Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 1635?1
Darrel E. Parker,
Parker, Executive Officer
MARK T. COFFIN, PJC.
12/28/2020
12/28/2020 3:35 PM
2| E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240
By:
By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805)248-T1l8
Facsimile: (866) 567—4028
L‘mail: mLu:"filmarkcoffinlawcom
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRANU and DOROTHY CHURCHILL—JOHNSON
SUPERIOR CUL’RT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 DAVID G. BER'I'RAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL—JOHNSON. an
11 Individual? PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S
12 Plaintiff. MOTION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S
PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED
"#5.
14 JESSICA BERRY. an Individual, and DOES 1
Date: January Il, 2021
Time: 10:00 sun.
through IOU, Inclusive,
15
Dept: 5
De E‘undants.
Assigned or all
1"
purposes in Lhc
16
IIon. Cullccn K. Sterne
17
Dept: 5
Complaint Dale: May 7’, 2019
Trial Date: March. 8, 202l
13
19
20
21
22
l
BERRY‘S MOTION 'I‘O ADMIT DEL-‘ENDANT'S PROOF.
PLA‘I'NT] FPS; OPPOSTTION TO [)FI'FTNIDMM'IL JESSICA
OF WORK PERFORMED
MEMORANDUIVI 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
This Opposilinn addresses Defendant JESSCA BERRY’s Motion to “Admit Defendants
Proof of Work Performed I‘m Plaintiffs” .,” and her request for "civil penalties“ in the amount of
$80,000.00 pursuant to Labor Code section 93.6.
This case involves claims by two Plaintiffs. DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY
CHURCHILL—JOHNSON, against Defendant, JESSICA BERRY lbr Defamation, Eldfir Abuse,
Unjust Enrichment. and other ciaims. Th: Complaint attaches as exhibits a long series of text
communications From Ms. BERRY, which exemplify multiple outrageous and dcfamaton'
statements that she hag made to third parties, Claimn that Mr. BERTRAND and Ms.
CHLTRCI-IIT.T.-—.I(JHNSON are criminals, liars,and sexual predators, and that Mr. BERTRAND '15a
rapist and a pedophile.
Here, Ms. BERRY continues her pattern of ad hominem slander, and improperly Seeks to
"admit” evidence prior to trial, without establishing any proper purpose and without citing any
appropriate authority, contrary to the rules of avidence and discovery.
1. DEFENDANT ’8 MOTION IMPROPERLY REQUESTS ADNIISSHIN OF
EVIDENCE PRIOR TO TRIAL
Following Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference, the Court set the trial of this matter For
March 8, 2021. Although discovery is stillunderway, Defendant seeks to introduce (and admit)
hearsay evidence which has nut been authenticated. Defendant has not even attempted to explain the
20 rclevancc of any document which is the subject of this; Motion.
21 With the apparent purpnsc of creating a conflict of interest, Defendant‘s Motion personal
22 attack on the character of Plainli l'f‘s counsel Mark Coffin, This attack is impmpcr and entirely
23 unwarranted.
24 ll. DEFENDANT‘S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPRUPER AND SHOULD BE
25 DENIED
25 Defendant’s Motiun Racks sanctions for “retaliation" by an employer, without mcn’rioning
2? any retaliatory act. Defendant‘s request is without merit and should be denied.
I I'
.-’
2
m ,AINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY‘S MOTION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S PROOF
OF WORK PERFORMED
CONCLUSION
EU For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion should he DENIED in its entirety.
Respocffully submitted,
DATED: December 28, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, PC.
By: 5218/
Mark T. Coffin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: DAVID G. BERTRAND
and DOROTHY CHURCl-IILL-JOHNSON
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
28
3
PLAINTIFF? OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JFSSTCA BERRY’S MOTION 'I'O ADMIT UFFENDAN'I"S PROOF
OF WORK PERFORMED
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, Stale of California. I am over the age of 13
years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2} F..Camilla Street, Suite 240, Santa
Barbara, California 93101. On December 28, 2020, I served the foregoing dncumcnts described as:
PLAINTIFF? OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION TO ADMIT
_DE.F_E.NDANT’S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED, 0n the intmstcgl parties in this action:
| '
Address Party
I
:Icssiéfi Berry
JESSICA BERRK in pm pm:
PI].
Guam-4.:
Box 541
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
Jessica Barry
PD. Box 432
Solvwlg, CA 93464
11 iceskaieordieufiZ-gmailmjm
E:
E: EmjggsicaflfwIfilgmail.mm
12
13
I4
BY LLS. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
13
fl Service. I enclosed the ducumcnt in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the pcrson(s)
at The address(es} above and placed the anal-spew) for collection and mailing, following our
16 ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm-1‘s practice of collecting and
processing correspondence for maiiing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
1? coilcction and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California. in a sealed cnvelnpc with postage fully
18 paid.
19 VIA EMAIL: I served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to The
Pi addresses as listed on the attached Service Eist,1h1|0wing my employer? business practice lhr
20 collection and processing of correspondence; Such electronic transmission was reported as
complete and without error on this date.
21
[3] (State) Ideularc under penalty of perj my under the laws of [he State of Cali iiamia that me
22 foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 28, 2020, at Santa Barbara. California.
24
25
26 EMU axing/.yé..-
sc‘drr A. Jaske
2?
28
4
PLMN'I'u-‘iJS' OPPOSITION 10' DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY'S MD‘I'ION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S PROOF
OF WORK PERFORMED
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 1635?1 Darrel E. Parker, Parker, Executive Officer MARK T. COFFIN, PJC. 12/28/2020 12/28/2020 3:35 PM 2| E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 By: By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805)248-T1l8 Facsimile: (866) 567—4028 L‘mail: mLu:"filmarkcoffinlawcom Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRANU and DOROTHY CHURCHILL—JOHNSON SUPERIOR CUL’RT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 DAVID G. BER'I'RAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL—JOHNSON. an 11 Individual? PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S 12 Plaintiff. MOTION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED "#5. 14 JESSICA BERRY. an Individual, and DOES 1 Date: January Il, 2021 Time: 10:00 sun. through IOU, Inclusive, 15 Dept: 5 De E‘undants. Assigned or all 1" purposes in Lhc 16 IIon. Cullccn K. Sterne 17 Dept: 5 Complaint Dale: May 7’, 2019 Trial Date: March. 8, 202l 13 19 20 21 22 l BERRY‘S MOTION 'I‘O ADMIT DEL-‘ENDANT'S PROOF. PLA‘I'NT] FPS; OPPOSTTION TO [)FI'FTNIDMM'IL JESSICA OF WORK PERFORMED MEMORANDUIVI 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This Opposilinn addresses Defendant JESSCA BERRY’s Motion to “Admit Defendants Proof of Work Performed I‘m Plaintiffs” .,” and her request for "civil penalties“ in the amount of $80,000.00 pursuant to Labor Code section 93.6. This case involves claims by two Plaintiffs. DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL—JOHNSON, against Defendant, JESSICA BERRY lbr Defamation, Eldfir Abuse, Unjust Enrichment. and other ciaims. Th: Complaint attaches as exhibits a long series of text communications From Ms. BERRY, which exemplify multiple outrageous and dcfamaton' statements that she hag made to third parties, Claimn that Mr. BERTRAND and Ms. CHLTRCI-IIT.T.-—.I(JHNSON are criminals, liars,and sexual predators, and that Mr. BERTRAND '15a rapist and a pedophile. Here, Ms. BERRY continues her pattern of ad hominem slander, and improperly Seeks to "admit” evidence prior to trial, without establishing any proper purpose and without citing any appropriate authority, contrary to the rules of avidence and discovery. 1. DEFENDANT ’8 MOTION IMPROPERLY REQUESTS ADNIISSHIN OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO TRIAL Following Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference, the Court set the trial of this matter For March 8, 2021. Although discovery is stillunderway, Defendant seeks to introduce (and admit) hearsay evidence which has nut been authenticated. Defendant has not even attempted to explain the 20 rclevancc of any document which is the subject of this; Motion. 21 With the apparent purpnsc of creating a conflict of interest, Defendant‘s Motion personal 22 attack on the character of Plainli l'f‘s counsel Mark Coffin, This attack is impmpcr and entirely 23 unwarranted. 24 ll. DEFENDANT‘S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS IMPRUPER AND SHOULD BE 25 DENIED 25 Defendant’s Motiun Racks sanctions for “retaliation" by an employer, without mcn’rioning 2? any retaliatory act. Defendant‘s request is without merit and should be denied. I I' .-’ 2 m ,AINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY‘S MOTION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED CONCLUSION EU For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion should he DENIED in its entirety. Respocffully submitted, DATED: December 28, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, PC. By: 5218/ Mark T. Coffin Attorneys for Plaintiffs: DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCl-IILL-JOHNSON 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 28 3 PLAINTIFF? OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JFSSTCA BERRY’S MOTION 'I'O ADMIT UFFENDAN'I"S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, Stale of California. I am over the age of 13 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2} F..Camilla Street, Suite 240, Santa Barbara, California 93101. On December 28, 2020, I served the foregoing dncumcnts described as: PLAINTIFF? OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S MOTION TO ADMIT _DE.F_E.NDANT’S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED, 0n the intmstcgl parties in this action: | ' Address Party I :Icssiéfi Berry JESSICA BERRK in pm pm: PI]. Guam-4.: Box 541 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Jessica Barry PD. Box 432 Solvwlg, CA 93464 11 iceskaieordieufiZ-gmailmjm E: E: EmjggsicaflfwIfilgmail.mm 12 13 I4 BY LLS. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal 13 fl Service. I enclosed the ducumcnt in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the pcrson(s) at The address(es} above and placed the anal-spew) for collection and mailing, following our 16 ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm-1‘s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for maiiing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for 1? coilcction and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California. in a sealed cnvelnpc with postage fully 18 paid. 19 VIA EMAIL: I served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to The Pi addresses as listed on the attached Service Eist,1h1|0wing my employer? business practice lhr 20 collection and processing of correspondence; Such electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error on this date. 21 [3] (State) Ideularc under penalty of perj my under the laws of [he State of Cali iiamia that me 22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 28, 2020, at Santa Barbara. California. 24 25 26 EMU axing/.yé..- sc‘drr A. Jaske 2? 28 4 PLMN'I'u-‘iJS' OPPOSITION 10' DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY'S MD‘I'ION TO ADMIT DEFENDANT’S PROOF OF WORK PERFORMED