Preview
1 Christopher J. Fry, Esq. (SBN: 298874)
Email: cfry@frylawcorp.com
2 Kristine Du, Esq. (SBN: 338095)
Email: kdu@frylawcorp.com
3 FRY LAW CORPORATION
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
4 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 291-0700
5 Facsimile: (916) 848-0256
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SHERRY LARSEN and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
12 SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CASE NO.: S-CV-0045659
CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES,
13 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J.
Plaintiff, FRY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
14 REOPEN DISCOVERY; IN THE
vs. ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
15 RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO SET
PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, ASIDE/MODIFY THE COURT’S
16 INC. dba @the Grounds, a California PREVIOUS TRIAL SETTING ORDER
Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17 Date: February 21, 2023
Defendants.
18 Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Dept.: 31
20 Trial: April 3, 2023
21 Action Filed: October 2, 2020
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
1 I, Christopher J. Fry, hereby declare and state as follows:
2 I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff herein. I am duly licensed to practice before
3 the Courts of the State of California, including this Honorable Court. If called to do so, I
4 could, and would, testify to the matters contained herein of my own personal knowledge,
5 except as to those matters which are stated upon information and belief, and as to those
6 matters, I believe them to be true.
7 This is a complicated contract case. It has not been pending long. Discovery has
8 not been extensive. Plaintiff was in pro per for a lengthy amount of time. Plaintiff only
9 recently retained current counsel. During her time in pro per, Plaintiff was unable to
10 produce her expert for deposition nor was she able to attend her own deposition. Taking
11 advantage of this, Defendant submitted a motion in limine to exclude both her expert and
12 even her from testifying. The granting of this motion will effectively summarily adjudicate,
13 what is a meritorious case, for Defendant.
14 Plaintiff alleges Defendant cancelled the Facility License Agreement and Plaintiff’s
15 5-year exclusive rights to hold events at the Placer County Fairgrounds in 2020 because
16 she refused to hold the event during the global pandemic and in violation of government
17 orders barring such events from taking place. Plaintiff lost over $1M in revenue, interest,
18 and attorney fees. The case has merit and trial preparation, including the appropriate
19 discovery, should be ensured.
20 Plaintiff agreed to two (2) continuances of trial (and related dates) that were
21 requested by Defendant with little to no objection. The case was ultimately set for trial on
22 November 14, 2022. Defendant served two (2) notices of deposition on July 19, 2022.
23 They were not received by Plaintiff for over a week. The first, for Plaintiff’s second (2nd)
24 session and the second, for Plaintiff’s disclosed expert’s deposition. They were set for
25 less than two weeks away.
26 Prior to the deposition, Plaintiff, in pro per, notified Defendant that her expert was
27 unable to be produced at that time. She also subsequently advised Defendant that she
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
1
1 herself was unavailable for her deposition. She was preparing for a show and was
2 devoted to that. She offered to appear just after the show, which was roughly a week after
3 the original noticed date. She was unable to notify her expert in time as the notices were
4 received too close to the deposition date. She proposed new dates and asked that her
5 expert appear by Zoom or at a place closer to his residence in Palm Springs, California.
6 Defendant refused to offer any accommodations or continue that meet and confer
7 attempt. The conversation stopped there, and Defendant failed to file any motions to
8 compel with respect to these depositions despite having sufficient time based on the
9 November trial date. Defendant intended to use this technical violation to its advantage.
10 Predictably, Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony by either
11 Plaintiff, or her expert, effectively dismissing the case. This is not what the Court should
12 have in mind for allowing litigants to “have their day in Court.” Plaintiff asks the Court to
13 reopen discovery so as to allow Plaintiff to have her second deposition session and so
14 that she can produce her expert witness for deposition.
15 The testimony from Plaintiff and her expert is critical to her case. Allowing these
16 depositions to happen will cause absolutely no prejudice as they can easily be done and
17 will only serve to clarify the claims and potentially even prompt settlement discussions.
18 I have met and conferred ad nauseum to attempt to obtain a stipulation and avoid
19 the need to take the Court’s time but said attempts have been steadfastly rejected by
20 Defendant. Plaintiff brings this motion as a result of said refusal to offer any solutions at
21 all by Defendant.
22 Plaintiff’s expert will testify as to the extensive damages suffered by Plaintiff. These
23 damages are for lost profits from being barred from holding events after the Covid
24 pandemic settled down and businesses were allowed to re-open. These damages are
25 difficult to understand and quantify, as such, an expert will assist the jury in deciding how
26 much to award Plaintiff.
27 Plaintiff’s testimony is obvious, she must be able to testify as to the facts and
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
2
1 circumstances surrounding this dispute. If the Defendant needs the second session,
2 Plaintiff will oblige so as to allow everyone to be prepared for trial and possibly prompt
3 settlement discussions.
4 Without this discovery, Defendant’s motion in limine is very likely to be granted,
5 barring both Plaintiff and her expert from testifying, effectively destroying any chance of
6 putting on her case.
7 As set forth above, Plaintiff stipulated twice, at the request of Defendant, to
8 continue the trial and related dates. She probably would have again if necessary. She
9 also spent considerable time attempting to meet and confer with Defendant to get the
10 depositions done. Instead of attempting to resolve the issue, Defendant merely said “my
11 way or the highway.”
12 Defendant has shown a pattern of simply saying “no.” Before this motion, Plaintiff
13 sought to obtain a stipulation to continue the trial and related deadlines before the
14 November 14 trial date. Defendant’s response: No. Plaintiff filed the motion to continue.
15 Defendant’s response to shortening time on that motion: No. Plaintiff filed the ex parte
16 application to shorten time. Plaintiff then offered up herself and her expert for deposition
17 while the motions were pending. Defendant’s response: No. The case trailed, the Court
18 ordered the parties to meet and confer on trial dates. Plaintiff proposed dates,
19 Defendant’s response: No. Finally, before filing this motion, Plaintiff asked for a
20 stipulation, Defendant’s response: No. After filing the original motion, Plaintiff offered up
21 the witnesses to avoid the need for this motion at all, Defendant’s response: No.
22 It is obviously Defendant’s prerogative to decline, but to wholly refuse any attempt
23 to save the Court’s time on issues such as these, and then attempt to use them to its
24 advantage is a bit absurd. Defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the
25 situation in this manner.
26 Plaintiff was representing herself at the time and was not aware of the possible
27 ramifications for not attending her deposition nor was she aware of the ramifications of
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
3
1 her not producing her expert. Had she known, she would have attempted to meet and
2 confer even more (though based on Defendant’s conduct to date, it is doubtful it would
3 have been fruitful).
4 This motion is timely. The Court just continued trial to April 3, 2023. This order was
5 issued on December 9, 2022, roughly a month ago. Plaintiff tried to file the motion before
6 but for some reason, the papers were rejected and Plaintiff was only made aware in the
7 tentative ruling on that motion. This motion could not have been brought sooner.
8 This case is substantially prepared for trial. The only remaining discovery should
9 consist of two (2) depositions, with one likely being a half-day, and the other being less
10 than an hour (expert). These can be set for and completed on the same day. If the Court
11 grants this motion, there will be roughly sixty (60) days to get this done before the new
12 discovery cutoff.
13 There is no prejudice. Defendant was prepared to and likely expected to take these
14 depositions. They will likely take less than one (1) day. Depositions are part of the litigation
15 process and in no way hurt or harm litigants. There is plenty of time to conduct them
16 before the new discovery cutoff.
17 On approximately November 1, 2022, Plaintiff, representing herself in pro per,
18 requested Defendant stipulate to continue trial while she finds counsel. Defendant
19 rejected her request despite Plaintiff granting its previous two (2) requests to continue
20 trial and related deadlines.
21 I was retained on November 9, 2022. On November 9, 2022, I wrote Defendant to
22 request a stipulation to continue the November 14, 2022, trial and related dates. I did not
23 hear back.
24 On November 10, 2022, I followed up with Defendant. I was finally responded to,
25 and my request was denied. Plaintiff filed the motion to continue trial and related dates.
26 On November 15, 2022, I notified Defendant that an ex parte application to shorten
27 time was forthcoming if a stipulation was not agreed to. I was ignored. Plaintiff filed the
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
4
1 ex parte application to shorten time (granted).
2 On November 19, 2022, I formally offered Plaintiff and her expert for deposition.
3 Defendant ignored the offer.
4 On November 30, 2022, I spoke with Defense counsel and 1) offered up Plaintiff
5 and her expert and 2) proposed trial dates. I was not provided with a response to either.
6 On December 9, 2022, the Court granted the motion and set the case for April 3,
7 2023. On that same day, I wrote Defense counsel to request a stipulation to re-open
8 discovery. I also again offered up Plaintiff and her expert for depositions. Defendant
9 ignored Plaintiff’s request. A motion was previously filed, Defendant opposed, but the
10 motion was apparently never received by the Court. This motion follows.
11 I Declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that
12 the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.
13
14 DATED: January 18, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
15
FRY LAW CORPORATION
16
17
18 By:_________________________________
Christopher J. Fry, Esq.
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
5
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
3
I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age
4 of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 980 9th Street, 16th
Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. On January 18, 2023, I served the foregoing
5 document(s) described as:
6
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN
7 DISCOVERY; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR
TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE COURT’S PREVIOUS TRIAL SETTING ORDER
8
On all interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
9
Defendant Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc.:
10
Sinclair Wilson, et al.
11 Robert F. Sinclair, Esq.
2390 Professional Drive
12 Roseville, CA 95661
Email: rsinclair@swbclaw.com
13
14 [X] BY PRIORITY MAIL AND ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused such
documents to be mailed priority and emailed to the email address above. I did not
15 receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16
17 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
18 of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 18, 2023, at
Sacramento, California.
19
20
21 ____________________
Christopher J. Fry
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY
6
Preview
1 Christopher J. Fry, Esq. (SBN: 298874) Email: cfry@frylawcorp.com 2 Kristine Du, Esq. (SBN: 338095) Email: kdu@frylawcorp.com 3 FRY LAW CORPORATION 980 9th Street, 16th Floor 4 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 291-0700 5 Facsimile: (916) 848-0256 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERRY LARSEN and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 12 SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CASE NO.: S-CV-0045659 CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES, 13 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. Plaintiff, FRY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 14 REOPEN DISCOVERY; IN THE vs. ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR 15 RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO SET PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, ASIDE/MODIFY THE COURT’S 16 INC. dba @the Grounds, a California PREVIOUS TRIAL SETTING ORDER Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Date: February 21, 2023 Defendants. 18 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Dept.: 31 20 Trial: April 3, 2023 21 Action Filed: October 2, 2020 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 1 I, Christopher J. Fry, hereby declare and state as follows: 2 I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff herein. I am duly licensed to practice before 3 the Courts of the State of California, including this Honorable Court. If called to do so, I 4 could, and would, testify to the matters contained herein of my own personal knowledge, 5 except as to those matters which are stated upon information and belief, and as to those 6 matters, I believe them to be true. 7 This is a complicated contract case. It has not been pending long. Discovery has 8 not been extensive. Plaintiff was in pro per for a lengthy amount of time. Plaintiff only 9 recently retained current counsel. During her time in pro per, Plaintiff was unable to 10 produce her expert for deposition nor was she able to attend her own deposition. Taking 11 advantage of this, Defendant submitted a motion in limine to exclude both her expert and 12 even her from testifying. The granting of this motion will effectively summarily adjudicate, 13 what is a meritorious case, for Defendant. 14 Plaintiff alleges Defendant cancelled the Facility License Agreement and Plaintiff’s 15 5-year exclusive rights to hold events at the Placer County Fairgrounds in 2020 because 16 she refused to hold the event during the global pandemic and in violation of government 17 orders barring such events from taking place. Plaintiff lost over $1M in revenue, interest, 18 and attorney fees. The case has merit and trial preparation, including the appropriate 19 discovery, should be ensured. 20 Plaintiff agreed to two (2) continuances of trial (and related dates) that were 21 requested by Defendant with little to no objection. The case was ultimately set for trial on 22 November 14, 2022. Defendant served two (2) notices of deposition on July 19, 2022. 23 They were not received by Plaintiff for over a week. The first, for Plaintiff’s second (2nd) 24 session and the second, for Plaintiff’s disclosed expert’s deposition. They were set for 25 less than two weeks away. 26 Prior to the deposition, Plaintiff, in pro per, notified Defendant that her expert was 27 unable to be produced at that time. She also subsequently advised Defendant that she 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 1 1 herself was unavailable for her deposition. She was preparing for a show and was 2 devoted to that. She offered to appear just after the show, which was roughly a week after 3 the original noticed date. She was unable to notify her expert in time as the notices were 4 received too close to the deposition date. She proposed new dates and asked that her 5 expert appear by Zoom or at a place closer to his residence in Palm Springs, California. 6 Defendant refused to offer any accommodations or continue that meet and confer 7 attempt. The conversation stopped there, and Defendant failed to file any motions to 8 compel with respect to these depositions despite having sufficient time based on the 9 November trial date. Defendant intended to use this technical violation to its advantage. 10 Predictably, Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony by either 11 Plaintiff, or her expert, effectively dismissing the case. This is not what the Court should 12 have in mind for allowing litigants to “have their day in Court.” Plaintiff asks the Court to 13 reopen discovery so as to allow Plaintiff to have her second deposition session and so 14 that she can produce her expert witness for deposition. 15 The testimony from Plaintiff and her expert is critical to her case. Allowing these 16 depositions to happen will cause absolutely no prejudice as they can easily be done and 17 will only serve to clarify the claims and potentially even prompt settlement discussions. 18 I have met and conferred ad nauseum to attempt to obtain a stipulation and avoid 19 the need to take the Court’s time but said attempts have been steadfastly rejected by 20 Defendant. Plaintiff brings this motion as a result of said refusal to offer any solutions at 21 all by Defendant. 22 Plaintiff’s expert will testify as to the extensive damages suffered by Plaintiff. These 23 damages are for lost profits from being barred from holding events after the Covid 24 pandemic settled down and businesses were allowed to re-open. These damages are 25 difficult to understand and quantify, as such, an expert will assist the jury in deciding how 26 much to award Plaintiff. 27 Plaintiff’s testimony is obvious, she must be able to testify as to the facts and 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 2 1 circumstances surrounding this dispute. If the Defendant needs the second session, 2 Plaintiff will oblige so as to allow everyone to be prepared for trial and possibly prompt 3 settlement discussions. 4 Without this discovery, Defendant’s motion in limine is very likely to be granted, 5 barring both Plaintiff and her expert from testifying, effectively destroying any chance of 6 putting on her case. 7 As set forth above, Plaintiff stipulated twice, at the request of Defendant, to 8 continue the trial and related dates. She probably would have again if necessary. She 9 also spent considerable time attempting to meet and confer with Defendant to get the 10 depositions done. Instead of attempting to resolve the issue, Defendant merely said “my 11 way or the highway.” 12 Defendant has shown a pattern of simply saying “no.” Before this motion, Plaintiff 13 sought to obtain a stipulation to continue the trial and related deadlines before the 14 November 14 trial date. Defendant’s response: No. Plaintiff filed the motion to continue. 15 Defendant’s response to shortening time on that motion: No. Plaintiff filed the ex parte 16 application to shorten time. Plaintiff then offered up herself and her expert for deposition 17 while the motions were pending. Defendant’s response: No. The case trailed, the Court 18 ordered the parties to meet and confer on trial dates. Plaintiff proposed dates, 19 Defendant’s response: No. Finally, before filing this motion, Plaintiff asked for a 20 stipulation, Defendant’s response: No. After filing the original motion, Plaintiff offered up 21 the witnesses to avoid the need for this motion at all, Defendant’s response: No. 22 It is obviously Defendant’s prerogative to decline, but to wholly refuse any attempt 23 to save the Court’s time on issues such as these, and then attempt to use them to its 24 advantage is a bit absurd. Defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the 25 situation in this manner. 26 Plaintiff was representing herself at the time and was not aware of the possible 27 ramifications for not attending her deposition nor was she aware of the ramifications of 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 3 1 her not producing her expert. Had she known, she would have attempted to meet and 2 confer even more (though based on Defendant’s conduct to date, it is doubtful it would 3 have been fruitful). 4 This motion is timely. The Court just continued trial to April 3, 2023. This order was 5 issued on December 9, 2022, roughly a month ago. Plaintiff tried to file the motion before 6 but for some reason, the papers were rejected and Plaintiff was only made aware in the 7 tentative ruling on that motion. This motion could not have been brought sooner. 8 This case is substantially prepared for trial. The only remaining discovery should 9 consist of two (2) depositions, with one likely being a half-day, and the other being less 10 than an hour (expert). These can be set for and completed on the same day. If the Court 11 grants this motion, there will be roughly sixty (60) days to get this done before the new 12 discovery cutoff. 13 There is no prejudice. Defendant was prepared to and likely expected to take these 14 depositions. They will likely take less than one (1) day. Depositions are part of the litigation 15 process and in no way hurt or harm litigants. There is plenty of time to conduct them 16 before the new discovery cutoff. 17 On approximately November 1, 2022, Plaintiff, representing herself in pro per, 18 requested Defendant stipulate to continue trial while she finds counsel. Defendant 19 rejected her request despite Plaintiff granting its previous two (2) requests to continue 20 trial and related deadlines. 21 I was retained on November 9, 2022. On November 9, 2022, I wrote Defendant to 22 request a stipulation to continue the November 14, 2022, trial and related dates. I did not 23 hear back. 24 On November 10, 2022, I followed up with Defendant. I was finally responded to, 25 and my request was denied. Plaintiff filed the motion to continue trial and related dates. 26 On November 15, 2022, I notified Defendant that an ex parte application to shorten 27 time was forthcoming if a stipulation was not agreed to. I was ignored. Plaintiff filed the 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 4 1 ex parte application to shorten time (granted). 2 On November 19, 2022, I formally offered Plaintiff and her expert for deposition. 3 Defendant ignored the offer. 4 On November 30, 2022, I spoke with Defense counsel and 1) offered up Plaintiff 5 and her expert and 2) proposed trial dates. I was not provided with a response to either. 6 On December 9, 2022, the Court granted the motion and set the case for April 3, 7 2023. On that same day, I wrote Defense counsel to request a stipulation to re-open 8 discovery. I also again offered up Plaintiff and her expert for depositions. Defendant 9 ignored Plaintiff’s request. A motion was previously filed, Defendant opposed, but the 10 motion was apparently never received by the Court. This motion follows. 11 I Declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that 12 the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. 13 14 DATED: January 18, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 15 FRY LAW CORPORATION 16 17 18 By:_________________________________ Christopher J. Fry, Esq. 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 5 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT 3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age 4 of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 980 9th Street, 16th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. On January 18, 2023, I served the foregoing 5 document(s) described as: 6 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN 7 DISCOVERY; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE COURT’S PREVIOUS TRIAL SETTING ORDER 8 On all interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 9 Defendant Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc.: 10 Sinclair Wilson, et al. 11 Robert F. Sinclair, Esq. 2390 Professional Drive 12 Roseville, CA 95661 Email: rsinclair@swbclaw.com 13 14 [X] BY PRIORITY MAIL AND ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused such documents to be mailed priority and emailed to the email address above. I did not 15 receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 16 17 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 18 of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 18, 2023, at Sacramento, California. 19 20 21 ____________________ Christopher J. Fry 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. FRY 6