Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1019

1
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#223433
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY
2
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100
3 PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
4 Attorney FOR DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION,
5
ORLY TAITZ INC, APPEALING DENTISTRY

7
CHARLES LINCOLN, ) CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG
8
PLAINTIFF, ) DEFENDANTS’DEFEND OUR
9 VS. ) FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLY
10 DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL,et al ) TAITZ INC AND APPEALING
11 DEFENDANT ) DENTISTRY NOTICE OF MOTION
) AND MOTION TO STRIKE
12
) Date: March 7
13
) Time: 10 AM
14 ) Hon Andrew Guilford
15 ) Courtroom 10D
16

17 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Defendants Defend Our Freedoms
19 Foundation, Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing Dentistry
20 (collectively “Defendants”) are filing this notice of
21 motion and motion to strike the following pleadings by
22 the Plaintiff:
23 Document #32 Notice of motion to strike
24 Document #33 Opposition to AntiSLAPP
25 Document #34 Response to 12(b)6 motion
26

27 Plaintiff in this case filed his legal action on

28 10.15.2010
Defendants' motion to strike 1
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1020

1 Motion to dismiss was filed on 11.13.2010.

2 Motion hearing was scheduled for 01.10.2011.
3 Ten days after the Plaintiff had to respond to motion
4 to dismiss his case, without any meet and confer the
5 Plaintiff filed an ex-parte, demanding extra time, even
6 though the Plaintiff used to be an attorney and knew
7 that he was supposed to answer timely or at least
8 request an extension timely.
9 This court was very generous with the Plaintiff and
10 granted his motion the same day and gave him over a
11 month of extra time and rescheduled the 01.10.2011
12 hearing for 02.14.2011.
13 On 01.25.2011 The Plaintiff filed a second ex parte
14 motion, demanding to shorten the time for the
15 defendants to respond.
16 The defendants had to stay overnight and draft a
17 response to the second ex-parte. The defendants argued
18 that there was no justification to grant the
19 Plaintiff's motion. Exhibit 1 Defendants opposition to
20 Ex-parte
21 Today the Defendants received the ruling from this
22 Court, agreeing with the Defendants and denying the
23 Plaintiff's motion. Exhibit 2. Your Honor's Order,
24 denying the Plaintiff's motion to shorten the time for
25 the defendant's to respond.
26 Today the defendants received via ECF three pleadings
27 from the Plaintiff, all of which were filed late and
28 all of which De facto shortened the Defendants time to
Defendants' motion to strike 2
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1021

1 respond, in reality giving the defendants no time to

2 respond.
3 The Plaintiff acted in bad faith and violated Local
4 rules 6 and 7 . Additionally, the plaintiff violated
5 the order of this court expressly denying his ex-parte
6 motion to shorten the time available for the Defendants
7 to respond.
8 L.R. 7-9 Opposing Papers.5 Each opposing party shall, not
9 later than ten (10) days after service of the motion in the
10 instance of a new trial motion and not later than twenty-one (21)
11 days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion in
12 all other instances, serve upon all other parties and file with the
13 Clerk either (a) the evidence upon which the opposing party will
14 rely in opposition to the motion and a brief but complete
15 memorandum which shall contain a statement of all the reasons
16 in opposition thereto and the points and authorities upon which
17 the opposing party will rely, or (b) a written statement that that
18 party will not oppose the motion. Evidence presented in all
19 opposing papers shall comply with the requirements of L.R. 7-6,
20 7-7 and 7-8.
21

22 According to the local rule 7-9 the opposing pleadings are

23 supposed to be served on the opposing party at least 21 days
24 before the hearing. The reply is due 14 days before the hearing.
25 The Defendants were served today with the pleadings for three
26 motions:
27

28

Defendants' motion to strike 3

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1022

1 1. Document #33 Opposition to AntiSLAPP was filed one week

2 late and if the defendants were to respond, they would have to
3 respond today, having zero days to prepare.
4 2. Document #34 was served on the Defendants today, one week
5 late, and if the defendants were to respond, they had to respond
6 today with zero time to prepare.
7 3. Document #32 Motion to Strike represents the most egregious
8 violation of the local rules and clear disregard of the order of this
9 court, denying the Plaintiff's request to shorten the time available
10 to the defendants to respond. This motion was served on the
11 Defendants today and the Plaintiff scheduled it for February 14,
12 even though he knows that when the party is served
13 electronically, such party is supposed to get 28 days. If the
14 Defendants were to respond to this motion, scheduled for
15 February the 14th, the Defendants had to respond not later than
16 21 days before the hearing, meaning the defendants had to
17 respond 7 days before being served with the Pleadings.
18 SUMMARY
19 Due to the fact that the Plaintiffs violated local rules 6-1 and 7-9,
20 the Defendants respectfully move this honorable court to strike
21 the Plaintiff's pleadings in documents 32,33,34 as being filed
22 improperly and untimely in violation of local rules and in violation
23 of the express order by this very court denying the Plaintiff's ex-
24 parte motion to shorten time. It is the understanding of the
25 Defendants that since this court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
26 shorten time, this court will hear the Motion to Dismiss and the
27 AntiSLAPP motion on Defendant's pleadings only and the
28 Plaintiff's motion to strike is off the calendar.
Defendants' motion to strike 4
 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1023

2 Respectfully submitted
3 /s/Orly Taitz
4 Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
5 01.31.2011
6

7 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

8 /s/ Orly Taitz
9 01.31.2011
10

11

12

13

14 FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

15 I certify under penalty of perjury and under the laws
16 of CA that I served the Plaintiff via ECF and or mail
17 on 01.31.2011
18
Dated this 01.31.2011
19 /s/Orly Taitz
20 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
21 Rancho Santa Margarita CA
92688
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants' motion to strike 5

 Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1024

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants' motion to strike 6