On August 23, 2018 a
Trial Materials
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
52‘?
'/
nlq
Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527
Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C.
74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5
Palm Desert, California 92260 F I L E I}
Telephone (760) 636-5256 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAMFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN aEzw/mnmo
Fax (760) 299-4220 SAN BERNARDmo DISTRICT
Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299 DEC 0 l. 2022
\OOOQONUI-PWNH
Email: SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmail.corn
CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF I
ROBERT STEMPLER, APC nyfl «w
cmtsme LOCKMAN,
'
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Deputy
Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331
Telephone (323) 486-0102
Fax: (323) 488-6895
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT
BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIVDS 1 822222
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. $25
vvvvvv
Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
NNNNNNNNNHr—‘Ho—Hr—tr—tu—dwr—A
VS.
REPLY BRIEF BY PLAINTIFF TO THE
SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD) BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR (A) ORDER
OOQGUI-PWNHowooflmU’I-PUJNHO
MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and ) PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY
DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, REGARDING DEFENDANTS PROFITS AND
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND (B) ORDER
Defendants. REGARDING TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE
OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 3RD
AND 4TH COFAS
VVVVVVVVVV
Date: December 9, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept. $25 (Civil District Courthouse)
///
///
///
-1-
REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR A) ORDER PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS
PROFITS AND FINANCIAL ONDITION AND (B) TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE OF 3RD & 4TH COFAS
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The hearing on this motion has been continued several times, most recently on November
15, 2022, at the request of attorney Adam K. Obeid, who is now representing defendants James,
A Robert and Daniel Bruncati (also known as the “Bruncati Defendants”). At the November 15, 2022
hearing on this motion and TSC, the Court was inclined to grant Plaintiff’ s motion to allow Financial
flow Discovery. However, Mr. Obeid explained that he wanted an opportunity to oppose the motion for
his clients and that he needed to be brought up to speed on the case, even though Mr. Obeid has
made several appearances in this case and was served with the Notice of this motion on August 1,
2022, concurrently with the other defense counsel of record. Mr. Obeid first appeared in this case
10 on March 7, 2022 with his written obj ections to Subpoena on behalfofKnight Sunrise Fontana LLC.
11 Mr. Obeid appeared on the record regarding his objections at the hearing on motions t0 compel on
12 July 26, 2022.
13 At the hearing on November 15, 2022, the Court overruled demurrer to the Third and Fourth
14 Causes of Action which concern fraudulent and voidable conveyances by and between the
15 defendants. After which the Court agreed to grant Mr. Obeid a continuance to file an opposition, but
16 noted that his clients (the Bruncati Defendants) would need to provide the Court With case law
17 supporting a party being prohibited from seeking discovery on the elements of his case (in this
18 action, there remains the First, Third and Fourth Causes of Action for discovery and trial).
19 Instead of finding such authorities as requested, the Bruncati Defendants submitted a brief
20 that merelyjoins Sunrise Ford, Inc’s opposition, failing to offer any opposing evidence. Essentially,
21 the briefby Bruncati Defendants rehashes basic privacy arguments. In granting financial discovery
22 and overruling privacy obj ections, in Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg &Bagley LLP v. Superior
23 Court (4th Dist. 2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595-596 [40 Ca1.Rptr.3d 446] [herein “Hecht”], this
24 District has addressed the privacy objections in favor of allowing a Plaintiff’s financial discovery
25 when essential for proving elements of the plaintiff’s causes of action or for purposes of
26 collectibility.
27 Though well aware that Plaintiff’ s Third and Fourth Causes of Action will require financial
28 discovery, the Bruncati Defendants’ don’t address Hecht at all. Instead, without citing the elements
-2-
REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR A) ORDER PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS
PROFITS AND FINANCIAL ONDITION AND (B) TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE OF 3RD & 4TH COFAS
Preview
52‘? '/ nlq Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527 Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C. 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5 Palm Desert, California 92260 F I L E I} Telephone (760) 636-5256 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAMFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN aEzw/mnmo Fax (760) 299-4220 SAN BERNARDmo DISTRICT Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299 DEC 0 l. 2022 \OOOQONUI-PWNH Email: SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmail.corn CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF I ROBERT STEMPLER, APC nyfl «w cmtsme LOCKMAN, ' 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Deputy Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331 Telephone (323) 486-0102 Fax: (323) 488-6895 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIVDS 1 822222 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. $25 vvvvvv Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo NNNNNNNNNHr—‘Ho—Hr—tr—tu—dwr—A VS. REPLY BRIEF BY PLAINTIFF TO THE SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD) BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR (A) ORDER OOQGUI-PWNHowooflmU’I-PUJNHO MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and ) PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, REGARDING DEFENDANTS PROFITS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION AND (B) ORDER Defendants. REGARDING TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 3RD AND 4TH COFAS VVVVVVVVVV Date: December 9, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept. $25 (Civil District Courthouse) /// /// /// -1- REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR A) ORDER PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS PROFITS AND FINANCIAL ONDITION AND (B) TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE OF 3RD & 4TH COFAS I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The hearing on this motion has been continued several times, most recently on November 15, 2022, at the request of attorney Adam K. Obeid, who is now representing defendants James, A Robert and Daniel Bruncati (also known as the “Bruncati Defendants”). At the November 15, 2022 hearing on this motion and TSC, the Court was inclined to grant Plaintiff’ s motion to allow Financial flow Discovery. However, Mr. Obeid explained that he wanted an opportunity to oppose the motion for his clients and that he needed to be brought up to speed on the case, even though Mr. Obeid has made several appearances in this case and was served with the Notice of this motion on August 1, 2022, concurrently with the other defense counsel of record. Mr. Obeid first appeared in this case 10 on March 7, 2022 with his written obj ections to Subpoena on behalfofKnight Sunrise Fontana LLC. 11 Mr. Obeid appeared on the record regarding his objections at the hearing on motions t0 compel on 12 July 26, 2022. 13 At the hearing on November 15, 2022, the Court overruled demurrer to the Third and Fourth 14 Causes of Action which concern fraudulent and voidable conveyances by and between the 15 defendants. After which the Court agreed to grant Mr. Obeid a continuance to file an opposition, but 16 noted that his clients (the Bruncati Defendants) would need to provide the Court With case law 17 supporting a party being prohibited from seeking discovery on the elements of his case (in this 18 action, there remains the First, Third and Fourth Causes of Action for discovery and trial). 19 Instead of finding such authorities as requested, the Bruncati Defendants submitted a brief 20 that merelyjoins Sunrise Ford, Inc’s opposition, failing to offer any opposing evidence. Essentially, 21 the briefby Bruncati Defendants rehashes basic privacy arguments. In granting financial discovery 22 and overruling privacy obj ections, in Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg &Bagley LLP v. Superior 23 Court (4th Dist. 2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595-596 [40 Ca1.Rptr.3d 446] [herein “Hecht”], this 24 District has addressed the privacy objections in favor of allowing a Plaintiff’s financial discovery 25 when essential for proving elements of the plaintiff’s causes of action or for purposes of 26 collectibility. 27 Though well aware that Plaintiff’ s Third and Fourth Causes of Action will require financial 28 discovery, the Bruncati Defendants’ don’t address Hecht at all. Instead, without citing the elements -2- REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION FOR A) ORDER PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS PROFITS AND FINANCIAL ONDITION AND (B) TRANSACTIONS PROBATIVE OF 3RD & 4TH COFAS