Preview
Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839)
1 mosborne@cokinoslaw.com
Elaine Kobylecki (Bar No. 299311)
2 ekobylecki@cokinoslaw.com
COKINOS | YOUNG
3 611 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 233
South San Francisco, CA 94080
4 Telephone: (628) 229-9180
5 Attorneys for Defendant
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9
10
DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY,
12 INC.’S SURREPLY IN RESPONSE TO
v. PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION
13 TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO
14 AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
Defendant.
15 Date: October 21, 2022
Time: 8:30 AM
16
Dept.: 10
17
18 Action Filed: October 31, 2019
Trial Date: March 13, 2023
19
I. INTRODUCTION
20
Defendant Theta Chi has moved for a severance of plaintiffs’ equitable claims of alter ego
21
and successor liability. As permitted by this Court’s Order dated and filed October 7, 2022 (a copy
22
of which is attached as Exhibit A), plaintiffs have filed a “Further Opposition” to defendant’s
23
motion and, in response, defendant files this “Surreply.”
24
Much of plaintiffs’ Further Opposition sets forth facts and arguments that may be relevant
25
to defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication (set for hearing on
26
December 9, 2022) but that do not fully address the concerns which are the basis of defendant’s
27
28 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF
ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1
motion to sever plaintiffs’ alter ego and successor liability claims. Defendant’s motion is based on
2
the fact that a joint trial of the claims at law1 and of the equitable claims:2
3
1. Would unreasonably require additional time, expense, and judicial resources;
4
2. Would confuse the jury which is receiving evidence on equitable issues that are not
5
relevant to its determination of liability and compensatory damages; and
6
3. Would prejudice defendant by allowing the jury to hear and consider evidence of
7
defendant’s insurance program and insurance policies, its finances and its financial
8
condition.
9
Like their original Opposition, plaintiffs’ Further Opposition does not substantively address these
10
issues.
11
II. MUCH OF PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT,
12
MISLEADING, AND INFLAMMATORY
13
For some reason, plaintiffs’ counsel believe that it is persuasive that a Superior Court judge
14
in Oakland has previously heard a motion to sever and has denied it. This Court should rule on the
15
motion here based on the record before this Court.
16
Moreover, an argument based on the Alameda County Superior Court Judge’s ruling should
17
not be included in, nor considered as part of, a “Further Opposition” – the idea behind defendant
18
stipulating to plaintiffs filing a Further Opposition (and we assume behind the Court’s grating of
19
the stipulation) was so that plaintiffs could provide this Court with evidence developed in
20
depositions which were taken after the parties had completed their briefing on the motion to sever.
21
However, plaintiff Alex Michel in the Alameda County case (Michel v. Phi Gamma Delta
22
Fraternity, et al.) and his mother both retained plaintiffs’ counsel here, Douglas Fierberg, in 2018
23
(before this lawsuit was filed) and, at the time of the deposition of Mr. Michel’s mother (January
24
12, 2022), Mr. Fierberg was still serving as their attorney. (Declaration of Michael C. Osborne in
25
Support of Defendant’s Surreply (“Osborne Dec.”), at ¶ 2.) The motion to sever in the Michel case
26
27 1
Is defendant negligent or vicariously negligent on an agency theory?
2
Are the local chapter and its members the alter egos of defendant such that this Court should find in equity that
28 defendant is liable for the torts of the local chapter and its 2
members?
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF
ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1
was filed December 13, 2021, and the judge’s order denying the severance was issued February 24,
2
2022. (Id., at ¶ 3.) This means that Mr. Fierberg, as attorney for Mr. Michel and his mother, had
3
notice of the February 24th denial of the motion to sever at the time he prepared plaintiffs’ original
4
Opposition, despite his contentions otherwise in his Further Opposition. While plaintiffs’ counsel
5
criticizes defense counsel for not bringing the unrelated “Michel Court’s ruling to the attention of
6
this Court” (Further Opposition, at 1:26-2:1), plaintiffs’ counsel does not address the fact that he
7
had notice of the Michel riling when he filed his Opposition on April 25.
8
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also constantly reference in their Further Opposition that the Theta Chi
9
depositions were “repeatedly delayed,” suggesting that defendant was purposely delaying
10
discovery on these issues. Plaintiffs’ attorney fails to inform the Court that defense counsel and
11
the Theta Chi witnesses were in Indiana on April 20, 2022, fully prepared to proceed to deposition,
12
when Mr. Fierberg advised the morning of the deposition that he had become ill and was not able
13
to proceed with the depositions that day nor on the next day. (Osborne Dec., at ¶ 4.)
14
Continuing with this theme that somehow the defense has been purposely delaying
15
discovery, plaintiffs’ counsel makes the inflammatory comment that once plaintiffs “finally had the
16
opportunity to depose” defendant’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael Mayer, “he reluctantly
17
confirmed” Theta Chi’s “control” “over its chapters.” (Further Opposition, at fn. 2, p. 5.) Reading
18
the deposition testimony that is referenced (Mr. Mayer’s deposition at 55:5-59:8), it is clear that
19
there was nothing “reluctant” about his testimony: Mr. Mayer responded to every single question
20
asked by Mr. Fierberg with an affirmative and unequivocal answer.
21
III. SEVERANCE IS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN
22
DEFENDANT’S PREVIOUSLY-FILED MOVING PAPERS
23
Finally, turning to the merits of defendant’s Motion to Sever, plaintiffs’ Further Opposition
24
provides this Court with evidence that likely overlaps between the trial of the legal claims and the
25
trial of the equitable claims. There is no doubt that some evidence will overlap. What is overlooked
26
in plaintiffs’ original Opposition and their Further Opposition is that, in a joint trial, the jurors
27
hearing and deciding the legal claims will be presented with irrelevant and prejudicial evidence and
28 3
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF
ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1
testimony related to the equitable claims, such as defendant’s insurance program and insurance
2
policies, its finances and its financial condition.
3
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges, in support of the alter ego claims, that Theta
4
Chi has “manufactured this sham organizational construct, strategic and illusory separation of
5
assets causing undercapitalization of chapters in light of the risks of loss and dangerous system of
6
implementing policies on hazing and risk-management related to membership rituals and Theta Chi
7
National’s generation of revenue for it and the Fraternity, in order to evade creditors by, inter alia,
8
artificially limiting its and its chapters’ potential legal liability for the injuries and deaths they
9
individually, jointly, and otherwise legally cause.” (First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 28.) We can
10
expect that this will be plaintiffs’ inflammatory theme in a joint trial, which will unduly and unfairly
11
prejudice the jurors against defendant with evidence and arguments that are not relevant and not
12
admissible as to the legal claims that the jurors are tasked with considering and adjudicating.
13
IV. CONCLUSION
14
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. respectfully requests that
15
the Court grant its motion to sever plaintiffs’ equitable claims based on the doctrines of alter ego
16
and successor liability, ordering that the jury trial of plaintiffs’ claims at law proceed first and,
17
depending on the jury’s verdict and other circumstances, allowing a bench trial of plaintiffs’
18
equitable claims to then follow. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to deny this motion at this
19
time, defendant asks that a ruling on this motion, as well as additional briefing if necessary, be
20
deferred until the start of trial when additional evidence (including specifics of expert testimony,
21
which have not yet been obtained) can be presented on these issues.
22
Dated: October 13, 2022 COKINOS | YOUNG
23
24
25 Michael C. Osborne
Elaine Kobylecki
26 Attorneys for Defendant
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
27
28 4
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF
ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
EXHIBIT A
ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
10/6/2022 9:11 AM
THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
to
DOUGLAS ..E FIERBERG (admitted pro hac vice)
derberg@tzlgroup. com -
JONATHON N. FAZZOLA (admitted pro hac vice)
jfazzola@tfnlgroup. com
161 East Front Street, Suite 200
Traverse City, MI 49684
Telephone: (23 1) 933-01 80
Fax: (23 1) 252-8100
SAWYER & LABAR LLP
VIVO LABAR, State Bar No. 203492
labar@sawyerlabar com .
1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108
San Francisco, CA 941 11
Telephone: (415) 262- 3820
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 DAPHNE BELETSIS
YVONNE RAINEY
11
12
sUPERIOR COURT'OF CALIFORNIA
LABAR LLP
13
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE ‘l 08
COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ
‘
41 5.2623820
SAN FRANCISCO, CA'94111
www.sawyer1abar.com
14
TELEPHONE:
8L
15
‘
DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Case No. 19CV03287
SAWYER
16 Administrator of the ESTATE OF (Assigned to Hon. John Gallagher, Dept. 10)
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and
17
YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE '
18
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A FURTHER OPPOSITION TO
19 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT THETA CHI
.VS;
‘x- 7.
FRATERNITY, INC. ’S MOTION TO
29' i, SEIVER 'PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE
THETA CH1 FRATERNITY, 1NC., et al.,
CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND
21 SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
Defendants. October 2 l , 2022
22 Hearing Date:
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept.: 10
24 Complaint Filed: October 3 l, 20 1.9
FAC Filed: February 5, 2020
25 Trial Date: March 13, 2023
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
FURTI-ER OPPOSITION
H
|PROPOSED| ORDER
N
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Further Opposition to Defendant Theta
w
Chi’s Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims of
Alter Ego'and SucceSSOr Liability (the
54>
_
to Sever”) carne before the Court on October 7, 2022, on the Court’s ex parte calendar.
“Motion
exit):
The Court having considered the papers led 1n support of the application, and the
arguihent'of counsel at the hearing, and good cause appearing,IIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1
\x
w I
1w
Pla1nt1ffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Further Opposition is
09-2».
Tl
IA
‘
GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Further Opposition, attached as Exhibit A to their Ex Parte
\o
Application, shall be led into the record and will be considered by the Court
I
t—I
O
when it rules on Theta Chi’s Motion to Sever. 1
r—A
P-d
2. Theta Chi is hereby granted leave to le a Surreply in Response to
Plaintiffs’
r—A
N
FurtherOpposition. Theta Chi’s Surreply
shall not exceed eight (8) pages in length
LABAR LLP
v—A
U)
Theta Chi’ s Surreply, if led
and led by October l3, 2022. by October
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108
shall be
TELEPHONE 41 5.2623820
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941 11
www.5awyeriabancom
v—n
l3, 2022, will be considered by the Court when it rules on Theta Chi’ s Motion to
-
1—:
Sr.
i
Sever-
SAWYER
r—n
IT Is so ORDERED.
-
H
.._
‘
19
1.20
21
DATED»;
>
'
\O\\'1\\1,'D T E
Honorable Judge ofe
: Ed
Superior Court
'22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
l V
[PROPOSEDIORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
‘
FURTHER OPPOSITION
Preview
Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839) 1 mosborne@cokinoslaw.com Elaine Kobylecki (Bar No. 299311) 2 ekobylecki@cokinoslaw.com COKINOS | YOUNG 3 611 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 233 South San Francisco, CA 94080 4 Telephone: (628) 229-9180 5 Attorneys for Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 9 10 DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, 12 INC.’S SURREPLY IN RESPONSE TO v. PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION 13 TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO 14 AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Defendant. 15 Date: October 21, 2022 Time: 8:30 AM 16 Dept.: 10 17 18 Action Filed: October 31, 2019 Trial Date: March 13, 2023 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Defendant Theta Chi has moved for a severance of plaintiffs’ equitable claims of alter ego 21 and successor liability. As permitted by this Court’s Order dated and filed October 7, 2022 (a copy 22 of which is attached as Exhibit A), plaintiffs have filed a “Further Opposition” to defendant’s 23 motion and, in response, defendant files this “Surreply.” 24 Much of plaintiffs’ Further Opposition sets forth facts and arguments that may be relevant 25 to defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication (set for hearing on 26 December 9, 2022) but that do not fully address the concerns which are the basis of defendant’s 27 28 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 motion to sever plaintiffs’ alter ego and successor liability claims. Defendant’s motion is based on 2 the fact that a joint trial of the claims at law1 and of the equitable claims:2 3 1. Would unreasonably require additional time, expense, and judicial resources; 4 2. Would confuse the jury which is receiving evidence on equitable issues that are not 5 relevant to its determination of liability and compensatory damages; and 6 3. Would prejudice defendant by allowing the jury to hear and consider evidence of 7 defendant’s insurance program and insurance policies, its finances and its financial 8 condition. 9 Like their original Opposition, plaintiffs’ Further Opposition does not substantively address these 10 issues. 11 II. MUCH OF PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT, 12 MISLEADING, AND INFLAMMATORY 13 For some reason, plaintiffs’ counsel believe that it is persuasive that a Superior Court judge 14 in Oakland has previously heard a motion to sever and has denied it. This Court should rule on the 15 motion here based on the record before this Court. 16 Moreover, an argument based on the Alameda County Superior Court Judge’s ruling should 17 not be included in, nor considered as part of, a “Further Opposition” – the idea behind defendant 18 stipulating to plaintiffs filing a Further Opposition (and we assume behind the Court’s grating of 19 the stipulation) was so that plaintiffs could provide this Court with evidence developed in 20 depositions which were taken after the parties had completed their briefing on the motion to sever. 21 However, plaintiff Alex Michel in the Alameda County case (Michel v. Phi Gamma Delta 22 Fraternity, et al.) and his mother both retained plaintiffs’ counsel here, Douglas Fierberg, in 2018 23 (before this lawsuit was filed) and, at the time of the deposition of Mr. Michel’s mother (January 24 12, 2022), Mr. Fierberg was still serving as their attorney. (Declaration of Michael C. Osborne in 25 Support of Defendant’s Surreply (“Osborne Dec.”), at ¶ 2.) The motion to sever in the Michel case 26 27 1 Is defendant negligent or vicariously negligent on an agency theory? 2 Are the local chapter and its members the alter egos of defendant such that this Court should find in equity that 28 defendant is liable for the torts of the local chapter and its 2 members? DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 was filed December 13, 2021, and the judge’s order denying the severance was issued February 24, 2 2022. (Id., at ¶ 3.) This means that Mr. Fierberg, as attorney for Mr. Michel and his mother, had 3 notice of the February 24th denial of the motion to sever at the time he prepared plaintiffs’ original 4 Opposition, despite his contentions otherwise in his Further Opposition. While plaintiffs’ counsel 5 criticizes defense counsel for not bringing the unrelated “Michel Court’s ruling to the attention of 6 this Court” (Further Opposition, at 1:26-2:1), plaintiffs’ counsel does not address the fact that he 7 had notice of the Michel riling when he filed his Opposition on April 25. 8 Plaintiffs’ attorneys also constantly reference in their Further Opposition that the Theta Chi 9 depositions were “repeatedly delayed,” suggesting that defendant was purposely delaying 10 discovery on these issues. Plaintiffs’ attorney fails to inform the Court that defense counsel and 11 the Theta Chi witnesses were in Indiana on April 20, 2022, fully prepared to proceed to deposition, 12 when Mr. Fierberg advised the morning of the deposition that he had become ill and was not able 13 to proceed with the depositions that day nor on the next day. (Osborne Dec., at ¶ 4.) 14 Continuing with this theme that somehow the defense has been purposely delaying 15 discovery, plaintiffs’ counsel makes the inflammatory comment that once plaintiffs “finally had the 16 opportunity to depose” defendant’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael Mayer, “he reluctantly 17 confirmed” Theta Chi’s “control” “over its chapters.” (Further Opposition, at fn. 2, p. 5.) Reading 18 the deposition testimony that is referenced (Mr. Mayer’s deposition at 55:5-59:8), it is clear that 19 there was nothing “reluctant” about his testimony: Mr. Mayer responded to every single question 20 asked by Mr. Fierberg with an affirmative and unequivocal answer. 21 III. SEVERANCE IS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN 22 DEFENDANT’S PREVIOUSLY-FILED MOVING PAPERS 23 Finally, turning to the merits of defendant’s Motion to Sever, plaintiffs’ Further Opposition 24 provides this Court with evidence that likely overlaps between the trial of the legal claims and the 25 trial of the equitable claims. There is no doubt that some evidence will overlap. What is overlooked 26 in plaintiffs’ original Opposition and their Further Opposition is that, in a joint trial, the jurors 27 hearing and deciding the legal claims will be presented with irrelevant and prejudicial evidence and 28 3 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 testimony related to the equitable claims, such as defendant’s insurance program and insurance 2 policies, its finances and its financial condition. 3 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges, in support of the alter ego claims, that Theta 4 Chi has “manufactured this sham organizational construct, strategic and illusory separation of 5 assets causing undercapitalization of chapters in light of the risks of loss and dangerous system of 6 implementing policies on hazing and risk-management related to membership rituals and Theta Chi 7 National’s generation of revenue for it and the Fraternity, in order to evade creditors by, inter alia, 8 artificially limiting its and its chapters’ potential legal liability for the injuries and deaths they 9 individually, jointly, and otherwise legally cause.” (First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 28.) We can 10 expect that this will be plaintiffs’ inflammatory theme in a joint trial, which will unduly and unfairly 11 prejudice the jurors against defendant with evidence and arguments that are not relevant and not 12 admissible as to the legal claims that the jurors are tasked with considering and adjudicating. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. respectfully requests that 15 the Court grant its motion to sever plaintiffs’ equitable claims based on the doctrines of alter ego 16 and successor liability, ordering that the jury trial of plaintiffs’ claims at law proceed first and, 17 depending on the jury’s verdict and other circumstances, allowing a bench trial of plaintiffs’ 18 equitable claims to then follow. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to deny this motion at this 19 time, defendant asks that a ruling on this motion, as well as additional briefing if necessary, be 20 deferred until the start of trial when additional evidence (including specifics of expert testimony, 21 which have not yet been obtained) can be presented on these issues. 22 Dated: October 13, 2022 COKINOS | YOUNG 23 24 25 Michael C. Osborne Elaine Kobylecki 26 Attorneys for Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 27 28 4 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S SURREPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY EXHIBIT A ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED 10/6/2022 9:11 AM THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC to DOUGLAS ..E FIERBERG (admitted pro hac vice) derberg@tzlgroup. com - JONATHON N. FAZZOLA (admitted pro hac vice) jfazzola@tfnlgroup. com 161 East Front Street, Suite 200 Traverse City, MI 49684 Telephone: (23 1) 933-01 80 Fax: (23 1) 252-8100 SAWYER & LABAR LLP VIVO LABAR, State Bar No. 203492 labar@sawyerlabar com . 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: (415) 262- 3820 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 DAPHNE BELETSIS YVONNE RAINEY 11 12 sUPERIOR COURT'OF CALIFORNIA LABAR LLP 13 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE ‘l 08 COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ ‘ 41 5.2623820 SAN FRANCISCO, CA'94111 www.sawyer1abar.com 14 TELEPHONE: 8L 15 ‘ DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Case No. 19CV03287 SAWYER 16 Administrator of the ESTATE OF (Assigned to Hon. John Gallagher, Dept. 10) ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and 17 YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE ' 18 ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FURTHER OPPOSITION TO 19 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT THETA CHI .VS; ‘x- 7. FRATERNITY, INC. ’S MOTION TO 29' i, SEIVER 'PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE THETA CH1 FRATERNITY, 1NC., et al., CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND 21 SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Defendants. October 2 l , 2022 22 Hearing Date: Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Dept.: 10 24 Complaint Filed: October 3 l, 20 1.9 FAC Filed: February 5, 2020 25 Trial Date: March 13, 2023 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FURTI-ER OPPOSITION H |PROPOSED| ORDER N Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Further Opposition to Defendant Theta w Chi’s Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims of Alter Ego'and SucceSSOr Liability (the 54> _ to Sever”) carne before the Court on October 7, 2022, on the Court’s ex parte calendar. “Motion exit): The Court having considered the papers led 1n support of the application, and the arguihent'of counsel at the hearing, and good cause appearing,IIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 \x w I 1w Pla1nt1ffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Further Opposition is 09-2». Tl IA ‘ GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Further Opposition, attached as Exhibit A to their Ex Parte \o Application, shall be led into the record and will be considered by the Court I t—I O when it rules on Theta Chi’s Motion to Sever. 1 r—A P-d 2. Theta Chi is hereby granted leave to le a Surreply in Response to Plaintiffs’ r—A N FurtherOpposition. Theta Chi’s Surreply shall not exceed eight (8) pages in length LABAR LLP v—A U) Theta Chi’ s Surreply, if led and led by October l3, 2022. by October 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108 shall be TELEPHONE 41 5.2623820 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941 11 www.5awyeriabancom v—n l3, 2022, will be considered by the Court when it rules on Theta Chi’ s Motion to - 1—: Sr. i Sever- SAWYER r—n IT Is so ORDERED. - H .._ ‘ 19 1.20 21 DATED»; > ' \O\\'1\\1,'D T E Honorable Judge ofe : Ed Superior Court '22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 l V [PROPOSEDIORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A ‘ FURTHER OPPOSITION