arrow left
arrow right
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
						
                                

Preview

TOM GIFFORD, Esq., SBN 135759 Law Office of Tom Gifford 113 W. North Street FTLEND Alturas, CA 96101 Superior Co car Cotorn Telephone (530) 233-3100 sunny oF Rises Facsimile (530) 233-3191 JUN 05 2020 Attorney for Defendants, Jake Chatiers Executive Officer & Clerk John Flournoy, David Flournoy, William Flournoy, By: L.Sanders, Deputy Myles Flournoy, Jennifer Flournoy, Frieda Fisher-Dubois, and Likely Land & Livestock, Co., Inc. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 1] SHIRLEY WRIGHT AND ALBERT ) RISTAU, as attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY ) Case No.: SCV0042799 12 WRIGHT and as Successor Trustee of the ) WRIGHT 1990 TRUST, dated November 14, ) 13 1990, ) Plaintiffs, ) 14 ) ) . Vs. DECLARATION OF TOM GIFFORD LIKELY LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC., a) California corporation, JOHN FLOURNOY, ) DAVID FLOURNOY, WILLIAM ) FLOURNOY, MYLES FLOURNOY, ) JENNIFER FLOURNOY, FRIEDA FISHER- ) DATE: June 12, 2020 DUBOIS, AND PLACER TITLE ) TIME: 8:30 a.m. COMPANY, a California corporation, and ) DEPT.: 31 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) 20 ) ) 21 Defendants. ) 22 I,TOM GIFFORD, DECLARE as follows: 23 1.) That approximately 6 years ago I represented DAVID FLOURNOY in a dissolution 24 action from his long term wife, JOANNE FLOURNOY. JOANNE FLOURNOY was 25 -|- DECLARATION OF TOM GIFFORD claiming an interest in Likely Land & Livestock Company, Inc. (LL&L) as community property; 2.) That Iarranged for Attorney TYLER LALAGUNA at the Law Firm of Reese, Small, Weil & Fleharty to represent LL&L; 3.) That Inever represented LL&L, nor JOHN or WILLIAM FLOURNOY. However, there were nIRCHTS discussions with them, but they were represented by MR. LALAGUNA; 4.) That I have never known the FLOURNOYS socially, and thus, the very next time I had ever heard anything from the FLOURNOYS was on August 17, 2018, when MYLES FLOURNOY contacted the undersigned that SHIRLEY WRIGHT had moved from some real property that they had purchased from her and left behind a lot of her personal property; 5.) That Iwas advised by MYLES FLOURNOY that he had been talking to SHIRLEY’S brother, ALBERT RISTAU, about what they wanted to do with SHIRLEY’S possessions that she had left in the subject house after she moved out but ALBERT hung the telephone up on MYLES; I simply instructed MYLES to contact SHIRLEY directly and see what she wanted done with her personal property. Did she want it stored, given to her brother or sell it.Itdid not matter; 20 6.) That on or about September 18, 2018, I received correspondence from JULIETTE 21 ROBERTSON, (EXHIBIT G), who Ibelieve to be Attorney STEPHEN 22 ROBERTSON’S wife, making all sorts of nasty accusations as to the FLOURNOYS 23 stealing the real property from SHIRLEY WRIGHT and threatening them with a 24 25 2. DECLARATION OF TOM GIFFORD lawsuit. MRS. ROBERTSON never made any arrangement to pick-up SHIRLEY’S personal property, yet, her husband, sues the FLOURNOYS for conversion; 7.) That Iwill subpoena MRS. ROBERTSON for Trial to explain why she refused to make arrangements to pick-up her Client’s personal property; 8.) That at no time until the letter from MR. ROBERTSON’S wife was received, was there ever any discussion between the undersigned and my Clients regarding an Option Agreement or Exercise of Option Agreement, that simply was not an issue. The issue was that SHIRLEY had abandoned the real property, (of which she could lease for $1.00 per year) and she left her personal property behind in the house; 10 9.) That after FRIEDA FISHER DUBOIS, JOHN, DAVID, WILLIAM, MYLES and 11 JENNIFER FLOURNOY and LL&L were served with the Summons and Complaint 12 in this matter, I conferred with them and explained that I would have a possible 13 conflict of interest and explained how the conflict could arise. Subsequently, my 14 Clients executed a written Waiver of Conflict of Interest; 15 16 10.) That MR. ROBERTSON told me within the last 2 weeks, that the conversion and 17 trespass to chattel were “throw away” causes of action and they could not make 18 arrangements to pick-up SHIRLEY’S personal possessions because of COVID-19; 19 11.) That as early as October of 2019, MR. ROBERTSON kept advising the 20 undersigned that the undersigned had a conflict of interest. The undersigned did not 21 feel that he had a conflict of interest and told that to MR. ROBERTSON; 22 12.) That Pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, I believed that I 23 would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each one of my 24 Clients and this representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one of my 25 -3- DECLARATION OF TOM GIFFORD Clients against another one of my Clients, nor the disclosure of any confidential discussions; 13.) That my Clients have each consulted with independent Counsel, who they have retained on their own, and Attorney GARY WOOLVERTON and Attorney RICHARD P. COTTA, JR., were provided with a copy of the Complaint, the written Waiver of Conflict that my Clients had previously signed, the Motion to Disqualify the undersigned and the undersigned had lengthy conversations with both MR. WOOLVERTON and MR. COTTA to answer any and all questions that they had in regards to this litigation, the claims and the defenses and what the evidence in the case was and they questioned the undersigned extensively on how the case was going to be presented at Trial to determine if there was a conflict; 14.) That after these discussions, the undersigned subsequently received further 13 Waivers of Conflict of Interest that my Clients executed after they had met and 14 conferred with their separately retained Counsel. I do not know the substance of the 15 16 conversations at those meetings; 15.) That I do not believe that there isa conflict of interest and I do not believe that 18 any Client’s confidentialities are involved; and 19 16.) That the Exhibits attached to the Opposition are all true and correct copies as are 20 the Deposition excerpts. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct, and ifsworn as a witness I could testify competently thereto. 23 EXECUTED atAlturas, California on June 3, 209