On April 04, 2022 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Miranda, Lizbeth,
and
Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation,
Burlington Distribution Corp,
Does 1 Through 25,
Gonzales, Rosie,
Gonzalez, Rosa,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V V
l MARCELO A. DIEGUEZ, ESQ. (SBN: 221951)
OMRI A. BEN-ARI, ESQ. (SBN: 291517) F 4
V
2 MELISSA NEWMAN AVILA, ESQ. (SBN: 286487) SUth‘x’iORCfifi—q
DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C. V = '
3 34204 Pacific Coast Highway
Dana Point, California 92629
4 Telephone: (949) 260—9131
(949) 691-3235
5
Facsimile:
Email: litigation@diefcrlaw.com
W --\;{$O::T.L-m_..
“’
5,1"? .
6 Attorneysfor PlaintiflLizbeZh Miranda
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TI-IE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
lO
ll
LIZBETH MIRANDA, an individual, CASE N0; c1vs32207378
PLAINTIFF,
l2
REPLY DECLARATION OF OMRI A. BEN-
13
VS' ARI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
1 4
BURLING 0N COAT FACTORY
, w
1
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE,
DIRECT CORPORATION dba AND FOR SANCTIONS
l5
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
WAREHOUSE, a New Jersey Corporation;
ROSIE GONZALES, an individual; and J d
.
H W-lf
l re d J S C1mmrd cr’ J r.
l 6
DOES through 25, inclusive
1
Beg: S30;
17 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022
DEFENDANTS' Hearing Time: 8:30 am.
l8
19
2O
2l
22
23
24
25
2 6
27
28
_ l _
DIEFER LAW
GROUP, ?.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw REPLY DECLARATION 0F OMRI A. BEN-ARI
\r‘ v
DECLARATION 0F OMRI A. BEN-ARI
I, Omri A. Bcn-Ari, Esq., declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all Courts in the State of
California and counsel for Plaintiff LIZBETH MIRANDA. I am familiar with all thc matters
asserted herein, and if called upon to testify, would and could competently testify thereto. I make
this declaration in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3).
2. Immediately following this Court’s granting of Plaintiff‘s ex partc application to
continue the motion to compel arbitration hearing date to allow the parties to conduct discovery.
into arbitration-rclated issues on August 16, 2022. On August 16, .2022, Plaintiff‘s counsel
lO
reached out t0 Defense counsel in an attempt to further meet and confer. Specifically, Plaintiff’s
ll
counsel advised:
12
Given the court's ruling today, please let us know if Defendants are willing to
l3
reconsider their position on supplementing their discovery responses and
l4 providing compliant discovery responses. Our hope is that we can sort this
out and obtain complaint responses before Defendants need t0 file an
15 opposition and without burdcning the court with reviewing the motion.
l6 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of my August 16, 2022
l7 email.
l8 3. However, Defense counsel refused. In reply, Plaintiff‘s counsel again emailed
l9 Defense counsel stating,
20 “We most meet and confer. As you well know, the Discovery
certainly did
requests were served on June 16, 2022. On July 18, 2022 Defendants served
21
obj ection—only responses. We met and conferred on that day and provided you
22 With times to discuss telophonically. Instead, Defendants agreed to provide
complaint supplemental responses by July 30, 2022. However, on July 29,
23 2022, Defendant provided that same objection only responses and
nonresponscs. Defendants did so despite knowing that time was of the
24 essence given the pending motion t0 compel arbitration opposition
deadlinc—which is pure game playing. The same issues as outlined before
25
remain. Thus, if defendants would like t0 provide second supplemental
26 responses, we are willing to take the motions off calendar; otherwise, we
can let the court make a ruling on the matter.
27
Attached hcrcto and marked as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy 0f my August 18, 2022
28
email.
Document Filed Date
September 01, 2022
Case Filing Date
April 04, 2022
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V V l MARCELO A. DIEGUEZ, ESQ. (SBN: 221951) OMRI A. BEN-ARI, ESQ. (SBN: 291517) F 4 V 2 MELISSA NEWMAN AVILA, ESQ. (SBN: 286487) SUth‘x’iORCfifi—q DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C. V = ' 3 34204 Pacific Coast Highway Dana Point, California 92629 4 Telephone: (949) 260—9131 (949) 691-3235 5 Facsimile: Email: litigation@diefcrlaw.com W --\;{$O::T.L-m_.. “’ 5,1"? . 6 Attorneysfor PlaintiflLizbeZh Miranda 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TI-IE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO lO ll LIZBETH MIRANDA, an individual, CASE N0; c1vs32207378 PLAINTIFF, l2 REPLY DECLARATION OF OMRI A. BEN- 13 VS' ARI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO 1 4 BURLING 0N COAT FACTORY , w 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, DIRECT CORPORATION dba AND FOR SANCTIONS l5 BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE, a New Jersey Corporation; ROSIE GONZALES, an individual; and J d . H W-lf l re d J S C1mmrd cr’ J r. l 6 DOES through 25, inclusive 1 Beg: S30; 17 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 DEFENDANTS' Hearing Time: 8:30 am. l8 19 2O 2l 22 23 24 25 2 6 27 28 _ l _ DIEFER LAW GROUP, ?.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw REPLY DECLARATION 0F OMRI A. BEN-ARI \r‘ v DECLARATION 0F OMRI A. BEN-ARI I, Omri A. Bcn-Ari, Esq., declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all Courts in the State of California and counsel for Plaintiff LIZBETH MIRANDA. I am familiar with all thc matters asserted herein, and if called upon to testify, would and could competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3). 2. Immediately following this Court’s granting of Plaintiff‘s ex partc application to continue the motion to compel arbitration hearing date to allow the parties to conduct discovery. into arbitration-rclated issues on August 16, 2022. On August 16, .2022, Plaintiff‘s counsel lO reached out t0 Defense counsel in an attempt to further meet and confer. Specifically, Plaintiff’s ll counsel advised: 12 Given the court's ruling today, please let us know if Defendants are willing to l3 reconsider their position on supplementing their discovery responses and l4 providing compliant discovery responses. Our hope is that we can sort this out and obtain complaint responses before Defendants need t0 file an 15 opposition and without burdcning the court with reviewing the motion. l6 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of my August 16, 2022 l7 email. l8 3. However, Defense counsel refused. In reply, Plaintiff‘s counsel again emailed l9 Defense counsel stating, 20 “We most meet and confer. As you well know, the Discovery certainly did requests were served on June 16, 2022. On July 18, 2022 Defendants served 21 obj ection—only responses. We met and conferred on that day and provided you 22 With times to discuss telophonically. Instead, Defendants agreed to provide complaint supplemental responses by July 30, 2022. However, on July 29, 23 2022, Defendant provided that same objection only responses and nonresponscs. Defendants did so despite knowing that time was of the 24 essence given the pending motion t0 compel arbitration opposition deadlinc—which is pure game playing. The same issues as outlined before 25 remain. Thus, if defendants would like t0 provide second supplemental 26 responses, we are willing to take the motions off calendar; otherwise, we can let the court make a ruling on the matter. 27 Attached hcrcto and marked as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy 0f my August 18, 2022 28 email.