Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1356

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

KENNETH G. EADE (SBN 93774) keneade@gmail.com LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH G. EADE 6399 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 507 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 782-8802 Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH EADE, Plaintiff, v. INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., a Florida corp., DOE 1, aka NO DUMMY, DOE 2, aka JANICE SHELL, DOE 3, aka FASTER183, DOE 4, aka STOCK MAVIN, DOE 5, aka RENEE, DOE 6, aka VIRTUAL DREW, DOE 7, aka BOB 41, DOE 8 aka OVERACHIEVER, DOE 9, aka DOBERMAN, and DOES 10 through 100, Defendants. Case No. CV11-01315 JAK (CWx) PLAINTIFF KENNETH EADES OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A CONTEMPT MOTION

Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge:

October 22, 2012 None 750 Hon. John A. Kronstadt

Plaintiff KENNETH EADE herewith submits the following Opposition to Defendant INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC.S Request for Additional Time to File a Contempt Motion.

-1PLTFS OPPOSITION TO DEFS REQ FOR ADDL TIME TO FILE CONTEMPT MTN

Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1357

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS On December 9, 2011, Defendant INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC. (Investors Hub) filed a Motion for Contempt and/or Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff KENNETH EADE. On March 26, 2012, a hearing was held on the Motion for Contempt, wherein the Court ruled, The Court states its tentative view on the record and is inclined to deny the motion for contempt. Defendant has not satisfied the procedural requirements for

criminal contempt, and has stated it seeks only civil contempt. However, civil contempt is not the proper procedural mechanism for enforcing a money judgment absent extraordinary circumstances not demonstrated here. . . The Court inquired of Plaintiffs property in France, currently subject to an enforcement proceeding in France, and ordered Plaintiff to participate in a debtors examination, and imposed monetary sanctions, independent of a contempt, and continued the hearing on the matter to July 2, 2012. On July 2, 2012, the continued hearing on the Motion was held, wherein the Court denied Plaintiffs untimely request to appear telephonically, and noted, Defense counsel informs the Court that Plaintiffs debtor examination concluded approximately one week ago and that: (i) they are awaiting further information to determine whether a lien can be put on Plaintiffs Maserati because Plaintiff contends the vehicle was part of a bankruptcy, which was awarded to a debtor, but the vehicle has yet to be repossessed; (ii) there have been no efforts made with respect to the liquidation of specific stock, which is in a brokerage account. Plaintiff contends there is no value, but has transferred in excess of 10.5 million shares within the last few months. Plaintiff did not provide the information regarding the stock value at the debtors examination; (iii) they are not aware of whether a lien can be placed against the property in France. However, Plaintiff has informed them that the proceeds of the sale will be deposited into a City Bank account
-2PLTFS OPPOSITION TO DEFS REQ FOR ADDL TIME TO FILE CONTEMPT MTN

Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1358

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

located in Los Angeles. Defendants have not sought to put a lien on that bank account, but may; (iv) Plaintiff currently makes spousal support payments in the amount of $3,000 per month, which will cease in September. Currently, $1500 is going toward the payment of debt on the aforementioned property in France and the other $1500 is a direct payment to Plaintiffs former spouse; and (v) a further debtors examination is scheduled within the next two to three weeks so that Plaintiff can provide the documentation that was requested prior to the first debtors examination hearing. The Court ordered the parties to continue the process with respect to the continued debtors examination, and continued the status conference to October 1, 2012, and ordered Plaintiff to personally appear. On August 16, the Court denied Plaintiffs request to appear telephonically at the continued hearing, citing the need to hear evidence from the Plaintiff of his financial condition and ability to pay. On October 1, 2012, the Court examined (not under oath) Plaintiff regarding the current status of the enforcement of his divorce judgment on the property in France, the 2008 Maserati with a lien in favor of the creditor, upon which Plaintiff had stopped making payments in 2008, and the market value of the penny stock held by Plaintiff and his current wife as community property in Independent Film Development Corporation, which Plaintiff contends is unsaleable. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach a settlement, and set a further status conference for November 5, 2012, which the Court indicated that Plaintiff could appear at by telephone. The Court gave defense counsel the opportunity to file an application for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt by October 22, 2012, if the parties were unable to settle the matter. October 22, 2012 has come and gone and the Defendant has failed to timely apply for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt. However, Defendant did file a Request for Extension of Time to file the application, citing as cause, Eade has promised to begin
-3PLTFS OPPOSITION TO DEFS REQ FOR ADDL TIME TO FILE CONTEMPT MTN

Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1359

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

making payments pursuant to ongoing negotiations between the parties that the present offer is unacceptable to IHUB, and IHUB is skeptical that the matter will be resolved by further negotiations and without the need of further Court intervention, as the aggrieved party IHUB would like more time to further explore negotiations with Eade before it should be required to file a very time consuming and expensive contempt motion MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Extensions of time are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which provides as follows: (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. The cause cited by Defendant is not sufficient cause, as Defendant has already filed a motion for contempt, which the Court was not inclined to grant, Defendant has rejected the offer of Plaintiff to make regular payments and pay the remainder of the judgment from the sale of his property in France, which is his only liquadatable asset, and the Defendant should either move forward with enforcement of the judgment with the extensive information regarding Plaintiffs assets that it presently has or file the application for contempt. No additional time is going to change anything with regard to whether or not there are grounds for holding Plaintiff in contempt, and the proceeding does not have to be delayed to continue negotiations, for which the Court has scheduled for further status conference on November 5, 2012. Moreover, on October 1, 2012, the Court originally set October 5, 2012 as the deadline to file an application for Order to
-4PLTFS OPPOSITION TO DEFS REQ FOR ADDL TIME TO FILE CONTEMPT MTN

Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1360

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

Show Cause re: Contempt and already has granted Defendants request for more time up to and including October 22, 2012. Defendants citation of cause boils down to nothing more than Defendants contention that Plaintiff is lying about his financial condition, and Plaintiffs contention that he has been truthful, candid, and transparent to Defendant about it, and that the fact of the matter is that the only asset from which to satisfy the judgment is the real property in France, which Plaintiff is fighting to sell. The Court has not made a judicial

determination as to the facts and the Defendant offers no new news; only statements that it has repeated throughout the process. Defendant makes an open-ended request, without specifying the time that it needs to further deny Plaintiffs overtures toward settlement. Moreover, the Defendant makes the request on the day of the filing deadline. The Defendant does not show that the failure to meet the deadline was due to excusable neglect. Lujan v. National Wildlife Foundation, 497 U.S. 871, 896-897 (1990), and it fails to show facts that rise to good cause to grant a further extension. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (Ninth Cir. 1987). The Defendants application also fails to comply with Local Rule 7-19 governing ex parte applications, in that it does not contain a memorandum of points and authorities, nor does it contain the name, telephone number and email address of counsel for the opposing party, which are grounds enough to deny the application. Dated: October 22, 2012 Respectfully submitted, By /s/ Kenneth Eade KENNETH EADE, Plaintiff, In Propria Persona

-5PLTFS OPPOSITION TO DEFS REQ FOR ADDL TIME TO FILE CONTEMPT MTN

Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 88

Filed 10/23/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1361

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 OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action, my business address is 6399 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 507, Los Angeles, California 90048. On October 23, 2012, I served the foregoing documents described as: PLAINTIFF KENNETH EADES OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A CONTEMPT MOTION on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package address to the above-named persons at the addresses exhibited therein and (specify one): I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firms practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence or other service document is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. BY CM/ECF: The document was electronically served on the parties to this action via the mandatory United States District Court of California CM/ECF system upon electronic filing of the above-described document.

Executed this 23rd day of October, 2012, at Los Angeles, California. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. /s/ Nichelle Guzmn NICHELLE GUZMAN

-1PROOF OF SERVICE - PLTFS OPPOSITION TO REQ FOR ADDL TIME FILE CONTEMPT MTN