On March 12, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Daisy Ozim,
Ozim, Daisy,
and
Desire Johnson,
Joclyn Jones,
Johnson, Desire,
Social Good Fund,
Social Good Fund, Inc.,
The California Endowment,
for Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice
in the District Court of Alameda County.
Preview
: ncn _ 22644725
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
_ALAMEDA FILED
ALAMEDA-COUNTY
SEP. 4 4.2020
CLERK 7. THE SUPERIOR
By <é& Pege
DAISY OZIM, et al., RG20-058419
Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING THE MOTION
| TO RECUSE JUDGE SERVED
v. | | SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
_THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT,
Defendant.
On Saturday, September 5, 2020, at 9:28 p.m., plaintiff Daisy Ozim emailed an
eight-page unverified document captioned Motion to Recuse to Department 19 (hereinafter
the “Motion”). The email stated that the Motion was being filed with the court, however,
as of the afternoon of September 14 it has not appeared on the registerof actions. I read
|
the Motion and determined that it is a second challenge for cause.
Because access to court facilities is severely limited due to the pandemic, |
determined that the equities of the situation require that I would consider myself to have
been served as of Tuesday, September 8, the first date the court was open for business
following the Labor Day weekend.
A review of the Motion shows that itis procedurally defective, therefore it will be
stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(b).
The Motion Is Not Verified. A challenge for cause requires filing and serving a
verified statement setting forth the facts requiring disqualification. The Motion is not
verified, i.e.,signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, CCP
section 2015.5. This alone would require that the Challenge be stricken. (Bompensiero v.
Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 178, 183.)
The Motion Is Not Baased on Newly Discovered Facts. As noted, there was a
prior challenge for cause, stricken on August 11, 2020. In this situation any further
challenge must be based on new facts, or facts newly discovered. Repetitious challenges
are to be stricken, CCP section 170.4(c)(3). The Motion does not identify any such new
or newly discovered facts.
|
Order. Because the Motion is not verified and discloses no new legal grounds for
i
‘
disqualification, it isordered STRICKEN pursuant to section 170.4(b).
The parties are reminded that this determination of the question of disqualification
is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the Court
of Appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision.
bate_A[h pure Wu
Hon. Stephen D. Kaus
Judge of the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Case Number: RG20058419
Case Name: OZIM v. THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
| certify that | am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy Order
Striking The Motion To Recuse Judge Served September 8, 2020 filed on September 14,
2020 was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addressed as shown on
the foregoing document or on the attached, and that the mailing of the foregoing and
execution of this certificate occurred at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California.
| declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
September 15, 2020.
Chad Finke, Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court
a» Cele
(Angelica Mendola
MLE
Deputy Clerk
Daisy Ozim
2344 E. 17' Street, Apt #8
Oakland, CA 94601
Mark D. Fenske
Vog! Meredith Burke, LLP
456 Montgomery Street, 20" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Document Filed Date
September 14, 2020
Case Filing Date
March 12, 2020
Category
Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
: ncn _ 22644725 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF _ALAMEDA FILED ALAMEDA-COUNTY SEP. 4 4.2020 CLERK 7. THE SUPERIOR By <é& Pege DAISY OZIM, et al., RG20-058419 Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING THE MOTION | TO RECUSE JUDGE SERVED v. | | SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 _THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT, Defendant. On Saturday, September 5, 2020, at 9:28 p.m., plaintiff Daisy Ozim emailed an eight-page unverified document captioned Motion to Recuse to Department 19 (hereinafter the “Motion”). The email stated that the Motion was being filed with the court, however, as of the afternoon of September 14 it has not appeared on the registerof actions. I read | the Motion and determined that it is a second challenge for cause. Because access to court facilities is severely limited due to the pandemic, | determined that the equities of the situation require that I would consider myself to have been served as of Tuesday, September 8, the first date the court was open for business following the Labor Day weekend. A review of the Motion shows that itis procedurally defective, therefore it will be stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(b). The Motion Is Not Verified. A challenge for cause requires filing and serving a verified statement setting forth the facts requiring disqualification. The Motion is not verified, i.e.,signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, CCP section 2015.5. This alone would require that the Challenge be stricken. (Bompensiero v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 178, 183.) The Motion Is Not Baased on Newly Discovered Facts. As noted, there was a prior challenge for cause, stricken on August 11, 2020. In this situation any further challenge must be based on new facts, or facts newly discovered. Repetitious challenges are to be stricken, CCP section 170.4(c)(3). The Motion does not identify any such new or newly discovered facts. | Order. Because the Motion is not verified and discloses no new legal grounds for i ‘ disqualification, it isordered STRICKEN pursuant to section 170.4(b). The parties are reminded that this determination of the question of disqualification is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision. bate_A[h pure Wu Hon. Stephen D. Kaus Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Case Number: RG20058419 Case Name: OZIM v. THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL | certify that | am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy Order Striking The Motion To Recuse Judge Served September 8, 2020 filed on September 14, 2020 was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addressed as shown on the foregoing document or on the attached, and that the mailing of the foregoing and execution of this certificate occurred at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California. | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 15, 2020. Chad Finke, Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court a» Cele (Angelica Mendola MLE Deputy Clerk Daisy Ozim 2344 E. 17' Street, Apt #8 Oakland, CA 94601 Mark D. Fenske Vog! Meredith Burke, LLP 456 Montgomery Street, 20" Floor San Francisco, CA 94104