer to filed complaint against him which lack of any legal jurisdiction of civil matter and second
Whereas in-volunteer protected liberty was/ and had been tainted and unlawfully waive in violation of

equal protection and due process by coercion.

Governing Local Court Rule of Court:
Rule 3.1. (4) Local court rules adopted under the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act.

Rule 3.110. Time for service of complaint, cross-complaint, and response

(a) Application

This rule applies to the service of pleadings in civil cases except for collections cases under rule
3.740(a), unlawful detainer actions, proceedings under the Family Code, and other proceedings for
which different service requirements are prescribed by law.

(b) Service of complaint

The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants
must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. When the complaint is
amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed
within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

(c) Service of cross-complaint

A cross-complaint against a party who has appeared in the action must be accompanied by proof of
service of the cross-complaint at the time it is filed. If the cross-complaint adds new parties, the
cross-complaint must be served on all parties and proofs of service on the new parties must be filed
within 30 days of the filing of the cross-complaint.

(d) Timing of responsive pleadings
The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time
period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint.

(e) Modification of timing; application for order extending time

The court, on its own motion or on the application of a party, may extend or otherwise modify the
times provided in (b)-(d). An application for a court order extending the time to serve a pleading
must be filed before the time for service has elapsed. The application must be accompanied by a
declaration showing why service has not been completed, documenting the efforts that have been
made to complete service, and specifying the date by which service is proposed to be completed.

Mt

DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 1.(f) Failure to serve
Ifa party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order
extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall

not be imposed.

g) Request for entry of default
If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of

time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the
time for service has elapsed. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not bd
imposed if the plaintiff fails to timely file the request for the entry of default.

(h) Default judgment

When a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default
judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court
has granted an extension of time. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed if that party fails to obtain entry of judgment against a defaulting party or to request
an extension of time to apply for a default judgment within that time.

(i) Order to show cause
Responsive papers to an order to show cause issued under this rule must be filed and served at least 5

calendar days before the hearing.

13, That such error was committed in “bad faith” causing both prejudice and legal expense incurred.

Hereafter I the declarant, Edwards sayeth not:

I DECLARE UNDER PEALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE GIVEN

STATEMENTS HEREOF ARE BOTH TRUE AND CORRECT
Date hereof on April@4, 2013

tee THOMAS EDWARDS

PRO SE - LITIGANT

DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 1.Aoppowd os feSuperior Court of California, County of San Francisco

‘Case Information
CUD-13-644474

Register of Actions

Date Proceedings Fee
Mar-22-2013 DECLARATION OF MARK EDWARDS FILED BY DEFENDANT d
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
Mar-22-2013 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT a

EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
Mar-18-2013 UNLAWFUL DETAINER MOTION 501, DEFENDANT MARK EDWARDS' NOTICE OF MOTION
TO DISMISS OR TO STAY ACTION IS DENIED. DEFENDANT FAILED TO SUSTAIN
THE BURDEN PER CCP410.30 AND/OR 418.10. DEFENDANT HAS FIVE (5) DAYS TO
ANSWER. THE PREVAILING PARTY TO PREPARE AN ORDER. JUDGE RONALD E.
QUIDACHAY, CLERK: J. RUMSEY, NOT REPORTED
Mar-18-2013 MINI MINUTES FOR MAR-18-2013 09:30 AM FOR DEPT 501
Mar-11-2013 DECLARATION OF MARK EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT a
FILED BY DEFENDANT a.
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS .

Mar-11-2013 COPYING FEES (6 PAGE) PAID BY DEFENDAN' IFP
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
Mar-04-2013 9 TAKE JUDIICIAL NTC OF SUPPORTIVE RECORDS OF EDWARDS MOTION FOR CAUSE d

HEREOF FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS

Mar-04-2013 POS OF MTN FOR STAY OR DISMISSAL FILED BY DEFENDANT d
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS

Mar-04-2013 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE a

Mar-04-2013 PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY DEFENDANT d
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS

Mar-04-2013 MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT IFP d

EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
HEARING SET FOR APR-15-2013 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 501

Mar-01-2013 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION d

Mar-01-2013 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT d
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS

Mar-01-2013 NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY ACTION; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IFP d

FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
HEARING SET FOR MAR-18-2013 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 501
Mar-01-2013 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, d
CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C.
68634 (E), CRC 3.52

Feb-25-2013 NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS d
Feb-25-2013 UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF 240.00 d
PATEL, NASIR
THE ANNEXED INSTRUMENTIS A
AS TO DEFENDANT CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS ON FILE IN MY OFFICE

ATTEST: CERTIFIED

APR 03 2013

SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED

Printed Apr-03-2013 8:40 am Page -1-Superior Court of Calitornia, County ot San Francisco

Case Information
CUD-13-644474
NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS (Limited)

Date

Register of Actions
Proceedings Fee

Mar-22-2013

Mar-22-2013

Mar-18-2013

Mar~18-2013

Mar-11-2013

Mar-11-2013

Mar-04-2013

Mar-04-2013

Mar-04-2013

Mar-04-2023

Mar-04-2013

Mar-01-2013

Mar-01-2013

Mar-01-2013

Mar-01-2013

Feb-25-2013
Feb-25-2013

DECLARATION OF MARK EDWARDS FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
UNLAWFUL DETAINER MOTION 501, DEFENDANT MARK EDWARDS' NOTICE OF MOTION
TO DISMISS OR TO STAY ACTION IS DENIED, DEFENDANT FAILED TO SUSTAIN
THE BURDEN PER CCP410.30 AND/OR 418.10. DEFENDANT HAS FIVE (5) DAYS TO
ANSWER. THE PREVAILING PARTY 70 PREPARE AN ORDER. JUDGE RONALD E.
QUIDACHAY, CLERK: J. RUMSEY, NOT REPORTED
MINI MINUTES FOR MAR-16-2013 09:30 AM FOR DEPT 501
DECLARATION OF MARK EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
COPYING FEES (6 PAGE) PAID BY DEFENDANT - IFP
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
TAKE JUDIICIAL NTC OF SUPPORTIVE RECORDS OF EDWARDS MOTION FOR CAUSE
HEREOF FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
POS OF MIN FOR STAY OR DISMISSAL FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT IFP
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
HEARING SET FOR APR-15-2013 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 501
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY ACTION; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IFP
FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
HEARING SET FOR MAR-18-2013 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 501
APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633,
CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C.
68634 (E), CRC 3.52
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS
UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF 240.00
PATEL, NASIR
AS TO DEFENDANT
EDWARDS, MARK THOMAS
SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILEDip B- c.I SUM-130
RT USE ONLY
SUMMONS (soto pana usd peta conrs)
(CITACION JUDICIAL) '
UNLAWFUL DETAINER—EVICTION
(RETENCION ILICITA DE UN INMUEBLE—-DESALOJO)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):

MARK THOMAS EDWARDS

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
NASIR PATEL

You have § CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have @ copy
served on the plaintiff. (To calculate the five days, count Saturday and Sunday, bul do not count other cour! holidays. If the last day falls on a
Salurday, Sunday, or a court holiday then you have the next court day to file a written response.) A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your
written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to-hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response.
You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Sell-Help Center (www. courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county
law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not!file your response on
lime, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the cout,

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an atlorney, you may be eligible for ree tegal services from @ nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lian for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

Tiene 5 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esia cilacion y papeles legales pare presentar una respuestalpor escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. (Para calcular ios cinco dias, cuente los sabados y los domingos peraino los otros dias
feriados de la corte. Si el ultimo dia cae en sabado 0 domingo, o en un dia en que la corte esté cerrada, tiene hasta el proximo dla de corte para
presentar una respuesta por escrito). Una carta 0 una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrilo tiene que estar en formato legal
correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ja corte. Es posible que haya un-formulario que usled pueda usar para su respuesta, Puede encontrar
estos formularios de la corte y mas informacién en e! Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.suconte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de
su condado 0 en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Sino puede pagar la cvola de presentacion, pide al secrelario de la corte que le dé un formulario
de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumpiimiento y la corte le podré quitar su sueido,
dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia

Hay otros requisitos jegales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio
de remisién a abogaclos. Sino puede pagar a un abogads, es posible que cumple con jos requisilos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin lines de lucro en el silio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en ef Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorle.ca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con Ia corte 0 ef
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reciamar las cuotas y los costos exenlos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil, Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de ia cone antes de que la corte pueda desechar ef caso. |

1. The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es) fume cegacey

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 400 MC CALLISTER ST SF CA 94102 |
2, The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: ZL Vio lee.
(El nombre, la direccion y e! numero de teléfono del abogado de! demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene\abogado, es):

NASIR PATEL BROADWAY HOTEL 2048 POLK ST SF CA 94109 415 260 3905

idid not (~] did
(If plaintiff has received any help or advice for pay from an unlawful

3. (Must be answered in all cases) An unlawful detainer assistant (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6400-6415)
for compensation give advice or assistance with this form.

detainer assistant, complete item 6 on the next page.) Pi ray arm:
Date re 25 202 mee" Clen , Deputy
(Fecha) “~ {Secretario) (Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (lorm POS-010))
(Para prueba de entrega de esta cilation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons (POS-010))
Sea 4. NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
a a5 an individual defendant.
b as (he person sued under the fictitious name of (specify).
c. {jas an occupant
d. [[7] on behalf of (specify)
under: [=] cep 416.10 (corporation) } CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) (2) ccp 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association or parinersnip) L—_] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
| CCP 445.46 (occupant) [1] other (specify):
5 [7] by personal delivery on (date)
Form Adopioa for Monaaiory Use 2

slcieial Council of Calforia, SUMMONS—UNLAWFUL DETAINER—EVICTION
Suni 130 Row Jy 1 2008) |THREE DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR VACATE

MARK THomAS EDWARDS
BROADWAY HOTEL 2048 POLK ST. RM NO a0 a
San Francisco, CA 94109-2520
(And all other occupants in possession)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you are required to pay the balance of past due rents which

accrued during the period from: [1-4-1 to but not including
0.2 - I-13, totaling $ 660, oo within THREE DAYS after

Service on you of this Notice or to deliver up possession of said premises to your lesser or the
Undersigned who is authorized to accept same or legal proceeding will be commenced against you to
recover possession of said premises, to declare a forfeiture of the underlying rental agreement by which
you now hold possession thereof, and for any past due rents, daily rental damages, statutory damages,
and costs incurred by reason of said suit.

You are further advised that ADVICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE AT THE SAN-
FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD and this Notice complies
with the applicable rent-control ordinance for the just cause reason that the tenant has failed to pay the
rent to which the landlord is lawfully entitled. The name, telephone number, and address of the person
to whom the rent payment shall be made as well as the usual days and hours that person will be
available to receive any payment in person is below listed

Dated: 25-13 Nasir Patel Landlord or on duty desk clerk
BROADWAY HOTEL, 2048 POLK St, San Francisco, CA 94109-2520

B (415) 260-3905 Hours: Daily 10:00am-8:00 pm at front desk

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE
|, the undersigned, declare that | served the above notice on the following person at the address shown above and in the
manner indicated (Who, Where and how served):

PERSONAL SERVICE: By personally delivering a copy of the notice on (date/time) to each person above
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE (Sub.& Mall): By leaving a copy for each person above on (date)
with who is person of suitable age and discretion at the residence or usual

place of business of the person named above, such person being absent there from; and then mailing on the same date by first
class mail to each person named above a copy placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the
above person and depositing same in the United States Mail.
_CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE (Nail & Mail): By Posting a copy of each of the persons named above on (date), ina
Conspicuous place on the property therein described, there being no person of suitable age or discretion at any known place of
residence or business of said person; and then mailing on the same date by first class mail to each person named above a copy
placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the above person at the place posted and depositing
same in the United States Mail.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States of California that the foregoing is true and correct and
that it is based upon my personal knowledge such that if called as a witness, | could testify competently thereto.

Dated:

{Signature & Printed name of declarant)
St, San Francisco, CA
(415)260-3905 File No. PNX1.

A.tee ~
THREB.. A” NOTICE T REN) OF (ACATE

PARK THomAsS EDWARDS
BROADWAY HOTEL 2048 POLK ST.RMNO 80 a
San Francisco, CA 94109-2520
(And all other occupants in possession)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you are required to pay the balance of past due rents which

accrued during the period from: [- 14-13 to but not including
I-13, totaling $ 6 6 0, oo within THREE DAYS after

Service on you of this Notice or to deliver up possession of said premises to your lesser or the
Undersigned who is authorized to accept same or legal proceeding will be commenced against you to
recover possession of said premises, to declare a forfeiture of the underlying rental agreement by which
you now hold possession thereof, and for any past due rents, daily rental damages, statutory damages,
and costs incurred by reason of said suit.

You are further advised that ADVICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE AT THE SAN-
FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD and this Notice complies
with the applicable rent-control ordinance for the just cause reason that the tenant has failed to pay the
rent to which the landlord is lawfully entitled. The name, telephone number, and address of the person
to whom the rent payment shall be made as well as the usual days and hours that person will be
available to receive any payment in person is below listed

Dated: 2.5: /3 Nasir Patel Landiord or on duty desk clerk
BROADWAY HOTEL, 2048 POLK St, San Francisco, CA 94109-2520

@ (415) 260-3905 Hours: Daily 10:00am-8:00 pm at front desk

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE
|, the undersigned, declare that | served the above notice on the following person at, the address shown above and in the

manner indicated (Who, Where and how served): 2/53 SF 777

_X_PERSONAL SERVICE: By personally delivering a copy of the notice on (date/time) to each person above

“T CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE (Sub.& Mall): By leaving a copy for each person above on (date)
with who is person of suitable age and discretion at the residence or usual

place of business of the person named above, such person being absent there from; and then mailing on the same date by first
class mail to each person named above a copy placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the
above person and depositing same in the United States Mail.
_CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE (Nail & Mail): By Posting a copy of each of the persons named above on (date). ina
Conspicuous place on the property therein described, there being no person of suitable age or discretion at any known place of
residence or business of said person; and then mailing on the same date by first class mail to each person named above a copy
placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the above person at the place posted and depositing
same in the United States Mail.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States of California that the foregoing is true and correct and

that it is based upon my personal knowledge such thi J. asa witness, | could testify ree thereto
ates: 2.2%. 13 x atu ¢ Pepys fac Koha
8 ture & Printed name of declarant)
fHeate Hor O} K St, San Francisco, CA 1 4) )

(415)260-3905 File No. PNX1

2
YOApe Lg

2SSr-Z0LP6 WO ‘Oos|ouRs4 UES
OOP “Wy “eA SSAN URA LOY
AYVHEIT MVT OOSIONVHYS NVSSan Francisco Law Library

emer Ss we sflawlibrary@sfgov.org
SAN FRANCISCO 401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 400 = San Francisco, CA 94102
LAW LIBRARY (415) 554-682 12 hetp://www.sflawlibrary.com

April 4, 2013

Mr. Mark Edwards

Re: Suspension of Library Privileges for the remainder of the day — Intimidating Library staff and
speaking loudly in the Library

Dear Mr. Edwards:

You have been warned on many occasions that you have spoken too loudly and must lower your voice
so as to not disturb others in the Library, Again this afternoon, your voice was a disturbance and when
the librarian asked you to lower your voice you suddenly stood up and confronted her in an intimidating
manner. Your library privileges are suspended for the remainder of the day, and you must leave the
library. Failure to comply with the Patron Rules in this respect again will result in a longer suspension of
Library privileges.

Specifically, Rules 2 and 14 of the Patron Rules of Conduct provide that:

2. Patrons shall respect the rights of other Library patrons and Library staff. Soliciting,
harassing, offending, intimidating or disturbing Library patrons or staff is strictly
prohibited. California Penal Code §602. 1 (b). Library users are not permitted to solicit
business from other patrons. Patrons who are not members of the California State Bar
are not permitted to offer legal advice or otherwise violate California Business &
Professions Code §61 25.

14. For the courtesy of other patrons, quiet is expected throughout the Library. Pagers,

cell phones, personal copiers, scanners, or other noisy equipment are not permitted.
Patrons may engage in quiet conversation so long as other patrons are not disturbed.

Please adhere to all library rules and directives of staff, so that your use of the library will not be
jeopardized. Attached is a copy of the library rules of conduct.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Head Reference LibrarianCLAIM AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Before completing this form please read the instructions on the back. Untimely claims will be returned. Please submit
this form and supporting documentation to the Controller’s Office, Claims Division, 1390 Market Street, 7" Floor,

San Francisco, CA 94102 in person or by mail.
* =REQUIRED ** = REQUIRED IF KNOWN

4. Claimant’s Name and Home Address (Please Print Clearly)

* Mark Thomas Edwards

2. Send Official Notices and Correspondence to:
*

2048 Polk Street #303

03/07/1955 562-98-1117

city San Francisco, CA Zip 94109 City Zip

Dayime Evening Caldlar Daytime Evening Cellular
Telephone (415) 240-0191 Telephone
3. Date of Birth 4. Social Security Number 5. Date of Incident \6. Time of Incident (aM or Pm)

* 04/04/2013 ** 12:30 pm / 1:00 pm

7. Location of Incident or Accident
i :
San Francisco Legal Law Library

8. Claimant Vehicle License Plate #, Type, Mileage, and Year
+

9. Basis of Claim. State in detail all facts and circumstances of the incident. Identify all persons, entities, property and City
departments involved. State why you believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage or loss.
* 1) Unlawful discriminatory treatment and interference with access to the court under pending case.

2) Librarian Andrea Woods had no right to tell a facility user to "shut up" and her position to for ill

treatment & manipulate of her administrator to deprive me access to the court, 3) Librarian Wood's

Supervisor/ Administrator had a obligation to confront and consult with both parties and fail to do so.

Name, !.D. Number and City Department

Type of City Vehicle

Vehicle License Number and Bus or Train Number

of City Employee who allegedly caused injury or loss
ae

pe

10. Description of Claimant's injury, property damage or loss

+ Filing of Timely Motions in Case

41, Amount of Claimant's property damage or loss and
method of computation. Attach supporting
documentation. (See Instructions)

ITEMS.

onwene

TOTAL AMOUNT $

Court Jurisdiction: Limited (up to $25,000) 1
Unlimited (over $25,000) 0

12. Witnesses (if any) Name Address Telephone
1.

2

13. Do Not Write In This Space

* 04/04/2013

Signature of Claimant or Representative Date

Print Name

Claimant

Relationship to

CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PRESENTING A FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT CLAIM IS IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH.
(PENAL CODE §72)

CAIFORM 03112Attachment of Complaint Continuance

4) Librarian Administrator had an obligation to bring in parties into her office and all witnesses sitting
within immediate area, yet fail to do this. 5) This is part of the ongoing discriminatory treatment
suffered by In Propria Persona self-attorney’s.

Approximately between 12:30 pm and/or 1:00 pm on Dwayne Lester with his case as well filing a motion
in my defense with pending cause in Superior Court. In discussing relevant issues and going over specific
evidence, Librarian Andrea Wood approaches my sit while using the online database service informing
to keep my mouth shut.

And there threat to kick out of the library, by means of intimidation and coercion if | did not comply
with her direct intimidating order. Other people around me observe the situation and agreed to be
witnesses.

THE Library is current under city pressure of closing and librarian Wood has been snapping at target
client users on her person dislike list and frequently single out designated clientsSan Francisco Law Library
Patron Rules of Conduct

401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 400 (415) 554-6821 www. sflawlibrary.org

The staff of the San Francisco Law Library welcomes you. We are here to assist you.
Please help us keep the Library safe and pleasant for everyone by following these rules.

USING THE LIBRARY

1) Access and enjoyment of the Library is for use of the Library's legal information resources and services.

2) Patrons shall respect the rights of other Library patrons and Library staff. Soliciting, harassing, offending,
intimidating or disturbing Library patrons or staff is strictly prohibited. California Penal Code §602.1(b). Library users
are not permitted to solicit business from other patrons. Patrons who are not members of the California State Bar
are not permitted to offer legal advice or otherwise violate California Business & Professions Code §6125.

3) Theft, abuse, vandalism, mutilation, marring, marking, defacing, or otherwise damaging of the books, building,
equipment, furniture, or other objects in the Library is prohibited. California Penal Code
$490.5, §594; Education Code §19910, §19911.

4) Walkways and aisles shall be kept clear and unobstructed by patrons or their personal effects.

5) Computer sessions automatically end and all print jobs must be retrieved and paid for 15 minutes before the
library closes; copiers are shut down 15 minutes before closing.

6) Failure to comply with Library rules, the directives of staff, or to cooperate with staff in their enforcement of these
rules may result in the loss or suspension of Library privileges. Repeated failures to comply with Library rules or staff
directives will result in the loss or suspension of Library privileges for longer periods.

USE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS & COMPUTERS

7) Law Library computers are reserved for legal research and access to the online catalog, only. Legal
research means using law-related databases such as Lexis, Westlaw & government sites. Other uses of library
computers are not permitted, such as preparation of personal documents and use of general internet sites, e.g.,
Craigslist, eBay, Amazon, shopping, travel, and social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Appropriate computer
& legal research use is determined by Library staff. Computer use is limited to 60 minute sessions at a time.
Patrons must register for each individual 60 minute increment. Failure to comply with computer use rules can
result in the loss of computer and/or Library privileges.

8) Patrons may use battery-powered laptop or notebook computers in the Library, provided their use is quiet enough
not to disturb others. Patrons shall not use electrical outlets, except in the designated area for laptop use only, or
unplug Library equipment.

9) Accessing the Library computer system, programs or data without authorization is prohibited. Peripheral devices
(printers, CD-ROM drives, keyboards, scanners, etc.) may not be used in the Library.

10) No materials shall be removed from the Library unless they have been checked out to the patron by a librarian;
and all materials must be returned when due. Failure to do so can result in loss of Library privileges and/or payment
of replacement and administrative costs.

11) Patrons shall not conceal or hide Library materials for their exclusive use. Pocket parts or loose-leaf pages may
be removed from books briefly to be photocopied on the Library's copiers and shall be returned by the patron to the

book promptly.
1Agpodton BeCerra
re teere te NE Ag ee

213 JAN-2 PM 1:00

SF we STURN TIAL REE
STABILIZATION A

THO hs

To: Employees/ Landlords/Third Parties Advocate in Their Behave
From: Edwards, Mark T.

cc: Pro Bono Litigation Committee on Human Rights

Date: January 2, 2013

Re: Tenant Protective Rights Against: (Unlawful Trespassing/ Vandalism/ 3° Party
Retaliatory Treatment Illegal Monitoring)

2048 Polk Street #303
San Francisco, CA 94109

Informative Notice of Violations Incurred:

Residential-Tenant(s) protective rights secure by and under provisions of “Fair Housing Act,”
per 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. of U.S. Constitutions, Statutory Laws and SF City Renters Administrative
Ordinance (37.10B of SF Municipal Guidelines).

THAT ANY Employees/ Landlords/or used Third Parties Advocate, acting in the capacity of vigilante
which infringe on a tenant rights of “peaceful enjoyment” or cause act(s) intimidation disturbing that
right violates tenants establish mutual agreement with intent.

THAT ANY Empioyees/ Landlords/or used Third Parties Advocate, ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING
without the required “24 Hour Notice”, shall be deemed “with intent” of vandalism and theft.

THAT ANY Employees/ Landlords/or used Third Parties Advocate, causing structural damages to a
tenant-resident property while the person is absence from both room and property site, shall be deem
by means of “retaliatory purposes”.

THAT ANY Employees/ Landlords/or used Third Parties Advocate, that with purpose of laying and

waiting for tenant-residence to leave and return, intentionally monitoring all their residential movement,
including use of others to eavesdrop. \e= STA\KIN Gr)

California Civil Code §§ 1709, 1940.1-1954.
California Government Code §§ 12955

California Business & Profession Code §§ 17200

Tha La
Mark Edwards ‘

Residential-Tenant2048 Polk Street #303
San Francisco, CA 94109

Su
TET EW a 5m

Memo

To: Employees/ Landlords/used Third Parties Advocate
From: Edwards, Mark T.

cc: Pro Bono Litigation Committee on Human Rights
Date: January 2, 2013

Re: NON-COHABIT ABILITY / “ILLEGAL USED MONITORING, STALKING AND
EAVESDROPPING

Informative Notice of Violations Incurred:
Residential/Tenant(s) protective rights under provisions of

° “Fair Housing Act" 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. and SF City Renters Administrative Ordinance
(37.10B of SF Municipal Guidelines)

¢ “California Stalking- Harassment Law”, prohibits Employees/ Landlords/ used Third Parties
Advocate, from disturbing a tenant “peaceful enjoyment” soliciting others from engaging in
intimidation or co-conspiracy actions as vigilante.

THAT landlords/ and their agents are restricted from activities that impose “intentional inflicts” deemed
as retaliatory, against a tenant challenging or pursuing investigation of non-cohabit ability conditions,
using adverse tactics in violation of human rights.

THAT landlords/ and their agents are responsible for “reckless disregarded” slum conditions which
impose potential threat, health defects or contamination, diseases or imposed risk factors.

THAT landlords/ and their agents allowing conditions of pest (bed bugs) and rodents non-consistent
protocol treatment, violations the mutual agreement established with tenant of right to “Fair Housing”.

THAT landlords/ and their agents using third parties to “stalk, monitor or harass” tenant who pursuing a
investigation against them shall be deemed by used “retaliatory treatment.”

California Civil Code §§ 1709, 1940.1-1954.
California Government Code §§ 12955.8

California Business & Profession Code §§ 17200

SE EL ee
Ecards Mamt
Residential-TenantAoper’ 2 JEIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT DUNN, : Civil Action
a minor by and through :
his mother and natural guardian, :
Robin TATUM, :

Plaintiff, :
v. :
SKATE 22, INC., : No. 97-2373

Defendant.

M nt R T I
L D) IN

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 1997, upon consideration of the motion
of defendant Skate 22, Inc. to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the complaint of plaintiff
Robert Dunn for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) (Document No. 4), and all subsequent memoranda submitted by the parties, and having
found and concluded that:

1, The following facts are based upon the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint. See Miree v. DeKalb County, 433 U.S. 25, 27 n.2 (1977); Kost v.
Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). On March 31, 1996 plaintiff was
allegedly injured at a skating rink in Union, New Jersey. Plaintiff was and
continues to be a resident of Pennsylvania. Defendant Skate 22, Inc. is a New
Jersey corporation that owns, manages and controls the skating rink where
plaintiff was injured. On March 6, 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas alleging that defendant negligently caused
plaintiff's injuries. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated a number
of New Jersey skating rink regulations when defendant failed to post adequate
safety warnings in the rink, employed too few rink-side supervisory guards, and
failed to properly maintain and inspect the rink. On April 7, 1997, upon
defendant's petition, the case was removed, as a diversity case, to the United

1States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 14, 1997,

defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, to transfer the action, under
28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), to a more appropriate venue in New Jersey;

2. Removal
It is well settled that if the state court would lack jurisdiction over a party,

the federal court acquires none upon removal. Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S.
232, 242 n.17 (1981), Yet, plaintiff makes the unpersuasive and legally
unsupported argument that defendant waived any objection to this Court's
jurisdiction by removing the case before challenging personal jurisdiction in the
state court. What plaintiff offers is simply not the law.

Removal, in itself, does not constitute a waiver of the right to object to
lack of jurisdiction that could have been exercised in the state court. Morris &
Co. v. Skandinavia Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 401, 409 (1928); Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v.
Peaslee, 88 F.3d 152, 157 n.4 (2d Cir. 1996); Nationwide Eng'g & Control Sys.,
Inc. v, Thomas, 837 F.2d 345, 347-48 (8th Cir. 1988); Allen v, Ferguson, 791
F.2d 611, 614-15 (7th Cir. 1986); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure: Civil 2d § 1395 (1990); see also Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110,
1113 n.2 (1st Cir. 1993) (“[F]iling of a removal petition in a diversity action,

without more, does not waive the right to object in federal court to the state court
venue.”); Baumgart v, Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 981 F.2d 824, 835 (Sth Cir, 1993)
(removal to federal court from state court did not prevent defendant from later
moving to dismiss under forum non conveniens or to transfer), cert. denied, 508
U.S. 973. After removal, the federal court merely takes up the case where the
state court procedurally left off. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of
Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 436 (1974) (citation omitted).

After removing an action, a defendant who "has not answered ... shall... .
present the other defenses or objections available under the [Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c).' Thus, after removal, a defendant may
assert any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction so long as she does so before
filing responsive pleadings and the motion is otherwise proper. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h\(1).’ Prior to the filing of its motion to dismiss in this Court, defendant had
not raised any other preliminary objections. Moreover, defendant has not

" In addition, Rule 81(c) places time limitations on the filing of answers or objections. Defendant
has satisfied these time limitations. Defendant filed the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction only seven
days after receiving summons, well within the twenty-day limit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c).

? Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1) provides:

A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the Person . . . is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the
circumstances described in subdivision (g) [governing consolidation of defenses], or (B) if it is
neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment
thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.

2answered the complaint. And, in its petition for removal, defendant does not, in
any way, waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, I find that
defendant has not jeopardized its right to press for dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction or transfer of this case;

3. Standard of Review

Once the defendant raises a jurisdiction defense, the burden of establishing
the court's jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. Provident Nat'l Bank v. California
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987). The jurisdictional
allegations of plaintiff must be supported by competent evidence, that is,
affidavits, documents, or depositions. Ti i
Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 67 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984). All conflicts or doubts
unresolved by competent evidence must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff.
DiMark Marketing, Inc. v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 913 F. Supp.
402, 404 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

A federal district court is permitted to exercise "personal jurisdiction over
nonresident of the state in which the court sits to the extent authorized by the law
of that state." Provident, 819 F.2d at 436. Pennsylvania's long-arm statute
provides for both general and specific jurisdiction to the "fullest extent allowed
under the Constitution of the United States and may be based on the most
minimum contacts with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the
United States." 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b) (West 1981). The due process
limit on a long-arm statute is satisfied when the defendant purposefully
establishes "minimum contacts” in the forum state, by deliberately engaging in
significant activities or by creating continuing obligations such that he has
"availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there." Burger King
Corp. v, Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985); Intemational Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945), These acts must be "such that [a
defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court [in the forum

state]." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980);

4.

Aside from arguing that defendant has waived its right to challenge this
Court's jurisdiction, which I have rejected, plaintiff makes no showing in support
of jurisdiction. Plaintiff offers no assertions or proof that would establish
personal jurisdiction in this Court.

Under Pennsylvania Law, general jurisdiction exists over corporations in
only three circumstances: (1) when the corporate defendant is incorporated or
qualifies as a foreign corporation under Pennsylvania law, (2) when the corporate
defendant consents, or (3) when the corporate defendant carries on “continuous
and systematic part of its general business" in Pennsylvania. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. § 5301(a)(2) (West 1981). However, when personal jurisdiction is asserted
over a nonresident corporation on a basis other than physical presence, consent, or
doing business, the claim must arise from a specific act in the forum. 42 Pa.

3Cons. Stat. Ann § 5322(b) (West 1981); Burger King Corp, v. Rudzewicz, 471
US. 462, 472-73 (1985); Schwilm v, Holbrook, 661 F.2d 12 (3d Cir. 1981);
Estoril v. Brown, 556 F. Supp. 153 (E.D. Pa. 1983). In either instance, the
defendant must have been an active participant in the forum state.

In this case, plaintiff has not established that either specific or personal
jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff has neither shown nor even asserted that defendant
had any contacts whatsoever with Pennsylvania. To the contrary, the complaint
alleges that defendant is a business corporation located at and doing business in
New Jersey, and owns and manages a rink in New Jersey. The complaint further
alleges that plaintiff sustained injuries while on defendant’s premises in New
Jersey. In short, any negligence for which the defendant might be liable was
committed in New Jersey. The fact that a Pennsylvania resident sustains injuries,
out of state, which result in residual harm within the state is not a sufficient basis
for personal jurisdiction. See Dunnigan v. Silverthorn, 542 F. Supp. 32, 33 (E.D.
Pa. 1982); DeFay v. McMeekin, 508 A.2d 324, 326 (Pa. Super. 1986). Therefore,
I conclude that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing personal
jurisdiction in this Court;

5. Dismissal or Transfer
Finally, finding that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the

defendant does not fully dispose of the case. This Court must now decide whether
to grant defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer the case to a
more appropriate forum in New Jersey.> This Court recognizes that dismissal
could potentially prejudice plaintiff by suddenly throwing him outside the statute
of limitations of another forum, whereas transfer would hold in abeyance all
statutes of limitations. See Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955).

The New Jersey statute of limitations for personal injury suits is two years.
N.J. Stat. Ann, § 2A:14-2 (West 1997). Because plaintiff was allegedly injured in
March 1996, the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations will not bar
plaintiff's claim if he chooses to file ina proper forum there. Moreover,
dismissing the complaint without prejudice will afford plaintiff the opportunity to
bring his lawsuit in state court as he had originally intended; and

ee

> In response to defendant's requests, plaintiff has asked this court to remand the case back to the

state court. Plaintiff supports his request to remand with Jenkins v, United Steel Workers of Am,, 552 F. Supp. 80
(E.D. Pa. 1981). However, Jenkins, recognizes that when the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the state may properly entertain the case. In our case, because the state court would also lack jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, a remand would be futile.it is accordingly ORDERED that the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

PERSONAL JURISDICTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

LOWELL A. REED, JR.