DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 2, 2021DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD (SBN 90649) LAW OFFICES OF MAYNARD & HOGAN 1151 Minnesota Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (408) 293-8500 Facsimile: (408)293-8507 Attorney for Defendants Michael Hart, Frances Hart, Tracy Hart-DeGregorio and Gail Hart SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Plaintiff, Case No: 2lCV378991 FREDERICK HART, JR SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION or DOUGLAS SCOTT v. MAYNARD RE CODE OF CIV. PROC. §12s.5 SANCTIONS Defendants, Date: November 2, 2021 MICHAEL HART, FRANCES HART, Time: 9:00 a.m. TRACY HART-DEGREGORIO and Dept: 7 GAIL HART Judge: Honorable Christopher Rudy SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD RE CODE OF CIV. PROC. §l28.5 SANCTIONS I am counsel for the Defendants in the above referenced matter. I declare that the following matters are true and correct and that I have personal knowledge of each of them. If called to testify with regard to the matters stated herein, I could and would do so competently. 1. This Second Supplemental Declaration became necessary to apprise the Court of events occurring after Defendants’ Reply Brief was submitted to the Court on October 26, 2021. 2. Today, Saturday, October 30, 2021, I opened my email to receive email service of a Motion For Entry of Default that was submitted to the Clerk’s Office by Plaintiffs counsel on SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD RE CODE OF CIV. PROC. §l28.5 SANCTIONS Hart v. Hart, et :21. Case No. 21CV378991 1 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/1/2021 12:00 AM Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez Case #21CV378991 Envelope: 7572176 21CV378991 Santa Clara - Civil ._. S\O00\lO’\UI-l>laJI\) ,_ _. -- [Q -- U) »-- -J> .- UI -- O\ -- \] .- 00 >- \O I\)0 I9 »-- IQ Ix) I\) U) I\) -J> IQ LII N O'\ IN) \I I9 00 August 18, 2021, and that apparently was given a hearing date last week by the Clerk’s office. As stated in our Reply Brief and the associated Supplemental Declaration, we had been served with this motion by mail, but did not receive any notice of efiling. At the time I prepared my Reply Brief, these papers did not appear in the online docket through the Court’s website. A hearing has now been set by the Clerk’s Office for January 6, 2022 on this frivolous motion. 3. Upon receiving a hearing date, rather than take the motion off calendar due to its frivolous nature, Plaintiffs counsel has now followed up and served me with a copy of the motion which contains the newly assigned hearing date. No additional comment from Plaintiffs counsel was received with the service of the motion. Based on their action in serving the motion, it appears that Plaintiff’ s counsel intends to follow through on his plan to leverage settlement with their threats to somehow take a default. 4. Although Plaintiffs claimed in their Opposition to this Motion for §l28.5 Sanctions that they had reversed their frivolous “Actions or Tactics” of pursuing a default, and that this occurred immediately upon the clerk rejecting their Request For Entry of Default, obviously, they did not. At the time this new motion was originally submitted to the Court for filing (August 18, 2021), Defendants had already filed their Demurrer over a month earlier. Now, Plaintiffs counsel has our Reply Brief and Supplemental Declaration filed last week, as well. As is clear, there is no basis for the Motion For Entry of Default, either, because the Demurrer was already on file more than a month before the Motion For Entry of Default was even submitted to the Clerk’s Office. 5. Since this additional motion is now on the Court’s calendar for early January, the fact that Plaintiff is following through on his pursuit of a default should be considered by the Court in ruling on this Motion For Sanctions, since this new Motion For Entry of Default is part of the tactic of trying to take Defendants’ default after Defendants had already filed a proper Meet and Confer Declaration and after the Demurrer had already been filed, as well. 6. Thus, Plaintiff s counsel has continued with their plan to leverage settlement discussions by pursuing a default when there was absolutely no basis for doing so. Plaintiff had 21 days to withdraw his Bad Faith Request For Entry of Default and stop making default threats and motions before the §128.5 motion was filed. Contrary to his statements in opposition, Plaintiff did not “Appropriately Correct” the “Challenged Action,” he compounded it over and over again. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD RE CODE OF CIV. PROC. §l28.S SANCTIONS Hart v. Hart, et al. Case No. 2lCV37899l 2 \OOO\l0\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on October 30, 2021 at San Jose, California. Dated: October 30, 2021 ~~ ~ ~\ ouglas Scott Maynard Attorney for Defendants SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS SCOTT MAYNARD RE CODE OF CIV. PROC. §l28.5 SANCTIONS Hart v. Hart, et al. Case No. 2lCV378991 3