Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 15, 2021\DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUl-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNi-‘O Electronically Filed SATISH RAMACHANDRAN by Superior Court of CA, 889 Santa tha Avenue county of Santa Clara, L03 Altos: CA 94022 . on 2/25/2022 3:48 PM Emall‘ essamnc@gmafl-C°m Reviewed By: J. Viramontes Case #21 CV386694 Defendant and Appellant 1n Pro Per Envelope: 8376795 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Case No.2 21CV386694 Plaintiff and Appellant, [Assigned t0 Hon. Helen E. Williams, Dept I2] V. APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO CITY OF LOS ALTOS, Ezfig£f¥gg ggggrf TO D f d t dR d t.e en an an eSpon en Action Filed: September 15, 2021 Trial Date: None 1 APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD \DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUl-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNi-‘O I. LEGAL ARGUMENT In their December 2021 pleadings Respondent City 0f Los Altos (hereafter “Respondent”) argued against this Court reviewing the case de nova and allowing new evidence that are not yet part of the record to be presented for the first time in the review. Barely six weeks later Respondent requests the Court allow them t0 augment the record with new “evidence” they alone introduce. Their request contradicts the positions they staked themselves t0 in this Court earlier. Appellant opposes and humbly requests the Court dismiss Respondent's Request for the following reasons. 1. Respondent cited neither statutory authority nor caselaw in support of their request; Respondent's pleadings have n0 basis in law. Their Request is specious and Without merit. 2. Respondent's Request contradicts and is the antithesis of the position they earlier staked. Respondent argued earlier they d0 not favor this Court's engagement in meticulous de nova review of the facts and legal issues, Respondent also argued the Court should bar new evidence and limit the record t0 only What they alone presented at the OAH hearing. Now they request the Court allow them t0 augment the record by including What they alone deem significant and material. Respondent's legal arguments are self-serving, specious, not in benign error, and reflecting extreme bad faith. 3. The de nova appeal hearing provides the opportunity and proper forum for the introduction 0fnew evidence. Thus, evidence ought t0 be infused by all parties, not merely from Respondent's purview. A de novo appeal hearing would “include all matters material t0 a determination 0fthe points 0n appeal." (22 Cal. 2d 33.) This presumption was applied in Alkus V. Johnson-Pacific C0., 80 Cal. App. 2d 1, 9 et seq. [181 P.2d 72]. / / / / / / / / / 2 APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD \DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUl-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNi-‘O In the de novo review - Where the Court would consider the facts and evidence as if being presented for the very first time - Respondent is at liberty t0 d0 What they are requesting this Court: introduce new “records” they failed to present earlier. A de novo review would ensure all issues raised by Appellant and Respondent, inclusive of any and all records they deem pertinent, may be fairly and meritoriously decided by the Court. Respondent would not suffer any prejudice should this Court dismiss their current Request. In contrast Appellant would seriously be prejudiced and suffer a miscarriage ofjustice if the Court were t0 accept Respondent's Request and arguments against a de nova review. The damage Appellant would suffer would be all the more severe as this Court's decision, noted by Respondent in their Dec 2021 and current pleadings, directly bears 0n pending Federal litigation. A de novo review by this Court is proper, lawful, and would enable Respondent and Appellant t0 present evidence not limited t0 the current record so the Court can meticulously address the legal issues on the merits of the facts and evidence presented by Appellant and Respondent. The de nova review would also enable Appellant t0 do what he was unable t0 at the OAH hearing: present evidence, cross examine Respondent's Witnesses, and render transparent t0 the Court Respondent's false statements and perjuries. There are serious and very troubling discrepancies within Respondent's records and with respect t0 the continued suborning 0f perjury by Respondent's former and current counsel. Counsel for Respondent continues t0 suborn their clients' perjuries, false statements, and fabricated records, and thwart the legislative intent supporting de nova review 0f administrative proceedings. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 3 APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD \DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUl-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNi-‘O II. CONCLUSION For reasons enumerated above Appellant humbly requests this Court: 1. Dismiss Respondent's Request; 2. Expeditiously order a de nova review. Dated: February 25, 2022 4 Respectfully Submitted I .I By: SATISH'RAMACHANDRAN Defendant and Appellant in Pro Per APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD \DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUl-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNi-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE F.R.C.P. 5 / C.C.P. § 1013a(3)/ Cal. R. Ct. R. 2.260 I am a resident 0f, or employed in, the County 0f Santa Clara. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 this action. My business address is: 889 Santa Rita Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94022. On February 25, 2022, I served the following listed document(s), by method indicated below, on the parties in this action: 1. APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD SEEATTACHED SERVICE LIST g BY EMAIL By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth 0n the attached service list from the email address essarrinc@gmail.com. To my knowledge, the transmission was reported as complete and without error. Service by email was made D pursuant t0 agreement of the parties, confiImed in writing, or D as an additional method of service as a courtesy t0 the parties or E pursuant t0 Court Order. See Cal. R. Ct. R. 2.260. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California and the United States 0fAmerica that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 2 22 at Los Angeles, California. Satish Ramachandran Type or Print Name Signature SERVICE LIST Kimon Manolius, SBN 154971 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent, Patrick Burns, SBN 300219 CITY OF LOS ALTOS Ellen K. Demson, SBN 324222 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Email: kmanolius@hansonbridgett.com Email: pburns@hansonbridgett.com Email: edemson@hansonbridgett.com Email: ypete@hansonbridgett.com 5 APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO AUGMENT THE RECORD
