17-CIV-04362 BARRY WILLIAM WATCHEL VS. FACEBOOK, INC.

BARRY WILLIAM WATCHEL PRO/PER FACEBOOK, INC. BRYN WILLIAMS

MOTION REGARDING CONTEMPT

 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff Barry Watchel’s unopposed “Motion for Contempt,” filed March 7, 2018, is Denied. However, Denial is Without Prejudice to being renewed if Plaintiff can cure certain defects in his current motion papers and service of those papers.

 By this Motion, the moving Pro Per Plaintiff contends that Judges Karesh, Dubois, and Greenberg should be held in civil and/or criminal contempt. They all conspired to enter, and entered Orders falsely purporting to be duly constituted Orders of the Court. This interfered with Plaintiff’s right to due process and the authority and dignity of the Court.

 Leaving aside the merits or not of this Motion, the Court cannot hear the matter at this due to (1) lack of proper service of the motion papers and (2) lack of a supporting Memorandum of Points & Authorities.  First, the motion was not properly served. The 3-7-18 Proof of Service states that on 3-6-18, the moving papers were mailed from a location in Canada to Defendant’s counsel in California. Per Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1005(b), the international mailing requires adding 20 calendar days to the required 16 court-day notice, meaning the moving papers must have been mailed in February 2018 based on the April 6, 2018 hearing date. Thus, service was improper. The Proof of Service also states: “A courtesy fax will be sent March 8, 2018.” This statement does not effectuate proper service, because the Proof of Service does not identify any facsimile address, nor state that the papers were actually faxed. There is also no evidence of an agreement by the parties to permit service by facsimile.

 The moving papers also lack the required Memorandum of Points and Authorities. See CRC 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion . . . is not meritorious and cause for its denial”); CRC 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”).

 Plaintiff’s supporting declaration is also inadmissible hearsay. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2015.5; Kulshrestha v. First Union Comm’l Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 612-618.