Preview
Electronically Filed
1 Jimmie L. Williams, State Bar No. 144691 Superior Court of California
jimmie@jwatlaw.com
2 LAW OFFICES OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS County of San Joaquin
141 Alamo Ranch Road 2022-03-09 20:01:18
3 Alamo, California 94507-2031 Clerk: Kristy Kobus
Telephone: (510) 282-7155
4 Facsimile: (510) 925-2887 Ex Parte
03/11/2022 08:45 AM in 10C
5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants,
MANJEET VIRK aka MANJIT VIRK aka MANJEET
6 SINGH VIRK aka HARMOHINDER SINGH and JAZZ
GROUP, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
10 RAVINDER SINGH; HIGHEND GROUP, Case No. STK-CV-UBC-2019-6242
INC., an individual,
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L.
12 WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF
v. DEFENDANTS EX PARTE
13 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE
MANJEET VIRK aka MANJIT VIRK aka TRIAL AND ORDER SHORTENING
14 MANJEET SINGH VIRK aka TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING
HARMOHINDER SINGH and JAZZ FOR A MOTION TO RE-OPEN
15 GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, DISCOVERY
16 Defendants. DATE: March 11, 2022
TIME: 8:45 a.m.
17 ______________________________________ DEPT: “10C”
18 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: February 20,
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 2022
19
TRIAL DATE: March 21, 2022
20
THE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO
21 JUDGE JAYNE LEE
22 Complaint Filed: May 16, 2019
23
24 I, JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS, do declare and state:
25 1. That I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of
26 the State of California and am the principal in the Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams, attorneys
27
28 1
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
1 of records for Defendants herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and, if
2 called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
3 2. On February 23rd, I was asked to and arranged a date and time to meet with my
4 client, Manjeet Virk, at his office in Manteca, California. This meeting took place on February
5 24th.
6 3. During this meeting, Mr. Virk provided me with copies of his business and
7 employment files and advised that he had provided these same records to his former counsel,
8 Mr. Rotholz. We also discussed the allegations against him in this matter, as well as the
9 allegations being made in Carl Risso. v. Manjeet Virk, et al., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-
10 6064. At the end of this meeting, Mr. Virk signed the appropriate substitution of attorney forms.
11 4. On February 25, 2022, at 8:29 am, I emailed Mr. Rotholz the clients’ signed
12 substitution of attorney of attorney forms and requested the immediate transfer of both files. At
13 9:49 am, I called Mr. Rotholz to discuss the case and to arrange the file transfers. Prior to this
14 call, I had arranged for my attorney service, One Legal, to send a messenger to pick up the files
15 whenever the documents could be made available.
16 5. Mr. Rotholz advised that he was about to leave the office to attend a wedding and
17 could not provide the complete Risso file until Monday, the 28th. Further, since the file for the
18 underlying Ravinder case was more extensive, it would take him longer to prepare that file for
19 transfer. However, after a series of calls, Mr. Rotholz advised that he would initially provide the
20 Risso deposition transcripts to the messenger today1. Thereafter, at 11:33 am, I called Plaintiff’s
21 counsel, advised him about the substitution of attorney and promptly served same. Plaintiff’s
22 counsel was further informed about my anticipated receipt of the file and that we would then
23 work with counsel to file the necessary trial documents. At no time was I informed about Mr.
24 Rotholz’s lack of discovery in the Risso case, nor about any confusion in ascertaining what
25 documents were produced in discovery in this matter.
26
1
The Defendants former counsel was retained to represent the Defendants in two cases. Carl Risso v. Manjeet Virk,
27 et al., supra, and the present action.
I have substituted into both cases.The Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter also
represents the Plaintiffs in the Risso case.
28 2
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
1 6. Our office received the transcripts at 5:45 pm. I immediately learned that the
2 only transcripts provided were related to the Ravinder case2. Attempts to contact Mr. Rotholz
3 and the court reporter’s office (since all of the transcripts were done by the same agency) failed.
