On March 15, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Arntsen Family Partnership, Lp,
Arntsen, Robert,
Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship,
Ho, John,
Huang, Quanyu,
Lee, Mary,
and
Black Horse Holdings, Llc,
Bragg, David M,
Caproc Iii, Llc,
Davis, Gregory J,
Huang, Quanyu,
Huish, Dale,
Justesen, Jason,
Kludt, Kurtis Stuart,
Mclan Trust,
Monks Family Trust,
Oneil, Scott,
Paramont Capital, Llc,
Paramont Woodside, Llc,
Silicon Valley Real Ventures, Llc,
Stoker, Diane,
Stoker, Phil,
Svrv 385 Moore, Llc,
Svrv 387 Moore, Llc,
Teh Capital, Llc,
Wild Rose Irrevocable Trust,
Wolfe, Kevin,
Wz Partners Llc,
for (16) Unlimited Fraud
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Electronica ||
y
by Superior {w "t of CaIIFurnIa.
Cw "t9of Ea r'v Mateo
Ryan van Steenis (SBN 254542) ON 8/1/2022
Ajamie LLP By I5! Priscilla Touar
711 Louisiana Street, South Tower, Suite 2150 Dip-my!Cllrk
Houston, Texas 77002
713—860-1600
713—860-1699 (Fax)
rvansteenis@aj amie.com
Attorney for Defendants
David M. Bragg
Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arnsten Family Case No.1 22-CIV-01 148
12 Partnership, LP; and Brian Christopher Dunn
Custodianship,
13
DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
Plaintiffs,
14
SILICON VALLY REAL VENTURES,
Vs. LLC’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
15 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
David M. Silicon
EXPEDITING THE HEARING ON
16 Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt;
SVRV 385 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND
Valley Real Ventures LLC, Moore,
AGAINST
SVRV 387 Moore, LLC; FOR SANCTIONS
17 LLC; Gregory J.
DEFENDANTS
Davis; Paramont Woodside, LLC; and Paramont
18
Capital, LLC, Hon. Robert D. Foiles
Judge:
19
Defendants. Dept: 21
20
Trial Date: None Set
Date Filed: Mar. 15, 2022
21
22
23 Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Expediting the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
24
Compel and for Sanctions Against Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real
25
Ventures, LLC (“Application”) should be denied. It is less than truthful about the basis for the
26
Application and seeks to gain an advantage over Defendants Bragg and SVRV that Plaintiffs
27
28 l
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application
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 L
2022, t0 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’
10
agreement to do so. Absent such an agreement, Defendants would not have adequate notice
11
12 regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Van Steenis Decl., 112, Exh. 1.) Defendants’ counsel received an
13 email from Plaintiffs’ counsel at 6:52 p.m., CT., on Thursday, July 28, 2022, seeking such a
14
stipulation. Ibid.
15
Less than 24 hours later, at 6:27 p.m., CT, Defendants’ counsel responded to Plaintiffs
16
17
stating that Defendants do not agree to the proposed stipulation the Court advised counsel he
18 needed to proceed with an August 5, 2022, hearing date. Ibid. Nevertheless, with no stipulation
19 in hand, Plaintiffs advised that they went ahead and led the Application to have it heard on
20
August 5, 2022, anyways (Id, 113, Exh. 2), apparently under the (misguided) belief “Bragg and
21
SVRV have no desire to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion ...” (Vierra Decl., 14). Defendants
22
23
nally received Plaintiffs’ proof of service for the Application at 11:26 p.m., CT, on July 29,
24 2022. (Van Steenis Decl., 113, Exh. 3.)
25 In addition, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants are not participating in the discovery
26
process as a ground to grant the Application is no longer well—founded. Indeed, on the same day
27
28 2
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application
Plaintiffs led 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. (161.,115, 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
Aj:
10
11
Ryan an Steenis
12 Attorney for Defendants David M. Bragg
and Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application
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
10
cvierra@eimerstahl.com
11
Counselfor Plaintiffs
12 Jessica Chong
jchong@spencerfane.com
13 Brian Zimmerman
14
bzimmerman@spencerfane.com
Counselfor Defendants Gregory J. Davis, Paramont Woodside, LLC, and Paramont
15 Capital, LLC
16 Mark Poe
17
mpoe@gawpoe.com
Counselfor Defendant Kurtis S. Kludt
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
19
20
foregoing is a true and correct statement.
Dated: 1, 2022
21
22
August
/%/L\/
Ryan vSteenis
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application
Preview
Electronica || y by Superior {w "t of CaIIFurnIa. Cw "t9of Ea r'v Mateo Ryan van Steenis (SBN 254542) ON 8/1/2022 Ajamie LLP By I5! Priscilla Touar 711 Louisiana Street, South Tower, Suite 2150 Dip-my!Cllrk Houston, Texas 77002 713—860-1600 713—860-1699 (Fax) rvansteenis@aj amie.com Attorney for Defendants David M. Bragg Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arnsten Family Case No.1 22-CIV-01 148 12 Partnership, LP; and Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship, 13 DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND Plaintiffs, 14 SILICON VALLY REAL VENTURES, Vs. LLC’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 15 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER David M. Silicon EXPEDITING THE HEARING ON 16 Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; SVRV 385 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND Valley Real Ventures LLC, Moore, AGAINST SVRV 387 Moore, LLC; FOR SANCTIONS 17 LLC; Gregory J. DEFENDANTS Davis; Paramont Woodside, LLC; and Paramont 18 Capital, LLC, Hon. Robert D. Foiles Judge: 19 Defendants. Dept: 21 20 Trial Date: None Set Date Filed: Mar. 15, 2022 21 22 23 Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Expediting the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to 24 Compel and for Sanctions Against Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real 25 Ventures, LLC (“Application”) should be denied. It is less than truthful about the basis for the 26 Application and seeks to gain an advantage over Defendants Bragg and SVRV that Plaintiffs 27 28 l Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application 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 L 2022, t0 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’ 10 agreement to do so. Absent such an agreement, Defendants would not have adequate notice 11 12 regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Van Steenis Decl., 112, Exh. 1.) Defendants’ counsel received an 13 email from Plaintiffs’ counsel at 6:52 p.m., CT., on Thursday, July 28, 2022, seeking such a 14 stipulation. Ibid. 15 Less than 24 hours later, at 6:27 p.m., CT, Defendants’ counsel responded to Plaintiffs 16 17 stating that Defendants do not agree to the proposed stipulation the Court advised counsel he 18 needed to proceed with an August 5, 2022, hearing date. Ibid. Nevertheless, with no stipulation 19 in hand, Plaintiffs advised that they went ahead and led the Application to have it heard on 20 August 5, 2022, anyways (Id, 113, Exh. 2), apparently under the (misguided) belief “Bragg and 21 SVRV have no desire to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion ...” (Vierra Decl., 14). Defendants 22 23 nally received Plaintiffs’ proof of service for the Application at 11:26 p.m., CT, on July 29, 24 2022. (Van Steenis Decl., 113, Exh. 3.) 25 In addition, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants are not participating in the discovery 26 process as a ground to grant the Application is no longer well—founded. Indeed, on the same day 27 28 2 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application Plaintiffs led 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. (161.,115, 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 Aj: 10 11 Ryan an Steenis 12 Attorney for Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application 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 10 cvierra@eimerstahl.com 11 Counselfor Plaintiffs 12 Jessica Chong jchong@spencerfane.com 13 Brian Zimmerman 14 bzimmerman@spencerfane.com Counselfor Defendants Gregory J. Davis, Paramont Woodside, LLC, and Paramont 15 Capital, LLC 16 Mark Poe 17 mpoe@gawpoe.com Counselfor Defendant Kurtis S. Kludt 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 19 20 foregoing is a true and correct statement. Dated: 1, 2022 21 22 August /%/L\/ Ryan vSteenis 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application