On October 15, 2021 a
No Value
was filed
involving a dispute between
Castro, Maya,
and
Buckalew, Tija,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
Meacham, Thomas Boyd, Iii,
Spurgeon Painting, Inc.,
Spurgeon Painting, Inc,
for 36: Unlimited Wrongful Termination
in the District Court of Sonoma County.
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F
Mark D. Piesner, SBN: 251079
ARC POINT LAW PC
22287 Mulholland Hwy # 198
Calabasas, CA 91302-5157
Email: Mark@arcpointlaw.com
Phone: 818-638-4456
Attorney for Plaintiff Maya Castro
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
MAYA CASTRO, an individual, Case No. SCV-269513
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARK D.
PIESNER IN SUPPORT OF
10 VS.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
il
Corporation; THOMAS BOYD AMENDED COMPLAINT.
12 MEACHAM
II, an individual; TIA BUCKALEW, an Date: March 6, 2024
13 individual and DOES 1-50, Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: 18
14 Defendants.
15
16
17
18 I, Mark D. Piesner, Esq., declare as follows:
19 1 I, Mark D. Piesner, Esq., declare that I am an Attorney duly licensed to practice
20 law in California, and I declare the following facts are known to me by my personal knowledge,
and if I am called upon I could and would testify thereto, under penalty of perjury. 1 submit this
21
declaration in lieu of my oral testimony at the pending hearing, pursuant to Califomia Code of
22
Civil Procedure, Section 2015.5, and Rules of Court, and under the authority of: Riefler v.
23 Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 479.
24 2 My declaration is based on personal knowledge, legal analysis, and review of the
25 case file.
3 I substituted as attorney of record for the Plaintiff on September 18, 2023.
26
27
21
28
Opposition to Demurrer
DocuSign Envelope ID; D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F
4 1 acknowledge an oversight in the labeling of the cause of action as "Against All
Defendants" rather than the specific "All Employer Defendants," a terminology consistently
utilized in the first through fifth causes of action within our filings. Upon a careful review of
paragraphs 109 to 117 of the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) supporting the sixth cause of
action, it is evident that the references were indeed meant for "All Employer Defendants."
5 It was never the intention of the plaintiff, nor mine as her attorney, to disregard
the court's directives by proposing the addition of defendant Buckalew to the Seventh Cause of
Action. To the contrary, during the hearing on October 11, 2023, regarding the demurrer to the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), I expressed a sincere intention to amend the complaint
thoroughly, under the belief that this intention was in alignment with the court's expectation for a
properly structured amended complaint.
10 6 This approach was driven by several critical considerations. As the attorney who
11 took over the case post-SAC filing, my objective has been to adjust the causes of action to align
with court standards and to include all relevant defendants, thereby ensuring the allegations
12
against them accurately reflect the misconduct claimed. This necessity stems not just from a
13
desire for legal precision but also from an understanding of the complexity of the case at hand.
14 7
Moreover, the tight trial schedule and efforts to address procedural abuses
15 comprehensively have, unfortunately, limited our opportunities to formally request the addition
16 of defendant Buckalew through standard channels. This limitation has inadvertently impacted
17 our ability to present a fully developed case.
18
8 The detailed accounts of abuses outlined in the TAC, attributed to all defendants,
underscore the critical need to include defendant Buckalew in the lawsuit to address the
19
collective actions of the defendants comprehensively. It is my belief that her inclusion is
20
essential for a thorough and just examination of the case.
21 9 Lastly, it is important to note that there has been no demonstration ofprejudice
22 against defendant Buckalew due to her inclusion in the Seventh Cause of Action. Our actions are
23 guided by a commitment to justice and the accurate representation of facts, devoid of any
intention to cause unnecessary harm or prejudice to any party involved.
24
10. Therefore, it is with respect and in the spirit of fairness and legal accuracy that we
25
seek the court's understanding and permission to amend the complaint as necessary to reflect the
26
true nature of the allegations and parties involved.
27
28 22
—
Opposition to Demurrer
DocuSign Envelope ID: D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed at Calabasas, California
ARC POINT LAW PC,
DocuSigned by:
Dated: 2/22/2024 By Mark Pismer
Mark DrPH Eq,
Attorney for Plaintiff
10 MAYA CASTRO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 23
Opposition to Demurrer
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F Mark D. Piesner, SBN: 251079 ARC POINT LAW PC 22287 Mulholland Hwy # 198 Calabasas, CA 91302-5157 Email: Mark@arcpointlaw.com Phone: 818-638-4456 Attorney for Plaintiff Maya Castro SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA MAYA CASTRO, an individual, Case No. SCV-269513 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARK D. PIESNER IN SUPPORT OF 10 VS. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD il Corporation; THOMAS BOYD AMENDED COMPLAINT. 12 MEACHAM II, an individual; TIA BUCKALEW, an Date: March 6, 2024 13 individual and DOES 1-50, Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept.: 18 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 I, Mark D. Piesner, Esq., declare as follows: 19 1 I, Mark D. Piesner, Esq., declare that I am an Attorney duly licensed to practice 20 law in California, and I declare the following facts are known to me by my personal knowledge, and if I am called upon I could and would testify thereto, under penalty of perjury. 1 submit this 21 declaration in lieu of my oral testimony at the pending hearing, pursuant to Califomia Code of 22 Civil Procedure, Section 2015.5, and Rules of Court, and under the authority of: Riefler v. 23 Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 479. 24 2 My declaration is based on personal knowledge, legal analysis, and review of the 25 case file. 3 I substituted as attorney of record for the Plaintiff on September 18, 2023. 26 27 21 28 Opposition to Demurrer DocuSign Envelope ID; D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F 4 1 acknowledge an oversight in the labeling of the cause of action as "Against All Defendants" rather than the specific "All Employer Defendants," a terminology consistently utilized in the first through fifth causes of action within our filings. Upon a careful review of paragraphs 109 to 117 of the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) supporting the sixth cause of action, it is evident that the references were indeed meant for "All Employer Defendants." 5 It was never the intention of the plaintiff, nor mine as her attorney, to disregard the court's directives by proposing the addition of defendant Buckalew to the Seventh Cause of Action. To the contrary, during the hearing on October 11, 2023, regarding the demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), I expressed a sincere intention to amend the complaint thoroughly, under the belief that this intention was in alignment with the court's expectation for a properly structured amended complaint. 10 6 This approach was driven by several critical considerations. As the attorney who 11 took over the case post-SAC filing, my objective has been to adjust the causes of action to align with court standards and to include all relevant defendants, thereby ensuring the allegations 12 against them accurately reflect the misconduct claimed. This necessity stems not just from a 13 desire for legal precision but also from an understanding of the complexity of the case at hand. 14 7 Moreover, the tight trial schedule and efforts to address procedural abuses 15 comprehensively have, unfortunately, limited our opportunities to formally request the addition 16 of defendant Buckalew through standard channels. This limitation has inadvertently impacted 17 our ability to present a fully developed case. 18 8 The detailed accounts of abuses outlined in the TAC, attributed to all defendants, underscore the critical need to include defendant Buckalew in the lawsuit to address the 19 collective actions of the defendants comprehensively. It is my belief that her inclusion is 20 essential for a thorough and just examination of the case. 21 9 Lastly, it is important to note that there has been no demonstration ofprejudice 22 against defendant Buckalew due to her inclusion in the Seventh Cause of Action. Our actions are 23 guided by a commitment to justice and the accurate representation of facts, devoid of any intention to cause unnecessary harm or prejudice to any party involved. 24 10. Therefore, it is with respect and in the spirit of fairness and legal accuracy that we 25 seek the court's understanding and permission to amend the complaint as necessary to reflect the 26 true nature of the allegations and parties involved. 27 28 22 — Opposition to Demurrer DocuSign Envelope ID: D1F332DD-2168-47A3-B3C0-94247F45238F I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed at Calabasas, California ARC POINT LAW PC, DocuSigned by: Dated: 2/22/2024 By Mark Pismer Mark DrPH Eq, Attorney for Plaintiff 10 MAYA CASTRO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 Opposition to Demurrer