Preview
eo
. eo. —wo we
u
#3202080
1 STEVEN B. PISER, °SBN 62414 FILED COURT Y
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER ALAMEDA
2 A Professional Corporation - pw,
499 Fourteenth Street, Suite 210 Gh JUN 1S PHS OI
3 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone 510-835-5582
4 Dy ty.
Attorney for Defendant fort A :
5 Douglas G. Sykes . ae a
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10 GWEN R. SYKES, ) Case No. RG03106646
)
11 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE
) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
12 v. )})MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
13 DOUGLAS SYKES, an individual, DOES 1 ) OR,IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
through 20, inclusive, ) ADJUDICATION
14 )
Defendants ) Date: August 31, 2004
15 ) Time: 2:00 p.m.
) Dept: 31
16 Reservation No.: 365153
17 Trial Date: October 1,2004
18 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b)(1), defendant Douglas Sykes submits
19 this separate statement of undisputed material facts, together with references to supporting
20 evidence in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
21 adjudication, against plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes.
22 I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 622
23 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence
24 1. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (““Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-S5.
25 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in
26 an intimate relationship for more than a decade,
27 beginning in the Fall of 1991.
28
1
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21-
bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith
masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14.
public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is
sophisticated in investment issues.
3, Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9.
NH
of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health
sD
Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate
CO
contracts, and she is responsible for between
Oo
10 30 to SO managers.
1] 4, After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20-
12 prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23,
13 and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20-
14 October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22,
15 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18,
16 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12,
17 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17;
18 Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘Piser
19 Decl.”) { 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS-
20 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7;
21 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18-
22 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit
23 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.””),
24 1:25-27.
25 5. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14-
26 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17.
27 6. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17,
28
2
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20-
regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41
with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1.
7. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2.
review the signed premarital agreement before
Nn
delivering itto Doug.
Nn
8. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2.
~~]
agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor
three days.
10 9. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
11 there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.
12 parties made at any time prior to the date of
13 this Agreement.”
14 10. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7.
15 premarital agreement again before they were
16 married.
17 11. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14:
18 effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F q7.
19 Gwen married.
20 12. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for
21 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for
22 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative,
23 Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B.
24 13. All of the agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special
25 as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”), 9-11, Exhibit J (“Gwen’s
26 occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11;
27 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12,
28
3
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
8. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
14.
Db 14. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s
this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6;
Ww
October 2000. Complaint {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 14.
IH. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER BASED ON GWEN’S WRITTEN WAIVER
WN
OF CLAIM
NN
Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence
Ny
15. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen”) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5.
oo
and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in
10 an intimate relationship for more than a decade,
11 beginning in the Fall of 1991.
12
16. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21-
13
bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith
14
masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14.
15
public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is
16
sophisticated in investment issues.
17
17. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9.
18
of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health
19
Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate
20
contracts, and she is responsible for between
21
30 to 50 managers.
22
18. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20-
23
prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23,
24
and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20-
25
October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22,
26
246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18,
27
890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12,
28
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17;
Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘“Piser
Decl.”) 4 3; Exhibit C (‘GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS-
11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) ¥ 3-7;
Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18-
6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit
SH
L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”),
1:25-27.
CO
19. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14-
Oo
10 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17.
11 20. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17,
12 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20-
13 regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41
14 with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1.
15 21. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2.
16 review the signed premarital agreement before
17 delivering itto Doug.
18 22. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2.
19 agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor
20 three days.
21 23. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
22 waiver which stated: “‘...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.
23 specifically waives and relinquishes any and
24 all rights and claims which he or she may
25 presently have or which may have existed at
26 any time prior to the date of his Agreement
27 arising under any legal principles announced,
28
5
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
established or implied under any legal
WN decision....”
24. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7.
WD
premarital agreement again before they were
rh
married.
an
25. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14;
N
effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F947.
NS
Gwen married.
CO
26. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for
o
10 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for
11 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative,
12 Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B.
13 27. All of the agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special
14 as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories’’), 9-11, Exhibit J (““Gwen’s
15 occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories’’), 9-11;
16 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12,
17 14.
18 28. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s
19 this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6;
20 October 2000. Complaint Jf 6, 7, 8, 12, 14.
21 Ill. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
22 Issue No. 1: The first cause of action, for breach of express oral contract, has no
merit in that (1) plaintiff is estopped based on Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an
23 essential element of her claim, and (2) because plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims
against defendant.
24
Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence
25
29. ‘Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5.
26
and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in
27
an intimate relationship for more than a decade,
28
law[ffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 beginning in the Fall of 1991.
2
30. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21-
3
bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6,; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith
i
masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14.
WN
public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is
DB
sophisticated in investment issues.
TF
31. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9.
Oo
of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health
oO
Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate
10
contracts, and she is responsible for between
11
30 to 50 managers.
12
32. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20-
13
prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23,
14
and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20-
15
October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22,
16
246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18,
17
890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12,
18
901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17;
19
Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (“Piser
20
Decl.”) 7 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.) GS-1, GS-
21
11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7;
22
Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18-
23
6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit
24
L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”),
25
1:25-27.
26
33. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14-
27
regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17.
28
7
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
34. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17,
WN counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20-
regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41
WwW
with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1.
bh
35. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2.
WN
review the signed premarital agreement before
HDR
delivering itto Doug.
~
36. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2.
CO
agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor
Oo
10 three days.
11 37. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
12 there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.
13 parties made at any time prior to the date of
14 this Agreement.”
15 38. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
16 waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18..
17 specifically waives and relinquishes any and
18 all rights and claims which he or she may
19 presently have or which may have existed at
20 any time prior to the date of his Agreement
21 arising under any legal principles announced,
22 established or implied under any legal
23 decision....”
24 39. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7.
25 premarital agreement again before they were
26 married.
27 40. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14;
28
8
LawDifices
of
STEVEN
B. FISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F7.
Gwen married.
41. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for
in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for
ay
December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative,
WN
Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B.
NHN
42. All ofthe agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special
TI
as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”), 9-11, Exhibit J (“Gwen’s
CO
occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11;
oO
10 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {] 6, 7, 8, 12,
11 14.
12 43. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s
13 this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6;
14 October 2000. Complaint {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 14.
15
Issue No. 2: The second cause of action, for breach of implied oral contract, has no
16 merit because (1) plaintiff is estopped based on Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an
essential element of her claim, and (2) because plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims
17 against defendant.
18 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence
19 44. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen”) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5.
20 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in
21 an intimate relationship for more than a decade,
22 beginning in the Fall of 1991.
23
45. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21-
24
bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith
25
masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14.
26
public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is
27
sophisticated in investment issues.
28
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
46. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9.
of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health
Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate
contracts, and she is responsible for between
30 to 50 managers.
47. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20-
prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23,
and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20-
October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22,
“10 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18,
11 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12,
12 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17;
13 Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (“‘Piser
14 Decl.”) { 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS-
15 | 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7;
16 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- -
17 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit
18 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”),
19 1:25-27.
20 48. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14-
21 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17.
22 | 49. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17,
23 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20-
24 regard to the premarital agreement. Mr. Oleon 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41
25 was consulted in August 1999. Gwen also met (Exhibit C) p. 1.
26 with Patricia Blyth.
27 50. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2.
28
LawDffices
of
STEVEN
B. FISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
®@
review the signed premarital agreement before
delivering itto Doug.
51. | Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2.
agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor
three days.
52. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
NN
there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.
parties made at any time prior to the date of
Oo
this Agreement.”
Oo
10 53. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12 4 13; GS Depo. 890:10-
11 waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18..
12 specifically waives and relinquishes any and
13 all rights and claims which he or she may
14 presently have or which may have existed at
15 any time prior to the date of his Agreement
16 arising under any legal principles announced,
17 established or implied under any legal
18 decision....”
19 54. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7.
20 premarital agreement again before they were
21 married.
22 55. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 7 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14;
23 effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F] 7.
24 Gwen married.
25 56. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., § 7; Defendant’s Request for
26 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for
27 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative,
28
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B.
57. Allofthe agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special
as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”’), 9-11, Exhibit J (““Gwen’s
occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11;
RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12,
14.
DW
58. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s
Ns
this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6;
Oo
October 2000. Complaint ff 6, 7, 8, 12, 14.
Oo
10
Issue No. 3: The third cause of action, for constructive trust regarding defendant’s
11 property at 275 Alvarado, Berkeley, has no merit because (1) plaintiff is estopped based on
Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an essential element of her claim, and (2) because
12 plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims against defendant.
13 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence
14 59. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5.
15 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in
16 an intimate relationship for more than a decade,
17 ‘beginning in the Fall of 1991.
18
60. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21-
19
bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith
20
masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14.
21
public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is
22
sophisticated in investment issues.
23 .
61. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9.
24
of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health
25
Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate
26
contracts, and she is responsible for between
27
30 to 50 managers.
28
’LawDffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
@
62. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20-
prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23,
and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20-
October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22,
246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18,
890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12,
DH
901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17;
~T
Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘‘Piser
CoO
Decl.”) | 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.) GS-1, GS-
oO
10 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) { 3-7;
11 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18-
12 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit
13 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”),
14 1:25-27.
15 63. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14-
16 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17.
17 64. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17,
18 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20-
19 regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41
20 with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1.
21 65. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2.
22 review the signed premarital agreement before
23 delivering itto Doug.
24 66. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2.
25 agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor
26 three days.
27 67. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
28
LawOffices
of
STEVEN
B. PISER
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
@
there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.
WN parties made at any time prior to the date of
this Agreement.”
WN
68. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10-
&
waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18..
na
specifically waives and relinquishes any and
SN
all rights and claims which he or she may
presently have or which may have existed at
Oo
any time prior to the date of his Agreement
oOo
10 arising under any legal principles announced,
11 established or implied
Preview
eo . eo. —wo we u #3202080 1 STEVEN B. PISER, °SBN 62414 FILED COURT Y LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER ALAMEDA 2 A Professional Corporation - pw, 499 Fourteenth Street, Suite 210 Gh JUN 1S PHS OI 3 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone 510-835-5582 4 Dy ty. Attorney for Defendant fort A : 5 Douglas G. Sykes . ae a 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 GWEN R. SYKES, ) Case No. RG03106646 ) 11 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE ) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED 12 v. )})MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 DOUGLAS SYKES, an individual, DOES 1 ) OR,IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY through 20, inclusive, ) ADJUDICATION 14 ) Defendants ) Date: August 31, 2004 15 ) Time: 2:00 p.m. ) Dept: 31 16 Reservation No.: 365153 17 Trial Date: October 1,2004 18 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b)(1), defendant Douglas Sykes submits 19 this separate statement of undisputed material facts, together with references to supporting 20 evidence in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary 21 adjudication, against plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes. 22 I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 622 23 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence 24 1. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (““Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-S5. 25 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in 26 an intimate relationship for more than a decade, 27 beginning in the Fall of 1991. 28 1 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 2. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21- bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14. public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is sophisticated in investment issues. 3, Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9. NH of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health sD Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate CO contracts, and she is responsible for between Oo 10 30 to SO managers. 1] 4, After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20- 12 prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23, 13 and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20- 14 October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22, 15 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18, 16 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12, 17 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17; 18 Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘Piser 19 Decl.”) { 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS- 20 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7; 21 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- 22 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit 23 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.””), 24 1:25-27. 25 5. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14- 26 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17. 27 6. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17, 28 2 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20- regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41 with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1. 7. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2. review the signed premarital agreement before Nn delivering itto Doug. Nn 8. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2. ~~] agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor three days. 10 9. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- 11 there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18. 12 parties made at any time prior to the date of 13 this Agreement.” 14 10. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7. 15 premarital agreement again before they were 16 married. 17 11. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14: 18 effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F q7. 19 Gwen married. 20 12. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for 21 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for 22 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, 23 Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B. 24 13. All of the agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special 25 as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”), 9-11, Exhibit J (“Gwen’s 26 occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11; 27 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 28 3 LawOffices of STEVEN 8. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 14. Db 14. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6; Ww October 2000. Complaint {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. IH. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER BASED ON GWEN’S WRITTEN WAIVER WN OF CLAIM NN Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence Ny 15. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen”) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5. oo and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in 10 an intimate relationship for more than a decade, 11 beginning in the Fall of 1991. 12 16. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21- 13 bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith 14 masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14. 15 public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is 16 sophisticated in investment issues. 17 17. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9. 18 of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health 19 Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate 20 contracts, and she is responsible for between 21 30 to 50 managers. 22 18. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20- 23 prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23, 24 and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20- 25 October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22, 26 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18, 27 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12, 28 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17; Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘“Piser Decl.”) 4 3; Exhibit C (‘GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS- 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) ¥ 3-7; Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit SH L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”), 1:25-27. CO 19. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14- Oo 10 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17. 11 20. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17, 12 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20- 13 regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41 14 with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1. 15 21. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2. 16 review the signed premarital agreement before 17 delivering itto Doug. 18 22. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2. 19 agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor 20 three days. 21 23. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- 22 waiver which stated: “‘...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18. 23 specifically waives and relinquishes any and 24 all rights and claims which he or she may 25 presently have or which may have existed at 26 any time prior to the date of his Agreement 27 arising under any legal principles announced, 28 5 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION established or implied under any legal WN decision....” 24. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7. WD premarital agreement again before they were rh married. an 25. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14; N effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F947. NS Gwen married. CO 26. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for o 10 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for 11 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, 12 Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B. 13 27. All of the agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special 14 as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories’’), 9-11, Exhibit J (““Gwen’s 15 occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories’’), 9-11; 16 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 17 14. 18 28. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s 19 this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6; 20 October 2000. Complaint Jf 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. 21 Ill. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 22 Issue No. 1: The first cause of action, for breach of express oral contract, has no merit in that (1) plaintiff is estopped based on Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an 23 essential element of her claim, and (2) because plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims against defendant. 24 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence 25 29. ‘Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5. 26 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in 27 an intimate relationship for more than a decade, 28 law[ffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 beginning in the Fall of 1991. 2 30. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21- 3 bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6,; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith i masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14. WN public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is DB sophisticated in investment issues. TF 31. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9. Oo of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health oO Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate 10 contracts, and she is responsible for between 11 30 to 50 managers. 12 32. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20- 13 prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23, 14 and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20- 15 October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22, 16 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18, 17 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12, 18 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17; 19 Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (“Piser 20 Decl.”) 7 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.) GS-1, GS- 21 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7; 22 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- 23 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit 24 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”), 25 1:25-27. 26 33. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14- 27 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17. 28 7 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 34. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17, WN counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20- regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41 WwW with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1. bh 35. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2. WN review the signed premarital agreement before HDR delivering itto Doug. ~ 36. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2. CO agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor Oo 10 three days. 11 37. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- 12 there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18. 13 parties made at any time prior to the date of 14 this Agreement.” 15 38. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- 16 waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.. 17 specifically waives and relinquishes any and 18 all rights and claims which he or she may 19 presently have or which may have existed at 20 any time prior to the date of his Agreement 21 arising under any legal principles announced, 22 established or implied under any legal 23 decision....” 24 39. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7. 25 premarital agreement again before they were 26 married. 27 40. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 J 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14; 28 8 LawDifices of STEVEN B. FISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F7. Gwen married. 41. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., | 7;Defendant’s Request for in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for ay December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, WN Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B. NHN 42. All ofthe agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special TI as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”), 9-11, Exhibit J (“Gwen’s CO occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11; oO 10 RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {] 6, 7, 8, 12, 11 14. 12 43. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s 13 this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6; 14 October 2000. Complaint {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. 15 Issue No. 2: The second cause of action, for breach of implied oral contract, has no 16 merit because (1) plaintiff is estopped based on Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an essential element of her claim, and (2) because plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims 17 against defendant. 18 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence 19 44. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen”) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5. 20 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in 21 an intimate relationship for more than a decade, 22 beginning in the Fall of 1991. 23 45. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21- 24 bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith 25 masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14. 26 public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is 27 sophisticated in investment issues. 28 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 46. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9. of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate contracts, and she is responsible for between 30 to 50 managers. 47. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20- prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23, and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20- October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22, “10 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18, 11 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12, 12 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17; 13 Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (“‘Piser 14 Decl.”) { 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.”) GS-1, GS- 15 | 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) § 3-7; 16 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- - 17 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit 18 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”), 19 1:25-27. 20 48. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14- 21 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17. 22 | 49. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17, 23 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20- 24 regard to the premarital agreement. Mr. Oleon 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41 25 was consulted in August 1999. Gwen also met (Exhibit C) p. 1. 26 with Patricia Blyth. 27 50. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2. 28 LawDffices of STEVEN B. FISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ®@ review the signed premarital agreement before delivering itto Doug. 51. | Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2. agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor three days. 52. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- NN there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18. parties made at any time prior to the date of Oo this Agreement.” Oo 10 53. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12 4 13; GS Depo. 890:10- 11 waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.. 12 specifically waives and relinquishes any and 13 all rights and claims which he or she may 14 presently have or which may have existed at 15 any time prior to the date of his Agreement 16 arising under any legal principles announced, 17 established or implied under any legal 18 decision....” 19 54. Doug and Gwen never discussed the GS Depo. 140:20-141:25, 142:2-7. 20 premarital agreement again before they were 21 married. 22 55. The prenuptial agreement became GS Exh., GS-12 7 13; GS Depo. 1060:13-14; 23 effective on August 15, 2001, when Doug and Ex. F] 7. 24 Gwen married. 25 56. Doug filed for dissolution of marriage Doug Decl., § 7; Defendant’s Request for 26 in June 2002. Marital status was dissolved on Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for 27 December 24, 2003. Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, 28 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Summary Adjudication (“RIN”), Exhibit B. 57. Allofthe agreements alleged by Gwen Defendant’s Evidence Exhibit I (“Special as the basis between her and Doug allegedly Interrogatories”’), 9-11, Exhibit J (““Gwen’s occurred before October 2000. Answers to Special Interrogatories”), 9-11; RJN, Exhibit A (“Complaint”) {J 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. DW 58. All of the claims alleged by Gwen in Special Interrogatories 3:5-12; Gwen’s Ns this action would, if true, have existed before Answers to Special Interrogatories, 2:26-3:6; Oo October 2000. Complaint ff 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. Oo 10 Issue No. 3: The third cause of action, for constructive trust regarding defendant’s 11 property at 275 Alvarado, Berkeley, has no merit because (1) plaintiff is estopped based on Evidence Code Section 622 from proving an essential element of her claim, and (2) because 12 plaintiff waived, in writing, any claims against defendant. 13 Undisputed Material Fact Suppporting Evidence 14 59. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Sykes (“Gwen’’) Exhibit B (“GS Depo.”) 277:1-5. 15 and defendant Douglas Sykes were involved in 16 an intimate relationship for more than a decade, 17 ‘beginning in the Fall of 1991. 18 60. Gwen is well-educated. She earned a 676:24-677:14; 680:6-13; 725:9-726:5; 741:21- 19 bachelors of science (cum laude), an MSW, a 747:6; GS-10 (resume); Exhibit D, Smith 20 masters of public health, and a doctorate in Depo. 7:10-24; 16:14-17:24; 19:3-20:14. 21 public health, all from U.C. Berkeley. She is 22 sophisticated in investment issues. 23 . 61. Gwen Sykes is the Executive Director GS Depo. 639:14-23; 168:22-169:4; 641:3-9. 24 of Bay Area Consortium for Quality Health 25 Care. One of her job duties is to negotiate 26 contracts, and she is responsible for between 27 30 to 50 managers. 28 ’LawDffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION @ 62. After discussing and reviewing GS Depo. 75:18-76:20, 77:18-19, 78:8-10, 20- prenuptial agreements for about a year, Gwen 22, 80:14-19, 82:5-9, 83:2-84:7, 88:13-89:23, and Doug signed a premarital agreement in 90:2-91:4; 108:17-109:15, 114:7-10, 122:20- October 2000. 123:1,134:11-23, 129:20-22, 167:21-22, 246:17-23; 247:7-10, 256:11-25, 258:10-18, 890:10-891:2, 891:19-893:16, 898:7-12, DH 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18, 1029:14-17; ~T Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit A (‘‘Piser CoO Decl.”) | 3; Exhibit C (“GS Exh.) GS-1, GS- oO 10 11, GS-12; Exhibit F (“Doug Decl.’) { 3-7; 11 Exhibit G; Exhibit K (“Oleon Depo.”), 5:18- 12 6:7, 6:22-8:8, 12:16-13:11, 21:7-22:8; Exhibit 13 L, Exh. GO-3; Exhibit M (“Gwen Decl.”), 14 1:25-27. 15 63. Doug told Gwen to seek counsel GS Depo. 256:11-19, 256:25-257:5; 1029:14- 16 regarding the prenuptial agreement. 17. 17 64. Gwen sought the advice of independent GS Depo. 124:11-18, 129:9-25, 134:11-17, 18 counsel (Glenn Oleon and Pat Blyth) with 133:8-9, 248:16-18, 902:18-24; 1028:20- 19 regard to the premarital agreement. She met 1030:14; Exhibit M 1:25-27; Exhibit GS-41 20 with both lawyers. (Exhibit C) p. 1. 21 65. Gwen had the ability and opportunity to GS Depo. 1031:21-1033:2. 22 review the signed premarital agreement before 23 delivering itto Doug. 24 66. Gwen delivered her signed premarital GS Depo. 140:7-11, 1032;8-1033:2. 25 agreement to Doug after holding on to itfor 26 three days. 27 67. The premarital agreement recited “that Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- 28 LawOffices of STEVEN B. PISER DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION @ there are no oral agreements between the 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18. WN parties made at any time prior to the date of this Agreement.” WN 68. The premarital agreement contained a Exhibit GS-11; GS-12; GS Depo. 890:10- & waiver which stated: “...[E]ach of the parties 891:2, 901:22-902:24, 932:17-18.. na specifically waives and relinquishes any and SN all rights and claims which he or she may presently have or which may have existed at Oo any time prior to the date of his Agreement oOo 10 arising under any legal principles announced, 11 established or implied