On October 08, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Acosta, Sandy,
Jetcruzer International, Llc.,
and
Acosta, Sandy,
Does 3 Through 50,
Guzman, Marvin J.,
Zepeda, Ulises A.,
for Fraud
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
v ORIGINAL v
Angelica Acosta Samaniego (SBN 235423)
VARNER & BRANDT LLP
3750 University Avenue, Suite 610 J” S. 5:5 fig)
a ,
5UFtR:0R LOURT OF CAUFQRNIA
Riverside, California 92501 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDmo
Telephone: (95 l) 274—7777 SAN BERNARDNO DISTRICT
Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
APR 2 1 2021
Attorneys for Plaintiff, and Cross—Defendant
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. AND
FARRAR AEROSPACE, LLC 1:
BY Mfixfiéfifin CESAR R. LEPE. [?ESZ’UTY
sgfig EE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Ga'llzl
11
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Case No.2 CIVDSl930132
12
Assigned for all purposes t0 the Honorable
Plaintiffs, Thomas S. Garza, Department $27
13
v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO A8
14 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT
SANDY ACOSTA, an individual and CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU OF SEPARATE
15
DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS & STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ANTICIPATED XV:|
PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
16 INTERIORS / CAI, and DOES 1 through RESPONSES
50, inclusive,
17
Complaint Filed: October 2019
8,
Cross-Complaint Filed: December 13, 2019
18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Trial: February 7, 2022
19
6/4 /2/(
20 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“PLAINTIFF” or
21 “JC”) who hereby provides its Opposition to Defendant’s Request to Submit Concise Outline in
22 lieu of Separate Statement in support of anticipated motion to compel further responses as follows:
23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 The above-captioned action is a highly disputed matter which arises from a rather simple
25 contractual arrangement whereby Defendant agreed to perform certain interior design and
26 fabrication services for the interior of an experimental aircraft that Plaintiff was developing. There
27 is a great deal of acrimony between the parties t0 the lawsuit, and counsel for both parties have
28 zealously guarded the rights and interests 0fthe respective parties, which has translated t0 difficulty
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE
IN LIEU OF SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OF ANTICIPATED MTC FURTHER RESPONSES
Covid-19
in resolving contested matters. This problem was exacerbated by the onslaught of the
created a of havoc for counsel engaged
pandemic, and the statewide closure ofthe courts, which
bit
Defense counsel had difficulty providing initial responses to Plaintiff’s
in litigation matters.
resulting from the pandemic) and failed t0
discovery (including difficulty with communications
over the matter.
provide responses in spite 0f several attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel t0 communicate
and
This ultimately resulted in motions t0 compel said responses, orders granting the motions,
imposition ofa nominal amount in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.
a result 0f those orders compelling responses, and the
nominal sanctions imposed,
OOOOQQ As
Counsel for Defendant has become irascible and has resorted to using discovery mechanisms as a
Defendant has
harassing, oppressing, and trying to confuse counsel for
Plaintiff.
means 0f
of discovery demands, and serving subsequent sets prior to the due date
11 propounded multiple sets
from previously served discovery. The Defense has also resorted t0
12 (0r resolution of disputes)
matters) hours 0f
sending correspondence (ostensibly t0 meet and confer over the discovery
at all
13
having the sum effect of
the night, in addition to correspondence during normal business hours,
all
14
15 clouding the timelines and issues in need 0f resolution.
There currently pending three motions t0 compel Plaintiff to provide further responses t0
16 is
17 Form lnterrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production. A second motion was
served on Plaintiff on
18 filed by Defendant to compel further responses t0 Special Interrogatories, and
and resolve
19 April 5, 2021, involving some 0f the same issues that the parties are trying to discuss
20 from the first motion.
21 At about this same time, Defendant served an additional set of Requests for Production
consisting 0f over 130 demands for documents, many of which relate to time periods extending as
22
as 10 years prior t0 the existence of Plaintiff (a limited liability company).
Quite naturally,
23 much
24 such completely irrelevant document requests were met with objection, land
now Defendants want
gorge themselves on the remains Ofcourt resources that have already been ravaged by
the COVID-
25 t0
26 19 situation, rather than simply agree to drop these unreasonable requests.
27 Against this procedural background 0f acrimony and excess, JetCruzer now must stand in
the opportunity of
28 opposition t0 Defendant’s request, because the result will be to deny JetCruzer
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE
IN LIEU OF SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OF ANTICIPATED MTC FURTHER
RESPONSES
Document Filed Date
April 21, 2021
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
v ORIGINAL v Angelica Acosta Samaniego (SBN 235423) VARNER & BRANDT LLP 3750 University Avenue, Suite 610 J” S. 5:5 fig) a , 5UFtR:0R LOURT OF CAUFQRNIA Riverside, California 92501 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDmo Telephone: (95 l) 274—7777 SAN BERNARDNO DISTRICT Facsimile: (951) 274-7770 APR 2 1 2021 Attorneys for Plaintiff, and Cross—Defendant JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. AND FARRAR AEROSPACE, LLC 1: BY Mfixfiéfifin CESAR R. LEPE. [?ESZ’UTY sgfig EE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Ga'llzl 11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Case No.2 CIVDSl930132 12 Assigned for all purposes t0 the Honorable Plaintiffs, Thomas S. Garza, Department $27 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO A8 14 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT SANDY ACOSTA, an individual and CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU OF SEPARATE 15 DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS & STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ANTICIPATED XV:| PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 16 INTERIORS / CAI, and DOES 1 through RESPONSES 50, inclusive, 17 Complaint Filed: October 2019 8, Cross-Complaint Filed: December 13, 2019 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Trial: February 7, 2022 19 6/4 /2/( 20 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“PLAINTIFF” or 21 “JC”) who hereby provides its Opposition to Defendant’s Request to Submit Concise Outline in 22 lieu of Separate Statement in support of anticipated motion to compel further responses as follows: 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 The above-captioned action is a highly disputed matter which arises from a rather simple 25 contractual arrangement whereby Defendant agreed to perform certain interior design and 26 fabrication services for the interior of an experimental aircraft that Plaintiff was developing. There 27 is a great deal of acrimony between the parties t0 the lawsuit, and counsel for both parties have 28 zealously guarded the rights and interests 0fthe respective parties, which has translated t0 difficulty 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU OF SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OF ANTICIPATED MTC FURTHER RESPONSES Covid-19 in resolving contested matters. This problem was exacerbated by the onslaught of the created a of havoc for counsel engaged pandemic, and the statewide closure ofthe courts, which bit Defense counsel had difficulty providing initial responses to Plaintiff’s in litigation matters. resulting from the pandemic) and failed t0 discovery (including difficulty with communications over the matter. provide responses in spite 0f several attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel t0 communicate and This ultimately resulted in motions t0 compel said responses, orders granting the motions, imposition ofa nominal amount in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. a result 0f those orders compelling responses, and the nominal sanctions imposed, OOOOQQ As Counsel for Defendant has become irascible and has resorted to using discovery mechanisms as a Defendant has harassing, oppressing, and trying to confuse counsel for Plaintiff. means 0f of discovery demands, and serving subsequent sets prior to the due date 11 propounded multiple sets from previously served discovery. The Defense has also resorted t0 12 (0r resolution of disputes) matters) hours 0f sending correspondence (ostensibly t0 meet and confer over the discovery at all 13 having the sum effect of the night, in addition to correspondence during normal business hours, all 14 15 clouding the timelines and issues in need 0f resolution. There currently pending three motions t0 compel Plaintiff to provide further responses t0 16 is 17 Form lnterrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production. A second motion was served on Plaintiff on 18 filed by Defendant to compel further responses t0 Special Interrogatories, and and resolve 19 April 5, 2021, involving some 0f the same issues that the parties are trying to discuss 20 from the first motion. 21 At about this same time, Defendant served an additional set of Requests for Production consisting 0f over 130 demands for documents, many of which relate to time periods extending as 22 as 10 years prior t0 the existence of Plaintiff (a limited liability company). Quite naturally, 23 much 24 such completely irrelevant document requests were met with objection, land now Defendants want gorge themselves on the remains Ofcourt resources that have already been ravaged by the COVID- 25 t0 26 19 situation, rather than simply agree to drop these unreasonable requests. 27 Against this procedural background 0f acrimony and excess, JetCruzer now must stand in the opportunity of 28 opposition t0 Defendant’s request, because the result will be to deny JetCruzer 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU OF SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OF ANTICIPATED MTC FURTHER RESPONSES