The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18 - CS - Public Comments - 3/16/2021 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4818-6214-1654.1 -65- Case No. 8:20-cv-00504 JVS (JDEx) THIRD AMENDED ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM EVERETT DOREY LLP Attorneys at Law 18300 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE 949-771-9233 ♦FAX 949-377-3110 from getting employment and disposable income, forced clients to seek services outside of the City including at Counter-Defendants' and their referral partners' facilities outside the City, and caused clients to vacate the City after going through Counter-Defendants' exploitative programs without success). In addition, the existence and operation of Counter-Defendants' illegal and/or unfair business has caused the City to suffer, including but not limited to, loss of tax revenue, diminution of property values in the City, diminution of property tax base, loss of reputation leading to loss of tourism and commerce within the City, loss of funds having to be devoted to the investigation, inspection, abatement, enforcement, and provision of city services (including fire, police, health and safety, public hearings) related to dealing with the illegal and/or unfair business, and loss of funds for the provision of public services to Counter-Defendants' clientele such as when Counter- Defendants bring in clients from out of the City or state, extract fees and insurance proceeds from them, then evict them or "graduate" them out of their programs to leave them homeless or in need of assistance in the City. The loss of funds, and the inability to utilize those funds in alternative projects to the benefit of the City and its citizens, has irreparably injured them, including but not limited to the loss or preclusion of other beneficial public services (fire, police, health and safety, general welfare) that may even have resulted in loss of life. 39. Remedies at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury to the City. 40. Considering the balance of the hardships between the City and Counter-Defendants, a remedy in equity is warranted including injunctive relief. 41. The public interest would not be disserved, and would indeed be served, by a permanent injunction against Counter-Defendants. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON COUNTERCLAIM WHEREFORE, the City prays for judgment and relief as follows on its Counterclaim: Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 59 Filed 01/11/21 Page 65 of 69 Page ID #:1483 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4818-6214-1654.1 -66- Case No. 8:20-cv-00504 JVS (JDEx) THIRD AMENDED ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM EVERETT DOREY LLP Attorneys at Law 18300 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE 949-771-9233 ♦FAX 949-377-3110 1. That Counter-Defendants, together with their successors and assigns and all persons who act in concert with them or on their behalf, be permanently enjoined from engaging in any of the unfair or unlawful acts and practices alleged in the Counterclaim, and any such other acts in connection therewith, and be required to take such actions and adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent them from engaging in any further such acts or practices; 2. That Counter-Defendants, together with their successors and assigns and all persons who act in concert with them or on their behalf, be permanently enjoined from operating Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. and that it be dissolved; 3. Declarations from this Court that the Counter-Defendants are operating an illegal business, that Counter-Defendants do not have the right or authority to maintain their Claims in this action and any other similar Claims, that Counter- Defendants are barred from operating in the State of California, and/or that Counter- Defendants' conduct constitutes a basis for the City of Costa Mesa to take law enforcement, code enforcement, or civil action against Counter-Defendants, including that their conduct constitutes a nuisance which is subject to abatement, including for violation of the City's Municipal Code and separately for violation of any State of Federal Laws. 4. A permanent injunction against Counter-Defendants operating their business or any related business, including but not limited to, a Community Care Facility, any facility required to be licensed under the Community Care Facilities Act, any facility required to be licensed by the Department of Social Services, a supportive housing business, a transitional housing business, an alcohol or drug rehabilitation facility, any facility required to be licensed by the Department of Health Care Services, a detoxification center, a rehabilitation center, a group home for the disabled, or a sober living home, in the State of California. 5. That the City be awarded costs of suit; Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 59 Filed 01/11/21 Page 66 of 69 Page ID #:1484 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4818-6214-1654.1 -67- Case No. 8:20-cv-00504 JVS (JDEx) THIRD AMENDED ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM EVERETT DOREY LLP Attorneys at Law 18300 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE 949-771-9233 ♦FAX 949-377-3110 6. That the City be awarded its reasonable attorney's fees; 7. That judgment be entered against Counter-Defendants and in favor of the City; and 8. That the City be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON BOTH FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM Defendant City of Costa Mesa hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. DATED: January 11, 2021 EVERETT DOREY LLP By: Seymour B. Everett, III Samantha E. Dorey Christopher D. Lee Attorneys for Defendant and Counter- Plaintiff CITY OF COSTA MESA Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 59 Filed 01/11/21 Page 67 of 69 Page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alifornia Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 1/14 Query Reports Utilities Help Log Out ACCO,(JDEx),DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa Assigned to: Judge James V. Selna Referred to: Magistrate Judge John D. Early Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Date Filed: 03/12/2020 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. a California corporation represented by Mary Helen Beatificato Insight Psychology and Addiction Inc 4000 Birch Street Suite 112 Newport Beach, CA 92660 United Sta 949-216-3851 Fax: 949-467-9945 Email: mh@nsightrecovery.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Jane Doe represented by Autumn M Elliott Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-213-8000 Fax: 213-213-8001 Email: Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher Brancart Brancart and Brancart PO Box 686 Pescadero, CA 94060 650-879-0141 Fax: 650-879-1103 Email: cbrancart@brancart.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Zeenat Hassan Disability Rights California 1330 Broadway Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510-267-1225 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 2/14 Fax: 510-267-1201 Email: zeenat.hassan@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Addiction, Inc a California corporation represented by Mary Helen Beatificato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant City of Costa Mesa a municipal corporation represented by Bruce A Lindsay Jones and Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 714-446-1400 Fax: 714-446-1448 Email: bal@jones-mayer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kimberly Hall Barlow Jones and Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 714-446-1400 Fax: 714-446-1448 Email: khb@jones-mayer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Monica Choi Arredondo Jones and Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 714-446-1400 Fax: 714-446-1448 Email: mca@jones-mayer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Samantha E Dorey Everett Dorey LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612 949-771-9233 Fax: 949-377-3110 Email: sdorey@everettdorey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 3/14 Seymour B Everett , III Everett Dorey LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612 949-771-9233 Fax: 949-377-3110 Email: severett@everettdorey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher D Lee Everett Dorey LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612 949-771-9233 Fax: 949-377-3110 Email: clee@everettdorey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Does 1-10, inclusive Counter Defendant Mary Helen Beatificato an individual represented by Mary Helen Beatificato Insight Psychology & Addiction, 4000 Birch Street Suite 112A Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92660 United Sta 949-216-3851 Fax: 949-203-0402 Email: mh@nsightrecovery.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant Gerald Grosso an individual represented by Mary Helen Beatificato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant Roes 1-50 Mediator (ADR Panel) Malcolm S McNeil represented by Malcolm S McNeil Arent Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 213-443-7656 Fax: 213-629-7401 Email: malcolm.mcneil@arentfox.com 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 4/14 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa a municipal corporation represented by Bruce A Lindsay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kimberly Hall Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Monica Choi Arredondo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Samantha E Dorey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Seymour B Everett , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher D Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. a California corporation represented by Mary Helen Beatificato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa a municipal corporation represented by Bruce A Lindsay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kimberly Hall Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Monica Choi Arredondo 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 5/14 (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Samantha E Dorey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Seymour B Everett , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher D Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Mary Helen Beatificato an individual Counter Defendant Gerald Grosso an individual Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. a California corporation represented by Mary Helen Beatificato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant Roes 1-50 Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa a municipal corporation represented by Bruce A Lindsay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kimberly Hall Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Monica Choi Arredondo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 6/14 Samantha E Dorey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Seymour B Everett , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher D Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Mary Helen Beatificato an individual Counter Defendant Gerald Grosso an individual Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. a California corporation represented by Mary Helen Beatificato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 03/12/2020 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-25710640 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attorney Mary Helen Beatificato added to party Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(pty:pla))(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 03/12/2020) 03/12/2020 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 03/12/2020) 03/12/2020 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 03/12/2020) 03/12/2020 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc., identifying None. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 03/12/2020) 03/16/2020 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (ghap) (Entered: 03/16/2020) 03/16/2020 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 03/16/2020) 03/16/2020 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (ghap) (Entered: 03/16/2020) 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 7/14 03/17/2020 8 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA (lb) (Entered: 03/17/2020) 03/25/2020 9 Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference set for 6/15/2020 at 10:00 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule 26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 6/8/2020. (lb) (Entered: 03/25/2020) 03/26/2020 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc., upon Defendant City of Costa Mesa served on 3/17/2020, answer due 4/7/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Stacy Bennett, City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 03/26/2020) 04/07/2020 11 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa, identifying City of Costa Mesa. (Attorney Christopher D Lee added to party City of Costa Mesa(pty:dft))(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2020) 04/07/2020 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. Motion set for hearing on 5/11/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss) (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2020) 04/07/2020 13 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2020) 04/20/2020 14 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 04/20/2020) 04/20/2020 15 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 04/20/2020) 04/20/2020 16 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. correcting Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 04/20/2020) 04/27/2020 17 REPLY in Support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 04/27/2020) 05/12/2020 18 REQUEST for Hearing Motion to Dismiss, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 , filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 05/12/2020) 05/12/2020 19 REQUEST for Hearing Motion to Dismiss, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 , filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 05/12/2020) 05/26/2020 20 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 8, filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc... (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 05/26/2020) 05/27/2020 21 MINUTE ORDER [IN CHAMBERS] Minute Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing by Judge James V. Selna: On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. ("Insight") filed a request for oral argument advancing an argument concerning why they 04/07/2020 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ff filed bypy Defendant City of Costa Mesa. Motion set for hearing on 5/11/2020 at 01:30 PM beforeyg Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # VV 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, #2 Proposedg(p, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss) (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2020) 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 8/14 believe a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is necessary. See ECF No. 19. The Court requests that Defendant City of Costa Mesa file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, responding to the arguments in Insight's request, by Wednesday, June 3 at 5:00 p.m. (es) (Entered: 05/27/2020) 06/03/2020 22 RESPONSE filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesato REQUEST for Hearing Motion to Dismiss, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 12 , 19 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, 21 (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 06/03/2020) 06/10/2020 23 ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL SETTING DATES; PREPARATION FOR TRIAL; AND GOVERNING ATTORNEY AND PARTY CONDUCT AT TRIAL before Judge James V. Selna. (See Document for Details and Deadlines) (lb) (Entered: 06/10/2020) 06/10/2020 24 MINUTE ORDER [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER RE SCHEDULING DATES by Judge James V. Selna: The Court has read and considered the parties Rule 26(f) Report and sets the following dates: Jury Trial July 27, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Final PreTrial Conference July 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Discovery Cut-off April 12, 2021. Expert Discovery Cut-off May 10, 2021. Law and Motion Cut-off June 7, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. Last Day to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties August 24, 2020. The Court orders that any settlement discussions shall be completed not later than February 5, 2021. *See document for details and deadlines.* The Scheduling Conference set for June 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. (es) (Entered: 06/10/2020) 06/22/2020 25 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 06/22/2020) 06/23/2020 26 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John D. Early re Stipulation for Protective Order 25 . (see document for details) (hr) (Entered: 06/23/2020) 07/10/2020 27 MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss by Judge James V. Selna: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the motion. Insight's CCFA claim is denied with prejudice, but Insight shall have 30 days to amend the remainder of its claims. The Court finds that oral argument would not be helpful and DENIES Insight's request for hearing. (See document for details.) (es) (Entered: 07/10/2020) 08/07/2020 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT City of Costa Mesa amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 08/07/2020) 08/17/2020 29 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Costa Mesa answer now due 8/28/2020, re Amended Complaint/Petition 28 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Time)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 08/17/2020) 08/17/2020 30 ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT''S TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 7 DAYS 29 , by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The parties' Stipulation is GRANTED. 2. The City shall file its response to the First Amended Complaint by August 28, 2020. (es) (Entered: 08/18/2020) 08/18/2020 31 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Autumn M Elliott counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe. Adding Autumn M. Elliott as counsel of record for Jane Doe for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attorney Autumn M Elliott added to party Jane Doe(pty:pla))(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 08/18/2020) 08/18/2020 32 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Zeenat Hassan counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe. Adding Zeenat Hassan as counsel of record for Jane Doe for the reason gg the Court DENIES in part 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 9/14 indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attorney Zeenat Hassan added to party Jane Doe(pty:pla))(Hassan, Zeenat) (Entered: 08/18/2020) 08/28/2020 33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. Motion set for hearing on 9/28/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion) (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2020) 08/28/2020 34 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 33 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2020) 09/07/2020 35 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 33 jointly filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. and Jane Doe and filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 09/07/2020) 09/10/2020 36 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Panel Mediator. Mediator (ADR Panel) Malcolm S McNeil has been assigned to serve as Panel Mediator. (lst) (Entered: 09/10/2020) 09/14/2020 37 REPLY in Support of Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 33 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 09/14/2020) 10/02/2020 38 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss by Judge James V. Selna: Defendant, the City of Costa Mesa ("Costa Mesa"), moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. ("Insight") and Jane Doe's ("Doe") (together- "Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Mot., Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiffs Opposed. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 35. Costa Mesa replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 37. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. (See document for details.) The Court asks the parties to meet and confer and notify the Court which parts of the order should be redacted within 7 days. (es) (Entered: 10/02/2020) 10/06/2020 39 Notice of Meet and Confer filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa re: Order on Motion to Dismiss,, 38 (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 10/06/2020) 10/16/2020 40 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 28 with JURY DEMAND , COUNTERCLAIM against Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa.(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 10/16/2020) 10/16/2020 41 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), Counterclaim 40 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 10/16/2020) 10/21/2020 42 21 DAY Summons Issued re Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), Counterclaim 40 as to Counter-Defendant Mary Helen Beatificato, Gerald Grosso, Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (es) (Entered: 10/21/2020) 11/05/2020 43 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 28 with JURY DEMAND , COUNTERCLAIM against Mary Helen Beatificato, Gerald Grosso, Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc., Roes 1-50 filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa.(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 11/05/2020) 11/15/2020 44 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Christopher Brancart on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe (Attorney Christopher Brancart added to party Jane Doe(pty:pla))(Brancart, Christopher) (Entered: 11/15/2020) 11/18/2020 45 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's First 08/28/2020 33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed bypy Defendant City of Costa Mesa. Motion set for hearing on 9/28/2020 at 01:30 PM beforeyg Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # VV 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, #2 Proposedg(p Order Granting Motion) (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2020) ppy,yy d DENIES in part the motion. p , COUNTERCLAIM against Mary Helen Beatificato, Gerald Grosso, Insight Psychologygy , ,gyg and Addiction, Inc., Roes 1-50 filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costaff,, Mesa.(Lee, Christopher) 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 10/14 Amended Answer and to Extend Counter-Defendants' Time to Respond to Counter- Plaintiffs' First Amended Counterclaim filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 11/18/2020) 11/19/2020 46 ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND EXTENDING COUNTER-DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM 45 by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Parties' stipulation is GRANTED. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(a)(2), the opposing parties have given written consent for Counter-Plaintiffs City of Costa Mesa and People of the State of California (collectively, "Counter-Plaintiffs") to file a Second Amended Counterclaim and Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa ("City") may file a Second Amended Answer on or before November 20, 2020. [See document for details.] (es) (Entered: 11/19/2020) 11/19/2020 47 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 28 with JURY DEMAND , Second COUNTERCLAIM against Mary Helen Beatificato(an individual), Gerald Grosso(an individual), Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation) filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa.(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 11/19/2020) 12/03/2020 48 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES filed by PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERDEFENDANTS Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation). Motion set for hearing on 1/4/2021 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) Modified on 12/21/2020 (iv). (Entered: 12/03/2020) 12/03/2020 49 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 12/03/2020) 12/03/2020 50 PROPOSED ORDER re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 12/03/2020) 12/03/2020 51 JOINDER in NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 12/03/2020) 12/14/2020 52 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa, Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/18/2020 53 **WITHDRAWAN AND STRICKEN** MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss 48 by Judge James V. Selna. Accordingly, the Court strikes the motion, and the hearing set for January 4, 2021 is VACATED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. The motion may be re-noticed for a new date, provided the renewed motion is in compliance with Local Rule 11-6. (lom) Modified on 12/21/2020 Per Order 54 . (iv). (Entered: 12/18/2020) Secondp, COUNTERCLAIM against Mary Helen Beatificato(an individual), Gerald Grosso(angy ( ), ( individual), Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation) filed by), g y gy , ( p Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa.(Lee, Christopher)ff 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 11/14 12/21/2020 54 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING DOCKET NO. 53 by Judge James V. Selna. The order at Docket No. 53 is withdrawn and stricken as improvidently entered. (iv) (Entered: 12/21/2020) 12/21/2020 55 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 12/21/2020) 01/04/2021 56 REQUEST for Hearing Regarding Tentative Ruling, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 , filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). Request set for hearing on 1/4/2021 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 01/04/2021) 01/05/2021 57 REQUEST for Hearing Regarding Tentative Ruling, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND "BUSINESS IS BARRED" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 48 , filed by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants Mary Helen Beatificato(an individual), Gerald Grosso(an individual), Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. Request set for hearing on 1/4/2021 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attorney Mary Helen Beatificato added to party Mary Helen Beatificato(pty:cd), Attorney Mary Helen Beatificato added to party Gerald Grosso(pty:cd)) (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/05/2021) 01/05/2021 58 MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss by Judge James V. Selna: For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion, and grants Costa Mesa leave to amend with respect to the portions of the SACC that have been dismissed. The Court has also reviewed Costa Mesa's request for a hearing regarding the tentative ruling on this matter. See Request, Dkt. No. 56. The Court finds that oral argument will not be helpful in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L-R 715. [See document for details.] (es) (Entered: 01/05/2021) 01/11/2021 59 AMENDED ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint and Third Amended Counterclaim filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 01/11/2021) 01/11/2021 [DUPLICATE ENTRY] THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM against Counter- Defendants Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation), Mary Helen Beatificato(an individual), Gerald Grosso(an individual) amending SECOND AMENDED Counterclaim, 47 JURY DEMAND, filed by Defendant; Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation)(es) (Entered: 01/27/2021) 01/14/2021 60 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff filed by Defendant and Counter- Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). Motion set for hearing on 2/11/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 01/14/2021) 01/14/2021 61 Second STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 01/14/2021) 01/15/2021 62 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Motion to Compel 60 by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. The Motion (Dkt. 60) is DENIED without prejudice to the City re-starting gg yg the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part thegg , p p motion, and grants Costa Mesa leave to amend with respect to the portions of the SACC,g that have been dismissed. 01/14/2021 60 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Responses and Production ofpp Documents and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff filed by Defendant and Counterf-qf g ff yf Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). Motion set for hearing on 2/1ff1/2021y(pp) g at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (Attachments: # 1 Declarationgg y( Christopher D. Lee, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5,p,,,,,, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11,,,,, #13 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Lee, Christopher) )yg y. The Motion (Dkt. 60) is DENIED w 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 12/14 the L.R. 37-1 process. (see document for further details) (hr) (Entered: 01/15/2021) 01/22/2021 63 SECOND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John D. Early re Second Stipulation for Protective Order 61 . (see document for details) (hr) (Entered: 01/22/2021) 01/25/2021 64 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER filed by PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERDEFENDANTS Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation). Motion set for hearing on 2/22/2021 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/25/2021) 01/25/2021 65 DECLARATION of Mary Helen Beatificato In Support of Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Counterclaim and Unclean Hands and Business is Barred Affirmative Defenses NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/25/2021) 01/25/2021 66 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/25/2021) 01/25/2021 67 JOINDER in NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 01/25/2021) 01/25/2021 68 PROPOSED ORDER re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/25/2021) 01/27/2021 69 APPLICATION for Hearing as to Request for Telephonic Discovery Conference filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 01/27/2021) 01/28/2021 70 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge John D. Early, Setting Informal Discovery Conference re 69 . The Court grants the Request (Dkt. 69) and sets a Telephonic Informal Discovery Conference for the first time requested, January 28, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. Counsel for Insight and counsel representing each of the two law firms that have appeared on behalf of the City are ordered to participate in the call starting at that date and time until it is completed. The call-in information is:(see document for further information). (mba) (Entered: 01/28/2021) 01/28/2021 71 OPPOSITION to APPLICATION for Hearing as to Request for Telephonic Discovery Conference 69 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 01/28/2021) 01/28/2021 72 Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Hearing re Discovery Matter 69 filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2021) 01/27/2021 69 APPLICATION for Hearing as to Request for TAAelephonic Discovery ConferenceTT filed bygq Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Lee, Christopher) 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 13/14 01/28/2021 73 MINUTES OF Informal Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge John D. Early. Case called. Appearances made. The City of Costa Mesa confirms it has withdrawn its Request for Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference (Dkt. 69, 72). After a discussion with all counsel, the Court accepts the withdrawal and declines to issue sanctions against the City in connection with the order to show cause contained in the Court's order setting the matter for hearing (Dkt. 70 at 2). Court Recorder: CS 01/28/21. (mba) (Entered: 01/28/2021) 02/01/2021 74 COMPACT DISC Order for date of proceedings 01/28/2021 to 01/28/2021 filed by Plaintiff and CounterDefendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.(a California corporation). Court will contact Mary Helen Beatificato at Mh@nsightrecovery.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 01/28/2021. FEE PAID. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 02/01/2021) 02/01/2021 75 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa, Defendant City of Costa Mesa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher D. Lee, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Lee, Christopher) (attachment 4 sealed per order 78 ) Modified on 2/4/2021 (es). (Entered: 02/01/2021) 02/03/2021 76 Joint STIPULATION to Correct Response in Opposition to Motion, 75 filed by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 3b, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Stipulation)(Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 02/03/2021) 02/03/2021 77 Joint STIPULATION to Continue case deadlines from dates set in scheduling order to dates proposed by parties Re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Terminate Hearings,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, 24 filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 02/03/2021) 02/04/2021 78 ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT "3" (DOC. 75-4) TO THE DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S OPPOSITION (DOC. 75) TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE (DOC. 64) WITH A FURTHER REDACTED COPY TO AVOID ISSUE OF SEALING THE DOCUMENT 76 by Judge James V. Selna. *NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT* (es) (Entered: 02/04/2021) 02/04/2021 79 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Counter Claimant City of Costa Mesa, Defendant City of Costa Mesa. as to Response in Opposition to Motion, 75 . (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 02/04/2021) 02/04/2021 80 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES 77 by Judge James V. Selna, the Court modifies the Order regarding Scheduling Dates, Dkt. No. 24, to continue the dates to the following new dates: Jury Trial October 26, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Final PreTrial Conference October 12, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. [note date change]. Discovery Cut-off July 12, 2021. Expert Discovery Cut-off August 9, 2021. Law and Motion Cut-off September 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The Court further orders that any settlement discussions shall be completed not later than May 5, 2021. [see document for further details.] (es) (Entered: 02/04/2021) 02/08/2021 81 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 02/08/2021) After aqpy(,) discussion with all counsel, the Court accepts the withdrawal and declines to issue,p sanctions against the City in connection with the order to show cause contained in thegy Court's order setting the matter for hearing (Dkt. 70 at 2). 3/1/2021 CM/ECF - California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?617135850782249-L_1_0-1 14/14 02/08/2021 82 OBJECTION to EXHIBIT 3 TO THE DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. LEE in support of CITY'S OPPOSITION to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Plaintiff Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 02/08/2021) 02/11/2021 83 MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Request for Further Briefing by Judge James V. Selna: Specifically, the Court orders Costa Mesa, within seven days, to submit a brief of no longer than eight pages including legal authority to support its proposition that it is possible to recover under the UPA for a secondary claim where the party in question is not harmed directly. Although the Court agrees that Costa Mesa has laid out its theory of relief in 27 of its third amended counterclaims, the Court is uncertain that Costa Mesa is legally entitled to seek damages under the UPA for allegedly illegal conduct that only affects the city indirectly. Within seven days of Costa Mesa's, the Court orders Plaintiffs to respond to Costa Mesa's brief with its own brief of no more than eight pages. (see document for details.) (es) (Entered: 02/11/2021) 02/18/2021 84 Further BRIEF filed by Defendant City of Costa Mesa(a municipal corporation). regarding Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, 83 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 . (Lee, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2021) 02/25/2021 85 COUNTER DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO CITY OF COSTA MESAS FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING ITS UPA DAMAGES CLAIM re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND TO STRIKE UNCLEAN HANDS AND BUSINESS IS BARRED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER 64 filed by Counter Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc.. (Beatificato, Mary Helen) (Entered: 02/25/2021) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 03/01/2021 13:39:46 PACER Login:Rutan611 Client Code: Description:Docket Report Search Criteria: 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE End date: 3/1/2021 Billable Pages:13 Cost:1.30 ATTACHMENT D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION DEPARTMENT ** HON. ****, JUDGE INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND ADDICTION,) INC., a California corporation, ) and JANE DOE, an individual, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No. 8:20-CV-00504 ) JVS(JDEx) CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal ) corporation; and DOES 1-10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________) ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) _________________________________) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF *AUDIO PROCEEDINGS THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 2021 APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS INSIGHT, ET AL.: MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO, ESQ. INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND ADDICTION,INC. 4000 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 112 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FOR PLAINTIFF JANE DOE: DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA BY: ZEENAT HASSAN, ESQ. BY: AUTUMN M. ELLIOT, ESQ. 350 SOUTH BIXEL STREET, SUITE 290 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 LINDA SILVER RYAN, CSR NO. 9915 *OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 APPEARANCES (CONT.) FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF COSTA MESA: EVERETT DOREY BY: SEYMOUR B. EVERETT III BY: CHRISTOPHER D. LEE, ESQ. BY: **ANDERSON, ESQ. 18300 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 JONES & MAYER BY: MONICA CHOI ARREDONDO, ESQ. 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:22PM 06:23PM 06:23PM 06:23PM 3 CASE NUMBER: 8:20-CV-00504 JVS(JDEX) CASE NAME: INSIGHT V. CITY OF COSTA MESA **VENUE**: DEPARTMENT **: REPORTER: LINDA SILVER RYAN, CSR NO. 9915 TIME: **SESSION THE COURT: SO INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND ADDICTION, INC., ET AL. VERSUS CITY OF COSTA MESA, ET AL. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 8:20-CV-504- JVS. WE'LL TAKE APPEARANCES IN A MOMENT WE'RE HERE FOR THE -- PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY -- TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S PRIOR ORDER. IT WAS FILED AT I THINK ABOUT 8:58 P.M. YESTERDAY. IT IDENTIFIED THREE TIMES WHERE THE CONFERENCE WAS REQUESTED. SOMEBODY HAS JOINED THE CALL. WHO IS IT WHO JUST JOINED THE CALL? NOT TAKING GENERAL APPEARANCES. WHO JUST JOINED THE CALL? MS. HASSAN: HI. THIS IS ZEENAT HASSAN FROM DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT MUTED, PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE. WE CAN HEAR BACKGROUND CHATTER. WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THE NOTICE. I'VE ALSO RECEIVED PLAINTIFF INSIGHT'S RESPONSE TO THAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:24PM 06:24PM 06:25PM 06:25PM 06:25PM 4 NOTICE AND ATTACHMENTS, AND I'VE RECEIVED THE REQUEST -- OR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR TELEPHONE -- TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY RESPONSE FILED BY THE CITY. I HAD ISSUED AN ORDER THIS MORNING BEFORE BOTH INSIGHT'S RESPONSE AND THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL. WE'RE GOING TO BE PROCEEDING AS SET FORTH AND LAID OUT IN THAT ORDER. I WILL NOW TAKE APPEARANCES, AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, BECAUSE WE'RE ON A TELEPHONE AND WE NEED TO HAVE A CONDUCTOR SO THAT WE'RE NOT ALL SPEAKING GENERALLY. WE ALSO -- IF A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS IS EVENTUALLY MADE, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A COURT REPORTER WHO CAN LAY EYES ON THE PERSON WHO IS SPEAKING, WHEN YOU SPEAK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND I'M GOING TO ASK EACH RESPECTIVE PARTY TO DESIGNATE THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE PRIMARILY SPEAKING. THEY CAN DEFER AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND I MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK EACH INDIVIDUAL PARTY TO IDENTIFY WHO THEIR LEAD SPEAKER IS GOING TO BE. HERE IS WHO I UNDERSTAND IS ON THE CALL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INSIGHT IS MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO. MA'AM, ARE YOU ON THE CALL? MS. BEATIFICATO: I AM. THE COURT: AND JUST HAVING APPEARED ON BEHALF OF -- I ACTUALLY DON'T SEE YOUR NAME ON THE DOCKET SHEET. MS. DINA HASSANDRA? MS. HASSAN: IT'S ZEENAT HASSAN, Z-E-E-N-A-T, YES, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:26PM 06:26PM 06:26PM 06:27PM 06:27PM 5 AND I'M ATTORNEY FOR JANE DOE. THE COURT: AND YOU'RE WITH DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA; IS THAT CORRECT? MS. HASSAN: YES, THAT'S RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, I HAVE -- AND I'M GOING TO DO IT BY FIRM -- FROM THE JONES & MAYER FIRM MONICA CHOI ARREDONDO. ARE YOU HERE? MS. ARREDONDO: YES, I AM. THE COURT: AND ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM SEYMOUR & EVERETT WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS: MR. SEYMOUR B. EVERETT III. SIR, ARE YOU ON THE CALL? MR. EVERETT: YES, YOUR HONOR, I AM HERE WITH THE LAW FIRM OF EVERETT DOREY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND MR. CHRISTOPHER LEE, ARE YOU ON THE CALL? MR. LEE: YES, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CHRISTOPHER LEE. THE COURT: ALSO WITH EVERETT DOREY. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE ASHLEY ANDERSON, WHO IS ALSO WITH EVERETT DOREY BUT WHO HAS NOT MADE AN APPEARANCE IN THE CASE. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. ANDERSON, ARE YOU ON THE CALL? MS. ANDERSON: YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:27PM 06:27PM 06:27PM 06:28PM 06:28PM 6 THIS IS ASHLEY ANDERSON FOR THE CITY. THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. SO WE HAVE THAT UNDERWAY. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AND TELL ME WHO IS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY SPEAKER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, SEYMOUR EVERETT WILL BE THE PRIMARY SPEAKER, AND I'LL DEFER TO MR. LEE AT TIMES. THE COURT: OKAY. AND MS. BEATIFICATO, I ASSUME YOU'LL BE THE LEAD FOR -- YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON FOR INSIGHT; IS THAT RIGHT? MS. BEATIFICATO: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND MS. HASSAN, YOUR CLIENT IS NOT DIRECTLY IMPLICATED BY ANY OF THESE ISSUES. SO YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY WELCOME TO ATTEND THE CALL, BUT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE MUCH FOR YOU TO DO. ALL RIGHT? MS. HASSAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO -- MS. ELLIOT: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS AUTUMN ELLIOT, ALSO WITH DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA REPRESENTING MS. DOE. AND WE APPRECIATE THAT AND GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU BEEP INTO THE CALL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. I UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL, BUT I'VE ALREADY SET AN ORDER, AND THE ORDER SETS FORTH HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. SO YOU CAN'T WITHDRAW MY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:28PM 06:29PM 06:29PM 06:29PM 06:30PM 7 ORDER, AND I'M SPEAKING TO THE CITY. WE MAY BE ABLE TO SHORT CIRCUIT THINGS, THOUGH. MY ORDER MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS BEING DONE AT THE CITY'S BEHALF, THAT WE MOVED THINGS TO GET IT DONE BASED ON THE TIMING OF THE -- THE TIME SLOTS, AND SO WE'RE GOING FORWARD. AND THE PREMISE OF THIS HEARING WAS TO HAVE AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE. AND THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR WHY WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT WAS MY ORDER OF JANUARY 15TH DENYING THE CITY'S MOTION TO COMPEL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL OF THE LOCAL RULES. AT THE END OF THAT ORDER, WE ADDED A PROVISION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN, AND I'M GOING TO READ THAT PROVISION. IT SAID: "PRIOR," -- AND I'M QUOTING NOW: "PRIOR TO ANY PARTY FILING ANY DISCOVERY-RELATED MOTION, AFTER THE PARTIES HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH LOCAL RULE 37-1, THE PARTY SEEKING COURT INTERVENTION MUST FILE A NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE SETTING FORTH IN NO MORE THAN TWO SENTENCES THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE AND REQUESTING A TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT SETTING FORTH AT LEAST THREE DATES AND TIMES CONVENIENT TO ALL COUNSEL FOR A CONFERENCE. "ONLY AFTER SUCH A CONFERENCE IS HELD OR THE COURT INDICATES IT WILL NOT BE HELD AND AFTER FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL RULES MAY A PARTY FILE A DISCOVERY MOTION WITH THIS COURT." DENYING THE C ITY'S MOTION TO COMPEL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH S EVERAL OF THE LOCAL RULES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:30PM 06:31PM 06:31PM 06:31PM 06:32PM 8 SO THAT'S WHAT I WROTE. THAT'S WHAT WAS CITED IN THE CITY'S INITIAL REQUEST FOR A TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FILED LAST NIGHT. THE CITY SET FORTH THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST -- AND AGAIN, WE DON'T GET TO THIS UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH LOCAL RULE 7-1, WHICH MEANS A COMPLIANT MEET AND CONFER LETTER WAS SENT AND THE PARTIES FULLY MET AND CONFERRED REGARDING -- IN A MEETING, IN A TELEPHONE OR FACE-TO-FACE MEETING MET AND CONFERRED IN GOOD FAITH IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES OR AS MANY ISSUES AS POSSIBLE. ONLY ONCE THAT MEETING HAD TAKEN PLACE DO YOU COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 37-1. I GOT THE NOTICE OF THE REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC. THE ONLY ASSUMPTION CAN BE THAT COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH LOCAL RULE 37-1. SO ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS GENERALLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS, AND THEN I CAN KIND OF MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ABOUT WHETHER A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WOULD BE HELPFUL BEFORE TELLING YOU TO PROCEED DOWN TO RULE 37-2 -- LOCAL RULE 37-2, OR IF IT WON'T BE, THEN JUST PROCEED. THE INFORMATION I GOT, THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST WAS THE STATEMENT, "THE ONLY ACTUAL BASIS FOR INSIGHT'S REFUSAL TO FULLY RESPOND AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IS INSIGHT'S RELIANCE ON A FUTURE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS." THAT'S A -- THE SAME DISPUTES -- THE SAME 192 DISPUTES FROM THE PRIOR MOTION, THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING ON. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:32PM 06:32PM 06:32PM 06:33PM 06:33PM 9 WELL, THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE; THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT ON THE PHONE. AND THE PARTIES SURE DO SEEM TO BE IN A HURRY, BECAUSE THEY PICKED DATES ALL THE NEXT DAY, THE DAY AFTER AND A COUPLE OF DAYS THEREAFTER. LET'S GET THIS SET. LET'S MOVE STUFF ASIDE. THIS IS IMPORTANT. AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE ATTENTION YOU DESERVE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE STUFF ASIDE, AND WE'RE GOING TO RESET THIS, AND MY COURTROOM STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO HELP OUT, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP. AND SO I ISSUED THE ORDER THIS MORNING THAT MADE CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IT ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT IF IT TURNED OUT THAT IT WAS MORE THAN ONE ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR A FILING THAT CAUSED US ALL TO DROP EVERYTHING, A FILING THAT PRESUMABLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TO RESCHEDULE THINGS FOR HER PRACTICE AND HER LIFE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THREE DATES. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. AND I ISSUED THAT ORDER. ABOUT 20 MINUTES OR SO AFTER THAT ORDER, I RECEIVED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR A TELEPHONIC HEARING. PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE EMAILS AND LETTERS ATTACHED TO THAT RESPONSE THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONSES TO THE 192 ITEMS OF DISCOVERY. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:33PM 06:34PM 06:34PM 06:34PM 06:34PM 10 AND I'LL HEAR FROM THE CITY WHETHER THAT'S WRONG, WHETHER THERE IS REALLY JUST ONE ISSUE. BUT I DON'T MEAN WHETHER YOU THINK THERE IS ONE REAL ISSUE OR YOU THINK THE REST OF THE ISSUES AREN'T IMPORTANT. YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT. AND YOU DIDN'T SAY THERE IS A PRIMARY ISSUE OR ONE SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. WHAT WAS SAID TO ME WAS THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE. SO THAT'S WHY WE MOVED THINGS AROUND. THAT'S WHY WE SET THINGS UP. THEN I GET THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST THAT SEEMS TO AT LEAST TACITLY CONCEDE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND REQUEST THAT WE TAKE THIS OFF. AND I'M GOING TO CONFIRM THAT AND CONFIRM THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS REQUEST FOR A TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING OFF BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ISSUE. BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE SECOND PART OF MY ORDER FROM THIS MORNING, WHICH IS WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT THIS? AND I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THIS DOESN'T COME IN A VACUUM. THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER WAS VERY CLEAR. AND IF WASN'T CLEAR,I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN: THE PARTIES -- AND IN PARTICULAR LET ME FOCUS ON THE CITY OF COSTA MESA -- HAS VIOLATED THE LOCAL RULES, HAS MADE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT I DIDN'T GET INTO ON THE JANUARY -- IN THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER, BUT I DID NOTE THAT THOSE SORTS OF ACCUSATIONS ARE SERIOUS. THEY'RE NOT CONDUCIVE TO A GOOD FAITH MEET AND CONFER. THE P ARTIES --AND IN P ARTICULAR LET ME FOCUS ON THE CITY OF COST A M ESA --HA S VI OLATED THE LOCAL RULES,HA S MADE ACCUSATION S AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNS EL THAT I DIDN'T GE T INTO O N THE JANUARY --IN THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER,BUT I DID NOTE THAT T HOSE SORTS OF ACCUSATIO N S ARE S ERIOUS.THEY'RE NOT CONDUCIVE TO A GOOD FAITH MEET AND CONFER. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:35PM 06:35PM 06:35PM 06:36PM 06:36PM 11 BUT IF THEY'RE RAISED AGAIN, IF THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE KIND OF BAD FAITH DISCOVERY ABUSE, HIDING OF EVIDENCE, ARE TO BE RAISED AGAIN IN THIS ACTION, THE PARTIES CAN EXPECT THERE WILL BE A HEARING, PROBABLY BE TAKING TESTIMONY, AND IF THOSE ACCUSATIONS ARE FOUND TO BE SUPPORTED, THERE IS GOING TO BE CONSEQUENCES. WHY DON'T I JUST READ IT TO YOU. THIS IS FROM THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER: "LASTLY, THE COURT NOTES THAT THE CONTENT AND TONE OF THE CITY'S COMMUNICATION WITH INSIGHT DURING THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO PROMOTING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE DISPUTES. TO THE CONTRARY, THE TONE AND CONTENT WORKED AGAINST SUCH A PROCESS. IN ADDITION, AS NOTED, COUNSEL FOR THE CITY HAS ACCUSED COUNSEL FOR INSIGHT OF 'ABUSING THE DISCOVERY PROCESS,' 'ACTING IN BAD FAITH,' 'MISLEADING THE COURT' AND 'CONCEALING EVIDENCE.'" AS THE COURT HAS DENIED THE MOTION, IT MAKES NO FINDING ON THOSE ACCUSATIONS. HOWEVER, THE COURT ADVISES THE PARTIES THAT IT TAKES PROFESSIONALISM AND CANDOR WITH THE COURT AND BETWEEN COUNSEL SERIOUSLY, AND THE PARTIES SHOULD EXPECT THAT ANY FUTURE ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING SUCH MISCONDUCT WILL LIKELY RESULT IN THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY FROM APPROPRIATE WITNESSES. "SHOULD ANY FUTURE ALLEGATION BE SUSTAINED, THERE WILL LIKELY BE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. SHOULD ANY FUTURE ALLEGATION BE FOUND TO HAVE MADE WITHOUT PROPER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:37PM 06:37PM 06:37PM 06:38PM 06:38PM 12 FOUNDATION, THERE WILL ALSO LIKELY BE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES." THAT'S JANUARY 15TH. THAT'S THE ORDER. THAT'S IN EVERYBODY'S MIND THAT DAY, I SUPPOSE, I WOULD HOPE. ATTACHED TO INSIGHT'S FILING THIS MORNING'S DOCKET 20 -- I'M SORRY -- 71, AND WE'RE STARTING AT DOCKET 71-1, IS A LETTER FROM MR. LEE OF THE FIRM OF EVERETT & DOREY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO MS. BEATIFICATO, DATED AGAIN, JANUARY 15TH, THE SAME DAY AS THE ORDER. AND IT'S APPARENTLY A RENEWED ATTEMPT AT A MEET-AND-CONFER LETTER. STARTS OUT ALL RIGHT. FIRST FEW PAGES I'VE GOT NO PARTICULAR ISSUES. SEEMS TO BE GOING FINE UNTIL WE GET TO -- STARTING AT PAGE 13. WE'VE GOT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKING AN ALLEGATION THAT INSIGHT IS TRANS- -- "INSIGHT'S CONDUCT IS 'TRANSPARENTLY AN ATTEMPT TO DELAY AND OBSTRUCT LAWFUL DISCOVERY.'" LATER ON -- AND AGAIN WE'RE AT DOCKET 71-1 AT PAGE 10. LATER ON, THE FOLLOWING PAGE, PAGE 12 -- OR PAGE 11, MR. LEE WRITES THAT HE WILL SEEK SANCTIONS AND WILL ALSO -- REFERENCES "INSIGHTS'S BAD FAITH CONDUCT - INCLUDING 'ABUSING THE DISCOVERY PROCESS,'" AND ALSO REFERENCES A "BAD FAITH TACTIC" AND "ACTIVELY CONCEALING SUCH EVIDENCE FROM DISCOVERY." SO JUST TO BEAR IN MIND, THAT'S THE DAY AFTER I TOLD THE PARTIES, INCLUDING MR. LEE, THAT SO JUST TO BEAR IN MIND,THAT'S THE DAY AFTER I TOLD THE PARTIES,IN CL U DING MR.LEE,THAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:39PM 06:39PM 06:40PM 06:40PM 06:40PM 13 THROWING ACCUSATIONS OUT IS NOT HELPFUL IN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE IN GOOD FAITH, AND THAT SHOULD SUCH ACCUSATIONS BE MADE AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ABOUT THEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT IF THEY'RE SUSTAINED, AND WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT IF THEY WERE MADE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION, AND THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES IN EITHER OF THOSE SCENARIOS. SO APPARENTLY THAT, AND PERHAPS NOT SURPRISINGLY, THAT DISCOVERY LETTER DID NOT LEAD TO A RESOLUTION OF THE DISCOVERY ISSUES, BUT AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, AND I COULD BE WRONG, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT EVEN LED TO AN ACTUAL TELEPHONIC OR FACE-TO-FACE MEET-AND-CONFER SESSION REGARDING ALL 192 OF THE DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS. AND I'LL HEAR FROM YOU ON THAT TO SEE WHETHER IT DID BUT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT DID. AT A MINIMUM, THERE WAS NOT COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 31 BEFORE THE REQUEST FOR THE TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE, WHICH IS A CONDITION OF THAT REQUEST. SO THAT -- IT APPEARS THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. LET ME CONFIRM THAT, IF THAT IS INDEED THE CASE. AND I'LL ASK YOU, MR. EVERETT, HAS THE REQUEST FOR A TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE THAT WAS FILED LAST NIGHT BEEN WITHDRAWN? MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SEYMOUR EVERETT. YES, IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THROWING ACCUSATION S OUT IS NOT HELPFUL IN ATTEMPTING TO RE SOLVE A D I SP UT E IN GOOD FAITH,AND THAT S HOUL D SUCH ACCUSATIO N S BE MADE AGAIN,WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A H EARING AB OUT THEM,AND WE'RE GOING TO G ET TO THE BOTTO M OF IT. WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT IF THEY'RE SUSTAINED,AND WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT IF THEY WERE MADE W ITHOUT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION,AND THERE WOULD BE CON SE Q UENC ES IN EITHER OF TH OSE SCENARIOS. THERE W A S NOT COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 31 B EFO RE THE R EQ UEST FOR THE TELEPHO NIC CONFERENCE,W HICH IS A CONDITION OF THAT RE QUEST. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:41PM 06:41PM 06:41PM 06:41PM 06:41PM 14 THE COURT: RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO PART TWO. AND I'LL HEAR FROM YOU OR I'LL HEAR FROM MR. LEE, WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE SOME SANCTION FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THAT ORDER, NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LOCAL RULES AND FOR MAKING ACCUSATIONS -- BUT ACTUALLY, BEFORE I DO THAT, LET ME ASK YOU, MR. EVERETT, I'LL START WITH YOU: DO YOU STAND BEHIND THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MS. BEATIFICATO THAT ARE MADE IN MR. LEE'S JANUARY 15TH, 2021 LETTER? MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY APOLOGIZING TO THE COURT AND MS. BEATIFICATO FOR THE SCHEDULING OF THE CONFERENCE. YOU KNOW, WE HAD FORWARDED OF THE DATES THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO US -- THE COURT: CAN I ASK YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR -- THE COURT: I READ THAT IN THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL. COULD YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION. MR. EVERETT: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THAT MEET AND CONFER; INAPPROPRIATE. AND WE APOLOGIZED TO MS. BEATIFICATO AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANCE AND HOW WE COULD HAVE COMMUNICATED TO -- THOSE COMMENTS TO OPPOSING COUNSEL, WE SHOULD HAVE USED DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. ABSOLUTELY. WHY THERE S H OULDN'T BE SOME SANC TION FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THAT O RDER,NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LOCAL RULES AND FOR MAKING ACCUSATION S BUT ACT UALLY,BEFO R E I DO THAT,LET ME ASK YOU,MR.EVERETT,I 'LL S TART WITH YOU:DO YOU S TAND BEHIND THE ACCUSATION S AGAINST MS.BEATIFIC ATO THAT ARE MADE IN MR.LEE'S JANUARY 15TH,202 1 LETTER? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:42PM 06:42PM 06:42PM 06:43PM 06:43PM 15 THE COURT: DO YOU WITHDRAW -- MR. EVERETT: (INAUBIDLE) -- STILL EXIST, YES. THE COURT: DO YOU WITHDRAW ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND MISREPRESENTATION BY MS. BEATIFICATO? MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, IS THE COURT REQUESTING WHETHER OR NOT WE WITHDRAW THAT, THAT ACCUSATION? THE COURT: IT'S ONE THING TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR HEARING; THAT'S DONE. NOW WE'RE ASKING IF THAT ACCUSATION, WHICH ALL PARTIES WERE PREVIOUSLY TOLD WHEN SOMEONE LEVELS THAT ACCUSATION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ABOUT IT, AND THERE WILL BE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES AGAINST EITHER THE ACCUSED OR THE ACCUSER, DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT. SO I WANT TO CONFIRM -- AND I'M GOING TO STEP ASIDE A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE BEING SOMEWHAT FORMAL. I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT INFORMAL. IT LOOKED TO ME THAT MR. LEE WAS DOING FINE WITH HIS MEET-AND-CONFER LETTER. IT WAS GOING FINE, AND THEN IT WAS -- HE GOT TO THE END, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WENT THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WENT AS AGGRESSIVELY AS HE DID. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT HELPFUL, NOT APPROPRIATE. BUT HE DID THAT THE SAME DAY THAT I ISSUED AN ORDER THAT SAID, HEY, IF YOU DO THAT, BE PREPARED. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW TO START. DO YOU STAND BY THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ FROM THE LETTER? DOES YOUR CLIENT AND YOUR FIRM STAND BY THAT IN TERMS OF AN ACCUSATION AGAINST -- ACCUSATIONS IT WA S NOT N E CE SSARY,NOT HELPFUL,NOT APPRO PRIATE.BUT HE DID THAT THE S AME DAY THAT I ISSUE D AN O RDER THAT S AID,HEY,IF YOU DO THAT,BE PREPARED. ALL RI GH T.SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING T HIS RI GH T NOW TO START. DO YOU S TAND BY THE L ANGUA GE THAT I READ FR O M THE LETTER?DOE S YOUR CLIENT AND YOUR FIRM S TAND BY THAT IN TERMS OF AN ACCUSATION AGAINST --ACCUSATIO NS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:43PM 06:43PM 06:44PM 06:44PM 06:44PM 16 AGAINST MS. BEATIFICATO? MR. EVERETT: NO, YOUR HONOR, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THAT LANGUAGE. THE COURT: WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. WHEN YOU SAY "NO," THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S A GOOD DEFINITIVE ANSWER. BUT WHEN YOU SAY, "NO, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THAT LANGUAGE," THAT'S NOT SAYING YOU WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION. THAT IS JUST SAYING YOU WITHDRAW THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THE ACCUSATION. I WANT TO KNOW "YES" OR "NO," DO YOU STAND BY -- MR. EVERETT: YES, YOUR HONOR, WE WITHDRAW THAT ACCUSATION. THE COURT: THOSE ACCUSATIONS, PLURAL? MR. EVERETT: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. BEATIFICATO, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT, IF YOU WISH, SINCE THE ACCUSATIONS WERE MADE, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOW WITHDRAWN ON THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION OF ALLOWING ME TO MAKE -- HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON IT AND MAKE FINDINGS, INCLUDING CALLING WITNESSES. I WOULD LIKELY CALL YOU; I WOULD LIKELY CALL MR. LEE AND SWEAR YOU EACH IN. BUT I'M GOING TO THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR YOU AND THAT YOU ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL. MS. BEATIFICATO: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WISH TO TAKE ANY MORE OF THE COURT'S TIME WITH THIS. I REALLY JUST WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LITIGATION. AGAINST MS.B EATIFIC ATO? MR.EVERETT:YE S,YOUR HONO R,WE WITHDRAW THAT ACCUSATION. THE COUR T:T HOSE ACCUSATIO N S,PLURAL? MR.EVERETT:CORRECT,YOUR HON O R. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:45PM 06:45PM 06:45PM 06:45PM 06:45PM 17 IF THE COURT IS ASKING ME, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR ANY OF THESE ACCUSATIONS. SO IN THAT SENSE, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON IT. BUT IF WHAT THE COURT IS ASKING ME IS DO YOU WANT THE COURT TO DO THIS, THEN NO, I WOULD JUST ASSUME THAT WE ACTUALLY DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH IS MOVE THE CASE ALONG AND NOT WASTE ANYONE'S TIME WITH THIS. BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS GOING FORWARD ABOUT HOW WE PREVENT THESE TYPE OF CONTINUAL ACCUSATIONS, BECAUSE I FOUND THEM EVEN TODAY IN THE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. THE COURT: LET'S -- MS. BEATIFICATO: AND THAT CONCERNS ME. THE COURT: LET'S DO ONE THING AT A TIME. ALL RIGHT? YOU'VE SAID YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT MY TIME. I'LL STAY HERE AS LONG AS IT TAKES. I'VE BEEN HERE UNTIL 11:00 AT NIGHT ON HEARINGS IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. WE'LL DO IT. I'M ASKING YOU DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THESE ALLEGATIONS, OR IS IT SUFFICIENT FOR YOU THAT THE CITY OF THE COSTA MESA HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST YOU, RECOGNIZING THAT YOU DENY THEM AND DISPUTE THEM? MS. BEATIFICATO: THEN THAT IS SUFFICIENT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: I'M SORRY, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. MS. BEATIFICATO: I'M SORRY. THAT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THEY'VE WITHDRAWN THEM. I DON'T NEED AN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 06:46PM 06:46PM 09:06PM 09:06PM 09:06PM 18 EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THEM, AS LONG AS IT'S NOTED I DO DISPUTE THEM. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, MS. BEATIFICATO READ MY MIND BECAUSE I DO WANT TO GET INTO HOW WE PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE. AND WHAT IS CONCERNING WITH ME IS THAT I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER WAS PRETTY CLEAR AND THAT THINGS WOULD HAVE TONED DOWN. SO TO SEE THE LETTER BY MR. LEE DATED THE SAME DAY CAUSED ME CONCERN. AND I'LL ALSO AGREE THAT THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL, WHILE IN SOME SENSE APOLOGETIC -- YOU FOLKS PROBABLY KNOW I WAS A PROSECUTOR FOR MANY YEARS, AND OFTEN YOU HEAR AN APOLOGY THAT IS MORE OF AN APOLOGY IF YOU WERE MISLED OR "I APOLOGIZE IF YOU TOOK SOMETHING THAT WAY" OR "I APOLOGIZE IF YOUR OVERLY DIFFICULT INSTRUCTIONS WEREN'T FOLLOWED BY A TEE BECAUSE NO ONE COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THEM." THAT'S NOT REALLY AN APOLOGY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO LITIGATE AN APOLOGY. BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY IS -- AND MR. LEE, I'M GOING TO DIRECT THIS TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE FROM THE FIRM THAT I'VE SEEN THIS FROM. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT FROM MR. EVERETT. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT FROM MS. ANDERSON, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT FROM ANYONE AT JONES & MAYER. BUT I HAVE SEEN IT FROM YOU. AND I DID NOTE THAT IN CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER MOTION BEFORE JUDGE SELNA, ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS ATTACHED A TRANSCRIPT OF A HEARING IN ANOTHER CASE, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:07PM 09:08PM 09:08PM 09:09PM 09:09PM 19 NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC. VERSUS CITY OF COSTA MESA, TRANSCRIPT FROM A HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2020 IN FRONT OF FORMER CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICK WALSH. AND I AM CONSIDERING THAT AND HAVE REVIEWED IT, AND IT TO SOME EXTENT GUIDES THE REASON WHY WE'RE -- I'M TALKING DIRECTLY TO YOU. I'VE KNOWN FORMER JUDGE WALSH FOR OVER 20 YEARS. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST RELAXED, EASYGOING PEOPLE I'VE EVER MET. WHEN YOU REDUCE THAT UNIVERSE FROM PEOPLE TO JUDGES, HE MAY BE THE MOST RELAXED JUDGE I'VE EVER MET. AND HAVING READ THIS TRANSCRIPT AND HAVING SEEN HIS FRUSTRATION WITH YOU, MR. LEE, FOR THESE SAME THINGS, FOR THESE SAME THINGS -- HERE I'LL QUOTE IT FOR YOU, THIS IS FROM PAGE 12 OF THAT TRANSCRIPT, JUDGE WALSH SPEAKING, SPEAKING TO YOU: "I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE INVECTIVE, WHY THERE IS SO EVIL AND BAD? TALK TO ME, MR. LEE AND TELL ME WHY I SHOULD OVERLOOK THIS AND GRANT YOU THE RELIEF YOU WANT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU SEND AN EMAIL TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT YOU KNOW I'M GOING TO READ, AND YOU CALL THEM LIARS AND YOU SAY THEY'VE BEEN LYING ALL THE TIME. I'M ON THIS CASE. I DON'T SEE THAT. IN FACT, IF I HAD TO MAKE A FACTUAL FINDING, I WOULD FIND AGAINST YOU ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ISSUES." AND THEN JUDGE WALSH TALKED ABOUT HOW HE HAS TAUGHT AT USC TO LAW STUDENTS FOR TEN YEARS, AND HE SAID: "I WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT I TEACH SECOND AND "I DON'T U NDERS TAND WHY THE I NVEC TIVE,WHY THERE IS SO EVIL AND BAD?TALK TO ME,MR.LEE AND TELL ME WHY I S HOUL D O VERLOOK T HIS AND G RANT YOU THE RELIEF YOU WANT,D E SPITE THE FA CT THAT YOU S END AN EMAIL TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT YOU K NOW I 'M GOING TO READ,AND YOU CALL THEM L IARS AND YOU SA Y THEY'VE BEEN L YING ALL THE TIME. I'M ON T HIS C ASE.I DON'T S EE THAT.IN FA CT,IF I HAD TO MAKE A F A CT UAL F INDING,I WOULD FIND AGAINST YOU ON EVERY SING LE ON E OF T HOSE ISSUE S." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:09PM 09:10PM 09:10PM 09:10PM 09:10PM 20 THIRD YEAR LAW STUDENTS. YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS ARGUMENT; WHEN YOU CALL THE OTHER SIDE A LIAR AND THEY'RE EVIL, YOU'LL NEVER WIN THAT. YOU'RE MUDDYING YOURSELF UP. IT CAN'T BE WON. OKAY?" SKIPPING DOWN: "I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE FOR 19 YEARS. I DO DISCOVERY CONFERENCES EVERY WEEK. I'VE DONE 900 THEM, MR. LEE. THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH STANDS OUT. MAYBE TOP TEN OF THE 900 I'VE EVER DONE. OKAY? SO YOU START BY LOSING." SKIPPING DOWN: "SO THAT'S -- AND MY UNSOLICITED ADVICE GOING FORWARD, MR. LEE, IS THAT YOU CAN NEVER WIN THIS. NO JUDGE IS GOING TO PICK THIS UP AND AFTER READING YOUR PARAGRAPH SAY, OKAY, OPPOSING COUNSEL IS A BAD PERSON; SO I'M GOING TO RULE AGAINST HIM." I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SAY IT MUCH BETTER. IT'S LIKE WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SAME CASE, AND THAT WAS ALMOST EXACTLY A YEAR AGO, AND HERE WE ARE BACK, AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THE EXACT SAME THING AND IT'S MR. LEE AND HIS COMMUNICATIONS AND HIS ACCUSATIONS AND HIS EMAILS THAT I THINK ARE THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THINGS BETTER. ALL RIGHT? I AM GOING TO TELL YOU -- AND THIS GOES I GUESS TO BOTH PLAINTIFFS, BUT TO YOU, MS. BEATIFICATO -- NOTHING I SAY SHOULD BE TAKEN AS AN I DON 'T K NOW THAT I COUL D S AY IT MUCH BETTER.IT'S LIKE WE WERE LOOKING AT THE S AME C A SE,AND THAT W AS A LMOST E XACTLY A YEAR AGO,AND HERE WE ARE BA CK,AND WE'RE D EALING WITH THE E XACT SAME T HING AND IT'S MR.LEE AND HI S COMMUNICATION S AND H IS ACCUSATION S AND HI S E MAILS THAT I THINK ARE THE R EASON WHY WE'RE HERE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:11PM 09:11PM 09:12PM 09:12PM 09:12PM 21 AGREEMENT, AN ACCESSION OR ANY POSITIVE REFLECTION ON THE RESPONSES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN DISCOVERY BY INSIGHT THUS FAR. I'M GOING TO SPEAK GENERALLY AND NOT SPECIFICALLY. BUT IF A PARTY WANTS A DISCOVERY STAY AND DOESN'T WANT TO ANSWER DISCOVERY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO REMOVE A CLAIM FROM THE CASE, THE PROCESS IS TO FIRST TALK TO THE OTHER SIDE ABOUT AN AGREEMENT TO A STAY, AND IF NO AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED, PROCEEDING WITH THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO AMEND THE DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER TO STAY THAT PORTION OF DISCOVERY WHILE THE MOTION IS BEING RULED ON. THE PROPER MECHANISM IS NOT TO ASSERT AN OBJECTION AND WAIT AND HOPE YOU WIN. THAT'S NOT PROPER. IT'S ALSO NOT PROPER TO SIMPLY ASSERT BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS. RULE 11 EXCLUDES DISCOVERY RESPONSES, BUT A WHOLE OTHER SECTION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, WHEN YOU PROPOUND DISCOVERY, YOU ARE CERTIFYING THAT THOSE DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH, ARE RELEVANT AND ARE NOT DONE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO TAKE PROPER DISCOVERY. WHEN YOU SIGN A DISCOVERY RESPONSE, YOU ARE AS THE LAWYER CONFIRMING THAT ALL OBJECTIONS ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUPPORTING BASIS AND THAT ALL RESPONSES ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE RULES SUBJECT TO THE CLIENT, ACTUALLY IN THE CASE OF INTERROGATORIES, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:13PM 09:13PM 09:13PM 09:14PM 09:14PM 22 VERIFYING THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION. SO NOTHING I SAY EXCUSES ANY EVENTUAL FINDING -- EVENTUAL POSSIBLE FINDING THAT SOME OBJECTIONS OR SOME RESPONSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED OR DON'T COMPLY WITH THE RULES. AND SHOULD IT BE THAT THOSE OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED AND RESPONSES ARE FOUND TO BE IMPROPER, THERE VERY WELL MAY BE -- I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM "SANCTIONS" BROADLY UNDER RULE 37 FOR BOTH RULE 37(A) AND 37(B) -- THERE MAY BE SANCTIONS FOR THAT. AND THE LONGER IT GOES ON, THE GREATER THE LIKELIHOOD OF SANCTIONS AND THE GREATER THE LIKELIHOOD OF A QUICK RULING AND GRANTING OF SANCTIONS. ALL RIGHT? SO PUT THAT IN A BOX NOW BECAUSE I WAS SPEAKING GENERALLY; NOT ABOUT THIS MOTION. NOW WE'RE GETTING BACK TO THESE DISPUTES, AND I'LL LET YOU SPEAK, MR. EVERETT, ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK CAN BE DONE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT BACK HERE LIKE JUDGE WALSH WAS ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2020, LIKE I WAS ON JANUARY 15TH OF THIS YEAR, AND LIKE WE ARE TODAY ON JANUARY 28TH OR -- YEAH, JANUARY 28TH. MR. EVERETT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO MS. BEATIFICATO THAT I DO TRULY APOLOGIZE, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE COURT THAT THESE ARE NOT JUST WORDS. AND WE'RE OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL AS TO HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED TO MEET MORE COOPERATIVELY TO RESOLVE THESE DISCOVERY DISPUTES. AND I THINK WE'RE AT A REAL DISADVANTAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:15PM 09:15PM 09:15PM 09:16PM 09:16PM 23 THAT WE CAN'T DO THEM IN PERSON BECAUSE OF COVID-19, BUT IF THEY'RE INCLINED TO DO THEM VIA ZOOM, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. IF THEY'RE INCLINED TO HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE AND COOPERATIVE, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THEM. BUT THE ONLY SUGGESTION THAT I COULD HAVE IS MORE, YOU KNOW, FACE-TO-FACE, MORE, YOU KNOW, REMOVE THIS POTENTIAL FOR, YOU KNOW, WORDS ON PAPER TO AGGRAVATE DISPUTES RATHER THAN RESOLVE THEM. THE COURT: WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO -- I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM HER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WE CAN EITHER FIGURE IT OUT TOGETHER, OR WE'LL TAKE SOME OTHER STEPS. I HAVEN'T DECIDED ON THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS. BUT MS. BEATIFICATO HAD TO WRITE A RESPONSE TO LAST NIGHT'S REQUEST, IS HERE TODAY AND SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, AND FRANKLY HAVING TO DEAL WITH EMAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE THAT SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO HAVING MEETINGS BY ZOOM IS GREAT, BUT IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT, AND IT'S MORE DEEP ROOTED THAN THAT. AND, AGAIN, SEEING WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED IN THE OTHER CASE BEFORE JUDGE WALSH SUGGESTS TO ME ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS OR AT LEAST AN ATTEMPT -- I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES ABOUT WHO DOES WHAT, BUT I AM INTERESTED, MR. EVERETT, IF YOU THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME BENEFIT TO RETHINKING SOME OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. I'M NOT -- I WOULD NEVER ORDER IT, AND I'M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:16PM 09:17PM 09:17PM 09:17PM 09:17PM 24 NOT EVEN SUGGESTING IT, I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. MR. EVERETT: AND I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M FOLLOWING YOU. IF YOU'RE -- CERTAINLY -- MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR QUESTION WAS HOW WE COULD BETTER COMMUNICATE TO AVOID GETTING LOST AND ELEVATING, YOU KNOW, COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE COMMUNICATION. THE COURT: WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE BASIC THAN THAT. GET RID OF YOUR FIRST CLAUSE. IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW YOU COMMUNICATE; IT'S ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR OPPOSING COUNSEL. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AS NASTY, AS INVECTIVE FILLED, AND IT'S ALL ONE WAY. IT'S ALL ONE WAY. AND AGAIN, AS I SAID, THE ONLY PERSON I SEE IT COMING FROM IS MR. LEE. NOW, JUST LOOKING AT ONE CAPTION, I SEE YOU, I SEE MS. DOREY, MS. ANDERSON HAS NOW MADE AN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH EVERETT DOREY. ON BEHALF OF JONES MAYER WE HAVE ON THE CALL MONICA CHOI ARRENDONDO, WE HAVE MR. BRUCE LINDSAY. WE ALSO HAVE KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW ON THE CAPTION. SO THAT'S SIX LAWYERS THAT COULD GET INVOLVED BEYOND MR. LEE, WHO IS THE SEVENTH. AGAIN, THOSE SIX LAWYERS, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DIFFICULTY. I HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL DIFFICULTIES WITH MR. LEE, AND DESPITE MULTIPLE WARNINGS FROM MULTIPLE MAGISTRATE JUDGES. SO I'M NOT GOING TO TELL ANYBODY WHAT TO DO. I DO WANT -- IT'S AB OUT THE R ELATIO NS HIP BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR O PPOSING COUNS E L.IT DOE SN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.IT DOE SN'T HAVE TO BE AS N AS TY,AS INVEC TIVE FILLED,AND IT'S ALL O N E WAY.IT'S ALL O NE WAY.AND AGAIN,AS I S AID,THE ONLY P ERSON I S EE IT COMING FR OM IS MR.LEE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:18PM 09:18PM 09:19PM 09:19PM 09:19PM 25 IT'S A GOOD SEGUE NOW, THOUGH, TO MS. CHOI ARREDONDO. YOU'RE HERE ON THIS CALL, AND I ORDERED SOMEONE FROM YOUR FIRM TO BE HERE BECAUSE YOUR FIRM IS ON THE MASTHEAD AND YOUR FIRM IS ON THE CAPTION OF THE PLEADING THAT REQUESTED THE NOTICE OF TELEPHONE DISCOVERY. HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU: WHEN MR. LEE FILES A MOTION AND YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS ON THE MASTHEAD, IS YOUR FIRM IMPLIEDLY OR EXPRESSLY STANDING BEHIND THOSE FILINGS? MS. ARRENDONDO: YOUR HONOR, YES, WE ARE ON THE CAPTION. WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY FORMAL APPEARANCES UNTIL TODAY IN THIS ACTION. WE -- THE FIRM OF JONES & MAYER SERVES AS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, AND WE ARE ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE CASE. WE HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY DEALINGS, AND NOR HAVE WE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISCOVERY EFFORTS. BUT WE DO PROVIDE CONSULTATION, OR WE ARE INVOLVED WITH THE CLIENT REGARDING LEGISLATIVE ISSUES AND IN THAT RESPECT. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT BACKGROUND. BUT YOU ARE -- YOU HAVE MADE A FORMAL APPEARANCE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE SPOKEN OR ATTENDED ANY HEARINGS, BUT YOUR APPEARANCE -- YOUR FORMAL APPEARANCE IS ON THE RECORD AND ON THE DOCKETS. SO YOUR FIRM HAS APPEARED, THREE LAWYERS FROM YOUR FIRM. AND THE QUESTION IS WHEN DOCUMENTS FROM EVERETT DOREY AND MR. LEE ARE FILED, YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS YOU'RE HERE ON T HIS C ALL,AND I O RDERED SOMEO NE F R OM YOUR FIRM TO BE HERE B E CA USE YOUR FIRM IS ON THE M ASTHEAD AND YOUR FIRM IS O N THE C APTION OF THE PLEADING THAT R EQ UES TED THE NOTICE OF T ELEPHON E DI SCOVERY.HERE IS MY Q UES TION FOR YOU: WHEN MR.LEE F ILES A MOTION AND YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS O N THE MA STHEAD,IS YOUR FIRM IMPLIEDLY OR EXPRESSLY S TANDING BEHIND TH OSE F ILINGS? MS.A RRENDONDO:YOUR HONO R,YE S,WE ARE O N THE CAPTION.WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY FORMAL A PPEARANCE S UNTIL TODAY IN T HIS ACTION.WE --THE FIRM OF JONES &MAYER SERVES AS THE C ITY ATTO RNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE C ITY OF COSTA ME SA,AND WE ARE A TTO RNEY OF RE COR D IN THE C ASE. WE HAVE NOT BEEN INVO LVED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY D EALINGS, AND NOR HAVE WE BEEN I NVO LVED IN THE DI SCOVERY E FFO RTS. BUT WE DO P R OVIDE CON SULTATION,O R WE ARE I NVOLVED WITH THE CLIENT RE G ARDING L E GI SLATIVE ISSUE S AND IN THAT RE S PECT. AND THE Q UESTION IS WHEN DOCUMENTS F RO M EVERETT DOREY AND MR.LEE ARE FILED,YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:20PM 09:20PM 09:20PM 09:21PM 09:21PM 26 ON THE FRONT PAGE; ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I SEE. SO HERE IS MY QUESTION, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS THERE MAY COME AN ISSUE LATER ON AND UNDER RULE 37 IN TERMS OF SANCTIONS, ALSO THE INHERENT AUTHORITY OF THE COURT AND LOCAL RULES, IS WHO SHOULD THE SANCTIONS BE AWARDED AGAINST? AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY THAT HAVE YOUR FIRM'S NAME ON THE CAPTION, IS YOUR FIRM STANDING BEHIND THOSE FILINGS? HAS YOUR FIRM EXPRESSLY IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZED THOSE FILINGS? MS. ARRENDONDO: WELL, TO BE FRANK, YOUR HONOR, OUR FIRM HAS NOT REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FILING, AND WE HAVEN'T SIGNED ANY OF THE PLEADINGS OR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. WE TEND TO REVIEW THEM AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN FILED. THE COURT: WELL, TO BE FRANK, YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS ON THE CAPTION. SO HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO TAKE THAT? MS. ARRENDONDO: WELL, THAT -- THAT IS WHAT HAS OCCURRED TO THIS DATE. IF WHAT IS REQUIRED IS FOR OUR FIRM TO RUBBER STAMP EVERY DOCUMENT FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, THEN THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO. BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT HAS OCCURRED TO DATE IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT REQUIRING ANYTHING. I'M TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING WHEN I RECEIVE A FILING WITH YOUR FIRM'S NAME ON IT WHAT THAT MEANS. ON THE F RO NT PA GE;ON E OF THE FIRST T HINGS I S E E.SO HERE IS MY QUESTION,AND THE R EASON I 'M ASKING IS THERE MAY COME AN ISSUE LATER ON AND UNDER RULE 37 IN TERMS OF SANCTIO NS,AL SO THE INHERENT AUTHO RITY OF THE COURT AND LOCAL RULES,IS W HO S HOUL D THE S ANCTION S BE AWARDED AGAINST? AND WHAT I WANT TO K NOW IS WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE FILED O N BEHALF OF THE C ITY THAT HAVE YOUR FIRM'S NAME O N THE C APTION,IS YOUR FIRM S TANDING BEHIND TH OSE FILINGS?H A S YOUR FIRM EXPRESSLY IMPLIEDLY AUTHO RIZED TH OSE FILINGS? MS.A RRENDONDO:WELL,TO BE FRANK,YOUR HON O R, OUR FIRM H AS NOT REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS B EFOR E THE FILING,AND WE HAVEN'T S I GNED ANY OF THE PLEADINGS O R DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COUR T.WE TEND TO REVIEW THEM AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN FILED. THE COUR T:WELL,TO BE FRANK,YOUR FIRM'S NAME IS ON THE C APTION.SO HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO TAKE THAT? MS.A RRENDONDO:WELL,THAT --THAT IS WHAT HA S OCCURRED TO T HIS DATE.IF WHAT IS RE Q UIRED IS FOR OUR FIRM TO RUBBER STAMP EVERY DOCUMENT F RO M THIS DAY FORWARD,THEN THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO.BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT HA S OCCURRED TO DATE IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. THE COUR T:ALL RI G HT.I 'M NOT R EQ UIRING ANYTHING.I'M TRYING TO G ET AN U NDERS TANDING WHEN I RE C EIVE A F ILING WITH YOUR FIRM'S NAME ON IT WHAT THAT MEANS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:21PM 09:22PM 09:22PM 09:22PM 09:22PM 27 MS. ARRENDONDO: WELL, WE HAVE NOT, IN FACT, REVIEWED THE RECORDS PRIOR TO FILING. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT TELLING WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO OR SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS I INTERPRET WHEN A LAW FIRM'S NAME IS ON A FILING, THAT THAT LAW FIRM IS STANDING BEHIND THAT FILING. SO I'M ALERTING YOU AND JONES & MAYER TO THAT GOING FORWARD. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER. MS. ARRENDONDO: LIKE I SAID, YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER UNLESS YOU WANT TO. MS. ARRENDONDO: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO MR. EVERETT, I'LL TURN BACK TO YOU. THERE ARE SEVEN LAWYERS THAT HAVE MADE APPEARANCES ON THE CASE NOW. DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANY WAY OF WORKING IT OUT? I MEAN I CAN'T -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, THE ISSUE IS WITH MS. BEATIFICATO AND THAT SHE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH, I'LL TELL YOU I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY THE ISSUE IS, THEN I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS INTERACTING WITH HER. BUT MAYBE THE ISSUE IS POSSIBLY ON YOUR SIDE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? MR. EVERETT: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S CLEARLY ON OUR SIDE, AND WE HAVE TO DO BETTER. AND MY COMMITMENT TO YOU IS THAT WE WILL DO BETTER IN TERMS OF MS.A RRENDONDO:WELL,WE HAVE NOT,IN F A CT, REVIEWED THE RE CORDS P RIO R TO FILING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SA Y,WELL, THE ISSUE IS WITH MS.BEATIFIC ATO AND THAT SH E IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH,I'LL TELL YOU I DON 'T SE E ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT.BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU S AY THE ISSUE IS,THEN I GUE SS IT DOE SN'T MATTER WH O IS I NTERACTING WITH HER.BUT MAYBE THE ISSUE IS POSSIBLY ON YOUR S IDE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? MR.EVERETT:YOUR HON O R,I THINK IT'S C LEARLY O N OUR SIDE,AND WE HAVE TO DO BETTER. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:23PM 09:23PM 09:23PM 09:23PM 09:24PM 28 COMMUNICATION AND (INAUDIBLE) CIVILITY AND RESPECT. AND THAT'S A COMMITMENT I CAN GIVE YOU, THE COURT, AND MS. BEATIFICATO. THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WANT ANOTHER CERTIFICATION AND REPRESENTATION, AND THAT IS WHEN -- AT LEAST WHEN IT COMES TO DISCOVERY, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M OVERSEEING, THAT THERE WILL BE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO WORK THINGS THROUGH. AND BEFORE I ASK YOU FOR IT, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, I DID THIS; I WAS A PROSECUTOR, BUT I ALSO WORKED AT TWO OF THE BIGGEST INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRMS IN THE WORLD, AND I ALSO WORKED AT MY OWN FIRM DOING CIVIL WORK. AND MY VIEW ON DISCOVERY IS, BOY, IF YOU CAN GET 80 PERCENT OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT NARROWLY, AND YOU GET 80 PERCENT, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT DO I REALLY NEED. AND THAT'S WHAT A MEET AND CONFER IS ABOUT; IT'S ABOUT HASHING OUT, LISTEN, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. AND AS TO SOMETHING ELSE, OKAY, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THIS IS GOING TO COST YOU A LOT OF MONEY TO TRY TO FIND. IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO ME; SO I'LL DROP THAT ONE. BUT THIS OTHER ONE, THAT'S WHAT I WANT. THAT'S WHAT THIS PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH. AND WHAT I WANT TO SEE -- AND IT WAS IN THE WITHDRAWAL -- THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE JUST CHECKING BOXES, THAT THE LOCAL RULES ARE JUST THERE TO CHECK BOXES, THAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:24PM 09:24PM 09:25PM 09:25PM 09:25PM 29 THE COURTS MAKE THEM COMPLICATED JUST TO MAKE THEM COMPLICATED. AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR WITH YOU. THEY'RE NOT THERE TO MAKE THINGS COMPLICATED. THEY'RE ACTUALLY THERE TO TRY TO HELP YOU RESOLVE THINGS. MY TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE WAS NOT JUST SOME BOX THAT AS SOON AS YOU GET THREE DATES, YOU FILE SOMETHING, YOU CHECK OFF THAT BOX, AND THEN YOU FILE YOUR MOTION. IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE HOPES OF MAYBE IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THINGS, SINCE YOU FOLKS ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY TALKING AMONGST YOURSELVES, MAYBE I CAN HELP. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS -- WHEN YOU READ THAT NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL, THAT'S NOT HOW IT APPARENTLY WAS INTERPRETED BY MR. LEE, THAT IT WAS JUST SOME KIND OF BOX THAT GETS CHECKED OFF, AND THEN I FILE MY MOTION. AND IT'S NOT EVEN FILE MY MOTION. IT WAS I'M GOING TO CHECK OFF THIS BOX, AND THEN I WANT YOU, JUDGE, TO ORDER THAT THESE RESPONSES TO THESE 192 DISCOVERY REQUESTS BE COMPLETELY PROVIDED. SO WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUST BE A BULLDOZER. WE'RE HERE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK. YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THE CITY IN A NUMBER OF THESE CASES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO, I ASSUME, CONTINUE TO. FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED, FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND TRY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED WITHOUT MAKING THINGS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:25PM 09:26PM 09:26PM 09:26PM 09:27PM 30 YOU FOLKS ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO TRIAL. YOU FIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING; YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO WIND UP IN A VERY DIFFICULT STATE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO COST YOUR CLIENT A LOT OF MONEY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO -- WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. WHETHER YOU THINK JUDGE SELNA LIKES LAWYERS AND PARTIES THAT FIGHT OVER EVERYTHING, YOU'VE PROBABLY HAD EXPERIENCE WITH HIM. I'VE TRIED SEVERAL CASES WITH JUDGE SELNA WHEN I WAS IN PRACTICE. I HAVE KNOWN HIM SINCE HE CAME ON THE BENCH AND A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THEN. MY TAKE ON HIM IS HE DOESN'T REALLY CARE FOR THAT SORT OF THING. BUT MAYBE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE BOTH SIDES GET WHAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS AND THAT PEOPLE THAT HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY OR THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY AND THE BURDENS AND PROPORTIONALITY OF IT, THAT WE WORK TOGETHER. BUT ULTIMATELY, IF YOU FOLKS DON'T TALK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ISSUE IS AND JUST DROP 192 DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND AN AVERAGE OF TWO OR THREE OBJECTIONS PER REQUEST, MEANING, I GOT TO MAKE RULINGS ON 600 ISSUES WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THE PARTIES, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THAT? NO ONE IS GOING TO BE HAPPY. SO I'M GOING TO ASK FOR YOUR COMMITMENT NOT JUST IN CHECKING BOXES, BUT IN ACTUALLY HAVING A CHANGE YOU'RE GOING TO COST YOUR CLIENT A LOT OF MONEY, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:27PM 09:27PM 09:27PM 09:28PM 09:28PM 31 IN HEART FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN TO SAY, LISTEN, HERE IS WHAT I REALLY NEED, AND HERE IS HOW I'M GOING TO BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE, BE WILLING TO HORSE TRADE, BE WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET WHAT I WANT. IS THAT A COMMITMENT THAT I CAN GET FROM YOU ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? MR. EVERETT: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: AND MS. BEATIFICATO, CAN I GET THE SAME COMMITMENT FROM YOU? MS. BEATIFICATO: ABSOLUTELY. THE COURT: AND MS. HASSAN, SAME COMMITMENT? MS. HASSAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S IN THE SPIRIT OF THOSE COMMITMENTS AND THAT COMPROMISE, LET'S TRY TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT, FIND WAYS TO NARROW THINGS, FIND WAYS TO FOCUS ON WHAT YOU REALLY WANT. AND I'M HERE FOR DISPUTES, BUT I'M NOT HERE TO GET 192 REQUESTS DROPPED ON ME WHERE NO ONE IS REALLY EVEN SPOKEN OF IT. UNDERSTOOD? MR. EVERETT: YES, YOUR HONOR. MS. BEATIFICATO: UNDERSTOOD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE DONE MOST OF THE TALKING. MR. EVERETT HAS DONE SOME TALKING. MS. BEATIFICATO, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR ANY REQUESTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? MS. BEATIFICATO: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: AND MS. HASSAN, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:28PM 09:28PM 09:28PM 09:29PM 09:29PM 32 YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR ANY REQUESTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? MS. HASSAN: I'LL DEFER TO AUTUMN ELLIOT ON THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MS. ELLIOT? MS. ELLIOT: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SLOW DOWN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS. SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION. MS. ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF JANE DOE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? MS. ELLIOT: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS ONE THING, AND THAT IS MY ISSUE ABOUT THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SANCTIONS. I AM NOT GOING TO ORDER SANCTIONS AT THIS TIME, BUT THERE IS ONE THING I WANT TO -- I WANT TO ADD EVEN THOUGH WE ENDED, I HOPE, ON A POSITIVE NOTE. MR. LEE, IN HIS LETTER DISCUSSING SANCTIONS, ASKED OR SAID THAT HE WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT WARN INSIGHT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT IF INSIGHT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ITS DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AND THE COURT'S ORDER IN GOOD FAITH. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR; I DON'T FIND THAT INSIGHT AT THIS TIME HAS VIOLATED COURT ORDERS OR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS OR THE LOCAL RULES AT THIS TIME. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR;I DON'T FIND THAT IN S IG HT AT THIS TIME H A S V IO LATED COUR T O RDERS O R DI SCOVERY O BLIGATIO NS OR THE LOCAL RULES AT T HIS TIME. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:30PM 09:30PM 09:30PM 09:31PM 09:31PM 33 I HAVE FOUND THAT THE CITY HAS VIOLATED THE LOCAL RULES AND THAT THE CITY'S LETTERS WERE NOT CONDUCIVE TO GOOD FAITH. SO TO THE EXTENT INSIGHT -- I'M SORRY, TO THE EXTENT THE CITY THINKS INSIGHT WAS FACING ADDITIONAL PENALTIES, SUCH AS DISMISSAL OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IF THEY VIOLATE A COURT ORDER, THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT THE REVERSE MAY BE. AND I'LL DIRECT YOU TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 37(B), AND I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT. EVERYONE SHOULD PROCEED IN GOOD FAITH, WITH PROFESSIONALISM AND REALLY THINK BEFORE ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AND MOTIONS ARE BROUGHT THAT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. ALL RIGHT? UNLESS THERE IS ANYTHING FURTHER, STARTING WITH PLAINTIFFS. IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM PLAINTIFFS? MS. BEATIFICATO: NO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THE -- MS. ELLIOT: NOT FROM MS. DOE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THE CITY. MR. EVERETT: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: TO THE EXTENT THERE IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER OF CAUSE, IT'S VACATED. THERE IS NO MATTER CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COURT AS THE TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEDURES FOR ANY DISCOVERY DISPUTES ARE SET FORTH IN WRITING IN THE JANUARY 15TH ORDER AND THE LOCAL RULES, I HAVE FOUN D THAT THE C ITY HA S V I OLATED THE LOCAL RULES AND THAT THE C ITY'S L ETTERS WERE NOT CONDUCIVE TO GOOD FAITH.SO TO THE EXTENT IN SI GH T -- I'M SORRY,TO THE EXTENT THE C ITY T HINKS IN SI G HT W AS FA C ING A DDITIONAL P ENALTIES,SUCH AS DI S MISSAL O R A DEFAULT JUDG MENT IF THEY V IO LATE A COURT ORDER,THAT'S NOT THE C A SE,BUT THE REVERSE MAY BE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 09:31PM 09:31PM 34 PARTICULARLY LOCAL RULE 37. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. HAVE A GOOD REST OF THE DAY. MR. EVERETT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. BEATIFICATO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. ARREDONDO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. ELLIOT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION DEPARTMENT ** HON. ****, JUDGE INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND ADDICTION,) INC., a California corporation, ) and JANE DOE, an individual, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No. 8:20-CV-00504 ) JVS(JDEx) CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal ) corporation; and DOES 1-10, ) inclusive, ) ) REPORTER'S Defendants. ) CERTIFICATE _________________________________) ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) _________________________________) I, LINDA SILVER RYAN, OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE OF THE ** DISTRICT COURT *** DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DID CORRECTLY TRANSCRIBE THE AUDIO RECORDING CONTAINED HEREIN AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH **, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON JANUARY 28*, 2021. DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 _______________________________________ LINDA SILVER RYAN, CSR NO. 9915 ATTACHMENT E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa Present: The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. (“Insight”), Plaintiff Mary Helen Beatificato (“Beatificato”), and Plaintiff Gerald Grosso (“Grosso”) (together–“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Counterclaims (“TACC”) and strike certain affirmative defenses in the Third Amended Answer (“TAA”) filed by Defendant the City of Costa Mesa (“Costa Mesa”). Mot, Dkt. No. 64. Costa Mesa opposed. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 75. Plaintiffs replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 81. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The following facts are alleged in Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”). See FAC, Dkt. No. 28. Insight provides supportive housing in Costa Mesa for adults with mental health and cognitive disabilities such as post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety, sexual trauma, and depression. FAC ¶ 1. Insight rents a six-unit multifamily apartment building located at 2641 Santa Ana Avenue in Costa Mesa (the “Property”) that is used for supportive housing. Id. ¶ 10. There is no limit to the length of stay for Insight’s residents, but the goal is for them to transition to independent living. Id. Jane Doe has disabilities that require supportive housing and is a former resident of Insight’s housing. Id. ¶ 1. Doe suffered abuse as a child starting at the age of six, and has CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2694 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa lived with post-traumatic stress disorder for more than twenty years. Id. ¶ 14. In 2018, Doe received residential treatment for her mental health condition. Id. ¶ 15. Her doctors told her that she would need supportive housing after release, upon which time Doe became a resident of Insight for approximately two months. Id. Doe subsequently transitioned out of supportive housing and has been able to manage the symptoms of her disability well. Id. Doe’s underlying condition is chronic, meaning that there is a real and immediate possibility that she will require supportive housing again in the future. Id. ¶ 16. The availability of the kind of supportive housing that Insight provides is critical to Doe’s ability to manage the symptoms of her disabilities in the future. Id. There is no other housing in Costa Mesa or elsewhere in the region for adults with mental health and cognitive disabilities who do not require in-patient or residential care but who do require supportive housing. Id. ¶ 3. Costa Mesa has acknowledged that it has insufficient supportive housing for adults with mental disabilities. Id. ¶ 25. Since August of 2016, Costa Mesa has been trying to close Insight’s supportive housing based on newly-adopted group home regulations that would work to retroactively limit the kind of housing Insight provides. Id. ¶ 67. Insight applied for a conditional use permit and, later, made a reasonable accommodation request seeking a modification to Costa Mesa’s separation requirements for group homes. Id. ¶¶ 67–72. Costa Mesa denied these requests, which led Insight to file the present action. Id. ¶¶ 74, 83, 95, 97. B. Procedural Background Insight filed its complaint against Costa Mesa on March 12, 2020. See Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Costa Mesa filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court granted as to some claims and denied as to others. See id. Insight filed its FAC on August 7, 2020, which added Doe as a plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 28. On October 16, 2020, Costa Mesa filed a responsive pleading against Insight and its owners. See Dkt. No. 40. Subsequently, Costa Mesa filed its first amended responsive pleading (Dkt. No. 43), but after a 7-3 conference, Costa Mesa filed a second amended pleading (including second amended counterclaims). See Dkt. No. 47. Insight then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended counterclaims and answer. See Mot., Dkt. No. 48. CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2695 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part with leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. No. 58. Costa Mesa then filed its TACC and TAA, after which Insight filed the present motion. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility” if the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To resolve a Rule 12(b)(6) motion under Twombly, a court must follow a two- pronged approach. First, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As such, a pleading must allege facts that permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Courts “‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A court considering a motion to dismiss may “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Second, assuming the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. This determination is context-specific; the Court must draw on its experience and common sense, but there is no plausibility where the court cannot “infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. B. Motion to Strike Under Rule 12(f), a party may move to strike any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2696 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa motion to strike is appropriate when a defense is insufficient as a matter of law. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982). The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matters of which the Court may take judicial notice. SEC v. Sands, 902 F. Supp. 1149, 1165 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “As a general proposition, motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because [they] are often used as delaying tactics, and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.” Sands, 902 F. Supp. at 1165-66 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, courts frequently require the moving party to demonstrate prejudice “before granting the requested relief, and ‘ultimately whether to grant a motion to strike falls on the sound discretion of the district court.’” Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1033 (C.D.Cal.2002)). III. DISCUSSION A. Request for Judicial Notice Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record if the facts are not “subject to reasonable dispute.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds, Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F. 3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Plaintiffs brings a request for judicial notice (“RJN”) in support of their motion to dismiss. See RJN, Dkt. No. 49 Because factual challenges have no bearing under Rule 12(b)(6), generally, the Court may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Lee, 250 F.3d at 688. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule that do not demand converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id. First, the Court may consider documents attached to or “properly submitted as part of the complaint.” Lee, 250 F.3d at 688; see also United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (a CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2697 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa court may treat an exhibit as “part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”). Second, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.” Lee, 250 F.3d at 688–89; see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of the following materials. See RJN, Dkt. No. 66. 1. Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 20-15 through 20-33. 2. City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 15-11. 3. The certified transcript from the February 7, 2020 hearing in National Therapeutic Services, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa, U.S. District Court, Central District, Southern Division, 8:18-CV-01080-JVS-PJW. 4. The Requests for Production that Costa Mesa propounded on Plaintiffs. 5. A State License and State Certification Issued to Insight. 6. Insight’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures. Id. at 1–5. The documents in Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (“RJN”) are all matters of public record, and the facts within them are not subject to reasonable dispute. Lee, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001); see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ RJN and takes judicial notice of the documents in Plaintiffs’ request. B . California Unfair Practices Act Claim I. Standing In its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Costa Mesa’s SACC, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Costa Mesa’s Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) claim for lack of standing. See Order, Dkt. No. 58, at 9. Plaintiffs now assert that Costa Mesa still lacks Article III standing to bring its counterclaim under California’s Unfair Practices Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000, et seq.) (“UPA”). Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 14. Pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Court’s jurisdiction over a case “depends on the existence of a ‘case or controversy.’” GTE Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 39 F.3d CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 5 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2698 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa 940, 945 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case or controversy” exists only if a plaintiff has standing to bring the claim. Nelson v. NASA, 530 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011). To have standing, “a plaintiff must show that (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that their injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Nelson, 530 F.3d at 873. A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 (2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs argue that Costa Mesa’s claimed injury is still neither plausible nor redressible by the relief it seeks. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 14. Costa Mesa argues that its TACC cures the standing deficiency that previously led the Court to dismiss the UPA claim. Opp’n., Dkt. No. 75, at 9. Costa Mesa’s TACC includes the following new allegations: Counter-Defendants’ anti-competitive conduct has injured and destroyed competition, reducing the number of competitors in the market and preventing new competitors from entering the market. Insight itself alleges that it is the only provider of its kind in Orange County, i.e. that it has a monopoly. The loss and prevention of additional businesses in the City has resulted in the loss of revenue and funds that the City would otherwise have collected, including permit application fees, business license fees, business taxes and other taxes, and funds associated with the proliferation of businesses and growth of commerce in the City. TACC ¶ 27. The inclusion of these allegations, Costa Mesa asserts, speak directly to the anti- competitive practices “designed to destroy competition” at issue in its UPA claims. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 74, at 11. The Court agrees that the inclusion of these allegations cure the injury in fact problem. CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 6 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:2699 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa Moreover, Costa Mesa is correct that its desired relief redresses its alleged injury, as the relief available under the UPA, including injunctive relief, would prevent further UPA violations and allow competition, which would directly address the Costa Mesa’s injuries. Id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as it relates to the standing issue. ii. Failure to State a Claim Next, Plaintiffs argue that Costa Mesa’s UPA claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 8. Plaintiffs assert that to plead a “predatory pricing” or “loss leader” UPA claim, Costa Mesa is required allege Plaintiffs’ “sales price, its cost in the product and its cost of doing business.” Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 8 (quoting Eastman v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 827, 837 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that to plead a “secret rebates” UPA claim, Costa Mesa must plead, “(1) the payment of a secret, unearned rebate; (2) injury to a competitor; and (3) a tendency to destroy competition.” Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 8–9 (quoting First Class Vending, Inc. v. Hershey Co., No. CV-15-01188-MWF-FFMx, 2015 WL 12426155, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2015)). Plaintiffs assert that Costa Mesa has failed to plead these fundamental elements of a UPA claim, which in turn necessitates dismissal. See id. In its additional briefing requested by the Court, Plaintiffs argue that Costa Mesa is not entitled to seek UPA damages for allegedly illegal conduct that would only indirectly affect it. See Insight Further Briefing, Dkt. No. 85, at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs cite to Page v. Bakersfield Unif. & Towel Supply Co., 239 Cal. App. 2d 762, 773–774 (Ct. App. 1966) and Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 534–546 (1983) to support the proposition that a UPA claim cannot stand if the claim does not arise directly from alleged UPA violations. Id., at 2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ case law is on-point and supports the theory that Costa Mesa is unable to state a claim for relief under the UPA. Costa Mesa submitted an additional brief as requested by the Court, and in it the city argues that (1) it has Article III standing and (2) it has statutory standing under the UPA. See generally Costa Mesa Further Briefing, Dkt. No. 84. The Court does not disagree with the contention that Costa Mesa has standing. However, it does disagree with the fundamental idea that Costa Mesa is capable of bringing a claim for relief under CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 7 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:2700 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa the UPA when it cannot allege that Plaintiffs’ allegedly UPA-violating actions only indirectly affect it. Accordingly, the Court finds that Costa Mesa has not plausibly plead its UPA claims, and thus it GRANTS the motion to dismiss on this issue without leave to amend. C. Fraud Claims and Defenses Plaintiffs next argue that Costa Mesa’s TACC fails to plead its fraud claims and defenses with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Mot., Dkt. No. 75, at 10. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the fraud aspects of Costa Mesa’s Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) claim and unclean hands defense are not pled with the factual particularity required by Rule 9(b). Id. Costa Mea counters that Rule 9(b) should be relaxed here because the relevant facts are entirely within Plaintiffs’ control. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 75, at 28–29. Plaintiffs are correct that, typically, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), a party must plead each element of a fraud claim with particularity, i.e., the plaintiff “must set forth more than the neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction.” Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 625 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original) (quoting Decker v. GlenFed, Inc. (In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir. 1994)). A fraud claim must be accompanied by “the who, what, when, where, and how” of the fraudulent conduct charged. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cooper, 137 F.3d at 627). “A pleading is sufficient under rule 9(b) if it identifies the circumstances constituting fraud so that a defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir. 1989). Statements of the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities are sufficient, but mere conclusory allegations of fraud are not. Id. Although generally allegations based on information and belief are usually insufficient, in circumstances of corporate fraud, this rule may be relaxed as to matters within the opposing party’s knowledge. Id. The Court finds that, as this is a case of alleged corporate fraud where the facts regarding the fraud claims would be entirely within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the Rule 9(b) requirements may be relaxed. Costa Mesa points out that it has alleged the “what (lied to clients about having a necessary license and submitted duplicative and false insurance CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 8 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2701 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa claims for work never done), when (continuously since inception of Insight), and where (at all their facilities).” Opp’n, Dkt. No. 75, at 29. This is sufficient to meet the relaxed pleading standard afforded in cases like this one. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss the fraud allegations. D. Declaratory Judgment Act Claim Plaintiffs next argue that Costa Mesa’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under the DJA should be dismissed. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 14. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Costa Mesa does not have a claim under the DJA because it alleges only claims that it cannot itself prosecute. Id. For example, Costa Mesa alleges various violations of misdemeanors that Costa Mesa cannot prosecute without the Orange County District Attorney’s consent, (Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1540 (CCFA) (¶ 8(a)-(e) and (r)-(y), ¶ 36); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 652 (Anti-Kickback Statute) (¶ 8(j)), ¶ 36(j)) ; and Cal. Gov. Code § 41803. See Mot. Dkt. No. 64, at 10. Costa Mesa also asserts that Plaintiffs violated criminal statutes that do not provide a private cause of action for civil enforcement, such as Cal. Ins. Code § 750 (insurance fraud) (¶ 8(f), ¶ 36(f)); Cal. Pen. Code § 186.10 (money laundering) (¶ 8(I), ¶ 36 (I)); Cal. Pen. Code § 550 (insurance fraud) (¶ 8(g)- (h)); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 650, et seq. (illegal kickbacks) (¶ 8 (j)-(k), ¶ 36(j)-(k)); Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052 (unlicensed practice of medicine) (¶ 8(z), ¶ 36(z)). See Mot. Dkt. No. 64, at 11. There is also no private right of action for tax evasion (¶ 8(aa)-(cc), ¶ 36(aa)-(cc)), and Costa Mesa lacks standing to assert wage-and-hour claims (¶ 8(dd), ¶ 36(dd)) because it is not an “aggrieved employee” or California’s Labor and Workforce Department Agency. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699. See Mot. Dkt. No. 64, at 12. Costa Mesa points out that it included a new clarification its TACC that explains that its DJA claim is not trying to enforce any laws that it does not have authority to enforce . . . [but that it] [i]nstead seeks declarations from this Court that the Counter- Defendants are operating an illegal business . . . and that they should be enjoined from operating because they are an illegal business. . ..” TACC ¶ 37. Nevertheless, Costa Mesa ultimately seeks “a permanent injunction against Counter-Defendants’ operation of their business,” based on the alleged violation of statutes for which Costa Mesa is the inappropriate prosecuting authority. See TACC ¶ 38. The Court finds this an inappropriate use of a DJA Claim, and accordingly, GRANTS the CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 9 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2702 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa motion to dismiss the DJA claims, with the exception of the nuisance claim, without leave to amend. The Court once again does not dismiss Costa Mesa’s nuisance claim. On the issue of nuisance, Plaintiffs argue that Costa Mesa’s claims fails because (1) there is no actual controversy regarding Insight’s permit status, and (2) the city council did not order nuisance abatement. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 18–19. Costa Mesa responds that Plaintiffs are improperly seeking reconsideration of an issue already decided by this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) and L.R. 7-18. Opp’n., Dkt. No. 75, at 15. Costa Mesa is correct that new arguments raised regarding the nuisance issue that could have been raised in its motion to dismiss the SACC are improper pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) (“a party that makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion”). What is more, arguments that Plaintiffs already made in its prior motion are improper pursuant to L.R. 7–18, which prohibits a motion for reconsideration absent: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. L.R. 7–18. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have improperly raised new issues regarding nuisance that should have been part of its motion to dismiss the SACC or are improperly seeking a motion for reconsideration where none of the applicable requirements are met. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss with respect only to the DJA nuisance claim. E. Unclean Hands and Business is Barred Defenses Finally, Plaintiffs argue that two of Costa Mesa’s affirmative defenses: the “unclean hands” defense and the “business is barred” defense ought to remain stricken. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 22. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that (1) the Court struck the CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 10 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2703 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa defenses without leave to amend, (2) the stricken defenses remain insufficient as a matter of law, and (3) the stricken defenses are not relevant to the remedies here. Id. at 22–23. Regarding the first issue, Costa Mesa asserts that its understanding was that “the scope of leave to amend extended to the stricken Affirmative Defenses as well, especially given that there was no express statement of no leave to amend in the Order, that the Order was the first time this Court made a determination as to the adequacy of the City's pleading and the liberal standard for leave would normally allow at least one opportunity to amend.” Opp’n., Dkt. No. 75, at 7. The Court agrees with Costa Mesa that it was not inappropriate to amend its stricken defenses under these circumstances. Plaintiffs state that Costa Mesa’s affirmative defenses meet neither plausibility pleading nor the less stringent “fair notice” standard, and that McKennon is inapposite in determining remedies. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 23. Costa Mesa responds that the affirmative defenses apply as a potential bar to at least some of Plaintiffs’ claims, and that under McKennon, Plaintiffs’ wrongdoing must be taken into account in determining what remedies would be appropriate if liability were established. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 75, at 17–18. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company is an employment discrimination case addressing when, if ever, “after-acquired evidence the employee’s wrongdoing” can be considered. 513 U.S. 352, 361–362 (1995). The Court held that after-acquired evidence of an employee’s wrongdoing could mean “neither reinstatement nor front pay is an appropriate remedy.” Id., at 361. The McKennon Court further held that unclean hands is not a complete defense to an ADEA discriminatory employment termination claim, but, as Costa Mesa points out, the Court also noted that the incomplete defense “does not mean . . . that misconduct is irrelevant to all the remedies otherwise available under the statute." Id. Instead, it held that the plaintiff's “wrongdoing must be taken into account” in order to “take due account of . . . the corresponding equities . . . .” Id. The Court finds that the statement “wrongdoing must be taken into account” cannot withstand the weight that Costa Mesa places upon it. The Court will not allow affirmative defenses to stand where their purpose is only to provide relevant information of wrongdoing in the determination of remedies, particularly where the remedies that Plaintiffs seek are a declaration and injunction that will prohibit Costa Mesa from CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 11 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2704 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.SACV 20-00504 JVS (JDEx)Date March 4, 2021 Title Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa denying Insight’s permit and accommodation requests based on disability discrimination, and its damages are limited to recoupment of costs. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 24. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike, without leave to amend. G. Failure to Join Indispensable Parties Plaintiffs argue that many of the violations that Costa Mesa alleges in its counterclaims are misdemeanors and that Costa Mesa would need consent to prosecute them from the Orange County District Attorney or the Department of Social Services. Mot., Dkt. No. 64, at 22. Costa Mesa responds that Plaintiffs cannot prove a claimed interest by a third party and cannot show the required necessity of the absent party, nor can it show infeasibility. Opp’n., Dkt. No. 75, at 30. The Court agrees with Costa mesa that there has been no failure to join indispensable parties. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss on this ground. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. The Court has also reviewed the request for hearing filed by Costa Mesa. See Request, Dkt. No. 86. Having already received additional briefing in this matter (See Dkt. Nos. 84, 85), the Court the Court finds that oral argument will not be helpful in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L-R 7–15. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Costa Mesa’s request for a hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 12 of 12 Case 8:20-cv-00504-JVS-JDE Document 88 Filed 03/04/21 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2705 ATTACHMENT F