4 On February 26th, I received a return call from the court reporting agency, who advised that they
5 did not participate in any depositions for the Risso case. On this same date, I also received a
6 return call from Mr. Rotholz, and then learned, for the first time, that he had not performed any
7 discovery. Thus, in my opinion, necessitating the ex parte request to continue that trial.
8 7. On March 2, 2022, the Court heard and granted the Defendants request to
9 continue the trial in the Risso case. A true and correct copy of the Court’s order is attached
10 hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”.
11 8. On March 3, 2022, at approximately 2 pm, our office received the Ravinder file
12 from prior counsel. Following the review of this file, it was soon discovered that numerous
13 items were missing, which included items that would be crucial to the defense of the matter and
14 the prosecution of the cross-complaint.
15 9. On March 7, 2022, I sent an email to prior counsel that listed the missing file
16 items. A true and correct copy of this email, which was also copied to plaintiff’s counsel, is
17 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B”.
18 10. This case involves the allegation that the plaintiff provided money to the
19 defendant for the purchase of his business, but that the defendant reneged on the agreement to
20 sell and kept the money. The Defendants assert that the plaintiff misappropriated money from
21 the business over a series of years, and that, after discovering the theft, the money given by the
22 plaintiff represented his efforts at repayment and not for any business purchase. The Defendants
23 further assert that the misappropriation occurred, among other ways, after the plaintiff would
24 have customers pay him directly for worked performed at the Defendants business. In response,
25 the plaintiff states that if a customer paid him directly, he would cash that check and give the
26 proceeds to the Defendants.
27
2
As further noted below, counsel failed to even provide all of the Ravinder deposition transcripts.
28 3
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
1 11. Within the email, it is noted that we have not been provided with any subpoenas
2 to any or all of the plaintiff’s bank accounts. Moreover, given the declaration of Manjeet Virk, it
3 is believed that this work has not been performed. Such discovery would corroborate or
4 disprove the plaintiff’s contention that he cashed checks given to him by the defendants’
5 customers and gave the money to the Defendants.
6 12. The plaintiff further alleges that the proposed business sales purchase agreement
7 was emailed to the Defendants. The Defendants provided his former counsel with copies of
8 numerous emails. This discovery would directly address the plaintiff’s contention regarding the
9 Defendants receipt of this document, and, yet, they do not appear to have been provided to the
10 plaintiff.
11 13. The Defendants prior counsel also provided me with copies of many invoices that
12 are relevant to this matter. He labeled them D40 – D735. However, that is where the confusion
13 begins. In the Defendants Cross-Complaint, prior counsel list 37 checks written to the plaintiff’s
14 business entities. However, while former counsel separately provided my office with copies of
15 checks written to these entities, these checks contained post-its that labeled them as D1009 –
16 1022 (which is short of 37). And, the checks written to one of the aforesaid business entity did
17 not have any markings or post-its on them.
18 14. Our office did not receive any documents that contained the bates stamp of D1-
19 39, which again purportedly represented copies of the aforesaid checks listed in the cross-
20 complaint. However, our office did note that in Defendant Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s
21 request for production of documents, first set, prior counsel attached some Profit and Loss
22 Statements and labeled them D1-6.
23 15. In Defendant Jazz Group’s supplemental responses to the plaintiff’s special
24 interrogatories, set no. 1, prior counsel noted that he was “submitting 695 pages of invoices to
25 various clients.” He also noted that he was “submitting 2 cashier checks.” However, no
26 documents were identified or labeled.
27
28 4
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
1 16. One set of checks that appear to be missing are the checks provided to the
2 Defendants by the Plaintiff’s sister, Manjinder Khaur Fohi/Sohi (sic). Given her relationship to
3 the plaintiff, her testimony about these checks would be relevant to both the plaintiff’s claim and
4 the defendants’ defense. It is also unknown whether prior counsel attempted to subpoena and
5 depose the third party witnesses who offered declarations in support of the plaintiff’s writ of
6 attachment, Paul Ghuman and Jatinder Cheema.
7 17. At the time of this writing, we have yet to receive any additional documents from
8 prior counsel, and no information on what, if any, additional documents that he maintains.
9 18. This case also involves the allegation that the Defendants failed to pay any
10 overtime wages to the Plaintiff and that he was occasionally paid in cash. However, it does not
11 appear that the prior counsel produced any of the plaintiff’s employment records.
12 19. If the trial date is continued and discovery is briefly re-opened, I would seek to
13 determine through both written discovery, depositions and subpoenas, how many alleged
14 overtime hours were worked, how many alleged hours went unpaid, when these supposed acts
15 occurred, and how many times the Plaintiff was purportedly paid in cash. I would want to
16 further test the veracity of the Plaintiff’s statements and discovery answers through the retaking
17 of his deposition.
18 20. As the plaintiff also served as the Defendants financial manager during the time
19 the Plaintiff was employed and personally cumulated the workers time and paid the Defendants
20 employees, I would want to redepose him and ask his recollection on any overtime claims being
21 made by him, whether the cash that he obtained from the customer payments correlated to his
22 overtime hours, and whether the Defendants records support this Plaintiff’s allegations.
23 21. On March 7th at approximately 10:49 am, I spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel via
24 phone. During the call, I informed him about my intention to file the request for continuance
25 based on the above-referenced factual events. He advised that he would oppose the motion. I
26 then advised that I planned on contacting the Court to obtain the date and time for presenting the
27 exparte application and would appropriately inform him of same.
28 5
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
1 22. On March 8th, both parties received the date for the ex parte application from the
2 court clerk, via email. At 4:18 p.m., I again telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the
3 upcoming hearing (3/11/22 at 8:45 am in Dept 10C). During that call, plaintiff’s counsel again
4 stated that he would oppose the ex parte application requesting the trial continuance and the
5 order shortening time for hearing a motion to reopen discovery.
6 23. Finally, on March 6, 2022, I learned that I have to travel overseas in order to help
7 another client complete a multi-billion business transaction. We have been working on these
8 transactions for over a year, and I have assisted the client throughout this period. We are
9 scheduled to depart on March 23rd and plan on returning on April 8th.
10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
11 foregoing is true and correct.
12 Executed this 9th day of March 2022 at Alamo, California.
13
By_____________________________________
14
Jimmie L. Williams
15 Declarant
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC-
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242
SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE-
OPEN DISCOVERY
Exhibit “A”
Re: Carl Risso v. Manjeet Virk, et al.
Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court
Action No: STK-CV-UOE-2020-6064
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to the above-entitled action, and am an
employee of Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams whose business address is 141 Alamo Ranch
Road, Alamo, California 94507.
On March 2, 2022, I served the following document(s) in the following manner(s):
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL
TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER
MAIL: By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon on the date and place shown below following ordinary business
practice. I am familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing
documents for mailing. On the same day that documents are placed for collection
and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth
below on this date before 11:59 p.m. pursuant to California Judicial Council’s
Emergency Rule 12 and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section
1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5).
David S. Barrett
615 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 440-0233
david@dsblawoffice.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATE: March 2, 2022 /s/ Jimmie L. Williams
Jimmie L. Williams
PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. STK-CV-UOE-2020-6064
Exhibit “B”
Jimmie Williams
From: Jimmie Williams
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 10:26 AM
To: 'Roni Rotholz'
Cc: 'David Barrett'
Subject: Missing File Items for the Ravinder Singh, et al. v. Manjeet Virk, et al. case
Importance: High
Hello Mr. Rotholz,
As you know, our office finally received the Ravinder file from you on Thursday, March 3rd at approximately 2 pm. I have
completed my first review of the file, and not only are several items missing, but it appears that you were in possession
of documents relevant to the defense of this matter which were not produced in discovery.
Specifically, we have not been provided with the following items:
1. All correspondence (whether via mail or electronic mail) between you and the plaintiff’s counsel. (We only
received one e-mail exchange between you and counsel, dated April 16, 2021.)
2. All correspondence (whether via mail or electronic mail) between you and my clients.
3. Subpoenas to third parties, whether issued by the defendants or the plaintiff. And, the due diligence affidavits
from the attorney service for the subpoenas that were unable to be personally served.
4. Deposition of Manjeet Virk, Vol. I
5. The full deposition transcripts for Kulwinder Singh, Amdeep Singh and Lal Singh, all taken on October 11, 2021.
6. Depositions notices served by both plaintiff and defendants.
7. All documents provided to you by third parties, on behalf of the client, for the defense of this matter.
8. Copies of any and all independent reports or correspondence provided to you by third parties, which were paid
from funds by my clients.
9. The Case Management Statements filed by the parties.
10. The signature pages for the declarations of Paul Ghuman and Jatinder Cheema that were filed in support of the
plaintiff’s writ of attachment.
11. Plaintiff’s Statutory Offer to Compromise, purportedly served in August 2021.
12. Exhibits 10 – 13 and Exhibit 16 that were filed in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.
13. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1
14. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set no. 2.
15. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s supplemental request for interrogatories before trial.
16. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s supplemental request for documents before trial.
17. Plaintiff’s response to the Defendant’s request for production of documents, set no. 2.
18. Stipulation and Order for the allowance of plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
19. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel compliance with Subpoena and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and the
corresponding Order.
20. Any demand for the exchange of expert witnesses.
Your office also provided me with copies of many invoices that are relevant to this matter. You have labeled them D40 –
D735. However, that is where the confusion begins. In the Defendants Cross-Complaint, you list 33 checks written to
Home Land Express and label them D1-33, you list 4 checks written to Real Estate Management Group of America and
label them D34-37, and for the checks provided by Manjinder Fohi/Sohi (sic.) you labeled them D38-39.
1
However, while you separately provided us with copies of checks written to Home Land Express, these contained post-
its that labeled them as D1009 – 1022. And, the checks written to Real Estate Management Group of America did not
have any post-its on them.
We did not receive any documents that contained the bates stamp of D1-39, which represented copies of the aforesaid
checks. However, we did note that in the Defendant Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s request for production of
documents, first set, you attached some Profit and Loss Statements and labeled them D1-6.
In Jazz Group’s supplemental responses to the plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set no. 1, you note that you are
“submitting 695 pages of invoices to various clients.” You also noted that you were “submitting 2 cashier
checks.” However, no documents were identified.
Lastly, we have not received any separated items that have been bates stamped D736-1008 or D1023-1024, but we did
receive a set of documents bates stamped D1004-1074.
Accordingly, not only are there numerous items that are missing, which we believe are crucial for the defense of this
case, it is nearly impossible to ascertain what documents were produced to the plaintiff in response to his
discovery. Given the circumstances, please let me remind you of California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-
700(D). Upon the termination of an attorney's employment, rule 3-700(D) requires that, "[s]ubject to any protective
order or non-disclosure agreement," the attorney must "promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all
the client papers and property." That rule further makes it clear that the client's "papers and property" include what has
been thought of as the "client file," traditionally created and maintained by the attorney during the course of the
representation. Specifically, rule 3-700(D) then defines "client papers and property" as including: "correspondence,
pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to
the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not; . . . . " Please see Formal Opinion No. 1994-134.
Thus, please immediately contact our office, in writing, so that we can immediately resolve this matter.
Thank you,
Jimmie L. Williams
Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams
141 Alamo Ranch Road
Alamo, CA 94507-2031
Phone: (510) 282-7155
Fax: (510) 925-2887
jimmie@jwatlaw.com
This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use
of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized
review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE
To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
2
Preview
Electronically Filed 1 Jimmie L. Williams, State Bar No. 144691 Superior Court of California jimmie@jwatlaw.com 2 LAW OFFICES OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS County of San Joaquin 141 Alamo Ranch Road 2022-03-09 20:01:18 3 Alamo, California 94507-2031 Clerk: Kristy Kobus Telephone: (510) 282-7155 4 Facsimile: (510) 925-2887 Ex Parte 03/11/2022 08:45 AM in 10C 5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants, MANJEET VIRK aka MANJIT VIRK aka MANJEET 6 SINGH VIRK aka HARMOHINDER SINGH and JAZZ GROUP, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 10 RAVINDER SINGH; HIGHEND GROUP, Case No. STK-CV-UBC-2019-6242 INC., an individual, 11 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. 12 WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF v. DEFENDANTS EX PARTE 13 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE MANJEET VIRK aka MANJIT VIRK aka TRIAL AND ORDER SHORTENING 14 MANJEET SINGH VIRK aka TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING HARMOHINDER SINGH and JAZZ FOR A MOTION TO RE-OPEN 15 GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, DISCOVERY 16 Defendants. DATE: March 11, 2022 TIME: 8:45 a.m. 17 ______________________________________ DEPT: “10C” 18 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: February 20, AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 2022 19 TRIAL DATE: March 21, 2022 20 THE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO 21 JUDGE JAYNE LEE 22 Complaint Filed: May 16, 2019 23 24 I, JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS, do declare and state: 25 1. That I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of 26 the State of California and am the principal in the Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams, attorneys 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY 1 of records for Defendants herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and, if 2 called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3 2. On February 23rd, I was asked to and arranged a date and time to meet with my 4 client, Manjeet Virk, at his office in Manteca, California. This meeting took place on February 5 24th. 6 3. During this meeting, Mr. Virk provided me with copies of his business and 7 employment files and advised that he had provided these same records to his former counsel, 8 Mr. Rotholz. We also discussed the allegations against him in this matter, as well as the 9 allegations being made in Carl Risso. v. Manjeet Virk, et al., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020- 10 6064. At the end of this meeting, Mr. Virk signed the appropriate substitution of attorney forms. 11 4. On February 25, 2022, at 8:29 am, I emailed Mr. Rotholz the clients’ signed 12 substitution of attorney of attorney forms and requested the immediate transfer of both files. At 13 9:49 am, I called Mr. Rotholz to discuss the case and to arrange the file transfers. Prior to this 14 call, I had arranged for my attorney service, One Legal, to send a messenger to pick up the files 15 whenever the documents could be made available. 16 5. Mr. Rotholz advised that he was about to leave the office to attend a wedding and 17 could not provide the complete Risso file until Monday, the 28th. Further, since the file for the 18 underlying Ravinder case was more extensive, it would take him longer to prepare that file for 19 transfer. However, after a series of calls, Mr. Rotholz advised that he would initially provide the 20 Risso deposition transcripts to the messenger today1. Thereafter, at 11:33 am, I called Plaintiff’s 21 counsel, advised him about the substitution of attorney and promptly served same. Plaintiff’s 22 counsel was further informed about my anticipated receipt of the file and that we would then 23 work with counsel to file the necessary trial documents. At no time was I informed about Mr. 24 Rotholz’s lack of discovery in the Risso case, nor about any confusion in ascertaining what 25 documents were produced in discovery in this matter. 26 1 The Defendants former counsel was retained to represent the Defendants in two cases. Carl Risso v. Manjeet Virk, 27 et al., supra, and the present action. I have substituted into both cases.The Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter also represents the Plaintiffs in the Risso case. 28 2 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY 1 6. Our office received the transcripts at 5:45 pm. I immediately learned that the 2 only transcripts provided were related to the Ravinder case2. Attempts to contact Mr. Rotholz 3 and the court reporter’s office (since all of the transcripts were done by the same agency) failed. 4 On February 26th, I received a return call from the court reporting agency, who advised that they 5 did not participate in any depositions for the Risso case. On this same date, I also received a 6 return call from Mr. Rotholz, and then learned, for the first time, that he had not performed any 7 discovery. Thus, in my opinion, necessitating the ex parte request to continue that trial. 8 7. On March 2, 2022, the Court heard and granted the Defendants request to 9 continue the trial in the Risso case. A true and correct copy of the Court’s order is attached 10 hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”. 11 8. On March 3, 2022, at approximately 2 pm, our office received the Ravinder file 12 from prior counsel. Following the review of this file, it was soon discovered that numerous 13 items were missing, which included items that would be crucial to the defense of the matter and 14 the prosecution of the cross-complaint. 15 9. On March 7, 2022, I sent an email to prior counsel that listed the missing file 16 items. A true and correct copy of this email, which was also copied to plaintiff’s counsel, is 17 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B”. 18 10. This case involves the allegation that the plaintiff provided money to the 19 defendant for the purchase of his business, but that the defendant reneged on the agreement to 20 sell and kept the money. The Defendants assert that the plaintiff misappropriated money from 21 the business over a series of years, and that, after discovering the theft, the money given by the 22 plaintiff represented his efforts at repayment and not for any business purchase. The Defendants 23 further assert that the misappropriation occurred, among other ways, after the plaintiff would 24 have customers pay him directly for worked performed at the Defendants business. In response, 25 the plaintiff states that if a customer paid him directly, he would cash that check and give the 26 proceeds to the Defendants. 27 2 As further noted below, counsel failed to even provide all of the Ravinder deposition transcripts. 28 3 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY 1 11. Within the email, it is noted that we have not been provided with any subpoenas 2 to any or all of the plaintiff’s bank accounts. Moreover, given the declaration of Manjeet Virk, it 3 is believed that this work has not been performed. Such discovery would corroborate or 4 disprove the plaintiff’s contention that he cashed checks given to him by the defendants’ 5 customers and gave the money to the Defendants. 6 12. The plaintiff further alleges that the proposed business sales purchase agreement 7 was emailed to the Defendants. The Defendants provided his former counsel with copies of 8 numerous emails. This discovery would directly address the plaintiff’s contention regarding the 9 Defendants receipt of this document, and, yet, they do not appear to have been provided to the 10 plaintiff. 11 13. The Defendants prior counsel also provided me with copies of many invoices that 12 are relevant to this matter. He labeled them D40 – D735. However, that is where the confusion 13 begins. In the Defendants Cross-Complaint, prior counsel list 37 checks written to the plaintiff’s 14 business entities. However, while former counsel separately provided my office with copies of 15 checks written to these entities, these checks contained post-its that labeled them as D1009 – 16 1022 (which is short of 37). And, the checks written to one of the aforesaid business entity did 17 not have any markings or post-its on them. 18 14. Our office did not receive any documents that contained the bates stamp of D1- 19 39, which again purportedly represented copies of the aforesaid checks listed in the cross- 20 complaint. However, our office did note that in Defendant Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s 21 request for production of documents, first set, prior counsel attached some Profit and Loss 22 Statements and labeled them D1-6. 23 15. In Defendant Jazz Group’s supplemental responses to the plaintiff’s special 24 interrogatories, set no. 1, prior counsel noted that he was “submitting 695 pages of invoices to 25 various clients.” He also noted that he was “submitting 2 cashier checks.” However, no 26 documents were identified or labeled. 27 28 4 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY 1 16. One set of checks that appear to be missing are the checks provided to the 2 Defendants by the Plaintiff’s sister, Manjinder Khaur Fohi/Sohi (sic). Given her relationship to 3 the plaintiff, her testimony about these checks would be relevant to both the plaintiff’s claim and 4 the defendants’ defense. It is also unknown whether prior counsel attempted to subpoena and 5 depose the third party witnesses who offered declarations in support of the plaintiff’s writ of 6 attachment, Paul Ghuman and Jatinder Cheema. 7 17. At the time of this writing, we have yet to receive any additional documents from 8 prior counsel, and no information on what, if any, additional documents that he maintains. 9 18. This case also involves the allegation that the Defendants failed to pay any 10 overtime wages to the Plaintiff and that he was occasionally paid in cash. However, it does not 11 appear that the prior counsel produced any of the plaintiff’s employment records. 12 19. If the trial date is continued and discovery is briefly re-opened, I would seek to 13 determine through both written discovery, depositions and subpoenas, how many alleged 14 overtime hours were worked, how many alleged hours went unpaid, when these supposed acts 15 occurred, and how many times the Plaintiff was purportedly paid in cash. I would want to 16 further test the veracity of the Plaintiff’s statements and discovery answers through the retaking 17 of his deposition. 18 20. As the plaintiff also served as the Defendants financial manager during the time 19 the Plaintiff was employed and personally cumulated the workers time and paid the Defendants 20 employees, I would want to redepose him and ask his recollection on any overtime claims being 21 made by him, whether the cash that he obtained from the customer payments correlated to his 22 overtime hours, and whether the Defendants records support this Plaintiff’s allegations. 23 21. On March 7th at approximately 10:49 am, I spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel via 24 phone. During the call, I informed him about my intention to file the request for continuance 25 based on the above-referenced factual events. He advised that he would oppose the motion. I 26 then advised that I planned on contacting the Court to obtain the date and time for presenting the 27 exparte application and would appropriately inform him of same. 28 5 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY 1 22. On March 8th, both parties received the date for the ex parte application from the 2 court clerk, via email. At 4:18 p.m., I again telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the 3 upcoming hearing (3/11/22 at 8:45 am in Dept 10C). During that call, plaintiff’s counsel again 4 stated that he would oppose the ex parte application requesting the trial continuance and the 5 order shortening time for hearing a motion to reopen discovery. 6 23. Finally, on March 6, 2022, I learned that I have to travel overseas in order to help 7 another client complete a multi-billion business transaction. We have been working on these 8 transactions for over a year, and I have assisted the client throughout this period. We are 9 scheduled to depart on March 23rd and plan on returning on April 8th. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 11 foregoing is true and correct. 12 Executed this 9th day of March 2022 at Alamo, California. 13 By_____________________________________ 14 Jimmie L. Williams 15 Declarant 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DECLARATION OF JIMMIE L. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX Case No. STK-CV-UBC- PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ORDER 2019-6242 SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE AND HEARING FOR A MOTION TO RE- OPEN DISCOVERY Exhibit “A” Re: Carl Risso v. Manjeet Virk, et al. Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court Action No: STK-CV-UOE-2020-6064 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to the above-entitled action, and am an employee of Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams whose business address is 141 Alamo Ranch Road, Alamo, California 94507. On March 2, 2022, I served the following document(s) in the following manner(s): ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER MAIL: By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon on the date and place shown below following ordinary business practice. I am familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing documents for mailing. On the same day that documents are placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 11:59 p.m. pursuant to California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 12 and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5). David S. Barrett 615 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 440-0233 david@dsblawoffice.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATE: March 2, 2022 /s/ Jimmie L. Williams Jimmie L. Williams PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. STK-CV-UOE-2020-6064 Exhibit “B” Jimmie Williams From: Jimmie Williams Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 10:26 AM To: 'Roni Rotholz' Cc: 'David Barrett' Subject: Missing File Items for the Ravinder Singh, et al. v. Manjeet Virk, et al. case Importance: High Hello Mr. Rotholz, As you know, our office finally received the Ravinder file from you on Thursday, March 3rd at approximately 2 pm. I have completed my first review of the file, and not only are several items missing, but it appears that you were in possession of documents relevant to the defense of this matter which were not produced in discovery. Specifically, we have not been provided with the following items: 1. All correspondence (whether via mail or electronic mail) between you and the plaintiff’s counsel. (We only received one e-mail exchange between you and counsel, dated April 16, 2021.) 2. All correspondence (whether via mail or electronic mail) between you and my clients. 3. Subpoenas to third parties, whether issued by the defendants or the plaintiff. And, the due diligence affidavits from the attorney service for the subpoenas that were unable to be personally served. 4. Deposition of Manjeet Virk, Vol. I 5. The full deposition transcripts for Kulwinder Singh, Amdeep Singh and Lal Singh, all taken on October 11, 2021. 6. Depositions notices served by both plaintiff and defendants. 7. All documents provided to you by third parties, on behalf of the client, for the defense of this matter. 8. Copies of any and all independent reports or correspondence provided to you by third parties, which were paid from funds by my clients. 9. The Case Management Statements filed by the parties. 10. The signature pages for the declarations of Paul Ghuman and Jatinder Cheema that were filed in support of the plaintiff’s writ of attachment. 11. Plaintiff’s Statutory Offer to Compromise, purportedly served in August 2021. 12. Exhibits 10 – 13 and Exhibit 16 that were filed in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication. 13. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 14. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set no. 2. 15. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s supplemental request for interrogatories before trial. 16. The POS for the Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s supplemental request for documents before trial. 17. Plaintiff’s response to the Defendant’s request for production of documents, set no. 2. 18. Stipulation and Order for the allowance of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. 19. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel compliance with Subpoena and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and the corresponding Order. 20. Any demand for the exchange of expert witnesses. Your office also provided me with copies of many invoices that are relevant to this matter. You have labeled them D40 – D735. However, that is where the confusion begins. In the Defendants Cross-Complaint, you list 33 checks written to Home Land Express and label them D1-33, you list 4 checks written to Real Estate Management Group of America and label them D34-37, and for the checks provided by Manjinder Fohi/Sohi (sic.) you labeled them D38-39. 1 However, while you separately provided us with copies of checks written to Home Land Express, these contained post- its that labeled them as D1009 – 1022. And, the checks written to Real Estate Management Group of America did not have any post-its on them. We did not receive any documents that contained the bates stamp of D1-39, which represented copies of the aforesaid checks. However, we did note that in the Defendant Jazz Group’s response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, first set, you attached some Profit and Loss Statements and labeled them D1-6. In Jazz Group’s supplemental responses to the plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set no. 1, you note that you are “submitting 695 pages of invoices to various clients.” You also noted that you were “submitting 2 cashier checks.” However, no documents were identified. Lastly, we have not received any separated items that have been bates stamped D736-1008 or D1023-1024, but we did receive a set of documents bates stamped D1004-1074. Accordingly, not only are there numerous items that are missing, which we believe are crucial for the defense of this case, it is nearly impossible to ascertain what documents were produced to the plaintiff in response to his discovery. Given the circumstances, please let me remind you of California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3- 700(D). Upon the termination of an attorney's employment, rule 3-700(D) requires that, "[s]ubject to any protective order or non-disclosure agreement," the attorney must "promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property." That rule further makes it clear that the client's "papers and property" include what has been thought of as the "client file," traditionally created and maintained by the attorney during the course of the representation. Specifically, rule 3-700(D) then defines "client papers and property" as including: "correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not; . . . . " Please see Formal Opinion No. 1994-134. Thus, please immediately contact our office, in writing, so that we can immediately resolve this matter. Thank you, Jimmie L. Williams Law Offices of Jimmie L. Williams 141 Alamo Ranch Road Alamo, CA 94507-2031 Phone: (510) 282-7155 Fax: (510) 925-2887 jimmie@jwatlaw.com This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2