Document for ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
     EIMER STAHL LLP
 2   99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600
     San Jose, CA 95113-1605
 3
     Telephone: (408) 889-1668
 4   Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com

 5   Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen,
     Mary Lee. Arntsen Family Partnership, LP,
 6   Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship,
     John Ho, and Jacky Huang
 7

 8                    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 9                                    COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10

11    Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family    Lead Case No. 22-CIV-01148
      Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn     Consolidated with Case No. 23-CIV-01099
12    Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang;
                                                  Date: December 11, 2023
13
                    Plaintiffs,                   Time: 9:00am
14    v.                                          Dept. 24

15    David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures Hon. Jeffrey R. Finigan
      LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387
16    Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe; PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING
      Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC;       CONFERENCE STATEMENT
17
      Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust;
18    TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ
      Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose
19    Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings,
      LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil;
20    Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20,
21
                    Defendants.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                 1
                         PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 1          Plaintiffs hereby submit this trial setting conference statement in connection with the

 2   above-captioned case pursuant to this Court’s September 25, 2023 order and California Rule of

 3   Court 3.727 following a telephonic meet-and-confer with Defendants’ counsel on June 13, 2023.

 4          1. Related Cases

 5          Ho et al. v. Bragg et al., No. 23-CIV-01099 has been consolidated with this action and the

 6   parties are proceeding jointly in a single action under the Second Amended Complaint filed June

 7   30, 2023.

 8          2. Service and Appearances

 9          All parties named in the Second Amended Complaint have been served and appeared.

10          3. Additional Parties or Amended Pleadings

11          Plaintiffs do not intend to amend their Second Amended Complaint but reserve their right

12 to do so, including, if necessary, to name DOES 1–20 specifically.

13          4. Unlimited Case

14          N/A.

15          5. Other Matters Affecting the Court’s Jurisdiction

16          Defendant Bragg declared bankruptcy in the Eastern District of California, No. 22-22700

17 (E.D. Cal.), on October 21, 2022. Plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding against Bragg in the

18 bankruptcy court, No. 22-02112 (E.D. Cal.), but the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay on

19 February 24, 2023, so that proceedings could continue against Bragg (and the remaining

20 Defendants) in this Court.

21          6. Judicial Arbitration

22          The case should not be referred to judicial arbitration.

23          7. Early Settlement Conference

24          Plaintiffs are open to an early settlement conference with the Paramont Defendants.

25          Plaintiffs do not believe an early settlement conference with Defendants Bragg and SVRV

26 would be productive at this time.

27

28

                                                  2
                          PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 1          8. Discovery

 2          Discovery in this case is substantially complete or will be complete except for the

 3   following:

 4          1. Defendants Bragg and SVRV have not yet fully complied with the Court’s recent order

 5                sanctioning them for discovery abuses and compelling them to supplement their

 6                responses. Plaintiffs reserve their right to seek a further order to compel and/or

 7                sanctions. However, the parties have met and conferred and are attempting to resolve

 8                the outstanding issues.

 9          2. All depositions have been completed except for the depositions of Plaintiffs John Ho

10                and Quanyu “Jacky” Huang. The Paramont Defendants have thrice scheduled these

11                depositions and then unilaterally postponed them at the last minute: first in August

12                2023, next in September 2023, and finally in November 2023. This has severely

13                inconvenienced John and Jacky—who have been required to request time off from

14                work for these depositions—as well as Plaintiffs’ counsel. Given that these depositions

15                could have occurred months ago, the Court should not allow the Paramont Defendants

16                to use the pendency of these depositions as an excuse to delay the trial. Instead, the

17                Court should promptly set a single trial date for all Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to

18                Plaintiffs’ motion for preference.

19          9. Discovery Issues

20          In addition to the above, Plaintiffs believe motions in limine will be necessary to address

21 certain of Defendants’ discovery abuses, including Bragg’s intentional spoliation of all his text

22   messages more than 9 months after this litigation began.

23          10. Bifurcation

24          Plaintiffs do not believe the claims should be bifurcated.

25          11. Cross-Complaints

26          N/A.

27

28

                                                    3
                            PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 1          12. Statutory Preference

 2          Plaintiffs Bob and Mary are entitled to statutory preference under Code of Civil Procedure

 3   section 36(a). Both are over 70 years of age and have suffered strokes during the past year. Martha,

 4   Bob’s and Mary’s sister, and the sole manager of the Custodianship and the Partnership—of which

 5   Bob, Martha, and Mary are all beneficiaries—is also over 70 years of age and recently suffered a

 6   major health event. Plaintiffs’ claims are made against the same Defendants, based on the same

 7   set of facts, regard the same fraudulent real estate project, and involve the same questions of law.

 8   Each Plaintiff will testify as a witness in support of the others’ claims. Plaintiffs are jointly

 9   represented by a single attorney and have jointly settled with one Defendant already. They are

10   sharing in all costs and recoveries. Defendants Bragg and SVRV are jointly represented by a single

11   attorney, and the Paramont Defendants are jointly represented by the same attorneys. Plaintiffs

12   initiated their claims in March 2022. Statutory preference setting a single, prompt trial date should

13   therefore be granted to the entire action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 36(a) and (e).

14          13. Jury

15          Plaintiffs request a jury trial.

16          14. Trial Date

17          Plaintiffs and their counsel anticipate minimal current unavailability for trial. They believe

18   this case should be set for trial at the earliest available date. Plaintiffs believe this case could be

19   ready for trial by mid-January 2024. Pursuant to California’s statutory preference law, trial must

20   be set for no later than the first week of April 2024. Plaintiffs’ counsel has another trial set for

21   Monday, April 8, 2023, but that is more than 120 days after the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for

22   trial preference. Therefore, trial should be set to conclude before Friday, April 5, 2023, 120 days

23   from December 8, 2023 falling on Saturday, April 6, 2023. Preferably, trial should begin by no

24   later than March 2023, which will be two years after Plaintiffs initiated this action.

25          15. Length of Trial

26          5 days.

27

28

                                                   4
                           PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 1          16. Nature of the Injuries

 2          Financial harm.

 3          17. Amount of Damages

 4          Approximately $1 million in damages plus pre-judgment interest; $2.5 million in punitive

 5   damages; treble damages.

 6          18. Additional Relief Sought

 7          Restitution, disgorgement, rescission, and other equitable remedies; fees and costs.

 8          19. Insurance

 9          N/A.

10          20. Other Matters That Should be Considered by the Court

11          Texas Attorneys Zimmerman and Reisch (counsel for the Paramont Defendants) have

12   repeatedly invoked their own trial schedules as reasons to postpone and/or indefinitely defer trial

13   dates and depositions. In fall 2022, they told Plaintiffs they would have to be patient in scheduling

14   depositions “for the next half year or so” to accommodate their out-of-state trial schedules. Seven

15   months after that, they still claimed they were too busy for depositions. In March 2023, they told

16   the Court they were busy with trial for the next 9 months. At the hearing on their demurrer in

17   September 2022, Judge Foiles informed Attorney Reisch that if the statutory criteria for preference

18   are met (which they are), a trial within 120 days is mandatory, so he should prepare for a trial to

19   occur by early April 2024 regardless of any other considerations; Attorney Reisch and his

20   colleagues were thus forewarned.

21          Now, Texas Attorneys Zimmerman and Reisch claim they are still busy with out-of-state

22 trials through at least May 2024. Texas Attorneys Zimmerman and Reisch are admitted pro hac

23 vice in this State, and the Court should not indulge their claim that they are too busy with out-of-

24 state trials for more than two consecutive years as a reason to delay this trial. The Paramont

25 Defendants have two California attorneys on this case—Attorneys Chong and Aldover—and their

26 firm also has a California office with numerous other attorneys. If Texas Attorneys Zimmerman

27

28

                                                  5
                          PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
 1   and Reisch are too busy to try this case, one of their California colleagues should be required to

 2   try the case, instead.

 3           The bankruptcy court has set a bench trial for Plaintiffs’ adversary proceeding claims

 4   against Defendant Bragg to occur on January 8, 2024. Should the bankruptcy court reach a final

 5   judgment, Plaintiffs may dismiss Bragg from this case, though he would still need to attend as a

 6 witness. The bankruptcy court trial should have no bearing on the date selected for the state-court

 7   trial, as there will be ample time after the bankruptcy court trial for the remaining parties to prepare

 8   for the state-court trial in light of the bankruptcy court’s judgment.

 9

10
     Dated: December 4, 2023                                By: ______________________
11
                                                                  Collin J. Vierra
12                                                                EIMER STAHL, LLP
13
                                                                  Attorney for Plaintiffs
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                      6
                              PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT