THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION )OF WOMEN, INC. )

)Petitioner, )

)v. )

)SUPERIOR COURT OF )LOS ANGLES COUNTY, )APPELLATE DIVISION )

Respondent )))))

DONALD L. ZACHARY )Real Party In Interest )

Case No.

Court of AppealCase No. B 236477

Superior CourtCase Nos. BV -029460

and 10A02408

PETITION FOR REVIEW

FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

From an Order of the Appellate Division of the Superior CourtHon. P. McKay, Presiding JudgeHon. Anita Dymant, Judge

From a Judgment of the Los Angeles Superior CourtHon. Lawrence H. Cho, Judge

Law Office of Jeffrey P. Lustman State Bar o. 1811417336 Santa Monica Blvd. #637

Los Angeles, CA 90046(323) 462-3810

Attorney For Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .1

Pertinent Facts of the Case 1

Petitioner AA W's Core Positions 3

Issues Presented For Review 5

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 8.500(b) 8

A. Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of Decisions 8

B. Review is Necessary to Settle Important Questions of Law .10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance(1995) 10 Cal. 4th 866 9(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 630 10

Carr v. Kamins 4,8(2007) 151 Cal.App. 4th 929

Christie v. City ofEl Centro 9(2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 767

County of Ventura v. Tillett 3,8(1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 105

Giometti v. Etienne 9(1934) 219 Cal. 687

Residents For Adequate Water V. Redwood Valley County Water District. 3,8(1995) 34 CA 4th 1801

Rossco Holding, Inc. v. Bank of America 9(2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1353

Statutes

California Code of Civil Procedure

Section 170.1 8Section 473(d) 1,8Section 904.1(a)(2) 2,5,8,10Section 1085(a)_ 2,4Section 1086 2,3,4,5,7

Others

California Rules of Court 8Rule 8.500(b)

Witkin, Cal Procedure 3

ii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Pertinent Fact of the Case

In 2010, Donald L. Zachary (hereinafter "Zachary"), an attorney,

filed a small claims action in a dispute over attorney fees with his

client American Association of Women, Inc. (hereinafter "AAW")

After losing the case in the initial Small Claims hearing, AAW

filed an appeal for a trial de novo on November 5, 2010.

On January 10, 2011, the purported trial de novo hearing was held

and Judge Lawrence Cho rendered a judgment. (see Exhibit 1,

attached hereto) There was no official Transcript or recording of the

hearing.

On January 31, 2011, AA W filed a Motion for Reconsideration,

which was denied by Judge Cho on February 2, 2011. (See Exhibit 2,

attached hereto)

On August 2, 2011, AA W filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate

the Void Judgment by Judge Lawrence Cho on January 10, 2011,

pursuant to California CCP Section 473(d), which was denied on

August 5, 2011.

On September 2, 2011, AAW filed a Notice of Appeal with the

Appellate Division of the Superior Court.

1

On September 6, 2011, AA W filed with the Appellate Division of

the Superior Court an Application for Certificate for Transfer to the

Court of Appeal.

On October 7, 2011 Petitioner AAW filed a Petition for Writ of

Mandate, pursuant to CCP Sections 1085 and 1086, seeking to set

aside the lower court's void order of January 10,2011.

On October 11, 2011, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court

issued an ORDER dismissing AAW's appeal filed September 2,2011

because the court lacked jurisdiction. (See Exhibit 3 attached hereto)

The Appellate Division also denied AAW' s request that the case be

certified to the COUliof Appeal.

On October 21, 2011, AA W filed several motions in the Court of

Appeal. Among them was a motion to have the writ proceedings

converted into a civil appeal pursuant to CCP 940.1(a)(2), based

on case law.

On November 14,2011, the Court of Appeal denied AAW's

Petition of Writ of Mandate "... for failure to demonstrate

entitlement to extraordinary relief." The Court also denied the

motion to convert the writ proceeding to a civil appeal. (See

Exhibit 4 attached hereto)

2

Petitioner AAW's Core Positions

Petitioner AAW contends that the January 10,2011 judgment order in

the case by Judge Lawrence Cho was and is void because 1) Judge

Cho was a disqualified judge who lacked personal jurisdiction to

rule on the case and 2) Judge Cho committed misconduct and denied

AAW its legal rights and due process of law. Thus, AA W never

received the legitimate trial de novo to which it was entitled.

"A judgment is void on its face if the court which rendered the

judgment lacked personal ... jurisdiction." (Emphasis added)

County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110

The Appellate Division's order dated October 11,2011 and the

Court of Appeal's order dated November 14, 2011 give effect to the

void order of January 10, 2011. They are both void and the subjects

of this Petition For Review.

"An order after judgment [such as the aforesaid orders of October

11,2011 and November 14,2011] that gives effect to a judgment

that is void on its face is itself void and subject to appeal. •.•

(Residents for Adequate Water v. Redwood Valley County Water

District (1995) 34 Cal. App.4th 1801, 1805 ... ; see 9 Witkin, Cal.

Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, Section 155, pp.220-22l)"

3

(Emphasis added). Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 929, 933-

934.

Petitioner's petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal

was specifically brought pursuant to CCP Sections 1085 and 1086:

"A Writ of Mandate my be issued by any courtto any inferior tribunal. .. to compel theperformance of an act which the law speciallyenjoins .... " (Section 1085(a))

"The writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain,speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."(Section 1086)

Petitioner AA W's post-judgment Motion to Set Aside and Vacate

the Void Judgment of January 1, 2011 was denied by Judge Cho in the

trial court. AAW's appeal to the Appellate Division was denied for

lack of jurisdiction. AAW' s petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court

of Appeal was turned down for purported failure to demonstrate

entitlement to extraordinary relief.

Petitioner AA W is not appealing issues of substance in the case,

i.e. the interpretation of facts and the adverse finding against AAW.

Petitioner's appeal is based on the void judgment by a disqualified

judge, who was also guilty of misconduct and of denying AA W' s

legal and due process rights.

4

As set forth hereinabove, AAW has experienced a distinct lack of

any" ... plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law," in its attempt to correct the legal and procedural mistakes

leading up to the void judgment of January 10,2011. This is certainly

a case" ... where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

in the ordinary courts of law." A writ of mandate "must be issued" in

this case (CCP Section 1086) and the denial of AA W's writ petition

by the Court of Appeal must be reversed.

If, however, the Court of Appeal felt that Petitioner AAW had

made a simple procedural error (filing a writ petition without

having or demonstrating entitlement to extraordinary relief), the

court should have granted AAW's motion for a civil appeal under

904.1(a)(2) to preserve AAW's causes of action and rights of

appeal, rather than using a procedural error to destroy AAW's

causes and rights.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

l. When a trial court judge 1) has permitted and considered an ex-

parte communication (and thereby given an "appearance of

impropriety," 2) has failed to "swear in" parties and witnesses) 3) has

denied a party its legal right to present witnesses, 4) has failed to

5

enforce a valid subpoena for records, and 5) has failed to require a

party to produce a statutorily required statement, is such a judge

disqualified for cause from hearing the case?

2. Is a California judge, who lack personal jurisdiction, disqualified

from hearing a case?

3. Are all California judges obligated to comply with the Code of

Judicial Ethics?

4. Are trial court judges allowed to receive secret, ex-parte

communications from a party in a case?

5. Are trial court judges entitled to ignore the California Evidence

Code?

6. Are trial court judges entitled to deny a party its statutory right to

present witnesses?

7. Are trial court judges entitled to ignore and fail to enforce a valid

subpoena for records?

8. Are trial court judges allowed to disregard 5 sworn declarations

submitted in the record by eye witnesses at the January 10, 2011

hearing, attesting to the facts set forth in Nos. 4-7 directly above?

6

9. How should trial court judges evaluate the aforesaid sworn

declarations when the party opposing AAW has never submitted any

evidence contradicting AAW' s charges?

10. Are trial court judges entitled to fail to require a party to produce

statutorily required statement?

11. Are trial court judges allowed to ignore California law or does

California law apply only to certain courts in California?

12. Are trial court judges allowed to deny a party its legal rights and

due process rights under the law?

13. In the AAW case, is there a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

in the ordinary course of law?

14. Are California Courts of Appeal free to ignore the statutory

mandate of CCP Section 1086: "The writ [of mandate] must issue in

all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in

the ordinary course of law? (Emphasis added)

15. Should a Court of Appeal be able to use a party's procedural

defect to deny the party its rights to appeal substantial issues that

were wrongly decided in a court below?

7

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 8.500 (b)

A. Review is Necessary to Secure Uniformity of Decisions

1. California courts have held that orders such as Judge Cho's

denial of AAW's 473(d) motion to vacate a void judgment

are appealable under CCP Section 904.1(a)(2):

"An order denying ... a motion [to vacate] is aspecial order made after entry of judgment that maybe directly attacked on appeal. (County ofVentura v. Tillett [(1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 105,110];see Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd.(a)(2).)" (Emphasisadded) Residents for Adequate Water v. Redwood ValleyCounty Water Dist. (1995) 34 Cal.App.a" 1801, 1805.

"... [A] motion to vacate is appealable as a special ordermade after entry of judgment. (See § 904.1, subd.(a)(2).)"(Emphasis added) Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th929,933.

The Court of Appeal below, in denying AAW's motion to

have its case heard as a civil appeal under Section 904.1(a)(2), has

ruled in direct contradiction to established law. The Court, using

a technical procedural error (filing a writ petition v. a 904.1(a)(2)

civil appeal), has violated established California law.

2. California courts and statute have long held that judges are

disqualified if a person knowing the facts of a case would have

a reasonable doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial.

CCP Sections 170.1(a)(6)(A) (iii). In the instant case, a person

knowing the facts about Judge Cho' s misconduct would have

8

many doubts about his ability to be impartial. See Adams v.

Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) lOCal. 4th 866,

901-904. The Courts below have so far evaded this issue and

failed to rule in uniformity with California Law.

3. California courts have long held that orders and decisions of

disqualified judge are void, from Giometti v. Etienne (1934)

219 Cal. 687 to Christie v. City ofEl Centro (2006) 135 Cal.

App 4th 767 and Rossco Holding, Inc. v. Bank of America

(2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1353. The courts below have so far

evaded this issue and refused to rule in uniformity with

California Law.

4. By permitting and considering a forbidden ex parte

communication from a party, which certainly gives "the

appearance of impropriety," Judge Cho violated several canons

of the Code of Judicial Ethics. A person, knowing that a judge

was inexplicably violating his ethical duty as a judge, would

certainly have doubts about his ability to be impartial. "The

standards of conduct to which judges are held are reflected in

part in the canons ofthc Code of Judicial [Ethics] ... 'they

reflect a judicial consensus regarding appropriate behavior for

9

California judges [Citations omitted] The failure of a judge to

comply with the canons 'suggests performance below the

minimum level necessary to maintain public confidence in

the administration of justice.' [Citation omitted]" (Emphasis

added) Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1994)

8 Cal. 4th 630,661-662. The courts below have so far evaded

this issue and failed to rule in uniformity with California Law.

B. Review Is Necessary To Settle Important Questions of Law

This court can settle the following important questions of law

by granting this Petition for Review:

1. Can the court of Appeal deprive a party of its legal

right to a civil appeal under Section 904.1(a)(2)

because the party filed its appeal in a procedurally

incorrect formant, when the party filed a motion to

correct that procedural error?

2. Do all California laws apply in all California courts, even

in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court?

3. Is it misconduct and grounds for disqualification when a

judge receives an ex parte communication forbidden by

the Code of Judicial Ethics?

10

4. Does the permitting of considering of an ex parte

communication give "the appearance of impropriety,"

regardless of the contents of the communication.

S. What are the consequences when a party fails to

comply with a valid subpoena for records to be produced

at trial?

6. What are the duties of a trial court judge when a party

fails to comply with a valid subpoena?

7. Can a trial court judge ever deny a party its statutory

right to present witnesses when the judge has not

inquired as to whether or not the testimony is necessary,

probative and not cumulative?

8. Can a trial court judge accept unsworn testimony from

a party about evidence which is not in the record?

11

Date: November 21,2011 Respectfully submitted,

12

CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH

I, Leslie C. Dutton, President, American Association of Women, Inc.,

certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court, that the word count for this

document is 2,077 words, excluding the tables, this certificate, and any

attachment permitted. This document was prepared in Microsoft Word and

this is the word count generated by the program for this document.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of State of California

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed, at Los Angeles, California

on November 22, 2011.

Leslie C . DuttonPresidentAmerican Assn. of Women, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Leslie C . Dutton, Pres. American Assn. of Women, Inc. hereby certifies

that pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)( 1) or 8.360(b )( 1) of the California rules of

Court, the enclosed Petition for Writ of Mandate is produced using 14 point

Roman type including footnotes and contains approximately 2,077 words,

which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of court. The

document was prepared in Microsoft Word and this is the word count

generated by the program used to prepare this Petition forReview.

Dated: November 22, 2011 Signed:

Leslie C. DuttonPresidentAmerican Assn. of Women, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am John G. Baron. I am over eighteen years of age, and not a party to the

within cause. My address is 2309-31 st Street, Apt. C., Santa Monica CA 90405.

On November 22,2011 I served the foregoing document described as:

PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFONIRA SUPREME COURT

on interested parties in this action by U.S. Postal Service Express Priority

Overnight Mail, to the Supreme Court and to the other by U.S. Mail, First Class,

postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Supreme Court of California350 McAlister StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102-4797(Original + 13 copies)

Clerk, Court of AppealSecond DistrictRonald Reagan Bldg.300 South Spring St.Los Angeles, CA 90013

Donald L. Zachary371 Brockmont DriveGlendale, CA 91202

(Continued see attached)

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws the State of

California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 22st day of November 2011, at Santa Monica, California.

~~Jo G. Baron

PROOF OF SERVICE

Page two

Clerk, Small Claims DivisionL.A. Superior court - West Division1725 Main StreetSanta Monica, CA 90401

Appellate Division of theSuperior Court of Los AngelesStanley Mosk Court House1111 No. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Mr. Frederick BennettLegal CounselCalifornia Superior Court of Los Angeles111 No. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ZACHARY, DONALD L.Case Number

10A02408

Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s)J U D G MEN T

AFTER TRIAL DE NOVO ON APPEALFROM THE SMALL CLAIMS COURTAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN

Defendant(s) and Appellant(s) (Department WES )

The Appeal of the Defendant(s) and Appellant(s) herein from a Judgment of the Small ClaimsCourt of the WEST DISTRICT, at the SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSEthe Honorable LAWRENCE H. CHOJudge of the Superior Court, Presiding in Department WES, on 01/10/2011; the plaintiff(s) andRespondent(s) appearing In Pro Perand the Defendant(s) and Appellant(s)appearing In Pro Perand evidehcehavin~:( beenadduce"-d, .arid the ·calis·ea·iguea-and···submiTte-d-to·the Court fell:- decTsion:

Judgment is ordered for ZACHARY, DONALD L.and against AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMENin the sum of $ 3793.02 Costs $ 50.00 Total of $ 3843.02and Superior Court Costs in the Sum of $ .00

OTHER: THE COURT ORDERS JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS, LESLIE DUTTON ANDFULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK, AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

Dated: 01/10/2011 LAWRENCE H. CHOJudge

SCT4 JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL DE NOVO ON APPEAL

"

Donald Zachary v. American Association of Women .... .....SM lOA02408 dfl~l:in\lJ.\l f~LL.

Judge Lawrence H. ChoFebruary 2, 2011 FEB 0 i~ 2011

.ios ANG-EL!=('""""\-..-.,~.-...-.. .;ORDER

L FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 8, 2010, the Hon. Norman P. Tarle tried this small claims matter inwhich plaintiff sued defendant for unpaid legal bills incurred. Defendant alleged that theservices rendered were contrary to its wishes and therefore defendant should not have topay. The trial court rendered a verdict for plaintiff and awarded the full extent ofdamages requested of$3,793.02. Defendant filed an appeal and a trial de novo wasgranted.

This Court held the trial de novo on January 10,2011 at which plaintiff providedtestimony that he was retained as counsel for defendant to handle a trademark disputefrom March 2010 to May 2010. Plaintiff testified and provided documentary evidencethat he diligently represented the defendant and performed legal services in an attempt toreach a settlement with the alleged trademark infringer. Plaintiffs representation wasterminated by defendant in May 2010. Defendant admitted that it had retained plaintiff inthis capacity, but argued that they were dissatisfied with the work performed in thatplaintiff failed to provide timely updates'as to actions taken and failed to commencelitigation. Plaintiff admitted several emails between plaintiff and defendant as well ascorrespondence with the alleged trademark infringer.

Following the close of evidence, this Court found that plaintiff had provided theservices he was hired for and awarded damages of $3,793.02.

On January 24, 2011, defendant filed a motion to recuse this Court from allproceedings. That same day, this Court denied the motion as moot as final judgment hadbeen rendered and no further proceedings were pending.

On January 25, 2011, defendant filed the instant Motion for a New Trial.

On January 31, 2011, defendant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration.

II. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Defendant alleges several bases to urge this Court to vacate the verdict and grant a

new trial. I However, this motion must be denied as a matter of law as it has long beenheld that courts are without jurisdiction to entertain motions to vacate or grant a new trialafter a small claims trial de novo has been held. In Eloby v. Superior Court, 78Cal.App.3d 972 (Court of Appeal 1978), that Court held that under California Code ofCivil Procedure § 118.1 provides that "the judgment of the superior court shall be finaland not appealable," the legislative intent was clear that this section applies to barring theseeking of any motion to vacate the superior court judgment or to grant a new trial. rd. at975-977. As such, defendant's motion to vacate and grant a new trial must be denied as amatter of law.

I Even if this Court were to have jurisdiction to entertain defendant'smotion, the bases for the motion are factually and legally without merit and would bedenied. Addressing each one in turn, this Court makes the following findings:

1. There was no ex parte communication between plaintiff and the Court at anytime. Defendant complains of a business card which was presented to theclerk of the Court. After reviewing the file, this Court finds that this wasplaintiff's business card upon which he wrote "Plaintiff #4," indicating whomhe was representing and which matter he was here on. This is standardpractice in the Los Angeles Courts for counsel to present business cards foridentification and appearance purposes.

2. As is the standard and routine practice of this Court, prior to the Judge takingthe bench the Clerk of the Court swears all witnesses en masse for all SmallClaims Appeals on calendar for the afternoon. This procedure was compliedwith on the day this matter was heard. Furthermore, defendant made noobjection on this ground during the course of the trial and as such waived anysuch objection.

3. The Court did not deny plaintiffs the ability to present testimony. To thecontrary, plaintiff's representative Leslie Dutton presented defendant's casefully without calling any other witnesses to testify.

4. There were no objections regarding discovery nor was there any request for acontinuance. In any event, there is no discovery right in small claims. CCP§ 116.310.

5. Defendant's Appeal Brief was filed with the Court on January 5, 2011, andwas in fact submitted to the Court in time for consideration during the trial denovo on January 10,2011.

HI. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL FORRECUSAL

Defendant has also filed a motion to reconsider this Court's denial of defendant'smotion for recusal. Having reviewed this motion as well as defendant's original motionfor recusal, this Court finds no basis in law or fact to reconsider the motion. Motions forrecusal must be made prior to the hearing or proceeding to which the movant wants thejudge to be recused from. In this instance, the verdict was pronounced on January 10,2011 and the motion for recusal filed post-verdict on January 24,2011 with no furtherproceedings pending.

Even considering the merits of the motion for recusal, this Court finds no basis forrecusal. As stated above, there were no ex parte communications with the Court,witnesses were properly sworn, defense testimony was accepted and considered in full,and no motions to compel discovery. As such, this Court further finds that there was nobasis for recusal under CCP §170.l(a)(6) even had the motion been timely made.

IV. ORDER

It appears that the basis for defendant's motion to vacate and for recusal stemmerely from defendant's dissatisfaction with the verdict rendered rather than any validlegal or factual basis. This is clearly insufficient grounds to grant the relief sought andfor the reasons set forth above, defendant's motions are hereby DENIED.

February 2, 2011HON. LAWRENCE H. CHO

~---- -------------

.,. ~~". :. .t: .

1

2

3

-I~

4

5

6 APPELLA IE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

STA TE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES7

8

-. 9. DONALP L. ZACHARY, No. BV 029460

No. 19A02408

Plaintiff and Respondent, Santa Monica Trial Court10

11 v.

12 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN,INC.,

13

14

15

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER--~-------------------------)

16 This court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal filed by defendant on September 2,

17 2011. (General Electrical Capital A uto Financial Services, Inc. v. Appellate Division

18 (2001) 88 Cal.AppAth 136, 145.) The purported appeal is dismissed. Defendant's

19 alternative request that the case be certified to the Court of Appeal is denied. Plaintiff t

20 . recover his costs on appeal.

Q.~P. McKay,P.J.

21

2223

24

252627

28

DONALD L. ZACHARY,

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT cauu OF.". .•SBIlID lIStDMSION FOUR F I 'LE I)

NOV' 1 4· 2011) ·B 236477 ~AoJ.NUi,& •• !!!) -) DeoutY CIerfc

) (Super. Ct. Nos. BV0294v~OA()l40&)") (pe ,McKay;P. J.~Dymant, J.)

" ) -, . . .

)SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES )COUNTY, APPELLATE DIVlSION )

)))))))

AMERICAN AS SOCIA TIONOF WOMEN, INC.,

Petitioner,.. :' " ..

Respondent. OROER

Real Party in Interest.

1HECOURT:*

The petition for writ of mandate filed October 7, 2011, has been read and

considered and is denied for failure to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief.

(See Bicker-v. Superior Court (2005) 133 CaLApp.4th 634; General Electric Capital

: .A.UkJ Financial Services r Inc. v, Superior.Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4tb 13.6; EloAAy. ...S~erior C~Urt(1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972, 9·~J5-9~7.) The.~o~on ~ augm~~ th~re.c~d·:· :.> .:.~;.>~~:

filed October 2 J , 2011 is granted; the other requests for relief filed on October 2], 2{l11

(petition LvIn:wsfer from the ~cH!ltc division, motion to ,=,:mVf'\rt wrltprnc=d.intto.c.iv.iI .appeal) are denied.

J.

__ -:---- ~ --=-'f)(~ik.,tl.f.....