1
2
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
4/29/2024 3:11 PM
Clerk of the Court by Deputy,
Dajah de los Santos
Charles Wayne Cox
4085 Gray Hills Road
Wellington, NV 89444
Plaintiff in propria persona
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9
10
Charles Wayne Cox,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
OBJECTION TO AND DISAPPROVAL OF
PROPOSED ORDER
ZBS LAW, LLP, et al.;
14
Case No. 23CV00564
Case Filed: 3/8/2023
Defendants.
[Cal. R. 3.1312(a)]
15
DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDER
16
Pursuant to Cal. R. 3.1312(a), I, Plaintiff Charles Wayne Cox object to and do not
17
18
approve of Defendants’ proposed order filed on 4/24/2024 entitled “[PROPOSED] ORDER
19
EXPUNGING LIS PENDENS AND GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULTS
20
OF ZBS LAW, LLP; LESLIE ALAN ZIEVE; AND RICHARD L. MROCZEK” granting
21
the Motion to Set Aside Defaults, inter alia, for the following reasons:
22
Re Defendants’ Proposed Order
23
Defendants’ Proposed Order misrepresented the Court’s Tentative Ruling which
24
was posted 4/9/2024 on the Court’s website (“Ruling”) which a Minute Order dated
25
4/10/2024 adopted the Ruling (“Minute Order”).
26
Norum Failed to Comply with the Ruling
27
The Minute Order directed “counsel Norum ... to prepare a new order consistent with
28
the Court’s ruling pursuant to Local Rule 2.10.01(d) and California Rule of Court 3.1312”
29
which he failed to do: 1
30
31
1
More specifically, Norum failed to comply, inter alia, with Rule of Court 3.1312(a) and (b).
1
DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDER
1
Cal. R. 3.1312(a) and (b) Violations
2
Because the parties did not waive notice and the Court did not order otherwise, Norum
3
was required, and failed, to deliver to Mr. Cox, the proposed order for approval within
4
five days of the 4/9/2024 Ruling which was therefore required to be delivered no later than
5
4/14/2024 (Cal. R. 3.1312(a)). Instead, Norum caused the Proposed Order to be filed with
6
the Court on 4/24/2024 without submitting it to Mr. Cox for approval.
7
Norum also failed to serve the Proposed Order on Mr. Cox “... by any means
8
authorized by law and reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party ... no later than
9
the close of the next business day” (R. 3.1312(a)). Instead, Norum caused his Proposed
10
Order to be served by mail, the same day it was filed with the Court which Mr. Cox did not
11
receive until 4/29/2024 again, not until after the Proposed Order was already Filed.
12
Norum further failed to comply with R. 3.1312(b) by not providing Mr. Cox the ability
13
to provide any response to the Proposed Order before Norum transmitted it to the Court (nor it
14
should be noted, did Norum provide the Court with the statutory requisite statement that no
15
responses were received).
16
The Caption of the Proposed Order was Deceptive
17
The Proposed order was misleadingly entitled on its caption page as: “[PROPOSED]
18
ORDER EXPUNGING LIS PENDENS AND GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE
19
DEFAULTS OF ZBS LAW, LLP; LESLIE ALAN ZIEVE; AND RICHARD L.
20
MROCZEK” which was obviously an intentional, illicit and deceptive attempt to capitalize on
21
the Court’s sua sponte, and Mr. Cox contends, ultra vires Further Order to expunge the Lis
22
Pendens which no defendant requested.
23
Local R. 2.10.01(d) Violations
24
Norum also failed to comply with L.R. 2.10.01(d) because the Proposed Order he caused
25
to be filed, did not “... repeat verbatim a substantive portion of the ruling.” The Court’s
26
Tentative Ruling stated verbatim, as the “further order” in the second paragraph of the first
27
page of the Ruling, the following:
28
29
30
“The Court further orders that the Notice of Pendency of Action (recorded
against the real property known as 131 Sutphen Street, Santa Cruz on 10/18/23)
and filed in this action on 10/19/23 be expunged based upon this Court’s prior
order 7/19/23.”
31
2
DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDER
1
Whereas Norum's Proposed Order stated the following which is substantively different than
2
the Court's Further Order:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"The Court further orders that the Notice of Pendency of Action ("Lis Pendens")
filed by Plaintiff CHARLES WAYNE COX in this action on 10/19/23 and
recorded in the Official Records of Santa Cruz County on 10/28/23, as Document
No 2023-0020000, is hereby expunged from title and the Official Records of
Santa Cruz County and deemed invalid based upon this Court's prior order of
7/9/23. This order may be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Cruz
County. Said expunged Lis Pendens was recorded with respect to the real
property commonly known as 131 Sutphen St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1939, A.P.N.
008-091-17, as is more specifically described as follows:
:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 8, as the same is shown and designated upon that certain Map
entitled, "Sutphens Addition to Santa Cruz, Sept. 1889, E.D. Perry,
surveyor", filed for record in the Office of the County Recorder on
September 26, 1889, in Map Book 10, Page 22, Santa Cruz County
Records.
Excepting Therefrom the hereinabove described lands so much as
was conveyed to A.L. Whitney by Deed recorded July 16, 1890, in
Volume 73 of Deeds, Page 352, Records of Santa Cruz County,
being a strip of land approximately eight feet in width along the
Northerly line of said lands to be 'Perpetually kept open, used and
"
maintained as an Alley Way.'
--
Therefore, Norum's Proposed Order violated both Court's Order and the mandatory
requirements of L.R. 2.10.01(d) and I accordingly disapprove.
21
22
Dated: April 29, 2024
es Wayt
Charles Wayne Cox
/s/
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
3
DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDER
Objection and Disapproval of Bogus Proposed Order
Objection to and Disapproval of Proposed Order, 2024
Evidently, the Court Rules do not apply to foreclosure mill lawyers who apparently can do anything they want, whenever they want and the judges let them get away with it. That, and judges in particularly foreclosure cases, can act as a prosecutor and issue orders sua sponte, as they see fit even if no one has requested or filed a motion for relief. Never ceases to amaze....Read more
