Preview
./..
E _'—'.'
F ..
F
h
._.
Law Oflices 0f flax»-..—
MICHAEL P. RING
AND ASSOCIATES
sugggmg? 58A E???” .,
__
~~
Michael P. Ring, State Bar #95922 -___
DEC 2 I,2013 GA
__
1234 Santa Barbara Street
axe.-.“ F.“
Santa Barbara, CA 93 101 Darrel E. Parker. 1
(805)564-2333 BY J ___'
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PATSY MOLER 97“ _—
\OOO\IO\IJI-S>UJN
A‘fi'
__
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 000 ___..
-—
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
_
ST
ANACAPA DIVISION -_
Patsy Moler, Case No. 1417847
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
v. AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS IN
SUPPORT
Chris Hulme, individually and dba vvvvvvvvvvvv
Clearview Industries, Inc., and DOES 1 Date: 1/8/14
through 10, inclusive Time: 9:30 A.M.
Dept.: SB 6
Defendants.
(Assigned to the Hon. James E. Herman)
Clearview Industries, Inc.,
Cross-Complainant,
NNNNNNHI—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘H
V.
Patsy Moler,
vvvvvvvvv
et a1,
Cross-Defendants.
Plaintiff/Defendant Patsy Moler (herein “Moler”) , submits the within Opposition To The
Motion To Compel Further Responses To Certain
'
Special Interrogatories, Set One.
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The within matter arises from a contract for works of improvement at Moler’s property in
Santa Barbara performed by Defendants Chris Hulme, individually and dba Clearview Industries,
Inc., (herein “Defendants”). At the time of the project, unbeknownst to Moler, Defendants were not
licensed to contract, and not only utterly mismanaged the project, but defrauded Moler from virtually
the beginning of the project. The costs to repair the harm done to Moler are likely to be staggering.
The improper billing by Defendants is nearly $1 million dollars.
I
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
During early discovery in this matter, Defendants served a set of Special Interrogatories.
Included in said set were Special Interrogatories Nos. 27 and 28, which were objected to by Moler.
The parties met and conferred, but no resolution of the objections asserted was reached. Thereafter,
Defendants filed the within motion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27.
\OWQQM-tH
Special Interrogatory No. 27 seeks to have Moler “ITEMIZE all amounts paid by YOU to
DEFENDANT which YOU contend were paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by
DEFENDANT. (Definitions of terms in all caps are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
.
herein by this reference.)
Moler’s response to said Special Interrogatory stated: “Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory
on the grounds that it was vague, ambiguous and impermissibly compound. Furthermore, all of the
.
amounts paid were in paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by DEFENDANT.”
Based on the question, as phrased, Moler believes that the response is sufficient. From a
review of the moving papers herein, itseems that Defendants are seeking the total sum of what was
paid, which information has been provided to Defendants in Moler’s response to Special
Interrogatory 32. See Moving papers,
NNNNNNND—lr—‘r—‘D—‘b—II—ln—In—Ic—Iu—I
Exhibit “C” at page 6. The motion herein should be denied,
as itwas completely unnecessary.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N9, 28.
Special Interrogatory
gEI’QM-AUJNHOVOOONGUIAUJNHO
No. 28 seeks to have Moler “ITEMIZE all amounts paid by YOU to
DEFENDANT in reliance upon inaccurate
I
and/or inflated billing.”
Moler’s response to said Special Interrogatory stated: “Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory
on the grounds that it was vague, ambiguous and impermissibly compound. Furthermore, all of the
amounts paid were in paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by DEFENDANT.”
Based on the question, as phrased, Moler believes that the response is sufficient. From a
review of the moving papers herein, itseems that Defendants are seeking the total sum of what was
paid, which information has been provided to Defendants in Moler’s response to Special
Interrogatory 32. See Moving papers, Exhibit “C” at page 6. The motion herein should be denied,
as itwas completely unnecessary.
2
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
el‘
p—n
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff/Defendant Moler respectfully submits that the motion
should be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC.
~
\OOO\IO\tll-I>UJN
Dated: December 24, 2013
~
By
ATTORN SFORGP/ATSY MO
.
~
’
~
~~
NNNNNND—‘D—‘b—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘I—‘D—fiv—In—l
3
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, I
Califomia, 93101.
'
On December document OPPOSITION TO
\OMQO‘M-hWNn—a
24, 2013, served the foregoing described as
K
I
MOTION TO COMPEL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; '
DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT on the interested parties in this action
xx by placing __ the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed
as follows:
Klinkenbeard Ramsey Spackman & Clark
3938 State Street
Suite 200
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be
~
gicied up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, California, 93101, in an
ox designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for,
addressed to the person on whom it is to be served.
~
I
(BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above-
narned persons at the following facsimile number:
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices
NNNNNNNHD—ll—ll—lr-lI—ID—‘l—‘D—lD—l
'
I
of the addressee.
_xx_ (BY PLACING
QUAWNI—IO‘ONQQUAWNF‘O
FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned
document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above, and placed the envelope(s) for
collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
‘
with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the
ordinary course of business.
_xx_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on December 24, 2013, at Santa Bar ara, California.
JMILLMHIAI‘LG ‘
Type or Print Name Signature
N\l
N on
| 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
./.. E _'—'.' F .. F h ._. Law Oflices 0f flax»-..— MICHAEL P. RING AND ASSOCIATES sugggmg? 58A E???” ., __ ~~ Michael P. Ring, State Bar #95922 -___ DEC 2 I,2013 GA __ 1234 Santa Barbara Street axe.-.“ F.“ Santa Barbara, CA 93 101 Darrel E. Parker. 1 (805)564-2333 BY J ___' ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PATSY MOLER 97“ _— \OOO\IO\IJI-S>UJN A‘fi' __ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 000 ___.. -— FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA _ ST ANACAPA DIVISION -_ Patsy Moler, Case No. 1417847 Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT Chris Hulme, individually and dba vvvvvvvvvvvv Clearview Industries, Inc., and DOES 1 Date: 1/8/14 through 10, inclusive Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept.: SB 6 Defendants. (Assigned to the Hon. James E. Herman) Clearview Industries, Inc., Cross-Complainant, NNNNNNHI—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘H V. Patsy Moler, vvvvvvvvv et a1, Cross-Defendants. Plaintiff/Defendant Patsy Moler (herein “Moler”) , submits the within Opposition To The Motion To Compel Further Responses To Certain ' Special Interrogatories, Set One. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The within matter arises from a contract for works of improvement at Moler’s property in Santa Barbara performed by Defendants Chris Hulme, individually and dba Clearview Industries, Inc., (herein “Defendants”). At the time of the project, unbeknownst to Moler, Defendants were not licensed to contract, and not only utterly mismanaged the project, but defrauded Moler from virtually the beginning of the project. The costs to repair the harm done to Moler are likely to be staggering. The improper billing by Defendants is nearly $1 million dollars. I OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL During early discovery in this matter, Defendants served a set of Special Interrogatories. Included in said set were Special Interrogatories Nos. 27 and 28, which were objected to by Moler. The parties met and conferred, but no resolution of the objections asserted was reached. Thereafter, Defendants filed the within motion. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27. \OWQQM-tH Special Interrogatory No. 27 seeks to have Moler “ITEMIZE all amounts paid by YOU to DEFENDANT which YOU contend were paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by DEFENDANT. (Definitions of terms in all caps are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated . herein by this reference.) Moler’s response to said Special Interrogatory stated: “Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it was vague, ambiguous and impermissibly compound. Furthermore, all of the . amounts paid were in paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by DEFENDANT.” Based on the question, as phrased, Moler believes that the response is sufficient. From a review of the moving papers herein, itseems that Defendants are seeking the total sum of what was paid, which information has been provided to Defendants in Moler’s response to Special Interrogatory 32. See Moving papers, NNNNNNND—lr—‘r—‘D—‘b—II—ln—In—Ic—Iu—I Exhibit “C” at page 6. The motion herein should be denied, as itwas completely unnecessary. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N9, 28. Special Interrogatory gEI’QM-AUJNHOVOOONGUIAUJNHO No. 28 seeks to have Moler “ITEMIZE all amounts paid by YOU to DEFENDANT in reliance upon inaccurate I and/or inflated billing.” Moler’s response to said Special Interrogatory stated: “Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it was vague, ambiguous and impermissibly compound. Furthermore, all of the amounts paid were in paid in reliance upon misrepresentations by DEFENDANT.” Based on the question, as phrased, Moler believes that the response is sufficient. From a review of the moving papers herein, itseems that Defendants are seeking the total sum of what was paid, which information has been provided to Defendants in Moler’s response to Special Interrogatory 32. See Moving papers, Exhibit “C” at page 6. The motion herein should be denied, as itwas completely unnecessary. 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL el‘ p—n CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff/Defendant Moler respectfully submits that the motion should be DENIED. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC. ~ \OOO\IO\tll-I>UJN Dated: December 24, 2013 ~ By ATTORN SFORGP/ATSY MO . ~ ’ ~ ~~ NNNNNND—‘D—‘b—‘D—‘D—‘D—‘I—‘D—fiv—In—l 3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, I Califomia, 93101. ' On December document OPPOSITION TO \OMQO‘M-hWNn—a 24, 2013, served the foregoing described as K I MOTION TO COMPEL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ' DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT on the interested parties in this action xx by placing __ the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Klinkenbeard Ramsey Spackman & Clark 3938 State Street Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be ~ gicied up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, California, 93101, in an ox designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served. ~ I (BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above- narned persons at the following facsimile number: (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices NNNNNNNHD—ll—ll—lr-lI—ID—‘l—‘D—lD—l ' I of the addressee. _xx_ (BY PLACING QUAWNI—IO‘ONQQUAWNF‘O FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above, and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day ‘ with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the ordinary course of business. _xx_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 24, 2013, at Santa Bar ara, California. JMILLMHIAI‘LG ‘ Type or Print Name Signature N\l N on | 1 PROOF OF SERVICE