On October 08, 2019 a
Hearing
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
From Law Office 1 310 382 Z092 Sat Jul 11 00 51 01 2020 PDT Page 2 of 17
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO
David M SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
1 Shaby II Esq 97871
dshab @shabyandassociates com
2 R Christopher Harshman
Esq 248214 L 13 2020
charshman a shabyandassociates com
3 DAVID M SHABY II L ASSOCIATES APC BY e
11949 Jefferson Boulevard Suite 104
ANTHONY RTINEZ
4 EPU7Y
Culver City California 90230
Telephone 310 827 7171
5 Facsimile 310 822 8529
6 Attorneys forDefendant and Cross Complainant Sandy Acosta
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10 Jetcruzer International LLC Case no CIVDS1930132
11 Assigned to the Hon Tom Garza Dept S27
Plaintiff
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS
12 S
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
13
Sandy Acosta et al
Declaration ofR ChristopherHarshman filed
14 concurrently herezvith
Defendants
Date July 23 2020
15 And Related Cross Complaint
Time 10 00 a m
Department S27
16
Complaint filed October 8 2019
17
Trial date TBD
ig Defendant and cross complainant
Sandy Acosta Acosta hereby opposes the motion to
19
compel answers to special interrogatories brought by plaintiff and cross defendantJetcruzer
20 International LLC Plaintiff
21 I STATEMENT OF FACTS
22
The discovery requests at issue in this motion were served one day after California Governor
23
Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency due to the global pandemic Declaration of R Christopher
24
Harshman Harshman Decl filed concurrently herewith j 2 3
The responses were received by
25 Ms Acosta s counsel ice it work from home situation
s of while was
scrambling to transition to a
26 Id 4 8 David M
Shaby II Associates APC is a tiny understaffed law firm ill equipped to
27 weather the unprecedented demands placed on it by the current COVID 19 pandemic Id 8 All of
28
1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEI ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
From Law Office 1 310 382 2092 Sat Jul 11 00 51 01 2020 PDT Page 3 of 17
1 that counsel has been working diligently with Ms Acosta Id 9 and verified
notwithstanding
2 responses without abjections will have been received by Plaintiffs counsel well in advance of the
3 hearing on this motion Id 10
4 II ARGUMENT
5
As responses will have been servecl ancl received prior to the hearing on this motion it is moot as
6 to the requested relief to compel responses As to sanctions Ms Acosta asserts the COVID 19
7 pandemic and the widespread disruptions it has caused constitute circumstances that make the
S imposition of a sanction unjust Cal Code Civ Proc 2030 290 c
9 III CONCLUSION
10 The Court must deny the motion as moot and given the circumstances decline to award
11 sanctians
12 Respectfully submitted
13 DAVID M SHABY II ASSOCIATES
14 Date July 10 2020 13y
15
1 Christopher Harshman Esq
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross Complainant
16 Sandy Acosta
Electronically signedpursuant to Cav Code 1633 7 d
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
OPPOSl TIUN TO MO 1 lON 7 O CON PEL ANSW ERS 1 0 SPECIAL IN I ERROGATORIES
Document Filed Date
July 13, 2020
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
From Law Office 1 310 382 Z092 Sat Jul 11 00 51 01 2020 PDT Page 2 of 17 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO David M SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 1 Shaby II Esq 97871 dshab @shabyandassociates com 2 R Christopher Harshman Esq 248214 L 13 2020 charshman a shabyandassociates com 3 DAVID M SHABY II L ASSOCIATES APC BY e 11949 Jefferson Boulevard Suite 104 ANTHONY RTINEZ 4 EPU7Y Culver City California 90230 Telephone 310 827 7171 5 Facsimile 310 822 8529 6 Attorneys forDefendant and Cross Complainant Sandy Acosta 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Jetcruzer International LLC Case no CIVDS1930132 11 Assigned to the Hon Tom Garza Dept S27 Plaintiff OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS 12 S TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 13 Sandy Acosta et al Declaration ofR ChristopherHarshman filed 14 concurrently herezvith Defendants Date July 23 2020 15 And Related Cross Complaint Time 10 00 a m Department S27 16 Complaint filed October 8 2019 17 Trial date TBD ig Defendant and cross complainant Sandy Acosta Acosta hereby opposes the motion to 19 compel answers to special interrogatories brought by plaintiff and cross defendantJetcruzer 20 International LLC Plaintiff 21 I STATEMENT OF FACTS 22 The discovery requests at issue in this motion were served one day after California Governor 23 Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency due to the global pandemic Declaration of R Christopher 24 Harshman Harshman Decl filed concurrently herewith j 2 3 The responses were received by 25 Ms Acosta s counsel ice it work from home situation s of while was scrambling to transition to a 26 Id 4 8 David M Shaby II Associates APC is a tiny understaffed law firm ill equipped to 27 weather the unprecedented demands placed on it by the current COVID 19 pandemic Id 8 All of 28 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEI ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES From Law Office 1 310 382 2092 Sat Jul 11 00 51 01 2020 PDT Page 3 of 17 1 that counsel has been working diligently with Ms Acosta Id 9 and verified notwithstanding 2 responses without abjections will have been received by Plaintiffs counsel well in advance of the 3 hearing on this motion Id 10 4 II ARGUMENT 5 As responses will have been servecl ancl received prior to the hearing on this motion it is moot as 6 to the requested relief to compel responses As to sanctions Ms Acosta asserts the COVID 19 7 pandemic and the widespread disruptions it has caused constitute circumstances that make the S imposition of a sanction unjust Cal Code Civ Proc 2030 290 c 9 III CONCLUSION 10 The Court must deny the motion as moot and given the circumstances decline to award 11 sanctians 12 Respectfully submitted 13 DAVID M SHABY II ASSOCIATES 14 Date July 10 2020 13y 15 1 Christopher Harshman Esq Attorneys for Defendant and Cross Complainant 16 Sandy Acosta Electronically signedpursuant to Cav Code 1633 7 d 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 OPPOSl TIUN TO MO 1 lON 7 O CON PEL ANSW ERS 1 0 SPECIAL IN I ERROGATORIES