Preview
241957 09 CAUSE NO. 09-06239-C ( ~ ~t ,_ ·' ''.: . '· MARK DISANTI, § IN THE COUNTY COU~T'G p·. ,I ~: § \ ''II ., • ,.. ~-~~.... Plaintiff, § '- ·-~ '! § ...--1~ i ' ' vs. § ATLAWNO. _3_ i} v ' · v .. .: § RICHARD FERBER, and LEZELMA § NEALY, § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SEVER; CHANGE OF VENUE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: FACTS: 1. Plaintiff and Defendant "Ferber" are engaged in the business of collection and trading of rare coins, and other items of legal tender (see Exhibit "A", Defendant Ferber's Interrogatory Answer #3); 2. Defendant "Nealy" is not a dealer in collections or legal tender (see Exhibit "B", Defendant Ferber's Response to Plaintiffs Request For Admissions); 3. Nealy, a social acquaintance of Plaintiff, stole a trunk full of collectors items owned by the Plaintiff, valued at several hundreds of thousands of dollars (see Exhibit "C" Defendant Ferber's Response to Plaintiffs Request For Production); 4. Nealy sold them to Ferber, for what is believed to be pennies on the dollar, and under circ*mstances establishing that Ferber knew or should have known the items were stolen-matters still being investigated through discovery; ;~J ..... ... ,....., ) t_. t"::t C,.;) the~ubje~f ! 5. Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas County, and his property which is :. .· thi' law,uit w" takon fiom him in Dall" County. t~~- ;c\~ ~--v-- D r:-~ ~x,: r-.: l.. -:>( ~: t:~J .. ... RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SEVER Page I ;-.·, ..' •. - e;;, -·:: LEGAL DISCUSSION: Should it be established in discovery that Ferber knew the collections were stolen, or that he had reason to know they were stolen, severance would be inappropriate. Severance is reasonable " .. on terms as are just." T.R.Civ.P. 41. However, an assignment of responsibility between defendants is provided by jury instruction, and authorized by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §33.003(A), which provides in pertinent part: "The trier of fact, as to each cause of action asserted, shall determine the percentage of responsibility, stated in whole numbers, for the following persons with respect to each person's causing or contributing to cause in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought...(2) each defendant." In his Motion To Sever, Ferber relies heavily on Liberty National v. Akin, 927 S.W. 2d 627 (Tex. 1996), curiously, a case in which the request for severance was denied. There, a breach of insurance contract claim, and bad faith insurance claim were not severed. In F.F.P. Operating v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3'd 680 (Tex. 2007), cited by Ferber, there was no issue of severance. There claims against other defendants were resolved, leaving trial only against a dram shop defendant. In State Department of Highways v. Cotner, 845 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. 1993), the Court held that severance was appropriate where " .. thesevered claim is not so interwoven with the remaining action that they involve the same facts and issues." Because investigation of these matters has not been completed in discovery, Ferber's Motion herein is premature. WHEREFORE, because the actions of the Defendants acted in concert to deprive Plaintiff of his property, the claims should be tried together and responsibility apportioned against each. Motion For Severance should be denied. Motion To Change Venue should be denied. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SEVER Page 2 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6 !!-day of November, 2009. (By: ROGER . FOSTE , Texas Bar No: 00785621 ROBERT C. HINTON, JR. Texas BarNo. 09710800 4040 N. Central Expwy; Ste. 810 Dallas, TX 75204 214.219.9300; fx 214.219.9309 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this~ ~ay of November, 2009, a true and correct copy hereof was sent by U.S. Mail, and fax to: Krista L. Potter, Lu Pham, Lynn Pham & Ross, LLP, 306 W. Broadway Ave., Fort Worth, TX 76104, fax#: 817.332.8548; and Edwin Sigel, 15950 Tollway Plaza, Tower II, Ste. 400, Dallas, TX 75248, fax # 972.931.949-"'6.,__ ~~2:~ /ROCi~ER - RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SEVER Page 3 Exhibit "A" 10/13/2009 12:41 81733?""'18 LYNN PHAM ROSS '' P PAGE 02 CAUSE NO. 09-06239-C MARK DISANTij § IN THE COUNTY COURT § Plaintiff, § § Vs. § AT LAW N0.3 § RICHARD FERBER, and LEZELMA § NEALY, § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT FERBER'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES To: Plaintiffj Mark Disanti, by and through his attorney, Roger H. Fosterj 4040 N. Central Expressway, Suite 810, Dallas, TX 75204 Subject to his Motions to Transfer Venue an.d to Sever, and in accordance with Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Richard Ferber ("Defendant") submits the following answers to Plaintiff, Mark Disanti's First Interrogatories as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1 State your full name, and all names by which you have been known and your current residence address. ANSWER: Richard E. Ferber, c/o Lynn Pham & Ross, LLP, 306 West Broadway Avenue, Fort Worth, Texas 76104. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State your education background, identifying the high school from which you graduated, any collect credits earned, the field of study, city and state of each school attended. ANSWER: Defendant Richard Ferber's Responses to Plaintiffs Jnterrog;to~ies Page 1 10/13/2009 12:41 81733?""d8 LYNN PHAM ROSS I Ip PAGE 03 Defendant objects to this interrogatory, because it seeks discovery of material that is not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and because it seeks information that is not calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Subject to the forgoing objections and without waiving the same, defendant will supplement. INTERROGATORY NO.3: State the name and address ofyour business, and the nature of it, i.e., what do you do to earn money as a livelihood. ANS\VER: Defendant is a wholesale coin dealer that docs business under the name AU AR, 400 N. Retta, drawer 7636, Fort Worth, Texas 76111 c/o Lynn Pham & Ross, LLP, 306 West Broadway Avenue, Fort Worth, Texas 76104. INTERROGATORY NO.4: State the number of years you have operated as a dealer of collector's items. ANSWER: Approximately 20 years. INTERROGATORY NO.5: State how you first became acquainted with Nealy. ANSWER: Nealy called defendant and stated that she had notes that she wanted to sell. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the date(s) and location(s) of your meetings with Nealy, in which you purchased collector's items from her. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, because it would require him to marshal the entire evidence he will usc at trial on the subject matter. It is also not limited in time or in scope. Subject to the forgoing objection and without waiving the same, Defendant Ri~;hard Ferber's Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories Page 2 Exhibit "B" 10/13/2009 12:41 LYNN PHAM ROSS '' P PAGE 08 CAUSE NO. 09-06239-C MARK DISANTI, § IN THE COUNTY COURT § Plaintiff, § § Vs. § ATLAWN0.3 § RICHARD FERBER, and LEZELMA § NEALY, § § Defendants. § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS DEFENDANT FERBER'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS To: Plaintiff, Mark Disanti, by and through his attorney, Roger H. Foster, 4040 N. Central Expressway, Suite 810, Dallas, TX 75204. Subject to his Motions to Transfer Venue and to Sever, and in accordance with Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Richard Ferber submits the following responses: REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that you have engaged in the business of buying and selling collector's items for many years, and are an experienced dealer. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST NO.2: Admit that you purchased Plaintiff's collector's items from Nealy. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant Richarcl.l'erber's Responses to Plain tift's Requests for Admissions Page 1 10/13/2009 12:41 LYNN PHAM ROSS 'I P PAGE 10 REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that you knew or had reason to believe that Nealy was not a professional or experienced collector's items dealer. RESPONSE: Admit. Submitted by: LuPham State Bar No. 15895430 Krista Potter State Bar No. 24035953 LYNN PHAM & Ross, LLP 306 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE FORT WORTH, TX76104 Telephone: (817) 332-8505 Facsimile: (817) 332-8548 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded on October 13, 2009, via facsimile to the following attorneys of record: Roger H. Foster, Associate ROBERT HINTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 4040N. Central Expressway, Suite 810 Dallas, TX 75204 Fax: 214.219.9309 Edwin Sigel 15950 Tollway Plaza, Tower II Suite400 Dallas, TX 75248 Krista Potter Defendant Richard Ferber's Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions Page3 Exhibit "C" 10/13/2009 13:15 LYNN PHAM ROSS '1P PAGE 19 ' ROBE:RT HINTON PAGE: 02/HI 214219932)9 •,'' ROBERT HINTON & ASSOCIATES PC ATTOIWF.YS !\ COUNSElORS 20 September, 2007 T'iafacsimilt!@ 214-237-0901 & U.S. Mail Joe Shel!l.tin Attorney nt Law 2515 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75201-7500 R'E: MARKDrS~NTr/RtCHARD FERBEn/ LEZELMA NEALY Dear Joe, r enjoyed spea.1dng with you this afternoon. Thank you for your help in this Butglarytr'heft matter. The Defendant, Lczelmn Nealy, used to be DiSanti's girl :fi:iend.. Sh~ is indicted for burglarizi11g DiSanti's condo on 21 May, 2005, and stealio.g a l:trgo amo1.U1t of1:arc coins, btUtk notes, jewelry, antique pistols, two suit cases and $10,000. currency. Mnuy of these bank notes wore placed with Heritage for consignmetJ.t by Richard Ferber. Enclosed i.s a partial list and description of many of the banlc n.otes stolen by Ms. Nealy. The notes whicb were either recovered by or sold by Heritage were placed there by Mr. Ferber. Obviously, it is '-:Ory important that we fi:o,d out from Mr. F~bcr the identity/description of tbe in.di,~dual(s) from whom he received tho notes, and the cin:umst!lilces of his acqttirin.g them. We are certainly not contcndbJg that Mr. Ferber has done anything wrong. 1 .have placed a call to the ,prosecutors in CDC #6, to order a copy oftb.e photocopies of many of these stolen bank notes, and shall send you a copy when available. I sincerely appreciate your professiona.l efforts, and look forward t'O working with you in this matter of imp9rtao.ce to Mr. DiSanti. ·Sincerely, Robert C. ·Hinton, Jr. RCH/k:r encl. C'llent:"J"iSitntttLt: to Jo~hcmin 10/13/2009 13:15 LYNN PHAM ROS? ·' D PAGE 20 '09/20/2007 06:50 2142~993~9 ROBERT HINTON Stoll!n:· r.o•.'\y·7ll0:Z005 ih :Oall:ts-, TMas/:P~fite l!~-..:~rt fi4016'57l1 .. · ·. Montana 1902l'l3 $10 Farmers N.B ofHarlO'Wton, Chatter 11085, VF, Nice*, 1358 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $l 0 United States NB of Red Lodge., Chartet: 9841, FNF, 8440 recovered by Heritage Colorado 1902 PB $10 :FNB of Paonia, Charter 6671, VG, 4301. recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $10 Bums NB of Durango, Charter 9797, Teal Signature"' FNF, 1:2050 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $5 American NB ofDenver, Charter 1:2517, F *, 520615 r~overed by Heritage 1929 Type I $50 PNB ofTrl:oidad, Charter 2300, F, B000042A re«:lvered by Heritage California 1902 PB $5 FNB of:Beverly Hills, Charter 11451, FNF *, 22421 recovered by Herita.ge 1902 PB $20 FNB ofHollister, Charter 9378, FNF *, I 1512 n:covered by Heritage 1902 PB $10 AmericanNB of San Bernardino, Cllntter 10931, F *, 10533 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $5 Me.tcsnt.ile NB of San. Francisco, Charter %83, XF "'~ 191443 recovered by Heritage 1902PB $10 FNB of Santa Ana, Charter 3520, .FIVF *, 58572 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $20 Bank ofCaiiforoia National Associ~.tl.on, Charter 9655, F "'· 357584 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $5 Brotherhood NB of San Francisco, Charter 13016, F, 15753 recovered by Heritage l929 Type I SlDFNTrust and Savings ofFul.lenon, Charter 12764, AU, A002062A 1929 Type I $5 FNB of Orange, Charter 818l, VF, .D021896Arecovered by Heritage 1929 Type l $5 Holl)'l'I'Ood NB ofLQs Artgcles, Charter 12804, F, D00300SA recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $5 Oilfields ofBrea, Charter 13001, VFIXF, E004421A 1929 Type n $5 FNB of Pleasanton, Charter 9897, F, AOO 1066 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $5 Bank of America National Tru.!lt and Savings, Chatter 13044, AU, C355982A recovered by Heritage 1929 Type II $50 Bank of America National Trust a.nd Savings, Chmer 13044, VF/XF, A02Z412 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type II $20 Security-First NB of Los Angeles, Charter 2491, VF, A030968 1929 Type I $5 Anglo &London Paris :NB of San Francisco, Charter 9174, F, C095213A 1929 Type IUS 'l'.be First NB of San Jose', Charter 2158, VF, A016223 recovered by Heritage Washington 1902 PB $20 NB of Ellensburg, Clwter .11045, F, 5702 recovered by Heritage 1902 :PB $10 Dexter Horton NB of Seattle, Charter 11280, FIVF, 124817 recovered 'by Heritage 1902 :I?B $5 UniversityNB of Seattle, Charter 12153, F, 16383 1929 Type I $10 The Skagit Na of Mount Vernon, Char.tei 12154, VF, D000494A recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $5 The Old NB of Spokane, Chart!;)I" 4668, F 1929 Type J $10 The Old NB & Union Trust Company of. Spokane, Charter 4668, F 1929 $1'0 Th~:·NB ofl:'lcllinglt:lm, Charter 7474, UNC 1929 The AmericanN:I3 ofAbttdeen;Charter 13091, XF Oregon 1902 PB $20 La Grande NB ofLa Grande, Charter 3655, F, 9587 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 United States NB ofNewberg, Charter 9358, XF, A000927A recovered by Heritage illinois 1902 DB $20 The Bradford NB of Greenville, Charter 9734, F+, *, 3015 1929 Type! $20 The StauntonNB of Staunton, Charter 10777, VF, D000107A 1929 Type I $5 The Washington. J?ar~ NB of Chicago, Charter 3916, F, A007190A Wisconsin 19291)1>0 I $20 The Marine NB ofMUw8.Ukee, Charter 5458, XF+ M:·rssouri 1929 Type I $5 FNB ofCainesvi.lle, Charter 8407, VF, A000418A SOLD by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 Citizens NB of :Maplewood, Charter 12955, F/VF, B002430A recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $5 FNB ofKansas City, Charter 3456, F/VF oto, 124657 SOLD by Heritage l882 DB $!0 State NB of ~t. Louis, Charter 5172, F, 61292 1929 :no The FRB of Kansas City, Vf, J01111175A :rage 1 of 7 Ferber-000:>.2 10/13/2009 13:15 81733?"1048 LYNN PHAM ROSS I Ip PAGE 21 . 09/2e/2007 BB:50 2142199309 ROBERT HJ.~ITON PAGE 04/10 •• ..l • •: ' . • '• '• :'•,• • - • • • ~· ,.... '•• •• " ... •' . ..... ··; ..... . .:..· .: Oklahoma 1902 PB $20 FNB ofBartlesville, Charter 6258, F·t-, *, 1656 recovered l;iy Heritage 1902 PB $20 Commercial NB ofMu.skogee, Charter 5236, F+, *, 10859 recovered by Heritage NebrASka 1902 PB $10 FNB of Cambridge, Charter 6506, VF *, 2648 recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $20 Beatrice NB ofBeatrlce, Charter 308l, VF *, 12286 1902 PB $10 FN)'!. ofNewmangrove, Charter 528~, VF *, 783 recovered by Heritage 1882 VB $20 FarmerNB ofPilger, Charter 5941, XF+, "', 2790 1929 Type I $10 FNB of Adnms, Charter 9223-; F+, *, F000070A 1902 PB $10 CityNB ofYo~k, Charter 4935, F+, *, 1301.9., \ecovered by Heritage 1902 PB $10 FNB ofFalls City, Chaner 21~6, F'i", "', 5413 1929 l'ype I $10 FNB of Falls City, Charter 2746, F"", *, A000042A 1929 Typo I $20 FNB ofOrd, Charter 3339, XF, EOOOOSOA 1929 Type I $10 West Point NB of West Point, Charter 3340, F, A000427A 1929 l'ypo I $20FNB of Ainsworth, Charter 8992, F+ recovered byHeritag"' 190.2 :PB $10F.NB ofTekama.h, Charter4324, F, 6998 l902PB $ZO:FNB ofTekamab, Charter 4324, F+, 13187 1902 PB $10 Citizens NB ofWisner, Charter 68C56, VF, 7054 1902 P:S $20 FNB ofLaurel, Chatter 9793, F, 350 1929 Type I FNB ofDavid City, Charter 2902, VF, A000048A recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I FNB of Fullerton, Charter 5384, XF recovered by Heritage 1902 PB $10 NB of Ainsworth, Charter &992, F, F000116A 1907. P:S $5 FNB of Beloit, Charter 3231, VF+, 25232 1929 Type I $50 'l'lu:! Omaha NB of Omaha, Chatter 1633, F, D000928A 1929 $10 Type !The Union NB ofFremont, Charter 3188; VF, A000384A Iowa 1902 PB $10 F.NB of George, Charter 9910, F+, *, 3558 1902 PB $10 ToyNB of Sioux City, Charter 10139, FNF *, 11815 1882 DB $20 Iowa NB of Des Moines, Charter 2307, :F, 1.5926 1902 PB $10 Shenandoah'NB, Cbarter2679, VF \4310 1929 Type I $10 FNB ofPenison, Charter 4784, XF, B000079A 1929 Type t Toy NB of Sioux City, Charter 10139, F Texas 19.29 Type I $5 FNB ofPettyton, Charter 8769, VF, D000308A 1882 DB $20 FNB ofBay City, Charter 6062, VF/XX **, 2377 1882 VB $10 FNB ofEl Paso, Charter 2532, VF "'1 33018 1&75 SIO :FNB of Waco, Charter 2189, X·Rare t<~ Charter, :F, 721 1929 Typ!! 1 $20 FNB ofPort Arttrur, Charter 5485, VF, EOOO:S90A 1929 Type I $20 State NB of Garland, Charter 7989, XF, C000366A 1929 Type II $10 ElPaso NB ofEl Paso, Charter 12769, UNC, AOJ.I170 1929 Type I $10 Citizen NB ofEnnis, Charter 7331, UNC, E002005A 1882 Seri!i!s VB $10 Nocona NB, Charter 553&, UNC, 4881 1929 Type I $20 The Alamo NB of San Antonio, Charter 4525, UNC, B002004A 190.2 P:B $50 FNB of Ft. Worth, Charter 2349, FIVF ", 5117 1902 P.B $10 .FNB ofWinsboro, Charter 5674, FNF "', 4483 · 1902 P:a $l0 Adams NB o£Pevine, Charter 72l:2, VF "', 4000 1902 PB $20 FN.B ofFalfurrias, Charter 11792, VF *, 2848 1902 PB $10 BorderNB ofEI Paso, Charter 10974, UNC "', 5645 1902 PB $10 City NB ofDall!!.s, Charter 2455, UNC, 1OS7()0 . 1929Type II $10 FNB of Corsicana, Charter 3506, VGIF, F004863A Mark C.J>iSanti1214-734422.9 Ferhr.r-nnm.' 10/13/2009 13:15 81733?~~A8 LYNN PHAM ROSS '' P PAGE 22 09/20/20~7 08:50 2142199309 RDBffiT HINTON PAGE: 05/lB I :• " '• .... ••' . . ~ . .. . . ~ ' . ' .. .. · .:".,. Tex:ts (continuw) 1882 BB $10 City NB of Dallas, Charter 2455, F!VF 'l''- C:mSanti/114-734-1229 10/13/2009 13:15 81733"Q!Od8 LYNN PHAM ROSS 'I P PAGE 23 09/20/21387 08:50 2142199309 ROBERT HINTON PAGE 85/HI .,, ,. .. .. .··..,.., .·. ' . ~:' ·~ ' '•' .;. K~tnsas. 1902 PB $20 Solomon NB, Charter 9784, VF+, •, 3036 1902 PB $20 FNB of Clifton, Charter 7178, VF, *, Z20 8 1902 PB $20 :FNB of Washington, Charter 2912, VF, "", 1014 1902 PB $10 FNB of Mankato, ChBrter 6817, F+, "', 455 1929 Type I $10 FNB In Wellington, Charter 3091, F, FOOOI84A 1929 Type I $10 FNB of McCune, Charter 12191, Extremely Rare, XF, B0002144A 1.902 PB $20 Centra! NB of Ellsworth, Charter 3447, AU, "', 3278 1902 PB $10 FNB of Eureka, Charter 3148, F, 6753 1929 Typel$10Fanners NB of Great Bend, Charter 11701, XF/AU, F001192A Original Series 1882 VB $20 FNB ofHavensville, Charter 5506, Rare Type, F, 1604 1902PB $20 FNB ofN'orton., Charter 3687; VF, *, 6529 1902 PB $20 FNB ofBs.rnard, Charter 8396, F, "', 3634 1902 PB $20 The Stockton NB of Stockton, Charter 7815, F/VF, *, 4415 1929 Type I $20 The Stockton NB of Stockton, Charter 7815, FNF, C000l46A 1929 Type I $10 Peoples 'N.B of Clay Center, Charter 3345, XH, A000875A 1929 Type l $10 Citizens NB ofEmporia, Charter 5498, VFt, B001052A 1929 Type I $20 The Gypsun NB ofGypsun, Charter 9695, AU, B000169A 1929 Type I $10 FNB of Augusta, Charter 6643, VG/F, B001222A 1902 PB $5 The Randall NB of:Randa.II, Chatter 118'87, VGJll, 1098 1929 Type I $10 The Ka.w Valley NB of Topeka, Charter 11398, FNF, A000642A 1902 PB $5 FNB ofKa.nsM City, Charter 3456, VG 1902PB $5 l"NB ofBeloit, Charter 3231, VF+ 1902 PB $20 Miami County NB ofPaoJj!, Charter 33SO,VF, 17852 1902 PJ3 $10 FNB ofLogs.n, Charter 6841, F, 3646 1929 $5 typo II The Union NB of.Manhattan, Charter 4008, F, AOOl729 Rhode Island 1902 $10 PB The Blackstone canal NB of Providence, Cha.ncr 1328, F, 61875 l88Z·BB $5 The NB otProvim:etown, Charter 736, F+, * New Jersey 1902 P:B $10 The First NB ofWoodbridge, Cb&tC~" 8299, Only 5 Known, VGIF, 4901 1929 Type II $5 FNB ofHighBridge, Charter 5333, CCU, A002526 1929 Type n $10 NB ofNew Jersey at New .Brunswick, Charter 587, VFIXF, AOl5844 1929 Type! $10 FNB ofHoboken, Charter 1444, FIVF, l'OI5440A 1929 Type I( $10 The Closter NB and Trust of Closter, Chatter 83941 Rare, FNF, A000523 1929 Type n $5 The FNB of Clinton, Charter 2246, VF 1929 Type I $20 Passaic NB and l'rust Company Pas:mic, Charter 12205, F, E009938A NewYork · 1929 Type II $10 Tho Peoples NB ofBrooldyn in New York, Charter 9219, UNC, A001956 Series 1865 LD $2 Market NB ofNew York. Charter 38!5, F, *, A445805 1902 PB $10 Amsterdam City NB ofNew York, Charter 4211, VF, 'l', 26565 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 The FNB and rrust ofFreeport on Long Island, Charter 7703, GEM: CU, E002011A 1929 '!)'pel $10 The Fort GreenNB in New York, Charter 13336, XF, C001741A 1902 PB $10 The Catskill NB ofCatskitl, Charter 1294, CCU, *, 11565 1902 Pl3 $20 The Cuba N:B of Cuba, ChHrter 1143, FfVF, .t., 13385 recovered by H~rit.age 1929 TypeU $20 ThcFNB o:f'Mt. Vernon, Chmer527l,FIVF, AOOI042 1929 Type n $10 The Farmers NB of Deposit, Charter 9434, VF, A000970 1929 Type I $10 The St. Lawrence Couni.y NB ofCamon., Charter 8531, VF SOLD by :Heritage 1805 LD $2 The Westchester County NB ot"Poobl<;ill, Charter 1422, F, B5.2S279 SOLD by Heritage 1\brk C. DiSan1f/ll4-73.£.~:229 Fl':t'het-00035 10/13/2009 13:15 81733"n"~8 LYNN PHAM ROSS 'I P PAGE 24 . 09/20/2007 08·50 2142199309 ROBERT HINTON PAGE 07/10 • . ,ly.IJC·~ .:u v : U?.£or? llltl \:JILI:Ili>" .--:-~., 1;1nu ·,J.ruSl:\..Ompany o~-Ut1ca, BY,'.l, ~'N.Jl, D004635A l.)):o\1:f"'. . 1929 Typel$10 ChaseNB ~~New York City, Charter2370,F, E37•. J9A Series of 1875 $1 NB ofPotlldam, Charter 868 RARE, Good I 902 PB $5 Seandale Nil & Trust Company, Ch!.'.rtcr 11708, F, 3656 SOLD by Heritage 1929 Type l $10 The FNB & Trust Company of:Freeport, Cbarter 7703, Gem, E002011A 1902 $10 The Gotbam. NB of New York, Charter. 9717, VF, 86354 recovered by Heritage 1902$10 The MarinerHarborNB ofNew York, Charter 8194, VF, 5676 recov~red by Heritage· 1902 $5 The Stapleton NEo ofNew York, Charter 6S62, VF, 27! 92 recoveree! by Heritage 1929 Type l $10 The St. La;vrence CouotyNB of Canton, Cbarter 8531, VF, D001919A 1902 $10 ':['he Richmond Borough N:B of Stapleton, Charter 7290, VF, 6964 recover~::d by Heritage 1902$20 Red Seal,The Port Ric~moJl.d NB ofNew York, CbEtrter 6198, VF, 1317 recovered by Heritage l902 $10 The Port Richmond NB ofNew York, Charter 6198, VF, 635 recovered by HeriUige 1902 $5 The Stapleton NB ofNew York, Charter 656:?., F, 1973 rewvered by Heritage 1929 Type II $10 Staten Island NB & TIUBt Company ofNew York, Charter 6198.• F, A014486 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 Staten Isl~.od NB & Trust Company ofNew York, Charter 6198, VF, No Serial# recovered by Heritage 1929 J';tpe I $20 Staten Isl:.tnd NB & Trust Company ofNew York, Charter 6198, F, E000663A J.9Z9 Type ll$10 Staten Island NB & Trust Company ofNew York; Cb:trter 6198, VF, A000985 1902 $5 PB Grace National Bank ofNew York, Charter 1253, VF, 23443 recovered by Heritage 1929$100 Type IFRB ofNewYork, F, B00297894A 1902' $5 DBTheNB' ofA:ltamo:at, Cl1arter 9866, tiny tear in lower left corner, W, Serial #1 lSS2 $20 RB Uric~> New York 1882 $::W BB Onita, New York l"e~sylvanfa 1902 PB $5 Tite Citizens NB ofEast M.a.uchchunk, Charter 8446, Rare, FIVF, 6535 recovered by Heritage Original Series 1875 $5 The :Merchants NJ3 ofPhilad.elphia, Charter 2462, VF, 12200 recovered by H~itage Or:igjnal Series 1865 $10 Third NB ofPhiladclphia, Contemporary Cowrterfeit, F, *, 1533 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 The Coraopolis NB of COraopolis. Charter 5069, F+, E001242A ;ecovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $20 TheFNB of Cresson, Charter 5768, F.+, C000364A recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $10 Tb~ Citizens NB of Washington, Charter 3383, F, E013880A recovered by Heritage 192.9 T:ype I $20 ThePhila.delphia NB ofPhiladelphia, Charter 539, VF, A015651 A ;1.92.9 'cype l $5 Hazleton NB of Hazleton, Charter 4204, VF, B007C582A SOLD by Heritage 1902 PB $10 The Cement NB of Siegfried at Northampton, F, 9229 recovered by Heritage 1929 Type I $20 The Honesdale NB ofBonesdale, Charter 644, VF, A000445A SOLD by Heritage 1929$20 Type I The AUentown NB of Allentown, Charter 1322, VF, F007127A 1929 $20 Type ll The First NB of Scnlnton, Charter 77, VF) A001426 1929$20 Type I FRB ofPhiladelphia, VF, C00227003A District of Colnmbia 1902 PB $J.O The Distrlct NB ofWashington, Charter 9545, CU, ~·, BS76 1929 Type I $20 The District NB of Washington, Charter 9545, W, F006382A 1929 Type I $5 The Riggs NB of Washington, Charter 5046, VF, D043007A 1929 T}'Pe I $5 The Riggs NB ofWa.slllngton, Charter 5046, Xf', F044399A 1929 Type I $20 The Commercial NB of Washington, Charter 7446, XF, D003241 A 1929 Type I $20 The Columbia NB ofWashington, Chart-er 36251 VF+, A001693A Maine 1929 Type I $10 FNB of Portland, Charter 221, FfVF, FOOOS 1OA Connecticut 1929 'l)'pe I $5 FNB and Trust of New Haven, Charter .2, F+, F03l 728A 1929 Type I $5 The Clinton NB of Clinton, Charter 1314, F+, B002823A 1902 PB $10 Hartford NB and Trust of Hartford, Charter 1338, VF, "' Mark C. DISnnd/21,.·734-l229 'Pages 10/13/2009 13:15 81733~ 0 ~~8 LYNN PHAM ROSS 'I P PAGE 25 ROBERT HINTOH PAGE elS/10 ' 09/26/2807 08:50 21421993~~ M:~;s~elmset·~ . ·' .·.·. .· ·. .. .... ... . 1902 PB $5 Georg~o".VVl NB, Chacter 2297, J!IVF, *, 3462 1865 LD $2 Tb.e Faneuil Hall NB ofBoston, Charter 15727, F+, *, 604847 1902 PB $5 WorcesterNB of Worcester, Charter 7595, FNF, 71625 l882 BB $5 TheMassasoit NB, Charter 612, Good!VG, 22413 1882 BB $5 The SecondNB ofHavcrhill, Charter3Sl0, VF, 5707 1882 BB $)0 The National Shawmut Bank of Boston, Charter 5155, FIFV, 15473 1882 PB $10 The National Shawtt1Ut Bank ofBostou. Charter Sl55,VF, 307492 1875 $1 The Shawmut Nation Bank ofBoston Charter 58:2, F, A535336 1882-ll.B $S ·The Provblcetown NB, Charter 73G, FIVF 1882 £B. $5 'The :FNa of:l3'ost:on, Charter New Rampsllil'll 1882BB $5 The AslruelotNB of:Keene, Charter 946, VG/F, "', 12864 1882BB $10 CheshiroNB ofK~nc, Charter 559, FIVF, "',7766 1902 PB S5 Cheshire NB of Keene, Charter 559, XF, "', 50884 1929 T.ypeii $20 The PP..oples NB of Claremont. Cbarter 4793, AUIUNC (3 NOTES) A000048, A000036,A000042 .Macylnnd 1902 PB $10TheFNB of St. Mary's at Lenardtown, Ch8fter 66015, F, 5299 recovered by Heritage Delaware 1902 PB $20 Central NB o£'W1lt:~:~ington, Chart~ .3395, F, 51075 recovered by Heritage Vermont lSSl BB·$5 The FNB ofMoutrt Petier, Charter 74S & 857, VF .Mise;. Notes 1914 $5 FRN Cleveland District D71071236A 1914 $20 FRN St. Lows District Hl0385564A 1957A $1 Silver Certificate Gem *78884447A 1935G $1 Silver Certificate Gem *14350354G 1935A S Note $1 Silver Certificate Gem S74216983C 1935 AR Note $1 Silver Certificate Gem S7l288079C 1934A $5 Silver Certificate North African Gem K439l706SA l953B $10 Silver Certillcate Gem Al788100A 1934C $10 Silver Certificate GemB32453682A 1SI34B $10 Silver Certificate Gem B 18742)44A 1935A $1 Silver Certmcate North African Gem I36067054C 1957 $1 Silver Certificate Gem Autographed by Director of Mint Eva Ntams C65625444A )935E $1 Silver Certificate Gem Autographed by Treasurer Priest I95 l 29194I-I 1935C $1 Silver Certificate Gem Autographed by Secretary Snyder C45414107E 1934 $~ Silver Certificate Gem. C80164357A 1928A$l Silver CcttificateGemM17333247A 1928 $5 Red Seat GemB73123430A 1953 $2 Red Seat Gem A20625688A Autographed by Treasurer Priest 1928 $2 Red Seal Gem A3867Z43GA 1928 $1 Red Seal Gem A0000461619A l934A $20 FRN Hawaii Star Note VG, L0043445l"' SOLD by Heritage l935A $1 Silver Certificate Hawaii Gem ~'87390640A l935A SI Silver Certificate Hawaii Gem F41967666C 1934C $SOF.RNNew York District GemB19237949A 1928A $SO f.R'NNew York District Gem :B01876148A 1934 $5 FRN Kansas City District J.ight Gn:eo Sea! Gem J00077777 A l\lark C. DiS:mtit.:z14-734-l229 Page6 ,., __\... ...... I\IV\"J"1 10/13/2009 13:15 81733~~~·q LYNN PHAM ROSS ' 1 P PAGE 25 ROBERT HINTON PAGE 09/Hl 09/10/2007 08:50 214219930~ •'. •'.. ... ',' Misc. Notes (continued) 1934 $5 FRN Dallas Dtsttict Light Green Seal ~:m K07944553A 1934$5 FRN Dallas District Light Green Seal Gem Kll841765A 1928B $5 FRN Cleveland District Gem D21250698A 1953 $1 FRN Star Note Cleveland District with Kntlrryn Gt'amtham AutographD03740211 ~' 1929 $50FRB ofNewYorkNY:Brown Seal GtmB00129242A 1929 $20 F.RB ofSt Louis MO :Brown Seal ~ro H00375337A l929 $100 FRB of.Kllnsas City MO Brown Senl Gem
Related Contentin Tarrant County
Case
JOE PONCE JR VS. KEVIN ROBLES
Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |153-355738-24
Case
Talor GonzalezvsJames Gordon
Aug 16, 2024 |Pierson, Don |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |2024-005939-1
Case
BILLY HAMILTON JR VS. ANNA ELIZABETH ROMENO
Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |067-355884-24
Case
SYE KHAMSENGXAY VS. KAMRA RHODES
Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |017-355824-24
Case
DD BENSON DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. TEXAS DG GUNITE, LLC
Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Construction |141-355764-24
Case
ALISSA WILSON VS. BRIAN D. HOUK
Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |048-355869-24
Case
SERGIO RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Aug 14, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355682-24
Case
EMILY PAULSEN VS. GERID SPRESSER
Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355750-24
Case
Crystal ValenciavsPhillip Drawdy
Aug 16, 2024 |Hrabal, Mike |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |2024-005954-3
Ruling
AVA NAEINI VS CONFLUENT INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |22STCV21275
Case Number: 22STCV21275 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 8-21-24 Case No: 22STCV21275 Trial Date: Not Set DOCUMENT PRODUCTION MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Confluent, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ava Naeini RELIEF REQUESTED: Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff Ava Naieini, alleges gender, ethnic and religious discrimination as an Iranian, Muslim female working in computer/software technology consulting. Plaintiff maintains management responsible for the series of events leading to the subject action is the result of their love of alcohol and impaired judgment, or hidden sexual and mental disorders that lead to lower level of awareness, understanding and judgment where subordinates have to quit, or suffer and tolerate oppression. Said behavior was also apparently as a means of disguising technical incompetence and narcissism. The complaint includes denied time off, payment for only economy class seats with not enough legroom on extensive coast to coast flights. Plaintiff represents to obtain counsel, but due to national origin, racial battles in the country and the subconscious bias of the majority of bias of the majority of attorney that do not yet acknowledge systematic issues as shifts have not occurred yet leads to lawyers refusal to take on the subject action. Plaintiff also contends improper legal rulings striking out prior iterations of the complaint and unfair treatment of Plaintiff in pro per has allowed Defendant to effectively block any discovery over the last 15 months of attempting to prosecute the subject action. On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Discrimination in Violation of Govt Code 12940 Et Seq. 5. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 6. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940(K) 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Defamation 10. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 11.False Promises 12.Promissory Fraud 13.Negligence 14.Negligent Misrepresentation 15.Negligent Retention Of Employees. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per filed a first amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment. On October 6 and 10, 2022, the case was transferred from Department 32 (personal injury) to independent calendar court, Department 68. On November 23, 2022, the court sustained the unopposed demurrer of Defendant to the first amended complaint with 60 days leave to amend. The court also granted the unopposed motion to strike with 60 days leave to amend. Although Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint on November 14, 2023, the court declined to consider the second amended complaint at the time of ruling on the demurrer. On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment. On March 21, 2023, the court ruled on the demurrer to the 92 page second amended complaint: the court sustained the demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, twelfth and thirteenth causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940, Negligence, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees, Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq., without leave to amend; and, sustained the demurrer to the seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq., Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Defamation, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing, and, Workplace Harassment, with 20 days leave to amend. The court granted the motion to strike Punitive Damages with leave to amend, and the Demand to Recover for Spine Injuries and the Like and Irrelevant and Improper Statement without leave to amend. On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff in pro per filed a third amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment, with strikeouts on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action. The third amended complaint lacks page numbering, but totals 87 pages. On the November 14, 2023, hearing on the demurrer to the third amended complaint, the court first noted the lack of pagination and ordered compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.109. On the substance, the court considered an argument under the statute of limitations, whereby the court found all challenged claims other than the tenth cause of action for defamation were timely filed and relate back to the original complaint filing date. The court sustained the demurrer to the tenth cause of action for defamation without leave to amend on grounds of the statute of limitations. On the remainder of the operative complaint, the court found no material changes to the previously challenged cause of action, and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend to the seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and fourteenth causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq., Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq., Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Workplace Harassment. The court also granted the motion to strike the claim for punitive damages, demand to recover for spine injuries and the like, and irrelevant and improper Statement without leave to amend. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a fourth amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment, with strikeouts on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action. The fourth amended complaint totals 72 pages of allegations, with 39 pages of new exhibits including exhibit 4 and exhibit 5 constituting the Defendants section in paragraphs 1-11 and the factual background section in paragraphs 13-41, which are not incorporated into the introductory paragraphs of the operative complaint. On January 10, 2024, the court sent notice of case reassignment to the new judicial officer. The court held a case management conference on March 7, 2024. Plaintiff was present; Defendant was not. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a 170.6 peremptory challenge, which was rejected on April 23, 2024, as untimely. On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff in pro per, filed a 170.1/170.3 challenging impartiality, asserting a lack of qualification, and maintain a violation of the law. On April 29, 2024, the court issued an order striking the statement of disqualification. On May 9, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer Confluent, Inc. to all remaining causes of action in the fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. RULING: Moot/Off-Calendar. Defendant Confluent, Inc. moves to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents served on Defendant Confluent, Inc. The motion was filed on May 7, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer of Confluent, Inc. to all remaining causes of action without leave to amend. The court therefore finds the motion MOOT and the takes the motion off-calendar. Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.
Ruling
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BERNARDINO PONCE ZAMORA ET AL
Aug 19, 2024 |CGC23604070
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, August 19, 2024, Line 6. DEFENDANT U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA's Motion For Order Discharging It From Liability And For Costs. Off calendar per 7/17/24 notice of assignment of case to arbitration. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
VARTAN MINASSIAN VS LEVON AYRAPETOV, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |23CHCV00608
Case Number: 23CHCV00608 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: F51 Dept. F-51¿¿ Date: 8/21/24 Case #23CHCV00608 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F-51 AUGUST 20, 2024 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV00608 ¿ Motion Filed: 5/8/24 ¿ MOVING PARTY: Defendants William Josephson; and Catherine Flannery (collectively, Defendants) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Vartan Minassian (Plaintiff) NOTICE: OK¿ ¿ RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs complaint. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Defendants request for judicial notice is granted. BACKGROUND This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 2/23/21, while he was walking his small dog on a leash along Marva Avenue in the City of Granada Hills, two of Defendants vicious dogs, charged and attacked Plaintiff without provocation when he passed Defendants residence located at 12523 Marva Avenue, Grana Hills, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 1112.) The subject dogs were owned by defaulted defendants Levon Ayrapetov and Jessica Ayrapetov, who resided at the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Defendants owned the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 15.) On 2/22/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint against all four Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Strict Liability (against the Ayrapetov defendants; and (2) Negligence (against Defendants). On 10/13/23, Defendants filed their answer. On 5/7/24, default was entered against the Ayrapetov defendants. On 5/8/24, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment. On 7/24/24, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On 8/14/24, Defendants filed their reply. // // ANALYSIS The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings. (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 65, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381382.) As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 15191520.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) A. Negligence Plaintiffs sole cause of action against Defendants is Negligence. To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) the existence of a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting in an injury. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants had a duty to properly own and maintain the subject property, and negligently and carelessly breached their duty/duties when they allowed the premises to exist in a condition which allowed the dog to exit the premises and viciously attack Plaintiff as he walked on a public sidewalk near the premises. (Compl. ¶¶ 2425.) Defendants argue that they, as landlords of the property, owed no duty of care to Plaintiff because they had no knowledge of the dogs or their dangerous propensities. (MSJ 5:1325, citing Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal. App.3d 504, Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1834.) Specifically, Defendants argue that they do not own the dogs that alleged to have attacked Plaintiff and have never had charge, care, custody, or control of the dogs, including on the day in question. (MSJ 3:2728.) Defendants further argue that they did not have any knowledge of the ARAYPETOVs dogs alleged history of dangerous propensities prior to the alleged attack, nor that the dogs would cause injury to another. (Id. at 4:24.) Defendants support their arguments with their own sworn declarations, as well as the lease agreement they entered into with the Ayrapretov defendants, showing a pet policy stating that any pets kept on the premises required Defendants prior written consent, and at the time of signing, no pets were listed on the lease. (Ex. A to Decl. of Catherin Flannery; Ex. A to Decl. of William Josephson.) Defendants argue that the ARYAPETOVS at no time prior to or after the execution of the Lease, disclosed to WILLIAM that they owned any animals, including dogs, or that any such animals were to being kept on the subject premises. (MSJ 4:68; Flannery Decl. ¶¶ 911; Josephson Decl. ¶¶ 911.) Although the lease that the ARYAPETOVS signed stated that no animal or pet shall be kept on or about the Premises without Landlords prior written consent at no time prior to or following the execution of the Lease did the ARYAPETOVS obtain written consent from WILLIAM to keep dogs on the subject premises. Since WILLIAM and CATHERINE did not have any knowledge of the ARAYPETOVs dogs existence on the subject premises, they could not know of the dogs alleged history of dangerous propensities prior to the alleged attack, nor that the dogs would cause injury to another. (MSJ 6:613.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have met their initial burden to negate an essential element of Plaintiffs negligence cause of action. The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to produce substantial evidence showing that a triable issue of fact exists. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a triable issue remains because during discovery, Defendants produced a text message chain between Josephson and Levon Ayrapetov, purporting to show that Defendants are evidently very familiar with the Subject Dogs; going on to state that the dog is in bad shape. (Opp. 8:1415.) As a preliminary matter, and as Defendants observe, here, Plaintiff has only submitted to the Court his Points & Authorities which articulates Plaintiffs Argument for denial of the instant Motion. Plaintiff has failed to provide this court with a Separate Statement. As such, it is impossible for Plaintiff to demonstrate that there is a dispute as to any material fact. (Reply 3:47.) A separate statement is required in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment to ease the trial courts burden and put the moving party on notice of the evidence which is disputed by respondent. (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 419; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.130(e)(2).) Here, Plaintiff has failed to file any separate statement with his opposition as required by the California Rules of Court, and thus has failed to dispute any of the facts or evidence set forth by Defendants. As Plaintiff has failed to provide or introduce, any concrete evidence or circ*mstantial evidence which would contradict the facts alleged in Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs argument that Defendants likely had actual knowledge of the subject dog prior to the incident is little more than speculation and conjecture. (Reply 4:610.) The sole evidence proffered by Plaintiff to show Defendants knowledge of the subject dogs dangerous propensities is a text exchange, dated after the subject incident, wherein Josephson states that the dog is in bad shape. (Ex. A to Opp.) Therefore, even if Plaintiff had satisfied the procedural requirement by filing an opposing separate statement, the Court agrees with Defendants that the proffered text messages alone fail to create a triable issue of material fact. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his responsive burden to show that a triable issue exists as to whether Defendants are liable to him pursuant to Civil Code section 3342. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has provided no facts that contradict the facts outlined in Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, nor has he provided any reasonable inferences which would raise a triable issue of fact in this matter. (Reply 3:1922.) Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Plaintiffs negligence cause of action. B. Additional Discovery If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment & that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (h).) A declaration in support of a request for continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h) must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. (Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254 [internal quotations omitted].) Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendants prematurely and wrongfully filed their Motion as discover[y] is ongoing and Plaintiff is attempting to locate the remaining defendants as to procure their depositions, and circ*mstantial evidence of Defendants actual knowledge of Subject Dog and Subject Dogs propensities. (Opp. 4:1517.) In light of Defendants incomplete discovery responses, Plaintiff intends to serve a second set of special interrogatories and request for production of documents on or before July 23, 2024. (Id. at 5:13.) Plaintiff therefore contends that due to discovery being incomplete, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants can definitively say facts essential to justify the opposition do not exist. (Id. at 7:2022.) However, as Defendants note in reply, there is no Declaration submitted by Plaintiffs counsel which articulates the reasons for seeking a continuance, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). (Reply 8:12.) Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that Defendants 4/12/24 discovery responses were lacking in any way, Plaintiff failed to move for appropriate relief under the Civil Discovery Act. Defendants further note that at no time prior to filing Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on or around July 24, 2024, did Plaintiffs Counsel attempt to meet and confer with Defense counsel regarding the alleged issues with Defendants discovery responses raised in Plaintiffs Opposition. (Reply 4:1822.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to justify a continuance of the instant motion based on a lack of necessary facts yet to be discovered. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs request for any such continuance. CONCLUSION The motion is granted. Defendants to file Judgment within 10 days.
Ruling
Andres Martinez vs Koua Yang
Aug 20, 2024 |23CECG04147
Re: Martinez v. Yang et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04147Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 (Dept. 501)Motion: by Plaintiff to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set OneTentative Ruling: To deny. If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will be entertained on August21, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.Explanation: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declarationshowing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court.(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); see Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entailssomething more than bickering with opposing counsel].) Three times before plaintiff filed the motion to compel (on 5/9, 5/16 and 5/21/24)defense counsel emailed proposed amended responses, asking if they would resolveplaintiff’s concerns. (See Garcia Decl., Exhs. 2 and 3.) There does not appear to havebeen any response from plaintiff’s counsel to these efforts, and plaintiff’s counsel evenfailed to include the 5/9 and 5/16 emails with the moving papers’ meet and conferexhibits, misleading the court about the nature and extent of the parties’ meet andconfer efforts. Again on 7/10/24, the day before the instant motion was filed, defensecounsel submitted the further amended responses and advised that verifications wouldbe forthcoming, once signed by defendants. (Garcia Decl., Exh. 5.) Verifications of theproposed amended responses were provided on 7/17/24. (Garcia Decl., Exhs. 6 and 7.)While maintaining many objections, the supplemental responses provided additionalsubstantive responses notwithstanding the objections. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel’s written meet and confer communications largelyfailed to clearly set forth the deficiencies in the responses, making it difficult for defensecounsel to adequately respond. In the Pretrial Discovery Conference order granting plaintiff permission to file theinstant motion, the court directed that “[c]ounsel must continue to meet and confer inperson or by phone in advance of any motion to compel.” (See 6/21/24 Minute Order.)Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration makes no mention of further in person or telephonic meetand confer, in disregard of the court’s order. The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable and good faithattempt to resolve the discovery dispute informally. Additionally, the motion is in large part mooted by the service of supplementalresponses. The only demands which did not receive a supplemental response are nos.11, 24, 29 and 35. No further response to demand no. 11 is warranted, as plaintiff’s counseldid not address the demand in meet and confer. This demand should not have beenincluded in the motion to compel. The response to no. 24 states that any responsivedocuments were already produced by plaintiff in pre-litigation discovery. It is unclear whyplaintiff would move to compel further response and production where plaintiff is alreadyin possession of the responsive documents. Moreover, it is unclear why plaintiff would beseeking from defendant’s plaintiff’s past medical records, which would obviously be inthe possession and control of plaintiff and not defendants. This demand is rathernonsensical, given the parties respective positions in this litigation. The response todemand no. 29 is Code-compliant, representing that a diligent search and inquiry hasbeen made, and that defendants “cannot comply with this demand because he hasnever had possession of the requested information and does not know if any exist.” (SeeCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) As to demand no. 35, the moving papers fail to address theactual objections raised, instead addressing other objections that were not made inresponse to the demand. This further demonstrates the lack of good faith in bringing thismotion. Accordingly, in addition to the failure to adequately meet and confer, the courtfinds the motion mooted as to most demands at issue, and lacking in merit as to thedemands for which no supplemental responses were served. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: DTT on 8/19/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
HIBBS, ET AL VS. AGOOT, ET AL
Aug 19, 2024 |CVPM22-0199094
HIBBS, ET AL VS. AGOOT, ET ALCase Number: CVPM22-0199094This matter is on calendar for status of dismissal. The Court notes that the matter is at issue and the parties planto mediate. The matter is continued to Monday, October 7, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for reviewregarding status of mediation and trial setting. If the matter does not resolve in mediation, the Court intends to seta trial date no later than April 29, 2025. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding proposed dates fortrial and be prepared to set a trial date at the next hearing. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Alexander Family Trust vs. Simao, et al.
Aug 19, 2024 |23CV-0203196
ALEXANDER FAMILY TRUST VS. SIMAO, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203196This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement and trial setting. The previoustrial dates were vacated by the Court’s June 6, 2024 Order. Plaintiff’s claims against Safeco werebifurcated March 15, 2024, and trial of Plaintiffs claims against Safeco were to follow resolutionof the claims against the other Defendants. Case management statements have been filed, but it isunclear which parties, if any, have reached a settlement. At the last hearing on June 17, 2024,Counsel indicated that all parties except for Safeco had settled. However, notices of settlementand dismissals are not on file for any party. Additionally, Jacqueline Simao’s Cross-Complaint,filed November 13, 2023, against Allen & Roth and Lowe’s Home Improvement has not beenserved.The Court designates this matter a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later thanMarch 11, 2025. Defendants have posted jury fees, but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of theright to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with status ofsettlement as to Defendants Simao, Rayfifield and 2584 Reservoir Lane, and to discussavailable trial dates as to Defendant Safeco.
Ruling
YOCHONON BAITELMAN, ET AL. VS JOHN ALPHONSE MARASCO, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |22STCV31294
Case Number: 22STCV31294 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Yochonon Baitelman and Yochonon Baitelman on behalf of Mushka Baitelman, Rivka Baitelman and Esther Baitelman, minors, filed this action against Defendants John Alphonse Marasco (Marasco), Amie Jennet Morris (Morris), The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On March 22, 2024, Morris filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Marasco, LAFD, and Roes 1-10 for indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault. On August 9, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On June 7, 2024, Defendants City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to Plaintiffs complaint. On June 27, 2024, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Morris and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On June 26, 2024, Morris filed an answer to the Citys cross-complaint. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. The motion was set for hearing on August 19, 2024. COUNSELS REQUEST Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, asks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides: (a) Notice A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051). (b) Memorandum Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel. (c) Declaration The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). (d) Service The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. (2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address. As used in this rule, current means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies. (e) Order The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) DISCUSSION Counsels declaration does not use Judicial Council form MC-052 as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), requires. In addition, counsel has not served all the parties that have appeared in this action, as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), requires. The Court denies the motion. CONCLUSION The Court DENIES without prejudice Jamie Lefkowitz's motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
Ruling
DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Aug 20, 2024 |CVRI2303798
DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGHCVRI2303798 Motion to CompelSCHOOL DISTRICT,Tentative Ruling:See above.
Document
CLARK, SHANKETEREA vs. SALDANA, MOCES
Nov 29, 2023 |MICHAEL GOMEZ |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202382348
Document
BENITEZ, AMANDA vs. DOE, JOHN
Dec 05, 2023 |CHRISTINE WEEMS |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202383830
Document
MADERA, SEAN vs. JARRAH, MUHAMMAD AMMAN
Dec 04, 2023 |LATOSHA LEWIS PAYNE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |202383675
Document
ARYA, MELANIE vs. DOE, JOHN/JANE
Dec 06, 2023 |DAWN ROGERS |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384151
Document
MCGILBERT, CALLIE vs. RICHARDSON, DELANO
Dec 04, 2023 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383566
Document
Angelica Flores VS. National General Insurance Company
Apr 19, 2024 |Alberto Garcia |Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) |CL-24-1704-F
Document
AWOTE, BABAJIDE vs. ALARCON, RAUL
Aug 31, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202363773
Document
WILPERS, RICHARD vs. LANDSTAR RANGER INC
Dec 04, 2023 |JACLANEL M. MCFARLAND |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383330
