SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

          NORTHWEST DISTRICT CIVIL DIVISION

--------------------------

                         )

  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

 

personalknowledge.

 

2.   Thiscertification/declaration is offered in RESPONSE

 

TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING AND INOPPOSITION TO

 

DISMISSAL/SANCTIONS/RECLASSIFICATION OF THECASE TO

 

LIMITED JURISDICTION.

      

                 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”. 

 

              ASTO DISMISSAL/RECLASSIFICATION  

 

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