Party Statement: BROWN VS BRIX LOUNGE ET AL

On June 20, 2022 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Brown, Anthony, and Contreras, Diego Andres, Jrw Investments, Llc, Kim, Crystal, Kim, Sejin, Sk Ventures, Llc, Suggs, Miyoung, Tran, Hailey Keller, for 23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited in the District Court of Kern County.

Preview
Arnold W. Holaday, Esq. (SBN: 166390)
RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
800 North Haven Avenue, Suite 430
Ontario, CA 91764
Telephone/Facsimile: (909) 458-0110
Email: aholaday@rlattorneys.com
eService: mail@rlattorneys.com

Attorney for Defendant, JRW INVESTMENTS, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
10

11 ANTHONY BROWN, an individual, Case No.: BCV-22-101549
12 Plaintiff, Assigned
for all purposes to the
13 Honorable Judge Bernard C. Barmann, JR
v
Department/Division H
14
BRIX LOUNGE; BRIX
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP; SK DECLARATION OF ARNOLD W.
15
VENTURES, LLC; MIYOUNG SUGGS; HOLADAY IN SUPPORT OF JRW
16 SEJIN KIM; CRYSTAL KIM; and DOES 1 INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION FOR
to 100, inclusive, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
17
Defendants. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts,
18 Declaration of Arnold W. Holaday filed
concurrently)
19
Reservation
ID:
20
Date: January 5, 2024
21 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: H
22

23
I, ARNOLD W. HOLADAY, declare that:
24
1 lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and attorney of
25
record for Defendant JRW Investments, LLC in the above-captioned action. This declaration is being
26

27 made in support of JRW Investments’ Motion for Summary Judgment. If called upon to do so, I

28 could and would competently testify to the following from my personal knowledge.

DECLARATION OF ARNOLD W. HOLADAY IN SUPPORT OF JRW INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
1
2 Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Complaint of

Anthony Brown in the above-captioned matter for which it is respectfully requested that the Court

take judicial notice.

3 Attached as Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Responses of

Defendant SK Ventures, LLC to Special Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff in this action.

4 Attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Responses of

Defendant SK Ventures, LLC to Request for Admission propounded by Plaintiffin this action.

5 Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the “Standard

10 Multi-Tenant Shopping Center Lease - Net” between JRW Investments, LLC and SK Ventures, LLC

11 for the Subject Property, which was produced by JRW Investments, LLC.

12 6 Attached as Exhibit 5 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the “First

13 Amendment to Lease Agreement” between JRW Investments, LLC and SK Ventures, LLC for the

14 Subject Property, which was produced by JRW Investments, LLC and SK Ventures, LLC.
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
16 is true and correct.
17 (Aw je
DATE: October 20, 2023
18
Arnold W. Holaday
19 Declarant

DECLARATION OF ARNOLD W. HOLADAY IN SUPPORT OF JRW INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
2
EXHIBIT 1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
6/21/2022 10:21 PM
Kern County Superior Court
By Alejandra Velazquez, Deputy
Arsen Sarapinian, Esq. (SBN 295805)
THE LAW OFFICES OF ARSEN SARAPINIAN, P.C.
9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (213) 538-2903
Fax: (310) 861-9040
arsen@sarapinianlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Anthony Brown

6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

9
ANTHONY BROWN, an individual, Case No. BCV-22-101549
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
10 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Vv.
Il 1) Assault

12
BRIX LOUNGE; BRIX ENTERTAINMENT 2) Battery
GROUP; SK VENTURES, LLC; MIYOUNG 3) Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code
SUGGS; SEJIN KIM; CRYSTAL KIM; and § 52.1)
13 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, 4) General Negligence
5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
14 Defendants. Distress

16 Plaintiff complains of the defendants, and each of them, as follows:

17 PARTIES

18 1 Plaintiff, ANTHONY BROWN (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) is and at all times mentioned

19 herein was a resident of County of Kern, State of California.

20 2 Defendant BRIX LOUNGE is and at all times mentioned herein was a business entity

21 conducting business in the County of Kern, State of California.

92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-1-
3 Defendant BRIX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP is and at all times mentioned herein was

a business entity conducting business in the County of Kern, State of California.

4 Defendant SK VENTURES, LLC is and at all times mentioned herein was a business

entity conducting business in the County of Kern, State of California.

5 Upon information and belief, Sk VENTURES, INC is the owner, manager,

parent-company, and/or alter-ego of BRIX LOUNGE and/or BRIX ENTERTAINMENT
6
GROUP.

6 Defendant MIYOUNG SUGGS is and at all times mentioned herein is a member and

manager of Sk VENTURES, LLC, and is a resident of County of Kern, State of California.
9
7. Defendant SEJIN KIM is and at all times mentioned herein is a member and manager of
10
SK VENTURES, LLC, is a resident of County of Kern, State of California.
Il
8 Defendant CRYSTAL KIM is and at all times mentioned herein is a member and
12
manager of SK VENTURES, LLC, and is a resident of County of Kern, State of California.

13 9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, and/or culpabilities of the defendants

14 sued, herein, as Does | to 100, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious

15 names and capacities. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of

16 the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein

17 alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by the actions

18 and/or in-actions of said doe defendants. Plaintiff will amend the complaint to include the true

identities of said doe defendants when they are ascertained.
19
10. At all times mentioned herein, the defendants, and each of them, hired, trained, retained.
20
and/or controlled the actions of other defendants, and each of them.
21

92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-2-
11. Plaintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned,

defendants and each of them, owned, controlled, and/or managed the real property at 3001

Calloway Drive, Bakersfield, California, which was operating under the name “BRIX

LOUNGE.”

12. At all times mentioned, each of the defendants was acting as the principal or agent

and/or employer or employee, or contractor of each of the remaining defendants and was, at all
6
times herein alleged, acting within the purpose, course, and scope of such agency and/or

employment for purposes of respondent superior and/or vicarious liability as to all other

defendants. Consequently, each defendant is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff
for the
9

damages sustained as a proximate result of their conduct.
10
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
Il
13. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court because the acts and omissions herein
12

complained of arises out of an incident that occurred on April 17, 2022, at BRIX LOUNGE in
13
Bakersfield, California, and because at all relevant times, the parties are/were residents and/or
14
conduct business in the County of Kern.
15
FACTS
16
14. On or about April 17, 2022, Plaintiff was a patron at BRIX LOUNGE, a nightclub
17
located at 3001 Calloway Drive, Bakersfield, California (hereinafter “Subject Property” or

18 “BRIX LOUNGE”).

19 15. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was acting lawfully and peacefully.

20 16. Between the hours of the club closing (1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.), Plaintiff was peacefully

21 socializing with a woman inside of BRIX LOUNGE, near the entrance/bathroom area.

92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-3-
17. Suddenly and without warning, he was violently assaulted and battered by an unknown

male security guard and Does 1 to 100 who, upon information and belief, was an employee,

agent, and/or independent contractor of defendants. Additional security guards and Does 1 to

100, who, upon information and belief, was an employee, agent, and/or independent contractor

of defendants rushed over and joined the assault and battery against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was

verbally and physically threatened, yelled at, knocked to the floor and punched and kicked to
6
the face, head, and body by three or more security guards and Does 1 to 100. He was dragged

outside of the nightclub, while being attacked, and was embarrassed and humiliated in front of

dozens of persons.
9
18. At no point in time prior to the assault and battery did Plaintiff make threats of violence.
10
use force, or take any other actions to warrant the assault and battery by the security guards and
Il
Does 1 to 100.
12
19. Plaintiff did not fight back during the incident and was in a crouched position as he was

13 attempting to avoid the onslaught of vicious punches and kicks to his face, head, and body.

14 20. Plaintiff suffered significant personal injuries as a result.

15 21. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff suspects that the initial security guard committed

16 the assault and battery because he was in some form of relationship with the woman, and acted

17 out of jealously.

18 22. Following the occurrence of the incident, minutes later, the culpable security guards

admitted to being at fault for causing the incident and apologized for their actions in a joking,
19
disingenuous manner.
20
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Assault
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100)
92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-4-
23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs previously alleged as

though they are set forth in full herein.

24. Defendants and Does 1 to 100 threatened to touch Plaintiffin a harmful or an offensive

manner when they verbally and physically yelled at him, threatened him, lunged at him, and

physically attacked him.

25. It reasonably appeared to Plaintiff that Defendants and Does 1 to 100 were about to
6
carry out the threat.

26. Plaintiff
not consent to the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100.

27. Plaintiff
was harmed.
9
28. The conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100 was a substantial factor in causing
10
Plaintiff's harm.
Il
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Battery
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100)

13 29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs previously alleged as

14 though they are set forth in full herein.

15 30. Defendants and Does 1 to 100 touched Plaintiff or caused Plaintiff to be touched with

16 the intent to harm or offend him, when they physically attacked him in the manner described

17 herein.

18 31 Plaintiff did not consent to the touching.

32. Plaintiff was harmed and offended by the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100.
19
33 A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s situation would have been offended by the touching.
20
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)
(Against All Named Defendants and Does 1-100)
92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-5-
34, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs previously alleged as

though they are set forth in full herein.

35. California Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any person from interfering

with another person’s exercise or enjoyment of his Constitutional Rights by threats,

intimidation, or coercion (or by the use of unconstitutionally excessive force).

36. Conduct that violates the First Amendment violates the California Bane Act.
6
37. At the time ofthe subject-incident, Defendants and Does 1 to 100 attempted to interfere.

and did interfere, with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s civil rights as guaranteed by the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
9
38. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion,
10
expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
Il
39. Defendants and Does 1 to 100’s threats of violence, intimidation, and cocreation, and
12
use of force was excessive and unreasonable, as Plaintiff
was a paying patron at the BRIX

13 LOUNGE and was acting peacefully and lawfully at all times. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not

14 fight back or take other physical actions to warrant being attacked by numerous security guards

15 and Does 1 to 100.

16 40. At no point prior to the attack did Defendants and Does 1 to 100 give Plaintiff a

17 peaceful, verbal warning or ask him to take any actions or inactions to avoid the sudden attack,

18 despite it being feasible, and appropriate, to do so.

41. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100, and
19
each of them, Plaintiff
was caused to suffer extreme mental and physical pain with lasting
20
symptoms and deficits. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur economic and
21

92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-6-
non-economic damages (wage loss, loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and other

damages).

42. The conduct of the Defendants and Does 1 to 100 was a substantial factor in causing the

harms, losses, injuries, and damages to the Plaintiff.

43. Defendants and Does 1 to 100’s violation of Plaintiffs right as guaranteed by Civil Code

section 52.1 entitles Plaintiff to compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and
6
injunctive relief, all of which are provided for in Civ. Code §§ 52.1, subd. (b) and 52 and are

requested herein.

44, As alleged herein, Defendants and Does 1 to 100 knew or should have known that their
9
actions were likely to injure Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges,
10
that Defendants and Does 1 to 100 intended to cause injury to Plaintiff
and acted with a willful
Il
and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights as secured by Civ. Code §52.1, thus entitling
12
Plaintiffto recover punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code §52, subd. (b)(1).

13 45. Pursuant to Civ. Code § 52.1, Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action for damages and

14 injunctive relief, as set forth in Civ. Code § 52.

15 46. Unless Defendants are restrained by a preliminary and permanent injunction, members

16 ofthe public similarly situated to Plaintiff will continue to suffer severe, irreparable harm in that

17 Defendants and Does 1 to 100’s indiscriminate unjustifiable beating substantially put the same

18 members of the public at risk of severe and debilitating injury. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy

at law because monetary damages, which may compensate for past interference with Plaintiff's
19
civil rights, will not afford adequate relief for the fear, humiliation, and risk of injury that a
20
continuation of Defendants and Does 1 to 100’s conduct in denial of Plaintiff’s rights will cause.
21

92
22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-7-
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100)

47. Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 31, as though fully

set forth herein.

48. Defendants and Does 1 to 100, and each of them, owed a duty to Plaintiff, who was a

patron of nightclub, to use reasonable care so not to cause harm and injury.

6 49. Defendants and Does 1 to 100 breached their duty of care when they verbally and

physically yelled at him, threatened him, lunged at him, and physically attacked him.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100,

9 Plaintiff suffered economic and non-economic damages.

10 51. The negligence of the defendants, and each of them, was a substantial factor in causing

Il harm to Plaintiff.

12 T S T
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100)
13

14 $2. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs previously alleged as

15 though they are set forth in full herein.

16 53. Defendants and Does 1 to 100 had a duty to not to cause Plaintiff emotional distress.

17 54. As described above, the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 to 100 was outrageous and

18 done so intentionally or with reckless disregard. The intentional and reckless disregard in these

actions led directly to Plaintiff’s severe and lasting injuries.
19
55. As a direct result of the breach of duty, Plaintiff
was forced to experience and suffer
20
from intimidation, fear, personal physical injury, severe and ongoing pain, embarrassment, and
21
severe emotional distress and mental anguish.
92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-8-
56. Defendants and Does 1 to 100 knew that their conduct would result in Plaintiff’s severe

emotional distress, and that the conduct was perpetrated with the intent to inflict, or with

reckless disregard ofthe probability of inflicting humiliation, mental anguish, and severe

emotional distress upon Plaintiff. Such conduct did, in fact, result in severe emotional distress

on Plaintiff.

57. Defendants and Does 1 to 100, by the acts of its managing agents, officers and/or
6
directors in the aforementioned acts and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard

ofthe rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and
9
exemplary damages.
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Il
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
12
1 A judgement in favor of Plaintiff:

13 For general damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum,

14 according to proof;

15 For special damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction minimum,

16 according to proof;

17 For treble damages under Civ. Code Section 52;

18 For punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code Section 52;

A statutory civil penalty of $25,000 pursuant to Civ. Code Section 52;
19
For costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees allowable under the law;
20
Actual damages;
21
Pre-judgement interest and post-judgement interest to the extent allowed by law: .3
92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-9-
and

10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, necessary, and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ANTHONY BROWN, hereby demands a trial by jury as to all causes of action.

Dated: June 21, 2022 THE LAW OFFICES OF ARSEN SARAPINIAN, P.C.

—_
By
Arsen Sarapinian, Esq.
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY BROWN
10

92
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-10-
EXHIBIT 2
SWANSON O’DELL, APC.
Jeremy D. Swanson, Esq., SBN 220644
Seth N. O’Dell, Esq., SBN 220424
330 H Street, Suite 2
Bakersfield, CA 93304
Phone (661) 326-1611
Fax (661) 326-1910

Attorney for Defendants, Brix Lounge; Brix Entertainment Group; Sk Venrures, LLC;
Miyoung Suggs; Sejin Kim; Crystal Kim

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA — COUNTY OF KERN
METROPOLITAN DIVISION

ANTHONY BROWN, an individual, Case No. BCV- 22-101549-BCB

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT SK VENTURES, LLC,
10 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
v. INTERROGATORIES
11
BRIX LOUNGE; BRIX
12 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP; SK
VENTURES, LLC; MIYOUNG SUGGS;
13 SEJIN KIM; CRYSTAL KIM; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive,
14
Defendant.
15
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, ANTHONY BROWN
16
RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, SK VENTURES, LLC.
17
SET NUMBER: ONE
18
TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
19
IT SHOULD BE NOTED that Defendant has not fully completed the investigation,
20
discovery, or preparation for trial relating to this matter. All of the answers contained herein are
21
based solely upon such information and documents as are presently available to, and specifically
22
known to, Defendant and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to Defendant.
23

24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page |
IT IS ANTICIPATED that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research

and analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to known facts, and/or establish entirely new

3 factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes

in or variations from the contentions hereinafter set forth.

The following responses are offered without prejudice to Defendant's right to produce

evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts that may be later recalled. Defendant

accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are

ascertained, legal research is completed, and analyses and contentions are made. The answers

contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and

10 specification of legal contentions as are presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of

11 Defendant in relation to further discovery, research, or analysis.

12 INTERROGATORIES, RESPONSES, AND OBJECTIONS

13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

14 Identify (with specificity by stating their full name, home and work address, home, work,

1S and cell phone numbers, and email addresses) all persons who assisted you in preparing your

16 responses to these interrogatories.

17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

18 The information requested is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation in that it

19 requests the (FULL NAME, HOME AND WORK ADDRESS, HOME, WORK, AND CELL

20 PHONE NUMBERS, AND E-MAIL ADDRESS) all persons who assisted you in preparing your

21 responses to these interrogatories. The requested information is not reasonably calculated to lead to

22 the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2017.010).

23
_
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 2
Defendant provides the following information. Seth N. O’Dell, Esq., Swanson O’Dell,

APC., 330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611. Phillip Greenlee, Paralegal,

Swanson O’Dell, APC., 330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611, and Sejin Kim,

who can be contacted through his attorney Seth N. O’Dell, Esq.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify (with specificity by stating their full name, home and work address, home, work,

and cell phone numbers, and email addresses) all persons who assisted you in preparing your

responses to form interrogatories, set one.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

10 The information requested is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation in that it

11 requests the (FULL NAME, HOME AND WORK ADDRESS, HOME, WORK, AND CELL

12 PHONE NUMBERS, AND E-MAIL ADDRESS) all persons who assisted you in preparing your

13 responses to these interrogatories. The requested information is not reasonably calculated to lead to

14 the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2017.010).

15 Defendant provides the following information. SethN. O’Dell, Esq., Swanson O’Dell, APC.,

16 330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611. Phillip Greenlee, Paralegal, Swanson

17 O’Dell, APC., 330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611, and Sejin Kim, who can

18 be contacted through his attorney Seth N. O’Dell, Esq.

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

20 Identify (with specificity by stating their full name, home and work address, home, work,

21 and cell phone numbers, and email addresses) persons who assisted you in preparing your

22 responses to request for production of documents, set one.

23 Mit

——— —
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 3
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

The information requested is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation in that it

requests the (FULL NAME, HOME AND WORK ADDRESS, HOME, WORK, AND CELL

PHONE NUMBERS, AND E-MAIL ADDRESS) all persons who assisted you in preparing your

responses to these interrogatories. The requested information is not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2017.010).

Defendant provides the following information. Seth N. O’ Dell, Esq., Swanson O’Dell, APC.,

330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611. Phillip Greenlee, Paralegal, Swanson

O'Dell, APC., 330 H Street, Suite 2, Bakersfield, CA 93304 661-326-1611, and Sejin Kim, who can

10 be contacted through his attorney Seth N. O’Dell, Esq.

11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

12 Identify the owner(s) of SK Ventures, LLC.

13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

14 SK Ventures, LLC., is a limited liability company as filed with the California Secretary of

15 State. Miyoung Suggs is a member of the LLC.

16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

17 Identify the president of SK Ventures, LLC.

18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

19 There is no president of SK Ventures, LLC. SK Ventures, LLC., is a limited liability company

20 as filed with the California Secretary of State. Miyoung Suggs is a member of the LLC.

21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

22 Identify your relationship with Brix Lounge.

23 Ml]

24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 4
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Identify the owner(s) of Brix Lounge.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Brix Lounge is a Fictitious Business registered with the County of Kern on February 16,

2018, with file number 2018-B1176, and an expiration date of February 16, 2023. SK Ventures,

LLC, own Brix Lounge’s fictitious business name.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify the president of Brix Lounge.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

ll There is no president of Brix Lounge. Brix Lounge is a Fictitious Business registered with

12 the County of Kern on February 16, 2018, with file number 2018-B1176, and an expiration date of

13 February 16, 2023. SK Ventures, LLC, own Brix Lounge’s fictitious business name.

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

15 Identify all documents concerning relationship with Brix Lounge.

16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

17 Defendant believes, based on the way the question is phrased, that Plaintiff is requesting

18 documents filed with the County of Kern Fictitious Business filing. That information is equally

19 available to the Plaintiff through the County of Kern Fictitious Business Name Search. SK

20 Ventures, LLC, own Brix Lounge’s fictitious business name.

21 Mit

22 Mit

23 Mil

24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 5
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Identify with specificity your role in managing the subject-property on or around the date of

the incident.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

None.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Identify with specificity all professional licenses you held on the date of the incident

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

SK Ventures, LLC, does not own any professional license.

10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

ll Identify your relationship with Brix Lounge.

12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

13 None.

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

1S Identify all documents concerning relationship with Brix Lounge.

16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

17 Defendant believes, based on the way the question is phrased, Plaintiff is requesting

18 documents filed with the County of Kern Fictitious Business filing. That information is equally

19 available to the Plaintiff through the County of Kern Fictitious Business Name Search.

20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

21 Identify all effective rental/lease agreements concerning the use of the subject-property on

22 the date of the incident.

23 ML
—~
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 6
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

The lease for the property was originally entered into in April 2018, by and between JRW

Investments, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. In July 2020, a First Amendment to

Lease agreement was entered into. The lease was purchased in May 2022 by the Shafic Family

Trust, which is the current owner of the lease related to the property located at 3001 Calloway

Drive, Bakersfield, CA., 93312.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Identify all effective policies and procedures that existed on the date of the incident

pertaining to the security of subject-property on the date of the incident.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

11 There are no policy and procedure manuals pertaining to the security of the subject property.

12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

13 Identify all documents concerning the security of the subject-property during the time period

14 of January 1, 2000 to present.

15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

16 There are no policy and procedure manuals pertaining to the security of the subject property.

17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

18 Identify by name all security guards working on the day of the incident.

19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

20 This responding party believes that Diego Contreras, Keller Tran, and Derek Adams were

21 working the night of the incident.

22 Mil

23 Ml}
—— ——
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 7
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Identify by name security guard who first made contact with the plaintiff on the date of the

incident.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

This responding party believes that Keller Tran may have had the first contact with Plaintiff.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Identify by name security guard who first struck plaintiff on date of the incident.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Based on information and belief, Keller Train may have been the person who first made

10 contact with Plaintiff. Discovery and investigation are currently ongoing in this matter. This

li responding party reserves the right to amend or modify this response as additional information

12 becomes available through investigation and discovery responses.

13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

14 Identify by name, all security guards who struck plaintiff on date of the incident.

15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

16 Unknown. Discovery and investigation are currently ongoing in this matter. This

17 responding party reserves the right to amend or modify this response as additional information

18 becomes available through investigation and discovery responses.

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

20 Identify all documents concerning any physical altercations at the subject-property during

21 the time period of January 1, 2000 to present.

22 Ml

23 Mt
— — —
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
age 8
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

The business opened in October 2018. This responding party is unaware of any physical

altercations at the subject property other than the one which is the subject to the current litigation

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Identify Defendant Miyoung Sugg’s role at SK Ventures, LLC.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Miyoung is the only member of SK Ventures, LLC.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Identify Defendant Sejin Kim’s role at SK Ventures, LLC.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

11 Sejin Kim has no role in SK Ventures, LLC.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
12
Identify Defendant Crystal Kim’s role at SK Ventures, LLC.
13
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
14
Crystal Kim has no role in SK Ventures, LLC.
15
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
16
Identify all insurance policies (underlying, rental, commercial, excess, umbrella, and any
17
others) that may provide coverage for injuries sustained at or near the subject-property.
18
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
19
None.
20
Mil
21
Mil
22
Mit
23

24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 9
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

Identify all insurance policies (underlying, rental, commercial, excess, umbrella, and any

others) that may provide you with coverage for your own negligence (personal, professional, and

all other forms of liability).

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

None.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

Identify all residential properties in which you have you an ownership interest.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

10 None.

11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

12 Identify all insurance policies which may cover the residential policies you identified in the

13 previous interrogatory.

14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

15 Not applicable.

16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

17 Identify all commercial properties in which you have you an ownership interest.

18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

19 None.

20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

21 Identify all insurance policies which may cover the residential policies you identified in the

22 previous interrogatory.

23 Mil
—
24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page 10
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

None.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

Identify all businesses in which you have you an ownership interest.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

None.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

Identify all insurance policies which may cover the business(es) you identified in the

previous interrogatory.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

11 Not applicable.

12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

13 Identify and describe the nature of the business(es) you identified in the previous

14 interrogatory.

1S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

16 Not applicable.

17 DATED: December /5, 2022 SWANSON O’DELL, A

19 SETH N. O’DELL, ESQ.
6d,
Attorney for Defendant, Brix Lounge; Brix
20 Entertainment Group; Sk Ventures, LLC; Miyoung
Suggs; Sejin Kim; Crystal Kim
21

24
CERTIFICATE OF PROGRESS
Page I1
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Kern
| have read the foregoing DEFENDANT SK VENTURES, LLC, RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
and know its contents.
[_] CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS
(2 | am a pariy to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those
matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true.

Q tam [J an Officer (2 a partner
Cha of
a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and | make this verification for that reason.
(2 | am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. _[_} The matters
stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and
belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true.
(2) | am one of the attorneys for
a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and | make this
verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. | am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters
stated in the foregoing document are true.
Executed on December 15, 2022 at Bakersfield California.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californi Destine
¥é foregoingese
is ind correct.
C -
MIYOUNG.SUGGS./.SK VENTURES,.LLC. x
TYPE OR PRINT NAME, SIGNAT
PROOF OF SERVICE
1013a (3) CCP Revised 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Kern
| am employed in the county of State of California
| am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is:

On | served the foregoing document described as

on in this action
{(C) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list
(J by placing = [CJ the original (CJ a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows

CQ BY MAIL
(2) “I deposited such envelope in the mail at California.
The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
(J As follows: | am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Executed on at California.
CJ “(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.
Executed on at California.
CJ (State) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct
(CJ (Federal) | declare that | am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was
made.

TYPE OR PRINT NAME SIGNATURE
“(BY MAIL SIGNATURE MUST BE OF PERSON DEPOSITING ENVELOPE IN

Case Info

Judge

Barmann, Bernard C., Jr. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 20, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 20, 2022

County

Parties

BROWN, ANTHONY Plaintiff
CONTRERAS, DIEGO ANDRES Defendant
HOLADAY, ARNOLD W Attorney for the Defendant
JRW INVESTMENTS, LLC Defendant
KIM, CRYSTAL Defendant
KIM, SEJIN Defendant
O'DELL, SETH N Attorney for the Defendant
SARAPINIAN, ARSEN Attorney for the Plaintiff
SK VENTURES, LLC Defendant
SUGGS, MIYOUNG Defendant
SWANSON, JEREMY D Attorney for the Defendant
TRAN, HAILEY KELLER Defendant
Barry Goldner Attorneys for Defendants
John Frick Attorneys for Defendants
Elizabeth Thomasian Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Statement: BROWN VS BRIX LOUNGE ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties