On July 15, 2003 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gwen R. Sykes,
and
Douglas Sykes,
for Unlimited Civil
in the District Court of Alameda County.
Preview
FROM =STAM LAL! GROUP FAX NO. :4868771548 Aug. 16 2684 B4:82PM Pla
FILED BY FAX
Hab Siam, Slate Bar No. 214787 ALAMEDA COUNTY
STAM LAW GROUP
2921 8. Winchester Blvd. August 17, 2004
Campbell, CA 95008 CLERK OF
Telephone: (408) 873-0303 THE SUPERIOR COUR mT
aes?
By Rosanne Case, Dep uty
Fax Number: (408) 877-1548
CASE NUMBER:
RGO3106646
oe
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gwen R. Svkes
DH
SI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
we
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Dp
GWEN R. SYKES, Case No. RG03106646
>
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF HAB SIAM IN
OPPOSTTION TO MOTION FOR
v ORDER GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE
DOUGLAS SYKES, an individual, and TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF
DOES 1-20, inclusive PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT
Defendants. BY FAX
DATE: August 26, 2004
TIME: 9:00 a.m,
DEPT: 136
TRIAL DATE: October 1, 2004
I, Hab Siam, declare as follows:
1, Tam an attorney at law licensed to practice before allthe courts of the State of
20
California and the attorney of record for plaintiff Gwen Sykes.
om
2. Tf called as a witness, Tcould and would competently testify to (he facts set forth
22
in this declaration, all of which are inmy own personal knowledge,
23
3. Gwen alleges that (a) Doug infected her with herpes and other sexually-
24
transmitted discases; (b) Doug made resulting contractual obligations; and (c)Doug repudiated
25
those resulting contractual obligations,
26
27
28 1
DECLARATION OF HAB STAM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PRENUPTIAI, AGREEMENT
Case No. RGO3 106646
FROM :SIAM LAL! GROUP FAX NO. :4888771548 Aug. 16 2664 84:63PM Pili
4, Doug claims the validity of a prenuptial agreement as the basis for evading
contract and tort liability to Gwen.
5. Gwen alleges that Doug’s prenuptial agreement is invalid for a number of
reasons, including fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
breach of fiduciary duty, involuntariness, mistake of fact, failure of conditions preccdent,
revocation, abscncc of formation based on the patties’ failure to mutually assent to the terms, and
unconscionability.
6, Gwen has demanded a jury trial.
7. Gwen's proofof the prenuptial agreement’s invalidity isidentical to Gwen’s
10 proof of Doug's contract and tort liability. It’simpossible to try the prenuptial agreement
WW invalidily issue without simultaneously trying the liability issues.
12 8. Consequently, if Doug’s bifurcation motion were granted, (a) Gwen will
13 prosecute two identical trials with identical evidence and identical witnesses; (b) Doug will
14 defend against two identical lawsuits with identical evidence and identical witnesses; (c) the
15 parties will spend twice as much in legal fees and other expenses; (d) each witness will be
16 required to testify to the same matters twice in two separate trials; (e)jurors will hear two
17 identical trialswith identical evidence and identical witnesses; (0 the judicial resources required
18 for this trialwill bc doubled; and (g) many weeks of tria] will be added, and many hours of time
19 will be wasted for the court and the parties,
20 9, I estimate that trial on both prenuptial agreement invalidity issues and liability
2) issues would take 4-5 weeks while trial on either issue individually would also take 4-5 weeks.
22 a
23 T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct,
25 Dated: August 16, 2004
26 ee
Hab Siam
a7
28 2
DECLARATION OF HAB SIAM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT
Case No, RG03106646
Document Filed Date
August 17, 2004
Case Filing Date
July 15, 2003
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FROM =STAM LAL! GROUP FAX NO. :4868771548 Aug. 16 2684 B4:82PM Pla FILED BY FAX Hab Siam, Slate Bar No. 214787 ALAMEDA COUNTY STAM LAW GROUP 2921 8. Winchester Blvd. August 17, 2004 Campbell, CA 95008 CLERK OF Telephone: (408) 873-0303 THE SUPERIOR COUR mT aes? By Rosanne Case, Dep uty Fax Number: (408) 877-1548 CASE NUMBER: RGO3106646 oe Attorneys for Plaintiff Gwen R. Svkes DH SI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA we COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Dp GWEN R. SYKES, Case No. RG03106646 > Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF HAB SIAM IN OPPOSTTION TO MOTION FOR v ORDER GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE DOUGLAS SYKES, an individual, and TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF DOES 1-20, inclusive PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT Defendants. BY FAX DATE: August 26, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m, DEPT: 136 TRIAL DATE: October 1, 2004 I, Hab Siam, declare as follows: 1, Tam an attorney at law licensed to practice before allthe courts of the State of 20 California and the attorney of record for plaintiff Gwen Sykes. om 2. Tf called as a witness, Tcould and would competently testify to (he facts set forth 22 in this declaration, all of which are inmy own personal knowledge, 23 3. Gwen alleges that (a) Doug infected her with herpes and other sexually- 24 transmitted discases; (b) Doug made resulting contractual obligations; and (c)Doug repudiated 25 those resulting contractual obligations, 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF HAB STAM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PRENUPTIAI, AGREEMENT Case No. RGO3 106646 FROM :SIAM LAL! GROUP FAX NO. :4888771548 Aug. 16 2664 84:63PM Pili 4, Doug claims the validity of a prenuptial agreement as the basis for evading contract and tort liability to Gwen. 5. Gwen alleges that Doug’s prenuptial agreement is invalid for a number of reasons, including fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, involuntariness, mistake of fact, failure of conditions preccdent, revocation, abscncc of formation based on the patties’ failure to mutually assent to the terms, and unconscionability. 6, Gwen has demanded a jury trial. 7. Gwen's proofof the prenuptial agreement’s invalidity isidentical to Gwen’s 10 proof of Doug's contract and tort liability. It’simpossible to try the prenuptial agreement WW invalidily issue without simultaneously trying the liability issues. 12 8. Consequently, if Doug’s bifurcation motion were granted, (a) Gwen will 13 prosecute two identical trials with identical evidence and identical witnesses; (b) Doug will 14 defend against two identical lawsuits with identical evidence and identical witnesses; (c) the 15 parties will spend twice as much in legal fees and other expenses; (d) each witness will be 16 required to testify to the same matters twice in two separate trials; (e)jurors will hear two 17 identical trialswith identical evidence and identical witnesses; (0 the judicial resources required 18 for this trialwill bc doubled; and (g) many weeks of tria] will be added, and many hours of time 19 will be wasted for the court and the parties, 20 9, I estimate that trial on both prenuptial agreement invalidity issues and liability 2) issues would take 4-5 weeks while trial on either issue individually would also take 4-5 weeks. 22 a 23 T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct, 25 Dated: August 16, 2004 26 ee Hab Siam a7 28 2 DECLARATION OF HAB SIAM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT Case No, RG03106646