[This lawyer is
replacing Jeffrey
Wade, Jr. Esquire]
UPDATE: By February
2009, Ljubisa Kostic
had left the firm and
the case had gone
back to Jeffrey Wade
replacing Jeffrey
Wade, Jr. Esquire]
UPDATE: By February
2009, Ljubisa Kostic
had left the firm and
the case had gone
back to Jeffrey Wade
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
US District Court Docket
US District Court Docket
01/15/2008
6 ORDER
After Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:
On 1/9/08, the Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. No
settlement was reached. No further settlement conferences shall be
scheduled pending the outcome of Plaintiff's motion to remand (5) unless
specifically requested by the parties. All discovery is stayed until after
Judge William Q. Hayes issues a ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand (5).
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 1/15/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 01/15/2008)
02/01/2008
7 Discrepancy Order
by Judge William Q. Hayes accepting document: Opposition To Motion For
Remand from Defendant Maura Larkins; non-compliance with local rule
7.1 and Other: Exceeds 25 pg limit for oppositions to motions.
Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/4/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 02/05/2008)
02/01/2008
8 RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Remand,
filed as Opposition To Motion For Remand,
filed by Maura Larkins.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List # 2 Exhibit 1 # 3 Exhibit 2 # 4 Exhibit 3 # 5
Exhibit 4 # 6 Exhibit 5 # 7 Exhibit 6 # 8 Exhibit 7 # 9 Exhibit 8 # 10 Exhibit 9
# 11 Exhibit 10 # 12 Exhibit 11 # 13 Exhibit 12 # 14 Exhibit 13 # 15 Exhibit
14 # 16 Exhibit 15 # 17 Exhibit 16 # 18 Proof of Service)
NUNC PRO TUNC 2/1/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 02/05/2008)
02/08/2008
9 REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION to Remand
filed by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
(Romero, Richard) (lao).
(Entered: 02/08/2008)
6 ORDER
After Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:
On 1/9/08, the Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. No
settlement was reached. No further settlement conferences shall be
scheduled pending the outcome of Plaintiff's motion to remand (5) unless
specifically requested by the parties. All discovery is stayed until after
Judge William Q. Hayes issues a ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand (5).
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 1/15/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 01/15/2008)
02/01/2008
7 Discrepancy Order
by Judge William Q. Hayes accepting document: Opposition To Motion For
Remand from Defendant Maura Larkins; non-compliance with local rule
7.1 and Other: Exceeds 25 pg limit for oppositions to motions.
Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/4/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 02/05/2008)
02/01/2008
8 RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Remand,
filed as Opposition To Motion For Remand,
filed by Maura Larkins.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List # 2 Exhibit 1 # 3 Exhibit 2 # 4 Exhibit 3 # 5
Exhibit 4 # 6 Exhibit 5 # 7 Exhibit 6 # 8 Exhibit 7 # 9 Exhibit 8 # 10 Exhibit 9
# 11 Exhibit 10 # 12 Exhibit 11 # 13 Exhibit 12 # 14 Exhibit 13 # 15 Exhibit
14 # 16 Exhibit 15 # 17 Exhibit 16 # 18 Proof of Service)
NUNC PRO TUNC 2/1/08. (mdc)
(Entered: 02/05/2008)
02/08/2008
9 REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION to Remand
filed by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
(Romero, Richard) (lao).
(Entered: 02/08/2008)
Note: On February
20, 2008, I called
the court and
learned that the
Motion to Remand
has been taken
into submission,
but no order has
yet been made.
20, 2008, I called
the court and
learned that the
Motion to Remand
has been taken
into submission,
but no order has
yet been made.
On March 3, 2008 the
case was remanded to
state court. The case
has been transferred
to Judge Judith Hayes
(and research attorney
Monica Barry) in San
Diego Superior Court
Dept 68.
case was remanded to
state court. The case
has been transferred
to Judge Judith Hayes
(and research attorney
Monica Barry) in San
Diego Superior Court
Dept 68.
) USDC 07-CV _______
)
)
)
)
) NOTICE OF REMOVAL
) FROM STATE COURT [28 USC 1441,
) 1442, 1443, 1446]
)
)
)
) (Removing Case No.
) 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL)
)
)
)
)
)
) NOTICE OF REMOVAL
) FROM STATE COURT [28 USC 1441,
) 1442, 1443, 1446]
)
)
)
) (Removing Case No.
) 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL)
)
1. On October 5, 2007, an action was commenced against defendant by STUTZ,
ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ, APC in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (Central Division).
2. On October 21, 2007 service was made on defendant of a summons and
complaint in the above-mentioned defamation action.
3. On November 16, 2007 defendant filed an answer to the complaint, and
served it on plaintiff.
4. Copies of the above-mentioned complaint, summons and answer are attached
to this notice. All process, pleadings and orders in the case are attached,
pursuant to 28 USC 1446. These consist of the complaint, the proof of service of
the complaint, the defendant’s answer, and the proof of service of defendant’s
answer.
5. Since this removing defendant is the only named defendant in this action, no
written consent from any other defendant is required in this removal.
6. This Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty days of Plaintiff’s service on
me of the aforementioned complaint on October 21, 2007.
7. This notices all parties that the above-entitled state court case has been
removed to the United States District Court in accordance with 28 USC 1441,
1442, 1443, 1446.
Basis for Removal at 28 USC 1441, 1442, 1443, 1446
Federal Question Jurisdiction
First Amendment Right
It appears from the plaintiff’s complaint that this is a civil action that arises under
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because defendant
has a right to speak publicly about matters of public interest, specifically, the
actions of public entities, and their employees and officers and lawyers.
Defendant has spoken out about Plaintiff’s successful efforts to help public
entities hide behind attorney confidentiality in order to cover up wrongdoing.
Not coincidentally, the instant First Amendment freedom of speech case arose
out of a grievous violation of defendant’s First Amendment right to petition for
redress of grievances, when defendant was fired in May 2002 specifically for
filing a lawsuit at Chula Vista Elementary School District (“CVESD”) in March
2002. Plaintiff Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz (“SASH”) was the law firm provided
by San Diego County Office of Education Joint Powers Authority to CVESD in that
case. SASH apparently instructed CVESD to violate the law by firing plaintiff less
than two months after she filed the lawsuit, then SASH pressured CVESD
employees to commit perjury and abused the discovery process (see exhibits in
defendant’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, which is attached to this NOTICE). The
Superior Court of California threw out defendant’s lawsuit after three years
because defendant failed to file a specific motion to compel, even though the
court admitted that plaintiff appeared to have abused the discovery process.
There appears to be an overwhelming bias against in pro per litigants in San
Diego state courts.
The California Court of Appeal also has failed to enforce California state laws
when school districts violate those laws (Mary Anne Weegar v. Sweetwater Union
High School District, James T. Carter v. Escondido Union High School District),
and has at the same time failed to enforce the Constitution of the United States.
Instead, the Court of Appeal protects dysfunctional public entities that devote
public resources to keeping individuals in power, often by channeling public
money to defense lawyers such as SASH who help cover up the truth.
Defendant Maura Larkins filed an appeal in a related case in the Court of Appeal,
and shortly thereafter she informed opposition counsel of her action. The next
day the California Court of Appeal called up defendant Larkins and said it would
not file her case. Larkins informed the Court of Appeal that the case had already
been filed, and it would be a felony to remove the case from that file. The Court
of Appeal conceded that defendant was in the right, but has not revealed how
many other in pro per litigants have been hoodwinked by such attempts to
undermine the justice system.
The United States can not continue to benefit from democracy and continued
economic progress without respect for the law, particularly when violations of law
are undermining our educational system. The nations of the world send their
best and brightest students to graduate schools in the United States, but our own
kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational system is mired in inertia and
failure, in part because public entity lawyers such as SASH abuse the justice
system and violate the law to protect individuals in power who put politics first and
education a distant second.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the above action now pending against her in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, be removed therefrom to
this Court.
November 19, 2007
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
| Notice of Removal filed by Maura Larkins Nov. 20, 2007 |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of California |
MAURA LARKINS
Defendant pro se
Defendant pro se
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC v. Larkins et al
William Q. Hayes, presiding
William McCurine, Jr, referral
CASE NUMBER: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMC
William Q. Hayes, presiding
William McCurine, Jr, referral
CASE NUMBER: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMC
| (Docket contd. below) |
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Lawsuits involving Attorney Daniel Shinoff |
U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE
#: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMC
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC v. Larkins et al
Assigned to: Judge William Q. Hayes
Referred to: Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr
Case in other court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
37-02007-00076218-CU-
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC
represented by Ljubisa Kostic
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 232-3122 Fax: (619) 232-3264
Email: lkostic@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray J Artiano
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106-6113
(619)232-3122
Fax: (619)232-3264
Email: rartiano@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard E Romero
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
(619)232-3122
Fax: (619)232-3264
Email: rromero@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Maura Larkins represented by Maura Larkins
PRO SE
Defendant
Does 1 through 100
inclusive
Date Filed # Docket Text
11/19/2007
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand, from Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL ( Filing fee $
350, Receipt number 144656),
filed by Maura Larkins.
(Attachments: # 1 part 2 # 2 part 3 # 3 part 4 # 4 part 5 # 5 part 6)(jcj)
(Entered: 11/20/2007)
11/19/2007
ANSWER to Complaint by Maura Larkins, filed as part of 1 Notice of Removal.(jcj)
(Entered: 11/20/2007)
12/06/2007
2 NOTICE And ORDER
For Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:
An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PM in the chambers of
Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 12/6/07. (mdc)
(Entered: 12/06/2007)
12/19/2007
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz, APC (Romero, Richard) (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/19/2007 4
REFILED AS 5 - MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
(Romero, Richard) (mdc) Modified on 1/7/08 to indicate refiling status; refiled per
chambers. (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
01/04/2008
5 MOTION to Remand
by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC. (Romero, Richard) -
No Oral Argument Unless Requested By The Court.
Modified on 1/7/08 - Added note re oral argument; e-mail sent to atty re CM/ECF
policies re motion attachments. (mdc)
(Entered: 01/04/2008)
Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE
#: 3:07-cv-02202-WQH-WMC
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC v. Larkins et al
Assigned to: Judge William Q. Hayes
Referred to: Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr
Case in other court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
37-02007-00076218-CU-
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC
represented by Ljubisa Kostic
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 232-3122 Fax: (619) 232-3264
Email: lkostic@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray J Artiano
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106-6113
(619)232-3122
Fax: (619)232-3264
Email: rartiano@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard E Romero
Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
(619)232-3122
Fax: (619)232-3264
Email: rromero@stutzartiano.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Maura Larkins represented by Maura Larkins
PRO SE
Defendant
Does 1 through 100
inclusive
Date Filed # Docket Text
11/19/2007
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand, from Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL ( Filing fee $
350, Receipt number 144656),
filed by Maura Larkins.
(Attachments: # 1 part 2 # 2 part 3 # 3 part 4 # 4 part 5 # 5 part 6)(jcj)
(Entered: 11/20/2007)
11/19/2007
ANSWER to Complaint by Maura Larkins, filed as part of 1 Notice of Removal.(jcj)
(Entered: 11/20/2007)
12/06/2007
2 NOTICE And ORDER
For Early Neutral Evaluation Conference:
An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PM in the chambers of
Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 12/6/07. (mdc)
(Entered: 12/06/2007)
12/19/2007
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz, APC (Romero, Richard) (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
12/19/2007 4
REFILED AS 5 - MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
(Romero, Richard) (mdc) Modified on 1/7/08 to indicate refiling status; refiled per
chambers. (mdc) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
01/04/2008
5 MOTION to Remand
by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC. (Romero, Richard) -
No Oral Argument Unless Requested By The Court.
Modified on 1/7/08 - Added note re oral argument; e-mail sent to atty re CM/ECF
policies re motion attachments. (mdc)
(Entered: 01/04/2008)
| ... |
| ... |
Filed & Entered: 12/06/2007
NOTICE And ORDER For Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference:
An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PM
in the chambers of
Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
on 12/6/07. (mdc)
Filed & Entered: 12/19/2007
NOTICE of Appearance
by Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC
Filed & Entered: 12/19/2007
Motion to Remand
Docket Text: MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
NOTICE And ORDER For Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference:
An Early Neutral Evaluation is set for 1/9/08 at 03:00 PM
in the chambers of
Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.
on 12/6/07. (mdc)
Filed & Entered: 12/19/2007
NOTICE of Appearance
by Richard E Romero on behalf of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC
Filed & Entered: 12/19/2007
Motion to Remand
Docket Text: MOTION to Remand by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
| Stutz Defamation suit |
| Depositions Deposition of Ray Artiano p 1-30 Deposition of Ray Artiano p 30-40 Deposition of Ray Artiano p 40-58 Deposition of Maura Larkins Notice of Dan Shinoff Deposition |
| Defamation Law |
| Subpoenas Sheriff of Santa Barbara Diane Crosier |
| Production by Larkins |
| ... More information: Atty. Elizabeth Schulman CVESD Castle Park Elementary CVE President Peg Myers |
5 part 5 101 pages [Part 5 includes the following depositions: Linda Watson (contd.) Teresa Coffey 6 part 6 99 pages [Part 6 includes the following depositions: Richard Denmon Attorney Elizabeth Schulman, Maura Larkins |
Date filed: 11/19/2007
ANSWER to Complaint by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz against Maura
Larkins, filed as part of [1] Notice of Removal.(jcj)
Entered: 11/20/2007
NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand,
from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt number 144656), filed by Maura Larkins.
ANSWER to Complaint by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz against Maura
Larkins, filed as part of [1] Notice of Removal.(jcj)
Entered: 11/20/2007
NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand,
from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
case number 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt number 144656), filed by Maura Larkins.
| ANSWER to Complaint in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins The court has placed this document on the Internet in six parts: 1 Main Document 110 pages 2 part 2 125 pages [Part 2 includes the following depositions: Sam Gross Santa Barbara Sheriff's Commander Gina Boyd Chula Vista Educators former president Peg "Peggie" Myers Chula Vista Educators president 3 part 3 100 pages [Part 3 includes the following depositions: Richard Werlin CVESD Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Robin Donlan Castle Park Elementary teacher] 4 part 4 72 pages [Part 4 includes the following depositions: Robin Donlan (contd) Maura Larkins, Linda Watson |
On March 3, 2008 this
case was remanded to
state court, then
transferred to Judge
Judith Hayes (and
research attorney
Monica Barry) in San
Diego Superior Court
Dept 68.
case was remanded to
state court, then
transferred to Judge
Judith Hayes (and
research attorney
Monica Barry) in San
Diego Superior Court
Dept 68.
August 5, 2011 UPDATE:
California Court of
Appeal decision in Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
v. Maura Larkins:
injunction overturned!
Appeal decision in Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
v. Maura Larkins:
injunction overturned!
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |