Motion in Limine Evidentiary in Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al| Trellis.Law

On November 07, 2018 a Trial Materials was filed involving a dispute between Pacific Union International, Inc., and Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust, Erik Ludwick, The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, CSB #133999
1 || mnangano@lacounsel.com
MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION
2 || 133 N Altadena Dr, Ste 403
Pasadena, California 91107
3 || Telephone: (626) 796-9998
4 Fax: (626) 796-9992
LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE, CSB #137587
5 || Iskidmore@asilaw.org
ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON
6 || A Professional Law Corporation
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
7 | Auburn, California 95603
Telephone: (530) 823-9736
8 || Fax: (530) 823-5241
9 || Attorneys for Defendants
| 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
men
Sig
A/S ou IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
sale é = 12 || PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No.: S-CV-0042080
msl 5 3 INC.
Se28 13 , MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE
AY ee Plaintiff, BY DEFENDANTS TO PROHIBIT
Beet 14 |, PLAINTIFF FROM CALLING
“i512 8 WITNESSES OR INTRODUCING |
3) ¢ > | /ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND EVIDENCE INTENDING TO SHOW A
elt] 2 2 Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October 9 WRITTEN LISTING AGREEMENT
eile S 16 1), 5007: THE ANYTHING TRUST BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND ERIK.
Si] 3S ve LUDWICK AND/OR PAUL D. BOOTH,
<\}2S 17 || DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. TRUSTEE OF THE ANYTHING TRUST
Hi) Es | BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007 OR THAT
[=< 2 18 || Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and § EITHER OF THEM CONSENTED TO
2 Does 1 through 50, inclusive. AN ASSIGNMENT OF A LISTING
a 19 AGREEMENT WITH PARTNERS
Defendants. TRUST TO PLAINTIFF OR CONSENT
20 TO A SUBSTITON OF PLAINTIFF FOR
PARTNERS TRUST UNDER THE
21 EXISTING LISTING AGREEMENT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
22 AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
33 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
34 [Unlimited Civil Case]
| Trial: August 8, 2022

26 | |
27 Will
28 || /// |

| 1

| - | Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1
1 Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and Settlor of The Anything Trust dated

2 |} October 12,2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D.
3 || BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007

4 || (“Defendants”) hereby moves this Court for an order, in limine, precluding Plaintiff PACIFIC

5 || UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“PUI”) from introducing any evidence offered to prove a

6 || written agreement between PUI and Defendants authorizing PUI to procure or find a purchaser

7 || for the real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 in the County of
8 || Los Angeles, CA (the “Toyopa Property”) for compensation or commission or from calling any

9 || witnesses and from introducing any evidence offered to prove that Defendants consented to an

. 10 |) assignment of the listing agreement with Partners Trust to PUI or the substitution of PUI for

é 3 11 || Partners Trust under Defendants’ listing agreement with Partners Trust upon which PUI can

3 : S = 12 || base its claim against Defendants for the payment of a commission in the transaction for the sale

S : : 3 13 || of the Toyopa Property.
Sh : g 14 | A fundamental issue in this case is whether a written contract exists between Plaintiff

LS : 2 < 15 |} PUI and Defendants for the payment of a commission in connection with the sale of the Toyopa

5 : f e 16 || Property. Pursuant to Civil Code §1624(a)(4), Plaintiff can only pursue its claim for a

Z : Z e 17 ||commission by pleading and proving it entered into a written contract with Defendants
2 : 5 18 || employing them to find a purchaser of real estate for compensation or commission. (Civil Code

2 19 | §1624(a)(4); Phillipe v. Shappell Industries (1987) Cal.3d 1247.)

20 Rather than having a such an agreement with Defendants itself, Plaintiff PUI relies upon

21 || the listing agreement dated August 26, 2016 by and between Partners Trust and Defendant Paul

22 || D. Booth, trustee of the Anything Trust dated October 12, 2007. (See Plaintiff's Complaint filed

23 || November 7, 2018, 910, Exhibit A.) Although Plaintiff had earlier in this case claimed to rely

24 || upon Corporations Code §1107 and argued by virtue of section 1107, PUI succeeded to Partners

25 || Trust the rights to a commission under that listing agreement, section 1107 has no application to

26 || this case or the listing agreement. Corporations Code §1107 refers to the succession of a

27 || surviving corporation to the rights of a disappearing corporation following a merger of the two.
28 || Here, however, there was no merger between Plaintiff PUI and Partners Trust.

| 2
| satnntinenataipnmsinmennennirniinite ——— ———— —— — semvinieiininteirainnessasnineasisnppetiuinroi
1 In response to Defendants’ special interrogatories, Plaintiff PUI made that abundantly

2 || clear:

3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1:
Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a merger?
4 (SIC) or a purchase?
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1:
Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,
6 vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to
7 this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and
without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: A
8 purchase,

9 | SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.2:
10 Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a purchase?

iz 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.2:
iS 18 11 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad
ile < vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to
Lan OE 12 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to
iz 5 5 this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Responding
isis 3 & 13 Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is repetitive and asks
Bs We B for the same information requested in Special Interrogatory No. 1. Subject to and
= a 8 4 14 without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Yes.
a ae
Ls g, 26 15 SPECIALINTERROGATORYNO. 3: When was the date of merger of Partners
E “ 3 C 16 Trust and Pacific Union International.
Sls) eS
lr] 8 S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.3: Responding Party objects to
S age this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous and
=|
ae.
§ 8a seeks. information
. “
that is not relevant
°
and not likelyFy to lead to«4 the discovery of
a} 3 18 admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the
2 grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving said
a 19 objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Not applicable.
20 | See the attached Declaration of Michael A.J. Nangano (““Nangano Decl.”), 95, Exh. A: Pacific
21 || Union International, Inc.'s Response to Defendants Erik Ludwick and Paul D. Booth in his

22 || Capacity as Trustee of the Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007. Special Interrogatories, Set
23 j| One, Nos. 1-3.) Additionally, PUI has produced its purchase agreement with Partners Trust

24 || which reveals that contrary to PUI’s allegation in its complaint, PUI did not acquire the entity
25 || Partners Trust. Rather, PUI acquired the assets of Partners Trust under an asset purchase

26 || agreement. (Nangano Decl., 46.) By PUI’s own admission and its own documents, its

27 || acquisition of Partners Trust was not a merger but rather an asset purchase. Therefore,

28 || Corporations Code §1107 does not apply.

| Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1
1 Discovery on the issue of Defendants’ statute of frauds defense has nearly been

2 || completed. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of any listing agreement between Defendants

3 | Erik Ludwick or Paul D. Booth, for the Trust, and PUI. Nor has Plaintiff produced any evidence

4 || that Defendants Erik Ludwick or Paul D. Booth for the Trust, consented to an assignment of the

5 || Trust’s listing agreement with Partners Trust to PUI or agreed to accept PUI as the Trust’s agent

6 | under the listing agreement. (Nangano Decl., 7.)

7 | Based upon Plaintiff's failure to produce any such evidence in discovery, Defendants

8 || request an order in limine precluding PUI from producing any evidence intending to prove that

9 || Defendants have any agreement with PUI for the payment of a commission meeting the

| 10 || requirements of Civil Code §1624(a)(4). Additionally, Defendants request the order also

: : 11 || preclude PUI from producing any evidence offered to prove that Defendants consent to an
me) 5 = 12 || assignment of the listing agreement with Partners Trust or approved PUI as a substitution for |

i : s 13 || Partners Trust in that listing Agreement. This motion in limine No. 1 is based on the
: é 14 || memorandum of points and authorities, the
attached supporting declaration of Michael A.J.

‘ a 4 15 || Nagano, the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and documentary evidence as
Zs f a 16 || may be presented at the hearing on this motion.
z s é 17 By service of this motion before it is filed at the Civil Trial Conference on July 29, 2022, |
2. : e 18 || Defendants intend that service as a Meet and Confer to counsel for PUI regarding this issue.

g 19 || Subsequent to the Civil Trial Conference, PUI may contact Defendants’ counsel if they are

20 || willing to stipulate to the order requested herein.

21 I. MEMORANDUM
_OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
22 a. The Trial Court has discretion to make evidentiary rulings prior to trial.

23 A trial court has discretion to rule on evidentiary matters prior to their actual admission

24 || into evidence. (Evid. Code, § 402; People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 975 [as modified

25 || Nov. 10, 1988].)
26 b. The following described evidence should be excluded from this trial by the Court.
27 | PUI should be precluded from calling any witnesses or producing any documentary

28 || evidence offered to prove that Defendants accepted PUI as its agent under the Partners Trust

4
1 || listing agreement, that Defendants consented to an assignment of the listing agreement with

2 || Partners Trust to PUI, and that Defendants consent to PUI as the broker under the listing

3 || agreement with Partners Trust.

4 Civil Code §1624(4) provides in pertinent part that:

5 "(a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum ;
thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party's
6 agent:

7 (4) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to
purchase or sell real estate, ... or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller
8 of real estate ... for compensation or a commission."

9 “To recover a commission on a contract authorizing a broker to sell real estate, the
broker must prove not only the existence of an agreement and procurement of a
10 willing purchaser but must mect the requirements of the statute of frauds which
Zz 69 declares that such an agreement is invalid unless the same or some note or
m1 2 11 memorandum thereof be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by
ee his agent.”
s: Sz 12
ais) ES
Sl: 3 g 13 Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp. (1949) 33 Cal.2d 814,819.
we =
fan a : . :
5 H+Be 14 Despite requests for any evidence that Defendants consented to an assignment of the
wi-| 28
ne 8 3 é 15 || listing agreement with Partners Trust or that Defendants approved a substitution of PUI in place

SE m4 a 16 ||of Partners Trust under the listing agreement, PUI has failed to produce any such evidence.

zn 2 S 17 || Accordingly, PUI should be barred from producing any testimony to that effect from any of its
Sat —
a q oO

“S : ™ 18 || witnesses or producing any documents to that effect at trial.

g 19 c. The Court should exercise its discretion to exclude undisclosed evidence.

20 A party is required to answer written interrogatories as completely and straightforwardly

21 || as the information available to it permits, (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220). This includes making a

22 || reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others. One of the main

23 || objectives of the pretrial discovery statutes is to avoid subjecting an adversary to unfair surprise

24 || at trial. Any information available to a party at the time of pretrial discovery, but not must be

25 || excluded at trial. (Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241, 254-255; see also Thoren v.

26 || Johnston and Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270). In Deeter, supra, the Court of Appeal held

27 | that the trial court properly excluded evidence which was improperly withheld from discovery
28 || responses. (Deeter, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at 245-255.)

Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1
1 il. CONCLUSION

2 PUI has not produced any evidence of a written agreement it had with Defendants for |

3 || the payment of a commission in connection with the sale of the Toyopa Property. Nor has PUI

4 || produced any evidence that Defendants consented to an assignment of their listing agreement

5 || with Partners Trust or the substitution of PUI for Partners Trust under that listing agreement. |

6 || Therefore, Plaintiff PUI should be ordered to not introduce any evidence offered to show a
7 | written agreement between Plaintiff PUI and Defendants with respect to the sale of the Toyopa

8 |) Property for compensation by commission or evidence offered to show that Defendants |

9 || consented to an assignment of the listing agreement between Defendant Paul D. Booth, Trustee

10 ||and Partners Trust to Plaintiff PUI or the substitution of PUI for Partners Trust under that
a
©; S 11 || agreement.
a.cals &ge 12 || Dated July 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted, |
Z|
328
8% 13 ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON
al : s 2 4 A ProkessioW aw Corporatio

msi S¢ 15 By. WMG _ 240 7
B35 7A WRENCE E. SKIDMORE
Zi) 4g (16 Attorney for Defendants
2} gS y
Z : 6 17

EE
a |2" 18
= 19
20

22 |

23
24 |

Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1
1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO

2 I, Michael A. J. Nangano, declare:

a) 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of the State

4 || of California and the attorney of record herein for Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an individual

5 || AND Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October 12,2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST

6 | DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Anything |

7 | Trust Dated October 12, 2007.
8 2. I am making this declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1

9 || for an order Precluding PUI from introducing into evidence any testimony from any witness or

| 10 || any document offered to prove a written agreement between PUI and Defendants authorizing
5 : 11 || PUI to procure or find a purchaser for the real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific

= 2 S = 12 Palisades, CA 90272 in the County of Los Angeles, CA (the “Toyopa Property”) for.

c : s 13 |] compensation or commission or from calling any witnesses and from introducing any evidence

3 : ee 14 || offered to prove that Defendants consented to an assignment of the listing agreement with |
SE a : 15 || Partners Trust to PUI or the substitution of PUI for Partners Trust under Defendants’ listing |

25 é g 16 | agreement with Partners Trust upon which PUI can base its claim against Defendants for the
: Z e 17 || payment of a commission in the transaction for the sale of the Toyopa Property.

= : = 18 3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. If called as a witness, I

= 19 || would be competent to testify about those facts.
20 |} 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copies of an excerpt from PUI’s

21 || Response to Defendants Erik Ludwick and Paul D. Booth in his Capacity as Trustee of the

22 || Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007. Special Interrogatories, Set One. In PUI’s response to

23 || special interrogatories 1 through 3, PUI responded as follows:

24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1: |
Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a merger? (SIC)
25 or a purchase?

26 | RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1:
Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,
27 vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead
38 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this

7
interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and
1 without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: A purchase.

2) SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.2:
3 Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a purchase?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.2: |
4 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad
| vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead
5 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party |
6 further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is repetitive and asks for the
same information requested in Special Interrogatory No. 1. Subject to and without
7 waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Yes.

8| SPECIALINTERROGATORYNO. 3: When was the date of merger of Partners
9 Il Trust and Pacific Union International.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.3: Responding Party objects to this
. 10 interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeks information
Ze) | 2 that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding]
2 18 a Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence.
als < Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Not

|
Lael SS 12 applicable.
2188
mia] Be i agreement with
i Partners Trust |
ai < Ss 5. Plaintiff has also produced documents including its
Sages 14 |
S| 2k which show that PUI did not “acquire” Partners Trust as PUI alleges in its complaint. Rather,
ae a me 15 4
:ao 3 n SOg PUI acquired the assets from Partners Trust under an asset purchase agreement between the
two.
wit Hm 16 |
Br 5 2 6. Discovery on the issue of Defendants’ statute of frauds defense has nearly been
G28
am.
ky
17
5 Es completed. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of any listing agreement between Defendants Erik
= 183 18
S Ludwick or Paul D. Booth, for the Trust, and PUI. Nor has Plaintiff produced any evidence that
a 19
Defendant Erik Ludwick or Paul D. Booth for the Trust, consented to an assignment of the
20
Trust’s listing agreement with Partners Trust to PUI or agreed to accept PUI as the Trust’s agent
21
under the listing agreement.
22
I declare under a penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28" day of July, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. |
24 |

25 PLN
POP
26
27 a el
Michael A. J. Nangano
28
:

Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1
1 | SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
D SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
sbj@sbj-law.com
3 || LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
lam(@sbj-law.com
4 || 208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, California 94526
5 || Telephone: (925) 837-2317
6 Facsimile: (925) 837-4831

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
8
9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER

11 | PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No. SCV0042080
)
12 Plaintiff, ) PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL,
) INC.’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS
13 Vv. ) ERIK LUDWICK AND PAUL D.
) BOOTH IN HIS CAPACITY AS
14 || ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and ) TRUSTEE OF THE ANYTHING TRUST
beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated ) DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007°S SPECIAL
15 || October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST ) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. )
16 || BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The )
Anything Trust Dated October 12,2007; and =)
17 |] DOES 1-50, } Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
)
. 18 Defendants. )
ee)
19

20 || PROPOUNDING PARTY: ERIK. LUDWICK AND PAUL D. BOOTH in his capacity
as Trustee of the Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007
21

22 || RESPONDING PARTY: PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

23 || SET NO.: ONE

24 Pursuant to Section 2030.210 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

25 || PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Responding Party”) hereby responds to Defendants

26 || ERIK. LUDWICK AND PAUL D. BOOTH in his capacity as Trustee of the Anything Trust Dated
27 || October 12, 2007’s (““Propounding Party”) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as follows.
EXHIBIT

7
PACIFIC UNION’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
I GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
2 1, Responding Party objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that

| 3 || each interrogatory purports to require Responding Party to provide information beyond the

4 || requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

5 2. Responding Party objects to the instructions and/or definitions contained

6 || in the interrogatories to the extent they purport to impose obligations outside the scope of the

7 || Code of Civil Procedure.

8 3. The responses/objections herein are made solely for the purpose of this

9 || action. Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality,
10 || propriety, and admissibility, and to any and all other objections on any grounds which would

11 |] require the exclusion from evidence of any statement herein, if any request were asked of, or any

12 || statement contained herein were made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which

13 || objections and grounds are expressly reserved so that these may be made at trial.

14 4, The responses herein are made based on information available to

15 || Responding Party at this time. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement these

16 || responses Responding Party’s objections, reservations and responses have been prepared after a

17 || reasonable investigation and are based upon the information available to Responding Party at
18 || this time. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement these objections, reservations and

19 }i responses in light of subsequently obtained information or further analysis of materials in this
20 || case, and introduce additional evidence at trial.

21 5. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks

22 || disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, by the attorney work-product

23 || doctrine, or by any other applicable privilege or doctrine.
24 6. Responding Party objects to the interrogatories, and each part thereof, as
25 || overbroad, burdensome and propounded to harass Responding Party.

26 | 7. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory generally, to the extent that

27 || it calls for disclosure of confidential documents and information, including without limitation

28 || personal financial, tax, and employment information, which is protected by privacy rights

PACIFIC UNION’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
! || embodied in the United States and California constitutions and the United States and in other

2 || applicable statutory and common law.
3 8. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory generally, to the extent it

4 || calls for disclosure of information, which would invade the privacy of third persons that are not

5 || parties to this litigation. |

6 9. Responding Party objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they are
7 | vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, inapplicable, and/or unduly burdensome.

8 | 10. | Responding Party objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they call

9 || for premature disclosure of expert witness information in violation of California Civil Procedure
10 |] Code section 2034.210, et seq.

il | 11. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent it calls for |

12 | documents or information that are a matter of public record or otherwise equally accessible to the

13 || parties.

14 12. Each of the foregoing general objections and reservations is hereby

15 ‘incorporated into each and every one of the following responses as though fully set forth.

16 | 13. The following responses are given without prejudice to Responding

17 jl Party’s rights to produce evidence of subsequently discovered facts which this Responding Party
18 || may later recall. Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers

19 herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and

20 || contentions are formulated. The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to

21 || supply information presently known, that should in no way be to the prejudice of Responding |
22 | Party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. These responses are made without

23 | prejudice to Responding Party using or relying on at trial or arbitration hearing any subsequently

24 || discovered documents or information, any evidence or documents not currently existing, or any

25 || documents or information omitted as a result of good faith, oversight or error.

264/11
a7 lt

agi s/

PACIFIC UNION’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
2 || SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
3 Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a merger?
4 || (SIC) or a purchase?
5 || RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
6| Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that itis overbroad, |

7 || vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the |
8 || discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the

9 || grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections,
10 || Responding Party responds as follows: A purchase.

11 || SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: |
12] Was the combining of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International a purchase?
13 || RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
14 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,

15 || vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the
16 || discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the

17 || grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party further objects to this

18 || interrogatory on the grounds that it is repetitive and asks for the same information requested in

19 || Special Interrogatory No. 1. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party

20 || responds as follows: Yes. .

- 21 || SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
22 | When was the date of merger of Partners Trust and Pacific Union International.

23 || INTERROGATORY
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL NO. 3:
24 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,

25 || vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the

26 || discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the |

27 || grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections,
28 || Responding Party responds as follows: Not applicable.

mre 4 " |
PACIFIC UNION’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE |
1 || discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the

2 || grounds that it is compound and assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party further objects

3 || to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unintelligible.

4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party
5 || responds as follows: Responding Party does not agree with this characterization of facts and
6 || accordingly cannot provide facts to support it.

7 | SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 83:
8 Please state all DOCUMENTS which establish what caused YOU to reveal to the

9 jl buyer in escrow at the time, Tony Antoci, Josephine Antoci or Assignee (“Antoci Offer”), whose
10} offer YOU were to only receive a 2.25% commission that for the backup offer YOU were

. 11 jj attempting to secure by counter offer to Behddad Eghbali and/or assignees was going to be for

12 || $200,000.00 less than the Antoci Offer.

13 || RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 83:
14 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,

15 |] vague and ambiguous and seeks information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the

16 || discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the

17 || grounds that it is compound and assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party further objects

18 || to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party

20 || responds as follows: Responding Party does not agree with this characterization of facts and

21 || accordingly cannot provide facts to support it.

23 || Dated: April 26, 2019 . |
”A SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.

25 WN |,
(ageY nora
By emg NL

an
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
28 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

/ : 30 : -
PACIFIC UNION’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 29, 2022

Case Filing Date

November 07, 2018

County

Parties

Booth, Paul D., Trustee of The Anything Trust Defendant
Erik Ludwick Defendant
Jones, Shannon Ball Rossi Domingue LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation Attorney for the Defendant
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano & Associates Attorney
Pacific Union International, Inc. Plaintiff
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney for the Defendant
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007 Defendant
Lindsey Morgan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Jacobus Attorney
Franklin Bigelow Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shannon Ball Attorney
Bruce Tackowiak Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Daley Attorney
Michael Agoglia Attorneys for Defendants
Amberly Morgan Attorney
Shannon Dillon Attorneys for Defendants
Dean Rossi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Antoncich Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Alfred Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Trial Materials: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties