Appellants Opening Brief FINAL With ALL 9-8-14

7/21/2019 Appellants Opening Brief FINAL With ALL 9-8-14

1/57

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTAPPELLATE DIVISION

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,Plaintiff Respondentvs.

BONNIE SHIPLEY,Defendant Appellant

Case No. ACIAS 1400026[Trial Court UDDS1204130]Appeal from a Final Judgment inSan Bernardino Superior Court

Entered on March 20, 2014

Honorable Michael A. Sachs

APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF

Clerks Transcript on Appeal and Reporters Transcript filed 7/31/14

Nancy D McCarron, CBN 164780950 Roble Lane

Santa Barbara, CA [email protected]

805-450-0450 fax 805-965-3492Attorney for Appellant/Defendant Below
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/57

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE O F INTERESTED PARTIES .............. .. first

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . 0

ISSUE ON APPEAL 1

APPEALABILITY .. ..... 1

DE NOVO STANDARD OF APPEAL .... 1

INTRODUCTION 2

I. Pertinent Facts and Procedural History . .. 5

A. Former Panel Held, As the Sublessee of a Mobile Home Owner PetitionerDoes Not Fall Within the Category of an Unlawful Occupant . 6

B. Former Panel Never Held Shipley Was An Unlawful Occupant .. 6

C. The Trial Court Never Held Shipley Was An Unlawful Occupant ... 7

II. Serial Violations of Codes, Rules & Ethics in a Star Chamber Court ExceededLimits on Judicial Power Imposed by Article III, 3 and Article VI, 13 ... 8

A. Judge Sachs was not Assigned by Presiding Judge per Local Rule 530 ... 8

B. Judge Sachs Stepped Out of His Role as Independent Arbiterand Into a New Role of De Facto Advocate for Stubblefield .... 15

C. Court Had No Power to Grant Declaratory Relief to a Loser in the Judgment 18

D. Chronological Summary of Judge Sachs Serial V iolations 19

CONCLUSION ... ........................................ 21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF . 21

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..... 21

MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD 22

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL .. 24

PROOF OF SERVICE ............ 26


3/57

T O BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPE ALAPP-008

m~Pmw1m.. 05-450-0450 fMm.D*a: 805 965 3492E-U*lL*DwESS@&ul: [email protected]

hmRNEYFO~IHjmexetitioner [Writ of Mandate. Prohibition andReview]~\PPELJANT ITI~NER: Bonnie Shipley

COURTOF APPEALSanBernardin APPELUTE DISTRICT, DMSIOH AppellateDivA ~ ~ O R N E V O R*RNV~HOUTA~ORIIEV NW, sra aarnvn , m I:Nancy Duf M at-rob 164780

50 Roble aneSanta Barbaw t 93 103

RESPONDENT EL L PARTY IN INTEREST:Michael Sachs, Stubblefield Properties

w n d ~ ~ N u m b F

AppellateDivw B f u c c a n c a ~ u r b s c L it ji d

UDDS1204130FOR COWtTUSEONLY

CERTIFICATEOF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

(Check one): INITIAL CERTIFICATE UPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE

Notice: Please read rul es 8.208 an d 8.488 before com pletin g thls form. You may use th i s fo rm for the innla1certificatein ana ppe al wh en yo u file yo ur brlef or a prebriefing motion, application, o r oppos ltlon to su ch amotion o r appliCation inthe Cou rt of Appeal, a nd when you file a petitlon for a nextraordinary writ. You maya k o use thlS fohn as a supplemental certificate when you learn of changed or addl t ional informationthat mustbe disclosed.

1. ThiSfDrm IS belng submitted on behalf otthe follwring party name): Petitioner

2. a. here ate no W re st ed e m e s or pemns that must be ~~stednth~sertificateunder rul 8.208.

b. Interested entitles or persons required to be listedunder rule 8 208 are as follows:

Nature o f nterestIEYDlaln):

Fqllname of Interestedentity or perso n

(1) Sfubblefield Pmperties, Partners Business BankcorplCA; see more-SEC iling Attachment22) ~tubblefieldQuail Point Company D. William Bader; Neal Baker; William Cozzo, AlanJ Lane

3) Eva Stubt)LefieldHazard, partner John E. Duckworth;Joh~iRiddell; RobertL Nottjngham;

4) Arnold HStubbletield, Gen Partner John L Ridell; James W Andrews; uth E Adell

5) Thomas Panish, General Partner Neil Dcrry,SB Cty Suprrace; Bill Postmus;Dale Stubblefield

Conhnded on attachment 2

The underelgned certifies that the above-llsted persons or entltk s (corponUona, partnershipa, finns,or any othereasoclion, but not ncluding g ove rnm ent e d e s or thelr agencies) have either I ) n ownership interest c4 10 percent ormare In the oartv If

its an entlN: or (2) a financial

a

other hUre+n

the outsome ofth

proceedingthat

tho jusUcoe-.

-.

should consldPr in dete mr~ nlng ne& thero disqualify ihemselvea, as defined i n rule8.208 4 2).

Date: + 14

Nancy McCarron 164780l W P EOR P R I MHWO

P a p

~ m p p l w a ~ ~ ~ O m la CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS w RtM*OfWYI,Ws lUIB,U4BBJmldaI C o r n OfCaIbmMIIC wmd-w

APPa0IR. bnq 1, l q


4/57

lefield h o l d H 4 For 9/8/03

Filed On 5:55pmET .. SECRle a AceesslooN~rlU3591- II

7 7 o E r a ~ w~-

.wciwi 3 and. Udtwda any la . m y ) Lo@=: or Docs: @ I or): forTarx I (&)m mar).

Statemel of Change hBene6cia1Omemhip of Sscloitlen Formdi Eabg Table of Cmtenlr

; .- ----..------- -..---SEC Form

FORMI

UNITEDSTATES SECURITIESAND EXCHANGECOMMISSKNW n Q h . 0 . G . mM9

I

I I I

Tabla I -I k h - D u i v e t l ~ e c u M i ( ~ ~ A e p ~ l m d ,l-d d r BW~Psd~lly m o d

6. R I I ~ U ~ Y ~ ~(Fwomng P - ~ I b lwrr(cn .a ,~ am&ppllrsble)

x 10%mcrm ~ $ l ~ ( I u m Uh.. q a c l t ~blCM bnlw)

i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ a m m ~ n w ~ n n ~ ~ o n ~

I .c-4 @(mi madlr

POBOX317

a. I a w r l J a m ~ a n d ' i l a ~ r T m d l n . W ~ I

-[BBP~C]3, Dalr of EndladTmnedon ~o nVllOewoa l191a103

- . s ~ . m d ; 2 ~ . 2 ~ . ~ t p ~ g e-

L lCPomrOROt

w . 9

-

LAm0 lcll

z d 5 , ,~hv.aWbwinsR*lo.*dm.nsu.n~Qw r .Is4

7.ll.h-offndllrrrP&W-an*Prrb.

r nbol~scl.~u(P*r.I

ii

L l ~ * l m m d l ) ) wnl3lWPJMa. a4

. --... . .. . -_ -.< --.-.--

w eDak

A o ~ w q Y Y. x l

tl ~rne- on D.U

K mw - l h l o m

A a u n l (a).,

-- *-Rim

arran dbnE U

W.+Bcma V


5/57

lOROI 2 SEC nfo. uslness Bsnwrp/CA 4a 1

SEC nfo

4 ~ o c u m e n d :Statementsof

Changesin

Beneficial Ownershipo

Securities

iinm 4. J ~ b y ~ a u w u ~ 1/5/03 1 1 1 411nm3 4 ~ [ b y ~/23/03 1 1 1 W

31lO/z8/03 [by 0010127D3 1 11 4

onolo3 Y , [ ~ Y ~ ? E A ~ I 10117103 1 11 4ionm 4 C ~ Y 1 lo1z103 1 1 1


6/57

0

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Com. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 C.4 th 32,42 . 1

CONSTITUTION and STATUTESArticle III, Section 3.................................................................................... 1, 3, 9,16,18Article III, 3 and Article VI, 13 .................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 9Civil 798.12 ............................................................................................................... 15Civil 798.55 ............................................................................................................... 20Civil 798.56 ........................................................................................... 1, 6, 15, 16, 18Civil 798.75[c] ....................................................................................... 5, 6, 10,11, 14Civil 798.85 ............................................................................................................... 21Civil 1717 .................................................................................................................. 21

CCP 86 ...................................................................................................................... 18CCP 580 .................................................................................................................... 18CCP 663a(b) ............................................................................................ 3, 7, 9, 18, 19CCP 798.56 ............................................................................................................... 15CCP 904.2(a) .............................................................................................................. 1CCP 1005 ............................................................................................................. 9, 19

RULES OF COURTCRC 3.110 ................................................................................................................ 9,19CRC 3.113 .................................................................................................................. 16,

CRC 3.1103 ................................................................................................................. 19CRC 3.1201 ................................................................................................................ 16CRC 3.1300 ................................................................................................................... 9CRC 3.1312 ......................................................................................................... 3, 9, 19CRC 3.20 ....................................................................................................................... 9CRC 8.104 ..................................................................................................................... 7CRC 8.841 ................................................................................................................... 22LOCAL RULE 530 ....................................................................................................... 8LOCAL RULE 591.3 ...................................................................................... 16, 17, 20

OTHER AUTHORITIESCommittee on Judicial Performance .......................................................................... 4 CJE Canons 2, 2A Comment,2B, 2C ......................................................................... 4Judicial Ethics, Preamble 2

Public Corruption-Maximizing Remedies by Michael Sachs, Esq.Chief Deputy County Counsel and Leonard Gumport, Esq ............................. 2

Star Chamber Court .............................................................................................. 1, 2, 8


7/57

1

ISSUE ON APPEAL Did the court exceed its power, constitutionally limited in Article III, Section 3,

by running a Star Chamber Court 1 to revise a statute by judicial proclamation,

transmuting prevailing partys judgment into a victory for the non -prevailing party?

APPEALABILITY

Under CCP 904.2(a), appellant Bonnie Shipley appeals from a final judgment

[CT 223: 3/20/14], after a former Panel directed final judgment entered in her favor

[CT 57: 8/13/13] by way of a Notice of Appeal [CT 269: 4/14/14] and NDR [CT 275].

Shipley was forced to appeal because the courts paraphrasing of former Panel s

conclusions, coupled with revising a statute by judicial proclamation, effectivelyauthorized respondent Stubblefield to evict her directly , contravening former Panel s

conclusion that Stubblefield could not evict Shipley directly because there was no

privity of contract between them---a statutory prerequisite to a direct eviction.

DE NOVO STANDARD OF APPEAL 2

The court revised Civil 798.56[d] in a judgment prepared by Stubblefield,

despite Shipleys objection to directing a non-prevailing party to write the judgment.

It was delivered to chambers ex parte on 3/20/14. Judge Sachs signed and entered

the judgment immediately, depriving Shipley of any opportunity to object to its form.

Because the judgment transmuted loser Stubblefield into a winner, by gratuitously

granting him the same relief requested in his sham complaint [judicial authorization

to evict Shipley directly without privity of contract between them] she was forced to

appeal her own judgment or face the eviction former Panel rescued her from last year.

1 Star Chamber Court [15 th Century] was permitted to inflict any punishment except

death, without being bound by normal court rules or procedures. Modernly, it isused metaphorically to describe a runaway court, where a judge disregards codes,civil proc edures, rules of court, or attempts to revise statutes by proclamation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber2 Com. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 C.4 th 32,42[do novo standard of appeal is applied where the Panel must interpret a statutory dispute]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber


8/57

2

INTRODUCTION

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair

and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.

The role of the judiciary is central to American justice and the rule of law.Intrinsic are precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must

respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance

and maintain confidence in our legal system. Judicial Ethics, Preamble

A public office is a public trust . Public Corruption-Maximizing Remedies

by Michael A. Sachs, Esq., Chief Deputy County Counsel and Leonard Gumport 3

After 7 years as judge and 13 years as county counsel prosecuting public trust abuse,

Judge Sachs knew he could not run a Star Chamber Court , disregard codes & rules,

or revise a statute by judicial proclamation to transmute a loser into a winner.

Judge Sachs ran a Star Chamber Court by ordering non-prevailing party to

write prevailing partys judgment [and deliver it ex parte to chambers] which revised

a statute to authorize Shipleys direct eviction without privity of contract. This ruse

flouted former Panels conclusion that Stubblefield could not evict Shipley directly

because he was not in privity of contract with her, as well as its conclusion that such

eviction attempts would be illegal. This gratuitous gift exceeded constitutional limits

on judicial power imposed by Article III,3 and ArticleVI,13.

Forcing a second appeal imposes an undue burden on the Appellate Division.

Once judgment for defendant is ordered by Writ of Mandate, and a plaintiff has

exhausted appeals up to the Supreme Court, the burden to defend should be over.

Paraphrasing former Panel s conclusions, affirmed on appeal, to transmute a loserinto a winner---to advance a political agenda---should not be condoned by this court.

After prevailing last year by writ petition, Shipley is forced to prosecute a second

appeal to eschew a tainted judgment from ripening into an un-appealable judgment.

3 by Michael Sachs 9/14/05-Annual Meeting of County Counsels in Los Gatos


9/57

3

Presiding Panel is not the same panel who issued a writ of mandate last year.

Former Panel held Stubblefield could not evict Shipley directly as no privity of

contract existed between them because she was co-resident of a homeowner on a lease.

[CT 177, 184]. Former Panel found Stubblefield s remedy was to proceed directlyagainst the homeowner for an alleged rule violation by a co-resident or homeowner.

[CT 185] Privity of contract is a statutory prerequisite to any lawful eviction.

To comply with a 7/22/13 writ, Judge Alvarez granted her summary judgment,

[CT 124:10/21/13], but never entered final judgment on the merits, although Shipley

offered one with the summary judgment order. [CT 148] After voluntary recusal on

1/7/14 Judge Alvarez reassigned the case to Judge Sachs. [RT 17] On 2/19/14, ratherthan enter any one of three final judgments Shipley had submitted [CT 161: 2/10/14] ,

Judge Sachs decided to vacate Judge Alvarezs prior summary judgment order,

without any pending motion for such relief. [CT 163] In fact, jurisdiction to vacate

expired 60 days after Judge Alvarez entered the order on 10/21/13. CCP 663a(b).

Ignoring Shipley s oral & written objections to bizarre Star Court process, Judge

Sachs ordered Stubblefield to compose a new summary judgment order, to replace theone he vacated after jurisdiction expired, combined with final judgment [CT 163, 165].

This violated Rule 3.1312 calling for the prevailing party to submit a final judgment.

Seizing an opportunity to transmute his loss into a win Stubblefield paraphrased a trial

court finding and Panel conclusions to grant the relief requested in his sham complaint.

Judge Sachs inserted or r esident into a statute to expand a homeowner eviction remedy

to all residents. This not only contravened former Panels conclusion that Stubblefield

could not evict Shipley directly, but also revised a statute by judicial proclamation,exceeding constitutional limits on judicial power in Article III, Section 3 . 4 [CT 245]

4 Article III, Section 3. The powers of state government are legislative,executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power maynot exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution


10/57

4

Vacating a summary judgment on 3/20/14 5 months after its entry on 10/21/13

exceeded limits imposed by Article VI, 13 on jurisdiction to vacate a judgment. 5

Judge Sachs signed the hybrid judgment on 3/20/14--the same day it was

delivered to chambers ex parte violating Rule 3.1312. Judge Sachs signing,

as soon as the judgment hit his desk, not only consecrated blatant violations of

Rule 3.1312 but also failed to comply with Local Rule 591.3 requiring judges to

withhold entry of judgment for 10 days to afford a party opportunity to object.

Judge Sachs ordered a deputy to reject objections Shipley tried to file on 3/21/14.

The deputy said they were late as the order had been signed yesterday [3/20/14]

S-33 is a runaway court in which Judge Sachs ignores Codes of Civil Procedure,

Rules of Court, Statutes of Limitation and constitutional limitations on his power.

Judge Sachs acted as Stubblefield s de facto advocate. Shipley prayed for Presiding

Panel to hold him in contempt of forme r Panels writ of ma ndate and to refer profligate

violations to Committee on Judicial Performance .6 Shipleys prayer for contempt was

rejected by Presiding Panel, 4 th Dist. Court of Appeal, Division 2, and Supreme Court.

Shipley was forced to prosecute a second appeal or be summarily evicted throughexpress authorization of a judicial officer by an evictor without privity of contract.

5 Article VI,13 No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause,on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejectionof evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to anymatter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including theevidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted

in a miscarriage of justice.

6 Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of disciplineto be imposed requires a reasoned application of the text and consideration of suchfactors as seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improperactivity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicialsystem. CJE , p. 3, Impropriety includes conduct that violates the law, courtrules, or provisions of this code, and conduct that undermines a judgesindependence, integrity, or impartiality. Canons 2, 2A Comment,2B, 2C


11/57

5

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 8/1/12 Shipley moved into Space 333 as the homeowners co -resident

in Stubblefield s park. On 8/2/12 the homeowner delivered the same co-resident

application she used for all former co-residents since 2005 to the park office.

After homeowner left the park manager confronted Shipley at Space 333,

and threatened to lock her out of the park if she did not move out the next day.

Manager told Shipley if she wanted to live in the park she would have to find a

sugar daddy over 55 who lived in the park and move into his mobile home.

On 8/11/12 a process server nailed a 5-day Notice to Surrender Possession

onto the mobilehome citing Civil Code 798.75[c] as the basis of the demand.

The notice was invalid as subsection [c] applied only to a purchaser or transferee

who occupies a mobile home without a park lease. Shipley was neither one.

Despite warning of invalidity, Stubblefield served a sham eviction on 8/27/12.

[CT 3]. The court overruled Shipleys demurrer ordering her to answer. [CT 5]

After enduring 6 months of scorched earth litigation, Shipley petitioned the

Appellate Division to reverse denial of summary judgment. On 5/6/13 a former

Panel granted relief [CT 189] Former Panel found Civil 798.75[c] did not apply

to Shipley because she was not a purchaser/transferee of a mobile home and as a

lawful co-resident she was not an unlawful occupant . Former Panel found the 5-

day notice Stubblefield served was invalid and direct eviction was unauthorized:

CT 185


12/57

6

A. Former Panel Held , As the Sublessee of a Mobile Home Owner PetitionerDoes Not Fall Within the Category of an Unlawful Occupant . CT 183

Panel concluded Stubblefield could not evict Shipley directly because there

was no privity of contract between them and Stubblefield did not own the home:

CT 184

Because Stubblefield argued there was no remedy to evict co-residents directly

former Panel opined his remedy was to proceed directly against the homeowner if

he wanted to evict a co-resident for any purported violation of a reasonable rule:

CT 185

Former Panel did not opine as to the reasonableness of Stubblefield s park rules.

CT 185

B. Former Panel Never Held Shipley Was An Unlawful Occupant Former Panel expressly found Shipley did not fall within such definition.

CT 183

Former Panel recited the trial courts 2/14/13 erroneous finding verbatim:

Rather the court found that Section 798.75, subdivision [c]is not limited in its application , only in the escrow, sale ortransfer of a mobile home. It applies when an occupant of amobile home has no right of tenancy and is not otherwiseentitled to occupy the mobile home pursuant to this chapter . CT 181


13/57

7

C. The Trial Court Never Held Shipley Was An Unlawful Occupant.

On 2/14/13 the trial court denied Stubblefield s summary judgment, based on

arguing Shipley was an unlawful occupant subject to summary eviction. If the trial

court had found Shipley was an unlawful occupant the court would have granted

Stubblefield s summary judgment rendering him the prevailing party. Instead,

the court set a trial date to let a jury decide if Shipley was an unlawful occupant .

On 7/22/13 former Panel issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court

to vacate its denial of summary judgment, to grant summary judgment, and to enter

final judgment on the merits for Shipley, with costs. CT 189

Because Stubblefield appealed Pan els order to the Court of Appeal [ CT 132]

and the Supreme Court [CT 143] the trial court was unable to comply with former

Panels m andate until 10/21/13 by entering summary judgment for Shipley. CT 124

Department S-32 clerk served the order on all parties by mail on 10/22/12. CT 125

The clerks service by mail triggered the clock on Stubblefield s window to appeal

[60 days in CRC 8.104] or to move the court to vacate the order. Civil 663(a)(2)

[15 days from clerks mail service]. Stubblefield failed to appeal or move to vacate

the 10/21/13 order granting summary judgment to Shipley. CCP 663(b) recites,

the power of the court to rule on a motion to set aside andvacate a judgment shall expire 60 days from the mailing ofnotice of entry of judgment by the clerk.

Two weeks after Dept. S-32 clerk mailed notice of a summary judgment order,

reciting, DEFENDANT/MOVING PARTY to prepare JUDGMENT Shipley offered

a proposed final judgment to Judge Alvarez on November 4, 2013---accompanied

by Stubblefield s objections to it, and his alternate proposed judgment. CT 153

Judge Alvarez never signed the proposed final judgment Shipley offered or the

alternate final judgment Stubblefield submitted. The court never composed its

own final judgment. The court failed to comply with former Panels directive.


14/57

8

II. Serial Violations of Codes, Rules & Ethics in a Star Chamber Court ExceededConstitutional Limits on Judicial Power Imposed by Art. III, 3 & Art. VI, 13

A. Judge Sachs was not Assigned by Presiding Judge per Local Rule 530

On 1/7/14 Shipley s Fee Motion came on for hearing. McCarron asked Judge

Alvarez to recuse as bias is presumed after reversal. Shipley feared he would gut

fees, just as he had done in other pro bono cases, forcing each party to appeal.

After self-recusal Judge Alvarez reassigned the case to Judge Sachs. Judge Alvarez

continued the attorney fee motion to February 10, 2014. [CT 158] Local Rule 530

required the presiding judge to reassign cases. Something was rotten in Denmark.

Why would Judge Alvarez reassign a judicial brother in a department right next door?

Why didnt Judge Alvarez transfer the case to the presiding judge for reassignment?

On 2/10/14 McCarron appeared in S-33 to present the same three judgments she

had submitted to Judge Alvarez on 11/4/13--except the words prevailing party were

deleted because Stubblefield had objected to the words in November. Judge of San

Bernardino Superior Court was substituted for Donald Alvarez, Judge. [CT 161]

Judge Sachs refused to sign any judgment McCarron presented. [RT 26, 29, 30, 36]

A minute order recited counsel for plaintiff to submit proposed judgment to the court .

Judge Sachs continued the 2/10/14 hearing to 2/19/14. Court Rule 3.1312 called for

prevailing party to submit the order . Judge Sachs ignored McCarrons objection to

his failure to comply with 3.1312. Judge Sachs conducts Star Court proceedings.

On 2-19-14 McCarron objected to vacating summary judgment 5 months later.

[RT 40:16] McCarron objected to no jurisdiction to amend a summary judgment

order as the window to appeal or vacate expired three months earlier--on 12/23/13.[RT 40:20] McCarron told Judge Sachs he could not paraphrase trial court or Panel

findings. [RT 46:22]. McCarron urged him to consider reciting former Panel s two-

sentence directive while attaching a 10-pg decision for clarity [RT 41:21, 42:14, 47:1]

or enter the order Shipley offered containing genuine findings as shown at CT 209.


15/57

9

McCarron objected again to no jurisdiction to paraphrase findings not recited in the

official transcript or former Panel s order . Judge Sachs responded I dont want to

reargue what we just did . RT 47:10 Judge Sachs runs Star Court proceedings.

Judge Sachs exceeded jurisdiction in waiving CCP 663(a)(2)s 60 -day statute of

limitations to vacate the Alvarez order. Even if the statute of limitations had not

expired, no judge can vacate a prior judges order unless movant serves Notice of

Motion under CCP 1005 reciting statutory grounds for relief. CRC 3.110, 3.1300.

Under CRC 3.20 local rules cannot be used to preempt California Rules of Court.

This ultra vires act violated Article III, 3 and Article VI, 13 of the Constitution.

The 2/19/14 Minute Order recited, counsel for plaintiff to prepare judgmentas proposed by court by 3/5/14. Objections shall be due no later than 3/12/14.

Judge Sachs ordered Stubblefield s counsel to compose a hybrid judgment, violating

Rule 3.1312, calling for prevailing party to prepare the judgment. Who ever heard

of a Judge ordering a loser to write an appellate w inners final judgment? No un-

biased judge would make such order. Judge Sachs runs Star Cour t proceedings .

On 3/4/14 Stubblefield offered a judgment reciting both courts found Shipley wasan unlawful occupant. Neither court ever made any such finding. CT 173:24-25

On 3/4/14 Shipley filed objections highlighting the words such as defendant in

RED which were artfully inserted into a paraphrased version of a 2/14/13 transcript

of trial courts findings. CT 165:20 . A Court Reporters official transcript [2/14/13]

shows the words such as defendant never appeared therein as shown below:

2/14/13 RT, p.11 of 24


16/57

10

The actual finding recited, It applies when an occupant of a mobile home has no

right of tenancy and is not entitled to occupy the mobile home pursuant to this chapter .

In a paraphrased version of the official 2/14/13 transcript, Stubblefield artfully inserted

the words such as defendant in the middle of a sentence to create a pretext that thecourt found Shipley was within a class of unlawful occupants defined in findings.

Below is the paraphrased version Judge Sachs adopted in a judgment entered 3/20/14.

CT 173

Above words such as defendant never appeared in the official 2/14/13 transcript .

Stubblefield s paraphrased version also recited that former Panel found Shipley

was a sublessee of the mobilehome --an unauthorized sublessee of a mobilehome--

thus, an unlawful occupant. Former Panel actually found exactly the opposite; i.e.

that Shipley was the sublessee of a mobilehome owner ----- not a mobilehome !

CT 183 top, ln 2

Judge Sachs refused to consider entering Shipley s proposed judgment reciting the

trial court and former Panels findings and conclusions verbatim as shown at CT 209.

On 3/17/14 McCarron appeared for a third round of Star Court. The transcript

shows bias against McCarron while deferring to Mr. Williamson. Judge Sachs

addressed him as Counsel while calling McCarron maam in a condescending,

loud and misogynist tone of voice. Bias shown: RT 51:17, 52:1, 52:21,54:2, 62:26


17/57

11

The following excerpt shows deference to Mr. Williamson, bias against McCarron.

RT 51:17, 52:1, 52:21,54:2, 62:26

Disparate treatment of female attorneys does not comport with Judicial Ethics.


18/57

12

The transcript also shows when McCarron objected to paraphrasing former Panel s

findings Judge Sachs interrupted to thwart recording of oral objections. RT 54:1

RT 51:24; 52:1

Judge Sachs facilitated Williamsons distortion of Panel findings on the record.

RT 52:18

Williamsons statement there was no parti cular fi nding on that was knowingly false.

Williamson and Judge Sachs knew former Panel did make a particular finding on exactly

that issue; i.e. that Shipley was the sublessee of the homeowner and not the sublessee of

the mobile home . Williamson and Judge Sachs also knew former Panel concluded

Shipley was a subtenant of the homeowner not the home.


19/57

13

Former Panel found evidence established Shipley was a subtenant of the homeowner.

CT 180-top

Judge Sachs knew former Panel found Shipley was not an unlawful occupant.

CT 183-top

Judge Sachs rebuffed McCarrons request that findings be quoted in full sentences.

RT 53:15-26

Judge Sachs facilitated attorney Williamson s total distortion of Judge Alvarezs

finding on the record by refusing to cross out the words such as defendant from

Stubblefield s paraphrased version of findings typed into the proposed judgment.

Judge Alvarez set a trial date for a jury to decide if she was an unlawful occupant .


20/57

14

Former Panel quoted the trial court s fi nding verbatim on 2/14/13 as recited below:

Words such as defendant were not in Panel s verbatim quote from a 2/14/13 transcript:

CT 181:5 top

When McCarron objected to Stubblefields distortion Judge Sachs insisted it is accurate .

RT 54:21 bottom

Judge Sachs consecrated Stubblefields distortion by approving his paraphrased

conclusions in the final judgment to create a pretext that both courts found Shipley was

an unlawful occupant not entitled to reside in Space 333 under park rules. Judge Sachs

wrote the words or r esident onto his copy of the judgment Stubblefield had submitted,

authorizing Stubblefield to proceed directly against residents under Civil 798.56(d).

McCarron asked why she could not file the order to avoid his paraphrasing. RT 60:25The court responded It is his motion, it is his work and offered to give us his copy.

The S- 33 deputy made copies of the judgment with the Judges notes on it. RT 61:1

RT 63:13


21/57

15

Stubblefield cited Civil 798.56 (d) verbatim on the Judges working copy.

Judge Sachs took it one step further by interlineating the words or resident

into his cited text, effectively revising Civil 798.56(d) by judicial proclamation,

authorizing Stubblefield to evict residents directly, which contravened formerPanels conclusion on 5/6/13 that Stubblefield could not evict a resident directly

as he was not in privity of contract with the resident who was not a homeowner.

It subjected Shipley to the same type of eviction the Panel rescued her from last year.

B. JUDGE SACHS STEPPED OUT OF HIS ROLE AS INDEPENDENT ARBITERINTO A NEW ROLL OF DE FACTO ADVOCATE FOR STUBBLEFIELD

Judge Sachs expanded the summary eviction remedies in Civil 798.56[d] to beinvoked not only against homeowners but also against non-homeowner residents.

Only a homeowner s tenancy may be terminated under 798.56(d) for a rule violation.

Civil Code 798.56. Reasons for termination of tenancy;written notice; cure of default

A tenancy shall be terminated by the management onlyfor one or more of the following reasons:

(d) Failure of the homeowner or resident to comply witha reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part ofthe rental agreement or any amendment thereto .

Shipley is a resident but not a homeowner; there is no privity with Stubblefield.

Mobile Home Residency Law defines tenancy as only applying to the homeowner.

Civil Code 798.12. Tenancy

Tenancy is the right of a homeowner to the use of a site within a

mobilehome park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy amobilehome, site improvements, and accessory structures for humanhabitation, including the usef the services and facilities of the park.

Civil 798.55 & 798.56 apply only to homeowners-not to non-owner residents .

Under 798.56[d] Stubblefield may not proceed directly against a resident who is not

a homeowner as there is no tenancy to terminate where there is no privity of contract.


22/57

16

Stubblefield cannot proceed directly against Shipley under Civil 798.56[d],

for the same reason former Panel held he could not proceed directly against Shipley

under any statute---because there is no privity between Stubblefield and Shipley.

CT 184 bottom

Judge Sachs ultra vires expansion of Civil 798.56[d] to be used against residents

violated not only his oath to be impartial, but also constitutional limits on his judicial

powers imposed by Article III, 3 and Article VI, 13 of Californias Constitution.

Judge Sachs had no power to transmute the loser into a winner by revising a statute forhis sole benefit. To guarantee entry of this gratuitous gift before Shipley could file

written objections Judge Sachs orchestrated the following Star Court Proceedings:

On 3/17/14-Judge Sachs made a bizarre journal entry: Files retained in department.

CT 71 top. By retaining all case files in his own department---rather than returning

them to the public records department [available for daily public filings and review]

Judge Sachs gained exclusive control over which pleadings were accepted for filing and

entered into the online case docket. Stubblefield hired First Legal Support to deliver

the debauched judgment to Judge Sachs chambers ex parte . CT 223 [see logo on top].

Williamson could shift the blame for violating Rules 3.113, 3.1201 & Local Rule 591.3

from his firm to First Legal Support, who delivered a proposed judgment to chambers

ex parte on 3/20/14. Judge Sachs signed the order the same day---on 3/20/14. CT 223

Attorney Williamson knew if he tried to file a proposed final judgment in the

records department a clerk may have rejected it for failure to comply with Rules

3.113, 3.120 and Local Rule 591.3. McCarron did not see a proposed final judgment

---delivered ex parte on 3/20/14---until the next morning---Friday 3/21/14. It was

already too late as Judge Sachs entered the judgment when it was delivered to him.

Shipley was deprived of any opportunity to object before entry of her final judgment.


23/57

17

McCarron wrote objections and emailed them to Shipley to print out in Highland

and deliver by hand to Dept. S-33 that same day Friday 3/21/14. Shipley was unable

to file objections at the public filing window as Judge Sachs maintained the files in

Department S-33 on 3/17/14. Shipley took her objections upstairs to Dept. S-33.The S-33 clerk told Shipley she had to wait outside the courtroom while she checked

with Judge Sachs. The S-32 clerk returned to say she could not accept the objections

because Judge Sachs already signed/entered the order the day before on 3/20/14.

Shipley dropped her objections into the drop box in front of the Appellate Division

at 4:00 p.m. as the window closed at 3:00 p.m. Judge Sachs refusal to accept

objections only one day after a judgment arrived ex parte violated Rule 3.130(d).

Even if objections were late Judge Sachs was still required to accept them on 3/21/14. (d) Filing of late papers No paper may be rejected for filingon the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If thecourt, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper,the minutes or order must so indicate

Even if late, under LOCAL RULE 591.3 Judge Sachs was required to wait at least

ten (10) days before entering a judgment. Sachs runs Star Court proceedings.

On Friday 3/21/14 McCarron printed the online case docket. There was no journal entry reciting that a final judgment had been entered on 3/20/14.

On Monday, 3/24/14 there was still no evidence a judgment was entered on 3/20/14.

McCarron called Marsha Lenihan, Legal Processing Supervisor, at 4:00 p.m. to ask

why there was no journal entry by 3/24/14 for a judgment purportedly entered 4 days

earlier on 3/20/14. On 3/25/14 Marsha Lenihan called McCarron to notify her that

a journal entry would be made showing the judgment had been entered on 3/20/14.

As of 4/2/14 no camera image icon appeared online to download the final judgment.

On 4/2/14 Shipley drove over to court to obtain a copy of the 3/20/14 judgment.

A records clerk said she could not provide a copy because Judge Sachs was maintaining

the case files in Dept. S-33. CT 71- top. Shipley walked up to Dept S-33 to get a copy.

The S-33 clerk told Shipley to return to the records department to get the judgment.


24/57

18

Shipley told the S-33 clerk the records department had directed her to go up to S-33.

The S-33 clerk told Shipley to return the next day. On 4/3/14 when Shipley returned a

second time the S-33 clerk directed her to download the judgment from court online.

Shipley told the S-33 clerk there was no camera image icon to enable downloadingthe judgment, which is why she had driven over to the court to obtain a hard copy.

The S-33 clerk told her to return the next day. On 4/4/14 Shipley returned a third time.

The S-33 clerk said she still did not have the final judgment and did not know how to

obtain a copy of it. After three trips to S-33 Shipley was unable to obtain a copy of a

final judgment as prevailing party. On 4/1/14 Stubblefield served Notice of Ruling

by mail. McCarron finally received the Notice of Ruling by mail service on 4/4/14.

This was fourteen [14] days after Judge Sachs had entered final judgment. CT 242

C. Court Had No Power to Grant Declaratory Relief to Stubblefield in Final Judgment

Under CCP 580 a court may not grant declaratory relief in a limited jurisdiction case,

except as recited in CCP 86. When an appellate court directs judgment on the merits

for the defendant a court has no power to grant any relief to a losing plaintiff, especially

where plaintiff did not even request such relief in his complaint. Plaintiff never prayed

for the trial court or former Panel to interpret Civil 798.56[d] or grant declaratory relief.

Expanding a remedial statute by judicial proclamation, to be used against non-owner

residents, where express language circumscribes the remedy to homeowners only,

exceeded constitutional limits on judicial powers imposed by Article III, Section 3.

Revising statutes may only be done through legislation. Judge Sachs ultra vires act

was prohibited under CCP 580 as well as Article III, 3. This ultra vires act of vacating

a prior order after jurisdiction to vacate it had expired three months earlier, violated

CCP 663a(b) and Article VI,13. There was no miscarriage of justice in entry of

summary judgment for Shipley on 10/21/13, after former Panel s mandate to do so .

Shipley fought like a gladiator through 2 years of scorched earth litigation to thwart an

illegal eviction. Judge Sachs deprived her of victory by authorizing her direct eviction.

It was a miscarriage of justice to Shipley and 675,000 residents now subject to eviction.


25/57

19

D. Chronological Summary of Judge Sachs serial violations:

1. 2/10/14 Violation of CRC 3.1312 ( prevailing party to prepare her judgment)

Judge Sachs refused to sign a judgment prevailing party submitted at the hearing.

Judge Sachs invited non-prevailing party s attorney to prepare the final judgment.

2. 2/19/14 Violation of Civil 663(b) (power to vacate judgment expired in 60 days)

McCarron objected to revisiting a summary judgment order entered on 10/21/13.

McCarron told Judge Sachs jurisdiction to vacate the order expired months ago.

3. 2/19/14 Violation of CRC 3.1103; 3.112; 3.1113. CCP 1005 (no motion notice

with basis for relief or Points & Authorities was filed as required) CCP 1005

4. 2/19/14 Violation of CRC 3.1312 ( prevailing party to prepare judgments)

Minute Order recited Counsel for Plaintiff to Prepare Judgment

5. 3/17/14 Violation of Judicial Oath to apply the law-violation of due process

Judge Sachs thwarted McCarron from reciting objections on a transcript record,

depriving Shipley of an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to object.

Disparate treatment- calling counsel maam instead of by her name or counsel.

6. 3/17/14 Violation of Judicial Oath to Apply the law- violation of due process

Judge Sachs actively advocated for Stubblefield by distorting prior findings of

two courts and allowing Stubblefield to paraphrase findings to alter its import.


Judge Sachs advocated for Stubblefield by inserting the words or resident intohis judge notes, and then giving the notes to St ubblefields counsel for insertion

into the final judgment (a contrivance even Stubblefield didnt think of doing).

This violated Shipleys right to due process under federal and state constitutions.

The deck is stacked against a party where the Judge is the opponents advocate.


26/57

20


Judge Sac hs made a bizarre journal entry files retained in department which

enabled him to exercise exclusive control over which documents would be filed

or rejected. Judge Sachs then refused to accept the objections Shipley tried to fileon 3/21/14 only one day after Stubblefield submitted a debauched judgment

ex parte to chambers on 3/20/14. This deprived Shipley of opportunity to object.

9. 3/20/14 Violated Local Rule 591.3 (no entry of judgment for 10 days)

Rule 591.3 was amended on 1/1/13 to afford opposing parties a chance to object

Stubblefield hired Legal Support Services to hand deliver a paraphrased final

judgment directly to chambers ex parte on 3/20/14, without first serving the

proposed judgment to opposing counsel, who represented prevailing party.

Judge Sachs signed the judgment the same day it was delivered [on 3/20/14]

without waiting even one day to afford Shipley an opportunity to object to form.


Judge Sachs prevented Shipley from obtaining the judgment entered 3/20/14.

Shipley appeared 3 consecutive days to try to get it. [3/21/14, 3/24/14, 3/25/14]

because his clerk had not scanned it to the online docket. Each time she appeared

in Dept. S-33 for a copy of the judgment she was told to return the following day.

Shipley was never able to obtain a copy of the judgment despite three attempts.

This was not one isolated incident or a few inadvertent mistakes. The 10 incidents

above displays a serial pattern of intentional violations of Codes of Civil Procedure,

Rules of Court, Statutes of Limitations, Local Rules, and the Judicial Code of Ethics.

By inserting th e words or resident Judge Sachs paved the way for park owners t o

evict residents directly on 5 days notice, instead of proceeding against homeowners,

who can invoke statutory protections against arbitrary evictions under Civil 798.55.


27/57

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Shipley prays for Presiding Panel to direct Judge Sachs

to vacate the final judgment entered on 3/20/14, reinstate a summary judgment order

Judge Alvarez entered on 10/21/13, and enter the final judgment on the merits for

defendant--which prevailing party Shipley submitted on 3/4/14 as shown at CT 209.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Appellant Shipley prays for the Presiding Panel to order the following:

1 Direct Judge Michael A. Sachs t vacate a final judgment entered on 3/20/14,

contravening the directives of former Panel's Writ of Mandate issued July 22,2013

and reinstate the summary judgment order Judge Alvarez entered on 1012 11 13.

2. Direct Judge Michael A. Sachs to enter Judgment on the merits as submitted by

Shipley, as the prevailing party, on 3/4/14 as shown at CT 209, with all costs and

attorney fees pursuant to Mobile Home Residency Law, Civil Codes 798.85; 1717.

3. Direct Judge Michael A. Sachs to award appellant attorney fees as costs, as the

prevailing party in ll proceedings below, including all writ proceedings, in an

amount to be determined by separate motion, and as costs and fees on this appeal.

4. Direct Judge Michael A. Sachs to recuse himself and transfer the case files to

the Presiding Judge for re-assignment to a retired judge who is not afraid to rule

against Stubblefield for fear of political retribution in future judicial campaigns.

5. Direct any additional relief the Appellate (30~1-t eems equitable and just.

/

C E R ~ ~ F I C AT E F WORD COUNT

This Opening Appellant Brief contains 6,015 words [excluding cover tables]

and is size 13 roman typeface font. I relied on a word count generated by MS

Word 2010 as recited in the status bar.

September 8,2014


28/57

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTAPPELLATE DIVISION

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,Plaintiff Respondentvs.

BONNIE SHIPLEY,Defendant Appellant

Case No. ACIAS 1400026[Trial Court UDDS1204130]Appeal from a Final Judgment inSan Bernardino Superior Court

Entered on March 20, 2014

Honorable Michael A. Sachs

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

Clerks Transcript on Appeal and Reporters Transcript filed 7/31/14

Nancy D McCarron, CBN 164780950 Roble Lane

Santa Barbara, CA [email protected]

805-450-0450 fax 805-965-3492Attorney for Appellant/Defendant Below
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


29/57

22

MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD [RULE 8.841]

Appellant Bonnie Shipley moves the Presiding Panel, under Appellate Rule 8.841,

to augment the record with two documents Judge Sachs prevented her from filing.

Exhibit 1 Objections to Second [Proposed Order] Rewriting a Prior Judges OrderWithout Jurisdiction and Rewriting an Appellate Order in C ontempt of that CourtsOrder; Notice of Intent to Appeal Illegal Order and Hold Michael Sachs in Contemptof an Appellate Divisions Writ of Mandate; Objections to Sachs Acting as Advocate

for Plaintiff and Request for Recusal - Dept S-33 Clerk Refused to file it on 3/17/14.

As shown below in the official transcript of a hearing on the judgment on 3/17/14

McCarron asked Judge Sachs to file the proposed final judgment because she knew

Stubblefield would paraphrase holdings and corrupt the final judgment. [RT 60:25]:

25| Ms. McCARRON : Why Cant I file it, you Honor? He 26| is going to paraphrase again. RT 60:25-26

1| THE COURT: It is his motion, it is his work I am2| working off of and I am assuming counsel will do what I have 3| asked him to do. In fact, I am happy to give him my notes ,4| you can make a copy and both of you can share it. RT 61:1-4

11| THE BAILIFF: Your honor, did you want me to make12| copies?13| THE COURT: The record should reflect that I have14| handed to Mari, my courtroom attendant, my worked up order15| that she is going to make copies for everybody. RT 63:11-15

The bailiff gave both counsel a copy of the Judges worked up order on 3/17/14.

This is pages 11, 12, 13 of Exhibit 1 attached herein. McCarron was shocked to

discover Judge Sachs interlineated the words or resident into the proposed text:

Exh. 1, p. 12

Three days later, on 3/20/14 rather than serve McCarron with the newly typed up

judgment, as required by Rule 3.1312, Stubblefield delivered it to chambers ex parte .

McCarron did not receive it until 3/21/14 at which time she wrote objections, emailed

them to Shipley to hand deliver. Dept. S- 33 refused to accept them for filing as late.


30/57

23

Dept. S-33 clerk said objections were late because judgment had been entered.

Even if late, this nonetheless violated Rule 3.130(d) which required a clerk to accept

a late filing, mark it late, and recite in the Minute Order a remark about a late filing.

This was not done. The S-33 clerk refused to accept the objections for filing in court.Shipley then dropped her objections [ Exhibit 1 ] into the Appellate Divisions outside

box drop at 4:00 p.m. because the filing window at that court had closed at 3:00 p.m.

An Appellate Division clerk confirmed that she has the original objections in this case.

Shipley included the objections in her Designation of Record, but the clerk could not

locate a copy of the Objections to insert into the Clerks Transcript from the tria l court.

Judge Sachs also violated Local Rule 591.3 by not waiting 10 days to enter judgment,

to afford Shipley an opportunity to object to the form of it. Instead, the court signed and

entered judgment as soon as it was delivered ex parte to his chambers before she saw it.

Judge Sachs deprived Shipley of opportunity to object and refused to accept objections.

To comport with equity under the circumstances the Panel should augment the record to

include these objections. Exhibit 1, p.12 shows Judge Sachs acted as an advocate for

Stubblefield by inserting new language into the judgment, which authorized him to evict

Shipley directly---the remedy sought when he first served a sham complaint on 8/27/14.

EXHIBIT 2 - May 9, 2014 Letter to RESIDENTS from Stubblefields Park Manager

Exhibit is a 5-page exhibit containing a Letter to RESIDENTS served on Shipley.

The parks letter threatens to use Civil Code 798.56(d) to evict RESIDENTS directly.

McCarron wanted to let Judge Sachs know Stubblefield was already capitalizing on his

gratuitous gift--- interlineating or residents to authorize evicting RESIDENT directly.

On June 23, 2014 at a hearing on a motion to expunge lis pendens McCarron tried to

offer the letter to the Bailiff to give Judge Sachs so he would understand the trouble he

caused by authorizing Stubblefield to use Civil 798.56(d) to evict residents directly.

Judge Sachs refused to look at the letter, stating that the matter was not before him.

In oral & written objections McCarron predicted the harm from a debauched judgment.

RT 46:22, 51:24, 53:22, 60:25. Judge Sachs knew it would be used to evict residents.


31/57

To comport with equity under these circumstances the Panel should augment the

record to include Exhib it2 because it isa highly relevant document on this appeal.

It proves that McCarron was correctin predicting the potential damage that would flow

rom udge Sach's order allowing Stubblefield to compose afinal udgment'on merits.Exhibit2 shows Stubblefield l l l y intended to capitalize on the unfair advantage Judge

Sachs donatedin authorizing im to compose the final judgment instead of Shipley.

Judge Sachs' blatant violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics should not be condoned.

Judge Sachs intentionally gave Stubblefield a new tool to filch even more mobile homes

fiom elderly, sick, and disabled residents who will be rendered homeless after evictions.

Stubblefield will add several more free mobilehomes to his monthly rental portfolio,

expanding wealth exponentially on the backs of poor, elderly and disabled residents.For the above reasons, Shipley respectfully asks the Panel to augment the appellate

record with Exhibits and 2 which are numbered consecutively and attached herein.

September 8,2014

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL UNDER OATH

I Nancy uffy McCarron, declare the factual statem ents made in theOpening Brief and Motionto A u m e n t the Record are trueto the best of the

undersigned's knowledge. Counsel c o n f m e d withan appellate court clerk

that she Shipley's Objections to Judgment which th eS -3 3 d e rk w ould not

accept for filing on 3/2 14[ xhibit A] L ~ h e ' u n d e r s i ~ n e declares that

xhibit B was delivered to Space 333 which tlireatensto evict park residents

for purportea violations Gfroad rules under Civil 798.56[d]--the sam e code

Judge Sachs gratuitously revised by proclamation in the judgment, provingStubblefield fully intended to capitalize on Judge Sachs' gratuitous gift.

This certification was executedin Santa Barbara on September 8,201 4.

September 8,2014


32/57

EXHIBIT 1


33/57

Nancy Duffy McCarron, CBN 16478Law Office of Nancy D uffy McC arron950 Roble LaneSanta Barbara, CA 93103805-450-0450 fax [email protected]

Attorney for Defendant B onnie Shipley

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY O F SAN BERNARDINO

TO SACH S ACTING AS ADVOCATEOR PLAINTIFF r REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

STLJBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, aCalifornia General Partnership, dba MountainShadows Mobile Hom e Com munity

Plaintiff,v.

BONNIE SHIPLEY,Defendant

action filed: 8-27-12

Judge Michael Sachs Department S-33

Case No. UDD S1204130

OBJECTIONS TO SECOND ORDERREWRITING A PRIOR JUDGE S ORDER WITHOUTJURISDICTION AND REWRITING AN APPELLATORDER IN CONTEMPT OF THAT COURT S ORDENOTICE OF INT NT TO APPEA L ILLEGAL ORDERAND HOLD MICHAEL SACHS IN CONTEMPT OFAN APPELLATE DIVISION S WRIT OF MANDATE

cting as Advocate in V iolation of Judicial Ethics

Defendan t objects to this court s acting as an advocate for plaintiff and dem ands that Michael

Sachs voluntarily recuse himself for violations of Code of .ludicial Ethics as set forth below:

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS PREAMBLE

Our legal system i s based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will

interpret and apply the law sthat govern us. The rolc o f the judiciary is central to Am erican concepts o

justice and the mle o f law. Intrinsic to this code are the precepts that judges, individually and collecti

must respect and honor t he judicial office as a public trust and s trive to enhance and m aintainconfidentin our leeal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highl

visible member o f government under th e rule o f law.

A. Promoting Public Confidence

A judge shall respect and com ply w ith the law* and shallact at all times in a manner that promotes

public confidence in the integrity and impartiality o f the jud ici a~ y.

1

Objections to Second[Proposedl Order Vacating enial o f Sumnlary Judgment and Judgment for efendant


34/57

The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably

ntertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality, and competence.

Canon 2 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's

ctivities. Impropriety includes conduct that violates the law. court rules. or provisions of this code,

nd conduct that undermines a judge's independence, inteaitv. or impartialitv.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges.

PECIFIC ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, COURT RULES, AND IMPROPER CONDUCT:

.)On 5/6/13 the Appellate Division entered its order directing Judge Alvarez in S-32 to vacate his deni,

of defendant's summary judgment motion, and enter a new order granting it and enter a final judgme

on the merits for Shipley with costs. On 10121113 Judge Alvarez entered the order vacating his denia

of summary judgment and entered a new order granting it to Shipley, but never entered a judgment othe merits for Shipley with costs as proposed by Shipley. Judge Alvarez wanted to enter the orders

separately but never entered the judgment although submitted to him. At r

.)Shipley filed her motion for statutory attomey fees on 5129113 set for 7/2/13, which he continued to

712211 3, then to 10121113, then to 1/7/14, then to 211 0114; because the case was transferred to Michae

Sachs in S-33 after Judge Alvarez recused himself upon Shipley's request.

.)At the first hearing on 2110114 for defendant's motion for statutory attomey fees, counsel for Shipley

McCarron bought the judgment to be entered for Shipley exactly as written by the appellate division,

verbatim, the last two sentences of their order. McCarron asked Judge Sachs to enter the judgment or

the merits so her attorney fee motion could be concluded. Judge Sachs had both McCarron's order ar

Stubblefield's order which McCarron objected to because it paraphrased both the trial court and the

appellate court's findings and completely changed the import of the order to benefit Stubblefield. [

. Judge Sachs then invited Stubbelfield's counsel to propose a new order. McCarron objected a:

the usual practice is for the prevailing party to compose the order---not the losing party---for exactly

reason she stated-the loser will rewrite the order to benefit himself.

. Judge Sachs also announced sua sponte that he would re-write J udge Alvarez' 10 21 13 order

There was absolutely no jurisdiction to rewrite another court's orde r entered 4 months ago.

There was not even a motion to vacate that order pending o r ever filed o r served by plaintiff.

2

. . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ . . .

Objections to SecondIProposedl Order Vacating enial of Summary Judgme nt and Judgment for efendant


35/57

I.) McCarron objected to such unorthodox procedures; i.e. letting the loser make up an order re-writing

another Judge's prior order which changed the entire findings and import of the order, as well as

parphrasing the appellate court's order. See Objections attached here as Exhibit B

. Despite McCarron's objections Michael Sachs scheduled another hearing letting plaintiff propose ne

hybrid" order as he called it. See his minute orders attached as Exh. A3-A6 Michael Sachs then

ntinued it for another hearing on 3/17/13.

I On 3/17/14 Judge Sachs authohzed all the paraphrasing to completely change the import of both the

rial court's order and the appellate divisions order. Judge Sachs then dismissed the hearing stating he

vould give counsel a copy of his notes for the "final order."

I. McCarron was shocked that he actually acted as an advocate for Stubblefield by interjecting the wori

or resident" after homeowner on page 2---basically authorizing Stubblefield to "proceed against the

m hipley under Civil Code section 798.56(d) which is an action which can only be taken againslomeowner---not a resident This is not what the appellate division wrote in its order. l ?0. This language was never discussed at the hearing or McCarron would have vehemently objected.

nstead it was gratuitously given as a gift by sneaking the words into his notes given to us.

If course, Stubblefield jumped right on it and inserted them into what will be the ORDER

rhis gratuitous gift was beyond the pale. Judge Sachs has stepped into the role of advocate for

Stubblefield and must disqualify himself as his bias is clearly demonstrated.

tespecthlly submitted: 312 111 4

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY COUNSEL

Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed ORDER and defendant's alternate Proposed Order were served via

Tail to attorney Robert Williamson at: Hart King, 4 Hutton Center Dr., Suite 900, Santa Ana, CA 92705

declare the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed in Santa Barbara, CA on 3/21/14.

courtesy copy will also be delivered to the appellate division.

Objections to Second[Proposedl Order Vacating enial of Summary Judgment and Judgment for efendant


36/57

EXHIBIT


37/57

Pend ingHome ComplaintslParties Actions Minutes Hearings

case vpe:. . . . . . ;-ase Number:

~~~~ .....

Case UDDSI204130 - STUBBLEFIELD V SHIPLEY

Case ImagesReport

HEARING RE: CASE MGMT CONFI OSC RE STATUS OF APPEAL1012112013 8:30 AM DEPT. 532

DONALD ALVAREZ. JUDGECLERK: STEPHANIE CHANDLERCOURT ATE ND AN T ERIC ASHENOT REPORTED

APPEARANCESAJTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR PRESENT FOR PLAlNTlFFlPETITlONERATTORNEY NANCY DUFFY MCCARRON PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT-

PROCEEDINGSHEARING ON. CASE M GMT CONF 1 OSC RE STATUS OF APPEAL HELDPREDISPOSITION HEARING HELDBASED ONTH RULING ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION ON THE WR IT OF M ANDAM US AND THECALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAVING DENIED PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR R EVIE W AND APPLICATIONFOR STAY. THE COURT HEREBY RULES AS FOLLOWS

COURT FINDS:THE COURTS RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARD ON FEBRUARY14,2013 ISHEREBY REVERSED AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:BONNIE SHIPLEY S MOTlON FOR SUM MARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AS TO ITS ENTIRETY.DEFENDANTIMOVING PARTY TO PREPARE JUDGMENT.-HEARINGS:HEARING DATE OF 01107114 CONFIRMED(RE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A T K ) R N ~ Y EES)

NOTICE GWEN BY JUDICIAL ASSISTANTCORRESPONDENCE COVERSHEET GENERATED TO M AIL MINUTE ORDER DATED 10121113 TO COUNSEL

A


38/57

OF RECORD.

ACTION COMPL T

=== MINUE O R ~ E R ND ===

C O M P IA IM DIS~OSITIONED BY JUDGMENT.

ACTION D ISPO: JUDGMENT


39/57

Home Co mp leints f~a r t ies Act ions Minutes PendingHearings

Case Type

Case Number:

Case U D D S I ~ ~ ~ I ~ OSTUBBLEFIELD VSHIPLEYAction

CaseReport Images

MOTION RE ~ V TO R N Y FEES FILED BYDEFENDANT BONNIE SHIPLEY02/1012014 8:aO AM DEPT. S33

MICHAEL A SACHS, JUDGECLERK. WIMALA BLANCHARDCOURT REPOR R KATHY SELLERS 4420COURT ~ E N D ~ T ARY KILGORE

APPEARANCES.ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER.ATTORNEY NANCY DUFFY MCCARRON PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT.

PROCEEDINGS:PREDISPOSITIONHEARINGHELDMOTIONACTlONC ME ON FOR MOTION RE AlTORN EY FEES FILED BY BONNIE SHIPLEY.COURTHA S R EVIEW ED THE MOTION, OPPOSITION, REPLY, EXPERT DECLARATIONS, AND OTHERADDITIONALDECLARATIONS~ H I C H AVE BE EN FILED

OURT DOES N q GO FORW ARD WITH MOTlON FOR ATIDRNEY FEES AND SETS MAT IER FOR HEARINREGARDINGJUD~MENT COURT HAS RECEIVEDPROPOSED JUDGMENTS FROM ATTORNEY MCCARRON

AND INSTRUCTSCOUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUBMITT PROPOSE D JUDGMENT TO M ECOURT HEARING REGARDINGJUDGMENT WILL B E HELD ON 2/19/14 AND THEREAFTER A HEARING FOR THE MOTION FOR A ~ R N EFEES WILLBE SET.

HEARINGS:

HEARING RE: P RPP OSED JUDGMENT SET FOR 02/19/14 AT 0830 IN DEPARTMENT S33A.ACTION -COM PLET E


40/57

Pending CaseHome Comp1 ainWParties ctions Minutes Hearings Reporl Images

I

Case U D D S I ~ O ~ I ~ OSTUBBLEFIELD V SHIPLEY

HE RINGRE ROPOSED JUDGMENT02/19/2014 - 8130 AM DEPT. S33A

MICHAEL A S A C ~ S , UDGECLERK: WIMAIALANCHARDCOURT R E P O R ~ ~ RULIE QUINTANILL4 11309COURT TTEND~NT ARY KILGORE-APPEARANCES:IATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAM SON PR ESE NT FOR PLAlNTIFFlPETITlONER.ATTORNEY N NDUFFY PRESENTFOR DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT.

PROCEEDINGSPREDISPOSITIO d HEARING HELDCOURT HAS RE~IEWED HE PROPOSED JUDGMENTS SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL HYBRID PROPOS LWORKED I

OUT BY THE COLRT.ANGUAGE IS STATED ON THE RECORD.

COUNSEL FOR LAINTIFF TO PREPARE JUDGMENT S PROPOSEDBY COURT. PPELL TE DOCS FROMDEFENSE I

MAY BE A n A c A E D PROPOSED JuoGMENT DUE T o DEFENSE COUNSEL N o LATER THAN 3/05/14,

OBJECTION SH L BE DUE NO L A k R THAN 3/12/14. IF NO OBJECTION IS FILED COURT WILL ENTER

JUDGMENT. HEARING REGARDING MOTION FOR ATJORNEY FEES IS SET AS FOLLOWS:

HEARINGS:LAW MOTIONRE: ArrO RN EY FEES SET FOR 03/17/14 AT 08:30 IN DEPT. 533.

ACTION COMPLETE

=== MINUTE O R ~ E R NDI

IIi


41/57


42/57

798

OWEVER DEF NSE COUNSEL WAS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO HER BILLlNG DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY SUBMITANOTHER

MOTION DETAIL1 HER FEE S FOR THE COURTS REVIEW

IECTION COMPL TE

=== MINUTE O R ~ R ND


43/57

*st Legal Support (951)779-0100 00/00

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAT EOF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO C M L DIVISION

Plaintiff

14 v

1

l 1

I z

STUB~LEFIELDROPERTIES, a~ a l i f o k aeneral partnerslip dbaM O ~ TA I N S H A D O W SM O B I ~ H O M E OMMUNITY,

Case No. UDDS 1204130

Assigned for all purposesto:

S

Judge; Hon. Michael A. SachsDept.: S 33

B O d I E SHIPLEY; and DOES I through

PROPOSED] ORDER VACATINGDENIAL OF SUMMARY JU GMENTA M U GMENT IN FAVOR OFDEFENDANT

16 10 ina~usive,

io( i On February 14.2013. the Cowt, after having considered the evidence and points and

17

I 8

19

21I+utbotitiea submittedby a l l parties, and oral argumeut of counsel d e i e dDekndaot Bonnie

Ship)/;yls motion for summary judgment onthe grounds that California Civil Code section23

798. i5 ,subdivision c) is noi Lhnited ts application only in the escrow, sale or transfer of24

a rnobilcliome, but that it applied when an occupant of a mobilehomc, suchas Defendant, \>as

Defendants.

25 ) n o dbht of tenancy under the Mobiiehame Residency Law (Civ. Code secfioo 798 e1 srg.

26/and ot M e m i s e e nlt le d to oicupy the tn ilehome under the Mobilehome Residency27

Law.


44/57

On February 17 2013, Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the

Appellate Division of the San Bemardino Superior Court ( Appellate Division ) requesting

an order that denial of her summaryjudgment motion be vacated and that sumrriary udgment

vil Code section 798.56 subdivision (d)

4'

5

6

7

r failure to comply wit a reasonable ruleor regulation of thep rk that s part of the rental

ent or any amendment the;eto. A copy of the Opinionfiled ay 6,2013is attached

narkced Exhibit 1 and incorporated hereinby this reference.

On July 22, 2013, the Appellate Division issueda Writ of Mandate directing that the

urt vacate its February 14, 2 3 order -denying Defendant's summary judgment

and to enter a new order granting summary udgment in favor of Defendant and to.

judgment in 'favor 6f ' ~e ien da nt .A copy .df the writ of anda ateissued July 22,

attached hereto marlced Exhibit 2 and incorporated hereinby this reference.

-

T IS HEREBY OR ERE HAT:1. The Court's order entered February 14 2013, denying Defendant's motion for

be grantedin her favor.

On May 6 2013, the Appellate Division, having considered Defendant Bonnie

Shipley's Petition for Writ of Mandate, issuedits unpublished Opinion granting tbe rit

fmding that Civil Code section 798 75 applied only to a purchaser or transferee of a

2 5 summaryjudgment is vacated;

zsi 2 Summary judgment is grantcd in favor of Ddodant on the groundsUdf Civil27

Code section 7 9 8 7 5 does not apply to Defendant because Defendantwas not a

28 ] purchaser of a mobilehome in Plaintiffs mobilehome park, rendering the5-Day

fPROPOJED ORDER AND JUDGhITWT


45/57

e r s t egal Support 951)779-0100 00100 m

Notice to Surrenderpursuant tosubdivision(c) of 798.75 inapplicabie;

3. umnary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant.

4 Judgment is entered n favor of Defendant B o d e Shipleyand against Plaintiff

StubblefieId Properties,a California general partnership dba Mountain Shadows

Mobile HomeCommunity.Piaintiff to takenothin gby way of its complaint.

5 Defendant is awarded costs.

6. h y ward of attorney s fees is to be determioed by wayo separate motion.

9 1IT

IS SOORDERED

Dated: _ 7014Hon. Michael A. Sacbs Judge SuperiorCourt


46/57

EXHI IT

q


47/57

SUPERfClRCOIJRT O f 'WE STATE O CALIFOwIACO-?Y O SAN REkVARfllNO

S'lXXlBtEFlUDPROPERTIM,aGali%mia Ceaerat P~tnersbip, h MotmainSlradornh.lobileNorno Community

Plaintifi:V.

BONNIE SHIPLEY,

CascNo, UBDSll;bl.f30DEFENDANT'S OBJECTXONST PLAIKT1I;P1S[PROPOSED]ORDER VACATlNG DENIAI,

OF SUMMARYJUDGMLbiTAt-$$J L ~ C E M E ~ TORDBENDtbw

W s n o ~ b l e icl~eolSacbs Dcpnrtrnont S-353 3 Ur. ? St, San Bcrnnrdino CRC ,1312

I Refindtint objectstop~uifltiflspraphrasf~rg f the uinI lrnd appellarecoun's orders to create rrpstextbr mum made findings agninsLprevdingp;lrtySnterest whic ~ lcnrlyw r o not rccitcd in either o&rPIainriBhmded tu lcad the cow down a prinuosc pzk dcrror ~iniplyo gain n stmtegicadvmr;lgc,l ptainli$canobtaincrry judicin oEkerlr sigmuw on w y finditr~gainst a mobilehmne resident suadec willhe thro\\x in the hcc f any elderlyresident who dart lo challeng~ark o m r ' s aurhofily.

Exccrptu/bel~~vhow howplaintiff tried to get this courf to munr asrvre new findings against flhipley,n tllc first paragraph or its proposed order shown bclbw plaintiffinserted "'such s d~*ncluni in the

n~iddieatlhcoun's findings. The w r l s nrc not containedmywhere in tl~s ow'sorder or transcript, Plaintiff tries m makc ir appwr J u d p lvac~Jbunrl hipleyhad no right oftenancy.S such k i n g was ma . udgc Alvarclzsct the c se hr jury S z l indicatinghe would l a jury dacid,


48/57

ndge ~lvarhzaevosttered the ~vordr in hisXi4113 ruling wanseriberf belo%I

1ic court must stpikc tho NO mir as dirhdmt" which clearlywere mt contained in t e order.

'he apflellilacdivisionfound tBe unluwfl~IoccupatrP under 5798.751~1 id nor apply t a ShTpley.

Plaintifftrird rn xwenk the appellatediv i s i~dsindi~gsn Shiplcy's le se with M c C m n , as follo~~rc

shearoupicdwhiel~ ~ o ~ ~yer oitomcyk h c y DufTy M mn andsihwrcdbnspacc 33 that McCarton tea& h m lnintiff:

z m y t;, 'rarx h w a m IMW ~ s h hmiw ikr* a d eLi~ley'r 'eilrdn for OrWdl5r~Mimhn. h w d 11s unplblirhCdOginTm @anllm6 Wd1Win p rknt flvil Code y:dan 7@*7J mpTW only a pnrdusu a mrmfat ofmpb( &mr unlt tha ~ m p i u W gwa rsilhour i oelrt lop r M e n kPFe

$he a e c q i d whrh rr out~rd y hu ~uancy M s e y Puffy McE and

s b n f d on space 333 h51 AlcCwcn lead ffm PlalnWYIn PlrinllWa nnhilchomc prr4md Um w d a the Matrilchrmc Rrsawy l a w s Pklndff may trin a .W11cmc by

a &mly~lialrretbh. &-\you undm civil ob m m ?98,46, m b t i W n 14)rw YIP ~aromply ~(L ta rwmbtca l soy cpUtrliondlthcpk dt b p yl of ll rssd

hucr m&ed iZ%hibihibitY""nd t ncwpm4 hcrdn y Mihirrrhw. Proposed Order, p2

'Inintiffsmisleadingpornphrasing did not rcmotcliyres~mblehe appcllatcdivision findingbe lo^

2

--- ------------------------------..---- -------- *-- -------*-+-------*--------*-*-.---Xe&aaV*Y Sn:ecCfdD'~ totlr4P39C5I S~de: Bacarlr.9 24n;nl Sua-rry >Jdpcn? sxd J s e p a t Ibf mioMan


49/57

f + ~ ~ * 1iOtiMl lor strmmmy judpcni a n l a w th t MI UY27.

201z. CmEUcMer s W E M ~ m oa~h ~ u m m m r zmq ~ u

n &&dnaRa ' h W m 9 t~ shrm McCem's m We h a s at space~d3 3 . 4 E. Piedman1 D M I ? M . CA 82348. 10 su d Ula mtion.

gnasan& ih d e U a r a of MSam. wha Oddam that an aMlacy Sa

PUtchWd lhe rn Wme *I 33 b suao&&MtnUbHeMms 4 w Odcr 5 6 13Ie4 the p a w tease. h4ccwm a m s V\at an Jaw 27 OlP

P d r igned a srrm~ntk ezse to tham ema as a ce-rwkhnt nflar k r

cantimd to i c?pt m n Wy mnl ficm her. St@ a h rhsl aUal Uralu r 1 6 h

pre in tpr name and Bhb p a p (Ol them ?ha. Pwitlaner's M em &@bhkct

fharrha it h M d a sii%iawm of s u h a n t d McCemn end that W m mnner of a u r m e sjmes 333 d Subb$CMs m b i m

park&uant b a Wsaagreemanl behrreen McCerran end 6iuIs@lr0ld 4 iVd%Oder 516 I3

fhc appellate division nevcr found Shipicy u-as r publcssec of ~nnbifehnn?*-b~ U I Wound @a1

dsfendnfil Shipley a a v *

uF.dctq~rc$indim5 chat Shipby is ihe rublesee uf

caing a nrodflelrome without firk.8 eqresscd d t l c n approval

Shipl~y s the co-mcidcnl, subbsn: of a mobilchomc mvncr.

fheappellotk Diviion Dund fhat as a ,nblcswe of a mobilchome o\w cr. Petitioner dots not falldvithin l e eff n3tion of n t 1 9 ~ l o 1 ~ ~ 1ccrpant;'

~lmnanq, Yhus, i rs ' u n W ceapnl p a pvrrhaxw nmool b#Sn

sgraa&l) ts an bodupwt t t 'L no1 o h&M e n l W b m y he

mdwm pwuant lo I bsphnplCr' k n subeew DIo mcM#hwne oxmt

P~&@mb m#nct1.a &thin bcledetmBbauf on @uvlvl mamVlS11ipley i s not unlawrul occupant

L;:

39Wrially plaintiff miaeptcm~s hm thcspp~?llntc ivision Lund on Stuhblcticld'ssdcquate remedy.

I

- 7 -* _ _ ~ * _ ~ l ? ~ * f - * - - i ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ ~ I l - _ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - - h - ~ - - - - - ~ - - _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r - _ - - _ - -

& % i e d ? y a :blar;rma %aL?rap?.rsal rasr . Ie=arz~q Dclr.:si cr s~rrszg ~ s ~ o r . c :,=I J M ~ a z t G r i;eicc0err;


50/57

in t e follorving cxccrpt plaintiff crated a false paieorrhm the appellate division be16 piafntiffmayevict hiplq by ~virtinghe homeowner, McCarron..

~kinkff's eraghmsed words arc intcnriodly mislwdin~ nd misstntcWhat the appelbtcdivision bun

The ~ W o te d iv is io n id not say Stubblblcficld may svicr me. r merely noted thm Stubbrlefield had anIdqdate remedy by invoking civil Code 798.56.

&.%ding n v n bc lints, via gmtuirous' foomotc, it suggzsts t h t if Stubblefield 1 c\ ict rhc sub

less by evicting thc hamcowncr, they coulci dsfand the action by srguing Iherutes are unnlmnable.For ih &eve ra ms ipicy o b j c c ~ t oho pmposed order, If th court wants to mclude findings in ich.vhjidjudgmenl there is oalyjurisdiction to hcludc fm dk w aac~uallymade. verb tim by the trio1 caunand Ure appellate cotirt. There is no jurisdiction ro adopt newly manu~actured indings plnitttiff fabricate

utd(suwtcb in a propsea aidcr. his clcvct mnnmver is os ranspareat as a piccc of clcm glsss,Detkndantsubmirs m alternote propod orderwt*ltic i inctudea findings oc~uallymade-not fabricated.

AFFlDAVlT OF M L ERVICE R YCOUNSEL

P1RjlltiEserved his proposal otder via mai l only, Likovvisc dcfcndant m s her order y cniail.

copy ePObjec~ionso Plaintiffs Praposcd ORDER and defendant's alfemare Praposcd Order wcrc

d ~ dia cglail to: ~jllimsoa@iltlkingl~~~ c~m: an314/14 : amI ddarci rhcaixrve to be true undcr penally nfprjury. Executed in Flighlmd CA on 31Jll4.


51/57


52/57

June 9 2014

INSTRU TIONS

We are enclosing in this mailing two (2) letters, one f rom Park Management andone from your HOA Board's new Traffic Safety Committee with anAcknowledgement page and this instruction sheet.

Please retain both letters for your records, sign and return the Acknowledgmentpage t o he Park Office. BE CERTAIN THAT EVERYONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLDWHO ISON THE LEASE HAS SIGNED THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

In order t o achieve the goals of your Traffic Safety Committee t is necessary toread, understand, agree and return your signed copy of the enclosedAcknodledgment page of the Traffic Safety Committee letter dated June 9 2 14to the Park Office by: June 13 2014.

Remember, with your complete and total cooperation, your Traffic SafetyCommittee, your resident's Homeowners Association and Park Management willbe able t o move forward

Thank you in advance fo r your cooperation.


53/57

May 9,2014

Dear Resident:

We may now be i n a position to better focus on the issues of speedinnand coming to a full stop at stop s i ~ n swi th in our commbnitv.

A potential progrem may be within our grasp and if so it i s entirely due to the efforts of your HOA Board ofDirectors and an hnselfish group of 9 community minded residents. This group has come together under thename of the TRAFFICSAFETY COMMITTEE . In order t o implement the program it will require thecooperation of every resident within the community as well as a commitment from your Park Management.

We, the Park Mahagement, are committed t o the following:

1 ~ o d i f y de speed bumps where needed.2. Agree t o Pestripe all streets and walkways not less than every two years and not more than three

years.3. Continue t o enforce all traff ic rules with in our community equally and fairly, BUT MORE

VIGOROUSLY.4. tont inud t o reat all offenders impartially, promptly and equally.

Management has committed to the above provided the residents are willing to accept the ir responsibility for

good safe drlving habits within the community. That consists of the resident and guest commitment t o thefollowing:

1 Not t o ekceed the 15 MP maximum speed limit2. Full andcomplete stop a t all stop signs and intersections whether marked or not.3. ~ o to pass the vehicle i n fron t of you unless it comes t o a full stop.4. To diligently comply wit h a l l aspects of th e traf fic guidelines within our community.

In order t o accdmplish this goal it wi ll be necessarv t o have 100% cooperation from each resident and, theattached ~ckndwledgement ~ O R n e d c e y June 13,2014.

f we can a l l wqrk together on this program we commit t o you to modify the speed bumps where needed, andcontinue to enforce the traffic rules within our community, which we have a l l previously agreed to in writing.

This will go a ldng way in heipingto continue maintaining a very happy and safe community with an extra eyeout for our more senior residents that enjoy walking and bike riding.

~ l if the above is very achievable, and will require an effort on the part of gac resident t o read. understand,sign and return the Acknowledgement page.

YoursTruxJ ,

Eva S Hazard

Community Manager


54/57

May 9,2014

Dear ~esi dent :

We can d l agree that Mountain Shadows is a great place to live. Even when livingin lovely places there can be initating issues. One of those issues that haschalleng RESIDENTS and MAhTAGEMENT or a long time is the matter ofenforcedent of our traffic regulations.

In an effort to solve the problem, additional speed bumps were installed in manyplaces dt h i n the park. Unfortunately, most of us have found that this solutionhas not been as effective as we hoped, and may have caused di s~pt ion nd evenhardship to some of our residents. In response to our pleas for relief, managementhas asked the home owners to come up with a plan to address the problem, whilestill achieving the main goal, Traffic Safety . Our committee has been meeting,and is r&ommending the following plan.

This letter is the first part of our plan. We know that the majority of our residentsare anxious to make our park a very safe place to live, and this includes residentsstopping at all stop signs and driving within the speed limit. We commend them for

this cooperation. However, there is an entrenched minority that for whateverreasons, habitually ignore these safety requirements. There is also a small group ofdelivery people, sub-contractors, outside guests and even children of some of ourresidents. This letter is a special appeal to those people to live within therestrictions that make our park such a nice place to live. If this earnest appeal goesunheeyd , we must find other ways to reach the offenders with methods that willmeet our goals.

In support of this objective, we would encourage all residents who witness obviousviolatibns, to report them to the park office. Emphasis should be on licensenumb&, type and color of vehicle and the date, time and location the violationoccun'ed.

We assume that some of the offenses are inadvertent and we may not be aware weare speeding. Our first action would be a documented verbal warning. The ncxtstep would be to send the first written notice, then a second, followed by a final


55/57

notice. he final notice states that continuance of non-compliance may result in areview o esidency status in Mountain Shadows.

~al i fomia ivil Code provides for this remedy. It states in Article 6, Section798.56 A tenancy shall be terminated by the management for one or more of thefollowink reasons (d)Failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with areasonable lule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement or anyamendmknt thereto. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 1,2010, ~ektion (A) 1) describes the consequences of Non-compliance withcommudity Guidelines.

Management has agreed to enforce Section 11B of the Community Guidelines

dated Mhrch 1,2010. The Guidelines clearly state that residents and resident'sguests must obey all posted traffic control signs. This includes coming to a fulland complete stop at all stop signs. This is for the good of our community as awhole. Management has assured us that if we are successful in obtainingcompliance with the traffic regulations they will adjust or lower the most offensivespeed bumps. Please work with us to achieve this goal.

Your Ttaffic Safety Committee

Barbara Smith ChairmanCommittee Members:

im Chenoski John Robert

Jim Cline Ray Regis

Appellants Opening Brief FINAL With ALL 9-8-14

Documents