Motion,Ex Parte: NAVARRO-V-MUCINO ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Mansfield     Collins, Esq.     SBN: 104049                                               F   l   L E     DCALIFORNIA
     LAW OFFICES OF MANSFIELDCOLLINS                                                  SUPERIOR COURT 0F
                                                                                                F SAN BERNARDINO
     & ASSOCIATES               7th Fl.
                                                                                        C(SDXEEESNAPDWO D|S TRlCT
     100 N. Barranca     St.,
                                                                                              APR o 2        2021
     West Covina, CA., 91791
     213—384-0982
     866—333-2045 Fax
     Email: mansfield.collins@mansfieldcollinslaw.com                                  BY
                                                                                                  LAURA BRUCK,      DEPUfi
     Attorneys for    HECTOR NAVARRO

                                          SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                           COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO


     HECTOR NAVARRO,                an individual,                Case No.2 CIVDSl937493
10
                                                                  Honorable Judge John Tomberling
11                Plaintiff,
                                                                                      TO
                                                                  PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
12
       vs.                                                        DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ENFORCE
13
                                                                  SETTLEMENT UNDER CCP 664.6
     ALEX MUCINO, an individual; MICHAEL
14   MUCINO, an individual; CAROLINE
     MUCINO, an individual; ALBERTO’S                             Motion:       April 14, 2021
15
     MEXICAN FOOD IN OAKHILL, INC., a                             Time:         9:00 a.m.
     California corporation; HNAM, LLC,              a            Dept:         S33
l6
     limited liability company; and DOES             1   to 20,   Judge:        The Hon. John Tomberlin
17   inclusive,

18                Defendants.

l9
     ALEX MUCINO,                          MICHAEL
                               an individual;
20   MUCINO,       an individual;     CAROLINE
     MUCINO,        an individual,
21

                  Cross-Complainants,
22


23     VS.


24
     HECTOR NAVARRO, an                   individual, and         Trial:               September      7,   2021
25
     ROES    1   to 20, inclusive,                                Trial Readiness
                                                                  Conference:          September      2,   2021
26                Cross-Defendants.

27


28
     I.        INTRODUCTION
                 Mr. Navarro opposes Mucino’s motion                    to enforce a written settlement agreement.                     The

     proffered settlement agreement:

               1.              Is   not an enforceable settlement agreement;

                               It   violates the confidentiality protections provided in the                  Evidence Code;

                               It   violates public policy;
               MPPP’E‘J




                               It   violates   due process and equal protection;

                               It   violates the agreement of the parties; and,

                               The numbers and amounts          that   were inserted           in the settlement   agreement are

10                             arbitrary,      incomplete and not supported by generally accepted accounting

11                             principles.


12                                                                                                                0n March 30, 2021.
                A review was recently conducted by a CPA retained by Mr. Navarro
13
     He     concludes that “at a             minimum    a forensic accountant should be hired to review the accounting
14

     and a financial statement audit should be performed.                         I   believe these steps are necessary to d0
15


16   proper due diligence and determine a proper valuation of the business assets.                                  As   it   stands at this


17   time, in       my      opinion the valuation per the settlement agreement                     is   significantly understated. This

18
     would     likely result in a substantial loss to           Mr. Navarro          if   the settlement agreement            is   enforced.   It


l9
      is   my professional            opinion that none of the numbers indicated on the settlement agreement can
20

      be relied upon.” Accounting Review Letter by                     CPA Mark McNelis, March                   30, 2021, Exh. A.
21


22               Discovery            is   not complete. The depositions of the defendants have not been taken.


      Depositions are scheduled on April 14, 2021 after the hearing on this motion. The deposition of
23

24
      the   CPA           for Oakhill Alberto’s has not       been taken which            is   material and necessary to determine
25
      the true financial condition of the business.                As    stated   by the Mr. McNelis “There appear                     to be
26

      issues with the           competency of the accountant who prepared the books and tax                          returns.        Fees paid
27


28    to this individual             were below the norm      for equivalent         work performed by other accountants.”