Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 County of Santa Barbara
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 10/15/2020 3:46 PM
Santa Barbara, California 93101 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
11 Individual, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR
12 Plaintiff, SANCTIONS
13 vs. [CCP§ 128.7]
14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 DATE: October 26, 2020
through 100, Inclusive, TIME: 10:00 a.m.
15 DEPT: 5 (Remote via ZOOM)
Defendants.
16 Assigned for all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
17 Dept: 5
Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
18 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
This case involves claims by two Plaintiffs, DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY
CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, against Defendant JESSICA BERRY for Defamation, Elder Abuse,
Unjust Enrichment, and other claims. The Complaint attaches as exhibits a long series of text
communications from Ms. BERRY, which exemplify multiple outrageous and defamatory
statements that she has made to third parties, claiming that Mr. BERTRAND and Ms.
CHURCHILL-JOHNSON are criminals, liars, and sexual predators, and that Mr. BERTRAND is a
rapist and a pedophile.
Ms. BERRY’S motion for sanctions seeks $52,000.00 pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure
10 section 128.7.
11
12 I THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY
13 Ms. BERRY’S motion does not include a proofof service. Upon information and belief, the
14 motion was personally delivered to counsel’s office on October 5, 3030 (the same day that Ms.
15 BERRY signed the motion itself).
16 Code
of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) requires that moving and supporting papers for a
17 motion must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. (Declaration of M.
18 Coffin.) Ms. BERRY served her motion only fourteen court days prior to the October 26, 2020
19 hearing date. The motion is untimely and should be denied for that reason alone. (Late service of
20 the motion is also the reason that this Opposition is filed late.)
21
22 IL. THE MOTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE
23 Ms. BERRY’S motion is apparently based on a rambling series of accusations which are
24 entirely unsupported. Several exhibits (labeled B through X, with some gaps) consist entirely of
25 hearsay documents which are unauthenticated by any declaration. Ms. BERRY’S supporting
26 Memorandum of Points and Authorities consists primarily of argument based on equitable principles
27 as to her perceptions about a vast conspiracy against her, including not only Plaintiffs but also their
28
2
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
counsel, Ms. BERRY’S own (former and prior) counsel, various government officers including this
Court, the Santa Barbara Police Department, the Santa Barbara Fire Department, and others.
Simply put, Plaintiff's Complaint was not filed for any improper or “fraudulent” purpose as
Ms. BERRY has suggested, such as e.g. to harass her. (Declaration of M. Coffin.) Much of Ms.
BERRY’S argument is simply confusing, but in broad fashion it appears to be largely directed to the
merits of the claims against her in the defamation action, as well as the merits of the Labor
Commission appeal (related case 19CV02357). For example, she argues that her own prior attorney
Jay Valentine wrote an unauthorized demand letter dated October 13, 2017 to Mr. BERTRAND
(Opposition, p. 6:10-26). The relevance of this point to her motion is unclear. She argues that Mr.
10 BERTRAND’S unlawful detainer judgment against Ms. BERRY was improper, and apparently
11 seeks to re-try that case. (Opposition, p. 6:28-7:19.) Next, her motion argues the merits of Mr.
12 BERTRAND’S Elder Abuse claim (Opposition, p. 9:25-10:18), Quantum Meruit claim (Opposition,
13 p. 10:20-11:20), Unlawful Enrichment (sic) claim (Opposition, p. 11:22-14:3), Intrusion claim
14 (Opposition, p. 14:6-26), Libel and Slander claims (Opposition, p. 15:1-8). She then spends
15 considerable effort arguing that prior court judgments against her were incorrect (Opposition, p.
16 15:10-18:26.)
17
18 Til. THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE IS NOT FRIVOLOUS OR IMPROPER
19 None of this properly supports a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. As
20 stated in the declaration of counsel attached hereto, the complaint in this case was not based on any
21 retaliatory or improper purpose but was instead based on the facts and evidence available to my
22 clients at the time. (Declaration of M. Coffin.) Nothing has changed in that regard. Notably
23 however, Ms. BERRY has avoided responding to written discovery and has failed to appear for her
24 noticed deposition, as described in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, presently set for hearing before this
25 Court on November 9, 2020.
26 //1
27 //1
28 //1
3
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Iv. CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY
CHURCHILL-JOHNSON request that this motion be DENIED in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: October 15, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
By:
KT. Coffin
ttorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ERICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS _
DECLARATION OF MARK T. COFFIN IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
I, Mark T. Coffin, declare:
1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and the attorney of record
for Plaintiffs David Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson in the above-captioned case,
SBSC Case no. 19CV02429. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this
Declaration, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
As to matters stated upon information and belief, I believe them to be true.
10 I did not receive any proof
of service for Ms. Berry’s Motion for Sanctions. I understand that
11 this motion was personally served on my office on or after October 5, 2020, the date that Ms.
12 Berry signed the motion, i.e. only fourteen court days prior to the October 26, 2020 hearing
13 date.
14 I prepared and filed the complaint in this action against Ms. Berry, because after a reasonable
15 inquiry under all the circumstances, I understood and believed (and I continue to believe)
16 that: 1.) this lawsuit is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to
17 harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 2.) the
18 claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a
19 nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
20 establishment of new law; 3.) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary
21 support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a
22 reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and 4.) the denials of factual
23 contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
24 based on a lack of information or belief.
25 Accordingly, it is my present understanding and belief that all relevant criteria of Code of
26 Civil Procedure section 128.7 have been met, and furthermore that my clients’ claims are
27 entirely meritorious, and that they will prevail on those claims against Ms. Berry at trial.
28
5
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on Thursday, October 15, 2020, at Santa
Barbara, California, 93101.
k T. Coffin, Declarant
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Santa
Barbara, California 93101. On October 15, 2020, I served the foregoing documents described as
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, on the
interested parties in this action:
_
Address Party
Jessica Berry
JESSICA BERRY, in pro per.
P.O. Box 541
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
10
And
11
Jessica Berry
12 P.O. Box 432
Solvang, CA 93464
13
14
15
X BY U.S. MAIL:
Service,
This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s)
16 at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our
ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and
17 processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
18 States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
paid.
19
BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission
20 was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission report is
available upon request.
21
VIA EMAIL: [ served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to the
22 addresses as listed on the attached service list, following my employer’s business practice for
collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as
23 complete and without error on this date.
24 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
25
Executed on October 15, 2020, at Santa Barbara, California.
26
27 Supe
Scott A. Jaske
28
PROOF oF SERVICE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 County of Santa Barbara MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 10/15/2020 3:46 PM Santa Barbara, California 93101 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 11 Individual, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR 12 Plaintiff, SANCTIONS 13 vs. [CCP§ 128.7] 14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 DATE: October 26, 2020 through 100, Inclusive, TIME: 10:00 a.m. 15 DEPT: 5 (Remote via ZOOM) Defendants. 16 Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 17 Dept: 5 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 18 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This case involves claims by two Plaintiffs, DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, against Defendant JESSICA BERRY for Defamation, Elder Abuse, Unjust Enrichment, and other claims. The Complaint attaches as exhibits a long series of text communications from Ms. BERRY, which exemplify multiple outrageous and defamatory statements that she has made to third parties, claiming that Mr. BERTRAND and Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON are criminals, liars, and sexual predators, and that Mr. BERTRAND is a rapist and a pedophile. Ms. BERRY’S motion for sanctions seeks $52,000.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 10 section 128.7. 11 12 I THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY 13 Ms. BERRY’S motion does not include a proofof service. Upon information and belief, the 14 motion was personally delivered to counsel’s office on October 5, 3030 (the same day that Ms. 15 BERRY signed the motion itself). 16 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) requires that moving and supporting papers for a 17 motion must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. (Declaration of M. 18 Coffin.) Ms. BERRY served her motion only fourteen court days prior to the October 26, 2020 19 hearing date. The motion is untimely and should be denied for that reason alone. (Late service of 20 the motion is also the reason that this Opposition is filed late.) 21 22 IL. THE MOTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE 23 Ms. BERRY’S motion is apparently based on a rambling series of accusations which are 24 entirely unsupported. Several exhibits (labeled B through X, with some gaps) consist entirely of 25 hearsay documents which are unauthenticated by any declaration. Ms. BERRY’S supporting 26 Memorandum of Points and Authorities consists primarily of argument based on equitable principles 27 as to her perceptions about a vast conspiracy against her, including not only Plaintiffs but also their 28 2 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS counsel, Ms. BERRY’S own (former and prior) counsel, various government officers including this Court, the Santa Barbara Police Department, the Santa Barbara Fire Department, and others. Simply put, Plaintiff's Complaint was not filed for any improper or “fraudulent” purpose as Ms. BERRY has suggested, such as e.g. to harass her. (Declaration of M. Coffin.) Much of Ms. BERRY’S argument is simply confusing, but in broad fashion it appears to be largely directed to the merits of the claims against her in the defamation action, as well as the merits of the Labor Commission appeal (related case 19CV02357). For example, she argues that her own prior attorney Jay Valentine wrote an unauthorized demand letter dated October 13, 2017 to Mr. BERTRAND (Opposition, p. 6:10-26). The relevance of this point to her motion is unclear. She argues that Mr. 10 BERTRAND’S unlawful detainer judgment against Ms. BERRY was improper, and apparently 11 seeks to re-try that case. (Opposition, p. 6:28-7:19.) Next, her motion argues the merits of Mr. 12 BERTRAND’S Elder Abuse claim (Opposition, p. 9:25-10:18), Quantum Meruit claim (Opposition, 13 p. 10:20-11:20), Unlawful Enrichment (sic) claim (Opposition, p. 11:22-14:3), Intrusion claim 14 (Opposition, p. 14:6-26), Libel and Slander claims (Opposition, p. 15:1-8). She then spends 15 considerable effort arguing that prior court judgments against her were incorrect (Opposition, p. 16 15:10-18:26.) 17 18 Til. THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE IS NOT FRIVOLOUS OR IMPROPER 19 None of this properly supports a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. As 20 stated in the declaration of counsel attached hereto, the complaint in this case was not based on any 21 retaliatory or improper purpose but was instead based on the facts and evidence available to my 22 clients at the time. (Declaration of M. Coffin.) Nothing has changed in that regard. Notably 23 however, Ms. BERRY has avoided responding to written discovery and has failed to appear for her 24 noticed deposition, as described in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, presently set for hearing before this 25 Court on November 9, 2020. 26 //1 27 //1 28 //1 3 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Iv. CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON request that this motion be DENIED in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, DATED: October 15, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. By: KT. Coffin ttorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ERICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS _ DECLARATION OF MARK T. COFFIN IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS I, Mark T. Coffin, declare: 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and the attorney of record for Plaintiffs David Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson in the above-captioned case, SBSC Case no. 19CV02429. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. As to matters stated upon information and belief, I believe them to be true. 10 I did not receive any proof of service for Ms. Berry’s Motion for Sanctions. I understand that 11 this motion was personally served on my office on or after October 5, 2020, the date that Ms. 12 Berry signed the motion, i.e. only fourteen court days prior to the October 26, 2020 hearing 13 date. 14 I prepared and filed the complaint in this action against Ms. Berry, because after a reasonable 15 inquiry under all the circumstances, I understood and believed (and I continue to believe) 16 that: 1.) this lawsuit is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to 17 harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 2.) the 18 claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a 19 nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the 20 establishment of new law; 3.) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary 21 support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a 22 reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and 4.) the denials of factual 23 contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably 24 based on a lack of information or belief. 25 Accordingly, it is my present understanding and belief that all relevant criteria of Code of 26 Civil Procedure section 128.7 have been met, and furthermore that my clients’ claims are 27 entirely meritorious, and that they will prevail on those claims against Ms. Berry at trial. 28 5 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on Thursday, October 15, 2020, at Santa Barbara, California, 93101. k T. Coffin, Declarant 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Santa Barbara, California 93101. On October 15, 2020, I served the foregoing documents described as OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, on the interested parties in this action: _ Address Party Jessica Berry JESSICA BERRY, in pro per. P.O. Box 541 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 10 And 11 Jessica Berry 12 P.O. Box 432 Solvang, CA 93464 13 14 15 X BY U.S. MAIL: Service, This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) 16 at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and 17 processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United 18 States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully paid. 19 BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission 20 was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission report is available upon request. 21 VIA EMAIL: [ served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to the 22 addresses as listed on the attached service list, following my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as 23 complete and without error on this date. 24 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 25 Executed on October 15, 2020, at Santa Barbara, California. 26 27 Supe Scott A. Jaske 28 PROOF oF SERVICE