No Value: CHRISTO BARDIS vs. Peter Simonian, et al.

On June 24, 2022 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Christo Bardis, and County Of Monterey, Del Monte Forest Architectural Review Board, Does 1 - 10 Inclusive, Patricia L. Simonian, Patricia L Simonian Trustee Of The Simonian Trust Dated December 31, 2014, Peter T. Simonian, Peter T. Simonian Trustee Of The Simonian Trust Dated December 31, 2014, The Pebble Beach Company, for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited (06) in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
1 Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP
Marshall C. Whitney, #82952
2 mwhitney@wtjlaw.com
Jacob S. Sarabian, #322108
3 jsarabian@wtjlaw.com
970 W. Alluvial Ave.
4 Fresno, California 93711
Telephone: (559) 753-2550
5 Facsimile: (559) 753-2560

6 Attorneys for PETER T. SIMONIAN and
PATRICIA L. SIMONIAN
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

10
11 CHRISTO BARDIS, Case No. 22CV001790
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JACOB S.
SARABIAN IN SUPPORT OF
13 v. DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
14 COUNTY OF MONTEREY; PETER T. COMPLAINT
SIMONIAN and PATRICIA L. SIMONIAN,
15 individually and as trustees of the SIMONIAN [Filed concurrently with Memorandum
TRUST DATED DECEMBER 31, 2014; and Of Points And Authorities, Notice of
16 DOES 1-10 inclusive, Demurrer, and Request for Judicial
Notice]
17 Defendants. Date: July 5, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept.: 15
19 Action Filed: December 8, 2022
20

21
22

24
25

26
27

28
WHITNEY 643.0 06053737.000
THOMPSON &
JEFFCOACH DECLARATION OF JACOB S. SARABIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 DECLARATION OF JACOB S. SARABIAN
2 I, Jacob S. Sarabian, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before the Courts of the State of California
4 and before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm of Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP,
5 attorneys of record for PETER T. SIMONIAN and PATRICIA L. SIMONIAN.
6 2. If called as a witness, I would and could competently testify to all facts stated herein
7 from my personal knowledge except where stated upon information and belief and, as to these
8 matters, I am informed and believe them to be true.
9 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Bardis’ responses to
10 Simonian Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded in this litigation. Bardis’ subsequently
11 served amended responses, but not as to the RFAs which Simonian references in the points in
12 authorities in support of the demurrer to the TAC.
13 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Second Amended

14 Complaint in the Berte Action. A copy of the pleading was obtained from counsel for Simonian in
15 that action.

16 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of this Court’s order granting
17 Simonian’s Motion for Summary Adjudication in the Berte Action as to the cause of action for

18 breach of the 1928 CC&Rs. A copy of the order was obtained from counsel for Simonian in that

19 action.
20 6. On or around April 9, 2024, I had a meet and confer call with counsel regarding the

21 demurrer. I explained Simonian’s position and why we believe the TAC is still subject to demurrer.
22 Counsel respectfully disagreed and thus the demurrer follows.

23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

24 foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on this 15th day of April 2024,
25 at Fresno, California.

26
27
Jacob S. Sarabian
28
WHITNEY 643.0 06053737.000
THOMPSON & 2
JEFFCOACH DECLARATION OF JACOB S. SARABIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 1
1 Mark E. Ellis - 127159
Glenn C. Nunes - 210453
2 ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400
3 Sacramento, CA 95815
Tel: (916) 283-8820
4 Fax: (916) 283-8821

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff CHRISTO BARDIS

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

10
11 CHRISTO BARDIS, Case No.: 22CV001790

12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANTS'REQUESTSFOR
13 V. ADMISSION, SET NO . ONE

14 COUNTY OF MONTEREY; PETER T.
SIMONIAN and PATRICIA L. SIMONIAN,
15 individually and as trustees of the SIMONIAN
TRUST DATED DECEMBER 31, 2014,
16
Defendants.
17
18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANTS PETER T. SIMONIAN AND PATRICIA L.

19 SIMONIAN

20 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF CHRISTO BARDIS

21 SET NUMBER: ONE

22 It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed its investigation of the

23 facts relating to this case, has not fully completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its

24 preparation for the trial. All the answers contained herein are based upon such information and

25 documents which are presently available and specifically known to this responding party and disclose

26 only those contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It is anticipated that further

27 discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts, add

28 meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions,
- 1-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO ONE
1 all of which may lead to substantial additions, changes in and variations from the contentions herein

2 set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party's right to produce

3 evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which this responding party may later recall.

4 Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional

5 facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions are made.

6 The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual

7 information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known but should in no way

8 be in prejudice ofresponding party in relation to further discovery, research and analysis.

9 REQUEST NO. 1

10 Admit that SIMONIAN is not the successor in interest to the party identified as the grantee in the

11 1959 CC&RS.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1

13 Admit.

14 REQUESTN0.2

15 Admit that SIMONIAN has never cut any trees located on YOUR PROPERTY.

16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2

17 Admit.

18 REQUEST NO. 3

19 Admit that SIMONIAN has n ver trimmed any trees located on YOUR PROPERTY.

20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3

21 Admit.

22 REQUEST NO. 4

23 Admit that SIMONIAN has never hired someone to cut any trees located on YOUR PROPERTY.

24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4

25 Admit.

26 REQUEST NO. 5

27 Admit that SIMONIAN has never hired someone to trim any trees located on YOUR

28 PROPERTY.
-2-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO . ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5

2 Admit.

3 REQUEST NO. 6

4 Admit that the 1959 CC&RS do not apply to the SIMONIAN PROPERTY.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6

6 Objection: premature expert discovery. Objection: issue is a matter of public record and law.

7 Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny.

8 REQUEST NO. 7

9 Admit that the SIMONIAN PROPERTY is not located within the area described by metes and

10 bounds on page 1 of the 1959 CC&RS.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7

12 Objection: premature expert discovery. Objection: issue is a matter of public record and law.

13 Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit.
14 REQUEST NO. 8

15 Admit that SIMONIAN has not breached the 1959 CC&RS' provision relating to the cutting of

16 trees.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8

18 Admit.

19 REQUEST NO. 9

20 Admit that the 1959 CC&RS do not prohibit the trimming of trees without the consent of the

21 granter.

22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9

23 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant, because

24 Responding Party does not contend that the Simonian defendants have breached the provisions of the

25 1959 CC&Rs relating to cutting of trees. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds

26 as follows: The 1959 CC&RS do not contain the words "trim" or "trimming."

27 Ill

28 Ill
-3-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO ONE
1 REQUEST NO. 10

2 Admit that the 1928 CC&RS do not apply to the SIMONIAN PROPERTY.

3 (For purposes of these Requests For Admission, [sic]

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10

5 Deny.

6 REQUEST NO. 11

7 Admit that SIMONIAN has not breached the 1928 CC&RS.

8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11

9 Deny.

10 REQUEST NO. 12

11 Admit that the 1929 CC&RS do not apply to the SIMONIAN PROPERTY.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12

13 Deny.

14 REQUEST NO. 13

15 Admit that SIMONIAN has not breached the 1929 CC&RS.

16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13

17 Deny.

18 REQUEST NO. 14

19 Admit that you filed the First Amended Complaint on file in this action against Simonian to

20 "protect the natural beauty, aesthetics, and value of properties within the Pebble Beach Community."

21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14

22 Objection: not reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence and private. Objection: work-

23 product protection. Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as

24 follows:

25 Admit that protecting the natural beauty, aesthetics, and value of properties within the Pebble

26 Beach Community were among plainti ff s motivations for filing the First Amended Complaint, but deny

27 that they were his sole motivations.

28 Ill
-4-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 REQUEST NO. 15

2 Admit that you have suffered no pecuniary loss proximately caused by the alleged cutting of trees

3 by SIMONIAN which forms the basis of your First Amended Complaint on file in this action.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15

5 Deny.

6 REQUEST NO. 16

7 Admit that one reason you filed the First Amended Complaint on file in this action is because

8 you believed it would benefit plaintiffs Larry Berte and Diane Berete-Sobkowicz [sic] in Monterey

9 County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV00 1521 (hereafter the "Berte Action").

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16

11 Objection: not reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence and private. Objection: work-

12 product protection. Objection: vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase "would benefit."

13 Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as follows:

14 Admit belief that filing the First Amended Complaint "could" serve some benefit to the plaintiffs
15 Larry Berte and Diane Berte-Sobkowicz in Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV001521,

16 but deny belief that it certainly "would benefit" them.

17 REQUEST NO.17

18 Admit that you consulted with Larry Berte prior to filing the First Amended Complaint in this

19 action.

20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17

21 Objection: vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of "consulted." Without waiving

22 these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as follows:

23 Admit that Larry Berte was aware that the First Amended Complaint would be filed before it was

24 filed, but deny that Larry Berte was "consulted."

25 REQUEST NO. 18

26 Admit that Larry Berte approved of you filing the First Amended Complaint in this action.

27 Ill

28 Ill

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18

2 Objection: vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of "approved." Without waiving

3 these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as follows:

4 Admit that Larry Berte was aware that the First Amended Complaint would be filed before it was

5 filed, but deny that Larry Berte "approved" the filing.

6 REQUEST NO. 19
7 Admit that the trees you allege were cut by SIMONIAN are the same trees Larry Berte claims

8 were wrongfully cut by SIMONIAN in the Berte Action.

9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19

10 Admit that some of the trees that were allegedly wrongful cut by defendant Simonians were the

11 same trees that Larry Berte claims were wrongfully cut by the Simonians in Monterey County Superior

12 Court, Case No. 20CV001521, but deny that those trees at issue in the Berte action encompassed all of

13 the trees at issue in this action.

14 REQUEST NO. 20

15 Admit that you and Larry Berte are good friends.

16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20

17 Objections: vague, ambiguous, invades privacy, and not reasonably likely to lead to the

18 discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party

19 responds as follows:

20 Admit.

21 REQUEST NO. 21

22 Admit that Larry Berte has agreed to pay for some or all of your attorney's fees in this case.

23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21

24 Deny.

25 REQUEST NO. 22

26 Admit that you have agreed to pay for some or all of the fees incurred by Larry Berte in the Berte

27 Action.

28 Ill
-6-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO . ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22

2 Deny.

3 REQUEST NO. 23

4 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where a person obtained written consent from the

5 Pebble Beach Company to trim trees located within Pebble Beach.

6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23

7 Objection: this Request for Admission seeks information that is not within the personal

8 knowledge of the Responding Party. Objection: this case is early in discovery. Objection: vague and
9 ambiguous. Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as follows:

10 Admit to not presently knowing of instances when person obtained written consent from the

11 Pebble Beach Company to trim trees located within Pebble Beach, but this case is early in discovery and
12 seeks information that is outside of Responding Party's personal knowledge.

13 REQUEST NO. 24

14 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced

15 legal action against a homeowner withi the Pebble Beach community for trimming trees without written
16 consent.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24

18 Deny.

19 REQUEST NO. 25
20 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

21 Company commenced legal action against a homeowner within the Pebble Beach community for

22 trimming trees without written consent.

23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25

24 Deny.

25 REQUEST NO. 26

26 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced

27 legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for trimming trees without written

28 consent.
- 7-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26

2 Deny.

3 REQUEST NO. 27

4 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

5 Company commenced legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for trimming

6 trees without written consent.

7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27
8 Deny.

9 REQUEST NO. 28
10 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where a person obtained written consent from the

11 Pebble Beach Company to cut trees located within Pebble Beach.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28

13 Objection: this Request for Admission seeks information that is not within the personal

14 knowledge of the Responding Party. Objection: this case is early in discovery. Objection: vague and

15 ambiguous. Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as follows:

16 Admit to not presently knowing of instances when person obtained written consent from the

17 Pebble Beach Company to cut trees located within Pebble Beach, but this case is early in discovery and

18 seeks information that is outside of Responding Party's personal knowledge.

19 REQUEST NO. 29

20 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced
21 legal action against a homeowner within the Pebble Beach community for cutting trees without written

22 consent.

23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29

24 Deny.

25 REQUEST NO. 30

26 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

27 Company commenced legal action against a homeowner within the Pebble Beach community for cutting

28 trees without written consent.
-8-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30

2 Deny.

3 REQUEST NO. 31

4 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced

5 legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for cutting trees without written

6 consent.

7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31

8 Deny.

9 REQUEST NO. 32

IO Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

11 Company commenced legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for cutting trees

12 without written consent.

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32

14 Deny.

15 REQUEST NO. 33

16 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced

17 legal action against a homeowner within the Pebble Beach community for breaching the CC&RS' tenn

18 relating to tree cutting.

19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33

20 Deny .

21 REQUEST NO. 34

22 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where the Pebble Beach Company commenced

23 legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for breaching the CC&RS' term

24 relating to tree cutting.

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34

26 Deny.

27 Ill

28 Ill
-9-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES T0 DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 REQUEST NO. 35

2 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

3 Company commenced legal action against a homeowner within the Pebble Beach community for

4 breaching the CC&RS' term relating to tree cutting.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35

6 Deny.

7 REQUEST NO. 36

8 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any instance where any predecessor to the Pebble Beach

9 Company commenced legal action against a person within the Pebble Beach community for breaching

10 the CC&RS' term relating to tree cutting.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36

12 Deny.

13 REQUEST NO. 37

14 Admit that you unaware [sic] of any person within the Pebble Beach community suffering any

15 pecuniary loss proximately caused by SIMONIAN'S "cutting" of trees, as alleged in your First Amended

16 Complaint on file in this action.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37

18 Deny.

19 REQUEST NO. 38

20 Admit that no natural person has suffered any pecuniary loss proximately caused by

21 SIMONIAN'S "cutting" of trees, as alleged in your First Amended Complaint on file in this action.

22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38

23 Deny.

24 REQUEST NO. 39

25 Admit that you have trimmed trees on YOUR PROPERTY.

26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39

27 Objection: irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

28 Ill
- 10 -
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE
1 REQUEST NO. 40

2 Admit that you have previously hired someone to trim trees on YOUR PROPERTY.

3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40

4 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

5 REQUEST NO. 41

6 Admit that when you hired someone to trim trees on YOUR PROPERTY you did not obtain

7 written consent from the Pebble Beach Company prior to doing so.

8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41

9 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

10 REQUEST NO. 42

11 Admit that when you trimmed trees on YOUR PROPERTY you did not obtain written consent

12 from the Pebble Beach Company prior to doing so.

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42

14 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

15 REQUEST NO. 43

16 Admit that you have cut trees on YOUR PROPERTY.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43

18 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

19 REQUEST NO. 44

20 Admit that you have hired som eone to cut trees on YOUR PROPERTY.

21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44

22 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

23 REQUEST NO. 45

24 Admit that when you hired someone to cut trees on YOUR PROPERTY you did not obtain

25 written consent from the Pebble Beach Company prior to doing so.

26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45

27 Objection: not reasonably cal culated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

28 Ill
- 11 -
PLAINTIFF' S RESPONSES T0 DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO ONE
1 REQUEST NO. 46

2 Admit that when you cut trees on YOUR PROPERTY you did not obtain written consent from

3 the Pebble Beach Company prior to doing so.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46

5 Objection: not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and irrelevant.

6 REQUEST NO. 47

7 Admit that the driving distance between YOUR PROPERTY and the SIMONIAN PROPERTY

8 is greater than .5 miles.

9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47

10 Objection: not relevant, because the relevant covenants, codes, and restrictions relate to distance,

11 not "driving distance." Without waiving these objections in any respect, Responding Party responds as

12 follows:

13 Deny that the distance between the two properties is greater than 0.5 miles, but admit that the

14 "driving distance by road" is greater than 0.5 miles.

15 REQUEST NO. 48

16 Admit that the subdivision in which the SIMONIAN PROPERTY is located is not the same

17 subdivision in which YOUR PROPERTY is located.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48

19 Objection: vague and ambiguous as to subdivision. Without waiving these objections in any

20 respect, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny.

22 Dated: September 20, 2023
ELLIS LAW GROUP LLP
23

24
By nn~ =nes
===
25 ~~laintiff
CHRISTO BARDIS
26

28
- 12 -
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO . ONE
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Christo Bardis, declare:

3 I am a party to the within action.

4 I have read the foregoing responses to PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS'
5 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET NO. ONE, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except

6 as to those matters which are therein stated on information and beliet: and as to those matters, I believe

7 them to be true.

8 I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
9 a tme and correct statement.

10 Executed on r ooll, ot•

I perrnit to be manufnoturod o:r sold on s,iid p1•crn i ses nny lntox ioatl ne liquor
a f any kinerr.:o .l tted to be
ooou9led. or used by, Aslatlcs, Nogt'oos, or any pe1·son oorn in tho 'l'urkieh
Empire nor any lineal desoendant of suoh pel·son, exoopt that pet•sone of satd

:raooa rnay be employoa. as houaoholcl servants,
EI0m'H: It lo understood that the Clrantor at tho present tlmo has

I oonsh'-(otecl. u golf courae anll ·, ·,ill in tile future construct ·o~het' .fuolUtiea
and acoommodationo for allied outu.oor sports and. fo1· fishing and has built
a Lodge and Annex and other inoldental builllinBs in Del 11.01,te Forest where
1 t oonduo ts a publ_io reoort and hotel business !or tho'.sicoorr"odation and

I con\'anienoe or l ts guests and those deoh•ing to take advantage of said
outdoor· s:pox-ting facilities, and that tho oat-rying Qn or euoh business
includes the sale of wines and othet' liquors, when :permitted. by law, and
the general catering business and that the oa1•rying on of suoh business
sh..:- of any of the oon;>eln end no notion broui::ht or jud g,~en~ rendered
ebal l be conat:tued a:i a l1ereor of the whole 11or as a bar to any action for
s\loceed1ng broaohea,
It 1e 1\tl•ther \lnilerstoo¢. und Sfll'eed that v1he nover neoe ssal'Y the ll'Ord
"Orantoe" as use(!. 1n this deod shall be deemed t o inolude the feminine
and neu.ter, aa woll aa t he waoouline gender, and the plu.ral ae we l J:as the
I
singular nwnbc1•, 1111d that Hi l the oonditione, rcat:riotious, coveno.nto,
ab"l'&emonts aml promises herein contained shall inure to and bi nd. the hairs ,
exocuto1•s, adr.11n 1otrators aueoesaoN; and a ssi g ns of the Orantor and. tltsa
01•antee, I
111 YIITNZ3S l'IHi!:REOF the De l Uonte l'ro:pertieo CompMy hao caused these
pre&onts to be si8nod by tto ~reaident and by its Seoret.ary, and its corpor-
ate seal to be hereunto ai'fi xod , and t.he said orai\teeo lu.ive hereunto set
their he.nda and sea le tile dey and ye~ firot above w:ri tten,

DEL i.'.ONTE PHOPERT IES COMPANY

BY S, F, B. MORSE, l'Rl.:SlDE!iT
(Corporate Seal )
A,'ID J , BlsAUP!:0llT, S ECRl!.'T ARY
RALPH H, JO!IONNOT (SEAL)
Approved for execution
SA.LOME L, JOl!OliNOT ( SEiLL)

STATE OF OALIFORIIIA
. 11SS
COUliTl/ OF ll.Oti'l'ERh'Y
I
On thia 12th .t0tl'i' , known to me to be the l'ro$id.ant. and Seoretary of the OOl'1tol'a\.ion
d.esoribed. in and that executed the Viithin inetrwr.en t and also l010wn to
1!18 to be the persons who exeoutod tl\<1 t11th1n 1notrument on behalf of the
corporation thereib named, and aoknowledged to ce t hat euoh ooi•porat lon
exeou.ted the arune,

IN l'IITN~SS IIH8Rl,:OF .I have horeunto aet r;iy hand e.nd affixed
rn-, of'flolol ecal· at ll1J' offioe 1n the Cou.nty of i'.ont.erey, the d::\Y and yanr
i n thie oert.U'ioate .fll'st above v,ri ttnri
I
FRANK 0, MASSIE

lotnry Public in ond .for the Oou.nty
of ~'.onLe:roy; stnLe or Cal1fo1•ni a,
(!!o tarlnl Seal) I
s·rATE OF CALIF0RllIA,

couz.rry OF V.ONTERXY ( ae

On t l11 i; 8th day of SoptoL1b~1•, in th8 yea~• one thouo,rnd
nlnE, lmncl.red and Lwonty o, before me l'RAIIK O, 1!Assn,; , o 1/o~nry PUbllo

111 and .for \.he County o,f Va0n.toroy, personally nppeerod RALPH 11, JOHOrmo•r
455

o.nd. SALOL~ L, JOHOIH!O'r kUOTm to rne to be the persoirn whose names ai•e

I subsori bed to the within 1nst:ru.u\ont and ao}:nowledgod. to 100 • that t)1ey
exeoutod. the sam8,
IN WI'rNESS \'IHEREOF I have hereunto ~et Ill;,' hand and. affhed.
niy offiolai seal ·at my ,;,f.t'ioe in the county or J!.onta1•ey, the day ana yea1•

I in thh ty of the ae_o,on~ _l>al.'_t t_he roaeipt 1.hereoi'
ill hereby aokriowiedeed, rloos by these prosGnta g1•ant, bal'eain, and eeli
unto the eaid party or tho seoo11d pa:rt and to his heil•a and aaeigl'la rorovor,
all tb~se oertaln lo~a, pieoea or paroela of land situate in Salinas,
County or Monterey,. state or Oalitornia anil. l.iouno.eil. at1d d.esor1bed a8

follovrn, to wit:

I All of L<>t Twenty throe 123) and the \'/eate:rly l/2 of Lot 'iwenty two (22t
in Block lli.ne (91 !18 allo,m and deli11eated on the rnap entitled 11 }!.ap of
1
~11, l,anB & Kesael. o Addition to snlinae (lit:,," eul.'Voyed by D, F, Davies,
AUgU8t 1.096, ,md filed on AugUst 12! 1096 in the office of the County

·1 Raoo1•dar of tile oounty of MontBroy, State of Oul.Hol'nia and. now on file and
of reoord in aa1d offioe in Map Book Ono, Oi ties and Towns, at page ::n there-
in,
'.rOOh."i'H~R with the tenemonta, herod.1.ton1ento and appurtenonoeG thereunto
belollglug or app$:rtuining, and thl) l'ovei•sion and l'ovoraione 1 remaindea, and
tema1ndel.'s 1 rents, issues and profits thel.'aof,
TO HAVE AN1> TO HOLD tho eald J)l'emie:es, togotb.el:' viith tha al)rmt>tananoes,
unto tho said l)nl'ty of the second part and to his he11•a Md assien.a fol.'ovci·,
In VII~HESS VIHER~OF the ea id ~arty of thee fil'Ht )?V.l•t, haa ho1•ou.nbo uot
EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C
I
STAT!,! OF CALIFORNIA,
(es
COUlITY OF LOS AJlG!>LES,

On this 12th day or July, Ae D, 1929, before me, HELEN
k'INUOANE, a Notary l'Ublio in and for said county end State, personally
app.:ared C, H, BHADEN and E. L, . JER!.!AIIB , known tO r:i8 I ( or proved to
JOO on the oat)l oi'__ l, to be the persons whose names are subscribed
to the within Iruitrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed
the BB.Ille,

IN m:nrass VillliREOF, I .have hereunto set my hand and affixed rey
offioial seal, the day and _y ear in this oertit1oate first above written.

I HELEN FINUCANE
Notary Publio in and for said county ond State.
(Notarial seal)

JI
Reoorded at the request of JO!ffi J , WILSON July 23, 1929 at 5 min
pa.st 9 A, M...•.• BB,,,.,56894

I
ORIGINAL DEED 110 104? 2950,
'l.llIS INDE!l'IURE, made the 18th day of June, in the yeer of our
Lord, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine (1929) bet~een the

I Del Uonte Pro perties Company, a corporation duly incorporated ond
organized under the laws of the State or California, the party of the
first part, hereinafter referred to as Crontor and James P, C~hill
• a married rum, of the City of ne• york, State of New York, party of

the second part, hereinafter referred to as Grantee:
WITNESSETH: 1'hnt the said Grantor for and 1n consideration of the
acceptance or this conveyance by the seid Grantee, subject to the
conditions e.nd restrictions hereinafter mentioned and expressed, and for
and in further consideration of the ~Jm of Ten ($10,00) dollars,
in golQ coin of the United States to it in hond paid by the said
Grantee, the receipt or which 1s hereby acknowledged, has granted,
ba1·g~ined, sold and conveyed end by these presents docs grant, bargain
sell and convoy unto the said Grantee, and to said Grantee• s heirs aud

I assigns foreve~, subject to the conditions, and restrictions herein-
after expressed, tbat certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate,
lying and being in the County of Monterey, State of California, ona
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
- ·-=-=----~--=--==-.,..'l';" o- ..........~~~= .e.:•1C:1t.=..-==--~~"T"--=--====.:•.:!.•.- - . 4 ; ~ . . _ = = = ===Jo.'. .... ~g,::___--=:r.-.:,..-_~ , . , ~ -~

I
I
Beginning at a point distant 20 feet South 4° ;.12• l'iest from i'.onuir.ont
No, 2344, v,llioh monument is sholfn on the "Ltoensed Survoyors • Map of
&l Pesoadero end Point· Pinos Hanohos• tiled at page 3, Volume 3 of surveys
tlonterey County Reoords, and running the uce ,
(ll South 85° 28' Eost lOC,30 feet; thenoe
( 2) Tangentially end curv ing to the rlgbt 44.80 teet on the ero or a
curve of eo feet radius (long chord bears South 64° 04' 30" East 43,77
feet); thence
(3) south :390 00 ' west 435,68 teot; ther,oe
(4) North 5?· 32' SOtt west 305,54 feet; thenoe
(5 )
(6)
North 39• 57 1 45• East 390.13 reet; thence
south 40° 09' East 62,26 feet; thonco,
I
O,K (?) Tar.gontially aad ourvlng to tte left 110,73 feet on the arc of a curve
L,P
of 140 feet radius to the point of beginning, containing 2.698 acres and
being a portion ot El Pesoadero rtanoho,
'ID HAv:E AND '1'0 HOLD all and slngular·the above ment ioned and described
premises together with the appurtenances unto the said Grantee and unto

s-866 said Grantee's heirs and ~ss1gns forever.
This conveyan ce 1s inade and aocopted subject to the following express
i:
i
conditions and restrictions:
FIil.ST: That the Granteo shall not at any time manufacture or sell, I
or permtt to be rr.anut aotured or sold on sold premises, any intoxicating l1quo i
of any kind,
SECOllD: That the Grantee shall uot at any tice conduct, or perml t to
be oonduoted on said prom.1s03, any trade or business or ony desorlpt1on
I
without the consent in writing of the Granter, nor shall said premises be

used for any purposes whatever exoept solely and exolu3ively ror t he pur-
pose of a private dwelling or residence.
TiiIRD: Tbat no residence, septi o t ank, building, improvemen t or struc~ure ;
of any klnd whatever shall be erected or mainta ined upon the promises
hero in described until the p lacs and speoi flcatious therefor have first teen
submitted to and apprc,,ed b:t the Grantor in 'liritlng, an,i the written consent
of the Ora.ntor to the erection and caintenance the reof first obtained.
That whenever the Grantee shal l u3e said premises for rcstdenca or other
purposes, he shall ins tall El sop tio tank (or othe r equa lly sanitary structure
tor the s torage or ~1spos~l of se~a.ge) and t hereafter ~~lntatn these.mo under
tbe supervi sion and control or the Granter, I
FOUl1TH : r,·hat the property herotn de scribed shall not be conveyed or
trensre,red except as a whole or entirety, ror e period of T,.enty-rtve
(25) years ~ron June 18th, 1929 , If seid property should poss by wi 11
I
or desoent or by lnvoluntury ass1gnn:ent to more tt11·•n one person,

thls provision shall apply to said trunsferees,
FJF·Il!: The Grantor shall u.e.1ntu1n and keep ln repair a :road

leading from tho promises herein described to the neurest county
blghl'lay, and in oonsidorotlon thereof, and for tho purpose or enabling

the Grantor to r.aintflln the roads In the Del uonte Forest, the
Or{lntea peroonall y, and on behalf or hls fatn1ly, servants ond enployees

hereby weives the rlght of free ingress or egrees to and from the
premises herein dosorlbed, and hereby agrees to pay to Grontor on

I the first day of 1.:aroh of eaoh and every year hereafter, tho sum of

T,rnnty-!lve Dollars ($25,00), Upon ti;e reoeipt or snid sun and for a

period of one (1) year attar the reoeipt thereof, the Grantee, his
fli.l!llly, s ervants and employees, sbill have the right to en~er at will
the Del Uonte Forest, end to the privilege of using all tbe roads or
tbe Grento~therein open and generally in use at the time of such use.
Oren tor expressly reserves the rieht to change a ny ot its road:1 or to
abandon or olose any or oll of said r oads upon its preroises which are
not actually necessary for in.gross or egress to and from the preruses
herein desor1bed to the nearest county hlgb~ay. The Grontor further

reserves the rieht to refuse to further maintain end repair the rood
leading from the premises herein described to the nearest county high-
!'
i ,ray, and in that event the Grantee Ghall l,ave the right to use si,ld

I I
I
road without ma.king the above paye:ent.
SIXTH: No trees or e.ny kind or character looeted upon the premises
l
i herein dosorlbed shall be cut o:r removed therofrot1 wt thout tho consent
i•
ln 11rlting or the Grantor. If trees of any kind or choraoter are

I artlric1elly planted upon tbe premses herein described, and suoh trees
obstruct the view from other ~roperty, tho Grantor st6ll havo the right
so to trim or cut such trees that the vieia from other propel'ty er.all
not be obstructed by such trees so ai·tificielly planted,

SEVENTH: That the precises herein described shell not, nor st.all

any part thereof , nor ony estate or interest therein , or any 1oprove-

i:.cnts tl:ereon , at any time, be sold, conveyed, leased or transterred to ,
or perL1ttted to be oooupied or used by, Asiatics, Ne~roes, or any
person bs>•·n in the Turkish Eaplre, nor any lineal descendant or suoh

I person, except that persons or said races 1!8Y be employed es hou sehold
servants.

IHG!i'lli: It i s understood that tt.a Grantor et the present Ut.c hos

construoted a golf course ~d "lllll in the ruture construot other
reo ilities and accomn:odatioas for allied ou ttloor sports and for r1sning
- ·- - -- - --- ~ -'·-- ----- - -- - .. =----- 0' ~"=- - - - - - -- -·- ·- - ~ -- = . .,
I

I
and hae built a Lodge end Annex and other inoidental buildings in Del
Monte Forest where it oonduots a publio resort end hotel business for the
acoorrur.odation and convenience of its guests and those desiring to take
advantage of said outdoor sporting Caollities and that the oar1•y1ne on
of such business inoludes the sole ol' "ines and other liquors, when
permitted by la~, and th, general catering business and that the carrying
on of' su'oh business shell not be construed as a Y.aiver of any of the
oonditions and provisions in this deed or as the creating of a ~onopoly
of any of said business, but that said business is carried on for the
beneri t of those who have esta.bllshed hones and residences in Del Monte
Forest, and their visitors and for the benefit of the general public,
l!INTH: In the event or a breach of any of the· foregoing condi t1ons
I
or restrictions, tho faUul'e on the part of the Grantee, for a period
of thirty (30) days after personal service of a written notice of said

breach, to cocurence and thereafter diligently proceed to re~ove, or put
an end to, any erection, thing or condition that r.ay be or exist in
violation thereof, shall have the effect of terminating ell rights of the
Grantee hereunder, and the herein described property shall thereby
revert to and ve~t in the Grantor.
'I'KN'nl: That the foregoing coYenants and conditions shall be enforoible
by said Del Monte Properties Company, its grantees and successors in
interest, and all of suoh conditions shall run with the land and be
incorporated in any and al.l deeds end agreeJll8nts of sale nade by said
Grantee, and the ira.ntee of said Grantee, in any deed or agree~ent of sale,
shall also in such deed or agreel!'..Bn 't of sale covenant anil ae;rce that all
I
sald conditions shall be incoi:poratad in and be !Wde a pgrt ot any contract, i -
deed or transfer of such property rr..ade by said Grontee acd by all subsequent ' ";J.i!,
•<'
owners ond holders ot said property, or any part thereof,
ELBVBNTH: That each and all of the aforesaid conditions shell ~e
enforo1ble by injunction or by other form of aotion available to the
parties aggrieved or to the Grantor or its 6\lccessors in interest, and
in the event of any action or suit being brought and/or orising out or and/or
for the enrorcement of any of the conditions, restrictions, covenants,
agreerr.ents, and pro:nlses herein contained, whether for specific perfor~.o.nce *
~

and/or foreclosure and/or danages 6J1d/or f o rfeiturl" and the plain tiff
at~ll reoover in such action or suit, the defendant theroln shall pay

said plaintiff a reaso nable attorney's fee in such action, which shall be I
taxed by the Court as part of the costs therein and no 1wt ion brought
or judgir.ent rendered shall be construed as a merger of the ~hole nor es
a bar to any action for euoceeding breeches,
4(U

-i~-
I 1

rt is further undel'lltood and agreed that wt.anovet- ner its ruling on this
motion.

Dated: December 15. 2023
Thom~
Judge of the Superior Court

ORDER AFTER SUBMISSION 20CV00IS2I Page 5 of6
CERTIF·ICATE OF MAILING
(Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013a)

I do hereby certify that I am employed in the County of Monterey. I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within stated cause. I placed true and correct copies of the Order
After Hearing for collection and mailing this date following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with the Court's practices for collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Services in Monterey,
California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The names and addresses of each
person to whom notice was mailed is as follows:

Joseph Michael Fenech James Hugh Wilkins
144 W. Gabilan Street 6785 N Willow Avenue
Salinas, C

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 15, 2024

Case Filing Date

June 24, 2022

County

Parties

CHRISTO BARDIS Plaintiff
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Defendant
DEL MONTE FOREST ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Defendant
DOES 1 - 10 inclusive Defendant
Jacob S. Sarabian Attorney for the Defendant
Mark Ewell Ellis Attorney for the Plaintiff
Michael John Whilden Attorney for the Defendant
Omid Shabani Attorney for the Plaintiff
Patricia L. Simonian Defendant
Patricia L Simonian Trustee of the Simonian Trust Dated December 31, 2014 Defendant
Peter T. Simonian Defendant
Peter T. Simonian Trustee of the Simonian Trust Dated December 31, 2014 Defendant
Richard Harry Hart Attorney for the Plaintiff
THE PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY Defendant
Marshall Whitney Attorneys for Defendants
Glenn Nunes Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joseph Fenech Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Leslie Girard Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Blitch Attorneys for Defendants

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

No Value: CHRISTO BARDIS vs. Peter Simonian, et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties