Administrator (hereinafter collectively "TCERA") oppose the Motion to Reconsider filed by

Transcription

1 KATHLEEN BALES-LANGE, #076 I Counsel 2 TERESA M. SAUCEDO, #0 1 Chief Deputy 200 W. Burrel Avenue Visalia, CA 21 Phone: () 66-0 Fax: () tsaucedo@co.tulare.ca.us 6 Attorneys for Employees Retirement Assn. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SIERRA 12 1 RONALD E. PIERCE, vs. Petitioner, TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES 1 RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; 1 RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATOR 16 Respondents. Case No. 7 (Exempt from fees pursuant to Government Code 6) RESPONDENT TULARE COUNTY E~LOYEESRETrnEMffiNT ASSOCIATION & RETrnEMENT ADMlNISTRATOR'S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TIOl'{; MffiMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 17 Hearing Date: March, 12 Hearing Time: I :0 p.m. Department Two Ie Judge : Honorable Charles H. Ervin Respondents Employees Retirement Association and Retirement I Administrator (hereinafter collectively "TCERA") oppose the Motion to Reconsider filed by Petitioner Ronald E. Pierce ("Pierce") on the grounds set forth herein. Visalia, Califomia 1

2 2 INTRODUCTION This Court's December, 11 ruling was correct; Sierra County has no 6 I. jurisdiction over the subject matter between these parties and the Motion for Reconsideration is without merit. 7 On November, 1 1 Pierce filed a Writ of Mandamus to Enforce Request for 8 Records Under Public Records Act. The records Petitioner seeks are records from the Employees Retirement Association and pertain to employees, retirees, and former employees of the County of Tulare, the Superior Courts. On 12 December, 1 1 TCERA filed its Demurrer on the grounds that this Court has no 1 jurisdiction over records in. In his Opposition to the Demurrer, Pierce claimed the basis for his filing his motion in Sierra County was, among other things, the Superior Court is an illegitimate court, and that Sierra County was a Court of 17 Competent Jurisdiction for purposes of his Public Records Act ("PRA"). On December, 11 TCERAfiled its Reply, asserting Pierce failed to overcome TCERA'S argument that this Court has no jurisdiction over this matter, and that is the proper Court for Pierce's PRA dispute, A hearing was held on December, 11befcre Lie Honorable Charles H. Ervin. 2 Both Pierce and TCERA appeared telephonically. After considering the written documents 2 and the oral argument, without considering the underlying facts or merits of Pierce's 2 Petition, the Court sustained TCERA' S demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction. The Court filed and served its Order that same day. 2

3 On December 0, 11 Pierce filed a Request for Statement of Decision (CCP 2 62) and a Constitutional Challenge to Order of December, 11. These documents were, in essence, a Motion for Reconsideration. On January, 12 this Court considered Pierce's ex parte documents and denied Pierce's request. On January 11,12 Pierce filed 6 the instant Motion to Reconsider, arguing law applicable to his PRA request, and repeating 7 his line of reasoning that Courts are somehow illegitimate. 8 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 A. Pierce's Current Motion is His Third Bite at the Apple As set forth above, this Court heard and considered Pierce's Petition for Writ of 1 Mandamus on December, 11. Bite One. When a losing party believes the ruling is 1 incorrect that party may make a motion before the same judge to reconsider and enter a n. different order. On December 0, 11 Pierce filed his Request for Statement of Decision and Constitutional Challenge to Order of December, 11. While not labeling the documents a Motion for Reconsideration, it was exactly the relief sought in Pierce's two documents. In this instance it is important to note that the name of the motion is not controlling. The requirements apply to any motion that asks the judge to decide the same matter previously ruled on~ "[See Curtin vs. Koskey, (1) Cal.App.d 87, 878; R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. VS. Farmers Group, 2 Inc., (06) 10 Cal.App. ti ), 7.] Once again this Court denied Pierce's request to 2 reconsider on January, 12. Bite Two. Pierce now presents with a document specifically 2 entitled Motion for Reconsideration. Bite Three. I OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA non

4 B. Res Judicata 2 This latest attempt by Pierce for the exact same relief is barred from any subsequent action involving the same parties, claim, demand and request for relief under the doctrine of res judicata. For a plea of res judicata to be available, the issue decided in the prior 6 adjudication must be identical with that presented in the second action. [See In re Norwalk 7 Call, (6) 62 Ca1.2d.] The relief Pierce sought when filing his Request for Statement of 8 Decision and Constitutional Challenge to Order of December, was exactly the same as in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and it is the same in this third request. This request is barred as a matter of law. 12 C. Pierce's Current Motion is Untimely Assuming arguendo, that the Motions filed on December 0, 11 are not considered by this Court to be a Motion to Reconsider the December, 11 ruling, the instant motion is 16 untimely and must be denied. The Legisl~ture was clear as to the guidelines for requesting 17 that a Court, in effect, change its mind when it enacted Code of Civil Procedure 08: (a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within days after service upon the party-of written-notice- of entry of the order... (Emphasis added). The instant request for relief was filed January 11, 12, twenty-two days after the original order and is untimely. Moreover, in requesting that a Court reconsider its prior ruling, this same portion of Visalia, Califomia California law provides an aggrieved party may do so based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. The requesting party is required to state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new

5 or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. Pierce has failed to 2 comply with these requirements. The legislative intent in Code of Civil Procedure I 008 was to restrict motions for reconsideration circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it 6 earlier. [See Gilberdvs. AC Transit, () 2 CaI.App. th,, 100; Minkvs. Sup. Ct., 7 (Arnel Develop. Co., Inc.) (2) 2 CaJ.App. th 1S, 12; Baldwin vs. Home Say. Of 8 America, (7) Cal.App. th 12, 1S.] The burden under 08 "is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or 12 produced it at the trial." New York Times Co. vs. Sup. Ct. (Wall St. Network, Ltd.) (0) Cal.App. th 6, 2-. Pierce's argument is the same: is not a legitimate Court and his PRA request should be granted by Sierra County. These positions are not 16 "new," nor are they "different.': [CCP 0S(f).] Pierce's request must be denied. Further, 17 Pierce's blatant failure to comply with CCP 0S may be punished as a contempt of court. [See CCP JOOS(d).] I. CONCLUSION Pierce has thrice presented the same request to this Court for relief it has no 2 jurisdiction to order. On December,11 this Court was COlTect: it had no jurisdiction in 2 this matter and TCERA' S demulter was property sustained without leave to amend. 2 Despite his tenacity, flair for and attempts to make use of Latin, and regurgitated inapplicable legal authority on irrelevant issues, Pierce failed to provide this Court with legal authority to support his current request to have the December, ruling reconsidered OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSlDERA TION

6 I pursuant to CCP loos. This current request of Pierce for reconsideration is barred by the 2 doctrine of res judicata, or alternatively, it is untimely. As stated above, Pierce could be found in contempt for his insistence at burdening this Court and TCERA by churning out frivolous requests for relief and motions in inappropriate 6 jurisdictions. For the reasons set forth herein, TCERA respectfully requests that this Court 7 deny Pierce's Motion for Reconsideration. 8 Dated: F~br.uaI)' ~S,}O ~ Respectfully Submitte.d, kathleen BALES~LANGE?Iare County?rsel ~lhudjr; liliuu;' leresa M. SAUCEDO Chief Deputy Attorneys for Respondent TCERA 1 NANI2I1112/ 11170/ (

7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 2 ) ss. COUNTY OF TULARE ) PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Tulare, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen () years and not a party to this action; and, my business address is 200 West Burrel Avenue, Visalia, CA On this date, I served the following documents: RESPONDENT TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION & RETIREMENT 7 ADMINISTRATOR'S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF MOTION FOR 8 RECONSIDERATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the parties to this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: g RONALD E. PIERCE P.O. Box 80 Dinuba, CA 6 (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with The County of Tulare's practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that practice, mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage fully prepaid at, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY FACSIMILE) With the addressee(s)' consent and agreement, I caused such document to be aelivered by facsimile transrnission to the addressee(s). (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s). (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OR UPS NEXT DAY SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered to Federal Express or UPS with a fully prepaid airbilvinvoice for next business day delivery to the adaresseersy Executed on February~, 12, at Visalia, CA. 7 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA non