Preview
SELNA PARTNERS LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED
70 Washington Street, Suite303 Superior Court of California
Oakland, California 94607 County of Santa Barbara
(510) 387-8508 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Steven M. Selna, Bar No. 133409
Robert W. Selna, Bar No. 230385 2/2/2021 10:58 AM
Attorneys for Defendants i073 Investments, Inc., By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy
Tristan Strauss and Brian Casey
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
10
11
JONAS SVENSSON, individually, ) Case No.: 20CV04285
Petitioner, ) (Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
13 ) Thomas P. Anderle
vs. ) DEMURRER TO VERIFIED PETITION
14
i073 INVESTMENTS, INC., and TRISTAN J FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
15 STRAUSS
Date: April 6, 2021
) Time: 10:00 a.m.
16 ) Dept.: 3
Respondents.
)
17 )
)
18 )
)
19 )
20
21
22 DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
23
24 || Respondents i073 Investments, Inc. and Tristan Strauss (“Respondents”) hereby demur to the
25 Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that it fails to state a justiciable basis or this review
26 || by writ of mandate. (See Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 1085, 1086, 1089; Cal. R. Ct. 8.487(b).
27
28
-1-
DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
A. A General Demurrer Lies Against A Petition For Writ of Mandamus
A demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the petition. Kendrick v. City of Eureka (2000) 82
CA4th 364, 367, 98 CR2d 153, 155. “If the court issues an alternative writ or order to show cause,
the respondent or any real party in interest, separately or jointly may serve and file a return by
demurrer, verified answer, or both.” (Cal R. Ct. 8.487(b).) “[A] showing on general demurrer that
the petition does not state sufficient facts to justify relief is a complete answer to an order to show
cause, and the court is then warranted in discharging the order and dismissing the proceeding.”
(StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4"" 449, 455 [quoting Green v. Gordon (1952) 39
Cal. 2d 230, 232].).
10
11 B. There Is Another Action Pending Between the Same Parties
12 Under Code of Civil Procedure §430.10, as in the case of ordinary civil actions, the party against
13 whom a petition for writ of mandamus has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer to the
14 petition on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same
15 cause of action. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.10(c).
16
17 Here, Petitioner provides notice of the pendency of a related action, captioned Jonas Svensson v.
18 i073 Investments, Inc.; Tristan Strauss and Brian Casey, Case No. 20CV01556 (the “Related
19 Case”). The Petition freely acknowledges that many of the same document requests are the subject
20 of a pending motion to compel in the Related Case. In fact, all but a few of the requests are
21 identical. The Petition does nothing to explain why Petitioner’s rights to the records identified in
22 the Petition could not be fully and fairly adjudicated in the Related Case. Instead, in describing his
23 pursuit of the documents, Petitioner refers to the motion to compel in the Related Case as the “belt”
24 and the immediate Petition as the “suspenders.” In so doing, Petitioner exposes the redundancy of
25 the immediate Petition.
26
27
28
-2-
DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
C. The Demurrer Should Be Sustained
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails on its face to establish a justiciable basis for review and
the relief requested. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed.
DATED: February 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
SELNA PARTNERS LLP
10 By:
M. Selna
11
Counsel for Respondents
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 70 Washington Street, Oakland,
California 94607.
On February 2, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as DEMURRER TO
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 0n interested parties in this action by
placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached
Service List as follows:
X(BY MAIL) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Oakland, California. The envelope
mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
__ (BY MAIL) I am “teadily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date od
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
_ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.
X(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 2, 2021, at Oakland, California.
ven M. Selna
SERVICE LIST
Alan D. Condren Attorneys for Plaintiff
SEED MACKALL LLP
P.O. Box 2578
1332 Anacapa Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
Preview
SELNA PARTNERS LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED 70 Washington Street, Suite303 Superior Court of California Oakland, California 94607 County of Santa Barbara (510) 387-8508 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Steven M. Selna, Bar No. 133409 Robert W. Selna, Bar No. 230385 2/2/2021 10:58 AM Attorneys for Defendants i073 Investments, Inc., By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy Tristan Strauss and Brian Casey SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION 10 11 JONAS SVENSSON, individually, ) Case No.: 20CV04285 Petitioner, ) (Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable 13 ) Thomas P. Anderle vs. ) DEMURRER TO VERIFIED PETITION 14 i073 INVESTMENTS, INC., and TRISTAN J FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 15 STRAUSS Date: April 6, 2021 ) Time: 10:00 a.m. 16 ) Dept.: 3 Respondents. ) 17 ) ) 18 ) ) 19 ) 20 21 22 DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 23 24 || Respondents i073 Investments, Inc. and Tristan Strauss (“Respondents”) hereby demur to the 25 Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that it fails to state a justiciable basis or this review 26 || by writ of mandate. (See Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 1085, 1086, 1089; Cal. R. Ct. 8.487(b). 27 28 -1- DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS A. A General Demurrer Lies Against A Petition For Writ of Mandamus A demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the petition. Kendrick v. City of Eureka (2000) 82 CA4th 364, 367, 98 CR2d 153, 155. “If the court issues an alternative writ or order to show cause, the respondent or any real party in interest, separately or jointly may serve and file a return by demurrer, verified answer, or both.” (Cal R. Ct. 8.487(b).) “[A] showing on general demurrer that the petition does not state sufficient facts to justify relief is a complete answer to an order to show cause, and the court is then warranted in discharging the order and dismissing the proceeding.” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4"" 449, 455 [quoting Green v. Gordon (1952) 39 Cal. 2d 230, 232].). 10 11 B. There Is Another Action Pending Between the Same Parties 12 Under Code of Civil Procedure §430.10, as in the case of ordinary civil actions, the party against 13 whom a petition for writ of mandamus has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer to the 14 petition on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same 15 cause of action. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.10(c). 16 17 Here, Petitioner provides notice of the pendency of a related action, captioned Jonas Svensson v. 18 i073 Investments, Inc.; Tristan Strauss and Brian Casey, Case No. 20CV01556 (the “Related 19 Case”). The Petition freely acknowledges that many of the same document requests are the subject 20 of a pending motion to compel in the Related Case. In fact, all but a few of the requests are 21 identical. The Petition does nothing to explain why Petitioner’s rights to the records identified in 22 the Petition could not be fully and fairly adjudicated in the Related Case. Instead, in describing his 23 pursuit of the documents, Petitioner refers to the motion to compel in the Related Case as the “belt” 24 and the immediate Petition as the “suspenders.” In so doing, Petitioner exposes the redundancy of 25 the immediate Petition. 26 27 28 -2- DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS C. The Demurrer Should Be Sustained For the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails on its face to establish a justiciable basis for review and the relief requested. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed. DATED: February 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted, SELNA PARTNERS LLP 10 By: M. Selna 11 Counsel for Respondents 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 70 Washington Street, Oakland, California 94607. On February 2, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as DEMURRER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 0n interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached Service List as follows: X(BY MAIL) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Oakland, California. The envelope mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. __ (BY MAIL) I am “teadily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date od deposit for mailing in affidavit. _ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. X(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 2, 2021, at Oakland, California. ven M. Selna SERVICE LIST Alan D. Condren Attorneys for Plaintiff SEED MACKALL LLP P.O. Box 2578 1332 Anacapa Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93120