On April 06, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gomez, Umberto,
and
7-Eleven, Inc.,
Bhavnani, Dilip,
Does 1 Through 50,
Karma Dali Development, Llc,
for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V
Kim (SBN 272184)
Richard
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD KIM PC
W
6131 Orangethorpe Ave., Suite 370
F LED I
Buena Park, CA 90620 supema mum 0F CALIFORNIA
cuuw 0r SAN sERNARmNo
Telephone: (714) 276-1 122 DIVISION
own.
Facsimile: (714) 276-1 120
Rkim@richkimlaw.c0m *
10 £322
\OOOQONLJI-bUJNr—t
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
By:
UMBERTO GOMEZ S aphanlu mad, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE — SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
UMBERTO GOMEZ Case No.2 CIVSB 2109660
[Assigned For A11 Purposes t0: Hon. Brian S.
Plaintiff, McCarville, Dept. S30]
Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021
vs.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
DILIPBHAVNANI, an individual; KARMA DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DALI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; 7—ELEVEN, INC, a Texas
FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants. and Served Concurrently with Opposition
[Filed to
NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—lb—dr—tr—lv—Ar—tr—dv—tr—A
Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of
Richard Kim]
Date: May 23, 2022
Time: 9:00 am.
OOQQM-fiWNP‘OOOOflQMhLDNHO
Dept. S30
1
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts Opposing Party’s Response and Evidence
and Supporting Evidence
1. The subject 7—Eleven convenience store is Opposing Party does not dispute that 7—Eleven,
operated by DILIP BHAVNANI under a written Inc. (“7-Eleven”) has attached to motion a
its
franchisee agreement between DILIP signed agreement (“Franchise Agreement”) that
KOOOVOUI-PUJNt—d
BHAVNANI as franchisee and 7-ELEVEN, INC. appears to be a written franchise agreement
as franchisor. pertaining to the store located at 16701 Arrow
B1Vd., Fontana, CA 92335 (“Subject Store”) and
[Dec]. New at paras. 2-3 and Franchise entered into between 7-Eleven and Dilip Bhavnani
Agreement Exhibit A] (“Franchisee”). Opposing Party disputes that
Franchisee operated the Subj ect Store solely under
the written tenns of the franchisee agreement, as
the franchisee agreement itself indicates that 7-
Eleven provided Franchisee with its “7-Eleven
Operations Manual” containing “mandatory
requirements”. Opposing Party also believes that
in practice, 7—Eleven exerted more control over
Franchisee than indicated in the franchise
agreement, but has not been provided with the
necessary discovery to cite any additional opposing
evidence with particularity.
[Franchise Agreement Exhibit A (SE10008)]
2. Pursuant to the terms of the franchise Opposing Party does not dispute this fact.
agreement, DILIP BHAVNANI was granted a
license to use 7-ELEVEN’s trade and service
marks and leased the store premises and certain
equipment from 7-ELEVEN.
NNNNNNNNNHu—Iv—Ir—lh—Ip—IHH—Ip—A
OOQOMAWNP‘OKOOOQQMhWNr—‘O
[Decl. New at paras. 4-6) and
Franchise
Agreement Exhibit A (SEI #0010-0011, 0057-
0058)]
3. The terms of the franchise agreement provide Opposing Party does not dispute this fact.
that the relationship between 7-ELEVEN and
DILIP BHAVNANI is that of an independent
contractor, that all employees of DILIP
BHAVNANI are “solely [DILIP BHAVNANI’S]
employees and [DILIP BHAVNANI] will control
the manner and means of the operation 0f the
Store.”
[Dec]. New at paras. 11-13 and Franchise
Agreement Exhibit A (SEI #0007)]
2
UMBERTO GOMEZ’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Document Filed Date
May 10, 2022
Case Filing Date
April 06, 2021
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V Kim (SBN 272184) Richard LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD KIM PC W 6131 Orangethorpe Ave., Suite 370 F LED I Buena Park, CA 90620 supema mum 0F CALIFORNIA cuuw 0r SAN sERNARmNo Telephone: (714) 276-1 122 DIVISION own. Facsimile: (714) 276-1 120 Rkim@richkimlaw.c0m * 10 £322 \OOOQONLJI-bUJNr—t Attorneys for Plaintiff, By: UMBERTO GOMEZ S aphanlu mad, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE — SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT UMBERTO GOMEZ Case No.2 CIVSB 2109660 [Assigned For A11 Purposes t0: Hon. Brian S. Plaintiff, McCarville, Dept. S30] Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021 vs. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DILIPBHAVNANI, an individual; KARMA DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL DALI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; 7—ELEVEN, INC, a Texas FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. and Served Concurrently with Opposition [Filed to NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—lb—dr—tr—lv—Ar—tr—dv—tr—A Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of Richard Kim] Date: May 23, 2022 Time: 9:00 am. OOQQM-fiWNP‘OOOOflQMhLDNHO Dept. S30 1 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts Opposing Party’s Response and Evidence and Supporting Evidence 1. The subject 7—Eleven convenience store is Opposing Party does not dispute that 7—Eleven, operated by DILIP BHAVNANI under a written Inc. (“7-Eleven”) has attached to motion a its franchisee agreement between DILIP signed agreement (“Franchise Agreement”) that KOOOVOUI-PUJNt—d BHAVNANI as franchisee and 7-ELEVEN, INC. appears to be a written franchise agreement as franchisor. pertaining to the store located at 16701 Arrow B1Vd., Fontana, CA 92335 (“Subject Store”) and [Dec]. New at paras. 2-3 and Franchise entered into between 7-Eleven and Dilip Bhavnani Agreement Exhibit A] (“Franchisee”). Opposing Party disputes that Franchisee operated the Subj ect Store solely under the written tenns of the franchisee agreement, as the franchisee agreement itself indicates that 7- Eleven provided Franchisee with its “7-Eleven Operations Manual” containing “mandatory requirements”. Opposing Party also believes that in practice, 7—Eleven exerted more control over Franchisee than indicated in the franchise agreement, but has not been provided with the necessary discovery to cite any additional opposing evidence with particularity. [Franchise Agreement Exhibit A (SE10008)] 2. Pursuant to the terms of the franchise Opposing Party does not dispute this fact. agreement, DILIP BHAVNANI was granted a license to use 7-ELEVEN’s trade and service marks and leased the store premises and certain equipment from 7-ELEVEN. NNNNNNNNNHu—Iv—Ir—lh—Ip—IHH—Ip—A OOQOMAWNP‘OKOOOQQMhWNr—‘O [Decl. New at paras. 4-6) and Franchise Agreement Exhibit A (SEI #0010-0011, 0057- 0058)] 3. The terms of the franchise agreement provide Opposing Party does not dispute this fact. that the relationship between 7-ELEVEN and DILIP BHAVNANI is that of an independent contractor, that all employees of DILIP BHAVNANI are “solely [DILIP BHAVNANI’S] employees and [DILIP BHAVNANI] will control the manner and means of the operation 0f the Store.” [Dec]. New at paras. 11-13 and Franchise Agreement Exhibit A (SEI #0007)] 2 UMBERTO GOMEZ’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT