20FL010940C

EX24 - 2026-04-22 - Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg written response with incorrect notice date

6 min read

Exhibit #24 — Noelle Dela Rosa Goldberg 4/22/2026 written representation of consent to “vacation day”

Description

Email from Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg (Co-Opposing Counsel) (cc Rosselen Banuelos - Orozco Law Firm Staff) to Charles Nibley (Respondent), sent Wednesday April 22, 2026 at 2:34 PM, asserting that Jennifer Nibley (Petitioner) gave Charley “notice on November 3, 2025” of her vacation plan for the children, and that Charley “confirmed on November 5, 2025, she would be able to exercise her vacation day on April 25, 2026.”

Email text (verbatim, operative paragraph)

Good afternoon, Mr. Nibley,

Ms. Nibley provided you with notice on November 3, 2025, and reminded you on December 29, 2025, regarding her notification for vacation with the children. You confirmed on November 5, 2025, she would be able to exercise her vacation day on April 25, 2026. Ms. Nibley explained this is part of the children’s Christmas present, a concert in Los Angeles. Both children are looking forward to attending the concert this Saturday.

Please confirm Ms. Nibley will pick up Jack on Saturday around noon so they will have enough time to drive to Los Angeles for the concert.

[Closing and signature block omitted — full text in source PDF]

Two factual errors against the underlying iMessage record

The 11/3 and 12/29 dates Noelle cited as notice dates are accurate — Jennifer did send substantive Miku-concert messages on those dates. The error is in Noelle’s representation of Charley’s response.

Error 1 — Date of confirmation: 11/5/2025 vs. actual 11/6/2025

Noelle states Charley “confirmed on November 5, 2025.” The actual iMessage thread (reproduced in the Supplementary Context section of EX14 - 2026-04-19 - Concert in LA on Charley’s parenting time and Charley refusal) shows:

  • November 5, 2025, 3:51 PM (Jennifer): “Any thoughts on letting me take the kids on your weekend in April, and can you get Jack to his dr appointment next week?”
  • November 6, 2025, 10:49 AM (Charles): “Should be okay” / “For both”

Charley’s reply was on 11/6/2025, the day after Jennifer’s stacked-question message. Noelle’s email moves Charley’s reply earlier by one day. This may be a typographical error or a representation derived from an inaccurate source, but the actual record is unambiguous as to date.

Error 2 — Substantive characterization: “exercise her vacation day”

Noelle states Charley “confirmed… she would be able to exercise her vacation day on April 25, 2026.” Charley’s actual 11/6 message reads in full:

“Should be okay” “For both”

Charley’s reply contains no reference to “vacation,” “vacation day,” “vacation time,” or any term invoking the Stipulated Judgment ¶¶26-27 - Vacation Provisions framework. Two plausible readings of “Should be okay / For both”:

  • For both questions in Jennifer’s stacked 11/5 message — i.e., yes to taking the kids on the April weekend AND yes to handling Jack’s doctor appointment.
  • For both children — i.e., yes to taking both Ella and Jack on the April weekend.

Neither reading characterizes the 4/25 event as “vacation time,” and Jennifer’s 11/5 message itself does not use vacation language. Jennifer’s 11/3 7:59 AM message — the first specific Miku/4/25 notice — also does not use vacation language; it asks “Are you ok with me taking them that night on your day?”, framing the request as one for permission, not as an invocation of a vacation provision.

The “exercise her vacation day” framing is therefore a characterization Noelle applied to the underlying record, not language drawn from the underlying record. It is the legal frame Jennifer needs for ¶26 to apply.

The retraction — 4/24/2026 court-ordered meet-and-confer

On 4/24/2026, two days after sending this email, Noelle participated in a meet-and-confer call with Charley pursuant to Judge Nicholas’s order from the 4/23/2026 status conference (2026-04-23 - Hearing - Status Conference). On that call, Noelle agreed that the 4/25 concert does not constitute vacation time within the meaning of ¶27 of the Stipulated Judgment. Charley memorialized the concession in writing the same evening at 8:53 PM, with cc to Jose A. Orozco (Co-Opposing Counsel) — see EX25 - 2026-04-24 - Meet-and-confer memorialization re Miku concert.

The retraction reduces the half-life of the 4/22 email’s “vacation day” assertion to approximately 48 hours. The 4/22 written representation and the 4/24 oral concession together make a clean, contained record of opposing counsel walking back a written legal characterization within the same week.

Strategic Relevance

Documented inaccuracy in opposing counsel’s written representations of the underlying record. Two errors — one of date, one of legal characterization — in a single short paragraph of correspondence on a load-bearing factual question. The date error (11/5 vs 11/6) is small standing alone. The “vacation day” characterization is the substantive error: it is the framework Jennifer relies on for ¶26 supersession, and it does not appear in any message Charley sent on the underlying thread.

Pattern, not isolated incident. EX24 is one data point. Coupled with EX25’s documented retraction, the pattern is: written assertion → contemporaneous court-ordered meet-and-confer → oral retraction → written memorialization of retraction. Future written assertions by opposing counsel in this matter that touch on dates or legal characterizations should be cross-checked against the underlying record before treating them as factual predicates.

Deployment posture.

  • 5/11 minor’s counsel hearing. Sara Davison, Esq. (Minor’s Counsel) should receive EX24 and EX25 as a paired set. The pair documents both the misrepresentation and the retraction; presented together they show Charley’s measured engagement (court-ordered meet-and-confer, written memorialization) rather than a unilateral attack on opposing counsel’s accuracy.
  • 6/1 RFO. Useful as impeachment / rebuttal if opposing counsel asserts at the RFO that Charley consented to the 4/25 exchange under ¶26 vacation provisions. The 11/6 reply does not support that characterization, and Noelle’s own 4/24 retraction forecloses that argument.

What this exhibit does NOT do. It does not establish that Jennifer’s 11/3 or 12/29 notices were procedurally inadequate as to ¶26 timing — they were not. The 30-day-advance-notice timing under ¶26 is satisfied counted from either 11/3 or 12/29. The vacation-theory dispute fails on a different prong of ¶26: the itinerary requirement (no destination, return time, flight info, or emergency contacts provided in any of the 11/3, 11/5, or 12/29 messages) and the ¶27 school-attendance prerequisite (which is moot once Noelle conceded the event is not vacation time at all). Those points are made in EX19 - 2026-04-21 - Vacation-theory escalation thread.

Cross-references

Graph View

Backlinks