1 Juan Camarena

821 North Alexander Street

2 San Fernando, CA 91340
3 Defendant, In Pro Per
4

5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
6

8 MARIA M. NUNEZ, ) Case No. 16P00748

)
) DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX
9
) PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE
Plaintiff, )
10
) HEARING ON DEMURRER TO APRIL
vs. ) 01, 2016.
11
)
) DATE: April 01, 2016
12 JUAN CAMARENA and DOES 1-10, )
)
TIME: 01:30 p.m.
13
Defendants, ) DEPT: A
)
14 )
)
15 )
)
16 )
)
17 )

18

19
Defendant Juan Camarena (“Defendant”) hereby opposes Plaintiff’s ex parte application to
20
advance the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer/motion to strike to April 01, 2016 – a date that is mere
21
one week after Defendant filed his pending motion. Plaintiff has shown no good cause for doing so.
22

23 Rather, Plaintiff’s request appears to be motivated by Plaintiff’s unfounded concerns regarding the

24 potential outcome of this case. Further, granting Plaintiff’s request would prejudice Defendant in this
25
action.
26
///
27
///
28

- 1 -
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2 On February 23, 2016 Defendant filed his first demurrer and motion to strike the Complaint.
3
Defendant contacted the court clerk and was told that the first available hearing date would be March
4
11, 2016. On that date Demurrer of Defendant Juan Camarena came on for hearing before the
5

6
honorable Judge/Commissioner, Alice Trenk. Demurrer was placed off calendar because Plaintiff had

7 amended the complaint due to filing with the wrong address.

8 Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on February 25, 2016. Defendant went ahead
9
contacted the court to schedule a hearing date for a demurrer. The first available hearing date would
10
be April 20, 2016. Defendant filed the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2016.
11
Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer/motion to strike
12

13 to April 01, 2016 – a date that is mere one week after Defendant filed his pending motion.

14 B. PLAINTIFF VIOLATED RULE 3.1204(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT

15
Defendant gave incomplete notice of the ex parte hearing, thus violating rule 3.1204(a) of the
16
California Rules of Court. This rule states: “When notice of an ex parte application is given, the
17
person giving notice must, (1) State with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the
18

19 date, time, and place for the presentation of the application.” Defendant received a text message on

20 March 31, 2016 at 9:29 a.m. simply stating that there would be an ex parte hearing on April 01, 2016
21
at 9:30 a.m. No further information was given which makes this notice incomplete (Attached and
22
incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the text message). The notice did not say
23
what is the nature of the motion or what relief Plaintiff is requesting. In addition, the notice stated the
24

25 hearing would be at 9:30 which sounds incorrect because ex partes in Pasadena are mostly at 1:30

26 p.m. if not 8:30 a.m. Furthermore, Defendant received notice via a text message which is not an
27
acceptable way of giving proper notice. Defendant was never contacted by a phone call. Finally, this
28
notice was given on March 31, 2016 which is a holiday, Cesar Chavez Day.
- 2 -
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 C. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE TO HAVE DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER
HEARD ON SHORTENED TIME.
2

3 Plaintiff application should be denied because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to have

4 Defendants’ demurrer reset and heard on shortened time. During the meet and confer process, the
5 only basis articulated by Plaintiff’s counsel for his request was his desire to avoid doing heavy and
6
long litigation on the case.
7
However, if the case is not terminated by the pending demurrer, then it would be the
8

9
Defendants – not Plaintiff – that would be required to serve an answer to the complaint and discovery

10 responses. Defendants have not propounded any discovery upon Plaintiff. Similarly, if Plaintiff’s

11 counsel plans on bringing discovery motions or commencing law and motion practice, then Plaintiff’s
12
counsel can simply schedule those motions far enough out that he will not be required to engage
13
during trial.
14

15
D. RELIEF IS ONLY JUSTIFIED IN LIMITED, EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
16
Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and are 18 rarely justified. Mission
17
Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty 19 Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). They are
18

19 inherently unfair, pose a 20 threat to the administration of justice, debilitate the adversary system and

20 the goal often appears to be to surprise opposing counselor at least to force him or her to drop all
21
other work to respond on short notice. ~ at 490. Further, "when unsupportable allegations are made in
22
regular noticed motions, they can, to a great extent, be neutralized by a 25 well-prepared rebuttal. In
23
papers prepared on short notice, however, the lawyers too often simply make allegations that have no
24

25 supporting evidence to back them up. Even more pernicious is another tendency: the advocates draw

26 conclusions that appear to be supported by voluminous exhibits, but are not borne out when the
27
evidence is reviewed with more 3 deliberation and more careful rebuttal than is possible in hasty
28
hearings on ex parte motions."
- 3 -
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 In the ex parte motion filed by Plaintiff Maria M. Nunez, all the above concerns abound.
2 Defendant has only 24 hours to respond, and Defendant is time-limited from filing a well-prepared
3
response to the numerous allegations in Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion. Further, the request appears to
4
not have been served to Defendant.
5

6
At this point Defendant has not been served with Plaintiff’s motion. On the alternative the

7 court should continue such motion to April 20, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. or any other later date, preferably

8 not Wednesdays.
9

10
E. CONCLUSION
11
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to give proper ex parte notice per the rules stated in the California
12

13 Rules of Court. Plaintiff has also failed to show good cause to have Defendant’s demurrer heard on

14 shortened time, therefore this is not a justified emergency circumstance. It is for these reasons that
15
this Court should deny it.
16

17

18

19 Date _______________

20 By: _______________________________
Juan Camarena, Defendant
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
1

3 PROOF OF SERVICE

4
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
5

6
I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred; my
business/residence address is: 700 South Flower St Los Angeles, CA 90017
7 On _ __ I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING
8 ON DEMURRER to the following parties:
9
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY OR PLAINTIFF WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY
10
MARIA M. NUNEZ
11 817 NORTH ALEXANDER STREET
SAN FERNANDO, CA 91340
12

13 [ X ] (By U.S. Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California with
postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
14 service is presumed in valid in postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
15

16 [ ] (By Personal Service) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand via messenger
service to the address above;
17
[ ] (By Facsimile) I served a true and correct copy by facsimile during regular business
18
hours to the number(s) listed above. Said transmission was reported complete
19 and without error.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
21
is true and correct.
22
DATED: _
23
_____________________________
24
Marisol Contreras
25

26

27

28

- 5 -
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION