DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT MAURA LARKINS I, the undersigned, declare: 1. I am the defendant in pro per herein. 2. This case has grown out of a lawsuit for defamation and violation of Labor Code section 432.7 and 1102.5 filed by me against Defendant against Chula Vista Elementary School District (“CVESD”) in 2002. STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”), the Plaintiff in the instant case, defended CVESD in the prior case, and was able to get that case dismissed without any fact-finding. In fact, SASH asked to withdraw its motion for summary judgment, making certain that there would be no fact-finding. 3. I had been a teacher for 26 years at CVESD, when I was removed from my classroom because two teachers said they feared I would kill them. Contrary to what SASH attorney Ljubisa Kostic recently stated in court pleadings, no one ever said that I made any threats at all, or did anything to indicate that I might be homicidal. After a great deal of effort I learned that a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Barbara had given his sister, a teacher at my school, a statement to police made by my mentally-ill ex sister-in-law when she was trying to help my brother remove me as co-administrator of my father’s estate. She told police I was mentally ill and I had a handgun. I was arrested for trespassing in my dead father’s apartment when I was administrator of his estate. I was never charged with any offense, but the teacher who criminally obtained the police report presented the allegations against me as fact to other teachers, and hysteria ensued. I was placed on administrative leave. The district kept asking me to return, and then sending me home again, until I finally stayed home for my own safety. Contrary to Mr. Kostic’s allegations, I was not dismissed until I filed suit against CVESD. The original charge against me was that I failed to come to work, but the final Office of Administrative Hearings decision stated clearly that I was being dismissed for filing grievances and a lawsuit, which proved that I was not “forgiving.” The dismissal was thus a blatant violation of Labor Code 1102.5 (retaliation). Of course, the main reason I was dismissed was that the district wanted me to be silent about its criminal violations of Labor Code 432.7, and the unhealthy bullying culture that makes our schools dangerous for teachers as well as students. Plaintiff SASH has enthusiastically embraced the OAH decision in the past, but now disowns responsibility for the decision to dismiss me. 4. Plaintiff STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”) asked for and was given a three- month continuance in the instant case to write a Motion for Summary Judgment. 5. Neither Plaintiff SASH nor Defendant (myself) was able to prepare an adequate Summary Judgment Motion within the required time frame. 6. I did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment. 7. Plaintiff did file a Motion for Summary Judgment (Exhibit 2), but the motion is short and self-contradictory, and offers no evidence other than statements by lawyers in Plaintiff’s firm and inaccurate references to Defendant’s deposition. SASH’s Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for hearing on Jan. 9, 2009. 8. I am interested in writing a thorough Motion for Summary Judgment that is supported by evidence, but I need several months to do it. I have a great deal of evidence including documents, hearing transcripts, and the depositions of many individuals. I believe that if I were to be given time to write a Motion for Summary Judgment, this case could be decided without a trial, saving time and money for the court. 9. Plaintiff has delayed the case by refusing to produce partner Daniel Shinoff for a deposition. My website, and therefore this case, focuses on Mr. Shinoff as the main actor in the events that caused me to create my website. A plaintiff that is a legal corporation and its attorneys can not appropriately conduct a lawsuit when it refuses to produce for deposition the corporation partner whose actions are at the heart of the issues in the case. 10. Plaintiff STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”) also needs more time in this case as indicated by the fact that SASH only recently, on December 5, 2008, mail-served on me a Request for Production of Documents (Exhibit 3). 11. Many of the documents requested by SASH are very important in the case, but will not be produced until January 9, 2008, the day before the current discovery cut-off date, January 10, 2009. SASH will have very little time before trial to digest a great deal of information. Also, SASH would have no opportunity to follow up on any of Defendant’s objections. 