Ex parte hearing next week
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
4:30 on a Friday afternoon, a Jewish Holiday as you well know, to which you also knew I would be out of the office, is not sufficient notice. You will be held accountable for this Fox. Your actions in this regard will not be tolerated.
Additionally, you have sent me the wrong documents to serve her with. I told you that if you sent me an acceptance of service, then I would be more than happy to sign it. You have sent me proof of service as if I am serving her. I am here to facilitate service, I can not serve her, as I have repeatedly told you.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
I, too, am Jewish and observe Yom Kippur. Contrary to your assertion, however, I had absolutely no way of knowing you would be out of the office or even that you observe Yom Kippur, or are Jewish.
I sent you a copy of those emails as a courtesy because Desiree asked me to. I am not required to include you in any correspondence regarding the California proceedings other than to send you a copy of any documents filed with the court - and that only because the court in Arizona, not the court in California, ordered me to do so. With respect to notice for ex parte hearings in California I am only required to attempt to provide 24 hours notice (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203). Friday at 4:30pm to Tuesday at 8:30am sufficiently meets that requirement. You may also notice I spoke to Desiree on Sunday and arranged to hold off on the hearing until Tuesday, October 18, 2011. That provides her more than a week's notice which is far greater than I am required to do. Further, you are not representing her in the California case and, therefore, I am not required to provide you any notice of any hearings in that case.
With respect to your melodrama about me being held accountable and my actions not being tolerated: you can save the theatrics for those parties with less experience dealing with attorneys. I have done nothing inappropriate and have not violated any rules of court. Again, I am not required to provide you any notice in the California case and have done so only as a courtesy to Desiree. Also, it is my understanding that since you are not a member of the California Bar you may not advise Desiree on matters pertaining to the California case so I am not clear on why she would want me to include you anyway.
And, regarding the documents I sent you: perhaps you can provide me a clear explanation of what the phrase "facilitate service" means to you, so there is no further misunderstandings? As I requested in the letter I included with the documents - if you, or some other party associated with you, will be unable to complete the FL-330 and the FL-115 then please return the documents to me and I will hire a process server or have someone else hand her the documents then fill out the forms.
I thank you for your response and I look forward to receiving your response to the motion to dismiss which is due tomorrow.
Fox
Facilitate service means that I would have her sign and notarize an acceptance of service. I can not do so as I told you. I also told you I would not hire a process server to serve her. I explained for close to 20 minutes on a call, that I would be happy ot have her sign an acceptance of service, to please check your documents. You have given me documents for a process server, to which I told you not to.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
Fine. Send them back to me and I'll hire a process server. This is exactly the reason I said on the telephone that I believe it would be easier for everyone if I just hired a process server. To which you told me it wasn't necessary and to save my money. I told you on the phone that the Superior Court of California requires completion of the FL-330 and FL-115. And, the entire telephone call was not 20 minutes.
Another point: you do not need to hire a process server to serve her. Any person over the age of 18, who is not a party to the case may serve her. There is no requirement that he be a licensed process server.
Fox, please send me an acceptance of service and I will have her sign it. This is what I have asked for. Further, you must provide me written notices from the Court as to hearings, which you have not done.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
I will print and have the attached document signed by the party that mailed the documents and fax you the signed copy later today or tomorrow. I trust this form meets your requirements.
Now, may you please inform me of which court rule, statute or case requires that I provide notice of hearings to an attorney that is not representing any of the parties in the matter? I am not aware of any such requirement. And Judge Hannah only ordered me to provide you a copy of "anything that is filed by Petitioner in the California Court". Therefore, I am required to provide you a copy of any request for a hearing which I file, however, ex parte hearings are held on the same day the request is filed so it would be physically impossible for me to provide you a copy prior to the hearing. Also, Judge Hannah did not impose any requirement that I provide you a copy within any specific period of time after filing with the court. I take this to mean that as long as I provide you a copy concurrently with the notice I provide Desiree that is sufficient. At this time I have not yet filed the request for the ex parte hearing because I will do so at 8:00am on October 18, 2011 and the hearing will be held that morning. Also, I am required to file the FAM-018 - Declaration of Ex Parte Notice at the same time that I request the hearing. In that notice I will declare that I notified Desiree on October 9, 2011 by telephone and email. I believe I have fulfilled all of my notification requirements.
Again, I thank you for your time.
Begin forwarded message:
David:
I will print and have the attached document signed by the party that mailed the documents and fax you the signed copy later today or tomorrow. I trust this form meets your requirements.
Now, may you please inform me of which court rule, statute or case requires that I provide notice of hearings to an attorney that is not representing any of the parties in the matter? I am not aware of any such requirement. And Judge Hannah only ordered me to provide you a copy of "anything that is filed by Petitioner in the California Court". Therefore, I am required to provide you a copy of any request for a hearing which I file, however, ex parte hearings are held on the same day the request is filed so it would be physically impossible for me to provide you a copy prior to the hearing. Also, Judge Hannah did not impose any requirement that I provide you a copy within any specific period of time after filing with the court. I take this to mean that as long as I provide you a copy concurrently with the notice I provide Desiree that is sufficient. At this time I have not yet filed the request for the ex parte hearing because I will do so at 8:00am on October 18, 2011 and the hearing will be held that morning. Also, I am required to file the FAM-018 - Declaration of Ex Parte Notice at the same time that I request the hearing. In that notice I will declare that I notified Desiree on October 9, 2011 by telephone and email. I believe I have fulfilled all of my notification requirements.
Again, I thank you for your time.
Begin forwarded message:
David:
I will print and have the attached document signed by the party that mailed the documents and fax you the signed copy later today or tomorrow. I trust this form meets your requirements.
Now, may you please inform me of which court rule, statute or case requires that I provide notice of hearings to an attorney that is not representing any of the parties in the matter? I am not aware of any such requirement. And Judge Hannah only ordered me to provide you a copy of "anything that is filed by Petitioner in the California Court". Therefore, I am required to provide you a copy of any request for a hearing which I file, however, ex parte hearings are held on the same day the request is filed so it would be physically impossible for me to provide you a copy prior to the hearing. Also, Judge Hannah did not impose any requirement that I provide you a copy within any specific period of time after filing with the court. I take this to mean that as long as I provide you a copy concurrently with the notice I provide Desiree that is sufficient. At this time I have not yet filed the request for the ex parte hearing because I will do so at 8:00am on October 18, 2011 and the hearing will be held that morning. Also, I am required to file the FAM-018 - Declaration of Ex Parte Notice at the same time that I request the hearing. In that notice I will declare that I notified Desiree on October 9, 2011 by telephone and email. I believe I have fulfilled all of my notification requirements.
Again, I thank you for your time.
Fox, please send me an acceptance of service and I will have her sign it. This is what I have asked for. Further, you must provide me written notices from the Court as to hearings, which you have not done.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
Fine. Send them back to me and I'll hire a process server. This is exactly the reason I said on the telephone that I believe it would be easier for everyone if I just hired a process server. To which you told me it wasn't necessary and to save my money. I told you on the phone that the Superior Court of California requires completion of the FL-330 and FL-115. And, the entire telephone call was not 20 minutes.
Another point: you do not need to hire a process server to serve her. Any person over the age of 18, who is not a party to the case may serve her. There is no requirement that he be a licensed process server.
Facilitate service means that I would have her sign and notarize an acceptance of service. I can not do so as I told you. I also told you I would not hire a process server to serve her. I explained for close to 20 minutes on a call, that I would be happy ot have her sign an acceptance of service, to please check your documents. You have given me documents for a process server, to which I told you not to.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
I, too, am Jewish and observe Yom Kippur. Contrary to your assertion, however, I had absolutely no way of knowing you would be out of the office or even that you observe Yom Kippur, or are Jewish.
I sent you a copy of those emails as a courtesy because Desiree asked me to. I am not required to include you in any correspondence regarding the California proceedings other than to send you a copy of any documents filed with the court - and that only because the court in Arizona, not the court in California, ordered me to do so. With respect to notice for ex parte hearings in California I am only required to attempt to provide 24 hours notice (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203). Friday at 4:30pm to Tuesday at 8:30am sufficiently meets that requirement. You may also notice I spoke to Desiree on Sunday and arranged to hold off on the hearing until Tuesday, October 18, 2011. That provides her more than a week's notice which is far greater than I am required to do. Further, you are not representing her in the California case and, therefore, I am not required to provide you any notice of any hearings in that case.
With respect to your melodrama about me being held accountable and my actions not being tolerated: you can save the theatrics for those parties with less experience dealing with attorneys. I have done nothing inappropriate and have not violated any rules of court. Again, I am not required to provide you any notice in the California case and have done so only as a courtesy to Desiree. Also, it is my understanding that since you are not a member of the California Bar you may not advise Desiree on matters pertaining to the California case so I am not clear on why she would want me to include you anyway.
And, regarding the documents I sent you: perhaps you can provide me a clear explanation of what the phrase "facilitate service" means to you, so there is no further misunderstandings? As I requested in the letter I included with the documents - if you, or some other party associated with you, will be unable to complete the FL-330 and the FL-115 then please return the documents to me and I will hire a process server or have someone else hand her the documents then fill out the forms.
I thank you for your response and I look forward to receiving your response to the motion to dismiss which is due tomorrow.
Fox
4:30 on a Friday afternoon, a Jewish Holiday as you well know, to which you also knew I would be out of the office, is not sufficient notice. You will be held accountable for this Fox. Your actions in this regard will not be tolerated.
Additionally, you have sent me the wrong documents to serve her with. I told you that if you sent me an acceptance of service, then I would be more than happy to sign it. You have sent me proof of service as if I am serving her. I am here to facilitate service, I can not serve her, as I have repeatedly told you.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
Fox,
Can you please send me a copy of the ex-parte paperwork so I can prepare for it? Am I correct in assuming that Tuesday, October 18th is the new date?
Desiree:
You are correct that the hearing will be on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 8:30am in the Compton Courthouse, Dept. M. The court is located at 200 W. Compton Bl, in Compton, CA.
I am not required to provide you a copy of the ex parte paperwork prior to the hearing. I will bring an extra copy for you on Tuesday, for your convenience. Had you requested this sooner I could have gotten you a copy in time but I would not be able to get it to you before the hearing now anyway.
Thanks,
Fox
P.S. Eloy Detention Center (EDC) is used to house people in immigration proceedings - not just illegals. Most of the people there are green card holders. Also, it is not Department of Corrections - DOC is for people who have been convicted and are serving a prison sentence. EDC is for administrative detention - not criminal. I have never been to the DOC. I have only been detained as a pretrial detainee or an administrative detainee.
Begin forwarded message:
David:
Fine. Send them back to me and I'll hire a process server. This is exactly the reason I said on the telephone that I believe it would be easier for everyone if I just hired a process server. To which you told me it wasn't necessary and to save my money. I told you on the phone that the Superior Court of California requires completion of the FL-330 and FL-115. And, the entire telephone call was not 20 minutes.
Another point: you do not need to hire a process server to serve her. Any person over the age of 18, who is not a party to the case may serve her. There is no requirement that he be a licensed process server.
Facilitate service means that I would have her sign and notarize an acceptance of service. I can not do so as I told you. I also told you I would not hire a process server to serve her. I explained for close to 20 minutes on a call, that I would be happy ot have her sign an acceptance of service, to please check your documents. You have given me documents for a process server, to which I told you not to.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
David:
I, too, am Jewish and observe Yom Kippur. Contrary to your assertion, however, I had absolutely no way of knowing you would be out of the office or even that you observe Yom Kippur, or are Jewish.
I sent you a copy of those emails as a courtesy because Desiree asked me to. I am not required to include you in any correspondence regarding the California proceedings other than to send you a copy of any documents filed with the court - and that only because the court in Arizona, not the court in California, ordered me to do so. With respect to notice for ex parte hearings in California I am only required to attempt to provide 24 hours notice (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203). Friday at 4:30pm to Tuesday at 8:30am sufficiently meets that requirement. You may also notice I spoke to Desiree on Sunday and arranged to hold off on the hearing until Tuesday, October 18, 2011. That provides her more than a week's notice which is far greater than I am required to do. Further, you are not representing her in the California case and, therefore, I am not required to provide you any notice of any hearings in that case.
With respect to your melodrama about me being held accountable and my actions not being tolerated: you can save the theatrics for those parties with less experience dealing with attorneys. I have done nothing inappropriate and have not violated any rules of court. Again, I am not required to provide you any notice in the California case and have done so only as a courtesy to Desiree. Also, it is my understanding that since you are not a member of the California Bar you may not advise Desiree on matters pertaining to the California case so I am not clear on why she would want me to include you anyway.
And, regarding the documents I sent you: perhaps you can provide me a clear explanation of what the phrase "facilitate service" means to you, so there is no further misunderstandings? As I requested in the letter I included with the documents - if you, or some other party associated with you, will be unable to complete the FL-330 and the FL-115 then please return the documents to me and I will hire a process server or have someone else hand her the documents then fill out the forms.
I thank you for your response and I look forward to receiving your response to the motion to dismiss which is due tomorrow.
Fox
4:30 on a Friday afternoon, a Jewish Holiday as you well know, to which you also knew I would be out of the office, is not sufficient notice. You will be held accountable for this Fox. Your actions in this regard will not be tolerated.
Additionally, you have sent me the wrong documents to serve her with. I told you that if you sent me an acceptance of service, then I would be more than happy to sign it. You have sent me proof of service as if I am serving her. I am here to facilitate service, I can not serve her, as I have repeatedly told you.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
Begin forwarded message:
David:
I, too, am Jewish and observe Yom Kippur. Contrary to your assertion, however, I had absolutely no way of knowing you would be out of the office or even that you observe Yom Kippur, or are Jewish.
I sent you a copy of those emails as a courtesy because Desiree asked me to. I am not required to include you in any correspondence regarding the California proceedings other than to send you a copy of any documents filed with the court - and that only because the court in Arizona, not the court in California, ordered me to do so. With respect to notice for ex parte hearings in California I am only required to attempt to provide 24 hours notice (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203). Friday at 4:30pm to Tuesday at 8:30am sufficiently meets that requirement. You may also notice I spoke to Desiree on Sunday and arranged to hold off on the hearing until Tuesday, October 18, 2011. That provides her more than a week's notice which is far greater than I am required to do. Further, you are not representing her in the California case and, therefore, I am not required to provide you any notice of any hearings in that case.
With respect to your melodrama about me being held accountable and my actions not being tolerated: you can save the theatrics for those parties with less experience dealing with attorneys. I have done nothing inappropriate and have not violated any rules of court. Again, I am not required to provide you any notice in the California case and have done so only as a courtesy to Desiree. Also, it is my understanding that since you are not a member of the California Bar you may not advise Desiree on matters pertaining to the California case so I am not clear on why she would want me to include you anyway.
And, regarding the documents I sent you: perhaps you can provide me a clear explanation of what the phrase "facilitate service" means to you, so there is no further misunderstandings? As I requested in the letter I included with the documents - if you, or some other party associated with you, will be unable to complete the FL-330 and the FL-115 then please return the documents to me and I will hire a process server or have someone else hand her the documents then fill out the forms.
I thank you for your response and I look forward to receiving your response to the motion to dismiss which is due tomorrow.
Fox
4:30 on a Friday afternoon, a Jewish Holiday as you well know, to which you also knew I would be out of the office, is not sufficient notice. You will be held accountable for this Fox. Your actions in this regard will not be tolerated.
Additionally, you have sent me the wrong documents to serve her with. I told you that if you sent me an acceptance of service, then I would be more than happy to sign it. You have sent me proof of service as if I am serving her. I am here to facilitate service, I can not serve her, as I have repeatedly told you.
Associate Attorney
Gillespie, Shields & Associates, P.A.
7319 N 16th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 870-9700 Phone
(602) 870-9783 Fax
"Your Family's Law Firm"
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
David:
Please be advised my emails to Desiree, at the only email address she has provided me, have been failing as you can see from the message attached below. I have repeatedly requested that she provide me an email address other than her work address but she has failed to respond.
I request that you please contact her and either request that she have the problem corrected or, if it is deliberate on her part, the please let me know.
Fox
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
desiree.capuano@apollogrp.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn
more at http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
[apollogrp.com (1): Connection refused]
----- Original message -----
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.39.170 with SMTP id q10mr17211658pbk.
96.1318030203758; Fri,
07 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.43.6 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700
(PDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF9ObSLX8tevfCupxg9EZd-ZUz4
+2cP6JPAvOo1OvpaTDKwqww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Ex parte hearing next week
From: Fox <fox@desireecapuano.org>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@apollogrp.com>, David Goldfarb
<dgoldfarb@gillaw.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=bcaec520e5af19276004aebdd2d7
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
David:
Please be advised my emails to Desiree, at the only email address she has provided me, have been failing as you can see from the message attached below. I have repeatedly requested that she provide me an email address other than her work address but she has failed to respond.
I request that you please contact her and either request that she have the problem corrected or, if it is deliberate on her part, the please let me know.
Fox
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
desiree.capuano@apollogrp.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn
more at http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
[apollogrp.com (1): Connection refused]
----- Original message -----
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.39.170 with SMTP id q10mr17211658pbk.
96.1318030203758; Fri,
07 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.43.6 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700
(PDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:30:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF9ObSLX8tevfCupxg9EZd-ZUz4
+2cP6JPAvOo1OvpaTDKwqww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Ex parte hearing next week
From: Fox <fox@desireecapuano.org>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@apollogrp.com>, David Goldfarb
<dgoldfarb@gillaw.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=bcaec520e5af19276004aebdd2d7
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox
Begin forwarded message:
Desiree:
Under California law I am required to attempt to provide you, Desiree, at least 24 hour's notice of an ex parte hearing. This serves as that notice. In addition, I just notified you verbally, over the telephone. This message then fulfills the requirement of the 24 hour notice.
You are hereby notified that an ex parte hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, in the Compton Courthouse located at 200 W. Compton Blvd, Compton, CA. This hearing pertains to California case number TD035397, Richard Riess v. Desiree Capuano.
I respectfully request your attendance as I would much prefer to provide you the opportunity to be able to present your case before the court at that time. Also, I request that Gabriel attend as well, as I believe the court would like to hear from him.
If you are not able to make it at this time please let me know and I will make it for another day that better suits your schedule.
I thank you for your time.
Fox