Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bridgepoint Construction Services Inc. v. Lassetter

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 11, 2018

Bridgepoint Construction Services Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
James Lassetter, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Honorable John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge.

         At issue are the Status Reports (Docs. 137, 139, 142) that Defendant filed in response to the Court's prior Order (Doc. 136).

         On August 8, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena to Wells Fargo (Doc. 75), requesting that the Court block Plaintiff's attempt to obtain Wells Fargo Bank records pertaining to accounts owned by Vista Oceano La Mesa Venture LLC (“Vista Oceano”)-the entity Plaintiff alleges was the owner and developer of the real estate project at the center of this lawsuit. Relatedly, on February 2, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 124), requesting that the Court prohibit Plaintiff from seeking the Wells Fargo and other discovery Defendant contended was duplicative, irrelevant, overbroad and overly burdensome.

         In responding that the information he sought was relevant and discoverable, Plaintiff represented the following to the Court:

In October 2010 Dilip Ram ([Plaintiff's] longtime real estate development partner who is not a party to this action) negotiated the purchase and a $9.45 million construction loan from Preferred Bank on [real estate owned] beach view property in Santa Barbara California. Dilip Ram and [Plaintiff] needed to raise an additional $3 million from an investor to share in the profits on this real estate development opportunity. [Plaintiff] offered this opportunity to his cousin Martin Newton who then introduced [Defendant] to [Plaintiff] and Ram as an investor.
In March 2011 Newton, [Defendant], [Plaintiff] and Ram agreed to be partners and share in the profits of this project. Dilip Ram signed Articles of Organization to form Vista Oceano La Mesa Venture LLC. [Exhibit 1]

         In March 2011 [Plaintiff] opened a bank account at Wells Fargo bank for Vista Oceano La Mesa Venture LLC. [Plaintiff] was, and still is listed as the co-owner and co-signer on Vista Oceano La Mesa Venture LLC's bank account at Wells Fargo. [Exhibit 2]

(Doc. 128 at 2 (emphasis added).)

         In reply, Defendant pointed out that Plaintiff's Exhibit 1-a March 2011 document signed by Ram-was not the authentic Articles of Organization for Vista Oceano, but rather Newton had signed and filed the Vista Oceano Articles of Organization with the State of California in October 2010. (Doc. 131 at 2-3.) Defendant also noted that Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-a Wells Fargo account application for Vista Oceano-was not stamped as received by Wells Fargo and was redacted to hide the signatures of Plaintiff and Newton, so its authenticity was unclear. (Doc. 131 at 3-4.)

         About a month later, in response to a separate motion, Plaintiff recited the same facts but, with regard to Exhibit 1, added a footnote stating that “Ram forgot that in October 2010 when he first thought they had a deal, Dilip Ram had his attorney Rubin Turner prepare Articles of Organization for Martin Newton's signature.” (Doc. 134 at 3 n.1.)

         On March 30, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena to Wells Fargo and denied as moot Defendant's Motion for Protective Order.[1] (Doc. 136 at 16-22.) Moreover, concerned that Plaintiff made misrepresentations and submitted inauthentic documents to the Court in support of his arguments, the Court stayed all proceedings in this matter and ordered Defendant to subpoena the State of California and Wells Fargo to procure the authentic versions of the documents Plaintiff had submitted to the Court as Exhibits 1 and 2.

         Defendant has now satisfied the Court's requests and submitted the authentic documents (Docs. 137, 139, 142) provided by the State of California and Wells Fargo, and the Court will now address the accuracy of Plaintiff's representations.

         1. The Articles of Organization for Vista Oceano

         Plaintiff submitted Exhibit 1-March 2011 Articles of Organization for Vista Oceano-to the Court as evidence material to the question of whether and to what extent Plaintiff, Ram, Defendant and Newton cooperated to form Vista Oceano. In the Second Amended Complaint[2], Plaintiff alleges that, while Defendant and Newton were the only members and/or managers of Vista Oceano at any given time, as indicated by the entity's Operating Agreements (e.g., Doc. 65-7 at 16-36), all four individuals “formed” Vista Oceano, Plaintiff and Ram had “full access to the books and records of Vista Oceano, ” and all four individuals “held themselves out as partners in the Santa Barbara project.” (Doc. 60, SAC ¶¶ 19-21.)

         To try to demonstrate collaboration between the four in forming Vista Oceano, Plaintiff explicitly represented to the Court that Ram, Plaintiff's “longtime real estate development partner, ” “signed Articles of Organization to form Vista Oceano, ” attaching Exhibit 1 in support. (Doc. 128 at 2; Ex. 1.) This was a patent misrepresentation, as demonstrated by the document produced by the State of California showing Newton signed Articles of Organization to form Vista Oceano. (See Doc. 139.) Indeed, all of the documents with any legal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.