Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Document 187

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 1 of 4

RICHARD HARRINGTON (SBN 28099) CHANDLER WOOD HARRINGTON & MAFFLY LLP One Maritime Plaza, Fourth Floor San Francisco, California 94111 3404 Telephone: 415 421 5484 Facsimile: 415 986 4874 Email: [email protected] ROBERT CHARLES WARD (SBN 160824) SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP One Maritime Plaza, Eighteenth Floor San Francisco, California 94111 3404 Telephone: 415 421 6500 Facsimile: 415 421 2922 Email: [email protected] C. ANGELA DE LA HOUSAYE (SBN 144218) BRENDAN J. DOOLEY (SBN 162880) KARYNE T. GHANTOUS (SBN 191309) DE LA HOUSAYE & ASSOCIATES, ALC 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 395 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 944-3300 Facsimile: (925) 944-3343 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants, ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ANDREW VERITY and CHRISTINA CHANG, ) ) ) Counterclaimants, ) v. ) MARK LILLGE d/b/a CREATIVE MARKETING) ) CONCEPTS, and DOES 1 ­ 10, ) ) Counterdefendants MARK LILLGE D/B/A CREATIVE MARKETING CONCEPTS, Case No: C-07-02748 MHP DEFENDANTS ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S SON Date: Time: Pretrial Conference: Time: Dept: Judge: May 6, 2008 8:30 a.m. April 23, 2008 3:00 p.m. 15, 18th Floor Hon. Marilyn H. Patel

Complaint Filed: May 25, 2007

-1Case No. C-07-02748 MHP DEFENDANTS ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S SON

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
1 2 I. 3 4 INTRODUCTION

Document 187

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff seeks to exclude testimony for Defendants Andrew Verity's and Christina Chang's two year old son, Charles ("Charlie") Verity, a native born citizen of the United States, from testifying at 5 trial. To address the absurd, Charlie is not listed as a witness on Defendant's Witness List, and it is hard 6 to fathom an instance where Charlie's testimony might be relevant or helpful to the Jury. Thus, this 7 portion of Plaintiff's Motion is not only moot, but slightly bizarre. 8 The other portion of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, to exclude even the slightest mention of 9 Charlie's existence to the Jury is equally bizarre, but for different reasons, and as explained herein, 10 should be denied by the Court. 11 I. 12 A. 13 Also Affect The Life And Opportunities Of Charles Verity, And As Such The 14 Intentional Effect of Lillge's Statements On Charles Verity Establishes The 15 "Despicable" Element In Cross Claimant's Defamation Cause of Action 16 The Jury is entitled to learn that Plaintiff Lillge's defamatory and slanderous comments were 17 directed at a family unit that included Charlie, with the intent that the family as a whole would be 18 deported from the Country, thereby establishing the despicable element of Defendant's defamatory 19 cause of action. 20 References to Defendants Verity and Chang's son Charlie are relevant to the damages caused by 21 Plaintiff Lillge's defamatory statements that Chang had been deported or otherwise excluded from the 22 U.S. on immigration grounds. Charlie is a citizen of the U.S. because he was born here. Plaintiff 23 Lillge's attempt to have the Verity family deported should be actionable as attempted extortion. 24 Furthermore, CMC employee Bruce Molloy told potential customer, Brenda Jones, that Chang had left 25 to spend more time with her family. Plaintiff Lillge has also mentioned Charlie to CMC clients on the 26 phone. Lillge's actions were also calculated to keep Verity and Chang from competing and earning a 27 living in the industry that they knew best and were most likely to succeed -- the promotional products 28
-2Case No. C-07-02748 MHP DEFENDANTS ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S SON

LEGAL ARGUMENT Plaintiff Lillge Intended To Defame Defendants In Such A Manner That It Would

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
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

Document 187

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 3 of 4

industry. The fact that Lillge's actions had the intended effect of diminishing the ability of Verity and Chang to support their family, including their son, further adds to the despicable nature of his conduct. By alleging that Defendants are not legally in the United States, Plaintiff intended to have the Verity family deported, since a two-year old child would necessarily accompany his parents were the parents forced to depart the country. Since Plaintiff's defamatory statements were intended to

discourage potential customers from doing business with Defendants, and thereby damaging Defendants' ability to provide support for themselves and their child, they would be forced to depart the country. Defendant's will argue that this conduct was intentional, and because these statements were made with the intent to force the Verity family out of the country, including U.S. Citizen, Charles Verity, that this conduct was despicable. Furthermore, the fact that the Verity family has a young son who was born in the U.S. is very relevant to why they went into competition in the same industry rather than accepting getting deported back to Canada. Verity and Chang's best hope of maintaining their immigration status after Lillge had fired them both was to found a successful business in the United States. Their best hope for doing do -and remaining in the U.S. with their son -- was through founding a promotional products business. In addition, opening Branding Boulevard so that they could remain in the United States and raise Charlie in the Unite States rebuts Lillge's claim for punitive damages: it certainly is not "despicable" to attempt to raise Charlie, a United States citizen, in the United States, where the Verity family also owns the home in Berkeley from which they operate their business, Branding Boulevard. B. Charles Verity Was A Factor In The Incident That Plaintiff Contends Justified Andrew Verity's Termination, And Thus, Mention Of His Existence Is Required For The Jury To Understand The Factual Context Of The Court Because Plaintiff contends that Defendant Verity failed to perform his job duties, and this claim relates, atleast in part, to a January 8, 2008 meeting in which Charles was at CMC's offices and his presence there had an impact on the claims of whether Mr. Verity satisfactorily preformed his work (Mr. Verity sent CMC employee, Paola Lari out of an office meeting in which Charlie Verity was also present, because Ms. Lari was unable to focus on the work tasks at hand due to Charles's presence). This was the reason for Plaintiff Lillge getting angry and initially terminating Andrew Verity in January
-3Case No. C-07-02748 MHP DEFENDANTS ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S SON

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
1 2 II. 3 4 CONCLUSION 2007.

Document 187

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 4 of 4

Based on the above, Defendants should not be prohibited from the mention of their son's existence since any such mentions will be brief and directed solely to this task of establishing the 5 required "despicable" aspect of their defamatory cause of action, or relevant to a rebuttal of Plaintiff's 6 claims regarding Andrew Verity's job performance. 7 Dated: April 22, 2008 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4Case No. C-07-02748 MHP DEFENDANTS ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S SON

DE LA HOUSAYE & ASSOCIATES, ALC By:___________/S/______________________ BRENDAN J. DOOLEY Attorneys for Defendants ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG