arrow left
arrow right
  • ALEC HORTON VS RIV HALTOM, ET AL. Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ALEC HORTON VS RIV HALTOM, ET AL. Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/02/2021 05:41 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk 1 Law Offices of Stephen Abraham Stephen E. Abraham, Esq. (State Bar No. 172054) 2 stephen@abraham-lawoffices.com 1592 Pegasus Street 3 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (949) 878-8608 4 Facsimile: (714) 852-3366 5 Attorney for Defendant Bita Nasseri 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 Case No. 20STCV49196 10 ALEC HORTON, an individual, DECLARATION OF STEPHEN 11 ABRAHAM IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiff, DEFENDANT NASSERI’S OPPOSITION 12 TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE v. APPLICATION 13 MW BHCC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Honorable Jon Takasugi 14 Liability Company dba GRIFFIN CLUB LOS ANGELES; RIV HALTOM, an Los Angeles Superior Court 15 Individual; BITA NASSERI, an 111 N. Hill Street Individual; and DOES 1 through 20, Department 26 16 inclusive, Los Angeles, CA, 90012 17 Defendants. Ex Parte: November 3, 2021 8:30 a.m. 18 19 20 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN ABRAHAM 21 I, Stephen Abraham, declare: 22 1. All the statements contained herein are made and based on my personal 23 knowledge and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently thereto. 24 2. I am counsel for Defendant Bita Nasseri in the present action. 25 3. At the hearing on the first of the three motions held on October 22, 2021, this 26 Court’s direction was loud and clear and very easily understood. Deal with the issue, meet and 27 confer, and get the motions off the Court’s calendar. 28 Stephen E. Abraham ____ LAW OF F ICE S ____ 1592 Pegasus Street Newport Be ach, CA 92660 1 Abraham Decl ISO Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte (949) 878-8608 ABRAHAM DECL ISO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION