This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 07/13/2022 at 01:34:03 (UTC).

David B. Kaye M.D., Inc. vs. Ryan Christie

Case Summary

On 01/22/2014 David B Kaye M D , Inc filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against Ryan Christie. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Fresno County BF Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Simpson, Alan, Snauffer, Mark, Smith, Bruce and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0190

  • Filing Date:

    01/22/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Simpson, Alan

Snauffer, Mark

Smith, Bruce

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Plaintiffs

David B. Kayne M.D., Inc.

Kaye, David B.

Nguyen, Loan K.

Defendants and Cross Defendants

Ryan, Christie, Quinn, Provest & Horn

Horn, J. Patrick

Ryan, Christie, Quinn, Provost & Horn

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

Tucker, Douglas

Moss, Tucker, Chiu 5260 N Palm Ave #205

Fresno, CA 93704

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

Casheros, Jerry D.

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine filed

Motion in Limine filed; Comment: Deft's No 9

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Day 14

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Day 7

Motion in Limine filed

Motion in Limine filed; Comment: Pltfs' Motion In Limine No. 7 to Exclude Non-Party Witnesses

Motion in Limine filed

Motion in Limine filed; Comment: Pltfs' Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Evidence of Other Lawsuits Brought by Plaintiff

Opposition filed

Opposition filed; Comment: To Deft's MIL No 11

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Amanda G. Hebesha in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Directed Verdict

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of Amanda G. Hebesha in Support of Opposition to Motion to Trifurcate Trial and Empanel Seperate Juries

Statement filed

Statement filed; Comment: Neutral Statement of the case (Phase One)

Abandonment of Appeal Filed

11/15/2016: Abandonment of Appeal Filed

Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

10/24/2016: Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

10/20/2016: Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

Civil Document

10/20/2016: Civil Document

Notice of Appeal

10/14/2016: Notice of Appeal

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter

10/13/2016: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter

Minute Order Attachment

10/13/2016: Minute Order Attachment

Reply

10/05/2016: Reply

Declaration

09/30/2016: Declaration

379 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/29/2016
  • DocketRemittitur from the 5th DCA Filed - Civil; Comment: DCA # F074571

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • DocketOrder of Dismissal of Appeal after Certification - Civil; Comment: DCA # F074571

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAbandonment of Appeal filed; Comment: Abandonment of Appeal (Unlimited Civil Case)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2016
  • DocketMediation Notice from 5th DCA - Appeal Suspended; Comment: Pursuant to 5th DCA Local Rule 2 5th DCA #F074571

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAppellant Notice Designating Record - CTX, RTX; Comment: Clerk's and Reporter's Transcripts

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketClerk's Certificate of Mailing; Comment: I certify that I am not a party to this cause and a true copy of the ( Tentative Ruling/ Minute Order ) was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with this court's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. Place of Mailing: Fresno, California on ( ) . Parties served: ( )

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMinute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • DocketChambers Work- Pre; Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Heard

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/18/2016
  • DocketNotification of Filing Notice of Appeal - Civil; Comment: with Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/17/2016
  • FinancialFinancial info for David B. Kayne M.D., Inc.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2016-47088 David B. Kayne M.D., Inc. $100.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
364 More Docket Entries
  • 02/13/2014
  • DocketNotice and acknowledge rcpt; Comment: Notice and acknowledgement of receipt of summons and complaint filed, signed on 02-03-14. gs

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • FinancialFinancial info for David B. Kayne M.D., Inc.: Counter Payment Receipt # 186239 David B. Kayne M.D., Inc. $435.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • FinancialFinancial info for David B. Kayne M.D., Inc.: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • FinancialFinancial: David B. Kayne M.D., Inc.; Total Financial Assessment $2,272.56; Total Payments and Credits $2,272.56

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketPayment; Comment: A Payment of -$435.00 was made on receipt CVCE186239.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Mgnt Conf; Comment: Docket entry for the letter produced from CSAEVNT on 22-JAN-2014 by GSAUCEDA.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketSummons filed; Comment: Summons on Complaint filed. gs

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketCivil case cover sheet; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet gs

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: gs Event: Civil complaint filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: Event: New Civil Case Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Complaint Information

Filed by Fresno County Superior Court

p— O

TUCKER CHIU HEBESHA SEYMOUR PC

642 POLLASKY AVE., #230 2 8 Cowis, CA 93612

DOUGLAS TUCKER #172550

AMANDA G. HEBESHA #234214 CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR #126330

TUCKER CHIU HEBESHA SEYMOUR PC

642 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 230

Clovis, California 93612

Telephone: (559) 472-9922

Facsimile: (559) 472-9892

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, DAVID B. KAYE M.D. INC. dba NATURAL VISION; DAVID B. KAYE; and LOAN K. NGUYEN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA — COUNTY OF FRESNO CENTRAL DIVISION - UNLIMITED CIVIL

DAVID B. KAYE M.D. INC. dba NATURAL VISION; DAVID B. KAYE; and LOAN K. NGUYEN, ~ Plaintiffs, vs.

RYAN, CHRISTIE, QUINN, PROVOST & HORN; J. PATRICK HORN; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. RYAN, CHRISTIE, QUINN, PROVOST & HORN; J. PATRICK HORN,

Cross-Complainants,

DAVID B. KAYE; LOAN K. NGUYEN; and ROES 1 through 25,

Cross-Defendants.

I, CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR, declare:

F L ED MAY 04 2016 FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT B DEPUTY

Case No.: 14 CE CG 00190

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR IN SUPPORT OF .

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -

Date: May 17, 2016

Time: 3:30 p.m.

Place: Department 503

Judge: Honorable Alan Simpson

Declaration i 269299 ed

TUCKER CHIU HEBESHA SEYMOUR PC

642 POLLASKY AVE,, §230 Ciovis, CA 93612

O 00 ~1 O wn»n B LN

= OO NN Y PR WLWNNd-= O

PC, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this action. The following facts are of my own persopal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and could competently testify thereto.

2. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following documents, submitted

as exhibits to this declaration:

granted “without leave to amend” or “with prejudice” (Defendants” Memorandum at 2:4; 3:26- 4:5; 5:8; 5:22.) However, the terms “without leave to amend” and “with prejudice” doj not appear anywhere in the order; rather, the order merely states “The Motion to Strike is granted.” See Exhibit B hereto. Plaintiffs made the same misleading statements in their Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for leave to amend. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” are|true and correct copies of pages 1, 4, 5, and 10 from Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion to Amend, in which Defendants' references to the motion to strike having been made “without l"eave

to amend” and “with prejudice” are highlighted.

4, Attached hereto as Exhibit “D?”, is a true and correct copy, minus exhibits, :

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California thj the

foregoing is true and correct, and that if called upon to testify, I could competently testify t ereto

12363.01-PLDG-TAC - Strike Opp - CES Dec

2 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR IN SUPPORT OF

2 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR IN SUPPORT OF B B T e, T LT e ers

B B T e, T LT e ers

Filed by Fresno County Superior Court

(27) Tentative Ruling as Modified

Re: David B. Kaye M.D. inc. dba Natural Vision, David B. Kaye, M.D., and Loan K. Nguyen, M.D. v. Ryan, Christie, Quinn, Provost & Horn, J. Patrick Horn, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive . Superior Court Case No. 14CECG001920

Hearing Date: December 3, 2014 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Defendants' demurrer to the second amended complaint; Defendants' motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint

Tentative Ruling:

To overrule the demurrer,_To grant the motion to strike the claim for punitive damages. Defendant shall file its answer to the First Amended Complaint {“FAC") within 10 days of service of the order by the clerk.

In the event oral argdment Is requested the case will be heard on December 4th, 2014 at 2:00p.m. in Dept. 501.

Explanation: Eightieth and Ninth Causes of Action - Intentional Misrepresentation

The elements of intentional misrepresentation are: “(1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and without regard for its fruth; (4) the defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and (7) the plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's representation was a substantial factor in causing that harm to the plaintiff.” (Manderville v. PCG&S Group, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1498.)

The Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the Defendants’ representations were false because Plaintiff Natural Vision's in-house bookkeeper inadequately performed his duties as in-house bookkeeper and embezzled over $400,000.00 from Plaintiff Natural Vision over a period of approximately § years. (Second Amended Complaint {4 70 & 80.) Second, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants knew that the representations were false when they made them or that they made the representations recklessly and without regard for their fruth. (Second Amended Complaint 49 72 & 82.) Third, Plaintiffs have adequately dlleged that Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on the representations. (Second Amended Complaint 41 73 & 83.) Fourth, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered harm because they invested more than $450,000.00 info

The Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the Defendants’ representations were false because Plaintiff Natural Vision's in-house bookkeeper inadequately performed his duties as in-house bookkeeper and embezzled over $400,000.00 from Plaintiff Natural Vision over a period of approximately § years. (Second Amended Complaint {4 70 & 80.) Second, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants knew that the representations were false when they made them or that they made the representations recklessly and without regard for their fruth. (Second Amended Complaint 49 72 & 82.) Third, Plaintiffs have adequately dlleged that Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on the representations. (Second Amended Complaint 41 73 & 83.) Fourth, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered harm because they invested more than $450,000.00 info Filed by Fresno County Superior Court

Filed by Fresno County Superior Court

To state a viable cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must plead: (1) that defendant represented to plaintiff that a fact was true; (2) that defendant's representation was not true; (3) that defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when they made it; (4) that defendant intended that plaintiff rely on this representation; (5) that plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant's representation; (6) that plaintiff was harmed; and (7) that plaintiff's reliance on defendant's representation was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. (CAC! 1903.)

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Defendants' representations were nof frue because Plaintiff Natural Vision's in-house bookkeeper inadequately performed his duties as in-house bookkeeper and embezzled over $400,000.00 from Plaintiff Natural Vision over a period of approximately 5 years. (Second Amended Complaint {1 110 & 120.) Second, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing that the representations were true when they made them. (Second Amended Complaint 9 112 & 122.) Third, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on the representations. (Second Amended Complaint 9 113 & 123.) Fourth, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered harm because they invested more than $450,000.00 into Plaintiff Natural Vision to pay for unexplained losses and/or monetary shortages caused by Defendants' breaches. (Second Amended Complaint 19 111, 116, 120 & 125.) Fifth, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their injury was the direct and proximate result of their reliance on Defendants’ representations. (Second Amended Complaint 1 115-116, 125-126.)

The new dllegations set forth in 99 110,120 specify where and to whom the misrepresentations were tendered. Similarly, the Plaintiffs' reliance on the misrepresentation is established through their continued employment of Henry Rodriguez and their “investment” of $450,000. (Second Amended Complaint, 11 114,124.) Thus, they complete the specificity identified by the court in the previous ruling and required under Small, supra, 30 Cal.4th at 184.

Motions to Strike - Generally

A motion to strike can be used to cut out any ‘irelevant, false or improper’ matters inserted therein. {CCP § 436(a); Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-67 ) This includes:

— dllegations not essential to the claim or defense;

-- dllegations 'neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient

claim or defense': or

- ‘a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.’

CCP § 431.10(b).

CCP § 431.10(b). concealed their culpability once the embezzlement was discovered by Plaintiffs and obfuscated

concealed their culpability once the embezzlement was discovered by Plaintiffs and obfuscated

satisfactorily.

There are additional facts from which a jury can reasonably infer that Defendants purposely and with malice and forethought falsely exaggerated t ?e skill, expertise and value of Plaintiffs’ in-house accountant to Natural Vision Io that the in-house accountant, whom Defendants had come to like, would not je fired by Natural Vision. This was done on numerous occasions for Defendant:s’ self-interest including, but not limited to, their loyalty to the in-house accountmlt,

Defendants maintaining Plaintiffs as clients and continue profiting from the work

Plaintiffs provided them and so their prior misrepresentations, concealments and

dismal work performance would not be discovered. There are additional facts from which a jury can reasonably infer that Defendarits engaged in a pattern of misrepresentations and concealments, including fraudulent reports to Plaintiffs that their in-house accountant was invaluable to Plaintiffs’ financial success and business so as to ensure that they would not be terminated Ls Plaintiffs’ accountants and thereby lose substantial business.

There are additional facts from which a jury can reasonably infer that as a result of Defendants’ purposeful conduct, Defendants enabled the in-house accountant to embezzle over $400,000 from Plaintiffs from at least 2007 until the in-ho ’se

accountant was terminated in fall of 2011.

Furthermore, there are facts from which a jury can infer Defendants intentionally

the true facts and thus hindered the discovery of facts upon which to base a recovery against .

them. Moreover, there are facts from which a jury can infer that in attempt to further their

scheme to avoid culpability, Defendants purposely destroyed relevant evidence after this action

was commenced. Based on the facts recently discovered the proposed TAC alleges additid

intentional and egregious fraudulent conduct on the part of Defendants’ justifying emotional

distress damages, as well as the re-assertion of punitive damages claims. Based on the facts

recently discovered, the proposed TAC alleges Defendants acted with fraud, malice and

-4 OO

Filed by Fresno County Superior Court

MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT

TIME :05-04-2016 10:22 FAX NO.1 : +559-472-9892 NAME : TUCKER CHIU LAW FILE NO. : 206 DATE : 05.04 09:37 TO : @ 94332300 DOCUMENT PAGES : 26 START TIME : 05.04 09:45 END TIME : 05.04 10:22 PAGES SENT : 26

STATUS 0K ***SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE*** 1} DOUGLAS TUCKER #1725S0

AMANDA G. HEBESHA #234214 2 |1CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR #126330

TUCKER CHIU HEBESHA SEYMOUR PC

3|] 642 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 230 Clovis, California 93612 4 || Telephone: (S59) 472-9922 s Facsimile: (559) 472-9892 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, DAVID B, KAYE M.D. INC. 6|]dba NATURAIL VISION: DAVID B. KXAYE;: and LOAN K. NGUYEN - .

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA — COUNTY OF FRESNO

o CENTRAL DIVISION — UNLIMITED CIVIL

SEYIVIOUR XN SUPPORT OF

14 vsS. OPPrPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF THIRD AMENDED

15| RYAN, CHRISTIE, QUINN, PROVOST & COMPLAXNT HORIN; J. PATRICK HORN:; and DOES 1 16 1] through 100, inclusive, Date: ™May 17, 2016 17 Defendants., Time: 3:30 p.m. Place: Department S03 18 Judge: Honorable Alan Simpson RYAN, CHRISTIE, QUINN, PROVOST & 19| HORIN; J. PATRICK HORXN, 20 Cross-Complainants, 21 vs, 22| DAVID B. KAYE: LOAN K. NGUYEN: Action Filed: January 22, 2014 and ROES 1 through 25, Trial Date: June 27, 2016 23 Cross-Defendants. § 24 25 26 I, CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR, declare: 27 1.

TUCKER CHIU HEOESHA SEVMOUR PC

042 POLLAIKY AVE.. £250 2 8 CLovm, CA DEGYZ

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before this court and all the

courts of the State of California. and a member of the law firm of Tucker Chiu Hebesha Scymour

1 - DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER E. SEVMOUR IN SUPPORYT OF

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where David B. Kayne M.D., Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Casheros, Jerry D.