On August 31, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Barber, George,
Carola, Sep,
Duncan, Lawrence,
Fortner, Ed,
Hunt, Kenneth,
Jacobson, Cliff,
Kellogg, William,
Maxey, Richard,
Mootz, Richard H,
Paradise Irrigation District,
Phillips, Kevin,
Prevot, Robert,
Rice, Anne,
Securities America Advisors, Inc,
Sulik, Mark,
Wentland, Daniel,
Dobbs, Gregory,
Essila, Neil,
and
Barber, George,
Board Of Directors Of Paradise Irrigation District,
Carola, Sep,
Duncan, Lawrence,
Fortner, Ed,
Hansen, Dan,
Hunt, Kenneth,
Jacobson, Cliff,
Kellogg, William,
Paradise Irrigation District,
Phillips, Kevin,
Prevot, Robert,
Rice, Anne,
Sulik, Marc,
Wentland, Daniel,
for (42) Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec)
in the District Court of Butte County.
Preview
1 Jeffrey F. Oneal, Esq. (SBN 129072)
David J. Stock (SBN 85655)
2 RANKIN I STOCK I HEABERLIN I ONEAL 1/24/2020
96 No. Third Street, Suite 500
3 San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408-293-0463
4 Facsimile: 408-293-9514
5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.
6
Exemptfromfilingfees pursuant to
Gov. Code§ 6103
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
, ..
11 NEIL ESSILA and GREGORY DOBBS, Case No.: 17CV02546
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
12 situated, PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiffs,
13 PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION
vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
14 TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A
PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; BOARD PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID
15 OF DIRECTORS OF THE PARADISE DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY
IRRIGATION DISTRICT; SEP CAROLA; REQUESTS
16 KENNETH HUNT; WILLIAM KELLOGG;
LAWRENCE DUNCAN; DANIEL WENTLAND;
17 ANNE RICE; MARK SULIK; CLIFF JACOBSON; Date: January 29, 2020
GEORGE BARBER; KEVIN PHILLIPS; ROBERT Time: 9:00 a.m.
18 PREVOT; ED FORTNER; FTJ FUND CHOICE, Dept.: 1
LLC; DEAN W. COOK; RICHARD H. MOOTZ; Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger
19 and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.
20
Complaint filed: 08/31/2017
21
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Trial Date: tbd
22
I.
23
INTRODUCTION
24
This matter involves alleged overcharges by FTJ on the retirement accounts of Paradise
25
Irrigation District's ("PID") employees from 2013 through 2016. FTJ reimbursed the employees in
26
2017. Yet, the complaint was filed and now Plaintiffs have recovered additional amounts over and
27
above that which they were repaid through a settlement with FTJ/Mootz.
28
Case No. 17CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 Plaintiffs have named PID, its Board of Directors and 13 individuals, who for the most part are
2 former directors and officers of PID. All of them are Defendants in the lawsuit. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
3 have threatened to name any current directors including Shelby Boston and Gregg Mowers. Now,
4 Plaintiffs complain they must respond to legitimate discovery that was served. Defendants offered a
5 reasonable extension of time to respond to the discovery under certain conditions, but Plaintiffs have
6 refused PID's offer. Plaintiffs now seek judicial intervention to avoid having to properly and timely
7 respond to the legitimate discovery.
8 II.
9 STATEMENT OF FACTS
10 PID changed service providers for its retirement plans in 2013. Thereafter Mootz and FTJ began
11 overcharging the plan participants, all of whom were current or former employees of PID. Ultimately,
12 the overcharges were discovered. FTJ and Mootz acknowledged the overcharges and repaid the
13 employees for the overcharges and reasonable rates of return. Repayments were calculated and made in
14 2017.
15 At the request of the employees, PID removed FTJ and Mootz and selected another service
16 provider. Furthermore, an audit was performed verifying that the overcharges had been repaid with a
17 reasonable rate of return, thus confirming Plaintiffs had been fully reimbursed.
18 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs through their counsel have pursued litigation against FTJ, Mootz,
19 Paradise Irrigation District, its current managers, its former managers, some current directors and former
20 directors. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have threatened and continue to threaten to name as individual
21 defendants, any person who has become a director since the litigation has begun including Shelby
22 Boston and Gregg Mowers, both of whom, only recently became Board Members. None of the current
23 board members were involved in any way at the relevant time periods concerning the overcharges by
24 FTJ.
25 III.
26 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
27 Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2017. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel began the meet
28 and confer process concerning Plaintiffs' failure to present a Government Claim which was required.
2
Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 Plaintiffs immediately dismissed the notion that a Government Claim was required. However, and at the
2 request of Plaintiffs, Defendants delayed the filing of responsive pleadings because Plaintiffs were
3 interested in resolving the case. It was PID' s hope that a resolution could occur once Plaintiffs were
4 convinced that they had been fully repaid together with a full rate of return.
5 After the parties failed to resolve the matter, the PID Defendants resurrected the demurrer and
6 filed it in late 2018. At the request of Plaintiffs' counsel, the hearing on the demurrer was delayed and
7 extended multiple times because Plaintiffs were intending on settling their case with FTJ and Mootz.
8 This Court granted a number of extensions but ultimately heard the demurrer in February 2019, granting
9 it as to all claims for monetary relief against all PID Defendants.
10 The case was set for trial in March 2020. However, Plaintiffs continued to delay the process by
11 claiming a settlement was imminent for months and stating to the Court and counsel that it intended to
12 file a Third Amended Complaint.
13 A preliminary approval motion was not filed until July 2019 and heard in August 2019. Shortly
14 thereafter, counsel was advised that Neil Essila was no longer a plan participant and therefore issues
15 arose concerning how that might impact the settlement. Regardless, Plaintiffs final approval hearing an
16 petition for attorneys fees is now scheduled for January 30, 2020.
17 Up until October 2019 none of the parties conducted any discovery. However, at that point, FTJ
18 served four (4) sets of discovery on each of the named PID Defendants. FTJ refused any extension, and
19 in fact refused to even acknowledge the request had been made. Therefore, PID Defendants were forced
20 to respond to the discovery and have in fact done so. At the same time, Plaintiff Dobbs served request
21 for documents which included requests going back in time to 2012 for every set of minutes and every
22 agenda and every document concerning the retirement plans going back in time. In response, PID
23 Defendants produced a large volume of documents.
24 At the same time, in early December, FTJ and Mootz filed Motions for Summary
25 Judgment/Adjudication. The hearing date for those motions are February 14, 2020. The oppositions to
26 those motions is due to be filed no later than February 5, 2020. It was evident that PID would need to
27 serve discovery including discovery related to the express indemnity provision contained within the FTJ
28 contract. Furthermore, due to the previously scheduled trial date, it was evident that PID would need to
3
Case No. ! 7CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
I serve discovery on Plaintiffs to address their continued claims contained within a yet untiled Third
2 Amended Complaint as well as any evidence concerning their claims which might be useful in opposing
3 FTJ and Mootz' Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication. Therefore, PID complied with all
4 statutory requirements and propounded discovery to Plaintiff.
5 IV.
6 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
7 Plaintiff Dobbs requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery to and including
8 March 2, 2020. That date is eleven (I I) days before the current Mandatory Settlement Conference and
9 long after the hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and nearly 30 days after PID
IO Defendants are required to oppose the Motions for Summary Judgments/Adjudication.
11 In response to the request, PID Defendants offered extensions to February 28, 2020 on most of
I2 the discovery requests and offered to an extension until January 3 I, 2020 on the remaining requests.
I3 The offer was conditioned upon receiving substantive responses and agreeing not to file a motion for a
I4 protective order. Substantive responses are necessary because (1) the opposition to FTJ & Mootz'
I5 Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication are due February 5, 2020 and (2) because the February
I6 Board Meeting is currently scheduled for February I 9, 2020 which is the last Board Meeting before the
I7 currently scheduled Mandatory Settlement Conference. The need for a waiver of motion for a protective
I8 order is necessary to ensure PID Defendant's receive Plaintiffs responses with sufficient time to comply
I9 with the aforementioned deadlines.
20 Plaintiffs refused the offer and instead claim Defendants have been unreasonable and vexatious.
2I v.
ARGUMENT
22
23
A. THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE REASONABLE
The discovery requests are appropriate despite the routine assertion by counsel that Defendants
24
are "vexatious, frivolous and unreasonable". PID has served special contention interrogatories. The
25
interrogatories mirror identically the "proposed Third Amended Complaint" as to each Defendant who is
26
expected to be a part of this case. In other words, there were no interrogatories served on behalf of
27
former board members or managers despite being named as a party. Rather, the discovery was focused
28
4
Case No. 17CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 on the contentions against PID, the current Board Members and any contentions as to Shelby Boston and
2 Greg Mowers who may be named in this action. Plaintiff's numerous allegations in their Third
3 Amended Complaint is one factor that necessitated more than 35 interrogatories, as allowed and
4 provided for in Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.40.
5 The interrogatories are also reasonable because Code of Civil Procedure§ 2030.0lO(b) allows
6 for a party to serve an interrogatory concerning contentions, facts, witnesses and writings on which the
7 contention is based. That is exactly what has been done in this matter. Plaintiffs have submitted a
8 proposed Third Amended Complaint with numerous allegations against all Defendants. In response,
9 PID Defendants served interrogatories challenging Plaintiff to provide facts, witnesses and writing
10 supporting those contentions.
11 B. PID DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE OFFER OF AN EXTENSION
12 Despite what Plaintiff would have this Court believe, PID has not demanded immediate
13 responses to 585 discovery requests. To the contrary, PID Defendants requested that Plaintiff provide
14 responses to special interrogatories 1-69, request for documents 1-14, and several form interrogatories.
15 In fact, PID Defendants offered an extension of time to these special interrogatories, production
16 requests, and form interrogatories. However, PID also requested that substantive responses be provided.
17 The reasons for not agreeing to any further extension were stated in the January 9, 2020 email
18 from Mr. Oneal to Mr. Ramsdell. PID's oppositions to FTJ & Mootz' Motions for Summary
19 Judgment/Adjudication are due on February 5, 2020. Plaintiff's discovery responses are needed prior to
20 that date in order to allow sufficient time to evaluate the evidence provided, determine whether it is
21 supportive of PID' s opposition, and, if so, include it within PID 's opposition. Thus, PID Defendants
22 could not agree to the requested 45-day extension for all of its discovery requests. In spite of this
23 impending deadline, PID Defendants still offered a shorter extension of time for those discovery
24 requests which would likely be the most relevant to PID's immediate needs, including its opposition to
25 FTJ and Mootz' motions for summary judgment. For the remaining discovery requests, PID offered a
26 longer extension of time to February 28, 2020.
27 Moreover, as recognized by Plaintiff, the requested information is necessary for Defendants to be
28 able to participate in a meaningful settlement conference. The last Board Meeting before the settlement
5
Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 conference is scheduled for February 19, 2020. Any notice of any discussion item including those made
2 in closed session must be identified on the agenda which by Government Code must be included within
3 72 hours. (See Gov. Code§ 54954.2.) That would effectively make the notice due on February 14,
4 2020. It will be necessary for defense counsel to provide an evaluation of the evidence presented by
5 Plaintiffs at the Board Meeting in closed session. Again, the evidence concerning Plaintiffs contentions
6 which PID requested it receive by January 31, 2020 is imperative for the Board to provide settlement
7 authority. The Board may not act as a unit outside of a noticed meeting pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown
8 Act. (See Gov. Code§ 54952.2.) Compliance with the Brown Act precludes PID Defendants from
9 agreeing to the requested 45-day extension, but PID Defendants still made an effort to accommodate
10 Plaintiffs request while still allowing PID to participate meaningfully in the March 2020 settlement
11 conference by offering to extend the time for Plaintiff to provide responses that were of the greatest
12 importance to January 31, 2020.
13 It was also reasonable for PID Defendants to condition an extension of time upon a waiver of a
14 motion for a protective order. As discussed above, time is of the essence as to Plaintiffs' responses. It is
15 illogical to allow for an extension of time and leave open the possibility that no responses will be
16 received due to the filing of a motion for a protective order. Thus, the conditions upon which the
17 extensions were offered were entirely reasonable under the circumstances.
18 B. TIMING OF PID'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE APPROPRIATE
19 Plaintiff argues that PID propounding discovery is not necessary and inconsistent with its
20 arguments made in its Motion to Continue Trial. This argument is unfair as it fails to recognize the
21 change in circumstances that demanded PID Defendants propound discovery to defend itself in this
22 matter and to meaningfully participate in settlement discussions. Plaintiffs' argument also fails to
23 recognize that Mootz and FTJ's motions for summary judgment were filed after PID Defendants had
24 filed its Motion to Continue Trial and that PID Defendants had no way of knowing that the mandatory
25 settlement conference would only be postponed until March 2020. As discussed above, these events
26 imposed new deadlines upon PID Defendants which required they immediately propound discovery. To
27 argue that PID Defendants were insincere in its arguments made to the Court fails to recognize PID
28 Defendants' need to comply with multiple statutory requirements.
6
Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 D. PID DID NOT "DUMP" DOCUMENTS
2 Plaintiffs continue their assertion that Defendants are vexatious by "dumping 24,000 pages of
3 documents". Among other things, FTJ and Plaintiffs requested all minutes and agents of PID Board
4 meetings since January 1, 2012 to the present. The number ofresponsive documents produced is not
5 dependent upon the party responding to the demands, but is determined by the scope of records
6 requested to be propounded. Here, Plaintiff and FTJ's production demand resulted in approximately
7 24,000 pages to be produced. PID was forced to expended considerable resources in locating,
8 reviewing, and producing all documents to comply with Plaintiff and FTJ's demands. Plaintiffs
9 accusation that PID "dumped" 24,000 pages of documents unfairly misrepresents PID's genuine and
10 considerable efforts to timely comply with their production demands.
11 VI.
12 CONCLUSION
13 Plaintiffs continue their requests to delay reasonable litigation processes. That being said, PID
14 Defendants do not have any objections to an extension of time so long as it is provided reasonable
15 opportunities to oppose FTJ and Mootz' Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and to
16 meaningfully participate in the March settlement conference. To the extent the Court would move the
17 hearing date on the Motions for Summary Judgment/ Adjudication and settlement conference, PID
18 Defendants have no objection to the Plaintiffs request for an extension to respond to PID Defendants '
19 discovery requests.
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22 Dated: January 24, 2020 RANKIN I STOCK I HEABERLIN I ONEAL
23
By:
24
e e
25 Attom or D, endants and Cross-Complainants
PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.
26
27
28
7
Case No . 17CV02546 - PARADIS E IRRIGATION DISTRI CT DEFENDANTS ' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS '
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIM E TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOV E FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REG ARDING
PIO DEFENDANTS ' 585 DISCOVERY REQU ESTS
1 NEIL ESSILA, et al. v. PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Action No. 17-CV-02546
2 =================================================================
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
4 years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 96 North Third Street, Suite 500,
San Jose, California 95112. My electronic address is Katherine@rankinstock.com. On the date set
5 forth below I served the documents described as follows:
6 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF
GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT
7 TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID DEFENDANTS' 585
DISCOVERY REQUESTS
8
on the following person(s) in this action:
9
Joseph A. Garofolo, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 Craig P . Ramsdell, Esq. NEIL ESSILA and GREGORY DOBBS,
GAROFOLO & RAMSDELL, LLP individually and on behalf of all others
11 3443 Golden Gate Way, Suite H similarly situated
Lafayette, CA 94549
12 Telephone: 415-981-8500
Fax: 415-981-8870
13 Email: jgarofolo@garofololaw.com
cramsdell(a),garofololaw.com
14 Joseph S. Leventhal, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants
Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP FTJ FUND CHOICE, LLC and DEAN W.
15 655 W. Broadway, Suite 800 COOK
San Diego, CA 92101
16 Email: joseph.leventhal@dinsmore.com
17 Chad Weaver, Esq. Attorneys for RICHARD H. MOOTZ
Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq.
18 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
3030 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 280
19 Seal Beach, CA 907 40
Telephone: 562-583-2124
20 Fax: 562-252-1110
Email: cweaver@fmglaw.com
21 i lee@fmglaw.com
22 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA ONE LEGAL) as noted above. By sending electronically
a true and correct copy thereof to One Legal (www.onelegal.com) for service on all counsel of
23 record by electronic service pursuant to CCP §§ 1010.6, 1013, 1013b and CRC 2.251. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
24
25 [X] (ST A TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
26 EXECUTED on January 24, 2020, at San Jos
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Jeffrey F. Oneal, Esq. (SBN 129072) David J. Stock (SBN 85655) 2 RANKIN I STOCK I HEABERLIN I ONEAL 1/24/2020 96 No. Third Street, Suite 500 3 San Jose, California 95112 Telephone: 408-293-0463 4 Facsimile: 408-293-9514 5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 6 Exemptfromfilingfees pursuant to Gov. Code§ 6103 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 , .. 11 NEIL ESSILA and GREGORY DOBBS, Case No.: 17CV02546 individually and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO Plaintiffs, 13 PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 14 TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; BOARD PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID 15 OF DIRECTORS OF THE PARADISE DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY IRRIGATION DISTRICT; SEP CAROLA; REQUESTS 16 KENNETH HUNT; WILLIAM KELLOGG; LAWRENCE DUNCAN; DANIEL WENTLAND; 17 ANNE RICE; MARK SULIK; CLIFF JACOBSON; Date: January 29, 2020 GEORGE BARBER; KEVIN PHILLIPS; ROBERT Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 PREVOT; ED FORTNER; FTJ FUND CHOICE, Dept.: 1 LLC; DEAN W. COOK; RICHARD H. MOOTZ; Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger 19 and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants. 20 Complaint filed: 08/31/2017 21 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Trial Date: tbd 22 I. 23 INTRODUCTION 24 This matter involves alleged overcharges by FTJ on the retirement accounts of Paradise 25 Irrigation District's ("PID") employees from 2013 through 2016. FTJ reimbursed the employees in 26 2017. Yet, the complaint was filed and now Plaintiffs have recovered additional amounts over and 27 above that which they were repaid through a settlement with FTJ/Mootz. 28 Case No. 17CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1 Plaintiffs have named PID, its Board of Directors and 13 individuals, who for the most part are 2 former directors and officers of PID. All of them are Defendants in the lawsuit. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 3 have threatened to name any current directors including Shelby Boston and Gregg Mowers. Now, 4 Plaintiffs complain they must respond to legitimate discovery that was served. Defendants offered a 5 reasonable extension of time to respond to the discovery under certain conditions, but Plaintiffs have 6 refused PID's offer. Plaintiffs now seek judicial intervention to avoid having to properly and timely 7 respond to the legitimate discovery. 8 II. 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS 10 PID changed service providers for its retirement plans in 2013. Thereafter Mootz and FTJ began 11 overcharging the plan participants, all of whom were current or former employees of PID. Ultimately, 12 the overcharges were discovered. FTJ and Mootz acknowledged the overcharges and repaid the 13 employees for the overcharges and reasonable rates of return. Repayments were calculated and made in 14 2017. 15 At the request of the employees, PID removed FTJ and Mootz and selected another service 16 provider. Furthermore, an audit was performed verifying that the overcharges had been repaid with a 17 reasonable rate of return, thus confirming Plaintiffs had been fully reimbursed. 18 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs through their counsel have pursued litigation against FTJ, Mootz, 19 Paradise Irrigation District, its current managers, its former managers, some current directors and former 20 directors. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have threatened and continue to threaten to name as individual 21 defendants, any person who has become a director since the litigation has begun including Shelby 22 Boston and Gregg Mowers, both of whom, only recently became Board Members. None of the current 23 board members were involved in any way at the relevant time periods concerning the overcharges by 24 FTJ. 25 III. 26 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2017. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel began the meet 28 and confer process concerning Plaintiffs' failure to present a Government Claim which was required. 2 Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1 Plaintiffs immediately dismissed the notion that a Government Claim was required. However, and at the 2 request of Plaintiffs, Defendants delayed the filing of responsive pleadings because Plaintiffs were 3 interested in resolving the case. It was PID' s hope that a resolution could occur once Plaintiffs were 4 convinced that they had been fully repaid together with a full rate of return. 5 After the parties failed to resolve the matter, the PID Defendants resurrected the demurrer and 6 filed it in late 2018. At the request of Plaintiffs' counsel, the hearing on the demurrer was delayed and 7 extended multiple times because Plaintiffs were intending on settling their case with FTJ and Mootz. 8 This Court granted a number of extensions but ultimately heard the demurrer in February 2019, granting 9 it as to all claims for monetary relief against all PID Defendants. 10 The case was set for trial in March 2020. However, Plaintiffs continued to delay the process by 11 claiming a settlement was imminent for months and stating to the Court and counsel that it intended to 12 file a Third Amended Complaint. 13 A preliminary approval motion was not filed until July 2019 and heard in August 2019. Shortly 14 thereafter, counsel was advised that Neil Essila was no longer a plan participant and therefore issues 15 arose concerning how that might impact the settlement. Regardless, Plaintiffs final approval hearing an 16 petition for attorneys fees is now scheduled for January 30, 2020. 17 Up until October 2019 none of the parties conducted any discovery. However, at that point, FTJ 18 served four (4) sets of discovery on each of the named PID Defendants. FTJ refused any extension, and 19 in fact refused to even acknowledge the request had been made. Therefore, PID Defendants were forced 20 to respond to the discovery and have in fact done so. At the same time, Plaintiff Dobbs served request 21 for documents which included requests going back in time to 2012 for every set of minutes and every 22 agenda and every document concerning the retirement plans going back in time. In response, PID 23 Defendants produced a large volume of documents. 24 At the same time, in early December, FTJ and Mootz filed Motions for Summary 25 Judgment/Adjudication. The hearing date for those motions are February 14, 2020. The oppositions to 26 those motions is due to be filed no later than February 5, 2020. It was evident that PID would need to 27 serve discovery including discovery related to the express indemnity provision contained within the FTJ 28 contract. Furthermore, due to the previously scheduled trial date, it was evident that PID would need to 3 Case No. ! 7CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS I serve discovery on Plaintiffs to address their continued claims contained within a yet untiled Third 2 Amended Complaint as well as any evidence concerning their claims which might be useful in opposing 3 FTJ and Mootz' Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication. Therefore, PID complied with all 4 statutory requirements and propounded discovery to Plaintiff. 5 IV. 6 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 7 Plaintiff Dobbs requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery to and including 8 March 2, 2020. That date is eleven (I I) days before the current Mandatory Settlement Conference and 9 long after the hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and nearly 30 days after PID IO Defendants are required to oppose the Motions for Summary Judgments/Adjudication. 11 In response to the request, PID Defendants offered extensions to February 28, 2020 on most of I2 the discovery requests and offered to an extension until January 3 I, 2020 on the remaining requests. I3 The offer was conditioned upon receiving substantive responses and agreeing not to file a motion for a I4 protective order. Substantive responses are necessary because (1) the opposition to FTJ & Mootz' I5 Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication are due February 5, 2020 and (2) because the February I6 Board Meeting is currently scheduled for February I 9, 2020 which is the last Board Meeting before the I7 currently scheduled Mandatory Settlement Conference. The need for a waiver of motion for a protective I8 order is necessary to ensure PID Defendant's receive Plaintiffs responses with sufficient time to comply I9 with the aforementioned deadlines. 20 Plaintiffs refused the offer and instead claim Defendants have been unreasonable and vexatious. 2I v. ARGUMENT 22 23 A. THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE REASONABLE The discovery requests are appropriate despite the routine assertion by counsel that Defendants 24 are "vexatious, frivolous and unreasonable". PID has served special contention interrogatories. The 25 interrogatories mirror identically the "proposed Third Amended Complaint" as to each Defendant who is 26 expected to be a part of this case. In other words, there were no interrogatories served on behalf of 27 former board members or managers despite being named as a party. Rather, the discovery was focused 28 4 Case No. 17CV02546-PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1 on the contentions against PID, the current Board Members and any contentions as to Shelby Boston and 2 Greg Mowers who may be named in this action. Plaintiff's numerous allegations in their Third 3 Amended Complaint is one factor that necessitated more than 35 interrogatories, as allowed and 4 provided for in Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.40. 5 The interrogatories are also reasonable because Code of Civil Procedure§ 2030.0lO(b) allows 6 for a party to serve an interrogatory concerning contentions, facts, witnesses and writings on which the 7 contention is based. That is exactly what has been done in this matter. Plaintiffs have submitted a 8 proposed Third Amended Complaint with numerous allegations against all Defendants. In response, 9 PID Defendants served interrogatories challenging Plaintiff to provide facts, witnesses and writing 10 supporting those contentions. 11 B. PID DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE OFFER OF AN EXTENSION 12 Despite what Plaintiff would have this Court believe, PID has not demanded immediate 13 responses to 585 discovery requests. To the contrary, PID Defendants requested that Plaintiff provide 14 responses to special interrogatories 1-69, request for documents 1-14, and several form interrogatories. 15 In fact, PID Defendants offered an extension of time to these special interrogatories, production 16 requests, and form interrogatories. However, PID also requested that substantive responses be provided. 17 The reasons for not agreeing to any further extension were stated in the January 9, 2020 email 18 from Mr. Oneal to Mr. Ramsdell. PID's oppositions to FTJ & Mootz' Motions for Summary 19 Judgment/Adjudication are due on February 5, 2020. Plaintiff's discovery responses are needed prior to 20 that date in order to allow sufficient time to evaluate the evidence provided, determine whether it is 21 supportive of PID' s opposition, and, if so, include it within PID 's opposition. Thus, PID Defendants 22 could not agree to the requested 45-day extension for all of its discovery requests. In spite of this 23 impending deadline, PID Defendants still offered a shorter extension of time for those discovery 24 requests which would likely be the most relevant to PID's immediate needs, including its opposition to 25 FTJ and Mootz' motions for summary judgment. For the remaining discovery requests, PID offered a 26 longer extension of time to February 28, 2020. 27 Moreover, as recognized by Plaintiff, the requested information is necessary for Defendants to be 28 able to participate in a meaningful settlement conference. The last Board Meeting before the settlement 5 Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1 conference is scheduled for February 19, 2020. Any notice of any discussion item including those made 2 in closed session must be identified on the agenda which by Government Code must be included within 3 72 hours. (See Gov. Code§ 54954.2.) That would effectively make the notice due on February 14, 4 2020. It will be necessary for defense counsel to provide an evaluation of the evidence presented by 5 Plaintiffs at the Board Meeting in closed session. Again, the evidence concerning Plaintiffs contentions 6 which PID requested it receive by January 31, 2020 is imperative for the Board to provide settlement 7 authority. The Board may not act as a unit outside of a noticed meeting pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown 8 Act. (See Gov. Code§ 54952.2.) Compliance with the Brown Act precludes PID Defendants from 9 agreeing to the requested 45-day extension, but PID Defendants still made an effort to accommodate 10 Plaintiffs request while still allowing PID to participate meaningfully in the March 2020 settlement 11 conference by offering to extend the time for Plaintiff to provide responses that were of the greatest 12 importance to January 31, 2020. 13 It was also reasonable for PID Defendants to condition an extension of time upon a waiver of a 14 motion for a protective order. As discussed above, time is of the essence as to Plaintiffs' responses. It is 15 illogical to allow for an extension of time and leave open the possibility that no responses will be 16 received due to the filing of a motion for a protective order. Thus, the conditions upon which the 17 extensions were offered were entirely reasonable under the circumstances. 18 B. TIMING OF PID'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE APPROPRIATE 19 Plaintiff argues that PID propounding discovery is not necessary and inconsistent with its 20 arguments made in its Motion to Continue Trial. This argument is unfair as it fails to recognize the 21 change in circumstances that demanded PID Defendants propound discovery to defend itself in this 22 matter and to meaningfully participate in settlement discussions. Plaintiffs' argument also fails to 23 recognize that Mootz and FTJ's motions for summary judgment were filed after PID Defendants had 24 filed its Motion to Continue Trial and that PID Defendants had no way of knowing that the mandatory 25 settlement conference would only be postponed until March 2020. As discussed above, these events 26 imposed new deadlines upon PID Defendants which required they immediately propound discovery. To 27 argue that PID Defendants were insincere in its arguments made to the Court fails to recognize PID 28 Defendants' need to comply with multiple statutory requirements. 6 Case No. l 7CV02546 - PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PIO DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1 D. PID DID NOT "DUMP" DOCUMENTS 2 Plaintiffs continue their assertion that Defendants are vexatious by "dumping 24,000 pages of 3 documents". Among other things, FTJ and Plaintiffs requested all minutes and agents of PID Board 4 meetings since January 1, 2012 to the present. The number ofresponsive documents produced is not 5 dependent upon the party responding to the demands, but is determined by the scope of records 6 requested to be propounded. Here, Plaintiff and FTJ's production demand resulted in approximately 7 24,000 pages to be produced. PID was forced to expended considerable resources in locating, 8 reviewing, and producing all documents to comply with Plaintiff and FTJ's demands. Plaintiffs 9 accusation that PID "dumped" 24,000 pages of documents unfairly misrepresents PID's genuine and 10 considerable efforts to timely comply with their production demands. 11 VI. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Plaintiffs continue their requests to delay reasonable litigation processes. That being said, PID 14 Defendants do not have any objections to an extension of time so long as it is provided reasonable 15 opportunities to oppose FTJ and Mootz' Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and to 16 meaningfully participate in the March settlement conference. To the extent the Court would move the 17 hearing date on the Motions for Summary Judgment/ Adjudication and settlement conference, PID 18 Defendants have no objection to the Plaintiffs request for an extension to respond to PID Defendants ' 19 discovery requests. 20 21 Respectfully submitted, 22 Dated: January 24, 2020 RANKIN I STOCK I HEABERLIN I ONEAL 23 By: 24 e e 25 Attom or D, endants and Cross-Complainants PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 26 27 28 7 Case No . 17CV02546 - PARADIS E IRRIGATION DISTRI CT DEFENDANTS ' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS ' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIM E TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT TO, OR MOV E FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REG ARDING PIO DEFENDANTS ' 585 DISCOVERY REQU ESTS 1 NEIL ESSILA, et al. v. PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. Butte County Superior Court Action No. 17-CV-02546 2 ================================================================= PROOF OF SERVICE 3 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen 4 years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 96 North Third Street, Suite 500, San Jose, California 95112. My electronic address is Katherine@rankinstock.com. On the date set 5 forth below I served the documents described as follows: 6 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY DOBBS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO, OBJECT 7 TO, OR MOVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PID DEFENDANTS' 585 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 8 on the following person(s) in this action: 9 Joseph A. Garofolo, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 Craig P . Ramsdell, Esq. NEIL ESSILA and GREGORY DOBBS, GAROFOLO & RAMSDELL, LLP individually and on behalf of all others 11 3443 Golden Gate Way, Suite H similarly situated Lafayette, CA 94549 12 Telephone: 415-981-8500 Fax: 415-981-8870 13 Email: jgarofolo@garofololaw.com cramsdell(a),garofololaw.com 14 Joseph S. Leventhal, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP FTJ FUND CHOICE, LLC and DEAN W. 15 655 W. Broadway, Suite 800 COOK San Diego, CA 92101 16 Email: joseph.leventhal@dinsmore.com 17 Chad Weaver, Esq. Attorneys for RICHARD H. MOOTZ Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. 18 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP 3030 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 280 19 Seal Beach, CA 907 40 Telephone: 562-583-2124 20 Fax: 562-252-1110 Email: cweaver@fmglaw.com 21 i lee@fmglaw.com 22 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA ONE LEGAL) as noted above. By sending electronically a true and correct copy thereof to One Legal (www.onelegal.com) for service on all counsel of 23 record by electronic service pursuant to CCP §§ 1010.6, 1013, 1013b and CRC 2.251. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. 24 25 [X] (ST A TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 26 EXECUTED on January 24, 2020, at San Jos 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE