On March 11, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Garrick, Craig,
and
Aviation Investors, Llc,
Blanco, Jose,
Burke, Jim,
Comav, Llc,
Cvf Capital Partners, Inc.,
Darms, Wendy,
Does 1-10,
Mcnulty, Edward,
The Central Valley Fund Ii,
The Central Valley Fund Iii,,
for Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
JENNER & BLOCK LLP SUPERIOR chutes CF CALIFORNIA
Todd C. Toral (SBN 197706) COUNTYOF SAN BERNARDINO
ttoral@jenner.com SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Lauren M. Greene (SBN 271397)
lgreene@jenner.com JUL 08 2022
Alice S. Kim (SBN 317479)
akim@jenner.com
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, California 90071-2246
Telephone: +1 213 239 5100
Facsimile: +1 213 239 5199
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10 CRAIG GARRICK, Case No. CIVSB2204200
1] Plaintiff,
oe V. Assigned for All Purposes to
12 The Honorable Gilbert G. Ochoa (Dept. $24)
CVF CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., a California
company; JOSE BLANCO, an individual;
13 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-
EDWARD McNULTY, an individual; JIM BURKE,
COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSIVE
14 an individual; THE CENTRAL VALLEY FUND II
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
(AIV), L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; THE
THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL
15 CENTRAL VALLEY FUND III (SBIC), L.P., a
ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
Delaware limited partnership; AVIATION
16 PENDING ARBITRATION
INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
17 company; COMAV, LLC, a California company; Hearing Date: July 22, 2022
and DOES 1-5,
Time: 9:00 A.M.
18 Defendants. Dept.: $24
19
Action Filed: March 11, 2022
20
21 AVIATION INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; THE CENTRAL VALLEY
22 FUND II (AIV), LP, a Delaware limited partnership;
23 THE CENTRAL VALLEY FUND III (SBIC), LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; and COMAV, LLC, a
24 California company,
Cross-Complainants,
25
Vv.
26
CRAIG GARRICK, an individual; and ROES 1
27 through 10, inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
28
RESPONSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
Case No. CIVSB2204200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 INTRODUCTION sesee
3 ARGUMENT seeteenenetaseeneeseaenees soevseecersesscersesnecceossensesseeneseenes
4 I Garrick’s Attempt To Revive The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Procedure Lacks Merit.
A The Parties’ Amendments Superseded The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Procedure
B Garrick’s Reasons For Enforcing The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Fall Short. a aeaesseetaeesensee!
1 Garrick’s First Reason — That Certain Of His Causes Of Action Arise
Only Under The MIPA — Does Not Survive Serious Scrutiny. ............
Garrick’s Second Reason — That His Supposed MIPA Claims Should Be
Resolved First In Court — Does Not Survive The Lightest Scrutiny. «0.0... 5
10 Garrick’s Third Reason — that ComAv Cannot Be Compelled To Arbitrate
Because It Is Not A Party To The Operating Agreement — Is Flat Wrong.
11
Garrick’s Fourth Reason — That Ancillary Credit Agreements Evidence
12 An Intent To Retain The MIPA’s ADR Mechanism — Also Fails. seeeeseaeeneneeee
13 II None Of Garrick’s Other Arguments To Avoid Arbitration Are Accurate steteseeteesseeneneasenel
14 A The Carveout For Injunctive Relief Does Not Prevent Arbitration. .......sccsssssesssesssesssessvees 6
15 B. Garrick’s Decision To Withdraw AVST’s Motion Is Irrelevant. 7
16 Cc ComAv Has Not Waived Its Right To Arbitration... eeseesseceeseessessesesssseseecneaenrennenneen 8
17 D. The Arbitration Provision In the Employment Agreement Is Enforceable. ............s:ssesssee 9
18 CONCLUSION seeeeetseeeneneeaeeeeeseerscatasnenersssensesenessceasseserseneerecacaeeneseneeeseeseneeg 10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
RESPONSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
Case No. CIVSB2204200
Document Filed Date
July 08, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 11, 2022
Category
Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
JENNER & BLOCK LLP SUPERIOR chutes CF CALIFORNIA Todd C. Toral (SBN 197706) COUNTYOF SAN BERNARDINO ttoral@jenner.com SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Lauren M. Greene (SBN 271397) lgreene@jenner.com JUL 08 2022 Alice S. Kim (SBN 317479) akim@jenner.com 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90071-2246 Telephone: +1 213 239 5100 Facsimile: +1 213 239 5199 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 CRAIG GARRICK, Case No. CIVSB2204200 1] Plaintiff, oe V. Assigned for All Purposes to 12 The Honorable Gilbert G. Ochoa (Dept. $24) CVF CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., a California company; JOSE BLANCO, an individual; 13 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS- EDWARD McNULTY, an individual; JIM BURKE, COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSIVE 14 an individual; THE CENTRAL VALLEY FUND II SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF (AIV), L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; THE THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL 15 CENTRAL VALLEY FUND III (SBIC), L.P., a ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION Delaware limited partnership; AVIATION 16 PENDING ARBITRATION INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 17 company; COMAV, LLC, a California company; Hearing Date: July 22, 2022 and DOES 1-5, Time: 9:00 A.M. 18 Defendants. Dept.: $24 19 Action Filed: March 11, 2022 20 21 AVIATION INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE CENTRAL VALLEY 22 FUND II (AIV), LP, a Delaware limited partnership; 23 THE CENTRAL VALLEY FUND III (SBIC), LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and COMAV, LLC, a 24 California company, Cross-Complainants, 25 Vv. 26 CRAIG GARRICK, an individual; and ROES 1 27 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. 28 RESPONSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION Case No. CIVSB2204200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION sesee 3 ARGUMENT seeteenenetaseeneeseaenees soevseecersesscersesnecceossensesseeneseenes 4 I Garrick’s Attempt To Revive The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Procedure Lacks Merit. A The Parties’ Amendments Superseded The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Procedure B Garrick’s Reasons For Enforcing The MIPA’s Dispute Resolution Fall Short. a aeaesseetaeesensee! 1 Garrick’s First Reason — That Certain Of His Causes Of Action Arise Only Under The MIPA — Does Not Survive Serious Scrutiny. ............ Garrick’s Second Reason — That His Supposed MIPA Claims Should Be Resolved First In Court — Does Not Survive The Lightest Scrutiny. «0.0... 5 10 Garrick’s Third Reason — that ComAv Cannot Be Compelled To Arbitrate Because It Is Not A Party To The Operating Agreement — Is Flat Wrong. 11 Garrick’s Fourth Reason — That Ancillary Credit Agreements Evidence 12 An Intent To Retain The MIPA’s ADR Mechanism — Also Fails. seeeeseaeeneneeee 13 II None Of Garrick’s Other Arguments To Avoid Arbitration Are Accurate steteseeteesseeneneasenel 14 A The Carveout For Injunctive Relief Does Not Prevent Arbitration. .......sccsssssesssesssesssessvees 6 15 B. Garrick’s Decision To Withdraw AVST’s Motion Is Irrelevant. 7 16 Cc ComAv Has Not Waived Its Right To Arbitration... eeseesseceeseessessesesssseseecneaenrennenneen 8 17 D. The Arbitration Provision In the Employment Agreement Is Enforceable. ............s:ssesssee 9 18 CONCLUSION seeeeetseeeneneeaeeeeeseerscatasnenersssensesenessceasseserseneerecacaeeneseneeeseeseneeg 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i RESPONSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION Case No. CIVSB2204200