Dear Ms.
Marshall:
We are in
receipt of your responses to Form Interrogatories Set One propounded by
Petersen-Dean, Inc. This correspondence shall serve as
Petersen-Dean’s attempt to meet and confer with you over deficiencies in
your responses described below. If further responses revised
by you in an attempt to address the deficiencies identified in this
letter are not served within two weeks of the date of
this letter, Petersen-Dean will be forced to take more formal steps to
address the deficiencies including the filing of a motion to compel
further responses and a request for an order of monetary
sanctionsagainst you from the Court.
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 AND WAIVER OF
OBJECTIONS THERETO
Your responses
to Form Interrogatory Set One included responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 1.1 and 50.1. However, the box to Interrogatory No. 15.1 was
also checked and required a response from you. Also, because you
did not timely respond to Interrogatory No. 15.1 initially, you have
waived your right to assert any objections or the ability to produce
writings in lieu of a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)
As such, please provide your response to 15.1 without objections.
FAILURE TO OBJECT AND WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO
INTERROGATORY SERIES 50.0
While your Form
Interrogatory Set One responses appear to assert general objections at
the beginning of the responses, no specific objections were lodged by you
to the 50.0 series of questions. Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.210, subdivision (c) provides in relevant part that, “Each answer,
exercise of option, or objection in the response shall bear the same
identifying number or letter and be in the same sequence as the
corresponding interrogatory . . . .” The general objections made in
the beginning of your response were not repeated to coincide with your
responses to the 50.0 series. As such, your responses to the
50.0 series are effectively without objections. Thus, when providing
further responses to the 50.0 series please provide the responses without
objections.
NON-RESPONSIVE MATTER AND INCOMPLETE RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORY SERIES 50.0
Interrogatories
are a discovery tool designed to elicit specific information,
not to elicit everything under the sun that you think Petersen-Dean
and/or Hero Renovation did wrong to you. The 50.0 series of
interrogatories are designed to elicit your contentions surrounding the
breach-of-contract cause of action that is the subject of this
lawsuit.
The 50.1 series
seeks information about what writings and verbal statements you contend
to be a part of the agreement and any modification of the agreement
alleged in Petersen-Dean’s complaint. Code of Civil Procedure
section 2030.220, subdivision (a) provides, “Each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as
the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits.” “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding
v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64,
76.) Much of the matter you set forth in your responses to the
50.0 series and the specific sub-categories thereof is not
straightforward, does not respond to the calls to the questions, and
amounts to superfluity and/or unnecessary and irrelevant
additional information volunteered by you.
The responses to
the 50.0 series need to be pared down to provide matter that is only
responsive to the questions asked. Thus, for example, when
responding to Interrogatory No. 50.1(a), you should limit your response
only to the identification of the writings that you contend comprise the
agreement at issue and the identities of individuals you contend have
copies of those writings. Including further information
unrelated to the identified documents and persons with those
documents amounts to a non-responsive response and is improper. Only
the matter that is responsive to the question should be included in your
responses.
Similarly, while
your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(b) identifies purported verbal
communications between you and Dave Shanholtzer and you and Helena Shi
that you contend were parts of the agreement not in writing, it goes on
to state additional matter that has no bearing on the
question. For example, part of your response to the
interrogatory goes on about a written mechanic’s lien:
MECHANICS LIENS were filed upon my
property the week the solar panels were supposed to be removed. I was not
served copies of the MECHANICS LIENS. I found out about the existence of
the MECHANICS LIENS from an attorney I consulted because both PETERSEN
DEAN and HERO had stopped communicating with me and I wanted to sue HERO
as well as PETERSEN DEAN. I had to purchase copies of the liens. I also
had to purchase copies of the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT because PETERSEN DEAN
did not serve me and when they did provide an emailed copy the day my
answer to the complaint was due, I found out from THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER
that it was not really a copy of the complaint. I had to send PUBLIC LAW
CENTER a copy of the copy I purchased from the court.
The issue of a
written mechanic’s lien on your property has no bearing on whether you
contend that part of the agreement at issue was not in
writing. Adding this matter to your response is improper and a
further response must be provided that removes all non-responsive
material.
Further, while
your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(b) adds superfluous information
it nonetheless still fails to state what parts of the agreement that you
contend were not in writing or identify the dates that the parts not in
writing were made part of the agreement.
Similar issues
abound with your responses to the remaining subsections of the 50.1
interrogatory. For example, your response to Interrogatory No.
50.1(c) fails to identify with specificity any writings you contend
support that a part of the agreement not in writing was ever made by you
and any other person. Your response fails to identify by
specific date a specific document that supports this very specific contention. Instead
you state that Petersen-Dean has all emails from November 2016 through
mid-January 2017. That is not a straightforward and complete
response to the question being asked. Please provide a further
response that gives more specific information responsive to the question.
Interrogatory
No. 50.1(d) solely asks you to identify any documents that you contend
constituted a modification of the agreement and to identify all persons
in possession of such documents – nothing else. Your response
goes on to state immaterial matter that fails to respond to a question
seeking only very limited information:
I was told that it could not be avoided,
that there was additional wood that needed replacing and so I agreed to
have it replaced. What is horrible about this is that the STATE
CONTRACTOR’S LICENSING BOARD inspector found that in spite of my being
charged extra, there was still rotten wood that had not been replaced. I
had confronted PETERSEN DEAN about rotten wood that could be seen with
the naked eye from the ground. I was told that this was not “rotten wood”
that it was “thirsty wood”. Additionally, the incorrect sized pieces of
wood that replaced SOME of the rotten wood caused the side of the roof to
be C-shaped instead of a straight line. I sent pictures of this to HERO
and PETERSEN DEAN. Nothing was going to be done about it otherwise.
PETERSEN DEAN wanted me to tell my neighbors about them and at first I
did but my neighbors could see the side of my roof was C-shaped instead
of a straight line and they could see things going wrong over and over.
My neighbors were appalled by the sight of me and my autistic son
struggling alone trying to clean the stucco powder off our laundry,
wearing masks as we tried to salvage electronic equipment and employees
of the MARRIOTT where we stayed saw us both come down with serious lung
infections over and over during that time period. THE MARRIOTT employees
said for me not to fax documents to the CLSB from our house anymore since
it was making us so sick that we had to go to the emergency room and they
faxed hundreds of pages for us from their office instead. We were too
sick to keep food down on Thanksgiving Day 2016 because of what PETERSEN
DEAN did to us. My son and I both had occasions where we stopped breathing
and fainted, James more times than me. This had never happened to me
before. I was terrified that my son was going to be alone in a hotel room
with a deceased mom.
It is ironic that PETERSEN DEAN drew up
a document about needing more money than originally agreed upon to
replace rotten wood and then STILL left rotten wood that was discovered
and documented by the CSLB roof inspector. They refused to draw up a
document that was clear and understandable about the “free roof if you go
solar” agreement. PETERSEN DEAN and HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA kept urging me
to believe nothing was wrong, that I was getting that offer that wasn’t
reflected anywhere in writing. DAVE SHANHOLTZER was in charge of getting
me to sign to pay more for additional wood. I was also asked to sign for
an inspection that never happened and I protested that my carbon monoxide
detectors had not been inspected because I don’t have any and that some
of my fire alarms had stopped working. The truth was not wanted. I was
told it didn’t really matter. If it didn’t really matter, why was my
signature needed? DAVE SHANHOLTZER also urged me on several different
occasions, with a “wink-wink, nod-nod” attitude, to lie to the IRS, to
lump the solar and the roof together as if it was all the solar expense
and get a bigger tax credit. I was dumbfounded that he assumed that it
was alright to tell me this. The series of events presented a pattern
which I can only describe as a criminal mindset. PETERSEN DEAN AND
HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA behaved like criminals and seemed so steeped in
crime that they had the warped idea that everyone was as into crime as
they were.
I was astounded and deeply upset by the
dishonesty. DAVE SHANHOLTZER’S phone number is (714)309-0837 dshanholtzer@petersendean.com.
A jury will be presented with all the documents and asked the question,
“What homeowner in their right mind would wake up one day and knowingly
decide they wanted to pay three times more for electricity than they
currently did?” PETERSEN DEAN and HERO FINANING both knew I was not in
the tax bracket to be a candidate for property tax financing.
The material
above identifies neither a document of a modification of the agreement or
a person in possession of such a document. The example above
is indicative of the improper manner by which you have inserted
non-responsive matter into most of your interrogatory
responses. Here you offer non-responsive matter such as
neighbors’ views of you and your son with stucco on your laundry, faxing
issues from your home, Marriott employees witnessing you and your son
purportedly contracting lung illnesses, and Petersen-Dean’s purported
“criminal” behavior. This is a breach-of-contract case and
none of the foregoing allegations are germane to the subject matter of
this legal action. Responding to an interrogatory in this
manner is improper. To the extent your response fails to
identify documents supporting a purported wood replacement modification
to the agreement, you should not offer it or insert it at all anywhere in
your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(d). While you may ultimately get
your chance to state your case with supporting “facts” for issues
unrelated to Interrogatory No. 50.1(d), muddying your interrogatory
response with unrelated and unsupported allegations is not a proper
method of responding to discovery requests.
Your responses
to the remaining subsections of the 50.1 and the other interrogatories
(Nos. 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6) should be limited to matter that solely
responds to the question. If you continue to insert
non-responsive matter into the responses Petersen-Dean will be forced to
take further steps to compel you not to do so.
Interrogatory
50.2 asks if you contend that there was a breach of any agreement and if
so, to “give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the
breach of the agreement.” Your response to 50.2 fails to give
dates of any of the events surrounding any purported
breaches. Please provide further responses to 50.2 to provide
the dates of all the events you describe therein.
Interrogatory
50.3 asks you if performance by a party to the agreement was
excused. You responded “No,” but then go on to state
additional matter not called for unless your response was a “Yes”:
Absolutely not. No performance of any
agreement alleged in the pleadings was excused. The CSLB Citation that
will remain on PETERSEN DEAN’S bond/license for five years does not grant
any excuse for unfinished work, damages and financial fraud. The CSLB fine
paid by PETERSEN DEAN also does not absolve PETERSEN DEAN from having to
make repairs, restitution, remediation such as removal of rotten wood.
The CSLB did not put in writing that because of the FIVE-YEAR CITATION
attached to PETERSEN DEAN’S bond, PETERSEN DEAN was hereby absolved from
having to remove the rotten wood mentioned in the citation.
PETERSEN DEAN lied about making the
arrangements to remove the solar panels and filed two MECHANICS LIENS
that week instead. None of the agreed upon repairs were made. I was left
with the task of having to pay for all the repairs and I could not afford
to. The solar panels were never turned on because they were to be removed
according to agreement. PETERSEN DEAN abandoned the job and all the
agreements.
Again, this
conduct is improper, and your further response must eliminate this
immaterial and non-responsive matter.
The same exact
issue presents in your response to Interrogatory No. 50.4 which asks only
if an agreement was terminated by a mutual agreement, release, accord and
satisfaction, or novation. You insert non-responsive and
immaterial matter such as your son’s need for a dental surgery and
circumstances surrounding a purported solar permit refund. None
of this matter relates to a release, novation, accord and satisfaction,
etc. Since you responded “No” to both Nos. 50.3 and 50.4,
please provide further responses that delete all matter appearing after
the word “No” to those two questions.
Interrogatory
No. 50.5 asks you if any part of the agreement between you and
Petersen-Dean was unenforceable. Your response goes on to
discuss a mechanic’s lien that is separate from the agreement in the
pleadings and your relationship with Hero Renovation which is not a party
to this action. Similarly, you reference informal
communication attempts to settle this case and your mentioning of your
intention to file a cross-complaint against other potential parties have
no bearing on the call to the question. Your further
response to this interrogatory needs to eliminate references to matter
unrelated to terms of the agreement at issue that you contend are
unenforceable.
Finally,
Interrogatory No. 50.6 states verbatim: “Is any agreement alleged in the
pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state
why it is ambiguous.” Your response to this interrogatory was
“Yes,” followed by additional language as follows:
All verbal agreements with PETERSEN DEAN
were extremely ambiguous and often changed without warning or explanation
or disappeared completely without explanation as if they had never been
made. The sheer number of ambiguous verbal agreements with references to
equally ambiguous, mysterious, never materializing written agreements,
verbally suggested to me by PETERSEN DEAN from November 2016 to January
2017 quickly became a veritable rat’s nest of ambiguities that would
exhaust anyone. . . .
Your response
claims several ambiguous agreements but never identifies those agreements
or the context surrounding the purported ambiguities. Other than
reference to a “computer-generated contract,” there does not appear to be
reference to any specific agreement or a specific ambiguity
therein. The response also goes on to insert non-responsive
immaterial matter such as your visits to the police and your unsupported
allegations of purported threats made to you and your son by unidentified
Petersen-Dean personnel. Please provide further responses that
identify the ambiguous agreements and the context (e.g. substance,
content, dates, witnesses, etc.) surrounding those ambiguities and remove
the matter that does not respond to the question.
CONCLUSION
As stated
earlier in this letter, we will expect that you will serve further
responses without objections and in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this letter within the next two weeks. If
we do not receive proof of service of those responses within that time
frame, I will assume that you do not wish to resolve this issue
informally and will take steps to more formally protect my client via a
motion to compel and a request for an order of sanctions against you from
the Court.
Sincerely,
Sam Karimzadeh,
Esq.
|
