The 'Hail Mary' Prop I Lawsuit Farce Continues, Part 2Ken Werner, Trinity Plaza Tenants Association (TPTA)byline‚ Jul. 25‚ 2006In Part One I focused on the reactions to Judge Quidachay's decision nullifying Board of Supervisors Rule 6.25. Today I'll analyze the flawed Order and the lawsuit itself. ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER Let's start with a quick analysis of the technically flawed Order that was composed by Jim Sutton.Rule 201 of the California Rules of Court are very specific on the format of pleadings, and Sutton's "Order Granting Petitioners' Motion for Declaratory Relief" filed on July 20, 2006 violates Rule 201 on FIVE COUNTS. 201(f)(1) regarding the format of the first page clearly states that "In the space commencing 1 inch from the top of the page with line 1, to the left of the center of the page, the name, office address or, if none, residence address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address (if available), and State Bar membership number of the attorney for the party in whose behalf the paper is presented, or of the party if he or she is appearing in person." Sutton's document violates this rule in that he failed to include the required information starting on Line 1 but rather started approximately one-quarter of an inch from the top of the page. |