According to COMET’s counsel, before submitting COMET’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint for filing this year, she was required to send a copy to counsel for Redlands and LAFCO. They had already agreed to the filing of the Proposed SAC, and had notified her that they would demur, or challenge, the “sufficiency” of the Proposed SAC. As required by the California Rules of Court, Redlands’ counsel wrote a “meet and confer” letter, addressing every cause of action and arguing that the Proposed SAC, which alleges “Civil Extortion, Declaratory Relief, Rescission and Restitution, Equitable Estoppel, Misrepresentation, Unfair Business Practices, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions, and Reverse Validation” could not stand up in court. COMET’s counsel replied in writing why the causes of action were justifiably included, and refuting Redlands’ position on each point, with legal citations where necessary. COMET’s counsel offered to delete two causes of action if Redlands and LAFCO would agree not to demur to the remaining allegations. LAFCO did not write a separate letter, but adopted Redlands’ positions. “That raises a question of conflict of interest,” said COMET’s counsel, “where the same law firm is representing both parties, when LAFCO would not have been sued if Redlands had not taken the alleged wrong actions. It also raises a question of whether LAFCO is too close with Redlands, instead of merely performing its ministerial duties.”
She added that the parties’ counsel were then required to meet and confer by phone, which they did, each attorney stating that they thought their client’s position was justified. They could not agree on any subject, so they “agreed to disagree,” and Redlands’ and LAFCO’s demurrers are agreed to be filed by November 30. COMET’s counsel will have until two weeks before the hearing on the demurrer to file an Opposition, and then Redlands and LAFCO will respond in writing before the hearing.
After COMET’s counsel submitted the Proposed SAC, she waited some weeks. She then took another original to the courthouse, with a letter explaining that she had never received the stamped first page back and asking that the clerk expedite the filing. Apparently the clerk did so, because three weeks later COMET’s counsel received the “conformed” first page showing the Proposed SAC had been filed and then the filing of the Proposed SAC was posted on the court’s website.
The Amended Summons, which was required by a change in the names of the defendants, was not so easy. “I submitted it with the original Proposed SAC, but “it was kicked back several times without it being issued,” she explained, “each time with some cryptic reference that I tried to correct. Finally, I just went up to the third floor, where I was able to find a clerk who explained in detail what was wrong and I was able to get the next submission issued.”
“It was very frustrating,” she said, “because, before the pandemic hit, we could go directly to the clerk’s office on the third floor and a clerk would file the documents right then and there or tell me what was wrong, if anything was; I could either correct it then or return with a corrected document. Then, when the pandemic hit, the entire courthouse was closed down for almost two months. When it was opened up again, we had to deliver our documents to a window on the front of the building, where the clerk did not file them but merely received them. The documents then went to a clerk inside somewhere and responses took weeks; there was no information on the court’s website, either, and the Proposed SAC just disappeared – I did not receive a stamped copy of the first page of it, showing it was filed. Thus, in September I had to take another original of it and again drop it off. This was after nearly two months of trying to get LAFCO’s counsel’s written agreement to file it. Finally, it was filed on the date I submitted it, as I learned three weeks later when I received the filed first page back and it was then posted on the court’s website.
The original Complaint was filed in May 2019, but, with delays waiting for the California Attorney General to decide whether to allow COMET to file a particular cause of action, and other challenging events such as obtaining LAFCO’s counsel’s cooperation, it appears the case finally may be on its way toward being litigated. MM will detail the conflicts in the parties’ positions in a later article. MM
Like this:
Like Loading...