2d Civil No.

B241631
L.A. S.C. Case No. BS 131915

In The Court of Appeal

State of California
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN

DAVID R. DAVIS, BRIAN

GOLDSTEIN, JACOB DANIEL
HILLM,ERIC FEDER, PAUL
COHEN, CHRIS BUTLER, JILL
BROWN, AND LISA SIEGEL,

Appellants, PETITIONERS,
v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,

Respondents, RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL FROM
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HONORABLE JAMES C. CHALFANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MOTION TO STRIKE
OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH
City Attorney, SBN 86629
GREGORY P. ORLAND
Deputy City Attorney, SBN 107099

900 City Hall East

200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Voice: 213.978.7732; Fax: 213.978.7710
Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF LOS ANGELES and CHARLES BECK
2d Civil No. B241631
L.A.S.c. Case No. BS131915
In The Court of Appeal
State of California
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN

DAVID R. DAVIS, BRIAN

GOLDSTEIN, JACOB DANIEL
HILLM,ERIC FEDER, PAUL
COHEN, CHRIS BUTLER, JILL
BROWN, AND LISA SIEGEL,

Appellants, PETITIONERS,
v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et at,

Respondents, RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL FROM
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HONORABLE JAMES C. CHALFANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MOTION TO STRIKE
OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH
City Attorney, SBN 86629
GREGORY P. ORLAND
Deputy City Attorney, SBN 107099

900 City Hall East

200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Voice: 213.978.7732; Fax: 213.978.7710
Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF LOS ANGELES and CHARLES BECK
 MOTION TO STRIKE OPENING BRIEF
A.
Introduction
On Febmary 27, 2013, this division denied in part appellants'
request for judicial notice. The items which this court refused to judicially notice
are:
1) The Lake Judgment;
2) The Kihm Judgment;
3) Reporter's transcript from June 26, 1998;
4) Reporter's transcript from July 24, 1998;
5) 1993 LAPD CCW Application Form.
For the reasons stated below, appellants' opening briefing brief should be
stricken and re-filed without reference to the barred materials.
B.
Analysis
California Rules of Court, mle 8.204(e)(2)(B) authorizes the court to strike
a non-conforming brief with instmctions that it be re-filed within a specified time.
(See South Sutter LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.AppAth 634, 647
[court stmck opening brief which contained references to "irrelevant" documents
which were not judicially noticed by the appellate court]; People v. Barry (1957)
149 Cal.App.2d 646,647 [brief stricken for containing irrelevant materials].)
The entirety of appellants' opening brief is infected with references to all
five barred and irrelevant documents. The brief is 57 pages long, but on 13 pages
or 23% of the brief appellants refer to the barred and irrelevant documents.
Appellants in their request for judicial notice conceded both the Lake and Kihm
judgments are not part of the record on appeal, yet the opening brief collectively
makes 20 independent references to both of these barred and irrelevant documents.
Page 23 of the brief is largely devoted to a discussion of the barred and irrelevant
Lake and Kihm judgments. At page 6 of the opening brief most of that page

2
discusses the barred and irrelevant July 24, 1998 transcript. At page 28, almost
half that page too is devoted to discussing the barred and irrelevant June 26, 1998
and July 24, 1998 reporter's transcripts.
More examples can be cited to this court of appellants' improper use of
barred and irrelevant documents, two of which are not part of the record on appeal,
but these illustrations suffice. The record in this case is fact dense; the issues are
deadly serious, i. e., the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the public;
this court should not be distracted by substantial references and reliance by
appellants on barred and irrelevant documents, some of which are not part of the
record on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Predicated upon the foregoing, the City of Los Angeles and Charles Beck
request their motion to strike appellants' opening brief be granted.
Dated: March 4, 2013

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH
City Attorney
GREGORYP.ORLAND
Deputy City Attorney
()~
/l--.
G
A rorneys for Respondents
City of Los Angeles and Charles Beck

3
2d Civil No. B241631
L.A.S.C. Case No. BS131915

In The Court of Appeal

State of California
SECOND ~PPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN

DAVID R. DAVIS, BRIAN

GOLDSTEIN, JACOB DANIEL
HILLM,ERIC FEDER, PAUL
COHEN, CHRIS BUTLER, JILL
BROWN, AND LISA SIEGEL,

Appellants, PETITIONERS,
v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,

Respondents, RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

The City of Los Angeles and Charles Beck's motion to strike appellants'
opening brief is granted. The opening brief is to be returned to appellants.
Appellants are ordered to refile their opening brief within 30 days from the date of
this order without any reference whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, to the
following items:

1) The Lake Judgment (request for judicial notice item No.3);

2) The Kihm Judgment (request for judicial notice item No.4);
3) Reporter's transcript from July 24, 1998 (request for judicial notice item
No. 11);
4) Reporter's transcript from June 26, 1998 (request for judicial notice item
No. 12);

4
5) 1993 LAPD CCW Application Form (request for judicial notice item No.
14).

Dated: March , 2013

Presiding Justice
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Seven

5
 PROOF OF SERVICE
(Via Various Methods)

I, the undersigned, say: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
within action or proceeding. My business address is 900 City Hall East, 200 North
Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

On March 4, 2013, I served the foregoing document(s) described as

MOTION TO STRIKE OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER on all
interested parties in this action by placing copies thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:

C.D. Michel Burton C. Jacobson

Michel & Associates, P.C. Beverly Hills Law Bldg.
180 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200 424 South Beverly Drive
Long Beach, CA 90802 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-4414

[X] BY MAIL - I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles,

California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar
with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
mailing. Under that practice, it is deposited with the United States Postal Service
on that same day, at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than (1) day after the date
of deposit for mailing in affidavit; and or

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on March 4,2013, at Los Angeles, California