On March 15, 2022 a
92359Motio009b4a
was filed
involving a dispute between
Arntsen Family Partnership, Lp,
Arntsen, Robert,
Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship,
Ho, John,
Huang, Quanyu,
Lee, Mary,
and
Black Horse Holdings, Llc,
Bragg, David M,
Caproc Iii, Llc,
Davis, Gregory J,
Huang, Quanyu,
Huish, Dale,
Justesen, Jason,
Kludt, Kurtis Stuart,
Mclan Trust,
Monks Family Trust,
Oneil, Scott,
Paramont Capital, Llc,
Paramont Woodside, Llc,
Silicon Valley Real Ventures, Llc,
Stoker, Diane,
Stoker, Phil,
Svrv 385 Moore, Llc,
Svrv 387 Moore, Llc,
Teh Capital, Llc,
Wild Rose Irrevocable Trust,
Wolfe, Kevin,
Wz Partners Llc,
for (16) Unlimited Fraud
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
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
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
8
9
Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family Case No. 22-CIV-01148
10 Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn Consolidated with Case No. 23-CIV-01099
Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang;
11 Date: March 11, 2024
12 Plaintiffs, Time: 2:00 p.m.
v. Dept. 24
13
David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures Date Action Filed: March 15, 2022
14 LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387
Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe; Hon. Jeffrey Finigan
15 Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC;
16 Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE,
17 Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT BY
Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings, DAVID M. BRAGG OR SILICON
18 LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil; VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC
Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20, THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE WELL-
19
PLEADED ALLEGATIONS
20 Defendants. CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFFS’
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DATED
21 MARCH 15, 2022; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
1
2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 Please take notice that on March 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 24 of the Superior
4 Court of California, County of San Mateo, located at 400 County Center, Redwood City,
5 California, Plaintiffs will move in limine for an order preventing Defendants David M. Bragg and
6 Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC and their counsel from introducing any evidence, testimony,
7 or argument that is contrary to the well-pleaded allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ original
8 complaint dated March 15, 2022. This motion is brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350
9 and 352 and Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 on the ground that this information is
10 irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses, any reference to it will create a
11 substantial danger of necessitating undue consumption of time and confusing the jury, and the
12 order is necessary to address extensive discovery violations. This motion is based on this notice of
13 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities filed herewith, and any arguments or evidence
14 that may be presented at the time of hearing.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
1
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 I. Legal Standard
4 Evidence Code section 350 states that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant
5 evidence.” Relevant evidence is that which has a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any
6 disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code § 210; People
7 v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523.)
8 Evidence Code section 352 further permits the Court in its discretion to “exclude evidence
9 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a)
10 necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of
11 confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (See also People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d
12 897, 904.)
13 This Court also has inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude “any kind of
14 evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary
15 exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” (Clemens v. Am. Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444,
16 451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Super. Ct. (1998) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288.)
17 II. Relevant Background
18 Bragg and SVRV defaulted to Plaintiffs’ original complaint served on March 15, 2022 and
19 this Court entered their default on June 29, 2022. Bragg and SVRV never sought to set aside that
20 default, and the Court never set it aside on its own motion. When a defendant defaults to a
21 complaint, the defendant admits to all well-pleaded facts therein. (Rose v. Lawton (1963) 215
22 Cal.App.2d 19, 19–20.)
23 III. Reasons Why Evidence, Testimony, or Argument by Bragg or SVRV
Contrary to the Well-Pleaded Allegations in Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint
24 Should Be Excluded
25 Any arguments that Bragg or SVRV would make, or evidence they would introduce, that
26 would be contrary to the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint would be
27 irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses for the simple reason that by having
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
1 defaulted to that complaint, and by it never having been set aside, Bragg and SVRV have admitted
2 to those allegations by force of law. (Rose v. Lawton (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 19, 19–20.)
3 Second, such evidence should independently be excluded because its probative value
4 (none) is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would necessitate undue
5 consumption of time. (Evid. Code § 352.) If Bragg or SVRV made any such argument or
6 introduced any such evidence, the jury would immediately have to be instructed to disregard it.
7 Given the large number of well–pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint, these
8 instructions would be extremely time-consuming if Bragg or SVRV were given the opportunity to
9 argue or introduce evidence contrary to them.
10 Third, such evidence would confuse the jury. It would be difficult for the jury to understand
11 which argument or evidence by Bragg or SVRV it could accept and which it would have to
12 disregard.
13 Lastly, this exclusion is also appropriate as an issue or evidentiary sanction under Code of
14 Civil Procedure § 2023.030. At the hearing in which the Court previously sanctioned Bragg for
15 discovery abuses, the Court specifically said that although he was denying certain requests for
16 issue and evidentiary sanctions—and gave Bragg one more opportunity to comply with the Court’s
17 order—the Court would reconsider these requests on motions in limine. (Vierra Reply ISO Mots.
18 In Limine ¶ 14.) Given that in addition to his prior discovery violations and multiple defaults,
19 Bragg also violated the Court’s order compelling further responses and imposing sanctions, should
20 Bragg be permitted to participate in the trial, deeming him to have admitted the well-pleaded
21 allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint (if not their Second Amended Complaint) is a
22 minimally appropriate order.
23 CONCLUSION
24 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to exclude any evidence,
25 testimony, or argument by Bragg or SVRV contrary to the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’
26 original complaint.
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
1
2 Dated: _February 20, 2024_ By: ______________________
3 Collin J. Vierra
4 Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
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 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 8 9 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family Case No. 22-CIV-01148 10 Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn Consolidated with Case No. 23-CIV-01099 Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang; 11 Date: March 11, 2024 12 Plaintiffs, Time: 2:00 p.m. v. Dept. 24 13 David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures Date Action Filed: March 15, 2022 14 LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe; Hon. Jeffrey Finigan 15 Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC; 16 Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, 17 Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT BY Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings, DAVID M. BRAGG OR SILICON 18 LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil; VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20, THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE WELL- 19 PLEADED ALLEGATIONS 20 Defendants. CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DATED 21 MARCH 15, 2022; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 1 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 Please take notice that on March 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 24 of the Superior 4 Court of California, County of San Mateo, located at 400 County Center, Redwood City, 5 California, Plaintiffs will move in limine for an order preventing Defendants David M. Bragg and 6 Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC and their counsel from introducing any evidence, testimony, 7 or argument that is contrary to the well-pleaded allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ original 8 complaint dated March 15, 2022. This motion is brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 9 and 352 and Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 on the ground that this information is 10 irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses, any reference to it will create a 11 substantial danger of necessitating undue consumption of time and confusing the jury, and the 12 order is necessary to address extensive discovery violations. This motion is based on this notice of 13 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities filed herewith, and any arguments or evidence 14 that may be presented at the time of hearing. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 I. Legal Standard 4 Evidence Code section 350 states that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant 5 evidence.” Relevant evidence is that which has a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any 6 disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code § 210; People 7 v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523.) 8 Evidence Code section 352 further permits the Court in its discretion to “exclude evidence 9 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) 10 necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of 11 confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (See also People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 12 897, 904.) 13 This Court also has inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude “any kind of 14 evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary 15 exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” (Clemens v. Am. Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 16 451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Super. Ct. (1998) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288.) 17 II. Relevant Background 18 Bragg and SVRV defaulted to Plaintiffs’ original complaint served on March 15, 2022 and 19 this Court entered their default on June 29, 2022. Bragg and SVRV never sought to set aside that 20 default, and the Court never set it aside on its own motion. When a defendant defaults to a 21 complaint, the defendant admits to all well-pleaded facts therein. (Rose v. Lawton (1963) 215 22 Cal.App.2d 19, 19–20.) 23 III. Reasons Why Evidence, Testimony, or Argument by Bragg or SVRV Contrary to the Well-Pleaded Allegations in Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 24 Should Be Excluded 25 Any arguments that Bragg or SVRV would make, or evidence they would introduce, that 26 would be contrary to the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint would be 27 irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses for the simple reason that by having 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 1 defaulted to that complaint, and by it never having been set aside, Bragg and SVRV have admitted 2 to those allegations by force of law. (Rose v. Lawton (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 19, 19–20.) 3 Second, such evidence should independently be excluded because its probative value 4 (none) is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would necessitate undue 5 consumption of time. (Evid. Code § 352.) If Bragg or SVRV made any such argument or 6 introduced any such evidence, the jury would immediately have to be instructed to disregard it. 7 Given the large number of well–pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint, these 8 instructions would be extremely time-consuming if Bragg or SVRV were given the opportunity to 9 argue or introduce evidence contrary to them. 10 Third, such evidence would confuse the jury. It would be difficult for the jury to understand 11 which argument or evidence by Bragg or SVRV it could accept and which it would have to 12 disregard. 13 Lastly, this exclusion is also appropriate as an issue or evidentiary sanction under Code of 14 Civil Procedure § 2023.030. At the hearing in which the Court previously sanctioned Bragg for 15 discovery abuses, the Court specifically said that although he was denying certain requests for 16 issue and evidentiary sanctions—and gave Bragg one more opportunity to comply with the Court’s 17 order—the Court would reconsider these requests on motions in limine. (Vierra Reply ISO Mots. 18 In Limine ¶ 14.) Given that in addition to his prior discovery violations and multiple defaults, 19 Bragg also violated the Court’s order compelling further responses and imposing sanctions, should 20 Bragg be permitted to participate in the trial, deeming him to have admitted the well-pleaded 21 allegations in Plaintiffs’ original complaint (if not their Second Amended Complaint) is a 22 minimally appropriate order. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to exclude any evidence, 25 testimony, or argument by Bragg or SVRV contrary to the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ 26 original complaint. 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 1 2 Dated: _February 20, 2024_ By: ______________________ 3 Collin J. Vierra 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9