arrow left
arrow right
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Gardon & Rees LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

BU Bw

S. MITCHELL KAPLAN (SBN: 95665)

CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK (SBN: 214110)

BETHANY A. STAHLEY (SBN: 209421) ELECTRONICALLY
JAMES K. HOLDER (SBN: 267843)

GORDON & REES LLP F I L E D
Limbarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111 NOV 19 2010
Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Clerk of the Court

aesimile: BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Depuly Clerk

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

Attorneys for Defendant
THE BUDD COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RUFUS ALEXANDER CASE NO, CGC-08-274719
oe STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION
Plaintiff, IN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT THE BUDD
y. COMPANY’S MOTION FOR

MOTION FOR 128.7 SANCTIONS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AGAINST PLAINTIFE
Date: December 8, 2010
Time: = 1:30 p.m.

Dept: 220

Judge: Hon, Harold Kahn

Defendants.

Complaint Filed: July 1, 2008
Trial Date None Set

Nel Se el Se Na! Sat Ne Sa at Ne! a a et

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as of November 12, 2010, Defendant The Budd
Company, has received no oppositions to its Motion for 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff Rufus
Alexander on November 18, 2010. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b)
mandates that any opposition to these motions had to have been filed and served by November 4,

2010, nine court days before the hearing. No such oppositions have been received.

ale

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN LIEU OF REPLY ~2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WW
8: 12
538
BEee 45
wae? 16
7
18
19
2”
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
28

TKADOSIORTIAISN. 1

Defendant is receipt from correspondence from Berry & Berry indicating that plaintiff
was in an automobile accident. However, plaintiff is undertaking to represent himself in this
litigation. Plaintiff has made no effort to seck to continue defendant's motion, has made no
effort to contact moving party to request an extension, and has failed to seek proper relief from
this Court. Defendant is entitled to have its motions heard — and granted — accordingly.

Accordingly, to the extent that the relief requested has not been opposed by plaintiff,
defendant THE BUDD COMPANY requests that this Court ORDER all relicfs requested in its
moving papers.

DATED: November 19, 2010 GORDON & REES LLP

By: /s/ Christopher D. Strunk
CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK
Attorneys for Defendant
THE BUDD COMPANY

2.

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITHEON IN LIEU OF REPLY28

PREU OST Le:KHaS S050.)

PROOF OF SERVICE

Lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP, 275 Battery Street, Suite
2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date below, I served the document(s} described as
follows:

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT THE BUDD COMPANY’S MOTION FOR 128.7 SANCTIONS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF

oOo by having personally delivered via First Legal Support Services messenger the
document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

Oo by placing true copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above enclosed in a sealed
envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and
packages for overnight delivery by FEDEX as part of the ordinary business practices
of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows:

by transmitting via FACSIMILE the document(s) listed above to the following:
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thercon

fully prepaid, in UNITED STATES MAIL in the State of California, at San Francisco,
addressed as set forth below.

&} O

Lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary
course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE. By sending
electronically a true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve
(www. lexisnexis.com/fileandsery) for service on all counsel of record by electronic
service pursuant to the Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos
Pleadings and pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 and CRC 206(c). The transmission was
reported as complete and without error.

Rufus Alexander Plaintiff in Pro Per
In Pro Per

170 Cashmere Street, Apt. D

San Francisco, CA 94124

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

Executed on November 19, 2010, at San Franci, co, California.

fAvitveg ke.

Andrea K. Bean