EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT-APPOINTED FREE COUNSEL

Teena Colebrook

3940 South Broad Street, Suite 7258

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

(310) 420-0508 | Fax

tc4gold@gmail.com 

Plaintiff in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 5^th, 2021, Department 9 of the Superior Court of California, County of Luis Obispo, located at 1050 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Plaintiff, Teena Colebrook, will and hereby does apply ex parte for a court order granting Plaintiff court appointed free counsel.

Plaintiff specifically requests an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Free Counsel to have this Honorable Court appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter for free as she cannot afford legal representation on her own. As set forth herein, Defendants will suffer no prejudice if the Court grants this ex parte application. However, Plaintiff will suffer injustice and prejudice if the Court fails to grant her this ex parte application.

This ex parte application is made pursuant to Rule 3.1200 of the California Rules of Court on the grounds that there is good cause to grant her Motion for Free Counsel.

This application is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Teena Colebrook attached herewith, the pleadings, papers, and records on file in this action, and any argument presented at the time of the hearing.

Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff appears in pro per with mailing address of 3940 S. Broad St. #7258, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; Email tc4gold@gmail.com; and Phone 310-420-0508. Defendants appear with counsel of address of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble, Mallory & Natsis, LLP; Jeffrey R. Patterson (Bar No. 126148), Matthew J. Marino (Bar No. 214440) at One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27^th Floor, San Diego, California 92101-0903; Phone (619) 233-1155; Fax (619) 233-1158; Email jpatterson@allenmatins.com and mmarino@allenmatkins.com.

Pursuant to Rule 3.1203 of the California Rules of Court, and as set forth in the Declaration of Teena Colebrook below, notice of this ex parte application was provided to the Defendants’ counsel by electronic mail and first-class mail on [DATE].

Dated this ___ day of _______________, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Teena Colebrook

Plaintiff in pro per

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ Motion to Strike and anti-SLAPP is currently set to be heard on September 22^nd, 2021, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Free Counsel is currently set to be heard on January 12^th, 2022.  By this ex parte application, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court grant her ex parte request to appoint free counsel to represent her throughout the course of this matter.

For good cause, a trial judge may appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter. As set forth in these moving papers, good cause exists to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter.

2. LEGAL STANDARD

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides in part that, “the accused shall enjoy the right to have assistance of counsel for his defense.” The drafters of the U.S. Constitution intended to cushion indigent people involved in court cases from the effects of failure to afford legal representation, which include lack of understanding of the litigation process, lack of understanding of applicable laws and statutes, and failure to make proper arguments during litigation. These challenges are not only encountered by accused persons who lack legal representation, but also civil litigants appearing in pro per. 

Plaintiff urges this Honorable Court to apply moral reasoning in interpreting the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The underlying moral concept in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is protecting indigent people with little or no knowledge of the law and how it operates from coming up against competent attorneys who have studied and practiced law, therefore they know what they are doing. Appointing counsel for indigent people who come up against competent attorneys in court puts them on level ground with the trained and more legally competent and adroit attorneys, thereby eliminating the unfair advantage that trained attorneys have over litigants appearing in pro per consisting of the fact that litigants appearing in pro per have little or on knowledge of the law and its application.

3. NO PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS

Accordingly, there is no prejudice to Defendants in granting Plaintiff’s application for court-appointed free counsel. However, Plaintiff will suffer prejudice if denied court-appointed free counsel. This Court has discretion to appoint competent and diligent counsel to act on behalf of Plaintiff throughout the course of this matter.

In this case, there is good cause for appointing competent and diligent counsel to act on behalf of the Plaintiff as Plaintiff cannot afford legal representation on her meagre social security. Also, she has very little knowledge of the law, its application and court procedures. On the other hand, Defendants are represented by competent attorneys with years of experience in practice and application of the law. Plaintiff believes that she has a strong case against Defendants, but as evidenced so far in the case it has become obvious that she cannot possibly litigate this case on her own and receive fair and equitable due process of law. This gives Defendants an unfair advantage over her. Plaintiff requires a competent and experienced attorney to help her present her case properly before this Court, enabling her to get justice on the claims she has against Defendants.

This ex parte application is necessary because the hearing of this matter is in September. Court-appointed counsel will require time to go through Plaintiff’s case to better present her arguments during the hearing. By granting this ex parte application, this Honorable Court will give court-appointed counsel ample time to review Plaintiff’s case and understand it to effectively represent Plaintiff during the September hearing. There will be no prejudice whatsoever upon Defendants if Plaintiff’s court-appointed counsel is granted time to go through Plaintiff’s case by granting this ex parte application.

Defendants will suffer no prejudice if this Court appoints free counsel to represent Plaintiff since they have attorneys who can properly defend them against claims that Plaintiff has against them.

4. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to appoint free counsel to represent Plaintiff throughout the remainder of this case.

Dated this ___ day of _______________, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Teena Colebrook

Plaintiff in pro per

Declaration of Teena Colebrook

I, Teena Colebrook, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this case and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath.
2. I have no background in law. I have not attended law school and I’m not licensed to practice law in the State of California or anywhere else in the United States.
3. One of the Defendants in this case is the law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & LLP. The law firm’s place of business is the State of California.
4. According to information on the law firm’s website, it has more than 200 attorneys across Los Angeles, Orange County, San Francisco and San Diego. I am representing myself in this case. This situation is best described by the David and Goliath analogy.
5. The law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & LLP is adequately represented by competent attorneys. On the other hand, I have no legal representation as I cannot afford to hire an attorney.
6. I strongly believe that I have valid claims against Defendant despite not having an attorney. If this Honorable Court appoints free counsel to act on my behalf, the attorney will present my case before this Court in a better manner.
7. I am signed up for email notifications from the court. I went ahead to confirm with the court clerk’s office that I am signed up for email notifications from this court. 
8. On [DATE], this court issued an order in regard to my request for findings of facts and conclusions of law. Through their attorneys, Defendants were notified of that order via email, while I did not receive any notification of that order despite signing up for email notifications from this court. Also, the wrong mailing address was indicated on the order issued by this court. I haven’t received a hardcopy of the order in my mail.
9. There is absolutely no reason for attorneys to be given immediate email notifications while parties appearing in pro se are not given similar notifications.

The above statements are true according to my knowledge and belief.

___________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of _______________, 2021.

___________________________________

[Name of Notary Public]

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: ______________

Teena Colebrook

3940 South Broad Street, Suite 7258

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

(310) 420-0508 | Fax

tc4gold@gmail.com 

Plaintiff in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Plaintiff Teena Colebrook’s Ex Parte request for Court appointed counsel came before the above referenced on court August 5^th   2021, no appearances by parties were required. 

The Court, having considered the submitted written evidence and arguments of parties and good cause having been shown, hereby rules as follows:

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiffs Ex Parte request for Court Appointed free counsel is GRANTED/DENIED with/without leave to appeal.
2. Plaintiff is to give Notice.

Dated this 2^nd day of August, 2021.

          By:

     ________________________________________

Tana L. Coates

Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent on the ___ day of _________________, 2021 via electronic mail and further mailed a copy via USPS first class mail to the following parties or attorneys of record:

Jeffrey R. Patterson (Bar No. 126148)

Matthew J. Marino (Bar No. 214440)

One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, 27^th Floor

San Diego, California 92101-0903

Phone: (619) 233-1155

Fax: (619) 233-1158

jpatterson@allenmatkins.com

mmarino@allenmatkins.com

Dated this ___ day of _______________, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Teena Colebrook

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )