Preview
E-FILED
3/19/2021 1:36 PM
JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI 298684
1 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION Superior Court of California
677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201 County of Fresno
2 Fresno, CA 93704 By: E Alvarado, Deputy
Telephone: (559) 825-3800
3 Facsimile: (559) 705-1870
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC
5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 COUNTY OF FRESNO
7 * * *
8 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, ) Case No. 19CECG04036
)
9 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
10 vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
)
11 DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY; and DOES 1 ) CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR
through 20, inclusive, ) PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND
12 ) DISCOVERY ONLY
Defendants. )
13 )
) Date: April 20, 2021
14 ) Time: 3:30 p.m.
) Dept: 502
15
16 Complaint Filed: November 6, 2019
17
DANIEL ASHLEY, an individual ) Case No. 19CECG04593
18 )
Plaintiff, )
19 )
v. )
20 )
KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, an )
21 individual; KIMBERLY ANN SLATIC, an )
individual; PEYTON NICHOLE )
22 BURNETT, an individual; SIERRA )
NICOLE JONES, an individual; ANNA )
23 RIEFFEL, an individual; DOMINIC )
MANFREDO, an individual; RACHEL ) Complaint filed: December 20, 2019
24 GLUSAK, an individual; CYDNEY KAY )
MOON, an individual; and DOES 1 through )
25 20, inclusive. )
)
26 Defendants. )
27
28
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 1
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 Plaintiff KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) hereby presents this
2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion to Consolidate Actions for
3 Purposes of Trial and Discovery Only (the “Motion to Consolidate”) as follows:
4 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 This Motion to Consolidate is filed in two actions which involve common questions of fact
6 and law and that if tried separately run the risk of rendering inconsistent verdicts and taking up
7 substantial precious judicial resources. In this action, filed on November 6, 2019 (the “First
8 Action”), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY (“Defendant”) sodomized
9 and physically abused her in December 2016. In the case entitled DANIEL ASHLEY v.
10 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, et al., Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 19CECG04593,
11 filed on December 20, 2019 and also assigned to Department 502 (the “Second Action”),
12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, and the other defendants of the Second Action, conspired against
13 him to ruin his reputation and his potential career as a medical doctor by making defamatory
14 comments about him on the internet regarding the abuse Plaintiff, and other women, suffered at
15 the hands of Defendant.
16 The allegations contained in the First Action and the Second Action, when viewed as a
17 whole, arise out of the same nucleus of common allegations: that Defendant has a history of
18 sexually and physically abusing women. Instead of simply defending himself against the
19 allegations, Defendant has instead chosen to go on the offensive and file a completely new lawsuit
20 against the very women that claim they were victimized by Defendant in, what appears to be, an
21 attempt to drain their financial resources to the point that they can no longer afford to defend
22 themselves and instead give up.
23 For those reasons there exists common questions of law, as well as fact, and there is a risk
24 of rendering inconsistent verdicts. For example, if Defendant is found liable for sodomizing and
25 physically abusing Plaintiff by a jury of his peers, then all of his claims of defamation against
26 Plaintiff will fail. In addition, if the Second Action goes to trial before the First Action,1 it is simply
27
1
28 The Second Action is set for trial in January 2022 while the First Action is not currently set for trial since the case is
PROPER DEFENSE not yet at issue.
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 2
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 not possible for a jury to render a verdict in that case without first determining whether or not
2 Defendant did in fact sodomize and physically abuse Plaintiff in December 2016. Lastly, there is
3 a strong commonality as to witnesses throughout these cases, and thus, failure to consolidate the
4 matters for purposes of discovery and trial will undoubtedly lead to repetitive and unnecessary
5 discovery that will quickly inflate defense costs. Further, the multitude of common witnesses that
6 will likely be named in each of these cases will create a high level of difficulty in regard to the
7 individual schedules of the witnesses. This will only increase the burden on Plaintiff and all other
8 parties to the actions. One jury should decide whether or not Defendant sexually assaulted Plaintiff
9 and SIERRA NICOLE JONES.2 Once that jury makes those determines, itshould then decide
10 whether or not the statements made by Plaintiff and the other defendants in the Second Action
11 were defamatory or not. Trying these cases together clearly promotes judicial economy during a
12 time where judicial resources are scarce due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
13 As a result of the above, these matters should be consolidated for the purposes of trial and
14 discovery.
15 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
16 A. Consolidation for Purposes of Trial and Discovery Only Will Promote Judicial
17 Economy and Avoid Inconsistent Results.
18 Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 1048(a) provides: (a) When actions involving a
19 common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial
20 of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may
21 make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
22 (Emphasis added.)
23 Section 1048(a) authorizes the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial.” Under the statute
24 and the case law, there are two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only,
25 where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation
26 for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number
27
2
28 Sierra Nicole Jones filed a cross-complaint against Defendant in the Second Action alleging that she was sexually
PROPER DEFENSE assaulted by him.
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 3
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp.
2 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 – 1148, rehearing denied; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997)
3 Pleading, § 310-311, pp. 404-406.) The superior court, in its discretion and for the purpose of
4 avoiding duplication of time and effort, may consolidate for trial related issues in separately filed
5 actions and proceedings. (See, Neubrand v. Superior Court (1970), 9 Cal.App.3d 311 – [court
6 consolidated for trial of common issues in civil action and probate action.]) As stated in Sanchez
7 v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396: “There are two types of consolidation: a
8 complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate issues for trial.
9 Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes
10 of action have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and
11 one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and
12 judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and
13 judicial economy. (See, generally 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 298 et seq.)”
14 Thus, it is proper to consolidate two separate actions arising from two separate injury-
15 producing events for the purpose of trying related issues of damages whether or not they could
16 have been united for all other purposes. (General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
17 County (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92.) The fact that evidence in one case might not have been admissible
18 in other case does not bar a consolidation, nor does the fact that all the parties are not the same
19 preclude consolidation. (Jud. Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867 –
20 868.)
21 C.C.P. § 1048 grants wide discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving
22 common questions of law or fact, and the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal
23 absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See, Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants
24 Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978 – 979.) In this Dalkon Shield case, the lawsuits of three
25 different plaintiffs for separate bodily injuries were consolidated given the common claims of
26 pelvic inflammatory disease. The appellate court rejected arguments that a consolidated trial
27 confused the jury, noting that consolidation of the cases did not unduly confuse the jury or
28
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 4
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 prejudice defendant because there were only three plaintiffs and the jury was given separate
2 binders of evidence and separate chronologies for each plaintiff. (Id. at 980 – 981.)
3 When pending actions are consolidated only for purpose of trial of related issues, evidence
4 presented in one case is to be deemed applicable in other case insofar as it is relevant thereto, but
5 separate findings and judgments are made in each case in disposition of particular issues as
6 independently submitted. (Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32
7 Cal.App.4th 687, 702, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct.
8 300, 516 U.S. 913, 133 L.Ed.2d 205.) Where there is commonality of questions involved,
9 consolidation will allow the court and the parties to proceed with these matters expeditiously.
10 The allegations contained in the First Action and the Second Action, when viewed as a
11 whole, arise out of the same nucleus of common allegations: that Defendant has a history of
12 sexually and physically abusing women. Plaintiff and Cross-Complainant SIERRA NICOLE
13 JONES (“Jones”) in the Second Action allege that Defendant sexually assaulted them. Defendant
14 denies these allegations and alleges in the Second Action that the postings made by Plaintiff, Jones,
15 and other defendants on the internet about the sexual assault allegations against him are
16 defamatory. The primary issues between the cases are whether or not Defendant sexually and/or
17 physically abused Plaintiff and Jones. Defendant will argue that the two cases should be tried
18 separately but it simply makes no sense for that to happen. For example, it would be impossible
19 for a jury in the Second Action to determine whether or not the posts made by Plaintiff on the
20 internet about Defendant were defamatory without first determining whether or not Defendant
21 sexually and physically abused her. If Defendant is found liable for the sexual and physical abuse,
22 then whatever she posted about him on the internet regarding the sexual and physical abuse cannot
23 be defamatory since itwas found to be true. It simply makes no sense as to why a trial on the
24 defamation claims would be held without also having the trial on Plaintiff’s sexual assault and
25 physical abuse claims. These complications require that both actions be set for trial at the same
26 time and before the same judge and jury so that consistent rulings and findings as to the allegations
27 are made between the litigation producing events. In simple terms, one jury should be convened
28 to hear the “whole story” rather than only half of the story.
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 5
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 Consolidation for purposes of trial will promote judicial economy since the time needed
2 for two trials will be reduced if the First Action and Second Action are tried before one jury rather
3 than by two different juries at different times with separate jury instructions but looking at
4 essentially the same nucleus of facts and circumstances. Costs and fees will be reduced by
5 consolidating the two actions. The witnesses (including Plaintiff, the victim of sexual and physical
6 abuse)3, will only have to testify at one trial, not at two trials. The same jury would be able to
7 decide whether or not Defendant sexually and physically abused Plaintiff, whether or not
8 Defendant sexually assaulted Jones, and if is found that he did not, then the jury can determine
9 whether or not the posts made on the internet by the defendants to the Section Action were
10 defamatory. Even though the two cases are kept separate in terms of entry of judgments, trial
11 before the same jury allows the trial court to use the jury’s decisions as “integrated findings”
12 covering both consolidated cases. (See, e.g., Page v. Bakersfield Uniform & Towel Supply Co.
13 (1996) 239 Cal.App.2d 762, 772.)
14 Consolidation also avoids the risk of inconsistent results if two different juries separately
15 review all of the facts. If the Second Action is tried first and that jury finds that the posts made
16 online by Plaintiff about Defendants were defamatory and then later on another jury in the First
17 Action finds that Defendant did sexually and physically abuse Plaintiff, that would result in
18 inconsistent verdicts. A consolidated trial will not unduly prejudice any of the parties since having
19 one jury review the evidence and render judgment avoids the risk of inconsistent results that could
20 result from two separate trials. There is no undue prejudice to a defendant by having to be present
21 during testimony regarding Plaintiff’s claims that she was sexually and physically assaulted by
22 Defendant because even without consolidation, counsel for Plaintiff would put on evidence of the
23 sexual and physical assault of Plaintiff by Defendant, and counsel for Defendant would put on
24
25 3
As a victim of sexual assault and physical abuse, Plaintiff is protected under Marsy’s Law which amended the
California Constitution Article I, § 28, section (b) to now provide victims certain enumerated rights, including, but
26 not limited to, to be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant and to
refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person
27 acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the
victim consents. These rights would be violated if she is subjected to testify about her victimization by Defendant in
28 two completely separate trails. No victim of a sodomy should have to get on the witness stand and recount the events
PROPER DEFENSE of the abuse anymore than absolutely necessary.
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 6
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 evidence that Defendant did not sexually or physically abuse Plaintiff in December 2016. The
2 benefits of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results to be gained from a consolidated
3 trial, outweigh any claims of “undue prejudice.”
4 A consolidation of actions does not affect or impair the rights of the parties. “The purpose
5 of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of
6 procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Wouldridge v. Burns
7 (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) When consolidation is ordered for trial of common issues, the
8 potential presentation of evidence adverse to a defendant is not a basis for arguing prejudice. (Jud.
9 Whitehead Theater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.) Cases may be consolidated
10 without prejudice to the substantial rights of a plaintiff or defendant, even though certain evidence
11 is material to one case only, because the court may properly instruct the jury as to the exclusion or
12 applicability of the testimony or evidence as to a particular party. (See, Johnson v. Western Air
13 Express Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614, 623 – [in consolidating a wrongful death case with a
14 survivorship case, the trial court clearly instructed the jury concerning the evidence they were to
15 consider in each of the two cases]; General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
16 (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92 – [Danger of prejudice of consolidation in wrongful death actions is
17 generally outweighed by the advantages of consolidation].)
18 B. Plaintiff Sought to Obtain a Stipulation for Consolidation Prior to Bringing This
19 Motion
20 On March 15, 2021, Justin Vecchiarelli, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff, had a telephone
21 conference with Brian Whelan, Esq., counsel for Defendant in which they discussed the basis for
22 consolidation of the two actions. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 3). Mr. Vecchiarelli asked whether or not
23 Mr. Whelan would stipulate to the consolidation of the two actions for the purposes of trial and
24 discovery only. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 3). Mr. Whelan stipulated to notice all depositions moving
25 forward for both actions with both case numbers listed so that the depositions of each deponent
26 could not be taken separately under the guise of having two different case numbers but refused to
27 stipulate to the consolidation of the two actions. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 4).
28 ///
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 7
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 On March 15, 2021, Justin Vecchiarelli, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff emailed all counsel in
2 the First Action and Second Action stating the basis for consolidation of the two actions and
3 requesting whether or not they would stipulate to the consolidation. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 5). In
4 the same email, Mr. Vecchiarelli advised all counsel that they had an obligation to disclose to the
5 court any information that they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any
6 case that would be affected by the granting of the Motion to Consolidate. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶
7 5).
8 As of the date of the filing of the Motion to Consolidate, counsel for the following
9 individuals stipulated to the consolidation: (1) Rachel Glusak; (2) Kimberly Slatic; (3) Anna
10 Rieffel; (4) Cydney Mya Moon; (5) Peyton Nichole Burnett; and (6) Sierra Nicole Jones.
11 (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 6). As a result, Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement
12 on consolidation for purposes of discovery and trial and obtained that agreement from all parties
13 except Defendant.
14 C. Common Witnesses to Both Actions
15 In addition to Plaintiff and Defendant, there are several “common” witnesses who would
16 be called to testify regarding the claims and defenses in both cases. The primary witnesses are as
17 follows:
18 • Kimberly Slatic
19 • Eliazabeth Quinn Slatic
20 • Bernard Shivley
21 • Terry Slatic
22 • Thomas Slatic
23 • Kelly Escobedo
24 • Alex Dirickson
25 • Gemma Ward
26 • Melanie Paragas
27 • Kaitlyn Larkin
28 • Peyton Garner
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 8
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
1 • Fernando Rosario
2 • Blake Zante
3 • Manwinder Singh
4 • Gerardo N. Zelaya Valle
5 • Francisco Romero
6 • Chelsea Lynn Johnson
7 • Dominic Manfredo
8 In addition to the above, there may be other cross-over witnesses that could be witnesses
9 in both actions. No depositions have been taken in either action as of the date of the filing of the
10 Motion to Consolidate. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 7). It is likely that additional cross-over witnesses
11 will come out as discovery progresses that would have to testify in both actions.
12 III. CONCLUSION
13 For all of the above stated reasons, the Motion to Consolidate for purposes of discovery
14 and trial, only, should be granted. The Court should also consider vacating the current trial date of
15 the Section Action of January 24, 2022 and rest trial in both cases at the next available date for all
16 counsel and parties.
17
18 DATED: March 19, 2021 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION
19
By
20 JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPER DEFENSE
LAW CORPORATION
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 9
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC V. DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY, et al.
1 Fresno Superior Case No. 19CECG04036
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
My business address is 677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93704. I am
3
employed in Fresno, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this case.
4
On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents described as:
5
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTONS FOR PURPOSES OF
6 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
7 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; DECLARATION OF JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI, ESQ. IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
8 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
9
On all interested parties in this action by placing a true and copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes
10 addressed as follows:
Brian D. Whelan, Esq.
11 WHELAN LAW GROUP
1827 E. Fir Suite 110
12 Fresno, California 93720
13
__X_ (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection
14 and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage
thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date
15 noted below in the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California.
16 ____ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the
office(s) of the addressee(s).
17
____ (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered by facsimile
18 to the facsimile number(s) of the addressee(s).
19 ____ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection
and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be deposited
20 with an overnight carrier on the date noted below in the ordinary course of business, in
accordance with the overnight carrier’s method for billing for same, and before the last
21 scheduled pick-up time, at Fresno, California.
22 EXECUTED on March 19, 2021, at Fresno, California.
23
__X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
24 the foregoing is true and correct.
25
26 ________________________________
Stacey Voss
27
28
Proper Defense 1
Law Corporation
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE
SUITE 201 PROOF OF SERVICE
FRESNO, CA 93704
DANIEL ASHLEY V. KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, et al.
1 Fresno Superior Case No. 19CECG04593
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 My business address is 677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201, Fresno, California
93704. I am employed in Fresno, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to
4 this case.
5
On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents described as:
6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTONS FOR PURPOSES OF
7 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
8 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; DECLARATION OF JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI, ESQ. IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
9 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY
10
On all interested parties in this action by placing a true and copy thereof enclosed in sealed
11
envelopes addressed as follows:
12 SEE ATTACHED LIST
13 __X_ (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence,
14 with postage thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the United States Postal
Service on the date noted below in the ordinary course of business, at Fresno,
15
California.
16
____ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to
17 the office(s) of the addressee(s).
18 ____ (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered by
facsimile to the facsimile number(s) of the addressee(s).
19
20 ____ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence
21 will be deposited with an overnight carrier on the date noted below in the ordinary
course of business, in accordance with the overnight carrier’s method for billing for
22 same, and before the last scheduled pick-up time, at Fresno, California.
23
EXECUTED on March 19, 2021, at Fresno, California.
24
__X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
25 that the foregoing is true and correct.
26
27 ________________________________
Stacey Voss
28
Proper Defense 1
Law Corporation
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE
SUITE 201 PROOF OF SERVICE
FRESNO, CA 93704
Brian D. Whelan, Esq. Nicholas Wagner, Esq.,
1
WHELAN LAW GROUP David D. Doyle, Esq.
2 1827 E. Fir Suite 110 Wagner Law Group PC
Fresno, California 93720 1111 E. Herndon Ave., Suite 317
3 Attorney for Plaintiff Daniel Ashley Fresno, CA 93720
Attorney for Defendant Sierra Nicole Jones
4 Michael A. Goldfeder, Esq. Daniel C. Stein, Esq.
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor Baker Mancock & Jensen PC
5
El Segundo, CA 90245 5260 N. Palm Ave., Fourth Floor
6 Attorney for Defendants Kimberly Ann Fresno, CA 93704
Slatic and Rachel Glusak Attorney for Defendant Nichole Burnett
7 Brenda A. Linder, Esq. Laura E. Brown, Esq.
5150 N. Sixth Street, Suite 116 Law Office of Laura E. Brown
8 Fresno, CA 93710 P.O. Box 16211
9 Attorney for Defendant Annamarie Rieffel Fresno, CA 93755
and Cydney Mya Fang Attorney for Defendant Sierra Nicole Jones
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proper Defense 2
Law Corporation
677 W. PALMDON DRIVE
SUITE 201
FRESNO, CA 93704
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
E-FILED 3/19/2021 1:36 PM JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI 298684 1 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION Superior Court of California 677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201 County of Fresno 2 Fresno, CA 93704 By: E Alvarado, Deputy Telephone: (559) 825-3800 3 Facsimile: (559) 705-1870 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF FRESNO 7 * * * 8 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, ) Case No. 19CECG04036 ) 9 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 10 vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ) 11 DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY; and DOES 1 ) CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR through 20, inclusive, ) PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND 12 ) DISCOVERY ONLY Defendants. ) 13 ) ) Date: April 20, 2021 14 ) Time: 3:30 p.m. ) Dept: 502 15 16 Complaint Filed: November 6, 2019 17 DANIEL ASHLEY, an individual ) Case No. 19CECG04593 18 ) Plaintiff, ) 19 ) v. ) 20 ) KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, an ) 21 individual; KIMBERLY ANN SLATIC, an ) individual; PEYTON NICHOLE ) 22 BURNETT, an individual; SIERRA ) NICOLE JONES, an individual; ANNA ) 23 RIEFFEL, an individual; DOMINIC ) MANFREDO, an individual; RACHEL ) Complaint filed: December 20, 2019 24 GLUSAK, an individual; CYDNEY KAY ) MOON, an individual; and DOES 1 through ) 25 20, inclusive. ) ) 26 Defendants. ) 27 28 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 1 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 Plaintiff KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) hereby presents this 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion to Consolidate Actions for 3 Purposes of Trial and Discovery Only (the “Motion to Consolidate”) as follows: 4 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 This Motion to Consolidate is filed in two actions which involve common questions of fact 6 and law and that if tried separately run the risk of rendering inconsistent verdicts and taking up 7 substantial precious judicial resources. In this action, filed on November 6, 2019 (the “First 8 Action”), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY (“Defendant”) sodomized 9 and physically abused her in December 2016. In the case entitled DANIEL ASHLEY v. 10 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, et al., Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 19CECG04593, 11 filed on December 20, 2019 and also assigned to Department 502 (the “Second Action”), 12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, and the other defendants of the Second Action, conspired against 13 him to ruin his reputation and his potential career as a medical doctor by making defamatory 14 comments about him on the internet regarding the abuse Plaintiff, and other women, suffered at 15 the hands of Defendant. 16 The allegations contained in the First Action and the Second Action, when viewed as a 17 whole, arise out of the same nucleus of common allegations: that Defendant has a history of 18 sexually and physically abusing women. Instead of simply defending himself against the 19 allegations, Defendant has instead chosen to go on the offensive and file a completely new lawsuit 20 against the very women that claim they were victimized by Defendant in, what appears to be, an 21 attempt to drain their financial resources to the point that they can no longer afford to defend 22 themselves and instead give up. 23 For those reasons there exists common questions of law, as well as fact, and there is a risk 24 of rendering inconsistent verdicts. For example, if Defendant is found liable for sodomizing and 25 physically abusing Plaintiff by a jury of his peers, then all of his claims of defamation against 26 Plaintiff will fail. In addition, if the Second Action goes to trial before the First Action,1 it is simply 27 1 28 The Second Action is set for trial in January 2022 while the First Action is not currently set for trial since the case is PROPER DEFENSE not yet at issue. LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 2 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 not possible for a jury to render a verdict in that case without first determining whether or not 2 Defendant did in fact sodomize and physically abuse Plaintiff in December 2016. Lastly, there is 3 a strong commonality as to witnesses throughout these cases, and thus, failure to consolidate the 4 matters for purposes of discovery and trial will undoubtedly lead to repetitive and unnecessary 5 discovery that will quickly inflate defense costs. Further, the multitude of common witnesses that 6 will likely be named in each of these cases will create a high level of difficulty in regard to the 7 individual schedules of the witnesses. This will only increase the burden on Plaintiff and all other 8 parties to the actions. One jury should decide whether or not Defendant sexually assaulted Plaintiff 9 and SIERRA NICOLE JONES.2 Once that jury makes those determines, itshould then decide 10 whether or not the statements made by Plaintiff and the other defendants in the Second Action 11 were defamatory or not. Trying these cases together clearly promotes judicial economy during a 12 time where judicial resources are scarce due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 13 As a result of the above, these matters should be consolidated for the purposes of trial and 14 discovery. 15 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 16 A. Consolidation for Purposes of Trial and Discovery Only Will Promote Judicial 17 Economy and Avoid Inconsistent Results. 18 Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 1048(a) provides: (a) When actions involving a 19 common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial 20 of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may 21 make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 22 (Emphasis added.) 23 Section 1048(a) authorizes the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial.” Under the statute 24 and the case law, there are two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, 25 where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation 26 for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number 27 2 28 Sierra Nicole Jones filed a cross-complaint against Defendant in the Second Action alleging that she was sexually PROPER DEFENSE assaulted by him. LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 3 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. 2 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 – 1148, rehearing denied; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) 3 Pleading, § 310-311, pp. 404-406.) The superior court, in its discretion and for the purpose of 4 avoiding duplication of time and effort, may consolidate for trial related issues in separately filed 5 actions and proceedings. (See, Neubrand v. Superior Court (1970), 9 Cal.App.3d 311 – [court 6 consolidated for trial of common issues in civil action and probate action.]) As stated in Sanchez 7 v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396: “There are two types of consolidation: a 8 complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate issues for trial. 9 Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes 10 of action have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and 11 one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and 12 judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and 13 judicial economy. (See, generally 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 298 et seq.)” 14 Thus, it is proper to consolidate two separate actions arising from two separate injury- 15 producing events for the purpose of trying related issues of damages whether or not they could 16 have been united for all other purposes. (General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles 17 County (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92.) The fact that evidence in one case might not have been admissible 18 in other case does not bar a consolidation, nor does the fact that all the parties are not the same 19 preclude consolidation. (Jud. Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867 – 20 868.) 21 C.C.P. § 1048 grants wide discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving 22 common questions of law or fact, and the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal 23 absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See, Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants 24 Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978 – 979.) In this Dalkon Shield case, the lawsuits of three 25 different plaintiffs for separate bodily injuries were consolidated given the common claims of 26 pelvic inflammatory disease. The appellate court rejected arguments that a consolidated trial 27 confused the jury, noting that consolidation of the cases did not unduly confuse the jury or 28 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 4 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 prejudice defendant because there were only three plaintiffs and the jury was given separate 2 binders of evidence and separate chronologies for each plaintiff. (Id. at 980 – 981.) 3 When pending actions are consolidated only for purpose of trial of related issues, evidence 4 presented in one case is to be deemed applicable in other case insofar as it is relevant thereto, but 5 separate findings and judgments are made in each case in disposition of particular issues as 6 independently submitted. (Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 7 Cal.App.4th 687, 702, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 8 300, 516 U.S. 913, 133 L.Ed.2d 205.) Where there is commonality of questions involved, 9 consolidation will allow the court and the parties to proceed with these matters expeditiously. 10 The allegations contained in the First Action and the Second Action, when viewed as a 11 whole, arise out of the same nucleus of common allegations: that Defendant has a history of 12 sexually and physically abusing women. Plaintiff and Cross-Complainant SIERRA NICOLE 13 JONES (“Jones”) in the Second Action allege that Defendant sexually assaulted them. Defendant 14 denies these allegations and alleges in the Second Action that the postings made by Plaintiff, Jones, 15 and other defendants on the internet about the sexual assault allegations against him are 16 defamatory. The primary issues between the cases are whether or not Defendant sexually and/or 17 physically abused Plaintiff and Jones. Defendant will argue that the two cases should be tried 18 separately but it simply makes no sense for that to happen. For example, it would be impossible 19 for a jury in the Second Action to determine whether or not the posts made by Plaintiff on the 20 internet about Defendant were defamatory without first determining whether or not Defendant 21 sexually and physically abused her. If Defendant is found liable for the sexual and physical abuse, 22 then whatever she posted about him on the internet regarding the sexual and physical abuse cannot 23 be defamatory since itwas found to be true. It simply makes no sense as to why a trial on the 24 defamation claims would be held without also having the trial on Plaintiff’s sexual assault and 25 physical abuse claims. These complications require that both actions be set for trial at the same 26 time and before the same judge and jury so that consistent rulings and findings as to the allegations 27 are made between the litigation producing events. In simple terms, one jury should be convened 28 to hear the “whole story” rather than only half of the story. PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 5 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 Consolidation for purposes of trial will promote judicial economy since the time needed 2 for two trials will be reduced if the First Action and Second Action are tried before one jury rather 3 than by two different juries at different times with separate jury instructions but looking at 4 essentially the same nucleus of facts and circumstances. Costs and fees will be reduced by 5 consolidating the two actions. The witnesses (including Plaintiff, the victim of sexual and physical 6 abuse)3, will only have to testify at one trial, not at two trials. The same jury would be able to 7 decide whether or not Defendant sexually and physically abused Plaintiff, whether or not 8 Defendant sexually assaulted Jones, and if is found that he did not, then the jury can determine 9 whether or not the posts made on the internet by the defendants to the Section Action were 10 defamatory. Even though the two cases are kept separate in terms of entry of judgments, trial 11 before the same jury allows the trial court to use the jury’s decisions as “integrated findings” 12 covering both consolidated cases. (See, e.g., Page v. Bakersfield Uniform & Towel Supply Co. 13 (1996) 239 Cal.App.2d 762, 772.) 14 Consolidation also avoids the risk of inconsistent results if two different juries separately 15 review all of the facts. If the Second Action is tried first and that jury finds that the posts made 16 online by Plaintiff about Defendants were defamatory and then later on another jury in the First 17 Action finds that Defendant did sexually and physically abuse Plaintiff, that would result in 18 inconsistent verdicts. A consolidated trial will not unduly prejudice any of the parties since having 19 one jury review the evidence and render judgment avoids the risk of inconsistent results that could 20 result from two separate trials. There is no undue prejudice to a defendant by having to be present 21 during testimony regarding Plaintiff’s claims that she was sexually and physically assaulted by 22 Defendant because even without consolidation, counsel for Plaintiff would put on evidence of the 23 sexual and physical assault of Plaintiff by Defendant, and counsel for Defendant would put on 24 25 3 As a victim of sexual assault and physical abuse, Plaintiff is protected under Marsy’s Law which amended the California Constitution Article I, § 28, section (b) to now provide victims certain enumerated rights, including, but 26 not limited to, to be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant and to refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person 27 acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents. These rights would be violated if she is subjected to testify about her victimization by Defendant in 28 two completely separate trails. No victim of a sodomy should have to get on the witness stand and recount the events PROPER DEFENSE of the abuse anymore than absolutely necessary. LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 6 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 evidence that Defendant did not sexually or physically abuse Plaintiff in December 2016. The 2 benefits of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results to be gained from a consolidated 3 trial, outweigh any claims of “undue prejudice.” 4 A consolidation of actions does not affect or impair the rights of the parties. “The purpose 5 of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of 6 procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Wouldridge v. Burns 7 (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) When consolidation is ordered for trial of common issues, the 8 potential presentation of evidence adverse to a defendant is not a basis for arguing prejudice. (Jud. 9 Whitehead Theater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.) Cases may be consolidated 10 without prejudice to the substantial rights of a plaintiff or defendant, even though certain evidence 11 is material to one case only, because the court may properly instruct the jury as to the exclusion or 12 applicability of the testimony or evidence as to a particular party. (See, Johnson v. Western Air 13 Express Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614, 623 – [in consolidating a wrongful death case with a 14 survivorship case, the trial court clearly instructed the jury concerning the evidence they were to 15 consider in each of the two cases]; General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County 16 (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92 – [Danger of prejudice of consolidation in wrongful death actions is 17 generally outweighed by the advantages of consolidation].) 18 B. Plaintiff Sought to Obtain a Stipulation for Consolidation Prior to Bringing This 19 Motion 20 On March 15, 2021, Justin Vecchiarelli, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff, had a telephone 21 conference with Brian Whelan, Esq., counsel for Defendant in which they discussed the basis for 22 consolidation of the two actions. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 3). Mr. Vecchiarelli asked whether or not 23 Mr. Whelan would stipulate to the consolidation of the two actions for the purposes of trial and 24 discovery only. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 3). Mr. Whelan stipulated to notice all depositions moving 25 forward for both actions with both case numbers listed so that the depositions of each deponent 26 could not be taken separately under the guise of having two different case numbers but refused to 27 stipulate to the consolidation of the two actions. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 4). 28 /// PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 7 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 On March 15, 2021, Justin Vecchiarelli, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff emailed all counsel in 2 the First Action and Second Action stating the basis for consolidation of the two actions and 3 requesting whether or not they would stipulate to the consolidation. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 5). In 4 the same email, Mr. Vecchiarelli advised all counsel that they had an obligation to disclose to the 5 court any information that they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any 6 case that would be affected by the granting of the Motion to Consolidate. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 7 5). 8 As of the date of the filing of the Motion to Consolidate, counsel for the following 9 individuals stipulated to the consolidation: (1) Rachel Glusak; (2) Kimberly Slatic; (3) Anna 10 Rieffel; (4) Cydney Mya Moon; (5) Peyton Nichole Burnett; and (6) Sierra Nicole Jones. 11 (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 6). As a result, Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement 12 on consolidation for purposes of discovery and trial and obtained that agreement from all parties 13 except Defendant. 14 C. Common Witnesses to Both Actions 15 In addition to Plaintiff and Defendant, there are several “common” witnesses who would 16 be called to testify regarding the claims and defenses in both cases. The primary witnesses are as 17 follows: 18 • Kimberly Slatic 19 • Eliazabeth Quinn Slatic 20 • Bernard Shivley 21 • Terry Slatic 22 • Thomas Slatic 23 • Kelly Escobedo 24 • Alex Dirickson 25 • Gemma Ward 26 • Melanie Paragas 27 • Kaitlyn Larkin 28 • Peyton Garner PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 8 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 1 • Fernando Rosario 2 • Blake Zante 3 • Manwinder Singh 4 • Gerardo N. Zelaya Valle 5 • Francisco Romero 6 • Chelsea Lynn Johnson 7 • Dominic Manfredo 8 In addition to the above, there may be other cross-over witnesses that could be witnesses 9 in both actions. No depositions have been taken in either action as of the date of the filing of the 10 Motion to Consolidate. (Vecchiarelli Decl. at ¶ 7). It is likely that additional cross-over witnesses 11 will come out as discovery progresses that would have to testify in both actions. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For all of the above stated reasons, the Motion to Consolidate for purposes of discovery 14 and trial, only, should be granted. The Court should also consider vacating the current trial date of 15 the Section Action of January 24, 2022 and rest trial in both cases at the next available date for all 16 counsel and parties. 17 18 DATED: March 19, 2021 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 19 By 20 JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPER DEFENSE LAW CORPORATION 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE 9 SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC V. DANIEL PAUL ASHLEY, et al. 1 Fresno Superior Case No. 19CECG04036 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 My business address is 677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93704. I am 3 employed in Fresno, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this case. 4 On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents described as: 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTONS FOR PURPOSES OF 6 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF 7 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; DECLARATION OF JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF 8 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 9 On all interested parties in this action by placing a true and copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes 10 addressed as follows: Brian D. Whelan, Esq. 11 WHELAN LAW GROUP 1827 E. Fir Suite 110 12 Fresno, California 93720 13 __X_ (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection 14 and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date 15 noted below in the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California. 16 ____ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). 17 ____ (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered by facsimile 18 to the facsimile number(s) of the addressee(s). 19 ____ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence will be deposited 20 with an overnight carrier on the date noted below in the ordinary course of business, in accordance with the overnight carrier’s method for billing for same, and before the last 21 scheduled pick-up time, at Fresno, California. 22 EXECUTED on March 19, 2021, at Fresno, California. 23 __X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 24 the foregoing is true and correct. 25 26 ________________________________ Stacey Voss 27 28 Proper Defense 1 Law Corporation 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE SUITE 201 PROOF OF SERVICE FRESNO, CA 93704 DANIEL ASHLEY V. KATHLEEN REGAN SLATIC, et al. 1 Fresno Superior Case No. 19CECG04593 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 My business address is 677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93704. I am employed in Fresno, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to 4 this case. 5 On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents described as: 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTONS FOR PURPOSES OF 7 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF 8 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; DECLARATION OF JUSTIN VECCHIARELLI, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF 9 TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL AND DISCOVERY ONLY 10 On all interested parties in this action by placing a true and copy thereof enclosed in sealed 11 envelopes addressed as follows: 12 SEE ATTACHED LIST 13 __X_ (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, 14 with postage thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date noted below in the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, 15 California. 16 ____ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to 17 the office(s) of the addressee(s). 18 ____ (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered by facsimile to the facsimile number(s) of the addressee(s). 19 20 ____ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence 21 will be deposited with an overnight carrier on the date noted below in the ordinary course of business, in accordance with the overnight carrier’s method for billing for 22 same, and before the last scheduled pick-up time, at Fresno, California. 23 EXECUTED on March 19, 2021, at Fresno, California. 24 __X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 25 that the foregoing is true and correct. 26 27 ________________________________ Stacey Voss 28 Proper Defense 1 Law Corporation 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE SUITE 201 PROOF OF SERVICE FRESNO, CA 93704 Brian D. Whelan, Esq. Nicholas Wagner, Esq., 1 WHELAN LAW GROUP David D. Doyle, Esq. 2 1827 E. Fir Suite 110 Wagner Law Group PC Fresno, California 93720 1111 E. Herndon Ave., Suite 317 3 Attorney for Plaintiff Daniel Ashley Fresno, CA 93720 Attorney for Defendant Sierra Nicole Jones 4 Michael A. Goldfeder, Esq. Daniel C. Stein, Esq. 400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor Baker Mancock & Jensen PC 5 El Segundo, CA 90245 5260 N. Palm Ave., Fourth Floor 6 Attorney for Defendants Kimberly Ann Fresno, CA 93704 Slatic and Rachel Glusak Attorney for Defendant Nichole Burnett 7 Brenda A. Linder, Esq. Laura E. Brown, Esq. 5150 N. Sixth Street, Suite 116 Law Office of Laura E. Brown 8 Fresno, CA 93710 P.O. Box 16211 9 Attorney for Defendant Annamarie Rieffel Fresno, CA 93755 and Cydney Mya Fang Attorney for Defendant Sierra Nicole Jones 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proper Defense 2 Law Corporation 677 W. PALMDON DRIVE SUITE 201 FRESNO, CA 93704 PROOF OF SERVICE