On August 07, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Andrew Ho,
Ho, Andrew,
V5 System, Inc.,
and
Bedwan, Mazin,
Mazin Bedwan,
Steven Yung,
V5 System, Inc.,
Yung, Steven,
for
Unlimited Civil (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...)
in the District Court of Alameda County.
Preview
* ‘Me
22736402
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SEP 28 2070
cL Ss OF THE asi “
By
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALAMEDA
Case no. RG20069958
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Date January 6, 2021
Time 9 a.m
Place: Dept. 20
Hon. Paul Herbert
7
UNLIMITED CIVIL
Reservation: R-2208104 ff
XER
RER
Steven Yung, and Mazin Bedwan
laintiff Andrew Ho as follows:
action for breach of contract,
itract or state its material
1 to state a cause of action,
upon amendment. In addition,
that the 20% bonus alleged
ioned upon the company’s bond
3puted this never occurred
re bond funding ever occurred)
inconsistent with judicially
a cause of action.
£ action for promissory
>=
inconsistent with judicially
the 20% bonus alleged by
2d upon the company’s bond
sputed this never occurred
he bond funding ever occurred)
a= substance of any purported
in question.
or the sustaining of their
he Court’s discretion.
Anchacr Gp Whettere
Andrew G. Watters, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants V5
Systems, Inc., Steven Yung,
and Mazin Bedwan
tER
Document Filed Date
September 23, 2020
Case Filing Date
August 07, 2020
Category
Unlimited Civil (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
* ‘Me 22736402 FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY SEP 28 2070 cL Ss OF THE asi “ By STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA Case no. RG20069958 DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Date January 6, 2021 Time 9 a.m Place: Dept. 20 Hon. Paul Herbert 7 UNLIMITED CIVIL Reservation: R-2208104 ff XER RER Steven Yung, and Mazin Bedwan laintiff Andrew Ho as follows: action for breach of contract, itract or state its material 1 to state a cause of action, upon amendment. In addition, that the 20% bonus alleged ioned upon the company’s bond 3puted this never occurred re bond funding ever occurred) inconsistent with judicially a cause of action. £ action for promissory >= inconsistent with judicially the 20% bonus alleged by 2d upon the company’s bond sputed this never occurred he bond funding ever occurred) a= substance of any purported in question. or the sustaining of their he Court’s discretion. Anchacr Gp Whettere Andrew G. Watters, Esq. Attorney for Defendants V5 Systems, Inc., Steven Yung, and Mazin Bedwan tER