Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733
E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com
GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037
E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com
NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178
E-Mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, Califomia 95833
Telephone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
INDUSTRY, LLC
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
individually and on behalf of all others
14 similarly situated. DEFENDANT ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
X
15 Plaintiffs, INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO <
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
16 vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a
PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
23
18 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS &
JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date: September 23, 2020
19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 54
20 Defendants.
Action Filed: August 16, 2019
21 Trial Date: None Set
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
&SM1HL1P PLAfNTEFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
AnORNEYSATLAW
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("Defendant") hereby
3 submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda's ("Plaintiffs") Motion to
4 Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, Set One; and Motion for
5 Sanctions ("Motion").
6 I. INTRODUCTION
7 On September 3, 2020, at 1:14 p.m.. Plaintiffs' counsel's office sent Defendant's counsel's
8 office Notice of their Motion. (Declaration of Shane Singh ("Singh Decl.") H 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs
9 noticed the hearing for the Motion for September 23, 2020. (Singh Deck, ^ 2.) A more complete
10 opposition was not able to be filed because the defective notice of motion did not give counsel
11 adequate time to prepare a response. (Singh Deck, ^ 4.)
12 Put simply, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for
13 Production, Set One; and Motion for Sanctions (the "Motion") should be denied because they
14 failed to timely serve the Motion on Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC
15 ("Defendanf) as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. In the altemative, Defendant
16 respectfully requests that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion to allow Defendant
17 sufficient time to properly oppose the Motion.
18 II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE S E R V I C E WAS
UNTIMELY.
19
20 Moving and supporting papers must be "be served and filed at least 16 court days before
21 the hearing." (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1005, subd. (b).) If the motion is personally served, the service
22 must be at least sixteen court days prior to the date of the motion, the same as the minimum filing
23 deadline. {Ibid.; Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013.) If the motion is served by mail, five calendar days are
24 added before the sixteen court days. {Ibid.; Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013.) Service is complete at the
25 time of deposit in the mail. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013; see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 ..
26 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038.)
27 Here, Plaintiffs noticed the hearing for their Motion for September 23, 2020. (Singh Deck,
28 Tf 2.) Consequently, Plaintiffs were required to serve their Motion on Monday, August 31, 2020,
LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 2 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
&SMnHlIP PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
AnOHNEYS AT LAW
1 which is sixteen court days prior to the hearing noticed for September 23, 2020. On Tuesday,
2 September 3, 2020 at 1:14 p.m., Plaintiffs served the Motion via e-mail. (Singh Deck, ^ 3, Ex. A,
3 September 3, 2020, e-mail from Patricia Savage's office serving the Motion.) Because Plaintiffs
4 waited to serve the Motion on Defendant until thirteen court days prior to the noticed hearing date,
5 the Motion is untimely. As such, a more complete opposition was not able to be filed because the
6 defective notice of motion did not give counsel adequate time to prepare a response. Therefore,
7 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion. In the altemative,
8 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion to allow
9 Defendant sufficient time to properly oppose the Motion.
10 I I I . CONCLUSION
11 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs'
12 Motion in this case.
13
14 DATED: September 10, 2020 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
15
16
17
18 SFLANE SINGH
GEORGE J. THEOFANIS
19 NOLAN W. KESSLER
Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO
20
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
21 INDUSTRY, LLC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
&SM1HUP PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037 E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178 E-Mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 Telephone: 916.564.5400 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated. DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION X 15 Plaintiffs, INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO < PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 16 vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR 17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 23 18 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date: September 23, 2020 19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 54 20 Defendants. Action Filed: August 16, 2019 21 Trial Date: None Set 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO &SM1HL1P PLAfNTEFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AnORNEYSATLAW 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("Defendant") hereby 3 submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda's ("Plaintiffs") Motion to 4 Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, Set One; and Motion for 5 Sanctions ("Motion"). 6 I. INTRODUCTION 7 On September 3, 2020, at 1:14 p.m.. Plaintiffs' counsel's office sent Defendant's counsel's 8 office Notice of their Motion. (Declaration of Shane Singh ("Singh Decl.") H 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs 9 noticed the hearing for the Motion for September 23, 2020. (Singh Deck, ^ 2.) A more complete 10 opposition was not able to be filed because the defective notice of motion did not give counsel 11 adequate time to prepare a response. (Singh Deck, ^ 4.) 12 Put simply, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for 13 Production, Set One; and Motion for Sanctions (the "Motion") should be denied because they 14 failed to timely serve the Motion on Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC 15 ("Defendanf) as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. In the altemative, Defendant 16 respectfully requests that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion to allow Defendant 17 sufficient time to properly oppose the Motion. 18 II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE S E R V I C E WAS UNTIMELY. 19 20 Moving and supporting papers must be "be served and filed at least 16 court days before 21 the hearing." (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1005, subd. (b).) If the motion is personally served, the service 22 must be at least sixteen court days prior to the date of the motion, the same as the minimum filing 23 deadline. {Ibid.; Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013.) If the motion is served by mail, five calendar days are 24 added before the sixteen court days. {Ibid.; Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013.) Service is complete at the 25 time of deposit in the mail. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1013; see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 .. 26 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038.) 27 Here, Plaintiffs noticed the hearing for their Motion for September 23, 2020. (Singh Deck, 28 Tf 2.) Consequently, Plaintiffs were required to serve their Motion on Monday, August 31, 2020, LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 2 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO &SMnHlIP PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AnOHNEYS AT LAW 1 which is sixteen court days prior to the hearing noticed for September 23, 2020. On Tuesday, 2 September 3, 2020 at 1:14 p.m., Plaintiffs served the Motion via e-mail. (Singh Deck, ^ 3, Ex. A, 3 September 3, 2020, e-mail from Patricia Savage's office serving the Motion.) Because Plaintiffs 4 waited to serve the Motion on Defendant until thirteen court days prior to the noticed hearing date, 5 the Motion is untimely. As such, a more complete opposition was not able to be filed because the 6 defective notice of motion did not give counsel adequate time to prepare a response. Therefore, 7 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion. In the altemative, 8 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion to allow 9 Defendant sufficient time to properly oppose the Motion. 10 I I I . CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs' 12 Motion in this case. 13 14 DATED: September 10, 2020 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 15 16 17 18 SFLANE SINGH GEORGE J. THEOFANIS 19 NOLAN W. KESSLER Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO 20 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 21 INDUSTRY, LLC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4841-1205-2938.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO &SM1HUP PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW