Preview
16CV300096
Santa Clara — Civil
Electronically Filed
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
by Superior Court of CA,
Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622)
Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) County of Santa Clara,
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. on 2/22/2022 9:24 PM
38 West Santa Clara Street Reviewed By: R. Walker
San Jose, California 95113-1806 Case #16CV300096
Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Envelope: 8345819
Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190
Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
MARIA ANTONIA CANUL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 16CV300096
11 (Unlimited Civil Case)
Plaintiff,
12 v. Assigned for all purposes to:
13 The Honorable Patricia M. Lucas (Dept. 3)
MARIA CANUL,
14 Defendant.
MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON
15
herself and all others similarly situated, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT
16 DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CODE OF
Cross-Complainant, CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16(g)
17
v
18 Hearing Date: May 11, 2022
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.
19 Jersey limited liability company; Hearing Dept.: 3
VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., Hearing Location: 191 North First Street
20 a Delaware corporation; and ROES 2 San Jose, California
21 through 10, inclusive,
22 Cross-Defendants.
23 I, Raeon R. Roulston, declare as follows:
24
1 Tam an attorney-at-law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of
25
California and am an attorney at the law firm Consumer Law Center, Inc., attorneys of record for
26
Defendant/Cross-Complainant, MARIA ANTONIA CANUL (“CANUL”).
2
28 2 I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could
-1-
DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096
and would competently testify thereto.
DISCOVERY RE VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC.
3 No discovery has been conducted with Cross-Defendant, VELOCITY
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. (“WVPGI’) thus far in this case. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, VELOCITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC (“VELOCITY”)’s then-counsel, the law firm of Chapman Glucksman Dean &
Roeb (“CGDR”), sought and were granted an extension of time for VPGI to file a responsive pleading
after the Roe Amendment was served on VPGI in 2021. Greg Sabo of CGDR stated in an email
message to this office that CGDR was “seeking authority to rep the new defendant.”
10
4 Sometime thereafter, CGDR abruptly stated in an email message to this office that
11
they would be substituting out of the case as attorneys for Cross-Defendants.
12
13 5 However, CGDR’s substitution did not materialize for a few months, during which
14 time VPGI did not make an appearance in the case. Eventually, on November 29, 2021, CGDR finally
15 substituted out as counsel for VELOCITY, and current counsel Justin M. Penn of Hinshaw &
16
Culbertson, LLP, substituted in as counsel for both Cross-Defendants.
17
6 New counsel requested and were granted an extension of time to December 29,
18
19 2021, to file VPGI’s responsive pleading.
20 id VPGI did not file a responsive pleading by December 29, 2021. Instead, on January
21 5, 2022, VPGI filed the instant Special Motion to Strike.
22
DISCOVERY RE VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC
23
8 Previously, on February 12, 2019, CANUL served on VELOCITY various
24
25 discovery requests consisting of Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
26 Requests for Admission (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored
27 Information (Set One).
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096
9 This Set One discovery to VELOCITY largely focused on the merits of
VELOCITY’s Complaint and CANUL’s original Cross-Complaint, which did not mention VPGI or
alter ego theory.
10. VELOCITY’s then-counsel, Matthew Kumar of FarMar Law Group, sought and
was granted an extension of time to April 9, 2019, for VELOCITY to serve discovery responses, as
well as file a responsive pleading.
11. On April 5, 2019, Kumar informed this office in an email message that “Velocity
has decided to not have our firm represent them in the above matters going forward (including the filing
10
of the responsive pleadings).”
11
12. On May 2, 2019, CANUL requested the Entry of Default of VELOCITY
12
13 regarding the Cross-Complaint. Thereafter on May 7, 2019, CANUL filed a motion to compel
14 discovery responses, and a motion to deem unanswered admissions as admitted, both of which were
15 granted on July 23, 2019. In late May 2019, CDGR entered the case as counsel for VELOCITY on the
16
Cross-Complaint.
17
13. On August 14, 2019, VELOCITY voluntarily dismissed its Complaint, without
18
19 prejudice. On September 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order Granting Cross-Defendant Velocity
20 Investments, LLC's Motion to Strike Cross-Complainant’s Request for Entry of Default or, in the
21 A Iternative, to Set Aside Default. This office met and conferred on multiple occasions in the fourth
22
quarter of 2019 with Molshree Gupta of CDGR regarding VELOCITY’s outstanding discovery
23
responses, granting multiple extensions of time to serve responses.
24
14. On or about March 6, 2020, VELOCITY finally served its responses to CANUL’s
25
26 Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of
27 Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One), which consisted of mostly general
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096
objections without merit and insufficient responses. Thereafter, this office met and conferred with
Molshree Gupta of CDGR on several occasions in April, May, June, July, September, October, and
November of 2020, to no avail.
15. On January 15, 2021, the Court entered an Order Deeming Case Complex. That
same day, CANUL filed a motion to compel discovery responses. The Court entered a Stipulated
Protective Order on February 11, 2021. On February 26, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting
CANUL’s motion to compel discovery responses, and awarding monetary sanctions against
VELOCITY.
10
16. In April 2021, Greg Sabo of CDGR informed this office that Molshree Gupta had
11
left the firm. Thereafter, CDGR informed this office in June 2021 that it was substituting out as
12
13 attorneys for VELOCITY. In June and July of 2021, this office continued to meet and confer with
14 attorneys from CDGR regarding VELOCITY’s inadequate responses and production.
15 17. From and after November of 2021, this office has been communicating with new
16
counsel of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, regarding VELOCITY’s outstanding discovery responses. To
17
date, no discovery has been conducted regarding CANUL’s alter ego allegations.
18
19 18. Neither VELOCITY nor VPGI has agreed to the cross-referencing of documents
20 produced by VELOCITY in other matters pursuant to a Protective Order.
al I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
22
true and correct.
23
Executed this 22nd day of February, 2022, at San Jose, California.
24
25
26 Raeon R. Roulston
27
28
-4-
DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096
Preview
16CV300096 Santa Clara — Civil Electronically Filed Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) by Superior Court of CA, Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) County of Santa Clara, CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. on 2/22/2022 9:24 PM 38 West Santa Clara Street Reviewed By: R. Walker San Jose, California 95113-1806 Case #16CV300096 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Envelope: 8345819 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant MARIA ANTONIA CANUL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 16CV300096 11 (Unlimited Civil Case) Plaintiff, 12 v. Assigned for all purposes to: 13 The Honorable Patricia M. Lucas (Dept. 3) MARIA CANUL, 14 Defendant. MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON 15 herself and all others similarly situated, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT 16 DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CODE OF Cross-Complainant, CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16(g) 17 v 18 Hearing Date: May 11, 2022 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. 19 Jersey limited liability company; Hearing Dept.: 3 VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., Hearing Location: 191 North First Street 20 a Delaware corporation; and ROES 2 San Jose, California 21 through 10, inclusive, 22 Cross-Defendants. 23 I, Raeon R. Roulston, declare as follows: 24 1 Tam an attorney-at-law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of 25 California and am an attorney at the law firm Consumer Law Center, Inc., attorneys of record for 26 Defendant/Cross-Complainant, MARIA ANTONIA CANUL (“CANUL”). 2 28 2 I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could -1- DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096 and would competently testify thereto. DISCOVERY RE VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. 3 No discovery has been conducted with Cross-Defendant, VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. (“WVPGI’) thus far in this case. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC (“VELOCITY”)’s then-counsel, the law firm of Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb (“CGDR”), sought and were granted an extension of time for VPGI to file a responsive pleading after the Roe Amendment was served on VPGI in 2021. Greg Sabo of CGDR stated in an email message to this office that CGDR was “seeking authority to rep the new defendant.” 10 4 Sometime thereafter, CGDR abruptly stated in an email message to this office that 11 they would be substituting out of the case as attorneys for Cross-Defendants. 12 13 5 However, CGDR’s substitution did not materialize for a few months, during which 14 time VPGI did not make an appearance in the case. Eventually, on November 29, 2021, CGDR finally 15 substituted out as counsel for VELOCITY, and current counsel Justin M. Penn of Hinshaw & 16 Culbertson, LLP, substituted in as counsel for both Cross-Defendants. 17 6 New counsel requested and were granted an extension of time to December 29, 18 19 2021, to file VPGI’s responsive pleading. 20 id VPGI did not file a responsive pleading by December 29, 2021. Instead, on January 21 5, 2022, VPGI filed the instant Special Motion to Strike. 22 DISCOVERY RE VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC 23 8 Previously, on February 12, 2019, CANUL served on VELOCITY various 24 25 discovery requests consisting of Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), 26 Requests for Admission (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored 27 Information (Set One). 28 -2- DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096 9 This Set One discovery to VELOCITY largely focused on the merits of VELOCITY’s Complaint and CANUL’s original Cross-Complaint, which did not mention VPGI or alter ego theory. 10. VELOCITY’s then-counsel, Matthew Kumar of FarMar Law Group, sought and was granted an extension of time to April 9, 2019, for VELOCITY to serve discovery responses, as well as file a responsive pleading. 11. On April 5, 2019, Kumar informed this office in an email message that “Velocity has decided to not have our firm represent them in the above matters going forward (including the filing 10 of the responsive pleadings).” 11 12. On May 2, 2019, CANUL requested the Entry of Default of VELOCITY 12 13 regarding the Cross-Complaint. Thereafter on May 7, 2019, CANUL filed a motion to compel 14 discovery responses, and a motion to deem unanswered admissions as admitted, both of which were 15 granted on July 23, 2019. In late May 2019, CDGR entered the case as counsel for VELOCITY on the 16 Cross-Complaint. 17 13. On August 14, 2019, VELOCITY voluntarily dismissed its Complaint, without 18 19 prejudice. On September 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order Granting Cross-Defendant Velocity 20 Investments, LLC's Motion to Strike Cross-Complainant’s Request for Entry of Default or, in the 21 A Iternative, to Set Aside Default. This office met and conferred on multiple occasions in the fourth 22 quarter of 2019 with Molshree Gupta of CDGR regarding VELOCITY’s outstanding discovery 23 responses, granting multiple extensions of time to serve responses. 24 14. On or about March 6, 2020, VELOCITY finally served its responses to CANUL’s 25 26 Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of 27 Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One), which consisted of mostly general 28 -3- DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096 objections without merit and insufficient responses. Thereafter, this office met and conferred with Molshree Gupta of CDGR on several occasions in April, May, June, July, September, October, and November of 2020, to no avail. 15. On January 15, 2021, the Court entered an Order Deeming Case Complex. That same day, CANUL filed a motion to compel discovery responses. The Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order on February 11, 2021. On February 26, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting CANUL’s motion to compel discovery responses, and awarding monetary sanctions against VELOCITY. 10 16. In April 2021, Greg Sabo of CDGR informed this office that Molshree Gupta had 11 left the firm. Thereafter, CDGR informed this office in June 2021 that it was substituting out as 12 13 attorneys for VELOCITY. In June and July of 2021, this office continued to meet and confer with 14 attorneys from CDGR regarding VELOCITY’s inadequate responses and production. 15 17. From and after November of 2021, this office has been communicating with new 16 counsel of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, regarding VELOCITY’s outstanding discovery responses. To 17 date, no discovery has been conducted regarding CANUL’s alter ego allegations. 18 19 18. Neither VELOCITY nor VPGI has agreed to the cross-referencing of documents 20 produced by VELOCITY in other matters pursuant to a Protective Order. al I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 22 true and correct. 23 Executed this 22nd day of February, 2022, at San Jose, California. 24 25 26 Raeon R. Roulston 27 28 -4- DECLARATION OF RAEON R. ROULSTON Case No. 16CV300096