Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice

1 2 3 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz 9/1/2023 4:08 PM Clerk of the Court by Deputy, Karen Broughton Charles Wayne Cox 4085 Gray Hills Road Wellington, NV 89444 Self-Represented Plaintiff 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 8 9 10 Charles Wayne Cox, 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 Case No. 23CV00564 Case Filed: 3/8/2023 LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 14 15 Defendants. Plaintiff Charles Wayne Cox’ Objection and Opposition to “REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16)” 16 Hearing Date: Time: Dept: Judge: Trial Date: 17 18 19 10/2/2023 8:30 a.m. 5 Hon. Timothy Volkmann Not set 20 21 22 23 24 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE PURPORTED “REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16)” I, Charles Wayne Cox, plaintiff in the above captioned action (“Mr. Cox”), hereby object 25 to and oppose the “REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL 26 MOTION TO STRIKE (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16)” which was 27 signed and submitted for filing by Neeru Jindal (“Jindal”) on 7/21/2023 (“RJN”), on the following 28 grounds: 29 THE RJN IS IRRELEVANT 30 1. 31 The two exhibits JINDAL seeks judicial notice of are NOT relevant to THIS action. See e.g., Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135 n.1 (Cal. 2001); People ex rel. Lockyer 32 1 OPPOSITION TO RJN ISO ANTI-SLAPP MOTION 1 v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 n.2 (Cal. 2000); Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky 2 Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 577 n.13 (1998), superseded by statute on another ground as stated in 3 Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (2006); Mangini v. R. J. 4 Reynolds Tobacco Co., 7 Cal. 4th 1057, 1063 (1994), overruled on another ground In re Tobacco 5 Casses II, 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1262 (2007). 6 THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE RJN WERE MISREPRESENTED 7 2. Satchmed Plaza Owners Assn. v. UWMC Hospital Corp., 167 Cal.App.4th 1034 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) cited as authority in support of the RJN is inapposite. The judicial notice 9 sought in Satchmed unlike here, was: 10 (a) for two related cases; 11 (b) was unopposed; and 12 (c) was not for interspousal grant deeds let alone like here, where interspousal grant 13 deeds sought judicial notice of were for prior transactions, NOT the transaction 14 the subject of THIS instant action; and 15 (d) in another lack of candor with this Court, JINDAL purposely withheld and does 16 not seek judicial notice of the interspousal grant deed that IS relevant to THIS 17 transaction which was presented as EXHIBIT “1” to Mr. Cox’s First Amended 18 Complaint. 19 3. Mcelroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 134 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 20 2005) cited in support of the RJN was also misrepresented. The Mcelroy court took judicial 21 notice of a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust” not a “deed” of any kind 22 as untruthfully represented in the RJN. 23 PG. 2:21-26 OF THE RJN IS UNTRUE 24 4. The claim in the last paragraph on pg. 2 of the RJN untruthfully represents that the 25 four exhibits sought judicial notice of “are central to resolving the claims before this Court.” The 26 grant deed, two interspousal grant deeds have absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2004 27 transaction the subject of this action, whereas the declaration of Kimberly Cox in support of the 28 First amended Complaint Pgs. 62-62 and Cal. Fam. Code §§ 760 and 1102(a), are central to this 29 action which refute, disclaim and impeaches opposing counsels’ misleading claims. 30 31 5. And contrary to RJN Pg. 3:1-6, not only are Exhibits A-C irrelevant to “resolving the claims before this Court” but Exhibit D to the RJN is indeed not only “subject to dispute” but 32 2 OPPOSITION TO RJN ISO ANTI-SLAPP MOTION 1 has been disputed and disclaimed as a forged instrument and what is relevant to “resolving the 2 claims before tis Court” is the undenied fact that Mr. Cox did not join in executing the subject 3 purported deed of trust as required pursuant to Fam. Code § 1102(a). 4 5 6 Accordingly, for the reasons and upon the grounds stated herein, Mr. Cox respectfully requests the Court deny the RJN. 7 8 9/1/2023 9 10 11 /s/Charles Wayne Cox Charles Wayne Cox 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3 OPPOSITION TO RJN ISO ANTI-SLAPP MOTION