Thursday, March 13, 2008

Official Update on Kimkins Case from John Tiedt

[Note: I haven't blogged in a while, but when John Tiedt sent this and asked us to help get it out where potential class members might see it, I was happy to post it here. If I can learn how to post the PDF link here, I will, but for now this is the best I can do. This is a 44 page document in total, 9 pages of summary of Heidi Diaz' two depositions, plus the referenced exhibits, so I will be posting it in segments. I do not want to try to condense it or explain it, because it is best left as John Tiedt wrote it. So, stay tuned for much more.]

March 13, 2008

To Plaintiff Class Representatives and Potential Class Members

Re: Fenderson, et al. v. Diaz, et al.

Dear Friends:

We have been quite busy with the discovery process and several law and motion issues. The purpose of this letter is to bring you up to date. We were granted authority by the court to take an early deposition of Heidi Diaz concerning limited issues relating to documents, witnesses, and assets. The first deposition was conducted on November 12, 2007 at my office in Riverside, California. The second deposition was taken on January 23, 2008. Some of the testimony and documents produced at the second deposition are subject to a protective order and cannot be revealed to the public at this time. However, it is my intent to file a motion to make certain documents public. At this time, we have no set trial date. A Case Management Conference is set for July 15, 2008. Defendant Heidi Diaz filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint for Damages. A demurrer is a tactic used by defendants to challenge the validity of the complaint. We have already prepared our opposition to the demurrer and we are confident that it will be overruled by the presiding judge. The hearing on the demurrer is scheduled for April 28, 2008. On March 21, 2008, the Court will hear the defendant’s motion to set aside the writ of attachment order. As you may recall, on November 16, 2007, the court entered an order to issue a writ of attachment on certain assets held by Heidi Diaz. Accordingly, the court effectively “froze” certain assets held by Heidi Diaz, such as her home and PayPal account. Our opposition to defendant’s motion to set aside the writ of attachment was filed under seal because it contained confidential information. However, I can reveal that it is our contention that the defendants do not have statutory authority to have the court reconsider its original order to issue a writ of attachment.

No comments: