You are on page 1of 9

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 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: FOR THE DEFENDANT. THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: DEITCH. PRO PER.

THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: AMENDED COMPLAINT. MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: PERIOD OF TIME. ALSO A MOTION TO QUASH. MOTION TO QUASH. THAT'S OFF CALENDAR. YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT WOULD CONSIDER THE ISSUES ARE GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONOR WITH RESPECT -WAIT. THIS IS A DEMURRER TO THE FIRST GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. PHILIP ANGEL LUEVANO VERSUS BENIGNO DIAZ. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. XAVIER BAEZA CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 52 APPEARANCES: TIME: BC441643 LUEVANO VS. BENIGNO DIAZ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011 HON. SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON, JUDGE (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) 10:01 A.M.

I HAVE JUST SUBSTITUTED IN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN

THE POTENTIAL THAT THIS HEARING BE CONTINUED A SHORT I JUST GOT INTO THE CASE. VERY TECHNICAL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO THEM SO PERHAPS I CAN ADD SOMETHING TO THAT WHICH IS BEFORE THE COURT. MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. I'M NOT GOING TO CONTINUE IT. HERE IS

2 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 UP. MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: EXCEPT FOR PUERTO RICO, AT THIS TIME FOR YOU CAN'T REPRESENT PUERTO RICO BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S PART OF THE PURPOSES OF THE DEMURRER ONLY I WILL REPRESENT EVERYONE. I DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PUERTO RICO. DEMURRER, YOUR HONOR. WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IS YOU REALLY YOU HAVE NEED TO REMOVE THIS TO FEDERAL COURT, WHICH IS REALLY BASED ON WHAT I'M READING HERE WHERE IT BELONGS. TEXAS. YOU'VE GOT CALIFORNIA. MR. BAEZA: THAT -YOU REALLY BELONG IN FEDERAL COURT. YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THE COURT DOES YOU'VE GOT PUERTO RICO. MY FIRST QUESTION: AS TO ALL OF THE NEW PARTIES WHO ARE I TAKE THAT

NAMED IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, I NOTICE THAT YOU FILED YOUR DEMURRER REPRESENTING ALL PARTIES. IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT? MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ACTUALLY TO MEAN ALL PARTIES NAMED IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

REPRESENT PUERTO RICO, THE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZED TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: EVERYONE ELSE? THAT'S AN ISSUE I WANTED TO ADDRESS. DO YOU REPRESENT PUERTO RICO? I DO NOT. OTHER THAN PUERTO RICO, YOU REPRESENT JUST CLEAR IT

YOU SAID YOU DID, COUNSEL.

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 28 RIGHT? MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: FIRST PLACE? YES, YOUR HONOR. YOU DON'T REPRESENT PUERTO RICO. YOUR HONOR, MAY I ADDRESS A CERTAIN THE COURT: DOING IT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. YOU SHOULD BE THAT'S

DON'T INTERRUPT ME.

LET ME FINISH.

WHERE YOU BELONG, FEDERAL COURT. REMOVER OF THIS CASE OVER THERE. I DON'T KNOW. NEXT QUESTION IS: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT:

YOU SHOULD BE THE WHETHER THEY WOULD KEEP, MY

AT FIRST BLUSH, THAT IS THE SITUATION.

DO YOU REPRESENT LUIS GUILLERMO FORTUNO NO, I DO NOT. SO YOU DON'T REPRESENT ALL THE PARTIES.

BURSET, THE GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO.

THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT YOU DON'T REPRESENT; DO I HAVE THAT

PARTICULAR ISSUE AS TO WHY I FILED THE DEMURRER IN THE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE MOTION TO QUASH, WHICH THE BASIS -YOU CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR HONOR, THE DEMURRER IS TO THE FIRST THE MOTION TO QUASH -IS CALENDARED FOR TODAY. THE COURT: MR. BAEZA:

FILED A DEMURRER, THEREBY MAKING A GENERAL APPEARANCE. AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS FILED AFTER THE SETTING OF THE DATE FOR THE MOTION TO QUASH. ACTUALLY, THE COURT HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO HEAR THE DEMURRER THROUGH A PHONE CALL. THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: I DIDN'T CALL YOU. THE COURT CLERK'S ADMONISHED -THE CLERK IS NOT A LAWYER. I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT

WHICH CLERK YOU TALKED TO ON WHAT DAY.

4 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 YOU WERE TOLD. READY. THE CLERK IS NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS CALENDARED. I DON'T KNOW THE COURT IS THE

WHERE YOU GOT THAT.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU MY TENTATIVE RULING.

DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO SERVE SOME OF THEM IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR DEMURRER. QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT MADE A MOTION TO QUASH AS IT CONCERNS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CANNOT DO SO AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED A DEMURRER, THEREBY MAKING A GENERAL APPEARANCE. THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS FOR LACK OF STANDING HAVE NO MERIT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS SEEK RECOURSE FROM WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS A WRONGFUL EXPULSION OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE STANDING TO PURSUE THIS LAWSUIT. THE DEMURRER FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CCP 425.15 IS WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ASSERT A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF THE NONPROFIT CORPORATION, LEAGUE OF UNITED AMERICAN CITIZENS. THE GENERAL DEMURRER FOR FAILURE TO STATE SUFFICIENT FACTS IS SUSTAINED WITH TEN DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND SEVENTH THROUGH TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SET FORTH SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SUPPORT THESE CAUSES OF ACTION. THE DEMURRER TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND ON THE GROUND THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT IT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN A PROPER MOTION TO

5 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 A CAUSE OF ACTION, BUT A REMEDY. DISMISSED. IT IS THEREFORE

THE DEFENDANTS' ACCOMPANYING MOTION TO QUASH

IS TAKEN OFF CALENDAR BECAUSE IT ADDRESSES THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WHICH HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. NOW THEN, AS TO EACH OF THESE PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION, JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE THE COURT IS COMING FROM AND SO WHEN YOU DO YOUR AMENDED COMPLAINT YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT I'M THINKING BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN FILED SO FAR IN THIS CASE. MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: VARIOUS ISSUES. THAT IS -IN THE FIRST MAY I BE SEATED? IF YOU NEED TO BE, YES.

CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS SEEK A DECLARATION AS TO ONE IS WHETHER OR NOT VERA AND/OR LULAC NATIONAL, WHICH IS LULAC, A TEXAS CORPORATION, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS OF LULAC CALIFORNIA MEMBERS UNDER THEIR CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ACT. AS TO THE ISSUES SET FORTH IN THREE AND FOUR, A DECLARATION IS ONLY PROPER AS TO THE LULAC ENTITY THAT'S SUSPENDED PLAINTIFF'S MEMBERSHIP, CITING TO CORPORATIONS CODE 5341. THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO ITEMS THREE AND FOUR IS ONLY WELL STATED AS TO THE LULAC ENTITY THAT SUSPENDED THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND NOT TO ANY OTHER DEFENDANT. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS THAT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SUCH A JUMBLED MESS THAT IS ALLEGED AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT WITHOUT SEPARATING AND IDENTIFYING

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 WHICH DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN WHAT CONDUCT, PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IS DEVOID OF SUFFICIENT FACTS FROM WHICH A COURT CAN DETERMINE THAT IT CAN ISSUE A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE FACTS SHOWING WHICH OF THE DEFENDANTS ACTUALLY SUSPENDED THE PLAINTIFF'S MEMBERSHIP. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED ENOUGH FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS COURT CAN ISSUE ANY OTHER DECLARATION THAT IS REQUESTED IN PARAGRAPH 37; FOR INSTANCE, ITEMS 1, 2 AND 5. THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION OF A NATIONAL NONPROFIT BENEFIT ORGANIZATION SUCH AS LULAC AND CANNOT DETERMINE WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT A PROPER OFFICER OR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE TEXAS APPEAL STATUS. THUS, PLAINTIFF MUST CORRECT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND FOCUS THEIR ALLEGATIONS TOWARD A REMEDY THAT THE COURT CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE. IN MY OPINION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO IDENTIFY AN ACTUAL AND JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY FROM WHICH A JUDICIAL DECLARATION CAN BE ISSUED. AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, LIABLE PER SE, IT'S NOT WELL STATED. IT'S BASED ON EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH IS A LETTER SENT BY VERA. NOWHERE IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WROTE THE LETTER THAT VERA SENT. THERE IS NO LIABLE ALLEGED YET PLAINTIFF NAMES EACH SECONDLY, AGAINST ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS.

AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION.

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 THEY DON'T ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SHOW THAT DEFENDANTS WERE ALL PART OF A CONSPIRACY, WHICH IS THE EFFORT PLAINTIFFS MAKE TO HOLD ALL DEFENDANTS LIABLE. ALLEGE ANYTHING BUT CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS. I GRANTED THAT LEAVE TO AMEND. ACTION. THEY SAY THEY'RE MEMBERS OF A PUBLIC NONPROFIT BENEFIT CORPORATION, YET PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THEY HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OFFICE. I DON'T THINK THEY ALLEGED ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHICH THEY REQUEST A DECLARATION OF THEIR RIGHTS AS IT PERTAINS TO THE VALIDITY OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP SUSPENSION. THIS CAUSE OF ACTION IS BASED ON EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. YET IN THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE SUCH ACTIVITY IS NOT MATTER PERTAINED TO CONDUCT WHILE PLAINTIFFS HELD OFFICE IN LULAC, A PUBLIC CORPORATION. PRIVATE INFORMATION. THEY HAVEN'T SET FORTH SUFFICIENT ANY FACTS THERE THAT THE COURT CAN WORK FROM. THEY DON'T THAT'S WHY THERE AREN'T

AS TO THE INVASION OF

PRIVACY, THEY HAVEN'T PROPERLY ALLEGED THIS CAUSE OF

FACTS TO SHOW THAT THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE RUBRIC OF CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY LAW. I'VE COVERED THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. AS TO THE 10TH CAUSE OF ACTION -- AS TO THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION THAT CAN APPLY TO NON-STATE ACTORS IS NOT WELL STATED BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVEN'T SUFFICIENTLY STATED ANY FACTS TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY. THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS ASSERTED AGAINST THE NEW DEFENDANT, THE

8 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 GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, LUIS GUILLERMO FORTUNO BURSET. THEY ALLEGE NO FACTS TO SHOW THAT HE KNEW OF ANY CONSPIRACY OR HAD ANY DUTY TO PREVENT IT. THAT'S SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. WELL STATED. THAT ONE IS AS A RESULT, AS TO THE *UNRUE PROBABLY GOING A GREAT BIG NOWHERE, COUNSEL.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, IT'S NOT THEY HAVEN'T STATED SUFFICIENT FACTS. THEY HAVE ALLEGED NO FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED ON ANY PROTECTED CATEGORIES. THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS ABOUT SEX AND MARITAL STATUS IS INSUFFICIENT. I'VE GONE OVERBOARD FOR YOU. I WANT TO GET AS TO THIS ON TRACK TO SEE IF IT EXISTS OR IT DOESN'T EXIST. RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T EXIST. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THE REMAINING ISSUES WHICH I HAVE HERE, YOU HAVE FEE WAIVERS ON SIX OF THE DEFENDANTS. THERE IS NO FEE WAIVER ON RUDY RODRIGUEZ. NEVER REQUESTED A FEE WAIVER IN DEPARTMENT 1-A. FEE WAIVER, YOU CAN. HE HAS IF YOU

WISH TO GO TO DEPARTMENT 1-A WITH MR. RODRIGUEZ TO SEEK A AS TO ALL OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, THERE IS NO FEE WAIVER ON THERE IS -- THE NEW DEFENDANTS.

RECORD AS TO THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS WHO ARE NEWLY SERVED HERE SO YOU WILL NEED TO GO AND GET FEE WAIVERS ON THEM OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE FEE THE NEXT TIME I SEE YOU. MR. BAEZA: FURTHER QUESTION. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. YES, YOUR HONOR. ONE SINCE I WAS THE MOVING PARTY, THE

COURT, I TAKE IT, HAS ACCEPTED MR. DEITCH'S SUBSTITUTION;

9 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 HERE. MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: WERE FAXED TO ME. THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: THE COURT: SIGNATURE HERE. TOMORROW. YOU FILED IT HERE IN THE COURTROOM. THE PARTIES ARE UP NORTH. I NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ORIGINAL YOU NEED TO GET THAT ON FILE TODAY OR THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD I START A I WOULD HE DIDN'T FILE IT WITH ORIGINAL SIGNATURES. MAY I THEN REQUEST A MINUTE ORDER SO THERE'S ALWAYS A MINUTE ORDER. YES, MA'AM. DID YOU FILE THIS DOWNSTAIRS? I HAVE NOT FILED IT DOWNSTAIRS. YOUR THAT I CAN WRITE-UP THE ORDER? THE COURT: MR. BAEZA: THE COURT: SURE. FOR ANY FURTHER PURPOSES? SURE. ABSOLUTELY. HE FILED IT RIGHT

HONOR, THE PLAINTIFFS WERE UP NORTH AND THE SIGNATURES

I'M ACCEPTING IT BASED ON YOUR REPRESENTATION.

MR. DEITCH:

APPRECIATE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN TEN DAYS. APPRECIATE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: THE COURT: MR. DEITCH: MR. BAEZA: TWENTY DAYS?

FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIAL NEXT WEEK FOR TWO WEEKS.

TWENTY DAYS WOULD BE FINE. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE PROCEEDINGS IS CONCLUDED.)