This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 04/11/2016 at 16:20:47 (UTC).

TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al

Case Summary

On 05/15/2012 TIMOTHY DEWITT filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC A CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0809

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2012

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

 

Party Details

Appellant and Plaintiff

DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

Berkeley, CA 94704

Defendants

CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

DOES 1 TO 100

MUIR, BRIAN D

LEASURE, JAMES

EHARMONY, INC.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A.

BOSLEY MEDICAL GROUP

MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL

AVID DATING LIFE INC. DBA ASHLEYMADISON.COM

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP

DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.

CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

DIRECTBUY, INC (FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY CASE # RG-12-638207)

SPARK NETWORKS USA LLC

DISH NETWORK , LLC (FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY CASE # RG-12-638207)

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Appellant and Plaintiff Attorneys

DEWITT, TIMOTHY A

Attorney at ATTORNEY AT LAW

2729 Dwight Way, No.402

Berkeley, CA 94704

DEWITT TIMOTHY A

Defendant Attorneys

KRONENBERGER, KARL S.

Attorney at KRONENBERGER ROSENFIELD, LLP

150 Post St Ste 520

San Francisco, CA 94108

KATZ, ELLIOT

Attorney at DLA PIPER LLP (US)

555 Mission Street, Ste 2400

San Francisco, CA 94105-2933

FRENCH, JAMES HOWARD

Attorney at FRENCH & LYON

1990 N Californa Blvd Ste 300

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

SNYDER, JERRY M.

Attorney at HOLLAND & HART LLP

5441 Kietzke Lane, 2Nd Fl

Reno, NV 89511

LANE, MOLLY MORIARTY

Attorney at MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105

WEINER, PERRIE

Attorney at DLA PIPER LLP (US)

2000 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste 400 North Tower

Los Angeles, CA 90067

KIM, RAYMOND

Attorney at REED SMITH

355 S. Grand Ave, Ste 2900

Los Angeles, CA 90071

EMHOFF, DOUGLAS C.

Attorney at VENABLE LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

FU, VICTOR T.

Attorney at LKP GLOBAL LAW, LLP

1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Suite 480

Los Angeles, CA 90067

 

Court Documents

GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

RESPONSE RE ADDITION OF DOE DEFTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Iac/Inter

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT IAC/INTERACTIVECORPS MOTION TO SET ASIDE MARCH 16, 2015 DEFAULT (TRANSACTION ID # 15092095) FILED BY DEFENDANT IAC/INTERACTIVECORP

DEMURRER

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT APPENDIX OF NON CAALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES FILED BY DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL HEARING SET FOR SEP-20-2012 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 302 (Fee:900.00)

DECLARATION

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

Continued Order to Show Cause

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SET FOR JAN-27-2015 CONTINUED TO APR-07-2015 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT(S) AND OBTAIN ANSWER(S), OR ENTER DEFAULT(S). THE JAN-27-2015 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS OFF CALENDAR. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

Continued Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (CRC 3.1385)

CRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF MAR-18-2014 CONTINUED TO MAY-20-2014 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR PLAINTIFF TO DISMISS DOES 1-100. ***NOTE: A DOE AMENDENT WAS NEVER FILED IN THIS CASE. ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.***. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

Defendant IAC-Interactivecorps Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Set Aside March 16, 2015 Default

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE MARCH 16, 2015 DEFAULT (TRANSACTION ID # 57241528) FILED BY DEFENDANT IAC/INTERACTIVECORP

OPPOSITION

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MEMO P/A IN SUPPORT THEREOF FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

Case Management Statement

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 100013050) FILED BY DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, N.A. ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 4.0 HOURS

121 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/09/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE (TRANSACTION ID # 16039067) FILED BY DEFENDANT LEASURE, JAMES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 16039067) FILED BY DEFENDANT LEASURE, JAMES JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 3.0 DAYS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF FEB-24-2016 CONTINUED TO JUN-22-2016 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR STATUS OF APPEAL. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 7.0 DAYS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 58520412) FILED BY DEFENDANT SPARK NETWORKS USA LLC JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 7.0 DAYS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 100013050) FILED BY DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, N.A. ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 4.0 HOURS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/21/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE RE ANSWER (TRANSACTION ID # 16020056) FILED BY DEFENDANT LEASURE, JAMES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/21/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 16020056) FILED BY DEFENDANT LEASURE, JAMES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • DocketMINI MINUTES FOR JAN-11-2016 09:30 AM FOR DEPT 302

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
221 More Docket Entries
  • 09/06/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MEMO P/A IN SUPPORT THEREOF FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2012
  • DocketCOURT REPORTING SERVICES LESS THAN 1 HOUR FILED BY DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL (Fee:30.00)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER FILED BY DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION DEMURRER FILED BY DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDEMURRER TO COMPLAINT APPENDIX OF NON CAALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES FILED BY DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL HEARING SET FOR SEP-20-2012 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 302 (Fee:900.00)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY SERVED JUL-24-2012, SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ON NATURAL PERSON ON DEFENDANT MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; NOTICE FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY SERVED JUL-18-2012, MAIL ON DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY SERVED JUL-18-2012, SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ON NATURAL PERSON ON DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketBUSINESS TORT, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF DEWITT, TIMOTHY INDIVIDUALLY AS TO DEFENDANT CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION MUIR, BRIAN D AN INDIVIDUAL DOES 1 TO 100 SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-17-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-16-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON OCT-02-2012 (Fee:410.00)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Complaint Information

' JAMES 11 FRENCH, (State Bar No. 53555) PATRICIA H. LYON (State Bar No. 126761)

SOPHIA R. PRIOLA (State Bar No. 299339) ELECTRONICALLY jfrench@frenchandlyon.com FILED FRENCH & LYON Superior Court of Calfffornia, Attorneys At Law County of San Francisco A Professional Corporation 02/27/2015 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 300 Clerk of the Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY:MAURA RAMIREZ Telephone: 415-597-7800 Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant, HSBC BANK USA, N.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

TIMOTHY A. DEWITT, an individual, ) Case No.: CGC-12-520809 ) Plaintiff, ) } DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, Vs, ) N.AJS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF

) TIMOTHY DEWITT CRAZY PROTOCOL )

COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a California ) corporation; BRIAN D, MUIR, an ) Complaint filed: May 15, 2012 individual, and DOES 1 through 100, ) Trial Date: TBD inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. %

Defendant HSBC BANK USA, N.A., (“HSBC”) (sued as *DOE 6” pursuant to Amendment to Complaint Designating Doe Defendants dated January 28, 2015) hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff TOMOTHY A, DEWITT (*Plaintiff”), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), HSBC denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in the unverified Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested, or that Plaintiff has been damaged in any

| amount, or at all,

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

As and for separate and affirmative defenses to the Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, HSBC alleges the following affirmative defenses.

HSBC reserves the right to amend its Answer, to assert additional affirmative defenses and to supplement, alter or change its answer and affirmative defenses upon revelation of more definitive facts to HSBC and upon the undertaking of discovery and investigation in this matter.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. The Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against HSBC,

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. Each and every claim asserted by Plaintiff is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, without limitation, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 340(a) and 338(a).

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3. FEach and every claim asserted by Plaintiff is barred as due process forbids relation back to the date of the filing of the original Complaint as: {(a) the charging allegations do not state a valid claim against HSBC; (b) Plaintiff was not ignorant of HSBC’s identity or the facts rendering HSBC allegedly liable when the original complaint was filed; and/or (c) PlaintifP’s claims against HSBC do not refer to the same general set of facts or injuries forming the basis for the claims alleged in the original complaint.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4, Plaintiff suffered no general or special damages as a result of any conduct of HSBC, and any such damages were the result of other causes and/or the acts or omissions of others, including Plaintiff.

FIFTH ATFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. Any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff (which damages and/or injuries are expressly denied) are barred as speculative and not foreseeable to HSBC.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

0. The Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is barred by the “doctrine of unclean hands.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. The Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, are preempted by, : among other laws, the Federal CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7701, et seq.)

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. Plaintiff failed to mitigate the damages and/or injuries (which damages and/or

injuries are expressly denied) referred to in the Complaint.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. HSBC is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff has inexcusably delayed the filing of this action, gave no prior notice, and that by said conduct, and other acts, Plaintiff is barred from recovery under the legal doctrine of unjust enrichment.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. Each and every claim asserted by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. Each and every claim asserted by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. Each and every claim asserted by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of waiver.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. Any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff (which damages and/or injuries are expressly denied) are subject to reduction pursuant to Bus. & Profs. Code §17529.5.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. The injuries and damages of which Plaintiff complains, which injuries or damages are expressly denied, were proximately caused by the negligence, and other fault of other persons, firms, and corporations, including Plaintiff, and other Defendants, and should judgment be rendered against HSBC, which should not occur, such judgment should be reduced, abated, and discharged in accordance with the percentage of negligence or other fault charged against such other persons, firms, and corporations, including Plaintiff, and other Defendants.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. Ifit should be established that HSBC, or any of the Defendants, are in any manner legally responsible for Plaintiff’s alleged damages, which damages are denied, then any such Defendant is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from the other parties named in this litigation or as yet unnamed in this litigation in direct proportion to the negligence or other actionable conduct which proximately caused or contributed to the alleged damages, if any.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16, To the extent the Complaint secks punitive damages, it violates HSBC’s right to procedural due process under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California, and it further violates HSBC’s right of protection from eXcessive finés as provided in the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution and in Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and it further violates HSBC’s right to substantive due process as provided in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. HSBC alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as to HSBC as

they are frivolous and in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18. If it should be established that HSBC, its agents or employees, did commit any act

or omission alleged in the Complaint, which acts or omissions are expressly denied, HSBC is

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff, by reason of the knowledge, statements

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff, by reason of the knowledge, statements and conduct of himself, his agents and employees, has herctofore consented to all of the acts or omissions on the part of HSBC.

and conduct of himself, his agents and employees, has herctofore consented to all of the acts or omissions on the part of HSBC.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant HSBC prays for judgment as follows:

a. That HSBC has judgment against Plaintiff, order of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and a finding that Plaintitf take nothing by reason of the Complaint as to HSBC;

b. That HSBC recover its costs of defense, including without, limitation attorneys’ fees and costs; and

c. That this Court grants HSBC such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.

Dated: February 26, 2015 FRENCH & LYON A Professional Corporation

"SOPHIA R, PRIOLA

Attorneys for Defendant HSBC BANK USA, N.A,

Tentative Rulings

Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:AUG-16-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Joinder And Joinder In Hsbc Bank Usa, N.A.S Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Bring To Trial
Rulings:Set for hearing on Wednesday, August 16, 2017, Line 1,DEFENDANT SPARK NETWORKS USA LLC's Joinder In Hsbc Bank Usa, N.A.S Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Bring To TrialHearing required. =(302/SRB)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:MAR-23-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Hearing And Motion For Order (1) Compelling Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents And (2) Request For Sanctions
Rulings:Set for hearing for Thursday, March 23, 2017, line 2. DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, N.A.'S Motion For Order (1) Compelling Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents And (2) Request For Sanctions. Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A.'s motion to compel plaintiff Timothy DeWitt to provide further responses to its set two special interrogatories, set one form interrogatories, and set two requests for documents is granted in large part and its request for monetary sanctions is also granted in large part. Mr. DeWitt is required to provide verified code-compliant further responses without any objections no later than April 28, 2017 to special interrogatories 20, 24-27, 29-30, and 32-35, subparts (b), (c) and (d) of form interrogatory 17.1 as to requests for admissions 2-4 and 6, and document requests 7 and 8 and to produce all documents requested in requests 7 and 8. At his option, Mr. DeWitt may choose to provide his further responses in the same manner as set forth in the January 3, 2017 order granting in part defendant James Leasure's motion to compel as long as Mr. DeWitt provides responses that cover all information sought in the discovery requests he is required to provide further responses. Mr. DeWitt is also required to pay $5510 in sanctions to HSBC Bank no later than April 28, 2017. Michael Starkey's letter of December 22, 2016 was adequate compliance with the meet and confer requirements. Except as to special interrogatories 21-23 which he adequately answered, all of Mr. DeWitt's objections to the discovery requests which HSBC Bank seeks further responses lack merit. Because Mr. DeWitt's positions as to all discovery requests which HSBC Bank seeks further responses except special interrogatories 21-23 lacked substantial justification, HSBC Bank is entitled to monetary sanctions for the reasonable expenses it incurred as a result of Mr. DeWitt's unjustified refusal to respond to the discovery requests. That amount is calculated at 20 hours of Mr. Starkey's time at the reasonable hourly rate of $235 ($4700), five hours of paralegal time at the reasonable hour rate of $150 ($750) and the $60 filing fee for this motion. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for HSBC Bank is required to prepare a proposed order that repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HEK)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:MAR-08-2017 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Hearing And Motion For Order (1) Compelling Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents And (2) Request For Sanctions
Rulings:SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY MARCH 8 2017, LINE 1, DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, N.A.'S Motion For Order (1) Compelling Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents And (2) Request For SanctionsPro Tem Judge Peter Catalanotti, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling:The Motion is GRANTED. All objections are overruled. The Court finds that HSBC Bank USA, NA ("HSBC") met and conferred by sending a letter dated December 22, 2016. Plaintiff shall prepare and served amended responses to Special Interrogatories 20-27, 29-30, 32-35, Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFP 7-8 and provide responsive documents within two weeks of notice of entry of this order. If amended responses and responsive documents are not provided within two weeks of notice of entry of this order, sanctions in the amount of $1,000 are awarded and due against plaintiff in favor of HSBC. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to pcc@manningllp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested.=302/JPT.


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:NOV-15-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Tuesday, November 15, 2016, Line 5, DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions.The parties are required to meet and confer in person at 9am outside department 302 in an effort to reach resolution or narrow the range of issues in dispute. When the parties have either resolved all issues raised by the motion or exhausted all efforts to reach an agreement to do so, they should so notify one of the courtroom clerks. For guidance of the parties in their meet and confer conversation, the court makes the following observations. Mr. Leasure is entitled to learn the facts underlying all of plaintiff's contentions why plaintiff believes Mr. Leasure is liable and the relief plaintiff seeks. However, plaintiff should be able to provide this information in a manner that imposes the least possible burden and cost on him. =(302/HK)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:OCT-26-2016 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions
Rulings:SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2016, LINE 1DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE'S Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitt's Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories And Request For SanctionsPro Tem Judge Noah Lebowitz, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties to appear.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to Noah@dplolaw.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =302/JPT


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:AUG-01-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories
Rulings:Set for hearing on Monday, August 1, 2016, Line DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE's Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special InterrogatoriesThe parties' June 21, 2016 joint report on their discovery meet-and-confers states that they have either resolved their disputes, or wish to meet and confer further, as to all of the at-issue interrogatory responses save Nos. 22-27. As to those six interrogatories, defendant Leasure states: "At a minimum Mr. Leasure is entitled to the identification of the computers, software and storage devices used to receive, access, and store the Emails." (Sep. Stmt. 21:21-24.) This is relevant discoverable information. Leasure's motion to compel further responses is to that limited extent GRANTED. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling adversely affects, in whole or in part, any party who is not represented by an attorney, then any other party (whether represented by an attorney or not) may submit on the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing only if the adversely affected self-represented party has stated in writing or orally that he or she will not appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order and repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.=302/ru


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:JUN-28-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories
Rulings:Set for hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, Line 17, DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE'S Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories is continued to August 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 302 per the agreement of the parties. =(302/HK)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:JUN-21-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special Interrogatories
Rulings:SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016, LINE 15DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE'S Motion To Compel Plaintiff Timothy A. Dewitts Further Responses To First Set Of Special InterrogatoriesContinued on the court's own motion to June 28, 2016 to give the parties an opportunity to meet and confer in person on all issues raised by the motion. Such a meet and confer must occur at a mutually agreeable location on a mutually agreeable date and time. If the parties cannot agree on a location, date and/or time for their meet and confer, they must appear in department 302 on June 21, 2016 at 9:30am and the court will provide them with a room and they must conduct their meet and confer in that room in the morning of June 21. =302/HK


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:JAN-11-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Monday, January 11, 2016, Line 6, DEFENDANT JAMES LEASURE's DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT.The demurrers to causes of action 1 -2 are overruled because the claims do not sound in fraud and as such, there is not a higher pleading standard. Thus, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support those claims. The demurrer to the third cause of action for declaratory relief is sustained without leave to amend. The cause of action is duplicative of the first cause of action and it is not necessary and proper. See CCP 1061. Plaintiff can seek injunctive relief under the first cause of action. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order with the name and address of the prevailing party's counsel or the prevailing party if pro per in the top left of the first page of proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/EHG)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:AUG-27-2015 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Service Of Summons
Rulings:Set for hearing on Thursday, August 27, 2015, Line 1, DEFENDANT IAC/INTERACTIVECORP'S Motion To Quash Service Of Summons.The motion is denied. The purpose of CCP 474 is to avoid the statute of limitations and where a claim is not time barred, the genuine ignorance issue is irrelevant. See Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380, 387. In this case, plaintiff seeks to recover actual and liquidated damages based on defendant's conduct. (Complaint, 6:14-18; 10:7-11). In Hypertouch v. Valueclick (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 805, the court explains that a 1-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for liquidated damages and a 3-year limitation applies to a claim for actual damages. Defendant fails to show that plaintiff's entire claim is time barred. Even if a portion of plaintiff's claim were untimely, it would be improper to grant this motion to quash and dispose of plaintiff's entire claim. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order with the name and address of the prevailing party's counsel or the prevailing party if pro per in the top left of the first page of proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/SB)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:APR-07-2015 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Serfice Of Summons
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Tuesday, April 7, 2015, Line 3, DEFENDANT EHARMONY, INC.'s Motion To Quash Service Of Summons.Continued to April 21, 2015, on the court's motion. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. =(302/EHG)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:NOV-05-2013 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Line 6, DEFENDANTs CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and BRIAN MUIR's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.To be heard in Department 502 before Judge Robertson on Wednesday, November 6, 2013, at 10:30 am. The court will not provide a court reporter for this hearing. If any party wishes a reporter, the parties must meet and confer and agree on a single reporter. =(302/MJM)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:FEB-22-2013 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Re-Ntc Re-Calendering Of Motion To Transfer And Consolidate For Hearing In Dept 302
Rulings:Set for hearing on Friday, February 22, 2013, Line 16, PLAINTIFF TIMOTHY DEWITT'S Re-Ntc Re-Calendering Of Motion To Transfer And Consolidate For Hearing In Dept 302Denied. Plaintiff has failed to show that transfer and coordination is warranted or appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 403 and 404.1. Common questions of law or fact do not sufficiently predominate over the two actions. Plaintiff has not shown that he would be disadvantaged by inconsistent rulings in these different cases. Coordination does not benefit the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel sufficient to transfer a case from Alameda County to this court.. Plaintiff has not shown that coordinating the cases would serve the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and resources. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order with the name and address of the prevailing party's counsel or the prevailing party if pro per in the top left of the first page of proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. = (302/MJM)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:JAN-31-2013 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Pltf'S Further Responses To The First Set Of Inspection Demands; Request For Attorneys Fees
Rulings:Set for hearing on Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 9:00 am, line 2, DEFENDANTS CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, BRIAN MUIR'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses To The First Set Of Inspection Demands; Request For Attorneys FeesPro Tem Judge Arlene Barton, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge.The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: The Motion is Granted and Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $2,500. Moving party shall prepare and bring a proposed Order.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to abarton@mckennalong.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =302/JPT


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:JAN-30-2013 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Re-Ntc Re-Calendering Of Motion To Transfer And Consolidate For Hearing In Dept 302
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Wednesday, January 30, 2013, Line 10, PLAINTIFF TIMOTHY DEWITT's Motion To Transfer And Consolidate.Continued to February 22, 2013 on the Court's own motion. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. =(302/MJM)


Case Number:*******0809
Case Title:TIMOTHY DEWITT VS. CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA et al
Court Date:SEP-20-2012 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, September 20, 2012, Line 21, DEFENDANTS CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and BRIAN MUIR'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT.Overruled. Business and Professions Code section 17259.5 neither requires that Mr. DeWitt plead specific facts regarding the subject emails, nor that Mr. DeWitt allege that Crazy Protocol Communications, Inc. had scienter or intent. Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 805, 820 - 822. Specific information on the subject emails may be obtained through discovery. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/CK)


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CRAZY PROTOCOL COMMUNICATIONS, INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where SPARK NETWORKS USA LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Bosley Medical Group, S.C. is a litigant

Latest cases where eHarmony, Inc. is a litigant