Preview
6729-19251
Electronically Filed
GERALD E. BRUNN, SBN 107004
MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA, SBN 245501 Superior Court of California
LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN County of San J oaquin
A Professional Corporation 2022-02-25 19:35:26
928 — 12th Street, Suite 200 Clerk: Kristy Kobus
Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: (209) 521-2133
Facsimile: (209) 521-7584
Attorneys for Defendant,
YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC
(erroneously sued herein as “YOLIES TOW”)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
i
TOM SCHIFF, CASE NO: STK-CV-UBT-2019-13554
12
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT
13 CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Vv,
14 DATE: March 7, 2022
YOLIES TOW, DOES 1 -25, TIME: 1:30 p.m.
15 DEPT: Dept 10D
Defendants.
16
17
18 Defendant, YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as “YOLIES
19 TOW”), submits the following settlement conference statement in this matter.
20 PARTIES AND COUNSEL
21 Plaintiff, TOM SCHIFF, (Hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) is represented by Lauren F, Weidner.
22
23 Defendant, YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “YOLIES”), is
24 represented by Mahanvir S. Sahota, Esq., of the Brunn & Flynn law firm.
25 BACKGROUND
26 On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff was arrested for arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes.
27 Pursuant to said arrest, Plaintiff's truck, a 1997 Dodge Ram 2500 (“hereinafter, “the Truck”) was towed by
28 Defendant.
1
DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
6729-19251
This lawsuit was predicated by a series of mistakes by Mr. Schiff’s prior counsel, Vittoria Bossi. To
make a long story short, she turned a simple matter into a protracted, illogical mess that continues to this day
Both sides are now dug into their positions due to the expenses of a needless litigation, so settlement is
practically impossible. Around April of 2019, Mario Cardenas, owner of YOLIES, told Mrs. Bossi that the
Truck had been sold. Mr, Cardenas testified and will testify that when he spoke with Mrs. Bossi, he
said that he thought the Truck might have been sold but that she should call back during regular
business hours so that this could be checked. Mr. Cardenas was in the field when the call was taken.
Mrs. Bossi never called to confirm, She never checked anything to confirm the Truck was, in fact, sold,
Moreover, she never bothered to check the laws and regulations that would have informed her that the
10 vehicle could not have been sold so soon.
11 Plaintiff further mischaracterizes the lien sale process in every regard. This entire lawsuit is
12 predicated on nonsensical allegations of fraud (and elder abuse) because YOLIES incorrectly submitted a
13 lien request from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter, “DMV”), YOLIES admits that
14 they made a mistake when the first lien request was submitted. However, the DMV approved the lien sale.
15 This means that YOLIE’s had the right to sell the Truck. The lien sale process merely allows YOLIES to
16 sell a vehicle.
17 However, the Truck was never sold. In fact, Plaintiff claims that after he was release from
18 custody, he found the vehicle on Craig’s list. He then called YOLIES without revealing who he was. He
19 asked to see the Truck. The fact that Plaintiff called pretextually is troubling because he made no effort to
20 obtain the Truck. He did not ask Mr. Cardenas how to get his Truck back, Instead, he ran back to his
21 criminal defense attorney to file a lawsuit. This lawsuit is the result of misguided belligerence. Mr.
22 Cardenas and his wife, Karina Cardenas, had no axe to grind with Mr. Schiff nor his attorney. They run a
23 small business. They follow all rules and regulations, which is why they are on the San Joaquin Sherriff’s
24 Tow Rotation in the first place. Plaintiff, or his counsel, were just looking for a fight.
25 This entire lawsuit is premised on the fact that YOLIES incorrectly submitted a request to the DMV
26 for a “low lien”. This means that they wrongly stated that the Truck was worth less than $4,000.00,
27 However, after Mrs, Bossi informed them of the mistake, YOLIES immediately corrected the problem and
28 submitted a new lien request. It should be clear however that the lien issue is purely a red herring. A lien
2
DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
6729-19251
sale was never completed. The Truck was never sold.
Plaintiff's deposition made it clear that neither he nor his prior counsel bothered to carefully check
their preset beliefs. This entire mess was created because of the following failures by plaintiff and his
counsel.
1 The lien sale documents were, as plaintiff's counsel admits, mailed to his address. If he or his
counsel had arranged to check his mail, then he would have known about earlier lien sale request
and would have known that the vehicle could not have been sold by April, 7, 2019.
If plaintiff had ensured his mail was checked, then he would have had the ability to block any
sale (as he eventually did when released).
10 Plaintiffs counsel did not call to confirm whether the Truck was, in fact, sold. Mr, Cardenas
11 specifically told Mrs. Bossi to call the office to confirm whether the vehicle was sold.
12 Plaintiff and his counsel were not even remotely diligent in determining what to do. They would
13 never have been able to obtain the Truck because they never sought a release from the Sherriff’s Office (the
14 agency that requested the tow). To date, they have never obtained this release. Instead, his prior counsel
15 harassed YOLIES’ employees by phone and text, tried to shut down their business by complaining to
16 regulatory agencies, and then filed this misguided lawsuit even though such money could have been spent on
17 just paying the storage fees.
18 PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGE CLAIM
19 Tt is hard to assess plaintiff's damages claims, He is flatly lying when he claims he suffered lost wages.
20 He testified that he retired in 2017. He claims that he intended to work part time as a welder but he needed
21 the Truck. However, he never took any steps to begin any work. He never inquired about work. He claims
22 he was waiting to finish installing equipment on the Truck. This was done in 2018 and he still failed to take
23 any steps to look for work.
24 Plaintiff also has specious claims of Elder Abuse. Frankly, these claims should be dismissed before
25 trial begins. There is simply no evidence that Plaintiff's age has anything to do with this dispute. It stretches
26 credulity and cheapens the practice of law to misapply something as fundamental and important as Elder Abuse
27 law to aid a scurrilous lawsuit by a reprobate.
28 Ml
3
DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
6729-19251
SETTLEMENT DEMANDS/OFFERS
Plaintiff has demanded a return of the Truck. Defendant was previously willing to settle for a payment
of storage fees. However, as litigation has progressed and expenses of multiplied, both sides have shied away
from settlement discussions.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL
Defendant estimates trial will take approximately three days.
OTHER MATTERS,
Plaintiffs counsel has indicated that they will move in limine to exclude his conviction for
10 attempting to solicit a minor. However, such a conviction relates directly to his character and is directly
11 admissible pursuant to Evidence Code Section 788.
12 CONCLUSION
13 This lawsuit is frivolous. Mr. Cardenas never told Mrs. Bossi that the Truck was sold. He said he
14 thought might have been sold and that Mrs. Bossi would have to call back. It was incumbent on Mrs. Bossi to
15 check, regardless. Mrs. Bossi could have called YOLIES at the office. Mrs. Bossi could have checked
16 plaintiffs’ mail. Plaintiff fixates on the irrelevant issue of the lien sale mistake because he wishes a trier of|
17 fact to ignore his failure to take any reasonable steps to ensure he obtained his vehicle.
18
19 Dated: February 25, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN
A Professional Corporation
20 a
21
By
22 MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA
Attorney for Defendant,
23 YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC
(erroneously sued herein “s “YOLIES TOW”)
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
(1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
I, CINDY SMITH, declare that:
I am employed in the Count ty of Stanislaus, California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 928 12th Street, Suite 200, Modesto,
California, 95353,
On February 25, 2022, I served the within:
DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
on the interested parties as follows:
Lauren F. Weidner
10 750 Otay Lakes Road, #242
Chula Vista, CA 91913
11 laurenweidner@counsellor.com
(916) 977-0090
12 (916) 656-6966 - FAX
13 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
14 XX BY MAIL: USS. Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully
15 prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice,
whereby the mail is deposited in a U.S. Mailbox in the City of Modesto, California after the
16 lose of the day’s business.
17 BY HAND DELIVERY: | caused said envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the
addressee(s) designated.
18
BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: | caused said envelope(s) to be delivered via
19 overnight courier service to the addressee(s) designated.
20 BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to the telephone number(s)
of the addressee(s) designated above.
21
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically to
22 the addressee(s) designated above.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
24
Executed on February 25, 2022, at Modesto, California.
25 ——
26
'YSMI
27
28
Preview
6729-19251 Electronically Filed GERALD E. BRUNN, SBN 107004 MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA, SBN 245501 Superior Court of California LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN County of San J oaquin A Professional Corporation 2022-02-25 19:35:26 928 — 12th Street, Suite 200 Clerk: Kristy Kobus Modesto, CA 95354 Telephone: (209) 521-2133 Facsimile: (209) 521-7584 Attorneys for Defendant, YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as “YOLIES TOW”) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN i TOM SCHIFF, CASE NO: STK-CV-UBT-2019-13554 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT 13 CONFERENCE STATEMENT Vv, 14 DATE: March 7, 2022 YOLIES TOW, DOES 1 -25, TIME: 1:30 p.m. 15 DEPT: Dept 10D Defendants. 16 17 18 Defendant, YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as “YOLIES 19 TOW”), submits the following settlement conference statement in this matter. 20 PARTIES AND COUNSEL 21 Plaintiff, TOM SCHIFF, (Hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) is represented by Lauren F, Weidner. 22 23 Defendant, YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “YOLIES”), is 24 represented by Mahanvir S. Sahota, Esq., of the Brunn & Flynn law firm. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff was arrested for arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes. 27 Pursuant to said arrest, Plaintiff's truck, a 1997 Dodge Ram 2500 (“hereinafter, “the Truck”) was towed by 28 Defendant. 1 DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 6729-19251 This lawsuit was predicated by a series of mistakes by Mr. Schiff’s prior counsel, Vittoria Bossi. To make a long story short, she turned a simple matter into a protracted, illogical mess that continues to this day Both sides are now dug into their positions due to the expenses of a needless litigation, so settlement is practically impossible. Around April of 2019, Mario Cardenas, owner of YOLIES, told Mrs. Bossi that the Truck had been sold. Mr, Cardenas testified and will testify that when he spoke with Mrs. Bossi, he said that he thought the Truck might have been sold but that she should call back during regular business hours so that this could be checked. Mr. Cardenas was in the field when the call was taken. Mrs. Bossi never called to confirm, She never checked anything to confirm the Truck was, in fact, sold, Moreover, she never bothered to check the laws and regulations that would have informed her that the 10 vehicle could not have been sold so soon. 11 Plaintiff further mischaracterizes the lien sale process in every regard. This entire lawsuit is 12 predicated on nonsensical allegations of fraud (and elder abuse) because YOLIES incorrectly submitted a 13 lien request from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter, “DMV”), YOLIES admits that 14 they made a mistake when the first lien request was submitted. However, the DMV approved the lien sale. 15 This means that YOLIE’s had the right to sell the Truck. The lien sale process merely allows YOLIES to 16 sell a vehicle. 17 However, the Truck was never sold. In fact, Plaintiff claims that after he was release from 18 custody, he found the vehicle on Craig’s list. He then called YOLIES without revealing who he was. He 19 asked to see the Truck. The fact that Plaintiff called pretextually is troubling because he made no effort to 20 obtain the Truck. He did not ask Mr. Cardenas how to get his Truck back, Instead, he ran back to his 21 criminal defense attorney to file a lawsuit. This lawsuit is the result of misguided belligerence. Mr. 22 Cardenas and his wife, Karina Cardenas, had no axe to grind with Mr. Schiff nor his attorney. They run a 23 small business. They follow all rules and regulations, which is why they are on the San Joaquin Sherriff’s 24 Tow Rotation in the first place. Plaintiff, or his counsel, were just looking for a fight. 25 This entire lawsuit is premised on the fact that YOLIES incorrectly submitted a request to the DMV 26 for a “low lien”. This means that they wrongly stated that the Truck was worth less than $4,000.00, 27 However, after Mrs, Bossi informed them of the mistake, YOLIES immediately corrected the problem and 28 submitted a new lien request. It should be clear however that the lien issue is purely a red herring. A lien 2 DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 6729-19251 sale was never completed. The Truck was never sold. Plaintiff's deposition made it clear that neither he nor his prior counsel bothered to carefully check their preset beliefs. This entire mess was created because of the following failures by plaintiff and his counsel. 1 The lien sale documents were, as plaintiff's counsel admits, mailed to his address. If he or his counsel had arranged to check his mail, then he would have known about earlier lien sale request and would have known that the vehicle could not have been sold by April, 7, 2019. If plaintiff had ensured his mail was checked, then he would have had the ability to block any sale (as he eventually did when released). 10 Plaintiffs counsel did not call to confirm whether the Truck was, in fact, sold. Mr, Cardenas 11 specifically told Mrs. Bossi to call the office to confirm whether the vehicle was sold. 12 Plaintiff and his counsel were not even remotely diligent in determining what to do. They would 13 never have been able to obtain the Truck because they never sought a release from the Sherriff’s Office (the 14 agency that requested the tow). To date, they have never obtained this release. Instead, his prior counsel 15 harassed YOLIES’ employees by phone and text, tried to shut down their business by complaining to 16 regulatory agencies, and then filed this misguided lawsuit even though such money could have been spent on 17 just paying the storage fees. 18 PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGE CLAIM 19 Tt is hard to assess plaintiff's damages claims, He is flatly lying when he claims he suffered lost wages. 20 He testified that he retired in 2017. He claims that he intended to work part time as a welder but he needed 21 the Truck. However, he never took any steps to begin any work. He never inquired about work. He claims 22 he was waiting to finish installing equipment on the Truck. This was done in 2018 and he still failed to take 23 any steps to look for work. 24 Plaintiff also has specious claims of Elder Abuse. Frankly, these claims should be dismissed before 25 trial begins. There is simply no evidence that Plaintiff's age has anything to do with this dispute. It stretches 26 credulity and cheapens the practice of law to misapply something as fundamental and important as Elder Abuse 27 law to aid a scurrilous lawsuit by a reprobate. 28 Ml 3 DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 6729-19251 SETTLEMENT DEMANDS/OFFERS Plaintiff has demanded a return of the Truck. Defendant was previously willing to settle for a payment of storage fees. However, as litigation has progressed and expenses of multiplied, both sides have shied away from settlement discussions. ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL Defendant estimates trial will take approximately three days. OTHER MATTERS, Plaintiffs counsel has indicated that they will move in limine to exclude his conviction for 10 attempting to solicit a minor. However, such a conviction relates directly to his character and is directly 11 admissible pursuant to Evidence Code Section 788. 12 CONCLUSION 13 This lawsuit is frivolous. Mr. Cardenas never told Mrs. Bossi that the Truck was sold. He said he 14 thought might have been sold and that Mrs. Bossi would have to call back. It was incumbent on Mrs. Bossi to 15 check, regardless. Mrs. Bossi could have called YOLIES at the office. Mrs. Bossi could have checked 16 plaintiffs’ mail. Plaintiff fixates on the irrelevant issue of the lien sale mistake because he wishes a trier of| 17 fact to ignore his failure to take any reasonable steps to ensure he obtained his vehicle. 18 19 Dated: February 25, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN A Professional Corporation 20 a 21 By 22 MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA Attorney for Defendant, 23 YOLIE’S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein “s “YOLIES TOW”) 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PROOF OF SERVICE (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS I, CINDY SMITH, declare that: I am employed in the Count ty of Stanislaus, California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 928 12th Street, Suite 200, Modesto, California, 95353, On February 25, 2022, I served the within: DEFENDANT’S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties as follows: Lauren F. Weidner 10 750 Otay Lakes Road, #242 Chula Vista, CA 91913 11 laurenweidner@counsellor.com (916) 977-0090 12 (916) 656-6966 - FAX 13 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 14 XX BY MAIL: USS. Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully 15 prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in a U.S. Mailbox in the City of Modesto, California after the 16 lose of the day’s business. 17 BY HAND DELIVERY: | caused said envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) designated. 18 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: | caused said envelope(s) to be delivered via 19 overnight courier service to the addressee(s) designated. 20 BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to the telephone number(s) of the addressee(s) designated above. 21 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically to 22 the addressee(s) designated above. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on February 25, 2022, at Modesto, California. 25 —— 26 'YSMI 27 28