Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and adaress) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton SBN: 258697
LAW OFFICE OF AMY R. LOVEGREN-TIPTON
5703 N. West Ave., Suite 103, Fresno, CA 93711
E-FILED
TELEPHONE NO: 559-421-9137 FAX NO: 559-921-4333 12/15/2021 10:52 AM
ATTORNEY FOR (Nome): Plaintiffs Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA » COUNTY OF FRESNO By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy
Civil Division
1130 O Street
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Janet Hernandez et al
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Maria Teresa Navarro et al
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 21CECG02514
Plaintiff(s) [] Defendant(s) (1 Cross-complainant(s) [] Cross-defendant(s) [1] Other(s) Requesta
Pretrial Discovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons:
A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set one propounded on
9/29/21
A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set one propounded on 9/29/21
OD Adispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition
scheduled for
D0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition
questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on
OD A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to
comply with
U0 Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2.1.17(B).
The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
these efforts.)
After granting extensions of time in which to serve defendant's responses to the written dicovery, Defendant
served her discovery respones on November 5, 2021. On November 22, 2021, through written correspondence,
Plaintiff identified, with supporting legal authority, the defects and deficiencies in Defendant's responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, Special Interrogatories and
ConstructionF orm Interrogatories. Plaintiff therein demanded supplemental responses by December 2, 2021.
Counsel for Defendant responded on November 30, 2021, and indicated that her client intended on providing
amended responses. Defendant request until December 10, 2021, to provide the responses in order for
Defendant to "obtain additional information" for use in the responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide until
December 10, 2021, so long as Defendant provided full and complete responses. Defendant's counsel
responded by indicating that her client intended to provide complete responses. On Dec. 10, 2021, at 2:47
p.m., counsel for Defendant emailed counsel for Plaintiff and indicated that respones would not be provided
until "at least Tuesday" December 14, 2021. Counsel for Defendant further indicated that Plaintiff should file a
motion to compel if Plaintiff wished. To date, no responses have been received by Plaintiff.
PCV-70 ROS-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows:
(Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be
attached.)
This case is about unlicensed contracting work contracted for and performed by Defendant, an unlicensed
contractor. The work was defective, as well as was not completed and not timely performed. Yet, Defendant
requested and received the entire contract amount of more than $50,000.00 From Plaintiffs prior to performing
the work. Among other things, Plaintiff's seek return of all compensation paid to Defendant, which is required as
a matter of law, where, as here, an unlicensed contractor received compensation for labor and materials.
Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages of $10,000.00, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
Defendant has acknowledged that neither her nor her corporation are licensed for the construction work.
However, Defendant appears to be claiming that she personally is not liable on the matter because she is
claiming that it is her corporation which owns the business that contracted for and performed the work.
It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion
to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request and
issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute.
Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 12/15/2021
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also
be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of receipt of the request for a Pretrial
Discovery Conference and must be served on the opposing party.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
12/15/2021 Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton
Date Type or Print Name Signatbre of Party or Attorney for Party
PCV-70 ROS-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 an
not a party to the within action; my business address is: 5703 N. West Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, California 93711.
On December 15, 2021, I served the document(s) described as:
1. PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
on the interested parties in this action by lacing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed!
envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows:
ALAINA N. YBARRA,
Law Office of Alaina N. Ybarra
4478 W. Spaatz Avenue
10 Fresno, California 93 722
Telephone: (559) 437-9200
11 Facsimile: (559) 437-3927
alaina@anybarralaw.com
12
13 XX__ BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereo:
14 fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove i
the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California.
15
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
16 offices of the addressee(s).
17 ——_ BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be
delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s).
18
—__— BY FACSIMILE: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices
19 of the addressee(s).
20 XX_ BY E-MAIL: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to
the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a vali
21 stipulation. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, an
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
22
Executed on December 15, 2021, at Fresno, California.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25
26 Sandy Estrada
27
28
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and adaress) FOR COURT USE ONLY Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton SBN: 258697 LAW OFFICE OF AMY R. LOVEGREN-TIPTON 5703 N. West Ave., Suite 103, Fresno, CA 93711 E-FILED TELEPHONE NO: 559-421-9137 FAX NO: 559-921-4333 12/15/2021 10:52 AM ATTORNEY FOR (Nome): Plaintiffs Superior Court of California County of Fresno SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA » COUNTY OF FRESNO By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy Civil Division 1130 O Street Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Janet Hernandez et al DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Maria Teresa Navarro et al CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 21CECG02514 Plaintiff(s) [] Defendant(s) (1 Cross-complainant(s) [] Cross-defendant(s) [1] Other(s) Requesta Pretrial Discovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons: A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set one propounded on 9/29/21 A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set one propounded on 9/29/21 OD Adispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for D0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on OD A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to comply with U0 Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2.1.17(B). The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request: (Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via these efforts.) After granting extensions of time in which to serve defendant's responses to the written dicovery, Defendant served her discovery respones on November 5, 2021. On November 22, 2021, through written correspondence, Plaintiff identified, with supporting legal authority, the defects and deficiencies in Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, Special Interrogatories and ConstructionF orm Interrogatories. Plaintiff therein demanded supplemental responses by December 2, 2021. Counsel for Defendant responded on November 30, 2021, and indicated that her client intended on providing amended responses. Defendant request until December 10, 2021, to provide the responses in order for Defendant to "obtain additional information" for use in the responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide until December 10, 2021, so long as Defendant provided full and complete responses. Defendant's counsel responded by indicating that her client intended to provide complete responses. On Dec. 10, 2021, at 2:47 p.m., counsel for Defendant emailed counsel for Plaintiff and indicated that respones would not be provided until "at least Tuesday" December 14, 2021. Counsel for Defendant further indicated that Plaintiff should file a motion to compel if Plaintiff wished. To date, no responses have been received by Plaintiff. PCV-70 ROS-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows: (Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be attached.) This case is about unlicensed contracting work contracted for and performed by Defendant, an unlicensed contractor. The work was defective, as well as was not completed and not timely performed. Yet, Defendant requested and received the entire contract amount of more than $50,000.00 From Plaintiffs prior to performing the work. Among other things, Plaintiff's seek return of all compensation paid to Defendant, which is required as a matter of law, where, as here, an unlicensed contractor received compensation for labor and materials. Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages of $10,000.00, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Defendant has acknowledged that neither her nor her corporation are licensed for the construction work. However, Defendant appears to be claiming that she personally is not liable on the matter because she is claiming that it is her corporation which owns the business that contracted for and performed the work. It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request and issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute. Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 12/15/2021 Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of receipt of the request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference and must be served on the opposing party. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 12/15/2021 Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton Date Type or Print Name Signatbre of Party or Attorney for Party PCV-70 ROS-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 an not a party to the within action; my business address is: 5703 N. West Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, California 93711. On December 15, 2021, I served the document(s) described as: 1. PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on the interested parties in this action by lacing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed! envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows: ALAINA N. YBARRA, Law Office of Alaina N. Ybarra 4478 W. Spaatz Avenue 10 Fresno, California 93 722 Telephone: (559) 437-9200 11 Facsimile: (559) 437-3927 alaina@anybarralaw.com 12 13 XX__ BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereo: 14 fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove i the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California. 15 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the 16 offices of the addressee(s). 17 ——_ BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s). 18 —__— BY FACSIMILE: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices 19 of the addressee(s). 20 XX_ BY E-MAIL: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a vali 21 stipulation. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, an electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 22 Executed on December 15, 2021, at Fresno, California. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. 25 26 Sandy Estrada 27 28