I submitted my opening brief last Wednesday, the day it was due. The first submission was at 10:02 a.m. The clerk rejected it for not having bookmarks and not serving the trial court. Custom-labeled bookmarks require Adobe Acrobat, a paid program that I do not have and cannot afford as a direct result of the ongoing stalking and defamation alleged in this case. Luckily, Adobe allowed me to use a 7-day trial, a trial that I have used before, to add the necessary bookmarks.
I called the trial court to ask for their email address. They told me that they do not have an email setup for e-service. They suggested I mail my opening brief. I was wondering why I could not use the email address that they use in court, the one I heard them give out over the phone while I was present in court, and the one that the Judge ordered me not to use when I contacted them about a delay in my appeal documents, but that was a dead end. The clerk on the phone would not give me her name, and she would not even give me the mailing address.
I added the bookmarks and used the few dollars I had to snail mail a copy of the opening brief to the trial court. The second submission was at 2:00 p.m. The brief would not be accepted for filing until Friday, January 24, 2025, at 4:18 p.m. In the interim, the clerk called me twice. The first call was shortly after my second submission, at 2:25 p.m., where he wanted to know whether or not I knew that I had a pending motion asking for permission to add additional pages to the opening brief.
I called the number the clerk left on my voicemail. I reached a clerk who was not the clerk who called me. I asked for Mr. Cervantes. The person on the phone informed me that Mr. Cervantes was at lunch—it was 3:50 p.m.—and asked me if I wanted to leave a message. I answered in the affirmative, and she transferred me to another female where I was told I was transferred to the wrong extension. When I finally reached Mr. Cervantes voicemail, I politely told him that I did indeed want to file my opening brief that day.
The motion for additional pages had come and gone with no action from the court. There was no reason for me to hold onto the finished brief.
Mr. Cervantes called again at 4:22 p.m. He said he received my voicemail about wanting to file the opening brief on that day, the day it was due. The reason for his follow-up was to ask if I wanted to withdraw my motion for additional pages (the motion that the court failed to act upon). I did not call back. This pattern of willful incompetence is a classic Mark Zuckerberg litigation tactic—one that is detailed in the opening brief.
Much like the trial Judge, Judge Stern, Mr. Cervates was goading me into leaving an unprofessional message. There would be another attempt to prompt an angry response from me before accepting my opening brief.
Friday, January 24, 2025, at 4:11 p.m., Mr. Cervantes emailed me a copy of an order. The order read, “Appellant’s application for additional pages is denied.” It was signed by Stratton. P.J. and it was filed on January 24, 2025—three days after it was due and two days after my opening brief was due.
A copy of the opening brief can be found here: Appellant’s Opening Brief, Arbit v. Zuckerberg.
Leave a Reply