Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of Placer
07/15/2022 at 01:42:28 PM
Lawrence E. Skidmore (SBN 137587) By: Laurel L Sanders
ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON Deputy Clerk
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
Aubum, CA 9560:
Telephone: 530-823-9736
Facsimile: 530-823-5241
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999)
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO-
133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: (62 6) 796-9998
Fax: (626) 796-9992
Attorneys for Defendants
10
II SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
13
14
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No. SCV 0042080
15 2
16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
17 VS. QUASH, OR ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
18 ERH¢ LUDWICK, an individual AND REGARDING NOTICE OF
Beneficiary of The Anything Trust dated TAKING THE DEPOSITION
19 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017;
20 PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee
of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, Hearing Date: Ju ly 28, 2022
21 2007; and Does | through 50, inclusive, Time: M.
Dept.: Dept. 3
22,
Defendants.
23 Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
Trial Date: August 8, 2022
24
25
26
TO THE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
27
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FoR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
1
DEFENDANTS HEREBY SUBMIT THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S
MOTION TO QUASH and move the Court to deny PLAINTIFF'S motion as follows:
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH,
OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
I INTRODUCTION: SUMMARY OF LAW AND FACTS
Defendants “The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007" (hereinafter “the Trust”); Erik
Ludwick, individually and as a beneficiary and current Trustee of the Trust (“Ludwick”); and
Paul D. Booth, in his capacity as former Trustee of the Trust (“Booth”) (or collectively
10 as"Defendants") hereby oppose this attempt of quash the deposition of licensed real estate broker
ii Samuel H. Kramer ("Mr. Kramer" ~ California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") License No.
12 01396547 — issued on August 18, 2003). ' Mr, Kraemer's deposition is sought to obtain
13 testimony that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
14
++" See California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010.
15
Specifically, Mr. Kraemer testimony is sought regarding his time / employment as a licensed
16 real estate broker by and/or with Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions ("Partners
17 Trust" - DRE License No. 01869103). ? Mr. Kraemer was both a licensed attorney and a
18 licensed California Real Estate Broker during the relevant time period of August 26, 2016
19
(date of the "Listing Agreement") through November 9, 2017 (date of the close of escrow for
20
the sold residential real property that generated the $978,000.00 in dispute and still held in
21 scrow).* It is, however, Mr. Kracmer's participation as licensed real estate broker for which his
22 testimony is sought.
23
24 ' See "Exhibit-1" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Mr. Kraemer.
25 ? See "Exhibit-2" a true and correct copy of Partners Trust DRE Licensure in 2022 & 2019
26 > It is possible and likely, that at deposition, Mr. Kraemer will be questioned about his
27 business practices likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information / documents as a
licensed broker before and after this time period, as well as, for the practices of the cooperate
28 brokerage Partners Trust - DRE License No. 01869103 that he worked for as well.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
For A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
2
During the direct and indisputably relevant time period from listing for sale of the residential
real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 in the County of Los
Angeles, CA (hereinafter "the Toyopa Property") until the close of escrow on the sale of the
Toyopa Property, Mr. Kraemer worked at Partners Trust as a licensed California real estate
broker. During that time period, non-lawyer but licensed California real estate broker Nick R.
Segal (hereinafter "Segal" - DRE License No. 01013548) was the designated licensed officer and
licensed real estate broker of record for Partners Trust. *
Currently, Mr. Kraemer moved on from his work at Partners Trust to hold Segal's position
at Plaintiff Pacific Union International, Inc. (Plaintiff: and/or "PUI") become the designated
10 licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record for Plaintiff PUI. See, Footnote-1 and
11 Exhibiti-1. Hiring a licensed attorney at any corporate position does not create privilege; does not
12 create an attomey-client privilege (and/or for attorney work product) for non-attorney work .
13 See, 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, In 2,022 Ranch, supra, the
14 Appellate Court cited and followed the California Supreme Court in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior
15 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 397. In Greyhound Corp., supra, at 397, the Supreme Court held:
16
17 "While the privilege fully covers communications as such, it does not extend to subject
18 matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to
19 the attorney.’ ”
20
21 Plaintiff PUI" brokerage license (DRE Corporate License No. 01866771 — issued June 20,
22 2009) °, list Mr. Kramer (DRE License No. 01396547, issued August 18, 2003) as its designated
23 licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record. As such the Plaintiff's motion to quash
24 the deposition of Mr. Kraemer is misleading, not well founded and not supported in law.
25
26
27 * See "Exhibit-3" a true and correct copy of DRE Licensure for Segal in 2022 and 2019.
28 * See "Exhibit-4" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Plaintiff PUL.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H, KRAEMER
3
While acknowledging that Mr. Kraemer is a licensed attorney, given Mr. Kraemer's status as a DRE
licensed California real estate broker since 2003 the Plaintiff's motion to quash is should be
denied as:
1 Mr._Kraemer_was_ and/or at all times still remains _a licensed California real_estate
broker -- DRE License No. 01396547, issued on August 18, 2003);
Mr. Kraemer (DRE License No. 01396547), is currently registered / listed with the DRE as
the Plaintiffs' designated licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record;
Mr. Kraemer (DRE License No. 01396547) was at the time this matter occurred, from th
signing of the August 26, 2016 "Listing Agreement" between Partners Trust_and "The
10 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2017" and until the close of escrow on November 9, 2017
Il not only a licenced attorney but also a licensed California Real Estate Broker.
12 Whether or not Mr. Kraemer was acting in some capacity as an attorney or "general counsel"
13 to Plaintiff it did not occur prior to March 15, 2021. Specifically, could not have happened
14 until after PUI's alleged and yet to remain proven claim of acquisition ofin August of 2017.
15 but according to the DRE Licenses attached as Exhibits 1 and 4, which expire on March 15.
16 2025 and are only good for 4-years — the licensures and/or Mr. Kraemer's position with
17 Plaintiff
did not begin until March 15, 2021.
18
19 The Three (3) Requests for Production Are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the
20 Discovery of Admissible Evidence.
21 As to the 3-Requests for Production of Documents that Plaintiff has attempted to portray as
22 “impermissibly overboard and unreasonable . . .;" each request is specifically limited to and contains
23 language that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
24 sae" (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010) by the production sought. For the requests
25 for production No. | and 2, the demand language specifically limits the demand to "relating or
26 referring to any and all sales and/or purchase and/or attempted sale and/or purchase of the real
27 property, TOYOPA PROPERTY ..." and further limits the production to items “that are in your,
28 the deponent's, possession . . .; and, lastly that are "generated and/or created which were used in any
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
For A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
4
manner to assist in the licensed brokerage company representation of the TOYOPA
PROPERTY: " [Emphasis added.}
It seems perhaps, that if taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and moving party,
that Plaintiff is "running away with" the term "representation" — but that term does not refer to
anything to do with litigation and/or litigation privileged materials. Rather, it is limited by the
preceeding language specifying that the demand seeks production of items related solely and only
to "to assist in the licensed brokerage company" (as well as, it's associated brokers, agents and/or
associates) in listing and sale of the Toyopa Property.
As to request No. 3, the demand is specifically limited to once again only items "that are in
10 your, the deponent's, possession . . ;" and, "which were generated and/or created relating or
il referringto the acquiring, purchase and/or assumption of ownership of PARTNERS TRUST and/or
12 THE MALIBU LIFE TEAM by PACIFIC UNION." These three (3) requests are NOT so
13 impermissibly overboard and unreasonable; but rather, once again, merely seek production that
14 “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . a”
15 (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010).
16
17 In "Related" The Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV25331, Where Mr.
18 Kraemer is a Party Since July 24, 2019 — He Has Never Asserted Any Privilege
19 First and foremost, as this Court is aware, the instant action is one of two (2) pending lawsuits
20 between the same parties regarding an almost One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) real estate sales
21 commission. The second active lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County
22 (where the subject real property is located) with respect to the issues raised herein and, in particular,
23 PUI’s claim to the One Million Dollar commission, (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
24 19STCV25331; hereinafter simply the “Los Angeles Case”.) §
25
26
27
28 ® Per Stipulation of the Parties and a confirming Court Order, that case is currently stayed
pending an interim appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. B320896.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H, KRAEMER
5
However, this Court may not be aware that Mr, Kraemer is not only a defendant in the Los
Angeles Superior Court Case, wherein on May 24, 2022 Mr. Kraemer filed a 22-Page "Verified
Answer" attesting to the truth, veracity and/or accuracy of all of the 147-Paragraphs responsive to
the Verified Complaint therein without asserting any privilege. Additionally, Mr. Kraemer is also
a named Cross-Complainant in the Los Angeles Action in which he asserts in Paragraph- that:
"Cross-Complainant SAMUELH. KRAEMER is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein
was, an individual residing in and doing business in the State of California.
10 Thus, he is not just an attorney representing a party or parties to the litigation — but a party
i himself. Thus Plaintiffs claims that anything and/or everything Mr. Kraemer might say is
12 privileged is absurd.
13 PUI opposes and seeks to quash Defendants’ Notice of Taking Mr. Kraemer’s Deposition on
14 the grounds that Mr. Kraemer is an attorney and, therefore, taking his deposition would violate
15 attorney/client privilege. (PUI’s “MPA in Support of Motion to Quash” at p.7, lines 7-12.) PUI's
16 motion to quash, however, ignores that Mr. Kraemer's particapation as a party, and filing of his
17 Verified Answer and as a Cross-Complainant in the Los Angeles Action. Further, Mr. Kraemer is
18 a percipient witness to the events which have given rise to this litigation.
19 Itis black letter law in California that "waiver" of attorney-client privilege generally occurs
20 in two ways. First, is the "intentional relinquishment" of a known right after knowledge of the
21 facts. (See. Don Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 919,
22 934.) Second, for purposes of both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product
23 doctrine, waiver results “by failing to assert the protection, by tendering certain issues, and by
24 conduct inconsistent with claiming the protection. A possible manner of waiver that occurs with
25 an attorney's intentional / voluntary disclosure and/or consent to disclosure of any writing to a 3°
26 person; disclosure to a person other than the client who has no interest in maintaining the
27 confidentiality of the contents of the writing.” (See, Regents of University of California v. Superior
28 Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 672, 679.) The privilege has been waived and/or eliminated.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FoR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
6
IL. THE DEPONENT'S TESTIMONY IS SOUGHT IN HIS ROLE AS A LICENSED
REAL ESTATE BROKER WORKING WITH THE LISTING BROKERAGE
COMPANY PARTNERS TRUST
A. Anticipated Testimony By Mr. Kraemer Likely To Lead To The Discovery Of
Admissible Evidence.
On or about August 26, 2016 Defendants entered into a real estate brokerage “Listing
Agreement” with “Partners Trust,” a real estate agency at its place of business on 23410 Civic Way,
Malibu, CA 90265 in the County of Los Angeles. Again, although alleged, the yet to be proven
10 claim by the Plaintiff is that it acquired Partners Trust and any rights it may have had to the
11 commission from the sale of the Toyopa Property; which is disputed by Defendants, who also argue
12 that Partners Trust and its representatives (licensed and unlicensed) breach their fiduciary duties to
13 the Seller, and thus, are not entitled to any commission,
14 A real estate agent who breaches the duty of good faith, who breaches their fiduciary duty is
15 precluded from recovering a commission for services rendered upon a showing that the breach was
16 founded in fraud or intentional deceit. See Zisiasser v. Cole & Cowan, Inc., (1985) 164 Cal. App.
17 3d 417, 432 — holding that a breach of fiduciary duty involving intentional disloyalty or bad faith
18 required before a broker will be deprived of his/her right to a commission. it is on this conduct and
19 the following the Defendants seek to depose Mr. Kraemer, all of which he has personal knowledge
20 or if he intends to claim otherwise than have him do so under oath. Mr. Kraemer's relevant
21 anticipated testimony is on the following:
22 | Plaintiff PUI was and/or is licensed by the DRE under a different DRE License No.
23 01914356 , while Partners Trust, Los Angeles, CA was licensed under DRE License No.
24 01869103. The Listing Agreement was entered into by Partner Trust and "The Anything
25 Trust Dated October 12, 2017" on or about August 25, 2016 with a different real estate
26 agency with a different Dept. of Real Estate broker’s license number than Plaintiff (See
27 Plaintiffs Complaint, 10 and Ex. “A” to same).
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
7
Mr. Kraemer's testimony is relevant to and he in particular due to both his past and current
positions has personal knowledge regarding the services provided by the brokerage
companies involved as and/or because brokering real estate deals is license-based_and
license-specific. Here there is a change in the licensed brokerage without any notice to the
Defendants and/or without their consent.
Mere ownership ofa licensed entity does not entitle an unlicensed or different licensed entity
to conduct licensed activity pursuant to a contractual agreement, so ownership is not an
enabling factor; and, once again, Mr. Kraemer as a licensed California real estate broker
given his employment at both Partners Trust and Plaintiff PUI is uniquely position to provide
10 the information and production sought by Defendants.
11 A fiduciary relationship is a combination of the policies of the Broker/Company and the
12 actions of its Representatives: any associated licensed brokers / brokerage companies; any
13 licensed Agent and/or any unlicensed associate so employed. Here, in this instance, the
14 Seller / Defendants did not agree to PUI as the Broker / Brokerage and/or this unilateral
15 change in policies. Such unilateral change included altering established and less-measurable
16 relationship factors such as operational flexibility (as an example which is a foundational
17 element of the Plaintiff's complaint. Or, in other words the alleged reason the PUI could not
18 and/or would not agree to, engage in and/or accept anything less than the sued for 6%
19 commission. Here, yet again, Mr. Kraemer as a licensed broker with Partners Trust and then
20 the Plaintiffs' designated licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record.
21 Plaintiff PUI had no relationship whatsoever with the Seller / these Defendants and/or
22 Partners Trust for the first eleven (11) months of the listing — from August 26, 2016 until
23 allegedly August 21, 2017 (see Exhibit “A” and Plaintiff PUI’s Complaint at 2.) As
24 previously addressed and according to the attached DRE Licensures, Mr. Kraemer did not
25 take his current position with PUI until on or about March 15, 2021. Again, these are ail
26 matters within the personal knowledge of Mr. Kraemer operating as a licensed California real
27 estate broker and have nothing to do with his standing as an attorney.
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASI OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
8
The sale was not transacted under Plaintiff's corporate brokerage California DRE. License
No. 01866771 but rather under the brokerage DRE License belonging to Partners Trust; even
though the escrow opened and closed within September 2017. Mr. Kraemer yet again is
uniquely positioned to provide testimony likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
I. MR. KRAEMER'S TESTIMONY IS REASONABLE CALCULATED TO ILLICT
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND IS THE PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED.
10 A. Waiver of the California Attorney-Client Privilege
II The attorney-client privilege is codified in California Evidence Code § 954, which provides
12 in part: "[T]he client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent
13 another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer." "Knowledge
14 which is not otherwise privileged does not become so merely by being communicated to an attorney.
15 ... While the privilege fully covers communications as such, it does not extend to subject matter
16 otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney."
17 ( Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 397.) "[T]ransmission alone, even
18 where the parties intend the matter to be confidential, cannot create the privilege if none, in fact,
19 exists." ( Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, 176.)
20 In addition to the exceptions to the privilege presented previously, under California Evidence
2t Code § 912 the privilege(s) can also be waive -~ or, eliminate-—-the attorney-client privilege (and
22. attorney work product doctrine) by doing either:
23 1 Disclosing a significant part of the privileged communication between you and your lawyer
24 to a third party, or
25 2 Consenting to the disclosure of that privileged communication by anyone else.
26
27 The privilege does not protect "independent facts related to a communication, that a
28 communication took place, and the time, date and participants in the communication.” (State Farm
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFIF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
9
Fire Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 640.) Further, the privilege "does
not protect disclosure of underlying facts which may be referenced within a qualifying
communication" (id. at p. 639), and it does not extend to individuals who are no more than
witnesses to the matter at issue in the litigation. ( Martin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 59
Cal.App.4th 333, 345.)
Documents that are independently prepared by a party "do not become privileged
communications .. . merely because they are turned over to counsel." ( Wellpoint Health Networks,
Ine. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 119.) The attorney-client privilege only protects
confidential communications between a client and his or her attorney during the course of an
10 attorney-client relationship. In this regard, Evidence Code section 952 defines such a confidential
11 communication as "information transmitted between a client and his lawyer in the course of that
12 relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the
13 information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client
14 in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the
15 information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes
16 a legal opinion formed and advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship."
17
18 CONCLUSION
19 The deposition of Mr. Kraemer is sought arising from his duties and obligation as a licensed
20 California real estate broker; and, his deposition can be accomplished without violating any
21 attorney/client privilege which in likelihood has been waived / eliminated for failure to assert. A
22 such, PUI's "Motion to Quash" respectfully should be denied.
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25 DATED: July /5__, 2022 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, A ha OREO
26
27 fe
A Cy Minas
B
28 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
Attorneys for Defendants
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER
10
LIST OF EXHIBTS
“Exhibit-1" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Mr. Kraemer.
"Exhibit-2" a true and correct copy of Partners Trust DRE Licensure in 2022 & 2019.
"Exhibit-3" a true and correct copy of DRE Licensure for Segal in 2022 and 2019,
"Exhibit-4" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Plaintiff PUL
"Exhibit-5" are true and correct copies of LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT ACTION
CASE NO. 19STCV25331:
LASC Online Case Summary;
Pg-1/ Pleading Cap to Kraemer Verified Answer with Signed Verification filed by
Kraemer; and
Pg-1-2 of Cross-Complaint filed by Kraemer
EXHIBIT "i"
Public License Lookup - DRE hitps:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?star=1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
In reviewing a licensee's information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record
pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the California Department of
Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542.
‘The license information shown below represents public information. It will not reffect pending licensing changes which are belng reviewed for
subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this Information Is not intended for mass
mailing purposes.
Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these decuments,
please contact the Department's Licensing Fiag Section.
License information taken from records of the Department of Rea! Estate on 7/15/2022 5:06:22 AM
License Type: BROKER
Name: Kraemer, Samuel H
Mailing Address: 18015 GREENLEAF ST
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
License ID: 013906547
Expiration Date: 05/14/26
License Status; LICENSED
Broker License Issued: 08/18/03
Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES
Main Office: 150 S RODEO DR STE 100
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
DBA NO CURRENT DBAS
Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES
Affiliated Licensed Corporation(s): 01527236 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25
Compass California 1, Inc.
01527365 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25
Compass California il, inc.
01866774 - Officer Expiration Date: 03/15/25,
Pacific Union International Inc
01869607 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/05/23
Pacific Union International Referral inc
01991628 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25
Campass California, Inc.
01527205 - Officer Expiration Date: 05/17/21
‘The Mark Company, Ine.
OFFICER CANCELED AS OF 06/30/21
01860387 - Officer Expiration Date: 03/09/17
John Aaroe Group Inc
OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 03/10/17
Gomment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
11/04/20 - Officer license expiration date extended until 6/30/2t pursuant to Executive Order No. N-83-20.
>>>> Public information request complete <<<<
fof! 7/15/2022, 5:07 AM
EXHIBIT "2"
Public License Lookup - DRE hittps://www2.dre.ca.gow/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?star= |
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
In reviewing a licensee's Information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record
pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the Cafifornia Department of
Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542,
The license information shown below represents public information. It wil not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for
subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass
malling purposes,
Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these documents,
please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section.
License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 7/15/2022 6:47:47 AM
License Type: CORPORATION
Name: Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
Acquisitions
Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
License ID: 01869103
Expiration Date: 7/29/21
License Status: EXPIRED
Corporation License Issued: 07/30/09
Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES
Main Office: NO CURRENT MAIN OFFICE ADDRESS ON FILE
Licensed Officer(s): DESIGNATED OFFICER
91013548 - Expiration Date: 07/29/21
Segal, Nick R
OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 07/30/21
DBA Partners Trust
ACTIVE FROM 10/28/2009 TO 07/30/2021
The Partners Trust
ACTIVE FROM 10/26/2009 TO 07/30/2024
PT Commercial
ACTIVE FROM 02/43/2017 TO 07/20/2024
PT Escrow a non independent broker
escrow
ACTIVE FROM 11/12/2010 TO 07/30/2021
PT Referral
ACTIVE FROM 02/43/2017 TO 07/30/2024
PT Referral Associates
ACTIVE FROM 02/13/2017 TO 07/30/2021
NO CURRENT DBAS
Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES
Comment: IO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS
>>> Public information request complete <<<<
loft 7/15/2022, 6:48 AM
http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01869103
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
The license information shown below represents public information taken from the Department of Real &state(DRE) database at the time of
your inquiry. It wil not reflect pending changes which are being reviewed for subsequent database updating, Also, the license information
provided includes formal administrative actions that have been taken against licensees pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and/or
the Administrative Procedure Act. Alt of the information displayed ts public information. Although the business and mailing addresses of real
estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass mailing purposes,
Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be In compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these
documents, please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section.
License information taken from records of the Department of Real Eslate on 8/21/2019 9:27:56 AM
License Type: CORPORATION
Name: Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
Acquisitions
Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
License ID: 01869103
Expiration Date: 07/29/21
License Status: LICENSED
Corporation License Issued: 07/30/08
Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES
Main Office: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
Licensed Officer(s): DESIGNATED OFFICER
01013548 - Expiration Date: 07/29/21
Segal, Nick R
DBA Partners Trust
ACTIVE AS OF 10/28/2009
The Partners Trust
ACTIVE AS OF 10/28/2009
PT Commercial
ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017
PT Escrow a non independent broker
escrow
ACTIVE AS OF 11/12/2010
PT Referral
ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017
Lof2 8/21/2019, 9:40 AM
http://Avww2.dre.ca,gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01869103
PT Referral Associates
ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017
Branches: 1730 1/2 OCEAN PARK BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
23410 CIVIC CENTER WY STE C1
MALIBU, CA 90265
1333 MONTANA AVE.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403
11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
594 E COLORADO BLVD
PASADENA, CA 91104
01056761 Brown, Scott Gerald - Branch/Division Manager
964 FOOTHILL BLVD
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, CA 91011
01056761 Brown, Scott Gerald - Branch/Division Manager
9378 WILSHIRE BLVD 2ND FLOOR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
00592639 Misraje, Karen A - Branch/Division Manager
Salespersons: 01431214 - Lauder, Todd Patrick
License Expiration Date: 08/27/2019
Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS
>>>> Public information request complete <<<<
2 of2 8/21/2019, 9:40 AM
EXHIBIT "3"
Public License Lookup - DRE hitps:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp? start 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
in reviewing a licensee's information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record
pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the California Department of
Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542,
‘The license information shown below represents public information. It will not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for
subsequent updating, Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information Is net intended for mass
mailing purposes.
Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these documents,
please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section.
License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 7/16/2022 6:44:39 AM
License Type: BROKER
Name: Segal, Nick R
Mailing Address: 3004
PROSPECT AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405,
License ID: 01013548
Expiration Date: 0604/24
License Status: LICENSED
Salesperson License issued: 04/12/89 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records)
Broker License Issued: 06/02/00
Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES
Main Office: 150 SOUTH RODEO DRIVE
SUITE 100
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90242
DBA NO CURRENT DBAS:
Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES
Affitiated Licensed Corporation(s): 00806882 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/22/06
Maryrose Inc
OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 09/23/08
01869103 - Officer Expiration Date: 07/29/21
Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
Acquisitions
OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 07/30/21
Broker Associate for: License ID: 02111757,
Avenue 8 Inc.
595 PACIFIC AVE 4TH FLR.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA $4133
Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION,
NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS
>>>> Public information request complete <<<<
lofl 7/15/2022, 6:45 AM
hittp:/Awww?2.dre.ca.gov/publicasp/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01013548
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
The license information shown below represents public information taken from the Department of Real Estate(DRE) database at the time of
your inquiry. It will not reflect pending changes which are being reviewed for subsequent database updating. Also, the license information
provided includes formal administrative actions that have been taken against licensees pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and/or
the Administrative Procedure Act, Allof the information displayed is public information. Although the business and mailing addresses of real
estate licensees are included, this information is nat intended for mass mailing purposes.
License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 6/8/2019 9:37:02 AM
License Type: BROKER
Name: Segal, NickR
Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
License ID: 01013548
Expiration Date: 06/01/20
License Status: LICENSED
Salesperson License Issued: .: 01/12/89 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records)
Broker License Issued: 06/02/00
Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES.
Main Office: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
DBA NO CURRENT DBAS
Branches: 11726 SAN VICENTE BLVD STE 350
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
1333 MONTANA AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403
1730 1/2 OCEAN PARK BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
592 E COLORADO BLVD.
PASADENA, CA 91101
Affiliated Licensed Corporation(s): 01869103 - Officer Expiration Date: 07/29/21
Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
Acquisitions
00806882 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/22/06
Maryrose Inc
Lof2 6/8/2019, 9:47 AM
hittp:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/publicasp/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01013548
OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 09/23/06
Broker Associate for: License ID: 0186677
Pacific Union International Inc
1699 VAN NESS AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS
>>>> Public information request complete <<<<
2of2 6/8/2019, 9:47 AM
EXHIBIT "4"
Public License Lookup - DRE https:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?start=1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
In reviewing a licensee's information, please he aware that license disctpline information may have been removed from a licensee's record
pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section £0083.2 {c}. However, disciptine Information may be available from the California Department of
Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542.
‘The ficense information shown below represents public information, It will not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for
subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass
mailing purposes.
Some historical disciplinary action dacuments may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functio
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Placer 07/15/2022 at 01:42:28 PM Lawrence E. Skidmore (SBN 137587) By: Laurel L Sanders ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON Deputy Clerk A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 Aubum, CA 9560: Telephone: 530-823-9736 Facsimile: 530-823-5241 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO- 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 Phone: (62 6) 796-9998 Fax: (626) 796-9992 Attorneys for Defendants 10 II SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 13 14 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No. SCV 0042080 15 2 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 17 VS. QUASH, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 18 ERH¢ LUDWICK, an individual AND REGARDING NOTICE OF Beneficiary of The Anything Trust dated TAKING THE DEPOSITION 19 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017; 20 PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, Hearing Date: Ju ly 28, 2022 21 2007; and Does | through 50, inclusive, Time: M. Dept.: Dept. 3 22, Defendants. 23 Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 Trial Date: August 8, 2022 24 25 26 TO THE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE 27 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FoR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 1 DEFENDANTS HEREBY SUBMIT THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO QUASH and move the Court to deny PLAINTIFF'S motion as follows: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER I INTRODUCTION: SUMMARY OF LAW AND FACTS Defendants “The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007" (hereinafter “the Trust”); Erik Ludwick, individually and as a beneficiary and current Trustee of the Trust (“Ludwick”); and Paul D. Booth, in his capacity as former Trustee of the Trust (“Booth”) (or collectively 10 as"Defendants") hereby oppose this attempt of quash the deposition of licensed real estate broker ii Samuel H. Kramer ("Mr. Kramer" ~ California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") License No. 12 01396547 — issued on August 18, 2003). ' Mr, Kraemer's deposition is sought to obtain 13 testimony that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 14 ++" See California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010. 15 Specifically, Mr. Kraemer testimony is sought regarding his time / employment as a licensed 16 real estate broker by and/or with Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions ("Partners 17 Trust" - DRE License No. 01869103). ? Mr. Kraemer was both a licensed attorney and a 18 licensed California Real Estate Broker during the relevant time period of August 26, 2016 19 (date of the "Listing Agreement") through November 9, 2017 (date of the close of escrow for 20 the sold residential real property that generated the $978,000.00 in dispute and still held in 21 scrow).* It is, however, Mr. Kracmer's participation as licensed real estate broker for which his 22 testimony is sought. 23 24 ' See "Exhibit-1" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Mr. Kraemer. 25 ? See "Exhibit-2" a true and correct copy of Partners Trust DRE Licensure in 2022 & 2019 26 > It is possible and likely, that at deposition, Mr. Kraemer will be questioned about his 27 business practices likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information / documents as a licensed broker before and after this time period, as well as, for the practices of the cooperate 28 brokerage Partners Trust - DRE License No. 01869103 that he worked for as well. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, For A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 2 During the direct and indisputably relevant time period from listing for sale of the residential real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 in the County of Los Angeles, CA (hereinafter "the Toyopa Property") until the close of escrow on the sale of the Toyopa Property, Mr. Kraemer worked at Partners Trust as a licensed California real estate broker. During that time period, non-lawyer but licensed California real estate broker Nick R. Segal (hereinafter "Segal" - DRE License No. 01013548) was the designated licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record for Partners Trust. * Currently, Mr. Kraemer moved on from his work at Partners Trust to hold Segal's position at Plaintiff Pacific Union International, Inc. (Plaintiff: and/or "PUI") become the designated 10 licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record for Plaintiff PUI. See, Footnote-1 and 11 Exhibiti-1. Hiring a licensed attorney at any corporate position does not create privilege; does not 12 create an attomey-client privilege (and/or for attorney work product) for non-attorney work . 13 See, 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, In 2,022 Ranch, supra, the 14 Appellate Court cited and followed the California Supreme Court in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior 15 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 397. In Greyhound Corp., supra, at 397, the Supreme Court held: 16 17 "While the privilege fully covers communications as such, it does not extend to subject 18 matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to 19 the attorney.’ ” 20 21 Plaintiff PUI" brokerage license (DRE Corporate License No. 01866771 — issued June 20, 22 2009) °, list Mr. Kramer (DRE License No. 01396547, issued August 18, 2003) as its designated 23 licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record. As such the Plaintiff's motion to quash 24 the deposition of Mr. Kraemer is misleading, not well founded and not supported in law. 25 26 27 * See "Exhibit-3" a true and correct copy of DRE Licensure for Segal in 2022 and 2019. 28 * See "Exhibit-4" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Plaintiff PUL. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H, KRAEMER 3 While acknowledging that Mr. Kraemer is a licensed attorney, given Mr. Kraemer's status as a DRE licensed California real estate broker since 2003 the Plaintiff's motion to quash is should be denied as: 1 Mr._Kraemer_was_ and/or at all times still remains _a licensed California real_estate broker -- DRE License No. 01396547, issued on August 18, 2003); Mr. Kraemer (DRE License No. 01396547), is currently registered / listed with the DRE as the Plaintiffs' designated licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record; Mr. Kraemer (DRE License No. 01396547) was at the time this matter occurred, from th signing of the August 26, 2016 "Listing Agreement" between Partners Trust_and "The 10 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2017" and until the close of escrow on November 9, 2017 Il not only a licenced attorney but also a licensed California Real Estate Broker. 12 Whether or not Mr. Kraemer was acting in some capacity as an attorney or "general counsel" 13 to Plaintiff it did not occur prior to March 15, 2021. Specifically, could not have happened 14 until after PUI's alleged and yet to remain proven claim of acquisition ofin August of 2017. 15 but according to the DRE Licenses attached as Exhibits 1 and 4, which expire on March 15. 16 2025 and are only good for 4-years — the licensures and/or Mr. Kraemer's position with 17 Plaintiff did not begin until March 15, 2021. 18 19 The Three (3) Requests for Production Are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the 20 Discovery of Admissible Evidence. 21 As to the 3-Requests for Production of Documents that Plaintiff has attempted to portray as 22 “impermissibly overboard and unreasonable . . .;" each request is specifically limited to and contains 23 language that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 24 sae" (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010) by the production sought. For the requests 25 for production No. | and 2, the demand language specifically limits the demand to "relating or 26 referring to any and all sales and/or purchase and/or attempted sale and/or purchase of the real 27 property, TOYOPA PROPERTY ..." and further limits the production to items “that are in your, 28 the deponent's, possession . . .; and, lastly that are "generated and/or created which were used in any DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, For A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 4 manner to assist in the licensed brokerage company representation of the TOYOPA PROPERTY: " [Emphasis added.} It seems perhaps, that if taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and moving party, that Plaintiff is "running away with" the term "representation" — but that term does not refer to anything to do with litigation and/or litigation privileged materials. Rather, it is limited by the preceeding language specifying that the demand seeks production of items related solely and only to "to assist in the licensed brokerage company" (as well as, it's associated brokers, agents and/or associates) in listing and sale of the Toyopa Property. As to request No. 3, the demand is specifically limited to once again only items "that are in 10 your, the deponent's, possession . . ;" and, "which were generated and/or created relating or il referringto the acquiring, purchase and/or assumption of ownership of PARTNERS TRUST and/or 12 THE MALIBU LIFE TEAM by PACIFIC UNION." These three (3) requests are NOT so 13 impermissibly overboard and unreasonable; but rather, once again, merely seek production that 14 “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . a” 15 (California Code of Civil. Procedure § 2017.010). 16 17 In "Related" The Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV25331, Where Mr. 18 Kraemer is a Party Since July 24, 2019 — He Has Never Asserted Any Privilege 19 First and foremost, as this Court is aware, the instant action is one of two (2) pending lawsuits 20 between the same parties regarding an almost One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) real estate sales 21 commission. The second active lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County 22 (where the subject real property is located) with respect to the issues raised herein and, in particular, 23 PUI’s claim to the One Million Dollar commission, (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24 19STCV25331; hereinafter simply the “Los Angeles Case”.) § 25 26 27 28 ® Per Stipulation of the Parties and a confirming Court Order, that case is currently stayed pending an interim appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. B320896. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H, KRAEMER 5 However, this Court may not be aware that Mr, Kraemer is not only a defendant in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case, wherein on May 24, 2022 Mr. Kraemer filed a 22-Page "Verified Answer" attesting to the truth, veracity and/or accuracy of all of the 147-Paragraphs responsive to the Verified Complaint therein without asserting any privilege. Additionally, Mr. Kraemer is also a named Cross-Complainant in the Los Angeles Action in which he asserts in Paragraph- that: "Cross-Complainant SAMUELH. KRAEMER is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, an individual residing in and doing business in the State of California. 10 Thus, he is not just an attorney representing a party or parties to the litigation — but a party i himself. Thus Plaintiffs claims that anything and/or everything Mr. Kraemer might say is 12 privileged is absurd. 13 PUI opposes and seeks to quash Defendants’ Notice of Taking Mr. Kraemer’s Deposition on 14 the grounds that Mr. Kraemer is an attorney and, therefore, taking his deposition would violate 15 attorney/client privilege. (PUI’s “MPA in Support of Motion to Quash” at p.7, lines 7-12.) PUI's 16 motion to quash, however, ignores that Mr. Kraemer's particapation as a party, and filing of his 17 Verified Answer and as a Cross-Complainant in the Los Angeles Action. Further, Mr. Kraemer is 18 a percipient witness to the events which have given rise to this litigation. 19 Itis black letter law in California that "waiver" of attorney-client privilege generally occurs 20 in two ways. First, is the "intentional relinquishment" of a known right after knowledge of the 21 facts. (See. Don Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 919, 22 934.) Second, for purposes of both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product 23 doctrine, waiver results “by failing to assert the protection, by tendering certain issues, and by 24 conduct inconsistent with claiming the protection. A possible manner of waiver that occurs with 25 an attorney's intentional / voluntary disclosure and/or consent to disclosure of any writing to a 3° 26 person; disclosure to a person other than the client who has no interest in maintaining the 27 confidentiality of the contents of the writing.” (See, Regents of University of California v. Superior 28 Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 672, 679.) The privilege has been waived and/or eliminated. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FoR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 6 IL. THE DEPONENT'S TESTIMONY IS SOUGHT IN HIS ROLE AS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER WORKING WITH THE LISTING BROKERAGE COMPANY PARTNERS TRUST A. Anticipated Testimony By Mr. Kraemer Likely To Lead To The Discovery Of Admissible Evidence. On or about August 26, 2016 Defendants entered into a real estate brokerage “Listing Agreement” with “Partners Trust,” a real estate agency at its place of business on 23410 Civic Way, Malibu, CA 90265 in the County of Los Angeles. Again, although alleged, the yet to be proven 10 claim by the Plaintiff is that it acquired Partners Trust and any rights it may have had to the 11 commission from the sale of the Toyopa Property; which is disputed by Defendants, who also argue 12 that Partners Trust and its representatives (licensed and unlicensed) breach their fiduciary duties to 13 the Seller, and thus, are not entitled to any commission, 14 A real estate agent who breaches the duty of good faith, who breaches their fiduciary duty is 15 precluded from recovering a commission for services rendered upon a showing that the breach was 16 founded in fraud or intentional deceit. See Zisiasser v. Cole & Cowan, Inc., (1985) 164 Cal. App. 17 3d 417, 432 — holding that a breach of fiduciary duty involving intentional disloyalty or bad faith 18 required before a broker will be deprived of his/her right to a commission. it is on this conduct and 19 the following the Defendants seek to depose Mr. Kraemer, all of which he has personal knowledge 20 or if he intends to claim otherwise than have him do so under oath. Mr. Kraemer's relevant 21 anticipated testimony is on the following: 22 | Plaintiff PUI was and/or is licensed by the DRE under a different DRE License No. 23 01914356 , while Partners Trust, Los Angeles, CA was licensed under DRE License No. 24 01869103. The Listing Agreement was entered into by Partner Trust and "The Anything 25 Trust Dated October 12, 2017" on or about August 25, 2016 with a different real estate 26 agency with a different Dept. of Real Estate broker’s license number than Plaintiff (See 27 Plaintiffs Complaint, 10 and Ex. “A” to same). 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 7 Mr. Kraemer's testimony is relevant to and he in particular due to both his past and current positions has personal knowledge regarding the services provided by the brokerage companies involved as and/or because brokering real estate deals is license-based_and license-specific. Here there is a change in the licensed brokerage without any notice to the Defendants and/or without their consent. Mere ownership ofa licensed entity does not entitle an unlicensed or different licensed entity to conduct licensed activity pursuant to a contractual agreement, so ownership is not an enabling factor; and, once again, Mr. Kraemer as a licensed California real estate broker given his employment at both Partners Trust and Plaintiff PUI is uniquely position to provide 10 the information and production sought by Defendants. 11 A fiduciary relationship is a combination of the policies of the Broker/Company and the 12 actions of its Representatives: any associated licensed brokers / brokerage companies; any 13 licensed Agent and/or any unlicensed associate so employed. Here, in this instance, the 14 Seller / Defendants did not agree to PUI as the Broker / Brokerage and/or this unilateral 15 change in policies. Such unilateral change included altering established and less-measurable 16 relationship factors such as operational flexibility (as an example which is a foundational 17 element of the Plaintiff's complaint. Or, in other words the alleged reason the PUI could not 18 and/or would not agree to, engage in and/or accept anything less than the sued for 6% 19 commission. Here, yet again, Mr. Kraemer as a licensed broker with Partners Trust and then 20 the Plaintiffs' designated licensed officer and licensed real estate broker of record. 21 Plaintiff PUI had no relationship whatsoever with the Seller / these Defendants and/or 22 Partners Trust for the first eleven (11) months of the listing — from August 26, 2016 until 23 allegedly August 21, 2017 (see Exhibit “A” and Plaintiff PUI’s Complaint at 2.) As 24 previously addressed and according to the attached DRE Licensures, Mr. Kraemer did not 25 take his current position with PUI until on or about March 15, 2021. Again, these are ail 26 matters within the personal knowledge of Mr. Kraemer operating as a licensed California real 27 estate broker and have nothing to do with his standing as an attorney. 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASI OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 8 The sale was not transacted under Plaintiff's corporate brokerage California DRE. License No. 01866771 but rather under the brokerage DRE License belonging to Partners Trust; even though the escrow opened and closed within September 2017. Mr. Kraemer yet again is uniquely positioned to provide testimony likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. I. MR. KRAEMER'S TESTIMONY IS REASONABLE CALCULATED TO ILLICT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND IS THE PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED. 10 A. Waiver of the California Attorney-Client Privilege II The attorney-client privilege is codified in California Evidence Code § 954, which provides 12 in part: "[T]he client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent 13 another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer." "Knowledge 14 which is not otherwise privileged does not become so merely by being communicated to an attorney. 15 ... While the privilege fully covers communications as such, it does not extend to subject matter 16 otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney." 17 ( Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 397.) "[T]ransmission alone, even 18 where the parties intend the matter to be confidential, cannot create the privilege if none, in fact, 19 exists." ( Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, 176.) 20 In addition to the exceptions to the privilege presented previously, under California Evidence 2t Code § 912 the privilege(s) can also be waive -~ or, eliminate-—-the attorney-client privilege (and 22. attorney work product doctrine) by doing either: 23 1 Disclosing a significant part of the privileged communication between you and your lawyer 24 to a third party, or 25 2 Consenting to the disclosure of that privileged communication by anyone else. 26 27 The privilege does not protect "independent facts related to a communication, that a 28 communication took place, and the time, date and participants in the communication.” (State Farm DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFIF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 9 Fire Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 640.) Further, the privilege "does not protect disclosure of underlying facts which may be referenced within a qualifying communication" (id. at p. 639), and it does not extend to individuals who are no more than witnesses to the matter at issue in the litigation. ( Martin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 333, 345.) Documents that are independently prepared by a party "do not become privileged communications .. . merely because they are turned over to counsel." ( Wellpoint Health Networks, Ine. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 119.) The attorney-client privilege only protects confidential communications between a client and his or her attorney during the course of an 10 attorney-client relationship. In this regard, Evidence Code section 952 defines such a confidential 11 communication as "information transmitted between a client and his lawyer in the course of that 12 relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the 13 information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client 14 in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the 15 information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes 16 a legal opinion formed and advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship." 17 18 CONCLUSION 19 The deposition of Mr. Kraemer is sought arising from his duties and obligation as a licensed 20 California real estate broker; and, his deposition can be accomplished without violating any 21 attorney/client privilege which in likelihood has been waived / eliminated for failure to assert. A 22 such, PUI's "Motion to Quash" respectfully should be denied. 23 Respectfully submitted, 24 25 DATED: July /5__, 2022 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, A ha OREO 26 27 fe A Cy Minas B 28 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO Attorneys for Defendants DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL H. KRAEMER 10 LIST OF EXHIBTS “Exhibit-1" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Mr. Kraemer. "Exhibit-2" a true and correct copy of Partners Trust DRE Licensure in 2022 & 2019. "Exhibit-3" a true and correct copy of DRE Licensure for Segal in 2022 and 2019, "Exhibit-4" a true and correct copy of the DRE Licensure for Plaintiff PUL "Exhibit-5" are true and correct copies of LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT ACTION CASE NO. 19STCV25331: LASC Online Case Summary; Pg-1/ Pleading Cap to Kraemer Verified Answer with Signed Verification filed by Kraemer; and Pg-1-2 of Cross-Complaint filed by Kraemer EXHIBIT "i" Public License Lookup - DRE hitps:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?star=1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE In reviewing a licensee's information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the California Department of Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542. ‘The license information shown below represents public information. It will not reffect pending licensing changes which are belng reviewed for subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this Information Is not intended for mass mailing purposes. Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these decuments, please contact the Department's Licensing Fiag Section. License information taken from records of the Department of Rea! Estate on 7/15/2022 5:06:22 AM License Type: BROKER Name: Kraemer, Samuel H Mailing Address: 18015 GREENLEAF ST SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403 License ID: 013906547 Expiration Date: 05/14/26 License Status; LICENSED Broker License Issued: 08/18/03 Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES Main Office: 150 S RODEO DR STE 100 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 DBA NO CURRENT DBAS Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES Affiliated Licensed Corporation(s): 01527236 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25 Compass California 1, Inc. 01527365 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25 Compass California il, inc. 01866774 - Officer Expiration Date: 03/15/25, Pacific Union International Inc 01869607 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/05/23 Pacific Union International Referral inc 01991628 - Officer Expiration Date: 11/04/25 Campass California, Inc. 01527205 - Officer Expiration Date: 05/17/21 ‘The Mark Company, Ine. OFFICER CANCELED AS OF 06/30/21 01860387 - Officer Expiration Date: 03/09/17 John Aaroe Group Inc OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 03/10/17 Gomment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION 11/04/20 - Officer license expiration date extended until 6/30/2t pursuant to Executive Order No. N-83-20. >>>> Public information request complete <<<< fof! 7/15/2022, 5:07 AM EXHIBIT "2" Public License Lookup - DRE hittps://www2.dre.ca.gow/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?star= | STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE In reviewing a licensee's Information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the Cafifornia Department of Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542, The license information shown below represents public information. It wil not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass malling purposes, Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these documents, please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section. License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 7/15/2022 6:47:47 AM License Type: CORPORATION Name: Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 License ID: 01869103 Expiration Date: 7/29/21 License Status: EXPIRED Corporation License Issued: 07/30/09 Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES Main Office: NO CURRENT MAIN OFFICE ADDRESS ON FILE Licensed Officer(s): DESIGNATED OFFICER 91013548 - Expiration Date: 07/29/21 Segal, Nick R OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 07/30/21 DBA Partners Trust ACTIVE FROM 10/28/2009 TO 07/30/2021 The Partners Trust ACTIVE FROM 10/26/2009 TO 07/30/2024 PT Commercial ACTIVE FROM 02/43/2017 TO 07/20/2024 PT Escrow a non independent broker escrow ACTIVE FROM 11/12/2010 TO 07/30/2021 PT Referral ACTIVE FROM 02/43/2017 TO 07/30/2024 PT Referral Associates ACTIVE FROM 02/13/2017 TO 07/30/2021 NO CURRENT DBAS Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES Comment: IO DISCIPLINARY ACTION NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS >>> Public information request complete <<<< loft 7/15/2022, 6:48 AM http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01869103 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The license information shown below represents public information taken from the Department of Real &state(DRE) database at the time of your inquiry. It wil not reflect pending changes which are being reviewed for subsequent database updating, Also, the license information provided includes formal administrative actions that have been taken against licensees pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and/or the Administrative Procedure Act. Alt of the information displayed ts public information. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass mailing purposes, Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be In compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these documents, please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section. License information taken from records of the Department of Real Eslate on 8/21/2019 9:27:56 AM License Type: CORPORATION Name: Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 License ID: 01869103 Expiration Date: 07/29/21 License Status: LICENSED Corporation License Issued: 07/30/08 Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES Main Office: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 Licensed Officer(s): DESIGNATED OFFICER 01013548 - Expiration Date: 07/29/21 Segal, Nick R DBA Partners Trust ACTIVE AS OF 10/28/2009 The Partners Trust ACTIVE AS OF 10/28/2009 PT Commercial ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017 PT Escrow a non independent broker escrow ACTIVE AS OF 11/12/2010 PT Referral ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017 Lof2 8/21/2019, 9:40 AM http://Avww2.dre.ca,gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01869103 PT Referral Associates ACTIVE AS OF 02/13/2017 Branches: 1730 1/2 OCEAN PARK BLVD SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 23410 CIVIC CENTER WY STE C1 MALIBU, CA 90265 1333 MONTANA AVE. SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 594 E COLORADO BLVD PASADENA, CA 91104 01056761 Brown, Scott Gerald - Branch/Division Manager 964 FOOTHILL BLVD LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, CA 91011 01056761 Brown, Scott Gerald - Branch/Division Manager 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD 2ND FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 00592639 Misraje, Karen A - Branch/Division Manager Salespersons: 01431214 - Lauder, Todd Patrick License Expiration Date: 08/27/2019 Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS >>>> Public information request complete <<<< 2 of2 8/21/2019, 9:40 AM EXHIBIT "3" Public License Lookup - DRE hitps:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp? start 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE in reviewing a licensee's information, please be aware that license discipline information may have been removed from a licensee's record pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 10083.2 (c). However, discipline information may be available from the California Department of Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542, ‘The license information shown below represents public information. It will not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for subsequent updating, Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information Is net intended for mass mailing purposes. Some historical disciplinary action documents may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functions. For assistance with these documents, please contact the Department's Licensing Flag Section. License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 7/16/2022 6:44:39 AM License Type: BROKER Name: Segal, Nick R Mailing Address: 3004 PROSPECT AVENUE SANTA MONICA, CA 90405, License ID: 01013548 Expiration Date: 0604/24 License Status: LICENSED Salesperson License issued: 04/12/89 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records) Broker License Issued: 06/02/00 Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES Main Office: 150 SOUTH RODEO DRIVE SUITE 100 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90242 DBA NO CURRENT DBAS: Branches: NO CURRENT BRANCHES Affitiated Licensed Corporation(s): 00806882 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/22/06 Maryrose Inc OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 09/23/08 01869103 - Officer Expiration Date: 07/29/21 Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 07/30/21 Broker Associate for: License ID: 02111757, Avenue 8 Inc. 595 PACIFIC AVE 4TH FLR. SAN FRANCISCO, CA $4133 Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION, NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS >>>> Public information request complete <<<< lofl 7/15/2022, 6:45 AM hittp:/Awww?2.dre.ca.gov/publicasp/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01013548 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The license information shown below represents public information taken from the Department of Real Estate(DRE) database at the time of your inquiry. It will not reflect pending changes which are being reviewed for subsequent database updating. Also, the license information provided includes formal administrative actions that have been taken against licensees pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and/or the Administrative Procedure Act, Allof the information displayed is public information. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is nat intended for mass mailing purposes. License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 6/8/2019 9:37:02 AM License Type: BROKER Name: Segal, NickR Mailing Address: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 License ID: 01013548 Expiration Date: 06/01/20 License Status: LICENSED Salesperson License Issued: .: 01/12/89 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records) Broker License Issued: 06/02/00 Former Name(s): NO FORMER NAMES. Main Office: 9378 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 DBA NO CURRENT DBAS Branches: 11726 SAN VICENTE BLVD STE 350 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 1333 MONTANA AVENUE SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 1730 1/2 OCEAN PARK BLVD SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 592 E COLORADO BLVD. PASADENA, CA 91101 Affiliated Licensed Corporation(s): 01869103 - Officer Expiration Date: 07/29/21 Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions 00806882 - Officer Expiration Date: 09/22/06 Maryrose Inc Lof2 6/8/2019, 9:47 AM hittp:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/publicasp/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01013548 OFFICER LICENSE EXPIRED AS OF 09/23/06 Broker Associate for: License ID: 0186677 Pacific Union International Inc 1699 VAN NESS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Comment: NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS >>>> Public information request complete <<<< 2of2 6/8/2019, 9:47 AM EXHIBIT "4" Public License Lookup - DRE https:/Avww2.dre.ca.gov/PublicA SP/pplinfo.asp?start=1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE In reviewing a licensee's information, please he aware that license disctpline information may have been removed from a licensee's record pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section £0083.2 {c}. However, disciptine Information may be available from the California Department of Real Estate upon submittal of a request, or by calling the Department's public information line at 1-877-373-4542. ‘The ficense information shown below represents public information, It will not reflect pending licensing changes which are being reviewed for subsequent updating. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass mailing purposes. Some historical disciplinary action dacuments may not be in compliance with certain accessibility functio