Lacambra vs. Public Storage
I went to the Superior Court, Harbor Justice Center – Laguna Hills, CA this morning to file an “Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Judgment” against Public Storage. A couple of days ago, I called the office of Todd Briscoe, the opposing cousel, and spoke to the attorney assigned to the case, Cynthia Poer. As is my obligation, I had to give her notice telephonically that I was appearing in front of the judge in Laguna Hills.
Initially, I had filed a complaint against Public Storage at the Unlimited Jurisdiction on Santa Ana. These are cases where damages being sought are over $25,000. In a matter of weeks, Public Storage (Maryland) filed a “Foreclosure Lien Sale” in Laguna Hills at the Limited Jurisdiction (Under $25,000). In effect, two separate cases by the same parties were on docket at different courts. Lacambra vs. Public Storage in Santa Ana and Public Storage vs. Lacambra in Laguna Hills. My motion this morning was prompted by two separate and confusing "Request for Entry of Default" served to me at two different occasions. The first one was signed by Todd Briscoe and the other one signed by Cynthia Poer. I was somewhat perturbed that a judgment was entered after a "Motion for Transfer and Consolidation" was served on them. Potentially, I thought, this was one of those sneaky lawyer tricks being pulled on me.
I was at the clerk’s counter when Cynthia arrived and she informed me that a request for default that they had requested was rejected because they failed to provide the court proof of service. So, there was no need for my motion this morning, after all. I do need to do a couple of things, however. She had served me an “Opposition to the Motion for Transfer and Consolidation”. And since she had informed me that a judgment was not entered, I told here that I was going to file a Demurrer because some of the evidence that she included in the complaint did not have live signatures of the managers who claim to have provided me with all the notices.
CA Evidence Codes 1400 & 1401 provides:
1400. Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.
1401. (a) Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence. (b) Authentication of a writing is required before secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence.
What that essentially means is that a document that requires a signature must have one appearing in the written instrument before it can be offered as evidence. Otherwise, the document can be objected to and questioned for its authenticity. So, I told her since the hearing for the transfer and consolidation is set on the 5th of September, the Demurrer that I will draft today will seek a hearing date after the 5th so that the matter on the consolidation can be heard first.