12. According to his own statements, SASH lead attorney Ljubisa Kostic has very little familiarity with Defendant's website, the case record of Larkins v. CVESD, or his own deposition of defendant. 13. Mr. Kostic forgot what was said at Defendant's deposition, and actually formed false memories about what was said, causing him to make a significant number of false statements in his Motion to Quash. Thankfully, he wrote a retraction of sorts (Exhibit 4), but clearly, he needs time to prepare for trial. 14. Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the case record of Larkins v. CVESD is indicated by Mr. Kostic’s statement at my deposition on June 16, 2008 that he knew "next to nothing" about the case. Recent wildly inaccurate statements by Mr. Kostic prove that this continues to be a problem. 15. On December 2, 2008 when I called Plaintiff’s lead attorney Ljubisa Kostic. Mr. Kostic said that my website contains no specific statements about Stutz, only broad generalizations. I told Mr. Kostic that he was incorrect. He said he would be happy for me to point out pages in my site with specific allegations. I sent him an email with links to several pages, but my website access logs indicate that Mr. Kostic did not bother to visit those pages. 16. On December 8, 2008 I called Mr. Ljubisa Kostic to meet and confer about my request for a trial continuance. 17. At that time Mr. Kostic noted that the current time frame does not provide adequate time for him to prepare for trial after the court's decision regarding his Motion for Summary Judgment, so he would not object to a continuance of up to 30 days. 18. Plaintiff has delayed this case by refusing to produce a single individual at Chula Vista Elementary School District for deposition, even though Plaintiff has made clear that it considers CVESD to be alone in its responsibility for wrongful actions taken with the enthusiastic support of Plaintiff when Plaintiff was being paid large amounts of taxpayer funds to advise the district. 19. On December 2, 2008 I called Mr. Kostic and said that if I could depose Tom Cruz and Susan Fahle, assistant superintendents at Chula Vista Elementary School District, I would consider withdrawing all my other subpoenas of CVESD witnesses. Mr. Kostic said that he would not allow me to depose Tom Cruz or Susan Fahle. 20. The statement in paragraph 16 above is interesting because Mr. Kostic has tried to convince me time and again that individuals at CVESD were responsible for their actions, and SASH is not responsible for illegal actions by CVESD. But Mr. Kostic has now made clear that it is he himself, not Tom Cruz or Susan Fahle, who decides whether or not Cruz or Fahle will be deposed. The instant case resulted from well- documented and detailed descriptions on my website of illegal actions taken by Chula Vista Elementary School District when it was represented by SASH from 2001-2005. At the very least, it is clear that SASH supported, covered-up and aided and abetted wrongdoing, which makes SASH just as guilty of the wrongdoing as CVESD. It is more likely, in my opinion, that SASH directed and instructed docile board members and administrators and teachers at CVESD to violate the law. 21. SASH has prepared a Motion to Quash all my subpoenas of CVESD individuals, but there is no date set for SASH’s motion to quash. If the Motion to Quash is not granted in its entirety, then I will need time to take any deposition(s) allowed by the court. 22. If the court does not wish to grant my request for a continuance, I ask, alternatively, that I be granted an Order Shortening Time to allow the attached Motion to Compel Deposition of Daniel Shinoff (Exhibit 1) to be heard and Mr. Shinoff’s deposition taken before the discovery cut-off date. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: December 8, 2008 Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per |
| EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE Dec. 10, 2008 10:00 a.m. |
| MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This application is made pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 375(a) and is based upon the inability of parties to complete all necessary discovery despite diligence and attempts to do so, and further on the fact that neither party was able to prepare an adequate Summary Judgment Motion within the current time frame. I. DISCOVERY HAS NOT ADVANCED TO A DEGREE THAT WOULD ALLOW A AN ADEQUATE EXAMINATION OF FACTS AT TRIAL A continuance of the trial in this case is needed in order to allow time to resolve discovery problems. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have discovery motions that need to be heard, and, depending on the ruling of the court, depositions may need to be taken after the court rules on those motions. Also, Plaintiff has within the last few days served an expansive Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. II. DISCOVERY HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THIS CASE BEGAN Discovery has been a problem in this case since 12 p.m. November 9, 2007, when Plaintiff’s representative Ray Artiano and Plaintiff partner Daniel Shinoff walked out of Mr. Artiano’s deposition, and at the same time announced that Mr. Shinoff would not attend his deposition. Plaintiff has delayed the case by refusing to produce partner Daniel Shinoff for a deposition. My website, and therefore this case, focuses on Mr. Shinoff as the main actor in the events that caused me to create my website. A plaintiff is not appropriately conducting a lawsuit when it refuses to produce for deposition the partner whose actions are at the heart of the issues in the case. Plaintiff has delayed this case by refusing to produce a single individual at Chula Vista Elementary School District for deposition, even though Plaintiff has made clear that it considers CVESD to be responsible for wrongful actions taken when Plaintiff was being paid to advise the district. To prove its case, Plaintiff needs witnesses to say that CVESD took its actions despite SASH’s warnings. Then Plaintiff needs to explain why it didn’t resign as legal counsel for the district. SASH has prepared a Motion to Quash all my subpoenas of CVESD individuals, but there is no date set for SASH’s motion to quash. Clearly, the fact that CVESD is paying Plaintiff to work on this case is a problem, both because of discovery delays, and because public entities are by law forbidden from filing defamation lawsuits. The case is turning into a quagmire. If the Motion to Quash is not granted in its entirety, then Defendant will need time to take any deposition (s) allowed by the court. But it is not just Defendant who needs more time. Plaintiff STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”) also needs more time in this case as indicated by the fact that SASH only recently, on December 5, 2008, mail-served on me a Request for Production of Documents (Exhibit 3). AFTER MEETING AND CONFERRING, PARTIES AGREED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT OBJECT TO A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE; DEFENDANT NEEDS SEVERAL MONTHS On December 8, 2008 I called Mr. Ljubisa Kostic to meet and confer about my request for a trial continuance. At that time Mr. Kostic noted that the current time frame does not provide adequate time for him to prepare for trial after the court's decision regarding his Motion for Summary Judgment, so he would not object to a continuance of up to 30 days. III. A CONTINUANCE IS NECESSARY IN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY TO AVOID TRIAL Although Plaintiff STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”) asked for and was given a three- month continuance to write a Motion for Summary Judgment, neither Plaintiff SASH nor Defendant was able to prepare an adequate Summary Judgment Motion within the required time frame. Plaintiff did file a Motion for Summary Judgment (Exhibit 2), but the motion is short and self-contradictory, and offers no evidence other than statements by lawyers in Plaintiff’ s firm and inaccurate references to Defendant’s deposition. SASH’s Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for hearing on Jan. 9, 2009. A continuance of the trial in this case is needed for purposes of judicial economy. Defendant asks for time to prepare a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant has a great deal of evidence including documents, hearing transcripts, and the depositions of many individuals and believes that if she were to be given time to write a Motion for Summary Judgment, this case could be decided without a trial, saving time and money for the court. ALTERNATIVELY, DEFENDANT ASKS FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HER MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DANIEL SHINOFF Alternatively, Defendant asks for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b), shortening time for service of the attached Notice of Motion to Compel Deposition of Daniel Shinoff (Exhibit 1) to a time that would allow the Motion to be ruled upon and Daniel Shinoff's Deposition taken before the discovery cut-off date of January 9, 2009. Respectfully, Dated: December 8, 2008 Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per |
| BLOGS |
| Defamation Suit |
| Lawyers |
| Public Records Requests |
| Payments to Shinoff |
| Maura Larkins v. CVESD |
| Deposition of Maura Larkins Lozano Smith order/ Shinoff tactics pages 73 to 80 Judge Ahler OAH page 89-91 Is Shinoff or Mark Bresee to blame? pages 91-94 pages 95-105 pages 105-111 pages 112-123 pages 124-138 pages 138 - Errata and signature page |