On July 05, 2016 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Meyer Cynthia,
and
Farmers Financial Solutions Llc,
Ffs Holding Llc,
Mueting John,
Mueting John Dismissed,
Saye Courtney,
Saye Courtney Dismissed,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/13/2019 10:57 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. So,Deputy Clerk
1 THARPE & HOWELL, LLP
15250 Ventura Boulevard, Ninth Floor
2 Sherman Oaks, California 91403
(818) 205-9955; (818) 205-9944 fax
3
CHRISTOPHER S. MAILE, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 117998
4 RICHARD C. MOORE, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 111840
5 Attorneys for Defendants, FARMERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC;
FFS HOLDING, LLC
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
10
15250 Ventura Boulevard, Ninth Floor
Sherman Oaks, California 91403-3221
11 CYNTHIA MEYER, Case No. BC625867
THARPE & HOWELL, LLP
12 Plaintiff, Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016
Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction
13 v. [assigned to the Honorable Robert Broadbelt,
Dept. 53]
14 FARMERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,
LLC, FFS HOLDING, LLC, COURTNEY REPLY BRIEF RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
15 SAYE, JOHN MUETING, and DOES 1 to IN LIMINE NO. 5
100, inclusive,
16 Hearing Date: September 20, 2019
Defendants. Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 Dept.: 53
18 Trial Date: October 2,2019
Time: 9:30 a.m.
19 Dept. 53
20
21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 There is no more telling indication that Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 is well-taken than
23 that as soon as Plaintiff reviewed it, she started trying to change Dr. Snyder’s testimony. Despite
24 Dr. Snyder having testified almost a year earlier that he had completed his work and had no plans to
25 do anything further, the very day that Defendants personally served their motion, Meyer’s attorneys
26 suddenly announced that he “had reviewed additional materials” and “would be narrowing his
27 opinions.” (Declaration of Richard C. Moore, 12.)
28 ///
___________________________________________ - 1 -________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
Document Filed Date
September 13, 2019
Case Filing Date
July 05, 2016
Status
Jury Verdict 06/02/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/13/2019 10:57 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. So,Deputy Clerk 1 THARPE & HOWELL, LLP 15250 Ventura Boulevard, Ninth Floor 2 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 (818) 205-9955; (818) 205-9944 fax 3 CHRISTOPHER S. MAILE, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 117998 4 RICHARD C. MOORE, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 111840 5 Attorneys for Defendants, FARMERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; FFS HOLDING, LLC 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL 10 15250 Ventura Boulevard, Ninth Floor Sherman Oaks, California 91403-3221 11 CYNTHIA MEYER, Case No. BC625867 THARPE & HOWELL, LLP 12 Plaintiff, Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016 Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 v. [assigned to the Honorable Robert Broadbelt, Dept. 53] 14 FARMERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, FFS HOLDING, LLC, COURTNEY REPLY BRIEF RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 15 SAYE, JOHN MUETING, and DOES 1 to IN LIMINE NO. 5 100, inclusive, 16 Hearing Date: September 20, 2019 Defendants. Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 17 Dept.: 53 18 Trial Date: October 2,2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. 19 Dept. 53 20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 There is no more telling indication that Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 is well-taken than 23 that as soon as Plaintiff reviewed it, she started trying to change Dr. Snyder’s testimony. Despite 24 Dr. Snyder having testified almost a year earlier that he had completed his work and had no plans to 25 do anything further, the very day that Defendants personally served their motion, Meyer’s attorneys 26 suddenly announced that he “had reviewed additional materials” and “would be narrowing his 27 opinions.” (Declaration of Richard C. Moore, 12.) 28 /// ___________________________________________ - 1 -________________________________________ REPLY BRIEF RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5