Preview
qi:
oy) 7
Sf
FILED
LM
JAMES ATTRIDGE [SBN NO, 124003]
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES ATTRIDGE SAN MATEO COUNTY
10821 West’ Dumbarton Place
Littleton, CO 80127 MAY 10 2019
Telephone: (415) 846-4477
Email: jattridge@attridgelaw.com
Attorney for Defendant BJ Interstate
Auto Transporters, Inc.
-
civs36294
DIR
* Declaration in Reply
| | il Im
SUPERIOR RNIA | 1815160
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 ANDY SABER], an individual
il Plaintiff, Case No: CIV-536294
12 vs. DECLARATION OF JAMES ATTRIDGE IN
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO
13 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET DECLARATION OF JAMES ATTRIDGE AND
CADILLAC, ENC. et. al, PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR
14 JUDICIAL NOTICE
15 Defendants. Date: May 17, 2019
Time: 9 AM
16 Department 16, Courtroom A
Honorable Leland Davis, III
17
18
19
20 I, James Attridge declare and state that I am an attorney licensed to practice before the courts
21 of this state and I know the following of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify
»
22 could and would competently testify thereto.
23 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintif?s Motion in Limine
24 Number Two to Exclude Evidence That Carrier Was Uninsured (sic), the Memorandum
25 of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of James Dombroski in Support thereof.
26 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Bogdan Dedyk’s Reply in
27 Support of Motion to Set Aside Default served on Team Saberi on or about August 4,
28 2016, indicating that as of June 6, 2016 plaintiff was on notice that Bogdan dedyk was
1
TRIAT. RRIFF
REcg, VED
MAY 1
2019
s x
represented by insurance defense counsel.
Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Expert Witness
Designation, designating no expert witness against BJ Interstate at all. (See appended
Declaration of James Dombroski, paragraph 3.)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States of California and Colorado that
James Attridge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
TRIAT. RRIFF
4 x
EXHIBIT H
<—
JAMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898)
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
Post Office Box 751027
Petaluma, CA 94975
Tel: (707) 762-7807
Fax: (707) 759-0419
THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652)
1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 588-2428
Facsimile: (650) 873-7046
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO =
12
13
ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294
14
Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015
15
vs.
16 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE
17 INC, ete., et al. EVIDENCE THAT CARRIER WAS
18 Defendants. UNINSURED
19
DATE: October 15, 2018
20 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi
21 DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21
22
23 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the date, and at the time and place set for trial,
25 Plaintiff, ANDY SABERI, will, and does hereby move, in limine, to exclude all evidence on the
26 issue of whether Dedyk dba Safe Auto Transport was.a named insured on Motor Truck Cargo’s
27 policy of insurance.
28 The motion will be made upon the ground that in view of Plaintiff's admission of the
1
MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING
TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
st for admission as to this fact, evidence to prove or disprove the issue is now irrelevant or
ati and such evidence should be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code. Section 352, as
being-cumulative, unduly time consuming and because it will increase litigation costs.
nieie
Fhe motionis based on this notice, the attached Declaration of James M. Dombroski, the
attached memorandum of points and authorities, upon all of the papers and records on file in this
action, and upon such other and further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at
7 the hearing.
DATED: October 42018.
LAWAPFI OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
10
a
12 BY:
JA M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ.
13 Att ey for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING
TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
a
M. OMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898)
OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
Post Office Box 751027
Petaluma, CA 94975
Tel: (707) 762-7807
Fax: (707) 759-0419
THOMAS I. SABERI, ESO. (SBN 169652)
1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 588-2428
Facsimile: (650) 873-7046
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13
ANDY SABERL CASE NO. CIV 536294
14
Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015
15
vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
17 INC., etc., et al.
NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
18 Defendants. THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED
19 DATE: October 15, 2018
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
20 JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi
DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21
21
22
In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba
23
Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit
24
of $250,000.0.”
25
The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous response and
26
admits Request for Admission No. 3”.
27
In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence
28
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
@ issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to
ifitroduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will
unduly lengthen the trial and increase litigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is
no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission of the request and response into evidence, all
evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial.
I
A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE GRANTED TO EXCLUDE
IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE
CODE, SECTION 352, WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS
MERELY CUMULATIVE, TIME CONSUMING AND
WOULD INCREASE LITIGATION COSTS.
10
There is no express statutory authority for motions in limine. But they are well
11
recognized in practice and by case law. (Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.
12
App.3d 444, 451, 238 Cal. Rptr. 339, 342)
13
Authority for such motions also may be implied from the court's inherent power to: a)
14
"provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it” (Code of Civil Procedure, Section
15
128(a)(3)): b) "control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice”
16
(Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128({a)(8)); c) exclude irrelevant evidence (Evidence Code,
17
Section 350); d) exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the
18
probability that its admission will consume undue time or create substantial danger of undue
19
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or mislead the jury (Evidence Code, Section 352); e) hear and
20
determine questions of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury
21
(Evidence Code, Section 402(b)); and f) curb abuses and promote fair process (see Peat,
22
Marwick. Mitchell & Co. v. Sup.Ct. (People) (1988) 200 Cal..App.3d 272, 287, 245 Cal. Rptr.
23
873, 884).
24
In addition, Evidence Code, Section 352 provides:
25
“The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative
26
value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its
27 admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b)
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the
28 issues, or of misleading the jury.”
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
sees
California trial judges have considerable discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to
xclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.(
Michail vy Fluor Mining & Metals. Inc. (1986) 180 Cal-App.3d 284, 286, 225 Cal. Rptr. 403)
In the context of Evidence Code, Section 352, where the discretion of the trial court is
required to be applied, a balancing process is called for which requires consideration of the
relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences io be drawn from it. (Kessler v
Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 284, 291, 143 Cal. Rptr. 496) Evidence which merely encourages
speculation should be excluded in civil cases just as well as criminal cases. (People v Bush
(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 294, 307, 148 Cal. Rpir. 430; Atkins v Bisigier (1971) 16 Cal-App.3d 414,
10 425, 94 Cal. Rptr. 49)
1 The question of remoteness of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
12 ‘Mathes v Dudley (1931) 212 Cal. 58, 60 [297 P. 544]; Jennings v Arata (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d
13 143, 146 [188 P.2d.298].)
14 “Any matier admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established
15 against the party making the admission, unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment of
16 the admission under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300...” (Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 13:182.)
17 *...Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through frequest for admissions]
18 discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being
19 contested through contradictory evidence. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th
20 762, 775, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 517; Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.410.)” (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12
21 Cal.App.5th 19, 30 [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 560] [internal quotes omitted].)
22 In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba
23 Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit
24 of $250,000.0.”
25 The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous response and
26 admits Request for Admission No. 3”.
27 In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence
28 on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
~
jue further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will
duly. lengthen the trial and increase litigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is
‘no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission of the request and response into evidence, all
4 . evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial.
DATED: October 5 , 2018.
LA) OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
BY:
JAMES M, DOMBROSKI, ESQ. °
10 Attoyfey for Plaintiff
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
;AMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898)
.W OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
ost Office Box 751027
Petaluma, CA 94975
Tel: (707) 762-7807
Fax: (707) 759-0419
THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652)
1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12
So. San Franciseo, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 588-2428
Facsimile: (650) 873-7046
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13
ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294
14
Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015
15
vs.
16 DECLARATION OF JAMES M.
LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF
17 INC., etc., et al. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
18 Defendants. NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED
19
DATE: October 15, 2018
20 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi
21 DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 2
23 I, James M. Dombroski, declare:
24 1 I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and am the
25 attorney of record for Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
26 2. The matters contained in this declaration are known to me personally, and if
27 called upon to testify as to such matters under oath in a court of law, I could and would do so
28 competently.
1
DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
cer
-One of the contentions raised in the Complaint in this action is that BJ Interstate
‘Auto Transporters, Inc. (hereinafter “BJ”), was negligent in brokering the transportation of my
client’s automobile to an uninsured carrier, although this was not the exclusive basis for the
claim of negligence against BJ. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit “1” as though fully set forth hereat. (See Fourth Cause of Action).
4 Defendant BJ served a set of requests for admissions. At the time of the original
response, the information as to whether or not Dedyk was insured was not known to my client
and he therefore originally responded that he was unable to admit or deny it. Thereafter. once
further discovery was conducted in the case and documents were produced by Defendant Safe
10 Auto Transport, including in relation to a settlement conference and in a supplemental response
4 to document production, an amended response was served, a copy of which is attached hereto
12 and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “2” as though fully set forth hereat. In particular,
13 the court is requested to read and consider request number 3 and the amended response thereto.
14 5 Defendant has inexplicably filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial
15 contradicting the response to request number 3. The motion was wholly unnecessary as Plaintiff
16 does not intend to introduce evidence contradicting the response to request number 3.
6 As an aside, the motion in limine of Defendant BJ was also predicated on a —_—___—
17
18 deposition transcript of Bogdan Dedyk. BJ’s counsel asserts that Mr. Dedyk stated at page 76,
19 lines 23-25 of said deposition transcript, that his company was insured. It is not clear how
20 counsel for BJ obtained this page of the deposition transcript, but the page has been altered, is
21 incorrect, and is NOT THE ACTUAL PAGE from the deposition transcript. An excerpt of said
22 deposition transcript, i.e., specifically page 76, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
23 reference as Exhibit “3” as though fully set forth hereat. The actual page of the deposition
24 transcript states that Mr. Dedyk testified his company did NOT have insurance. I have contacted
25 the court reporter 4vho has confirmed that there were no changes to the deposition transcript. A
26 copy of the letter form the court reporter regarding lack of any changes is attached hereto and
27 incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “4” as though fully set forth hereat. I am also
28 attaching a copy of the verification from the court reporter, a copy of which is attached hereto
2
DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
- —
ee
porated herein by reference as Exhibit “5” as though fully set forth hereat.
7. To the extent a fact has been admitted by my client, the consequences of such
ission should be applied at the time of trial. However, there was no necessity for defendant’s
—
motion in limine on this point. Moreover, because the matters set forth in request for admission
number 3 are admitted, there is no necessity for BJ to introduce evidence on the subject of said
request. By this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order that BJ be precluded from introducing evidence
on this issue other than by introducing the response to the requests for admissions. Allowing 2
such evidence would prolong the trial and increase litigation expenses, and in view of the
admission of the request, further evidence on the point is irrelevant and unnecessary.
10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
11 declaration was executed on October _§ , 2018 aluma, California.
12
13
C\
[AMES - DOMBROSKI
‘Attorney for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3
DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
oe
.
EXHIBIT |
2 - -
¢
Net
MICHAEL J. LEVANGIE, State Bar # 160163
ALEXANDER MILLINGTON, State Bar # 270630
LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
2021 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 443-4849
Fax: (916) 443-4855
Email: Michael.levangie@llg-law.com
Attorneys for Defendant
BOGDAN DEDYK dba SAFE AUTO TRANSPORT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
YW ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294
12 Plaintiff, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
BOGDAN DEDYK’S
13 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
14 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, Date: August 12, 2016
INC., BJ INTERSTATE AUTO Time: 2:00 p.m.
1S TRANSPORTERS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Dept.: 10
BOGDAN DEDYK, doing business as SAFE
16 AUTO TRANSPORT, an individual, and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive,
17 Complaint filed: 11/18/15
Defendants,
18
19 “If this case is an example, the term ‘civil procedure’ is an oxymoron."
Gree en v. GTE California, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 407
20
“The quiet speed of plaintiffs’ attorney in seeking a default judgment without the knowledge
21 of defendants’ counsel is not to be commended.”
Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 63, (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 436
22 1
23 "We have much less of a sense of shared values than we used to have. There was a common
24 understanding of how you acted, You zealously represented your client, but you had respect for
25 the other side and treated them with dignity. Afterward, you'd all go out for a drink."!, Can we
26 ever again achieve this level of professionalism? I hope so...
27
' Stephen C. Rice, President's Message.: We Need to Come Together as a Profession, Advocate (Idaho), Jan. 1998,
28 at 4, 4 (quoting Dean Haynsworth of William Mitchell College of Law); see also John Gibeaut, Nourishing the
Profession: Report on Professionalism Calls for Ethics Training, Civility Rules in Court, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1997, at 92.
1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
-
oO
PROCEDURAL TIMELINE
November 18, 2015 Plaintiff files Complaint
November 30, 2015 Defendant Dedyk personally served.
December 2015 Defendant Dedyk sends complaint to his insurance broker
believing his insurance company would respond.
December 30, 2016 Dedyk’s responsive pleading is due.
February 11, 2016 Plaintiff requests entry of default against Dedyk.
February, 2016 Dedyk sent Notice of Entry of Default, which is sent to his
insurance broker and Dedyk’s attorney Dmitriy
10 Shchebenko.
il February 29, 2016 Coverage counsel for Dedyk’s insurance carrier contacts
12. plaintiff's counsel by email after leaving messages the prior
13 week — requesting to set aside default.
14 March 2016 Dedky’s attorney, Dmitriy Shchebenko contacts plaintiff's
15 counsel and requests stipulation to set aside default ~
16 plaintiff refuses.
17 March 23, 2016 Plaintiffs counsel emails Dedyk’s insurance carrier’s
18 coverage counsel asking if they will be filing a notice of
19 appearance and coverage counsel replies they represent the
20 insurance carrier— plaintiff continues to refuse to stipulate
21 to set aside default.
22 March 28, 2016 Plaintiff's default judgment due for filing. (not filed) {
23 April 22, 2016 Case is removed to Federal Court by Les Stanford
24 June 17, 2016. Case is remanded to State Court.
25 July 6, 2016 Dedyk’s current counsel is retained by his insurance carrier.
26 July 7, 2016 Dedyk’s current counsel contacts plaintiff and requests
27 stipulation to set aside default which is refused.
28
2
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
ee ww
promptly requetsed. The plaintiff has responded to the repeated prompt efforts to set aside the
default by repeatedly opposing any relief, while not articulating any legitimate basis for denying
such relief or any prejudice to plaintiff from setting aside the defualt.
Litigation is not meant to be a game and our courts routinely hold there are grounds to
grant relief under section 473(b) in cases similar to the one before the court now. Therefore,
pursuant to Section 473(b), defendant Dedyk respectfully requests this court vacate the default
and allow filing of his answer so this litigation may proceed on its merits.
DATED: August 4, 2016 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
10
li
CLE
12 Lao?
13 EL JAZZEVANGIE
c XXAND) R MIL GTO!
14 ttorneys for Defe
BOGDAN DED¥K |”
15
eH 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ij 23
24
25
26
27
28 2 There is no default judgment filed against defendant Dedyk nor was an extension of time to do so requested by
plaintiff in violation of CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(h), which requires the party requesting entry of default obtain
a default judgment within 45 days after the entry of default or obtain an extension of time for doing so.
5
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT.
ee ~
EXHIBIT J
ay
—
JAMES M. DOMBROSKI (CSBN 56898)
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
Post Office Box 751027
Petaluma, California 94975
Telephone: (707) 762-7807
Facsimile: (707) 769-0419
THOMAS I. SABERI (CSBN 169652)
1045 Airport Boulevard, Suite 12
South San Francisco, California 94080
Telephone: (650) 588-2428
Facsimile: (650) 873-7046
Attorneys for Plaintiff Andy Saberi
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. civ -536294
Plaintiff,
14 vs. PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS
DESIGNATION
15
LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, 2 Trial Date: June 11, 2018
16 INC., a Michigan corporation, BJ INTERSTATE )
AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC., a Nevada
V7 corporation, BOGDAN DEDYK, doing business )
as SAFE AUTO TRANSPORT, an individual,
)
18 )
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, )
19
Defendants.
20
21
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Andy Saberi (“Saberi”) expect
22
to offer into evidence at the trial of this matter the opinion and testimony of the following
23
experts:
24
EXPERTS:
25
1 Andy Saberi
26 1045 Airport Boulevard
South San Francisco, California 94080
27
Telephone: (650) 588-3088
28
1
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation
oe tn
22. Jonathan Aguilar
Ly 1045 Airport Boulevard
South San Francisco, California 94080
Telephone: (650) 588-3088
Manuel Degaldo
5055 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94110
Saberi reserves the right to supplement this disclosure and will disclose the identity of any
additional non-retained witnesses upon retention thereof.
Saberi reserves the right to call as witnesses at trial any expert designated by other parties
to this action pursuant to CCP Section 2034(m).
10 Saberi further reserves the right to later disclose additional experts to be called to testify
11 pursuant to CCP Section 2034(h), when-such testimony is needed to aid in this action and/or
12 refute the coritentions and testimony of expert witnesses adverse to the Plaintiff's case.
13 Saberi further reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses pursuant to CCP
14 Section 2034(h) should the need become apparent. This is true especially in light of any
15 amended pleadings that may be filed.
16
DATED: April 23, 2018.
17
18 'S M. DOMBROSKI
Atty ey for Plaintiff Andy Saberi
19
20
2)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation
DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DISCLOSURE
I, James M. Dombroski, declare as follows:
1 1am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and am co-
counsel of record herein for Plaintiff Andy Saberi.
22. A plaintiff suing under the Carmack Amendment is entitled to the “actual loss or
injury to the property caused by the carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1). “The Carmack
amendment incorporates common law principles for damages.” Project Hope v. M/V ibn Sina,
250 F.3d 67, 76 (2d cir. 2001). Carmack makes carriers liable “for the full actual loss, damage, or
injury caused by them to property they transport, and declares unlawful and void any contract,
10
regulation, atariff, or other attempted means of limiting this liability.” Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v.
i
Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137 (1964). The goal in an action for cargo damage is to restore
12
the innocent party to the position the party would have been in if the contract had been fully
13
performed. Hector Martinez & Co. y. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 606 F.2d 106, 108 (Sth Cir.
14
1979), Therefore, Safe Auto Transport must restore Plaintiff to the position Plaintiff would have
1s
been in if the contract with Les Stanford had been fully performed and the subject Corvette was
16
not damaged..
17
3 Mr. Saberi, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Delgado (hereinafter “Experts") are expected to
18
offer an expert opinions on the liability of Safe Auto Transport, the amount of damages suffered
19
by Saberi (including interest) and causation.
20
4 The experts have not prepared a report at this time.
21
5 The experts have agreed to testify at the trial of this matter.
22
6 The experts’ hourly fee for testimony is $50.00 per hour.
23
7 The experts will be sufficiently familiar with this pending action to submit a
24
meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including any opinion and the
25
basis for said opinion, that said expert is expected to give at trial.
26
8 Mr. Saberi has been a mechanic since the 1960’s. Mr. Delgado has been a
27
mechanic for 16 years and for the last six years, the head mechanic of the shop located at the
28
3
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation
Saberi station in San Francisco. Mr, Aguilar has been a car enthusiast and has bought and sold at
least 10 to 15 cars.
9 Based upon the purchase price of $128,391.23, as of September 17, 2015, and the
Blue Book value dated April 26, 2018 (attached as Exhibit A), which shows the Trade-in-Range
between $66,742.00 to $71,053.00, the experts will testify that the loss value for the subject
Corvette is between $56,947.00 to $61,258.00. These amounts are in addition to the sum of
$3,623.35 for repairs plus interest from September 17, 2015.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that J have personal knowledge of the above-stated facts.
10 Executed this 23 day of April, 2018, etal a, California.
il
12
[ES M. DOMBROSKI
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation
Preview
qi: oy) 7 Sf FILED LM JAMES ATTRIDGE [SBN NO, 124003] LAW OFFICES OF JAMES ATTRIDGE SAN MATEO COUNTY 10821 West’ Dumbarton Place Littleton, CO 80127 MAY 10 2019 Telephone: (415) 846-4477 Email: jattridge@attridgelaw.com Attorney for Defendant BJ Interstate Auto Transporters, Inc. - civs36294 DIR * Declaration in Reply | | il Im SUPERIOR RNIA | 1815160 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 ANDY SABER], an individual il Plaintiff, Case No: CIV-536294 12 vs. DECLARATION OF JAMES ATTRIDGE IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO 13 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET DECLARATION OF JAMES ATTRIDGE AND CADILLAC, ENC. et. al, PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR 14 JUDICIAL NOTICE 15 Defendants. Date: May 17, 2019 Time: 9 AM 16 Department 16, Courtroom A Honorable Leland Davis, III 17 18 19 20 I, James Attridge declare and state that I am an attorney licensed to practice before the courts 21 of this state and I know the following of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify » 22 could and would competently testify thereto. 23 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintif?s Motion in Limine 24 Number Two to Exclude Evidence That Carrier Was Uninsured (sic), the Memorandum 25 of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of James Dombroski in Support thereof. 26 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Bogdan Dedyk’s Reply in 27 Support of Motion to Set Aside Default served on Team Saberi on or about August 4, 28 2016, indicating that as of June 6, 2016 plaintiff was on notice that Bogdan dedyk was 1 TRIAT. RRIFF REcg, VED MAY 1 2019 s x represented by insurance defense counsel. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation, designating no expert witness against BJ Interstate at all. (See appended Declaration of James Dombroski, paragraph 3.) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States of California and Colorado that James Attridge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 TRIAT. RRIFF 4 x EXHIBIT H <— JAMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898) LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI Post Office Box 751027 Petaluma, CA 94975 Tel: (707) 762-7807 Fax: (707) 759-0419 THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652) 1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12 So. San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 588-2428 Facsimile: (650) 873-7046 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO = 12 13 ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294 14 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015 15 vs. 16 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE 17 INC, ete., et al. EVIDENCE THAT CARRIER WAS 18 Defendants. UNINSURED 19 DATE: October 15, 2018 20 TIME: 9:00 a.m. JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi 21 DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21 22 23 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the date, and at the time and place set for trial, 25 Plaintiff, ANDY SABERI, will, and does hereby move, in limine, to exclude all evidence on the 26 issue of whether Dedyk dba Safe Auto Transport was.a named insured on Motor Truck Cargo’s 27 policy of insurance. 28 The motion will be made upon the ground that in view of Plaintiff's admission of the 1 MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF st for admission as to this fact, evidence to prove or disprove the issue is now irrelevant or ati and such evidence should be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code. Section 352, as being-cumulative, unduly time consuming and because it will increase litigation costs. nieie Fhe motionis based on this notice, the attached Declaration of James M. Dombroski, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, upon all of the papers and records on file in this action, and upon such other and further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at 7 the hearing. DATED: October 42018. LAWAPFI OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI 10 a 12 BY: JA M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. 13 Att ey for Plaintiff 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF a M. OMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898) OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI Post Office Box 751027 Petaluma, CA 94975 Tel: (707) 762-7807 Fax: (707) 759-0419 THOMAS I. SABERI, ESO. (SBN 169652) 1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12 So. San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 588-2428 Facsimile: (650) 873-7046 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 ANDY SABERL CASE NO. CIV 536294 14 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015 15 vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE 17 INC., etc., et al. NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 18 Defendants. THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED 19 DATE: October 15, 2018 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 20 JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21 21 22 In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba 23 Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit 24 of $250,000.0.” 25 The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous response and 26 admits Request for Admission No. 3”. 27 In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence 28 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF @ issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to ifitroduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will unduly lengthen the trial and increase litigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission of the request and response into evidence, all evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial. I A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE GRANTED TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE, SECTION 352, WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS MERELY CUMULATIVE, TIME CONSUMING AND WOULD INCREASE LITIGATION COSTS. 10 There is no express statutory authority for motions in limine. But they are well 11 recognized in practice and by case law. (Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. 12 App.3d 444, 451, 238 Cal. Rptr. 339, 342) 13 Authority for such motions also may be implied from the court's inherent power to: a) 14 "provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it” (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 15 128(a)(3)): b) "control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice” 16 (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128({a)(8)); c) exclude irrelevant evidence (Evidence Code, 17 Section 350); d) exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the 18 probability that its admission will consume undue time or create substantial danger of undue 19 prejudice, confusion of the issues, or mislead the jury (Evidence Code, Section 352); e) hear and 20 determine questions of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury 21 (Evidence Code, Section 402(b)); and f) curb abuses and promote fair process (see Peat, 22 Marwick. Mitchell & Co. v. Sup.Ct. (People) (1988) 200 Cal..App.3d 272, 287, 245 Cal. Rptr. 23 873, 884). 24 In addition, Evidence Code, Section 352 provides: 25 “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative 26 value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its 27 admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the 28 issues, or of misleading the jury.” 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF sees California trial judges have considerable discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to xclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.( Michail vy Fluor Mining & Metals. Inc. (1986) 180 Cal-App.3d 284, 286, 225 Cal. Rptr. 403) In the context of Evidence Code, Section 352, where the discretion of the trial court is required to be applied, a balancing process is called for which requires consideration of the relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences io be drawn from it. (Kessler v Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 284, 291, 143 Cal. Rptr. 496) Evidence which merely encourages speculation should be excluded in civil cases just as well as criminal cases. (People v Bush (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 294, 307, 148 Cal. Rpir. 430; Atkins v Bisigier (1971) 16 Cal-App.3d 414, 10 425, 94 Cal. Rptr. 49) 1 The question of remoteness of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. 12 ‘Mathes v Dudley (1931) 212 Cal. 58, 60 [297 P. 544]; Jennings v Arata (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 13 143, 146 [188 P.2d.298].) 14 “Any matier admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established 15 against the party making the admission, unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment of 16 the admission under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300...” (Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 13:182.) 17 *...Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through frequest for admissions] 18 discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being 19 contested through contradictory evidence. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 20 762, 775, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 517; Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.410.)” (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 21 Cal.App.5th 19, 30 [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 560] [internal quotes omitted].) 22 In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba 23 Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit 24 of $250,000.0.” 25 The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous response and 26 admits Request for Admission No. 3”. 27 In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence 28 on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF ~ jue further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will duly. lengthen the trial and increase litigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is ‘no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission of the request and response into evidence, all 4 . evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial. DATED: October 5 , 2018. LA) OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI BY: JAMES M, DOMBROSKI, ESQ. ° 10 Attoyfey for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF ;AMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898) .W OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI ost Office Box 751027 Petaluma, CA 94975 Tel: (707) 762-7807 Fax: (707) 759-0419 THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652) 1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12 So. San Franciseo, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 588-2428 Facsimile: (650) 873-7046 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294 14 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: 11/18/2015 15 vs. 16 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF 17 INC., etc., et al. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE 18 Defendants. NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED 19 DATE: October 15, 2018 20 TIME: 9:00 a.m. JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi 21 DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 2 23 I, James M. Dombroski, declare: 24 1 I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and am the 25 attorney of record for Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. 26 2. The matters contained in this declaration are known to me personally, and if 27 called upon to testify as to such matters under oath in a court of law, I could and would do so 28 competently. 1 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF cer -One of the contentions raised in the Complaint in this action is that BJ Interstate ‘Auto Transporters, Inc. (hereinafter “BJ”), was negligent in brokering the transportation of my client’s automobile to an uninsured carrier, although this was not the exclusive basis for the claim of negligence against BJ. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “1” as though fully set forth hereat. (See Fourth Cause of Action). 4 Defendant BJ served a set of requests for admissions. At the time of the original response, the information as to whether or not Dedyk was insured was not known to my client and he therefore originally responded that he was unable to admit or deny it. Thereafter. once further discovery was conducted in the case and documents were produced by Defendant Safe 10 Auto Transport, including in relation to a settlement conference and in a supplemental response 4 to document production, an amended response was served, a copy of which is attached hereto 12 and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “2” as though fully set forth hereat. In particular, 13 the court is requested to read and consider request number 3 and the amended response thereto. 14 5 Defendant has inexplicably filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial 15 contradicting the response to request number 3. The motion was wholly unnecessary as Plaintiff 16 does not intend to introduce evidence contradicting the response to request number 3. 6 As an aside, the motion in limine of Defendant BJ was also predicated on a —_—___— 17 18 deposition transcript of Bogdan Dedyk. BJ’s counsel asserts that Mr. Dedyk stated at page 76, 19 lines 23-25 of said deposition transcript, that his company was insured. It is not clear how 20 counsel for BJ obtained this page of the deposition transcript, but the page has been altered, is 21 incorrect, and is NOT THE ACTUAL PAGE from the deposition transcript. An excerpt of said 22 deposition transcript, i.e., specifically page 76, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by 23 reference as Exhibit “3” as though fully set forth hereat. The actual page of the deposition 24 transcript states that Mr. Dedyk testified his company did NOT have insurance. I have contacted 25 the court reporter 4vho has confirmed that there were no changes to the deposition transcript. A 26 copy of the letter form the court reporter regarding lack of any changes is attached hereto and 27 incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “4” as though fully set forth hereat. I am also 28 attaching a copy of the verification from the court reporter, a copy of which is attached hereto 2 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF - — ee porated herein by reference as Exhibit “5” as though fully set forth hereat. 7. To the extent a fact has been admitted by my client, the consequences of such ission should be applied at the time of trial. However, there was no necessity for defendant’s — motion in limine on this point. Moreover, because the matters set forth in request for admission number 3 are admitted, there is no necessity for BJ to introduce evidence on the subject of said request. By this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order that BJ be precluded from introducing evidence on this issue other than by introducing the response to the requests for admissions. Allowing 2 such evidence would prolong the trial and increase litigation expenses, and in view of the admission of the request, further evidence on the point is irrelevant and unnecessary. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this 11 declaration was executed on October _§ , 2018 aluma, California. 12 13 C\ [AMES - DOMBROSKI ‘Attorney for Plaintiff 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF oe . EXHIBIT | 2 - - ¢ Net MICHAEL J. LEVANGIE, State Bar # 160163 ALEXANDER MILLINGTON, State Bar # 270630 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP 2021 N Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 443-4849 Fax: (916) 443-4855 Email: Michael.levangie@llg-law.com Attorneys for Defendant BOGDAN DEDYK dba SAFE AUTO TRANSPORT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 YW ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294 12 Plaintiff, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF BOGDAN DEDYK’S 13 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 14 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, Date: August 12, 2016 INC., BJ INTERSTATE AUTO Time: 2:00 p.m. 1S TRANSPORTERS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Dept.: 10 BOGDAN DEDYK, doing business as SAFE 16 AUTO TRANSPORT, an individual, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 17 Complaint filed: 11/18/15 Defendants, 18 19 “If this case is an example, the term ‘civil procedure’ is an oxymoron." Gree en v. GTE California, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 407 20 “The quiet speed of plaintiffs’ attorney in seeking a default judgment without the knowledge 21 of defendants’ counsel is not to be commended.” Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 63, (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 436 22 1 23 "We have much less of a sense of shared values than we used to have. There was a common 24 understanding of how you acted, You zealously represented your client, but you had respect for 25 the other side and treated them with dignity. Afterward, you'd all go out for a drink."!, Can we 26 ever again achieve this level of professionalism? I hope so... 27 ' Stephen C. Rice, President's Message.: We Need to Come Together as a Profession, Advocate (Idaho), Jan. 1998, 28 at 4, 4 (quoting Dean Haynsworth of William Mitchell College of Law); see also John Gibeaut, Nourishing the Profession: Report on Professionalism Calls for Ethics Training, Civility Rules in Court, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1997, at 92. 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT - oO PROCEDURAL TIMELINE November 18, 2015 Plaintiff files Complaint November 30, 2015 Defendant Dedyk personally served. December 2015 Defendant Dedyk sends complaint to his insurance broker believing his insurance company would respond. December 30, 2016 Dedyk’s responsive pleading is due. February 11, 2016 Plaintiff requests entry of default against Dedyk. February, 2016 Dedyk sent Notice of Entry of Default, which is sent to his insurance broker and Dedyk’s attorney Dmitriy 10 Shchebenko. il February 29, 2016 Coverage counsel for Dedyk’s insurance carrier contacts 12. plaintiff's counsel by email after leaving messages the prior 13 week — requesting to set aside default. 14 March 2016 Dedky’s attorney, Dmitriy Shchebenko contacts plaintiff's 15 counsel and requests stipulation to set aside default ~ 16 plaintiff refuses. 17 March 23, 2016 Plaintiffs counsel emails Dedyk’s insurance carrier’s 18 coverage counsel asking if they will be filing a notice of 19 appearance and coverage counsel replies they represent the 20 insurance carrier— plaintiff continues to refuse to stipulate 21 to set aside default. 22 March 28, 2016 Plaintiff's default judgment due for filing. (not filed) { 23 April 22, 2016 Case is removed to Federal Court by Les Stanford 24 June 17, 2016. Case is remanded to State Court. 25 July 6, 2016 Dedyk’s current counsel is retained by his insurance carrier. 26 July 7, 2016 Dedyk’s current counsel contacts plaintiff and requests 27 stipulation to set aside default which is refused. 28 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT ee ww promptly requetsed. The plaintiff has responded to the repeated prompt efforts to set aside the default by repeatedly opposing any relief, while not articulating any legitimate basis for denying such relief or any prejudice to plaintiff from setting aside the defualt. Litigation is not meant to be a game and our courts routinely hold there are grounds to grant relief under section 473(b) in cases similar to the one before the court now. Therefore, pursuant to Section 473(b), defendant Dedyk respectfully requests this court vacate the default and allow filing of his answer so this litigation may proceed on its merits. DATED: August 4, 2016 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP 10 li CLE 12 Lao? 13 EL JAZZEVANGIE c XXAND) R MIL GTO! 14 ttorneys for Defe BOGDAN DED¥K |” 15 eH 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ij 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 There is no default judgment filed against defendant Dedyk nor was an extension of time to do so requested by plaintiff in violation of CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(h), which requires the party requesting entry of default obtain a default judgment within 45 days after the entry of default or obtain an extension of time for doing so. 5 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT. ee ~ EXHIBIT J ay — JAMES M. DOMBROSKI (CSBN 56898) LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI Post Office Box 751027 Petaluma, California 94975 Telephone: (707) 762-7807 Facsimile: (707) 769-0419 THOMAS I. SABERI (CSBN 169652) 1045 Airport Boulevard, Suite 12 South San Francisco, California 94080 Telephone: (650) 588-2428 Facsimile: (650) 873-7046 Attorneys for Plaintiff Andy Saberi SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. civ -536294 Plaintiff, 14 vs. PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION 15 LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, 2 Trial Date: June 11, 2018 16 INC., a Michigan corporation, BJ INTERSTATE ) AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC., a Nevada V7 corporation, BOGDAN DEDYK, doing business ) as SAFE AUTO TRANSPORT, an individual, ) 18 ) and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, ) 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Andy Saberi (“Saberi”) expect 22 to offer into evidence at the trial of this matter the opinion and testimony of the following 23 experts: 24 EXPERTS: 25 1 Andy Saberi 26 1045 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California 94080 27 Telephone: (650) 588-3088 28 1 Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation oe tn 22. Jonathan Aguilar Ly 1045 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California 94080 Telephone: (650) 588-3088 Manuel Degaldo 5055 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94110 Saberi reserves the right to supplement this disclosure and will disclose the identity of any additional non-retained witnesses upon retention thereof. Saberi reserves the right to call as witnesses at trial any expert designated by other parties to this action pursuant to CCP Section 2034(m). 10 Saberi further reserves the right to later disclose additional experts to be called to testify 11 pursuant to CCP Section 2034(h), when-such testimony is needed to aid in this action and/or 12 refute the coritentions and testimony of expert witnesses adverse to the Plaintiff's case. 13 Saberi further reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses pursuant to CCP 14 Section 2034(h) should the need become apparent. This is true especially in light of any 15 amended pleadings that may be filed. 16 DATED: April 23, 2018. 17 18 'S M. DOMBROSKI Atty ey for Plaintiff Andy Saberi 19 20 2) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DISCLOSURE I, James M. Dombroski, declare as follows: 1 1am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and am co- counsel of record herein for Plaintiff Andy Saberi. 22. A plaintiff suing under the Carmack Amendment is entitled to the “actual loss or injury to the property caused by the carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1). “The Carmack amendment incorporates common law principles for damages.” Project Hope v. M/V ibn Sina, 250 F.3d 67, 76 (2d cir. 2001). Carmack makes carriers liable “for the full actual loss, damage, or injury caused by them to property they transport, and declares unlawful and void any contract, 10 regulation, atariff, or other attempted means of limiting this liability.” Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. i Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137 (1964). The goal in an action for cargo damage is to restore 12 the innocent party to the position the party would have been in if the contract had been fully 13 performed. Hector Martinez & Co. y. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 606 F.2d 106, 108 (Sth Cir. 14 1979), Therefore, Safe Auto Transport must restore Plaintiff to the position Plaintiff would have 1s been in if the contract with Les Stanford had been fully performed and the subject Corvette was 16 not damaged.. 17 3 Mr. Saberi, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Delgado (hereinafter “Experts") are expected to 18 offer an expert opinions on the liability of Safe Auto Transport, the amount of damages suffered 19 by Saberi (including interest) and causation. 20 4 The experts have not prepared a report at this time. 21 5 The experts have agreed to testify at the trial of this matter. 22 6 The experts’ hourly fee for testimony is $50.00 per hour. 23 7 The experts will be sufficiently familiar with this pending action to submit a 24 meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including any opinion and the 25 basis for said opinion, that said expert is expected to give at trial. 26 8 Mr. Saberi has been a mechanic since the 1960’s. Mr. Delgado has been a 27 mechanic for 16 years and for the last six years, the head mechanic of the shop located at the 28 3 Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation Saberi station in San Francisco. Mr, Aguilar has been a car enthusiast and has bought and sold at least 10 to 15 cars. 9 Based upon the purchase price of $128,391.23, as of September 17, 2015, and the Blue Book value dated April 26, 2018 (attached as Exhibit A), which shows the Trade-in-Range between $66,742.00 to $71,053.00, the experts will testify that the loss value for the subject Corvette is between $56,947.00 to $61,258.00. These amounts are in addition to the sum of $3,623.35 for repairs plus interest from September 17, 2015. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that J have personal knowledge of the above-stated facts. 10 Executed this 23 day of April, 2018, etal a, California. il 12 [ES M. DOMBROSKI 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designation