Document for ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1 Ryan van Steenis (SBN 254542)
   1601 S Shepherd Dr., #276
 2 Houston, Texas 77019
   314-749-2284
 3 rjvansteenis@gmail.com

 4
   Attorney for Defendants Dave Bragg, and
 5 Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC

 6
                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 7
                                     FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 8

 9
   Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family                    )   Case No.: 22-CIV-01148
10 Partnership, LP; and Brian Christopher Dunn                 )
   Custodianship,                                              )   DECLARATION OF RYAN VAN STEENIS
11                                                             )   (WITH EXHIBITS) IN SUPPORT OF
                             Plaintiffs,                       )   DEFENDANT BRAGG AND SILICON
                                                               )   VALLEY REAL VENTURES LLC’S
12                                                                 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
          vs.                                                  )
                                                               )   SET ASIDE DEFAULT
13
   David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; Silicon                )   [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion,
14 Valley Real Ventures LLC; SVRV 385 Moore,                   )   Motion to Set Aside Default, and Memorandum
   LLC; SVRV 387 Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis;                 )   of Points & Authorities]
15 Kevin Wolfe; Jason Justesen; Paramont                       )
   Woodside, LLC; and Paramont Capital, LLC;                   )   Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles
16                                                             )   Date: June 2, 2023
                                                               )   Time: 9:00 a.m.
17                                                             )   Dept: 21
                                  Defendants.                  )   Courtroom: 2J
18                                                             )   Action Filed: March 15, 2022
                                                               )   Trial Date: Unassigned
19                                                             )
                                                           )
20

21 I, Ryan van Steenis, attest and swear as follows:

22          1.       I am over the age of 18 years of age, of sound mind, and make the statements in this
23 declaration based on my personal knowledge. I am not a party to this action, and serve as Defendant

24 Bragg and SVRV’s counsel in this matter.

25          2.       Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 22, 2022. Defendants Bragg and
26 SVRV paid their first appearance fees on September 8, 2022, in connection with opposing Plaintiffs’
27 defeated motions to compel filed before compliance with Local Rule 3.700.

28
                                                             -1-
      Declaration of Ryan van Steenis in support of Bragg and SVRV’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Default
 1           3.       The parties stipulated to an extension of time to respond until October 21, 2022, in

 2 light of Plaintiffs’ stated intention to file a Second Amended Complaint.

 3           4.       On October 21, 2022, defendant Bragg filed for bankruptcy in the United States

 4 District Court, Eastern District, Sacramento Division, which created an automatic stay in the state

 5 court action and obviated the need for a response.

 6           5.       On January 3, 2023, Plaintiffs and SVRV stipulated that the automatic stay also

 7 applied to SVRV because of Plaintiffs’ alter ego allegations in their operative pleadings.

 8           6.       On January 31, 2023, Bragg filed an answer to Plaintiffs adversarial proceeding

 9 complaint they filed in the bankruptcy court on December 22, 2022.

10           7.       On February 24, 2023, the Hon. Christopher Jamie lifted the automatic stay in this

11 matter sua sponte and ordered Defendants appearance as part of the bankruptcy court’s order to

12 determination whether (1) a debt between Plaintiffs and Defendants existed, and (2) if such a debt

13 existed whether it was dischargeable or not. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy

14 of the bankruptcy court’s February 24, 2023, sua sponte order lifting the automatic stay in this matter;

15 see, Id. at p. 3 (“The court will also exercise its discretion to bifurcate the process of determining the

16 dischargeability of the debt at issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7042. Making a

17 determination regarding the dischargeability of a debt involves a two-step process: first, the

18 establishment of the debt itself; and second, a determination as to the nature-dischargeable or
19 nondischargeable-of the debt. Banks v. Gill Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. (In re Banks), 263 F.3d 862, 868 (9th

20 Cir. 2001). Inasmuch as the debt at issue here has not been established or liquidated, the court sees

21 no reason why the State Court should not perform the first step after which this court will undertake

22 the second step”).1

23           8.       On February 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default against Bragg and

24 SVRV for failing to respond to their August 22, 2022, first amended complaint, which the court

25 entered the same day. Plaintiffs filed the request for entry of default without conference with

26
27   1
       It is worth noting that Judge Jamie also denied Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment in that forum. The
28   parties had agreed to provide Bragg additional time to respond, but Plaintiffs sought default ahead of the agreed upon
     time to respond on the grounds that the agreement between the parties was not filed with the bankruptcy court.
                                                                  -2-
       Declaration of Ryan van Steenis in support of Bragg and SVRV’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Default
 1 defendants’ counsel. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the request for entry

 2 of default Plaintiffs’ filed. Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default did not disclose to the clerk that the

 3 automatic stay obviating the need for an answer or response to their August 22, 2022, first amended

 4 complaint had been lifted only three days prior.

 5          9.       On March 9, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request and included a

 6 proposed order for a request for an extension of time to respond until March 24, 2023, i.e., thirty days

 7 after the bankruptcy court’s entry of its order lifting the automatic stay. Initially, the proposed order

 8 was rejected because Defendants did not include the $20.00 processing fee. The instructions given to

 9 Defendants were to resubmit it so it could be forwarded to the judge for approval. Attached hereto as

10 Exhibit 3 is a true and correct screenshot of the instructions received to resubmit the proposed order.

11          10.      On or around March 16, 2023, an entry on the Court’s docket states: “RETURNED

12 UNSIGNED; GRANTING DEFENDANTS DAVID BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL

13 VENTURES REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND OR ANSWER.”

14 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct screenshot copy of the Court’s March 9, 2023,

15 docket entry.

16          11.      I genuinely, but mistakenly, interpreted this docket entry to mean an extension of time

17 had been granted to Defendants and proceeded forward to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to

18 begin responding to Plaintiffs’ operative pleadings from March 16 to March 22, 2023. Relying on my
19 mistaken belief, I proposed a motion to strike certain allegations against Plaintiffs first amended

20 complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the parties’ meet and confer

21 correspondence on Defendants’ motion to strike from March 16 to March 22.

22          12.      On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs file a request for entry of default judgment against Bragg

23 and SVRV. Again, believing the Court had allowed Defendants until March 24, 2023, to answer or

24 otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, I replied to Plaintiffs’ counsel the same day

25 (in a service email containing Defendants’ March 21, 2023, CMS) stating: “Robert & Collin, I will

26 respond separately to Plaintiffs just filed Motion for Default Judgment (inexplicably filed despite the
27 Court’s grant of Bragg and SVRV’s request for an extension of time to answer [or] respon[d],

28 including whether sanctions are warranted against Plaintiffs for having to respond to it.” Attached
                                                             -3-
      Declaration of Ryan van Steenis in support of Bragg and SVRV’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Default
 1 hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of counsel’s March 21, 2023, email sending Defendants’

 2 CMS and responding to the request for entry of default.

 3           13.      At the conclusion of the motion to strike meet and confer process on March 22, 2023,

 4 Defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike, Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

 5 a Meet and Confer Declaration, and a Request for Judicial Notice with a single exhibit. Defendants’

 6 Memorandum of Points and Authority in support of the Motion to Strike was accepted by the Court.

 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct file copy of Defendants’ Memorandum of Points

 8 and Authorities. However, on March 23, 2023, at 1:54 p.m., CT, I became aware that Defendants’

 9 other filings in response to Plaintiffs’ pleadings were rejected because, according to the return

10 comment: “THE DEFENDANTS LISTED ARE CURRENTLY DEFAULTED. THEREFORE,

11 CLERK CANNOT ACCEPT UNTIL DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE.”2 Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is

12 a true and correct copy of the emails counsel received from 1efile containing the “return comment”

13 above.

14           14.      Defendants’ counsel attempted to confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to inquire whether

15 they would set the default aside in an effort to avoid law and motion work, but did not hear back by

16 the time of this filing. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of counsel’s email to

17 Plaintiffs’ conferring about the request for entry of default.

18           15.      A true and correct copy of Defendants proposed response to Plaintiffs’ pleadings is
19 attached as Exhibit 10, i.e., Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike, Meet and Confer

20 Declaration of Ryan van Steenis, and Request for Judicial Notice (with one Exhibit).

21

22

23

24

25

26
27   2
       The purported default was not sufficient to prevent acceptance of Defendants’ March 21, 2023, case management
28   statement by the Court. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct file copy of Defendants’ March 21, 2023,
     CMS.
                                                                -4-
       Declaration of Ryan van Steenis in support of Bragg and SVRV’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Default
 1         I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is

 2 true and correct.

 3

 4 DATED: March 23, 2023

 5                                                                       Ryan van Steenis
                                                                         Attorney for Defendant Bragg and
 6                                                                       Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
                                                            -5-
     Declaration of Ryan van Steenis in support of Bragg and SVRV’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Default
                                               PROOF OF SERVICE
 1
            I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I hereby certify that on March 23,
 2
     2023, I served the following document(s) on the parties in the above-entitled action:
 3
            DECLARATION OF RYAN VAN STEENIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
 4
            BRAGG AND SVRV’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE
 5
            ENTRY OF DEFAULT
 6
     Via Email: I emailed the document(s) referenced above to the following persons at the following
 7
   email addresses:
 8         Robert Dunn
           rdunn@eimerstahl.com
 9
           Collin Vierra
10         cvierra@eimerstahl.com
           Counsel for Plaintiffs
11
           Jessica Chong
12         jchong@spencerfane.com
13         Brian Zimmerman
           bzimmerman@spencerfane.com
14         Nicolas Reisch
           nreisch@spencerfane.com
15         Ernesto Aldover
           ernesto@arealestatelawfirm.com
16         Counsel for Defendants Gregory J. Davis, Kevin Wolfe, Jason Justesen, Paramont
17         Woodside, LLC, Paramont Capital, LLC, SVRV 385 Moore, LLC, and SVRV 387 Moore,
           LLC
18
   I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a
19
   true and correct statement.
20
   Dated: March 23, 2023
21
                                                                  Ryan van Steenis
22                                                                Attorney for Defendant Bragg and
                                                                  Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC
23

24

25

26
27

28
                                                             -1-
        Proof of Service to Ryan van Steenis Declaration in Support of Bragg and SVRV’s Motion to Set Aside Default