Preview
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: (661) 316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com / elizabeth@alexander-law.com
5
Attorneys for defendants Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry
6
as Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION
10 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California Limited ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Liability Company, )
11 ) SEPARATELY BOUND OF EVIDENCE IN
Plaintiff, ) SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
12 ) DEFENDANTS, THOMAS H. FRY AND
13 vs. ) RUTH M. FRY, FOR SUMMARY
) ADJUDICATION
14 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. )
LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann
15 and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as ) Dept.: 10
16 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; )
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Date: April 29, 2022
17 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. ) Div.: H
18 )
19 ) Action Filed: October 2, 2017
) Trial Date: May 31, 2022
20 )
)
21
22 Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust, submit
23 this Separately Bound Volume of Evidence in support of their motion for summary adjudication.
24
25
26
27
28
1
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
1
2 EXH. DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE
3
A SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO BIG WASHINGTON
4
5 B RESPONSES OF BIG WASHINGTON TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
6
C REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED TO BIG WASHINGTON
7
8 D RESPONSES OF BIG WASHINGTON TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
9
E EXCERPTS OF THE DEPOSITION OF JARRAL NEEPER
10
11 F LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT, LTD. AND FRY TRUST
12
G LEASE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1
13
14 H LETTER OF INTENT
15
I UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
16
17 J PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT AND BENHONG
18
19 K AMENDMENT TO PLASTIC SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRY AND BENHONG
20
L DECLARATION OF JOHN MARSHALL
21
22 M JANUARY 13, 2016 EMAIL CHAIN REGARDING SALE OF PLASTIC
23
N NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT
24
25 O PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT AND BIG
26 WASHINGTON
27
P DECLARATION OF THOMAS H. FRY
28
2
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
1
2 Q DECLARATION OF JOHN RICHARDSON
3
R DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH ESTRADA
4
5
6 Date: February 8, 2022 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC
7
8
/s/ Elizabeth Estrada
By: __________________________________ /s/
9 ELIZABETH ESTRADA, attorneys for
Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry,
10 Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “B”
1 Ben A. Eilenberg (State Bar # 261288)
2 Law Offices of Ben Eilenberg
3600 Lime Street, Suite 125
3 Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 201-4783
4
EilenbergLegal@gmail.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff BIG WASHINGTON, LLC
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
9
BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California ) Case No.: BCV17-102-341
10 Limited Liability Company, )
) RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
11 ) INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff, )
12 )
v. )
13 )
)
BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. )
14
LTD, a California Limited Liability )
15 Company; and THOMAS H. FRY and )
RUTH M. FRY as Trustees of the T & R )
16 )
FRY FAMILY TRUST; and DOES 1-100, )
17 )
Defendants )
18 )
)
19 )
)
20 )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 1
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1
2 Special Interrogatory No. 1:
3 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line5-6 of the
4
COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in Bakersfield from Calcot Limited
5
(the ‘Property’).” [As used herein, the term “COMPLAINT” means plaintiff Big Washington,
6
7 LLC’s complaint filed in Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-17-102341 on October 6,
8 2017.]
9
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 1:
10
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
11
12
November 27, 2016.
13 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
14 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
15
interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
16
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
17
18 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
19 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
20
The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
21
material only and for no other purpose.
22
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
23
24 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
25 ended and the lease was terminated.
26
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
27
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 2
Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
1
2 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
3 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
4
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
5
the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
6
agreement.
7
8 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
9 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
10
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
11
provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
12
13
set forth the details exactly.
14 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
15 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
16
property.
17
Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
18
19 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
20 Special Interrogatory No. 2:
21
IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
22
contention at page 3, line 5-6 of the COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in
23
Bakersfield from Calcot Limited (the ‘Property’).” [“IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS” means to
24
25 provide his/her/its name, address, phone number, and email address, and “PERSON(S)” shall
26 include individual(s) and/or entity(ies).]
27
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2:
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 3
Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel,
1
2 Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
3 Special Interrogatory No. 3:
4
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 5-6 of
5
the COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in Bakersfield from Calcot Limited
6
(the ‘Property’).” [As used herein, the term “IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS” means to either
7
8 produce the DOCUMENTS or describe it with sufficient detail so as to allow propounding party
9 to requesting it; the term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing or writings
10
as defined by Evidence Code §250, and shall be inclusive of the term ESI (as defined in Code of
11
Civil Procedure §2016.020(e)).];
12
13
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 3:
14 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
15 Special Interrogatory No. 4:
16
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 6-7 of the
17
COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the purchase was completed by the
18
19 original purchaser.”
20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4:
21
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
22
November 27, 2016.
23
The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
24
25 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
26 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 4
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
1
2 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
3 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
4
The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
5
material only and for no other purpose.
6
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
7
8 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
9 ended and the lease was terminated.
10
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
11
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
12
13
Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
14 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
15 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
16
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
17
the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
18
19 agreement.
20 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
21
behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
22
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
23
provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
24
25 set forth the details exactly.
26
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 5
Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
1
2 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
3 property.
4
Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
5
that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
6
Special Interrogatory No. 5:
7
8 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
9 contention at page 3, line 6-7 of the COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the
10
purchase was completed by the original purchaser.”
11
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 5:
12
13
Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel,
14 Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
15 Special Interrogatory No. 6:
16
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 6-7 of
17
the COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the purchase was completed by the
18
19 original purchaser.”
20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 6:
21
All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
22
Special Interrogatory No. 7:
23
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the
24
25 COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot assigned its claims to Plaintiff
26 regarding the plastic at issue in this case.”
27
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 7:
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 6
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
1
2 November 27, 2016.
3 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
4
purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
5
interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
6
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
7
8 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
9 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
10
The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
11
material only and for no other purpose.
12
13
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
14 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
15 ended and the lease was terminated.
16
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
17
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
18
19 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
20 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
21
remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
22
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
23
the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
24
25 agreement.
26 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
27
behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 7
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
1
2 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
3 set forth the details exactly.
4
Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
5
warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
6
property.
7
8 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
9 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
10
Special Interrogatory No. 8:
11
IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
12
13
contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot
14 assigned its claims to Plaintiff regarding the plastic at issue in this case.”
15 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 8:
16
Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel,
17
Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
18
19 Special Interrogatory No. 9:
20 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the
21
COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot assigned its claims to Plaintiff
22
regarding the plastic at issue in this case.”
23
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9:
24
25 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
26 Special Interrogatory No. 10:
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 8
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3 line 13 of the
1
2 COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a tenancy on the Property.”
3 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 10:
4
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
5
November 27, 2016.
6
The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
7
8 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
9 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
10
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
11
Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
12
13
26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
14 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
15 material only and for no other purpose.
16
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
17
property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
18
19 ended and the lease was terminated.
20 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
21
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
22
Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
23
Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
24
25 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
26
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 9
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
1
2 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
3 agreement.
4
Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
5
behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
6
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
7
8 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
9 set forth the details exactly.
10
Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
11
warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
12
13
property.
14 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
15 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
16
Special Interrogatory No. 11:
17
IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the contention at
18
19 page 3 line 13 of the COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a
20 tenancy on the Property.”
21
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11:
22
Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben
23
Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
24
25 Special Interrogatory No. 12:
26 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3 line 13 of the
27
COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a tenancy on the Property.”
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 10
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 12:
1
2 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
3 Special Interrogatory No. 13:
4
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 17-19 of the
5
COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of agricultural plastic at the Property stored in
6
Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy
7
8 terminated.”
9 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 13:
10
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
11
November 27, 2016.
12
13
The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
14 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
15 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
16
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
17
Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
18
19 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
20 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
21
material only and for no other purpose.
22
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
23
property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
24
25 ended and the lease was terminated.
26 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
27
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 11
Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
1
2 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
3 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
4
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
5
the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
6
agreement.
7
8 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
9 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
10
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
11
provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
12
13
set forth the details exactly.
14 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
15 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
16
property.
17
Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
18
19 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
20 Special Interrogatory No. 14:
21
IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
22
contention at page 3, line 17-19 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of
23
agricultural plastic at the Property stored in Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82
24
25 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy terminated.”
26 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 14:
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 12
Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben
1
2 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
3 Special Interrogatory No. 15:
4
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 17-19
5
of the COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of agricultural plastic at the Property stored
6
in Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy
7
8 terminated.”
9 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 15:
10
All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
11
Special Interrogatory No. 16:
12
13
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 20-21 of the
14 COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry remove any waste generated on the
15 Property during its lease.”
16
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 16:
17
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
18
19 November 27, 2016.
20 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
21
purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
22
interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
23
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
24
25 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
26 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 13
The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
1
2 material only and for no other purpose.
3 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
4
property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
5
ended and the lease was terminated.
6
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
7
8 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
9 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
10
Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
11
remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
12
13
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
14 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
15 agreement.
16
Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
17
behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
18
19 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
20 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
21
set forth the details exactly.
22
Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
23
warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
24
25 property.
26 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
27
that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 14
Special Interrogatory No. 17:
1
2 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
3 contention at page 3, line 20-21 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry
4
remove any waste generated on the Property during its lease.”
5
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 17:
6
Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben
7
8 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
9 Special Interrogatory No. 18:
10
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 20-21
11
of the COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry remove any waste generated on
12
13
the Property during its lease.”
14 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18:
15 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
16
Special Interrogatory No. 19:
17
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 26-27 of the
18
19 COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with Benhong to take the plastic and
20 process it off site.”
21
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 19:
22
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
23
November 27, 2016.
24
25 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
26 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
27
interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC.
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 15
The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the
1
2 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October
3 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property.
4
The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene
5
material only and for no other purpose.
6
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the
7
8 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business
9 ended and the lease was terminated.
10
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic,
11
totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease.
12
13
Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company
14 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to
15 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses.
16
Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue
17
the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase
18
19 agreement.
20 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left
21
behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this
22
response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to
23
provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids
24
25 set forth the details exactly.
26
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 16
Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the
1
2 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the
3 property.
4
Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period
5
that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses.
6
Special Interrogatory No. 20:
7
8 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the
9 contention at page 3, line 26-27 of the COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with
10
Benhong to take the plastic and process it off site.”
11
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 20:
12
13
Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben
14 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain.
15 Special Interrogatory No. 21:
16
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 26-27
17
of the COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with Benhong to take the plastic and
18
19 process it off site.”
20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 21:
21
All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced.
22
Special Interrogatory No. 22:
23
Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 4, line 1-2 of the
24
25 COMPLAINT that “Benhong did not perform under the contract, as the plastic remains on site.”
26 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 22:
27
28
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 17
Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated
1
2 November 27, 2016.
3 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the
4
purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her
Preview
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607) Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302) 2 Alexander & Associates, PLC 3 1925 G Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 4 Phone: (661) 316-7888 Email: walexander@alexander-law.com / elizabeth@alexander-law.com 5 Attorneys for defendants Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry 6 as Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION 10 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California Limited ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB Liability Company, ) 11 ) SEPARATELY BOUND OF EVIDENCE IN Plaintiff, ) SUPPORT OF MOTION OF 12 ) DEFENDANTS, THOMAS H. FRY AND 13 vs. ) RUTH M. FRY, FOR SUMMARY ) ADJUDICATION 14 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. ) LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann 15 and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as ) Dept.: 10 16 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; ) and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Date: April 29, 2022 17 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. ) Div.: H 18 ) 19 ) Action Filed: October 2, 2017 ) Trial Date: May 31, 2022 20 ) ) 21 22 Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust, submit 23 this Separately Bound Volume of Evidence in support of their motion for summary adjudication. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Alexander & Associates Attorneys at Law 1925 G Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 2 EXH. DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE 3 A SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO BIG WASHINGTON 4 5 B RESPONSES OF BIG WASHINGTON TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 6 C REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED TO BIG WASHINGTON 7 8 D RESPONSES OF BIG WASHINGTON TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 9 E EXCERPTS OF THE DEPOSITION OF JARRAL NEEPER 10 11 F LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT, LTD. AND FRY TRUST 12 G LEASE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 13 14 H LETTER OF INTENT 15 I UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT 16 17 J PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT AND BENHONG 18 19 K AMENDMENT TO PLASTIC SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRY AND BENHONG 20 L DECLARATION OF JOHN MARSHALL 21 22 M JANUARY 13, 2016 EMAIL CHAIN REGARDING SALE OF PLASTIC 23 N NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT 24 25 O PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCOT AND BIG 26 WASHINGTON 27 P DECLARATION OF THOMAS H. FRY 28 2 Alexander & Associates Attorneys at Law 1925 G Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 2 Q DECLARATION OF JOHN RICHARDSON 3 R DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH ESTRADA 4 5 6 Date: February 8, 2022 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC 7 8 /s/ Elizabeth Estrada By: __________________________________ /s/ 9 ELIZABETH ESTRADA, attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, 10 Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Alexander & Associates Attorneys at Law 1925 G Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 316-7888 SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRY MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “B” 1 Ben A. Eilenberg (State Bar # 261288) 2 Law Offices of Ben Eilenberg 3600 Lime Street, Suite 125 3 Riverside, CA 92507 (951) 201-4783 4 EilenbergLegal@gmail.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff BIG WASHINGTON, LLC 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 9 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California ) Case No.: BCV17-102-341 10 Limited Liability Company, ) ) RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 11 ) INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, ) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ) BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. ) 14 LTD, a California Limited Liability ) 15 Company; and THOMAS H. FRY and ) RUTH M. FRY as Trustees of the T & R ) 16 ) FRY FAMILY TRUST; and DOES 1-100, ) 17 ) Defendants ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 1 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 2 Special Interrogatory No. 1: 3 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line5-6 of the 4 COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in Bakersfield from Calcot Limited 5 (the ‘Property’).” [As used herein, the term “COMPLAINT” means plaintiff Big Washington, 6 7 LLC’s complaint filed in Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-17-102341 on October 6, 8 2017.] 9 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 1: 10 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 11 12 November 27, 2016. 13 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 14 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 15 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 16 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 17 18 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 19 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 20 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 21 material only and for no other purpose. 22 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 23 24 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 25 ended and the lease was terminated. 26 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 27 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 2 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 1 2 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 3 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 4 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 5 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 6 agreement. 7 8 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 9 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 10 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 11 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 12 13 set forth the details exactly. 14 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 15 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 16 property. 17 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 18 19 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 20 Special Interrogatory No. 2: 21 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 22 contention at page 3, line 5-6 of the COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in 23 Bakersfield from Calcot Limited (the ‘Property’).” [“IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS” means to 24 25 provide his/her/its name, address, phone number, and email address, and “PERSON(S)” shall 26 include individual(s) and/or entity(ies).] 27 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2: 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 3 Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, 1 2 Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 3 Special Interrogatory No. 3: 4 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 5-6 of 5 the COMPLAINT that “Plaintiff purchased property located in Bakersfield from Calcot Limited 6 (the ‘Property’).” [As used herein, the term “IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS” means to either 7 8 produce the DOCUMENTS or describe it with sufficient detail so as to allow propounding party 9 to requesting it; the term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing or writings 10 as defined by Evidence Code §250, and shall be inclusive of the term ESI (as defined in Code of 11 Civil Procedure §2016.020(e)).]; 12 13 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 3: 14 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 15 Special Interrogatory No. 4: 16 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 6-7 of the 17 COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the purchase was completed by the 18 19 original purchaser.” 20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4: 21 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 22 November 27, 2016. 23 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 24 25 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 26 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 4 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 1 2 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 3 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 4 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 5 material only and for no other purpose. 6 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 7 8 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 9 ended and the lease was terminated. 10 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 11 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 12 13 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 14 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 15 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 16 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 17 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 18 19 agreement. 20 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 21 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 22 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 23 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 24 25 set forth the details exactly. 26 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 5 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 1 2 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 3 property. 4 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 5 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 6 Special Interrogatory No. 5: 7 8 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 9 contention at page 3, line 6-7 of the COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the 10 purchase was completed by the original purchaser.” 11 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 5: 12 13 Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, 14 Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 15 Special Interrogatory No. 6: 16 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 6-7 of 17 the COMPLAINT that Plaintiff is the entity through which the purchase was completed by the 18 19 original purchaser.” 20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 6: 21 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 22 Special Interrogatory No. 7: 23 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the 24 25 COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot assigned its claims to Plaintiff 26 regarding the plastic at issue in this case.” 27 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 7: 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 6 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 1 2 November 27, 2016. 3 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 4 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 5 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 6 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 7 8 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 9 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 10 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 11 material only and for no other purpose. 12 13 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 14 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 15 ended and the lease was terminated. 16 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 17 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 18 19 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 20 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 21 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 22 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 23 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 24 25 agreement. 26 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 27 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 7 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 1 2 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 3 set forth the details exactly. 4 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 5 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 6 property. 7 8 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 9 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 10 Special Interrogatory No. 8: 11 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 12 13 contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot 14 assigned its claims to Plaintiff regarding the plastic at issue in this case.” 15 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 8: 16 Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, 17 Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 18 19 Special Interrogatory No. 9: 20 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 10-11 of the 21 COMPLAINT that “a[s] a part of the Agreement, Calcot assigned its claims to Plaintiff 22 regarding the plastic at issue in this case.” 23 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9: 24 25 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 26 Special Interrogatory No. 10: 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 8 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3 line 13 of the 1 2 COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a tenancy on the Property.” 3 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 10: 4 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 5 November 27, 2016. 6 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 7 8 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 9 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 10 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 11 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 12 13 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 14 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 15 material only and for no other purpose. 16 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 17 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 18 19 ended and the lease was terminated. 20 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 21 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 22 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 23 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 24 25 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 26 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 9 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 1 2 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 3 agreement. 4 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 5 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 6 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 7 8 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 9 set forth the details exactly. 10 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 11 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 12 13 property. 14 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 15 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 16 Special Interrogatory No. 11: 17 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the contention at 18 19 page 3 line 13 of the COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a 20 tenancy on the Property.” 21 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11: 22 Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben 23 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 24 25 Special Interrogatory No. 12: 26 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3 line 13 of the 27 COMPLAINT that “Prior to the purchase of the Property, Fry had a tenancy on the Property.” 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 10 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 12: 1 2 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 3 Special Interrogatory No. 13: 4 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 17-19 of the 5 COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of agricultural plastic at the Property stored in 6 Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy 7 8 terminated.” 9 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 13: 10 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 11 November 27, 2016. 12 13 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 14 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 15 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 16 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 17 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 18 19 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 20 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 21 material only and for no other purpose. 22 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 23 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 24 25 ended and the lease was terminated. 26 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 27 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 11 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 1 2 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 3 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 4 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 5 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 6 agreement. 7 8 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 9 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 10 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 11 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 12 13 set forth the details exactly. 14 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 15 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 16 property. 17 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 18 19 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 20 Special Interrogatory No. 14: 21 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 22 contention at page 3, line 17-19 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of 23 agricultural plastic at the Property stored in Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 24 25 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy terminated.” 26 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 14: 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 12 Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben 1 2 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 3 Special Interrogatory No. 15: 4 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 17-19 5 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]here is a large amount of agricultural plastic at the Property stored 6 in Warehouse Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 that was leftover after Fry’s tenancy 7 8 terminated.” 9 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 15: 10 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 11 Special Interrogatory No. 16: 12 13 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 20-21 of the 14 COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry remove any waste generated on the 15 Property during its lease.” 16 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 16: 17 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 18 19 November 27, 2016. 20 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 21 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 22 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 23 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 24 25 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 26 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 13 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 1 2 material only and for no other purpose. 3 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 4 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 5 ended and the lease was terminated. 6 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 7 8 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 9 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 10 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 11 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 12 13 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 14 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 15 agreement. 16 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 17 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 18 19 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 20 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 21 set forth the details exactly. 22 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 23 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 24 25 property. 26 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 27 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 14 Special Interrogatory No. 17: 1 2 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 3 contention at page 3, line 20-21 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry 4 remove any waste generated on the Property during its lease.” 5 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 17: 6 Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben 7 8 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 9 Special Interrogatory No. 18: 10 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 20-21 11 of the COMPLAINT that “[t]he lease with Fry required that Fry remove any waste generated on 12 13 the Property during its lease.” 14 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18: 15 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 16 Special Interrogatory No. 19: 17 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 3, line 26-27 of the 18 19 COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with Benhong to take the plastic and 20 process it off site.” 21 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 19: 22 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 23 November 27, 2016. 24 25 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 26 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her 27 interest in the Purchase Agreement (and eventually the property) to Big Washington, LLC. 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 15 The Property being purchased included the warehouses that were subject to the 1 2 Fry Leases. The T&R Fry Trust entered into a lease with Calcot that began on or about October 3 26, 2011 according to the lease documents. The lease was for warehouse space at the Property. 4 The permitted use, according to the lease, was for the temporary storage of poly ethylene 5 material only and for no other purpose. 6 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust thereafter used the 7 8 property for storage and processing of agricultural plastic. However, eventually their business 9 ended and the lease was terminated. 10 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the T&R Fry Trust then left the plastic, 11 totaling approximately 40,000 tons, at the warehouses after the termination of their lease. 12 13 Plaintiffs were told by the T&R Fry Trust that they sold the plastic to the Chinese company 14 Benhong via Benhong’s United States affiliate, and that they would not take any further action to 15 remove the plastic they left behind at the warehouses. 16 Plaintiffs did receive an assignment as part of the purchase agreement to pursue 17 the claims regarding the plastic from Calcot. This was explicitly written into the purchase 18 19 agreement. 20 Once the T&R Fry Trust refused to take responsibility for the plastic they had left 21 behind, Plaintiff received bids for removal. Those bids are produced concurrently with this 22 response. The estimates are approximately $2,500,000 to remove the plastic as well as having to 23 provide free rent on the facility during the cleanup for approximately one to two years. The bids 24 25 set forth the details exactly. 26 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 16 Plaintiffs did have to change their financing due to the plastic making some of the 1 2 warehouses unusable and therefore unable to be rented. This increased the cost of purchasing the 3 property. 4 Plaintiffs have also lost the potential rent on those warehouses during the period 5 that the abandoned plastic is filling the warehouses. 6 Special Interrogatory No. 20: 7 8 IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS having knowledge of the facts supporting the 9 contention at page 3, line 26-27 of the COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with 10 Benhong to take the plastic and process it off site.” 11 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 20: 12 13 Thomas Fry, Ruth Fry, Craig Smith, Stephanie Smith, Alex Vargas, Ben 14 Eilenberg, Calcot personnel, Gerald Neeper, JR [last name TBD], Joe Cain. 15 Special Interrogatory No. 21: 16 IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS supporting the contention at page 3, line 26-27 17 of the COMPLAINT that “Fry then entered into a contract with Benhong to take the plastic and 18 19 process it off site.” 20 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 21: 21 All responsive documents, if any, have been concurrently produced. 22 Special Interrogatory No. 22: 23 Set forth all facts supporting the contention at page 4, line 1-2 of the 24 25 COMPLAINT that “Benhong did not perform under the contract, as the plastic remains on site.” 26 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 22: 27 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 17 Plaintiff purchased the property from Calcot. The Purchase Agreement was dated 1 2 November 27, 2016. 3 The Purchase Agreement designated Stephanie Smith or Assignee as the 4 purchaser of the property. During the course of the transaction, Stephanie Smith assigned her