COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 1 notice of anything that was attached to these pleadings without complying with CCP § 2015.5. In addition, the document attached to our copy of defendants motion appears to be illegible. Further, it is not clear from defendant's moving papers under what theory defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a "unit of measure selected by the plaintiff'. The "plaintiff" in this case is the People of the State of California, not the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services.5 Secondly, the statute specifically alleges quantities of chemicals in the alternative, and this is not disjunctive as stated by the defense in this motion.b Next, regarding the defense counsels attempt to contact this office regarding this matter. Again, these statements are alleged as "facts" and are not supported by a declaration from the defense counsel. The counsel in this matter would have responded with a declaration had the defense filed one of their own. Again, we ask the Court to disregard this portion of the defense brief and the attachments. Mr. Schuckman has included, as Exhibit "D", to his moving papers, a partial attachment that does not include the letter I sent to Mr. Ellis. This type of abuse should not be allowed. Mr. Schuckman has included, as Exhibit "E", to his moving papers, a letter which he now purports to be the basis for his meet and confer. This letter is quite self-serving and should be disallowed for the reasons listed above. However, if the Court does allow this document to be part of the record, the Court should look at the vagueness contained in paragraph 3 of Exhibit E. Finally, if the Court allows Exhibits "F" and "G", we request that the Court note that the defendant, did not: provide any suggested language that would correct his perceived problems with our language, cite any case law, mention that he lacked the requisite knowledge required by CCP 430.10 (e) and/or (f) and/or mention that there had been meetings with two prior counsel for Mr. Badway where the lawsuit was explained in it's entirety to competent counsel. What was mentioned, for the first time, 5 Using this same logic, the People request that the Court disallow or discount any information contained in Exhibit "B" attached to the defense motion. 6 Section § 25503.5(a). Our complaint was pled using the term "or" at page 3, line 13, iot "and" as indicated in the defense papers at page 2, line 8. Paragraph 12a. of our complaint reads is follows: "Violation of Health and Safety Code § 25503.5 by being a business which handles iazardous materials of more than 55 gallons, 500 pounds or 200 cubic feet including but not limited o CARBON DIOXIDE and not having established a business plan for emergency response for 1304 's. HAANIER LANE, SUITE #1, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95210." (emphasis added)