Objection_plaintiff_kourtney_ligginss_objections_to_defendants_untimely_reply_papers_in_support_of_their_noncomplian_motion_for_judgment_notwithstanding_the_verdict_or_alternatively_partialReplyCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 27, 2013Electroni 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lly FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/14/2019 10:02 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Cler| Carney R. Shegerian, CA Bar No. 150461 CShegerian @ Shegerianlaw.com Anthony Nguyen, CA Bar No. 259154 ANguyen@ Shegerianlaw.com Mark Lim, CA Bar No. 311824 MLim@ Shegerianlaw.com SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 Jim Urbanic, CA Bar No. 161816 JUrbanic@urbaniclaw.com URBANIC & ASSOCIATES 6080 Center Drive, 6 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 216.0900 Facsimile: (310) 216.9400 Attorneys for Plaintiff, KOURTNEY LIGGINS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT Case No.: BC 522 726 The Honorable David S. Cunningham IIT PLAINTIFF KOURTNEY LIGGINS’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT KOURTNEY LIGGINS, Plaintiff, VS. ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES, TRANSFIGURATION SCHOOL, MICHAEL TANG, and EVELYN RICKENBACKER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, PARTIAL Defendants JUDGMENT (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro §§1005, 1013; Cal. Rule of Court 3.1300); DECLARATION OF MARK LIM, ESQ; EXHIBIT Date: January 22,2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 37 Action Filed: September 27. 2013 NNN N N N e N e N e N N N e N e N e N e N e PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANT MOTION FOR JNOV, OR ALTERNATIVELY, PARTIAL JUDGMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, Kourtney Liggins, raises the following objections to defendants Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles’s and Michael Tang’s untimely reply papers in support of their noncompliant motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV™), or alternatively, partial judgment. Plaintiff requests a ruling on these objections before any ruling is made on defendants’ motion. 1. OBJECTION NUMBER 1: Material objected to: All reply papers filed by defendants in support of their motion for INOV, or alternatively, partial judgment. Grounds for Objection: Defendants untimely served all their reply papers in support of their motion for JNOV, or alternatively, partial judgment. Pursuant to this Court’s order on December 13, 2018, and defendants’ notice of ruling regarding the same, defendants’ deadline to file and serve their reply papers was January 11, 2019. (Lim Decl. 2, Ex. 1; see Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b)-(c).) Defendants failed to serve any of their reply papers by that date and instead only e-mailed some of the reply papers to plaintiff’s counsel on January 11" at 9:56 p.m. (Lim Decl. 3.) There is no agreement between the parties to accept electronic service. (Ibid.) Further, defendants failed to even e-mail some of their reply papers. Defendants’ reply brief indicates that a “Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants Noncompliant Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict...[is] Filed Concurrently Herewith,” but no such response was served in any manner on January 11%, (Ibid.) The proof of service attached to defendants’ reply papers reflects a service date of January 14, 2019, which is untimely. (/bid; see Code of Civil Procedure §§1005(b)-(c), 1013; Cal. Rule of Court 3.1300(a), (d).) Defendants’ failure to timely serve their reply papers is both prejudicial to Liggins and consistent with defendants’ prior disregard for the procedural requirements applicable to their already noncompliant motion. The Court should exercise its discretion to ignore all of defendants’ reply papers filed in support of their motion. At minimum, the Court should ignore defendants’ response to Liggins’s objections to defendants’ noncompliant 2. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANT MOTION FOR JNOV, OR ALTERNATIVELY, PARTIAL JUDGMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 motion, which was not even served via e-mail on January 11, 2019. As such, the Court should sustain Liggins’s objections to defendants’ noncompliant motion as unopposed. Dated: January 14, 2019 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CarneyR/ Shegeri Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, KOURTNEY LIGGINS 3- PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANT MOTION FOR JNOV, OR ALTERNATIVELY, PARTIAL JUDGMENT DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF MARK LIM I, Mark Lim, declare as follows: I. Tam an attorney at law, duly authorized to practice law before all of the courts of the State of California. I am an attorney with Shegerian & Associates, Inc., attorneys of record for plaintiff, Kourtney Liggins, in this case. I was physically present for the entire jury trial in the instant matter. I am familiar with the files, pleadings, and facts in this case and could and would competently testify to the following facts based on my own personal knowledge. 2. Pursuant to this Court’s order on December 13, 2018, and defendants’ notice of ruling regarding the same, defendants’ deadline to file and serve their reply papers in support of their motions for (1) judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, partial judgment; and (2) new trial, or alternatively, remittitur, was January 11, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of defendants’ notice of ruling. 3. Defendants failed to serve any of their reply papers by January 11, 2019 and instead only e-mailed some of the reply papers to my office on January 11" at 9:56 p.m. However, there is no agreement between the parties to accept electronic service. Further, defendants did not even e-mail some of their reply papers. For example, defendants’ reply briefs indicate that responses to plaintiffs objections to defendants’ noncompliant motions were filed “concurrently herewith,” but no such responses were served in any manner on January 11, 2019. The proofs of service attached to defendants’ reply papers reflect a service date of January 14, 2019. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 14" day of January 2019, at Santa Monica, California. Mark Lim, Esq. DECLARATION OF MARK LIM, ESQ. EXHIBIT 1 36709131_1 Jack S. Sholkoff, CA Bar No. 145097 jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com Alexandra C. Aurisch, CA Bar No. 296525 alexandra.aurisch(@ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.239.9800 Facsimile: 213.239.9045 Lara de Leon, CA Bar No. 270252 lara.deleon@ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.(By_ Yc. 2 Park Tower, Suite 1500 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714.800.7900 Facsimile: 714.754.1298 ul do St : alifgrnis County af T.0s Anosies DEC 7 7 Dig Sherri R. Carer, Execusive Oificer/Clork of Court bor DED Raul Saneb- Attorneys for Defendants Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a corporation sole, (erroneously sued and served as Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Transfiguration School) and Michael Tang SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT KOURTNEY LIGGINS, Plaintiff, vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES, TRANSFIGURATION SCHOOL, MICHAEL TANG, EVELYN RICKENBACKER, and DOES 1 to 100; inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC522726 NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF LONGER MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL [Assigned for all purposes to The Honorable David S. Cunningham, III, in Department 37) Date: December 13, 2018 Time: 8:30 am. Dept.: 37 Action Filed: September 27, 2013 Trial Date: October 3, 2018 1 NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF LONGER MEMORANDA ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 36709131_1 Ww O N OO 0 uN o N wn Bs 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 24 25 26 27 28 { 9 ® TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 37 of the above-named court, a hearing on Defendants Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a corporation sole, (erroneously sued and served as Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Transfiguration School) and Michael Tang (collectively referred to as “Defendants”)’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Allowing Filing of Longer Memoranda in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for New Trial was held, the Honorable David S. Cunningham, III presiding. Alexandra Aurisch appeared on behalf of Defendants and Beatriz Alfaro appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Kourtney Liggins. Good cause showing, the Court granted Defendants’ Ex Parte Application, ruling as follows: 1) Defendants have leave to file an opening memorandum of 20 pages in support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and have leave to file an opening memorandum of 20 pages in support of Defendants’ Motion for New Trial. Plaintiff has leave to file responding memoranda of 20 pages each. 2) Defendants shall file their Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for New Trial (“Motions”) on or before December 20, 2018. 3) Plaintiff shall file any response memoranda on or before January 4, 2019. 4) Defendants shall file any reply memoranda on or before January 11, 2019. 5) The Motions will come on for hearing on January 22, 2019. DATED: December 14, 2018 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. By Jack S. Sholkoff Lara de Leon Alexandra C. Aurisch Attorneys for Defendants Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a corporation sole, (erroneously sued and served as Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Transfiguration School) and Michael Tang 2 NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF LONGER MEMORANDA ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 36642644 _L PROOF OF SERVICE Kourtney Liggins v. Archdiocese of Los Angeles, et al. Case No. BC522726 I am and was at all times herein mentioned over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action in which this service is made. At all times herein mentioned I have been employed in the County of Los Angeles in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90071. On December 17, 2018, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF LONGER MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL by placing [J (the original) X (a true copy thereof) in a sealed envelope addressed as stated on the attached service list. [X BY MAIL: 1 placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 17, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. JA Yuntis Tisa Hunter 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 36642644 _1 Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Mark Lim, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: 310.860.0770 Facsimile: 310.860.0771 anguyen@shegerianlaw.com mlim@shegerianlaw.com Jim Urbanic, Esq. URBANIC & ASSOCIATES 6080 Center Drive, 6 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: 310.216.0900 Facsimile: 310.216.9400 jurbanic@urbaniclaw.com SERVICE LIST Attorneys for Plaintiff KOURTNEY LIGGINS Attorneys for Plaintiff KOURTNEY LIGGINS 4 PROOF OF SERVICE 36642644.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LIGGINS v. ARCHDIOCESE, et al. LASC CASE NO.: BC 522726 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a ary to the within action; my business address 1s 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401. On January 14, 2019, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF KOURTNEY LIGGINS’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, PARTIAL JUDGMENT (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro §§1005 1013; Cal. Rule of Court 3.1300); DECLARATION OF MARK LIM, ESQ.; EXHIBI ,” on all interested Alles in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes, addressed as ollows: Lara De Leon, Esq. Nikki Fermin, Esq. Ofjetree, Deakins Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C. 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Jim Urbanic, Esq. Urbanic & Associates 6080 Center Drive, 6'" Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 XI (BY FED EX) I placed such envelopes in a designated Federal Express pick-up box at Santa Monica, California. XI] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I sent such document via electronic mail to the attorney(s) noted above. XI (STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 14, 2019, at me — Jose Castro
