Albert L. Peia,        ) Case No. BC227949

               Plaintiff )   (Transferred to “NW”)


           -vs-          )


  Bernal P. Ojeda,        )RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW

  and John Does 1 – 15,   ) CAUSE REGARDING AND INOPPOSI-                      

              Defendants ) TION TO DISMISSAL/SANCTIONS/RE-      

                         ) CLASSIFICATION OF THE CASE TO

--------------------------  LIMITED JURISDICTION.


                           Trial Date: 8-12-02

                                 Time: 9:00 A.M.

                            Courtroom:Dept. NW C 


   I, Albert L. Peia, residing at611 E. 5th St., #404, Los


Angeles,CA 90013, hereby certify and declare under penalty


as follows:  



1.   I am the pro seplaintiff in the present matter and if


calledupon to testify I could and would competently


testify(truthfully) to the following facts of my own




2.   Thiscertification/declaration is offered in RESPONSE








                 AS TO SANCTIONS


3.   On 8-2-02, thedate of the final status conference, I



was without anyfunds whatsoever for transportation to the


courthousein Van Nuys, CA or funds with which to contact


thecourt telephonically. I did not receive funds to


facilitateeither of the same until 8-3-02 which date was


beyondmy control and can be confirmed with the county.


Parenthetically,it should be noted that I was the subject


of a robbery indowntown LA, police report and inventory


are annexed heretoas Exhibit “A”. I have not had funds


sufficient toreplace my cell phone which was among the


items stolen andwhich would have enabled me to


call the court. Iwas, however, able to walk to the federal


courthouse to reviewthe “related” RICO case, discern a bad


faith answerinterposed by defendant DeArenosa therein, and


prepare and file thesummary judgment motion in said matter


which is annexedhereto as Exhibit “B”. 




4.   The demand fordamages in the instant case is $300,000


compensatoryand $1,000,000 punitive. The matters involved


inthis case are egregious, numerous, and involving inten-


tionaland criminal acts and the claims meritorious. In my


Declaration in Support of thePlaintiff’s Request to Enter


Default Judgment, Exhibit “C” ,the amount set forth


therein representeda compromised amount to resolve the


matteras to all parties (particularly in light of as set



forththerein the priority of a separate and very


substantialextent RICO matter back east). Indeed, the


dismissalas to a remaining joint-tortfeasor/co-


conspiratorwith defendant Ojeda, viz., defendant Robles


[formy costs of discovery motion, $750 ($850-100), in


June, 2001 in the federal matter seemed toabide defendant


Ojeda’s bad faith motion to set aside,contrary to law (as


setforth in my opposition thereto, particularly with


regardto the requirement of diligence, with the


aggravatingcircumstances of purposefulness, and the


criminalact of perjury] and the substantial prejudice to


plaintiffthereby (the “State Farm insured” defendants


settledout for $10,000).


 In any event, in accordance with California law the


followingis apposite, militates against reclassification,


andis asserted by plaintiff herein: 


   ‘The total amount ofdamages sought in this action,

   actual and punitive, is withinthe jurisdiction of the

   superior court.’


Moreover, I have never received any notice ofthe


purportedOrder to Show Cause regarding the foregoing


priorto my review of the record on 8-6-02. Indeed, the


casehistory/docket appears to contain several errors;


viz,ie., there was no 3rd Amended Complaint (only a first



amendedcomplaint, and no notice of the Order to Show


Cause Re Dismissal/Sanctions/Reclassificationwhich seems


enteredin the record in error on 12-10-02. Indeed,


adequatenotice, record, and opportunity to be heard are


wantingin the instant case militating against same. See


 generally, Walker v. Sup.Ct., 53 C3d 257,279 CR 576(1991).


5.    I declare under penalty of perjurypursuant to the


 laws of the state of California and theUnited States of


 America that the foregoing is true andcorrect.






Dated: 8-10-02           Signed: _________________________

                                  Albert L. Peia, Pro Se