Preview
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
sbj(@sbj-law.com = 7? ry
LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214) SUPERIOR COURT OF CAI \LIFORNIA
lam@sbj-law.com COUNTY NE 3D
ER
ALAN PALMER JACOBUS (Bar No. 206954)
apj@sbj-law.com
SEP 04 2019
208 W. El Pintado Road JAKE
EXECUTIVE
CHAI
OFFICER
fERS
& CLERK
Danville, California 94526 By: N. G's Deputy
DW
Telephone: (925) 837-2317
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831
SN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
oo
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
12 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. SCV0042080
3 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PACIFIC UNION
ee
INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S
14 V.
eee
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS
15 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and
ee
beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FILED
ee
16 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
a
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. TO THIS COURT AND TO
a
17 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The
eh
CONSOLIDATE, OR ALTERNATIVELY
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and
eh
COORDINATE, THE LOS ANGELES
18 DOES 1-50,
ee
ACTION WITH THE PLACER COUNTY
19 Defendants. ACTION
ee
Date: October 3, 2019
ee
20
Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 Dept: 42
22 Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
Trial Date: None Set
ee
23
24 /f/
25 //I
26 /T/
27 ITI
28 ///
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500, plaintiff Pacific Union
International, Inc. (“Pacific Union”) submits the following memorandum of points and
authorities in support of its Motion To Transfer the action filed on July 19, 2019 in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under case number 19 STCV 25331 , titled Erik
aN
Ludwick vs. Partners’ Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions, et al. (the “Los Angeles
WN
Action”), to this Court and consolidate, or alternatively, coordinate the Los Angeles Action with
DR
this action.
YN
CO
I. INTRODUCTION
Disregarding this Court’s February 28, 2019 Ruling on Matter Submitted in this
So
10 action (the “Placer Action”) denying his Motion To Change Venue (CCP §§ 395, 395.1, 397)
11 (the “Ludwick Venue Motion”), defendant Erik Ludwick (“Mr. Ludwick’) has filed another
12 action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles styled Erik Ludwick vs. Partners’
13 Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court number
14 19 STCV 25331 (the “Los Angeles Action”) concerning the same dispute at issue in the instant
15 action. (See concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Transfer and
16 Consolidate, or in the Alternative, to Coordinate (“RJN”), 9 1-2, Exhs. 1, 2.) Mr. Ludwick’s
17 Los Angeles Action is not appropriately filed in Los Angeles. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal.
18 R. Ct. 3.500 provide a remedy for this error: this Court has the power to order the transfer of the
19 Los Angeles Action to this Court and to then consolidate or coordinate the Los Angeles Action
20 with this pending action. Pacific Union asks that this Court do so.
21 II. RELEVANT FACTS
22 On November 7, 2018, Pacific Union filed its Complaint, asserting causes of
23 action against Erik Ludwick, an individual and beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated October
24 12, 2007; The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Paul D. Booth, in his capacity as
25 | trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007 (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting
26 causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith
27 and Fair Dealing; 3) Common Counts; 4) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 5)
28 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 6) Intentional Misrepresentation;
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
7) Specific Performance; and 8) Declaratory Relief (the “Pacific Union Placer Complaint”) in
this action (Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Erik Ludwick, et al., Placer County Superior
Court number SCV 0042080) (the “Placer Action”). (RJN 93, Exh. 3.) In the Placer Action,
Pacific Union seeks, among other things, compensation owed to it under a Residential Listing
>
Agreement for the sale of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive in Pacific Palisades,
WN
California. (RJN ¥3, Ex. 3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at JJ 10-28 (Placer Action).)
HD
On January 2, 2019, Mr. Ludwick filed the Ludwick Venue Motion and related
NY
papers in the Placer Action. (RJN § 2, Exh. 2.) In that motion, Mr. Ludwick sought to have the
Oo
Placer Action transferred to Los Angeles County, arguing that under section 395 of the Code of
Oo
10 Civil Procedure, venue was proper in Los Angeles County, because of various alleged contacts
11 there. This Court determined venue was proper in Placer County, because a defendant trustee
12 (Paul D. Booth) resided in Placer County, and on February 28, 2019, this Court denied the
13 Ludwick Venue Motion. (RJN 4 1, Exh. 1.)
14 On July 19, 2019, Mr. Ludwick initiated the Los Angeles Action filing a Verified
15 Complaint against Pacific Union and several related individuals and entities and alleging causes
16 of action for: 1) Breach of Civil Code § 2079.16; 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 3) Fraud &
17 Deceit—Actual &/Or Constructive; 4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual
18 Relationship &/Or Economic Advantage; 5) Negligent Interference With Prospective
19 Contractual Relationship &/Or Economic Advantage; 6) Professional Negligence; 7) Breach of
20 Contract; 8) Breach of California Civil Code § 17200; 9) Declaratory Relief as to Illegality of
21 Contract; and 10) Declaratory Relief as to Commission Owed, If Any (the “Ludwick Los
22 Angeles Complaint”). (RJN 4, Exh. 4.) As detailed below, the Los Angeles Action, like the
23 earlier-filed Placer Action, arises from the same transaction, facts and incident and seeks the
24 same relief as that already at issue in this action.
25 A. Common Questions of Fact and Law Predominate and Are Significant to
Both Actions
26
It is beyond any reasonable dispute that common questions of fact and law
27
predominate and are significant as to both actions:
28
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
° Pacific Union International, Inc. is a party to both actions. (Compare RJN 4 3,
WH Ex. 3 at §] 1 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint) with RJN 3, Ex. 4 at caption and § 4
and Ex. A (Los Angeles Complaint).)
WY
F&
° Mr. Ludwick and his trust are party to both actions. (See id.)
Oo
» The same Residential Listing Agreement is the core of both actions. (RJN § 3,
HD
Ex. 3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at § 10 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint); RIN §
4, Ex. 4: Ludwick Los Angeles Compl. at § 19-22 and Ex. A (Los Angeles
Y
Complaint).)
° The key dispute in each action is whether Mr. Ludwick owes Pacific Union
10 compensation related to the sale of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive in
11 Pacific Palisades, California. (RJN 93, Ex.3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at {J
12 10-28 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint); RJN at J 4, Ex. 4: Ludwick Los Angeles
13 Compl. at ff] 19-22; 29-54 and Ex. A (Los Angeles Complaint).)
14 B. Pacific Union Has Made a Good-Faith Effort To Obtain Consent To
15 Transfer
16 On August 23, 2019, Pacific Union sent counsel for Ludwick a letter by both
17 email and U.S. Mail, noting the Los Angeles Action arose from the same transaction and set of
18 facts and asking whether Ludwick would stipulate to transfer and consolidate the Los Angeles
19 Action into the existing action here in Placer Superior Court. (Declaration of Shannon B. Jones
20 in Support of Motion to Transfer and Coordinate, or Alternatively to Consolidate (“Jones
21 Decl.”), Ex. A.) Ina letter dated August 28, 2019, counsel for Ludwick opined that venue was
22 proper in Los Angeles. (Jones Decl., Exh. B.) Accordingly, Ludwick has refused to consent to a
23 voluntary transfer of the Los Angeles action by stipulation.
24 Il. LEGAL STANDARDS
25 Motions to transfer and consolidate a second action are governed by section 403
26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in relevant part:
27 A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another
court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action
28 involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration
stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified
in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial
Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to
obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.
Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action
and on each court in which an action is pending.
In turn, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 404.1 provides:
ND
Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or
Jaw is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all
purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice
oOo
taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is
predominating and significant to the litigation: the convenience of
oO
parties, witnesses, and counsel: the relative development of the
actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of
10 judicial facilities and manpower: the calendar of the courts; the
disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or
11 judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without
further litigation should coordination be denied.
12
13 Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 supplements Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 with respect to transfer and consolidation
14 of non-complex common issue actions filed in two (or more) courts. (See also Cal. Code Civ. P.
15 § 1048.) The rule provides the mechanics for transfer and consolidation, stating:
16 Rule 3.500. Transfer and consolidation of noncomplex
common-issue actions filed in different courts
17
(a) Application
18 This rule applies when a motion under Code of Civil Procedure
section 403 is filed requesting transfer and consolidation of
19 noncomplex cases involving a common issue of fact or law filed in
20 different courts.
21 (b) Preliminary step
22 A party that intends to file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure
section 403 must first make a good-faith effort to obtain agreement
23
of all parties to each case to the proposed transfer and
24 consolidation.
25 (c) Motion and hearing
26 A motion to transfer an action under Code of Civil Procedure
27 section 403 must conform to the requirements generally applicable
to motions, and must be supported by a declaration stating facts
28 showing that:
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
(1) The actions are not complex;
(2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain
agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties
to the actions; and
(3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation
to disclose to the court any information they may have
concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any
case that would be affected by the granting of the motion
DW
before the court.
NY
(d) Findings and order
Oo
If the court orders that the case or cases be transferred from
oO
another court, the order must specify the reasons supporting a
10 finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with
11 reference to the following standards:
12 (1) The actions are not complex;
13 (2) Whether the common question of fact or law is
predominating and significant to the litigation;
14
15 (3) The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel;
16 (4) The relative development of the actions and the work
product of counsel;
17
18 (5) The efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff
resources;
19
(6) The calendar of the courts;
20
(7) The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings,
21 orders, or judgments; and
22 (8) The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further
litigation should coordination be denied.
23
24
25 IV. ARGUMENT
26 This Court should order the Los Angeles Action transferred to this Court and the
27 Los Angeles Action consolidated with this action (the Placer Action) because all the criteria set
28 forth Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 are met. These are, of course, factors, and
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
not every factor needs to be met to justify transfer and consolidation. See Ford Motor Warranty
Cases, 218 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 185, 195, 11 Cal. App. Sth 626, 641 (2017) (indicating under a similar
Cal. R. Ct. 3.400 analysis that no one factor is dispositive).
A. Neither Action Is Complex
Neither the Placer Action nor the Los Angeles Action is complex. Cal. R. Ct. 3-
400(a) defines a “complex case” as “an action that requires exceptional judicial management to
DN
avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep
NN
costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.”
Oo
Criteria for determining whether a case is a complex cases include numerous pretrial motions
oO
10 raising difficult or novel legal issues, management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial
11 amount of documentary evidence, large numbers of separately represented parties, coordination
12 with related actions, and substantial post judgment judicial supervision. (Cal. R. Ct. 3-400(b).)
13 None of those issues are a factor here in this simple contract dispute.
14 Examples of cases that are likely to be considered complex include antitrust or
15 trade regulation claims, construction defect claims involving many parties or structures;
16 securities claims or investment losses involving many parties; environmental or toxic tort claims
17 involving many parties; claims involving mass torts; claims involving class actions; or insurance
18 coverage claims relating to these sorts of cases. Cal. R. Ct. 3-400(c). Cases such as this one,
19 which are based on breach of contract, have none of the hallmarks of complex cases are not
20 complex cases. Because neither action is complex, this factor favors transfer and consolidation
21 of the actions into the existing Placer action.
22 B. Common Questions of Fact and Law Predominate
23 The two complaints are based on the same exact transaction, contract, and
24 demand for relief. They even have the same exact contract and modification attached as their
25 Exhibits A and B. (RJN Exhs. 3, 4, Exhs. A, B to each pleading.)
26 In the complaint it filed in Placer County, Pacific Union asserts it is entitled to
27 recover the $978,000 commission currently held by Terra Costal Escrow from the sale of 200
28 Toyopa Drive (the “Property”), pursuant to the Residential Listing Agreement which provided a
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
six percent (6%) commission to the listing agent. (RJN Exh. 3, J] 10-25, see also Residential
Listing Agreement and extensions attached as Exhs. A and B to that pleading.) In the complaint
he just filed in Los Angeles County, Erik Ludwick claims that commission should be refunded to
him because of alleged improper acts by Pacific Union, its predecessor Partners Trust, and their
agents during the sale of the Property. (RJN Exh. 4, J] 18-22; 25-30; 36-42; 46-53, see also
Residential Listing Agreement and extensions attached as Exhs. A and B to that pleading.)
Ludwick admits in Paragraph 53 of his Los Angeles Complaint that he is
defending a lawsuit filed by Pacific Union in Placer County for recovery of the commission.
(RJN Exh. 4, 9 53.) Ludwick’s complaint seeks recovery of the same commission, and simply
10 adds theories for why Ludwick should not have to pay Pacific Union the commission. This
11 offense as defense tactic would have been more appropriately accomplished in other ways,
12 without the drain on court resources of Ludwick filing an entirely separate lawsuit in a different
13 county.
14 Pacific Union, as successor in interest to Partners Trust, is a party to both
15 lawsuits. Ludwick and his trust are parties to both lawsuits. (RJN, captions for Exhs. 3, 4.) The
16 witnesses, (notably, Erik Ludwick, Pacific Union’s agent Madison Hildebrand, and Paul Booth,
y who was the trustee of Ludwick’s trust at the time of the transaction and who signed the contract
18 and extensions at issue), are exactly the same. The two actions both arise from the same
19 transaction, contract, and set of facts, and center on the question of which party should recover
20 the commission monies for the sale of the Property. The key dispute in each lawsuit is whether
21 Mr. Ludwick owes Pacific Union compensation related to the sale of real property located at 200
30 Toyopa Drive in Pacific Palisades, California or not — and if so, how much.
23 Accordingly, because both complaints arise from the same exact dispute, this
factor favors transfer and consolidation of the actions.
24
CG, The Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel Is Nota
25 Significant Factor
26 There are witnesses and relevant contacts in both Placer County and Los Angeles
27 County. As this Court found in denying the Ludwick Venue Motion, venue is proper in Placer
28 County because the trustee of the trust at issue in the two actions when the actions at issue were
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
taken resides in Placer County. Even though there are some witnesses and other relevant
contacts in Los Angeles County, in today’s technological age that is not a factor to which
significant weight is given. Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 218 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 185, 197, 11 Cal.
App. 5th 626, 643 (2017) (rejecting superior court’s finding that the convenience of the patties,
fF
witnesses, and counsel was a significant factor because technological advancements, including
WN
electronic filing, email, telephonic appearances, and some judges’ willingness to resolve disputes
DB
informally through conference calls, made travel for many pretrial events unnecessary). See also
NY
Tech Tips from the Bench: An Interview with Hon. Emilie Elias, (Summer 2015) (on
CO
technological advances and convenience to parties, witnesses, and counsel); Cal. R. Ct. 3.670
Oo
10 (settling forth policy favoring telephonic appearances for many matters). Placer County utilizes
1 most of these technological tools. Despite Mr. Ludwick’s anticipated focus on this factor (as he
12 did in the Ludwick Venue Motion), this factor does not favor either Los Angeles County or
13 Placer County heavily.
14 D. The Current Relative Development of the Respective Actions and Work
Product of Counsel Favor the Placer County Action
15
The Placer Action is set for jury trial on June 15, 2020. (RIN ¥ 5, Ex. 5.) In
16
17 contrast, the Los Angeles Action has just been filed and the initial case management conference
will not take place until October 18, 2019. In Los Angeles County Superior Court, fewer than
18
49% of unlimited civil cases are terminated within 12 months. (RJN { 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from
19
2018 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California at 112).) In addition, the parties
20
have exchanged significant written discovery, deposed Paul Booth, and set the deposition of the
21
individual who verified Pacific Union’s discovery responses. This factor strongly favors transfer
22
and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action to Placer Superior Court.
23
E. The Efficient Utilization of Judicial Facilities and Staff Resources Favors
24 Placer County
25 In 2016-2017, there were a total of 249,944 unlimited civil filings in Los Angeles
26
County. (RJN 4 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from 2018 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of
27 | California at 112).) In that same timeframe, there were only 4,809 unlimited civil filings in
28 Placer County. (Id.) This factor favors Placer County.
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
Bs The Respective Calendars of the Courts Favor Placer County
This factor heavily favors transfer and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action.
The Placer Action is set for jury trial on June 15, 2020. (RIN 45, Ex. 5.) In contrast, the Los
Angeles Action has just been filed and the initial case management conference will not take
place until October 18, 2019. In Los Angeles County Superior Court, fewer than 49% of
unlimited civil cases are terminated within 12 months. (RJN § 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from 2018
DD
Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California at 132).) If trial is necessary, trial in
NN
Placer County will take place long before this case could be tried in Los Angeles County.
CO
G. The Disadvantages of Potential Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings.
oO
Orders, or Judgments Favor the Placer County Action
10
The disadvantages of potential duplicative and inconsistent rulings if the Los
11
Angeles Action is allowed to proceed simultaneously and cumulatively with the Placer Action
12
are a factor favoring transfer of the Los Angeles Action and its consolidation with this action. If
13
the Los Angeles Action is not transferred and consolidated with the Placer Action, every ruling
14
of this Court will be subject to some form of re-litigation and reconsideration in the Los Angeles
15
Superior Court. That is not in the interest of justice. This factor heavily favors transfer and
16
consolidation of the Los Angeles Action.
17
H. The Likelihood of Settlement of the Two Actions Without Further
18 Litigation Should Coordination Be Denied Favors the Placer Action
19 Settlement is more likely if the Los Angeles Action is transferred and
20 consolidated with the Placer Action, because the parties will not be wasting time and resources
21 litigating two separate lawsuits arising from the same facts. Denial of Pacific Union’s instant
22 transfer and consolidation motion will make the dispute between the parties exponentially more
23 difficult to settle because of the multiplicity of actions in two different counties over the same
24 dispute and subject matter. Granting Pacific Union’s instant transfer and consolidation motion
25 will force the parties to concentrate on their dispute in a single forum, narrow the issues, and
26 settle their difference by agreement or judicial decree. In contrast, allowing the Los Angeles
27 Action to proceed simultaneously with this action not only creates the danger of inconsistent
28
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
rulings, it will also allow Ludwick the opportunity to relitigate unfavorable
rulings. This factor
bw favors transfer and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action.
I, Pacific Union Has Made a Good Faith Attempt To Obtain Consent To
WW
Transfer the Los Angeles Action to Placer County
BR
Pacific Union has made a good faith attempt to meet-and-confer with all other
WN
parties relative to the proposed transfer and consolidation of the two Actions. (Jones Decl., Ex.
HD
A.) The other parties would not agree to transfer and consolidation. (Jones Decl., Exh. B.)
NT
J. Pacific Union Has Notified All Parties of Their Obligation to Disclose to
ee
the Court Any Other Transfer Motions
oOo
Before Pacific Union filed this motion, Pacific Union notified all the other parties
10
of their obligation to disclose to this Court any other transfer motions that would be affected if
11
the Court grants this motion. (Jones Decl., Ex. C.)
12
V. CONCLUSION
13
Mr. Ludwick’s Los Angeles Action is an attempt to undo this Court’s order
14
denying the Ludwick Venue Motion. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 provide a
15
remedy: this Court should order the Los Angeles Action transferred to this Court and
16
consolidated or alternatively coordinated with this action. The criteria of Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403
17
and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 favor transfer and consolidation, and the interests of justice and fair play
18 demand it.
19 For these reasons, Pacific Union moves the Court to transfer the Los Angeles
20 Action to this Court and to consolidate it with this pending action in Placer County Superior
21 Court, or alternatively to transfer and consolidate the actions, and for all other relief to which
om Pacific Union is entitled at law, at equity, or otherwise.
23 Dated: September 4, 2019
SHANNON B. JONES KAW GROUP, INC.
‘pti
24
25
26
27
28
ND
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
PROOF OF SERVICE
Dd
WwW I, the undersigned, declare:
Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 208 W. El Pintado Road, Danville, CA
94526. On September 4, 2019, I served the within document(s):
Nn
PLAINTIFF PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER
sD
ACTION FILED IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO THIS COURT AND TO
CONSOLIDATE, OR ALTERNATIVELY COORDINATE, THE LOS ANGELES
ACTION WITH THE PLACER COUNTY ACTION
X____ by transmitting via email the above listed document(s) to the email address(es) set forth
below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
10
11 X___ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Danville, California addressed as set forth below.
12
Attorneys for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The Co-Counsel for Defendants Evik Ludwick, The
13 Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of
the Anything Trust the Anything Trust
14
. Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
15 Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. Aronowitz, Skidmore, Lyon
Franklin T. Bigelow, Esq. 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
16 Law Offices of Michael A.J. Nangano Auburn, CA 95603
133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Tel: (530) 823-9736
17 Pasadena, CA 91107 Fax: (530) 823-5241
Tel: (626) 796-9998 Iskidmore@asilaw.org
18 Fax: (626) 796-9992
19 mnangano@lacounsel.com
20 Civil Clerk
Los Angeles Superior Court
21 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
22
Los Angeles, CA 90012
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 above is true and correct.
25 Executed on September ba 2019, at Danville, California.
26
27
28
So
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
Preview
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222) sbj(@sbj-law.com = 7? ry LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214) SUPERIOR COURT OF CAI \LIFORNIA lam@sbj-law.com COUNTY NE 3D ER ALAN PALMER JACOBUS (Bar No. 206954) apj@sbj-law.com SEP 04 2019 208 W. El Pintado Road JAKE EXECUTIVE CHAI OFFICER fERS & CLERK Danville, California 94526 By: N. G's Deputy DW Telephone: (925) 837-2317 Facsimile: (925) 837-4831 SN Attorneys for Plaintiff oo PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. 10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 12 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. SCV0042080 3 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PACIFIC UNION ee INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S 14 V. eee MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS 15 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and ee beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FILED ee 16 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT a DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. TO THIS COURT AND TO a 17 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The eh CONSOLIDATE, OR ALTERNATIVELY Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and eh COORDINATE, THE LOS ANGELES 18 DOES 1-50, ee ACTION WITH THE PLACER COUNTY 19 Defendants. ACTION ee Date: October 3, 2019 ee 20 Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 Dept: 42 22 Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 Trial Date: None Set ee 23 24 /f/ 25 //I 26 /T/ 27 ITI 28 /// MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500, plaintiff Pacific Union International, Inc. (“Pacific Union”) submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of its Motion To Transfer the action filed on July 19, 2019 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under case number 19 STCV 25331 , titled Erik aN Ludwick vs. Partners’ Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions, et al. (the “Los Angeles WN Action”), to this Court and consolidate, or alternatively, coordinate the Los Angeles Action with DR this action. YN CO I. INTRODUCTION Disregarding this Court’s February 28, 2019 Ruling on Matter Submitted in this So 10 action (the “Placer Action”) denying his Motion To Change Venue (CCP §§ 395, 395.1, 397) 11 (the “Ludwick Venue Motion”), defendant Erik Ludwick (“Mr. Ludwick’) has filed another 12 action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles styled Erik Ludwick vs. Partners’ 13 Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court number 14 19 STCV 25331 (the “Los Angeles Action”) concerning the same dispute at issue in the instant 15 action. (See concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Transfer and 16 Consolidate, or in the Alternative, to Coordinate (“RJN”), 9 1-2, Exhs. 1, 2.) Mr. Ludwick’s 17 Los Angeles Action is not appropriately filed in Los Angeles. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. 18 R. Ct. 3.500 provide a remedy for this error: this Court has the power to order the transfer of the 19 Los Angeles Action to this Court and to then consolidate or coordinate the Los Angeles Action 20 with this pending action. Pacific Union asks that this Court do so. 21 II. RELEVANT FACTS 22 On November 7, 2018, Pacific Union filed its Complaint, asserting causes of 23 action against Erik Ludwick, an individual and beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated October 24 12, 2007; The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Paul D. Booth, in his capacity as 25 | trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007 (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting 26 causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith 27 and Fair Dealing; 3) Common Counts; 4) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 5) 28 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 6) Intentional Misrepresentation; 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 7) Specific Performance; and 8) Declaratory Relief (the “Pacific Union Placer Complaint”) in this action (Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Erik Ludwick, et al., Placer County Superior Court number SCV 0042080) (the “Placer Action”). (RJN 93, Exh. 3.) In the Placer Action, Pacific Union seeks, among other things, compensation owed to it under a Residential Listing > Agreement for the sale of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive in Pacific Palisades, WN California. (RJN ¥3, Ex. 3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at JJ 10-28 (Placer Action).) HD On January 2, 2019, Mr. Ludwick filed the Ludwick Venue Motion and related NY papers in the Placer Action. (RJN § 2, Exh. 2.) In that motion, Mr. Ludwick sought to have the Oo Placer Action transferred to Los Angeles County, arguing that under section 395 of the Code of Oo 10 Civil Procedure, venue was proper in Los Angeles County, because of various alleged contacts 11 there. This Court determined venue was proper in Placer County, because a defendant trustee 12 (Paul D. Booth) resided in Placer County, and on February 28, 2019, this Court denied the 13 Ludwick Venue Motion. (RJN 4 1, Exh. 1.) 14 On July 19, 2019, Mr. Ludwick initiated the Los Angeles Action filing a Verified 15 Complaint against Pacific Union and several related individuals and entities and alleging causes 16 of action for: 1) Breach of Civil Code § 2079.16; 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 3) Fraud & 17 Deceit—Actual &/Or Constructive; 4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual 18 Relationship &/Or Economic Advantage; 5) Negligent Interference With Prospective 19 Contractual Relationship &/Or Economic Advantage; 6) Professional Negligence; 7) Breach of 20 Contract; 8) Breach of California Civil Code § 17200; 9) Declaratory Relief as to Illegality of 21 Contract; and 10) Declaratory Relief as to Commission Owed, If Any (the “Ludwick Los 22 Angeles Complaint”). (RJN 4, Exh. 4.) As detailed below, the Los Angeles Action, like the 23 earlier-filed Placer Action, arises from the same transaction, facts and incident and seeks the 24 same relief as that already at issue in this action. 25 A. Common Questions of Fact and Law Predominate and Are Significant to Both Actions 26 It is beyond any reasonable dispute that common questions of fact and law 27 predominate and are significant as to both actions: 28 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS ° Pacific Union International, Inc. is a party to both actions. (Compare RJN 4 3, WH Ex. 3 at §] 1 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint) with RJN 3, Ex. 4 at caption and § 4 and Ex. A (Los Angeles Complaint).) WY F& ° Mr. Ludwick and his trust are party to both actions. (See id.) Oo » The same Residential Listing Agreement is the core of both actions. (RJN § 3, HD Ex. 3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at § 10 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint); RIN § 4, Ex. 4: Ludwick Los Angeles Compl. at § 19-22 and Ex. A (Los Angeles Y Complaint).) ° The key dispute in each action is whether Mr. Ludwick owes Pacific Union 10 compensation related to the sale of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive in 11 Pacific Palisades, California. (RJN 93, Ex.3: Pacific Union Placer Compl. at {J 12 10-28 and Ex. A (Placer Complaint); RJN at J 4, Ex. 4: Ludwick Los Angeles 13 Compl. at ff] 19-22; 29-54 and Ex. A (Los Angeles Complaint).) 14 B. Pacific Union Has Made a Good-Faith Effort To Obtain Consent To 15 Transfer 16 On August 23, 2019, Pacific Union sent counsel for Ludwick a letter by both 17 email and U.S. Mail, noting the Los Angeles Action arose from the same transaction and set of 18 facts and asking whether Ludwick would stipulate to transfer and consolidate the Los Angeles 19 Action into the existing action here in Placer Superior Court. (Declaration of Shannon B. Jones 20 in Support of Motion to Transfer and Coordinate, or Alternatively to Consolidate (“Jones 21 Decl.”), Ex. A.) Ina letter dated August 28, 2019, counsel for Ludwick opined that venue was 22 proper in Los Angeles. (Jones Decl., Exh. B.) Accordingly, Ludwick has refused to consent to a 23 voluntary transfer of the Los Angeles action by stipulation. 24 Il. LEGAL STANDARDS 25 Motions to transfer and consolidate a second action are governed by section 403 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in relevant part: 27 A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action 28 involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending. In turn, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 404.1 provides: ND Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or Jaw is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice oOo taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation: the convenience of oO parties, witnesses, and counsel: the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of 10 judicial facilities and manpower: the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or 11 judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. 12 13 Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 supplements Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 with respect to transfer and consolidation 14 of non-complex common issue actions filed in two (or more) courts. (See also Cal. Code Civ. P. 15 § 1048.) The rule provides the mechanics for transfer and consolidation, stating: 16 Rule 3.500. Transfer and consolidation of noncomplex common-issue actions filed in different courts 17 (a) Application 18 This rule applies when a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 is filed requesting transfer and consolidation of 19 noncomplex cases involving a common issue of fact or law filed in 20 different courts. 21 (b) Preliminary step 22 A party that intends to file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 must first make a good-faith effort to obtain agreement 23 of all parties to each case to the proposed transfer and 24 consolidation. 25 (c) Motion and hearing 26 A motion to transfer an action under Code of Civil Procedure 27 section 403 must conform to the requirements generally applicable to motions, and must be supported by a declaration stating facts 28 showing that: 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS (1) The actions are not complex; (2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and (3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion DW before the court. NY (d) Findings and order Oo If the court orders that the case or cases be transferred from oO another court, the order must specify the reasons supporting a 10 finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with 11 reference to the following standards: 12 (1) The actions are not complex; 13 (2) Whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; 14 15 (3) The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; 16 (4) The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; 17 18 (5) The efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources; 19 (6) The calendar of the courts; 20 (7) The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, 21 orders, or judgments; and 22 (8) The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. 23 24 25 IV. ARGUMENT 26 This Court should order the Los Angeles Action transferred to this Court and the 27 Los Angeles Action consolidated with this action (the Placer Action) because all the criteria set 28 forth Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 are met. These are, of course, factors, and 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS not every factor needs to be met to justify transfer and consolidation. See Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 218 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 185, 195, 11 Cal. App. Sth 626, 641 (2017) (indicating under a similar Cal. R. Ct. 3.400 analysis that no one factor is dispositive). A. Neither Action Is Complex Neither the Placer Action nor the Los Angeles Action is complex. Cal. R. Ct. 3- 400(a) defines a “complex case” as “an action that requires exceptional judicial management to DN avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep NN costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” Oo Criteria for determining whether a case is a complex cases include numerous pretrial motions oO 10 raising difficult or novel legal issues, management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial 11 amount of documentary evidence, large numbers of separately represented parties, coordination 12 with related actions, and substantial post judgment judicial supervision. (Cal. R. Ct. 3-400(b).) 13 None of those issues are a factor here in this simple contract dispute. 14 Examples of cases that are likely to be considered complex include antitrust or 15 trade regulation claims, construction defect claims involving many parties or structures; 16 securities claims or investment losses involving many parties; environmental or toxic tort claims 17 involving many parties; claims involving mass torts; claims involving class actions; or insurance 18 coverage claims relating to these sorts of cases. Cal. R. Ct. 3-400(c). Cases such as this one, 19 which are based on breach of contract, have none of the hallmarks of complex cases are not 20 complex cases. Because neither action is complex, this factor favors transfer and consolidation 21 of the actions into the existing Placer action. 22 B. Common Questions of Fact and Law Predominate 23 The two complaints are based on the same exact transaction, contract, and 24 demand for relief. They even have the same exact contract and modification attached as their 25 Exhibits A and B. (RJN Exhs. 3, 4, Exhs. A, B to each pleading.) 26 In the complaint it filed in Placer County, Pacific Union asserts it is entitled to 27 recover the $978,000 commission currently held by Terra Costal Escrow from the sale of 200 28 Toyopa Drive (the “Property”), pursuant to the Residential Listing Agreement which provided a 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS six percent (6%) commission to the listing agent. (RJN Exh. 3, J] 10-25, see also Residential Listing Agreement and extensions attached as Exhs. A and B to that pleading.) In the complaint he just filed in Los Angeles County, Erik Ludwick claims that commission should be refunded to him because of alleged improper acts by Pacific Union, its predecessor Partners Trust, and their agents during the sale of the Property. (RJN Exh. 4, J] 18-22; 25-30; 36-42; 46-53, see also Residential Listing Agreement and extensions attached as Exhs. A and B to that pleading.) Ludwick admits in Paragraph 53 of his Los Angeles Complaint that he is defending a lawsuit filed by Pacific Union in Placer County for recovery of the commission. (RJN Exh. 4, 9 53.) Ludwick’s complaint seeks recovery of the same commission, and simply 10 adds theories for why Ludwick should not have to pay Pacific Union the commission. This 11 offense as defense tactic would have been more appropriately accomplished in other ways, 12 without the drain on court resources of Ludwick filing an entirely separate lawsuit in a different 13 county. 14 Pacific Union, as successor in interest to Partners Trust, is a party to both 15 lawsuits. Ludwick and his trust are parties to both lawsuits. (RJN, captions for Exhs. 3, 4.) The 16 witnesses, (notably, Erik Ludwick, Pacific Union’s agent Madison Hildebrand, and Paul Booth, y who was the trustee of Ludwick’s trust at the time of the transaction and who signed the contract 18 and extensions at issue), are exactly the same. The two actions both arise from the same 19 transaction, contract, and set of facts, and center on the question of which party should recover 20 the commission monies for the sale of the Property. The key dispute in each lawsuit is whether 21 Mr. Ludwick owes Pacific Union compensation related to the sale of real property located at 200 30 Toyopa Drive in Pacific Palisades, California or not — and if so, how much. 23 Accordingly, because both complaints arise from the same exact dispute, this factor favors transfer and consolidation of the actions. 24 CG, The Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel Is Nota 25 Significant Factor 26 There are witnesses and relevant contacts in both Placer County and Los Angeles 27 County. As this Court found in denying the Ludwick Venue Motion, venue is proper in Placer 28 County because the trustee of the trust at issue in the two actions when the actions at issue were 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS taken resides in Placer County. Even though there are some witnesses and other relevant contacts in Los Angeles County, in today’s technological age that is not a factor to which significant weight is given. Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 218 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 185, 197, 11 Cal. App. 5th 626, 643 (2017) (rejecting superior court’s finding that the convenience of the patties, fF witnesses, and counsel was a significant factor because technological advancements, including WN electronic filing, email, telephonic appearances, and some judges’ willingness to resolve disputes DB informally through conference calls, made travel for many pretrial events unnecessary). See also NY Tech Tips from the Bench: An Interview with Hon. Emilie Elias, (Summer 2015) (on CO technological advances and convenience to parties, witnesses, and counsel); Cal. R. Ct. 3.670 Oo 10 (settling forth policy favoring telephonic appearances for many matters). Placer County utilizes 1 most of these technological tools. Despite Mr. Ludwick’s anticipated focus on this factor (as he 12 did in the Ludwick Venue Motion), this factor does not favor either Los Angeles County or 13 Placer County heavily. 14 D. The Current Relative Development of the Respective Actions and Work Product of Counsel Favor the Placer County Action 15 The Placer Action is set for jury trial on June 15, 2020. (RIN ¥ 5, Ex. 5.) In 16 17 contrast, the Los Angeles Action has just been filed and the initial case management conference will not take place until October 18, 2019. In Los Angeles County Superior Court, fewer than 18 49% of unlimited civil cases are terminated within 12 months. (RJN { 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from 19 2018 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California at 112).) In addition, the parties 20 have exchanged significant written discovery, deposed Paul Booth, and set the deposition of the 21 individual who verified Pacific Union’s discovery responses. This factor strongly favors transfer 22 and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action to Placer Superior Court. 23 E. The Efficient Utilization of Judicial Facilities and Staff Resources Favors 24 Placer County 25 In 2016-2017, there were a total of 249,944 unlimited civil filings in Los Angeles 26 County. (RJN 4 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from 2018 Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of 27 | California at 112).) In that same timeframe, there were only 4,809 unlimited civil filings in 28 Placer County. (Id.) This factor favors Placer County. 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS Bs The Respective Calendars of the Courts Favor Placer County This factor heavily favors transfer and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action. The Placer Action is set for jury trial on June 15, 2020. (RIN 45, Ex. 5.) In contrast, the Los Angeles Action has just been filed and the initial case management conference will not take place until October 18, 2019. In Los Angeles County Superior Court, fewer than 49% of unlimited civil cases are terminated within 12 months. (RJN § 6, Exh. 6 (excerpts from 2018 DD Court Statistics Report, Judicial Council of California at 132).) If trial is necessary, trial in NN Placer County will take place long before this case could be tried in Los Angeles County. CO G. The Disadvantages of Potential Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings. oO Orders, or Judgments Favor the Placer County Action 10 The disadvantages of potential duplicative and inconsistent rulings if the Los 11 Angeles Action is allowed to proceed simultaneously and cumulatively with the Placer Action 12 are a factor favoring transfer of the Los Angeles Action and its consolidation with this action. If 13 the Los Angeles Action is not transferred and consolidated with the Placer Action, every ruling 14 of this Court will be subject to some form of re-litigation and reconsideration in the Los Angeles 15 Superior Court. That is not in the interest of justice. This factor heavily favors transfer and 16 consolidation of the Los Angeles Action. 17 H. The Likelihood of Settlement of the Two Actions Without Further 18 Litigation Should Coordination Be Denied Favors the Placer Action 19 Settlement is more likely if the Los Angeles Action is transferred and 20 consolidated with the Placer Action, because the parties will not be wasting time and resources 21 litigating two separate lawsuits arising from the same facts. Denial of Pacific Union’s instant 22 transfer and consolidation motion will make the dispute between the parties exponentially more 23 difficult to settle because of the multiplicity of actions in two different counties over the same 24 dispute and subject matter. Granting Pacific Union’s instant transfer and consolidation motion 25 will force the parties to concentrate on their dispute in a single forum, narrow the issues, and 26 settle their difference by agreement or judicial decree. In contrast, allowing the Los Angeles 27 Action to proceed simultaneously with this action not only creates the danger of inconsistent 28 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS rulings, it will also allow Ludwick the opportunity to relitigate unfavorable rulings. This factor bw favors transfer and consolidation of the Los Angeles Action. I, Pacific Union Has Made a Good Faith Attempt To Obtain Consent To WW Transfer the Los Angeles Action to Placer County BR Pacific Union has made a good faith attempt to meet-and-confer with all other WN parties relative to the proposed transfer and consolidation of the two Actions. (Jones Decl., Ex. HD A.) The other parties would not agree to transfer and consolidation. (Jones Decl., Exh. B.) NT J. Pacific Union Has Notified All Parties of Their Obligation to Disclose to ee the Court Any Other Transfer Motions oOo Before Pacific Union filed this motion, Pacific Union notified all the other parties 10 of their obligation to disclose to this Court any other transfer motions that would be affected if 11 the Court grants this motion. (Jones Decl., Ex. C.) 12 V. CONCLUSION 13 Mr. Ludwick’s Los Angeles Action is an attempt to undo this Court’s order 14 denying the Ludwick Venue Motion. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 provide a 15 remedy: this Court should order the Los Angeles Action transferred to this Court and 16 consolidated or alternatively coordinated with this action. The criteria of Cal. Code Civ. P. § 403 17 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.500 favor transfer and consolidation, and the interests of justice and fair play 18 demand it. 19 For these reasons, Pacific Union moves the Court to transfer the Los Angeles 20 Action to this Court and to consolidate it with this pending action in Placer County Superior 21 Court, or alternatively to transfer and consolidate the actions, and for all other relief to which om Pacific Union is entitled at law, at equity, or otherwise. 23 Dated: September 4, 2019 SHANNON B. JONES KAW GROUP, INC. ‘pti 24 25 26 27 28 ND 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS PROOF OF SERVICE Dd WwW I, the undersigned, declare: Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 208 W. El Pintado Road, Danville, CA 94526. On September 4, 2019, I served the within document(s): Nn PLAINTIFF PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER sD ACTION FILED IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT TO THIS COURT AND TO CONSOLIDATE, OR ALTERNATIVELY COORDINATE, THE LOS ANGELES ACTION WITH THE PLACER COUNTY ACTION X____ by transmitting via email the above listed document(s) to the email address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. 10 11 X___ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Danville, California addressed as set forth below. 12 Attorneys for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The Co-Counsel for Defendants Evik Ludwick, The 13 Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of the Anything Trust the Anything Trust 14 . Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq. 15 Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. Aronowitz, Skidmore, Lyon Franklin T. Bigelow, Esq. 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 16 Law Offices of Michael A.J. Nangano Auburn, CA 95603 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Tel: (530) 823-9736 17 Pasadena, CA 91107 Fax: (530) 823-5241 Tel: (626) 796-9998 Iskidmore@asilaw.org 18 Fax: (626) 796-9992 19 mnangano@lacounsel.com 20 Civil Clerk Los Angeles Superior Court 21 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 111 North Hill Street 22 Los Angeles, CA 90012 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 above is true and correct. 25 Executed on September ba 2019, at Danville, California. 26 27 28 So MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS