Preview
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w
IPERIOR CLUS? = STOCK TOR
\
TOREM & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT|LAW M2LBAY 12 PH 35h
9100 Wilshire Boulevard -
Suite 820 East ' LEY, CLERK
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Telephone: (310) 276-7878 FH Zl
Facsimile: (310) 276-8818 EES 0 g
RON TOREM, ESQ,
YIGAL TOREM, ESQ.
DANIEL A. TOREM, ESQ.
State Bar Nos. 134280/110015/325346
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JO EDWIN TAYLOR IIL, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH
HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE
, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent CASE NO.
adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L.
MOORE Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters
Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
1 aintitt, OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION T!
vs. ! DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATION OF DANIEL A.
GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET TOREM
SINGH; and DOES 1! through 150, inclusive,
Date: May 25, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept. : 11
Defendants.
Filing Date: 02/23/2021
BY FAX
i
i
TO DEFENDANT|GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
COMES NOW JOE EDWIN TAYLOR IU, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS
GUARD: AD LITEM_TELISHA L. MOORE and hereby submits this opposition to Demurrer
1
| OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to the operative complaint in this action, Defendant attempts to have this case disposed of by
Demurrer on the giounds that Mr. Taylor is a fugitive and as such cannot avail himself of the
judicial process of this court. The issue cannot be decided by Demurrer as it requires proof by
Defendant that Mr. Taylor has knowingly evaded the power of the Court to answer for any alleged
criminal wrongdoing. Moreover, the warrants at issue that Defendant claims are outstanding and
thus make Mr. Taylor a fugitive, have been recalled as of May 12, 202! and upon completion|of
the Court docket in this regard, Plaintiff will provide proof of same by declaration and Judicial
Notice. That in all respects, the Demurrer must be overruled.
Said opposition shall be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities,
the declaration of Daniel A. Torem, the court file and pleadings and such other and further
argument as may be heard in this matter.
Dated: May 12, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
' By:
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR Il,
an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
2
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
|
L
FACTS
Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and was the
‘
1
operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License
plates XP7 1593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about
January 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner
tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was
driving southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for
traffic and violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR II
(“Plaintiff”) was an occupant of, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of
which was so severe that Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body including
quadriplegia and brain damage from which he has not recover. Since the date of the collision,
he has been in inpatient care and is unable to communicate.
|
1
IL
DEFENDANT IS USING THE WRONG DEMURRER
A general demurrer presents the same question to the appellate court as to the trial
court--namely, whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in the complaint to justify relicf
on any legal dheory. B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 949,
953, 230 Cal! Rptr: 192. A special demurrer challenges a pleading based on one of the other
grounds that are enumerated by statute, and do not fall within a general demurrer. See C.C.P.
§§ 430.10, 430.20. ‘A special demurrer is typically filed in response to a complaint in the
following sednarios: (1) there is no capacity to sue, Here Defendant argues that Mr. Taylor has
no capacity to sue ince he is alleged to be a felon. Defendant has asserted the wrong demurrer.
The grounds for a special demurrer are waived unless they are raised by a special demurrer.
3
| OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CCP§ 430.80. On this basis alone, Defendant’s demurrer should be denied.
iil.
THE DEMURRER IS MISPLACED AS THE ISSUE REQUIRES AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
Defendant asserts that since Plaintiff Taylor is alleged to be a fugitive, he has no right|to
bring the instant action. A complaint is subject to a special demurrer where the plaintiff lacks|
the legal capacity to sue. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(b); Klopstock v. Superior Court,
(1941) 17 Cal. 2d 13, 17-18.) It is well established that the plaintiff, under indictment has no |
legal capacity to invoke this Court's jurisdiction from afar by filing an absentee civil law suit,
Courts in this State and elsewhere have long applied the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” to
dismiss civil actions filed by plaintiffs “who seek[ ] to invoke the processes of the law while
flouting them.” (Conforte v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 692 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir.
1982), aff'd 459 U.S. 1309 (1983); see e.g., Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970)
A fugitive is “one who, with knowledge that he is being sought pursuant to court!
process ina criminal action, absents himself or flees.” Estate of Scott vy. Nat'l Trust &
Sav. Bank (1957) 150 Cal. App. 2d 590,592. Defendant herein bears the burden of
establishing that Mr. Taylor knows he is being sought by the criminal courts and knows there|
are warrants out for his arrest. Mr. Taylor has been in inpatient hospital care since the day of
collision. Without such proof, Mr. Taylor cannot be deemed a fugitive and the disentitlement
doctrine does not apply. The Demurrer must be overruled.
IV.
MR. TAYLOR’S WARRANTS HAVE BEEN RECALLED SUCH THAT HE IS NO!
LONGER A FUGITIVE
i
As set out in the declaration of Daniel A; Torem, Mr. Taylor’s criminal counsel
| :
appeared on May 12, 2021 in the Criminal Court where the warrants had been issued and
4 |
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
'10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entered his appearance for Mr. Taylor, and had the warrants recalled. Mr. Taylor is no longer a
fugitive such that the Demurrer must be overruled.
v.
! CONCLUSION
Deferidant has pursued the wrong type of demurrer and as such has waived the claim
that Mr. Taylor lacks the capacity to suc since he is an alleged fugitive. Defendant’s demurrer
is misplaced as the allegation that Mr. Taylor is a fugitive requires proof of knowledge that he
' i
is a wanted criminal. Finally, the warrants at issue have been recalled such that Mr. Taylor is no
longer a fugitive. The Demurrer must be overruled.
Dated: May 12, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
Ss
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
Attomey for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR II,
an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
1 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
a
By:
|
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION oF DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
I, DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ, DO DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
1,
2.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 12" day of May,
r
2021 at Los Angeles, California.
Iam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of this state.
lam trial counsel at Torem & Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiff and I make this
declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and
could competently testify thereto.
Since’the date of the collision, Mr. Taylor has been hospitalized.
That Plaintiff, retained Criminal Defense Attorney Kia Feyjzhou to represent him in his
pending criminal matters as set out in the Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.
That on May 12, 2021 the warrants pending against Mr. Taylor were recalled such that
he is no longer a fugitive.
That as soon as I can obtain the criminal docket noting the warrant recalls, I will
produce same by declaration or Judicial Notice.
; —
DANIEL A, TOREM
6
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
PROOF OF SERVICE
|
iCode of Civil Procedure
iCode of Civil Procedure §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5
|
lam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 1607 Pontius Avenue, Los Angeles, California
90025.
\
On the date listed below, I served the foregoing document described as OPPOSITION TO
DEMURRER on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope, addressed as follows:
1
! SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
. EMAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the documents to be sent to the
persons at the email addresses listed on the attached service list. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the submission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
a BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I served said document y personally serving the above-
named at
EXECUTED on May 12, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
|
xX I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the
above is tue and correct.
Daniel A. Torem
7
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
I
ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
Steven B. Health, Esq.
Steven W. Yuen, Esq.
Lucy K. Galek, Esq.
HEATH & YUEN
268 Bush Street, Suite 3006
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 622-7004
Facsimile: (415) 373-3957
Email: sheath@heathandyuen.com; syuen@heathandyuen.com; igalek@heathandyuen.com;
wyang@heathandyuen.com; kgorostieta@heathandyuen.com
{
i
Attorneys for Defendant, GREWAL CARGO, INC and Charanjeet Singh.
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
8
|
|
Preview
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w IPERIOR CLUS? = STOCK TOR \ TOREM & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT|LAW M2LBAY 12 PH 35h 9100 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 820 East ' LEY, CLERK Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 276-7878 FH Zl Facsimile: (310) 276-8818 EES 0 g RON TOREM, ESQ, YIGAL TOREM, ESQ. DANIEL A. TOREM, ESQ. State Bar Nos. 134280/110015/325346 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JO EDWIN TAYLOR IIL, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE , SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA | FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent CASE NO. adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 1 aintitt, OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION T! vs. ! DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET TOREM SINGH; and DOES 1! through 150, inclusive, Date: May 25, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept. : 11 Defendants. Filing Date: 02/23/2021 BY FAX i i TO DEFENDANT|GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD: COMES NOW JOE EDWIN TAYLOR IU, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARD: AD LITEM_TELISHA L. MOORE and hereby submits this opposition to Demurrer 1 | OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the operative complaint in this action, Defendant attempts to have this case disposed of by Demurrer on the giounds that Mr. Taylor is a fugitive and as such cannot avail himself of the judicial process of this court. The issue cannot be decided by Demurrer as it requires proof by Defendant that Mr. Taylor has knowingly evaded the power of the Court to answer for any alleged criminal wrongdoing. Moreover, the warrants at issue that Defendant claims are outstanding and thus make Mr. Taylor a fugitive, have been recalled as of May 12, 202! and upon completion|of the Court docket in this regard, Plaintiff will provide proof of same by declaration and Judicial Notice. That in all respects, the Demurrer must be overruled. Said opposition shall be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Daniel A. Torem, the court file and pleadings and such other and further argument as may be heard in this matter. Dated: May 12, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES ' By: DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR Il, an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 2 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES | L FACTS Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and was the ‘ 1 operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License plates XP7 1593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about January 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was driving southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for traffic and violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR II (“Plaintiff”) was an occupant of, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which was so severe that Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body including quadriplegia and brain damage from which he has not recover. Since the date of the collision, he has been in inpatient care and is unable to communicate. | 1 IL DEFENDANT IS USING THE WRONG DEMURRER A general demurrer presents the same question to the appellate court as to the trial court--namely, whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in the complaint to justify relicf on any legal dheory. B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 949, 953, 230 Cal! Rptr: 192. A special demurrer challenges a pleading based on one of the other grounds that are enumerated by statute, and do not fall within a general demurrer. See C.C.P. §§ 430.10, 430.20. ‘A special demurrer is typically filed in response to a complaint in the following sednarios: (1) there is no capacity to sue, Here Defendant argues that Mr. Taylor has no capacity to sue ince he is alleged to be a felon. Defendant has asserted the wrong demurrer. The grounds for a special demurrer are waived unless they are raised by a special demurrer. 3 | OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CCP§ 430.80. On this basis alone, Defendant’s demurrer should be denied. iil. THE DEMURRER IS MISPLACED AS THE ISSUE REQUIRES AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Defendant asserts that since Plaintiff Taylor is alleged to be a fugitive, he has no right|to bring the instant action. A complaint is subject to a special demurrer where the plaintiff lacks| the legal capacity to sue. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(b); Klopstock v. Superior Court, (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 13, 17-18.) It is well established that the plaintiff, under indictment has no | legal capacity to invoke this Court's jurisdiction from afar by filing an absentee civil law suit, Courts in this State and elsewhere have long applied the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” to dismiss civil actions filed by plaintiffs “who seek[ ] to invoke the processes of the law while flouting them.” (Conforte v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 692 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir. 1982), aff'd 459 U.S. 1309 (1983); see e.g., Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970) A fugitive is “one who, with knowledge that he is being sought pursuant to court! process ina criminal action, absents himself or flees.” Estate of Scott vy. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Bank (1957) 150 Cal. App. 2d 590,592. Defendant herein bears the burden of establishing that Mr. Taylor knows he is being sought by the criminal courts and knows there| are warrants out for his arrest. Mr. Taylor has been in inpatient hospital care since the day of collision. Without such proof, Mr. Taylor cannot be deemed a fugitive and the disentitlement doctrine does not apply. The Demurrer must be overruled. IV. MR. TAYLOR’S WARRANTS HAVE BEEN RECALLED SUCH THAT HE IS NO! LONGER A FUGITIVE i As set out in the declaration of Daniel A; Torem, Mr. Taylor’s criminal counsel | : appeared on May 12, 2021 in the Criminal Court where the warrants had been issued and 4 | OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER '10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 entered his appearance for Mr. Taylor, and had the warrants recalled. Mr. Taylor is no longer a fugitive such that the Demurrer must be overruled. v. ! CONCLUSION Deferidant has pursued the wrong type of demurrer and as such has waived the claim that Mr. Taylor lacks the capacity to suc since he is an alleged fugitive. Defendant’s demurrer is misplaced as the allegation that Mr. Taylor is a fugitive requires proof of knowledge that he ' i is a wanted criminal. Finally, the warrants at issue have been recalled such that Mr. Taylor is no longer a fugitive. The Demurrer must be overruled. Dated: May 12, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES Ss DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. Attomey for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR II, an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian 1 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE a By: | OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION oF DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. I, DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ, DO DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: 1, 2. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 12" day of May, r 2021 at Los Angeles, California. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of this state. lam trial counsel at Torem & Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiff and I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and could competently testify thereto. Since’the date of the collision, Mr. Taylor has been hospitalized. That Plaintiff, retained Criminal Defense Attorney Kia Feyjzhou to represent him in his pending criminal matters as set out in the Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. That on May 12, 2021 the warrants pending against Mr. Taylor were recalled such that he is no longer a fugitive. That as soon as I can obtain the criminal docket noting the warrant recalls, I will produce same by declaration or Judicial Notice. ; — DANIEL A, TOREM 6 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i PROOF OF SERVICE | iCode of Civil Procedure iCode of Civil Procedure §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5 | lam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1607 Pontius Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90025. \ On the date listed below, I served the foregoing document described as OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: 1 ! SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST . EMAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the submission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. a BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I served said document y personally serving the above- named at EXECUTED on May 12, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. | xX I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the above is tue and correct. Daniel A. Torem 7 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Steven B. Health, Esq. Steven W. Yuen, Esq. Lucy K. Galek, Esq. HEATH & YUEN 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 622-7004 Facsimile: (415) 373-3957 Email: sheath@heathandyuen.com; syuen@heathandyuen.com; igalek@heathandyuen.com; wyang@heathandyuen.com; kgorostieta@heathandyuen.com { i Attorneys for Defendant, GREWAL CARGO, INC and Charanjeet Singh. OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 8 | |