Has Capella's Dream Team
Violated Court Rules - Again?
We're waiting to find out now! The suspense is almost more than we can tolerate!
As noted, Capella University has already been threatened with sanctions for not following local court rules with their very first filing! (Now, that's a stupid thing to do!) Even so, we now believe that one of their defense attorneys, Stella Fey Epling, has committed perjury and we have a very strong reason to believe that Capella University has violated additional court rules again! Gosh, as this information has just appeared on the Internet, we're going to wait until their law firm, Drinker Biddle, receives official notice of this latest boondoggle before we announce full details here.
BTW, as a reminder, Drinker Biddle and their attorneys, Stella Fey Epling and H. Christian L'Orange have already been notified that if they violate local court rules again, they may be subject to "penalties pursuant to Local Rule 83-7; which states:
"L.R. 83-7 Sanctions - Violation of Rule. The violation of or failure to conform to any of these Local Rules may subject the offending party or counsel to:
(a) monetary sanctions, if the Court finds that the conduct was willful, grossly negligent, or reckless;
(b) the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees to opposing counsel, if the Court finds that the conduct rises to the level of bad faith and/or a willful disobedience of a court order; and/or
(c) for any of the conduct specified in (a) and (b) above, such other sanctions as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances"
As we now believe that Capella University has violated court rules a second time (in addition to the fact that Stella Fey Epling has intentionally lied to the court), we can only hope that the court subjects Capella and their attorneys to the harshest sanctions permissible by law!
Capella Stella "Apologizes" to Court
While we're still waiting for the court to rule on what we believe was just another blatant and intentional violation of the Local Court Rules, "Capella Stella" (Stella Fey Epling) has submitted an "apology" to the court.
Capella Stella's "Apology" to the Court
The following is believed to be a true and correct transcript of the "apology" that Capella Stella sent to the Court on November 9, 2005. We will post a .pdf copy of this document as soon as it is available.
As is clearly noted below, "Capella Stella" blames the fact that her brief was in violation of Local Court Rules on her computer. Give us a break! What next, Capella Stella? Is your dog going to eat your next brief? In light of the fact that Capella Stella, Chris L'Orange, Capella University, and/or others from the Law Firm of Drinker Biddle have already been threatened with sanctions for failing to abide by the Local Court Rules, one would think that Capella Stella would quadruple check the nonsense that she continues spewing at the court. After all, this isn't "let's play attorney" time in "judicial romper room."
Interestingly, in addition to the fact that Capella Stella has set her computer to use 13 point fonts as the default (oops, we should have blamed her computer for doing that), we can't help but wonder how many people in this world actually have done the same thing? Heck, MS Word doesn't even list 13 point fonts!
Just as disturbing is that Drinker and Biddle's attorneys (Capella Stella and L'Orange) had two extra weeks to submit the brief in question, due to changes in the court's schedule, but still couldn't get it right! Then, Capella Stella had the audacity to attach new and additional materials to her revised "courtesy copy" she sent to the court.
|
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Kristee Hopkins
Clerk to the Hon. David 0. Carter
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Ronald Regan Federal Building US. Courthouse
411 W. Fourth Street, Room 10563 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516
Re: Jeffrey [sic] La Marca v. Capella University USDC Case No.: SACV05-642 DOC (MLGx)
Dear Ms. Hopkins:
Today we received in the mail a copy of a filed document entitled "Suggestions of Plaintiff of Defendant's Noncompliance with Local Rules," in which plaintiff objected that the type used in Defendant/Counterclaimant's Opposition to Motion to Strike was 13-point, rather than 14-point type, suggesting this was an effort to circumvent the 25-page limit.
We enclose for the Court's consideration a courtesy copy of the 25-page Opposition, amended to use 14-point type, which is being filed and served concurrently, We apologize for the inadvertent use of 13-point type, which is the default font for our word processing program. [Emphasis has been added.]
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
S. Fey Epling |
|
|
Our Favorite Links! |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Visit Some Of
Our Friends! |
 |
 |
|
