UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Cause No DEFENDANT S MOTION OBJECTING TO ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MEDIATION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Case 4:12-cv Y Document 28 Filed 08/29/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 179

Cause No NUMBER 3

Appeal No CV County Court Case No APPELLANT S MOTION FOR EXTENSION, REQUEST FOR COURT RECORDS

Cause No NUMBER 2 DISTRICT. Plaintiff s cause is completely without merit. It is based on forged s, forged

Mary Cummins 645 W 9th St # Los Angeles, CA Direct: (310)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH, TEXAS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Judge CASE. Civil Action PETITION FOR RELIEF IN DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Case 4:12-cv Y Document 96 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 717

Mary Cummins 645 W 9th St # Los Angeles, CA Direct: (310) Fax: (310)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

Case4:13-cv JSW Document112 Filed05/05/14 Page1 of 3

Case 4:12-cv Y Document 137 Filed 05/03/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1087

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT. Dept: "24" MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PlainSite. Legal Document. Arizona District Court Case No. 4:11-cv Carreon v. Toyota Financial Services Corporation et al.

Case3:14-mc VC Document1 Filed11/04/14 Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

in furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Federal Pro Se Clinic CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION)

)

Dated: Louise Lawyer Attorney for Plaintiff

Charles Edward Lincoln, pro se 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6 Austin, Texas Tel:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/ :51 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2016 EXHIBIT I

SUBPOENA IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

Case 5:15-cv VAP-KK Document 73 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:2332

CAUSE NO CV ANNA DRAKER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS

HAHN & BOWERSOCK FAX KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626

Gk) AUo Superior Court of California CountY of Los Angeles. Sherri R. Carter, xecutive ofricer/clerk Deputv

Unofficial Copy Office of Chris Daniel District Clerk

Case 5:12-cv EJD Document 1134 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 8

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. [Complaint Filed 11/24/2010] [Alameda County Case No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Chapter 6 MOTIONS. 6.1 Vocabulary Introduction Regular Motions 7

At Part of the Supreme Court of the. of New York, at the Courthouse thereof, 60 PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS.

This matter came on regularly before this Court for hearings on October 7,2004 and on April

Case 2:15-cr SVW Document 173 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:2023

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )

F ADV.NOTICE.LODGMENT

Case 3:13-cv EMC Document 736 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:14-cv WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,_. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case3:13-cv SI Document28 Filed09/25/13 Page1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 The parties to this action, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to. 2 the following:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

DEC 1 i1z ) FOR DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) Time: 439-pm.3) C.D. Michel -

* IN THE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AFFIDAVIT OF N. TUCKER MENEELY

Case 1:11-cv AWI-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE NON DUI. Self Help Center Loca ons:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters

26 /1/ 28 /1/ Donny E. Brand (SBN ) BRAND LAW FIRM E. 4th St., Suite C-473

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:08-cv BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Part V. When it is concerning matters of law, go first to the specific then to the general

ZONING CHANGES PROCEDURE/PROCESS FOR ZONE CHANGES APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGES

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

Case 8:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

Case 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 43 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-mc JMS-KSC Document 25 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 255 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

CAUSE NO CV. JAMES FREDRICK MILES, IN THE 87 th DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. S

Legal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION. Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena.

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

Case 2:17-ap BB Doc 50 Filed 05/04/17 Entered 05/04/17 14:14:01 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART V - RULES OF PRACTICE IN JUSTICE COURTS [RULES 523 to 591. Repealed effective August 31, 2013]

DISTRICT COURT, FAMILY DIVISION CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:15-cr BAS Document 166 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.752 Page 1 of 8

Information or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package PREVIEW

Case 2:17-ap BB Doc 24 Filed 03/21/17 Entered 03/21/17 10:59:09 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/24/14 1 of 7. PageID #: 162

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 MARY CUMMINS Plaintiff W. th St. #0- Los Angeles, CA 001 In Pro Per Telephone: ( -0 Email: mmmaryinla@aol.com MARY CUMMINS Plaintiff v. AMANDA LOLLAR aka BAT WORLD SANCTUARY an individual person, BAT WORLD SANCTUARY an unknown business entity, JOHN DOES 1- Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. CV 001 DMG (MANx PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS AMANDA LOLLAR, BAT WORLD SANCTUARY SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF SUDDENLINK, DECLARATION OF MARY CUMMINS DISCOVERY MATTER Complaint Filed: September, 0 Discovery Cut off: September, 01 Pretrial Conf. Date: TBS Trial Date: TBS Hearing Date: 1 Plaintiff Mary Cummins ( Plaintiff hereby opposes Defendants Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary subpoena for deposition of Suddenlink. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff sued Defendants Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary and John Does 1-, asserting claims for defamation, defamation per se, interference with business relations, interference with prospective economic advantage and infliction of emotional distress. 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Defendants Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary sent subpoena to Suddenlink on August, 01 (Exhibits 1. Defendants subpoena is defective as subpoena was not served in person, deposition site is over 0 miles from deposed, subpoena is not timely and no attendance or mileage fee was included (Declaration of Mary Cummins Exhibit. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff attended an internship at Bat World Sanctuary June 0 (Exhibit, Declaration of Plaintiff Mary Cummins. Plaintiff witnessed Defendant Amanda Lollar commit animal cruelty, animal neglect, violate the health department regulations, violate the Animal Welfare Act, violate the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department regulations and other disturbing things. Plaintiff left the internship early, returned to California and reported Defendant to authorities. In retaliation Defendant Amanda Lollar and John Does defamed and libeled Plaintiff on the Internet. September, 0 Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for claims of defamation, defamation per se, interference with business relations, interference with prospective economic advantage and infliction of emotional distress. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Defendants subpoena is defective (1 As per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule it must be served in person. It was not served in person. ( As per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule (c((a(ii(b the deposition site cannot be more than 0 miles from the address of the non-party. The deposition site is over 0 miles from the non-party to be deposed. It is unduly burdensome. ( As per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (A you must give 1 days notice of deposition. The last day of discovery is September, 01. They would have had to depose Suddenlink before September, 01. They would have had to give notice at

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 the very latest by August 0, 01. They gave notice August, 01 for a deposition on September, 01. They are too late to take this deposition as this is not an expert witness. They are too late to ask for the documents in discovery because of time restrictions. There is no way Plaintiff can afford to fly to Texas to cross-examine this witness at this late notice and date. ( As per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule an attendance and mileage fee must be included for a non-party. No fees were attached to the subpoena. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strike s Defendants subpoena for deposition of Suddenlink. Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendants. As per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees on a party or attorney who fails to comply. Plaintiff has lost earnings due to having to write this motion to quash subpoena. Plaintiff also incurred courier fees to file this motion. 0 1 Respectfully submitted, /ss/ Mary Cummins Mary Cummins, Plaintiff Dated: August, 01 W. th St. #0- Los Angeles, CA 001 In Pro Per Direct: ( -0 Direct Fax: ( - Email: mmmaryinla@aol.com

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (FRCivP (b or (CCP 1a, 01. or (FRAP (d I am Plaintiff in pro per whose address is W. th St. #0-, Los Angeles, California 001-. I am over the age of eighteen years. I further declare that on the date hereof I served a copy of: PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS AMANDA LOLLAR, BAT WORLD SANCTUARY SUBPOENAS FOR DEPOSITION OF SUDDENLINK on the following by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows for collection and mailing at W. th St. #0-, Los Angeles, CA 001-. Dean A. Rocco Jackson Lewis LLP South Figueroa, Suite 00 Los Angeles, CA 001 I also emailed a copy to Dean Rocco at RoccoD@jacksonlewis.com I also faxed a copy to Dean Rocco at (1-00. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day, August, 01, at Los Angeles, California 0 1 Respectfully submitted, /ss/ Mary Cummins Mary Cummins, Plaintiff Dated: August, 01 W. th St. #0- Los Angeles, CA 001 In Pro Per

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF MARY CUMMINS I, MARY CUMMINS, declare as follows: 1. I am Mary Cummins Plaintiff in pro per. I make this declaration on my personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email, notice of subpoena and subpoena sent to me August, 01 a Friday at : p.m. by Defendants attorney s assistant Karina Ramirez.. The next business day August, 01 a Monday at :00 a.m. I faxed a letter to Suddenlink Legal Compliance via NeuStar Inc their agent stating that I object to the subpoena and will be filing a motion to quash.. Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of my fax to Suddenlink/ NeuStar.. August, 01 I sent an email to Defendants attorney Dean Rocco at : a.m. stating that I object to this subpoena and sent a letter to Suddenlink/NeuStar which I attached.. Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of my email to Dean Rocco and the attached letter to Suddenlink/NeuStar. I requested a meet and confer at that time.. Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of an email from Dean Rocco to me in response to my email to him. He stated he was out of the office but would respond shortly. He has not gotten back to me about our meet and confer on this issue. I was forced to file this motion to quash subpoena.. I calculated the exact distance between the deposed and the deposition site using Google maps. It is over 0 miles.. No attendance or mileage fee was included with the subpoena.. No proof of service of deposition was sent to me.

. August 0, 01 I injured my big toe. I am in a temporary boot and cannot walk easily. I could not drive to court to file this in person. I am a pro se am not allowed to file digitally. I had to overnight mail it. Therefore I could not write in a hearing date. I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August, 01 at Los Angeles, California. By: MARY CUMMINS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1