Motion-Secondary: ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

Ryan van Steenis (SBN 254542)

Ajamie LLP

711 Louisiana Street, South Tower, Suite 2150
Houston, Texas 77002

713-860-1600

713-860-1699 (Fax)

rvansteenis@ajamie.com

Attorney for Defendants
David M. Bragg
Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arnsten Family
Partnership, LP; and Brian Christopher Dunn
Custodianship,

Plaintiffs,
Vs,

David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; Silicon
Valley Real Ventures LLC, SVRV 385 Moore,
LLC; SVRV 387 Moore, LLC; Gregory J.
Davis; Paramont Woodside, LLC; and Paramont
Capital, LLC,

Defendants.

 

Case No.: 22-CIV-01148

DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
SILICON VALLY REAL VENTURES,
LLC’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
EXPEDITING THE HEARING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND
FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS

Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles
Dept: 21

Trial Date: None Set

Date Filed: Mar. 15, 2022

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Expediting the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Compel and for Sanctions Against Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real

Ventures, LLC (“Application”) should be denied. It is less than truthful about the basis for the

Application and seeks to gain an advantage over Defendants Bragg and SVRV that Plaintiffs

1

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application20

21

22

23

24

25

27

28

 

 

know does not provide adequate notice to oppose a motion seeking over $50,000 in attorneys’
fees after receiving guidance from the Court on how a rescheduling could be achieved: via
stipulation. Plaintiffs did not gain such a stipulation and there is no good cause to accelerate
Plaintiffs’ hearing from October 7, 2022 to this Friday, August 5, 2022.

Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause For Moving the Hearing from October 7,

2022, to August 5, 2022

To move the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel from October 7, 2022, to August 5,
2022, the Court made clear to Plaintiffs it would require a stipulation securing Defendants’
agreement to do so. Absent such an agreement, Defendants would not have adequate notice
regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Van Steenis Decl., 2, Exh. 1.) Defendants’ counsel received an
email from Plaintiffs’ counsel at 6:52 p.m., CT., on Thursday, July 28, 2022, seeking such a
stipulation. Jbid.

Less than 24 hours later, at 6:27 p.m., CT, Defendants’ counsel responded to Plaintiffs
stating that Defendants do not agree to the proposed stipulation the Court advised counsel he
needed to proceed with an August 5, 2022, hearing date. Jbid. Nevertheless, with no stipulation
in hand, Plaintiffs advised that they went ahead and filed the Application to have it heard on
August 5, 2022, anyways (/d., § 3, Exh. 2), apparently under the (misguided) belief “Bragg and
SVRV ... have no desire to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion ...” (Vierra Decl., § 14). Defendants
finally received Plaintiffs’ proof of service for the Application at 11:26 p.m., CT, on July 29,
2022. (Van Steenis Decl., § 3, Exh. 3.)

In addition, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants are not participating in the discovery
process as a ground to grant the Application is no longer well-founded. Indeed, on the same day

2
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application20

21

22

23

27

28

 

 

Plaintiffs filed their Application with the Court, Defendants served substantive responses to
Plaintiffs’ second set of discovery requests, and will provide further discovery responses
currently due on August 5, 2022, August 10, 2022, and August 27, 2022. (/d., 45, Exh. 4.)
Conclusion
Plaintiffs have shown no good cause and set forth an incomplete record in an attempt to
do so. Defendants respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application and maintain
the original October 7, 2022, hearing date Defendants have relied on.

Dated: August 1, 2022 Ajamig LLP

  
 
   

Ryan/van Steenis
Attorney for Defendants David M. Bragg
and Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC

3.
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: August 1, 2022

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I hereby certify that on

August 1, 2022, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the above entitled action:

DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND SILICON VALLY REAL VENTURES,
LLC’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
EXPEDITING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

Via E-Mail: The above referenced document was emailed to the following persons at the

following email addresses:

Collin J. Vierra
cvierra@eimerstahl.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Jessica Chong

jchong@spencerfane.com

Brian Zimmerman

bzimmerman@spencerfane.com

Counsel for Defendants Gregory J. Davis, Paramont Woodside, LLC, and Paramont
Capital, LLC

Mark Poe
mpoe@gawpoe.com
Counsel for Defendant Kurtis S. Kludt

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is a true and correct statement.

 

4
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application