Mou v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 68

RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Communication to the Court by City of San Jose. (Burchfiel, Robert) (Filed on 5/5/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (88625) NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (93249) ROBERT BURCHFIEL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (112318) Office of the City Attorney 200 East Santa Clara Street San Josť, California 95113-1905 Telephone Number: (408) 535-1900 Facsimile Number: (408) 998-3131 E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF SAN JOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CHIN-LI MOU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE PUBLIC LIBRARY EDUCATION PARK BRANCH, and DOES, inclusive, Defendants. Case Number: C07-05740 JF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMMUNICATION TO THE COURT This pleading is being provided pursuant to the court's recent order dated April 26, 2010. As a continuing and never ending attempt to escape responsibility, Plaintiff Mou has again communicated unilaterally with the court and apparently providing the court "a copy of her 2009 federal income tax return" in an attempt to again argue that she is too indigent to repay the taxpayers of Defendant City of San Jose the costs of her pursuing her claim. I would request the court to review the initial complaint and its alleged allegations to understand the reason for Defendant strongly objecting to any reduction of the taxed costs which truly represent a minimal amount of accountability. DEFENDNAT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMMUNICATION TO THE COURT 65507 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As a practical matter, Defendant City of San Jose has not had an opportunity to review the documents submitted to the court because Ms. Mou chose not to share those documents with Defendant. If the court is even remotely reconsidering its position on Ms. Mou's accountability for the taxed costs, Defendant would first request that they be provided a copy of the income tax return and also be allowed a debtor's deposition examination (under oath) of Ms. Mou. After such examination, Defendants would be in a better position to argue Plaintiff's alleged financial inability to pay over time the minimal amount of $1,029.90. As previously stated, public records indicate, at a minimum, Plaintiff is owner of real property within the County of Santa Clara valued at approximately $250,000. Ms. Mou has expressly attempted to manipulate police officers, library staff and counsel for Defendant in this matter. A further examination of Ms. Mou's current claim of indigency certainly merits further examination as requested by Defendant. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney Dated: May 5, 2010 By: ________/S/___________ ROBERT BURCHFIEL Sr. Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE DEFENDNAT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMMUNICATION TO THE COURT 65507 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Addressed as follows: In Propria Persona Chin-Li Mou 4141 Boneso Court San Jose, CA 95134 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NAME: Mou v. City of San Jose CASE NO.: C07-5740 JF I, the undersigned declare as follows: I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, employed in Santa Clara County, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California 95113-1905, and is located in the county where the service described below occurred. On May 5, 2010, I caused to be served the within: DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMMUNICATION TO THE COURT by MAIL, with a copy of this declaration, by depositing them into a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, and causing the envelope to be deposited for collection and mailing on the date indicated above. I further declare that I am readily familiar with the business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Said correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 5, 2010, at San Jose, California. /S/______ Amie Zandate DEFENDNAT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMMUNICATION TO THE COURT 65507 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?