This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 00:11:51 (UTC).

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC VS MARK WOOD

Case Summary

On 12/21/2016 ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against MARK WOOD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4516

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

WOOD MARK

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

WORLD INSURANCE ASSOCIATES LLC [DOE 2]

KAVANAUGH BRYAN

MB HOLDINGS INC.

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC

MCGINNIS ANDREW

BUCKALEW DAVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

FARROW JEFFREY D.

CONTRERAS JESSE J.

STITT TODD HARRISON ESQ.

HAGEMANN KELLY M.

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CONTRERAS JESSE J.

STITT TODD HARRISON ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

SHERIDAN MARK D.

ERICKSON MARK D.

DENISTON MARTIN K.

MORK MARISOL C.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

KITZES DANIEL V.

 

Court Documents

WORLD INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; ETC

6/4/2018: WORLD INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; ETC

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

8/22/2018: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

Declaration

11/9/2018: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/13/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Order

12/17/2018: Order

Memorandum

1/14/2019: Memorandum

Declaration

1/25/2019: Declaration

Motion for Leave to Amend

1/25/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Order

1/28/2019: Order

Motion to Compel

2/14/2019: Motion to Compel

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/21/2016: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ORDER FOR REMAND

2/16/2017: ORDER FOR REMAND

MASTER PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS PAPERS

3/8/2017: MASTER PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS PAPERS

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION

8/16/2017: STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION

DEFENDANT AND CROSSCLAIMANT MARK WOOD'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER

9/14/2017: DEFENDANT AND CROSSCLAIMANT MARK WOOD'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER

CROSS-DEFENDANTS ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, DAVE BUCKALEW, AND ANDREW MCGINMS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/20/2017: CROSS-DEFENDANTS ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, DAVE BUCKALEW, AND ANDREW MCGINMS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF LAURA DILWEG IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, DAVE BUCKALEW, AND ANDREW MCGINNIS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC

9/27/2017: DECLARATION OF LAURA DILWEG IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, DAVE BUCKALEW, AND ANDREW MCGINNIS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND ETC

DEFENDANT MARK WOOD'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

10/18/2017: DEFENDANT MARK WOOD'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

200 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • Answer; Filed by MB Holdings, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by MB Holdings, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Mark Wood (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Answer (Cross-Def Acrisure of California, LLC, Dave Buckalew and Andrew to Cross-Claimants Second Amended Cross-Complaint); Filed by Acrisure of California, LLC (Cross-Defendant); Andrew McGinnis (Cross-Defendant); Dave Buckalew (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Second Amended Cross Complaint; Filed by Mark Wood (Cross-Complainant); Mark Wood (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Summons (on Amended Cross Complaint (1st)); Filed by Mark Wood (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Second Amended Cross-Complaint; Filed by Mark Wood (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Jury Trial (7 Day Estimate) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice of Ruling ( REGARDING PLAINTIFF ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, LLC'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MARK WOOD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Acrisure of California, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
355 More Docket Entries
  • 01/26/2017
  • NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT MARK WOOD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Acrisure of California, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF: 1. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644516    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 48

MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Acrisure of California, LLC and Cross-Complainant MB Holdings, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Mark Wood

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Plaintiff Acrisure of California, LLC and Cross-Complainant MB Holdings, Inc. move to quash the deposition subpoenas issued to attorney Sanford L. Michelman or, in the alternative, for a protective order.

The Court finds that attorney Sanford L. Michelman—whose name appears first in the firm that represents Plaintiff Acrisure—qualifies as opposing counsel.

n.12 “Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require ‘extremely’ good cause—a high standard. [Citations.]” (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562 [50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129].) “California applies a three-prong test in considering the propriety of attorney depositions. First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information? Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to a privilege? [Citations.]”  (Id. at p. 1563.)

Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1353, fn. 12.

The adversarial system of justice presumes that the attorneys for each side oppose one another, not depose one another. We issue a peremptory writ because plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing of “extremely” good cause to overcome the presumption against taking the deposition of defense counsel Kippy Wroten.

Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1560.

The Court addresses the document requests set forth in the separate statement.

¿ Document Request No. 1: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications YOU had with Mr. Wood.”

GRANT motion to quash.

1. Re: Does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?

Yes. Wood himself can produce the documents which reflect communications from attorney Michelman.

2. Re: Is the information crucial to the preparation of the case?

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The court notes, in any event, that Michelman’s deposition testimony cannot change the substance of what he communicated to Wood in a document.

3. Re: Whether the information is subject to a privilege.

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The Court notes that the litigation privilege is a privilege against liability, not a discovery or evidentiary privilege:

More fundamentally, " '[t]he privileges of Civil Code section 47, unlike evidentiary privileges which function by exclusion of evidence [citation], operate as limitations upon liability.' . . . Indeed, on brief reflection, it is quite clear that section 47(2) has never been thought to bar the evidentiary use of every 'statement or publication' made in the course of a judicial proceeding . . . . Accordingly, when allegations of misconduct properly put an individual's intent at issue in a civil action, statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding  [*915]  may be used for evidentiary purposes in determining whether the individual acted with the requisite intent." ( Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1168 [232 Cal. Rptr. 567, 728 P.2d 1202].) It follows that statements made during a judicial proceeding may also be used to prove the existence of bad faith in an action against an insurer.

Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 914-15.

¿ Document Request No. 2: “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS that in any way mention or otherwise reference Mr. Wood.”

GRANT motion to quash.

1. Re: Does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?

Yes. Because the documents being sought are non-privileged, the documents can be obtained by propounding document requests upon Acrisure and/or M.B. Holdings.

2. Re: Is the information crucial to the preparation of the case?

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The court notes, in any event, that non-privileged documents mentioning Wood of which attorney Michelman would have posseession

3. Re: Whether the information is subject to a privilege.

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The Court notes, however, that the request seeks only non-privileged documents.

¿ Document Request No. 3: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communication YOU had with Crystal & Company (which includes anyone employed by Crystal & Company) that mention or otherwise reference Mr. Wood, including, but not limited to, any such DOCUMENTS reflecting communications with Richard Rosen.”

GRANT motion to quash.

1. Re: Does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?

Yes. Crystal & Company and/or Mr. Rosen can produce the documents which reflect communications from attorney Michelman.

2. Re: Is the information crucial to the preparation of the case?

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The court notes, in any event, that Michelman’s deposition testimony cannot change the substance of what he communicated to Crystal & Company and/or Mr. Rosen in a document.

3. Re: Whether the information is subject to a privilege.

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The Court notes that the litigation privilege is a privilege against liability, not a discovery or evidentiary privilege. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 914-15.

¿ Document Request No. 4: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications YOU had with World Insurance Associates, LLC (which includes anyone employed by World Insurance Associates, LLC) that mention or otherwise reference Mr. Wood.”

GRANT motion to quash.

1. Re: Does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?

Yes. World Insurance Associates, LLC can produce the documents which reflect communications from attorney Michelman.

2. Re: Is the information crucial to the preparation of the case?

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The court notes, in any event, that Michelman’s deposition testimony cannot change the substance of what he communicated to World Insurance Associates, LLC in a document.

3. Re: Whether the information is subject to a privilege.

Because the first prong is not satisfied, the Court need not address this prong.

The Court notes that the litigation privilege is a privilege against liability, not a discovery or evidentiary privilege. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 914-15.

Sanctions

The Court exercises its discretion not to award any sanctions upon Defendant Mark Wood or his counsel of record, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Case Number: BC644516    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) – (3) MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Acrisure of California, LLC and Cross-Complainant MB Holdings, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant World Insurance Associates, LLC; Defendant Mark Wood

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion To Quash Deposition Subpoena—Putnam Investments, Inc., Yusen Logistics (Americas), Inc. and NFP Corp.

Plaintiff Acrisure of California, LLC and Cross-Complainant MB Holdings, Inc. move to quash the deposition subpoenas issued to the persons most knowledgeable at Putnam Investments, Inc., Yusen Logistics (Americas), Inc. and NFP Corp. or, in the alternative, for a protective order. These entities were clients who formerly held accounts with Acrisure.

As an initial matter, the Court does not find the claimed procedural deficiencies justify quashing the deposition subpoenas or require the issuance of a protective order.

Cross-Defendants Wood and World Insurance are entitled to conduct discovery as to M.B. Holdings, Inc.’s cross-claims against them, even if such evidence is relevant to Acrisure’s claims against Defendant Wood, as to which discovery is closed.

“A complaint and a cross-complaint are, for most purposes, treated as independent actions.” (Citations omitted.) A cross-complaint is generally considered to be a separate action from that initiated by the complaint. (Citations omitted.)

Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 134.

Here, the PMK deposition subpoenas served upon Putnam Investments, Inc. and Yusen Logistics (Americas), properly seek the reason those clients decided not to continue doing business with Acrisure, which in turn deprived M.B. of holdback payment amounts. Indeed, M.B.’s Cross-Complaint alleges at the first and second causes of action that Wood and World Insurance wrongfully intended to interfere with MB Holding’s contract and prospective economic advantage with Acrisure by meeting with clients whose accounts had been purchased by Acrisure to solicit those clients away from Acrisure. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 44 – 50. This conduct allegedly caused MB Holdings not to receive the contractual holdback payment from Acrisure as to those accounts which had been solicited away by Cross-Defendants. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 52, 53.

Accordingly, the reasons why the clients—Putnam Investments, Inc. and Yusen Logistics decided to transfer their accounts from Acrisure is relevant to whether Cross-Defendants Wood and World Insurance’s conduct was a factor in those decisions. The information sought is discoverable.

As to NFP Corp., although it was a client with an account that was not part of the holdback letter under the asset purchase agreement, as Cross-Defendant Wood points out in his opposition, M.B.’s Cross-Complaint does not on its face exclude NFP Corp. as a client that was solicited by Wood. Accordingly, Wood is entitled to conduct discovery as to NFP Corp. unless and until M.B. Holdings stipulates that it is not seeking damages related to NFP Corp’s account. Indeed, if M.B. Holdings is not seeking such damages, it should be no skin of its back to so stipulate.

According, the motions to quash/motion for protective order as to PMK deposition subpoenas issued to Putnam Investments, Inc., Yusen Logistics (Americas), Inc.; and NFP Corp. are DENIED.