It appears that Taitz has once again committed a serious procedural gaffe.

Taitz filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication on August 27, 2010, with a hearing date of September 10, 2010. The court's website reflects that she paid the $200 filing fee for that motion. A review of the defective complaint filed by Taitz shows that it is not an unlawful detainer case (where possession would be at issue), so under the California Code of CIvil Procedure she has to give at least 75 days notice of the motion. (C.C.P. sec. 437c(a).) Taitz has given no more than 14 days notice. A minimum of 16 court days is required for regular noticed motions. With intervening weekends, that translates to a minimum of 21 calendar days prior notice.

By the way, this is a breach of lease case with 4 years remaining according to the complaint. Taitz claims that her damages are $290,000, plus attorney's fees. (But, if she is deemed to be the principal of plaintiff she won't be entitled to fees, assuming she prevails.) While she failed to allege that defendants surrendered possession, she implies it by alleging the tenants stopped paying rent and that plaintiff has tried but has been unsuccessful in re-letting the premises.

And the typical motion for summary judgment/adjudication is quite complicated and intricate. While the website reflects payment of the fee and the hearing date, none of the paperwork is yet available to purchase online. I wonder what kind of crazy is going on. (It may be the supporting paperwork has not yet gotten to the person inputting the data.) This could be worth a trip to Santa Ana on September 10 if the matter has not been taken off calendar before then. It's going to be another epic fail.

Medical Dental Development is Orly's own corporation. It is the plaintiff, she is their attorney of record, suing Todd Pierson and others. She reversed the parties on the scanned document.

Except for her own business and the birther thing, she does not appear to be practicing law for clients. Her attempt to enter the foreclosure defense biz was solely driven by her unethical and unappetizing relationship with CEL3. When they broke up, she seems to have dropped that idea and has no cases related to it at this time, that I know of.

And yes, the inadvertent publication of privileged case information can cause great problems for a practicing attorney. In this case however, she has no client and the document is one intended to be filed in the public court file.

Case No. Case Title Case Type Filing Date Category
30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC MEDICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC VS. TODD PIERSON BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY 04/28/2010 CIVIL - UNLIMITED

Participants
TODD PIERSON DEFENDANT 04/28/2010

ORLY TAITZ ATTORNEY 04/28/2010

PARILLA GARBER & ETTINGER LLP ATTORNEY 05/27/2010

DAVID JOHNSON DEFENDANT 04/28/2010

RAIF ISKANDER DEFENDANT 04/28/2010

MEDICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC PLAINTIFF 04/28/2010


Hearings
Event Scheduled Date Start Time Dept Judge
COURT TRIAL 03/18/2011 08:30 C32 PERK

MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 12/10/2010 08:30 C32 PERK

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION 09/10/2010 11:00 C32 PERK

COMPLAINT

As we might expect, Taitz attempted -- and failed -- to take defendants' default.

(Greenie - since this is a Taitz extravaganza, shouldn't it be in the eponymous section of this site?)

Didja hit the wrong button, Sternzy? I started reading this thread and said to myself, "Gaack, what's this about"?

Somehow both the original topic and this one show up with the same title in the board index/topic search.

Though later posts show up with the new topic title.

Can that be fixed?

That deserves a special giggle. It's long been surmised that Orly's purpose in becoming, uh, a "lawyer" was to enable her to handle lawsuits oh behalf of her dental practice and various business entities.

So, if we are to operate under the premise that this suit is meritorious, she could have hired a better attorney who, sooner or later, might collect attorney's fees under paragraph 29 of the lease. Instead, Orly has to do it herself (make any adverse or snarky inference you wish) and cannot collect attorney's fees because -- licensed lawyer or not -- she is effectively "pro se".

Giggle. Snort.

Is everyone fucking happy now?

Will there be anything else?

I live to serve.

Another gin and tonic, please.

Ham on rye, please. Send it to Sharon Meroni in the PJ meat wagon.

Otherwise, thanks. Also.

And such a professional complaint it is!

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!

If Taitz has malpractice insurance and she botches this collection case, can her company sue her for malpractice?

You wouldn't think anyone had tried to pull that one, but someone has and there is actually caselaw in California barring such a claim. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 196.

Only in California does even the obvious require precedent. "L.M. Ross" is Leonard M. Ross. Google would be your friend in learning about him. He has led an interesting life.

Taitz have legal malpractice insurance? I think (a) she is too cheap for that and (b) no sane insurance company would write her a policy, even a group policy.

Whether she has dental malpractice insurance is a little clearer. There is a group program for the entire state, but its provisions require that it represent its clients. Orly represents herself. CA does not require dental malpractice insurance, but a dentist has to post a notice to that effect in the office.

Can you make me a sandwich?

Thanks for that, Stern. And now you got the wheels in my head grinding. I closed down an LLC last year that used to employ me. I considered suing it for wrongful discharge but thought that the fact that I distributed all the remaining assets to myself might be a problem.

But...but...the insurance carrier! Of course! I'm pretty sure that when I fired myself, I had incompetent counsel. Also, when I was fired, I had incompetent counsel as well.

I know you don't like to give out free advice on the internet, Stern, but can I file two suits? Is there such a thing as bipolar subrogation?

I should sue you for causing me to laugh myself to death.

Did someone post the complaint somewhere? Linky please?

Once again, no state bar number on her paperwork.

Quitcher flirtin'.

De minimis. It's only a rule. And since this is a fiscal emergency -- $290,000 worth -- she's sure it can be waived. She did get the parties' names correct on one of her pleadings (although not on the proof of service).

You're being too damn picky now. This is all I have to say:

Yes Stern, I am being picky! So little material to work with in a 4-page form complaint. I guess I'm getting pretty cranky waiting for the petition for writ of certiorari to appear!

It's possible that this MSJ will disappear from the calendar. In ol' Santa Ana, if you pick a date and send in a motion, it might be calendared by the master calendar clerks and then be rejected when it's sent upstairs to the assigned judge if the date is unavailable.

Could be the case here.

I might mark my calendar for the trial date though. In my experience, Judge Perk is no-nonsense. And Orly is all-nonsense.

That date may be "available," but Taitz has given the other side at least 61 days less notice than required. I don't think her motion is going forward on September 10th, but I hope she thinks so.

Yes, it is certainly appears to be filed without adequate notice (reading the docket, anyway), but I don't know if a clerk would kick it back for that. That's usually left for the opposition to point out , no?

But given the congestion of the court calendar, I'd be amazed if that was an available hearing date. It has been taking 2 to 3 months to get a motion heard in the OC.

I think it is a just another total fail on all points for Orly. Time will tell.

I suspect at a calendaring or case management conference the date was reserved and Taitz thought she could just file any old time before the date. I'm really looking forward to seeing her papers since, as you know, the rules for MSAs are very technical. I'm sure she has no idea what's she's doing and won't have prepared the two column statement of undisputed facts, nor provided any admissible evidence.