On October 15, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Dumont, Richard E., Trustee Of The Dumont Trust,
Dumont, Tamara, Trustee Of The Dumont Trust,
Jimmy Williams,
Rolanda Williams,
and
Jimmy Williams,
Karen Peterson,
Mary Knudtson,
Rolanda Williams,
for Civil-Roseville
in the District Court of Placer County.
Preview
a>
Daniel R. Martinez, SBN 125382 cuvet, TILED...
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. MARTINEZ Noor nce ot placer
TaN asa —
167 Link st ‘bhBlvd.,
d., Suite Suite
205
N
Lincoln 9 9n00
e one: 5-333 Chatt
Facsimile: (916) 645-3033 Executive Officer & Clerk
Bf
By: L.Sanders, Deputy
nH
Attorney for Defendants/Crosscomplainants,
JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS & ROLANDA WILLIAMS
DoD
NN
Oe
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
So
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10 CASE NO.: SCV-0043886
RICHARD E. DUMONT, et al )
11 ) WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiffs ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
12 vs. ) CROSSCOMPLAINT
13 )
JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS & ROLANDA _) Hearing date: 3/19/20
WILLIAMS ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
14 Defendants. ) Dept.: 42
) Date Action Filed: 10/15/19
15 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION ) Trial date: None Set
16
I
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Crosscomplainants, Jimmy Ray Williams and Rolanda Williams, (“Williams”)submit the
19
following Opposition to Crossdefendants’ Motion to Strike Crosscomplaint:
20
Crossdefendants contend that a portion of the Crosscomplaint at issue is not relevant. For the
21
reasons set forth below, Williams show that this challenged passage is relevant and therefore their
22
Motion to Strike must be denied.
23
U
24
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
25
This matter involves a relatively minor dispute regarding appropriate access to an underground
26
easement across Williams property for a pipe running from Crossdefendants property to the Nevada
27
Irrigation District (“NID”) ditch located on Williams property.
28
Adjacent to the NID ditch is an inline filter installed by Crossdefendants and/or their
predecessors. Over the course ofa year, Crossdefendants periodically cleans this inline filter.This filter
is accessible by using the NID ditch road and walking along that easement. Problems have arisen
because Crossdefendants insist that because they have an underground easement, they can traverse
aS
Williams property at their whim. Williams have requested that they be notified prior to
DWN
Crossdefendants’ entry tothe property and have requested them to use alternative access. Nonetheless,
Crossdefendants contend that they can enter Williams property whenever they “damn well choose”.
NY
The precipitating event that caused this litigation to ensue is when Mr. Dumont entered onto
OO
Williams’ property after dark without notification. This caused the Williams dogs to bark and Mrs.
So
10 Williams, coming out of the shower, thought there might be an animal on the porch and peeked outside
11 her bedroom, which faces the back of the property near the spa area, in a state of undress. At that point
12 in time, she noticed that Mr. Dumont was standing there, to her surprise and embarrassment. The prior
13 owner indicated that a similar incident had occurred when he was in the spa, in a state of undress and
14 Mr. Dumont was traversing through the backyard to clean out his filter and surprised him. That also was
15 quite embarrassing for the prior owner.
16 In the instant Motion to Strike, Crossdefendants allege that this is not relevant. Williams
17 respectfully disagree. One of the contentions in this case isthe reasonable access for utilization of the
18 underground pipe easement that runs through Williams property. The prior incident shows that
19 Crossdefendants’ use of the easement was not a reasonable use, was exceeding the scope, and was also
20 an invasion of privacy. This history of intrusion is relevant to these expectations as well as supportive
21 of the damages claimed. While Williams clearly acknowledge that there is an underground pipe
22 easement giving Crossdefendants reasonable access as needed, itdoes not give Crossdefendants an
23 absolute right to enter Williams property whenever they choose at any time of the night or day without
24 notice. As Crossdefendants’ intrusive history is relevant to the case, itshould not be stricken. This
25 ongoing pattern of behavior by Crossdefendants isalso relevant to the issues of malice, oppression and
26 fraud constituting a basis for a punitive damage claim in the Crosscomplaint.
27
28
Il
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
POLICY TO CONSTRUE PLEADINGS LIBERALLY
A. The policy of the law is to construe pleadings “liberally...with a view to substantial justice”
(CCP§452) and when ruling on a Motion to Strike, all allegations in the pleading are considered in
context and are presumed to be true. “Judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a Motion to Strike
as a whole, all parts of the context, and assume the truth”. _Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (Pedes Services.., Inc.)
(1998) 67 Cal App 4" 1253, 1255. Thus ,for purposes of motion, the allegations set forth in the
10 Crosscomplaint are deemed to be true.
11 B. The challenged passage is relevant
12 For reasons set forth in the Factual Background the challenged passage isclearly relevant to the
[3 issues of notice, acceptable and reasonable use of the easement, and basis for the punitive damage claim.
14 As such, this Motion to Strike should be denied.
15 IV
16 CONCLUSION
17 Based upon all the foregoing, Williams respectfully request that the court deny the moving
18 party’s Motion to Strike the Crosscomplaint.
19
20
21 Dated: February 7 , 2020 LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. MARTINEZ
22
23 DANIE MARTINEZ
Attorney forCrosscomplainants,
24 WILLIAM & ROLANDA WILLIAMS
25
26
27
28
= AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NAME: Williams vs. Dumont
NYS
CASE NO.: SCV 0043886
COURT: Placer County Superior Court
WwW
Re
I DECLARE that:
oO
Iam employed by a member of the State Bar of California in the County ofPlacer, California. Iam over
Oo
the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 167 Lincoln Blvd., Suite
205 Lincoln CA 95648
ON
On February X | ,2020, Iserved the following:
oO
WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CROSSCOMPLAINT
mr
on the parties below by placing a true copy thereof ina sealed envelope, postage fully prepaid thereon
em
=|
and by placing said envelope in the designated area fordelivery or service by:
es
DO
xX MAIL - Sent Regular First class mail from Lincoln, California
WO
es
ELECTRONIC MAIL
FBP
es
FACSIMILE - Sent by telephone transmission by facsimile atLincoln, California
Oo
a
PERSONAL DELIVERY - Delivered by hand to addressee or agent of addressee.
DOD
2
Addressed as follows:
NN
|
BoB
Kenneth Brooks, Esq.
F-
5329 Thunder Ridge Circle
Rocklin, CA 95765
Oo
|
email: kcb@brookspatents.com
FD
NO
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing was
2”]_, 2020. ayo
|-
executed on February
NYO
Beth Joseph/
DY
NM
Wo
PHP
Fk
PNR
on
PN
Oo
RN
PO
oN
NR
Preview
a> Daniel R. Martinez, SBN 125382 cuvet, TILED... LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. MARTINEZ Noor nce ot placer TaN asa — 167 Link st ‘bhBlvd., d., Suite Suite 205 N Lincoln 9 9n00 e one: 5-333 Chatt Facsimile: (916) 645-3033 Executive Officer & Clerk Bf By: L.Sanders, Deputy nH Attorney for Defendants/Crosscomplainants, JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS & ROLANDA WILLIAMS DoD NN Oe IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA So IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 CASE NO.: SCV-0043886 RICHARD E. DUMONT, et al ) 11 ) WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO Plaintiffs ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 12 vs. ) CROSSCOMPLAINT 13 ) JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS & ROLANDA _) Hearing date: 3/19/20 WILLIAMS ) Time: 8:30 a.m. 14 Defendants. ) Dept.: 42 ) Date Action Filed: 10/15/19 15 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION ) Trial date: None Set 16 I 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Crosscomplainants, Jimmy Ray Williams and Rolanda Williams, (“Williams”)submit the 19 following Opposition to Crossdefendants’ Motion to Strike Crosscomplaint: 20 Crossdefendants contend that a portion of the Crosscomplaint at issue is not relevant. For the 21 reasons set forth below, Williams show that this challenged passage is relevant and therefore their 22 Motion to Strike must be denied. 23 U 24 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 25 This matter involves a relatively minor dispute regarding appropriate access to an underground 26 easement across Williams property for a pipe running from Crossdefendants property to the Nevada 27 Irrigation District (“NID”) ditch located on Williams property. 28 Adjacent to the NID ditch is an inline filter installed by Crossdefendants and/or their predecessors. Over the course ofa year, Crossdefendants periodically cleans this inline filter.This filter is accessible by using the NID ditch road and walking along that easement. Problems have arisen because Crossdefendants insist that because they have an underground easement, they can traverse aS Williams property at their whim. Williams have requested that they be notified prior to DWN Crossdefendants’ entry tothe property and have requested them to use alternative access. Nonetheless, Crossdefendants contend that they can enter Williams property whenever they “damn well choose”. NY The precipitating event that caused this litigation to ensue is when Mr. Dumont entered onto OO Williams’ property after dark without notification. This caused the Williams dogs to bark and Mrs. So 10 Williams, coming out of the shower, thought there might be an animal on the porch and peeked outside 11 her bedroom, which faces the back of the property near the spa area, in a state of undress. At that point 12 in time, she noticed that Mr. Dumont was standing there, to her surprise and embarrassment. The prior 13 owner indicated that a similar incident had occurred when he was in the spa, in a state of undress and 14 Mr. Dumont was traversing through the backyard to clean out his filter and surprised him. That also was 15 quite embarrassing for the prior owner. 16 In the instant Motion to Strike, Crossdefendants allege that this is not relevant. Williams 17 respectfully disagree. One of the contentions in this case isthe reasonable access for utilization of the 18 underground pipe easement that runs through Williams property. The prior incident shows that 19 Crossdefendants’ use of the easement was not a reasonable use, was exceeding the scope, and was also 20 an invasion of privacy. This history of intrusion is relevant to these expectations as well as supportive 21 of the damages claimed. While Williams clearly acknowledge that there is an underground pipe 22 easement giving Crossdefendants reasonable access as needed, itdoes not give Crossdefendants an 23 absolute right to enter Williams property whenever they choose at any time of the night or day without 24 notice. As Crossdefendants’ intrusive history is relevant to the case, itshould not be stricken. This 25 ongoing pattern of behavior by Crossdefendants isalso relevant to the issues of malice, oppression and 26 fraud constituting a basis for a punitive damage claim in the Crosscomplaint. 27 28 Il MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES POLICY TO CONSTRUE PLEADINGS LIBERALLY A. The policy of the law is to construe pleadings “liberally...with a view to substantial justice” (CCP§452) and when ruling on a Motion to Strike, all allegations in the pleading are considered in context and are presumed to be true. “Judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a Motion to Strike as a whole, all parts of the context, and assume the truth”. _Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (Pedes Services.., Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal App 4" 1253, 1255. Thus ,for purposes of motion, the allegations set forth in the 10 Crosscomplaint are deemed to be true. 11 B. The challenged passage is relevant 12 For reasons set forth in the Factual Background the challenged passage isclearly relevant to the [3 issues of notice, acceptable and reasonable use of the easement, and basis for the punitive damage claim. 14 As such, this Motion to Strike should be denied. 15 IV 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based upon all the foregoing, Williams respectfully request that the court deny the moving 18 party’s Motion to Strike the Crosscomplaint. 19 20 21 Dated: February 7 , 2020 LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. MARTINEZ 22 23 DANIE MARTINEZ Attorney forCrosscomplainants, 24 WILLIAM & ROLANDA WILLIAMS 25 26 27 28 = AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NAME: Williams vs. Dumont NYS CASE NO.: SCV 0043886 COURT: Placer County Superior Court WwW Re I DECLARE that: oO Iam employed by a member of the State Bar of California in the County ofPlacer, California. Iam over Oo the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 167 Lincoln Blvd., Suite 205 Lincoln CA 95648 ON On February X | ,2020, Iserved the following: oO WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CROSSCOMPLAINT mr on the parties below by placing a true copy thereof ina sealed envelope, postage fully prepaid thereon em =| and by placing said envelope in the designated area fordelivery or service by: es DO xX MAIL - Sent Regular First class mail from Lincoln, California WO es ELECTRONIC MAIL FBP es FACSIMILE - Sent by telephone transmission by facsimile atLincoln, California Oo a PERSONAL DELIVERY - Delivered by hand to addressee or agent of addressee. DOD 2 Addressed as follows: NN | BoB Kenneth Brooks, Esq. F- 5329 Thunder Ridge Circle Rocklin, CA 95765 Oo | email: kcb@brookspatents.com FD NO I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing was 2”]_, 2020. ayo |- executed on February NYO Beth Joseph/ DY NM Wo PHP Fk PNR on PN Oo RN PO oN NR