On August 23, 2018 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Henry, Billy C,
Sunrise Ford Inc A California Corporation,
and
Bruncati, Daniel,
Bruncati, James,
Bruncati, Robert,
Does 2 Through 50,
Ford Motor Company,
Ford Motor Credit Company,
Sunrise Ford, Inc.,
for Business Tort
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1)
JIWON MICHAEL SHIN (SBN 320504)
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN
& CAUDILL, LLP L E D
2601 Main Street, Suite 800 F I
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
92614
Irvine, California COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
261-2872 2AM SERNARDINO D'STRICT
Tel: (949)
Fax: (949) 261-6060 FEB 1
’3'
202?.
Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
mshin@ctsclaw.com
:-~:~:>
BY .1
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBWKWZMEIER, DEPUTY
SUNRISE FORD, INC.
5%5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
UP
11
BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.2 CIVDSl 822222
‘SLCD‘NUDILL
12
JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
13 Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25
Sl'fl'SRMAN
COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018
14 vs.
CISCglaw
15 SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD MOTOR DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE
'I'T‘Kfilflflfi
COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
16 COMPANY; and DOES through 50, 1
FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN
inclusive,
THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
(QJAUAHAN
17
ADJUDICATION
18 Defendants.
Date: February 22, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19
Location: Dept. $25
20
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
-1-
DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY IUDGEMENT
OR, IN TPE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJ UDICATION
\y \r
DEFENDANT’S PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE DEFENDANT’S REPLY
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL AND SUPPORTING AND SUPPORTING
FACTS AND EVIDENCE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Issue 1. There is no merit to Plaintiff’s claim for Financial Abuse of An Elder against
Sunrise because there is no evidence that Sunrise took Plaintiff’s personal property for a
wrongful purpose 0r with the intent to defraud.
1. On April 20, 2017, Disputed. Not contradicted.
Plaintiff went to the
10
Sunrise Ford, Inc. (Plaintiff’s Decl., W 2, 5, 6.) Plaintiff‘s evidence does not
UMF.
(“Defendant”) looking to Improper combining of contradict this
purchase a new vehicle. multiple immaterial facts into
UP
11 Plaintiff decided to test the separate statement. (CCP § Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
(LAULXU.. drive a red 2017 Ford 437C, subd. (b)(l); Rutter
12 VIN
Explorer, Group 10:91.1 [“Each
11
& 1FM5K8HT8HT8HGC219 material fact should be stated Whether Plaintiff or the
13 24 (“Vehicle”). While test separately rather than set forth salesperson noticed problems
SHERMAN
driving the Vehicle, with several other facts. This with the Vehicle first, and nor
14 Plaintiff and the permits the court to see easily does it address whether or not
crscglaw
salesperson noticed that the how the fact is supported by the problems were referred to
'1"}*K.3MI‘SON
15 dashboard instrument the cited evidence.”] as “defects” during the test
display (“Front Display”) drive. These particular facts
16 was defective. that Plaintiff s Declaration
{AN
A1 o Declaration of Anthony S. focuses on are immaterial to
17 Ortiz, Exhibit “A,” the claims and defenses in this
("3/3le
Deposition of Plaintiff case and are presented as red
18 Billy Henry (“Henry herrings.
Depo.”), August 12, 2020,
19 Pgs. 3914-15, 40:24-41 :8. Plaintiff’s Declaration
should be disregarded.
20
Plaintiff s Declaration
21 contradicts Plaintiff” s
statements in his earlier
22 deposition testimony in this
action.
23
Plaintiff’s Declaration states,
24 “The Salesperson did not bring
the Vehicle’s non-working
25 dashboard to my attention, I
brought it to his attention.”
26 (Plaintiff s Decl. 115).
27 Plaintiff testified at deposition
as follows:
28 fl
_L_
DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Document Filed Date
February 17, 2022
Case Filing Date
August 23, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1) JIWON MICHAEL SHIN (SBN 320504) CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP L E D 2601 Main Street, Suite 800 F I SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 92614 Irvine, California COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 261-2872 2AM SERNARDINO D'STRICT Tel: (949) Fax: (949) 261-6060 FEB 1 ’3' 202?. Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com mshin@ctsclaw.com :-~:~:> BY .1 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBWKWZMEIER, DEPUTY SUNRISE FORD, INC. 5%5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO UP 11 BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.2 CIVDSl 822222 ‘SLCD‘NUDILL 12 JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo 13 Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25 Sl'fl'SRMAN COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018 14 vs. CISCglaw 15 SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD MOTOR DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE 'I'T‘Kfilflflfi COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 16 COMPANY; and DOES through 50, 1 FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN inclusive, THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY (QJAUAHAN 17 ADJUDICATION 18 Defendants. Date: February 22, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 Location: Dept. $25 20 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 -1- DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY IUDGEMENT OR, IN TPE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJ UDICATION \y \r DEFENDANT’S PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE DEFENDANT’S REPLY UNDISPUTED MATERIAL AND SUPPORTING AND SUPPORTING FACTS AND EVIDENCE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Issue 1. There is no merit to Plaintiff’s claim for Financial Abuse of An Elder against Sunrise because there is no evidence that Sunrise took Plaintiff’s personal property for a wrongful purpose 0r with the intent to defraud. 1. On April 20, 2017, Disputed. Not contradicted. Plaintiff went to the 10 Sunrise Ford, Inc. (Plaintiff’s Decl., W 2, 5, 6.) Plaintiff‘s evidence does not UMF. (“Defendant”) looking to Improper combining of contradict this purchase a new vehicle. multiple immaterial facts into UP 11 Plaintiff decided to test the separate statement. (CCP § Plaintiff alleges that Defendant (LAULXU.. drive a red 2017 Ford 437C, subd. (b)(l); Rutter 12 VIN Explorer, Group 10:91.1 [“Each 11 & 1FM5K8HT8HT8HGC219 material fact should be stated Whether Plaintiff or the 13 24 (“Vehicle”). While test separately rather than set forth salesperson noticed problems SHERMAN driving the Vehicle, with several other facts. This with the Vehicle first, and nor 14 Plaintiff and the permits the court to see easily does it address whether or not crscglaw salesperson noticed that the how the fact is supported by the problems were referred to '1"}*K.3MI‘SON 15 dashboard instrument the cited evidence.”] as “defects” during the test display (“Front Display”) drive. These particular facts 16 was defective. that Plaintiff s Declaration {AN A1 o Declaration of Anthony S. focuses on are immaterial to 17 Ortiz, Exhibit “A,” the claims and defenses in this ("3/3le Deposition of Plaintiff case and are presented as red 18 Billy Henry (“Henry herrings. Depo.”), August 12, 2020, 19 Pgs. 3914-15, 40:24-41 :8. Plaintiff’s Declaration should be disregarded. 20 Plaintiff s Declaration 21 contradicts Plaintiff” s statements in his earlier 22 deposition testimony in this action. 23 Plaintiff’s Declaration states, 24 “The Salesperson did not bring the Vehicle’s non-working 25 dashboard to my attention, I brought it to his attention.” 26 (Plaintiff s Decl. 115). 27 Plaintiff testified at deposition as follows: 28 fl _L_ DEFENDANT’S REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION