Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5

FILED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 In re
11
Adv. No: 08-01309
12
Debtors
13
14
15
16 Plaintiff,
17 vs.
18
19
Defendants,
20
21
22
23
24 at
25
26 1.
27
28 2.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR
s
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
33 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07 Desc
Page 1 of 9
Case No. LA 06-12188 EC
[Chapter 7]
JOHN A. REDMOND and
MAUREEN C. REDMOND,
SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND
LIVESTOCK CO., LLC.,
JOHN A. REDMOND and
MAUREEN C. REDMOND,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC., plaintiffherein, by David Blake Chatfield, its
ittomey, complaining ofthe defendants, alleges:
JURISDICTION. PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS
This is a core proceeding over which this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2)(J).
Defendants are the debtors in this Chapter 7 case. Plaintiffis a creditor ofthe defendants.
[JUN 02 2003
IlCase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Filed 06/02/08
I Main Document Pc
David Blake Chatfield, State Bar Number 88991
Westlake Law Group
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(805) 267-1220
fax (805) 267-1211
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF
DEBTOR
^6

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Desc
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
| 3. This is an adversary proceeding in which plaintiffis objecting to the discharge ofdefendants
and seek exemption oftheir debt from discharge.
general allegations.
4. In September 2001, plaintiffSulphur Mountain Land and Livestock, LLC (“SMLLC”) offered
for lease a 30 acre fully equipped equestrian facility including multiple bams, turn outs, a full size
covered arena, a full sized outdoor polo arena and riding trails, plus a furnished home (the
“Premises”).
5. In late September 2001, Geraldine Redmond (referred to herein as “Geraldine”) approached
plaintiff’s managing agent, Stephen Gaggero (“Gaggero ), regarding leasing the Premises. Geraldine
submitted a credit application that falsely stated that she had never been evicted, that she had never
been sued and that there were nojudgments against her. Her credit was questionable. However,
because her credit report did not yet reflect the recent eviction, lawsuit andjudgment by her previous
landlord, Gaggero remained unaware ofthis deception. Relying on her written statements denying any
such negative history, and John and Maureen’s representations set forth herein below, Gaggero agreed
to go forward with lease discussions, despite his reservations based upon Geraldine’s poor credit.
Geraldine brought her parents, defendants John and Maureen Redmond, to meet with Gaggero and
they confirmed that neither she nor they had ever been evicted, sued, that there were no judgments
against them and made the representations set forth herein below, all ofwhich plaintiffrelied upon
when agreeing to lease defendants the Premises and extend them credit.
6. John and Maureen Redmond told Gaggero that they would form a company with Geraldine,
personally guarantee the lease, and give her their financial help and intellectual support to run the
business. John and Maureen Redmond represented that they would pay the security deposit, pay the
lease payments, and pay the business overhead until the company was running on its own at a profit.
At the time defendants made these representations, they did not intend to fulfill them, and they did not
fulfill them. Because John and Maureen Redmond made these false representations, including but not
limited to the representations that defendants would make the lease payments, and because defendants
withheld the facts ofGeraldine’s recent eviction, lawsuit andjudgment, plaintiffwas not aware ofthe
full extent ofthe risk the lease would pose to plaintiff.
~ Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07
Main Document Page 2 of 9

Dase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Desc
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR’ 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. After a month ofcontinued negotiations with John and Maureen Redmond over the terms and
drafting ofthe lease, on November 23, 2001, John, Maureen and Geraldine Redmond and their
fictitious entity named Somerset LLC' entered into a one year net, participation lease with plaintiff for
the Premises, beginning January 1,2002 and ending December 31,2002, with options to extend the
Lease for additional year terms (the “Lease”). According to the Lease terms, the defendants, John and
Maureen Redmond were liable under the Lease as joint obligors and guarantors. Ifplaintiffhad been
aware that defendants did not intend to honor their personal guarantees, and ofGeraldine’s prior
conduct, it would not have leased the Premises to the defendants under any circumstances.
8. After the Lease was executed in November of2001, plaintiffmade approximately $100,000
worth of improvements to the equestrian facility for the benefit ofthe defendants at no charge. A
major part ofdefendants’ business was the subleasing ofthe equestrian facility to horse owners,
trainers and their clients. To that end, defendants, through their fictitious entity, entered into over 30
sublease agreements for the boarding ofhorses including a non-terminable long term sublease, that
expired on December 31,2002.
9. Defendants diligently collected deposits and rental payments directly from defendant’s sub
lessors monthly and were required by the Lease to report these rental receipts as part ofthe Revenue
Generating Activities (“RGA”) and pay plaintiffits percentage ofthe RGA after a deduction for
limited specified expenses. In order to support the amount payable to plaintifffor RGA each month,
the Lease required defendants to provide monthly reports of all RGA revenue generation to the
plaintiff. The defendants, and each ofthem, misrepresented the money taken in from the RGA and
under-reported and underpaid plaintiffits portion ofthe RGA income for manymonths, including
April, May and June of2002. Defendants, and each ofthem, knew ofthe falsity ofthe representations
made to plaintiffregarding the RGA and intended that plaintiffrely upon these representations.
Plaintiffreasonably relied upon these false financial reports to its detriment and damage.
10. In July of2002, defendants ceased providing plaintiffwith the required monthly financial
7 Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/°8 16:56:07

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Desc
1
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
10
2
3
4
5
reports. By August, plaintiffbegan to hear that defendants were not paying their bills and that checks
were being returned because ofinsufficient funds. Plaintiffrepeatedly asked defendants for the July and
August 2002 financial reports and was given a multitude ofexcuses as to why the financial reports
werenot being provided, with continued false assurances that they would be provided.
11. On September 21,2002, defendants met with Gaggero and promised to provide plaintiffwith
financials for their business that were long overdue and promised to propose a plan to get caught up
on the rent. Said promise was made without the intent to perform and with the intent to cause
plaintiffs reliance thereon. Plaintiffreasonably relied on the representations ofdefendants to its
detriment. Defendants true intentions were to not pay the rent due on October 1, 2002, or any ofthe
past due or future obligations, not to honor their guarantee, but to instead secretlyremove assets from
the leased Premises and thereafter abandon the Premises.
12. On October 1,2002, even though defendants had rented the equestrian facility to boarders and
trainers to fiill capacity from whom defendants were receiving timely monthly rent, defendants failed to
make their promised rent payment to plaintiff. On October 4,2002, defendants notified their
subtenants that they were ceasing operations immediately and defendants attempted to terminate the
subleases. By about October 11,2002 defendants had abandoned the equestrian facility and their
subtenants, without returning any ofthe deposits or rent paid to defendants by the subtenants. Plaintiff
was left to deal with all ofthe problems associated with the care and maintenance associated with the
boarding and training ofmore than 30 horses along with the maintenance and repairs, both ongoing
and deferred, until the end of2002 when the subleases expired.
13 Plaintiffwas forced to sue defendants. In 2002, the trial court ordered the issuance ofa writ of
attachment, plaintiffattached defendants real property and personal property, and plaintiffrecorded
liens on the real property ofthe defendants. Defendants thereafter engaged in a myriad ofdelay
tactics, filing a total ofthree bankruptcies (two personal and one for their company), each one filed on
the eave ofa date set for trial, followed by a request for a stay oftrial on the basis ofthe bankruptcy
filing. Plaintiffobtained relieffrom stay to proceed with the action after Geraldine Redmond filed her
bankruptcy. When a new trial date was set, John and Maureen Redmond filed bankruptcy. This Court
dismissed John and Maureen Redmond’s bankruptcy filing in 2004 on plaintiffs motion. After
- Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 15.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19.
26
27
28
defendants’ bankruptcy was dismissed, and a new trial date was set, defendants offered to settle and
havejudgment entered against them. Defendants, however, had no intention ofpaying anyjudgment
against them. Plaintiffobtained ajudgement against the defendants in the approximate amount of
$460,000. Based upon all ofthe bad faith tactics engaged in by the defendants during the pendency of
the action, the trial court entered an order restraining defendants from selling or encumbering
defendants’ real property, which property was secured by the lien recorded against it by plaintiff in
2002.
14. After the trial court rendered thejudgment against the defendants, defendants filed this
bankruptcy proceeding in May of2006. Plaintifftimely filed its secured claim on October 27, 2006 in
the amount of$489,412.34.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
through 14, inclusive.
16. Defendants transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed property prior to the filing
ofthis petition, including but not limited to the transfer ofa Ford Diesel Truck and a Sooner Horse
Trailer which defendants personally purchased and paid for. Both assets were transferred to their
daughter, Geraldine, without consideration or for inadequate consideration.
17. Defendants stated on their Statement ofFinancial Affairs contained in their schedules filed with
this Court that Geraldine made the payments on the assets. Defendants made further statements
representing that Geraldine had a 100% equity interest in the assets. These statements were false
when made, as the defendants purchased the assets in 2002, made payments on the assets from 2002
until approximately the time defendants transferred the assets to their daughter, Geraldine Redmond,
after her chapter 7 bankruptcy was discharged and before the defendants filed this bankruptcy.
18. Defendants’ discharge should be denied under 11 U.S,C. 727(a)(2)(A).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Plaintiffrealleges and incoiporates by reference each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
through 17, inclusive.
20. Defendants transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed property ofthe estate after
- Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07

3ase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Desc
21.
22.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27 30.
28
22
23
4
5
1
2 in chapter 11, and misrepresenting the square footage and value oftheir residi
3
7 Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07
filing this petition, including but not limited to income earned by the estate while the defendants were
lence.
Defendants’ discharge should be denied under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(2)(B).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
through 17, and paragraph 20 inclusive.
23. Defendants concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any
recorded information including books, documents, records, from which defendants’ financial condition
and business transactions might be ascertained.
24. Defendants’ discharge should be denied under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a) (3).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
through 17, paragraphs 20 and 23, inclusive.
26. On or about June 7,2006, and at their 341a hearings in this case, defendants knowingly and
fraudulently made false oaths in this case as follows:
27. Under penalty ofperjury, Defendants, and each ofthem, certified their schedules herein were
true and correct to the best oftheir knowledge, information, and belief, when in truth and fact, as they
then well knew, their schedules omitted any reference to certain personal property and made false
statements as to others, as alleged herein. As provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1746, such certification had like
force and effect as an oath.
28. In violation ofSection 727(a)(4)(A) ofthe Code defendants knowingly and fraudulently, in or
in connection with the case made a false oath or account, including but not limited to information
stated under penalty ofpeijury in their Statement ofFinancial Condition, as alleged herein, and
answers given at the 341a hearings in this case.
29. The discharge ofdefendants should be denied under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(4).
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
through 17, paragraphs 20 and 23, and paragraphs 26-28, inclusive.

Desc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• nCase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7
31. In violation of Section 727(a)(5) ofthe Code defendants have failed to explain satisfactorily the
loss ofassets or deficiency ofassets to meet the defendant s liabilities including but not limited to
income earned by the estate while the defendants were in chapter 11.
32. The discharge ofdefendants should be denied under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(5).
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
33. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
through 17, paragraphs 20 and 23, and paragraphs 26-28, inclusive.
34. The defendants herein were, and each ofthem was, at all times mentioned herein, acting as the
agent, employee and co-conspirator ofeach other and Geraldine Redmond, and in doing the things
mentioned herein, was acting within the course and scope ofsuch agency, employment and conspiracy.
35. Each ofthe defendants aided and abetted in, and acted in concert with each other and
Geraldine Redmond in, the furtherance ofthe acts alleged herein. Each ofthe Defendants knew ofthe
misrepresentations, the lack offactual basis for many ofthe representations, and the omissions alleged
in this First Amended Complaint and took active coordinated steps to conceal adverse information
from plaintiff. There was a mutually supportive activity and common course ofconduct to
misrepresent facts and conceal true facts from SMLLC by John and Maureen Redmond and Geraldine
Redmond. The Defendants’ agreement to engage in the acts can be inferred from the facts set forth
herein.
36. Defendants conspired to, and aided and abetted in, knowingly and fraudulently making false
representations to plaintiffwhen obtaining the extension ofcredit and a lease for real property from the
plaintiff, Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC. (“SMLLC”), the breach ofwhich
obligations under the lease, including but not limited to the misrepresentations set forth in this First
Amended Complaint, formed the basis ofthe plaintiffs damages which led to thejudgment against the
defendants in favor ofplaintiffs, whichjudgment serves as the basis ofthe obligation and creditor’s
claim defendants seek to discharge in the above entitled bankruptcy proceeding.
37. In or about October 2001, defendants’ daughter and business partner, Geraldine Redmond,
with whom defendantsjoined with to lease property from plaintiff, made false representations on the
lease application with plaintiffon behalfherselfand the defendants. Representations were made that
-r Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07

Desc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
’ iiCase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7
she had never been evicted, never been sued, and that she had no judgments against her. Defendants
knew ofthese representations, knew oftheir falsity, and nevertheless adopted said representations and
stated to plaintiff that said representations were true. At the time these false representations were
made, Geraldine Redmond had been evicted by a prior landlord who sued her for unlawful detainer
and obtained ajudgment against her prior to the date ofthe representations made to plaintiff.
Defendants knew that these representations were false, intended for plaintiffto rely upon the
representations when extending credit to defendants, and defendants concealed the true facts from
plaintiff, resulting in damage to plaintiff.
38. Defendants made further false representations to SMLLC in order to induce SMLLC to extend
a lease to defendants, as alleged herein, including, John and Maureen Redmond representations that
they would pay the lease payments and the business overhead until the company was running on its
own at a profit. At the time defendants made these representations, they did not intend to fulfill them,
and they did not fulfill them. Defendants knew the representations to be untrue at the time they were
made, and SMLLC relied upon the representations when extending credit to the defendants.
39. As alleged herein, the payments due each month under the Lease between SMLLC and
defendants included a payment which was a percentage ofthe monthly income ofthe defendants.
During the Lease period, the defendants intentionally misrepresented and under reported their monthly
income to SMLLC in order to under-pay and deprive SMLLC through this falsity the amount owed to
SMLCC under the terms ofthe Lease. In addition, defendants made further misrepresentations in
order to obtain additional credit extensions, such as representing that they would make payment for
the rent due on October 1, 2002, make payment ofthe past due obligations, and to honor their
guarantees, with the intent to deceive plaintiffto its detriment. The debt sought to be discharged by the
defendants was incurred as a result ofthe defendants’ aforesaid false representations to SMLLC
resulting in the underpayment ofLease payments causing damage to plaintiff.
40. The above-described false representations were material in defendants obtaining an extension
ofcredit for the leased real property and were relied upon by the creditor, SMLLC, when originally
extending said credit, and additional credit extensions on a monthly basis during the Lease term.
41. At the time that each ofthe representations was made for the extension ofcredit to defendants,
- Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07
Main Document Page 8 ot 9

• nCase 2:08-ap-01309-EC Doc 7 Desc
1
2
3
4
5
6 wl
7 43.
8
9
10
13
14
15 1.
16
17 2.
18
19 3.
20
4.
5.
26
27
28
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISoIaRGE OF DEBTOR
21
22
23
24
25
11
12
the defendants either knew them to be false or must have permitted the representations to be made
with the intent that they be relied upon by plaintiffwith such reckless disregard for the truth as to
constitute willful misrepresentations.
42. The above-described false representations were made with the intent and purpose ofdeceiving
the creditor, SMLLC, who is owed a debt resulting from the extension ofcredit to the defendants,
'hich debt is sought to be excepted from discharge.
At the time the false representations were made, defendants knew ofthe above facts and
concealed said facts from plaintiff.
44. As a result of, and reasonable reliance on, the false representations, creditor and plaintiff
SMLLC sustained monetary damages for which an award was made in the Superior Court, which
award is the debt sought to be discharged in this proceeding.
45. This debt should be exempted from discharge and defendants’ discharge should be denied
under 11 U.S.C. 523 § (a)(2)(A) and (B).
WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays as follows:
For the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes ofaction plaintiffdemands judgment
denying defendant’s discharge;
For the sixth cause ofaction, plaintiffdemands judgment excepting and exempting plaintiffs
debt from being discharged.
For the first cause ofaction, plaintiffdemands judgment avoiding the transfer ofthe assets by
defendants to Geraldine Redmond.
For costs ofsuit according to proof;
For such other and further reliefas is just.
Date: May 30,2008 Westlake Law Group
;__7 Filed 06/02/08 Entered 06/04/08 16:56:07

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC^Doc 58
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [LOS ANGELES DIVISION]
9
10
In re:
11
12
13
Debtors. Adv. No. AD 08-01309 EC
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
Defendants. [To Be Scheduled]
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR Paga 1
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
V Offlcaa
JUypond
Avar, AFC
JOHN A. REDMOND and
MAUREEN C. REDMOND,
Attorneys for Defendants
JOHN A. REDMOND and MAUREEN C. REDMOND
JOHN A. REDMOND and
MAUREEN C. REDMOND,
[Declarations Of John A. Redmond,
Maureen C. Redmond, Geraldine
Redmond, Marsha Adamson, Michael Rudd
and Sharon Lee, Request For Judicial
Notice, and Proposed Statement Of
Uncontroverted Facts And Conclusions
Of Law, concurrently filed]
In Proceedings Under
Chapter 7
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND
LIVESTOCK CO., LLC,
Dates
Time:
Place: Courtroom 1639
Roybal Federal Building
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
RAYMOND H. AVER - State Bar No. 109577
LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND H. AVER
A Professional Corporation
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 720
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 571-3511
Facsimile: (310) 571-3512
Case No. LA 06-12188 EC
- "3 Filed 10/19/09 Entered'Ttl/I9/09 14:23:16
Main Document Pagel of 2/

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC^Doc 58
land and livestock co., llc and its
TO PLAINTIFF SULPHUR MOUNTAIN
1
ATTORNEY OF RECORD;
2
date and at a time to be scheduled
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a
3
4
LOS
5
6
7
proceeding, by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Raymond H.
8
9
10
11
12
by Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
13
This Motion For Summary Judgment is based on the grounds that the
14
undisputed facts demonstrate that the plaintiff is not able to prove
15
the elements of any of the five (4) causes of action which comprise
is
its "Second Amended Complaint Objecting To Discharge Of Debtors"
17
("Discharge/Dischargeability Objection Complaint").
18
Redmonds request that summary judgment be ordered in their favor in
19
accordance with Rule 56(b).
20
In the alternative, if summary judgment is not rendered in the
21
Redmonds favor, the Redmonds request that the Court, by examining the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Paga 2
Summary Judgment") pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, made applicable in the above-captioned adversary proceeding
pleadings and evidence before it and by interrogating counsel,
ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy,
and make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial
controversy, including the extent to which the relief requested by the
Discharge/Dischargeability Complaint is not in controversy in
accordance with Rule 56(d).
Jtayaoad
Av»r, JlTC
by the Court, in courtroom 1639 of the United States Bankruptcy Court,
located in the Roybal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street,
Angeles, California 90012, John A. Redmond and Maureen C. Redmond
(jointly, the "Redmonds"), the defendants in this adversary
Aver, A Professional Corporation, will move the Court for summary
judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication ("Motion For
Thus, the
Filed 10/19/09 Entered^5/19/09 14:23:16

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EO*KDoc 58 Desc
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy
1
Rule 7056-l(c) (1):
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(h):
14
15
16
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant the
17
Redmonds' Motion For Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, grant
is
summary adjudication by issuing an order specifying the facts that
19
appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
By:
27
28
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Fags 3
the relief requested by the Discharge/Dischargeability Complaint is
not in controversy.
Papers not timely filed and served may be deemed by the
Court to be consent to the granting or denial of the
motion, as the case may be.
RAYMOjfo H. AVER
JOHN A. REDMOND and MAUREEN C. REDMOND
w offleet
Xtyaoad
Aver, APC
Any party who opposes the motion must serve and file a
response not later than 21 days before the date of the
hearing on the motion.
Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056-1(c)(2):
(A) The respondent must serve, file, and lodge a
separate concise statement of genuine issues with
the response.
(B) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the
respondent's statement of genuine issues must be
lodged electronically via LOU. The respondent's
statement must identify each material.fact that is
disputed and cite the particular portions of any
pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory
answer, admission, or other document relied upon
to establish the dispute and the existence of a
genuine issue precluding summary judgment or
adjudication.
Dated: October 19, 2009
:__23 Filed 10/19/09 Entered5t)/19/09 14:23:16

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EO**Doc 58 Page 4 of 27
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MEMORANDUM OF
1
2
I.
3
4
5
6
7
Redmonds'
8
9
io
by concocting implausible claims that the Redmonds and their daughter,
11
Geraldine Redmond, conspired to defraud it - despite the fact that the
12
lessee, Sommerset, made lease payments for the first eight (8) of the
13
twelve (12) month lease term. Plaintiff also seeks to bar the
14
Redmonds' discharge by claiming that the Redmonds knowingly and
15
fraudulently concealed property of the Redmonds' bankruptcy estate
16
after the Petition Date under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(2) (B), failed
17
to keep or preserve documents from which their financial condition or
18
business transactions might be ascertained under 11 U.S.C. section
19
727(a)(3), and made a false oaths or accounts in connection with their
20
bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(4)-1
21
22
23
24 apparent that Plaintiff lacks any
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
•IUDGMENT Page 4
w Ofticta
’ Xiysofld
Avar, APC
breach of guaranty judgment into
bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. section 523 (a) (2) (A) and (a) (2) (B) ,
INTRODUCTION
By the instant Discharge/Dischargeability Complaint, plaintiff
Sulphur Mountain Land & Livestock, LLC ("Plaintiff"), which has
issue before the Court in connection with the
As demonstrated by the analysis contained in these points and
supported by the declarations and exhibits filed
concurrently with this motion, it is
authorities, as
litigated each and every
bankruptcy case, seeks to transform a standard state court
a nondischargeable fraud judgment in
. unis Motion For Summary Judgment does
not address that cause of actin.

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EQ^ Doc 58
i
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
appear without substantial controversy.
16
17
II.
18
STATEMENT OF FACTS
19
20
The Hierba Unlawful Detainer Action Against Geraldine Redmond
21
On or about September of 1999, Geraldine Redmond ("Geraldine"),
22
the daughter of John A. Redmond ("John") and Maureen C. Redmond
23
("Maureen") (jointly the "Redmonds"), moved into the residence located
24
at 8711 Hierba Road, Aqua Dulce, California 91351 ("Hierba
25
At the time that Geraldine moved into the Hierba
Residence").
26
27
28
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 5
w 0££ic*a
JUynanrf
Avar, aj>C
Residence, the Hierba Residence had many defects including a large
hole in the floor of the kitchen, and carpeting that was in poor
evidence that either of the Defendants made the alleged statements,
had knowledge that the alleged statements were false, or otherwise
defrauded Plaintiff. Similarly, it is apparent that the Redmonds did
not knowingly and fraudulently conceal property of the Redmonds'
bankruptcy estate after the Petition Date, fail to keep or preserve
documents from which their financial condition or business
transactions might be ascertained, or made a false oaths or accounts
in connection with their bankruptcy case.
The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff will not be able to
prove the elements of any of its five causes of action alleged in its
Discharge/Dischargeability Objection Complaint. Based thereon, the
Redmonds' request that summary judgment be granted in their favor.
Alternatively, if summary judgment is not rendered upon the whole
Discharge/Dischargeability Complaint, the Redmonds request that the
Court grant summary adjudication of those facts/claims/issues that
33 Filed 10/19/09 EnterecRt)/19/09 14:23:16

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EO^Doc 58
condition.
i
had anything to do with the lease of the
2
Hierba Residence.
3
4
5
6
screens installed,
7
a
9
the Hierba Residence at a cost of roughly $5,000.00.
10
On or about February of 2001, the owner of the Hierba Residence,
11
Georgia Jorden ("Jorden") and Geraldine agreed that Jorden would take
12
the dog yard as a credit toward any rent that was owed by Geraldine.
13
On or about the end of March 2001, Geraldine moved out of the Hierba
14
Residence.
15
Unbeknownst to Geraldine, Jorden filed an unlawful detainer
16
action against Geraldine. Because Geraldine was never properly served
17
with the unlawful detainer complaint and she never had any actual
18
notice regarding the unlawful detainer action, a default was entered
19
against her.
20
21
Assitance Provided To Geraldine Redmond
22
Geraldine Redmond did not have Therefore, when she
23
Trailer") in 1999
24 Horse
John agreed to
25
26
name
27 for the Sooner
Horse Trailer. visited John and
28
2006, Geraldine
Pago 6
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
qualify for a loan,
purchase the Sooner Horse Trailer in his name for Geraldine.
Geraldine Redmond made all but two of the payments
On or about March 5,
* 0££icai
lUyaonti
Ivtr, ju»c
good credit.
needed to purchase a horse trailer ("Sooner
for her business and was unable to
the living room and den areas.
Geraldine's husband, Geraldine caused a dog yard to be installed at
the La Hierba Residence with the owner.
By December of 2000, Geraldine made various improvements and
repairs to the Hierba Residence, including having new carpet and
fixing the hole in the kitchen floor, and painting
While living at the Hierba Residence,
Neither John nor Maureen
Neither John nor Maureen ever discussed a lease of
'3 Filed 10/19/09 Entered'Tb/19/09 14:23:16

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EQ^ Doc 58
i
2
Truck ("Ford Diesel Truck").
3
Geraldine's credit was too bad tc
Geraldine's and John's names because
4
5
6
2005, when it was fully paid off.
7
title to the Ford Truck to herself.
8
From 2001 to 2002, the Redmonds loaned Geraldine approximately
9
Other than the loans to Geraldine Redmond, the Redmonds
$77,124.00.
1C
did not make loans to any "other third parties."
11
2003, Geraldine caused to be filed a
On or about September 8,
12
On October 20, 2003,
petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13.
13
Geraldine's bankruptcy case was converted from Chapter 13 to Chapter
14
On July 29, 2005, Geraldine received her bankruptcy discharge.
is
The Redmonds did not loan Geraldine any money following Geraldine's
16
bankruptcy in September 2003.
17
While the Redmonds did disclose that Geraldine owed them money in
18
their Schedule B filed in connection with their Chapter 13 case filed
19
the Redmonds did not disclose any money owing to
in December, 2003,
20
filed in
21
22 11 case
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal Bank. From
Page 7
MOTION FOB SDMMARy
JUDGMENT
v Offleaa
Kayaoad
Avar, APC
checking account at a bank.
request, John and Maureen allowed Geraldine to use their account
numbered 11-00038894 at Jackson Federal Bant From roughly October
them from Geraldine in their bankruptcy schedules and papers
June 2006 in connection with their chapter 11 case because the
Redmonds believed that Geraldine no longer owed them money because she
received her bankruptcy discharge in July 2005.
In or about October 2001, Geraldine's credit was so bad that she
was not able to open a checking account at* a hank. At Geraldine's
get the loan by herself.
Geraldine made almost every payment for the Ford Truck until
At that time, Geraldine transferred
had him sign over the Trailer to Geraldine s name.
In or about January 2002, Geraldine purchased a Ford Diesel 450
The loan for the Ford Truck was in both
-3 Filed 10/19/09 EnterecTTD/19/09 14:23.16
Main Document Page 7 or 2/

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC**Doc 58 Page 8 of 27
all money deposited into the
2001 until October 2002, account was
1
that she made from her work
2
trainer.
3
4
account in order to pay Geraldine's those expenses.
5
s
The Sulphur Mountain Lease
7
On or about September 2001, Geraldine Redmond ("Geraldine")
8
responded to an advertisement regarding a lease for an equestrian
9
facility along with a residence located at Canada Largo road in
10
Geraldine subsequently
Ventura County, California (the "Facility").
11
had a series of meeting with Sulphur Mountain's managing agent,
12
At one of these meetings, Geraldine
Stephen Gaggero ("Gaggero").
13
Geraldine
submitted an "Application To Lease" to Sulphur Mountain.
14
did not discuss the "Application To Lease" with her parents prior to
is
submitting it to Gaggero, and she did not show a copy of the
16
"Application To Lease" to her parents at any time.
17
At the time that Geraldine completed and submitted the
18
19
landlord, was claiming that she had been evicted, that her previous
20
landlord had brought a lawsuit against her, or that her previous
21
landlord had a judgment against her.
22
23
John A. Redmond and Maureen C. Redmond
24
guarantee the lease.
25
26
27
28 a
w Otficaa
JUyaond
Avar, AXT
Geraldine's money, including money
All money deposited into the account was used for
Geraldine's expenses, and Maureen would write checks out of this bank
In or about October 2001, Geraldine, John, Maureen, and Gaggero
met to discuss a possible lease of the Facility owned by Plaintiff.
Gaggero was the only person from the Plaintiff's side with whom
Filed 10/19/09 EnterecHb/19/09 14:23:16
as a
"Application To Lease," she was not aware that Jorden, her previous
Because Geraldine's credit was poor, Sulphur Mountain required
that Geraldine's parents,

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-EC^Doc 58 Page 9 of 27
discussed.
1
2
Redmond had provided Plaintiff with a or the
3
The Redmonds did not learn of the
4
5
6 2002.
was it
7
8
9
judgment against Geraldine.
10
Gaggero they would pay the security deposit, pay the lease payments,
11
12
profit.
13
After this meeting, Gaggero prepared a draft lease that he gave
14
to Geraldine. Geraldine gave a copy of the draft lease to John in
15
order to look over. Throughout October 2001, Geraldine and Gaggero
16
exchanged several drafts of the lease for the Facility. John assisted
17
Geraldine with these negotiations. Maureen Redmond was never involved
18
with any negotiations of the lease for the Facility.
19
On or about October 2001, Geraldine had
20
with Gaggero because under the lease,
21
be able to afford the rent without
22
23
24
25
26
The term
with three
27
December 31, 2002,
28
to renew.
motion for Pajo 9
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
V Oftieaa
Avar, jlfc
(the "Lease"), which was
guaranteed by John, Maureen, and Geraldine. tha term of this lease
would run from January 1, 2002 until
potential three year options
Filed 10/19/09 Entered?b/19/09 14:23:16
Main Document Page a or z
2001, Plaintiff and Somerset, LLC entered
into an "Equestrian Facility Lease"
Lease Application or
At no time during the meeting in October 2001, or thereafter,
ever discussed whether Geraldine Redmond had ever been the subject of
an eviction or an unlawful detainer lawsuit, or whether there was a
contents of the Lease Application.
the content of the Lease Application until after
Plaintiff filed a state court complaint against them in October
some sort of period of reduced rent
at the beginning so that she would be able to start generating income.
On or about November 23,
a further second meeting
Further, the Redmond never told Stephen
as drafted, Geraldine would not
possible lease of the Facility was discusseu. At the time of the
meeting, the Redmonds did not have any knowledge that Geraldine
Lease Application
or pay business overhead until Geraldine's company was making a

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E0TkDoc 58 Desc
i
2
3
Facility.
4
LLC."
5
6
7
Although John and Maureen Redmond guaranteed the Lease, they made it
8
clear to all the parties that John and Maureen Redmond were not "joint
9
venturers" with Geraldine and would not have any managerial
io or
administrative responsibility for Somerset, and that Somerset
11 was
merely guarantors of
Geraldine's business for which her parents were
12
the Lease.
13
On or about December 2001, Geraldine hired Marsha Adamson to do
14
Geraldine and Ms. Adamson collected the
the bookkeeping for Somerset.
15
deposits and rental payments from the sub-lessors of the Facility. Ms.
16
Adamson prepared the monthly reports regarding the Revenue Generating
17
18
she prepared the financial records for Somerset. John and Maureen
19
were not involved in the operations of Somerset and never reviewed the
20
21
of Somerset.
22
On September 21, 2002, Geraldine, Ms. Adamson, John, and Maureen
23
met with Gaggero.
24
owed him money. that due to
25
26
27
the meeting.
28
MOTION FOR SUMMARY Page 10
JUDGMENT
V Offlcar
Rtynand
Avar, ATC
decided to name
RGA and had no involvement with the preparation of financial records
Activities ("RGA") that Gaggero said were required under the Lease and
During this meeting Gaggero claimed that Somerset
Ms. Adamson defended Somerset by saying
the RGA payments to Plaintiff, Somerset was not making any money.
Gaggero was so rude to Ms. Adamson that she ended up walking out of
Although, John and Maureen resent at this meeting,
Maureen were present
23 Filed 10/19/09^ ^Qf9/09 14:23:16
Geraldine decided to form a limited liability company ("LLC") in
order to protect herself from potential liability regarding any
accidents arising out of the Facility or the riding of horses at the
Originally, Geraldine planned to name the LLC "Somerset,
However, after the Lease was executed, Geraldine discovered
that the name "Somerset, LLC" was not available for registration and
the LLC "Somerset Farms, LLC" instead.

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(?* Doc 58
what was
1
Geraldine did
2
3
for the
By October 2002, after
4
Geraldine
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
intent and purpose of deceiving Plaintiff.
13
conspire with their daughter, Geraldine, to defraud Plaintiff. The
14
Redmonds did not provide Plaintiff with a written statement regarding
15
their financial condition or that of their daughter, Geraldine
16
Redmond, which was materially false.
17
The Redmonds intended to honor their guarantees of Somerset's
18
obligations under the Lease at the time
19
20
Geraldine Redmond and that Somerset did not
21
the time Geraldine Redmond and Somerset vacated the leased premises.
22
23
24
25
26
27
On or about June 7,
2B
Page 11
v Otficta
JUysoad
ivtr, Arc
they did not actively participate
going on with the RGA that was at
3_C3 Filed 10/19/09
Main Document t -
2006,
voluntary petition for relief
Gaggero, or any other agent or representative of Plaintiff with the
The Redmonds did not
not propose a plan to get caught up
Somerset had made lease payments
twelve (12) month lease term, <
first eight (8) months of the
realized that there was no way by which Somerset could make a profit
interpretation of the Lease.
Redmond Bankruptcy Case And Sale Of Greene Avenue Property
On or about May 24, 2006, the Redmonds caused to be filed a joint
the bankruptcy code.
On November 8, 2007,
we signed the guarantees;
however, it was their belief that Plaintiff took advantage of
at the Facility under Gaggero's interpretation or the Lease. Thus, in
or around October 2002, Geraldine let the sub-lessees know that
Somerset was not going to be able to board their horses any longer.
Later that month, Geraldine moved out of the Facility.
The Redmonds did not make any misrepresentations to Stephen
under Chapter 11 of
the Redmonds' case was converted to Chapter 7.
2006, the Redmonds reviewed their bankruptcy
owe Plaintiff anything at
because they did not know
issue at the meeting.
on the rent.
o“9 ^S^1970914;23:16 Desc
Page 11 or zz
motion for summary judgment

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-ECT'Doc 58
i
2
3
The Redmonds
4
s
6
7
a
The Redmonds did not list any loans to Geraldine Redmond in
correct.
9
their Bankruptcy Papers because they were of the belief that the loans
io
they had previously made to their daughter had been discharged through
11
The Redmonds listed the transfer of title to the
her bankruptcy case.
12
Sooner Horse Trailer and the Ford Diesel Truck to Geraldine Redmond in
13
their Bankruptcy Papers, and they stated that "she made the payments."
14
This statement is true as Geraldine Redmond made almost all the
15
The Redmonds never "knowingly and falsely" made a false
payments.
16
oath when they stated in their Bankruptcy Papers, and confirmed in
17
oral testimony during their Meeting Of Creditors, that Geraldine made
18
the payments for the Sooner Horse Trailer and the Ford Diesel Truck.
19
The Redmonds did not conceal Maureen Redmond' income earned during
20 s
the pendency of their chapter 11
21
hinder, delay or defraud anyone.
22
23 chapter
24
25
The Redmonds did not received during
26
27 intent to
28 anyone. The Redmonds did
Page 12
MOTION FOR summary judgment
v Ot£ic»a
Jtjynond
Aver, A/C
knowledge, information and belief.
that the information set forth in the Bankruptcy Papers was true and
conceal
the pendency of their chapter
hinder, delay or defraud
The Redmonds reported all their
income earned during the pendency of their chapter 11 case in the
Monthly Operating Reports they caused to be filed with the Office of
the United States Trustee.
occasions to ensure they were as
signed the Bankruptcy Papers attesting that the information contained
in the Bankruptcy Papers was true and correct to the best of their
The Redmonds continue to maintain
any foreign payments
11 case with the actual
not receive any
("Bankruptcy Papers") for the last time ana signea them. They
previously reviewed drafts of the Bankruptcy Papers on at least a few
accurate as possible.
schedules, statement of financial affairs, and related forms
time and signed them.
case with the actual intent to
53 Filed 10/19/09 Entered?t)/19/09 14:23;16

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-E0T‘ Doc 58
i
2
3
4
5
6
The
7
8
9
10
11
2007.
the Greene Avenue Property as of November 14, As set forth in
12
it is Mr. Rudd's opinion
the "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report,"
13
that the estimated fair market value of the Greene Avenue Property as
14
of November 14, 2007 was $605,000.00.
15
As set forth in the Supplemental Addendum to the "Uniform
16
Residential Appraisal Report," Mr. Rudd noted that the Greene Avenue
17
Property has an unpermitted bonus room attached to the garage. Mr.
18
Rudd did not include the square footage of the bonus room, of
19
20
21 room.
22
23
24
25
There are record besides the
26
on
storage room. and is also not in
27
28
Property
JUDGMENT
storage room (Permit #WLA56346/65) .
date this was illegally converted into
without permits.
foreign payments during the pendency oi -^ayuer n case except
received from the United
w office*
JUyziaod
Jtvar, JWC
no other permits
In any event, this is
compliance with zoning.
illegally converted to some kind of living area/rental and is
unpermitted. Originally, in 1965, there
for social security payments they receiveu cne United Kingdom,
which they disclosed in the Monthly Operating Reports they caused to
United States Trustee.
was a permit to construct a
that at some later
be filed with the Office of the
On or about November 2007, Defendants hired Michael Rudd to
conduct an appraisal of the property located at 12808 Greene Avenue,
Los Angeles, California 90066 ("Greene Avenue Residence").
Redmonds did not give any instructions or suggestions to Michael Rudd
as to how he should appraise the Greene Avenue Property, including the
unpermitted bonus room attached to the garage.
Mr. Rudd prepared a "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report" for
approximately 400 square feet, nor did he give any value for the bonus
The unpermitted bonus room attached to the garage has been
of their chapter 11
It appears
a Bonus Room/Rental Unit
SSJT 13O'^'19'09 14:23:16
an illegal use
The Greene Avenue is Zoned R1 which

Case 2:08-ap-01309-Eer- Doc 58 Desc
Further,
1
2 not
3
4
way the power
5
6
7
8
9 room,
core work to even be properly functional. No value was given to this
io
because it is illegal, and at any point in time it
11
Even if it were only required to
could be required to be torn down.
12
be converted back to it's original use, as storage, the cost to remove
13
the improvements would substantially outweigh any beneficial value
14
they could add. In the marketplace, which is what we appraisers
15
report on, a storage room does add some value to the whole, but it is
16
a minor ancillary value to the main structure and living The
17 areas.
or convert this bonus room to it's legal permitted
cost to remove,
18
Therefore, it
19 use,
The risk of being required
20
21
22
required to be up to code, which would be
23 a
roof replacement, and too
24 many repairs to list.
is made that in some illegal improvements add to the value of a
25 cases
property, this is not the
26
27
28 it is a
to the home. If anything.
motion for Page 14
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
tf Ofticua
Xtytzood
Avar, ju>c
case here.
improvement is too substandard,
any appeal or real benefit
This illegal bonus room
□f condition to add
illegal bonus room
and in too poor
illegally run water and power lines.
was run is hazardous and is not properly secured. The roof (including
framing) is in serious need of replacement, it needs insulation, and
many repairs, etc. to the point where it is not sufficient for a bonus
rental unit nor even as a storage room because it needs serious
would be more than any contributory value it adds,
was given no value in Mr. Rudd's report.
to bear the burden of these costs outweighs the benefit of the
unpermitted bonus room. Especially considering that it would also be
significant cost including
Even if the argument
only allows for 1 single dwelling unit. Furtner, even if a "Bonus
Room" could be permitted, the structure in question would clearly :
qualify. This is because of it's substandard construction, poor
condition, and numerous code violations, including the improper and
For example, the
-3 Filed 10/19/09 Enterecffo/19/09 14:23:16

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(?T‘ Doc 58 Desc
Page 15 of 27
the whole.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
for less than the true value of the real estate.
io
Neither the Redmonds ever transferred, removed, destroyed,
11
permitted to be transferred, removed,
12
destroyed, mutilated, or concealed property of the Redmond bankruptcy
13
estate after the Petition Date, with intent to hinder, delay, or
14
defraud a creditor or an officer of the Redmond bankruptcy estate.
15
16
Sell Estate's Equity Interest In Real Property" (“Motion to Sell").
17
18
19
20
Or In The Alternative Request For Continuance And Evidentiary Hearing"
21
("Objection to Motion to Sell"). 2008, Plaintiff filed
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 15
motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT
the Greene Avenue Property to anyone.
remove" the Greene Avenue Property from the Redmond bankruptcy estate
Objection To Motion To Sell Estate's Equity Interest In Real Property
In By Secured Creditor Sulphur Mountain Land And Livestock Co., LLC;
v oglicta
Av«r, AZC
On March 11,
the "Supplemental Declaration Of David Blake Chatfield In Support Of
Opposition And Objection To Motion To Sell Estate's Equity Interest In
Real Property By Secured Creditor Sulphur Mountain Land And Livestock
Co., LLC; Or, In The Alternative Remi<=at- nuance And
report.
The Redmonds never misrepresented the square footage or value of
The Redmonds never intended "to
mutilated, or concealed, or
On or about February 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed its "Opposition And
On or about January 31, 2008, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a "Motion To
Request For Continuance
Evidentiary Hearing" ("Supplemental Declaration").
In the Supplemental Declaration, Chatfield raised the issue that
liability, and has negative value to
Thereafter, Howard Ehrenberg, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Chapter 7
Trustee") requested that the Redmonds produce certain documents,
including the Appraisal. The Redmonds cooperated and produced all
documents requested to the Chapter 7 Trustee, including the appraisal

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EQT* Doc 58 Desc
and
1
2
3
4
("Motion To Sell Order")
5
6
III.
7
LEGAL ANALYSIS
8
9
Standard For Motion For Summary Judgment
A.
10
11
12
13
14 a
[Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].
matter of law."
is
Further, a motion for summary judgment is appropriate in cases
16
where the plaintiff has no evidence to support his allegations for
17
which he has the burden of proof. "Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 16
MOTION FOR SWUtARI
JUDGMENT
•» otticaa
' Kayaltad
Xvar. AJ>C
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
against a party who fails to make
After a hearing on March 12,
Authorizing Sale Of Estate's Equity Interest In Real Property"
on March 24, 2008.
a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on
which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." [Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)]
A fact issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
[Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 u s_ 242, 248, 106 S-Ct’ 2505'
91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)]. However, the 9th circuit has refused to find
a "genuine issue" where the only evidence presented is "uncorroborated
the Appraisal did not include the unpermitted bonus room
of the Greene Residence.
vigorously disputed the value
2008, the Court entered an "Order

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-E<^ Doc 58 Page 17 of 27
Island Air, Inc.,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
defense.
9
io
ii
12
[Rule 56(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]
of trial.
13
14
727(a) (2) (b) Is
Plaintiff's Claim For Relief Under 11 U.S.C
B.
15
Without Merit Because
is
Section 727(a)(2) provides that the court shall grant the debtor
17
a discharge unless -
18
the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay,
19
20
this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or
21
concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed,
22
mutilated, or concealed-
23
24
25
(B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of
26
the petition.
27
28
(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date
of the filing of the petition;
• Otficaa
Aaynond
Avar, A/C
281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th
- "3 Filed 10/19/09 Entere^O/19/0914:23:16
or defraud a creditor
did not create a
and self-serving" testimony.
Cir. 2002); Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90
F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir.1996); see generally Johnson v. Washington
Metro. Transit Auth., 883 F. 2d 125, 128 (D. C.Cir.1989) (discussing
cases in which self-serving testimony uncorroborated by other evidence
genuine issue of material fact)].
Finally, summary adjudication is appropriate if there are no
genuine issues of material fact regarding any particular claim or
[Rule 56(a),(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] And if a
court denies summary judgment, the court should determine "to the
extent practicable" what material facts are not genuinely in dispute
and then treat those facts as established in the action for purposes
Thus, in order to prove a 727(a) (2) (B) claim, a Plaintiff must
[Villiarimo v. Aloha
or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E2T' Doc 58 Page 18 of 27
show that:(1)that the act date of the
1
actual intent to
2
an officer of
3
4
the
5
6
7
8
9
cause of action:
io
11
12
guest house, which was not included in the appraisal.
13
Plaintiff's 727(a)(2)(B) Claim Is Meritless Because
1.
14
IS
16
17
Plaintiff's
Defendants' property or property of the estate.
18
allegations that Defendants concealed income earned by Defendants
19
20
21
in fact.
22
23
24
These pension payments
25
26
27
Greene Residence by submitting an appraisal
28
Page 18
any of these acts to be done.
Plaintiff has only made two specific allegations regarding this
(1) that Defendants concealed income earned by the
Defendants while they were in Chapter 11; and (2) that the appraisal
of the property submitted to the trustee excluded a 400 square foot
while they were in Chapter 11, by not reporting the income of Maureen
Redmond and foreign payments made to Defendants are totally unfounded
complained of occurred after the
the act was done with
the act was that of the debtor or
debtor; and (4) that the act consisted of transferring, removing,
destroying or concealing any of the debtor's property, or permitting
» Ofticaa
' JLaysead
Avar, APC
On Defendants Schedule I, and in their Statement of Financial
Affairs, Maureen Redmond's income is listed,
pensions from the United Kingdom are listed,
were the only foreign payments which
Defendants did not transfer, remove, destroy, or conceal any of
Of Debtors' Property Or Property Of The Estate
In addition. Defendants'
filing of the petition; (2)that
hinder, delay or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate
charged with custody of property under the Bankruptcy Code; (3) that
a duly appointed agent of
Defendants received.
Plaintiffs allegations that defendants misrepresented the square
footage and value of the
53 Filed 10/19/09 Entered7o/19/09 T4:23:! 6 Desc
Defendants Did Not Transfer, Remove, Destroy, Or Conceal Any

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EQT< Doc 58 Desc
Page 19 of 27
to the Chapter 7 Trustee that
1
2
3
4
California real estate market.
5
This Appraisal Report was done in
Report for the Greene Residence.
6
accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
7
On page 17, it specifically
in place at the time.
8
notes that the "unpermitted bonus room attached to the garage was not
9
given any value in this report."
io
Defendants are not
existence was in no way concealed from the Court.
11
12
professional appraiser to establish the value of the Greene Residence.
13
In his Supplemental Declaration, Chatfield pointed out that the
14
appraisal did not include the bonus room.
15
16
concealment occurred.
17
Thus, Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendants transferred.
18
removed, destroyed,
19
Therefore, Plaintiff's 727(a)(2)(B) action is
property of the estate.
20
meritless.
21
22
Plaintiff's 727(a)(2)(B) Claim Is Meritless Because
2.
23
Defendants Did Not Act With The Actual Intent To Hinder
24
Delay, Or Defraud A Creditor Or An Officer Of The Estate
25
Section 7271s denial of discharge is construed liberally in favor
26
27
28
Z__:3 Filed 10/19/09 Entered^9/09 14:23:16
v Officaa
Aaysond
Avar, APC
or concealed any of Defendants' property or
aware that the bonus room was not included in the Appraisal and no
of the debtor and strictly against those objecting to discharge, [in
Re Adeeb, 787 F.2d 1339, 1342 (9th
house are meritless.
Defendants hired Michael Rudd, a certified general real estate
appraiser, with many years of appraising experience with the Southern
Mr. Rudd prepared a Uniform Appraisal
Thus, the Court was well
Cir. 1986)] Accordingly, discharge
Thus, the fact of the room's
Practice that were
real estate appraisers and submitted the Appraisal report of a
did not include a 400 square foot guest

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(^ Doc 58 Desc
i
actual intent to hinder,
2
3
discharge, [Id.]
4
find that a question of fact exists
Even if the Court were to
5
regarding whether Defendants transferred, removed, destroyed, or
6
the
7
8
9
10
real estate appraiser to appraise the Greene Residence. Defendants
11
12
room attached to the garage.
13
The Appraisal clearly stated that it gave
to the Chapter 7 Trustee.
14
no value to the "unpermitted bonus room attached to the garage."
15
Given these undisputed facts, there is no evidence that
16
Defendants intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Therefore,
17
Plaintiff's 727(a)(2)(B) action is meritless.
18
19
Plaintiff's Claim For Relief Under 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(3) Is Without
3 .
20
Merit Because Defendants Kept Adequate Records
21
22
discharge unless -
23 a
(3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified,
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to maintain adequate
28
v Officta
Avar, AFC
concealed any of Defendants' property or property of the estate,
undisputed facts show that there was no actual intent to hinder,
delay, or defraud creditors.
As discussed above, Defendants hired an experienced and licensed
(3) me aeocor nas conceaiea, aestroyed, mutilated, falsified, or
failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books,
documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor's financial
condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such
act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of
the case.
did not give any special instruction to the appraiser to exclude the
Defendants then supplied this Appraisal
of debts may be denied under Section 727(a) (2) only upon a finding of
delay, or defraud creditors, [id. at 1343]
Constructive fraudulent intent cannot be the basis for denial of a
^JoeX1.0'1 P“e ^'2^

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(?“' Doc 58 Desc
and transfer of the Ford
i
2
3
4
5
6
Thus,
7
s
That said, Defendants have some of the records related tc
Defendants.
9
io
payments made on them.
11
are enough to allow a creditor to ascertain Defendants financial
12
position.
13
The $30,000 loan to Geraldine is irrelevant to this proceeding
14
because as discussed above it was discharged in her bankruptcy. Thus,
is
the relative lack of records related to it has no effect on the
16
creditors determination of Defendants' financial position.
17
18
Plaintiff's Claim For Relief Under 11 U.S.C 727(a)(4) Is Without
4.
19
Merit Because Defendants Did Not Knowingly And Fraudulently Make
20
21
22
23
in connection with
24
the case--
25
26
27
28
Page 21
motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT
nr O££leaa
! Hyaand
Avar, JU’C
records regarding the purchase, payments,
In addition, Plaintiff
A False_Oath In Or In Connection With Their Bankruptcy
a discharge unless -
the purchase of the Ford Truck and the Sooner Trailer as well as the
Although these records are not complete, they
and the Sooner Trailer. As detailed above, Geraldine was the person
who made virtually all of the payments for these vehicles.
Geraldine is the one who would have most of the records rather than
the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or
(A) made a false oath or account
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants certified their schedules
knowing that: (1) the schedules did not contain a $30,000 loan to
Geraldine; and (2) knowing that the schedules did not show the
Redmond and loans made to third parties.
Defendants were only nominally the purchasers of the Ford Truck
Sis” Pass 2^™°°
Truck and the Sooner Trailer. In addition, rxaintiff alleges that
Defendants failed to maintain records relating to loans to Geraldine

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(T‘ Doc 58 Desc
transfer without
1
The schedules did not the
2
3
the
4
schedules.
5
The schedules list the transfer of the Ford Truck and the Trailer
6
in the Statement of Financial Affairs.
7
8
9
Trailer.
io
payments on the Ford Truck and/or the Trailer is not enough to show
11
that they knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath.
12
13
Plaintiff's 523 (a) (2) Causes Of Action Are Meritless Because
C.
14
Defendants Did Not Make The False Representations That They Are
15
Accused Of And Because Defendants Did Not Use A Statement In
16
Writing
17
18
Section 523(a)(2)(A)
1.
19
Section 523(a) (2) (A) provides that
20
21
22
renewal,
23
24
25
must establish the
26 elements:
27
knew it
28
JUDGMENT
V Qt£iat»
’ JUyaond
Avar, AJ>C
a.
b.
loan had been discharged in Geraldine's panxrupccy on July 29, 2005.
discharged, there was no need to put it in
or an extension,
to the extent obtained by
1 representation;
representation, the debtor
a discharge under section 727
■ - • does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt —
for money, property, services,
renewal, or refinancing of credit,
(A) false pretenses, a f.
fraud, other than a statement
insider's financial condition.
The schedules say that
Geraldine made the payments for the Ford Truck and the Trailer.
Geraldine made virtually all of the payments for Ford Truck and the
The fact that Defendants may have made one or two of the
false representation, or actual
■t respecting the debtor's or an
To sustain a prima facie case of fraud, a nlaintiff under section
523(a) (2)
Since the loan was
consideration of the Ford Truck and the Trailer,
contain the loan to Geraldine because
i Geraldine's bankruptcy on
Document0'1 W 22nS?7A,'19'M
a plaintiff ’
following five separate
the debtor made the
at the time of the :
to be false,-

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(3*“‘ Doc 58 Page 23 of 27
i c.
d.
2
3 e.
4
5
6
7
8
9
sued, and that she had no judgments against her, even though they knew
io
that these statements were false; (2) that Defendants falsely
11
represented that they would pay the lease payments and business
12
overhead until Somerset Farms, LLC was running at a profit; (3) that
13
Defendants intentionally misrepresented and under reported the monthly
14
income of Somerset Farms, LLC; and (4) that on October 1, 2002,
15
Defendants represented that they would make payment of rent due on
16
October 1, 2002, make payment of the past due obligations and to honor
17
their guarantees.
18
Defendants never discussed with Plaintiff Geraldine's statements
19
in the lease application that Geraldine had
20
Geraldine had never been sued, and that there were no judgments
21
against Geraldine.
22
that there was a
23 or
these supposed
24
Thus,
25
26
27
28
Page 23
motion for
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
So-nl0'1 Page ^T^™99
were false.
represented to Plaintiff that they would pay the
» O££ic»a
' kaynand
Avar, AJC
Defendants did not know that Geraldine had been
evicted, that there was a lawsuit against her,
judgment against her until almost
the debtor made the representation with the intent and
purpose of deceiving the plainer ,
the plaintiff reasonably relied on the representation
and the reliance was reasonably founded; and
the plaintiff sustained a loss or damage as the
proximate consequence of the representation having been
made. [Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Securities Corp. [In re
Cossu], 410 F.3d 591, 596 (9C Cir. 2005), citing to Britton
v. Price [In re Britton], 950 F.2d 602, 604 (9th cir. 1991)]
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did four different actions that
constitute 523(a)(2)(A) and/or 523(a)(2)(B) violations: (1) that
never been evicted, that
Defendants adopted Geraldine's statements made in her lease
application that she had never been evicted, that she had never been
a year after
adoptions of Geraldine's statements on her lease application,
even if they had adopted Geraldine's statements, Defendants would not
have done so knowing that they
Defendants never

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E£"s Doc 58 Desc
i
2
3
LLC.
4
Thus, if there were any
5
6
7
2002, make payment of the past
make payment of rent due on October 1,
8
due obligations and honor their guarantees.
9
Thus, Defendants never made any of the false representations that
10
they are accused of, and therefore the undisputed facts show that this
11
cause of action has no merit.
12
13
Section 523(a)(2)(B)
2.
14
Section 523(a)(2)(B) provides that a discharge under section 727
15
. . . does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt -
16
or
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
[Grogan
preponderance of the evidence. v.
24
S.Ct. 654 (1991)] The exceptions to discharge should be strictly
25
construed in favor of dischargeability.
26
27
aff'd, 964 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1992).
28
running at a profit.
Defendants were not involved with the operations of Sunset Farms,
w atlicet
Myxtood
Avar, AJC
(5th
RGA reports that were sent to Plaintiff.
misstatements in the RGA reports, Defendants did not make them.
or prepare the monthly
lease payments and business overhead until Somerset Farms, LLC was
for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal,
refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by --
(B) use of a statement in writing -
(i) that is materially false;
(ii) respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial
condition;
(iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable
for such money, property, services, or credit
reasonably relied; and
(iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published
with intent to deceive.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving each of these elements by a
[Tn re Hudson, 107 F.3d 355
Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 111
Cir. 1977); Accord, In re Peters, 133 B.R. 291 (S.D. N.Y. 1991),
Defendants did not know the contents of,
-„53 Filed 10/19/09 EntereA)/19/09 14:23:16
On October 1, 2002, Defendants did not represent that they would

Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(Tk Doc 58 Desc
Tn Writing
1 a.
2
3
4
5
6
that were sent to Plaintiff and were not even aware of the contents of
7
Thus, Defendants did not cause these writing to be
8
9
intent to deceive.
10
11
IV.
12
CONCLUSION
13
As demonstrated above, the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff
14
will not be able to prove any of the causes of action that it has
15
alleged in its "Second Amended Complaint Objecting To Discharge Of
16
Thus, Defendants request: that summary judgment be ordered
Debtors."
17
In the alternative. Defendants request that the Court
in their favor.
18
enter summary adjudication of those claims/issues for which Plaintiff
19
cannot prove at trial.
20
21
Dated: October 19, 2009
22
23
24
25 By:
26
REDMOND
27
28
Page 25
officta
JLaynood
Avar, A/c
Somerset Farms,
As discussed above, Defendants did not prepare the RGA reports
those reports.
made or published, let alone cause them to be published with the
Of the four allegations that Plaincirr s maKe in support of its
523(a)(2)(B) cause of action, only the allegation that Defendants
intentionally misrepresented and under reported the monthly income of
LLC makes use of a statement in writing.
RAYMOND H. AVER
JOHN A. REDMOND and MAUREEN C.
Use Of A Statement
Plaintiff's make in

Case 2:08-ap-01309-EeT' Doc 58 Desc
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Service information continued on attached page
12
13
14
15
Service information continued on attached page
X
16
17
18
19
Service information continued on attached page
X
20
21
22
Signature
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
* Otficaa
JUtynond
Avar, apc
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and
correct.
David Marshall
Type Name
October 19, 2009
Date
II. SERVED BY U.S. MAIL OR OVERNIGHT MAILfindicate method for each person or entity served):
On October 19 , 2009,1 served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the last known address(es) in this
bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the
United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and/or with an overnight mail service addressed as follows. Listing
thejudge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the
document is filed.
HI. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (indicate method for each
person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on October 19,2009,1 served the
following person(s) and/or entity(ies) by personal delivery, or (for those who consented in writing to such service
method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing thejudge here constitutes a declaration that
personal delivery on the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.
NOTE: When using this form to indicate service of a proposed or er T list any person or entity in Category
I. Proposed orders do not generate an NEF because only orders a ave een entered are placed on the
CM/ECF docket.
I. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING ("NEF") - Pursuant to controlling
General Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s) ("LBR"), the foregoing document will be served by the court via
NEF and hyperlink to the document. On October 19, 2009,1 checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case
or adversary proceeding and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to
receive NEF transmission at the email address(es) indicated below:
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 720, Los Angeles, California 90025
The foregoing document described “DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION" will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in
the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner indicated below:
^DoSnl0'1 P2e^T^'’9'99

Desc
Case 2:08-ap-01309-E(?“‘ Doc 58 Page 27 of 27
SERVICE LIST
1
2
Via NEF
3
4
5
Via U.S, Mail
S
7
8
9
Via Personal Service
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 27
Xa/DODd
Av«r, AXC
- :3 pied 10/19/09 Entered^ 9/09 14:23:16
Hon. Ellen Carroll
Bin Outside of Suite 1634
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
2625 Townsgate Rd Ste 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Raymond H Aver ray@averlaw.com
United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov

Steven Gaggero
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10:10:24 1
FOR THE
2
3
4
5
6
CASE NO. BC324998
7
PLAINTIFF,
8
9 VS.
10
11
12
13
14
15 DEFENDANTS.
16
17 VOLUME I
18
19 DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN GAGGERO,
20 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS,
21 AT 11900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,
22 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COMMENCING
23
24
25 CSR NUMBER 10560.
2
□
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2
3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
4
AT 10:27 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 10,
2006, BEFORE KRISTI CARUTHERS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INC.,)
; )
PALM SPRINGS AUCTIONS
A CALIFORNIA <
CARROLL f
INC., A HCVHUH VUII UIV. i
SHELBY AUTOMOBILES, INC.,
A NEVADA CORPORATION;
CARROLL SHELBY; JAMES
MANGIONE; AND DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
BY: JULIAN A. SIMONIS, ESQ.
Page 1
_
________ AUI-IJ.UHD, XII
:fornia corporation;
,L SHELBY INTERNATIONAL)
A NEVADA CORPORATION; )
)
)
)
)
)
)
.)
CLASSIC EXCALIBER
HOLDINGS, L.L.P., AN
ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP,

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
FOR THE DEFENDANT PALM SPRINGS AUCTIONS:
16
17
A
18
19 92262-6908
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
0
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (CONTINUED):
2
3
4
5
6
7 90064-1817
CALIFORNIA
8
9
Page 2
Steven Gaggero
2625 TOWNSGATE ROAD
WEsJlAKE°VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91361
805.267.1220
J SOMONIS0SOMONISLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. FROMBERG
BY: JEFFREY E. FROMBERG, ESQ.
2825 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
SUITE D-l
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
760.320.2804
JEF.LAW@J FROMBERG.COM
FOR THE DEFENDANT JAMES MANGIONE:
CHAPMAN, GLUCKSMAN & DEAN, P.C.
BY: ARTHUR J. CHAPMAN, ESQ.
11900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SUITE 800
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064
310.207.7722
ACHAPMAN@CGDLAWYERS.COM
“•NEIL CUMMINGS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CUMMINGS, ESQ.
11150 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SUITE 1050 ul-tVARD
LOS ANGELES,
310.914.1849
MNCASSOC@AOL.COM

Steven Gaggero
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
0
INDEX
1
2
PAGE:
EXAMINED BY:
3 DEPONENT:
8,279
4 STEPHEN GAGGERO MR. FROMBERG
112
(AFTERNOON SESSION)
5
141
6 MR. CHAPMAN
209
7 MR. CUMMINGS
8
9
10
11 EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:
DEFENDANTS':
12
13
14 FORM;
(BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
1 - BIDDER REGISTRATION FORM;
BATES STAMPED C.E.H. 00108 -
Page 3

Steven Gaggero
25
7
0
1
2
10:27 A.M.
3
4
STEPHEN GAGGERO,
5
6
THE DEPOSITION OFFICER, WAS EXAMINED
7
AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
8
9
DO YOU
DEPOSITION officer:
10
SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO
11
GIVE IN THIS MATTER SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE
12
TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
13
14 I DO.
THE DEPONENT:
15
10:27:27 16 EXAMINATION
10:27:27 17 BY MR. FROMBERG:
10:27:29 18 Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL
10:27:31 19 IT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
10:27:32 20 A. STEPHEN MICHAEL GAGGERO,
10:27:36 21 S-T-E-P-H-E-N M-I-C-H-A-E-L G-A-G-G-E-R-O.
10:27:41 22 Q. THANK YOU. GAGGERO IS HOW YOU
10:27:44 23 PRONOUNCE IT?
10:27:45 24 A. YES.
10:27:45 25 Q. WE HAD IT PRONOUNCED SIX TIMES IN
8
□
1
10:27:49 YOUR ABSENCE.
2
10:27:50 IF I
3
10:27:50 YOUR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY
MAY 10, 2006
YOUR LAWYER KEEPS CORRECTING
EVERYBODY AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO STICK.
IN TODAY'S QUESTIONING HAPPEN TO MISPRONOUNCE
Page 6
CALLED AS A DEPONENT AND SWORN IN BY

NAME, AS LONG AS YOU
10:27:53 4
10:27:56 5 ME.
YOU BET.
10:27:56 6 A.
10:27:57 7
10:28:09 8 DEPOSITION
10:28:10 9 YES.
A.
10:28:10 10 Q.
I'M NOT SURE.
10:28:11 11 A.
MORE THAN TEN?
10:28:13 12 Q.
I THINK SO, YES.
10:28:14 13 A.
AND IN WHAT SETTING WAS THAT TAKEN?
10:28:15 14 Q.
WAS IT IN CASES IN WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY OR YOU
10:28:19 15
WERE A WITNESS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S CASE?
10:28:22 16
10:28:24 17 BOTH.
A.
HOW MANY — WHEN IS THE LAST TIME
10:28:25 18 Q.
10:28:28 19 YOU CAN REMEMBER YOUR DEPOSITION HAVING BEEN
10:28:30 20 TAKEN?
10:28:30 21 A. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
10:28:31 22 AND WHERE WAS THAT?
Q.
10:28:33 23 A. IN WEST L.A.
10:28:34 24 Q. AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT IT WAS IN
10:28:36 25 CONNECTION WITH?
9
□
1
10:28:37 A. NO, IT WAS DOWNTOWN. I'M SORRY.
2
10:28:39 IT WAS DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.
3
10:28:41 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS IN
4
10:28:45 CONNECTION WITH, THAT CASE,
5
10:28:48 MR. SIMONIS:
6
10:28:50
10:28:53 7 MR. FROMBERG:
8
10:28:54
Steven Gaggero
KNOW IT'S YOU, PLEASE FORGIVE
WELL, I CAN ALSO AT
THE SAME TIME FIND PRIOR LITIGATIONS THAT HE MAY
Page 7
Q.
I TAKEN BEFORE?
MR. GAGGERO, HAVE YOU EVER HAD YOUR
OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT?
IS THIS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FAMILIARITY WITH DEPO PROCEDURE OR
AND HOW MANY TIMES?

Steven Gaggero
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, THE EXPERIENCE HE'S GOT
10:28:58 9
10:29:00 10 FROM LITIGATION.
I DON'T REMEMBER
the deponent:
10:29:05 11
CASE IT WAS RIGHT NOW.
10:29:06 12 SPECIFICALLY WHAT
WELL, WERE YOU A PLAINTIFF OR
10:29:10 14 Q.
10:29:12 15 DEFENDANT?
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT CASE IT WAS.
10:29:12 16 A.
I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS EVEN A PLAINTIFF OR A
10:29:14 17
I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO
10:29:16 18 DEFENDANT.
I MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A WITNESS OR
10:29:18 19 WITH ME.
10:29:21 20 SOMETHING.
YOU DON'T KNOW?
10:29:21 21 Q.
10:29:22 22 NO.
A.
10:29:23 23 WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN
Q.
10:29:25 24 LITIGATIONS?
10:29:25 25 I'LL THINK ABOUT IT AND IF I COME
A.
10
□
10:29:28 I'Ll
1 UP WITH IT,
2
10:29:30 Q. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN
10:29:32 3 LITIGATIONS IN WHICH YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED AS A
10:29:34 4 PARTY?
10:29:35 5 A. OH, CALIFORNIA.
6
10:29:37 Q. ALL OF THEM?
7
10:29:38 A. YES, I THINK SO.
10:29:40 8 Q. ANY OUTSIDE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY?
10:29:42 9 A. I DON'T KNOW.
10:29:44 10 Q. HAVE YOU BEEN SUED?
10:29:47 11 A. I DON'T KNOW.
10:29:48 12 Q-
10:29:51 13 AREA?
Page 8
HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED AT TRIAL
OUTSIDE OF THE L.A.

Steven Gaggero
YES.
10:29:52 14 A.
WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?
WHERE
10:29:53 15 Q.
10:29:54 16 A.
PART OF ARIZONA? MARICOPA
WHAT
10:29:56 17 Q-
10:29:58 18 COUNTY?
KINGMAN, ARIZONA.
10:29:59 19 A.
WHAT WAS THAT IN RELATION TO?
10:30:00 20 Q.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD TO DO
10:30:03 21 A.
WITH MY PARENTS AND SOME BUSINESS THEY WERE
10:30:04 22
10:30:06 23 INVOLVED IN.
BUT NOT INVOLVING YOUR BUSINESS?
10:30:07 24 Q.
IT WAS OUR FAMILY BUSINESS.
10:30:09 25 A.
11
0
10:30:12 1 AND WHAT ABOUT OTHERS OUTSIDE OF
Q.
CALIFORNIA?
10:30:14 2 LOS ANGELES,
AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THAT I RECALL
3
10:30:20 A.
10:30:23 4 ANY THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN PERSONALLY OUTSIDE OF
10:30:27 5 I'M NOT SAYING THERE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.
WASN'T; I JUST DON'T —
10:30:30 6
7
10:30:31 Q. ANY IN ORANGE COUNTY?
8
10:30:35 I DON'T KNOW.
A.
10:30:36 9 Q. IN VENTURA COUNTY?
10:30:38 10 I DON'T THINK SO.
A.
10:30:40 11 Q.
10:30:43 12
10:30:44 13 A. NO.
10:30:44 14 Q. MOST, if any, HAVE BEEN
10:30:47 15 LOS ANGELES, THEN.
10:30:48 16 A. YES.
10:30:48 17 Q.
10:30:50 18
COUNTY?
Page 9
WHAT TYPES OF CASES HAVE YOU BEEN
INVOLVED IN IN LOS ANGELES
SO MOST, IF ANY, HAVE BEEN —
SAN DIEGO COUNTY?
I APPEARED AT TRIAL IN ARIZONA.

QUITE a few
10:30:52 19 A.
10:30:56 20
YOU
10:30:58 21 Q.
10:31:00 22 FOR EVICTION?
10:31:01 23 YES.
A.
ANYTHING OTHER THAN UNLAWFUL
10:31:02 24 Q-
DETAINER CASES?
10:31:04 25
12
0
WE HAD SOME LAWSUITS — I HAD
10:31:05 YES.
1 A.
A LAWSUIT WITH A BANK.
10:31:07 2
WERE YOU A PLAINTIFF OR A DEFENDANT
10:31:08 3 Q.
IN THAT MATTER?
10:31:11 4
10:31:11 5 BOTH.
A.
ANY CROSS-COMPLAINANT INVOLVED?
10:31:12 6 Q-
10:31:15 7 YEAH, THERE WAS THREE DIFFERENT
A.
8
10:31:27 MAYBE MORE WITH THIS ONE
LAWSUITS, I THINK.
10:31:30 9 LENDER IN PARTICULAR.
10:31:31 10 AND HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN
Q-
10:31:35 11 A LAWSUIT AGAINST SOMEONE OR AGAINST YOU FOR FRAUD
10:31:39 12 OR MISREPRESENTATION PRIOR TO THIS ONE?
10:31:42 13 A. I THINK IN THE BANK LAWSUIT THERE
10:31:45 14 MIGHT HAVE BEEN FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
10:31:47 15 I DON’T KNOW WHETHER —
ALLEGED.
10:31:50 16 Q. ALLEGED ON YOUR BEHALF AGAINST THE
10:31:53 17 BANK —
10:31:53 18 A. YES.
10:31:53 19 Q. — OR ALLEGED AGAINST YOU BY THE
10:31:54 20 BANK?
10:31:54 21 I'M SORRY.
A. YES, ALLEGED BY ME
10:31:56 22 AGAINST THE BANK.
10:31:58 23 Q. OKAY.
Page 10
Steven Gaggero
UNLAWFUL DETAINERS.
UNLAWFUL DETAINERS.
OWN PROPERTY WHERE YOU'VE SUED

10:31:58 24 A.
10:32:01 25 WELL,
Q.
13
□
10:32:04 1
I DON'T
10:32:08 2
10:32:09 3
10:32:13 4
10:32:15 5 SAY THAT.
IF YOU DON'T RECALL, THAT IS A
10:32:15 6
IF THE FACTS COME TO
10:32:18 PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE ANSWER.
7
LIGHT LATER, WE'LL DEAL WITH THEM AT THAT POINT IN
10:32:22 8
BUT I'M ONLY ENTITLED TO YOUR BEST
10:32:25 9 TIME.
ESTIMATE, NOT A GUESS, OKAY?
10:32:28 10
10:32:30 11 OKAY.
A.
10:32:30 12 LET'S GO INTO SOME ADMONITIONS AS
Q.
LONG AS WE'RE ON THAT SUBJECT.
10:32:34 13
10:32:35 14 YOU INDICATED YOU HAD YOUR
10:32:37 15 DEPOSITION TAKEN SOME TIMES BEFORE, BUT JUST OUT
10:32:39 16 OF AN ABUNDANCE OF SAFETY, I’D LIKE TO GIVE AN
10:32:44 17 ADMONITION TO THE WITNESS BEFORE I TAKE YOUR
10:32:47 18 DEPOSITION.
10:32:47 19 (TELEPHONIC INTERRUPTION.)
10:32:47 20 MR. FROMBERG: LET'S GO OFF THE
10:32:47 21 RECORD FOR A MOMENT.
10:32:47 22 (WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS HELD
10:33:04 23
10:33:05 24
10:33:05 25 Q. A DEPOSITION IS AN INFORMAL —
14
0
10:33:06 1 A. ARE WE BACK ON THE RECORD?
Page 11
FROM 10:32 A.M. TO 10:33 A.M.)
BY MR. FROMBERG:
Steven Gaggero
BUT I'm NOT POSITIVE ON THAT.
I'LL GET TO THE BALANCE OF
REMEMBER SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO
THE ADMONITIONS, BUT BASICALLY I M ENTITLED TO
YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AND NOTHING MORE.
WANT YOU TO GUESS AND I DON’T WANT YOU TO SAY YOU

Steven Gaggero
IT YOUR POSITION THAT YOU WILL
10:42:30 IS
7 Q.
PRIOR ADDRESSES AS WELL?
10:42:32 8
10:42:34 9 A.
10:42:36 10 WASN'T IT?
NO, THE LAST QUESTION I Just ASKED
10:42:37 11 Q.
YOUR ADDRESS TODAY.
10:42:39 12 YOU WAS TO
I SAID THAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL
10:42:40 13 A.
QUESTION, WASN'T IT?
10:42:42 14
LET'S JUST START WITH A CLEAN
10:42:43 15 Q.
10:42:46 16 SLATE.
WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS TODAY?
10:42:47 17
YOU CAN CONTACT ME THROUGH MY
10:42:48 18 A.
10:42:50 19 ATTORNEY.
SO YOU'RE REFUSING TO PROVIDE THAT
10:42:50 20 Q.
9 10:42:52 21 ANSWER?
10:42:52 22 I AM.
A.
10:42:53 23 IS THE SAME -- ARE YOU REFUSING TO
Q.
10:42:56 24 PROVIDE ME ANY PREVIOUS ADDRESSES AS WELL?
10:43:00 25 A. YES, I AM.
22
0
10:43:01 1 Q. THAT'S FINE.
OKAY.
2
10:43:06 WHERE DO YOU — WHERE ARE YOU
10:43:08 3 EMPLOYED TODAY?
10:43:10 4 A. I WORK FOR PACIFIC COAST
10:43:11 5 MANAGEMENT.
6
10:43:12 Q. AND WHO OWNS PACIFIC COAST
10:43:14 7 MANAGEMENT?
10:43:15 8 A.
10:43:17 9
10:43:21 10
THAT'S not relevant or germane to
THIS CASE AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY I SHOULD
ANSWER THAT WITHOUT PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT'S
Page 18
NOT GIVE US ANY
THAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION,

ATTORNEYS PRESENT TO
10:43:24 11
e SEE FIT TO DO SO.
10:43:27 12
10:43:30 13 YOU
Q.
10:43:33 14 QUESTION?
YES, I AM.
10:43:33 15 A.
IT'S A CORPORATION,
MR. SIMONIS:
10:43:33 16
LOT OF IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.
10:43:35 17 THOUGH, SO A
WELL, THE FACT THAT
MR. FROMBERG:
10:43:35 18
IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DOESN'T EXCUSE YOUR
10:43:36 19
CLIENT'S OBLIGATION TO GIVE ME THE ANSWERS.
10:43:36 20
10:43:40 21 MARK THAT.
WELL, REMEMBER, MY
10:43:41 22 MR. SIMONIS:
CLIENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLAINTIFF, NOT
10:43:43 23
10:43:48 24 THE PLAINTIFF.
10:43:48 25 MR. FROMBERG: YOU CAN ARGUE ALL
23
□
10:43:49 1 THAT IN THE RESPONSE TO A MOTION IF I MAKE A
I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THESE ANSWERS
10:43:53 2 MOTION.
3 THAT HE'S REFUSING — I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE
10:43:57
THINGS HE'S REFUSING TO PROVIDE ANSWERS FOR ARE
10:43:58 4
10:44:01 5 QUESTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LEGITIMATE
10:44:03 6 DISCOVERY. AND HE CERTAINLY HAS THE RIGHT TO
10:44:06 7 REFUSE, BUT IF THE JUDGE ORDERS IT AND ORDERS
10:44:09 8 SANCTIONS, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THOSE, TOO.
10:44:14 10 Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AFFILIATED
10:44:16 11 WITH PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT?
10:44:18 12 A. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY YEARS.
10:44:19 13 Q. GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE. IS it MORE
10:44:22 14 THAN TEN?
10:44:22 15 A.
Steven Gaggero
BE ABLE TO GET A PROTECTIVE
I DON'T THINK SO.
Page 19
ORDER ON THAT IF THEY
ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER THAT

IS IT
10:44:23 16 Q.
I'M NOT SURE.
10:44:25 17 A.
YOU AFFILIATED WITH PACIFIC
10:44:26 18 WERE
Q.
THE TIME THAT YOU PURCHASED
10:44:28 19 COAST MANAGEMENT AT
OF FEBRUARY 28, 1898?
10:44:30 20 THE CAR AT THE AUCTION
I DON'T REMEMBER.
10:44:34 21 A.
WHAT DOES PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT
10:44:36 22 Q.
10:44:38 23 DO?
MANAGES PROPERTIES AND OTHER
10:44:39 24 A.
10:44:41 25 ASSETS.
24
□
FOR WHOM? ANYONE OTHER THAN YOUR
10:44:42 1 Q.
10:44:44 2 COMPANIES?
10:44:45 3 FROM TIME TO TIME.
A.
10:44:47 4 ARE YOU ONE OF THE OWNERS OF
Q.
10:44:50 5 PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT?
10:44:51 6 A. NO.
10:44:52 7 Q. AND ARE YOU EMPLOYED AS AN EMPLOYEE
10:44:54 8 OF PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT?
10:44:55 9 A. NO.
10:44:56 10 Q. ARE YOU — WHAT IS YOUR
10:44:57 11 RELATIONSHIP WITH PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT?
10:44:59 12 I'M A CONSULTANT.
A.
10:45:00 13 Q- AND IS THAT ON AN OUTSIDE
10:45:03 14 CONSULTING CONTRACT BASIS?
10:45:04 15 A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY
10:45:06 16 THAT.
10:45:06 17 Q.
10:45:08 18
10:45:11 19
10:45:15 20 A.
Steven Gaggero
MORE THAN FIVE?
WELL, HOW ARE YOU A CONSULTANT?
ARE YOU CALLED FROM TIME TO TIME TO DO SERVICES OR
ARE YOU A CONSISTENT CONSULTANT? HOW IS THAT —
I'M A CONSISTENT CONSULTANT.
Page 20

Steven Gaggero
10:45:16 21 Q.
10:45:19 22
10:45:20 23 A.
10:45:23 24 YEAR, BUT FOR —
MAJORITY OF THE TIME?
10:45:23 25 THE
Q.
25
□
the majority of the time, yes.
10:45:25 1 A.
AND ANYTIME THEY CALL UPON YOU, OR
10:45:27 2 Q.
DO YOU DETERMINE WHEN YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THEM?
10:45:29 3
BOTH.
10:45:31 4 A.
AND WHAT IS THE WORK THAT YOU
10:45:33 5 Q.
CONSULT FOR?
10:45:35 6
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
10:45:36 7 A.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
10:45:38 8 WHAT ARE YOU
Q.
CONSULTING FOR?
10:45:40 9
10:45:40 10 MANAGING OF PROPERTY, BY AND LARGE.
A.
10:45:43 11 IS THAT REAL PROPERTY?
Q.
10:45:44 12 A. YES.
ANYTHING OTHER THAN REAL PROPERTY?
10:45:45 13 Q.
10:45:46 14 A. SOMETIMES, YES.
10:45:48 15 AND WHAT WOULD THE OTHER PROPERTIES
Q.
10:45:50 16 CONSIST OF?
10:45:58 17 A. RANCHING, CONSTRUCTION,
10:46:03 18 DEVELOPMENT.
10:46:03 19 Q. PROPERTIES?
10:46:05 20 A. WELL, MAYBE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
10:46:07 21 YOUR QUESTION. REAL
10:46:10 22 PROPERTY.
10:46:10 23 Q. YES.
10:46:13 24
10:46:17 25
FOR 12 MONTHS A YEAR?
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 12 MONTHS A
YOU SAID ANYTHING OTHER THAN
SO YOU ARE CONSTANTLY A CONSULTANT
I ASKED YOU DO YOU CONSULT
SOLELY ON REAL PROPERTY OR DO YOU CONSULT ON
THINGS OTHER THAN REAL PROPERTY?
Page 21

Steven Gaggero
26
a
WELL, I CONSULT ON THINGS OTHER
10:46:18 1 A.
FOR EXAMPLE RANCHING,
THAN REAL PROPERTY;
10:46:20 2
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.
10:46:22 3
WHEN YOU SAY RANCHING, CONSTRUCTION
10:46:23 4
10:46:25 5
BUSINESSES OF RANCHING, CONSTRUCTION AND
10:46:25 6
10:46:28 DEVELOPMENT?
7
10:46:29 8 YES.
A.
DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC TRAINING IN
10:46:30 9 Q.
THE AREA OF RANCHING?
10:46:33 10
10:46:34 11 NO.
A.
DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EDUCATION IN
10:46:34 12 Q.
THE AREA OF DEVELOPING?
10:46:36 13
10:46:38 14 A. NO.
10:46:39 15 DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EDUCATION IN
Q.
10:46:42 16 THE AREA OF — WHAT WAS THE THIRD THING?
10:46:46 17 A. CONSTRUCTION.
10:46:47 18 THANK YOU -- CONSTRUCTION?
Q.
10:46:48 19 A. NO.
10:46:48 20 Q. DO YOU OVERSEE RANCHING, DEVELOPING
10:47:00 21 OR CONSTRUCTION FOR THE COMPANY?
10:47:02 22 A. SOMETIMES.
10:47:07 23 Q. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
10:47:10 24 OF YOURS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PACIFIC COAST
10:47:12 25 MANAGEMENT OWNERSHIP?
27
0
10:47:19 1 SOUNDS
MR. SIMONIS: THAT QUESTION
10:47:21 2 LIKE HE HAD SAID HE
10:47:24 3 MR. FROMBERG: NO, HE
Page 22
WAS ONE OF THE OWNERS.
SAID HE WAS
Q.
AND DEVELOPMENT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE

10:47:27 4 NOT.
I don't know.
10:47:30 5
10:47:31 6
BUT I MEAN I'D JUST
10:47:31 7
10:47:32 8 DONE.
MY FAMILY'S
the deponent:
10:47:32 9
INTERESTS AND WHO OWNS PACIFIC COAST
10:47:34 10 OWNERSHIP
FAR AS I CAN TELL, ARE NOT GERMANE
10:47:37 11 MANAGEMENT, AS
10:47:41 12 TO THIS LAWSUIT.
IF YOU HAVE SOME COMPELLING
10:47:42 13
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD BE AND ARE, I'M
10:47:45 14
HAPPY TO LISTEN TO THEM RIGHT NOW AND SEE IF THAT
10:47:48 15
WOULD CHANGE MY MIND; OTHERWISE, l'D HAVE TO DEFER
10:47:52 16
TO ATTORNEYS FOR MY FAMILY AND ATTORNEYS FOR
10:47:56 17
PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT BEFORE I FEEL COMFORTABLE
10:47:59 18
10:48:01 19 DIVULGING ANY OF MY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THOSE TWO
10:48:03 20 ENTITIES.
10:48:05 22 Q. WELL, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE —
LET'S ASSUME THAT PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT
10:48:06 23
10:48:09 24 CONSULTED YOU RELATING TO ACQUIRING FOR ONE OF
10:48:12 25 YOUR COMPANIES A COBRA.
28
0
10:48:13 1 I'M ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT. I'M
10:48:15 2 ENTITLED TO KNOW THE AFFILIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE
10:48:17 3 OF DETERMINING WHERE YOU GOT INSTRUCTION AND
10:48:18 4 THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND I'M ENTITLED TO
10:48:22 5
10:48:23 6 A.
10:48:25 7
QUESTIONS.
10:48:27 8 MR. FROMBERG: MARK THAT.
Page 23
INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUND OF ALL THAT.
HAVING HEARD YOUR EXPLANATION, I'LL
DECLINE TO ANSWER YOUR
THAT'S WHERE HIS
WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S PROBABLY OF NOT GREAT MOMENT,
LIKE TO GET THROUGH AND GET
Steven Gaggeno
I MEAN MAYBE IT's His DAD S COMPANY AND
AFFILIATION IS.

10:48:28 9
10:48:30 10 YOU'RE NOT
10:48:33 11
NO, AND I’M NOT
10:48:37 12
10:48:38 13
10:48:40 14
YOU KNOW, THE ENTITY IS CLASSIC
10:48:43 15 CONCERNS.
EXCALIBER HOLDINGS AND MAYBE WE SHOULD — THAT
10:48:46 16
COULD BE THE STARTING POINT AND THEN GO ELSEWHERE
10:48:50 17
IF ANYWHERE ELSE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO.
10:48:55 18
WELL, THERE WAS A
DATE — IN THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY YOU AND
10:49:00 20
PRODUCED BY THE OTHER PARTIES IN THIS CASE, THERE
10:49:02 21
10:49:04 22 WAS A GOOD DEAL OF CORRESPONDENCE THAT CAME THE
10:49:07 23 DIRECTION TO MR. MANGIONE FROM PACIFIC COAST
10:49:11 24 MANAGEMENT; NOT FROM CLASSIC EXCALIBER, NOT FROM
10:49:14 25 AVALON, NOT FROM YOUR CLIENT INDIVIDUALLY. IT
29
0
10:49:18 1 CAME FROM PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT AND/OR ITS
10:49:20 2 EMPLOYEES.
10:49:20 3 I'M ENTITLED TO EXPLORE THOSE
10:49:20 4 RELATIONSHIPS. I MEAN IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO
10:49:22 5 IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT I'M GOING TO GET HIM IN THE
10:49:25 6 END, SO IT'S UP TO YOU. IF IT TAKES MOTIONS TO
10:49:28 7 GET THEM, I'LL GET THEM.
10:49:29 8 MR. SIMONIS:
10:49:31 9
10:49:33 10
10:49:34 11
10:49:34 12
10:49:35 13
Page 24
JUST FOR THE RECORD,
INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER THESE
Steven Gaggero
mr. chapman:
QUESTIONS, ARE YOU?
MR. SIMONIS:
INSTRUCTING HIM TO ANSWER.
I UNDERSTAND MR. GAGGERO'S
SO WHAT YOU WANT TO
KNOW IS WHY ARE LETTERS BEING SENT FROM PACIFIC
COAST MANAGEMENT —
MR. FROMBERG: WELL, I WANT TO KNOW
THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M ASKING AND I
HAVEN'T ASKED ANY QUESTIONS THAT GO BEYOND THE

discovery or that isn't likely
10:49:36 14
FIND SUCH ANSWERS WITHIN THE
10:49:40 15
10:49:46 16 REALM OF
10:49:48 17
10:49:52 18
10:49:55 19
10:49:57 20
10:49:59 21 IMPUNITY.
I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SIMONIS: LET ME
10:50:02 22
10:50:03 23 GO TALK TO HIM.
AND I'M NOT LOOKING
MR. FROMBERG:
10:50:04 24
BUT I'M ENTITLED TO
TO MAKE A FIGHT OUT OF THIS,
10:50:05 25
30
0
10:50:05 1 REASONABLE ANSWERS.
CAN WE JUST GO TALK?
2
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS HELD
3
10:50:05
FROM 10:50 A.M. TO 10:52 A.M.)
10:52:21 4
5
10:52:21 THE BEST WAY TO
MR. SIMONIS:
6
10:52:22 HANDLE THIS, I THINK, BECAUSE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU
7
10:52:29 KNOW, IS ASK THE QUESTIONS ORGANICALLY, LIKE FROM
10:52:33 8 BEGINNING TO END, AND A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS GOING
10:52:35 9 TO SORT ITSELF OUT IN THE COURSE OF JUST A
10:52:39 10 CHRONOLOGY OF THIS WHOLE TRANSACTION.
10:52:41 11 AND WHATEVER DOESN'T SORT ITSELF
OUT, YOU'LL HAVE A MUCH BETTER IDEA OF WHAT REALLY
10:52:43 12
10:52:46 13 HAS SOME BEARING AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS
10:52:52 14 I THINK IT
10:52:56 15
10:53:03 16
10:53:12 18
Page 25
WOULD WORK MORE NEATLY IF WE HEAR THE WHOLE STORY
AND THEN DEAL WITH IT.
Steven Gaggero
SCOPE OF REASONABLE L--
I DON'T REALLY HAVE
A GREAT PROBLEM IN DOING THAT, ALL RIGHT, JUST IN
TO — CALCULATED TO
REASONABLE DISCOVERY.
SO, YOU KNOW, HE'S ENTITLED TO TAKE
IT'S APPLICABLE; HE'S ENTITLED TO
THE FIFTH IF
REFUSE TO ANSWER; HE'S ENTITLED TO RELY UPON YOUR
INSTRUCTION, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT S WITH
TOPIC THAT YOU'RE STARTING OFF WITH.

10:53:15 19
10:53:18 20
GAVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF A BLURB AS
10:53:21 21 RECORD AND YOU
THINK NEEDS TO COME OUT TO MAKE THE
10:53:27 22 TO WHAT YOU
NECESSARY THAT THE QUESTIONS I'M
10:53:28 23 EXPLANATION
ASKING WON'T BE NECESSARY, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE
10:53:29 24
10:53:32 25 HELPFUL.
31
D
LET'S DO THAT.
1 CAN
10:53:37 WE GO OFF THE RECORD?
2
10:53:39 SURE.
3 MR. chapman:
10:53:39 (WHEREUPON, A DISCUSSION WAS HELD
4
OFF THE RECORD.)
10:55:27 5
10:56:50 AVALON -- WHAT'S THE PROPER NAME
7 Q.
10:57:13 8 FOR AVALON, IF YOU KNOW?
10:57:15 9 MR. SIMONIS: DO YOU KNOW THE FULL
10:57:17 10 NAME OF THE CORPORATION?
10:57:18 12 Q. AVALON CORPORATION; IS THAT WHAT
IT'S CALLED?
10:57:20 13
10:57:20 14 A. OKAY.
10:57:21 15 Q. DO YOU KNOW A COMPANY CALLED AVALON
10:57:23 16 CORPORATION?
10:57:24 17 A. YES.
10:57:24 18 Q.
10:57:27 19
10:57:31 20 FEBRUARY 28, 1998 FOR THE
10:57:36 21 COBRA?
10:57:37 22 A. YES.
10:57:37 23 Q. CORPORATION?
IS IT KNOWN AS AVALON
Page 26
is AVALON CORPORATION THE SAME
COMPANY THAT BID AT THE SALE OR FOR WHOM YOU WERE
BIDDING AT THE SALE ON
Steven Gaggero
THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, IF NO OTHER REASON.
BUT PERHAPS IF WE WENT OFF THE

10:57:40 24
YES.
10:57:42 25 A.
32
0
IT AN ARIZONA CORPORATION?
10:57:42 IS
1 Q.
10:57:45 NO.
2 A.
10:57:46 3 Q.
IT'S A
I'M SORRY.
NO,
10:57:47 YES.
4 A.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
10:57:49 5
IS IT IN GOOD STANDING TODAY, DO
10:57:50 6 Q.
10:57:53 7 YOU KNOW?
I BELIEVE IT IS.
10:57:53 8 A.
IS THIS THE SAME CORPORATION TODAY
10:57:54 9 Q.
AS IT WAS BACK IN 1998 AT THE TIME IT PURCHASED
10:57:58 10
THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION?
10:58:04 11
10:58:06 12 YES.
A.
IF I REFER TO IT AS "AVALON," WILL
10:58:10 13 Q.
10:58:13 14 YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION TO BE AS TO AVALON
10:58:17 15 CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION?
10:58:19 16 MR. SIMONIS: CALIFORNIA
10:58:20 17 CORPORATION.
I MEAN A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION?
10:58:22 19 Q.
10:58:23 20 A. YES.
10:58:26 21 Q. ON FEBRUARY 28, 1998, THERE WAS AN
10:58:32 22 AUCTION HELD IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS WHICH YOU
10:58:34 23 AT SOME POINT ATTENDED; CORRECT?
10:58:37 24 A. YES.
10:58:37 25 THAT WAS THE AUCTION THAT IS THE
Q.
33
0
10:58:42 1
10:58:44 2
Page 27
SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE;
CORRECT?
A NEVADA CORPORATION?
Steven Gaggero
IS THAT THE PROPER NAME?

Steven Gaggero
I'D HAVE TO GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT.
11:37:27 17 A.
YOU TAKE A MOMENT TO DO THAT?
11:37:30 18 WILL
Q.
WOULD TAKE A LOT MORE THOUGHT
11:37:33 19 IT
A.
11:37:35 20 THAN A MOMENT.
LET'S DO THAT OVER THE COURSE OF
11:37:36 21 Q.
DEPOSITION AND SEE IF WE CAN GET A BETTER
11:37:39 22 THE
11:37:42 23 ANSWER THAN THAT.
11:37:43 24 OKAY.
A.
CAN YOU TELL ME THE HIGHEST PRICE
11:37:44 25 Q.
62
□
THAT YOU'VE BID FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU RECALL
11:37:46 1
HAVING BOUGHT AT AN AUCTION PRIOR TO
11:37:47 2
FEBRUARY 28TH, 1998?
11:37:51 3
11:37:54 4 MR. SIMONIS: AN ACTUAL MEMORY.
11:37:56 5 FROMBERG: OF COURSE.
MR.
11:37:57 6 NO, I DON'T HAVE A
THE DEPONENT:
11:37:58 7 MEMORY OF THAT.
11:37:59 9 Q. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE OF THE
11:38:02 10 PRICE WHICH YOU BID?
11:38:03 11 A. NO, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY ITEM
11:38:05 12 IN MIND.
11:38:05 13 Q. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN GREATER THAN
10,000?
11:38:08 14
11:38:08 15 A.
11:38:11 16
11:38:12 17 Q.
11:38:14 18
11:38:14 19 A.
11:38:17 20
11:38:18 21 Q.
I'VE BID MORE THAN 10,000 DOLLARS
AT AUCTIONS BEFORE.
MORE THAN 20-?
Page 52
I'M KIND OF LOST ON WHAT QUESTION
WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW.
THE HIGHEST BID THAT YOU MADE ON
ANY ITEM THAT YOU'VE ACQUIRED AT AN AUCTION.

Steven Gaggero
11:38:20 22 A.
11:38:21 23 Q-
PROBABLY.
11:38:22 24 A.
MORE THAN 40-?
11:38:23 25 Q.
63
0
may have.
don't know.
11:38:24 1 A.
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30- AND 40-,
11:38:27 2 Q.
11:38:30 PERHAPS?
3
you're trying to pin me down AND I
11:38:30 4 A.
DON'T want to --
11:38:32 5
I'M TRYING TO REFRESH YOUR
11:38:32 6 Q-
ONE IS PERMISSIBLE; THE OTHER IS
11:38:34 7 RECOLLECTION.
11:38:36 8 NOT.
I’M SPECULATING AT THIS POINT.
9
11:38:36 A.
I DON'T WANT SPECULATION.
11:38:38 10 Q.
BUT YOU DO RECALL IN EXCESS OF
11:38:40 11
30,000, IN ANY EVENT?
11:38:43 12
I KNOW I'VE PURCHASED THINGS FOR
11:38:44 13 A.
VALUES GREATER THAN 30,000 AT AUCTIONS BEFORE, BUT
11:38:47 14
11:38:50 15 I KNOW THAT JUST IF I THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT
11:38:53 16 CHARITY EVENTS, FURNITURE THAT I'VE PURCHASED FOR
PROPERTIES WE'VE DONE — ART, THINGS OF THAT
11:38:56 17
11:38:59 18 NATURE.
11:38:59 19 SO I KNOW — IT'S A REALLY SAFE
PLACE FOR ME TO SAY YES, AND BEYOND THAT, IF WE'RE
11:39:02 20
11:39:06 21
11:39:09 22
11:39:12 23
11:39:15 24
11:39:18 25
64
Page 53
TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC ITEM, I'D HAVE TO REALLY
SEARCH MY MEMORY TO DECIDE WHAT SPECIFIC ITEM I'VE
BOUGHT FOR MORE THAN THAT, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE COLLECTIVE, THEN IT'S ANOTHER KETTLE OF
FISH.
PROBABLY.
MORE THAN 30-?

Steven Gaggero
o
AMONG THAT KETTLE OF FISH, if you
11:39:18 1 Q.
WHAT ITEM YOU PAID THE MOST
11:39:20 2
11:39:23 3
11:39:27 4 A.
NO.
DIFFERENT SUIT OF CLOTHES.
11:39:29 5
SO YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU BID
11:39:31 6 Q.
MORE THAN 30,000?
11:39:33 7 AND BOUGHT FOR
11:39:35 8 NO.
A.
WHAT IS THE HIGHEST PRICE YOU'VE
11:39:37 9 Q.
PAID FOR A BOTTLE OF WINE OR A LOT OF WINE?
11:39:39 10
I DON’T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY.
11:39:43 11 A.
CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE?
11:39:45 12 Q.
IT VARIES.
11:39:55 13 NO.
A.
MORE THAN 10 DOLLARS?
11:39:58 14 Q.
11:40:03 15 YES.
A.
MORE THAN A HUNDRED DOLLARS?
11:40:04 16 Q.
11:40:05 17 YES.
A.
11:40:06 18 MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS?
Q.
11:40:08 19 A. YES.
11:40:08 20 MORE THAN 10,000 DOLLARS?
Q.
11:40:10 21 A. YES.
11:40:10 22 Q- MORE THAN 20,000 DOLLARS?
11:40:12 23 I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE
A.
11:40:15 24 SPECIFICALLY. THE ANSWERS UP TO THAT POINT WERE
11:40:17 25 EASY AND NOW I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT
65
0
11:40:21 1 SPECIFICALLY BEFORE I CAN ANSWER THAT.
11:40:22 2 Q.
11:40:22 3
11:40:23 4 A. I BOUGHT 16,000 DOLLARS' WORTH THE
Page 54
WILL, CAN YOU RECALL
FEBRUARY 28, 1998 AUCTION?
WHAT LOT OF WINE
MAKES IT 10,000, AS YOU RECALL?
FOR PRIOR TO THE
THAT'S THE SAME QUESTION IN A
DID YOU BUY THAT

Steven Gaggero
11:40:26 5 OTHER NIGHT.
OF WHAT?
11:40:26 6 Q-
OF WINE.
11:40:27 7 A.
11:40:28 8 Q.
GEMSTONE AND CROCKER STAR.
11:40:29 9 A.
WERE THOSE — ARE THOSE COLLECTOR
11:40:33 10 Q.
THOSE RARE WINES?
11:40:36 11 WINES OR ARE
THEY'RE CULT WINES, AND IT WAS A
11:40:37 12 A.
CYSTIC FIBROSIS CHARITY.
11:40:41 13
AT THE TIME YOU BID IT, DID YOU
11:40:44 14 Q.
HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE VALUE OF THOSE WINES THAT
11:40:46 15
YOU WERE BIDDING ON WAS?
11:40:49 16
11:40:49 17 YES.
A.
WHERE DID YOU OBTAIN THAT VALUE OR
11:40:49 18 Q.
THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THE VALUE?
11:40:52 19
11:40:54 20 I KNOW THE VINTNERS OF BOTH THOSE
A.
11:40:58 21 BOTTLES.
11:40:58 22 SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THEM?
Q-
11:41:00 23 A. FAMILIAR WITH —
11:41:02 24 Q. THOSE VINTNERS.
11:41:02 25 '"EM."
A. YOU SAID FAMILIAR WITH. IS
66
D
11:41:06 1 THAT HIM OR THEM?
11:41:06 2 Q. NO, I SAID "THEM." SORRY.
3
11:41:07 A. THE VINTNERS OR THE WINE?
11:41:09 4 Q. THE VINTNERS.
11:41:10 5 A. YES, I KNOW THEM BOTH.
6
11:41:11 Q.
11:41:13 7
8
11:41:14 A. YES.
11:41:15 9 Q. THIS WAS OUST THE OTHER NIGHT,
Page 55
WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFIC .
WINES THAT YOU BOUGHT?
WHAT KIND OF WINE?

Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5

Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5

Similar to Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gaggero/Mooring/Walters/Praske/Chatfield/Sulphur County Records/Cases 5