1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ANNA MARIE EVANS 4515 CORTE SUAVE OCEANSIDE. CA 92056 760- 758-3133

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY DIVISION LIMITED CIVIL CASE ANNA MARIE EVANS Plaintiff, v. Alejandro Sanchez; Jacqueline Cesareo; Ivonne Sanchez; David Sanchez and ALL Unknown Occupants Defendans,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE No.: 37-2012-00038508 PLAINTIFF ANNA MARIE EVANS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Earl H. Maas III Date of Hearing: 07/23/2012 Date of Hearing: 07/27/2012 Dept. 28 Complaint filed on 6/15/2012

I.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ MOTIONS ARE MOOT BECAUSE HE IS IN DEFAULT AND HAD NOT MADE A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT PRIOR TO FILING A MOTION TO STRIKE ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ; JACQUELINE CESAREO; IVONNE SANCHEZ; DAVID SANCHEZ and ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS did not file a timely response to the Verified Unlawful Detainer as required by law. Defendant Alejandro Sanchez never filed a Motion for Relief from Default as required by California Rules of the Court Rule 8.68. formally known as

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

California Rules of Court, rule 45(c). The North County Superior Court has to follow the California Codes of Civil Procedures. This court allowed Defendant Alejandro Sanchez to pursue a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified Unlawful Detainer Complaint without a pending motion for Relief From Default. This violated Plaintiff's due process clause and her right to seek equitable justice. Further, this court allowed Defendant Alejandro Sanchez to change the date of the Motion to Strike without a stipulated agreement by both parties. This too violates the Rules of the Court, this court is action as an attorney for Defendant Alejandro Sanchez and has prejudiced the Plaintiff. "California Code - Section 473 (c)(1)Whenever the court grants relief from a default, default judgment, or dismissal based on any of the provisions of this section, the court may do any of the following: (A)Impose a penalty of no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) upon an offending attorney or party. (B)Direct that an offending attorney pay an amount no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the State Bar Client Security Fund. (2)However, where the court grants relief from a default or default judgment pursuant to this section based upon the affidavit of the defaulting party's attorney attesting to the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, the relief shall not be made conditional upon the attorney's payment of compensatory legal fees or costs or monetary penalties imposed by the court or upon compliance with other sanctions ordered by the court. (d)The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order." There is no pending Motion on file by Defendant Alejandro Sanchez and not affidavit made by Defendant on file with the court. The court is acting as Defendant Alejandro Sanchez legal counsel is affirming a motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.

25 26 27 28

The Rutter Groups Civil Procedure Before Trial, as to all discretionary relief under 473 (not just for defaults) a motion must be made within a reasonable time. The limit is jurisdictional in the sense that the court has no power to grant any discretionary relief irrespective of whether an

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-2-

1 2 3

attorney affidavit of fault (5:292 ff.) is filed or how reasonable the excuse for the delay. Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 901. Defendant Alejandro Sanchez is not entitled to mandatory relief under CCP 473(b).

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The trial court has discretion to vacate the judgment or default that preceded it ONLY if the defendant establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure, and within the time limits. Wegner, Fairbank, Epstein & Chernow, The Rutter Group Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Evidence, Ch. 18, 5.27. Defendants Alejandro Sanchez did not seek discretionary relief from default under CCP 473(b) on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and assert surprise and excusable mistake [sic]. II. DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS NOT VERIFIED ARE FLAWED. The Complaint is a verified complaint, meaning that at the end of the complaint, the plaintiff swears under penalty of perjury that the allegations are true and correct. In California, if a complaint is verified, the answer must be verified. (Code of Civil Procedure section 446). Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans verified the Unlawful Detainer Complaint. The Complaint contains a Verified statement by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury that the allegations set forth in the Complaint were true and correct. Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans complied with CCP Section 1166 (a) (1) contrary to Defendant Alejandro Sanchez allegations. On the other hand Defendant Alejandro Sanchez did not verify his Motion to Strike Plaintiff's complaint therefore this court must enter judgment on Plaintiff's behalf against Defendant Alejandro Sanchez because the unverified answer admits all pleadings in the complaint. (French v. Smith Booth Usher Co. (1942) 56 Cal. App. 2d 23, 29; see also Hearst v. Hart (1900) 128 Cal. 327, 328 (the plaintiff may either seek a judgment on the pleadings because the answer contains no defense or request the answer be struck and judgment entered for lack of an answer).

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

The failure of Defendant Alejandro Sanchez to verify is Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is an admission of the allegations of Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans Verified Complaint. (Central Bank v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 592, 600.) Any statements in the complaint that are not denied will be taken as true for the purposes of this case. (Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(b)(1).). III. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ ARE PUBLIC COURT RECORDS; FACTS AND JUDGMENT AGAINST ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ; JACQUELINE SANCHEZ AND IVONNE SANCHEZ Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans has every right to recover her property, Defendants ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ; JACQUELINE CESAREO; IVONNE SANCHEZ; DAVID SANCHEZ and ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS have squatted in her property for two years and have a history of squatting in other properties throughout the North County. Causing great damage to the properties, and financial and emotional stress to the landlords. There has been many cases against Defendants filed in the Superior Court for the North County Division for Unlawful Detainers. Although, there have been numerous judgments against them, the Plaintiff's have yet to recover their damages from the Defendants. The Defendants are simply working the system in bad faith and with full intention of causing damage to people who out of the goodness of their hearts get scammed by the Sanchez clan. The Sanchez have not paid rent for on or about TWO YEARS and must leave Plaintiff's property. IV. PLAINTIFF ANNA MARIE EVANS IS REQUESTING DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH IT IS DOUBTFUL SHE WILL EVER SEE A PENNY FROM DEFENDANTS SINCE THEY HAVE YET TO PAY ANY DAMAGES IN THEIR MANY LAWSUITS AGAINST THEM Plaintiff served a request for damages in the notice she gave Defendant Alejandro Sanchez. Alejandro Sanchez naming Juan Zamora, and Brandy Richardson as, "co-trustees and owners" is flawed. Defendant Alejandro Sanchez is making flawed defenses to stall and wear down the

28

Plaintiff. He is filing frivolous defenses and is making a mockery of the judicial system.

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-4-

1 2 3

VI. CONCLUSION The above Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified Unlawful Detainer Complaint by Defendant

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Alejandra Sanchez are impermissible because: Defendant Alejandro Sanchez has NOT filed a "Motion for Relief from Default" as required by CCP Codes. There is no written court order that he has been free from Default and the clerks keep filing his papers. Defendant Alejandro Sanchez did NOT Verify his Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint. The unverified answer admits all pleadings in Plaintiff Anna Marie Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer as true. (French v. Smith Booth Usher Co. (1942) 56 Cal. App. 2d 23, 29; see also Hearst v. Hart (1900) 128 Cal. 327, 328 Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans has every right to recover her property, Defendants ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ; JACQUELINE CESAREO; IVONNE SANCHEZ; DAVID SANCHEZ and ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS they have squatted in her property for two years and have a history of squatting in other properties throughout the North County. Therefore, Plaintiff Anna Marie Evans is requesting that this Court deny Defendant Alejandro Sanchez Motion to Strike her Verified Complaint for Unlawful detainer in its entirety for the above mention stated facts. Further, that this court enter Judgment against Defendants Alejandro Sanchez; Jacqueline Cesareo; Ivonne Sanchez; David Sanchez and all Unknown Occupants and Writ of Possession so that Plaintiff can move into her property. Dated: July 18, 2012

26 27 28

__________________ Anna Marie Evans

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-5-

1 2 3

VERIFICATION I, ANNA MARIE EVANS the undersigned, declare: I, have read the foregoing RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MOTION TO STRIKE PLINTIFF'S ANNA MARIE EVANS VERIFIED UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT and know its contents I am the Plaintiff in this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the of the state of California that this true and correct. Executed this 18th day of July in the City of Oceanside, California.

______________________ Anna Marie Evans

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OR SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare that I served the notice (s) bellow as indicated: Defendant Alejandro Sanchez Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint for Unlawful Detainer The above described notice (s) were served on the following named parties in the matter set forth below: Name (s) : Alejandro Sanchez; Jacqueline Cesario; Ivonne Sanchez; David Sanchez and all unknown occupants. Address : 1220 Bluegrass Rd. Vista, CA. 92083 [ ] [ ] 1. 2. Personal Service Constructive Service By delivering a copy of the notice (s) to each of the above personally: [1]. On:_________________ [2]. At:__________________ [ ] 3. By Posting a copy of each of the above named parties on ______at_______ in a conspicuous place on the property; [ X] 4. and thereafter mailing a copy to each said party by depositing said copies by US Postal Mail on date: July 17, 2012 from city Oceanside in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed, to each said party at the place where the property is situated or: [ ] A declaration of mailing is attached.

At the time of service I was over the age of 18 years of age, I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. Person who served the papers: Name: Address: Telephone Number: July 18, 2012 ______________________________ Name of Person who served the papers _______________________ Signature

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ANNA MARIE EVANS JUDICIAL NOTICE DATED JULY 17, 2012

-8-