Preview
PAGE g
MICHAELTEVIS
1935 BROADWAY ST
CHICO, CA95928
F F
530-306-5806 County of Butte
I I
Self-Represented FEB 9 2021
E
1
E
D i l lener, Clerk D
By ,Deputy
BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1175 CONCORD AVE
10 CHICO, CA 95928
ll
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF BUTTE
l4
Case No.2 20CV02570
l5 LOISANN SCULTZ AND LANE COPLEY
I
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
l6 Petitioner/ Plaintiff,
l7 v.
18 MICHAEL TEVIS,
19 Respondent/ Defendant
20
21 First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out that the entirety of
any even remotely arguable
22 claims in this complaint have already been heard and decided ‘
upon by the court through small
23 claims case 19SCOZO36.
24
25 The remainder ofthe claims in the plaintiffs complaint constitute
perjury and illegally made
26 claims (hearsay, past statute of limitations, claims of consequential damages that are invalid, and
27 other illegitimate scenarios for making a l would recommend the court review the list
complaint).
28 of claims they propose and the lengthy list of motions, answers, various
attempts to-delay (many
PAGE x}
C
that included several court postponements for things they said they needed to do which they
never did),clear perjury, using the court for harassment, and many other forms constituting abuse
of the court. The list is so extensive and thoroughly documented in their own words alone that I
have a lawyer ready to file a cross complaint for this abuse of the court and other harassment
should this case and their harassment, and any future cases based on what has already been tried,
continue to take place. At a minimum the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants.
Just like the ridiculously long list of reasons why they needed to keep postponing a small claims
case for several months, multiple times, they are trying to throw as much into this claim as they
lO can possibly imagine whether factual or not, whether legal to claim or not. In the time
given I
11 cannot properly respond to the 70 pages full of problematic claims. Below I briefly address the 5
12 different categories they've come up with for this latest abuse of the court:
13
l4 1.Breach of contract: Again, already covered by the previous case 19SC02036. The project was
15 paid by payments from the plaintiffs over a long period of time. This was not a normal automotive
l6 repair scenario not only because of the nature of the work involved but because of the time frame
l7 that was mutually understood. Once the parts were ready to begin work on their vehicle I told
18 them to bring it by in the spring. They brought it by in the winter because their
engine failed due
l9 to their neglect of checking the oil. I stored their vehicle for free in the same exact
placethey
20 previous paid for other vehicles to be stored and told them I will do what I can, but it's at the shop
21 several months early. I made substantial progress in the time frame between when
they dropped
22 it off and the time frame it was supposed to be there.
23 The plaintiff came to the shop and got very angry that more
progress wasn't made even though
24 the car shouldn't have even been there yet and demanded to pick up the car. Then she
picked it up.
25 This action by the plaintiffs ended the oral contract for the time frame of the work to be
26 completed. Even if this matter wasn't already heard and tried in court, it is now well past the
27 statute of limitations to complain on this matter.
28
PAGES
2.Conversion: I asked many, many times in emails, texts and phone calls what the plaintiffs wanted
to pick up from my shop. They initially gave me only the name of a specific set of parts and those
were provided to them and have been acknowledge as received. No further list was given despite
my many attempts and no sign that they weren't going to have me finish the work was evident
until after they sued me. So, why would they need all the parts ifI was to finish the work as
agreed? According to the plaintiffs they were picking up their car only to bring it back later when I
was ready to finish.
I made many reasonable and proven attempts to resolve the small number of parts that weren't
picked up. When I told plaintiff Lane Copley that I still had keys to the car this case is about and
lO several of his other cars, he simply told me that they don't have those vehicles anymore. If the new
ll shop doing the work had requested a list of parts from me they then would have received them.
12 Instead I just got sued. There was no intent or benefit to me being left with the small remainder of
l3 parts, which I'm still happy to return. But, no communication productive to this supposed concern
l4 of the plaintiffs has been made.
15
l6 3.Fraud: It should be clear from my communication with the plaintiffs and their communication
l7 with me throughout the years of our business and friendship that there was never any intent
18 whatsoever to deceive or any other malicious intent that can even be remotely considered fraud.
l9 Again, this concern was already addressed by the court in the small claims case noted above.
20
21 4.5talking. California Penal Code 646.9 defines this offense as:
22 "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously
23 harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
24 reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety ofhis or her immediate
family is guilty of the
25 crime of stalking..."
26
27 This claim is no doubt the most hurtful to me personally and the most
egregious misuse of the
28 court in this whole claim. Not only has there been no pattern of such
behavior, there has not been
PAGE’7
one single incident that even remotely comes close to that behavior. This claim against me is so
outrageous I want to sue for the harassment and libel ofthe claim alone. It is damaging to my
reputation to make such outlandish claims against me and very reckless to do so with no basis.
l made a police report, that has already been submitted to the court, on the plaintiffs driving my
stolen car to the court house and then repeatedly driving it back and forth in front of my house
after a court hearing. This incident was the only reported incident between us and the only
incident that even comes close to this definition, but it was committed by the plaintiffs.
10 5.NIED
11
12 Like the perjury of the plaintiffs making a stalking claim against me, this is just another one of the
13 Plaintiffs attempts to throw whatever they can into the case hoping
something sticks. The volume
14 of horrible accusations against me creates bias and other misuses of the court. There should be
15 consequences for the plaintiffs misusing the court.
'
16
17 If the plaintiffs are having emotional distress related to me, one
way for them to resolve that is to
18 stop bringing false, vengeful claims to court. Another way is to stop spending time online
19 harassing past, present and future customers of places I work. An additional
suggestion would be
2o to respond to me in a productive way so I can respond to any
legitimate concerns.
21
22 What has not been a cause of
NIIED that should be considered a reasonable complaint by any court
23 is any action or statement l have made.
24
25 This whole case is about a car that didn't get finished before the time it was
supposed to be
26 dropped off. I have made many reasonable
attempts to resolve this including having my new
27 employer complete the work at no additional cost to the plaintiffs. l even tried calling the shop I
28 was told their car was taken to in order to make sure the process went smoother. None of the
PAGE;
definitions of neglect that I have found match what occurred and the emotional stress that the
plaintiffs supposedly endured from having to take their car to a different shop could easily have
been avoided if they communicated with me or the people who I had tried to help them.
The case was filed after well over a year of after their initial suit for the part of this relating to a
transaction we had. This case was filed shortly after I sued them for stealing my car. l won that
case and the appeal they made . This is new and duplicate civil claim is purely an additional act of
revenge.
10 If these people are so sensitive that me not finishing their project before the time frame I
ll promised to even start is so upsetting to them that they have to sue me over it, then they shouldn't
12 be harassing other people like this. They sued me for putting tires on my car that they refused to
l3 return, then ended the case the day before it was set to be heard so l would waste my time taking
14 off work and going to a case that no longer existed. Another time they served me a 100 page
15 answer to the court the morning of the court date. They went around
contacting anyone who was
l6 ever unhappy with me for any reason. The plaintiffs have also contacted future customers of my
l7 employer about me even though I'm not even in a position of power to have any problems with
18 customers through my new employer. Several of these people contacted my current employer. I
19 fought with my now ex wife because it was her car that the plaintiffs stole from me and then the
20 problems they caused through riling up the few previous customers who had problems with me.
21
22 The plaintiff, Lane Copley, called my employer Brian Howe, while Lois was on the phone and said
23 to Mr. Howe "Ask Mike how he likes to be blackmailed." This not
hearsay. The plaintiffs have
24 admitted to this in previous cases. When blackmail didn't work they turned to abusing court
25 processes. I can go on as there are many other examples of them using the court to harass me. Yet,
26 they are suing for having emotional distress because of me doing what exactly?
27
28
PAGE b
Doing what they've done to me would cause anyone severe stress. If the plaintiffs are so sensitive
to stress then why go out of their way to harass me, repeatedly sue me and appeal for invalid
reasons? Wouldn't that cause them stress and why do something to someone they don't want
done to them?
Not only should the entirety of this case be dismissed for being a duplicate of a case already heard,
lack of grounds, statue of limitations considerations, and various reasons many of the claims can't
be sued for....the plaintiffs should be sanctioned by the court so that this harassment through the
court can not continue against me or anyone else. I was contacted by someone else they have been
doing similar things to. I have no problem calling him as a witness to this should this case actually
10 go on. They have an established pattern of misuse of the court I want this to end. I'don't want to
ll have to keep counter suing them no matter how legitimate my claims are, I want their misuse of
12 the court to stop or be stopped.
l3 Icould not locate the proper information in time for this response to file a request to dismiss this
l4 case in a more If there is one for a defendant, I will be doing so soon and will
proper way. expand
15 on the grounds mentioned above.
l6
l7
18
l9
20
21
22
23
(\A tel/kw} ,TLMg
24
25
z/Ifi/zi
26
27
28
Preview
PAGE g MICHAELTEVIS 1935 BROADWAY ST CHICO, CA95928 F F 530-306-5806 County of Butte I I Self-Represented FEB 9 2021 E 1 E D i l lener, Clerk D By ,Deputy BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1175 CONCORD AVE 10 CHICO, CA 95928 ll 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF BUTTE l4 Case No.2 20CV02570 l5 LOISANN SCULTZ AND LANE COPLEY I RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT l6 Petitioner/ Plaintiff, l7 v. 18 MICHAEL TEVIS, 19 Respondent/ Defendant 20 21 First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out that the entirety of any even remotely arguable 22 claims in this complaint have already been heard and decided ‘ upon by the court through small 23 claims case 19SCOZO36. 24 25 The remainder ofthe claims in the plaintiffs complaint constitute perjury and illegally made 26 claims (hearsay, past statute of limitations, claims of consequential damages that are invalid, and 27 other illegitimate scenarios for making a l would recommend the court review the list complaint). 28 of claims they propose and the lengthy list of motions, answers, various attempts to-delay (many PAGE x} C that included several court postponements for things they said they needed to do which they never did),clear perjury, using the court for harassment, and many other forms constituting abuse of the court. The list is so extensive and thoroughly documented in their own words alone that I have a lawyer ready to file a cross complaint for this abuse of the court and other harassment should this case and their harassment, and any future cases based on what has already been tried, continue to take place. At a minimum the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants. Just like the ridiculously long list of reasons why they needed to keep postponing a small claims case for several months, multiple times, they are trying to throw as much into this claim as they lO can possibly imagine whether factual or not, whether legal to claim or not. In the time given I 11 cannot properly respond to the 70 pages full of problematic claims. Below I briefly address the 5 12 different categories they've come up with for this latest abuse of the court: 13 l4 1.Breach of contract: Again, already covered by the previous case 19SC02036. The project was 15 paid by payments from the plaintiffs over a long period of time. This was not a normal automotive l6 repair scenario not only because of the nature of the work involved but because of the time frame l7 that was mutually understood. Once the parts were ready to begin work on their vehicle I told 18 them to bring it by in the spring. They brought it by in the winter because their engine failed due l9 to their neglect of checking the oil. I stored their vehicle for free in the same exact placethey 20 previous paid for other vehicles to be stored and told them I will do what I can, but it's at the shop 21 several months early. I made substantial progress in the time frame between when they dropped 22 it off and the time frame it was supposed to be there. 23 The plaintiff came to the shop and got very angry that more progress wasn't made even though 24 the car shouldn't have even been there yet and demanded to pick up the car. Then she picked it up. 25 This action by the plaintiffs ended the oral contract for the time frame of the work to be 26 completed. Even if this matter wasn't already heard and tried in court, it is now well past the 27 statute of limitations to complain on this matter. 28 PAGES 2.Conversion: I asked many, many times in emails, texts and phone calls what the plaintiffs wanted to pick up from my shop. They initially gave me only the name of a specific set of parts and those were provided to them and have been acknowledge as received. No further list was given despite my many attempts and no sign that they weren't going to have me finish the work was evident until after they sued me. So, why would they need all the parts ifI was to finish the work as agreed? According to the plaintiffs they were picking up their car only to bring it back later when I was ready to finish. I made many reasonable and proven attempts to resolve the small number of parts that weren't picked up. When I told plaintiff Lane Copley that I still had keys to the car this case is about and lO several of his other cars, he simply told me that they don't have those vehicles anymore. If the new ll shop doing the work had requested a list of parts from me they then would have received them. 12 Instead I just got sued. There was no intent or benefit to me being left with the small remainder of l3 parts, which I'm still happy to return. But, no communication productive to this supposed concern l4 of the plaintiffs has been made. 15 l6 3.Fraud: It should be clear from my communication with the plaintiffs and their communication l7 with me throughout the years of our business and friendship that there was never any intent 18 whatsoever to deceive or any other malicious intent that can even be remotely considered fraud. l9 Again, this concern was already addressed by the court in the small claims case noted above. 20 21 4.5talking. California Penal Code 646.9 defines this offense as: 22 "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously 23 harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in 24 reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety ofhis or her immediate family is guilty of the 25 crime of stalking..." 26 27 This claim is no doubt the most hurtful to me personally and the most egregious misuse of the 28 court in this whole claim. Not only has there been no pattern of such behavior, there has not been PAGE’7 one single incident that even remotely comes close to that behavior. This claim against me is so outrageous I want to sue for the harassment and libel ofthe claim alone. It is damaging to my reputation to make such outlandish claims against me and very reckless to do so with no basis. l made a police report, that has already been submitted to the court, on the plaintiffs driving my stolen car to the court house and then repeatedly driving it back and forth in front of my house after a court hearing. This incident was the only reported incident between us and the only incident that even comes close to this definition, but it was committed by the plaintiffs. 10 5.NIED 11 12 Like the perjury of the plaintiffs making a stalking claim against me, this is just another one of the 13 Plaintiffs attempts to throw whatever they can into the case hoping something sticks. The volume 14 of horrible accusations against me creates bias and other misuses of the court. There should be 15 consequences for the plaintiffs misusing the court. ' 16 17 If the plaintiffs are having emotional distress related to me, one way for them to resolve that is to 18 stop bringing false, vengeful claims to court. Another way is to stop spending time online 19 harassing past, present and future customers of places I work. An additional suggestion would be 2o to respond to me in a productive way so I can respond to any legitimate concerns. 21 22 What has not been a cause of NIIED that should be considered a reasonable complaint by any court 23 is any action or statement l have made. 24 25 This whole case is about a car that didn't get finished before the time it was supposed to be 26 dropped off. I have made many reasonable attempts to resolve this including having my new 27 employer complete the work at no additional cost to the plaintiffs. l even tried calling the shop I 28 was told their car was taken to in order to make sure the process went smoother. None of the PAGE; definitions of neglect that I have found match what occurred and the emotional stress that the plaintiffs supposedly endured from having to take their car to a different shop could easily have been avoided if they communicated with me or the people who I had tried to help them. The case was filed after well over a year of after their initial suit for the part of this relating to a transaction we had. This case was filed shortly after I sued them for stealing my car. l won that case and the appeal they made . This is new and duplicate civil claim is purely an additional act of revenge. 10 If these people are so sensitive that me not finishing their project before the time frame I ll promised to even start is so upsetting to them that they have to sue me over it, then they shouldn't 12 be harassing other people like this. They sued me for putting tires on my car that they refused to l3 return, then ended the case the day before it was set to be heard so l would waste my time taking 14 off work and going to a case that no longer existed. Another time they served me a 100 page 15 answer to the court the morning of the court date. They went around contacting anyone who was l6 ever unhappy with me for any reason. The plaintiffs have also contacted future customers of my l7 employer about me even though I'm not even in a position of power to have any problems with 18 customers through my new employer. Several of these people contacted my current employer. I 19 fought with my now ex wife because it was her car that the plaintiffs stole from me and then the 20 problems they caused through riling up the few previous customers who had problems with me. 21 22 The plaintiff, Lane Copley, called my employer Brian Howe, while Lois was on the phone and said 23 to Mr. Howe "Ask Mike how he likes to be blackmailed." This not hearsay. The plaintiffs have 24 admitted to this in previous cases. When blackmail didn't work they turned to abusing court 25 processes. I can go on as there are many other examples of them using the court to harass me. Yet, 26 they are suing for having emotional distress because of me doing what exactly? 27 28 PAGE b Doing what they've done to me would cause anyone severe stress. If the plaintiffs are so sensitive to stress then why go out of their way to harass me, repeatedly sue me and appeal for invalid reasons? Wouldn't that cause them stress and why do something to someone they don't want done to them? Not only should the entirety of this case be dismissed for being a duplicate of a case already heard, lack of grounds, statue of limitations considerations, and various reasons many of the claims can't be sued for....the plaintiffs should be sanctioned by the court so that this harassment through the court can not continue against me or anyone else. I was contacted by someone else they have been doing similar things to. I have no problem calling him as a witness to this should this case actually 10 go on. They have an established pattern of misuse of the court I want this to end. I'don't want to ll have to keep counter suing them no matter how legitimate my claims are, I want their misuse of 12 the court to stop or be stopped. l3 Icould not locate the proper information in time for this response to file a request to dismiss this l4 case in a more If there is one for a defendant, I will be doing so soon and will proper way. expand 15 on the grounds mentioned above. l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 (\A tel/kw} ,TLMg 24 25 z/Ifi/zi 26 27 28