On July 02, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Studio 35K Productions Inc.,
and
Hudson Bill,
The Truman Van Dyke Company,
for Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/06/2021 08:08 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Coleman,Deputy Clerk
1 Marilyn R. Victor (State Bar No. 156230)
mvictor@wshblaw.com
2 Lisa Herme (State Bar No. 283111)
lherme@wshblaw.com
3 Ashton L. McKinnon (State Bar No. 310226)
amckinnon@wshblaw.com
4 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215
5 Thousand Oaks, California 91361-582
Phone: (820) 333-4250 ♦ Fax: (820) 333-4249
6
Attorneys for Defendants BILL HUDSON and
7 THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91361-5827, UNITED STATES
11
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
TELEPHONE (820) 333-4250 ♦ FAX (820) 333-4249
12 STUDIO 35K PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Case No. 20STCV25244
2815 TOWNSGATE ROAD, SUITE 215
California Corporation,
13 [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Mark V. Mooney,
Attorneys at Law
Plaintiff, Dept. 68]
14
v. DEFENDANTS BILL HUDSON AND THE
15 TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY'S SUR-
BILL HUDSON, an individual, THE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO
16 TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY, a form DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
of business entity unknown, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM
17 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE
Defendant. ADMITTED
18
Action File: 07/02/2020
19 Trial Date: 01/24/2022
20
21 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
22 COMES NOW Defendants BILL HUDSON ("Hudson") and THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE
23 COMPANY ("TVD") (collectively "Defendants"), who file their sur-reply to Plaintiff's improper
24 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Set One
25 Admitted.
26 Said sur-reply is based on the fact that Plaintiff improperly attempts to introduce new
27 arguments and exhibits within its Reply therefore depriving Defendants of the opportunity to
28 counter Plaintiff's arguments. Plaintiff improperly attempts to "fire the last shot" in order to
DEFENDANTS BILL HUDSON AND THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY'S SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
SET ONE ADMITTED
Document Filed Date
April 06, 2021
Case Filing Date
July 02, 2020
Category
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 08/16/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/06/2021 08:08 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Coleman,Deputy Clerk 1 Marilyn R. Victor (State Bar No. 156230) mvictor@wshblaw.com 2 Lisa Herme (State Bar No. 283111) lherme@wshblaw.com 3 Ashton L. McKinnon (State Bar No. 310226) amckinnon@wshblaw.com 4 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215 5 Thousand Oaks, California 91361-582 Phone: (820) 333-4250 ♦ Fax: (820) 333-4249 6 Attorneys for Defendants BILL HUDSON and 7 THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91361-5827, UNITED STATES 11 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP TELEPHONE (820) 333-4250 ♦ FAX (820) 333-4249 12 STUDIO 35K PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Case No. 20STCV25244 2815 TOWNSGATE ROAD, SUITE 215 California Corporation, 13 [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Mark V. Mooney, Attorneys at Law Plaintiff, Dept. 68] 14 v. DEFENDANTS BILL HUDSON AND THE 15 TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY'S SUR- BILL HUDSON, an individual, THE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO 16 TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY, a form DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO of business entity unknown, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM 17 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE Defendant. ADMITTED 18 Action File: 07/02/2020 19 Trial Date: 01/24/2022 20 21 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 22 COMES NOW Defendants BILL HUDSON ("Hudson") and THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE 23 COMPANY ("TVD") (collectively "Defendants"), who file their sur-reply to Plaintiff's improper 24 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Set One 25 Admitted. 26 Said sur-reply is based on the fact that Plaintiff improperly attempts to introduce new 27 arguments and exhibits within its Reply therefore depriving Defendants of the opportunity to 28 counter Plaintiff's arguments. Plaintiff improperly attempts to "fire the last shot" in order to DEFENDANTS BILL HUDSON AND THE TRUMAN VAN DYKE COMPANY'S SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE ADMITTED