Preview
1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2 Martin N. Jensen, SBN 232231
11/09/2020
3 Joceline M. Herman, SBN 310897
350 University Ave., Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
9
CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, a CASE NO. S-CV-0043579
10 California nonprofit corporation,
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
12 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO
v. CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON
13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14 JUDGMENT
MT. VERNON GUILD, an entity of unknown
15 form, and DOES 1-20, Date: November 10, 2020
Time: 8:00 a.m.
16 Defendants. Dept.: 42
17
___________________________________/ Complaint Filed: 8/2/2019
18 Trial: 5/3/2021
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE (“Plaintiff” or “California State Grange”) submits the
22 following Memorandum in support of its Opposition to Defendant MT. VERNON GUILD’s
23 (“Defendant” or “Guild”) Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
24 Summary Judgment. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Application as Defendant should not be able to
25 create its own delays and then benefit from them.
26 The Guild cannot establish there is any emergency to seek ex parte relief, nor can itestablish
27 good cause that it will experience “irreparable harm” or “immediate danger” if this ex parte relief is not
28 granted. The California State Grange filed its Verified Complaint on August 2, 2019, and its Motion for
{02316002.DOCX} 1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Summary Judgment on September 17, 2020. During that year the Guild could have diligently pursued its
2 case, but it didn’t. Instead, it waited for statutory deadlines to seek relief from the Court to delay
3 Plaintiff’s relief. The Guild cannot provide any urgency for this Application not of its own making, and
4 thus cannot establish good cause. The Guild’s motion is not what the ex parte statute was for and thus
5 this Application should be denied on its face.
6 II. RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENT
7 A. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY WARRANTING THIS APPLICATION.
8 The facts of this matter are simple and the law has been well settled in this area for a number of
9 years, most explicitly through the Third District Court of Appeals opinion in Nat’l Grange of the Order
10 of Patrons of Husbandry v. Cal. Guild (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1130, review denied Feb. 14, 2018. This
11 Application is another attempt by insurance counsel to delay non-profit Plaintiff’s right to recover the
12 property stolen from the Order. Moreover, defense counsel in this matter serves as counsel in multiple
13 similar cases and has been acting in that capacity for years. Thus, any failure to conduct discovery is
14 their own failure to act diligently and cannot reasonably be a claimed as an emergency. The facts of
15 these matters and documents available in discovery haven’t changed, to which counsel well knows.
16 Multiple courts have recently granted motions for summary judgment on similar facts and law, and the
17 California State Grange expects it will also prevail on its Motion for Summary Judgment currently
18 pending before this Court. The Guild waited until it was coming up on its opposition deadline to
19 suddenly “create” an emergency, when defense counsel has been involved in these cases for a number of
20 years and the facts and law are well established. The Guild seeks this Application as unabashed
21 litigation delay tactic, not for any good cause.
22 The Guild maintains it needs to continue the California State Grange’s Motion for Summary
23 Judgment (“MSJ”) due to its inability to complete discovery. This is a problem of the Guild’s own
24 making and is insufficient to create the urgency necessary to grant the Ex Parte Application. Any recent
25 discovery disputes will not change the result of Plaintiff’s MSJ, the Guild’s counsel is aware of this,
26 given as defense counsel they just recently lost a nearly identical motion for summary judgment in
27 Mendocino County.
28 The Guild contends that it needs to complete discovery to oppose Plaintiff’s MSJ, this is
{02316002.DOCX} 2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 incorrect. Specifically, Guild takes issue with a few specific discovery matters: (1) documents at the
2 California State Grange office, which were part of recent law and motion, (2) Plaintiff’s amended
3 discovery responses, which were also part of recent law and motion, and (3) the Guild’s recent subpoena
4 for documents from the National Grange. As explained below, none of these discovery issues remain
5 issues, nor are they likely to provide information to support the Guild’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
6 for Summary Judgment. The Guild has also made a patently false claim to the Court that the California
7 State Grange has been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) and Secretary of State
8 at this time.
9 For the Guild’s Application to be successful it must show good cause to continue Plaintiff’s
10 properly filed Motion for Summary Judgment. It is unable to show any such good cause as there is no
11 outstanding discovery that is necessary for the Guild’s Opposition, no corporate matters that should
12 delay the MSJ hearing, and no “irreparable harm, immediate danger or any other statutory basis” that the
13 Guild can provide in support of its Application.
14 B. ALL DISCOVERY MATTERS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
15 First, Law and Motion occurred in this matter and another very similar matter regarding the
16 inspection of documents held at the California State Grange’s headquarters in Sacramento. This matter
17 was partially resolved in the Guild’s favor on October 19, 2020. (Declaration of Joceline M. Herman
18 (“Herman Decl.”) ¶ 4.) In San Luis Obispo County, a different Defendant, also represented by Freeman
19 Mathis, sought to compel the inspection of the California State Grange’s documents without any
20 restrictions. (Id.) A motion to compel inspection was partially granted on October 19, 2020, regarding
21 the exact same documents that were at issue in the Guild’s Motion to Compel before this Court. (Id.)
22 This Court further granted the Guild’s Motion to Compel the document inspection on October 30, 2020.
23 (Herman Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has made the records available for inspection and despite having complete
24 unfettered access to these documents since at least October 19, 2020, the Guild did not ever seek
25 inspection of these documents. (Herman Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit B.) Counsel for California State Grange
26 instead offered inspection of these documents via email correspondence on November 2, 2020. (Exhibit
27 B.) Counsel for the Guild initially requested the inspection occur on November 20, 2020, however, after
28 further consideration, the Guild sought inspection on November 13, 2020. (Exhibit B.) California State
{02316002.DOCX} 3
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Grange agreed to the inspection on November 13, 2020, more than a week before the Guild’s opposition
2 to Plaintiff’s MSJ is due. (Exhibit B.) The Guild waited two weeks to even attempt to confirm the
3 inspection, all while knowing its opposition to Plaintiff’s MSJ was due November 20, 2020. (Exhibit
4 B.) The inspection will be conducted on November 13, 2020, pursuant to Defendant’s request. (Exhibit
5 B.)
6 Second, this Court’s order on the Guild’s Motion to Compel required Plaintiff’s amended
7 responses by November 20, 2020. (Herman Decl. ¶ 5.) Nevertheless, the California State Grange has
8 informed the Guild that it would receive the amended responses no later than November 13, 2020.
9 (Exhibit B.) Only a few responses must be amended and the Guild will have the responses with
10 sufficient time to rely upon them if necessary in their Opposition.
11 Finally, since at least the inception of this matter on August 2, 2019, the Guild has always been
12 aware of the National Grange’s role as the highest level of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Plaintiff
13 expressly states the role of the National Grange in the Order in its Verified Complaint. The Guild’s
14 counsel is counsel in multiple other similar cases and in such a case deposed the National Grange’s
15 Person Most Knowledgeable on May 26, 2020. In this matter the Guild also deposed the National
16 Grange’s Person Most Knowledgeable on October 23, 2020. While a subpoena for deposition testimony
17 sought documents, the National Grange objected and properly produced no additional documents.
18 Defense counsel did not—prior or subsequent to either deposition—meet and confer or file any motions
19 to clear up any issues regarding inspection demands. Apparently up until late last week the Guild was
20 satisfied with the National Grange documents previously produced. The subpoena just issued for
21 documents, more than a year after the Guild knew about the documents, is insufficient to create any
22 urgency for this Ex Parte Application.
23 C. THE CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE IS NO LONGER SUSPENDED BY THE FTB OR
24 SECRETARY OF STATE.
25 The California State Grange is not suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”)
26 and Secretary of State at this time. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Lillian Booth, due to
27 unauthorized filings by the California Guild, the FTB sent notices to the California State Grange to an
28 address in Roseville apparently under the control of the California Guild. (Herman Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit
{02316002.DOCX} 4
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 A.) The California State Grange never received those notices. (Id.) Since learning of the suspension, the
2 California State Grange has corrected the issue and delivered all necessary paperwork to the FTB on
3 November 5. (Id.) The FTB lifted the suspension on November 6, and the Secretary of State’s website
4 currently reflects the California State Grange’s status as “Active.” (Herman Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit A at ¶¶ 8-
5 13 & Ex. 1.)1 Because the suspension has been lifted, there is no need for a continuance for the
6 California State Grange to revive its corporate powers, and the revival of its corporate powers validates
7 any actions the California State Grange took during the brief period—which commenced nearly a month
8 after the California State Grange filed its motion for summary judgment—when it was suspended.
9 (E.g., Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1366 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 4].)
10 III. CONCLUSION
11 The Guild has failed to show any good cause justifying the delay of the hearing on the California
12 State Grange’s motion for summary judgment. The Guild wrongfully stole property belonging to the
13 California State Grange, and it is high time that it be returned to its rightful owner. Simply put, the
14 California State Grange’s motion for summary judgment is ripe for the Court’s ruling.
15
16 Dated: November 9, 2020 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
17
18 Joceline M. Herman
19 By _____________________________
Martin N. Jensen
20 Joceline M. Herman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28 The Court isasked to take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d)(2) and (h) of the fact that the
Secretary of State’s website currently reflects that the California State Grange, entity number 0210454, is listed as “Active”
and not “FTB/SOS SUSPENDED” as reflected in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Lillian Booth.
{02316002.DOCX} 5
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
California State Grange v. Mt. Vernon Guild
1
Placer County Superior Court Case No.: S-CV-0043579
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
4
On November 9, 2020, I caused to have served the following document:
5
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
6 THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing
8 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and
mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,
9
in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
10 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the
person(s) addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to
11 the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package
clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in
12 charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For
a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence
13 with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning
and six in the evening.
14
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
15 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed
the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly
16 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
17 transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error
was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission,
18 which I printed out, is attached
19 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to
accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at
20 the electronic notification address listed below.
Addressed as follows:
21
Counsel for Defendant Counsel for Defendant
22 Robert A. Cutbirth Gregory T. Fayard
Michele C. Kirrane Adam G. Khan
23 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Kevin Ortiz
24 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3580 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
San Francisco, CA 94104 1013 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 250
25 rcutbirth@fmglaw.com Roseville, CA 95678
mkirrane@fmglaw.com gfayard@fmglaw.com ;
26 akhan@fmglaw.com
27 kortiz@fmglaw.com
28
{02316002.DOCX} 6
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
1
true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on November 9, 2020.
2
3 Desiree Ganzon
Desiree Ganzon
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02316002.DOCX} 7
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Preview
1 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 Martin N. Jensen, SBN 232231 11/09/2020 3 Joceline M. Herman, SBN 310897 350 University Ave., Suite 200 4 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 FAX: 916.927.3706 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 9 CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, a CASE NO. S-CV-0043579 10 California nonprofit corporation, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 12 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO v. CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT MT. VERNON GUILD, an entity of unknown 15 form, and DOES 1-20, Date: November 10, 2020 Time: 8:00 a.m. 16 Defendants. Dept.: 42 17 ___________________________________/ Complaint Filed: 8/2/2019 18 Trial: 5/3/2021 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE (“Plaintiff” or “California State Grange”) submits the 22 following Memorandum in support of its Opposition to Defendant MT. VERNON GUILD’s 23 (“Defendant” or “Guild”) Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Application as Defendant should not be able to 25 create its own delays and then benefit from them. 26 The Guild cannot establish there is any emergency to seek ex parte relief, nor can itestablish 27 good cause that it will experience “irreparable harm” or “immediate danger” if this ex parte relief is not 28 granted. The California State Grange filed its Verified Complaint on August 2, 2019, and its Motion for {02316002.DOCX} 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Summary Judgment on September 17, 2020. During that year the Guild could have diligently pursued its 2 case, but it didn’t. Instead, it waited for statutory deadlines to seek relief from the Court to delay 3 Plaintiff’s relief. The Guild cannot provide any urgency for this Application not of its own making, and 4 thus cannot establish good cause. The Guild’s motion is not what the ex parte statute was for and thus 5 this Application should be denied on its face. 6 II. RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENT 7 A. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY WARRANTING THIS APPLICATION. 8 The facts of this matter are simple and the law has been well settled in this area for a number of 9 years, most explicitly through the Third District Court of Appeals opinion in Nat’l Grange of the Order 10 of Patrons of Husbandry v. Cal. Guild (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1130, review denied Feb. 14, 2018. This 11 Application is another attempt by insurance counsel to delay non-profit Plaintiff’s right to recover the 12 property stolen from the Order. Moreover, defense counsel in this matter serves as counsel in multiple 13 similar cases and has been acting in that capacity for years. Thus, any failure to conduct discovery is 14 their own failure to act diligently and cannot reasonably be a claimed as an emergency. The facts of 15 these matters and documents available in discovery haven’t changed, to which counsel well knows. 16 Multiple courts have recently granted motions for summary judgment on similar facts and law, and the 17 California State Grange expects it will also prevail on its Motion for Summary Judgment currently 18 pending before this Court. The Guild waited until it was coming up on its opposition deadline to 19 suddenly “create” an emergency, when defense counsel has been involved in these cases for a number of 20 years and the facts and law are well established. The Guild seeks this Application as unabashed 21 litigation delay tactic, not for any good cause. 22 The Guild maintains it needs to continue the California State Grange’s Motion for Summary 23 Judgment (“MSJ”) due to its inability to complete discovery. This is a problem of the Guild’s own 24 making and is insufficient to create the urgency necessary to grant the Ex Parte Application. Any recent 25 discovery disputes will not change the result of Plaintiff’s MSJ, the Guild’s counsel is aware of this, 26 given as defense counsel they just recently lost a nearly identical motion for summary judgment in 27 Mendocino County. 28 The Guild contends that it needs to complete discovery to oppose Plaintiff’s MSJ, this is {02316002.DOCX} 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 incorrect. Specifically, Guild takes issue with a few specific discovery matters: (1) documents at the 2 California State Grange office, which were part of recent law and motion, (2) Plaintiff’s amended 3 discovery responses, which were also part of recent law and motion, and (3) the Guild’s recent subpoena 4 for documents from the National Grange. As explained below, none of these discovery issues remain 5 issues, nor are they likely to provide information to support the Guild’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 6 for Summary Judgment. The Guild has also made a patently false claim to the Court that the California 7 State Grange has been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) and Secretary of State 8 at this time. 9 For the Guild’s Application to be successful it must show good cause to continue Plaintiff’s 10 properly filed Motion for Summary Judgment. It is unable to show any such good cause as there is no 11 outstanding discovery that is necessary for the Guild’s Opposition, no corporate matters that should 12 delay the MSJ hearing, and no “irreparable harm, immediate danger or any other statutory basis” that the 13 Guild can provide in support of its Application. 14 B. ALL DISCOVERY MATTERS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. 15 First, Law and Motion occurred in this matter and another very similar matter regarding the 16 inspection of documents held at the California State Grange’s headquarters in Sacramento. This matter 17 was partially resolved in the Guild’s favor on October 19, 2020. (Declaration of Joceline M. Herman 18 (“Herman Decl.”) ¶ 4.) In San Luis Obispo County, a different Defendant, also represented by Freeman 19 Mathis, sought to compel the inspection of the California State Grange’s documents without any 20 restrictions. (Id.) A motion to compel inspection was partially granted on October 19, 2020, regarding 21 the exact same documents that were at issue in the Guild’s Motion to Compel before this Court. (Id.) 22 This Court further granted the Guild’s Motion to Compel the document inspection on October 30, 2020. 23 (Herman Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has made the records available for inspection and despite having complete 24 unfettered access to these documents since at least October 19, 2020, the Guild did not ever seek 25 inspection of these documents. (Herman Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit B.) Counsel for California State Grange 26 instead offered inspection of these documents via email correspondence on November 2, 2020. (Exhibit 27 B.) Counsel for the Guild initially requested the inspection occur on November 20, 2020, however, after 28 further consideration, the Guild sought inspection on November 13, 2020. (Exhibit B.) California State {02316002.DOCX} 3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Grange agreed to the inspection on November 13, 2020, more than a week before the Guild’s opposition 2 to Plaintiff’s MSJ is due. (Exhibit B.) The Guild waited two weeks to even attempt to confirm the 3 inspection, all while knowing its opposition to Plaintiff’s MSJ was due November 20, 2020. (Exhibit 4 B.) The inspection will be conducted on November 13, 2020, pursuant to Defendant’s request. (Exhibit 5 B.) 6 Second, this Court’s order on the Guild’s Motion to Compel required Plaintiff’s amended 7 responses by November 20, 2020. (Herman Decl. ¶ 5.) Nevertheless, the California State Grange has 8 informed the Guild that it would receive the amended responses no later than November 13, 2020. 9 (Exhibit B.) Only a few responses must be amended and the Guild will have the responses with 10 sufficient time to rely upon them if necessary in their Opposition. 11 Finally, since at least the inception of this matter on August 2, 2019, the Guild has always been 12 aware of the National Grange’s role as the highest level of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Plaintiff 13 expressly states the role of the National Grange in the Order in its Verified Complaint. The Guild’s 14 counsel is counsel in multiple other similar cases and in such a case deposed the National Grange’s 15 Person Most Knowledgeable on May 26, 2020. In this matter the Guild also deposed the National 16 Grange’s Person Most Knowledgeable on October 23, 2020. While a subpoena for deposition testimony 17 sought documents, the National Grange objected and properly produced no additional documents. 18 Defense counsel did not—prior or subsequent to either deposition—meet and confer or file any motions 19 to clear up any issues regarding inspection demands. Apparently up until late last week the Guild was 20 satisfied with the National Grange documents previously produced. The subpoena just issued for 21 documents, more than a year after the Guild knew about the documents, is insufficient to create any 22 urgency for this Ex Parte Application. 23 C. THE CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE IS NO LONGER SUSPENDED BY THE FTB OR 24 SECRETARY OF STATE. 25 The California State Grange is not suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) 26 and Secretary of State at this time. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Lillian Booth, due to 27 unauthorized filings by the California Guild, the FTB sent notices to the California State Grange to an 28 address in Roseville apparently under the control of the California Guild. (Herman Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit {02316002.DOCX} 4 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 A.) The California State Grange never received those notices. (Id.) Since learning of the suspension, the 2 California State Grange has corrected the issue and delivered all necessary paperwork to the FTB on 3 November 5. (Id.) The FTB lifted the suspension on November 6, and the Secretary of State’s website 4 currently reflects the California State Grange’s status as “Active.” (Herman Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit A at ¶¶ 8- 5 13 & Ex. 1.)1 Because the suspension has been lifted, there is no need for a continuance for the 6 California State Grange to revive its corporate powers, and the revival of its corporate powers validates 7 any actions the California State Grange took during the brief period—which commenced nearly a month 8 after the California State Grange filed its motion for summary judgment—when it was suspended. 9 (E.g., Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1366 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 4].) 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 The Guild has failed to show any good cause justifying the delay of the hearing on the California 12 State Grange’s motion for summary judgment. The Guild wrongfully stole property belonging to the 13 California State Grange, and it is high time that it be returned to its rightful owner. Simply put, the 14 California State Grange’s motion for summary judgment is ripe for the Court’s ruling. 15 16 Dated: November 9, 2020 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 17 18 Joceline M. Herman 19 By _____________________________ Martin N. Jensen 20 Joceline M. Herman Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 The Court isasked to take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d)(2) and (h) of the fact that the Secretary of State’s website currently reflects that the California State Grange, entity number 0210454, is listed as “Active” and not “FTB/SOS SUSPENDED” as reflected in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Lillian Booth. {02316002.DOCX} 5 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT California State Grange v. Mt. Vernon Guild 1 Placer County Superior Court Case No.: S-CV-0043579 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825. 4 On November 9, 2020, I caused to have served the following document: 5 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE 6 THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing 8 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, 9 in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 10 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to 11 the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in 12 charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence 13 with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. 14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package 15 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly 16 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax 17 transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, 18 which I printed out, is attached 19 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at 20 the electronic notification address listed below. Addressed as follows: 21 Counsel for Defendant Counsel for Defendant 22 Robert A. Cutbirth Gregory T. Fayard Michele C. Kirrane Adam G. Khan 23 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Kevin Ortiz 24 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3580 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP San Francisco, CA 94104 1013 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 250 25 rcutbirth@fmglaw.com Roseville, CA 95678 mkirrane@fmglaw.com gfayard@fmglaw.com ; 26 akhan@fmglaw.com 27 kortiz@fmglaw.com 28 {02316002.DOCX} 6 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 1 true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on November 9, 2020. 2 3 Desiree Ganzon Desiree Ganzon 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {02316002.DOCX} 7 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT