Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027
WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
2 P.O. BOX 1050
Windsor, CA 95492-1050
3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176
Email: bill@wladamspc.com
4
5 Attorneys for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated
ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11
Plaintiffs,
12 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK
v. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARMENTS
13 MOTION IN LIMINE FOR COURT
DIRECTION FOR REFERENCE TO
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT NAME [# 1 of 3]
DEPARTMENT,
15
Defendant.
16 Trial Call: November 4, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Department: 19
18
19 Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, also known as TWO
20 ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case, hereby submits its
21 Motion in Limine #1 of 3 for the jury trial set for November 4, 2022.
22 As a threshold matter, before and during this litigation, Two Rock Fire, the County,
23 Plaintiffs, and the Court have interchangeably referred to the Two Rock Fire as both “Two Rock
24 Volunteer Fire Department”; “TRVFD”; “Two Rock Fire Department” and “TRFD”. There is
25 no uncertainty or confusion about the fact that this case concerns the Two Rock Fire firehouse
26 project on the subject property, located at 7599 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, California: Sonoma
27 County Assessor’s Parcel number 022-140-017 (the subject property). There is no confusion or
28 uncertainty in this consolidated case about the firehouse project or the subject property – which
1
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3
1 is owned by the nonprofit corporate entity Two Rock Fire Department.
2 However, Plaintiffs have repeatedly objected and continue to object that use of the name
3 “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department” by the Court, County and Two Rock Fire constitutes an
4 invalid name which has no standing as a party and therefore counsel for Two Rock Fire is not
5 representing any valid party. Plaintiff continues to refuse to provide any discovery information,
6 answers or documents to Two Rock Fire’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories,
7 Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents served August 12, 2022.
8 Without any substantive answers to support the claims being made in this litigation, Plaintiffs
9 responses served September 15, 2022, identical and repeated 101 times, were only the following
10 objection:
11 “Objection. This [interrogatory/request] is propounded by a non-party to action
#SCV270339, it is objected to as not being propounded by an attorney of record
12 in action SCV-270339, and is objected to on being made on behalf of an entity
that does not legally exist as a corporation or as a fictious entity and has no legal
13 right to appear in court.”
14 However, the Court has ruled that this objection regarding the name and standing of Two
15 Rock Fire is unmeritorious – and this ruling is the law of the case that binds the parties. In her
16 Order after Hearing entered October 20, 2022, regarding Plaintiffs similar objection to the Notice
17 of Deposition with Production of Documents, visiting judge Barbara Zuniga granted Two Rock
18 Fire’s motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs, finding in relevant part:
19 1. The Court previously ordered SCV-270339 and SCV-266225 consolidated. The
20 Court allowed discovery to proceed in SCV-270339.
21 2. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ arguments that the notices are defective as TRVFD and its
22 attorney are not involved in SCV-270339 are not well taken.
23 3. The notices are not defective. As noted in A1 above deposition were expressly
24 limited to the issues in SCV-270339
25 4. The fact the notices were captioned for SCV-266225 is of no consequence.
26 a. When a court orders cases completely consolidated, the pleadings are considered
merged, a party appearing in any of the consolidated actions is subject to court
27 jurisdiction in the entire merged action, and there is one set of findings and one
judgment. See Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147-
28 1148,”.
2
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3
1 (10/20/22 Order after Hearing, p. 2, lines 4-13.)
2 MOTION FOR COURT DIRECTION FOR REFERENCE TO THE FIRE
3 DEPARTMENT
4 In order to reduce confusions and pursuant to the Court’s broad authority under Evidence
5 Code section 352, Defendant Two Rock Fire respectfully requests that the Court direct the
6 parties to refer to Defendant Two Rock Fire as “Two Rock Fire” or the “fire department” during
7 this trial.
8 Dated: November 1, 2022 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
9
10 By:
William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant
11 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
12
13 SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS
14 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare:
15 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of
16 California. I am the attorney of record for Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department,
17 also known as Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case.
18 2. I make this Declaration in support of the accompanying Motion in Limine of
19 Two Rock Fire. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the Motion in Limine herein
20 and if called upon to testify thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently.
21 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), I respectfully request the Court take judicial notice
22 of the entirety of its own files and records in this consolidated matter, as well as the following
23 documents attached as Exhibits to this declaration
24 3. Attached hereto are the excerpts of the following pleadings filed by Plaintiffs,
25 the engagement contract between Plaintiff and their witness Roger Hartley, and Orders entered
26 by this Court:
27 Exhibit 1 – Face page of Complaint filed April 15, 2020, using name “Two Rock
Volunteer Fire Department”.
28
3
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3
Exhibit 2 – Complaint filed March 7, 2022, using name “Two Rock Fire Department”,
1 but interchangeably referring throughout the Complaint to both “TRFD”
and “TRVFD”.
2
Exhibit 3 – Face page of Order after Hearing entered July 29, 2022, using name “Two
3 Rock Volunteer Fire Department” for caption of the three consolidated
cases.
4
Exhibit 4 – One-page engagement agreement between Plaintiffs and retained expert
5 witness Roger Hartley dated October 1, 2022, identifying
Defendant as “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department”.
6
Exhibit 5 – Face page of Order after Hearing entered October 20, 2022, using name
7 “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department”.
8 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California.
10
11
Dated: November 1, 2022
12 William L. Adams
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3
EXHIBIT 1
1 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, CSB # 96089 ELECTRONICALLY IFILED
2
Attorney at Law Superior Court of California
7585 Valley Ford Road County of S^noma
Petaluma, CA 94952 4/15/20208:l00 AM
3 Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the pourt
TELEPHONE: (415) 788-5957 By: Alexandria Hankes, Depute Clerk
4
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
AND ASTRID SCHMID
6
I
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11
[UNLIMITED JURISDICTION]
12
13 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No.: SCV-266225
ASTRID SCHMID
14
Plaintiffs,
15 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
16 vs. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
17 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNTY ORDINANCES, NUISANCES
DEPARTMENT AND TRESPASS
18
Defendant.
19
20
21
Plaintiffs, FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID, allege on inforroation
22 and belief as follows:
23
24
PARTIES
25
1. Plaintiffs are FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID, residents of the
26
County of Sonoma, California.
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTWE RELIEF FOR NUISANCE
I !
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case NO. SCV-266225 and consolidated
2 actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
3
I, the undersigned, declare:
4
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where
5 the mailing occurred and my business address is: William L. Adams PC, P.O. Box 1050,
Windsor, CA 95492-1050
6
On November 1, 2022, I served the parties indicated below the foregoing documents(s)
7 described as:
8 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN
LIMINE #1 OF 3
9
On the parties involved addressed as follows:
10
Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per
11 7585 Valley Ford Road
Petaluma, CA 94952
12 frearschmid@aol.com
13
Astrid Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per
14 7585 Valley Ford Road
Petaluma, CA 94952
15 frearschmid@aol.com
16
Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma
17 Deputy County Counsel
County of Sonoma
18 575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
19 Michael.King@sonoma-county.org
20
[X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6
21 and California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents
indicated above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF
22 version of the document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at
wladamspc.com. My eService address is: jacqueline@wladamspc.com.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
24 is true and correct. Executed on November 1, 2022, at Windsor, California.
25
26
27
28
5
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3
Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 2 P.O. BOX 1050 Windsor, CA 95492-1050 3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176 Email: bill@wladamspc.com 4 5 Attorneys for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, 12 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK v. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARMENTS 13 MOTION IN LIMINE FOR COURT DIRECTION FOR REFERENCE TO 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT NAME [# 1 of 3] DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 Trial Call: November 4, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Department: 19 18 19 Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, also known as TWO 20 ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case, hereby submits its 21 Motion in Limine #1 of 3 for the jury trial set for November 4, 2022. 22 As a threshold matter, before and during this litigation, Two Rock Fire, the County, 23 Plaintiffs, and the Court have interchangeably referred to the Two Rock Fire as both “Two Rock 24 Volunteer Fire Department”; “TRVFD”; “Two Rock Fire Department” and “TRFD”. There is 25 no uncertainty or confusion about the fact that this case concerns the Two Rock Fire firehouse 26 project on the subject property, located at 7599 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, California: Sonoma 27 County Assessor’s Parcel number 022-140-017 (the subject property). There is no confusion or 28 uncertainty in this consolidated case about the firehouse project or the subject property – which 1 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3 1 is owned by the nonprofit corporate entity Two Rock Fire Department. 2 However, Plaintiffs have repeatedly objected and continue to object that use of the name 3 “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department” by the Court, County and Two Rock Fire constitutes an 4 invalid name which has no standing as a party and therefore counsel for Two Rock Fire is not 5 representing any valid party. Plaintiff continues to refuse to provide any discovery information, 6 answers or documents to Two Rock Fire’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, 7 Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents served August 12, 2022. 8 Without any substantive answers to support the claims being made in this litigation, Plaintiffs 9 responses served September 15, 2022, identical and repeated 101 times, were only the following 10 objection: 11 “Objection. This [interrogatory/request] is propounded by a non-party to action #SCV270339, it is objected to as not being propounded by an attorney of record 12 in action SCV-270339, and is objected to on being made on behalf of an entity that does not legally exist as a corporation or as a fictious entity and has no legal 13 right to appear in court.” 14 However, the Court has ruled that this objection regarding the name and standing of Two 15 Rock Fire is unmeritorious – and this ruling is the law of the case that binds the parties. In her 16 Order after Hearing entered October 20, 2022, regarding Plaintiffs similar objection to the Notice 17 of Deposition with Production of Documents, visiting judge Barbara Zuniga granted Two Rock 18 Fire’s motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs, finding in relevant part: 19 1. The Court previously ordered SCV-270339 and SCV-266225 consolidated. The 20 Court allowed discovery to proceed in SCV-270339. 21 2. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ arguments that the notices are defective as TRVFD and its 22 attorney are not involved in SCV-270339 are not well taken. 23 3. The notices are not defective. As noted in A1 above deposition were expressly 24 limited to the issues in SCV-270339 25 4. The fact the notices were captioned for SCV-266225 is of no consequence. 26 a. When a court orders cases completely consolidated, the pleadings are considered merged, a party appearing in any of the consolidated actions is subject to court 27 jurisdiction in the entire merged action, and there is one set of findings and one judgment. See Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147- 28 1148,”. 2 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3 1 (10/20/22 Order after Hearing, p. 2, lines 4-13.) 2 MOTION FOR COURT DIRECTION FOR REFERENCE TO THE FIRE 3 DEPARTMENT 4 In order to reduce confusions and pursuant to the Court’s broad authority under Evidence 5 Code section 352, Defendant Two Rock Fire respectfully requests that the Court direct the 6 parties to refer to Defendant Two Rock Fire as “Two Rock Fire” or the “fire department” during 7 this trial. 8 Dated: November 1, 2022 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 9 10 By: William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant 11 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 12 13 SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS 14 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare: 15 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of 16 California. I am the attorney of record for Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, 17 also known as Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case. 18 2. I make this Declaration in support of the accompanying Motion in Limine of 19 Two Rock Fire. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the Motion in Limine herein 20 and if called upon to testify thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently. 21 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), I respectfully request the Court take judicial notice 22 of the entirety of its own files and records in this consolidated matter, as well as the following 23 documents attached as Exhibits to this declaration 24 3. Attached hereto are the excerpts of the following pleadings filed by Plaintiffs, 25 the engagement contract between Plaintiff and their witness Roger Hartley, and Orders entered 26 by this Court: 27 Exhibit 1 – Face page of Complaint filed April 15, 2020, using name “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department”. 28 3 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3 Exhibit 2 – Complaint filed March 7, 2022, using name “Two Rock Fire Department”, 1 but interchangeably referring throughout the Complaint to both “TRFD” and “TRVFD”. 2 Exhibit 3 – Face page of Order after Hearing entered July 29, 2022, using name “Two 3 Rock Volunteer Fire Department” for caption of the three consolidated cases. 4 Exhibit 4 – One-page engagement agreement between Plaintiffs and retained expert 5 witness Roger Hartley dated October 1, 2022, identifying Defendant as “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department”. 6 Exhibit 5 – Face page of Order after Hearing entered October 20, 2022, using name 7 “Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department”. 8 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 9 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California. 10 11 Dated: November 1, 2022 12 William L. Adams 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3 EXHIBIT 1 1 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, CSB # 96089 ELECTRONICALLY IFILED 2 Attorney at Law Superior Court of California 7585 Valley Ford Road County of S^noma Petaluma, CA 94952 4/15/20208:l00 AM 3 Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the pourt TELEPHONE: (415) 788-5957 By: Alexandria Hankes, Depute Clerk 4 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ASTRID SCHMID 6 I 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION] 12 13 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No.: SCV-266225 ASTRID SCHMID 14 Plaintiffs, 15 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 16 vs. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR ENFORCEMENT OF 17 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNTY ORDINANCES, NUISANCES DEPARTMENT AND TRESPASS 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 Plaintiffs, FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID, allege on inforroation 22 and belief as follows: 23 24 PARTIES 25 1. Plaintiffs are FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID, residents of the 26 County of Sonoma, California. 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTWE RELIEF FOR NUISANCE I ! EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department. Sonoma County Superior Court Case NO. SCV-266225 and consolidated 2 actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 3 I, the undersigned, declare: 4 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where 5 the mailing occurred and my business address is: William L. Adams PC, P.O. Box 1050, Windsor, CA 95492-1050 6 On November 1, 2022, I served the parties indicated below the foregoing documents(s) 7 described as: 8 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 OF 3 9 On the parties involved addressed as follows: 10 Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per 11 7585 Valley Ford Road Petaluma, CA 94952 12 frearschmid@aol.com 13 Astrid Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per 14 7585 Valley Ford Road Petaluma, CA 94952 15 frearschmid@aol.com 16 Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma 17 Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 18 575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 19 Michael.King@sonoma-county.org 20 [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 21 and California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents indicated above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF 22 version of the document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at wladamspc.com. My eService address is: jacqueline@wladamspc.com. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 24 is true and correct. Executed on November 1, 2022, at Windsor, California. 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 of 3