Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of Placer
MICHAEL AJ NANGANO (SBN 133999) 08/28/2020
MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk
133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: (626) 796-9998
Fax: (626) 796-9992
LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE (SBN 137587)
ARONOWITZ, SKIDMORE & LYON
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
Aubum, CA 95603
Phone: (530 823-9736
Fax: (530 823-5241
Attomeys for Defendant(s)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11
12 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No. S-CV 0042080
,
13 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ
Plaintiff, NANGANDO IN SUPPORT OF
14 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND
vs. MOTION TO THE MPROPER AND
15 FALSELY OBTAINED
ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND "ERRONEOUS" AUGUST 18, 2020
16 Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
12, 2007; THE ANYT ING TRUST
17 DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. [Seeking CCP §§ 473 Relief And 1008
BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Reconsideration .]
18 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and
Does 1 rough 50, inclusive,
19 Hearing Date: October 29, 2021
Time: s am.
20 Defendants. Dept.: 42
21 CMSC Date: March 12, 2021
-- a CTC Date: March 19, 2021
22 Trial Date: ~March 29, 2021
23
24
25 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY S OF RECORD:
26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants submit the following declaration of
27 MICHAEL AJ NANGANO in support of Defendants' Objections to the August 18, 2020 Order
28 to Continue Trial and other falsely included conditions issued by the above-entitled Court.
1
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO
I, MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, declare as follows:
1 Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts in the state of
California and the attomey of record for the Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND
Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST DATED
OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Anything Trust
Dated October 12, 2007, and I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called
10 and swom as a witness could and would competently testify thereto under oath.
11 Relief Requested
12 2 I respectfully request and/or seek relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
13 473 that the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial be set aside and/or vacated; as such, was
14 the result of unusual circumstances and for which: "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be
15 just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other
16 proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
17 excusable neglect." (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473(b).)
18 Due to attorney mistake, inadvertence and/or error for which I take responsibility, I did
19 not recognize nor understand that Plaintiff's attorney was undertaking a series of steps to have
20 the trial date in this matter continue while not continuing all related dates as stated and promised
21 in her letter of August 7, 2020 (attached as Exhibit-A).
22 Basis For Relief
23 3 Specifically, on or about Monday August 10, 2020, although I was not in the office, in
24 response to Plaintiff's attomey SHANNON JONES letter of Friday, August 7, 2020 which
25 stated:
26
27 "Enclosed is a proposed stipulation to continue the trial date and all related pre-trial
28 motion and discovery deadlines from the current September 21, 2020 date."
2
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
- I relied upon Plaintiff's attorney's representations in her August 7, 2020 letter and
instructed my assistant to take the last page of the stipulation with my signature on it and email a
copy of to the Plaintiff's attorney of that signature page.
4 Attached as Exhibits are true and correct copies of: Exhibit-B, my August 17, 2020 letter
to Plaintiff's attomey; Exhibit-C, Plaintiff's attomey's August 18, 2020 response letter; Exhibit-
D, a Court Summary of this matter recording the filing of the alleged stipulation and [proposed]
order on August 17, 2020. My letter states:
"This correspondence is in regards to your letter of August 7, 2020 and I
10 immediately withdraw consent to the stipulation and instruct you NOT TO FILE
11 SAME, and/or if you have done so, which today's court summary does not indicate,
12 you MUST WITHDRAW the stipulation immediately. My agreement was
13 predicated upon your August 7, 2020 letter . . ." [Emphasis added.]
14
15 5. Through-out most of this year, because of the Covid-19 virus and Pubic Health Orders for
16 the Los Angeles County and the instruction to remain at home, to work at home as much as
17 possible’, I am often out-of-the-office working from home; and, at the time on Monday, August
18 10, 2020, I did not have access to my email where the stipulation was sent. Unfortunately, the
19 stipulation and/or the [proposed] order said something completely different from the letter; and
20 instead, stated that essentially discovery was completed and as such no further discovery
21 whatsoever was needed; while the August 18, 2020 Order signed by the Court yet again says
22 something different but still something false, stating that other than involving experts all
23 discovery is completed.
24
25 1 The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Public Health) by Order of
26 the Public Health Officer for the County of Los Angeles still in place and effect as of August 12,
2020; which, instructs that all persons who can "work from home should continue to do so as
27
much as possible . . . " See the true and correct copy of the August 12, 2020 Public Health Order
28 attached as Exhibit-E, Page-1, remainder at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/C oronavirus/#
3
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
6 So Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter, then the alleged stipulation and then the
[proposed] order (an order that was never seen by Defendants until after it was filed with the
Court) all say something different. It was my "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect" as I relied upon the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter while not realizing that
the alleged stipulation presented to the Court said something different then the Plaintiff's
attorney's letter, and something different then the unseen [proposed] order, again, each saying
something different. That each of these 3-documents contradicted the other.
7 This represents a very different experience than what occurred with the 1* continuance of
trial stipulated to between the Parties and their legal representative and it was my mistake and/or
10 inadvertence in relying on that past experience with regard to this 2" continuance of trial.
11 8 Based upon that prior experience, unfortunately, while I waited for the Plaintiff's attorney
12 to file and give notice of an ex parte application to continue trial as occurred for the 1*
13 stipulation and as required by law (see California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(b); the Court
14 Summary showed that on August 17, 2020 the stipulation and [proposed] order were filed by
15 Plaintiff without any ex parte application, and what followed was my August 17, 2020
16 withdrawing consent to the alleged stipulation. To date, a withdrawal of consent that Plaintiff's
17 attorney has never attempted to share and/or inform this Court of.
18 9 I respectfully offer the following further explanation to address the Court and in support
19 of setting aside and/or vacating the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial and other related
20 conditions that are due to Plaintiff's attorney's wrongful and bad faith tactics.
21 10. On August 17, 2020, when the online Court Summary listed Plaintiff's attorney's direct
22 filing of the stipulation with a [proposed] order, without filing the required application or
23 motion even with stipulation that I reviewed these documents. See the true and correct copy of
24 my August 17, 2020 letter to Plaintiff's attomey withdrawing consent to the stipulation to
25 continue trial due to these discrepancies (attached as Exhibit-B). I discovered these issues in
26 part due to the Court's online summary and because unlike the 1“ continuance to continue trial
27 granted on February 18, 2020 that was brought by ex parte application, no such application and
28
4
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
the notice of hearing required occurred. California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(b) specifically
requires that:
“a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to
by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte
application..."
Specific Relief Sought And Alternatives
11. I can only conclude that the discrepancies between the Plaintiff's attomey's A ugust 7,
10 2020 letter, the stipulation and [proposed order] submitted to and filed with the Court on August
11 12, 2020, and the unseen Ordered signed and filed by the Court on August 18, 2020 were part of
12 intention, misleading and/or bad faith tactics. As such, I respectfully request relief under
13 California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473(b) as well as Placer County Superior Court, Local
14 Rules, Rule 10.17, from the August 18, 2020 Order as follows:
15
16 For the Court to strike, invalidate and/or vacate the August 18, 2020 Order to
17 Continue Trial and other related conditions for all the reasons stated herein and in
18 "Defendants Objections"; or otherwise.
19 Allow Defendants to file a motion to set aside and/or vacate said Order; or
20 Alternatively to leave in place the trial continuance but also continue all related
21 dates based upon the new trial date.
22
23 12. Ultimately, Defendants respectfully assert and request that the Court cannot leave the
24 August 18, 2020 Order as it is and will at the very least set aside and/or vacate the August 18,
25 2020 Order.
26 I
27 I
28
5
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
Statutory Laws And Rules of Court
13. I apologize for this inadvertent error and/or mistake. I respectfully ask for relief as I
believe this arose in part from deceptive conduct and/or actions by opposing attomeys; and/or in
addition, in part due to problems created by my attention to my medical conditions while
working from out-of-the-office due to the Covid-19 virus. This is certainly not the first time
something like this has happened and such circumstances are precisely the cause of legislation,
statutes and rules of court, such as, California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473 and Local Rule of
Court 10.17
14. Pursuantto Placer County Superior Court, Local Rules of Court, Rule 10.8 - Ex Parte
10 Orders expressly state that ex parte applications to continue trial as are required in such situation
11 are "to prevent injustice, irreparable harm, immediate danger, or states a proper statutory basis
12 for granting ex parte relief..." Rule 10.8 further requires that:
13
14 "Notice shall be given to all parties within the time limits set forth in CRC 3.1203. All ex
15 parte applications shall comply with CRC 3.1204 and must include a written declaration
16 setting forth details of the notice given to other parties (date, time, place of notice, to
17 whom notice was given) or why notice could not be given. In cases where less than 6
18 business hours notice is given, the declaration shall state facts to justify such shortened
19 notice. Further, ex parte requests for continuance, pursuant to Rule 20.1.12, shall include
20 a list of mutually agreeable proposed trial dates."
21
22 Unfortunately, the August 18, 2020 Order does not represent the continue of trial and the
23 continuance of all related dates that Defendants agreed to. With a very troubling and disturbing
24 intent, Plaintiff's attorney submitted a stipulation that differed from her August 7, 2020 letter and
25 the continuance agreed to by Defendants and their legal counsel. As a further example, there
26 were and should still be two (2) outstanding noticed deposition of the Plaintiff's "Person Most
27 Knowledgeable" in this matter and of Sarah Kosaky (she verified all of Plaintiff's discovery
28
6
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
responses) who were initially noticed for depositions set for June 25, 2019 and served on June 4
2019; and which was amended by a new notice of deposition for each set for August 6, 2019 and
served July 10, 2019. Also attached are true and correct copies of my December 23, 2020 and
June 2, 2020 indicating the Defendants’ preserved and continuing right to depose each of these
deponents. Their depositions as stated in my June 2, 2020, letter were put off in part due to the
summary judgment motions filed and pending, as well as, the Defendants (and Los Angeles
County Superior Court Plaintiffs’) Petition to Coordinate filed with the Judicial Council. (See
Exhibits F and G, respectively for true and correct copies of my December
23, 2019 and June 2,
2020 letters to Plaintiff's attorney.)
10 Plaintiff obtained the "erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order by not following the
11 requirements of State statutes, State Rules of Court and Local Rules of Court as stated herein
12 and in Defendants’ Objections, as well. And, as presented as an example, Plaintiff's failures to
13 comply with Local Rule, Rule 10.8 as presented above.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17
18 Executed this date of August 29, 2020 at Pasadena, California.
19
20 MICHAEL AJ. NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION
21
22 MLE IRE
23
“MICHAEL AJ NANGANO ~~
24 Declarant
25
26
27
28
7
Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the
Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Placer MICHAEL AJ NANGANO (SBN 133999) 08/28/2020 MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 Phone: (626) 796-9998 Fax: (626) 796-9992 LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE (SBN 137587) ARONOWITZ, SKIDMORE & LYON 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 Aubum, CA 95603 Phone: (530 823-9736 Fax: (530 823-5241 Attomeys for Defendant(s) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 11 12 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No. S-CV 0042080 , 13 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ Plaintiff, NANGANDO IN SUPPORT OF 14 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND vs. MOTION TO THE MPROPER AND 15 FALSELY OBTAINED ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND "ERRONEOUS" AUGUST 18, 2020 16 Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 12, 2007; THE ANYT ING TRUST 17 DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. [Seeking CCP §§ 473 Relief And 1008 BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Reconsideration .] 18 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Does 1 rough 50, inclusive, 19 Hearing Date: October 29, 2021 Time: s am. 20 Defendants. Dept.: 42 21 CMSC Date: March 12, 2021 -- a CTC Date: March 19, 2021 22 Trial Date: ~March 29, 2021 23 24 25 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY S OF RECORD: 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants submit the following declaration of 27 MICHAEL AJ NANGANO in support of Defendants' Objections to the August 18, 2020 Order 28 to Continue Trial and other falsely included conditions issued by the above-entitled Court. 1 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO I, MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, declare as follows: 1 Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts in the state of California and the attomey of record for the Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007, and I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called 10 and swom as a witness could and would competently testify thereto under oath. 11 Relief Requested 12 2 I respectfully request and/or seek relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 13 473 that the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial be set aside and/or vacated; as such, was 14 the result of unusual circumstances and for which: "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be 15 just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other 16 proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 17 excusable neglect." (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473(b).) 18 Due to attorney mistake, inadvertence and/or error for which I take responsibility, I did 19 not recognize nor understand that Plaintiff's attorney was undertaking a series of steps to have 20 the trial date in this matter continue while not continuing all related dates as stated and promised 21 in her letter of August 7, 2020 (attached as Exhibit-A). 22 Basis For Relief 23 3 Specifically, on or about Monday August 10, 2020, although I was not in the office, in 24 response to Plaintiff's attomey SHANNON JONES letter of Friday, August 7, 2020 which 25 stated: 26 27 "Enclosed is a proposed stipulation to continue the trial date and all related pre-trial 28 motion and discovery deadlines from the current September 21, 2020 date." 2 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial - I relied upon Plaintiff's attorney's representations in her August 7, 2020 letter and instructed my assistant to take the last page of the stipulation with my signature on it and email a copy of to the Plaintiff's attorney of that signature page. 4 Attached as Exhibits are true and correct copies of: Exhibit-B, my August 17, 2020 letter to Plaintiff's attomey; Exhibit-C, Plaintiff's attomey's August 18, 2020 response letter; Exhibit- D, a Court Summary of this matter recording the filing of the alleged stipulation and [proposed] order on August 17, 2020. My letter states: "This correspondence is in regards to your letter of August 7, 2020 and I 10 immediately withdraw consent to the stipulation and instruct you NOT TO FILE 11 SAME, and/or if you have done so, which today's court summary does not indicate, 12 you MUST WITHDRAW the stipulation immediately. My agreement was 13 predicated upon your August 7, 2020 letter . . ." [Emphasis added.] 14 15 5. Through-out most of this year, because of the Covid-19 virus and Pubic Health Orders for 16 the Los Angeles County and the instruction to remain at home, to work at home as much as 17 possible’, I am often out-of-the-office working from home; and, at the time on Monday, August 18 10, 2020, I did not have access to my email where the stipulation was sent. Unfortunately, the 19 stipulation and/or the [proposed] order said something completely different from the letter; and 20 instead, stated that essentially discovery was completed and as such no further discovery 21 whatsoever was needed; while the August 18, 2020 Order signed by the Court yet again says 22 something different but still something false, stating that other than involving experts all 23 discovery is completed. 24 25 1 The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Public Health) by Order of 26 the Public Health Officer for the County of Los Angeles still in place and effect as of August 12, 2020; which, instructs that all persons who can "work from home should continue to do so as 27 much as possible . . . " See the true and correct copy of the August 12, 2020 Public Health Order 28 attached as Exhibit-E, Page-1, remainder at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/C oronavirus/# 3 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial 6 So Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter, then the alleged stipulation and then the [proposed] order (an order that was never seen by Defendants until after it was filed with the Court) all say something different. It was my "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" as I relied upon the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter while not realizing that the alleged stipulation presented to the Court said something different then the Plaintiff's attorney's letter, and something different then the unseen [proposed] order, again, each saying something different. That each of these 3-documents contradicted the other. 7 This represents a very different experience than what occurred with the 1* continuance of trial stipulated to between the Parties and their legal representative and it was my mistake and/or 10 inadvertence in relying on that past experience with regard to this 2" continuance of trial. 11 8 Based upon that prior experience, unfortunately, while I waited for the Plaintiff's attorney 12 to file and give notice of an ex parte application to continue trial as occurred for the 1* 13 stipulation and as required by law (see California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(b); the Court 14 Summary showed that on August 17, 2020 the stipulation and [proposed] order were filed by 15 Plaintiff without any ex parte application, and what followed was my August 17, 2020 16 withdrawing consent to the alleged stipulation. To date, a withdrawal of consent that Plaintiff's 17 attorney has never attempted to share and/or inform this Court of. 18 9 I respectfully offer the following further explanation to address the Court and in support 19 of setting aside and/or vacating the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial and other related 20 conditions that are due to Plaintiff's attorney's wrongful and bad faith tactics. 21 10. On August 17, 2020, when the online Court Summary listed Plaintiff's attorney's direct 22 filing of the stipulation with a [proposed] order, without filing the required application or 23 motion even with stipulation that I reviewed these documents. See the true and correct copy of 24 my August 17, 2020 letter to Plaintiff's attomey withdrawing consent to the stipulation to 25 continue trial due to these discrepancies (attached as Exhibit-B). I discovered these issues in 26 part due to the Court's online summary and because unlike the 1“ continuance to continue trial 27 granted on February 18, 2020 that was brought by ex parte application, no such application and 28 4 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial the notice of hearing required occurred. California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(b) specifically requires that: “a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application..." Specific Relief Sought And Alternatives 11. I can only conclude that the discrepancies between the Plaintiff's attomey's A ugust 7, 10 2020 letter, the stipulation and [proposed order] submitted to and filed with the Court on August 11 12, 2020, and the unseen Ordered signed and filed by the Court on August 18, 2020 were part of 12 intention, misleading and/or bad faith tactics. As such, I respectfully request relief under 13 California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473(b) as well as Placer County Superior Court, Local 14 Rules, Rule 10.17, from the August 18, 2020 Order as follows: 15 16 For the Court to strike, invalidate and/or vacate the August 18, 2020 Order to 17 Continue Trial and other related conditions for all the reasons stated herein and in 18 "Defendants Objections"; or otherwise. 19 Allow Defendants to file a motion to set aside and/or vacate said Order; or 20 Alternatively to leave in place the trial continuance but also continue all related 21 dates based upon the new trial date. 22 23 12. Ultimately, Defendants respectfully assert and request that the Court cannot leave the 24 August 18, 2020 Order as it is and will at the very least set aside and/or vacate the August 18, 25 2020 Order. 26 I 27 I 28 5 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial Statutory Laws And Rules of Court 13. I apologize for this inadvertent error and/or mistake. I respectfully ask for relief as I believe this arose in part from deceptive conduct and/or actions by opposing attomeys; and/or in addition, in part due to problems created by my attention to my medical conditions while working from out-of-the-office due to the Covid-19 virus. This is certainly not the first time something like this has happened and such circumstances are precisely the cause of legislation, statutes and rules of court, such as, California Code of Civil. Procedure § 473 and Local Rule of Court 10.17 14. Pursuantto Placer County Superior Court, Local Rules of Court, Rule 10.8 - Ex Parte 10 Orders expressly state that ex parte applications to continue trial as are required in such situation 11 are "to prevent injustice, irreparable harm, immediate danger, or states a proper statutory basis 12 for granting ex parte relief..." Rule 10.8 further requires that: 13 14 "Notice shall be given to all parties within the time limits set forth in CRC 3.1203. All ex 15 parte applications shall comply with CRC 3.1204 and must include a written declaration 16 setting forth details of the notice given to other parties (date, time, place of notice, to 17 whom notice was given) or why notice could not be given. In cases where less than 6 18 business hours notice is given, the declaration shall state facts to justify such shortened 19 notice. Further, ex parte requests for continuance, pursuant to Rule 20.1.12, shall include 20 a list of mutually agreeable proposed trial dates." 21 22 Unfortunately, the August 18, 2020 Order does not represent the continue of trial and the 23 continuance of all related dates that Defendants agreed to. With a very troubling and disturbing 24 intent, Plaintiff's attorney submitted a stipulation that differed from her August 7, 2020 letter and 25 the continuance agreed to by Defendants and their legal counsel. As a further example, there 26 were and should still be two (2) outstanding noticed deposition of the Plaintiff's "Person Most 27 Knowledgeable" in this matter and of Sarah Kosaky (she verified all of Plaintiff's discovery 28 6 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial responses) who were initially noticed for depositions set for June 25, 2019 and served on June 4 2019; and which was amended by a new notice of deposition for each set for August 6, 2019 and served July 10, 2019. Also attached are true and correct copies of my December 23, 2020 and June 2, 2020 indicating the Defendants’ preserved and continuing right to depose each of these deponents. Their depositions as stated in my June 2, 2020, letter were put off in part due to the summary judgment motions filed and pending, as well as, the Defendants (and Los Angeles County Superior Court Plaintiffs’) Petition to Coordinate filed with the Judicial Council. (See Exhibits F and G, respectively for true and correct copies of my December 23, 2019 and June 2, 2020 letters to Plaintiff's attorney.) 10 Plaintiff obtained the "erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order by not following the 11 requirements of State statutes, State Rules of Court and Local Rules of Court as stated herein 12 and in Defendants’ Objections, as well. And, as presented as an example, Plaintiff's failures to 13 comply with Local Rule, Rule 10.8 as presented above. 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. 17 18 Executed this date of August 29, 2020 at Pasadena, California. 19 20 MICHAEL AJ. NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION 21 22 MLE IRE 23 “MICHAEL AJ NANGANO ~~ 24 Declarant 25 26 27 28 7 Declaration of Michael AJ Nangano in Support of Defendants' Objections and Motion to the Improper and Falsely Obtained "Erroneous" August 18, 2020 Order Continuing Trial