On November 18, 2015 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Les Stanford Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc,
Saberi, Andy,
and
Bj Interstate Autotransporters, Inc,
Dedyk, Bogdan,
Les Stanford Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc,
for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
‘5
‘1l‘m
‘‘‘‘‘
kl“
JANIES ATTRIDGE [Bar No. 124003) ’
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ATTRIDGE
. .
270 D1v1sadero Street, #3
F I L E D
. SAN MATEO. COUNTY
San Franc1sco, CA 941 17 ‘
Telephone: (415) 552—3088 . OCT 1'
132018
Attorneys for Defendant
BJ Interstate Auto Transporters, Inc.
6
’7
fl |V536294
MPAO
Memorandum
1431120
of Polints Opp:
and Authorities
in
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALEORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
IUII ll"
L
w UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12 ANDY SABERI Case No: CIV 536294
13 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BJ
'
INTERSTATE AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC.’S
14 MOTION IN LMINE RE:
VS. LACK OF
INSURANCE
15 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET
CADILLAC, et. Al.
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 The of plaihtiff Saberi’s opposition to BJ
gist Interstate’s motion to exclude evidence
20 contrary to what Mr. saberi has belatedly admitted under oath “a misuse of motion in
is thalt it is
21 limine practice” becauée the motion is really a motion for summary adjudication of an issue. It is
22 not. It is a motion to e)£clude evidence already admitted untrue and no more: Mr. Saberi’s motion
23 constitutes an admissioin that the motion, if granted, blows his case out of the water, and will have
24 '
same impact as a summary adjudication when BJ Interstate moves for nonsuit pursuant to
the CCP
25 581 end of plaintiff s opening statement.
at the But that doesn’t turn itinto something it isn’t.
26 also toofgobvious to point out that BJ Interstate would have filed a
It is all successful motion
27 for Summary Judgmenfi had Mr. Saberi not lied in response to Requests for Admission and this
28 would have been more forcefillly
case einded long ago, but that will be underscored in a post-trial
1
Footer Title
E fi E B v E E
ZR
SAN MATEO
cmmw
1 2018
OCT 1
i
Superior Cour
Clerk or the
By DEPUTY CLER
K
motion.
“
In his Motion in Limine Number Two filed concurrently, Mr. Saberi admits that In view
ofthe admission of such request, there isno necessity for BJ to present evidence on the issue of
.” “an issue that ”
whether Dedyk was insured. . calling it is n0 longer relevant. That is an
admission Mr. Saberi’s only cause of action against BJ Interstate is no longer relevant, begging the
obvious inquiry: Then Why the heck doesn’t MI. Saberi voluntarily dismiss it?
QON
Obvious answers abound, and no one is kidding anyone else. Forcing t_hiscase to a
Pickett’s Charge trial ismerely an extension of the petulant, obstinate attitude that has animated
Mr. Saberi since the day his $126,000.00 toy got scratched. His counsel rightfully fears that the
10 mountain 9f evidence disproving the allegations against BJ Interstate will expose Mr. Saberi’s ill
11 motives and cavalier approach to truth-telling, thus undermining his credibility with the jury and
12 imperiling his case against Bogdan Dedyk dba Safe Auto Transport. Finally, they are loath to have
13 that mountain of evidence in the record when BJ Interstate files its inevitable motion for attorney
I
14 fees.
15 Plaintiff” s Opposition relies primarily on a crabbed reading of the concurrence inR&B
16 Auto Center, Inc. v.Farmers” Insurance Group, Inc. In that concurrence Judge Rylarsdam held
17 that considering the facts in R&B the trial court was simply reconsidering a motion for summary
18 adjudication ithad denied earlier. That isnot the case here. This motion does not ask the court to
19 reconsider anything. It asks itto take plaintiff” s eleventh—hour Pauline conversion for what it is:an
20 admission that it has no evidence to support the sole contention it has made against BJ Interstate.
21 Mr. Saberi restates general propositions from the concurfence, but ignores Judge Rylarsdam’s
22 uitimate point, Which is stated four sentences later: “motions in limine deal with evidence. An in
23 limine motion that seeks to exclude all evidence pertaining to a part or all of a cause of action
24 based on an argument thatplaintifllacks evidence to support part or all of its cause of action isbut
25 a disguised motion for summary adjudication” Id. P. 37 1 Here, BJ isn’t relying on argument at all.
26 It isrelying on an admission. “Out of thine own mouth I will judge thee.” Luke: 19:22.
27 Mr. Saberi further argues that BJ is “seeking a declaration of existing law”, relying on
28 Kelly v. New World Savings, which, like the sentence that follows itat line 22-23 of his
2
Footer Title
memorandum makes njo discernable sense.
The notion that: “Defendant’s counsel has made false claims” has been previously
addressed in BJ Opposition to Mr. Saberi’s Motion in Limine Number Two and need not be
repeated here.
Respectful bm' ted
James Attridge, Counsel for BJ Interstate
10 Proof of Service _
11
12 I, James Attridge decldre and state that I am licensed to practice law in California and am counsel
13 of record for defendan£ BJ Interstate Auto Transporters Inc. I know the following of my own
14 personal knowledge anid if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto. On
15 October 6, 201 8 Iplacéd the Reply to Opposition to which this Proof of Service isappended into
16 envelopes addressed t6;
'3
17 James Dombroski Michael Levangie
18 Law Office of James Dombroski .
Levangie Law Group
19 Post Office Box 751027 2021 N Street
20 Petaluma, CA 94975 Sacramento, California 95841
21
22 in the United States Méil with proper postage affixed.
23 I declare under penalty: of perjury under the laws of the State of California the above is true and
24 correct. Executed at Liftleton, Colorado October 6, 201
25
26
27
28
3
Footer Title
Document Filed Date
October 11, 2018
Case Filing Date
November 18, 2015
Category
(06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
‘5 ‘1l‘m ‘‘‘‘‘ kl“ JANIES ATTRIDGE [Bar No. 124003) ’ LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ATTRIDGE . . 270 D1v1sadero Street, #3 F I L E D . SAN MATEO. COUNTY San Franc1sco, CA 941 17 ‘ Telephone: (415) 552—3088 . OCT 1' 132018 Attorneys for Defendant BJ Interstate Auto Transporters, Inc. 6 ’7 fl |V536294 MPAO Memorandum 1431120 of Polints Opp: and Authorities in SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALEORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO IUII ll" L w UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 12 ANDY SABERI Case No: CIV 536294 13 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BJ ' INTERSTATE AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC.’S 14 MOTION IN LMINE RE: VS. LACK OF INSURANCE 15 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, et. Al. 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The of plaihtiff Saberi’s opposition to BJ gist Interstate’s motion to exclude evidence 20 contrary to what Mr. saberi has belatedly admitted under oath “a misuse of motion in is thalt it is 21 limine practice” becauée the motion is really a motion for summary adjudication of an issue. It is 22 not. It is a motion to e)£clude evidence already admitted untrue and no more: Mr. Saberi’s motion 23 constitutes an admissioin that the motion, if granted, blows his case out of the water, and will have 24 ' same impact as a summary adjudication when BJ Interstate moves for nonsuit pursuant to the CCP 25 581 end of plaintiff s opening statement. at the But that doesn’t turn itinto something it isn’t. 26 also toofgobvious to point out that BJ Interstate would have filed a It is all successful motion 27 for Summary Judgmenfi had Mr. Saberi not lied in response to Requests for Admission and this 28 would have been more forcefillly case einded long ago, but that will be underscored in a post-trial 1 Footer Title E fi E B v E E ZR SAN MATEO cmmw 1 2018 OCT 1 i Superior Cour Clerk or the By DEPUTY CLER K motion. “ In his Motion in Limine Number Two filed concurrently, Mr. Saberi admits that In view ofthe admission of such request, there isno necessity for BJ to present evidence on the issue of .” “an issue that ” whether Dedyk was insured. . calling it is n0 longer relevant. That is an admission Mr. Saberi’s only cause of action against BJ Interstate is no longer relevant, begging the obvious inquiry: Then Why the heck doesn’t MI. Saberi voluntarily dismiss it? QON Obvious answers abound, and no one is kidding anyone else. Forcing t_hiscase to a Pickett’s Charge trial ismerely an extension of the petulant, obstinate attitude that has animated Mr. Saberi since the day his $126,000.00 toy got scratched. His counsel rightfully fears that the 10 mountain 9f evidence disproving the allegations against BJ Interstate will expose Mr. Saberi’s ill 11 motives and cavalier approach to truth-telling, thus undermining his credibility with the jury and 12 imperiling his case against Bogdan Dedyk dba Safe Auto Transport. Finally, they are loath to have 13 that mountain of evidence in the record when BJ Interstate files its inevitable motion for attorney I 14 fees. 15 Plaintiff” s Opposition relies primarily on a crabbed reading of the concurrence inR&B 16 Auto Center, Inc. v.Farmers” Insurance Group, Inc. In that concurrence Judge Rylarsdam held 17 that considering the facts in R&B the trial court was simply reconsidering a motion for summary 18 adjudication ithad denied earlier. That isnot the case here. This motion does not ask the court to 19 reconsider anything. It asks itto take plaintiff” s eleventh—hour Pauline conversion for what it is:an 20 admission that it has no evidence to support the sole contention it has made against BJ Interstate. 21 Mr. Saberi restates general propositions from the concurfence, but ignores Judge Rylarsdam’s 22 uitimate point, Which is stated four sentences later: “motions in limine deal with evidence. An in 23 limine motion that seeks to exclude all evidence pertaining to a part or all of a cause of action 24 based on an argument thatplaintifllacks evidence to support part or all of its cause of action isbut 25 a disguised motion for summary adjudication” Id. P. 37 1 Here, BJ isn’t relying on argument at all. 26 It isrelying on an admission. “Out of thine own mouth I will judge thee.” Luke: 19:22. 27 Mr. Saberi further argues that BJ is “seeking a declaration of existing law”, relying on 28 Kelly v. New World Savings, which, like the sentence that follows itat line 22-23 of his 2 Footer Title memorandum makes njo discernable sense. The notion that: “Defendant’s counsel has made false claims” has been previously addressed in BJ Opposition to Mr. Saberi’s Motion in Limine Number Two and need not be repeated here. Respectful bm' ted James Attridge, Counsel for BJ Interstate 10 Proof of Service _ 11 12 I, James Attridge decldre and state that I am licensed to practice law in California and am counsel 13 of record for defendan£ BJ Interstate Auto Transporters Inc. I know the following of my own 14 personal knowledge anid if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto. On 15 October 6, 201 8 Iplacéd the Reply to Opposition to which this Proof of Service isappended into 16 envelopes addressed t6; '3 17 James Dombroski Michael Levangie 18 Law Office of James Dombroski . Levangie Law Group 19 Post Office Box 751027 2021 N Street 20 Petaluma, CA 94975 Sacramento, California 95841 21 22 in the United States Méil with proper postage affixed. 23 I declare under penalty: of perjury under the laws of the State of California the above is true and 24 correct. Executed at Liftleton, Colorado October 6, 201 25 26 27 28 3 Footer Title