1 Colbern C. Stuart III Email: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com 2 4891 Pacific Highway Ste.

102 San Diego, CA 92110 3 Telephone: 858-504-0171 Facsimile: 619-231-9143 4 In Pro Se 5 Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice pending) Email: ricoman1968@aol.com 6 Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb 515 E 39th St. 7 Vancouver, WA 98663-2240 Telephone: 503-629-2176 8 Attorney for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, and 9 Lexevia, PC 10 11 12 13 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR 14 FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al., 15 16 v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO SUPERIOR COURT DEEFENDANTS LATE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., 18 Defendants Date: December 19, 2013 19 Time: 3:30 p.m. Courtroom:4C 20 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 21 SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

Plaintiff hereby OBJECTS to Defendants the San Diego County Superior Court,

2 Robert J. Trentacosta, Michael M. Roddy, Lisa Schall, Lorna A. Alksne, Christine K. 3 Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William H. McAdam, Jr., Edlene C. McKenzie, and Joel 4 R. Wohlfeil (collectively, "Defendants") Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss 5 Complaint (Dkt#X), and moves to strike the same as untimely pursuant to Local Rule 6 7.1 as follows: 7 8 A. Defendants Reply is Late Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt#16) on September 30,

9 2013, causing it to be calendared for November 22, 2013, and provided notice of the 10 same on September 30, 2013. Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), opposition papers are 11 required to be filed not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed 12 hearing. That dateby notice of Defendantsis November 22, 2013 (emphasis 13 added). Dkt#16, caption page. 14 Plaintiff STUART filed a timely Opposition to the Motion as required, fourteen

15 days prior to the noticed hearing, on November 8, 2013 (Dkt#21). 16 Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(3), reply papers are required to be filed not later than

17 seven (7) days prior to the date for which the matter is noticed. (emphasis added). 18 That date was November 15, 2013. 19 On November 8, 2013, the Court continued the November 22, 2013 hearing to

20 December 19, 2013 (Dkt#20). 21 Defendants todayDecember 12, 2013filed a Reply in support of the Motion to

22 Dismiss. While this filing is seven days prior to the Courts rescheduled hearing 23 date, it is not seven (7) days prior to the date for which the matter is noticedthat 24 noticed date being November 22, 2013. 25 26 B. A Late Reply has Provided Defendants a Prejudicial Advantage Defendants have effectively received an extra month to prepare their Reply, and

27 Plaintiff has been deprived of the same in preparing for the hearing regarding the 28 same. This advantage is unjust, and prejudicial to Plaintiff. -1PLTFS OBJ TO SUP CT LATE REPLY 13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

1 2

C. Attempts at Informal Resolution Plaintiff alerted Defendants to this issue by letter dated November 19, 2013.

3 Exhibit A hereto. The letter set forth this objection and requested timely 4 compliance, offering to withhold objection if the Reply was filed by X. Defendants 5 rejected this attempt at informal resolution. Exhibit B hereto. 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: December 12, 2013 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2PLTFS OBJ TO SUP CT LATE REPLY 13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Respectfully Submitted:

By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart, III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President, California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC in Pro Se

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 12th day of December, 2013. By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart, III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President, California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC in Pro Se

-1PLTFS OBJ TO SUP CT LATE REPLY 13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al. vs. San Diego County Bar Association, et al,

United States District Court, Southern District of California Case No. 3:13cv1944 CAB BLM

Exhibits to Objection to SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS Late Reply Motion to Dismiss

Exhibit A

California Coalition for Families and Children PBC 4891 Pacific Hwy., Ste. 102 San Diego, CA 92110 Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com D: 858.504.0171

November 20, 2013

JAMES B. GILPIN MATTHEW L. GREEN BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 W. Broadway, 15th Floor San Diego, CA 92101
Re: California Coalition for Families and Children et al. v. San Diego County Bar Association et al., United States District Court, Southern District of California Case No. 3:13 cv 1944 CAB BLM

Mssrs. Gilpin, Green: I write to alert you of a concern regarding your clients failure to file a timely Reply to the Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed on September 30, 2013. Your office caused the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt#16) to be calendared for November 22, 2013, and provided notice of the same on September 30. Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), opposition papers are required to be filed not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. I filed a timely Opposition to the Motion as required, fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing, on November 8, 2013 (Dkt#21). Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(3), reply papers are required to be filed not later than seven (7) days prior to the date for which the matter is noticed. This date was November 15, 2013. As of today, November 19, 2013, I have not been served with, and the Courts docket reflect the filing of, your Reply. As such, I consider you to have waived your clients right to file. I anticipate that you may have delayed filing your Reply because the Court continued the November 22, 2013 hearing until December 19, 2013. The November 8, 2013 Order continuing the hearing (Dkt#20) did not alter the date for which the matter was noticed (emphasis added) by your office in September. As such, I suggest that any reliance on the Courts continuation of the hearing as changing the relevant notice date is unfounded. Should you intend to file a reply, please let this serve as notice that I intend to object and move to strike the same as untimely. Such an untimely reply imposes a prejudicial burden on Plaintiff, and extracts an unfair advantage to your clients in the form of substantial extra time to 1

prepare the Reply. Should you believe my intent to object and move to strike to be in error, I would appreciate the courtesy of any explanation you believe justifies a late reply, so that I may evaluate whether such an explanation excuses compliance with the Rule 7.1 deadlines. Without such a response from you, I will assume you have no legal basis for a late Reply, and will proceed accordingly. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter.

Sincerely,

Colbern C. Stuart, III

Colbern Stuart President, California Coalition for Families and Children
cc: Dean Browning Webb, Esq.

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al. vs. San Diego County Bar Association, et al,

United States District Court, Southern District of California Case No. 3:13cv1944 CAB BLM

Exhibits to Objection to SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS Late Reply Motion to Dismiss

Exhibit B