Motion to Extend or Shorten Time in Arriaga, et al. v. Lara, et al. [Coordinated into Arriaga and Associates Wage and Hour Cases JCCP4980 Santa Clara]| Trellis.Law

On May 11, 2017 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Douglas Martin, Marty Verducci, Russ Oleyer, and Brad A Rothfield, Edward Giron, Jesus Alacon, Maddison Group, Inc., Madison Group Security, for civil in the District Court of Santa Clara County.

Preview
DANIA M. ALVARENGA SBN. 244486
ALVARENGA LAW Fl L E D
1625 The Alameda 307
Ste.
San Jose, California 95126
P: 408.289.1701
MAY 2 9 2018
F: 877.520.6858
E: dania®alvarengalaw.com

BARZIN BARRY SABAHAT, SBN. 164248
1900 Camden Ave., Suite 204
San Jose, Califomia 95 124
Telephone: 408.228.3488
Fax: 408.709.1813
Email: bwﬁﬂanchorlawgroupcom

Attorneys for LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA and ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATIES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
UNLINHTED CIVIL DIVISION

LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA, an Case No.2 l7-CV-3 10003
individual and ARRIAGA &
ASSOCIATES, INC., a closely held
ﬁiAw California Corporation, Ex PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
Plaintiffs ’
ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND ALSO
H U!
V_ To EXTEND TIME/STAY DEPOSITIONS
EN PENDING THE FORMAL HEARING 0N
H m
JASON LARA, an individual; EDWARD THIS MATTER; MEMORANDUM 0F
GIRON,anindividua1;JEsus ALACON, p 01 N TSAN D AUTHORITIES REQUEs T;
17
mindividnﬂgBRAD AROTHFIELD’M
ALVAR
. . .

mdmdual; JOSE SEGURA, an mdmdual;
. . . FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
18 MADISON GROUP SECURITY, a DECLARATION 0F DAN“ M.
Business of unknown location and ALVARENGA IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
19 unknown format; and DOES I through 100 [PROPOSED] ORDER
inclusive,
20
Date: May 29, 2018
Defendants.
21 Time: 8:158m
JASON LARA and JOSE SEGURA Dep“ Ex Pam ' Dept 5
22

Cross-Complainants,
23

V.
24

25
LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA, an
individual and ARRIAGA &
26
ASSOCIATES, INC, a California
Corporation
27
Cross-Defcndants, I

‘
Ex PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA c1. a1. 117.cv-310003/ ._.
Ix)
TO: THE HONORABLE COURT, CROSS-COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
h)
OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT
On May 29, 2018, at 8:15 a.m.. in the above captioned court, located at 191 N. First

Street, San Jose Ca 951 13, Cross-Defendants LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA and

ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC, will apply for a Court order pursuant to Code ofCivil

Procedure Section 1005(b) to shorten time for service and hearing of Cross-Defendants’ Motion

for the Appointment of a Discovery Referee, Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order.

Additionally, Cross-Defendants further request this Court, pursuant to Code QfCivil Procedure

Section 2025.270 (d) extend/stay the depositions on this matter pending the fomtal hearing on

these motions.

The Ex Parte application will be based upon this Notice of Hearing; the Memorandum 01

p...
(A)
Points and Authorities in support thereof; the Declaration of Dania M. Alvarenga; all oral
iAW
H uh argument and documentary evidence presented by the aforementioned Plaintiff at any hearing for

a this Application.
N
E Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 100505), a judge may prescribe a shortet
.r

7: time in which to hear a motion. Likewise, Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2()25.27(
A,L,—_\(AR

(d), ajudge may extend or stay a deposition.

Cross—Defendants respectfully requests this Court to shorten the time to hear their

Motions and stay depositions pending fomtal hearings and a deﬁnitive resolution on these

matters.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: May 28, 2018 ALVARENGA LAW

Dania (4/ 121, Esq
Attorney for ross-Defendants
LOUIS ARRIAGA & ARRIAGA &
ASSOCIATES INC.

Bx PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA er. al. [I7-CV-310003/ 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA (“ARRIAGA”) and ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES,
INC. (“A&A” collectively “Cross-Defendants”) submit the following memorandum of points

and authorities in suppon of their Ex Parte Application to Shorten the Time for Hearing on the

Following Motions: Motion to Compel the Depositions ofJASON LARA and JOSE SEGURA;
Motion for a Protective Order; and Motion for Appointment of a Discovery Referee and to Stay

Depositions Pending the Fonnal Hearing on This Matter:

INTRODUCTION
This is a case with two actions: a complaint and a cross-complaint. The Complaint

addresses issues related to business matters and has been conclusively decided at the state trial

court level. The cross-complaint raises issues related to employment, does not involve claims

related to the original complaint and remains pendihg. As related to the cross-complaint there has;

been some back and forth regarding discovery and various depositions including the sequence

and timing of those depositions and the validity of responses to discovery.

H U!
Despite repeated attempts to meet and confer Cross-Defendants have been unable to
ALVAR‘ENBNﬁ—AW

‘16 bring Cross-Complainants to the table and have a reasonable discussion, to the point where there

17 is now silence and entirely ignoring of issues raised and emails sent and at least three motions to

18 compel are pending without a reasonable effort to meet and confer. It is impossible to continue in

19 this manner particularly given the inability to communicate. On account of these problems,

20 Cross-Defendants are desperately requesting this Court to intervene and appoint a discovery

21 referee as well as decide regarding depositions that are scheduled to go forward as early as June

22 6, 2018. Due to the various motions and imminent depositions, Cross—Defendants are not able to

23 schedule any motions on regular notice and are requesting they be heard on shortened notice.

24 Since the ﬁrst deposition is scheduled for June 6, 2018, Cross-Defendants are further respectfully

25 requesting this Court stay depositions pending resolution of these matters.

26 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
27 Cross-Defendants ﬁled the original lawsuit against JOSE SEGURA (“SEGURA”) and hi;

28 business associate JASON LARA (“LARA”) on May 11, 201 7 (Request for Judicial Notice 111

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA V. LARA cl. al. Il7-CV-310003l 3
(“RJN”)). An amended complaint was ﬁled on August 22, 2017,(RJN 112). A cross-complaint
was then ﬁled by both SEGURA and LARA on October 3, 2017. (RJN 113). The Cross Complaint

was largely based on wage and hour claims (the same as sought in through the Labor

Commissioner action) as well as the UCL claim and a claim for defamation. 0n March 1, 2018,

LARA, ﬁled a voluntarily request for dismissal dismissing causes of action l through 16 and 19

through 26 yet retained his claim with the Labor Commissioner. Causes of action 17 and l8

remained. Cause of action l7 is the UCL cause of action and the dismissed actions were all wage

and hour based. (RJN 115). Thus, there are two separate actions: a complaint and cross—complaint

and in the cross-complaint there are two defendants: ARRIAGA individually and Arriaga &
Associates Inc. (RJN ﬁl6). No trial date has been set. (RJN 117).

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The cross-complaint in this matter is largely based on wage and hour and one defamation

claim. (Declaration of Dania Alvarenga (“DMA Dec.”) {I 1) Both SEGURA and LARA have
sent written discovery and deposition notices. (DMA Dec. 11 3) Despite Cross-Defendants’

H U‘ counsel’s good faith attempts to meet and confer, communication has broken down to a gain!

16 where emails are ignored and there is simply no response to even basic requests. (DMA Dec. {I
ALVARENGqu

17 4-1 8, Ex A through H)
18 Without engaging in any meet and confer and simply ignoring communications sent

19 related thereto, counsel for LARA and SEGURA ﬁled three motions to compel to be heard on

20 July 19, 2017. (DMA Dec. 1] 4-10, Ex A through D)This came, again, after counsel for
21 ARRIAGA and A&A requested the usual and code required meet and confer process. (DMA
22 Dee. 11
8-1 O, Ex B and C) This also comes after unreasonable requests to withdraw all objections,

23 provide responses without objections, and provide such responses in an absurdly short amount of

24 time and after indicating “l am not inclined to wait until you are in the mood to respond” and

25 simply ignoring ﬁn’ther communications attempting to meet and confer.

26 Similarly, despite repeated requests to meet and confer regarding depositions (and aﬁer

27 two defective notices), emails and communications regarding depositions are simply being

26 entirely ignored. (DMA Dec. 11 15, 20, 21, Ex H) Instead, counsel for SEGURA and LARA

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA V. LARA ct.al.[17-CV—310003/ 4
claims that, “No further communications would be fruitful.” Finally, despite, yet again, a

request to meet and confer regarding another set of discovery sent by counsel for LARA and
SEGURA yet another motion to compel was calendared by SEGURA and LARA’s counsel to be

heard in August of 2018. (DMA Dec. 1] 5, Ex C and D)This was done without any exchange of
communication and aﬁer one letter demanding the withdrawal of objections and a response over

a holiday weekend. (DMA Dec. 11 12-14, Ex E and F)

There has been a history of abusive and unprofessional behavior which seems to be the

driving force behind the unwillingness to meet and confer and now lack of communication.

(DMA Dec. 1i 10, 11, Ex D) It is simply not possible to continue fruitfully operating in this case

in this manner when one side (Counsel for SEGURA and LARA) entirely ignores

communications and is unwilling to abide by the code. On account of this, Cross-Defendants are

now forced to ﬁle various motions, most importantly a motion requesting the appointment of a

discovery referee, a motion to compel and for leave to take a deposition and motion for a
1AW
protective order. Given the fact that depositions are scheduled for early June and given the fact

that this continued behavior will only lead to the ﬁling of more motions and a waste of this

16 Court’s time and money, it is urgent for this Court to consider motions on a shortened time and

As of now, discovery motions are
AEYARENB

~17 to stay the depositions until a formal hearing has occurred.

18 being set for late August 2018. Waiting until August 20 1 8 to hear a motion regarding the

breakdown in communications, the lack of response and constant ﬁling of motions to compel and

pending depositions is simply not possible. (DMA Dec. {I 16-21)

Although various attempts were made to communicate with counsel for LARA and
SEGURA regarding the substantive motions, the depositions and the need to ﬁle this Ex Parte,

all attempts were entirely ignored. Similarly, no calls made are ever answered. Thus, even with

regards to this Ex Parte, communications were simply ignored. (DMA Dec. {I 17). Appropriate

notice was given both via phone and email on Friday May 25, 201 8. Via fax at 9:45 am and via

phone at 9:50 am.

///

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA eta], [l7-CV-310003] 5
DISCUSSION
l. CROSS-DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME 0N THEIR
MOTIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED AS IT WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
HEAR THE MOTIONS ON REGULAR NOTICE SINCE THERE IS A
COMPLETE BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATIONS, A LACK OF MEET
AND CONFER AND VARIOUS IMPENDING DEADLINES
Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) empowers this Court with the ability to shorten time

for the hearing on a motion through the granting of an Ex Parte application to do so. California

Rules of Court Rules 3.1200 through 3.1207 set forth the requirements for an Ex Parte

application. An applicant for Ex Parte relief must make an afﬁrmative showing in a declaration

containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate

danger or any other statutory basis for Ex Parte relief.

A. Good Cause Exists to Hear These Motions On Shortened Notice

The accompanying declaration of Dania M. Alvaxenga explains in detail the exigent

circumstances and immediate need for relief. As generally explained above (and explained

further in the declaration) there has been a complete breakdown in communications and what

H Ul
appears to be a disregard for the meet and confer requirement of the discovery code. Without
ALVAREHQPLAW

'.
16 attempting to meet and confer three motions to compel have been scheduled by counsel for

17 SEGURA and LARA. (DMA Dec. {I
4-1 8, Ex A through H) This comes aﬁer unreasonable

18 requests to withdraw all objections, provide responses without objections, and provide such

19 responses in an absurdly shon amount of time and after indicating “I am not inclined to wait

20 until you are in the mood to respond” and simply ignoring further communications attempting to

21 meet and confer. (DMA Dec. 1! 4-10, Ex A through D)
22 Likewise, without attempting to reasonably meet and confer emails regarding depositions

23 and the sequence and validity of those depositions are being entirely ignored. Instead, there is a

24 claim that, “No further communications would be fruitful.” (DMA Dec. ﬁl 15, 20, 21 , Ex H) To
25 highlight the extent of the problem and the entire lack of communication: various emails were

26 sent regarding this Ex Pane and the need to move forward. All were ignored. (DMA Dec. {I 17)

27 Given the complete lack of response, the unwillingness to even try to meet and confer,

28 the lack of so much answering one call or responding to emails, it is impossible for counsel to

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA ct. al. [l7-CV-3I0003] 6
continue in this manner until these matters can be heard on the regular calendar. Doing so
would

require waiting until August 201 8 and by then two months would have gone by with this type of

behavior. It is impossible to schedule a deposition, talk about it, talk about discovery or even

engage in any type of reasonable discussion. At the rate things are going there may be ten more

motions ﬁled between now and August 201 8. It is crucial for this court to consider whether to

appoint a referee, whether depositions should go forward, in what sequence they should go

forward and what scope is allowed. If we were to wait until August 201 8 there may be

irreparable harm as counsels’ inability to communicate may lead to a stagnation in the discovery

process, a waste ofthis Court’s time and a countless waste of money for all parties involved.

(DMA Dec. 11 16-21) Thus, given the nature of the relationships and what has occurred, Cross-

Defendants submit sufficient grounds exist for the hearing of all motions on a shortened notice.

B. Ex Parte Notice Requirements Have Been Complied With

As required by the code, Ex Parte notice was provided to SEGURA and LARA’s counsel

‘LAw
on Friday May 25, 201 8 prior to 10:00am. Both a phone calla and fax were sent out which

notiﬁed counsel of the time, date, place, and reasons for this Ex-Parte Application. (DMA Dec. 1]
16 22-24, Ex. I)

A_LyARENG
'5 17
2. THIS COURT SHOULD STAY DISCOVERY,AND DEPOSITIONS IN
PARTICULAR, PENDING THE HEARING ON THESE MOTIONS
.

19 CCP section 2025.270 (d) provides: (d) On motion or ex parte application of any party or

20 deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a

21 deposition, or may stay its taking until the determination of a motion for a protective order under

_22 Section 2025.420.

23 Here there is a motion requesting a discovery referee be appointed, there is also a motion

24 to compel/gant leave to take SEGURA and LARA’s deposition and there is a motion for
25 protective order. The ﬁrst deposition is scheduled to go forward in early June 2018. Given the

26 short amount of time, it would be impossible to hear the motions prior to the ﬁrst deposition. The

27 short time is not due to failure or lack of action. In fact this deposition notice for this ﬁrst

28 deposition was sent by mail on May 22, 201 8 (technically served on the 26m of May) and

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA cl. al. [I7-CV—310003] 7
Monday May 28 is a holiday. Despite sending various meet and confer emails. there was simply

2 no agreement on the timing sequence or even ability 10 take depositions, thus Tuesday May 29 is

3 the ﬁrst time an Ex Pane could be made. (DMA Dec. 1] 20, 2 1)

4 Given the short time frame, the impossibility 0f hearing the motions prior t0 the

a depositions and the nature of the motions. Cross-Defcndants submit that good cause exists for

6 staying all discovery but in panicular the depositions until the motions can be heard.

7 CONCLUSION
8 Based upon the foregoing, Cross-Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant

9 their Ex Parte hear the motions on a shortened notice and stay the depositions pending the

10 resolution of the motions.

11 Respectfully Submitted,

12 DATED: May 28, 2018 ALVARENGA W

Dani . 1v e ga, Esq.
Attorney for r ss-Defendants
ALVARENGﬁ—Aw
LOUIS ARRIAGA & ARRIAGA &
a 16
ASSOCIATES INC.

EX PARTE APPLICATION
ARRIAGA v. LARA ct. al. l l 7-CV-3l0003/
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Cross-Defendant, LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA respectfully request that xhis court take

judicial notice of the following documents and facts pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452:

1. The original Complaint docketed as case number 17-CV-31003 was ﬁled on May 1.

2017;

Ev An amended Complaint was ﬁled on August 22, 201 7.

3. The Claim for Wage Violations ﬁled with the Labor Commissioner on 0r about July 20,

4. The Cross-Complaint ﬁled on October 3, 2017.

5. A dismissal of causes of action 1-17 and 19-26 of the cross—complaim ﬁled by Jason

6. There are two separate actions, a complaint and a cross—complaint;

7. There are two separate parties in the cross-complaint: Louis Christopher Arriaga, is one

party and Arriaga & Associates is another.
8. There is n0 trial date set.

ALVARENEA‘hAW

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 453, judicial notice “shall be taken” of above-

identiﬁed facts/documents, because Defendant hereby requests that the Court do so, notice has

been given Io all parties in this action when they were served with Defendant’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings, and sufﬁcient information appears above to enable this Court to take

judicial notice.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATE: May 28, 2018 ALVARENGA LAW

D l ,
ALVARENGA
BARZlb. BARRY SABAHAT
Attorneys for Cross-Defendants
LOUIS ARRIAGA & ARRIAGA &
ASSOCIATES INC.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAT. NOTICE
ARR/AGA v. LARA e1. at. //7.cv..uooo3/ a
DECLARATION OF DANIA M. ALVARENGA
I, Dania M. Alvarenga, declare as follows:

l. I am attorney for Cross-Defendants LOUIS CHRISTOPHER ARRIAGA and

ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES INC, in this cross-complaint which is based on wage and hour

claims and also one defamation claim.

2. l have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and if called upon as a

witness, I could testify competently thereto.

3. I have received multiple sets of discovery from the attorney for Cross-

Complainants JOSE SEGURA and JASON LARA. This includes written discovery as well as

three deposition notice, two of which were defective and a third which was sent attempting to

correct previous defects.

A. Need for Shortened Hearing on Motions Due to Disregard of Discovery Code
and Failure to Meet and Confer

4. I have attempted to respond to all discovery in a timely and complete fashion.

H UV Contrary to what I believe, attorney for Cross-Complainants seems to think all discovery
AWARENEALAW

‘16 responses are deﬁcient. While she is certainly entitled to believe this, Ms. Humiston simply has

>17 no interest in engaging in the code required and appropriate meet and confer process.

18 5. In mid-April 2018, I received a letter from Ms. Humiston regarding some

19 discovery reSponscs. This letter was about two paragraphs long (short paragraphs). The ﬁrst

20 paragaph simply conglomerates all the discovery and mentions all the parties and everything

21 that was propounded. The second paragraph makes a blanket statement about PAGA and
22 requests further responses. A Hue and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. The letter is a bit confusing and suspicious for several reasons: It doesn’t
23

24 speciﬁcally state what discovery is allegedly deﬁcient; In viewing itI had no idea if she was

25 referring to Jason Lara or Jose Segura, this being relevant given that Jason Lara dropped his

26 PAGA claims; I had no idea what about my objections raised a red ﬂag for Ms. Humiston; it was

27 unclear what about the actual response itself was improper and why further responses were

28 necessary; It gave me two days to provide further responses and requested I withdraw my

DECLARATION 0P DANIA M. ALVARENGA
ARRIAGA v. LARA cl. al. Il7—CV-310003} 10
objections entirely.

7. This letter is completely contrary to what I am used to in the legal industry. Most

attorneys, in a good faith eﬁ‘ort to meet and confer, send out a detailed letter explaining the

issues. This letter failed to provide me notice as to what was the problem or how we could work

together to address it

8. On account of the confusion and unreasonableness of the letter, I sent an email to

Ms. Humiston explaining that I was confused, requested a meet and confer and requested more

clariﬁcation. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

9. Instead of engaging in meaningful meet and confer, Ms. Humiston refused, she

indicated she would not engage in a meet and confer process due to a pending deadline. A
deadline, that interestingly enough, is not pressing given that there is no looming trial date and

that she set herself. The fact that Ms. Humiston herself set a deadline should simply not be a

reason to entirely ignore the meet and confer requirement of the well-established Discovery
iAW
Act/Code of Civil Procedure. A true and correct copy of Ms. Humiston’s response and further
.5 emails regarding meet and confer are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit C.
N
E. 10. Altogether there has been no meet and confer on any issue related to discovery.

Had Ms. Humiston been amenable to it, I would have provided an explanation and assessed if I

APYAB
could have gathered what else she wanted, or addressed what objections she felt were lacking.

19 None of this was done. There is, however, a history of abusive and improper/unprofessional

20 behavior by Ms. Humiston, for no apparent reason. A true and correct copy of other exchanges
21 of email evidencing Ms. Humiston’s lack of professionalism and rudeness are attached hereto as

22 Exhibits D. I have highlighted relevant portions of my emails in yellow and relevant portions of

23 Ms. Humiston’s email in pink.

24 11. As can be seen in the emails, Ms. Humiston has launched into personal attacks,

25 claiming I do not know how to add, I do not know the law and taken it upon herself to engage in

26 unprofessional behavior. While this could be easily ignored, it unfortunately has become relevant

27 because this unprofessional behavior has percolated into all aspects of this case, particularly

28 discovery. This presumed anger or dislike has seemingly fueled Ms. Humiston to actively and

DECLARATION OF DANIA M. ALVARENGA
ARRIAGA v. LARA et. al. [l7-CV~310003] 11
adamantly try to subvert the discovery meet and confer process. She simply ignores it and does

not want tome in anv meet and confer.

12. I received yet another “meet and confer” from Ms. Humiston on May 23, 201 8.

While this letter had a little more substance it was sent on a Wednesday and requested responses

to be sent by Tuesday of the following week. The letter entirely ignored the fact that between

Friday-Monday was Memorial Day, a holiday weekend. A true and correct copy of this letter is

attached hereto as Exhibit E.

13. Aﬁer receiving the letter, I emailed Ms. Humiston and indicated that I did not

have sufficient time to review what she wanted/had requested or respond. I asked for a bit more

HO time particularly in light of the holiday weekend. Ms. Humiston did not respond. A true and
P H correct copy of my email to Ms. Humiston is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

HN l4. The following day I again contacted Ms. Humiston requesting a status but was

p.-
w again met by silence. To my surprise, she went forward to reserve a hearing on a motion to

G__ﬂ_AW HA compel. This has been done, to date, without any attempt to meet and confer, without any

response to my email. A true and correct copy of my second email to Ms. Humiston is attached
N
E .16 hereto as Exhibit G.

l7 15. The same is true with deposition notices that have been exchanged. Despite
ALVAR

18 sending detailed emails and the law, Ms. Humiston simply does not want to meet and confer and

19 does not respond to the actual law provided to state her position. First, she sent two defective

20 notices now she has sent a third notice and refuses to communicate regarding sequence and

21 timing of depositions. There is no communication, and ultimately my requests, emails and

22 attempts to meet and confer are entirely ignored. A true and correct copy of our email exchange
23 regarding the depositions is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

24 16. Altogether the “meet and confer” part of the discovery process is being trolled

25 over and ignored. Instead, Ms. Humiston is quick to ﬁle unnecessary motions, motions that waste

26 this court’s time, waste money and could be easily resolved with reasonableness and review of

2'7 the relevant law. Ms. Humiston is abusing the discovery process and causing unnecessary ﬁlings,

28 using discovery procedures in a manner that does not comply with speciﬁed procedures,

DECLARATION OP DANIA M. ALVARBNGA
ARRIAGA v. LARA e1. al. [l7-CV-310003] 12
employing the discovery method in a manner that causes undue burden, expense and annoyance,

and failing to meet and confer. (See CCP Section 2030.101).

l7. It is unfair for my clients to be repeatedly subjected to motions to compel given

the complete disregard for the Discovery Act’s requirement to meet and confer. It is clear that

Ms. Humiston, has not, and will not abide by the code. Moreover, Ms. Humiston even refuses to

respond to basic emails and requests and entirely failed to respond to my emails regarding this

Ex Pane application. Given this state, it is impossible to move forward with discovery and

necessary to hear the motions to compel, motion for appointment of a referee and motion for a

protective order.

l8. I have tried several times to call Ms. Humiston to see if we could resolve any of

these issues by phone, but Ms. Humiston has not once taken any of my calls.

l9. It would be highly prejudicial to have to wait until August 2018 to hear these

matters. By then thousands of dollars and countless hours could have been wasted in opposing
ALAW
motions or having to ﬁle motions. Neither this court nor any of the parties need to be subjected

to this. Moreover, by then the deposition dates will have long passed.

B. Depositions

received the latest notice of deposition (after receiving two defective notices) on
ALVARENB

H \l 20. I

18 May 22, 2018. I emailed Ms. Humiston about the need to go in Ex Pane but did not hear back

l9 and so the earliest time I could ﬁle this is Tuesday May 29, 2018. I have, however, been diligent

20 in trying to ﬁle this application and the related motions at the earliest time possible.

21 21. lt is impossible to hear these motions prior to the scheduled deposition dates as

22 the ﬁrst deposition is scheduled to go forward on June 6, 2018. Given the request for this coun to

given
23 decide timing of depose as well as scope and whether depositions can go forward, and also

24 the request for the appointment of a referee, it is crucial that these motions be heard prior to the

25 depositions occurring.

26 C. Ex Parte Notice

27 22. On Friday May 25, 2018 at 9:52 am l called Ms. Humiston to inform her of this

28 Ex pane hearing. As typical, Ms. Humiston declined to take my call at which point I requested to

DECLARATION OP DANIA M. ALVARBNGA
ARRIAGA V. LARA ct. al. [l7-CV-310003] l3
speak to someone who would accept Ex Parte notice. I spoke t0 PJ. who accepted notice. I told

her my intention to move for an Ex Pane on Tuesday May 29, 2018 at 8: l 5 am at the Ex pane

window/Department 6 and speciﬁed the grounds for which I would be moving Ex pane. PJ. did

not state whether Ms. Humiston would attend to oppose the Ex pane.

23. l also sent Ms. Humiston a fem at her number 818.243.5266 indicating 0f my

intention to come in Ex pane. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit

24. A true and correct copy ofthe three motions are attached hereto as Exhibits J, K,

and L.

l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Executed at San Jose Califomia on May 28, 201 8.

ALVARENGALAW

DECLARATION OF DANIA M. ALVARENGA
ARRIAGA v. LARA ct. a]. ll7-CV-310003l
PROOF 0F SERVICE
Arriaga vs. Lara et. aL [No. l7-CV-310003]

Ideclare thatI am a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (1 8)
years and not a party to the within action. business address is Alvarenga Law, 1625 The
My
Alameda, Suite 307, San Jose, California 95126.

On May 29, 2018, I EX PARTE
served the foregoing document(s) described as

Case Info

Judge

Patricia M. Lucas Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 29, 2018

Case Filing Date

May 11, 2017

County

Parties

Amanda L Riddle Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Arriaga & Associates, Inc. Plaintiff/cross Defendant
Barry Alan Bradley Attorney
Barzin Barry Sabahat Attorney
Brad A Rothfield Defendant
Bradley & Gmelich LLP Other
Carol Ann Humiston Attorney
Carol Ann Humiston Attorney For The Defendant
Dania M. Alvarenga Attorney
Douglas Martin Cross Complainant
Edward Giron Defendant
Francisco Ibarra Notice
George Jordan Notice
Jason Lara Defendant/cross Complainant
Jesus Alacon Defendant
Jose Segura Defendant/cross Complainant
Louis Christopher Arriaga Plaintiff/cross Defendant
Maddison Group, Inc. Defendant
Madison Group Security Defendant
Marty Verducci Cross Complainant
Russ Oleyer Cross Complainant
Scott Aron Thompson Kron Attorney For The Defendant
Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Attorney
Superior Court of California Notice
Vilmarie Cordero Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Young Wook Ryu Attorney For The Defendant
Dania Baker Attorney
Stephen Ilg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel Park Attorney
Elizabeth Votra Attorney
Alexander Wallin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sarah Cohen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Graham Hollis Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nathan Reese Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rod Bidgoli Attorneys for Plaintiffs
George Lin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Berki Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark MacCarley Attorneys for Defendants
Darren Salute Attorneys for Defendants
Dawn Cushman
Barry Allen
Dan Park Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gregory Wilbur Attorneys for Defendants
Anne Card Attorney
Robert Sall Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Sall Attorney
Darryl Horowitt Attorney
Rita Leong Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Carol Atkinson Attorney
Sumble Manzoor Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Judith Sasaki Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kelly Kim Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Keith White Attorneys for Defendants
Alex Kuner Attorney
Hali Anderson Attorney
Allison Schubert Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephen Laudig Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Willa Mankins Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Li Attorney
Dana Enyart Attorney
Christian Cardona Attorney

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

Party Discovery: Arriaga, et al. v. Lara, et al. [Coordinated into Arriaga and Associates Wage and Hour Cases JCCP4980 Santa Clara]

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties