SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

- -000-

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, vs . BONNIE SHIPLEY, Defendant.

) )

1
) )

)
I

Case No. UDDS1204130

)
)

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS

-

BEFORE HON. DONALD R. ALVAREZ, JUDGE DEPARTMENT S- 32

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: HART, KING & COLDREN BY: ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON, JR Attorney at Law 200 Sandpointe, 4th Floor Santa Ana, California 92702 NANCY D. MCCARRON Attorney at Law 950 Roble Lane Santa Barbara, California

For the Defendant:

93103

Reported by:

VICTORIA E. VILLEGAS, CSR NO. 9843 Official Reporter

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013 A.M. SESSION DEPARTMENT 5-32 APPEARANCES: ROBERT WILLIAMSON, Attorney at Law, for the Plaintiff; NANCY DUFFY MCCARRON, Attorney at Law, for the Defendant. (Victoria E. Villegas, Official Reporter, CSR No. 9 8 4 3 . ) -000THE COURT: versus Shipley. MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning. appearing for the plaintiff. MS. MCCARRON: Good morning, your Honor. Nancy Robert Williamson I've got an add-on here, Stubblefield HON. DONALD R. ALVAREZ, JUDGE

Duffy McCarron appearing for Bonnie Shipley, the defendant. THE COURT: All right. This is - - we set this for

an OSC regarding the setting of a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment before plaintiff's amended and supplemental motion to compel answers and production of documents at deposition. And the reason I set this was because it seemed to me that if there was an outstanding discovery motion pending, which there is, I'm not exactly which date that was pending. THE CLERK: February 27th, your Honor.
---

r don't recall

THE COURT: February 27th

why we would be moving

forward with a summary judgment when you still have discovery outstanding. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. And absolutely

understandable, your Honor.

But if that was - - if this was a

defense motion for summary judgment, I could understand. However, our prima facie case in this particular statutory unlawful occupant type of procedure and summary proceeding, our prima facie case the facts are largely undisputed. discovery that's outstanding principally pertains to information that the defendant has that they haven't disclosed with regard to certain affirmative defenses as well as information concerning the credibility, the bias of the particular witnesses they have identified, and specifically the defendant in this case and one other witness whom she has a relationship which she's failed to disclose who other witnesses and investigation has revealed was a constant, constant visitor at the mobile home and possibly occupying the mobile home overnight. All that doesn't have to do with plaintiff's prima facie case. And a motion for summary judgment would truncate this case altogether because there is really no defense under the code under this particular type of action. though
--

The

There is no defense to the action. And even

THE COURT:

Okay. However, we can't forgo the

MR. WILLIAMSON:

possibility that maybe the Court may see it differently, and decide, well, certain defenses may go forward. We have to have discovery on that. But that doesn't deter us from

bringing the motion for summary judgment because - THE COURT: Okay. I don't mean to cut you off.

MR. WILLIAMSON:
-

Yeah.

THE COURT: But my question then becomes, are

--

if

you are the moving party, are you - - are you placing yourself at risk in a summary judgment/adjudication in this sense that the defense here comes forward with or raises an issue concerning an affirmative defense that maybe the plaintiff hasn't had the chance to fully explore through discovery, and then am I going to get another
--

am I going to get a request

to continue the hearing in order to allow additional discovery on perhaps whether it be valid or not? I can't say. But

let's say the defense asserts a prima facie affirmative defense that would create a triable issue as to granting summary judgment. That's what I'm thinking about, that maybe

you may want to be concerned with that probably from the defense perspective, you know, that they have perhaps information that might be subject to your motion to compel that they might advance if they're forced to in opposition to summary judgment or summary adjudication.

I don't know the

answer to that. That's all I'm saying at this point. MR. WILLIAMSON: Of course. And 1 appreciate Your

Honor's - - it's obvious the Court's given this great thought.

I can't speculate on the evidence they might present.

However, if they would attempt to present evidence that we've already requested in discovery that hasn't been produced, then there would be an evidentiary objection to that THE COURT: Well, there might be.
---

MR. WILLIAMSON: THE COURT:

to that evidence.

But I would say that except that what if

you have a pending discovery motion that involves that

evidence?

That's my point.

If the Court hasn't ruled on that

discovery motion, I don't know that I could say that the evidence
--

I mean, if I denied it or if I granted the If I granted the

discovery motion - - let's put it this way.

discovery motion for the plaintiff and then the defendant refused to produce the requested evidence, then I could see excluding it. MR. WILLIAMSON: THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

If there's been no court order or

adjudication of discovery issue, and the defense advances evidence regarding an affirmative defense that they may have, I don't know that I could outright exclude it unless there would be some other foundational basis or other basis. that's all I'm thinking is do we really where you really want to go with that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Well, the evidence that may
--

So

you know, is that

be brought forward, say, wasn't produced in prior discovery of course would be subject to the objection that it hadn't been produced in discovery and thereEore now can't be presented. THE COURT: A lot of what we're doing is we're kind of speculating a little bit. MR. WILLIAMSON: THE COURT: Exactly. I'm just thinking. Maybe

I don't know.

the defendant doesn't care if you go forward with summary judgment at this point. I don't know.

MR. WILLIAMSON: May I - THE COURT: Go ahead.

--

MR. WILLIAMSON:

address that?

THE COURT:

Go ahead. Well
--

MR. WILLIAMSON:

and while the protestations

about being served with volumes of paperwork and that, counsel hands me this motion this morning for summary judgment that she set for apparently January 28th. We had initially reserved January 28th but when the Court issued its OSC, I asked that our reserve date for summary judgment be continued to January 31st. But this motion, to hide the voluminous of it, I get two pages copied on one page, things in booklet form, that are inconsistent with the California Rules of Court. I'm
--

I don't know - - even know if the clerks were But - -

going to accept something like that. THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: for summary judgment . THE COURT :

- - you know, the defendants move

Okay. With
--

MR. WILLIAMSON:

and if the Court's inclined

to hear both motions on the same day, that's - - I have no objection to that and on the 31st when we've set the motion because we're prepared to file and serve the motion today, if the Court's inclined to hear it. I had some questions about that. THE COURT: Defense? Oh, your Honor, thank you. I wanted But after receiving the OSC

MS. MCCARRON:

to speak to a couple of issues, about four issues here. Number one, as to the putting two, you know, two two pages to a sheet, they're in the regular forms to the Court. And the only reason I did it, as I explained to
--

counsel, he already got it.

It's the same. We did the We had our

motion, as you know, last time we were in here.

motion for judgment on the pleadings which was on 438. And there was a technicality in there on that and you had denied it on the technicality. And so he already had all the papers. So what
--

what we did is it's kind of the same stuff. And

all I did was change the caption to "summary judgment.I' Instead of judgment on the pleadings under
438,

it's summary

judgment under 437. And counsel's already got all that stuff in his office. He's got it by e-mail. But so I explained to him that I just - - for technicality I put it on half sheets so as not to have to use, you know, a hundred sheets of paper and I'm only using 50.
I told him I'd be happy to e-mail right

now as soon as we go home, or I can go home and print it and bring it, you know.
I don't want to have to spend
--

the

reason he's saying this is he wants me to have to spend a hundred dollars to have some delivery person to bring it to Orange County from Santa Barbara and it's not necessary. That's as to that issue.
AS to the second issue, we did make a motion for

summary judgment. And I want to point out, your Honor, and now we have it on the record, counsel has admitted the facts are not in dispute here. Big, big admission. Because what it
--

means, your Honor, is if the facts are not in dispute, we

this can be resolved on summary judgment. We don't need to waste the Court's time bringing in a jury here. Because a

jury is not allowed to interpret a statute. Only, as you know, only a judge can interpret a statute. A jury is not

allowed to do that. This whole case is based on the

798.75.

That was

the five-day notice that they gave to Bonnie on the day they gave her notice, and when the five days was up they filed for eviction. This case all depends on your interpretation of
798.75.

And as we've said a hundred times for the past seven

months, every time we file the pleadings it doesn't apply to Bonnie Shipley because she is not a purchaser. They keep

trying to create a thousand other side issues that have nothing to do with the issue. If that statute did not apply

to Bonnie, they had no right to give her notice. And if they had no right to give her notice under that statute, the whole case is bogus. They have no right to file a complaint on an invalid notice that doesn't apply.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: Now
--

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well - MS. MCCARRON: Hold on, please. I didn't interrupt

you, Counsel, and I'd like to finish. THE COURT: I don't mean to interrupt you. All I
--

wanted to do was find out own summary judgment . MS. MCCARRON:

I didn't know you had filed your

Haven't filed it yet, your Honor.

wanted to file it this morning but the clerk said I have to file it downstairs. And that's fine. But I needed to serve him personally for the five-day notice thing. Now, all of this
--

and

--

and the last time we were

in here for summary judgment, they actually filed something

with you the day before 50 pages long.

I didn't even know you

had it when I was here arguing. I would have argued against it if I even knew you had it. But when we drove back to Santa Barbara it was on my doorstep. deal. Okay. And it was a 50-page

plaintiff's supplemental request for judicial notice

whereby they attached the whole legislative history of 798.75 because they know this whole case resolves on the interpretation of that. Well, guess what, your Honor? They made a big

mistake by doing that because I didn't have it and they did. They made a big mistake because in the 50 pages that they probably didn't bother to read, I found the name of Maury Priest (phonetic) who represented the opposition to that statute 25 years ago in '87. I didn't even know if he was still alive. I got him. But I called him in Sacramento. And guess what? It was 87 years ago (sic) but he remembers it He was the - -

vividly. And he was at every single hearing.

representing the homeowners around the whole state. He represented their interest. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. But - I've got his

MS. MCCARRON:

Hold on, your Honor.

declaration under penalty of perjury here telling you he is the only one who has personal knowledge of what went on
25 years ago.

He's still alive and he's giving it to you.

And what he tells you - - and this is coming in on summary judgment. And what he tells you in his declaration, he tells you thls is not - - was never intended to be used for a roommate. It was designed - - and it was brought in together

with Financial Code.

It was designed to apply to escrow

agents to make sure that they did not let a sale or transfer go through without an agreement with the park. And he says - he even tells you how they submitted it, saying that if somebody did this under (c) they could evict them under forceable detainer. They fought against that. And he shows They didn't

'.

you in here. And it's in their own exhibits. read it very well.

It shows where it has to be re-submitted a

second time with the words nforceable detainer" crossed out, and then the legislature would approve it. They would not

approve it and sign it with the forceable detainer cause of action in it. THE COURT : Okay. Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: case.

So that is the smoking gun in this

THE COURT: Okay.

Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: Now, there's another - - third thing I have to bring up, another issue, your Honor. There's four if you'll just bear with me. There's a third issue. He's

talking about all this discovery about some relationship with Bonnie with Steve. It has nothing to do with this case, your

Honor. This case has one issue. Does Bonnie Shipley have the right to be a co-resident with Nancy Duffy under 798.34 which gives me the statutory right to have a co-resident without park approval. And does 798.75
--

those two statutes you have Jury can't do

to - - you have to interpret them judicially. that. So why waste the money on a jury?

So my point is since

he's admitted the facts are not in dispute, what do we need

the jury for? on our motion.

We need you to decide this on summary judgment And for him saying we have no defense, that's

wrong, your Honor, because - THE COURT: Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: I'm the occupant. THE COURT:

I've been in that place since 2005.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: THE COURT:

They have no standing to sue.

Okay. All right. They're not the occupant.

MS. MCCARRON:

THE COURT: All I'm dealing with today - MS. MCCARRON: THE COURT: SO
--

I set - - I set an OSC to see - - it seems

to me that no one is really objecting to going forward with sumrary judgments. The plaintiff wants to go forward on the

31st. Defendant has apparently filed their own. MS. MCCARRON: THE COURT: Right.

I will tell - - I will. tell defense,

however, that your format will be - - could be a problem if it's not pursuant to Rules of Court, i.e., little booklets Your format, it will have to be formatted appropriately as the Rules of Court require for summary judgments. MS. MCCARRON: THE COURT: Well, it is. I've already done it.

Okay. Turning it in. I'll just make that observation So what I'll

MS. MCCARRON: THE COURT:

Okay.

because you don't want to come up on the end.

do, then, is I guess you already have the 3lst.

MR. WILLIAMSON: THE COURT: THE CLERK:

Yes, your Honor.

Just set them both for the 31st. Set them both.

THE COURT: Yeah. MS. MCCARRON: Okay. the night before

--

And there can't be anywhere

the day before the hearing, your Honor, he

files 150 pages with you - THE COURT: If it's not

--

MS. MCCARRON:

- - and delivers them to Santa Barbara

by mail and I don't even know you've looked at the stuff, and then I lose because you have all the facts and been misrepresented. those documents. THE COURT: won't look at it. MS. MCCARRON: The problem is it is because this is If it's not permitted by code, then I And I don't even know that you've looked at

done under - - and he said it in his own papers - - it's done under 1170.7. And it's a special rule. Summary judgment can

be brought on five days notice and the party has up until the time of the hearing to oppose it. And they can even oppose it at the hearing if you look at that statute. And what they do is they - - they pile these
--

and I have asked them what

--

when I do it to them, your Honor, and it's a day or two before the hearing, I send it by e-mail so he gets it immediately. He doesn't do that with me. THE COURT: He puts it in the - -

Why don't we - --

MS. MCCARRON: don't get to see it.

so I get it a day later and I

MR. WILLIAMSON:

I'm going to

--

THE COURT: Why don't we stipulate that service can be made by e-mail then? MS. MCCARRON: And not only that. If he's going to

give it to you at 8:30 in the morning, he needs to e-mail it to me at 8:30 and not 5 o'clock. THE COURT: Okay. Your Honor, I'm going to object to
--

MR. WILLIAMSON:

this entire line of argument. It's inappropriate. It's THE COURT: January 31st. Okay. I'm just going to set it on

Both parties to file per code. Can we just file by e-mail, your

MS. MCCARRON:
Honor?

He said he'd agree to it. We have been doing it for They give me stuff by e-mail all the time. We He's just trying to drive

six months.

have been doing it for six months. the costs up for me. THE COURT:

It's more harassment. Okay.

MS. MCCARRON: And, you know, really I'm tired of this, your Honor.
THE COURT:

Okay. Hold on.

THE BAILIFF:

THE COURT: Whatever the code provides for service, 1111 just let you proceed by code. Okay. for the 31st at 8:30. MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, your Honor. THE COTURT: Thank you. MS. MCCARRON: And, your Honor, one more thing. Please may I be heard because I have
--

I'll just set it

Thank you.

I have one more issue

I want to be heard and get it on the record. The reason that they are asking for summary judgment, they think that they can pull it off and they can win when they can't because Maury Priest's (phonetic) declaration is the smoking gun in this case. They - - the

reason that they want to bring it right now and they don't want to wait till after the 27th is they gave me 60-day notice of eviction on December 21st as a Christmas present. MR. WILLIAMSON: Honor. MS. MCCARRON: Hold on. This is entirely
--

Okay.

I'm going to object, your

MR. WILLIAMSON:

THE COURT:
summary judgments?

What does this have to do with the

That's all we're here for.

MS. MCCARRON: Because you asked him what - - why

he's bringing it now instead of waiting till after the 27th.

THE COURT: He said he doesn't think he needs it.

MS. MCCARRON: No, no. It's because my two months

is up February 21st and he wants to have a win before he serves me with eviction. That's what he's - -

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honor
--

THE COURT: All right. MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm objecting to it. I need to make a record on this.

The Court has repeatedly, repeatedly

continued to argue while this court has said that argument is over, that the matters that she's arguing aren't even before the Court.

THE COURT:

I agree.
This was an OSC to set a motion for

MR. WILLIAMSON: summary judgment . MS. MCCARRON:

But, your Honor, I need to make my I

record on the transcripts just like he said he had to do. have a right to do that too.
THE COURT:

Okay.

We're in recess.

MS. MCCARRON:

Okay.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

(Proceedings in the above-entitled matter were concluded. )

--000--

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COM~ITY, Plaintiff, vs . BONNIE SHIPLEY, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. UDDS1204130 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

) )

ss.

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDTNO ) I, VICTORIA E. VILLEGAS, CSR, Official Reporter of the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, do hereby certify that foregoing pages, 1 through 14, to the best of my . knowledge and belief, comprise a full, true and
-

correct computer-aided transcript of the proceedings taken in the matter of the above-entitled cause held on Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013. Dated at San Bernardino, California, this 25th day of January, 2013.

CSR