Preview
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
Ben Nicholson, #239893 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
ben.nicholson@ mccormickbarstow.com Superior Court of California,
Alex N. Newsum, #312344
alex.newsum@ mccormickbarstow.com County of Placer
7647 North Fresno Street 03/22/2022 at 08:14:39 PM
Fresno, California 93720 By: Cristina ‘Vallan-Brown
Telephone: (559) 433-1300 Deputy Clerk
Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-D efendant
SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba
CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba Case No. S-CV-0045659
12 CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES, ,
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
13 Plaintiff, STATEMENT
14 Vv
15 PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, Date: April 1, 2022
INC. dba @ the Grounds, a Califomia Time: 8:30 am.
16 Corporation; and DOES 1-10,, Dept.: TBA
17 Defendant.
18
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
19
20
21 Plaintiff SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES
22 (referred to herein as “Plaintiff’) submit the following Settlement Conference Statement for the
23 Settlement Conference calendared for April 1, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.
24 It should be noted that the parties, through their respective counsel of record, have agreed to
25 continue the Settlement Conference and the trial date. Counsel are working on preparing a
26 stipulation and will file the same once prepared.
27 III
28 III
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Plaintiff SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES
is represented by Alex N. Newsum, who, if the Court allows, intends to appear at the Settlement
Conference remotely. Defendant PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, INC. dba @the
Grounds (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is represented by Robert F. Sinclair.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about November 20, 2019, Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with Defendant.
10 Pursuant to the aforementioned Agreement, Plaintiff acquired the right to schedule two Home &
11 Garden shows per year at the Placer County Fairgrounds between 2020 and 2025. As such, Plaintiff
12 paid Defendant a deposit and scheduled her first show, the Fine Living Expo, for August of 2020.
13 However, in early 2020, much of California shut-down due to the Coronavirus pandemic.
14 As Plaintiff expected her show to attract thousands of people Plaintiff realized that following
15 mandatory social distancing regulations and government orders would be impossible. Plaintiff
16 soughtto postpone her event. However, Defendant pressed Plaintiff to violate numerous state orders
17 and mislead state and local officials about the nature of the event so that it may go forward.
18 Despite being frustrated that her event had to be postponed, Plaintiff refused to mislead state
19 and local officials and to violate stay-at-home orders. A dditionally, Plaintiff received a written letter
20 on or about July 1, 2020, from Dr. Aimee Sission, the Public Health Director for Placer County,
21 advising Plaintiff that her event is “not permitted under the current statewide stay at home order.”
22 Plaintiffs Agreement contains a “force majeure” clause, which permits Plaintiffto apply her
23 deposit to future dates if it is cancelled due to acts of god including “government intervention” or
24 “other emergency.” The provision was triggered with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and
25 Plaintiff sought to prepare for the next show when it would be permitted to go forward.
26 Despite the Force Majeure provision in the Agreement , Defendant refused to acknowledge
27 the state and local orders and flat-out refused to follow the terms of the contract. Defendant instead
28 continued to urge Plaintiff to continue with her show and even threatened to cancel the A greement
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
2
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
if Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff declined to mislead government officials to circumvent
numerous state orders and, as a result, Defendant’s agent, David Attaway, purported to cancel
Plaintiff's Agreement and asserted that she no longer had the right to hold any events at the
Fairgrounds.
Defendant claimed it was cancelling the Facility License Agreement for not making
installment payments due February 28, 2020 and May 31, 2020. However, Plaintiff was excused
from making the payments due to (1) the Covid-19 pandemic and (2) Defendants own
communications which waived strict compliance with payment terms since Defendant knew about
the payments and continued to urge Plaintiff to perform under the contract notwithstanding the non-
10 payment. Further, evidence demonstrates that neither of the terms that Plaintiff allegedly breached
11 were material and, as such, they do not preclude Plaintiff from recovering in this action.
12
LAW AND ANALYSIS
13
A Defendant Breached the Facility License Agreement
14
15 It is undisputed that Defendant repudiated and “cancelled” the Facility License A greement
16 in July of 2020. Defendant did so under the pretext that installment payments due in February 28,
17 2020 and May 31, 2020 were not made. However, Plaintiff was excused from making those
18 payments due to Defendant’s waiver of the same.
19 The issue of “waiver” in this context is not to be confused with the affirmative defense of
20 waiver. When placed at issue by Plaintiff, the waiver of conditions precedent to performance by
21 contracting parties is an element of a cause of action for breach of contract.
22 “It is, of course, well settled that a contracting party may waive provisions placed in a
23 contract solely for his benefit.” (Isaacson v. G.D. Robertson & Co. (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 71, 75.)
24 “A waiver can be expressly stated or implied by conduct...” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019)
25 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1087.) The right to rescind an agreement may be waived, for example, by
26 recognizing the contract as having continuing effect. (See DuBeck v. California Physicians’ Service
27 (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1265.) “Waiver is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact.” Ibid.
28 Since the inception of this action, Plaintiff has consistently alleged that she “performed all
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
3
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
duties, covenants, conditions, promises and obligations required to be performed under the
Agreement, except for those excused, waived or prevented by the acts or omissions of
Defendants.” (Complaint, 419.) In discovery, Plaintiff has disclosed several times that she was
excused from performance of the February and May installment payments because Defendant
waived the right to claim breach due to Defendant’s insistence that she continue to perform after
and with knowledge of the missed payments.
When Defendant did actually demand payment, on June 30, 2020, payment of the
installments would have been an idle act because the event could not go forward due to COVID-19.
The Facility License Agreement contains a “Force Majeure” clause at Item 11 which states,
10 as follows:
11 “The ability to execute this Agreement by either party is subject to the Acts of God,
including but not limited to hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, fires, power outages,
12 etc., as well as any government intervention, staff disputes, strikes, civil disorders,
terrorism, or other emergencies. Should the event be canceled through a Force
13
14
)
Majeure event, all fees pai by Licensee to ATG will be retumed to Licensee within
(30) days, other than the non-refundable deposit which may be applied to future
dated. (sic).” (See Exh. A [Item 11, p. 14] to Larsen Decl.) (Emphasis A dded.)
15 On January 31, 2020, Alex M. Azar II, who at that time was the Secretary of Health and
16 Human Services for the United States of America, issued a Declaration that a Public Health
17 Emergency Exists pursuant to his authority under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act. The
18 Declaration states, unequivocally, that “a public health emergency exists and has existed since
19 January 27, 2020, nationwide.” This was prior to the due date of the February payment regardless
20 of whether you use the February 1, 2020 or February 28, 2020 date.
21 By February 28, 2020, it was clear that mass gatherings were under threat from regulation.
22 In fact, two days prior, on February 26, 2020, Plaintiff cancelled her separate Flower Show planned
23 for
A pril of 2020. On March 3, 2020, Placer County issued its Placer County Proclamation Of Local
24 Emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. By March 12, 2020, the Govemor of California
25 issued Executive Order N-25-20 which specifically authorized state and local public health officials
26 to issue guidance “limiting or recommending limitations upon attendance at public assemblies,
27 conferences, or other mass events, which can cause the cancellation of such gatherings through no
28 fault or responsibility of the parties involved, thereby constituting a force majeure...”
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
4
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Indeed, the State of California and Placer County specifically did implement guidance which
did cause the cancellation of such gatherings in Placer County. Even though the parties dispute
whether Plaintiff could have held her event, Cheryl Goldfarb, agent of Defendant, acknowledged
on June 26, 2020 that the guidance for destination retail and swap meets precluded the show as
Plaintiff planned to organize it. David A ttaway, CEO of Defendant, acknowledged that aspects of
Plaintiff's planned event could not proceed in August of 2020. In April of 2020, Defendant itself
cancelled its events scheduled for June of 2020.
Defendant argues that the breach occurred prior to Governor Newsom’s executive Order
and, as such, it doesn’t matter that the event was later cancelled. There are multiple problems with
10 this argument. For one, the COVID-19 emergency existed priorto Governor Newsom’s March 12,
11 2020 Executive Order. As stated, on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Secretary of Health declared that a
12 public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020 nationwide.
13 The other issue with Defendant’s argument is that it ignores the fact that Defendant did not
14 request or demand payment until June 30, 2020. This is significant because Plaintiff contends
15 Defendant waived strict compliance with the payment terms and Plaintiff was therefore excused
16 from making those installment payments on February 28, 2020 and May 31, 2020, respectively.
17 Thus, by the time Defendant actually demanded the February and May installment payments, it was
18 extremely clear the August 2020 show would not be able to lawfully proceed. On July 1, 2020, the
19 Public Health Director for Placer County at the time, Aimee Sisson, MD, told Plaintiff that she
20 believed Plaintiff's event was not permissible under the State of California 9gs &, ‘stay at home” order
21 or under Statewide shopping center guidance.
22 Defendant also argues that the contract only states “all fees paid by Licensee to ATG will be
23 returned to Licensee within (30) days...” not that payments can be withheld. Courts should avoid
24 interpretations that create absurd or unreasonable results. (Civ. Code, § 1638; Sequeira v. Lincoln
25 National Life Ins. Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1445.) The only reasonable interpretation is
26 that the term calls for payments to be retumed within 30 days of the cancellation. As stated, the
27 cancellation of Plaintiff's August show was clear for several months prior to Defendant’s June 30"
28 payment demand. Why then would Plaintiff make installment payments to Defendant in July of
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
5
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
2020 when the contract calls for installment payments to be retumed 30 days after cancellation
which already happened months prior? Such an interpretation is absurd and unreasonable.
The foregoing shows that Defendant breached the contract and are liable for all damages
caused thereby. Plaintiff has produced damage information in discovery and will prepared to discuss
damages in detail at the Settlement Conference.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff welcomes any and all efforts by the Settlement Conference Judge to assist the
Parties with reaching a resolution in this matter.
10
11 Dated: March 22, 2022 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
12
13
14
By: fh.Ben Nicholson
Alex N. Newsum
15
Attomeys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant SHERRY
16 LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE
ENTERPRISES
17
039274-000000 8291630.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
6
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
Larsen v. Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc., et al
Case No. S-CV-0045659
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
At the time of service, I was over 18
employed in the County of Fresno, State of C al ears of
fornia.
age and not a party to this action. | am
My business address is 7647 North Fresno
Street, Fresno, CA 93720
On March 22, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as
follows
Robert F. Sinclair
SINCLAIR WILSON BALDO &
CHAMBERLAIN
10 2390 Professional Drive
Roseville, CA 95661
11 Tel: 916-783-5281
Fax: 916-783-5232
12 E-mail: rsinclain@ swbclaw.com
13 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-C omplainant
PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX
14 INC. dba @ the Grounds
15 BY MAIL I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing,
16 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondence is
17 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service, in a seale envelope with postage fully prepaid.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
19 is true and correct.
20 Executed on March 22, 2022, at Fresno, California.
21
22
Elizabeth M. Abina
23
24
25
26
27
28
McCormick, BARSTOW,
‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
7
FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Preview
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP Ben Nicholson, #239893 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ben.nicholson@ mccormickbarstow.com Superior Court of California, Alex N. Newsum, #312344 alex.newsum@ mccormickbarstow.com County of Placer 7647 North Fresno Street 03/22/2022 at 08:14:39 PM Fresno, California 93720 By: Cristina ‘Vallan-Brown Telephone: (559) 433-1300 Deputy Clerk Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-D efendant SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba Case No. S-CV-0045659 12 CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES, , SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 13 Plaintiff, STATEMENT 14 Vv 15 PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, Date: April 1, 2022 INC. dba @ the Grounds, a Califomia Time: 8:30 am. 16 Corporation; and DOES 1-10,, Dept.: TBA 17 Defendant. 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 19 20 21 Plaintiff SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES 22 (referred to herein as “Plaintiff’) submit the following Settlement Conference Statement for the 23 Settlement Conference calendared for April 1, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. 24 It should be noted that the parties, through their respective counsel of record, have agreed to 25 continue the Settlement Conference and the trial date. Counsel are working on preparing a 26 stipulation and will file the same once prepared. 27 III 28 III McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PARTIES AND COUNSEL Plaintiff SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES is represented by Alex N. Newsum, who, if the Court allows, intends to appear at the Settlement Conference remotely. Defendant PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, INC. dba @the Grounds (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is represented by Robert F. Sinclair. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about November 20, 2019, Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with Defendant. 10 Pursuant to the aforementioned Agreement, Plaintiff acquired the right to schedule two Home & 11 Garden shows per year at the Placer County Fairgrounds between 2020 and 2025. As such, Plaintiff 12 paid Defendant a deposit and scheduled her first show, the Fine Living Expo, for August of 2020. 13 However, in early 2020, much of California shut-down due to the Coronavirus pandemic. 14 As Plaintiff expected her show to attract thousands of people Plaintiff realized that following 15 mandatory social distancing regulations and government orders would be impossible. Plaintiff 16 soughtto postpone her event. However, Defendant pressed Plaintiff to violate numerous state orders 17 and mislead state and local officials about the nature of the event so that it may go forward. 18 Despite being frustrated that her event had to be postponed, Plaintiff refused to mislead state 19 and local officials and to violate stay-at-home orders. A dditionally, Plaintiff received a written letter 20 on or about July 1, 2020, from Dr. Aimee Sission, the Public Health Director for Placer County, 21 advising Plaintiff that her event is “not permitted under the current statewide stay at home order.” 22 Plaintiffs Agreement contains a “force majeure” clause, which permits Plaintiffto apply her 23 deposit to future dates if it is cancelled due to acts of god including “government intervention” or 24 “other emergency.” The provision was triggered with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 25 Plaintiff sought to prepare for the next show when it would be permitted to go forward. 26 Despite the Force Majeure provision in the Agreement , Defendant refused to acknowledge 27 the state and local orders and flat-out refused to follow the terms of the contract. Defendant instead 28 continued to urge Plaintiff to continue with her show and even threatened to cancel the A greement McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 2 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT if Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff declined to mislead government officials to circumvent numerous state orders and, as a result, Defendant’s agent, David Attaway, purported to cancel Plaintiff's Agreement and asserted that she no longer had the right to hold any events at the Fairgrounds. Defendant claimed it was cancelling the Facility License Agreement for not making installment payments due February 28, 2020 and May 31, 2020. However, Plaintiff was excused from making the payments due to (1) the Covid-19 pandemic and (2) Defendants own communications which waived strict compliance with payment terms since Defendant knew about the payments and continued to urge Plaintiff to perform under the contract notwithstanding the non- 10 payment. Further, evidence demonstrates that neither of the terms that Plaintiff allegedly breached 11 were material and, as such, they do not preclude Plaintiff from recovering in this action. 12 LAW AND ANALYSIS 13 A Defendant Breached the Facility License Agreement 14 15 It is undisputed that Defendant repudiated and “cancelled” the Facility License A greement 16 in July of 2020. Defendant did so under the pretext that installment payments due in February 28, 17 2020 and May 31, 2020 were not made. However, Plaintiff was excused from making those 18 payments due to Defendant’s waiver of the same. 19 The issue of “waiver” in this context is not to be confused with the affirmative defense of 20 waiver. When placed at issue by Plaintiff, the waiver of conditions precedent to performance by 21 contracting parties is an element of a cause of action for breach of contract. 22 “It is, of course, well settled that a contracting party may waive provisions placed in a 23 contract solely for his benefit.” (Isaacson v. G.D. Robertson & Co. (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 71, 75.) 24 “A waiver can be expressly stated or implied by conduct...” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 25 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1087.) The right to rescind an agreement may be waived, for example, by 26 recognizing the contract as having continuing effect. (See DuBeck v. California Physicians’ Service 27 (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1265.) “Waiver is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact.” Ibid. 28 Since the inception of this action, Plaintiff has consistently alleged that she “performed all McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 3 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT duties, covenants, conditions, promises and obligations required to be performed under the Agreement, except for those excused, waived or prevented by the acts or omissions of Defendants.” (Complaint, 419.) In discovery, Plaintiff has disclosed several times that she was excused from performance of the February and May installment payments because Defendant waived the right to claim breach due to Defendant’s insistence that she continue to perform after and with knowledge of the missed payments. When Defendant did actually demand payment, on June 30, 2020, payment of the installments would have been an idle act because the event could not go forward due to COVID-19. The Facility License Agreement contains a “Force Majeure” clause at Item 11 which states, 10 as follows: 11 “The ability to execute this Agreement by either party is subject to the Acts of God, including but not limited to hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, fires, power outages, 12 etc., as well as any government intervention, staff disputes, strikes, civil disorders, terrorism, or other emergencies. Should the event be canceled through a Force 13 14 ) Majeure event, all fees pai by Licensee to ATG will be retumed to Licensee within (30) days, other than the non-refundable deposit which may be applied to future dated. (sic).” (See Exh. A [Item 11, p. 14] to Larsen Decl.) (Emphasis A dded.) 15 On January 31, 2020, Alex M. Azar II, who at that time was the Secretary of Health and 16 Human Services for the United States of America, issued a Declaration that a Public Health 17 Emergency Exists pursuant to his authority under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act. The 18 Declaration states, unequivocally, that “a public health emergency exists and has existed since 19 January 27, 2020, nationwide.” This was prior to the due date of the February payment regardless 20 of whether you use the February 1, 2020 or February 28, 2020 date. 21 By February 28, 2020, it was clear that mass gatherings were under threat from regulation. 22 In fact, two days prior, on February 26, 2020, Plaintiff cancelled her separate Flower Show planned 23 for A pril of 2020. On March 3, 2020, Placer County issued its Placer County Proclamation Of Local 24 Emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. By March 12, 2020, the Govemor of California 25 issued Executive Order N-25-20 which specifically authorized state and local public health officials 26 to issue guidance “limiting or recommending limitations upon attendance at public assemblies, 27 conferences, or other mass events, which can cause the cancellation of such gatherings through no 28 fault or responsibility of the parties involved, thereby constituting a force majeure...” McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 4 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Indeed, the State of California and Placer County specifically did implement guidance which did cause the cancellation of such gatherings in Placer County. Even though the parties dispute whether Plaintiff could have held her event, Cheryl Goldfarb, agent of Defendant, acknowledged on June 26, 2020 that the guidance for destination retail and swap meets precluded the show as Plaintiff planned to organize it. David A ttaway, CEO of Defendant, acknowledged that aspects of Plaintiff's planned event could not proceed in August of 2020. In April of 2020, Defendant itself cancelled its events scheduled for June of 2020. Defendant argues that the breach occurred prior to Governor Newsom’s executive Order and, as such, it doesn’t matter that the event was later cancelled. There are multiple problems with 10 this argument. For one, the COVID-19 emergency existed priorto Governor Newsom’s March 12, 11 2020 Executive Order. As stated, on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Secretary of Health declared that a 12 public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020 nationwide. 13 The other issue with Defendant’s argument is that it ignores the fact that Defendant did not 14 request or demand payment until June 30, 2020. This is significant because Plaintiff contends 15 Defendant waived strict compliance with the payment terms and Plaintiff was therefore excused 16 from making those installment payments on February 28, 2020 and May 31, 2020, respectively. 17 Thus, by the time Defendant actually demanded the February and May installment payments, it was 18 extremely clear the August 2020 show would not be able to lawfully proceed. On July 1, 2020, the 19 Public Health Director for Placer County at the time, Aimee Sisson, MD, told Plaintiff that she 20 believed Plaintiff's event was not permissible under the State of California 9gs &, ‘stay at home” order 21 or under Statewide shopping center guidance. 22 Defendant also argues that the contract only states “all fees paid by Licensee to ATG will be 23 returned to Licensee within (30) days...” not that payments can be withheld. Courts should avoid 24 interpretations that create absurd or unreasonable results. (Civ. Code, § 1638; Sequeira v. Lincoln 25 National Life Ins. Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1445.) The only reasonable interpretation is 26 that the term calls for payments to be retumed within 30 days of the cancellation. As stated, the 27 cancellation of Plaintiff's August show was clear for several months prior to Defendant’s June 30" 28 payment demand. Why then would Plaintiff make installment payments to Defendant in July of McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 5 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 2020 when the contract calls for installment payments to be retumed 30 days after cancellation which already happened months prior? Such an interpretation is absurd and unreasonable. The foregoing shows that Defendant breached the contract and are liable for all damages caused thereby. Plaintiff has produced damage information in discovery and will prepared to discuss damages in detail at the Settlement Conference. CONCLUSION Plaintiff welcomes any and all efforts by the Settlement Conference Judge to assist the Parties with reaching a resolution in this matter. 10 11 Dated: March 22, 2022 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 12 13 14 By: fh.Ben Nicholson Alex N. Newsum 15 Attomeys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant SHERRY 16 LARSEN, individually and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES 17 039274-000000 8291630.1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 6 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PROOF OF SERVICE Larsen v. Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc., et al Case No. S-CV-0045659 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO At the time of service, I was over 18 employed in the County of Fresno, State of C al ears of fornia. age and not a party to this action. | am My business address is 7647 North Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93720 On March 22, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows Robert F. Sinclair SINCLAIR WILSON BALDO & CHAMBERLAIN 10 2390 Professional Drive Roseville, CA 95661 11 Tel: 916-783-5281 Fax: 916-783-5232 12 E-mail: rsinclain@ swbclaw.com 13 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-C omplainant PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX 14 INC. dba @ the Grounds 15 BY MAIL I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, 16 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondence is 17 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a seale envelope with postage fully prepaid. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 19 is true and correct. 20 Executed on March 22, 2022, at Fresno, California. 21 22 Elizabeth M. Abina 23 24 25 26 27 28 McCormick, BARSTOW, ‘SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET 7 FRESNO, cA‘ 720 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT