Last Friday’s hearing on my “Motion to Vacate Judgment” that I filed against Shea Properties et al was denied by Hon. Kazuharu Makino. The tentative ruling was posted on the internet the day before and comprised of the following verbiage:
(07CC10666)
LAMCAMBRA VS SHEA PROPERTIES
P Motion to Vacate Judgment DENIED. Judge Monarch was not a “temporary judge” as defined in CRC 2.816. Also, his ruling was not erroneous.
The original ruling in question was handed down by Hon. Robert Monarch, which effectively terminated my action against Shea Properties. In my moving papers, I alleged that the hearing violated the CA Rules of Court, Rule 2.816 and that the ruling, an Anti-SLAPP Motion was erroneous. My opposition papers argued that the Defendants failed to meet the standards required to prove that my action was any of the following:
- The lawsuit seeks to stifle free speech.
- The lawsuit was meritless and had no probability of succeeding.
- The lawsuit was used to primarily deplete the defendant’s resources.
It is my view that the “Anti-SLAPP Motion” was a stretch and an abuse of judicial procedures in that I am an indigent litigator incapable of bringing the financial ruin of the Defendants. Moreover, it was my very intention to use free speech to advance the open discussion of the issues that gave rise to this action. In no time since or now am I of knowledge that the Defendants are of any political views that may be harmful to my ventures.
Up until the point where Judge Monarch presided on the “Anti-SLAPP Motion” hearing, all and every “Law and Motion” hearings were presided and ruled on exclusively by Judge Makino. So, it is my contention that Judge Monarch was a temporary judge and therefore subject to CA Rules of Court, Rule 2.816.
As in any enterprise that tries to advance individual rights, the journey is a long and an arduous struggle. This is one such adventure. Judges are imperfect and subject to the vagaries of human relationships and friendships. Judge Monarch serves in the same court with of Judge Makino whom out of allegiance may have erred on the side of his colleague. Of course, this is conjecture which I will nonetheless put to the test by bringing an action against the Superior Court of California in the Federal Jurisdiction. I will call this war Blu Blax Blan (pronounced Bloo Blacks Blan). But, unlike the notorious cross burning group that wore white robes, the individuals responsible for these deprivations and erroneous rulings wore black.
Links:
