Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
superior Court of California,
County of Placer
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 10/16/2020
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222) By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk
sbj@sbj-law.com
LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
lam/@sbj-law.com
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, California 94526
Telephone: (925) 837-2317
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. SCV0042080
ae!
net Samael!
12 Plaintiff, eget mug!
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL,
13 INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
Saag
Vv. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
14 AND/OR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 472
ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated
15 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. Date: October 29, 2020
16 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The Time: 8:30 a.m.
Sone
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Dept: 42
17
ne
DOES 1-50,
meee
Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
18
Sone” Nm”
Defendants. Trial Date: March 29, 2021
19
me”
emer”
20
21
Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”)
22
respectfully submits this Opposition (“Opposition”) to the Objections and Motion Seeking
23
Reconsideration and/or CCP 473 Relief and Notice of Intent to File Motion to Set Aside and/or
24
Vacate Order and to Seek Sanctions (“Motion”) filed by Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an
25
individual and beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING
26
TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007 and PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The
27
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007 (collectively, “Defendants”), on August 28, 2020.
28
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
I. INTRODUCTION
This Motion is apparently brought on the basis that Defendants’ counsel failed to
read a stipulation to continue trial before signing it. The Motion is unnecessary and relies on
factually incorrect assumptions. Pacific Union has no objection to Defendants remedying the
portion of the order continuing trial which Defendants apparently find objectionable. Indeed,
Defendants circulated a stipulation regarding extending the discovery cutoff, which Pacific
Union signed and returned upon receipt. Defendants have apparently not submitted that
stipulation to the Court. Pacific Union believed and still believes that the matter has been
resolved, and asks that the Court take the matter off calendar.
10 I. ARGUMENT
11 Pacific Union provided a stipulation to counsel by email on August 7, 2020,
12 proposing a trial continuance in light of several factors, including Defendants’ petition to
13 coordinate this action with another in Los Angeles Superior Court. (Declaration of Lindsey A.
14 Morgan in Opposition to Motion (“Morgan Decl.”), 4 2, Exh. 1.)
15 The cover letter enclosing the stipulation to continue trial contained a
16 typographical error, in which it incorrectly referred to the stipulation as one to continue the trial
17 and all related dates. (Morgan Decl., 93, Exh. 1.) The letter was copied over from a previous
18 letter enclosing an earlier stipulation to continue trial and all related dates in this matter.
19 (Morgan Decl., 4 3, Exh. 1.) The stipulation itself, including the language immediately above
20 Defendants’ counsel’s signature block, was very clear that it was to continue the trial date but not
21 all related deadlines. (Morgan Decl., 4 3, Exh. 1.) Pacific Union did not have any understanding
22 that counsel for Defendants desired to take any further depositions or engage in any additional
23 discovery. (Morgan Decl., | 4.) Exhibit G to Mr. Nangano’s declaration, the most recent
24 correspondence about depositions, states that Defendants did not intend to depose Sarah Kosasky
25 as of June 2, 2020, and there has been absolutely no communication between the parties
26 regarding depositions after Pacific Union deposed Erik Ludwick on June 16, 2020. (Morgan
27 Decl., § 4.) Both parties have fully briefed their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the
28 9
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
discovery window was on the verge of closing based on the earlier September 21, 2020 trial date
at the time the stipulation was prepared. (Morgan Decl., { 4.)
Defendants executed and returned the stipulation to continue trial to counsel for
Pacific Union without comment on August 10, 2020. (Morgan Decl., 7 6.) Pacific Union
intended to file a noticed motion to continue the trial based on the stipulation, and called the
Court to schedule a hearing date. (Morgan Decl., § 7.) However, when counsel for Pacific
Union spoke with the clerk, the clerk instructed Pacific Union’s counsel to submit the stipulation
and a proposed order instead of filing a motion. (Morgan Decl., ¢ 7.) Counsel for Pacific Union
immediately advised counsel for Defendants that the clerk had instructed Pacific Union to file
10 the stipulation and a proposed order. (Morgan Decl., 7, Exh. 2.)
1 Thereafter, Pacific Union filed the stipulation and a proposed order copied from
12 the stipulation on August 12, 2020 — a date that is reflected on the time stamp on the sidebar of
13 the Court’s order. (Morgan Decl., 4 8, Exh. 3.) Pacific Union served counsel for Defendants
14 that day with the stipulation and proposed order. (Morgan Decl., § 9, Exh. 4.)
15 Pacific Union did not hear from counsel for Defendants until near the close of
16 business five (5) days later. (Morgan Decl., 10, Exh. 5.) On August 17, 2020, counsel for
17 Defendants sent counsel for Pacific Union a letter by facsimile at 3:49 p.m., demanding that
18 Pacific Union withdraw the stipulation to continue trial. (Morgan Decl., § 10, Exh. 5.) Pacific
19 Union’s counsel promptly called the Court, but was unable to reach anyone as the Court had
20 closed at 3:00 p.m. that day. (Morgan Decl., 4 11.) The Court signed and entered the proposed
21 order the next morning. (Morgan Decl., 4 12, Exh. 6.) Pacific Union advised counsel that it had
22 not been able to communicate with the Court before the order was entered, and attached a copy
23 of the order. ((Morgan Decl., 9 12, Exh. 6.) Thereafter, Pacific Union served a notice of entry of
24 order continuing trial on August 19, 2020. (Morgan Decl., { 12.)
25 When Defendants mailed a hard copy of a stipulation to modify the order to
26 continue the discovery deadlines, Pacific Union signed and returned that stipulation to
27 Defendants upon receipt of it on September 8, 2020. (Morgan Decl., §] 13, 14, Exh. 7.)
28 3
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to hear this Motion, as Pacific Union has already
agreed to the relief requested by Defendants.
The facts, as supported by emails and letters attached to the Declaration of
Lindsey A. Morgan, do not support the accusations by counsel for Defendants regarding the
motivations or intentions of counsel for Pacific Union. Pacific Union declines to engage in that
line of argument, unless the Court requests clarification on any claim raised in the papers.
UI. CONCLUSION
Mistakes happen, especially in the current environment of remote workplaces and
looming health concerns. Here, counsel for Defendants mistakenly signed and returned a
10 stipulation he did not read, and Pacific Union’s counsel did not completely update a cover letter.
11 This mistake, which has not prejudiced any party, is easily remedied. Defendants have asked the
12 Court to order that the trial-related dates be continued with the trial. Pacific Union does not
13 believe this is necessary, given that both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, but
14 does not object to Defendants’ request that the Court do so. Pacific Union signed Defendants’
15 stipulation to that effect over a month ago. Pacific Union has no insight on why Defendants have
16 not submitted that stipulation to the Court, but asks that the Court excuse the parties from
17 incurring further expense in appearing for a hearing on a Motion that did not need to be filed.
18
19 Dated: October ‘5, 2020
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
20
21
By
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED superior Court of California, County of Placer SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 10/16/2020 SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222) By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk sbj@sbj-law.com LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214) lam/@sbj-law.com 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, California 94526 Telephone: (925) 837-2317 Facsimile: (925) 837-4831 Attorneys for Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. SCV0042080 ae! net Samael! 12 Plaintiff, eget mug! PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, 13 INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ Saag Vv. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 AND/OR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 472 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated 15 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. Date: October 29, 2020 16 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The Time: 8:30 a.m. Sone Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Dept: 42 17 ne DOES 1-50, meee Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 18 Sone” Nm” Defendants. Trial Date: March 29, 2021 19 me” emer” 20 21 Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”) 22 respectfully submits this Opposition (“Opposition”) to the Objections and Motion Seeking 23 Reconsideration and/or CCP 473 Relief and Notice of Intent to File Motion to Set Aside and/or 24 Vacate Order and to Seek Sanctions (“Motion”) filed by Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, an 25 individual and beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING 26 TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007 and PAUL D. BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The 27 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007 (collectively, “Defendants”), on August 28, 2020. 28 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES I. INTRODUCTION This Motion is apparently brought on the basis that Defendants’ counsel failed to read a stipulation to continue trial before signing it. The Motion is unnecessary and relies on factually incorrect assumptions. Pacific Union has no objection to Defendants remedying the portion of the order continuing trial which Defendants apparently find objectionable. Indeed, Defendants circulated a stipulation regarding extending the discovery cutoff, which Pacific Union signed and returned upon receipt. Defendants have apparently not submitted that stipulation to the Court. Pacific Union believed and still believes that the matter has been resolved, and asks that the Court take the matter off calendar. 10 I. ARGUMENT 11 Pacific Union provided a stipulation to counsel by email on August 7, 2020, 12 proposing a trial continuance in light of several factors, including Defendants’ petition to 13 coordinate this action with another in Los Angeles Superior Court. (Declaration of Lindsey A. 14 Morgan in Opposition to Motion (“Morgan Decl.”), 4 2, Exh. 1.) 15 The cover letter enclosing the stipulation to continue trial contained a 16 typographical error, in which it incorrectly referred to the stipulation as one to continue the trial 17 and all related dates. (Morgan Decl., 93, Exh. 1.) The letter was copied over from a previous 18 letter enclosing an earlier stipulation to continue trial and all related dates in this matter. 19 (Morgan Decl., 4 3, Exh. 1.) The stipulation itself, including the language immediately above 20 Defendants’ counsel’s signature block, was very clear that it was to continue the trial date but not 21 all related deadlines. (Morgan Decl., 4 3, Exh. 1.) Pacific Union did not have any understanding 22 that counsel for Defendants desired to take any further depositions or engage in any additional 23 discovery. (Morgan Decl., | 4.) Exhibit G to Mr. Nangano’s declaration, the most recent 24 correspondence about depositions, states that Defendants did not intend to depose Sarah Kosasky 25 as of June 2, 2020, and there has been absolutely no communication between the parties 26 regarding depositions after Pacific Union deposed Erik Ludwick on June 16, 2020. (Morgan 27 Decl., § 4.) Both parties have fully briefed their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the 28 9 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES discovery window was on the verge of closing based on the earlier September 21, 2020 trial date at the time the stipulation was prepared. (Morgan Decl., { 4.) Defendants executed and returned the stipulation to continue trial to counsel for Pacific Union without comment on August 10, 2020. (Morgan Decl., 7 6.) Pacific Union intended to file a noticed motion to continue the trial based on the stipulation, and called the Court to schedule a hearing date. (Morgan Decl., § 7.) However, when counsel for Pacific Union spoke with the clerk, the clerk instructed Pacific Union’s counsel to submit the stipulation and a proposed order instead of filing a motion. (Morgan Decl., ¢ 7.) Counsel for Pacific Union immediately advised counsel for Defendants that the clerk had instructed Pacific Union to file 10 the stipulation and a proposed order. (Morgan Decl., 7, Exh. 2.) 1 Thereafter, Pacific Union filed the stipulation and a proposed order copied from 12 the stipulation on August 12, 2020 — a date that is reflected on the time stamp on the sidebar of 13 the Court’s order. (Morgan Decl., 4 8, Exh. 3.) Pacific Union served counsel for Defendants 14 that day with the stipulation and proposed order. (Morgan Decl., § 9, Exh. 4.) 15 Pacific Union did not hear from counsel for Defendants until near the close of 16 business five (5) days later. (Morgan Decl., 10, Exh. 5.) On August 17, 2020, counsel for 17 Defendants sent counsel for Pacific Union a letter by facsimile at 3:49 p.m., demanding that 18 Pacific Union withdraw the stipulation to continue trial. (Morgan Decl., § 10, Exh. 5.) Pacific 19 Union’s counsel promptly called the Court, but was unable to reach anyone as the Court had 20 closed at 3:00 p.m. that day. (Morgan Decl., 4 11.) The Court signed and entered the proposed 21 order the next morning. (Morgan Decl., 4 12, Exh. 6.) Pacific Union advised counsel that it had 22 not been able to communicate with the Court before the order was entered, and attached a copy 23 of the order. ((Morgan Decl., 9 12, Exh. 6.) Thereafter, Pacific Union served a notice of entry of 24 order continuing trial on August 19, 2020. (Morgan Decl., { 12.) 25 When Defendants mailed a hard copy of a stipulation to modify the order to 26 continue the discovery deadlines, Pacific Union signed and returned that stipulation to 27 Defendants upon receipt of it on September 8, 2020. (Morgan Decl., §] 13, 14, Exh. 7.) 28 3 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to hear this Motion, as Pacific Union has already agreed to the relief requested by Defendants. The facts, as supported by emails and letters attached to the Declaration of Lindsey A. Morgan, do not support the accusations by counsel for Defendants regarding the motivations or intentions of counsel for Pacific Union. Pacific Union declines to engage in that line of argument, unless the Court requests clarification on any claim raised in the papers. UI. CONCLUSION Mistakes happen, especially in the current environment of remote workplaces and looming health concerns. Here, counsel for Defendants mistakenly signed and returned a 10 stipulation he did not read, and Pacific Union’s counsel did not completely update a cover letter. 11 This mistake, which has not prejudiced any party, is easily remedied. Defendants have asked the 12 Court to order that the trial-related dates be continued with the trial. Pacific Union does not 13 believe this is necessary, given that both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, but 14 does not object to Defendants’ request that the Court do so. Pacific Union signed Defendants’ 15 stipulation to that effect over a month ago. Pacific Union has no insight on why Defendants have 16 not submitted that stipulation to the Court, but asks that the Court excuse the parties from 17 incurring further expense in appearing for a hearing on a Motion that did not need to be filed. 18 19 Dated: October ‘5, 2020 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 20 21 By 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES