Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MEDICAL DENTAL DEV. v PIERSON, et al - 46 - Statement of Compliance

MEDICAL DENTAL DEV. v PIERSON, et al - 46 - Statement of Compliance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC 46 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE FILED BY MEDICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC ON 03/17/2011 03/17/2011
30-2010-00367447-CU-BC-CJC 46 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE FILED BY MEDICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC ON 03/17/2011 03/17/2011

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Mar 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/29/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
3
4
5
61
B
9
1011
I2
13
L4
15
I6
I1
1B
1920
2t
aa
2325
27
2B
Dr. Orly
Taitz,
ESQ29839
S.
Margarit4
ste100
RSM
CA
92688
Ph 949-683
-54tr
F949-766-0378
Ori
v.tai
tzil.igiritii
1.
con:
Lic223433
Medical
Dental Development
LLC,Plaintiff,
vs.Pearson, Johnson,
IskanderDefendants
ORANGECOUNTY
SUPERIOR
COURTCENTRALJUSTICE CENTER
Case
no.
:
30-2010-00367
447
Hon
Frederick
P.
Horn
Dept
C-31Statement
of
Compliance
Orange
county
Superior CourtRule
3.17
Trial
Date
March
21
Time
8:30
Deot:
C-31
This
is
to confirm
that
Dr.
Orly
Tutz,
counsel
for
the
Plaintiff
and
Mr.
Ettinger,
recently
hired
counsel
for
Defendant
David
Johnson
conducted
a
phone
pretrial
conference on03.10.2011,pursuant
to
local
rule
3.17.
During
the conference
Mr.
Ettingerdid
notdisclose to
Dr.
Taitzthat
there
will
be
any witnesses
aside
from
defendant
David
Johnson.
Only
a
few
days
before
trial
plaintiffs
received
a
list
of
witnesses
for
trial,
which
was
compiled by
Mr.
Ettingera
day
earlier,on03.09.2011,
which included
a
name
of
witness
Mark
Jerue,
whom
Mr.
Ettinger didnot
disclose
to
Orly
Taitz
on 03.10.2011,
a
day later.
1.
Plaintiffs
oppose
proposedwitness
Mark
Jerue. Defense
proposedwitnessintendsto
testify
regardingthecurrentvalue
of
the
property
and
efforts
to
re-let the
property.
2.
Plaintiffs
object
to this testimony
on
following
grounds.
A.
Current rental value
of
the
propertyis
not relevant
tothe
case,
as
the
lease
agreement
was signed7
yearsago and
the
lease
agreement does
not
providefor modification of
the
lease based
on current
lease
value.
B.
Mr.
Mark
Jerue was
never
alease
agent
onthis
property
and
does
not
have
any

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->