On 8/21/2024 Judge Ilston issued an order partially denying and partially granting Defendants' multiple Motions to Dismiss my Complaint on my multiple claims:

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION--Survived dismissal against all defendants except UC Regents which was dismissed with prejudice.  The individuals at UCSF were NOT dismissed and presumably must now answer.  The non-UCSF individuals were dismissed with leave to file an Amended Complaint with new facts showing they should be considered de facto state actors.

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT--were dismissed with leave to amend.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS--was dismissed with prejudice on Judge's finding that "even if it is ultimately determined on the merits that the [Supprelin implant] procedure was 'gender identity related surgery' that the alleged conduct is simply not 'so outrageous'."

I filed such a Second Amended Complaint 8/30/2024 addressing these deficiencies and alleging new facts arising since January 2024. In particular, the release of the WPATH Files and the Cass Review demonstrate knowledge at all relevant times by my UCSF medical defendants who all are WPATH Members and leaders.

Three other Causes of Action had to be removed from this Second Amended Complaint for procedural reasons. To add them back and name additional defendants, I need to file Motion for Leave to Amend. I also am filing Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Appeals on these claims because Judge Ilston's otherwise good Order has mistakes of law and ignores probabative US Supreme Court case law cited.

Regardless, my lawsuit is moving forward.  I will be serving Rule 26 Disclosures on defendants and requesting a Scheduling Order from Judge Ilston so to open Discovery on the WPATH Defendants, former UCSF Legal Director Asaf Orr, and the other nominally-private actor defendants and to depose them.   Answers to our questions will be forthcoming and we will see where this rabbit hole leads.

I appreciate your words of support, prayers and your generous donations.  Especially as we move into Discovery and eventually trial.

-Ted

The May 17 hearing lasted all of 13 minutes with no substantive argument on defendants's motions to dismiss.  Judge Ilston took parties' papers under submission.  We are awaiting an order, any order. Judge Ilston continued a scheduled case managment conference for July to August 16. Perhaps an order will be issued by then, or maybe not.  So, we wait.

The first significant event in my proceeding Hudacko v. U.C. Regents et. al. is set for 5/17/2024 10:00 AM (PDT) in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only before Judge Susan Illston. 

Demurrers or Motions to Dismiss by defendants will be heard. Public observation is available via Zoom.

In the state court criminal contempt proceeding, my Motion to Disqualify for Cause Judge Benjamin Reyes was assigned on 4/16/2024 to the Hon. Don Franchi of San Mateo County. Now we wait for Judge Franchi's ruling on the DQ but are ready to writ back up to the Court of Appeals if necessary to removed the biased Judge Reyes.

Judge Reyes apparently filed a last minute "Verified Response" to my Motion to Disqualify him. Like with last month's bogus "Order to Strike," Reyes' clerk postal-mailed it to my atty so we have not seen the Verified Response yet. Reyes intentionally misaddressed the Order to Strike so it wasn't until the Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay following my Petition for Writ of Mandate, that the clerk finally provided Reyes' bogus Order after ignoring my requests it be emailed for two weeks. I expect similar shenanigans again. The Verified Response likely will be a real page-turner. Likely that Judge Reyes again ignores and evades the salient legal issues, meaning I will need to Writ up again to the Court of Appeals. Another neat trick Judge Reyes did last night was to *continue* the motion hearings on calendar from May to October! Effectively pushing any opportunity for due process a full year after the criminal contempt was filed. Judge Reyes is acting as if he has been ordered to protect the institution of the University of California and the family court which also financially benefits from gender transition procedures on minors. We are in a LOT of trouble here in California; the judicial system is broken. Reyes is breaking the law, ignoring California appellate case law that requires UCSF be held for contempt for its role for violating the No Surgery Injunction to surgically implant puberty blockers in my minor son and sterilize him in violation of California Family Code § 6925. Also this week, Judge Susan Ilston again on her own motion continued the motions hearing in the federal lawsuit to May 10. I appreciate everyone's continued support as my legal team and I navigate forward. I believe most people would be shocked to know how subverted our courts are to gender ideology.

Defendant Asaf Orr, Esq., former Legal Director for UCSF CAGC, is one of 11 Left-Wing Lawyers cited for Judge Shopping against Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act.  Federal Judge Lisle Burke has ordered Orr and his accomplices to appear for possible sanctions on May 22-23, 2024.  Orr is the long-haired, bearded individual wearing glasses in my campaign's banner.  

14 months following the illegal surgery on my son, Asaf Orr and Judge Joni Hiramoto copresented a continuing legal education class, "Transgender Issues in Custody" rife with whoppers such as "Puberty blockers are reversible. 100% reversible. No effect on fertility. No effects on anything."  Asaf Orr coauthored the notorious Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools that instructed faculty and administrators how implement secret transition plans and keep parents in the dark.  Asaf Orr is a hardcore gender ideologue and a defendant in my federal lawsuit.

Esquire Orr has engaged in analogous tampering with the justice system in my federal case as well. At present, my federal case is de facto stayed.  Orr falsely claimed in his Motion to Dismiss that my federal case is the same case as my state criminal contempt of court proceeding.  This is utterly untrue.  The cases involve different parties and entirely different causes of action. The state contempt action offers NO remedies for me, only for the Authority of the Contra Costa Superior Court and no jury can be empaneled there.   Federal Judge Susan Ilston, without conducting any hearing, has accepted the Orr's fallacious "absention" argument and continued the case in her court three times, de facto staying the case.

On the state side, Judge Benjamin Reyes was personally served Notice of Motion for Disqualification for Cause on 3/22/2024.  Stay tuned for my next update.  Your generous donations are greatly appreciated. Every cent goes toward my legal efforts.  Thank you.

The Court of Appeals just issued an Emergency Stay and has taken my Writ for Mandate under consideration. 

This is a big deal because what happened was I filed a disqualification motion in writing that should have been reviewed by another judge per statute. Instead, Judge Reyes STRUCK the motion from the record. We hurried up and filed a WRIT with a request for stay yesterday afternoon and the First District Appellate Court just issued a temporary stay. Until just now, the hearing today was going to go forward in front of Judge Reyes when he clearly needed to be disqualified so now after the appellate court reviews the writ. The hope is that we will get the disqualification motion properly heard and a new judge assigned that can be fair and impartial as the OSC re contempt is meritorious. 

Second, the appellate brief, appeals the lower court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration and to set aside an order not holding the UCSF regents to answer to the contempt claims as a non-party to the family law case. The law is simple that a non-party to a case, or UCSF, can be held in contempt if they knew of the order and acted in concert to violate it. The judge refused to even rule on one of the motions so I appealed that as well. 

This is a huge win as the Appellate Court honed in on Judge Reyes' improper striking of a motion to disqualify him!

On 2/26/2024, Judge Reyes denied the request fo media coverage filed by The Epoch Times and NTD television. Reyes’ hearings are by zoom, so there is zero chance for media coverage or recording to be disruptive. He simply wants to operate in the dark. Please thank The Epoch Times and NTD for their reporting. Ask other news organizations what they think about First Amendment violations.

Judge Reyes also ruled against his own disqualification. My attorney first made oral motion for DQ on 2/13 and written DQ motion last week. Pursuant California Civil Procedure § 170.3, a judge cannot rule on his or her own disqualification. Disqualification must be reviewed by another judge. On 2/29 we filed a Writ and a Stay with the California First Appeals Court. 

Regardless, Judge Reyes, by illegally denying his own DQ, is insisting to proceed with the hearing calendared this Friday, March 1, 1:30pm PST (21:30 UTC).

https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1619504895?pwd=N0V1N3JFRnJ0TEVoSDNrTGRzakF3UT09

 ID: 161 950 4895 Password: 812674

Please share the zoom link and and join if possible. Judge Reyes likely will issue illegal orders after he has legally disqualified himself by his actions yesterday.  Thanks.

Judge Susan Ilston has continued the hearing on defendants' motions to strike/dismiss from Feb. 16 to March 29.  Details coming.

MSD19-05641 Hudacko v. Hudacko (Contra Costa Superior Court. Hon. Benjamin T. Reyes II, Dept. 16)

Arraignment hearing for three contempt citees: Minor's Counsel Daniel Harkins, Esq; Nathaniel Bigger, Esq; Christine Underhill for violating the No Surgery Injunction. Public participation via Zoom is allowed and appreciated so we can keep the Court honest.  

    Meeting Link  ID: 161 950 4895 Password: 812674

NOTE: A separate hearing is set for Feb. 13, 2024  8:30AM PST  (16:30 UTC) on our Motion for Reconsideration to include UCSF in the criminal contempt.  UC Regents is not opposing this motion. We have filed by Request for Judicial Notice case law showing an unopposed motion means the other party consents to the relief requested by moving party. But judicial discretion remains, meaning the Judge Reyes could still deny including UCSF in the contempt. Depending on the outcome, a separate arraignment hearing may be set for UCSF enter its plea on the criminal contempt of court. Same Zoom meeting details. 

FEDERAL LAWSUIT: All six Oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss/strike in the federal lawsuit are now filed! I'm so proud of my team and appreciate their dedication, effort, collaboration and innovative legal theory put into practice. We have a real opportunity to make a difference in the legal landscape as we expose how UCSF's gender clinic and top practitioners active in WPATH leadership pursue profit above all and unabashedly violate law as they do it.

Defendants' deadline for Replies is 1/26/2024. A motion hearing is set for 10am (PST) 2/16/2024. The court may rule on the papers earlier, but if not, we will post hearing zoom details as the date approaches. The court must decide whether to: 1) Accept my Complaint and require Defendants to Answer by date certain. 2) Grant Plaintiff (me) leave to amend non-fatal deficiencies of the Complaint. 3) Or dismiss the Complaint altogether.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT (CALIFORNIA): The first upcoming hearing is 2/13/2024 8:30AM (PST) in the Contra Costa Family Court.

A Motion to Reconsider or Set Aside is on calendar This hearing will determine only one thing: Should UCSF be required to appear at a subsequent Show Cause hearing re: Contempt alongside the other three defendants the family court already requires to appear?

Public observation of the hearing is available and welcomed as our public servant judges better perform their duties when they know they are under scrutiny. The hearing is in Dept. 16, Hon. Benjamin T. Reyes, II. We don't yet know how many other matters are on calendar but will post an update before the hearing, so please check back.

2/13/2024 8:30AM (PST)    Zoom Link     ID: 161 950 4895      Password: 812674

In-person: Courtroom 229. SUPERIOR COURT - PETER L. SPINETTA FAMILY LAW CENTER. 751 PINE STREET · MARTINEZ · CA · 94553.    2/13/2024 8:30AM (PST)   

Dear Friends,

Yesterday there was a flurry of filings by defendants in the federal lawsuit. Asaf Orr, Legal Director of UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center, UC Regents, my ex-wife Christine Underhill and her attorney, Nathaniel Bigger all filed separate Motions to Dismiss (MTD).  Underhill and Bigger, alsom filed Motions to Strike (MTS) my First Amended Complaint pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  

My team is filing my Opposition to the hateful former minor's counsel Daniel Severin Harkins' MTD today. Mr. Harkins' MTD is a thinly-disguised effort to dispute the facts, wholly inappropriate at this stage of litigation. Harkins ignores certain factual allegations while mischaracterizing others as "speculation," "unsupported," "mere conclusions" and the like. But his saying so doesn't make it so.  Harkins continues to pretend that no surgery was performed, only a "procedure." Documents such as UCSF's and United Healthcare's bill clearly show SURGERY.  (See this fundraiser's images).

We now are focused on the "anti-SLAPP" MTS and already find them absurd and pathetic. They falsely argue that I previously waived "all claims" with exhibit to a prior conference transcript that says nothing of the sort. Intentional misrepresentations to the Court such as this are sanctionable under Rule 11.

This legal fight needs to fundraise now to to keep the culprits in the docket so we can move forward and reach Discovery.   Any donation you can spare is greatly appreciated.

Ted

PS - A supporter asked where details can be found.  See Case 3:23-cv-05316-SI on the PACER court system.

Dear Friends.  I'm pleased to announce that Tracy Henderson, attorney and founder of the California Parents Union is representing me in both my federal lawsuit (Hudacko v. UC Regents et. al. 3:23-cv-05316-SI in the Northern District of California) and the criminal contempt proceding in the Contra Costa Family Court.  Tracy is a decades-experienced litigation and trial lawyer with a track record winning complex cases. Behind Tracy is a crack team of legal scholars with keen interest for the fundamental civil rights of family unity and parental direction of the health, well-being, medical care and personal integrity of our children's bodies against unscrupuolous purveyors of gender voodoo transition and thuggish state actors with perverse financial motivations.   

At this stage, we are awaiting either Answers or Motions to Dismiss from defendants/citees. Right now, the court must assume as true the facts I have alleged in both my federal Complaint and the Requests for Order to Show Cause Why UCSF defendants, Christine Underhill-Hudacko, Daniel Harkins and Nathaniel Bigger Should not be Held in Contempt of Court.  At this stage, defendants' pleadings only may argue why there is not a legal basis for them to be held for hearing.  Right now, it is not proper for defendants to dispute the alleged facts which the court must assume as true for the present stage. There is an obvious violation. A prohibited SURGERY was performed, thus violating the No Surgery Injuction.  This isn't my claim--we have the receipts on United Healthcare letterhead unequivocally stating "SURGERY."  We have them dead to rights! 

None of this had to happen. The defendants had three nonsurgical puberty blockers options. They could have sought a court order and requested the surgery.   But they did none of this.  These greedy shitbags were so blinded by the easy possibility of a $210k payday they just went for it. And they thought they'd get away with it. That's all this is. Unbridled greed. At the expense of destroying a young man's future. Then destroying anyone with lies, character assassination and dirty tricks against anyone daring to expose the lie.

The hateful Minor's Counsel, Daniel Severin Harkins, filed a Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 5, with erroneous legal citations and the preposterous and improper claim that "plaintiff has misconstrued a 'procedure' as a 'surgery'!"  This is exactly the type of bogus argument expected from a slimy defense attorney lacking a valid legal argument. Try to bamboozle Judge Susan Ilston into dismissing Harkins by falsely claiming there was no violation of orders.  This shouldn't fly but I am required to file an Opposition to Harkins' Motion to Dismiss.

My team is already working on this and anticipating similar shenanigans from the other defendants/citees.  Our immediate goal in the federal case is to survive the motions to dismiss and successfully reach Discovery.  Our immediate goal in the family court Contempt is to ensure that UCSF is cited for Criminal Contempt of Court along with Harkins, Bigger and Christine Hudacko for violating the No Surgery Injunction--for the purpose of creating res judicata (settled legal fact) for use in the federal lawsuit.  The cases are complementary and build upon one another.   Reaching Discovery we hope will allow us to ask many questions, follow the money trail, find out other, as yet unidentified "Doe" conspirators.   How deep does this rabbit hole go?

I never expected this to happen to my child and my family.  I never expected my once-beloved spouse to lose her mind, surrender all her former values, lose grasp of the material reality dictated by our our biological, dimorphically-sexed bodies, trade reality for lies and to sacrifice our child to this dangerous ideology.  I have many unanswered questions myself what drives this unholy alliance of my legal opponents.  

I am fortunate that I have been able to survive 4.5 years of legal abuse, gaslighting, attacks on my character, livelihood and financial well-being.  I wouldn't have made it this far without the prayers and support of many people around the world who learned about my family and showed empathy toward me for which I will always be grateful and know that there still are people of good will, unlike those driving the Gender Industry such as Drs. Ehrensaft and Rosenthal, Asaf Orr and predatory hyenas like Counsels Harkins and Bigger or innocent victims such as my son.  I was lucky to retain key artifacts and document and maintained enough stamina to stay in the legal fight and continue even after being knocked down and subjected to dirty tricks repeatedly.   Getting this legal effort this far has been like moving mountains.  

I honestly don't know how a regretful detransitioner stuggling with severe health issues from botched surgeries, a wrecked endocrine system, and facing mental health issues realistically would have the wherewithal to mount a successful legal campaign for justice from their former transition care team that has subsequently abandoned them.  I have heard too many of such stories.  My heart breaks for the detransitioners who suffer silently in the shadows. When will the "doctors" who did this to them be held accountable?  I hate bullies.  They bullied me too but didn't break me entirely.  So that's why I am doing this.   We are still in the fight.  We have a long way to go but Tracy Henderson, my team of other legal experts working behind the scenes, are not going to give this up until we've extracted as much payback from these Nuremberg criminals as possible.    Please continue with your prayers, contributions, well-wishes and interest.   There will be upcoming opportunities for public viewing of key hearings.   Your participation is welcome, especially for the Contra Costa superior court proceedings as that court is notoriously corrupt and needs scrutiny and oversight from the public so that its judicial officers follow the rules.

Merry Christmas!

Ted Hudacko

After seven weeks of highly unusual "administrative" delays with still no progress this morning, we informed the court clerks that journalists following my case would imminently contact the court's Public Information Officer to inquire why my Motion to Set Aside had not been calendared. Shortly afterward, the clerks FILED the motion and set hear for 2/13/2024. 8:30am PST.  Public participation by Zoom is encouraged. 

https://www.cc-courts.org/calendars/court-calendars.aspx

Minor's Counsel Daniel Harkins and one other defendant actively evaded service of process for a full month.  Did you know that a licensed process server when in duty as an Officer of the Court serving papers cannot be charged with trespass and thus must be granted access to any private property?   It was related that Harkins was very angry to be served in front of his spouse and a friend at his multimillion-dollar home in the gated golf community of Blackhawk.  "How did you get in here!?!" Harkins reported to have yelled.

The other defendant refused to come to her door on repeated visits by process servers.  Realizing that service at her place of work was next, she wisely filed her Waiver of Service of Summons.   All defendants in the civil rights and tort lawsuit in the Northern District of California proceeding have been properly served!

In my previous update, I explained our intention to file a Motion to Set Aside Judge Reyes' denial to include UCSF in the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt in the Contra Costa Family Court proceeding. We did submit this Set Aside in October, to have it improperly "rejected" by a clerk.  I sought an explanation and had a lengthy conversation with the head clerk who subsequently consulted her own legal expert then instructed me to resubmit the Set Aside.  I did so on Nov. 3 and the filing remains "under review" by the family court clerks. This is an unusually long time but the clerks assure me all filings are running two weeks behind due to "short staff."   We are doing all that we can to make sure all the Citees are properly included in the Contempt proceeding but this requires diligence.

Finally, I have obtained legal representation going forward in both the Contempt proceeding and the civil rights & tort lawsuit!  I've had considerable assistance to date with my filings as a pro se but I'm very happy to say that I won't be representing myself in the upcoming hearings and conferences.  A more formal announcement will be forthcoming after the necessary Substitution and Notice of Appearance by my legal counsel are filed.

On Oct. 18, 2023, I filed a civil rights and tort lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern California District against the following defendants:  THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; JANET YI MAN LEE, MD in her official capacity; JANET YI MAN LEE, MD in her individual capacity; DIANE EHRENSAFT, PHD, in her official capacity; DIANE EHRENSAFT, PHD in her individual capacity; STEPHEN ROSENTHAL, MD in his official capacity; STEPHEN ROSENTHAL, MD in his individual capacity; ASAF ORR in his official capacity; ASAF ORR in his individual capacity; NATHANIEL BIGGER as de facto state actor; NATHANIEL BIGGER in his individual capacity; DANIEL HARKINS as de facto state actor; DANIEL HARKINS in his individual capacity; CHRISTINE HUDACKO as de facto state actor; and CHRISTINE HUDACKO in her individual capacity; and DOES 1-100,

The federal lawsuit, stems from the same facts as the criminal contempt proceeding, i.e. the defendants secretly procured a prohibited gender identity related surgery on a minor in violation of court orders and without my required consent.   The lawsuit cites seven Causes of Action:

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Deprivation of Civil Right to Family Unity & to Direct a Minor Child’s Medical Care without Due Process and Conspiracy to Same

2. 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process Violation

3. Fraud by Concealment and Civil Conspiracy to Same

4. Medical Battery and Civil Conspiracy to Same

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Civil Conspiracy to Same

6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

7. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.  Declaratory Judgment Re: the Civil Rights of Edward Allyn Hudacko

I am finalizing representation and hope to make another announcement soon. Thank you for all your support and interest as both proceeding in state, and now federal, court move along.

Ted Hudacko

We just filed two new Orders to Show Cause Why Asaf Orr and Dr. Janet Lee, MD Should Not Be Held in Contempt at the Contra Costa County Superior Court.   Asaf Orr was Legal Director for UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center at the time in question.  Dr. Lee performed the Supprelin implant surgery.  Both their names, including the lawyer Orr's, appear in the medical progress notes.  These separate Contempt filings should not have been necessary but Judge Reyes originally denied the first OSC re: Contempt naming UCSF.  There is ample case law (People v. Conrad, Ross v. Superior Court, etc.) that requires non-parties having knowledge of an Order to abide by the order and be subject to Contempt for violating it.  We provided this case law in the new OSCs but also in the Motion to Reconsider/Set Aside holding UCSF (institutionally) for Contempt.  Preparing and filing these motions costs money, so any donations are GREATLY appreciated.  Dr. Lee and Mr. Orr should already have received their courtesy copies.   

We hope to have more big news within the next few days.

I sincerely thank everyone who has contributed financially, sent prayers, or reposted either my GSG campaign, including Daily Signal yesterday.

Ted

Mr. Asaf Orr, UCSF's Legal Director at the time in question and who is specifically named in the medical progress notes as personally planning the surgery then concealing it, sent me the following email.   We believe Mr. Orr has been properly served but you can see that these vandals don't want to be held accountable for their acts of destruction.  Ironic that this self-styled "civil rights" attorney violated MY civil rights as a parent, sterilized my son and now evades accountability.

We debated individually citing the individuals at UCSF, including Mr. Orr, for Contempt, but opted to name UCSF institutionally.  At least for the outset. Your contribution will help us bring the responsible lawyers and doctors to justice by individually naming and serving them as citees for criminal contempt.

== CUT HERE ==

Dear Mr. Hudacko,

I write to request that you remove me for your service list. I do not represent UCSF or any of the parties in this matter. As a result, I cannot accept service on their behalf. If you intended to serve UCSF, or anyone else, by serving me, you will need to serve that person or entity directly. 

Sincerely,

Asaf Orr

Asaf Orr

California Civil Rights Department

Office: (510) 636-5841 | Mobile: (916) 827-8621

From: eservice@onelegal.com <eservice@onelegal.com> 

Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:04 AM

To: Orr, Asaf@CalCivilRights <asaf.orr@calcivilrights.ca.gov>

Subject: eServe notification for CHRISTINE HUDACKO VS EDWARD HUDACKO

Asaf Orr Has Been Electronically Served

Submitted

18/2023 11:04 AM PT by Edward Hudacko

Case

CHRISTINE HUDACKO VS EDWARD HUDACKO

#MSD19-05641

Court

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County

(Martinez - Family Court)

eServe recipient

Asaf Orr - asaf.orr@calcivilrights.ca.gov

Served Documents

• RFO for Reconsideration/Set Aside

• Affidavit Filed Re: RFO to Reconsider/Set Aside

• Memo of P&A re Mot. Reconsider or Set Aside

• Request for Statement of Decision re RFO Reconside...

Download these documents on the Electronic Service page

We challenged Judge Reyes' denial the Order to Show Cause why UCSF should not be held in Contempt.  .  UCSF should not be allowed to play jurisdictional "shell games." The Challenged Order contradicts well-settled and uncontroverted law. Many prior cases in the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have contended with the issue of non-parties violating injunctions. The unanimous holding of all California Courts is that a non-party is indeed bound by an injunction, and is indeed subject to the Contempt powers of the Court, when (1) the non-party had knowledge of the injunction and (2) the non-party then acted in concert with the enjoined party to violate it.  

A. LEGAL STANDARDS

1. Reconsideration

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part … any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon … different law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what … different … law [is] claimed to be shown. [Cal. Code Civ. Pro § 1008]

2. Set Aside a Void Order

“The court may … on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” [Braugh v. Dow, 93 Cal. App. 5th 76, 86, citing Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 473 (d)]

“A[n] … order is said to be void on its face when the invalidity is apparent upon an inspection of … the court record without consideration of extrinsic evidence.” [People v. The North River Ins. Co., 48 Cal. App. 5th 226, 226]

B. The Challenged Order is Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law

1. The Court Must Assume as True the Factual Allegation That UCSF Knew of the No Surgery Injunction

It is clear that UCSF knew all about the No Surgery Injunction.  On 9/29/2020 Petitioner Christine informed Edward that "UCSF has the court order [including the No Surgery Injunction] per their request." [Exh. "A" p. 4].  Moreover, the 6/29/2020 Order appointing Minor's Counsel explicitly names UCSF as subject for Minor's Counsel report, and requires UCSF's participation in a gender related procedures for .  It is not known whether UCSF wishes to dispute knowledge of the No Surgery Injunction. Regardless, whether or not UCSF knew of the injunction is a factual dispute. If UCSF wishes to disclaim knowledge, they must be made to appear and contest my allegation that UCSF knew.

2. The California Supreme Court Unambiguously Holds that Injunctions Are Binding on Non-Parties Who Know of the Order and Then Act in Concert with the Enjoined Party to Violate it.  The Court denied the request to issue an OSC Re Contempt against UCSF, finding as a matter of law that:  DENIED. UCSF IS NOT A PARTY. THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION.

However, the 1977 California Supreme Court case Ross v. Superior Court reiterated what has "always been upheld by the courts," namely, that an injunction is enforceable against non-parties who have knowledge of the order, and who act in concert with the enjoined party:  

In Berger v. Superior Court (1917) 175 Cal. 719, 721 [167 P. 143, 15 A.L.R. 373], our court reiterated and explained the contours and basic rationale of the rule applied in Lennon. We stated: "In matters of injunction . . . it has been a common practice to make the injunction run also to classes of persons through whom the enjoined person may act, such as agents, servants, employees, aiders, abettors, etc., though not parties to the action, and this practice has always been upheld by the courts, and any of such parties violating its terms with notice thereof are held guilty of contempt for disobedience of the judgment. . . . [The] whole effect of this is simply to make the injunction effectual against all through whom the enjoined party may act, and to prevent the prohibited action by persons acting in concert with or in support of the claim of the enjoined party, who are in fact his aiders and abettors." (Italics omitted.) (See, e.g., Pitchess v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 653, 656 [83 Cal.Rptr. 41]; Mattos v. Superior Court (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 641, 647 [86 P.2d 1056].)

[Ross v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 19 Cal. 3d 899, 906, (“Ross”) emphasis added]

3. California Courts of Appeal Are in Accord, Consistently Finding That a Non-Party with Knowledge of the Injunction Is Subject to the Contempt Powers of the Court When the Non-Party Violates Its Terms With or For Those Who Are Restrained.

In People v. Conrad (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 896, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 248 (“Conrad”), an injunction was ordered against a group of abortion protestors. A second group of unrelated protestors, who knew of the existence of the original injunction and wanted to challenge its validity on First Amendment grounds, decided to protest the very same abortion clinic which caused the injunction to be ordered. The Court held that a nonparty to an injunction is subject to the Contempt power of the Court when, with the knowledge of the injunction, the nonparty violates its terms with or for those who are restrained. [Kolodny, Stephen A., “Family Law Contempts 2013 Benchbook,” p. 9, citing Conrad, supra]

The Conrad Court elaborates, explaining that:

Enjoined parties may not play jurisdictional shell games. They may not nullify an injunctive decree by carrying out prohibited acts with or through nonparties to the original proceeding. An instigator of contemptuous conduct may not absolve himself of contempt liability by leaving the physical performance of the forbidden conduct to others. In matters of injunction, it has been a common practice to make the injunction run also to classes of persons with or through whom the enjoined person may act. Any such nonparty who knowingly violates the terms of an injunction is subject to the contempt powers of a court.

[People v. Conrad, 55 Cal. App. 4th 896, 899, (“Conrad”), bolding added, and see accord Hassell v. Bird, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1355 (“Bird”), accord Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi, 107 Cal. App. 4th 345, 348 (“Planned Parenthood”)]

4. UCSF Acted in Concert With Christine, Biggers and Harkins to Willfully Violate the No Surgery Injunction

On 8/4/2021 - unbeknownst to Edward – UCSF performed Supprelin Implant surgery upon . [Exh. “A”] Because UCSF was performing a service, UCSF falls in the category of “servant” to Christine, thus satisfying the test articulated in Ross, namely, that injunction binds “agents, servants, employees, aiders, abettors, etc., though not parties to the action.” [Ross, supra, 19 Cal. 3d 899 at 906]

There is simply no question that UCSF is in the “class of persons with or through whom the enjoined person may act” to violate the injunction. [Conrad, supra, 55 Cal. App. 4th 896 at 899] If the Court continues to find a lack of jurisdiction over UCSF, it will be allowing Citees to “play jurisdictional shell games,” exactly as Conrad, Planned Parenthood, Bird and other authorities instruct this Court to disallow. [Id]

The Bird Court re-confirms:

As [Bird Trial Court] Judge Goldsmith observed in the order denying [non-party] Yelp's motion to vacate, our Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that injunctions can be applied to nonparties in appropriate circumstances. (Ross, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 906.)

5. Conclusion to Clearly Erroneous 

The Court should find that an injunction may be enforced against a non-party who knows of the injunction and who acts in concert with the enjoined party to violate its terms. Therefore, the Challenged Order finding a lack of jurisdiction over UCSF is clearly erroneous. 

OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

In light of the foregoing, based on new law, the Court should Reconsider the denial of OSC as to UCSF, instead granting OSC Re: Contempt as to UCSF. While Conrad was presented in the Memo to the OSC charging papers [see Exh. “A”], Ross, its ancestors and its progeny were not.

Ross, Conrad, Planned Parenthood, Bird, Pitchess, Mattos, Berger and Kolodny’s Bench Book should all be considered “new law” for reconsideration purposes, because clearly the Court did not consider any of it. Therefore, the Court should issue the requested OSC Re: Contempt as to UCSF. 

Alternatively, for t reasons discussed above, the Court should find the Challenged Order void on its face. We need not resort to extrinsic evidence to demonstrate that there is no legal authority supporting the notion that this Court is without jurisdiction over non-party UCSF. UCSF hearing should be set for 2/2/2024 with others'.

Many prior cases, including cases before the California Supreme Court, have confronted a situation where a non-party knew of the terms of an injunction, and then acted in concert with the enjoined party to violate it. All prior case history holds that a non-party in that circumstance is bound by the injunction, and is subject to the Court’s Contempt Power to enforce it.