Friday, April 1, 2016

Order to Show Cause Against Karina Von Watteville for Failure to File A Proof Of Service Re. Her Baseless Lawsuit

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:24 PM
To: Karina Von Watteville <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, alan hootnick <>
*`Cc: Paulette Brandt, Linda Carol 

Karina Von Watteville,

While you and your attorney (former or otherwise), Stephen Gianelli, have harassed me and Jules Zalon, a man you do not know, over this baseless lawsuit, I have not been served and there have been no attempts whatsoever to serve me.  I do not speak for my co-defendants, Paulette Brandt or Linda Carol, but will note that service must be effected upon all parties.  

I will not be purchasing your baseless lawsuit although I have noted that LA Superior Court is offering the three documents filed (including your fee waiver) for approximately $14.50 through their electronic website.  

I see that has addressed the failure on your part to file a proof of service.  I intend to address the court over these issues and will mention that, in the Small Claims case, you argued that the Court itself didn't serve you due to your P.O. Box.  I also will note that in the Sam Menning case, you continued to use Paulette Brandt's address although you have not resided here for years.

I intend to pursue this matter to trial on the merits and you should understand that fact.

Kelley Lynch

Case Number:  BC614279
Filing Date:  03/17/2016
Case Type:  Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending
05/31/2016 at 08:30 am in department 52 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv
BRANDT PAULETTE - Defendant/Respondent
DOES 1 THROUGH 20 - Defendant/Respondent
LYNCH KELLY - Defendant/Respondent
MURPHY LINDA CAROL - Defendant/Respondent
VON WATTEVILLE KARINA FIMBEL - Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
03/29/2016 OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv
Filed by Clerk
03/17/2016 Complaint

2016 California Rules of Court

Rule 3.110. Time for service of complaint, cross-complaint, and response

(a) Application
This rule applies to the service of pleadings in civil cases except for collections cases under rule 3.740(a), unlawful detainer actions, proceedings under the Family Code, and other proceedings for which different service requirements are prescribed by law.
(Subd (a) amended effective July 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(b) Service of complaint
The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

(c) Service of cross-complaint
A cross-complaint against a party who has appeared in the action must be accompanied by proof of service of the cross-complaint at the time it is filed. If the cross-complaint adds new parties, the cross-complaint must be served on all parties and proofs of service on the new parties must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the cross-complaint.

(d) Timing of responsive pleadings
The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint.

(e) Modification of timing; application for order extending time
The court, on its own motion or on the application of a party, may extend or otherwise modify the times provided in (b)-(d). An application for a court order extending the time to serve a pleading must be filed before the time for service has elapsed. The application must be accompanied by a declaration showing why service has not been completed, documenting the efforts that have been made to complete service, and specifying the date by which service is proposed to be completed.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(f) Failure to serve
If a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.
(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(g) Request for entry of default
If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if the plaintiff fails to timely file the request for the entry of default.
(Subd (g) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(h) Default judgment
When a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court has granted an extension of time. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if that party fails to obtain entry of judgment against a defaulting party or to request an extension of time to apply for a default judgment within that time.
(Subd (h) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(i) Order to show cause
Responsive papers to an order to show cause issued under this rule must be filed and served at least 5 calendar days before the hearing.

(Subd (i) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
Rule 3.110 amended effective July 1, 2007; adopted as rule 201.7 effective July 1, 2002; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007.