On July 01, 2013 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Clearview Industries Inc,
Moler, Patsy,
and
Clearview Industries Inc,
Hulme, Chris,
Hulme, Jennifer,
for Unlimited Fraud (16)
in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
LAW OFFICE OF JEFF BENNION Superior Court of California
JEFFREY M. BENNION, SBN 2 75 946
2869 INDIA ST County of Santa Barbara
SAN DIEGO, CA 92 103 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
(619) 609-7198 7/6/2016 4:51 :47 PM
JEFF@]BENNIONLAW.COM Terri Chavez,
By: Deputy
Attqrneys for Defendants
Chrls Hulme, and .
Cleaeew Industnes, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
10
11 Patsy Moler,
Case No. 1417847
12 Plaintiff,
Defendant ClearView Industries,
13
v. Inc.’s Motion in Limine to
Preclude Evidence of Lack of
Chris Hulme, individually and dba Notice for Corporate Meetings
14
Clearylew Industryes, Inc,
Ienmfer Hulme,_1nd1v1dually and dba Motion of 3 of 9
15 Clearv1ew Industrms, Inc., and Does 1
througt, 1nclus1ve Complaint Filed: 7/ 1/ 13
16 A551 ned: Hon. James E Herman
Defendants. Trla Date: 7/13/2016
17
18 And Related Cross Action
19
20
TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, ClearView Industries, Inc.,
22
respectfully moves this Court for an order precluding Plaintiff from presenting
23
evidence that there was no notice for the meetings of ClearView Industries, Inc.
24
This motion is based upon grounds that it would be unfair and unduly
25
prejudicial to Defendants and would confuse the issues and mislead the jury to
26
permit Plaintiff to introduce such evidence. This motion is made under the
27
provisions of Evidence Code section 352, and the supporting Memorandum of
28
Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice
Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such
argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing of this matter.
1. Evidence Regarding Any Lack of Written Notice
of Corporate Meetings Is Irrelevant
Plaintiff has stated dozens of times in various motions and discovery
responses that one of the main arguments for piercing the corporate veil is that the
two shareholders did not mail each other written notice of their annual meetings.
This information not only has no bearing on a piercing the corporate veil argument,
10 it’s rendered completely irrelevant by the Corporations Code.
11 In the chapter on shareholder’s meetings, Corporations Code Section 601(6)
12 states: “Attendance of a person at a meeting shall constitute a waiver of
13 notice of and presence at the meeting...” Chris Hulme and Jennifer Hulme were
14 both present at all shareholders meetings and board meetings. This is not disputed.
15 Their presence, which is documented in the minutes, constitutes a waiver of notice.
16 In fact, Corporations Code §300(e) states that close corporations can agree
17 to not have directors’ and shareholders’ meetings and that “shall not be a
18 considered a factor tending to establish that the shareholders have
19 personal liability for corporate obligations.” (Corp Code §3 00(e).)
20 “Alter ego is an extreme remedy, sparingly used.” Sonora Diamond Corp. 11.
21 Sup. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App4th 523, 5 38-5 39. It is only appropriate under
22 narrowly-defined circumstances. Mesler v. Bragg Management C0., (1985) 39
23 Cal.3d 290, 300. Here, Plaintiff is attempting to waste the Court’s time and the
24 Jury’s time with factors that are not even a violation of the code. Alter ego is a very
25 high standard and there is no law whatsoever that suggests that it should be applied
26 when corporations do not go above and beyond what is required by the code.
27
28
2
Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice
11. Plaintiff Has Failed to Designate an Expert to
Explain These Issues to the Jury
An understanding of the rules and standards that corporations must follow
is sufficiently beyond common experience and requires an expert witness to assist
the trier of fact. (Cal Evid Code §801.) Plaintiff has not designated an expert on this
subject to explain why this evidence would tend to prove or disprove that ClearView
is a valid corporation. Defendants would be deprived of any opportunity to cross
examine that expert on his opinions of those standards. As such, eliciting any
testimony on this topic without offering any assistance on the standard of why
10 Plaintiff believes that Defendants acted below what is required as a bare minimum
11 of corporations would be a waste of the Court’s and the jurors’ time and the only
12 purpose would be to confuse them with extraneous and irrelevant facts.
13
14 Dated: July 6, 2016 Law Office of Jeff Bennion
15
16
17
By: M M
Jeffregfi. éennion, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
18
19
GRANTED DENIED MODIFIED
20
21 ~ ~ ~ ~
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice
Document Filed Date
July 06, 2016
Case Filing Date
July 01, 2013
Category
Unlimited Fraud (16)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED LAW OFFICE OF JEFF BENNION Superior Court of California JEFFREY M. BENNION, SBN 2 75 946 2869 INDIA ST County of Santa Barbara SAN DIEGO, CA 92 103 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer (619) 609-7198 7/6/2016 4:51 :47 PM JEFF@]BENNIONLAW.COM Terri Chavez, By: Deputy Attqrneys for Defendants Chrls Hulme, and . Cleaeew Industnes, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION 10 11 Patsy Moler, Case No. 1417847 12 Plaintiff, Defendant ClearView Industries, 13 v. Inc.’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Lack of Chris Hulme, individually and dba Notice for Corporate Meetings 14 Clearylew Industryes, Inc, Ienmfer Hulme,_1nd1v1dually and dba Motion of 3 of 9 15 Clearv1ew Industrms, Inc., and Does 1 througt, 1nclus1ve Complaint Filed: 7/ 1/ 13 16 A551 ned: Hon. James E Herman Defendants. Trla Date: 7/13/2016 17 18 And Related Cross Action 19 20 TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, ClearView Industries, Inc., 22 respectfully moves this Court for an order precluding Plaintiff from presenting 23 evidence that there was no notice for the meetings of ClearView Industries, Inc. 24 This motion is based upon grounds that it would be unfair and unduly 25 prejudicial to Defendants and would confuse the issues and mislead the jury to 26 permit Plaintiff to introduce such evidence. This motion is made under the 27 provisions of Evidence Code section 352, and the supporting Memorandum of 28 Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing of this matter. 1. Evidence Regarding Any Lack of Written Notice of Corporate Meetings Is Irrelevant Plaintiff has stated dozens of times in various motions and discovery responses that one of the main arguments for piercing the corporate veil is that the two shareholders did not mail each other written notice of their annual meetings. This information not only has no bearing on a piercing the corporate veil argument, 10 it’s rendered completely irrelevant by the Corporations Code. 11 In the chapter on shareholder’s meetings, Corporations Code Section 601(6) 12 states: “Attendance of a person at a meeting shall constitute a waiver of 13 notice of and presence at the meeting...” Chris Hulme and Jennifer Hulme were 14 both present at all shareholders meetings and board meetings. This is not disputed. 15 Their presence, which is documented in the minutes, constitutes a waiver of notice. 16 In fact, Corporations Code §300(e) states that close corporations can agree 17 to not have directors’ and shareholders’ meetings and that “shall not be a 18 considered a factor tending to establish that the shareholders have 19 personal liability for corporate obligations.” (Corp Code §3 00(e).) 20 “Alter ego is an extreme remedy, sparingly used.” Sonora Diamond Corp. 11. 21 Sup. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App4th 523, 5 38-5 39. It is only appropriate under 22 narrowly-defined circumstances. Mesler v. Bragg Management C0., (1985) 39 23 Cal.3d 290, 300. Here, Plaintiff is attempting to waste the Court’s time and the 24 Jury’s time with factors that are not even a violation of the code. Alter ego is a very 25 high standard and there is no law whatsoever that suggests that it should be applied 26 when corporations do not go above and beyond what is required by the code. 27 28 2 Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice 11. Plaintiff Has Failed to Designate an Expert to Explain These Issues to the Jury An understanding of the rules and standards that corporations must follow is sufficiently beyond common experience and requires an expert witness to assist the trier of fact. (Cal Evid Code §801.) Plaintiff has not designated an expert on this subject to explain why this evidence would tend to prove or disprove that ClearView is a valid corporation. Defendants would be deprived of any opportunity to cross examine that expert on his opinions of those standards. As such, eliciting any testimony on this topic without offering any assistance on the standard of why 10 Plaintiff believes that Defendants acted below what is required as a bare minimum 11 of corporations would be a waste of the Court’s and the jurors’ time and the only 12 purpose would be to confuse them with extraneous and irrelevant facts. 13 14 Dated: July 6, 2016 Law Office of Jeff Bennion 15 16 17 By: M M Jeffregfi. éennion, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants 18 19 GRANTED DENIED MODIFIED 20 21 ~ ~ ~ ~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendant ClearView’s Motion in Limine 3of 9 re Notice