Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999)
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
LPP
133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107 SuRER F i i rb DD.
W
Phone: (626) 796-9998 SPE TOURTY OE PLACER
Fax: (626) 796-9992
FP
SEP 30 2019
Wn
LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE (SBN 137587) JAKE CHAT FERS
ARONOWITZ, SKIDMORE & LYON EXECUTIVE Ors 9/CLERK
DB
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 By: E. Cavazos;-Ceputy
Auburn, CA 95603
N
Phone: (530) 823-9736
Fm
Fax: (530) 823-5241
co
Attorneys for Defendants
et
Ss
mk
Sr
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
me
ko
me
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, ) Case No. S-CV 0042080
mm
a
INC., )
)
ome
aRea
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO:
) (1) PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL
VS. ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE &
(2) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
Se
ww
ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT
Beneficiary of The Anything Trust dated ) OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE
NO
October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING ) FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR
BESB
TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017; ) COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND
NO
PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee ) CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
)
DO
of The Anything Trust Dated October 12,
2007; and Does | through 50, inclusive, )
BeBe
NO
) Motion Date: October 3, 2019
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
NO
Defendants.
oR
) Dept.: 42
NO
)
Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
Trial Date: None Set
me.uk
dO
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
1
In conjunction with its Reply Brief in Support of its “Motion to Transfer the Action Filed in
&
NO
Los Angeles Superior Court to this Court and to Consolidate, or Alternatively Coordinate, the Los
WY
Angeles Action with the Placer County Action” (hereinafter “the Motion to Transfer’), Plaintiff
FF
Pacific Union International (“Plaintiff’ or “PUI”’) has filed both a “Supplemental Request for
OH
Judicial Notice” and a “Supplemental Declaration of Shannon B. Jones” (the “Jones Declaration”).
DN
NN
Both of these “Supplemental” documents are improper and should be disregarded by the Court.
Oo
With respect to PUI’s “Request for Judicial Notice,” Evidence Code §453 states:
Oo
The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452
if a party requests it and:
(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the
pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the
Ee
request; and
et
(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial
notice of the matter.
wm
(Emphasis added.)
wm
wm
Clearly a “Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice” filed with a Reply Brief in support of
Wi
a motion does not provide Defendants “sufficient notice of the request . . . to enable [Defendants]
to prepare to meet the request...” (See, also Evidence Code §455(a), requiring the Court to
NO
“afford each party reasonable opportunity to meet such information before judicial notice of the
NO
NO
matter may be taken.”)
NO
Likewise, Ms. Jones’ “Supplemental Declaration” should also be disregarded pursuant to
NO
Evidence Code §455(a).
NO
H
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
2
In her Supplemental Declaration, Ms. Jones states that she represents all of the Defendants
YN
in the Los Angeles Superior Court Action, Ludwick v. Partners Trust, et al., 19STVC 25531 (the
WY
“LASC Action”). This bald assertion is the first time that Ms. Jones has made this claim! In fact,
BP
four (4) of the defendants in the LASC Action are technically in default (although their default has
Wn
not yet been entered) as they were served in August and have not yet filed a responsive pleading.
ND
Further, Ms. Jones’ statement that all of the Defendants in the LASC Action are willing to
Oo
appear and defend in Placer County is unsupported by any Declaration from any of those
oOo
Defendants, and/or any other evidence. As such, it is inadmissible hearsay. As noted in
Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion to Transfer: CCP §404.1 requires “that the moving party has
Oe
ee
made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice
me
of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is
pending.” Under California Rule of Court 3.500c, this duty to notify ALL parties to an action which
the moving party is seeking to have transferred is mandatory — and PUI has still not provided any
evidence whatsoever that PUI’s Counsel has even communicated with the additional LASC
defendants in writing as required under Rule 3.500c to request their agreement to the transfer, let
alone that she has obtained their agreement.
NO
“The salutary rule is that points raised in a reply brief for the first time will not be considered
NO
unless good cause is shown for the failure to present them before.” (Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre
KN
NO
(1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010; 197 Cal.Rptr. 250, 254; see also Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218
NM
CA4th 1522, 1537-1538, 161 CR3d 700, 712). PUI has not made any such showing.
//
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
3
Finally, even if all of Ms. Jones’ unsubstantiated and unsupported claims were accurate, the
NY
fact remains that the real property which is the subject of the LASC Action, together with all
WW
percipient witnesses and relevant documents, are located in Los Angeles County.
FP
Thus, PUI’s “Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice” and Ms. Jones’ “Supplemental
Dn
Declaration” should be disregarded; and PUI’s Motion to Transfer the LASC Action to Placer
County should be denied.
oN
Oo
10
DATED: September 27, 2019 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, A LAW CORP.
11
12
13
BY:
14 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
15 Attorneys for Defendants
16 Fucsimile signature as original
Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
4
NN PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403,
WwW
Pasadena, CA 91107.
&
On September 27, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as:
wm
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO: (1) PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE & (2) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN
a
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
on all interested parties in this action by placing [X]atrue copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed
in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
10 SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST
11 [] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a
12 record of the transmission.
13 U (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document
14 will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid
at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
15 the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date
is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
0 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s)
17 enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in
the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on
18 attached sheet.
19 [X] (BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the
addressee(s). Courtesy copy
20
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
a. above is true and correct.
22 Executed on September 27, 2019, at Pasadena, COD
23
24 Patricia M. Poole
Zo
Facsimile signature as original
26 Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d)
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
MAILING LIST
Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al.
WN
Case No. SCV0042080
WW
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
&
Lindsey Morgan, Esq.
Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc.
oO
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
HO
a
Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
Aronowitz Skidmore Lyon
©
A Professional Law Corporation
Oo
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
Auburn, CA 95603
10 (via email)
i
12
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO LPP 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 SuRER F i i rb DD. W Phone: (626) 796-9998 SPE TOURTY OE PLACER Fax: (626) 796-9992 FP SEP 30 2019 Wn LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE (SBN 137587) JAKE CHAT FERS ARONOWITZ, SKIDMORE & LYON EXECUTIVE Ors 9/CLERK DB 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 By: E. Cavazos;-Ceputy Auburn, CA 95603 N Phone: (530) 823-9736 Fm Fax: (530) 823-5241 co Attorneys for Defendants et Ss mk Sr SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER me ko me PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, ) Case No. S-CV 0042080 mm a INC., ) ) ome aRea Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO: ) (1) PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL VS. ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & (2) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION Se ww ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT Beneficiary of The Anything Trust dated ) OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE NO October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING ) FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR BESB TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017; ) COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND NO PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee ) CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS ) DO of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Does | through 50, inclusive, ) BeBe NO ) Motion Date: October 3, 2019 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. NO Defendants. oR ) Dept.: 42 NO ) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 Trial Date: None Set me.uk dO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 1 In conjunction with its Reply Brief in Support of its “Motion to Transfer the Action Filed in & NO Los Angeles Superior Court to this Court and to Consolidate, or Alternatively Coordinate, the Los WY Angeles Action with the Placer County Action” (hereinafter “the Motion to Transfer’), Plaintiff FF Pacific Union International (“Plaintiff’ or “PUI”’) has filed both a “Supplemental Request for OH Judicial Notice” and a “Supplemental Declaration of Shannon B. Jones” (the “Jones Declaration”). DN NN Both of these “Supplemental” documents are improper and should be disregarded by the Court. Oo With respect to PUI’s “Request for Judicial Notice,” Evidence Code §453 states: Oo The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the Ee request; and et (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. wm (Emphasis added.) wm wm Clearly a “Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice” filed with a Reply Brief in support of Wi a motion does not provide Defendants “sufficient notice of the request . . . to enable [Defendants] to prepare to meet the request...” (See, also Evidence Code §455(a), requiring the Court to NO “afford each party reasonable opportunity to meet such information before judicial notice of the NO NO matter may be taken.”) NO Likewise, Ms. Jones’ “Supplemental Declaration” should also be disregarded pursuant to NO Evidence Code §455(a). NO H DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 2 In her Supplemental Declaration, Ms. Jones states that she represents all of the Defendants YN in the Los Angeles Superior Court Action, Ludwick v. Partners Trust, et al., 19STVC 25531 (the WY “LASC Action”). This bald assertion is the first time that Ms. Jones has made this claim! In fact, BP four (4) of the defendants in the LASC Action are technically in default (although their default has Wn not yet been entered) as they were served in August and have not yet filed a responsive pleading. ND Further, Ms. Jones’ statement that all of the Defendants in the LASC Action are willing to Oo appear and defend in Placer County is unsupported by any Declaration from any of those oOo Defendants, and/or any other evidence. As such, it is inadmissible hearsay. As noted in Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion to Transfer: CCP §404.1 requires “that the moving party has Oe ee made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice me of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending.” Under California Rule of Court 3.500c, this duty to notify ALL parties to an action which the moving party is seeking to have transferred is mandatory — and PUI has still not provided any evidence whatsoever that PUI’s Counsel has even communicated with the additional LASC defendants in writing as required under Rule 3.500c to request their agreement to the transfer, let alone that she has obtained their agreement. NO “The salutary rule is that points raised in a reply brief for the first time will not be considered NO unless good cause is shown for the failure to present them before.” (Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre KN NO (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010; 197 Cal.Rptr. 250, 254; see also Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 NM CA4th 1522, 1537-1538, 161 CR3d 700, 712). PUI has not made any such showing. // DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 3 Finally, even if all of Ms. Jones’ unsubstantiated and unsupported claims were accurate, the NY fact remains that the real property which is the subject of the LASC Action, together with all WW percipient witnesses and relevant documents, are located in Los Angeles County. FP Thus, PUI’s “Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice” and Ms. Jones’ “Supplemental Dn Declaration” should be disregarded; and PUI’s Motion to Transfer the LASC Action to Placer County should be denied. oN Oo 10 DATED: September 27, 2019 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, A LAW CORP. 11 12 13 BY: 14 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO 15 Attorneys for Defendants 16 Fucsimile signature as original Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 4 NN PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403, WwW Pasadena, CA 91107. & On September 27, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as: wm DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO: (1) PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & (2) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN a SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO PLACER COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS on all interested parties in this action by placing [X]atrue copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 10 SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST 11 [] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a 12 record of the transmission. 13 U (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document 14 will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of 15 the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 16 0 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s) 17 enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on 18 attached sheet. 19 [X] (BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the addressee(s). Courtesy copy 20 (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the a. above is true and correct. 22 Executed on September 27, 2019, at Pasadena, COD 23 24 Patricia M. Poole Zo Facsimile signature as original 26 Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d) 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE MAILING LIST Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al. WN Case No. SCV0042080 WW Shannon B. Jones, Esq. & Lindsey Morgan, Esq. Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. oO 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, CA 94526 HO a Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq. Aronowitz Skidmore Lyon © A Professional Law Corporation Oo 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 Auburn, CA 95603 10 (via email) i 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE