Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
ERMILO RODRIGUEZ-ZARCO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs. FILE NO. 24-C-00821-S3
AG CONSTRUCTION LLC,
ABC CORPORATION,
DAGOBERTO LOPEZ, and
MARTIN LOPEZ
Defendants.
MOTION TO COMPEL CLAYTON PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. D/B/A CHAFIN
BUILDERS
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, with this his Motion to Compel Clayton Properties Group, Inc.
d/b/a Chafin Builders (“Chafin Builders”) pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37,
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34, O.C.G.A. § 24-13-26, and Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4 and showing
this Honorable Court as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Subject Incident
This is a premises liability action for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff Ermilo
Rodriguez-Zarco as a result of a fall occurring on May 9, 2022. The subject incident occurred at
a new house that was under construction by Chafin Builders in the Lancaster subdivision in
Flowery Branch, Georgia. Chafin Builders utilized various subcontractors and independent
contractors to complete construction of the house, including Defendant AG Construction LLC.
Prior to the subject incident, an attic access ladder was installed in the ceiling on the second floor
of the house. On the date of the subject incident, Plaintiff went to the house to install insulation in
the attic. As he was climbing up the attic access ladder, it detached from the ceiling, causing
Plaintiff and the ladder to fall to the floor. As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffered
severe and permanent injuries requiring extensive treatment, including two surgeries for his right
ankle.
Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a
Chafin Builders
Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties
Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders on May 15, 2024. See Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders, attached hereto
as Exhibit A. In addition to mailing a copy of the request to the business office for Chafin
Builders, Plaintiff’s counsel also mailed a copy to Haley & Haley Law Group, LLC, as
Registered Agent for CBuild Holdings, LLC, which shares the same mailing address as Chafin
Builders. See Georgia Secretary of State Business Search, attached hereto as Exhibit B. To
date, Plaintiff has not received any responsive documents from Chafin Builders.
Attempts to Confer in Good Faith
On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel called Haley & Haley Law Group, LLC
regarding the request. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow-up e-mail documenting the conversation
and requesting a call from John Haley. See September 20, 2024 E-Mail, attached hereto as
Exhibit C. An additional e-mail was sent that same day containing a copy of the non-party
request, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Haley & Haley
Law Group, LLC again on October 7, 2024. See October 7, 2024 E-Mails, attached hereto as
Exhibit E. To date, no response has been received.
2
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
“A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may
apply for an order compelling discovery.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(a). “A party may obtain
discovery of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person
carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be
entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.”
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(2). A party may serve a request for production of documents to a non-
party. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(a) and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c). A party can file a motion to
compel pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(a) against a non-party upon a showing of good cause.
See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c)(1). Additionally, courts have the power to enforce subpoenas. See
O.C.G.A. § 24-13-26.
Plaintiff is entitled to discover documentation from Chafin Builders regarding any
contracts and/or service agreements it entered into with Defendant AG Construction LLC, as
well as any documentation in its possession regarding the subject incident pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§ 9-11-26(b)(2). This information/documentation could shed light on the relationship between
Chafin Builders and Defendants and may impact the jury’s determination of liability and/or
apportionment of fault between the Defendants. Accordingly, this information is discoverable
from Chafin Builders. Plaintiff appropriately served his Request for Production of Documents to
non-party Chafin Builders. Plaintiff has attempted several times to follow-up with Chafin
Builders to arrange for production of this documentation without the need for court intervention
but has not received a response in the form of production of the requested documents.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking an order compelling production of these documents from
Chafin Builders.
3
This 21st day of November, 2024.
Respectfully Submitted,
FRIED GOLDBERG LLC
By: Adam P. Smith
MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG
Georgia Bar No. 299472
ADAM P. SMITH
Georgia Bar No. 899334
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Three Alliance Center
3550 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
(404) 591-1800 (office)
(404) 591-1801 (fax)
Email: Michael@friedgoldberg.com
Email: Adam@friedgoldberg.com
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel Clayton
Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders has this day been served upon all counsel of record
via electronic filing thereon to:
Steven M. Schatz
Robert J. Kozloski, III
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP
1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
steve.schatz@swiftcurrie.com
robert.kozloski@swiftcurrie.com
Dated on this 21st day of November, 2024.
FRIED GOLDBERG LLC
By: Adam P. Smith
ADAM P. SMITH
Georgia Bar No.: 899334
5
EXHIBIT A
Joseph A. Fried
Michael L. Goldberg
Adam P. Smith Bradford W. Thomas
Direct Dial: 404.591.1839 Brian T. Mohs
Adam@FriedGoldberg.com Nathan A. Gaffney
Briant G. Mildenhall
May 15, 2024 Drew C. Timmons
Adam P. Smith
Daniel J. Kingsley
Via Facsimile: (770) 831-0845
Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders
Attn: Legal Department
5230 Belle Wood Court, Suite A
Buford, Georgia 30518
Re: Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco vs. AG Construction LLC, et al.
State Court of Gwinnett County; Civil Action File No.: 24-C-00821-S3
Dear Sir or Madam:
Our firm represents Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco in the above-referenced civil action. Enclosed you will
find a Request for Production of Documents which is served on you as provided by Georgia law,
specifically O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c), and which seeks to obtain information regarding certain records
that may be in your possession concerning this case.
We are happy to pay for any reasonable copying expenses associated with this request. We look
forward to receiving your response to this request in a timely manner. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at the number listed above.
Sincerely,
Fried Goldberg LLC
Adam P. Smith
APS/mbl
Enclosures
cc: All Parties of Record (w/ encl)
Three Alliance Center
FriedGoldberg.com
3550 Lenox Road Northeast
404.591.1800
Suite 1500
Fax: 404.591.1801
Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
ERMILO RODRIGUEZ-ZARCO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs. FILE NO. 24-C-00821-S3
AG CONSTRUCTION LLC,
ABC CORPORATION,
DAGOBERTO LOPEZ, and
MARTIN LOPEZ
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY
To: Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders
Attn: Legal Department
5230 Belle Wood Court, Suite A
Buford, Georgia 30518
Within thirty (30) days after service hereof you are hereby requested, pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§ 9-11-34(c), to produce for inspection and copying at the offices of Fried Goldberg LLC, 3550
Lenox Road, N.E., Suite 1500, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, certified copies of the following
documents:
1. Any and all Master Service Agreement(s) between Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a
Chafin Builders and AG Construction LLC that were in effect in 2022;
2. Any and all purchase order(s), contract(s), memo(s), e-mail(s), and/or any other
documents regarding services to be provided and/or work to be performed by AG
Construction LLC at any homes located within the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery
Branch, Georgia in April or May of 2022, including but not limited to the house that was
then known as “Lot 90,” which is located on Kempton Court within the Lancaster
subdivision;
3. Any and all documents regarding services that were provided and/or work that was
performed by AG Construction LLC at any homes located within the Lancaster
subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia in April or May of 2022, including but not
limited to the house that was then known as “Lot 90,” which is located on Kempton
Court within the Lancaster subdivision;
4. Any and all documents, including but not limited to photographs, video recordings, audio
recordings, witness statements, correspondence, e-mails, and/or memos, regarding the
incident on May 9, 2022 in which Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco was injured when an attic
access ladder detached from the ceiling at a home located within the Lancaster
subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia; and
5. Any and all documents regarding or containing information about people who were
present on the property (whether inside or outside of the house) on the date of the
incident on May 9, 2022 in which Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco was injured when an attic
access ladder detached from the ceiling at a home located within the Lancaster
subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia.
In lieu of your appearance, you may comply with this request by mailing certified copies
of the requested documents. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be paid by Plaintiff's
counsel. A response and certification are attached which should be executed and returned.
Dated on May 15, 2024.
FRIED GOLDBERG LLC
By:
MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG
Georgia Bar No. 299472
ADAM P. SMITH
Georgia Bar No. 899334
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3550 Lenox Road, N.E.
Suite 1500
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
(404) 591-1800 (phone)
(404) 591-1801 (fax)
Michael@friedgoldberg.com
Adam@friedgoldberg.com
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing Request for
Production of Documents to Non-Party via electronic service and/or mailing to the following:
Stephen M. Schatz
Robert J. Kozloski, III
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP
1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
steve.schatz@swiftcurrie.com
robert.kozloski@swiftcurrie.com
Dagoberto Lopez
6333 Horizon Drive
Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542
Martin Lopez
6333 Horizon Drive
Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542
Dated on May 15, 2024.
FRIED GOLDBERG LLC
By:
MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG
Georgia Bar No. 299472
ADAM P. SMITH
Georgia Bar No. 899334
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3550 Lenox Road, N.E.
Suite 1500
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
(404) 591-1800 (phone)
(404) 591-1801 (fax)
Michael@friedgoldberg.com
Adam@friedgoldberg.com
3
RESPONSE OF NON-PARTY TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
COMES NOW Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders and responds to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party served pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-
11-34(c) as follows:
Please indicate the appropriate response below:
[ ] Copies of the requested materials have been attached.
[ ] The materials requested will be produced at the designated address.
[ ] The materials requested do not exist.
AFFIDAVIT
Personally came before me, the undersigned officer, duly authorized to administer oaths,
, who upon being duly sworn, states that (s)he is the custodian of
these records and that the copies attached hereto are true and correct copies of the requested
records of and that said records were kept in the normal
course of business of Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders.
Dated this day of , 20 .
Records Custodian
STATE OF _________________
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20
by .
Signature of Notary Public
Print, type or stamp commissioned name of Notary Public
Personally known to me OR Produced Identification
EXHIBIT B
5/30/24, 2:40 PM GEORGIA
GEORGIA GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE
CORPORATIONS DIVISION BRAD RAFFENSPERGER
HOME (/)
BUSINESS SEARCH
BUSINESS INFORMATION
Business Name: CBUILD Holdings, LLC Control Number: 09013878
Domestic Limited
Business Type: Business Status: Active/Compliance
Liability Company
Business Purpose: NONE
5230 BELLE WOOD
COURT, SUITE A, Date of Formation /
Principal Office Address: 2/25/2009
BUFORD, GA, 30518, Registration Date:
USA
Last Annual Registration
State of Formation: Georgia 2024
Year:
REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Registered Agent Name: HALEY & HALEY LAW GROUP, LLC
Physical Address: 4484 Commerce Drive, Suite A, Buford, GA, 30518, USA
County: Gwinnett
Filing History Name History
Back
Return to Business Search
Office of the Georgia Secretary of State Attn: 2 MLK, Jr. Dr. Suite 313, Floyd West Tower Atlanta, GA 30334-1530,
Phone: (404) 656-2817 Toll-free: (844) 753-7825, WEBSITE: https://sos.ga.gov/
© 2015 PCC Technology Group. All Rights Reserved. Version 6.2.19 Report a Problem?
https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation?businessId=1425877&businessType=Domestic Limited Liability Company&fromSearch… 1/1
EXHIBIT C
From: Adam Smith
To: info@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: Non party request to Chafin
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13:08 AM
Dea,
Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal
Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in
May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience,
I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like
to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
EXHIBIT D
From: Madison Lever
To: Adam Smith; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:17:00 AM
Attachments: NPRPD to Chafin.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good Morning,
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675
Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800
Toll Free: 877.591.1801
madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801
3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none
otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM
To: info@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: Non party request to Chafin
Dea,
Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call
about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
EXHIBIT E
From: Adam Smith
To: Madison Lever; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57:49 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
NPRPD to Chafin.pdf
Importance: High
I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
Adam P. Smith
Trial Attorney
photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com
adam@FriedGoldberg.com
3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists.
From: Madison Lever
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Good Morning,
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675
Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800
Toll Free: 877.591.1801
madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801
3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none
otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM
To: info@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: Non party request to Chafin
Dea,
Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call
about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
From: Adam Smith
To: jan@haleyandhaley.com.
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:59:56 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
NPRPD to Chafin.pdf
Importance: High
Jan,
Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by
COB today.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
Adam P. Smith
Trial Attorney
photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com
adam@FriedGoldberg.com
3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Madison Lever ; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Importance: High
I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
From: Madison Lever
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Good Morning,
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675
Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800
Toll Free: 877.591.1801
madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801
3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none
otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM
To: info@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: Non party request to Chafin
Dea,
Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call
about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
From: Adam Smith
To: dea@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:04:22 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
NPRPD to Chafin.pdf
Importance: High
Dea,
Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by
COB today. If I do not hear back, I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
Adam P. Smith
Trial Attorney
photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com
adam@FriedGoldberg.com
3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:01 AM
To: 'jan@haleyandhaley.com'
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin
Importance: High
Jan,
Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by
COB today.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Madison Lever ; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Importance: High
I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
From: Madison Lever
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com
Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin
Good Morning,
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675
Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800
Toll Free: 877.591.1801
madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801
3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302
NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none
otherwise exists.
From: Adam Smith
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM
To: info@haleyandhaley.com
Cc: Madison Lever
Subject: Non party request to Chafin
Dea,
Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call
about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved.
Thanks,
- Adam
Direct: (404) 591-1839
Cell: (404) 561-1181
Related Content
in Gwinnett County
Ruling
CLARK vs RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Feb 24, 2025 |
CVRI2306248
DEMURRER ON 2ND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR OTHER PERSONAL
INJURY/PROPERTY
IGARASHI VS RIVERSIDE
CVRI2306248 DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(OVER $25,000) OF P CLARK BY
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Tentative Ruling: Hearing is continued to 3/25/25.
Ruling
ABBAS ALI HYDERI, VS KADRE GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
Feb 27, 2025 |
23STCV30671
Case Number:
23STCV30671
Hearing Date:
February 27, 2025
Dept:
54
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Abbas Ali Hyderi,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.:
23STCV30671
vs.
Tentative Ruling
Kadre Group, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Hearing Date: February 27, 2025
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Moving Party
: Defendant Lehrer Architects LA, Inc.
Responding Party
: None
T/R
:
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.
DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at
SMCdept54@lacourt.org
with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.
The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.
A party who fails to plead a cause of action. . . whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.
The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.
This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.
(CCP § 426.50.)
This a construction defect action. Defendant Lehrer moves for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution
against the general contractor and the general contractors former general partners, as well as any other parties who were involved with the alleged construction issues.
The Court will allow leave to file a cross-complaint.
Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Ruling
DEWEY DEMETRO, JR VS EVA CARAEAURE
Feb 26, 2025 |
24STCV23893
Case Number:
24STCV23893
Hearing Date:
February 26, 2025
Dept:
45
DEWEY DEMETRO, JR. V. EVA CARAEURE
MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Date of Hearing:
February 26, 2025
Trial Date:
None set.
Department:
45
Case No.:
24STCV23893
Moving Party:
Defendant Eva Carachure, Court Services Assistant III, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Eva Caraeure)
Responding Party:
Plaintiff Dewey Demetro Jr.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the alleged rejection of entries of default pertaining to a court proceeding. The Complaint in this action is set forth on pleading paper and is handwritten. The Complaint does not set forth any identifiable causes of action. Some of Plaintiffs penmanship is illegible. Plaintiff is currently self-represented.
On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff Dewey Demetro Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Eva Carachure, Court Services Assistant III, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Eva Caraeure) (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that [s]ince the past 3 years[,] [Plaintiff] has been filing entry for (sic) default but always rejected . . . . (Compl., p. 2:1-3.)
On October 8, 2024, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the Complaint, which is currently set for hearing on April 2, 2025.
On October 29, 2024, Defendant filed and served the instant Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1.
Defendant seeks an order declaring [P]laintiff Dewey Demetro, Jr. a vexatious litigant . . . prohibiting [P]laintiff Dewey Demetro, Jr. from filing any new lawsuits
in propria persona
without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed . . . and . . . requiring [P]laintiff Dewey Demetro Jr. to furnish security in this matter. (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:8-12.)
On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed what purports to be an opposition to the motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Such document consists of a one-page document entitled Evidence which merely states that he is not a vexatious litigant and the worlds biggest black sireal (sic) killer is a cop whom is still killing complaints to the California Bar Association. (See 11/18/24 Opposition at p. 1.) Attached to such document are eight pages of unauthenticated documents which include documents including, but not limited to, screenshots of news articles pertaining to police brutality and police misconduct. (See 11/18/24 Opposition.)
There is no proof of service attached to the opposition. Moreover, the opposition cites to no legal authority. Due to the lack of a proof of service, the Court assumes that Defendant was not properly served the purported opposition. Plaintiff was required to serve the opposition on Defendant at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)
On December 26, 2024, this action was reassigned from the Honorable Mel Red Recana to the Honorable Virginia Keeny sitting in Department 45 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse effective January 3, 2025. Plaintiff was ordered to give notice. Based on a review of the court file, there is no proof of service filed showing that Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant of the reassignment of this action.
As of February 21, 2025, no reply brief has been filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
The Court GRANTS Defendants request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The Court also GRANTS Defendants request for the entry of a prefiling order.
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants request that Plaintiff be required to furnish security in this matter.
LEGAL STANDARD
The vexatious litigant statute provides a procedure in pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes procedure strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants. (
In re Bittaker
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.) A court may issue a prefiling order that prohibits the vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation without first obtaining permission of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. (
Ibid
.) The vexatious litigant statute . . . was enacted . . . to curb misuse of the court system by those acting in propria persona who repeatedly litigate the same issues. (
Ibid
.) Their abuse of the system not only wastes court time and resources but also prejudices other parties waiting their turn before the courts. (
Ibid
.) The prefiling order component of the vexatious litigant statute is a necessary method of curbing those for whom litigation has become a game. (
In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases
(2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 387, 394.) It does not deny the vexatious litigant access to the courts, but operates to preclude meritless litigation and the attendant expenditure of resources. (
Ibid
.)¿¿
A court may declare a person to be a vexatious litigant who, in the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been . . . finally determined adversely to the person . . . . (
Garcia v. Lacey
(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406, quoting CCP § 391(b)(1).) The term [l]itigation is defined broadly as any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court. (
Ibid
., internal quotations omitted.) A litigation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the action or proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff. (
Ibid
.)
ANALYSIS
Procedural Violations
Here, Plaintiff has failed to serve the opposition on Defendant. CCP § 1005(b) requires that all opposition papers be filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing.
Also, the opposition is void of any citations to legal authority. The Court informs Plaintiff that [c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. (
Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo
(2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.) The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is representing himself in
pro per
. However, pro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. (
Kobayashi v. Superior Court
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)
Moreover, none of the documents attached to the opposition have been properly authenticated nor has a foundation been laid for such exhibits through a declaration.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of various court records in 32 actions filed by Plaintiff. (See RJN at pp. 1-4.)
The Court GRANTS Defendants request for judicial notice. (
Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage
(1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.) However, the court will not consider the truth of the documents contents unless it is an order, statement of decision, or judgment. (
Id
. at p. 374-375.)
Plaintiff Should be Declared a Vexatious Litigant
Defendant presents evidence, through the declaration of her counsel, Lindsay N. Frazier-Krane (Frazier-Krane), that Plaintiff has initiated 32 civil actions since February 24, 2022. (Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 2-33; Exhs. 1-33.)
Defendant has presented evidence that the following eight actions were commenced by Plaintiff within the immediately preceding seven-year period, and that such actions were determined adversely to Plaintiff:
On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. Mica Ray
,
et al
., LASC Case No. 22STCV06849, which was dismissed without prejudice on October 19, 2022 due to Plaintiffs failure to file a proof of service. (See RJN at Exhs. 1, 35; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 2, 37 and Exhs. 1, 35.)
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro
,
Jr. v. Mica Ray
, LASC Case No. 22STCV36360, which was dismissed without prejudice on December 21, 2023 due to Plaintiffs failure to file a proof of service. (See RJN at Exhs. 5, 36; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 6, 36 and Exhs. 5, 36.)
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro
,
Jr. v. State Capitol The State of California
, LASC Case No. 22STCV38739, which was dismissed without prejudice on April 30, 2024 due to Plaintiffs failure to appear and for delay in prosecution. (See RJN at Exhs. 7, 37; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 8, 38 Exhs. 7, 37.)
On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. L A Fitness Managers
, LASC Case No. 23STCV20119, which was dismissed without prejudice on January 29, 2024 due to Plaintiffs failure to properly serve defendant. (See RJN at Exhs. 10, 38; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 11, 39 and Exhs. 10, 38.)
On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. Spring Street Courthouse Dept. 32 Clerk of Court
, LASC Case No. 23STCV21683, which was dismissed by the Court on October 31, 2023, with prejudice, on the grounds that the complaint was meritless on its face pursuant to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court noticed on its own motion. (See RJN at Exhs. 12, 40-41; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 13, 41-42 and Exhs. 12, 40-41.)
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. EBE, et al
., LASC Case No. 23STCV22019, which was dismissed by the Court on October 31, 2023, with prejudice, on the grounds that the complaint was meritless on its face pursuant to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court noticed on its own motion. (See RJN at Exhs. 14, 42; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 15, 43 and Exhs. 14, 42.)
On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro v. Yoka Smith LLC,
LASC Case No. 23STCV25408, which was dismissed by the Court on February 16, 2024, without prejudice, on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service and failed to file a declaration as to why the case should not be dismissed. (See RJN at Exhs. 17, 44; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 18, 45 and Exhs. 17, 44.)
On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Dewey Demetro Jr. v. Peter The Landlord,
LASC Case No. 24STCV00441, which was dismissed by the Court on May 1, 2024, without prejudice, pursuant to CCP § 1167.1. (See RJN at Exhs. 22,45; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 23, 46 and Exhs. 17, 45.)
Based on the evidence presented by Defendant, the Court finds it appropriate that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. Here, Defendant has presented evidence that, within the past three years, Plaintiff has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained eight civil actions which were determined adversely to Plaintiff. The Court deems the aforementioned actions as concluding in an adverse determination as all the actions were dismissed. The Court finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant within the meaning
of Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(1).
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants request to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
A Prefiling Order is Appropriate
[T]he court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria person without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a).) The clerk of the court shall provide the Judicial Council a copy of any prefiling orders issued pursuant to subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (f).)
Defendant requests that, along with being declared a vexatious litigant, a prefiling order be entered to prohibit Plaintiff from filing frivolous lawsuits. Given that Plaintiff has commenced a total of 32 actions since February of 2022, and eight of those actions have been adversely determined against Plaintiff, the Court finds it appropriate to enter a prefiling order.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants request to enter a prefiling order.
Defendant Has Not Shown that Plaintiff Should be Required to Furnish Security
In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1, subd. (a).) The motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1, subd. (a).)
Here, the Court finds that Defendant has not made a showing that there is not a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail in the litigation. Attorney Frazier-Krane provided declarations in support of the motion and the request for judicial notice. The declaration in support of the motion only states that it is estimated that the instant action will cost Defendant $25,000.00 in attorneys fees and costs to defend. (Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶ 2.)
While the memorandum of points and authorities argues that Plaintiff is not likely to prevail in this action (Motion at p. 8:9-16), Defendant has not made a showing through admissible evidence that such fact is true. The Court finds that the Complaint is incomprehensible and only alleges that Defendant rejected defaults filed by Plaintiff within the last three years. Although the Court believes that the Complaint is severely deficient on its face, such fact is immaterial. Defendant must make a proper showing under CCP § 391.1. Defendant is informed that [i]n law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. (
Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)
Defendants request that Plaintiff furnish security is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
The Court GRANTS Defendants request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The Court also GRANTS Defendants request for the entry of a prefiling order.
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants request that Plaintiff be required to furnish security in this matter.
Ruling
STEWART LUCAS MURREY VS JENNEY LEE
Feb 27, 2025 |
19SMCV01861
Case Number:
19SMCV01861
Hearing Date:
February 27, 2025
Dept:
M
CASE NAME:
Murrey v. Lee
CASE NO.:
19SMCV01861
MOTION:
Motion to Seal
HEARING DATE:
2/27/2025
Legal Standard
The sealing of trial court records is governed by CRC Rules 2.550 and 2.551. (
Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein
(2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.) Pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the partiesa prior court order must be obtained. (CRC, Rule 2.551(a); see
H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe
(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.)
To seal a record, the following requirements are imposed: (1) the party must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record, which must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing; (2) the party must serve a copy of the motion on all parties who have appeared in the case; and (3) the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made unless the record has previously been lodged. (CRC, Rule 2.551(b).)
The Court must make the following express factual findings in order to seal records: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (CRC, Rule 2.550(d).)
These findings embody constitutional requirements for a request to seal court records, protecting the First Amendment right of public access to civil trials. (
NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)
An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those pages and documents or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal, and all other portions must be included in the public file. (CRC, rule 2.550(e).)
Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court. (CRC, Rule 2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter. (Id., Rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record. (Id., Rule 2.551(b)(5).)
ANALYSIS
Defendant Jenney Lee moves to seal the entire case file associated with case no. 19SMCV01861. Defendant identifies a confidentiality agreement as part of the justification for sealing the entire record. A contractual obligation not to disclose certain confidential information could constitute an overriding interest. (
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court
¿(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283-1284.) However, more than a mere agreement of the parties is needed to seal court documents. (
Id
.)
Defendant claims that the contents of the case are unnecessarily jeopardizing the privacy of the parties. She claims that this action has had a demeaning effect on her life, as she has lost job prospects and not been able to get back into a viable position in the corporate world because this cases records are viewable online with a simple search of her name. (Lee Decl., ¶5.) She lives in constant persecution for having been accused of abuse, discrimination, alcoholism, mental-illness, crimes, violence, sexual deviance, etc. (Id., ¶ 6.) The Court agrees that such contents would be strikable or support a sealing order if not strikable. The parties privacy rights support sealing sensitive medical and sexual information. (
Ruiz v. Podolsky
(2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850; see
Hill v. Natl Collegiate Athletics¿Assn¿
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41 [A persons medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.].) In fact, the Court notes that it has already struck numerous allegations and exhibits from the record on this very basis. The Court also notes that the entire court filing is replete with material that should be stricken and jeopardizes the privacy of defendant by including irrelevant personal identifying information and other irrelevant intimate information.
As to such information, Defendant would have an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, and a substantial probability exists that that interest will be prejudiced if the entire record is not sealed. Sealing only specific exhibits or redacting only portions of the pleading would be insufficient under the unique circumstances of this case.
Therefore, the motion is GRANTED and the case file is ordered SEALED.
Ruling
Adrianne Weiss vs. Manor Care of Walnut Creek CA, LLC
Feb 19, 2025 |
C23-00360
C23-00360
CASE NAME: ADRIANNE WEISS VS. MANOR CARE OF WALNUT CREEK CA, LLC
HEARING ON SUMMARY MOTION FILED BY MANOR CARE OF WALNUT CREEK CA, LLC
FILED BY:
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
Defendant Manor Care of Walnut Creek CA, LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, filed on
August 23, 2024, is denied.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Background
This is an Elder Abuse action. Plaintiffs are the relatives of deceased Plaintiff Adrianne Weiss
(Adrianne), then an 80 year-old resident of Defendant Manor Care of Walnut Creek CA, LLC, a skilled
nursing facility (the Facility). At the time of admission, Adrianne had ongoing dementia, for which she
was taking blood thinners, and was a known fall risk. Plaintiffs allege that Adrianne had
two unwitnessed falls in her room at the Facility— on November 25 and November 26, 2021— the
latter of which resulted in injuries that allegedly caused or contributed to Adrianne’s death in 2022.
Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against Defendant in their First Amended Complaint: (1)
“Reckless or Willful Neglect of an Elder under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection
Act”, (2) Violation of the Patient Bill of Rights, and (3) Negligence. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
failed to implement necessary fall precautions for a person in Adrianne’s condition. They also allege
that Defendant deliberately understaffed the facility in a manner that contributed to the harm in this
case.
Defendant now moves for summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) The first cause of action
for elder abuse and neglect is without merit and fails to raise a triable issue of material fact, as a
matter of law because “undisputed evidence shows Plaintiff[s’] cannot prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Defendant acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice” and (2) plaintiff is not
entitled to the heightened remedies of punitive damages and attorney fees under Welf. & Inst. Code
15657 because “undisputed evidence shows Plaintiff cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence
that Defendant acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice.”
Standard
“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one
or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the
party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause
of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, [or] that there is
no merit to a claim for damages. . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) "A motion for summary adjudication
shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for
damages, or an issue of duty." (Ibid.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication has met his or her burden of
showing that a cause of action has no merit if he or she shows one or more elements of the cause of
action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) 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. (Ibid.)
In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court is "required to view the evidence and the
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary
judgment motion; doubts as to whether there are any triable issues must be resolved in favor of the
opposing party; and equally conflicting evidence or inferences require denial of a summary judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
motion." (Essex Ins. Co. v. Heck (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1522.) Evidence in opposition to motions
for summary judgment or summary adjudication are liberally construed while the moving party's
evidence is strictly construed. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.)
Evidentiary Matters
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs’ 12/23/25 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion is granted. Evidence Code section 452 subsection (c) permits judicial notice to be taken of
official acts of the legislative, executive, or judicial departments of the United States or any state of
the United States. Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the California Department of Public Health, All
Facility Letter (SFL) 19-156 issued on April 9, 2019. (RJN, Ex. 1.) The California Department of Public
Health is a state administrative agency. The Court is permitted to take judicial notice of this document
pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452 (c).
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant’s 1/3/25 Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Defendant requests judicial notice of
Medicare program participation requirements governing care planning in 42 CFR § 483.21, in
particular, the requirement stating, "[t]he facility must develop and implement a baseline care plan for
each resident … within 48 hours of a resident’s admission." (42 CFR § 483.21(a)(1).)
Defendant requests judicial notice of this regulation to support its new argument on reply that
argument that the standard of care did not require Defendant to create a care plan for Adrianne at the
time of admission, and to rebut Plaintiffs’ expert Pamela Starkey’s opinion that “a care plan, and in
particular, the interventions within the care plan to address Ms. Weiss’s known fall risk, needed to be
created upon admission.” (Reply, p. 9:11-25, citing to Starkey Decl., Ex. 5 to Plfs.’ Compendium of
Evidence, ¶ 38.) The Court can take judicial notice of the Medicare program participation
requirements. But nothing is cited by Defendant they establish the professional standard of care in
every case.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence
Plaintiffs did not file written objections to evidence.
Defendant’s Objections to Evidence
Defendant’s 1/3/25 Objections to the Declaration of Rodrigo Giacinti, Licensed Nursing Home
Administrator, are ruled on as follows:
Objection No. 1 (¶ 15:4-5) is overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Objection No. 2 (¶ 18:12-14) is overruled.
Objection No. 3 (¶ 23:3-5) is overruled.
Objection No. 3 (the second one) (¶ 24:8-10) is overruled.
Objection No. 4 (¶ 27:21-23) is overruled.
Objection No. 5 (¶ 29:2) is overruled.
Objection No. 6 (¶ 29) is overruled.
Objection No. 7 (¶ 31(b)) is overruled.
Objection No. 8 (¶ 32) “The inadequate staffing prevented the staff from providing the Ms. Weiss with
the care she was entitled to….”) is sustained. Speculation/lack of foundation.
Defendant’s 1/3/25 Objections to the Declaration of Pamela Sharkey, R.N. are ruled on as follows:
Objection No. 9 (¶ 28:17-18) is overruled.
Objection No. 10 (¶ 29:20-21 – “The admission nurse is required to initiate a care plan individualized
to the care and treatment of the resident upon admission”) is overruled.
Objection No. 11 (¶ 29:22-23 – “Anything less than that would constitute abuse and/or neglect”) is
sustained, to the extent that the declarant purports to offer a legal conclusion.
Objection No. 12 (¶ 35:15-17) is overruled.
Objection No. 13 (¶ 41:13-15) is overruled.
Objection No. 14 (¶ 42:7-15) is sustained to the extent that the declarant purports to offer a legal
conclusion.
Objection No. 15 (¶ 58:23-26) is sustained to the extent that the declarant purports to offer a legal
conclusion.
Objection No. 16 (¶ 71) is sustained to the extent the declarant purports provide an opinion as to
causation that is lacking in foundation.
Manor Care’s 1/3/25 “Objections to Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts” are overruled. Evidentiary objections raised in a separate statement are improper
in that they are required to be made in a separate document. (CRC 3.1354(b).) To the extent that
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Defendant purports to object to facts in the separate statement, these objections are improper
because a separate statement merely refers to evidence, and is not evidence itself. (Jackson v. County
of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 178 n.4.)
First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse
The first cause of action is for elder abuse and neglect. The Elder Abuse Act provides "heightened
remedies to a plaintiff who can prove 'by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for
physical abuse ..., or neglect ..., or abandonment ...' and who can demonstrate that the defendant
acted with 'recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse.' " (Stewart v.
Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 87, 101-102.) In sum, in order to allege a violation of the Elder
Abuse Act, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant committed (1) a physical abuse, neglect, or
abandonment, and (2) in doing so acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. To avoid
summary judgment, plaintiffs must produce evidence that could, if accepted by the trier of fact,
satisfy the clear and convincing standard of proof. (Reader's Digest Ass'n v. Superior Court (1984) 37
Cal.3d 244, 252.)
Here, “neglect” is the principal basis of the elder abuse claim. The Act defines “neglect” to mean
"[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to
exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise." (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 15610.57(a)(1).) As relevant herein, “neglect” includes, but is not limited to, the “[f]ailure to
protect from health and safety hazards.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57(b)(3).)
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s motion is not supported by an expert testimony
that it did not neglect Adrianne because her care plan complied with the standard of care, even
though Defendant apparently takes the position that expert testimony is required for this purpose.
(See, e.g., Def.’s 1/3/25 Objections to Plaintiff’s [response to] Fact No. 10: “Whether the care plan
implemented [for Adrianne] was inappropriate calls for…expert witness testimony.”)
Assuming Defendant’s moving papers are sufficient to satisfy defendant's initial burden of production
under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2), the Court finds that there are disputed issues of fact as to
whether Defendant engaged in neglect within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act. Although
Defendant claims that Adrianne was not neglected because it provided certain protections for her
(see, e.g., Def.’s Fact Nos. 10-13, 26, 27 and evidence cited), the Court does not find that this is
sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. As noted, under Welfare and
Institutions Code § 15610.57(b)(3), neglect includes the failure to protect from health and safety
hazards. (Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 85, 99.) Although Defendant
argues there were various protocols in place to protect Adrianne, including fall-risk interventions, the
record does not clearly reflect that these measures were sufficient to protect Adrianne in her
condition, that they were followed, or that they were in place when needed. (See Declaration of
Plaintiffs’ expert Pamela Starkey, R.N., ¶¶ 28-35.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Here, there is no dispute that Adrianne is an elder and that Defendant had the responsibility to meet
Adrianne’s basic needs. Plaintiffs present evidence in opposition to the motion that Adrianne was a
known fall risk in both the January 2021 and November 2021 admission to Defendant’s facility. (Plfs.’
UMF No. 3.) At the November 2021 admission, RN Kaur noted “[w]orries about falling or feels
unsteady when standing or walking, “[p]roblems with heart rate and/or arrhythmia” and “[c]ognitive
impairment.” (Plfs.’ UMF No. 7.) However, no care plan was initiated at admission. (Plfs.’ UMF No. 8.)
Plaintiffs’ expert Pamela Starkey, R.N. opines that, an individualized care plan must be created upon
admission because it is only through the care plan that Certified Nursing Assistants, or CNAs, are
educated on resident’s needs and the level of care required to ensure safety. Based on Adrianne’s
medical condition, a known prior history of falls, and memory issues at admission, the standard of
care would require “assist[ance] to transfer and ambulate as needed” and “reinforce[ments] need to
call for assistance” as interventions in her care plan, which is the mechanism communicating the level
of care to Adrianne’s caregivers, including RNs and CNAs. (Starkey Decl., ¶¶ 28-35.)
The next day, both Defendant’s physical therapist and RN Jiang recognized Adrianne was
a fall risk. (Plfs.’ UMF Nos. 9, 11 and 12.) Despite recognizing that Adrianne needed assistance, RN
Jiang initiated a care plan that only required CNAs to “encourage [Adrianne] to transfer and change
positions slowly.” (Plfs.’ UMF No. 10.) This was the level of intervention throughout the time that
Adrianne was at the facility. In other words, Defendant’s care plan did not require caregivers to assist
Adrianne when leaving her bed or require them to encourage Adrianne to ask for assistance. Even
after Adrianne’s first fall on November 25, her care plan remained the same. Thus, Plaintiffs contend
that whether Adrianne used or did not use the call light prior to her falls is “moot" based on
Defendant’s care plan for her, as Defendant did not require staff to provide, or for Adrianne to ask for,
assistance when leaving her bed. Plaintiffs claim that Adrianne most likely was not trained to use the
call light for assistance as she was deemed “independent” by nursing staff. (Starkey Dec ¶ 54.)
Defendant should have deemed Adrianne to be “3 – EXTENSIVE ASSISTANCE” or “4 - TOTAL
DEPENDENCE” at admission, when Adrianne’s care plan was initiated the following day, and especially
after the first fall on November 25. However, it was not until after Adrianne was transported to the
Emergency Department for the second and more injurious fall that LVN Cenizal was instructed by an
unknown supervisor to update Adrianne’s care plan to add “Provide assist to transfer and ambulate as
needed” and “Reinforce need to call for assistance”. (Plfs.’ UMF No. 42.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant withheld services necessary to meet
Adrianne’s basic needs and there are triable issues as to whether Defendant committed elder abuse.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of
material fact (including with regard to alleged recklessness, as addressed below).
Enhanced Remedies
Defendant next argues that if the Court does not dismiss the elder abuse cause of action altogether, it
can dismiss the prayer for punitive damages and attorney fees on the elder abuse cause of action,
“leaving the elder abuse cause of action as a claim for negligence.” (Reply, p. 1:6-8.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657 provides that a plaintiff may recover attorney fees,
costs and punitive damages, as well as pain and suffering in survival actions, if plaintiff
proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was liable for physical abuse,
neglect, or financial abuse and that the defendant was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or
malice in the commission of the abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657(a); see CACI No 3104.)
Plaintiffs point out that Defendant’s motion focuses only on “malice”, “oppression” and “fraud”; terms
which require an “intentional state of mind” and cites to non-Elder Abuse Cases for its definitions.
(Motion, p. 11:28.) Plaintiffs also point out that Welfare & Institution Code § 15657 also includes the
term “recklessness,” which is the deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that an injury
will occur. (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23; CACI 3113.)
Relying on Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, Plaintiffs
contend that Defendant's practice of understaffing, along with alleged statutory and regulatory
violations, are sufficient to show a triable issue of recklessness neglect. Fenimore held that reckless
neglect may be premised on a fall where it was alleged that the subject hospital was understaffed at
the time of the fall, that the understaffing caused the fall, and was part of a pattern of practice.
(Fenimore, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 1349 [reversing the trial court's sustaining of defendant's
demurrer without leave to amend].)
Plaintiffs’ FAC contains the required allegations. (See FAC ¶¶ 28, 32-35, 41-43 and 46-47.) Defendant’s
motion is silent as to the understaffing allegations, so Defendant does not meet its initial burden of
production in this regard. But even if Defendant had met its burden, Plaintiffs’ evidence as to
understaffing, liberally construed, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. That is, plaintiffs present
evidence that during Adrianne’s residency, the facility was understaffed in violation of state
regulations. Plaintiffs claim that understaffing directly correlates to patient care and the attention a
resident receives, as reflected in nursing notes and deposition testimonies:
· R.N. Kaur, the admission nurse, recorded that Adrianne arrived with paramedics via gurney
at 4:00 pm on November 22, 2021 in a note that was charted 6 hours later. She also failed to
initiate a care plan upon admission. (Plfs.’ UMF Nos. 6-8.)
· R.N. Jiang visited on the second day of Adrianne admission and created a care plan, but it
lacked the required interventions to manage Ms. Weiss’s significant fall risk. (Plfs.’ UMF Nos.
9-10.)
· R.N. Rumpf charted at 4:25 p.m. that Adrianne was found on November 25, 2021 at 11:45
a.m., nearly 5 hours earlier. Nurse Rumpf failed to document – and does not recall – who
found Adrianne on the floor. (Plfs.’ UMF Nos. 21-22.)
· When Adrianne’s son and daughter-in law returned Adrianne to the Facility after
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
an outing for Thanksgiving dinner, they and another resident were unable to contact any staff
to open the locked front door and remained locked outside for 45 minutes to one hour. (Plfs.’
UMF Nos. 25-29.)
· Adrianne was noted as being found by an unidentified CNA by Kara Malone, R.N., at 5:36
a.m., in a note that Malone created at 8:37 a.m. The only evidence of the timing of Adrianne’s
second fall was that paramedics were contacted at 5:17 a.m. (Plfs.’ UMF No. 38.)
· LVN Cenizal, a desk nurse whose main task was to answer phone calls and had no direct
patient care for the prior 10 years, was asked by an unknown supervisor to update the care
plan with the appropriate level of fall risk intervention, despite never having met Adrianne.
(Plfs.’ UMF No. 42.)
Plaintiffs claim that due to understaffing, Defendant failed to implement a care plan that protected
Adrianne from falling, such that she suffered two unwitnessed falls within 20 hours, the second of
which resulted in injuries which caused or contributed to her death. (FAC, ¶ 43.) Plaintiffs further
claim that based on all the totality of the evidence, the trier of fact should decide whether there has
been recklessness neglect. Liberally construing Plaintiffs’ evidence as the Court must, summary
adjudication is denied.
Reply Arguments
Defendant asserts in reply: “This is a case about Plaintiff, an elderly woman, who was stubborn and
failed to follow instructions from nursing staff, failed to use call lights as instructed, and as a result fell
twice injuring herself on the second fall…. [¶] The evidence presented in Defendant’s moving papers,
including the separate statement of undisputed material facts and the compendium of evidence,
supports the fact that Ms. Weiss, on both occasions, got out of bed on her own without using the call
light, and fell. It was no fault of the staff that she fell twice. The staffing levels, or any other arguments
raised by Plaintiff in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Adjudication, were not the reasons as
to why Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff got out of bed of her own volition, even after being told to use the call
light for assistance.” (See Reply., 1:20-2:9.)
The Court finds these arguments to be unavailing. First, as previously noted, there are triable issues of
fact as to whether and when Adrianne was counseled to use her call light. Second, Defendant relies on
declarations from Nurse Rumpf and EMT Vance that Adrianne’s call light was “off” when they arrived,
but neither declarant was the first to discover Adrianne after she fell. As a result, these declarants
have no personal knowledge of how Adrianne was found or whether she activated the call light. Third,
the place to specifically argue that alleged understaffing did not contribute to the injury in this case
was the moving papers.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 16 / 34
JUDICIAL OFFICER: BENJAMIN REYES / LEONARD E MARQUEZ
HEARING DATE: 02/19/2025
Disposition
Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary adjudication is denied.
Ruling
MORGAN vs MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
Feb 24, 2025 |
CVMV2404216
DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR
OTHER PERSONAL
INJURY/PROPERTY
MORGAN vs MERCURY
CVMV2404216 DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT
INSURANCE COMPANY
(OVER $10,000 DOES NOT EXCEED
$35,000) OF TIYIESHA MORGAN BY
MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
Tentative Ruling: Sustained.
Ruling
H vs TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Feb 24, 2025 |
CVSW2406940
DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED
H vs TEMECULA COMPLAINT FOR OTHER PERSONAL
CVSW2406940 VALLEY UNIFIED INJURY/PROPERTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT
(OVER $35,000) OF R H
Tentative Ruling:
The Demurrer is ordered off calendar without prejudice.
CCP § 430.41 and § 435.5 require a meet and confer process via phone or in person
before filing a demurrer or motion to strike five days before the responsive pleading is
due. The meet and confer process requires the moving party to identify the causes of
action or allegations subject to attack and the plaintiff must provide legal support for its
position. (CCP § 430.41(a)(1), 435.5(a)(1).) The demurring party must file a
declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred, or the responding
party failed to respond or meet and confer in good faith. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).)
Here, the parties only met and conferred with regard to the originally filed complaint.
(Declaration of Michael Shaheen, ¶ 4.) In response, Plaintiff filed the FAC. (Declaration
of Alfred Von Kessler IV, ¶ 7.) Before filing this demurrer to the FAC, TVUSD did not
conduct any further meet and confer. (Id.; Declaration of Michael Shaheen, ¶¶ 3-5.) This
was insufficient and the court continued the hearing, along with an order requiring the
parties conduct a telephonic, video, or in person meet and confer.
On 1/8/2025, the court again continued the hearing as TVUSD failed to file an additional
meet and confer declaration. The court also set an OSC for TVUSD’s violation of the
court’s prior order.
Since the second continuance, there is still no filing by TVUSD evidencing any
additional meet and confer has occurred.
Ruling
DINORAH ECHAVARRIA VS JUAN CARLOS REYES ROJO, ET AL.
Feb 27, 2025 |
24TRCV01518
Case Number:
24TRCV01518
Hearing Date:
February 27, 2025
Dept:
E
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. E
DINORAH ECHAVARRIA
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
24TRCV01518
vs.
[Tentative] Granted
JUAN CARLOS REYES ROJO, LV TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
Hearing Date:
February 27, 2025
Moving Parties:
Defendants Jose Carlos Reyes Rojo and LV Transportation
Responding Party:
Plaintiff Dinorah Echavarria
HEARING: Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production
The Court considered the moving papers.
RULING
The Court grants the
Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.
BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2024,
Plaintiff Dinorah Echavarria filed the Complaint against Defendants Juan Carlos Reyes Rojo and LV Transportation, LLC, alleging a single cause of action for negligence resulting from a motor vehicle incident.
On July 2, 2024, Defendants propounded Requests for Admission, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff.
On September 4, 2024, the Court held a Case Management Conference, and
instructed Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Defendants discovery requests by October 15, 2024.
On October 11, 2024, Defendant received responses to Defendant's discovery requests. However, the requests were unverified and did not conform to the Code of Civil Procedure.
On November 18, 2024, the Court held another Case Management Conference and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Defendants Discovery by January 10, 2025.
Plaintiff is yet to provide verified responses to Defendants discovery.
On January 14, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300;
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants served Plaintiff with
Requests for Admission, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One on July 2, 2024, and Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to oppose the instant motion.
Therefore, the Court grants the
Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.
Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) A court will not disregard applicable rules merely because he elected to appear in propria persona. (
Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, Fn. 28.)
Defendants request the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff totaling $2,385. While the Court agrees that Defendants are entitled to sanctions, given the relatively straightforward nature of the instant motions to compel and Plaintiffs status in pro per, the Court lowers the requested sanctions to $1,000.
Therefore, the Court imposes sanctions on Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 payable to Defendants.
Document
JOHNSON VS MCCLUSKY
Feb 24, 2025 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
25-C-02192-S7
Document
TEET VS SQUIRES ET AL
Dec 24, 2024 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-12224-S7
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA ERMILO RODRIGUEZ-ZARCO, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION vs. FILE NO. 24-C-00821-S3 AG CONSTRUCTION LLC, ABC CORPORATION, DAGOBERTO LOPEZ, and MARTIN LOPEZ Defendants. MOTION TO COMPEL CLAYTON PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. D/B/A CHAFIN BUILDERS COMES NOW, Plaintiff, with this his Motion to Compel Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders (“Chafin Builders”) pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34, O.C.G.A. § 24-13-26, and Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4 and showing this Honorable Court as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS Subject Incident This is a premises liability action for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco as a result of a fall occurring on May 9, 2022. The subject incident occurred at a new house that was under construction by Chafin Builders in the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia. Chafin Builders utilized various subcontractors and independent contractors to complete construction of the house, including Defendant AG Construction LLC. Prior to the subject incident, an attic access ladder was installed in the ceiling on the second floor of the house. On the date of the subject incident, Plaintiff went to the house to install insulation in the attic. As he was climbing up the attic access ladder, it detached from the ceiling, causing Plaintiff and the ladder to fall to the floor. As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries requiring extensive treatment, including two surgeries for his right ankle. Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders on May 15, 2024. See Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders, attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to mailing a copy of the request to the business office for Chafin Builders, Plaintiff’s counsel also mailed a copy to Haley & Haley Law Group, LLC, as Registered Agent for CBuild Holdings, LLC, which shares the same mailing address as Chafin Builders. See Georgia Secretary of State Business Search, attached hereto as Exhibit B. To date, Plaintiff has not received any responsive documents from Chafin Builders. Attempts to Confer in Good Faith On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel called Haley & Haley Law Group, LLC regarding the request. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow-up e-mail documenting the conversation and requesting a call from John Haley. See September 20, 2024 E-Mail, attached hereto as Exhibit C. An additional e-mail was sent that same day containing a copy of the non-party request, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Haley & Haley Law Group, LLC again on October 7, 2024. See October 7, 2024 E-Mails, attached hereto as Exhibit E. To date, no response has been received. 2 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY “A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(a). “A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(2). A party may serve a request for production of documents to a non- party. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(a) and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c). A party can file a motion to compel pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(a) against a non-party upon a showing of good cause. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c)(1). Additionally, courts have the power to enforce subpoenas. See O.C.G.A. § 24-13-26. Plaintiff is entitled to discover documentation from Chafin Builders regarding any contracts and/or service agreements it entered into with Defendant AG Construction LLC, as well as any documentation in its possession regarding the subject incident pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(2). This information/documentation could shed light on the relationship between Chafin Builders and Defendants and may impact the jury’s determination of liability and/or apportionment of fault between the Defendants. Accordingly, this information is discoverable from Chafin Builders. Plaintiff appropriately served his Request for Production of Documents to non-party Chafin Builders. Plaintiff has attempted several times to follow-up with Chafin Builders to arrange for production of this documentation without the need for court intervention but has not received a response in the form of production of the requested documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking an order compelling production of these documents from Chafin Builders. 3 This 21st day of November, 2024. Respectfully Submitted, FRIED GOLDBERG LLC By: Adam P. Smith MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG Georgia Bar No. 299472 ADAM P. SMITH Georgia Bar No. 899334 Attorneys for Plaintiff Three Alliance Center 3550 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 (404) 591-1800 (office) (404) 591-1801 (fax) Email: Michael@friedgoldberg.com Email: Adam@friedgoldberg.com 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders has this day been served upon all counsel of record via electronic filing thereon to: Steven M. Schatz Robert J. Kozloski, III Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP 1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 steve.schatz@swiftcurrie.com robert.kozloski@swiftcurrie.com Dated on this 21st day of November, 2024. FRIED GOLDBERG LLC By: Adam P. Smith ADAM P. SMITH Georgia Bar No.: 899334 5 EXHIBIT A Joseph A. Fried Michael L. Goldberg Adam P. Smith Bradford W. Thomas Direct Dial: 404.591.1839 Brian T. Mohs Adam@FriedGoldberg.com Nathan A. Gaffney Briant G. Mildenhall May 15, 2024 Drew C. Timmons Adam P. Smith Daniel J. Kingsley Via Facsimile: (770) 831-0845 Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders Attn: Legal Department 5230 Belle Wood Court, Suite A Buford, Georgia 30518 Re: Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco vs. AG Construction LLC, et al. State Court of Gwinnett County; Civil Action File No.: 24-C-00821-S3 Dear Sir or Madam: Our firm represents Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco in the above-referenced civil action. Enclosed you will find a Request for Production of Documents which is served on you as provided by Georgia law, specifically O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c), and which seeks to obtain information regarding certain records that may be in your possession concerning this case. We are happy to pay for any reasonable copying expenses associated with this request. We look forward to receiving your response to this request in a timely manner. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at the number listed above. Sincerely, Fried Goldberg LLC Adam P. Smith APS/mbl Enclosures cc: All Parties of Record (w/ encl) Three Alliance Center FriedGoldberg.com 3550 Lenox Road Northeast 404.591.1800 Suite 1500 Fax: 404.591.1801 Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA ERMILO RODRIGUEZ-ZARCO, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION vs. FILE NO. 24-C-00821-S3 AG CONSTRUCTION LLC, ABC CORPORATION, DAGOBERTO LOPEZ, and MARTIN LOPEZ Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY To: Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders Attn: Legal Department 5230 Belle Wood Court, Suite A Buford, Georgia 30518 Within thirty (30) days after service hereof you are hereby requested, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c), to produce for inspection and copying at the offices of Fried Goldberg LLC, 3550 Lenox Road, N.E., Suite 1500, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, certified copies of the following documents: 1. Any and all Master Service Agreement(s) between Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders and AG Construction LLC that were in effect in 2022; 2. Any and all purchase order(s), contract(s), memo(s), e-mail(s), and/or any other documents regarding services to be provided and/or work to be performed by AG Construction LLC at any homes located within the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia in April or May of 2022, including but not limited to the house that was then known as “Lot 90,” which is located on Kempton Court within the Lancaster subdivision; 3. Any and all documents regarding services that were provided and/or work that was performed by AG Construction LLC at any homes located within the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia in April or May of 2022, including but not limited to the house that was then known as “Lot 90,” which is located on Kempton Court within the Lancaster subdivision; 4. Any and all documents, including but not limited to photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, witness statements, correspondence, e-mails, and/or memos, regarding the incident on May 9, 2022 in which Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco was injured when an attic access ladder detached from the ceiling at a home located within the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia; and 5. Any and all documents regarding or containing information about people who were present on the property (whether inside or outside of the house) on the date of the incident on May 9, 2022 in which Ermilo Rodriguez-Zarco was injured when an attic access ladder detached from the ceiling at a home located within the Lancaster subdivision in Flowery Branch, Georgia. In lieu of your appearance, you may comply with this request by mailing certified copies of the requested documents. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be paid by Plaintiff's counsel. A response and certification are attached which should be executed and returned. Dated on May 15, 2024. FRIED GOLDBERG LLC By: MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG Georgia Bar No. 299472 ADAM P. SMITH Georgia Bar No. 899334 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. Suite 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 (404) 591-1800 (phone) (404) 591-1801 (fax) Michael@friedgoldberg.com Adam@friedgoldberg.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party via electronic service and/or mailing to the following: Stephen M. Schatz Robert J. Kozloski, III Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP 1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 steve.schatz@swiftcurrie.com robert.kozloski@swiftcurrie.com Dagoberto Lopez 6333 Horizon Drive Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542 Martin Lopez 6333 Horizon Drive Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542 Dated on May 15, 2024. FRIED GOLDBERG LLC By: MICHAEL L. GOLDBERG Georgia Bar No. 299472 ADAM P. SMITH Georgia Bar No. 899334 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. Suite 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 (404) 591-1800 (phone) (404) 591-1801 (fax) Michael@friedgoldberg.com Adam@friedgoldberg.com 3 RESPONSE OF NON-PARTY TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS COMES NOW Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders and responds to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Non-Party served pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9- 11-34(c) as follows: Please indicate the appropriate response below: [ ] Copies of the requested materials have been attached. [ ] The materials requested will be produced at the designated address. [ ] The materials requested do not exist. AFFIDAVIT Personally came before me, the undersigned officer, duly authorized to administer oaths, , who upon being duly sworn, states that (s)he is the custodian of these records and that the copies attached hereto are true and correct copies of the requested records of and that said records were kept in the normal course of business of Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Chafin Builders. Dated this day of , 20 . Records Custodian STATE OF _________________ COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by . Signature of Notary Public Print, type or stamp commissioned name of Notary Public Personally known to me OR Produced Identification EXHIBIT B 5/30/24, 2:40 PM GEORGIA GEORGIA GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATIONS DIVISION BRAD RAFFENSPERGER HOME (/) BUSINESS SEARCH BUSINESS INFORMATION Business Name: CBUILD Holdings, LLC Control Number: 09013878 Domestic Limited Business Type: Business Status: Active/Compliance Liability Company Business Purpose: NONE 5230 BELLE WOOD COURT, SUITE A, Date of Formation / Principal Office Address: 2/25/2009 BUFORD, GA, 30518, Registration Date: USA Last Annual Registration State of Formation: Georgia 2024 Year: REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION Registered Agent Name: HALEY & HALEY LAW GROUP, LLC Physical Address: 4484 Commerce Drive, Suite A, Buford, GA, 30518, USA County: Gwinnett Filing History Name History Back Return to Business Search Office of the Georgia Secretary of State Attn: 2 MLK, Jr. Dr. Suite 313, Floyd West Tower Atlanta, GA 30334-1530, Phone: (404) 656-2817 Toll-free: (844) 753-7825, WEBSITE: https://sos.ga.gov/ © 2015 PCC Technology Group. All Rights Reserved. Version 6.2.19 Report a Problem? https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation?businessId=1425877&businessType=Domestic Limited Liability Company&fromSearch… 1/1 EXHIBIT C From: Adam Smith To: info@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: Non party request to Chafin Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13:08 AM Dea, Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 EXHIBIT D From: Madison Lever To: Adam Smith; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:17:00 AM Attachments: NPRPD to Chafin.pdf image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Good Morning, Please see attached. Thank you, Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675 Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800 Toll Free: 877.591.1801 madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM To: info@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: Non party request to Chafin Dea, Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 EXHIBIT E From: Adam Smith To: Madison Lever; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57:49 AM Attachments: image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png NPRPD to Chafin.pdf Importance: High I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 Adam P. Smith Trial Attorney photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com adam@FriedGoldberg.com 3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Madison Lever Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Good Morning, Please see attached. Thank you, Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675 Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800 Toll Free: 877.591.1801 madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM To: info@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: Non party request to Chafin Dea, Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 From: Adam Smith To: jan@haleyandhaley.com. Cc: Madison Lever Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:59:56 AM Attachments: image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png NPRPD to Chafin.pdf Importance: High Jan, Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by COB today. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 Adam P. Smith Trial Attorney photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com adam@FriedGoldberg.com 3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57 AM To: Madison Lever ; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Importance: High I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 From: Madison Lever Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Good Morning, Please see attached. Thank you, Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675 Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800 Toll Free: 877.591.1801 madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM To: info@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: Non party request to Chafin Dea, Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 From: Adam Smith To: dea@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:04:22 AM Attachments: image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png NPRPD to Chafin.pdf Importance: High Dea, Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by COB today. If I do not hear back, I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 Adam P. Smith Trial Attorney photo 404.591.1839 404.561.1181 www.FriedGoldberg.com adam@FriedGoldberg.com 3550 Lenox Road Northeast | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(S) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney- client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:01 AM To: 'jan@haleyandhaley.com' Cc: Madison Lever Subject: FW: Non party request to Chafin Importance: High Jan, Please see below/attached. I have not received any response to this, and I need someone to call me ASAP. If you are not the appropriate person to handle this, please forward it to someone who can respond and ask them to call me by COB today. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:57 AM To: Madison Lever ; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Importance: High I need someone to call me on this by close of business or I am going to have to file a motion to compel a response and seek sanctions for attorney fees and costs. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181 From: Madison Lever Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:18 AM To: Adam Smith ; info@haleyandhaley.com Subject: RE: Non party request to Chafin Good Morning, Please see attached. Thank you, Madison B. Lever Direct: 404.856.3675 Paralegal Office: 404.591.1800 Toll Free: 877.591.1801 madison@friedgoldberg.com Fax: 404.591.1801 3550 Lenox Road, N.E. | Suite 1500 | Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4302 NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. Nothing in this e-mail should be relied upon as legal or tax advice and nothing herein shall be construed to create an attorney-client relationship where none otherwise exists. From: Adam Smith Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:13 AM To: info@haleyandhaley.com Cc: Madison Lever Subject: Non party request to Chafin Dea, Thank you for taking my call. Per our discussion, I have CCed my paralegal Madison. Madison will send over a copy of the nonparty request we sent to Chafin back in May. If you could please have Mr. Haley give me a call about this at his earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. We have not yet received any response to this request and I'd like to get this resolved in the fastest and easiest way possible for all involved. Thanks, - Adam Direct: (404) 591-1839 Cell: (404) 561-1181