Response To Order To Show Cause Re: Answer

Response

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.January 6, 2016

— O w w o r B A W N R = © 0 o e N R t h R A W N m , O D 24 25 26 27 28 Brian L. Larsen, Esq. (SB# 158252) Thuy M. Le, Esq. (SB# 265000) Joseph Lec, Esq. (SB#278899) LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN L.LARSEN 530Jackson Street, 2"! Floor San Francisco, CA 94133 (415)398-5000 AttorneyforPlaintiffs GRAHAM WILLIAMS IN THESUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATEOFCALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) GRAHAM WILLIAMS, ) Case No.:CGC-16-549740 ) ) RESPONSETO ORDER TO SHOW Plaintiffs, 3 CAUSERE: ANSWER vy. 3 Date: November 21, 2017 J) Time: 10:30am ) Dept: 610 SAK HSEK,and DOES1 to 10, J inclusive, ) Defendants. : ) ) I, Brian L. Larsen declare: 1. Tam anattorney at lawduly licensed topracticein theStateof Californiaand am the attorney ofrecordfor plaintiff herein. 2. Defendant was served, but hasnot answeredthe complaint so we are preparing the default documents: 3. Consistent with Section 575.2, the California SupremeCourt hasheld that a trial court may not dismissan action when violationsofthecourt’s ordersare the fault of counsel Plaintiff's Attorney’s Declaration O o ® 9 A n n B A W N D N D N O N N N N N D N O N O N O N = m m m m p d p t p d p t pe d p e d R ® 9 A N n n A L N = O V N N N D R A W N = O rather than the party. Garcia v. McCutchen, 16 Cal.4" 469 (1997). The Garcia case involved, like here, a personal injury lawsuit, and this case was dismissed base on violationsofthe court’s local rules. Plaintiff's counsel had failed to appear at multiple status conference hearings and failed to file and serve papers addressing the status of such things as serving the complaint and filing a proof of service. As a result, the trial court dismissed the case based on counsel’s failure to appear and violation of court rules. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Code of Civil Procedure Section 575.2(b) prohibits dismissal as a sanction for noncompliance with local court rules. Garcia, at 474. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal on the same grounds. Garcia, at 479. I respectfully request that the OSC scheduled for November 21, 2017 at 10:30am be continued for an additional 120 days in orderto file a default judgment. [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: November 7, 2017 pe BRIAN L. LARSEN Attorney for Plaintiffs Plaintiff's Attorney’s Declaration