Preview
1 Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
EIMER STAHL LLP
2
99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641
3 San Jose, CA 95113-1605
Telephone: (408) 889-1668
4
Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10
11 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Case No. 22-CIV-01148
Family Partnership, LP; and Brian
12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Date: July 29, 2022
13 Time: 9:00am
Plaintiffs, Dept. 21
14 v.
15 Hon. Robert D. Foiles
David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt;
16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; NOTICE OF MOTION AND
17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; SANCTIONS AGAINST
18 Paramont Woodside, LLC; and DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG
19 Paramont Capital, LLC; AND SILICON VALLEY REAL
VENTURES, LLC
20 Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on July 29, 20221 at 9:00am, or as soon
3 thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 21, located in the San Mateo
4 Superior Court, before the Honorable Robert D. Foiles, Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen,
5 Mary Lee, Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, and Brian Cristopher Dunn
6 Custodianship (“Plaintiffs”), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030
7 and this Court’s Local Rules, will and hereby do move the Court for an Order to
8 compel David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”) to
9 answer Plaintiffs’ requests for documents, special interrogatories, and form
10 interrogatories, and deeming each of the requests in Plaintiffs’ first set of requests
11 for admission to be admitted. Plaintiffs further move for monetary sanctions
12 against Bragg and SVRV for their abuse of the discovery process.
13 This Motion is brought on the grounds that Defendants Bragg and SVRV
14 have refused to acknowledge service in this action, have refused to answer
15 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, have refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery demands,
16 and have refused to meet and confer with Plaintiffs, in flagrant violation of
17 California law and this Court’s Rules. These Defendants’ refusal to participate in
18 the discovery process or otherwise appear in this action is materially prejudicing
19
20
1 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(a)(13) requires 16 court day’s notice before filing a motion to
21 compel. The Court opened a July 29, 2022 slot on its calendar on the afternoon of July 11, 2022—more
than 16 calendar days, but fewer than 16 court days—from said date. The next morning, Plaintiffs
22 contacted the Court, and were informed by a Clerk that they could file this Motion and that it would
be in the Judge’s discretion whether to accept more than 16 calendar days’, but fewer than 16 court
23 days’, notice. Given that the Defendants named in this Motion have made no indication that they will
oppose this Motion; that they had notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to seek an order to compel and for
24 sanctions last Wednesday, July 6, 2022; that this Motion is filed with more than 16 calendar days’
notice; and that this Motion was filed at Plaintiffs’ earliest possibility, Plaintiffs believe it is
25 appropriate for the Court to hear this Motion on July 29, 2022. If the Court wishes to hear this Motion
at a later date, Plaintiffs request that the hearing on this Motion be rescheduled for the Court’s next
26 available slot.
27 2
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 Plaintiffs’ ability to litigate their case against the remaining Defendants.
2 Plaintiffs’ Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying
3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Collin J. Vierra in
4 support thereof, all pleading and papers filed with the Court, and any arguments
5 and evidence that may be presented at the time of hearing.
6
7
8 Dated: July 12, 2022 By: ______________________
9 Collin J. Vierra
10 EIMER STAHL, LLP
11 Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert
12 Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen
Family Partnership, LP, and the
13 Brian Christopher Dunn
14 Custodianship
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 3
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
EIMER STAHL LLP
2
99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641
3 San Jose, CA 95113-1605
Telephone: (408) 889-1668
4
Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10
11 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Case No. 22-CIV-01148
Family Partnership, LP; and Brian
12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Date: July 29, 2022
13 Time: 9:00am
Plaintiffs, Dept. 21
14 v.
15 Hon. Robert D. Foiles
David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt;
16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; OF MOTION TO COMPEL AND
18 Paramont Woodside, LLC; and FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
19 Paramont Capital, LLC; DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG
AND SILICON VALLEY REAL
20 Defendants. VENTURES, LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 SUMMARY OF THE CASE
2 In this action, Plaintiffs seek damages and disgorgement of profits from eight
3 Defendants who defrauded Plaintiffs and misappropriated more than $700,000 from
4 them between 2017 and 2020.
5 In 2017 and 2018, Defendants David M. Bragg (“Bragg”), Silicon Valley Real
6 Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”) and Kurtis M. Kludt (“Kludt”) solicited over half a
7 million dollars from Plaintiffs to develop two parcels of land on Moore Road in
8 Woodside, California (the “Moore Road Project”). To carry out this development,
9 Defendants created SVRV 385 Moore, LLC and SVRV 387 Moore, LLC (the
10 “Moore Road LLCs,” themselves two of the Defendants in this action). Several
11 months later, in March 2019, Bragg, SVRV, and Kludt asked two of the Plaintiffs—
12 Robert Arntsen (“Bob”) and the Arntsen Family Partnership, LP—to extend short-
13 term loans to the Project of $100,000 each at 12% interest. The loans were
14 purportedly to help secure a $2 million investment in the Project from three other
15 Defendants—Gregory J. Davis (“Davis”), Paramont Capital, LLC, and Paramont
16 Woodside, LLC (collectively, “Paramont”). Plaintiffs complied. SVRV repaid the
17 Arntsen Family Partnership its principal in May 2019, though without interest, but
18 it never repaid Bob either his principal or interest.
19 Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendants had created Operating Agreements for
20 the Moore Road LLCs in November 2018 that purported to write Plaintiffs out of
21 the Project. Defendants did not reveal these Operating Agreements to Plaintiffs until
22 June 2019, several months after Bob and the Arntsen Family Partnership had
23 extended their respective $100,000 short-term loans. When Defendants presented
24 Plaintiffs with these unauthorized Operating Agreements, Plaintiffs refused to sign
25 them or the accompanying Investment-Subscription Agreements that purported to
26
2
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 subjugate their interests in the Project to Davis and Paramont. Because Plaintiffs
2 never signed the Operating Agreements or Investment-Subscription Agreements,
3 Defendants were obligated to return their capital contributions and repay the loans.
4 But instead of doing so, Defendants used Plaintiffs’ money to purchase, develop,
5 and sell two parcels of land in Woodside, California. Defendants then used the
6 proceeds of those sales in 2020 to repay Paramont the $2 million it invested plus
7 more than $400,000 in interest/profit.2 Yet Defendants did not return a single penny
8 of Plaintiffs’ investments or Bob’s loan, and instead told Plaintiffs that their money
9 was completely “lost.” [Compl. ¶¶ 57–58.] In short, Defendants unlawfully used
10 Plaintiffs’ investments and loans to enrich themselves and defrauded Plaintiffs out
11 of more than $700,000.
12 For the next year and a half, Plaintiffs repeatedly asked Bragg and SVRV to
13 give an accounting showing where their money had gone. [Compl. ¶¶ 57–68.] Bragg
14 and SVRV refused to provide the requested information. [See id.] As a result,
15 Plaintiffs were forced to bring this action.
16 REASONS WHY SANCTIONS AND AN ORDER TO COMPEL ARE
17 NECESSARY AGAINST BRAGG AND SVRV
18 In addition to spurning Plaintiffs’ requests for information after the properties
19 were sold, Bragg and SVRV have failed to respond to all legal process since this
20 lawsuit was initiated:
21 First, Bragg and SVRV refused to acknowledge service in this action.
22 Plaintiffs first served their Complaint, Summons, and other case-initiating
23
24 2
According to discovery responses from Davis, Paramont, SVRV 385 Moore, LLC
25 and SVRV 387 Moore, LLC—who are jointly represented—Bragg and SVRV also
received more than $300,000 after the properties were sold.
26
3
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 documents on Bragg and SVRV by Process Server One at Bragg’s work address and
2 SVRV’s agent address. [Vierra Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.] Plaintiffs then served Bragg and
3 SVRV again, this time by mail, at Bragg’s work address, SVRV’s physical address,
4 and SVRV’s agent address. [Id. ¶¶ 8–11.] Plaintiffs then served Bragg and SVRV a
5 third time, by electronic mail and LinkedIn message, and further left a voicemail at
6 Bragg’s SVRV phone number informing them of this action. [Id. ¶¶ 12–13.]
7 Plaintiffs then served Bragg and SVRV a fourth time by mail at Bragg’s home
8 address. [Id. ¶ 14.] Bragg and SVRV have refused to acknowledge service even
9 though Bragg signed for service at his residence and has received (and responded to)
10 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s emails. [Id. ¶¶ 14, 18.]
11 Second, Bragg and SVRV failed to timely answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint
12 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 412.20(a)(3), even after Plaintiffs
13 informed Bragg and SVRV that they would pursue a default judgment against them.
14 Third, Bragg and SVRV refused to respond after Plaintiffs requested an entry
15 of default against them.
16 Fourth, Bragg and SVRV refused to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ request for
17 documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission
18 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d), 2031.030(c),
19 2030.260(a), and 2030.260(a). (See Vierra Decl., Exhibit N.)
20 Fifth, Bragg and SVRV refused to meet and confer in advance of the first case
21 management conference, which initially was set for July 13, 2022, as required by
22 California Rule of Court 3.724 and Local Rule section 3.805(b).
23 Sixth, Bragg and SVRV refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for a meet
24 and confer regarding their refusal to respond to discovery. [Vierra Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.]
25
26
4
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 Seventh, after Plaintiffs notified Bragg and SVRV of their intent to seek relief
2 from the Court, Bragg provided a link to a cherry-picked set of only twenty-four
3 documents that Defendant Kurtis Kludt had compiled and shared with Plaintiffs back
4 in April. Bragg has refused to give any confirmation that he will supplement this
5 “production.” [Id. ¶¶ 36–42, 45.]
6 Eighth, Bragg’s and SVRV’s purported legal counsel—who Bragg first
7 identified only after Plaintiffs threatened to seek sanctions—has refused to answer a
8 single inquiry, by electronic mail or telephone, from Plaintiffs. [Id. ¶¶ 38–39, 43–
9 44.]
10 These facts are set out in further detail in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the
11 attached Declaration of Collin J. Vierra.
12 Plaintiffs have incurred considerable expenses attempting to serve Bragg and
13 SVRV with the Complaint and discovery documents. Yet Bragg and SVRV appear
14 committed to their strategy of avoidance. Because Bragg and SVRV developed and
15 managed the Moore Road Project, they are in possession of key evidence that
16 Plaintiffs need to prove their claims against all Defendants. Bragg’s and SVRV’s
17 total disregard for their legal obligations is thus prejudicing Plaintiffs’ ability to
18 litigate this case.
19 Normally, a plaintiff in this position would seek a default judgment against
20 the non-responsive defendant. However, despite the Court’s having entered a default
21 against Bragg and SVRV on June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs cannot seek a default judgment
22 against Bragg and SVRV at this time without impairing their claims against the
23 remaining Defendants. Under California Rule of Court 3.1800(a)(7), to obtain a
24 default judgment against a defendant when joint and several liability is alleged,
25 plaintiffs must “dismiss[ ] all parties against whom judgment is not sought” or,
26
5
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 579, file “an application for
2 separate judgment against specific parties” which the Court may grant “in its
3 discretion, . . . leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several
4 judgment is proper.” A several judgment is not proper here, and in similar situations,
5 courts have been reluctant to grant default judgments under section 579. [See, e.g.,
6 Tentative Ruling, SRS Consulting, Inc. v. Teledata Tech. (Cal. Super. July 21, 2016)
7 2016 WL 7321914 (declining to enter separate default judgment where joint and
8 several liability was alleged and quoting AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Peek (1970) 6 Cal.
9 App. 3d 443, 446 for the proposition that courts should “exercise great care in
10 proceeding under section 579 to avoid rendering judgment against one defendant
11 upon what might be a joint or joint and several liability with another defendant as to
12 whom the case has not been tried”); cf. Mirabile v. Smith (1953) 119 Cal. App. 2d
13 685, 688 (“There are certain cases where default judgments were taken against
14 defaulting defendants who were claimed to be jointly and severally liable with the
15 answering defendants. There, however, they set up independent defenses not
16 involving the defaulting defendants. Under such circumstances the courts held that a
17 separate judgment against such defaulting defendants may be entered before the
18 issue is tried as to the appearing defendants.”) (citing cases).]
19 Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek a default judgment or comparable relief
20 against Bragg and SVRV in the future. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs seek interim relief from
21 this Court so that Plaintiffs can recover the unnecessary litigation costs imposed on
22 them by Bragg and SVRV to date (identified below) while continuing to litigate their
23 case against the remaining Defendants in addition to Bragg and SVRV.
24
25
26
6
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 LEGAL STANDARD
2 California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 requires courts to
3 impose sanctions for misuses of the discovery process, subject only to narrow
4 exceptions.
5 Specifically, subsection (a) of section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to
6 “impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the
7 discovery process . . . pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
8 incurred by anyone as a result” of such conduct. The Court “shall impose that
9 sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
10 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
11 [Id. (emphasis added); see also CCP § 2031.300(c) (court “shall” impose sanctions
12 with regard to inspection demands); CCP § 2030.290(c) (same for interrogatories);
13 CCP § 2033.280(c) (same for requests for admission).]
14 Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, “misuse of the discovery
15 process” includes, without limitation, “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an
16 authorized method of discovery” [subsection (d)] and “[f]ailing to confer . . . in a
17 reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning
18 discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery Application requires the
19 filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution
20 has been made” [subsection (e)].
21 “The amount to be awarded as attorneys’ fees is left to the sound discretion of
22 the trial court.” [Vella v. Hudgins (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 515, 522.] Courts may
23 award attorneys’ fees even if the attorney and his agents are operating under a
24 contingency fee arrangement. [See id. at 521.] In determining the reasonableness of
25 attorneys’ fees, courts may consider, inter alia, “the number of hours spent” and the
26
7
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 “reasonable hourly compensation for the attorney.” [Id.] In 2021, the national
2 average billing rates for legal partners and associates were $729 and $535 per hour,
3 respectively. [Andrew Maloney, Associate Billing Rates Are Growing Faster Than
4 Partner Rates, American Lawyer (Feb. 3, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/2p8scp28.]
5 Associate billing rates were slightly higher than the national average in San
6 Francisco, at $536 per hour. [Id.]
7 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
8 It is apparent from Bragg’s and SVRV’s conduct that they have no intention
9 of engaging with this action. They will continue to evade—as they have done since
10 2020—forcing Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary expense and leaving Plaintiffs unable
11 to fully litigate their case. The only appropriate remedy is an Order to Compel and
12 an award of monetary sanctions.
13 The Order to Compel should direct Bragg and SVRV to produce the requested
14 information and answer the propounded interrogatories (and clarifying that Bragg
15 and SVRV have waived any objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests) by no later
16 than August 5, 2022. Each of the Requests in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for
17 Admission propounded on Bragg and SVRV should also be deemed admitted. (See
18 Vierra Decl., Exhibit N.) Further, Plaintiffs have become aware that documents
19 relevant to the Moore Road Project are stored in Google Drive and linked to accounts
20 owned by Bragg and SVRV. Plaintiffs can retrieve these documents themselves if
21 provided with the proper log-in credentials. Given that Bragg and SVRV have
22 waived any objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests through their failure to
23 respond, the Court should order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs the credentials for
24 the Google accounts for woodsidemoore385@gmail.com,
25 woodsidemoore387@gmail.com, and d@realsv.com.
26
8
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 The sanctions award should reimburse Plaintiffs for the following expenses,
2 including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of Bragg’s and SVRV’s abuse of the
3 discovery process and general litigation misconduct:
4 Date Action Amount Evidence
5 April 8, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl.,
and other opening papers on Exhibit A
6 David M. Bragg by mail at work
7 address, 170 Middlefield Rd,
Menlo Park, CA 94025
8 April 8, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl.,
9 and other opening papers on Exhibit B
SVRV LLC by mail at registered
10 agent Rocket Corporate Services
11 Inc’s address, 2140 S. Dupont
Highway, Camden, DE 19934
12 April 29, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl.,
13 and other opening papers on Exhibit C
David M. Bragg by mail at
14 second work address, SVRV
15 LLC’s corporate address, 205
Constitution Drive, Menlo Park,
16 CA 99025
17 May 13, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 134.44 Vierra Decl.,
and other opening papers on Exhibit D
18 David M. Bragg by mail at home
19 address, 7230 Fuller Drive,
Granite Bay, CA 95746
20 May 13, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 134.44 Vierra Decl.,
21 and other opening papers on Exhibit D
SVRV LLC by mail at David M.
22 Bragg’s home address, 7230
23 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA
95746
24 June 7, 2022 Service of First Set of Discovery $ 71.72 Vierra Decl.,
25 Requests on David M. Bragg and Exhibit E
26
9
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 SVRV LLC by mail at David M.
Bragg’s home address, 7230
2
Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA
3 95746
4 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl.,
SVRV LCC by mail at registered Exhibit F
5 agent Rocket Corporate Services
6 Inc’s address, 2140 S. Dupont
Highway, Camden, DE 19934
7 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl.,
8 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit G
by mail at David SVRV LLC’s
9 corporate address, 205
10 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park,
CA 99025
11 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl.,
12 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit H
by mail at David M. Bragg’s
13 home address, 7230 Fuller Drive,
14 Granite Bay, CA 95746
June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl.,
15 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit I
16 by mail at David M. Bragg’s
work address, 1467 Chilco St,
17 Menlo Park, CA 94025
18 July 6, 2022 Service of Ex Parte Application $ 8.76 Vierra Decl.,
on David M. Bragg and SVRV at Exhibit J
19 Mr. Bragg’s home address, 7230
20 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA
95746
21 March – April Attorneys’ fees for service of $ 11,968.50 Vierra Decl.,
22 2022 complaint, summons, and Exhibit K
discovery
23
June 2022 Attorneys’ fees for request for $ 9,767.50 Vierra Decl.,
24 entry of default Exhibit L
June – July Attorneys’ fees for this Motion, $ 29,137.50 Vierra Decl.,
25
2022 and in seeking cooperation from Exhibit M
26
10
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
1 Bragg and SVRV in lieu of filing
this Motion
2
3
Plaintiff thus asks for sanctions in the total amount of $ 51,283.14.
4
CONCLUSION
5
After defrauding Plaintiffs out of more than $700,000, Defendants Bragg
6
and SVRV apparently believe they can avoid liability by simply ignoring all legal
7
process. This Court should quickly disabuse them of that notion and enter an order
8
compelling them to answer Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and awarding sanctions.
9
10
Dated: July 12, 2022 By: ______________________
11
Collin J. Vierra
12 EIMER STAHL, LLP
13
Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert
14 Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen
15 Family Partnership, LP, and the
Brian Christopher Dunn
16 Custodianship
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
Preview
1 Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720) EIMER STAHL LLP 2 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641 3 San Jose, CA 95113-1605 Telephone: (408) 889-1668 4 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 11 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Case No. 22-CIV-01148 Family Partnership, LP; and Brian 12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Date: July 29, 2022 13 Time: 9:00am Plaintiffs, Dept. 21 14 v. 15 Hon. Robert D. Foiles David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; 16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; NOTICE OF MOTION AND 17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; SANCTIONS AGAINST 18 Paramont Woodside, LLC; and DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG 19 Paramont Capital, LLC; AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on July 29, 20221 at 9:00am, or as soon 3 thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 21, located in the San Mateo 4 Superior Court, before the Honorable Robert D. Foiles, Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen, 5 Mary Lee, Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, and Brian Cristopher Dunn 6 Custodianship (“Plaintiffs”), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 7 and this Court’s Local Rules, will and hereby do move the Court for an Order to 8 compel David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”) to 9 answer Plaintiffs’ requests for documents, special interrogatories, and form 10 interrogatories, and deeming each of the requests in Plaintiffs’ first set of requests 11 for admission to be admitted. Plaintiffs further move for monetary sanctions 12 against Bragg and SVRV for their abuse of the discovery process. 13 This Motion is brought on the grounds that Defendants Bragg and SVRV 14 have refused to acknowledge service in this action, have refused to answer 15 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, have refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery demands, 16 and have refused to meet and confer with Plaintiffs, in flagrant violation of 17 California law and this Court’s Rules. These Defendants’ refusal to participate in 18 the discovery process or otherwise appear in this action is materially prejudicing 19 20 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(a)(13) requires 16 court day’s notice before filing a motion to 21 compel. The Court opened a July 29, 2022 slot on its calendar on the afternoon of July 11, 2022—more than 16 calendar days, but fewer than 16 court days—from said date. The next morning, Plaintiffs 22 contacted the Court, and were informed by a Clerk that they could file this Motion and that it would be in the Judge’s discretion whether to accept more than 16 calendar days’, but fewer than 16 court 23 days’, notice. Given that the Defendants named in this Motion have made no indication that they will oppose this Motion; that they had notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to seek an order to compel and for 24 sanctions last Wednesday, July 6, 2022; that this Motion is filed with more than 16 calendar days’ notice; and that this Motion was filed at Plaintiffs’ earliest possibility, Plaintiffs believe it is 25 appropriate for the Court to hear this Motion on July 29, 2022. If the Court wishes to hear this Motion at a later date, Plaintiffs request that the hearing on this Motion be rescheduled for the Court’s next 26 available slot. 27 2 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 Plaintiffs’ ability to litigate their case against the remaining Defendants. 2 Plaintiffs’ Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Collin J. Vierra in 4 support thereof, all pleading and papers filed with the Court, and any arguments 5 and evidence that may be presented at the time of hearing. 6 7 8 Dated: July 12, 2022 By: ______________________ 9 Collin J. Vierra 10 EIMER STAHL, LLP 11 Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert 12 Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, and the 13 Brian Christopher Dunn 14 Custodianship 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720) EIMER STAHL LLP 2 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641 3 San Jose, CA 95113-1605 Telephone: (408) 889-1668 4 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 11 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Case No. 22-CIV-01148 Family Partnership, LP; and Brian 12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Date: July 29, 2022 13 Time: 9:00am Plaintiffs, Dept. 21 14 v. 15 Hon. Robert D. Foiles David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; 16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; OF MOTION TO COMPEL AND 18 Paramont Woodside, LLC; and FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST 19 Paramont Capital, LLC; DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL 20 Defendants. VENTURES, LLC 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 SUMMARY OF THE CASE 2 In this action, Plaintiffs seek damages and disgorgement of profits from eight 3 Defendants who defrauded Plaintiffs and misappropriated more than $700,000 from 4 them between 2017 and 2020. 5 In 2017 and 2018, Defendants David M. Bragg (“Bragg”), Silicon Valley Real 6 Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”) and Kurtis M. Kludt (“Kludt”) solicited over half a 7 million dollars from Plaintiffs to develop two parcels of land on Moore Road in 8 Woodside, California (the “Moore Road Project”). To carry out this development, 9 Defendants created SVRV 385 Moore, LLC and SVRV 387 Moore, LLC (the 10 “Moore Road LLCs,” themselves two of the Defendants in this action). Several 11 months later, in March 2019, Bragg, SVRV, and Kludt asked two of the Plaintiffs— 12 Robert Arntsen (“Bob”) and the Arntsen Family Partnership, LP—to extend short- 13 term loans to the Project of $100,000 each at 12% interest. The loans were 14 purportedly to help secure a $2 million investment in the Project from three other 15 Defendants—Gregory J. Davis (“Davis”), Paramont Capital, LLC, and Paramont 16 Woodside, LLC (collectively, “Paramont”). Plaintiffs complied. SVRV repaid the 17 Arntsen Family Partnership its principal in May 2019, though without interest, but 18 it never repaid Bob either his principal or interest. 19 Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendants had created Operating Agreements for 20 the Moore Road LLCs in November 2018 that purported to write Plaintiffs out of 21 the Project. Defendants did not reveal these Operating Agreements to Plaintiffs until 22 June 2019, several months after Bob and the Arntsen Family Partnership had 23 extended their respective $100,000 short-term loans. When Defendants presented 24 Plaintiffs with these unauthorized Operating Agreements, Plaintiffs refused to sign 25 them or the accompanying Investment-Subscription Agreements that purported to 26 2 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 subjugate their interests in the Project to Davis and Paramont. Because Plaintiffs 2 never signed the Operating Agreements or Investment-Subscription Agreements, 3 Defendants were obligated to return their capital contributions and repay the loans. 4 But instead of doing so, Defendants used Plaintiffs’ money to purchase, develop, 5 and sell two parcels of land in Woodside, California. Defendants then used the 6 proceeds of those sales in 2020 to repay Paramont the $2 million it invested plus 7 more than $400,000 in interest/profit.2 Yet Defendants did not return a single penny 8 of Plaintiffs’ investments or Bob’s loan, and instead told Plaintiffs that their money 9 was completely “lost.” [Compl. ¶¶ 57–58.] In short, Defendants unlawfully used 10 Plaintiffs’ investments and loans to enrich themselves and defrauded Plaintiffs out 11 of more than $700,000. 12 For the next year and a half, Plaintiffs repeatedly asked Bragg and SVRV to 13 give an accounting showing where their money had gone. [Compl. ¶¶ 57–68.] Bragg 14 and SVRV refused to provide the requested information. [See id.] As a result, 15 Plaintiffs were forced to bring this action. 16 REASONS WHY SANCTIONS AND AN ORDER TO COMPEL ARE 17 NECESSARY AGAINST BRAGG AND SVRV 18 In addition to spurning Plaintiffs’ requests for information after the properties 19 were sold, Bragg and SVRV have failed to respond to all legal process since this 20 lawsuit was initiated: 21 First, Bragg and SVRV refused to acknowledge service in this action. 22 Plaintiffs first served their Complaint, Summons, and other case-initiating 23 24 2 According to discovery responses from Davis, Paramont, SVRV 385 Moore, LLC 25 and SVRV 387 Moore, LLC—who are jointly represented—Bragg and SVRV also received more than $300,000 after the properties were sold. 26 3 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 documents on Bragg and SVRV by Process Server One at Bragg’s work address and 2 SVRV’s agent address. [Vierra Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.] Plaintiffs then served Bragg and 3 SVRV again, this time by mail, at Bragg’s work address, SVRV’s physical address, 4 and SVRV’s agent address. [Id. ¶¶ 8–11.] Plaintiffs then served Bragg and SVRV a 5 third time, by electronic mail and LinkedIn message, and further left a voicemail at 6 Bragg’s SVRV phone number informing them of this action. [Id. ¶¶ 12–13.] 7 Plaintiffs then served Bragg and SVRV a fourth time by mail at Bragg’s home 8 address. [Id. ¶ 14.] Bragg and SVRV have refused to acknowledge service even 9 though Bragg signed for service at his residence and has received (and responded to) 10 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s emails. [Id. ¶¶ 14, 18.] 11 Second, Bragg and SVRV failed to timely answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint 12 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 412.20(a)(3), even after Plaintiffs 13 informed Bragg and SVRV that they would pursue a default judgment against them. 14 Third, Bragg and SVRV refused to respond after Plaintiffs requested an entry 15 of default against them. 16 Fourth, Bragg and SVRV refused to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ request for 17 documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission 18 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d), 2031.030(c), 19 2030.260(a), and 2030.260(a). (See Vierra Decl., Exhibit N.) 20 Fifth, Bragg and SVRV refused to meet and confer in advance of the first case 21 management conference, which initially was set for July 13, 2022, as required by 22 California Rule of Court 3.724 and Local Rule section 3.805(b). 23 Sixth, Bragg and SVRV refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for a meet 24 and confer regarding their refusal to respond to discovery. [Vierra Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.] 25 26 4 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 Seventh, after Plaintiffs notified Bragg and SVRV of their intent to seek relief 2 from the Court, Bragg provided a link to a cherry-picked set of only twenty-four 3 documents that Defendant Kurtis Kludt had compiled and shared with Plaintiffs back 4 in April. Bragg has refused to give any confirmation that he will supplement this 5 “production.” [Id. ¶¶ 36–42, 45.] 6 Eighth, Bragg’s and SVRV’s purported legal counsel—who Bragg first 7 identified only after Plaintiffs threatened to seek sanctions—has refused to answer a 8 single inquiry, by electronic mail or telephone, from Plaintiffs. [Id. ¶¶ 38–39, 43– 9 44.] 10 These facts are set out in further detail in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the 11 attached Declaration of Collin J. Vierra. 12 Plaintiffs have incurred considerable expenses attempting to serve Bragg and 13 SVRV with the Complaint and discovery documents. Yet Bragg and SVRV appear 14 committed to their strategy of avoidance. Because Bragg and SVRV developed and 15 managed the Moore Road Project, they are in possession of key evidence that 16 Plaintiffs need to prove their claims against all Defendants. Bragg’s and SVRV’s 17 total disregard for their legal obligations is thus prejudicing Plaintiffs’ ability to 18 litigate this case. 19 Normally, a plaintiff in this position would seek a default judgment against 20 the non-responsive defendant. However, despite the Court’s having entered a default 21 against Bragg and SVRV on June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs cannot seek a default judgment 22 against Bragg and SVRV at this time without impairing their claims against the 23 remaining Defendants. Under California Rule of Court 3.1800(a)(7), to obtain a 24 default judgment against a defendant when joint and several liability is alleged, 25 plaintiffs must “dismiss[ ] all parties against whom judgment is not sought” or, 26 5 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 579, file “an application for 2 separate judgment against specific parties” which the Court may grant “in its 3 discretion, . . . leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several 4 judgment is proper.” A several judgment is not proper here, and in similar situations, 5 courts have been reluctant to grant default judgments under section 579. [See, e.g., 6 Tentative Ruling, SRS Consulting, Inc. v. Teledata Tech. (Cal. Super. July 21, 2016) 7 2016 WL 7321914 (declining to enter separate default judgment where joint and 8 several liability was alleged and quoting AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Peek (1970) 6 Cal. 9 App. 3d 443, 446 for the proposition that courts should “exercise great care in 10 proceeding under section 579 to avoid rendering judgment against one defendant 11 upon what might be a joint or joint and several liability with another defendant as to 12 whom the case has not been tried”); cf. Mirabile v. Smith (1953) 119 Cal. App. 2d 13 685, 688 (“There are certain cases where default judgments were taken against 14 defaulting defendants who were claimed to be jointly and severally liable with the 15 answering defendants. There, however, they set up independent defenses not 16 involving the defaulting defendants. Under such circumstances the courts held that a 17 separate judgment against such defaulting defendants may be entered before the 18 issue is tried as to the appearing defendants.”) (citing cases).] 19 Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek a default judgment or comparable relief 20 against Bragg and SVRV in the future. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs seek interim relief from 21 this Court so that Plaintiffs can recover the unnecessary litigation costs imposed on 22 them by Bragg and SVRV to date (identified below) while continuing to litigate their 23 case against the remaining Defendants in addition to Bragg and SVRV. 24 25 26 6 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 requires courts to 3 impose sanctions for misuses of the discovery process, subject only to narrow 4 exceptions. 5 Specifically, subsection (a) of section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to 6 “impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the 7 discovery process . . . pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, 8 incurred by anyone as a result” of such conduct. The Court “shall impose that 9 sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial 10 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 11 [Id. (emphasis added); see also CCP § 2031.300(c) (court “shall” impose sanctions 12 with regard to inspection demands); CCP § 2030.290(c) (same for interrogatories); 13 CCP § 2033.280(c) (same for requests for admission).] 14 Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, “misuse of the discovery 15 process” includes, without limitation, “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an 16 authorized method of discovery” [subsection (d)] and “[f]ailing to confer . . . in a 17 reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning 18 discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery Application requires the 19 filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution 20 has been made” [subsection (e)]. 21 “The amount to be awarded as attorneys’ fees is left to the sound discretion of 22 the trial court.” [Vella v. Hudgins (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 515, 522.] Courts may 23 award attorneys’ fees even if the attorney and his agents are operating under a 24 contingency fee arrangement. [See id. at 521.] In determining the reasonableness of 25 attorneys’ fees, courts may consider, inter alia, “the number of hours spent” and the 26 7 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 “reasonable hourly compensation for the attorney.” [Id.] In 2021, the national 2 average billing rates for legal partners and associates were $729 and $535 per hour, 3 respectively. [Andrew Maloney, Associate Billing Rates Are Growing Faster Than 4 Partner Rates, American Lawyer (Feb. 3, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/2p8scp28.] 5 Associate billing rates were slightly higher than the national average in San 6 Francisco, at $536 per hour. [Id.] 7 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 8 It is apparent from Bragg’s and SVRV’s conduct that they have no intention 9 of engaging with this action. They will continue to evade—as they have done since 10 2020—forcing Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary expense and leaving Plaintiffs unable 11 to fully litigate their case. The only appropriate remedy is an Order to Compel and 12 an award of monetary sanctions. 13 The Order to Compel should direct Bragg and SVRV to produce the requested 14 information and answer the propounded interrogatories (and clarifying that Bragg 15 and SVRV have waived any objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests) by no later 16 than August 5, 2022. Each of the Requests in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for 17 Admission propounded on Bragg and SVRV should also be deemed admitted. (See 18 Vierra Decl., Exhibit N.) Further, Plaintiffs have become aware that documents 19 relevant to the Moore Road Project are stored in Google Drive and linked to accounts 20 owned by Bragg and SVRV. Plaintiffs can retrieve these documents themselves if 21 provided with the proper log-in credentials. Given that Bragg and SVRV have 22 waived any objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests through their failure to 23 respond, the Court should order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs the credentials for 24 the Google accounts for woodsidemoore385@gmail.com, 25 woodsidemoore387@gmail.com, and d@realsv.com. 26 8 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 The sanctions award should reimburse Plaintiffs for the following expenses, 2 including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of Bragg’s and SVRV’s abuse of the 3 discovery process and general litigation misconduct: 4 Date Action Amount Evidence 5 April 8, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl., and other opening papers on Exhibit A 6 David M. Bragg by mail at work 7 address, 170 Middlefield Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025 8 April 8, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl., 9 and other opening papers on Exhibit B SVRV LLC by mail at registered 10 agent Rocket Corporate Services 11 Inc’s address, 2140 S. Dupont Highway, Camden, DE 19934 12 April 29, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 10.32 Vierra Decl., 13 and other opening papers on Exhibit C David M. Bragg by mail at 14 second work address, SVRV 15 LLC’s corporate address, 205 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park, 16 CA 99025 17 May 13, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 134.44 Vierra Decl., and other opening papers on Exhibit D 18 David M. Bragg by mail at home 19 address, 7230 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA 95746 20 May 13, 2022 Service of Complaint, Summons, $ 134.44 Vierra Decl., 21 and other opening papers on Exhibit D SVRV LLC by mail at David M. 22 Bragg’s home address, 7230 23 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA 95746 24 June 7, 2022 Service of First Set of Discovery $ 71.72 Vierra Decl., 25 Requests on David M. Bragg and Exhibit E 26 9 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 SVRV LLC by mail at David M. Bragg’s home address, 7230 2 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA 3 95746 4 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl., SVRV LCC by mail at registered Exhibit F 5 agent Rocket Corporate Services 6 Inc’s address, 2140 S. Dupont Highway, Camden, DE 19934 7 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl., 8 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit G by mail at David SVRV LLC’s 9 corporate address, 205 10 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park, CA 99025 11 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl., 12 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit H by mail at David M. Bragg’s 13 home address, 7230 Fuller Drive, 14 Granite Bay, CA 95746 June 9, 2022 Service of Entry of Default on $ 7.33 Vierra Decl., 15 David M. Bragg and SVRV LLC Exhibit I 16 by mail at David M. Bragg’s work address, 1467 Chilco St, 17 Menlo Park, CA 94025 18 July 6, 2022 Service of Ex Parte Application $ 8.76 Vierra Decl., on David M. Bragg and SVRV at Exhibit J 19 Mr. Bragg’s home address, 7230 20 Fuller Drive, Granite Bay, CA 95746 21 March – April Attorneys’ fees for service of $ 11,968.50 Vierra Decl., 22 2022 complaint, summons, and Exhibit K discovery 23 June 2022 Attorneys’ fees for request for $ 9,767.50 Vierra Decl., 24 entry of default Exhibit L June – July Attorneys’ fees for this Motion, $ 29,137.50 Vierra Decl., 25 2022 and in seeking cooperation from Exhibit M 26 10 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC 1 Bragg and SVRV in lieu of filing this Motion 2 3 Plaintiff thus asks for sanctions in the total amount of $ 51,283.14. 4 CONCLUSION 5 After defrauding Plaintiffs out of more than $700,000, Defendants Bragg 6 and SVRV apparently believe they can avoid liability by simply ignoring all legal 7 process. This Court should quickly disabuse them of that notion and enter an order 8 compelling them to answer Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and awarding sanctions. 9 10 Dated: July 12, 2022 By: ______________________ 11 Collin J. Vierra 12 EIMER STAHL, LLP 13 Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert 14 Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen 15 Family Partnership, LP, and the Brian Christopher Dunn 16 Custodianship 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 28 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC