Tag Archives: Samantha Wolff

Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs File Motion Asking For $32,000 In Sanctions Against Charlie And Frank Ferrara And Their Lawyers Due To Their “intransigence and disregard for standard discovery protocol and obligations” And Their “failure to abide by the Court’s July 13, 2017 order” — Take That, Bay Boys!

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Maybe you recall that on July 13, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case appeared before Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver and complained that Charlie and Frank Ferrara weren’t complying with discovery obligations. This led to Oliver issuing a minute order directing that particular batch of Ferraras to “produce responsive documents from the cell phone imaging and responsive cell phone bills and records by 5 p.m. on Monday, July 17, 2017.”

Well, it appears, to no one’s surprise, that these Ferraras have not complied with this order. Thus, today, plaintiffs’ lawyers Samantha Wolff and Victor Otten filed a motion for monetary sanctions against both the Ferraras and their lawyers based on two allegations:

  1. Defendants Charlie and Frank Ferrara and their counsel willfully failed to preserve electronically stored information and failed to conduct their due diligence in responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, resulting in the spoliation of critical evidence; and
  2. Defendants Charlie and Frank Ferrara and their counsel willfully failed to comply with this Court’s July 13, 2017 Order.


As usual, this motion comes along with a ton of interesting exhibits. Most of them in this case are meet-and-confer emails, progressively more exasperated on the part of the plaintiffs. There are links to everything after the break1 as well as some transcriptions. But first, here are links to what seem to me to be the most interesting items:
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs File Motion Asking For $32,000 In Sanctions Against Charlie And Frank Ferrara And Their Lawyers Due To Their “intransigence and disregard for standard discovery protocol and obligations” And Their “failure to abide by the Court’s July 13, 2017 order” — Take That, Bay Boys!

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ask Otero To Deny Defense Motions Due To Evasion Of Discovery Obligations Which Made It Impossible To Meaningfully Oppose, Also Lengthy Excerpts From Sang Lee’s Deposition! Also Transcript Of A Mindblowingly Weird Telephone Conference With Rozella Oliver About Why Ferraras Didn’t Comply With Discovery Obligations!

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

This case is getting ultra-Byzantine, but if you’re following along, you may recall that the defendants have really not been complying with their discovery obligations. There’s a summary of some of the nonsense available. Also, all the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, an outline of which and links to various stories on is also available. The Bay Boys based their motions for summary judgment on claims that the plaintiffs haven’t produced any actual evidence against them. At the time, plaintiffs’ lawyer Victor Otten warned them that their failure to comply would be grounds for moving to deny their motions.

And yesterday, that’s exactly what happened. Victor Otten filed this motion for administrative relief, claiming that the failure to comply with discovery has not only made it impossible to reply effectively to the motions for summary judgment, but in fact created the very grounds on which those motions rely:

Plaintiffs’ motion is made on the grounds that, due Defendants’ wrongful withholding of discovery—including withholding discovery that Magistrate Judge Oliver ordered them to produce—Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to present the entirety of the factual record in opposition to Defendants’ motions. Indeed, Defendants’ basis for summary judgment is a purported lack of evidence; but to grant summary judgment at this stage would be to reward Defendants’ discovery misconduct.

The plaintiffs’ motion is based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(d), which states in part:

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may … defer considering the motion or deny it …

A hearing on this motion is scheduled for September 5, 2017 in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. The hearing on all the motions for summary judgment is scheduled for 10 a.m., and some of the paper filed yesterday gives 10 a.m. as the time for the motion to deny. One of the filings gives the time as 9 a.m. That’s probably wrong, but I don’t know for sure.

And there was a bunch of other good stuff filed as well. One of the two absolutely do-not-miss items are a transcript of a telephonic conference with magistrate judge Rozella Oliver concerning Charlie and Frank Ferrara’s failure to comply with discovery orders. This features defense attorney Tiffany Bacon and a bunch of deeply lame excuses for noncompliance. The judge seems dumbfounded that an actual professional lawyer would make these excuses out loud.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Victor Otten also makes a plausible accusation that the defendants conspired to destroy evidence and an impassioned plea for sanctions against them. The other essential item is a set of lengthy excerpts from Sang Lee’s deposition including a bunch of really damning emails, some of which are quoted in the cartoon above. Turn the page for brief descriptions and links to a bunch of other items.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ask Otero To Deny Defense Motions Due To Evasion Of Discovery Obligations Which Made It Impossible To Meaningfully Oppose, Also Lengthy Excerpts From Sang Lee’s Deposition! Also Transcript Of A Mindblowingly Weird Telephone Conference With Rozella Oliver About Why Ferraras Didn’t Comply With Discovery Obligations!

Share

Lunada Bay Boys OMFG More Motions For Summary Judgment: Charlie And Frank Ferrara Now — Perhaps This Is The Last Of Them?

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

The last ten days have seen defendant after defendant file motions for summary judgment saying that they themselves didn’t personally do anything to the plaintiffs so the case against them should be dropped. I wonder if this is related to the fact that the case wasn’t certified as a class action? Like maybe the defendants did stuff to other people who just don’t happen to be the plaintiffs?

In any case, yesterday night late Charlie and Frank Ferrara filed their motions and a bunch of supporting paper. It all looks really interesting but I don’t have time to do more than provide links to the documents in the Archive.Org collection of pleadings in the case. They are after the break, and here is a list of all of my posts on these motions for summary judgment so far:

Oh, one little thing more. In this Declaration of Tiffany Bacon in support of Charlie Ferrara’s motion, which has tons of excerpts from depositions, we find this stunning bit of lawyer humor when they’re asking Charlie Ferrara if he heard Jalian Johnston sexually harassing Diana Reed. Samantha Wolff is asking questions, Ms. Hurley is representing Charlie Ferrara:

Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Johnston was acting in a sexually suggestive manner at the time?

MS. HURLEY: Objection, calls for speculation, calls for expert opinion testimony, lacks foundation.

Calls for expert opinion testimony indeed, friends!

Also, don’t forget that the hearing for all of these defense motions for summary judgment is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys OMFG More Motions For Summary Judgment: Charlie And Frank Ferrara Now — Perhaps This Is The Last Of Them?

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions

Jalian Johnston spraying beer on Diana Reed next to the Lunada Bay Boys fort. Brant Blakeman: They taught me at the Palos Verdes School Of Bro-fessional Surf Thuggery that smiles equal consent…”
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Earlier today I wrote about a bunch of filings in the Lunada Bay Boys case, but clearly I wrote too soon. Quite soon after I published that post, a bunch more paper hit PACER. This includes motions for summary judgment from defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman. There’s also a request from the plaintiffs for a time extension to respond to all these zillions of defense motions for summary judgment. A major argument therein is, as promised, the fact that Jalian Johnston won’t be deposed until July 28 and the unextended deadline for the plaintiffs to respond is July 31.

If there’s an award for rapiest pleading filed in federal court, Blakeman’s motion is gonna be a strong contender. He actually claims that even though Jalian Johnston did spray beer on Diana Reed, she was smiling the whole time so it can’t be assault:

Plaintiffs’ case against moving party Brant Blakeman consist solely of Spencer’s claim that Blakeman surfed too close to him on one occasion at Lunada Bay and Reed’s claim that Blakeman videotaped her at the patio structure at the Bay when defendant Alan Johnston opened a can of beer that sprayed some drops on her arm.

These factual claims fall far short of establishing a violation of the Bane Act by Blakeman, which requires violent acts, physical threats, coercion, or intimidation resulting in fear of injury or harm and, thereby, prevents them from exercising a constitutional right. With respect to the incident in which Blakeman did nothing more than videotape Reed, who, by the way, was photographing Blakeman and others with her own camera and invited a photographer from the LA Times, Reed can be seen throughout the video smiling, smirking, and in no apparent distress. Indeed, she spent over 60 minutes at the bay and made no attempt to leave the patio structure

Anyway, turn the page for links to the new filings. I’m super-busy with another project, to be announced soonest,1 so no time for more than that. Also, don’t forget that the hearing for all of these defense motions for summary judgment is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions

Share

Plaintiffs: Not Only Is Our Expert Philip King Really Really Expert With Respect To Calculating The Economic Cost Of Lunada Bay Boys Psychopathic Surf Localism, But Defendants’ Motions Challenging Expertise Are Unmitigated Fraudulent Bullshit

Philip King of San Francisco State, not just an expert on recreational economics. but a really exceedingly extraordinarily expert expert!
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

Oh boy! No doubt you recall that in January, the plaintiffs filed a declaration of Philip King in which King, a professor of economics at San Francisco State who studies coastal recreational economics. King made a preliminary calculation of the economic damage caused by the aggressively psychopathic surf localism of the Lunada Bay Boys at around $50,000,000 since 1970.

Well, a couple weeks ago some of the defendants, namely the City of Palos Verdes Estates and their fine upstanding police chief Jeff Kepley came back on the plaintiffs with a bunch of pleadings claiming that Philip King didn’t have the first idea what he was talking about and asking the court therefore to toss out his declaration and stuff. Tonight the plaintiffs responded with three new items arguing against this and also accusing the defendants of practicing some kind of technical subterfuge on the court by filing a motion to strike and engaging in bad-faith meet-and-confers prior to filing the motion. Links and summaries after the break.
Continue reading Plaintiffs: Not Only Is Our Expert Philip King Really Really Expert With Respect To Calculating The Economic Cost Of Lunada Bay Boys Psychopathic Surf Localism, But Defendants’ Motions Challenging Expertise Are Unmitigated Fraudulent Bullshit

Share