Preview
From Law Office 1.310.822.8529 Mon Apr 26 13:30:56 2071 PDT Page 2 of 8
\r \d
-'
t-i 1‘12:
1 i X.
I
swemou uomr 0F CALIFUHM.-\
Dav1d M. Shaby II, Esq. (97871) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDIND
dshaby@shabyandassociates.com
SAN IVIERMRDWO ”WWW
R.Chrlstopher Harshman,Esq.(248214)
ADP
" ‘
.~
" 6 2021
charshman@shabyandassociates.com ’
DAVID M. SHABY II 8c ASSOCIATES, APC
11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 l p27,
BY f fl
Culver City, California 90230 DEW'Z-y
Telephone:
[7"M fl /“fl” WW ’ z 2;
£310 827-7171
Facmmile: 310; 822—8529
Attomglsfor Defendant and Cross- Complainant Sandy Acosta
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINo
10 Jetcruzer International, LLC, Case n0. CIVDSl930132
11 Plaintiff,
Assigned to the Hon. Torn Garza, Dept. 827
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST To SUBMIT
12 VS.
CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU 0F SEPARATE
13 Sandy Acosta, et d1, STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT 0F ANTICIPATED
MOTIONS To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
14 Defendants.
Complaint filed: October 8, 2019
15 And Related Cross—Complaint Trial date: February 7, 2022
16
17 Defendant and cross-complainant Sandy Acosta (“Acosta”), surprised both by the lengthy
18 opposition 0f plaintifi and cross-defendant JetCruzer International, LLC (“JetCruzer”) to her simple
19 procedural request to submit a concise outline, and the attempt contained within that April 21, 2021
20 Opposition to pre-litigate the issues, hereby submits her reply in support of her request.
21 I. FACTUAL AND LEGAL REBUTTAL
22 JetCruzer is correct in that this matter should be “a rather simple contractual” dispute (Opp.
23 1:24-25). That it is a “highly disputed matter” (Id. 1:24), however, stems predominantly from
24 JetCruzer’s election to bring, inter alia, causes of action for tortious and negligent interference with
25 prospective economic relations (the first and second causes of action in JetCruzer’s October 8, 2019
26 Complaint, the “Economic Interference” causes of action), and then to stymie at every turn Ms.
27 Acosta’s attempts to conduct basic discovery into any facts JetCruzer might assert t0 meet the essential
28 elements of those claims. This makes it impossible for Ms. Acosta to prepare her defense!
1
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST To SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE
Fr‘om Law Officp 1.310.822.8529 Mon Apr 26 13:30:56 2071 PDT Page 3 O‘F 8
\i V
A. JetCruzer Hides any Third Party
The first element of each ofJetCruzer’s Economic Interference causes of action is the existence
of a relationship between JetCruzer and at least one third party that probably would have resulted in an
economic benefit to JetCruzer. (CACI 2202, 2204.) When Ms. Acosta attempted to learn the identity of
any third party in such a relationship with JetCruzer, JetCruzer first raised “vague and confusing”
“
objections and then, refusing to answer, stated: [T]his interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is apparently intended to harass and annoy UetCruzer],
and to cause undue burden and expense to UetCruzer].”1 In a supplemental response,]etCruzer
continues to fail to make a straightforward identification, instead stating: “The name of the
10 INVESTOR2 is in a foreign language (Chinese). There are documents containing the identity of the
11 INVESTOR, and need to interpreted into English in order to obtain the English~translated name, if
12 there is such. Responding Party has not retained a Chinese translator for such purpose, and thus the
”3
13 identities cannot be stated herein. The attached document was faded, blurry, and illegible“. Since
14 JetCruzer won’t provide a straightforward response to these most basic interrogatories, Ms. Acosta
15 must seek, e.g., financial documents, that might provide some - any - clues.
16 B. JetCruzer RefiJses to Calculate Damages
17 Another essential element of each ofJetCruzer’s Economic Interference causes of action is
18 actual damage. (CACI 2202, 2202.) When Ms. Acosta attempted to learn the amount of damage
19 claimed by JetCruzer, or to discover any underlying facts that would support that claim, she again hit
“
20 brick walls: [N]o financial 0r accounting experts have yet been retained in order to calculate the
21 amount of damages sustained by Responding Party as a result of Propounding Party’s actions. Most of
22 Responding Party’s damages require use of forensic economic experts to determine the value of time
23
getCruzer’s Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrfifatories, Set One, Exhibit B to Declaration of R.
24 hristopher Harshman submitted in connection with s. Acosta’s April 5, 2021 Motion to Compel
Further Responses (the “Harshman Decl. ”) (specifically, JetCruzer’s responses to Specially Prepared
25 Interrogatorles 1-6).
2
Identical responses were provided for Specially Prepared Interrogatories seeking the identities of
26 ”
patrons and customers, with those words substituted for “INVESTOR.
27
3
Exhibit K
to the Harshman Decl., JetCruzer’s supplemental responses t0 Specially Prepared
Interrogatories 1-6.
4
28 Exhibit L to the Harshman Decl.
2
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST T0 SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE
Preview
From Law Office 1.310.822.8529 Mon Apr 26 13:30:56 2071 PDT Page 2 of 8 \r \d -' t-i 1‘12: 1 i X. I swemou uomr 0F CALIFUHM.-\ Dav1d M. Shaby II, Esq. (97871) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDIND dshaby@shabyandassociates.com SAN IVIERMRDWO ”WWW R.Chrlstopher Harshman,Esq.(248214) ADP " ‘ .~ " 6 2021 charshman@shabyandassociates.com ’ DAVID M. SHABY II 8c ASSOCIATES, APC 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 l p27, BY f fl Culver City, California 90230 DEW'Z-y Telephone: [7"M fl /“fl” WW ’ z 2; £310 827-7171 Facmmile: 310; 822—8529 Attomglsfor Defendant and Cross- Complainant Sandy Acosta SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINo 10 Jetcruzer International, LLC, Case n0. CIVDSl930132 11 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Hon. Torn Garza, Dept. 827 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST To SUBMIT 12 VS. CONCISE OUTLINE IN LIEU 0F SEPARATE 13 Sandy Acosta, et d1, STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT 0F ANTICIPATED MOTIONS To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 14 Defendants. Complaint filed: October 8, 2019 15 And Related Cross—Complaint Trial date: February 7, 2022 16 17 Defendant and cross-complainant Sandy Acosta (“Acosta”), surprised both by the lengthy 18 opposition 0f plaintifi and cross-defendant JetCruzer International, LLC (“JetCruzer”) to her simple 19 procedural request to submit a concise outline, and the attempt contained within that April 21, 2021 20 Opposition to pre-litigate the issues, hereby submits her reply in support of her request. 21 I. FACTUAL AND LEGAL REBUTTAL 22 JetCruzer is correct in that this matter should be “a rather simple contractual” dispute (Opp. 23 1:24-25). That it is a “highly disputed matter” (Id. 1:24), however, stems predominantly from 24 JetCruzer’s election to bring, inter alia, causes of action for tortious and negligent interference with 25 prospective economic relations (the first and second causes of action in JetCruzer’s October 8, 2019 26 Complaint, the “Economic Interference” causes of action), and then to stymie at every turn Ms. 27 Acosta’s attempts to conduct basic discovery into any facts JetCruzer might assert t0 meet the essential 28 elements of those claims. This makes it impossible for Ms. Acosta to prepare her defense! 1 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST To SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE Fr‘om Law Officp 1.310.822.8529 Mon Apr 26 13:30:56 2071 PDT Page 3 O‘F 8 \i V A. JetCruzer Hides any Third Party The first element of each ofJetCruzer’s Economic Interference causes of action is the existence of a relationship between JetCruzer and at least one third party that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to JetCruzer. (CACI 2202, 2204.) When Ms. Acosta attempted to learn the identity of any third party in such a relationship with JetCruzer, JetCruzer first raised “vague and confusing” “ objections and then, refusing to answer, stated: [T]his interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is apparently intended to harass and annoy UetCruzer], and to cause undue burden and expense to UetCruzer].”1 In a supplemental response,]etCruzer continues to fail to make a straightforward identification, instead stating: “The name of the 10 INVESTOR2 is in a foreign language (Chinese). There are documents containing the identity of the 11 INVESTOR, and need to interpreted into English in order to obtain the English~translated name, if 12 there is such. Responding Party has not retained a Chinese translator for such purpose, and thus the ”3 13 identities cannot be stated herein. The attached document was faded, blurry, and illegible“. Since 14 JetCruzer won’t provide a straightforward response to these most basic interrogatories, Ms. Acosta 15 must seek, e.g., financial documents, that might provide some - any - clues. 16 B. JetCruzer RefiJses to Calculate Damages 17 Another essential element of each ofJetCruzer’s Economic Interference causes of action is 18 actual damage. (CACI 2202, 2202.) When Ms. Acosta attempted to learn the amount of damage 19 claimed by JetCruzer, or to discover any underlying facts that would support that claim, she again hit “ 20 brick walls: [N]o financial 0r accounting experts have yet been retained in order to calculate the 21 amount of damages sustained by Responding Party as a result of Propounding Party’s actions. Most of 22 Responding Party’s damages require use of forensic economic experts to determine the value of time 23 getCruzer’s Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrfifatories, Set One, Exhibit B to Declaration of R. 24 hristopher Harshman submitted in connection with s. Acosta’s April 5, 2021 Motion to Compel Further Responses (the “Harshman Decl. ”) (specifically, JetCruzer’s responses to Specially Prepared 25 Interrogatorles 1-6). 2 Identical responses were provided for Specially Prepared Interrogatories seeking the identities of 26 ” patrons and customers, with those words substituted for “INVESTOR. 27 3 Exhibit K to the Harshman Decl., JetCruzer’s supplemental responses t0 Specially Prepared Interrogatories 1-6. 4 28 Exhibit L to the Harshman Decl. 2 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F REQUEST T0 SUBMIT CONCISE OUTLINE