THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION )OF WOMEN, INC. )
)Petitioner, )
)v. )
)SUPERIOR COURT OF )LOS ANGLES COUNTY, )APPELLATE DIVISION )
Respondent )))))
DONALD L. ZACHARY )Real Party In Interest )
Case No.
Court of AppealCase No. B 236477
Superior CourtCase Nos. BV -029460
and 10A02408
PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
From an Order of the Appellate Division of the Superior CourtHon. P. McKay, Presiding JudgeHon. Anita Dymant, Judge
From a Judgment of the Los Angeles Superior CourtHon. Lawrence H. Cho, Judge
Law Office of Jeffrey P. Lustman State Bar o. 1811417336 Santa Monica Blvd. #637
Los Angeles, CA 90046(323) 462-3810
Attorney For Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .1
Pertinent Facts of the Case 1
Petitioner AA W's Core Positions 3
Issues Presented For Review 5
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 8.500(b) 8
A. Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of Decisions 8
B. Review is Necessary to Settle Important Questions of Law .10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance(1995) 10 Cal. 4th 866 9(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 630 10
Carr v. Kamins 4,8(2007) 151 Cal.App. 4th 929
Christie v. City ofEl Centro 9(2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 767
County of Ventura v. Tillett 3,8(1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 105
Giometti v. Etienne 9(1934) 219 Cal. 687
Residents For Adequate Water V. Redwood Valley County Water District. 3,8(1995) 34 CA 4th 1801
Rossco Holding, Inc. v. Bank of America 9(2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1353
Statutes
California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 170.1 8Section 473(d) 1,8Section 904.1(a)(2) 2,5,8,10Section 1085(a)_ 2,4Section 1086 2,3,4,5,7
Others
California Rules of Court 8Rule 8.500(b)
Witkin, Cal Procedure 3
ii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Pertinent Fact of the Case
In 2010, Donald L. Zachary (hereinafter "Zachary"), an attorney,
filed a small claims action in a dispute over attorney fees with his
client American Association of Women, Inc. (hereinafter "AAW")
After losing the case in the initial Small Claims hearing, AAW
filed an appeal for a trial de novo on November 5, 2010.
On January 10, 2011, the purported trial de novo hearing was held
and Judge Lawrence Cho rendered a judgment. (see Exhibit 1,
attached hereto) There was no official Transcript or recording of the
hearing.
On January 31, 2011, AA W filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied by Judge Cho on February 2, 2011. (See Exhibit 2,
attached hereto)
On August 2, 2011, AA W filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate
the Void Judgment by Judge Lawrence Cho on January 10, 2011,
pursuant to California CCP Section 473(d), which was denied on
August 5, 2011.
On September 2, 2011, AAW filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
1
On September 6, 2011, AA W filed with the Appellate Division of
the Superior Court an Application for Certificate for Transfer to the
Court of Appeal.
On October 7, 2011 Petitioner AAW filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate, pursuant to CCP Sections 1085 and 1086, seeking to set
aside the lower court's void order of January 10,2011.
On October 11, 2011, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court
issued an ORDER dismissing AAW's appeal filed September 2,2011
because the court lacked jurisdiction. (See Exhibit 3 attached hereto)
The Appellate Division also denied AAW' s request that the case be
certified to the COUliof Appeal.
On October 21, 2011, AA W filed several motions in the Court of
Appeal. Among them was a motion to have the writ proceedings
converted into a civil appeal pursuant to CCP 940.1(a)(2), based
on case law.
On November 14,2011, the Court of Appeal denied AAW's
Petition of Writ of Mandate "... for failure to demonstrate
entitlement to extraordinary relief." The Court also denied the
motion to convert the writ proceeding to a civil appeal. (See
Exhibit 4 attached hereto)
2
Petitioner AAW's Core Positions
Petitioner AAW contends that the January 10,2011 judgment order in
the case by Judge Lawrence Cho was and is void because 1) Judge
Cho was a disqualified judge who lacked personal jurisdiction to
rule on the case and 2) Judge Cho committed misconduct and denied
AAW its legal rights and due process of law. Thus, AA W never
received the legitimate trial de novo to which it was entitled.
"A judgment is void on its face if the court which rendered the
judgment lacked personal ... jurisdiction." (Emphasis added)
County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110
The Appellate Division's order dated October 11,2011 and the
Court of Appeal's order dated November 14, 2011 give effect to the
void order of January 10, 2011. They are both void and the subjects
of this Petition For Review.
"An order after judgment [such as the aforesaid orders of October
11,2011 and November 14,2011] that gives effect to a judgment
that is void on its face is itself void and subject to appeal. •.•
(Residents for Adequate Water v. Redwood Valley County Water
District (1995) 34 Cal. App.4th 1801, 1805 ... ; see 9 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, Section 155, pp.220-22l)"
3
(Emphasis added). Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 929, 933-
934.
Petitioner's petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal
was specifically brought pursuant to CCP Sections 1085 and 1086:
"A Writ of Mandate my be issued by any courtto any inferior tribunal. .. to compel theperformance of an act which the law speciallyenjoins .... " (Section 1085(a))
"The writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain,speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."(Section 1086)
Petitioner AA W's post-judgment Motion to Set Aside and Vacate
the Void Judgment of January 1, 2011 was denied by Judge Cho in the
trial court. AAW's appeal to the Appellate Division was denied for
lack of jurisdiction. AAW' s petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court
of Appeal was turned down for purported failure to demonstrate
entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Petitioner AA W is not appealing issues of substance in the case,
i.e. the interpretation of facts and the adverse finding against AAW.
Petitioner's appeal is based on the void judgment by a disqualified
judge, who was also guilty of misconduct and of denying AA W' s
legal and due process rights.
4
As set forth hereinabove, AAW has experienced a distinct lack of
any" ... plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law," in its attempt to correct the legal and procedural mistakes
leading up to the void judgment of January 10,2011. This is certainly
a case" ... where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary courts of law." A writ of mandate "must be issued" in
this case (CCP Section 1086) and the denial of AA W's writ petition
by the Court of Appeal must be reversed.
If, however, the Court of Appeal felt that Petitioner AAW had
made a simple procedural error (filing a writ petition without
having or demonstrating entitlement to extraordinary relief), the
court should have granted AAW's motion for a civil appeal under
904.1(a)(2) to preserve AAW's causes of action and rights of
appeal, rather than using a procedural error to destroy AAW's
causes and rights.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
l. When a trial court judge 1) has permitted and considered an ex-
parte communication (and thereby given an "appearance of
impropriety," 2) has failed to "swear in" parties and witnesses) 3) has
denied a party its legal right to present witnesses, 4) has failed to
5
enforce a valid subpoena for records, and 5) has failed to require a
party to produce a statutorily required statement, is such a judge
disqualified for cause from hearing the case?
2. Is a California judge, who lack personal jurisdiction, disqualified
from hearing a case?
3. Are all California judges obligated to comply with the Code of
Judicial Ethics?
4. Are trial court judges allowed to receive secret, ex-parte
communications from a party in a case?
5. Are trial court judges entitled to ignore the California Evidence
Code?
6. Are trial court judges entitled to deny a party its statutory right to
present witnesses?
7. Are trial court judges entitled to ignore and fail to enforce a valid
subpoena for records?
8. Are trial court judges allowed to disregard 5 sworn declarations
submitted in the record by eye witnesses at the January 10, 2011
hearing, attesting to the facts set forth in Nos. 4-7 directly above?
6
9. How should trial court judges evaluate the aforesaid sworn
declarations when the party opposing AAW has never submitted any
evidence contradicting AAW' s charges?
10. Are trial court judges entitled to fail to require a party to produce
statutorily required statement?
11. Are trial court judges allowed to ignore California law or does
California law apply only to certain courts in California?
12. Are trial court judges allowed to deny a party its legal rights and
due process rights under the law?
13. In the AAW case, is there a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law?
14. Are California Courts of Appeal free to ignore the statutory
mandate of CCP Section 1086: "The writ [of mandate] must issue in
all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law? (Emphasis added)
15. Should a Court of Appeal be able to use a party's procedural
defect to deny the party its rights to appeal substantial issues that
were wrongly decided in a court below?
7
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 8.500 (b)
A. Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of Decisions
1. California courts have held that orders such as Judge Cho's
denial of AAW's 473(d) motion to vacate a void judgment
are appealable under CCP Section 904.1(a)(2):
"An order denying ... a motion [to vacate] is aspecial order made after entry of judgment that maybe directly attacked on appeal. (County ofVentura v. Tillett [(1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 105,110];see Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd.(a)(2).)" (Emphasisadded) Residents for Adequate Water v. Redwood ValleyCounty Water Dist. (1995) 34 Cal.App.a" 1801, 1805.
"... [A] motion to vacate is appealable as a special ordermade after entry of judgment. (See § 904.1, subd.(a)(2).)"(Emphasis added) Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th929,933.
The Court of Appeal below, in denying AAW's motion to
have its case heard as a civil appeal under Section 904.1(a)(2), has
ruled in direct contradiction to established law. The Court, using
a technical procedural error (filing a writ petition v. a 904.1(a)(2)
civil appeal), has violated established California law.
2. California courts and statute have long held that judges are
disqualified if a person knowing the facts of a case would have
a reasonable doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial.
CCP Sections 170.1(a)(6)(A) (iii). In the instant case, a person
knowing the facts about Judge Cho' s misconduct would have
8
many doubts about his ability to be impartial. See Adams v.
Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) lOCal. 4th 866,
901-904. The Courts below have so far evaded this issue and
failed to rule in uniformity with California Law.
3. California courts have long held that orders and decisions of
disqualified judge are void, from Giometti v. Etienne (1934)
219 Cal. 687 to Christie v. City ofEl Centro (2006) 135 Cal.
App 4th 767 and Rossco Holding, Inc. v. Bank of America
(2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1353. The courts below have so far
evaded this issue and refused to rule in uniformity with
California Law.
4. By permitting and considering a forbidden ex parte
communication from a party, which certainly gives "the
appearance of impropriety," Judge Cho violated several canons
of the Code of Judicial Ethics. A person, knowing that a judge
was inexplicably violating his ethical duty as a judge, would
certainly have doubts about his ability to be impartial. "The
standards of conduct to which judges are held are reflected in
part in the canons ofthc Code of Judicial [Ethics] ... 'they
reflect a judicial consensus regarding appropriate behavior for
9
California judges [Citations omitted] The failure of a judge to
comply with the canons 'suggests performance below the
minimum level necessary to maintain public confidence in
the administration of justice.' [Citation omitted]" (Emphasis
added) Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1994)
8 Cal. 4th 630,661-662. The courts below have so far evaded
this issue and failed to rule in uniformity with California Law.
B. Review Is Necessary To Settle Important Questions of Law
This court can settle the following important questions of law
by granting this Petition for Review:
1. Can the court of Appeal deprive a party of its legal
right to a civil appeal under Section 904.1(a)(2)
because the party filed its appeal in a procedurally
incorrect formant, when the party filed a motion to
correct that procedural error?
2. Do all California laws apply in all California courts, even
in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court?
3. Is it misconduct and grounds for disqualification when a
judge receives an ex parte communication forbidden by
the Code of Judicial Ethics?
10
4. Does the permitting of considering of an ex parte
communication give "the appearance of impropriety,"
regardless of the contents of the communication.
S. What are the consequences when a party fails to
comply with a valid subpoena for records to be produced
at trial?
6. What are the duties of a trial court judge when a party
fails to comply with a valid subpoena?
7. Can a trial court judge ever deny a party its statutory
right to present witnesses when the judge has not
inquired as to whether or not the testimony is necessary,
probative and not cumulative?
8. Can a trial court judge accept unsworn testimony from
a party about evidence which is not in the record?
11
Date: November 21,2011 Respectfully submitted,
12
CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH
I, Leslie C. Dutton, President, American Association of Women, Inc.,
certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court, that the word count for this
document is 2,077 words, excluding the tables, this certificate, and any
attachment permitted. This document was prepared in Microsoft Word and
this is the word count generated by the program for this document.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed, at Los Angeles, California
on November 22, 2011.
Leslie C . DuttonPresidentAmerican Assn. of Women, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Leslie C . Dutton, Pres. American Assn. of Women, Inc. hereby certifies
that pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)( 1) or 8.360(b )( 1) of the California rules of
Court, the enclosed Petition for Writ of Mandate is produced using 14 point
Roman type including footnotes and contains approximately 2,077 words,
which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of court. The
document was prepared in Microsoft Word and this is the word count
generated by the program used to prepare this Petition forReview.
Dated: November 22, 2011 Signed:
Leslie C. DuttonPresidentAmerican Assn. of Women, Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am John G. Baron. I am over eighteen years of age, and not a party to the
within cause. My address is 2309-31 st Street, Apt. C., Santa Monica CA 90405.
On November 22,2011 I served the foregoing document described as:
PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFONIRA SUPREME COURT
on interested parties in this action by U.S. Postal Service Express Priority
Overnight Mail, to the Supreme Court and to the other by U.S. Mail, First Class,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Supreme Court of California350 McAlister StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102-4797(Original + 13 copies)
Clerk, Court of AppealSecond DistrictRonald Reagan Bldg.300 South Spring St.Los Angeles, CA 90013
Donald L. Zachary371 Brockmont DriveGlendale, CA 91202
(Continued see attached)
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 22st day of November 2011, at Santa Monica, California.
~~Jo G. Baron
PROOF OF SERVICE
Page two
Clerk, Small Claims DivisionL.A. Superior court - West Division1725 Main StreetSanta Monica, CA 90401
Appellate Division of theSuperior Court of Los AngelesStanley Mosk Court House1111 No. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
Mr. Frederick BennettLegal CounselCalifornia Superior Court of Los Angeles111 No. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ZACHARY, DONALD L.Case Number
10A02408
Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s)J U D G MEN T
AFTER TRIAL DE NOVO ON APPEALFROM THE SMALL CLAIMS COURTAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN
Defendant(s) and Appellant(s) (Department WES )
The Appeal of the Defendant(s) and Appellant(s) herein from a Judgment of the Small ClaimsCourt of the WEST DISTRICT, at the SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSEthe Honorable LAWRENCE H. CHOJudge of the Superior Court, Presiding in Department WES, on 01/10/2011; the plaintiff(s) andRespondent(s) appearing In Pro Perand the Defendant(s) and Appellant(s)appearing In Pro Perand evidehcehavin~:( beenadduce"-d, .arid the ·calis·ea·iguea-and···submiTte-d-to·the Court fell:- decTsion:
Judgment is ordered for ZACHARY, DONALD L.and against AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMENin the sum of $ 3793.02 Costs $ 50.00 Total of $ 3843.02and Superior Court Costs in the Sum of $ .00
OTHER: THE COURT ORDERS JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS, LESLIE DUTTON ANDFULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK, AGAINST PLAINTIFF.
Dated: 01/10/2011 LAWRENCE H. CHOJudge
SCT4 JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL DE NOVO ON APPEAL
"
Donald Zachary v. American Association of Women .... .....SM lOA02408 dfl~l:in\lJ.\l f~LL.
Judge Lawrence H. ChoFebruary 2, 2011 FEB 0 i~ 2011
.ios ANG-EL!=('""""\-..-.,~.-...-.. .;ORDER
L FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 8, 2010, the Hon. Norman P. Tarle tried this small claims matter inwhich plaintiff sued defendant for unpaid legal bills incurred. Defendant alleged that theservices rendered were contrary to its wishes and therefore defendant should not have topay. The trial court rendered a verdict for plaintiff and awarded the full extent ofdamages requested of$3,793.02. Defendant filed an appeal and a trial de novo wasgranted.
This Court held the trial de novo on January 10,2011 at which plaintiff providedtestimony that he was retained as counsel for defendant to handle a trademark disputefrom March 2010 to May 2010. Plaintiff testified and provided documentary evidencethat he diligently represented the defendant and performed legal services in an attempt toreach a settlement with the alleged trademark infringer. Plaintiffs representation wasterminated by defendant in May 2010. Defendant admitted that it had retained plaintiff inthis capacity, but argued that they were dissatisfied with the work performed in thatplaintiff failed to provide timely updates'as to actions taken and failed to commencelitigation. Plaintiff admitted several emails between plaintiff and defendant as well ascorrespondence with the alleged trademark infringer.
Following the close of evidence, this Court found that plaintiff had provided theservices he was hired for and awarded damages of $3,793.02.
On January 24, 2011, defendant filed a motion to recuse this Court from allproceedings. That same day, this Court denied the motion as moot as final judgment hadbeen rendered and no further proceedings were pending.
On January 25, 2011, defendant filed the instant Motion for a New Trial.
On January 31, 2011, defendant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration.
II. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Defendant alleges several bases to urge this Court to vacate the verdict and grant a
new trial. I However, this motion must be denied as a matter of law as it has long beenheld that courts are without jurisdiction to entertain motions to vacate or grant a new trialafter a small claims trial de novo has been held. In Eloby v. Superior Court, 78Cal.App.3d 972 (Court of Appeal 1978), that Court held that under California Code ofCivil Procedure § 118.1 provides that "the judgment of the superior court shall be finaland not appealable," the legislative intent was clear that this section applies to barring theseeking of any motion to vacate the superior court judgment or to grant a new trial. rd. at975-977. As such, defendant's motion to vacate and grant a new trial must be denied as amatter of law.
I Even if this Court were to have jurisdiction to entertain defendant'smotion, the bases for the motion are factually and legally without merit and would bedenied. Addressing each one in turn, this Court makes the following findings:
1. There was no ex parte communication between plaintiff and the Court at anytime. Defendant complains of a business card which was presented to theclerk of the Court. After reviewing the file, this Court finds that this wasplaintiff's business card upon which he wrote "Plaintiff #4," indicating whomhe was representing and which matter he was here on. This is standardpractice in the Los Angeles Courts for counsel to present business cards foridentification and appearance purposes.
2. As is the standard and routine practice of this Court, prior to the Judge takingthe bench the Clerk of the Court swears all witnesses en masse for all SmallClaims Appeals on calendar for the afternoon. This procedure was compliedwith on the day this matter was heard. Furthermore, defendant made noobjection on this ground during the course of the trial and as such waived anysuch objection.
3. The Court did not deny plaintiffs the ability to present testimony. To thecontrary, plaintiff's representative Leslie Dutton presented defendant's casefully without calling any other witnesses to testify.
4. There were no objections regarding discovery nor was there any request for acontinuance. In any event, there is no discovery right in small claims. CCP§ 116.310.
5. Defendant's Appeal Brief was filed with the Court on January 5, 2011, andwas in fact submitted to the Court in time for consideration during the trial denovo on January 10,2011.
HI. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL FORRECUSAL
Defendant has also filed a motion to reconsider this Court's denial of defendant'smotion for recusal. Having reviewed this motion as well as defendant's original motionfor recusal, this Court finds no basis in law or fact to reconsider the motion. Motions forrecusal must be made prior to the hearing or proceeding to which the movant wants thejudge to be recused from. In this instance, the verdict was pronounced on January 10,2011 and the motion for recusal filed post-verdict on January 24,2011 with no furtherproceedings pending.
Even considering the merits of the motion for recusal, this Court finds no basis forrecusal. As stated above, there were no ex parte communications with the Court,witnesses were properly sworn, defense testimony was accepted and considered in full,and no motions to compel discovery. As such, this Court further finds that there was nobasis for recusal under CCP §170.l(a)(6) even had the motion been timely made.
IV. ORDER
It appears that the basis for defendant's motion to vacate and for recusal stemmerely from defendant's dissatisfaction with the verdict rendered rather than any validlegal or factual basis. This is clearly insufficient grounds to grant the relief sought andfor the reasons set forth above, defendant's motions are hereby DENIED.
February 2, 2011HON. LAWRENCE H. CHO
~---- -------------
.,. ~~". :. .t: .
1
2
3
-I~
4
5
6 APPELLA IE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
STA TE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES7
8
-. 9. DONALP L. ZACHARY, No. BV 029460
No. 19A02408
Plaintiff and Respondent, Santa Monica Trial Court10
11 v.
12 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN,INC.,
13
14
15
Defendant and Appellant. ORDER--~-------------------------)
16 This court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal filed by defendant on September 2,
17 2011. (General Electrical Capital A uto Financial Services, Inc. v. Appellate Division
18 (2001) 88 Cal.AppAth 136, 145.) The purported appeal is dismissed. Defendant's
19 alternative request that the case be certified to the Court of Appeal is denied. Plaintiff t
20 . recover his costs on appeal.
Q.~P. McKay,P.J.
21
2223
24
252627
28
DONALD L. ZACHARY,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT cauu OF.". .•SBIlID lIStDMSION FOUR F I 'LE I)
NOV' 1 4· 2011) ·B 236477 ~AoJ.NUi,& •• !!!) -) DeoutY CIerfc
) (Super. Ct. Nos. BV0294v~OA()l40&)") (pe ,McKay;P. J.~Dymant, J.)
" ) -, . . .
)SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES )COUNTY, APPELLATE DIVlSION )
)))))))
AMERICAN AS SOCIA TIONOF WOMEN, INC.,
Petitioner,.. :' " ..
Respondent. OROER
Real Party in Interest.
1HECOURT:*
The petition for writ of mandate filed October 7, 2011, has been read and
considered and is denied for failure to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief.
(See Bicker-v. Superior Court (2005) 133 CaLApp.4th 634; General Electric Capital
: .A.UkJ Financial Services r Inc. v, Superior.Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4tb 13.6; EloAAy. ...S~erior C~Urt(1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972, 9·~J5-9~7.) The.~o~on ~ augm~~ th~re.c~d·:· :.> .:.~;.>~~:
filed October 2 J , 2011 is granted; the other requests for relief filed on October 2], 2{l11
(petition LvIn:wsfer from the ~cH!ltc division, motion to ,=,:mVf'\rt wrltprnc=d.intto.c.iv.iI .appeal) are denied.
J.
__ -:---- ~ --=-'f)(~ik.,tl.f.....