On July 13, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hendrix, Mary Ruth,
Hendrix, Naomi,
and
Fresno Ca Senior Housing Partners Llc,
Fresno Ca Senior Property Llc,
Fresno Senior Housing Partners Llc,
Fresno Senior Living, Lp,
Kingston Bay Senior Living,
Mcp Fresno Llc,
Mcp Manager Llc,
Mcp Willis Ii Llc,
Mcp Willis Llc,
Milestone Management,
Milestone Retirement Communities, Llc,
Milestone Retirement Communities Of Washington, Llc,
Westmont Manager Gp, Llc,
for 23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD
in the District Court of Fresno County.
Preview
1 Edward P. Dudensing (Bar No. 182221)
Jay P. Renneisen (Bar No. 173531)
2 Andrew J. Collins (Bar No. 309080)
E-FILED
2/2/2021 5:20 PM
Thomas A. Reyda (Bar No. 312632) Superior Court of California
3
Dudensing Law County of Fresno
4 1610 R Street, Suite 220 By: A. Ramos, Deputy
Sacramento, CA 95811
5 Telephone: (916) 448-6400
Facsimile: (916) 448-6401
6
7 John Brekhus (Bar No. 193654)
Law Office of John Brekhus
8 516 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200
Fresno, CA 93704
9 Telephone: (559) 233-4529
Facsimile: (866) 929-4439
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
14 MARY RUTH HENDRIX, individually ) Case No. 20CECG02015
and NAOMI HENDRIX, individually, )
15 ) PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
Plaintiffs, ) APPLICATION TO ALLOW AN
16 ) OVERSIZED BRIEF IN SUPPORT
) OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
17 vs. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
) COMPEL ARBITRATION
18 )
MILESTONE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITIES OF WASHINGTON, ) DATE: February 17, 2021
19 ) TIME: 3:30 p.m.
LLC; KINGSTON BAY SENIOR
20 LIVING; MILESTONE MANAGEMENT )) DEPT.: 403
(CA) - KINGSTON, LLC; FRESNO ) Assigned for All Purposes to:
21 SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS LLC; ) Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Dept. 402
MCP FRESNO LLC; MCP WILLIS LLC; )
22 ) Action filed: July 13, 2020
MCP WILLIS II LLC; MCP MANAGER
LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) Trial Date: Not Set
23 )
)
24 Defendants. )
)
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application To Allow An Oversized Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Opposition To
Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration
22 Page 1
1 EX PARTE APPLICATION
2 I, THOMAS A. REYDA, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California. I am an
4 attorney of record for plaintiffs.
5 2. With this application, I seek an order permitting an oversized brief in the
6 maximum length of 21 pages as to Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To
7 Compel Arbitration, that is set to be heard on February 17, 2021. I believe the extra 6
8 pages over the page limit are necessary due to breadth of the legal issues relevant to
9 defendants’ motion and the issues presented by the voluminous agreements at issue.
10 3. Accordingly, I respectfully request the Court allow the filing of the brief with
11 the extra 6 pages.
12 4. My office notified defense counsel by email on February 1, 2021, that
13 plaintiffs would be submitting this ex parte application and would ask the Court to rule on
14 it without a hearing.
15 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that
16 the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 2nd day of
17 February 2021, in Sacramento, California.
18
19 ____________________________
Thomas A. Reyda
20
21
22
23
24
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application To Allow An Oversized Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Opposition To
Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration
22 Page 2
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 Plaintiffs hereby present the following memorandum of points and authorities in
3 support of the application to file an oversized brief. California Rules of Court, Rule
4
3.1113(e) permits a party seeking to file a memorandum in excess of the page limit to make
5
such request by means of ex parte application. The Court maintains the discretion to
6
consider the oversized brief in full. For the reasons set forth in the Ex Parte Application
7
above, plaintiffs contend that the filing of an oversized brief is warranted in the
8
circumstances of this case.
9
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs contend that the filing of
10
an oversized brief is warranted under the circumstances of this case and respectfully
11
requests an order granting an ex parte application to file an oversized brief of up to 21
12
13 pages in length.
14 Dated: February 2, 2021 Dudensing Law
15
____________________________
16 Thomas A. Reyda
Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application To Allow An Oversized Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Opposition To
Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration
22 Page 3
Document Filed Date
February 02, 2021
Case Filing Date
July 13, 2020
Category
23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.