Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 335 views

    Notice of Motion-Quash

    Uploaded by

    letsscubamaui
    Lornimita Umali is filing a motion to quash the summons in a lawsuit brought against her by Midland Funding LLC. She argues that the court lacks jurisdiction for two reasons. First, as a Delaware corporation, Midland is barred by the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from suing citizens of California in California state courts. Second, Midland has not properly registered any fictitious business names with Alameda County as required to operate as a business entity in the county, including bringing lawsuits. Umali requests that the summons be quashed and that she be awarded costs for bringing this motion in defense against a "sham lawsuit."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Notice of Motion-Quash

    Uploaded by

    letsscubamaui
    335 views3 pages
    Lornimita Umali is filing a motion to quash the summons in a lawsuit brought against her by Midland Funding LLC. She argues that the court lacks jurisdiction for two reasons. First, as a Delaware corporation, Midland is barred by the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from suing citizens of California in California state courts. Second, Midland has not properly registered any fictitious business names with Alameda County as required to operate as a business entity in the county, including bringing lawsuits. Umali requests that the summons be quashed and that she be awarded costs for bringing this motion in defense against a "sham lawsuit."

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lornimita Umali is filing a motion to quash the summons in a lawsuit brought against her by Midland Funding LLC. She argues that the court lacks jurisdiction for two reasons. First, as a Delaware corporation, Midland is barred by the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from suing citizens of California in California state courts. Second, Midland has not properly registered any fictitious business names with Alameda County as required to operate as a business entity in the county, including bringing lawsuits. Umali requests that the summons be quashed and that she be awarded costs for bringing this motion in defense against a "sham lawsuit."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    335 views3 pages

    Notice of Motion-Quash

    Uploaded by

    letsscubamaui
    Lornimita Umali is filing a motion to quash the summons in a lawsuit brought against her by Midland Funding LLC. She argues that the court lacks jurisdiction for two reasons. First, as a Delaware corporation, Midland is barred by the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from suing citizens of California in California state courts. Second, Midland has not properly registered any fictitious business names with Alameda County as required to operate as a business entity in the county, including bringing lawsuits. Umali requests that the summons be quashed and that she be awarded costs for bringing this motion in defense against a "sham lawsuit."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 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 29 30 31

    Lornimita Umali 4657 Chateau Park Court Fremont, CA 94538 Tele: 408-386-6706

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA


    COUNTY OF ALAMEDA LIMITED CIVIL DIVISION 24405 AMADOR STREET, HAYWARD, CA 94544 MIDLAND FUNDING LLC (corpora ficta)

    ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) LORNIMITA UMALI, Situs Trust (ens ) legis/juristic person) ) Defendant in Error, ) Lorniminta Umali, Non corporate ) entity, Beneficiary of Defendant Trust ) (real party in interest) Improperly Construed as the Trustee of ) ) the Defendant Trust

    MIDLAND v UMALI Case: HG-12616851 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTINO TO QUASH SUMMONS AND DEFE[Code Civ. Proc. 337, 337a, fed. Const. 11th Amendment, and codes requiring Fictitious Business Name Registration] Judge: APPEL Dept: 16 Hearing Date: _________________, 2012 Time: ____:____AM/PM Date Action Filed: February 10, 2012

    To: The Court, the Plaintiff MIDLAND FINDING LLC, and; to Plaintiffs attorney firm of record BRACHFELD LAW GROUP P.C., and any other interested parties to this case: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on ___________________________, at __________ AM/PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 16 of this Court, or whichever department the case may be assigned at the time, before Honorable Judge Appel, or whichever judge the case may be assigned at the time, in the courthouse located at 24405 AMADOR STREET,
    HAYWARD, CA 94544, Defendant Umali, will, and hereby does, move to Quash the Summons on

    the grounds of Code Civ. Proc. 337, 337a, fed. Constitution 11th Amendment, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, therefore barred by the 11th Amendment of the fed. Constitution from coming into another state and suing a citizen therein.
    Page 1 of 3

    DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION [Code Civ. Proc. 418.10; Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1110] AND DEFENDANTS MOTION to QUASH [Code Civ. Proc. 337, 337a, fed. Const. 11th Amendment and codes requiring fictitious business name registration]

    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 29 30 31

    Defendant in this case, has suffered damages from creditors actions and inactions. The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the affidavit of Lorinmita Umali, website pages from the California State Secretary of State Business Portal, website pages from the Alameda County Clerk Recorder fictitious business name search, STATE OF DELAWARE Department of State: Division of Corporations, and the supporting memorandum served and filed herewith, and all of the papers in the court file. Request is made for the costs to bring this motion in defense of a sham lawsuit filed without standing brought by a DELAWARE limited liability corporation that is barred from legal suit against any citizen of California by the 11th Amendment of the federal Constitution.

    1st Cause to Quash


    Federal Constitution 11th Amendment, Cal. Evid. Code 451, 451(a), 451(f) Const. Law of the United States, Facts Universally Known Not Reasonably Subject Of Dispute STATUTORY IMMUNITY - STATUTORY BAR TO COLLECTION LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION TO THIS CASE On the face of the complaint: Plaintiff brought suit in California, through an attorney admitted to the California State Bar. Plaintiffs complaint page PLD-C-001 page 1, paragraph 3.a.(3) states A Limited Liability Company. Paragraph 3.b. does not indicate compliance with either fictitious business name laws, or licensing requirements. On PLD-C-001 page 2, paragraph 7. Plaintiff purports that this court is the proper court. Defendant may comment on all facts claimed in the complaint. Defendant has searched the public records and found the following facts: Defendant has researched the Plaintiffs registration as a Limited Liability Company in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the California State Secretary of State Business Portal, and found that Plaintiff is a Delaware Corporation, which does not allow suit in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA as a foreign corporation against citizens of California pursuant to the 11th amendment of the federal Constitution. Plaintiff is a resident of DELAWARE, and is barred under the 11th Amendment of the Federal Constitution from enforcing a debt in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

    Page 2 of 3

    DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION [Code Civ. Proc. 418.10; Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1110] AND DEFENDANTS MOTION to QUASH [Code Civ. Proc. 337, 337a, fed. Const. 11th Amendment and codes requiring fictitious business name registration]

    1 2 3

    2nd Cause to Quash


    Federal Constitution 11th Amendment, Cal. Evid. Code 451, 451(a), 451(f) Const. Law of the United States, Facts Universally Known Not Reasonably Subject Of Dispute STATUTORY IMMUNITY - STATUTORY BAR TO COLLECTION

    4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

    LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION TO THIS CASE On the face of the complaint: Plaintiff brought suit in California, through an attorney admitted to the California State Bar. Plaintiffs complaint page PLD-C-001 page 1, paragraph 3.a.(3) states A Limited Liability Company. Paragraph 3.b. does not indicate compliance with either fictitious business name laws, or licensing requirements. On PLD-C-001 page 2, paragraph 7. Plaintiff purports that this court is the proper court. Defendant may comment on all facts claimed in the complaint. Defendant has searched the public records and found the following facts: Defendant has researched the Plaintiffs registration of fictitious business name with the Alameda County Clerk Recorder, and found that Plaintiff is not listed as having a FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME registered in ALAMEDA COUNTY. Plaintiff is does not have a fictitious business name registered in Alameda County and is therefore barred from operating as a business entity in Alameda County, including operation in the state courts as a party to any lawsuit as a Plaintiff.

    Date: ___/___/ 2012


    20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

    All Rights Reserved, UCC 1-308 and 1-207.9

    ________________________________________ Lorinmita Umali, Beneficiary to LORNIMITA UMALI, Situs Trust

    Page 3 of 3

    DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION [Code Civ. Proc. 418.10; Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1110] AND DEFENDANTS MOTION to QUASH [Code Civ. Proc. 337, 337a, fed. Const. 11th Amendment and codes requiring fictitious business name registration]

    You might also like