Our petition for writ was dropped by the judge due to us not filing the it within the 90-day deadline. Now the Respondent is trying to have us pay their legal costs and "any other reasonable fees"", whatever that means.
Here are my questions but if you want more details and information, like exact wording from the Respondent and judge, keep reading after the question section:
1. Since the hearing was dropped (everything took less than one minute in front of the judge, literally), do I have to pay the Respondent's legal fees? or What is the likelihood of a judge making us pay, especially after all we went through,which the judge could easily see if she read just two pages of our proof of the hearing being unfair and unlawful, etc
- The document they sent us today does not have the judge's signature on it, only her name and a space for her to sign.
- They did not submit an itemized bill for any legal work done.
2. Are we expected to file a demurrer or opposition or argument to this? Is there anything we must, or should, file?
3. If the judge orders us to pay, do we have the right to see an itemized bill?
4. We did this in pro per because we have no money. How are we expected to pay?
5. We do have proof, solid proof, that many allegations originally brought against Massi by his supervisor were fabricated. Can he still personally sue his ex-supervisor and the Human Resources Dean who supported everything without investigating, basically discriminated against him and did not do her job, which harmed is as well?
6. What about suing the Board Member who acted as "judge" and was the Hearing Officer? He was not only friends with the HR Dean, she was a material witness, too AND he allowed her to sit in all 3 days of the hearing before she testified (can you believe that???)?
Here is the detailed story with exact words from Respondent asking for $ and judge's tentative decision:
Well, we showed up on Wednesday and the judge granted the College's demurrer to the petition for writ because we had filed the petition 11 days late. That happened because all we wanted to do was sue them for wrongful termination and, according to the "right to sue" letter we have from the DFEH, we had til March 15 of this year. Not only did the College send the final decision to the administrative hearing to us late back in August, it took 3 labor law lawyers who were interested in the civil case to even figure out that, before we could sue the College for discrimination and sexual harassment= wrongful termination, we had to have the hearing decision overturned because they are a public entity, so that decision caused all the College's allegations to become fact, in the eyes of the law.
If they were a regular company, we could have just sued them when he was terminated, or even before but this is a whole different animal.. We had submitted an argument as to why we should be granted an extension of deadline but the judge is a stickler for deadlines and denied us.
The College (respondent) had filed in their paperwork with their demurrer to the Petition that our lawsuit is frivolous, etc. and to dismiss the the case since we were late filing the Petition for writ. WE RECEIVED THIS TODAY,THE DAY THEY SENT IT IS JANUARY 24 (we were in front of judge January 23) Here is the exact wording:
"The Court hereby orders that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Napa Valley Community College District, erroneously sued herein as Napa Valley Community College (herein after "Respondent") and against Petitioner Massimiliano Fantucci (herein after "Petitioner"). Judgment is entered based upon the Order attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
Pursuant to this judgment, Respondent is entitled to recover all costs recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and in accordance with the memorandum of costs filed by Respondent."
In their original demurrer, Respondent had asked for us to have the court drop the case and order us to pay legal fees. The Judge's tentative decision is:
"TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent's demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. It is apparent from the documents provided by respondent, of which this court takes judicial notice, that the petition was not timely filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, which requires the petition to be filed within 90 days of the date the decision is final. The decision in this case was final on the date it was mailed to petitioner, August 10, 2012. The petition was filed on November 19, 2012, 101 days later. Even calculating the days as urged in Petitioner's opposition, i.e. that the decision was final on August 16, 2012, the petition was still filed 95 days later. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion that five additional days should be added because the dicision was mailed, section 1094.6(b) specifically provides that CCP section 1013(a) does not apply to extend the time for filing a petition for writ of mandate. Because the Petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider it.
2. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
TENTATIVE RULING: In light of the ruling sustaining the demurrer, without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction, the hearing on the Petition for Writ of Mandate is dropped, as moot.