PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



102 Opposition to application for extension of time .pdf


Original filename: 102 - Opposition to application for extension of time.pdf
Author: joey

This PDF 1.6 document has been generated by Microsoft® Word 2010, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 05/01/2013 at 21:35, from IP address 68.224.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 771 times.
File size: 334 KB (6 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

1
2
3
4
5
6

Filed 12/21/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:643

Craig McLaughlin, Esq. (SBN 182876)
LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG MCLAUGHLIN
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1300
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(714) 545-8500 ♦ (888) 545-7131 fax
cmc@smartpropertylaw.com
Attorney for Defendants
Kelly C. Sugano and Taka-O

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

9
10
11
12
13

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
vs.
BACKSTAGE BAR AND GRILL, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: CV11-08305 ODW (PLAx)
DEFENDANTS KELLY C.
SUGANO AND TAKA-O’S
OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION PAPERS
Hearing Date: Jan. 7, 2013 (Vacated)
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 11
Complaint Filed : Oct. 6, 2011

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

DEFENDANTS KELLY C. SUGANO AND TAKA-O OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S EX PARTE
APPLCATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION PAPERS

Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

1

I.

Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:644

INTRODUCTION
On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff Slep-tone Entertainment Corporation

2
3

(“Slep-tone”) filed an ex parte application for an extension of time to oppose the

4

motion for fees and sanctions filed by Defendants Sugano and Taka-O on

5

November 27, 2012. Consistent with Slep-tone’s litigation history in this case and

6

in others, Slep-tone’s assertions lack support and are untimely.

7
8
9

II.

ARGUMENT
Ex parte applications are disfavored. Ex parte applications are solely for

10

extraordinary relief where “the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced

11

if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed procedures.” Mission

12

Power Eng'g v Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal.

13

1995). To be considered, an ex parte application for an extension of time requires

14

adherence to other rules including that it must be supported by “good cause.”

15

Court’s Scheduling Order, ¶ 6(b). [Dkt. No. 65.]

16

In its application, Slep-tone concedes that its opposition to the fee motion

17

was due no later than December 17, 2012. Indeed, the rules require an opposition

18

“not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date designated for the hearing of

19

the motion.” L.R. 7-9.

20

The rules also allow this Court ignore Slep-tone’s belated request. “The

21

failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline,

22

may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” L.R. 7-12. It

23

appears this Court rightly did so on December 19, 2012, vacating the hearing set

24

for January 7, 2013. “The matter stands submitted, and will be decided upon

25

without oral argument. An order will issue.” [Dkt. No. 100.]

26

Here, Slep-tone’s application is simply a laundry list of numbered

27

paragraphs of lawyer argument. Not unlike the case itself, here too, Slep-tone

28

2

DEFENDANTS KELLY C. SUGANO AND TAKA-O OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S EX PARTE
APPLCATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION PAPERS

Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

Filed 12/21/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:645

1

makes wild assertions, but fails to provide any support for them. For instance,

2

Slep-tone characterizes the fee motion as a “default judgment.” [App., ¶ 10.]

3

Slep-tone also asserts that, even though it is represented on the record by counsel,

4

it should have been served “directly” with notice of Defendants’ motion. [App., ¶

5

4.] Slep-tone, however, cites no authority for such a proposition. Slep-tone

6

cleverly avers that it did not receive prompt “actual” notice of the fee motion, but

7

never asserts when it had knowledge thereof. [App., ¶ 9.]

8
9

Slep-tone’s main argument here, albeit without evidentiary support, is that it
has recently been unable to communicate with its attorney of record, Ms. Donna

10

Boris and that “Plaintiff’s failure to respond on a timely basis was due not to

11

neglect but to factors beyond its immediate control.” [App., ¶ 12.] The true facts,

12

however, paint a significantly different picture.

13

Slep-tone has always maintained control of selecting its counsel in this case

14

and in other cases it has filed about the country as well. It continues to have the

15

ability to retain and to promptly fire counsel it believes has not or will not serve it

16

well. The option to fire Ms. Boris and/or to bring in new or additional counsel has

17

always been available to Slep-tone in this case. The recent appearance of Mr.

18

Chen of Fox Rothschild evidences this fact. [Dkt. No. 99.]

19

Slep-tone’s experiences with Ms. Boris, however, are not new. According to

20

papers filed by Slep-tone in a different case, Slep-tone has been aware of

21

difficulties with her since at least as early as April 2012. Indeed, as lead counsel

22

for Slep-tone in a similar case in Las Vegas, she failed to timely file oppositions in

23

response to motions to dismiss. In Slep-tone’s motion to reconsider the dismissals,

24

Slep-tone catalogued significant communication difficulties between Ms. Boris and

25

Kurt Slep, the CEO of Slep-tone. [Suppl. Decl. C. McLaughlin, Ex. 1] These

26

difficulties included her failure to return phone calls and her failure to timely file

27

oppositions as promised. According to Slep-tone, Ms. Boris exhibited “gross

28

3

DEFENDANTS KELLY C. SUGANO AND TAKA-O OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S EX PARTE
APPLCATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION PAPERS

Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

Filed 12/21/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:646

1

neglect” and was “constitutionally incapable of filing timely responses.” Kurt Slep

2

terminated her as counsel on June 6, 2012.
In the instant application, Slep-tone makes no mention of this lengthy

3
4

history of difficulties with Ms. Boris, its right to terminate counsel at any time or

5

its actual experience in doing so “promptly” after becoming aware of her unkept

6

promises and missteps. Instead, Slep-tone asserts here that: “Despite its efforts to

7

communicate with Ms. Boris, the Plaintiff has had extremely limited contact with

8

her for the past four months.” [App., ¶ 5.] Yet with a longer history of problems

9

with Ms. Boris, knowledge thereof, and clear notice of more to come in this case,

10

Slep-tone did nothing to aid itself. While Slep-tone lays all blame at the doorstep

11

of Ms. Boris, the true facts show that Slep-tone repeatedly and for many months

12

neglected to act when it should have. The result was predictable and self-inflicted.

13

Slep-tone’s application is untimely, lacks good cause and is without merit.

14

This application did, however, require opposition and has forced counsel for

15

Defendants to expend time and expense of 2.5 hours to prepare it. [Suppl. Decl. C.

16

McLaughlin.]

17
18
19
20
21

III.

CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth above, Slep-tone’s ex parte application should

be denied.
Respectfully submitted,

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 21, 2012

Law Office of Craig McLaughlin
By: /s/Craig McLaughlin
Craig McLaughlin, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
Kelly C. Sugano and Taka-O

26
27
28

4

DEFENDANTS KELLY C. SUGANO AND TAKA-O OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S EX PARTE
APPLCATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION PAPERS

Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Filed 12/21/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:647

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare and certify as follows:
I am a member of the Bar of the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California. My business address is Law Office of Craig McLaughlin, 650 Town
Center Drive, Suite 1300, Costa Mesa, California 92626 and I make the
following declaration on personal knowledge.
On December 21, 2012, I served DEFENDANTS KELLY C. SUGANO
AND TAKA-O’S OPPOSITION TO SLEP-TONE’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION
PAPERS on the following interested parties in Slep-tone Entertainment Corp., v.
Backstage Bar & Grill, et al., Case No.: CV11-08305 ODW (PLAx):

By transmitting a true copy thereof to those addressees listed on
the Service List below by electronic mail pursuant to permission of
the addressee(s) or, if no permission has been granted, then by prepaid
first class U.S. Mail.

14
15
16
17
18

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 21, 2012, at Los Angeles County, California.
/s/Craig McLaughlin
Craig McLaughlin

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Service List
Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. vs. Backstage Bar and Grill et al, Case No. CV11-08305 ODW (PLAx)
1

Case 2:11-cv-08305-ODW-PLA Document 102

Filed 12/21/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:648

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Donna M Boris
Boris & Associates
9107 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310-492-5962
310-388-5920 (fax)
Attorneys for Slep-tone Entertainment
Corporation
donna@borislaw.com

Reginald Keith Brown
Reginald K. Brown Law Offices
6080 Center Drive, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Attorneys for Caffe Brass Monkey
reggielaw@earthlink.net

R.M. Anthony Cosio
R.M. Anthony Cosio Law Offices
520 Redondo Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90814-1572
Attorneys for Fox Belmont Corp. and
The Silver Fox
admin@lawrnac.com

Robert A. Levinson, Esq.
Levinson Arshonsky and Kurtz LLP
15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Attorneys for The Gaslite and Claire Ragge
rlevinson@laklawyers.com

Brooks P. Marshall, Esq.
Brooks P. Marshall Law Offices
1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Attorneys for Cassidy and Razor and
Cherry Sound Entertainment
brooks@brooksmarshall.com

Rodney T. Lewin, Esq.
Law Offices of Rodney T. Lewin, APC
8665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 210
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Attorneys for Barneys Beanery and
Eight Ball Enterprises, Inc.
rod@rtlewin.com
duke@rtlewin.com

Lester Winograde
Lester Winograde Law Offices
139 Hollister Ave. Suite 5
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Attorney for The Daily Pint and
Phillip R. McGovern
lesterwinograde@verizon.net

Alan C. Chen
Fox Rothschild LLP
1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attorney for Slep-tone Enter. Corp.
Via ECF

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Jen Goldstein
5045 Woodman Avenue, No. 203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
sowhateveh@aol.com
Melena Young
6716 Clybourn Avenue, Apt. 253 North
Hollywood, CA 91606
qitup@qitup.net

Don Young
6716 Clybourn Avenue, Apt. 253
North Hollywood, CA 91606
qitup@qitup.net

27
28
Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. vs. Backstage Bar and Grill et al, Case No. CV11-08305 ODW (PLAx)
2


Related documents


102 opposition to application for extension of time
108 1
102 1 supp dec
motion for attorney s fees ex 2
motion for attorney s fees and sanctions
motion for attorney s fees and sanctions


Related keywords