No Value: Haynes vs Pulido

On August 06, 2020 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Haynes, John, and Calderonz, Gabriela, Pulido, Julia, for 22: Unlimited Auto in the District Court of Sonoma County.

Preview
1 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 312898)
ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ. (State Bar No. 223921)
2 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
Attorneys at Law
3 P.O. Box 10790
Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790
4 (866) 543-0394

5 Attorney for: Defendants, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
Our File No.: 21-114869-135
6

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

11 JOHN HAYNES, CASE NO: SCV-266844

12 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes:
JUDGE: Hon. Oscar A. Pardo
13 vs. DEPT: 19

14 JULIA PULIDO, GABRIELA CALDERONZ, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AND DOES 1 TO 50, ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR
15 HEARING ON MOTION TO
Defendants. CONTINUE TRIAL DATE;
16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
17 THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ IN
18 SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
19
DATE: April 15, 2024
20 TIME: 10:30 a.m.
DEPT: 19
21

23 COMES NOW YOUR APPLICANT, Law Offices of Bretoi, Lutz & Stele, attorneys of record
24 on behalf of Defendants, Julia Pulido and Gabriela Calderonz, herein, and applies for an order
25 shortening time for notice of the following Motion to Continue Trial Date.
26 Your applicant herein basis this application on the grounds that Defendants, Julia Pulido and
27 Gabriela Calderonz’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Two has
28 been sent to the court for filing, thus, the court’s clerk has not yet provided a date (Exhibit A). Good

1
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
1 Cause exists to continue the trial date in that plaintiff has not yet responded to Special Interrogatories,
2 Set Two. Further, a continuance of the trial date will give the parties a chance to complete discovery.
3 In addition, there is insufficient time for Defendant to file a timely noticed motion. Thus, good cause
4 exists for Defendant’s request to continue trial be heard via ex parte application.
5 This application is additionally based upon the Declaration of Anders Morrison, Esq., the
6 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, and on all pleading, papers and records on
7 file in this action, and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the
8 hearing of this application.
9 DATED: April 9, 2024
10 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
11

12
BY
13 ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ
14 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
15 JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
CALDERONZ
16

18
19

2
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1. THE COURT MAY GRANT A CONTINUANCE FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN
3 Courts consider that, "liberality should be exercised in granting a continuance when they
4 are not prejudicial to the interests of other parties to the action." (Whalen v. Superior Court (1960) 184
5 Cal.App.2nd 598, 601.) The granting or denying of a continuance is ordinarily a matter resting within
6 the discretion of the trial court, and the court's determination will not be interfered with, except with the
7 showing of abuse of discretion. (Id.) In ruling on a motion for continuance, the court should be governed
8 by a course that seems most likely to accomplish substantial justice, taking into consideration the good
9 faith of the moving party. (Id. at 600.)
10 The grounds for a trial continuance are specified in California Rules of Court, Rule
11 3.1332(c) and (d).
12 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c), states that "each request for a continuance
13 must be considered on its own merits" and that "the court may grant a continuance only on an
14 affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance." California Code of Civil Procedure
15 defines "good cause" as circumstances sufficient to justify the requested order or other action, as
16 determined by the judge. (Cal Code Civil Procedure § 116.113.) In the context of a request for trial
17 continuance, specifically, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c) identifies the following situations
18 or circumstances under which good cause may be established:
19
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness,
20 or other excusable circumstances;

21 (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
22
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
23
circumstances;
24
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing
25 that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
26 (5) The addition of a new party if:
27
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
28 prepare for trial; or

3
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
1
prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
2
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
3 material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

4 (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which
the case is not ready for trial.
5
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c).)
6
Good cause may be established by the presence of any one of the above items. In the instant
7
case, it is respectfully submitted that items (6) of the above factors justify a continuance in this matter
8
for good cause. As stated above, Defendants, Julia Pulido and Gabriela Calderonz’s Motion to Compel
9
Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, has been sent to the court for filing, thus, the
10
court’s clerk has not yet provided a date (Exhibit A). As a result, this cannot be accomplished before
11
the currently set trial date. The effect will deprive the Defendants of a fair hearing, as Defendants’
12
case will not adequately be presented. Good cause exists to continue the trial date in that counsel for
13
the Defendants should not be expected to begin trial with unanticipated changes in the status of the
14
case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.
15
2. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO SHORTEN TIME
16
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300:
17
“The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening
18 time supported by a declaration showing good cause, may prescribe
shorter times for the filing and service of papers than the times specified in
19 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.”
20
3. THE COURTS SHOW GREAT LIBERALITY IN GRANTING CONTINUANCES IN
21
CIVIL CASES WHEN IT IS FAIRLY APPARENT THAT TO DO OTHERWISE WILL
22
HAVE THE EFFECT OF DENYING APPLICANTS THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS DAY
23
IN COURT
24
The factors which influence the granting or denying of a continuance in any particular case are
25
so varied that the trial judge must necessarily exercise a broad discretion. On an appeal from a
26
judgment (the order itself is not appealable), it is practically impossible to show reversible error in the
27
granting of a continuance. (Taylor v. Bell, (1971) 21 Cal.App.3rd 1002, 1007, 98 Cal.Rptr. 855.)
28
///
4
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
1 4. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANTS respectfully request the court grant this application and
3 shorten time for notice of DEFENDANTS' motion.
4 DATED: April 9, 2024
5 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
6

7
BY
8 ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ
9 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
10 JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
CALDERONZ
11

18
19

5
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
1 DECLARATION OF ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ.
2 I, ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ. declare and state as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Bretoi, Lutz & Stele, attorneys for Defendants, Julia
4 Pulido and Gabriela Calderonz. I am a member of the State Bar of California and licensed
5 to practice before all courts of the State. I am the attorney primarily responsible for the
6 handling of this file and have reviewed its contents, and if sworn as a witness, I could
7 competently testify to the following facts, from my own personal knowledge.
8 2. Trial is set in this matter for May 3, 2024.
9 3. A continuance of the trial date will give the parties a chance to complete discovery,
10 prepare the case for trial.
11 4. Defendants, Julia Pulido and Gabriela Calderonz’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
12 Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, has been sent to the court for filing, thus,
13 the court’s clerk has not yet provided a date (Exhibit A).
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
15 true and correct.
16 Executed this 9th day of April, 2024, at San Francisco, California.
17

18 __________________________________
ANDERS R. MORRISON, ESQ.
19 Declarant
20

6
EX PARTE SHORTENING TIME
EXHIBIT A
1 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 312898)
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
2 P.O. Box 10790,
Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790
3 Physical Address:
555 West Imperial Highway
4 Brea, California 92821
(866) 543-0394
5 E-Service Address: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com

6 Attorney for: Defendants, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
Our File No.: 21-114869-135
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

11 JOHN HAYNES, CASE NO: SCV-266844

12 Plaintiff, JUDGE: Hon. Ocar A Pardo
DEPT: 19
13 vs.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER
14 JULIA PULIDO, GABRIELA CALDERONZ, COMPELLING PLAINTIFF, JOHN
AND DOES 1 TO 50, HAYNES, TO (1) ANSWER SPECIAL
15 INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO;
Defendants. AND (2) PAY COSTS AND
16 SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$760.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
17 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
18 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
19
20 DATE: TBD
TIME: TBD
21 DEPT: 19
22

23 TO: ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on TBD at TBD, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard
25 in Department 19 of the above-entitled court, located at 3055 Cleveland Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95403,

26 Defendants, Julia Pulido And Gabriela Calderonz, will, and hereby do, move the court for an order
27 compelling, Plaintiff, John Haynes, to respond within fifteen (15) days, without objections, to the

28 Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, propounded to Plaintiff and also for an order that said Plaintiff pay

1
1 monetary sanctions and attorney's fees to said moving party within fifteen (15) days in the sum of

2 $760.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 2023.010 et seq., and 2030.290 on the grounds

3 that Plaintiff has willfully failed without substantial justification to respond to discovery which

4 constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and thereby necessitating Defense Counsel to spend time

5 and incur expenses in bring the instant motion.

6 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.290 on the grounds

7 that the responding party has failed, without justification, to respond to this proper discovery, and has

8 waived his right to object to these demands.

9 This motion will be based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and

10 Declaration of Melissa R. Raffalow, Esq. attached hereto, the pleadings and other documentary

11 evidence contained in the court's file and such other oral and documentary evidence as may be

12 presented at the hearing of this motion.

13 DATED: April 1, 2024

14 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE

16
BY _______________________________
17 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
18
JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
19 CALDERONZ

26
27

2
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1. INTRODUCTION

3 On February 23, 2024, Defendants served Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, on Plaintiff,

4 John Haynes. (See Exhibit “A”) Responses to these discovery requests were due on March 27, 2024,

5 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260(a) and 1013(a).

6 On March 28, 2024, Defendants’ counsel wrote Plaintiff indicating that the responses were

7 outstanding and overdue (Exhibit “B”). This letter provided an extension within ten (10) days from

8 the date of that letter and warned that failure to provide responses to the requested discovery would

9 result in a motion to compel and a request for sanctions.

10 To date, no verified responses have been received. As a result of Plaintiff’s willful refusal to

11 serve answers to these demands, Defendant is unable to proceed with meaningful discovery. The

12 information requested is necessary in order to proceed with deposition, and to effectively defend this

13 action and prepare for trial.

14 2. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES IS PROPER AGAINST A PARTY THAT

15 FAILS TO SERVE TIMELY RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

16 Parties served with Interrogatories have 30 days with which to respond as dictated by Code of

17 Civil Procedure §2030.260:

18 "Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the
interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the responses to
19 them on the propounding party..."
20 In the instant case, Plaintiff has not responded to Special Interrogatories, even after

21 Defendants' counsel has met and conferred on the issue with Plaintiff.

22 When a Party fails to respond to a set of Interrogatories, that party waives objections, and the

23 propounding party may move the court for an order compelling responses as outlined in Code of Civil

24 Procedure §2030.290 which provides as follows:

25 "If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the following rules apply:
26
(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to
27 exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as
any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on
28

3
the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with
1 Section 2018.010).
2 (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
compelling response to the interrogatories.
3
In the instant case, Defendants require responses to adequately defend this case for trial and/or
4
for settlement purposes. Plaintiff's complaint alleges personal injuries. The interrogatories
5
propounded to the Plaintiff are relevant and/or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6
The defense of this lawsuit will be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiff is not ordered to provide responses,
7
without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two.
8
3. SANCTIONS ARE REQUIRED
9
According to Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010:
10
"misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the
11 following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of
discovery." Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 allows monetary
12 sanctions against those engaging in the misuse of the discovery process;
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subsection (a) states:
13
"The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in
14 the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct,
or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by
15 anyone as a result of that conduct."
16
Here, the Plaintiff has not responded to Special Interrogatories which are an authorized method
17
of discovery per Code of Civil Procedure §2030.010. Due to Plaintiff's lack of response, Defendants
18
had to file this motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, which required
19
attorney time and court expenses.
20
Moreover, according to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290 sanctions are mandated for a party
21
who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel as indicated in subsection (c) wherein it states:
22
"The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
23 (commencing with §2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to
24 interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
25 imposition of the sanction unjust." (Emphasis added)
26
27

4
1 There is no substantial justification or other circumstance which would make an imposition of

2 monetary sanctions unjust. According to law and the facts of this case, monetary sanctions are

3 warranted against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's attorney of record.

4 4. CONCLUSION

5 Based on the foregoing arguments, Defendants respectfully request that the Court order

6 Plaintiff, to respond, without objection, within fifteen (15) days to the Special Interrogatories, Set No.

7 Two, and further award attorney's fees and sanctions in the amount of $760.00 from Plaintiff.

8 DATED: April 1, 2024

9 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE

11
BY _______________________________
12 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
13
JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
14 CALDERONZ

19
20

26
27

5
1 DECLARATION OF MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.

2 I, MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, declare and state as follows:

3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of

4 California and that I am associated with the law firm of Bretoi, Lutz & Stele, attorneys of record herein

5 for Defendants, Julia Pulido And Gabriela Calderonz. The following information is within my personal

6 knowledge, and, if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently hereto.

7 2. On or about February 23, 2024 Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, were propounded to

8 Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of said document, marked EXHIBIT “A”, is attached hereto and

9 hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

10 3. On March 28, 2024, I wrote Plaintiff indicating that the responses were outstanding and

11 overdue (a true and correct copy is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit

12 “B”). This letter provided an extension within ten (10) days from the date of that letter and warned that

13 failure to provide responses to the requested discovery would result in a motion to compel and a request

14 for sanctions.

15 4. As of the date of the preparation of this motion, Plaintiff's responses to the discovery

16 have not been received by this office.

17 ///

18 ///

19 ///
20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///
27 ///

28 ///

6
1 5. The billing rate for this firm is $175.00 per hour and the costs of preparation and making

2 this motion are as follows:

3 A. Preparation of the motion (2 hours at billing rate of

4 $175.00 per hour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $350.00

5 B. Travel time and court appearance (2 hours at billing rate of

6 $175.00 per hour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $350.00

7 C. Filing costs of the motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 60.00

8 _________________

9 TOTAL COST $760.00

11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and

12 correct.

13 Executed this 1st day of April, 2024, at San Francisco, California.

15 __________________________________
MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
16 Declarant
17

19
20

26
27

7
EXHIBIT A
1 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 312898)
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
2 P.O. Box 10790,
Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790
3 Physical Address:
555 West Imperial Highway
4 Brea, California 92821
(866) 543-0394
5 E-Service Address: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com
6 Attorney for: Defendants, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
Our File No.: 21-114869-135
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10

11 JOHN HAYNES, CASE NO: SCV-266844

12 Plaintiff,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
13 SET NO. TWO
vs.
14
JULIA PULIDO, GABRIELA CALDERONZ,
15 AND DOES 1 TO 50,

16 Defendants.

18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
19 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JOHN HAYNES
20 SET NO.: TWO
21 Defendant, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ, hereby requests that Plaintiff,
22 JOHN HAYNES, answers the following Special Interrogatories, under oath and within thirty (30) days
23 from the date of service hereof, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure
24 §2030.010 through §2030.410.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
26 1. State the complete name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each and every health
27 care provider, including but not limited to medical doctors, osteopaths, chiropractors, physical
28 therapists, or other health care provider, who has provided health care services to you since July 10,
1 2021.

2 2. Identify each medical bill that you claim to have incurred as a result of the ACCIDENT

3 that is the subject of this lawsuit (i.e. this requires that you identify the health care providers from whom

4 the bill was incurred and the amount of the bill) since July 10, 2021.

5 3. Describe the facts of the accident in which you were involved on 7/10/2021.

6 4. Please provide a list of all witnesses you intend to call at trial.

8 DATED: February 23, 2024

9 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE

12 BY______________________________________
MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ.
13 Attorneys for Defendants,
JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
14

18
19

26
27

28
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(1013A, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss. HAYNES V. PULIDO
4 COUNTY OF SONOMA )
5

6 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business
address is 555 West Imperial Highway, Brea, California 92821.
7

8 On February 23, 2024, I served the forgoing SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO.
TWO on the interested parties in this action by the manner listed below:
9

10 SEE ATTACHED PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
11

12 (XX) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) My electronic service address is: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com. I
electronically served the documents listed above on behalf of JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
13 CALDERONZ. I emailed the document(s) on this date to the person(s) at the email addresses listed
on the attached Proof of Service list. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission
14 was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
15 ( ) (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
16 collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in ordinary
course of business. By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope. I caused such
17 envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid at my place of business to be placed in the United States
mail at Santa Ana, California on the persons on the attached Proof of Service list.
18
19 ( ) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of
the addressee(s).
20

21 ( ) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I also served by facsimile transmission, a true and
correct copy of the above designated documents, on the office(s) of the addressee at the following
22 facsimile number:
23 (XX) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
24

25 Dated: February 23, 2024
__________________________________
26 Bertha Serrano
27

28
1 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
HAYNES V. PULIDO
2

3
John Haynes
4 22584 Flamingo Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
5 jhphoneshop@hotmail.com
6

18
19

26
27

28
EXHIBIT B
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
Jeffrey S. Bretoi Melissa R. Raffalow
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
William R. Lutz Britton P. Galang
Michael S. Stele Daniel Feldman
Employees of the Corporate Law Department
Guy Chirinian Mercury Insurance Group Michael S. Kelly
Mark J. Serino
John Revelli Wiener Cadet, Jr.
Douglas C. Fabrick Mailing Address: Emily Corea
Michelle Wells P.O. Box 10790 Christina M. Petrilak
Ara O. Seropian Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790 Karen Aldridge Schamble
Emily K. Rockwell (866) 543-0394 Derick Hovsepian
Leon A. Victor FAX (877) 389-1095 Matthew J. Vallejo
Brian S. Dewey Stefanie C. Desalernos
Anders Morrison Erika Diaz
Bryan J. Elkerton
CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com Brian R. Rizzi
Dan Tusa Paul J. Hahn
Diana Mamoeva
Timothy T. Fuller Anthony Babakhanian
David M. Hillier Susanna Saakian
Craig W. Mackie Joshua Babataher
Susan M. Hamilton J. Dean Rice
Kimberly D. Reed Jill S. Kramer
Henry L. Heins, III Robert S. Miller
Shannon A. Tool Ali Hashemi
Paul Y. Kang Dion M. Macbeth
Joy L. Mahlstedt Hootan Hemati
Kristian Meyer Owen P. Sandstrom
Sally L. Schubert Abril A. Perez
Vicente Valencia, Jr. Sara K. Batres
Bradley V. Mahlstedt Karen G. Aivadjian
Tina Norling John-Michael Sorokolit
Steve A. Kang Brian W. Plummer
Tomas Burgos Derek King
Dara Fairchild

March 28, 2024

John Haynes
22584 Flamingo Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
jhphoneshop@hotmail.com

RE: HAYNES v. PULIDO
Our File No.: 21-114869-135
Court Case No.: SCV-266844

MEET AND CONFER

Dear Mr. Haynes:
LAW OFFICES OF
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE

RE: HAYNES v. PULIDO
March 28, 2024
Page 2

On February 23, 2024, Defendants, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ, served
on Plaintiff, JOHN HAYNES, Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two in connection with the
above-entitled action.

Responses to the above outstanding discovery were due March 27, 2024. To date I have
received neither written responses nor objections and as you can clearly see the answers to
outstanding discovery are now overdue.

While I am reluctant to bring a Motion to Compel, I shall be compelled to do so if I do not
receive full verified written responses, without objections, within ten (10) days from the date of
this letter.

Should I be obligated to make a Motion to Compel, I will seek such sanctions and expenses as
the Court may choose to award under applicable code provisions and/or local rules.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly.

Very truly yours,
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE

Melissa R. Raffalow, Esq.
MRR:ss
1

2
3
4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
6

7
8
9

10
JOHN HAYNES, CASE NO: SCV-266844
11
Plaintiff, JUDGE: Hon. Ocar A Pardo
12 DEPT: 19
vs.
13
JULIA PULIDO, GABRIELA CALDERONZ, [PROPOSED] ORDER
14 AND DOES 1 TO 50,

15 Defendants. DATE: TBD
TIME: TBD
16 DEPT: 19

17 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORDS HEREIN:
18 Defendants, Julia Pulido And Gabriela Calderonzs' Motion to Compel Answers to Special

19 Interrogatories, Set Two, came regularly on ____________, at ________, in Department 19 of the above

20 entitled court.

21 IT IS ORDERED:

22 (1) That Plaintiff, John Haynes, provide and serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set

23 Two, without objections, by ____________________.

24 (2) That Plaintiff, John Haynes, pay sanctions of $ _____________ to Bretoi, Lutz & Stele

25 by ___________________.

26 DATED:
________________________________
27 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
28

8
1 MELISSA R. RAFFALOW, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 312898)
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
2 P.O. Box 10790,
Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790
3 Physical Address:
555 West Imperial Highway
4 Brea, California 92821
(866) 543-0394
5 E-Service Address: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com

6 Attorney for: Defendants, JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA CALDERONZ
Our File No.: 21-114869-135
7

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10

11 JOHN HAYNES, CASE NO: SCV-266844

12 Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE

13 vs.

14 JULIA PULIDO, GABRIELA CALDERONZ,
AND DOES 1 TO 50,
15
Defendants.
16

19
20

26
27

28
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(1013A, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss. HAYNES V. PULIDO
4 COUNTY OF SONOMA )
5

6 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business
address is 555 West Imperial Highway, Brea, California 92821.
7

8 On April 9, 2024, I served the forgoing NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
PLAINTIFF, JOHN HAYNES, TO (1) ANSWER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO;
9 AND (2) PAY COSTS AND SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $760.00; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MELISSA R.
10 RAFFALOW, ESQ.; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action by the manner
listed below:
11

12 SEE ATTACHED PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
13

14 (XX) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) My electronic service address is: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com. I
electronically served the documents listed above on behalf of JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
15 CALDERONZ. I emailed the document(s) on this date to the person(s) at the email addresses listed
on the attached Proof of Service list. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission
16 was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
17 (XX) (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
18 collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in ordinary
course of business. By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope. I caused such
19 envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid at my place of business to be placed in the United States
mail at Santa Ana, California on the persons on the attached Proof of Service list.
20

21 ( ) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of
the addressee(s).
22

23 ( ) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I also served by facsimile transmission, a true and
correct copy of the above designated documents, on the office(s) of the addressee at the following
24 facsimile number:
25 (XX) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
26
27 Dated: April 9, 2024
__________________________________
28 Soveth Sous
1 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
HAYNES V. PULIDO
2

4 John Haynes
22584 Flamingo Street
5 Woodland Hills, CA 91364

6
EMAIL: jhphoneshop@hotmail.com
7

26
27

28
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(1013A, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss. HAYNES V. PULIDO
4 COUNTY OF SONOMA )
5

6 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business
address is 555 West Imperial Highway, Brea, California 92821.
7

8 On April 9, 2024, I served the forgoing EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE;
9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION
OF ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
10 on the interested parties in this action by the manner listed below:
11

12
SEE ATTACHED PROOF OF SERVICE LIST

13
(XX) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) My electronic service address is: CALegal@MercuryInsurance.com. I
14 electronically served the documents listed above on behalf of JULIA PULIDO AND GABRIELA
CALDERONZ. I emailed the document(s) on this date to the person(s) at the email addresses listed
15 on the attached Proof of Service list. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission
was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
16
(XX) (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for
17 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in ordinary
18 course of business. By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope. I caused such
envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid at my place of business to be placed in the United States
19 mail at Santa Ana, California on the persons on the attached Proof of Service list.
20
( ) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of
21 the addressee(s).
22
( ) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I also served by facsimile transmission, a true and
23 correct copy of the above designated documents, on the office(s) of the addressee at the following
facsimile number:
24
(XX) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
25 the above is true and correct.
26
Dated: April 9, 2024
27 __________________________________
Soveth Sous
28
1 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
HAYNES V. PULIDO
2

4 John Haynes
22584 Flamingo Street
5 Woodland Hills, CA 91364

6
EMAIL: jhphoneshop@hotmail.com
7

26
27

Case Info

Judge

Pardo, Oscar A Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 10, 2024

Case Filing Date

August 06, 2020

County

Parties

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

No Value: Haynes vs Pulido

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties