Brief__otherResponseCal. Super. - 4th Dist.June 8, 2018B , J . E O H O R a C 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bennet Kelley (SBN 177001) ELECTRONICALLY FILED INTERNET LAW CENTER Superior Court of California, 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 County of San Diego Santa Monica, CA 90401 1210/2018 at 02:00:00 Ad Telephone: (310) 452-0401 Clerk of the Superior Court Facsimile: (702) 924-8740 By Valeria Contreras, Deputy Clerk bkelley@internetlawcenter.net Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE DOE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CIVIL UNLIMITED ) ) Case No.: 37-201 8-00028140-CO-PO-CTL ) ) JANE DOE ) PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S RESPONSE TO Plaintiff ) OSC RE DISMISSAL; DECLARATION OF VS. ) BENNET KELLEY ) RICHARD ROE 1-10, inclusive. J Date: January 11,2010 ) Time: 10:30 a.m. Difendiits. ) Dept: 70 (Hon. Randa Trapp) ) Action Filed: June 8, 2018 ) Trial Date: None Assigned ) ) Plaintiff Jane Doe (*Doe™) hereby submits this response to the Order to Show Cause re Dismissal issued by this court following Doe’s failure to appear at the November 16, 2018 case management conference. Doe’s failure to appear was inadvertent and due to a calendaring error. (Declaration of Bennet Kelley at 92.) Doe’s counsel originally had two case management conferences scheduled for that day; one in this case and the other in MGID, Inc. v. Lifescript Asset Acquisition Corp. (Log Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC 129341) (“LASC Case”). (Id at 93.) The LASC Case case management conference was postponed by the court until February 9, 2019. (1d.) Counsel believes that the calendaring error occurred either by not entering the date since a 1 Doe v. Roe (SDSC No. 37-2018-000281 40) Ex Parte Motion re Leave Under § 2025.210 —_ © L i SN IS NS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ni 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 case management conference already was listed on calendar or removing the date when the LASC case management conference was postponed. (/d. at 94.) Counsel is deeply embarrassed by this incident and apologizes to the Court for this error, as this is the first hearing in his 28-year career that he has missed. (Id. at 5.) Counsel requests that this Court not dismiss the action due to this one-time error, as Doe is ready, willing and able to proceed and prosecute this case. Dated: December 9, 2018 7 Respectfully submitted, y ) Blvd, Suite 700 Santa Morfica, CA 90401 Attorneys for JANE DOE Doe v. Roe (SDSC No. 37-201 8-00028140) Ex Parte Motion re Leave Under § 2025.210
