Final Motion To Strike Opening Brief PDF

KEEGAN V.
QUARLE A150642
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
A 150642
(Superior Court Case RG15796301)
MEAGHAN KEEGAN
Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
MARCIA QUARLE and DANIEL KANER
Defendants/Respondents
________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF

ALAMEDA. CASE NO RG15796301. THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JULIA SPAIN, DEPARTMENT 19
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION OR

REVISION OF NONCONFORMING OPENING BRIEF AND SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM
MARCIA QUARLE
651 ADDISON STREET, SUITE 210
BERKELEY, CA 94710
paralegal2@me.co
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
GARY LEE SHERRER, ESQ.

875 A ISLAND DRIVE, POB 403
ALAMEDA, CA 94592
sherrlaw@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MEAGHAN KEEGAN
Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 1 A 150642

KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION

OR REVISION OF NONCONFORMING BRIEF
A150642
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE

JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
Respondent Marcia Quarle hereby moves this Court for an
order striking Appellants Opening Brief filed on August 2, 2017.
This motion is made on the ground that the brief and the RJN fail
to conform to the California Rules of Court in that it fails to
support references to the appellate record with citations to the
volume and page number of the record where the matter appears,
in violation of California Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(c).
In the alternative Respondent and Defendant Marcia Quarle
hereby moves this court for an order that Appellants Opening
Brief filed on August 2, 2017, be returned for correction by
revision or replacement as to the whole thereof.

The problem is that there are numerous references to
matters purportedly in the appellant record without support by
citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears, thereby violating California Rule of Court 8.2014
(a)(1)(c).
Keegans AOB repeatedly claims appellant objected to the
sua sponte dismissal of her lawsuit. The only evidence in the
record that has anything at all to do with her attorneys purported
objections is a brief two line email between Gary Lee Sherrer,
Quarle and Judge Spains Clerk prior to the 1/26/17 hearing.
This is a judgment roll appeal without a Reporters Transcript.
Keegans assertion that her counsel had objected and that there
was no advance notice that her case could be dismissed is utterly
lacking in support and in merit. The suggestion that the trial
court was under some obligation to inform Gary Sherrer of his
right to file a motion for reconsideration lacks merit. It has long
been held that counsel is presumed to know the law. (King v.

Superior Court (1936) 12 Cal. App. 2d 501. The record
demonstrates that Sherrer was aware, well in advance of the
hearing, that the case could be dismissed. It is the appellants
burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error. Keegan
has failed in that burden by failing to provide any evidence that
there was no proper notice in advance and an opportunity to be
heard. Keegan had disobeyed three prior discovery orders.
Quarle had filed two Motions for Terminating Sanctions.
This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of
points and authorities and on the Appellants Opening Brief on
file herein.
Date: August 6, 2017
By: ___________________
MARCIA QUARLE /s/
Attorney for Respondent/ Defendant

Email: paralegal2@me.com
Telephone: 510 621 9225

INTRODUCTION
On 9/09/09 Judge Dawn Girard denied Keegans Petition for
an Order Prohibiting Harassment in Keegan v. Quarle 1, Case
BG0969911 This appeal is part of a long nine-year series of legal
maneuvers to harass Marcia Quarle. The case resembles Keown v.
Trudo (1925) where the plaintiff engaged in various procedural
machinations including inordinately delayed filings, untimely
requests for relief, implausible denials of notice and papers filled
with manifest inaccuracies and contradictions. Quarle via a
separate motion will file for sanctions for prosecuting a second
frivolous appeal. On 9/15/15 the DCA issued a Remittiur in favor
of Quarle in A144976 Keegan v. Quarle III when Keegan appealed
the denial of her Motion For a New Trial, filed on 11/10/14 by Paul
Raymond Turley Esq. who was ineligible to practice law on
11/10/14 in Keegan v. Quarle II, Case RG10-537233.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

The motion of Respondent and Defendant MARCIA
QUARLE for leave to strike Appellant Meaghan Keegans Opening
Brief, or alternatively to return the brief for correction by revision
or replacement are based on the same factual and legal basis.
Respondent will therefor discuss these as a single matter to
facilitate brevity.
Violations of Rules of Court
Rules of Court require litigants to support any reference to a
matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number
of the record where the matter appears. Thus stating facts,
without providing any record cite, or citing to only a document
rather than a page violates this rule. See Evans v. Centerstone
Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 151 where [ plaintiffs
repeatedly cite to 170 pages of their motion to vacate without
directing us to specific pages] Evans; Sections of the statements
of facts in AOB include no record citations at all. When a litigant
repeatedly provides no page citations to the record, the rule

violation is egregious and significantly burdens the opposing
party and the court. (Evans, supra, pp. 166-167).
In the AOB, Keegans brief totals 23 pages (7 of which a
TOAs) . The AOB provides only two citations on page 11 and 12
to emails in CT0043 to CT0045, to the emails of 1/26/17. Instead
the brief provides citations such as see operative complaint, CT
pages CT001 to CT0012. She does say that the Court ordered the
matter stayed until Appellant exhausted collection efforts in
RG10537233 and asks the court to see pages CT0011 through
CT0030. This provides little help in analyzing the merit of the
challenged decision.
At the hearing, counsel for Keegan, Gary Lee Sherrer, a
criminal attorney who admitted he is usually paid $75-$105 an
hourwho signed the AOB and presumable drafted them
admitted in his EOT that he was still reviewing the record and
that the person (ie. Craig Rawson) who was assisting him was
ill. Even a first time appellate lawyer is expected to read and

comply with the Rules of Court. Sherrers transgressions are
inexcusable. The appellate court is not required to search the
record on its own seeking error. (Del Real v.City of Riverside
(2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 761. Nor does Keegan elaborate on why
her UFTA complaint was viable.
Also the fraudulent transfer statutes do not authorize
attorney fees or punitive damages. And to make matters worse
the Original Complaint failed to name the transferee, Daniel
Kaner, in her critical first cause of action for UFTA See CT003)
On 11/3/16 the Court granted Quarle's Motion To Compel
but denied Quarles request for Terminating Sanctions. The order
stated Keegan is hereby ordered yet again to provide responses to
all special interrogatories and RPDs at issue in the original motion
to compel set for hearing on May 26 and in the current motion
WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION. She failed to do so.
In the case of Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Assn v.
McMahon (Palacio VI) Judge Ikola concluded that Palacio could

not recover its attorney fees as compensatory damages under the
UFTA and Civ.Code section 3439.07(a)(3) does not authorize the
recovery of fees because applicable rules of civil procedure
include the American rule requiring each side to bear his own
costs unless a statute specifically provides otherwise. Nothing in
the UFTA specifically proves for attorney fee recovery.
Also in Opposition to Quarles Memorandum of Costs ,
KEEGAN admitted that UFTA did not authorize attorney fees and
that there is no contract between the parties that authorizes
attorney fees.
No disrespect intended but judges are not like pigs, hunting
for truffles buried in briefs. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d
955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). The appellate process is already an uphill
battle and presenting the court with a brief that is noncompliant
with court rules makes it even harder. In this case Appellant and
her attorney, Gary Lee Sherrer, are egregiously noncompliant with
court rules.

Of course, courts are reluctant to strike briefs and dismiss
appeals but they are less reluctant to take other actions such as
striking portions of a brief when the brief includes facts that are
not part of the record. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors Inc. (2009)
the court declined to consider paragraphs in the statement of facts
without record citations. In some instances the appellate court
will allow an attorney to correct deficiencies in the brief but
depending on the errors, the option of correction the brief is left
to the discretion of the court. In Keegans AOB she makes
multiple misstatements of fact. For example: on page 8 , second
paragraph INTRODUCTION Appellant states: Please see the
operative Complaint which is contained in the Clerks transcript
at pages CT001-CT0012. This is not the Operative Complaint,
this is the Original Complaint. Also the court did not order
Quarle to pay the judgment in full on 1/26/17 and Gary Lee
Sherrer never objected in writing to the Order of 1/26/17. A
party is bound by the record and may not raise new additional

matters for the first time in an appeal. Also the mystery as to
Keegans assertion that she is entitled to attorney fees and
punitive damages increases with the explanation. The AOB cites
CCP. 1033.5, 680 and 425.16 multiple times and claims Keegan
incurred over $70,000 prosecuting her UFTA lawsuit. Sherrer
also plagiarized verbatim pages 17 18, and 19 from a recent
Opinion. Pages 17, 18 and 19 are copied, entirely and verbatim
from unacknowledged sources. This is unacceptable and
sanctionable. Such massive nearly verbatim copying of a
published writing without attribution in the main brief amounts
to a misrepresentation that violates ethical rules.
This is not the first time Gary Lee Sherrer has done this. His
lack of candor in identifying the source of pages 17, 18 and 19 and
his request for $70,000 worth of fees for defending a meritless
action and appeal is sanctionable. As Judge Posner said : what
makes plagiarism so potentially serious is that it may lead the
reader to take steps that he would not take if he knew the truth.

