| Indemnifying Lawyers--Part 2 What is the evidence that Stutz law firm was indemnified by SDCOE JPA? |
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss FILED NON-PARTY [?!?] CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT:
I. THE MOTION IS IMPROPER
Plaintiff objects to the Motion to Dismiss prepared by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
(hereinafter referred to as “STUTZ”) and scheduled to be heard by this court on March 11,
2005. Plaintiff asks that the motion be denied for the following reasons:
Chula Vista Elementary School District has no standing to file
any motion in this case, since it is not a party to this case.
The Motion FALSELY claims that Chula Vista Elementary School District (hereinafter referred to
as “CVESD”) is a defendant in this case.
This false factual contention is a violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3);
The filers of the Motion falsely claim that this case was filed on
April 1, 2004 (page 1, line 18, Memorandum of Points and Authorities). In fact,
case number GIC 825879 was filed on February 18, 2004.
How can the justice system function properly when the lawyers on whom it relies behave in
this manner?
The reason for Ms. Angell’s false statement regarding the date
of filing for this case is revealed in her Memorandum of Points
and Authorities:
“It [Plaintiff’s complaint] will remain insufficient as a matter of
law because the statute of limitations will bar the emotional
distress causes of action against the proposed new
defendants” (p. 5, lines 11-12, emphasis added). Ms. Angell has included a false factual
contention in order to invoke the statute of limitations, in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3).
Filing fees have not been paid for the filing of this motion. Daniel Shinoff and
STUTZ offer the false claim that CVESD is a defendant in this
case as an excuse for not paying filing fees for this motion.
This justification clearly is NOT legitimate--but Plaintiff is willing to consider that there might
be another justification for STUTZ and Shinoff’s failure to pay filing fees: perhaps CVESD has
agreed to defend Shinoff and STUTZ.
But Ms. Angell states “One of the strangest conclusions alleged as fact is Plaintiff’s belief that
counsel is ‘indemnified’ by DISTRICT…Plaintiff will be unable to present any evidence of
indemnification, because none exists. The alleged indemnification is another example of the
latest and greatest cockeyed legal theory Plaintiff has invented in order to attempt to prolong
this litigation (p. 6 lines 19-20, Memorandum of Points and Authorities)."
Thus, Daniel Shinoff and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz offer NO evidence that CVESD has
agreed to defend them. UNTIL SUCH EVIDENCE IS FORTHCOMING, DANIEL SHINOFF AND
STUTZ SHOULD PAY FILING FEES FOR ANY MOTIONS THEY WISH TO FILE IN THIS CASE (and
they should NOT bill the taxpayers for the hours they work on their own defense).
A Demurrer is the appropriate pleading which Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ should file in order to
request that the court dismiss this complaint.
II. PLAINTIFF showed her FEDERAL GRAND JURY SUBPOENA to
Mr. SHINOFF on DECEMBER 17, 2003
Ms. Angell’s statement that Plaintiff suspected in early 2002 that Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ
were guilty of obstruction of justice is false. Plaintiff did not suspect until very recently that
Shinoff and STUTZ were foolish and lawless enough to advise obstruction of justice. On
December 17, 2003, at Starbuck’s in Mission Valley, Plaintiff showed Daniel Shinoff the federal
subpoena she received in March of 2002 (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff thought she was revealing
something to Mr. Shinoff that he did not know about, but that he needed to know about, so he
could end his role in the cover-up of crimes of public employees.
In December 2003, Plaintiff believed that the worst Shinoff had done was to use wrongful
tactics to defend CVESD. Plaintiff sent a demand for financial damages caused by those
wrongful tactics to STUTZ at the end of December 2003. Soon after, Robert Gallagher, a
founding partner, left the firm. It is possible that Mr. Gallagher disagreed with his partners
regarding the firm’s continuation of its cover up of Labor Code and Education Code violations by
CVESD, and was also concerned about who might have caused Plaintiff to be served with a
Federal Grand Jury Subpoena.
III. ALL PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENTS ARE TRUE
In Ms. Angell’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, she
states that there is a conflict between Plaintiff’s sworn
statement that “Richard Werlin is responsible for the actions
described in the FOURTH and FIFTH Causes of Action…” and
Plaintiff’s sworn statement that Shinoff and STUTZ are
responsible for those actions (page 3, lines 3 through 13).
There is no conflict at all. Plaintiff believes that many
individuals are responsible for planning, executing, and aiding
and abetting these actions.
It was not until very recently, however, that Plaintiff realized
that Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ did not simply DEFEND their
clients’ illegal actions, but actually DIRECTED their clients’
illegal actions.
Over the past three years Plaintiff discovered Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ’s arrogance toward the
law, their domineering behavior toward school district employees going back at least as far as
2001 (and probably farther), their determination to cover up the crimes committed in 2001,
their contempt for the justice system, and their record of ruthless, vicious behavior toward
students, parents and teachers who complained to, or sued, school districts. Plaintiff finally
realized the truth about her own case when she was rereading a news clipping about an
innocent La Mesa parent who spent, with Daniel Shinoff’s approval, five days in jail on a false
charge.
In early 2002 Plaintiff believed that all that was needed to achieve justice in this case was
ONE deposition because schoolteachers and administrators were honest, decent people who
would not be capable of committing perjury. (Probably many of the individuals who later
committed perjury in this case also did not know in early 2002 that they were capable of
committing perjury.) Since that time, Plaintiff has experienced a slow-motion, three-year fall
from the turnip truck.
Now Plaintiff believes that Shinoff and STUTZ advised the district to violate several laws,
including Labor Code1102.5, Labor Code 432.7 and obstruction of justice. From news reports,
and other sources, Plaintiff learned that Shinoff and STUTZ act as the muscle for school districts
which want to teach a lesson to those who interfere with their arbitrary power to violate the
law.
Shinoff and STUTZ appear to have thought they were safe as long as none of their witnesses
told the truth. They did not realize that conclusions can be drawn from the fact that witnesses
were being pressured to withhold the truth during depositions.
IV. PLAINTIFF’S DISMISSAL WAS A SLAPP SUIT, AND THE
HEARING DECISION WAS A SLAPP DECISION ON ITS FACE
CVESD dismissal from employment of Plaintiff less than two months
after she filed suit against CVESD was a SLAPP suit because it was filed
in order to prevent Plaintiff from exercising her right to petition for the
redress of grievances.
The illegal decision that resulted from this SLAPP suit (Exhibit 2, Decision of the Commission on
Professional Competence) clearly violated the Constitution and Labor Code (section 1102.5) of
California.
Plaintiff was dismissed for the specific reasons that she had filed grievances, a tort claim and a
lawsuit! The Dismissal Decision (Exhibit 2) shows that Plaintiff was found to be “unfit for
duty” because she (a) filed grievances (Factual Findings #74 and 82, p. 23 ), (b) filed a tort
claim (Factual Finding #68, p.27 ), and (c) filed a lawsuit (Factual Finding #83, p. 23). The
Decision states that by filing these petitions Plaintiff proved that she had a character defect,
and that in order to be fit to teach, Plaintiff would have had to have “forgiven” defendants
rather than suing them. (An individual can not both forgive and sue?) In her Petition for Writ
of Mandate (Exhibit 3) regarding the Dismissal Decision, Plaintiff proved that the decision was
illegal, but the petition was not considered because it was late-filed.
V. MS. ANGELL’S claim that EVERY STATEMENT BY A LAWYER ,
EVEN A STATEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTES A CRIMINAL
ACTION, IS PROTECTED is not supported by existing law, nor is
it supported by any NON-FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT to reverse
existing law.
What is the protected activity that Ms. Angell claims would be chilled if Shinoff and STUTZ were
named as DOES in this case? It is “any statement made in connection with an issue under
consideration or review by a …judicial proceeding” (Memorandum of P & A, page 9, lines 13-
14).
Litigation-related communications which are criminal are NOT protected by law.
What if Mr. Shinoff had said to Richard Werlin in 2002 words like these: “Mr. Werlin, as a
school administrator, you can get the federal government involved in this case. If they don’t
seem interested, keep the pressure on. I want them to let Maura Larkins know she’s in for a
rough ride if she doesn’t drop her complaints. I want her to know who she’s dealing with”?
Plaintiff believes Ms. Angell, rather than Mr. Shinoff, gave Mr. Werlin a message similar to the
above hypothetical message. But Ms. Angell was fresh out of law school when Mr. Daniel
Shinoff made the decision to take this case. Mr. Shinoff was the one who let Ms. Angell know
what she had to do to remain employed.
If Ms. Angell, Daniel Shinoff and Jeffery Morris (the individual who first threatened an anti-
SLAPP motion against Plaintiff), believe that lawyers have blanket protection for saying
anything to clients, then they need a law review course. If they are intentionally lying when
they make this claim, they need training in ethics. They are knowingly or recklessly making
false legal contentions in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2).
VI. NOTICE OF CCP section 128.7 VIOLATION by Kelly Angell
(Minnehan), Jeffery Morris and Daniel Shinoff
Plaintiff intends the instant pleading to serve as notice to Ms. Angell, Mr. Shinoff, Mr. Jeffery
Morris and STUTZ regarding their violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(1), by
filing this sham motion for improper purposes, and CCP section 128.7(b) subsections (2) and
(3), as noted elsewhere in this pleading.
VII. ADEQUATE DISCOVERY HAS NOT OCCURRED BECAUSE
DESPOSITIONS OF RICHARD WERLIN AND MICHAEL CARLSON
HAVE NOT OCCURRED
Ms. Angell claims that Plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery in this case (page 4,
line 21 of Memorandum of Points and Authorities). On the contrary, all but one of the
witnesses in this case have claimed or exhibited severely impaired memories and have refused
to answer questions. They have failed to turn over documents. The most important witness,
Richard Werlin, claims to be sick, although he has been seen looking hale and hearty on one or
more visits to the CVESD District Office. Werlin escaped responsibility for Obstruction of
Justice and other crimes due to Tort Claims Act, but in the interest of justice, he should at least
submit to a deposition. Michael Carlson also needs to be deposed.
VIII. JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT DISPUTED FACTS BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL
Obstruction of justice is a very serious charge, and a not even a defendant, much less a non-
party, should be able to get it thrown out. It is in the interest of justice to bring disputed facts
to trial. Plaintiff believes she should be given a chance to present her case to a jury.
IX. ONLY AN IN PRO PER PLAINTIFF CAN PROPERLY PROSECUTE THIS CASE
A party acting in pro per is the only Plaintiff who will ever prosecute this case. Professional
courtesy among lawyers has bred the confidence of Shinoff and STUTZ that their crimes will
never be brought to trial because no lawyer will take this case. Plaintiff has worked long and
hard to find a lawyer to represent or help her in this case, but has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff
asks that the court allow her to
go to trial in this case without a lawyer. Such a trial would be more worthy of the court’s time
and money than the frequently-seen sparring between people who have plenty of money but
worry about who will end up with a few extra dollars. The extra dollars in those cases will not
make much difference in the lives of the litigants. This case concerns whether school districts
should spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect their ability to violate the
law whenever they wish, or whether those school districts should be forced to follow the law,
and spend that money on the thousands of children in San Diego County who are at risk,
because of the inadequate educations they are receiving, of never getting a fair chance to have
successful lives.
X. MR. SHINOFF and STUTZ are de facto VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
Mr. Shinoff and STUTZ are not de jure vexatious litigants, but that’s only because the law is
written by lawyers, for lawyers. Mr. Shinoff and STUTZ are clearly de facto vexatious litigants,
clogging up the court calendar and charging taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for
their work on cases, including this one, that should have been settled before they were filed.
Despite the claims in her Motion, Ms. Angell knows very well that Plaintiff is not a vexatious
litigant, since all lawsuits filed by Plaintiff have merit, and since one of those lawsuits was
settled in Plaintiff’s favor. Ms. Angell learned, during Plaintiff’s deposition, of this settlement
which included a payment of approximately $75,000 to Plaintiff in return for Plaintiff’s
agreement not to pursue litigation against two people who conspired to make a false police
report about Plaintiff. Ms. Angell’s statements that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant constitute
false factual contentions in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3).
XI. CONCLUSION
The words of U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in his recent sanctions order regarding the
Lozano Smith law firm are paraphrased below to exactly describe what has happened in this
case: A culture of misrepresentation and deception exists at Stutz Artiano. The firm clearly
suffers from a lack of professionalism or a lack of understanding of the law. Ms. Angell’s and
STUTZ’s filing of this motion cannot be interpreted as anything other than a bad-faith attempt to
mislead the court, obscure the real facts of the case, and to obstruct and/or harass the plaintiff,
either to wear down the plaintiff or to win a victory that is clearly unjustified by either the facts
or the law. While isolated errors or misstatements might be excused, given the size of the
record, the sheer volume of misstatements, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is
that Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, and Ms. Angell and their law firm intended to obstruct at
every step and stand education law, as well as labor law, the penal code, and the constitutions
of California and the United States, on their heads.
This entire motion, as well as the entire defense of this case and of GIC 781970, has been a
sham and a waste of the court’s time. The law and the facts stand in opposition to the Motion
that this lawsuit should be terminated.
Dated: February 25, 2005
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT:
I. THE MOTION IS IMPROPER
Plaintiff objects to the Motion to Dismiss prepared by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
(hereinafter referred to as “STUTZ”) and scheduled to be heard by this court on March 11,
2005. Plaintiff asks that the motion be denied for the following reasons:
Chula Vista Elementary School District has no standing to file
any motion in this case, since it is not a party to this case.
The Motion FALSELY claims that Chula Vista Elementary School District (hereinafter referred to
as “CVESD”) is a defendant in this case.
This false factual contention is a violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3);
The filers of the Motion falsely claim that this case was filed on
April 1, 2004 (page 1, line 18, Memorandum of Points and Authorities). In fact,
case number GIC 825879 was filed on February 18, 2004.
How can the justice system function properly when the lawyers on whom it relies behave in
this manner?
The reason for Ms. Angell’s false statement regarding the date
of filing for this case is revealed in her Memorandum of Points
and Authorities:
“It [Plaintiff’s complaint] will remain insufficient as a matter of
law because the statute of limitations will bar the emotional
distress causes of action against the proposed new
defendants” (p. 5, lines 11-12, emphasis added). Ms. Angell has included a false factual
contention in order to invoke the statute of limitations, in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3).
Filing fees have not been paid for the filing of this motion. Daniel Shinoff and
STUTZ offer the false claim that CVESD is a defendant in this
case as an excuse for not paying filing fees for this motion.
This justification clearly is NOT legitimate--but Plaintiff is willing to consider that there might
be another justification for STUTZ and Shinoff’s failure to pay filing fees: perhaps CVESD has
agreed to defend Shinoff and STUTZ.
But Ms. Angell states “One of the strangest conclusions alleged as fact is Plaintiff’s belief that
counsel is ‘indemnified’ by DISTRICT…Plaintiff will be unable to present any evidence of
indemnification, because none exists. The alleged indemnification is another example of the
latest and greatest cockeyed legal theory Plaintiff has invented in order to attempt to prolong
this litigation (p. 6 lines 19-20, Memorandum of Points and Authorities)."
Thus, Daniel Shinoff and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz offer NO evidence that CVESD has
agreed to defend them. UNTIL SUCH EVIDENCE IS FORTHCOMING, DANIEL SHINOFF AND
STUTZ SHOULD PAY FILING FEES FOR ANY MOTIONS THEY WISH TO FILE IN THIS CASE (and
they should NOT bill the taxpayers for the hours they work on their own defense).
A Demurrer is the appropriate pleading which Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ should file in order to
request that the court dismiss this complaint.
II. PLAINTIFF showed her FEDERAL GRAND JURY SUBPOENA to
Mr. SHINOFF on DECEMBER 17, 2003
Ms. Angell’s statement that Plaintiff suspected in early 2002 that Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ
were guilty of obstruction of justice is false. Plaintiff did not suspect until very recently that
Shinoff and STUTZ were foolish and lawless enough to advise obstruction of justice. On
December 17, 2003, at Starbuck’s in Mission Valley, Plaintiff showed Daniel Shinoff the federal
subpoena she received in March of 2002 (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff thought she was revealing
something to Mr. Shinoff that he did not know about, but that he needed to know about, so he
could end his role in the cover-up of crimes of public employees.
In December 2003, Plaintiff believed that the worst Shinoff had done was to use wrongful
tactics to defend CVESD. Plaintiff sent a demand for financial damages caused by those
wrongful tactics to STUTZ at the end of December 2003. Soon after, Robert Gallagher, a
founding partner, left the firm. It is possible that Mr. Gallagher disagreed with his partners
regarding the firm’s continuation of its cover up of Labor Code and Education Code violations by
CVESD, and was also concerned about who might have caused Plaintiff to be served with a
Federal Grand Jury Subpoena.
III. ALL PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENTS ARE TRUE
In Ms. Angell’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, she
states that there is a conflict between Plaintiff’s sworn
statement that “Richard Werlin is responsible for the actions
described in the FOURTH and FIFTH Causes of Action…” and
Plaintiff’s sworn statement that Shinoff and STUTZ are
responsible for those actions (page 3, lines 3 through 13).
There is no conflict at all. Plaintiff believes that many
individuals are responsible for planning, executing, and aiding
and abetting these actions.
It was not until very recently, however, that Plaintiff realized
that Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ did not simply DEFEND their
clients’ illegal actions, but actually DIRECTED their clients’
illegal actions.
Over the past three years Plaintiff discovered Daniel Shinoff and STUTZ’s arrogance toward the
law, their domineering behavior toward school district employees going back at least as far as
2001 (and probably farther), their determination to cover up the crimes committed in 2001,
their contempt for the justice system, and their record of ruthless, vicious behavior toward
students, parents and teachers who complained to, or sued, school districts. Plaintiff finally
realized the truth about her own case when she was rereading a news clipping about an
innocent La Mesa parent who spent, with Daniel Shinoff’s approval, five days in jail on a false
charge.
In early 2002 Plaintiff believed that all that was needed to achieve justice in this case was
ONE deposition because schoolteachers and administrators were honest, decent people who
would not be capable of committing perjury. (Probably many of the individuals who later
committed perjury in this case also did not know in early 2002 that they were capable of
committing perjury.) Since that time, Plaintiff has experienced a slow-motion, three-year fall
from the turnip truck.
Now Plaintiff believes that Shinoff and STUTZ advised the district to violate several laws,
including Labor Code1102.5, Labor Code 432.7 and obstruction of justice. From news reports,
and other sources, Plaintiff learned that Shinoff and STUTZ act as the muscle for school districts
which want to teach a lesson to those who interfere with their arbitrary power to violate the
law.
Shinoff and STUTZ appear to have thought they were safe as long as none of their witnesses
told the truth. They did not realize that conclusions can be drawn from the fact that witnesses
were being pressured to withhold the truth during depositions.
IV. PLAINTIFF’S DISMISSAL WAS A SLAPP SUIT, AND THE
HEARING DECISION WAS A SLAPP DECISION ON ITS FACE
CVESD dismissal from employment of Plaintiff less than two months
after she filed suit against CVESD was a SLAPP suit because it was filed
in order to prevent Plaintiff from exercising her right to petition for the
redress of grievances.
The illegal decision that resulted from this SLAPP suit (Exhibit 2, Decision of the Commission on
Professional Competence) clearly violated the Constitution and Labor Code (section 1102.5) of
California.
Plaintiff was dismissed for the specific reasons that she had filed grievances, a tort claim and a
lawsuit! The Dismissal Decision (Exhibit 2) shows that Plaintiff was found to be “unfit for
duty” because she (a) filed grievances (Factual Findings #74 and 82, p. 23 ), (b) filed a tort
claim (Factual Finding #68, p.27 ), and (c) filed a lawsuit (Factual Finding #83, p. 23). The
Decision states that by filing these petitions Plaintiff proved that she had a character defect,
and that in order to be fit to teach, Plaintiff would have had to have “forgiven” defendants
rather than suing them. (An individual can not both forgive and sue?) In her Petition for Writ
of Mandate (Exhibit 3) regarding the Dismissal Decision, Plaintiff proved that the decision was
illegal, but the petition was not considered because it was late-filed.
V. MS. ANGELL’S claim that EVERY STATEMENT BY A LAWYER ,
EVEN A STATEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTES A CRIMINAL
ACTION, IS PROTECTED is not supported by existing law, nor is
it supported by any NON-FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT to reverse
existing law.
What is the protected activity that Ms. Angell claims would be chilled if Shinoff and STUTZ were
named as DOES in this case? It is “any statement made in connection with an issue under
consideration or review by a …judicial proceeding” (Memorandum of P & A, page 9, lines 13-
14).
Litigation-related communications which are criminal are NOT protected by law.
What if Mr. Shinoff had said to Richard Werlin in 2002 words like these: “Mr. Werlin, as a
school administrator, you can get the federal government involved in this case. If they don’t
seem interested, keep the pressure on. I want them to let Maura Larkins know she’s in for a
rough ride if she doesn’t drop her complaints. I want her to know who she’s dealing with”?
Plaintiff believes Ms. Angell, rather than Mr. Shinoff, gave Mr. Werlin a message similar to the
above hypothetical message. But Ms. Angell was fresh out of law school when Mr. Daniel
Shinoff made the decision to take this case. Mr. Shinoff was the one who let Ms. Angell know
what she had to do to remain employed.
If Ms. Angell, Daniel Shinoff and Jeffery Morris (the individual who first threatened an anti-
SLAPP motion against Plaintiff), believe that lawyers have blanket protection for saying
anything to clients, then they need a law review course. If they are intentionally lying when
they make this claim, they need training in ethics. They are knowingly or recklessly making
false legal contentions in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2).
VI. NOTICE OF CCP section 128.7 VIOLATION by Kelly Angell
(Minnehan), Jeffery Morris and Daniel Shinoff
Plaintiff intends the instant pleading to serve as notice to Ms. Angell, Mr. Shinoff, Mr. Jeffery
Morris and STUTZ regarding their violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(1), by
filing this sham motion for improper purposes, and CCP section 128.7(b) subsections (2) and
(3), as noted elsewhere in this pleading.
VII. ADEQUATE DISCOVERY HAS NOT OCCURRED BECAUSE
DESPOSITIONS OF RICHARD WERLIN AND MICHAEL CARLSON
HAVE NOT OCCURRED
Ms. Angell claims that Plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery in this case (page 4,
line 21 of Memorandum of Points and Authorities). On the contrary, all but one of the
witnesses in this case have claimed or exhibited severely impaired memories and have refused
to answer questions. They have failed to turn over documents. The most important witness,
Richard Werlin, claims to be sick, although he has been seen looking hale and hearty on one or
more visits to the CVESD District Office. Werlin escaped responsibility for Obstruction of
Justice and other crimes due to Tort Claims Act, but in the interest of justice, he should at least
submit to a deposition. Michael Carlson also needs to be deposed.
VIII. JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT DISPUTED FACTS BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL
Obstruction of justice is a very serious charge, and a not even a defendant, much less a non-
party, should be able to get it thrown out. It is in the interest of justice to bring disputed facts
to trial. Plaintiff believes she should be given a chance to present her case to a jury.
IX. ONLY AN IN PRO PER PLAINTIFF CAN PROPERLY PROSECUTE THIS CASE
A party acting in pro per is the only Plaintiff who will ever prosecute this case. Professional
courtesy among lawyers has bred the confidence of Shinoff and STUTZ that their crimes will
never be brought to trial because no lawyer will take this case. Plaintiff has worked long and
hard to find a lawyer to represent or help her in this case, but has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff
asks that the court allow her to
go to trial in this case without a lawyer. Such a trial would be more worthy of the court’s time
and money than the frequently-seen sparring between people who have plenty of money but
worry about who will end up with a few extra dollars. The extra dollars in those cases will not
make much difference in the lives of the litigants. This case concerns whether school districts
should spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect their ability to violate the
law whenever they wish, or whether those school districts should be forced to follow the law,
and spend that money on the thousands of children in San Diego County who are at risk,
because of the inadequate educations they are receiving, of never getting a fair chance to have
successful lives.
X. MR. SHINOFF and STUTZ are de facto VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
Mr. Shinoff and STUTZ are not de jure vexatious litigants, but that’s only because the law is
written by lawyers, for lawyers. Mr. Shinoff and STUTZ are clearly de facto vexatious litigants,
clogging up the court calendar and charging taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for
their work on cases, including this one, that should have been settled before they were filed.
Despite the claims in her Motion, Ms. Angell knows very well that Plaintiff is not a vexatious
litigant, since all lawsuits filed by Plaintiff have merit, and since one of those lawsuits was
settled in Plaintiff’s favor. Ms. Angell learned, during Plaintiff’s deposition, of this settlement
which included a payment of approximately $75,000 to Plaintiff in return for Plaintiff’s
agreement not to pursue litigation against two people who conspired to make a false police
report about Plaintiff. Ms. Angell’s statements that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant constitute
false factual contentions in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(3).
XI. CONCLUSION
The words of U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in his recent sanctions order regarding the
Lozano Smith law firm are paraphrased below to exactly describe what has happened in this
case: A culture of misrepresentation and deception exists at Stutz Artiano. The firm clearly
suffers from a lack of professionalism or a lack of understanding of the law. Ms. Angell’s and
STUTZ’s filing of this motion cannot be interpreted as anything other than a bad-faith attempt to
mislead the court, obscure the real facts of the case, and to obstruct and/or harass the plaintiff,
either to wear down the plaintiff or to win a victory that is clearly unjustified by either the facts
or the law. While isolated errors or misstatements might be excused, given the size of the
record, the sheer volume of misstatements, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is
that Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, and Ms. Angell and their law firm intended to obstruct at
every step and stand education law, as well as labor law, the penal code, and the constitutions
of California and the United States, on their heads.
This entire motion, as well as the entire defense of this case and of GIC 781970, has been a
sham and a waste of the court’s time. The law and the facts stand in opposition to the Motion
that this lawsuit should be terminated.
Dated: February 25, 2005
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
) Case No. GIC 825879
)
) Judge: William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept.: 64
) Hearing date: March 11, 2005
)
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
) AND AUTHORITIES IN
) OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY
) CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
) SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION
) TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 2/18/2004
) TRIAL DATE: not set
)
)
MAURA LARKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOES 52 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________
| Chula Vista Elementary School District filed a motion to prevent its lawyers from being NAMED AS DOES in an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE complaint. CVESD was not a defendant in the case, and its motion (below) was full of bizarre falsehoods, easily discernible by the court, yet the motion was granted. This egregious action is evidence of Stutz's indemnification by the school District...or something worse. Link: Maura Larkins' response to this pleading |
| Attorneys Daniel Shinoff, Kelly Angell, and Jeffery Morris worked on this case for Stutz law firm. Stutz filed a bizarre Motion to Dismiss this case on behalf of NON-PARTY [?!?] CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT: |
| San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) |
| Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz |
 |
 |
 |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
