Decl of Good Faith Attempt Filed Automatic 30 day extension

Cal. Super. - 5th Dist.August 31, 2021

E-FILED 11/23/2021 10:56 AM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: C. York, Deputy 1 DOUGLAS T. SLOAN, City Attorney CITY 0F FRESNO 2 By: Travis R. Stokes, Assistant City Attorney (225122) 3 2600 Fresno Street, Room 2031 Fresno, California 93 721-3602 4 Telephone: (559) 621-7500 Facsimile: (559) 457-1084 5 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuanl 6 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF FRESNO To Government Code Section 6103 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 21CECG02584 ) 12 Pl . .ff ) DECLARATION 0F TRAVIS R. STOKESam“ 5 ) IN SUPPORT 0F AUTOMATIC 13 ) THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME vs. g T0 RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 14 15 THE CITY 0F FRESNO, 3 ) Action Filed: 8/31/2021 16 Defendant. ) Trial Date: None Set ) 17 ) Assigned t0 Honorable Rosemary McGuire ) for all purposes in Dept. 502 18 19 I Travis R. Stokes, declare as follows: 20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts 0f the State of 21 California. I am the attorney of record for the City of Fresno (City) in the above-entitled action. I 22 am familiar with the pleadings and issues in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters 23 stated herein and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto. 24 2. I make this declaration regarding the City’s compliance with the meet and confer 25 requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. 26 3. On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff Candace Smith served the City with her Complaint in 27 the above-entitled action. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 41 2.20, the City’s responsive 28 pleading is due on November 24, 202 1. CITv ATTORNEV Smith v. City of Fresno CITYHALL 1 Case N0. 21CECG02584 FRESNO' CA 93721 Declaration of Travis R. Stokes in Support 0f Automatic Thirty-Day Extension of'l‘ime to Respond to Complaint CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL FRESNO, CA 93721 OOOQQUIbWNH NNNNNNNNNr-Ip‘r-tr-tp-ah-thtt-Iww WVQMbWNF-‘OOWNQLHAWNHO 4. On November 2, 2021, I telephoned Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding the numerous pleading deficiencies in her complaint. However, thc conversation was bizarre t0 say the least in that Plaintiff would not stop ranting about nonsensical issues such as the Mayor of Fresno and the Fresno County Sheriff having “a hit” out 0n her life; that Fresno Police Department officers had broken into her car, stole her personal items, and sold them on the internet; and that the City of Fresno continually goes into her emails to “steal her intellectual property”. Needless to say, I was not able to have a substantive conversation concerning thc defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint despite my good faith attempt to do so. 5. The City ofFresno has set a hearing date for April 27, 2022, regarding its to-be-filed Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 391 since she has filed at least thineen different civil complaints since 201 8 that have all been dismissed, including the following: 0 18CECGO3 785 | Candace Smith vs. Rama Amabati - Breach of Contract i Dismissed I 18CECGO3967 | Candace Smith vs. Lea Bernard - Defamation - Dismissed a 18CECG04168 I Candace Smith vs Jesus Oliva - PI - Dismissed a 19CECG001 15 | Candace Smith Vs Edison Bethune - Civil Rights - Dismissed 0 19CECG00276 | Candace Smith vs. GW School Supply - Dismissed FTA 0 19CECGOOZ77 | Candace Smith vs. Positive Promotions New York - Dismissed FTA 0 19CECG00594 | Candace Smith vs Facebook - Dismissed Non-Payment of Filing Fees 0 19CECGOIZ92 | Candace Smith vs. Apple Inc. - Dismissed Non-Payment 0f Filing Fees o 19CECG01503 I Candace Smith vs. Facebook, Inc. - Judgment in favor 0f Defendants - Demurrer sustained o 19CECG01679 I Candace Smith vs. Disney Inc i Dismissed FTA o 19CECGOI 680 I Candace Smith vs. Apple Inc. i Dismissed FTA I 19CECG02316 | Candace Smith vs. Khalima Pearsall i Dismissed FTA o 20CECG01925 l Candace Smith vs Fresno Police Department - Dismissed FTA /// Smith v. City 0f Fresno 2 Case No. 21CEC602584 Declaration ofTravis R. Stokes in Support of Automatic 'l‘hirty-Day Extension ofTime t0 Respond t0 Complaint CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL FRESNO, CA 9372] \OOOQONUI-klflNt-I NNNNNNNNN-Ir-I-tr-Ir-Ih-Ip-Ah-Ip-au-A WNQM¥WNHO©WQQM¥WNHO 6. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(2) provides: “If the parties are unable to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, 0n or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of pteury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” 7. Accordingly, since the parties were unable to meet and confer at least five days before November 24, 2021 , the date the City’s responsive pleading is due, the City is automatically entitled t0 a 30-day extension of time within which to file its responsive pleading. I declare, under penalty of peljury, under the laws of the State 0f California, that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 23, 2021, at Fresno, California. PL2061 11 Smith v. City ofFrcsno 3 Case No. 21CEC002584 Declaration of Travis R. Stokes in Support ofAutomatic Thirty-Day Extension ofTimc Lo Respond to Complaint CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL FRESNO, CA 93721 OOOONQUILWNIH NNNNNNMNNHfiwfl-‘flHH-fl ooqcxmawm~oxooouoxm4>ww~ PROOF 0F SERVICE CCP §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5 FRCP 5(b) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO l am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721- 3602. On November 23, 2021, I served the document described as DECLARATION 0F TRAVIS R. STOKES IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 0n the interested parties in this action identified as follows: Candace Smith 575 Minnewawa Ave., #12 Clovis, CA 93612 candaccsmil]137(){(flm)l‘com (Plaintiff In Pro Per) I By: D transmitting the original in a sealed envelope, U transmitting a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, I transmitting a true copy thereof: I BY MAIL D I deposited an envelope containing the above-referenced document in the mail at Fresno, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I As follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S. postal service 0n that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Fresno, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. U (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the envelope(s) containing the above-referenced document t0 be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s). D (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to the addressee(s) at the e-mail(s) shown. Executed 0n November 23, 2021, at Fresno, California. I (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. fa. V Anna Contreras Smith v. City ofllresno 4 Case Nor ZICEC602584 ProofofService