Because litigation places a premium on attorney honestly, the
candor and professionalism of counsel are serious issues.
APPELLANT FAILS TO CITE THE RECORD ON APPEAL
Respondent has counted more than 26 occasions in
Appellants Opening Brief where Appellant makes statements
regarding facts and orders without supporting citations to the
record in violation of California Rules of Court 8.204(a)(1)(c).
This rule apples whenever there is a reference to matter in the
record that appear in the opening brief. Doppes vs. Bentley
Motors Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 989.
This Rule applies whenever there is a reference to a
matter in the record that appears in the brief. Doppes v.
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967. While not
listing all examples 26 (twenty six) occasions where Keegan
makes statements regarding facts without support include
the following:
1. Page 8, INTRODUCTION depriving Appellant of her
attorney fees and costs under CCP, Sections 1033.5, 680
et seq. and 425.16. Keegan repeats these inapplicable
block CCP sections Sections on pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14.
CCP 425.16 concerns an anti-SLAPP motion. There is no
anti-SLAPP motion in this lawsuit. While attorney fees/
costs are awardable to a prevailing SLAPP defendant ,
there was no anti-SLAPP motion filed in Case
RG15796301. Keegan never filed a noticed motion for
attorney fees in RG157963o01 or in RG10537233.
Furthermore any fees under CCP 680 would be untimely.
Keegan did not prevail in this lawsuit.
2. Page 8, second paragraph, in INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff also sued Daniel Kaner for aiding and abetting
the fraudulent transfer. Please see the operative (sic)

complaint which is contained in the Clerks transcript at
pages CT001 through CT0012. For the record there was a
1AC and a 2nd AC filed on 1/4/17. Gary Lee Sherrer
chose not to include the operative 2AC for unknown
reasons. Most of Keegans causes of action were
dismissed on demurrer.
3. Page 9, the invasion of privacy statutes provide for
attorney fees in civil actions for violations. Please see
Penal Code, section 637.2. For the record Keegan was
not awarded attorney fees or punitive damages. See
Statement of Decision of Judge Bereola in Case
RG10537233.
4. Page 9 once Plaintiff attempted to lien Quarles real
property with the judgment. For the record Keegan never
attempted to do any such thing. She was aware of the

transfer in 2010, more than five years before she filed her
lawsuit.
5. Page 9, post judgment, Kaner sold the property a third
party. The truth is Kaner sold the property on 8/31/12,
more than two years BEFORE KEEGAN obtained a
$6000 judgment. See Order of 1/26/17 that mentions sale
of the property and the Recorded Notarized Deed of Trust
of 8/31/12 showing a mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank in the
sum of $585,000.
6. Page 9, on 1/26/17 in email in advance of a discovery
hearing the trial court ordered (sic) Defendant to be
prepared to pay judgment in the underlying case in full.
The court did not order Quarle to bring money to the
hearing, Quarle voluntarily chose to do so.
7. Page 9, in PROCEDURAL HISTORY according to
public records on August 31, 2012 Defendant Daniel

Kaner recorded a power of attorney. August 31, 2012
was also the date 105 Starview Court, Oakland was sold
to Dianne and Majeed Seifi for $751,000.
8. Page 9, Plaintiff objected, Quarle complied. For the
record Keegans claims of objection are NOT part of the
record. At no point did Gary Lee Sherrer file in writing
any objection to anything concerning the 1/26/17 Order.
Sherrers email to Department 19 is irrelevant to the
record.
9. Page 10, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of
Attorney fees and costs of collection in the underlying
caseover $70,0000 as well as punitive damages in the
instant action. Unbelievable to think that Keegan would
pay $70,000 to collect a $6000 judgment.

10. Page 10 in Procedural History on September 9, 2010
Plaintiff sued Defendant Quarle for, inter alia, multiple
violations of Penal Code section 638 et seq. For the
record Keegans lawsuit was filed on 9/20/10 (not
9/9/10) and she never sued me for violation of PC 638. It
was PC 637.
11. Page 11, the underlying matter was not before the trial
court. plaintiff/Appellant objected to and contested the
TR and stated the basis for said objection and contest in
an email to the court. For the record there were 3
motions on calendar for 1/26/17. Quarles Motion to
Deem RFAs admitted and Quarles Motion for Discovery
Sanctions due to Keegans failure to comply with three (3)
prior discovery orders. Keegan never filed any noticed
Motion re RFAS. The only RFAs Keegan propounded

were filed and responded to by Quarle in May of 2016
before Gary Sherrer filed his SOA
12. page 11, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of
punitive damages as well as attorney fees and costs of
collection in the underlying case under CCP sections 1033,
680 et seq. and 425.16; over $70,000. The first time the
number $70,000 was mentioned is in this AOB. CCP
425.16 has noting to do with this lawsuit or the underlying
lawsuit.
13. Page 12, second paragraph, plaintiff brought two
discovery motions. Incorrect plaintiff brought one
motion to compel Quarles full account numbers.
14. Page 12, on the day of the hearing (1/26/17) the trial
court via email ordered (sic) Defendant/Appellee
Quarle to bring funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment in
the underlying matter. Please see Clerks Transcript page

CT0043. There was no such Order and it is not part of the
record and Keegan should be admonished for misleading
this court. These emails are not part of the record in this
lawsuit. However they are relevant because they show
that a 3rd person named Craig Ted Rawson, the subject of
an UPL complaint is the person who writes and directs
and the pleadings filed under Gary Lee Sherrers name.
Rawsons email address is skykicks@hot.mail.com." The
email from Judge Spains clerk Ana Liza Tumonong of
1/26/17 at 12:16 stated: the court expects you both to
appear today at 2:30 for the hearing and request Ms.
Quarle to bring the funds she has offered. Please confirm
receipt of this email. Sherrer is the subject of a State Bar
Complaint for back-dating discovery responses in this
case and for fee-splitting with Craig Ted Rawson.

15. Page 12, first paragraph deprived Appellant of her
attorney fees and costs of collection in the underlying
action per CCP Sections 1033.5, 680 et seq. and 425.16
as well as punitive damages in the instant matter per Civil
Code section 3294. At the time of the trial courts order,
Plaintiff had expended over $70000 in the instant matter.
Untrue and questionable .
16. Page 13, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of a
viable complaint. It was not viable also Keegans failure
to include the Operative Second Amended Complaint in
the CT renders this issue moot. The CT does not contain
the operative Second Amended Complaint filed on 1/4/17.
17. page 14, section VII STANDARD OF REVIEW plaintiff
submits that the trial court acted in excess of its
jurisdiction in ordering Defendant to pay and plaintiff to
accept the judgment in the underlying action during a

hearing on discovery motions in the instant case
without advance notice of such an issue to be
addressed. Quarle had a pending motion for
terminating sanctions which provided Keegan months
of advance notice that her meritless lawsuit could be
dismissed. On November 22, 2016 Quarle filed a
noticed Motion for Terminating Sanctions. On 1/6/17
Quarle filed another Motion for Terminating Sanctions
pursuant to Reservation # 1813424. On 1/12/17
Sherrer filed an Opposition to Defendants ex-parte
affidavit for OSC re Contempt. On 1/17/17 Sherrer
filed a Declaration in Opposition to Defendants
Motion for Terminating Sanctions.
18. page 14, last paragraph: here Appellant submits that
the payment of the. Judgment in the underlying action

was not properly before the trial court such that the
trial court erred in making that order. This claim is
contradicted by Sherrers own email to Keegan and
Rawson on 1/26/17 wherein he cites the money owed
to Keegan. This claim is contradicted by Sherrers own
email of 1/26/17 at 1:01 PM to Keegan and Craig
Dawson (his ghostwriter) stating : so I am preparing
for drama at 2:30. We are entitled to the $6000 plus
post judgment interest at 10% per annum, should be
around $1250. (Gary Sherrer).
19. Page 16, last paragraph: fourth, plaintiff/Appellant
objected (sic) to the trial courts order ordering
Defendant/ Quarle to pay the judgment. For the
record there was no objection ever made by Gary Lee

Sherrer. Sherrers email to Dept. 19 should not be part
of the record on appeal.
20. Page 17, Section IX The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion
in Ordering Dismissal of the Instant Action plaintiff
was not provided proper notice and an
opportunity to be heard regarding the trial courts
order to dismiss the instant action. Keegan has a history
and a pattern of claiming she was deprived of notice. In
a prior appeal, A 141938 Keegan vs. All California
Mortgage (Unpublished Opn. Trial Court MSC10-03266)
Keegan claimed she was not provided notice of the
1/29/14 Mandatory Settlement Conference where Judge
Craddick dismissed her cross-complaint against Bruce
Fonarow. The truth is on 1/29/14 she and the author of
all her pleadings, including this appeal, Craig Ted
Rawson, were together at Rawsons house discussing legal

strategy. Rawsons email address is
skykicks@hotmail.com See copies of the checks written
by Keegan on 1/29/14 and during all of January of 2014
proving that she was able to write, drive etc. For the
record Rawson is the ONLY person who objected to the
TR in an email to Keegan and Sherrer on 1/27/17 one day
AFTER the 1/26/17 hearing. (See CT page 0043) In this
case Keegan never filed any motion to set aside the
dismissal. She did not file any Motion for
Reconsideration. She did not file a motion to set aside the
dismissal. In A141938 the DCA ruled here the court
dismissed Keegans action without providing any kind of
prior notice. (See emails between Keegan, Rawson and
Sherrer, CT 0043. Rawson DBA PPSLLC, Professional
Paralegal Services LLC a suspended California LLC.

21. In Keegan v. Quarle as in Keegan vs. ACM Keegan waived
her notice argument by failing to assert it in the trial
court. The DCA based on Keegans disputed claims of
being 24/7 disabled due to a stroke reversed the trial
courts order denying Keegans Motion to Set Aside in
A141938. This case is different. Sherrer was present at
the hearing. Keegans attorney had four days to file an
ex-parte motion for reconsideration. Keegans clear
misrepresentations to the DCA and the Trial Court are
well known. Most important her Notice Argument is
Barred because it was not raised in the trial court.
22. On page 17 in Section IX the Trial Court Abused Its
Discretion pages 17, 18 and 19, Gary Lee Sherrer repeats his
modus operandi of copying, plagiarizing verbatim from
Appellate Briefs without citation to the original source. Pages 17,
18, and 19 are copied verbatim from a recent Division Five
Opinion in the case of Jose Guzman vs. Evans Auto Care Inc et.

al. B263378 Los Angeles County Superior Ct. No BC467035. In
Case RG15796301 Sherrer sought $10,200 in sanctions for
Quarles unsuccessful motion to declare Keegan a Vexatious
Litigant and he copied 8 pages verbatim the 2017 case of San
Diegans for Open Government vs. San Diego State. (2017
Certified Opinion Case D069189). In the AOB, there are (3) Three
pages copied verbatim from a recent appeal. On page 17 starting
with courts have statutory authority to dismiss a plaintiffs case
to page 19 it is nonetheless error, it is wrong on the law. City of
Sacramento v. Drew (198)207 Cal App. 3 1287, 1297-1298.)
Sherrer copied verbatim from the recent Opinion in Appeal
B263378 without attribution to the sources. This is unacceptable
and he should be sanctioned for this. Gary Lee Sherrer has
copied, plagiarized a published Opinion, for the second time,
without attribution to the record.
23. Page 19, second paragraph, the trial court sua sponte dismissal
was not preceded nor accompanied by a motion or an order to
show cause. See Sherrers briefs opposing an OSC and a Motion
for Terminating Sanctions. This is untrue. See ROA of Case

RG15796301. There was a pending motion filed by Quarle for
Terminating Sanctions and an Order to Show Cause.
24. Page 20: from the trial courts minute order, the trial court did
not state any rationale for ordering dismissal of the instant
action. This is disputed, for example see the same minutes where
Judge Spain states the court is also extremely dubious that
Keegans fraudulent-transfer acton has any merit given the facts
that have been revealed. the SAC admits that the property at
issue was sold to third parties, fails to allege that those third
parties were anything but bona fide purchasers for reasonable
value and fails to allege that Kaner retains any ownership of the
allegedly fraudulently transferred property or any of the proceeds
of the its sale (as opposed to the alleged remuneration Quarle
paid him after the sale). (Citing the 1/26/17 minute order) . Judge
Spain did not think Keegans SAC was viable.
The above 26 examples or statements are just some of
the statements made by Keegan or Sherrer without citation to the
record. However they are all important as they represent the
underpinnings of Appellants argument.

Further, Respondent counts multiple occasions where
Keegan makes reference to the record by block page references.
This practice is disapproved of. A block reference to a large
volume of pages makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate which
facts a party believed supported its position. Additionally in this
case it would require Respondent to research the record and then
guess which portion of the block citation supported Keegans
position. Examples of this are found at:
1. Please see Operative Complaint which is contained in the CT
at pages CT001 through CT0012 on page 8.
2. attorney fees and costs under CCP Sections 1033.5, 680 et
seq. and 425.16 on pages 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16. Exactly
which code authorizes her claimed attorney fees?
3. please see CT pages CT0043 through CT0045 these emails
are not part of the superior court record.
4. Keegans RJN fails to include a copy of Quarles Responses to
RFAs

5. Page 12, Summary of Significant Facts please see Clerks
transcript pages CT0010 through CT0030 .
KEEGANS entire AOB refers to assertions that were never
raised in the trial court. Sherrers purported oral objections to
the Ruling of 1/26/17 were not articulated to Judge Spain.
KEEGAN contends that trial courts order dismissing the second
amended complaint with prejudice is void for lack of notice.
However Keegans attorney attended the hearing of 1/26/17 and
substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that
the 2AC was meritless. Keegan cites several cases, but the cases
are distinguishable. Santa Fe Internat. Corp In Lovato v. (1984)
an appellate court found a default judgment void for lack of notice
because notices had been mailed only to a suspended attorney
who no longer represented the party. In Reid v. Balter (1993) a
sanction of dismissal for not attending a status conference was
overturned because the only notice the trial court provided was a

warning of possible removal from the trial courts civil active
list.
Keegan cites inapposite cases for the proposition that cases
should be decided on the merits: She cites Shamblin v. Brattain
and Waite v. Southern Pacific Co. But here appellant was aware
of the twice- continued hearing, Sherrer attended the hearing.
Sherrer did not seek to immediately file an ex-parte motion to set
aside the ruling or a proposed third amended complaint. Keegan
never asked the trial court to grant relief from the dismissal with
prejudice. Keegan did nothing until she filed this appeal. There is
no CCP 473 Declaration citing inadvertence, surprise or
mistake. Conduct involving professional negligence, such as
failure to timely object or to property advance an argument are
not excusable. Courts do not act as guardians for incompetent
parties who are grossly careless as to their own affairs. (citing
Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 CalApp.4th 1401.) The court

did not abuse its discretion because Keegan never requested any
relief.
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE
Keegans RJN is procedurally defective and the reviewing
court should properly decline to take judicial notice under
Evidence Code sections 452 of a matter which should have been
presented to the trial court for its consideration in the first
instance. The RJN is defective for the following reasons:
1. The RJN was not filed as a separate document.
2. It fails to included a copy of the three items: a) Quarles
responses to RFAs; b) the 10/22/10 Recoded Deed from Quarle to
Kaner and c) the Recorded Notarized POA from Kaner to Quarle
of 8/31/12. This POA was part of the Recorded Noted and DOT of
8/31/12.
CONCLUSION

Citing Renda v. Nevarez Keegan is not entitled to a
second duplicative judgment against Quarle. A well-
established principle is that a plaintiff is entitled to only a
single recovery for a distinct harm suffered and double or
duplicative recovery for the same harm is prohibited.
Quarles successful 12/8/16 MJOP was based on Renda v.
Nevarez. Renda argued he was entitled to a second
personal judgment against Nevarez for $450,000 because
the UFTA expressly authorizes entry of a money judgment
against the person for whose benefit the transfer was
made. (Section 3439.08, sued. (b)(1). The 4DCA
disagreed. See Travaglione v. Billings (1993) 4 Cal 4th
1150.
Withhout either striking the brief or requiring
Appellant to revise or replace it with a brief with proper

citations to the record, the Court, as well as Respondent,
are saddled with all the extra work to sort through
Keegans arguments and claims to see if they are in fact
supported by the record. Therefore Quarle requests that
the District Court of Appeal either strike the brief or
alternatively return the brief for revision with appropriate
citations to the record and removal of Appellants
misleading citations to the record.
Dated: August 6, 2017
BY: MARCIA QUARLE /S/
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Sarah L. Kaner, declare that:
I am at least 18 years of age and not a party to the
above-entitled action. My address is 676 Alma in Oakland,
California 94612. I am employed in Alameda County.
I served the foregoing Motion To Strike or Direct

Correction of Non Conforming Opening Brief on August 6,
2017 and served Gary Lee Sherrer, via email
sherrerlaw@aol.com" and I mailed a copy of this
motion to:
The Honorable Judge Julia Spain
Department 19 of the Alameda County Superior Court via
U.S. Mail at 1221 Oak Street, Administration Building,
Third Floor, Oakland, California 94612.
____S_____
Sarah L. Kaner

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT
Pursuant to Rule 28.1(d)(1) of the California Rules of Court.
As required by the First District Court of Appeals, I certify

that the document contains 4887 words. This motion completes
with the rule which limits a motion or response to 5,200 words.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

and correct.
Executed on August 6, 2017.
Marcia Quarle /s/

Respondent/Defendant

Final Motion To Strike Opening Brief PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Motion To Strike Opening Brief PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

KEEGAN V.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIA QUARLE and DANIEL KANER

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION OR

GARY LEE SHERRER, ESQ.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 1 A 150642

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE

Respondent Marcia Quarle hereby moves this Court for an

order striking Appellants Opening Brief filed on August 2, 2017.

to conform to the California Rules of Court in that it fails to

support references to the appellate record with citations to the

in violation of California Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(c).

In the alternative Respondent and Defendant Marcia Quarle

hereby moves this court for an order that Appellants Opening

Brief filed on August 2, 2017, be returned for correction by

revision or replacement as to the whole thereof.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 2 A 150642

The problem is that there are numerous references to

matters purportedly in the appellant record without support by

matter appears, thereby violating California Rule of Court 8.2014

Keegans AOB repeatedly claims appellant objected to the

sua sponte dismissal of her lawsuit. The only evidence in the

record that has anything at all to do with her attorneys purported

objections is a brief two line email between Gary Lee Sherrer,

Quarle and Judge Spains Clerk prior to the 1/26/17 hearing.

This is a judgment roll appeal without a Reporters Transcript.

was no advance notice that her case could be dismissed is utterly

lacking in support and in merit. The suggestion that the trial

court was under some obligation to inform Gary Sherrer of his

right to file a motion for reconsideration lacks merit. It has long

been held that counsel is presumed to know the law. (King v.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 3 A 150642

Superior Court (1936) 12 Cal. App. 2d 501. The record

demonstrates that Sherrer was aware, well in advance of the

hearing, that the case could be dismissed. It is the appellants

burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error. Keegan

has failed in that burden by failing to provide any evidence that

there was no proper notice in advance and an opportunity to be

heard. Keegan had disobeyed three prior discovery orders.

Quarle had filed two Motions for Terminating Sanctions.

This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of

points and authorities and on the Appellants Opening Brief on

Date: August 6, 2017

MARCIA QUARLE /s/

Attorney for Respondent/ Defendant

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 4 A 150642

On 9/09/09 Judge Dawn Girard denied Keegans Petition for

an Order Prohibiting Harassment in Keegan v. Quarle 1, Case

BG0969911 This appeal is part of a long nine-year series of legal

maneuvers to harass Marcia Quarle. The case resembles Keown v.

Trudo (1925) where the plaintiff engaged in various procedural

machinations including inordinately delayed filings, untimely

requests for relief, implausible denials of notice and papers filled

with manifest inaccuracies and contradictions. Quarle via a

separate motion will file for sanctions for prosecuting a second

frivolous appeal. On 9/15/15 the DCA issued a Remittiur in favor

of Quarle in A144976 Keegan v. Quarle III when Keegan appealed

Raymond Turley Esq. who was ineligible to practice law on

11/10/14 in Keegan v. Quarle II, Case RG10-537233.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 5 A 150642