mckasson, klein & holmes llp - · pdf fileresponses to defendant’s special...

RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1

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

Michaël Fischer, Bar No. 202543 McKASSON, KLEIN & HOLMES LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (714) 436-1470 Facsimile: (714) 436-1471

Attorneys for: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE--CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

AURORA CHAVEZ, as an individual and as a shareholder and director in P.V.J. Foods, Inc., dba Marina Ranch Market, Plaintiff, vs. FRANK D’ERRICO, as an individual and as a director and officer in P.V.J. Foods, Inc., dba Marina Ranch Market; P.V.J. FOODS, INC., a California Corporation, dba MARINA RANCH MARKET; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: 06CC13093 PLAINTIFF AURORA CHAVEZ’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FRANK D’ERRICO’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Judge: Dennis S. Choate Dept.: C26 Action Filed: 12/19/06 Trial Date: 1/7/08

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant Frank D’Errico

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez

SET NUMBER: One

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Aurora Chavez (“Plaintiff”, or “Responding

Party”) hereby makes the following responses to Defendant Frank D’Errico’s (“Defendant”)


2

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

Special Interrogatories, Set One pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff has not fully completed discovery in this action and has not completed

preparation for trial. The responses contained herein are based only upon such information

and documents as are presently available to, and specifically known to Plaintiff, and

disclose only those facts and contentions which presently occur to Plaintiff. It is anticipated

that further discovery will supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts, as well

as establish new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to

substantial additions to, and/or changes and variations from the responses set forth herein.

The following responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s right to

produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which Plaintiff may later

discover. Plaintiff accordingly reserves the right to amend any and all responses herein as

additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and

contentions are made. The responses made herein are made in a good faith effort to

supply as much specification of the facts and contentions as are presently known, which

should in no way be to the prejudice of Plaintiff in relation to further discovery, research or

analysis.

The information supplied in these responses is not necessarily based solely on the

knowledge of Plaintiff, but may include information as may be available to Plaintiff by way

of other persons, including Plaintiff’s agents, representatives and attorneys, unless

privileged. The word usage and sentence structure may be that of attorneys assisting in the

preparation of these responses and thus does not necessarily purport to be the precise

language of Plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically notes that it has not necessarily talked to and/or

interviewed each and every one of the persons from whom information may have been

obtained, as to each point that may be raised, and at the time of trial there may be a

variance between witnesses’ actual testimony and these responses.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s interrogatories to the extent that any part


3

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

thereof purports to place any greater or different obligations or burdens upon Plaintiff than

required under California law or to the extent that they call for procedures not provided

therein.

2. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant’s interrogatories to the extent that it

calls for information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.


calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the

attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.


calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to individual

privacy rights. No information so protected will be disclosed, and the inadvertent disclosure

of protected information shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any privilege.

5. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant’s interrogatories as oppressive and

unduly burdensome.

6. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant’s interrogatories to the extent the

information requested is equally available to Defendant.

7. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant’s interrogatories to the extent Defendant

already has any responsive information in its possession.

8. Discovery is continuing, and these responses are made without waiver of

Plaintiff’s right to amend, supplement or otherwise modify these responses based on the

discovery of additional facts, information or contentions subsequent to the service of these

responses. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the above General Objections in each and every

response set forth below.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify by date and amount all compensation, cash or property YOU obtained or

received from the COMPANY during the period August 28, 2004 to February 28, 2007.


4

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

The terms “YOU” or “YOUR” means the Plaintiff, Aurora Chavez and all other

persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf. The term “COMPANY” means P.V.J.

Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vastly overbroad in time and

scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly

burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to

Defendant. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any

responsive information in its possession.

Without waiving these objections or its General Objections, Responding Party

responds as follows:

Aurora Chavez received $1,000 per week and approximately $6,000 additional per

month. Ms. Chavez was entitled to receive more under the August 28th 2004 Agreement

between the parties, which allowed her to keep all profits from the business after Defendant

D’Errico received a certain fixed amount. Defendant D’Errico has this information in his

possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for

the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Further, Ms. Chavez has produced all

ledger sheets that reiterate this information.


State whether the handwritten accounting sheets prepared by YOU for the period

September, 2004 to December, 2006 account for all cash received and disbursed by the

COMPANY.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to


5

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

“handwritten accounting sheets” and “prepared by you.” Responding Party objects to this

interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects

to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as

overbroad in time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is

oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the

information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times

responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects

to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession.



Defendant D’Errico already has all financial information related to the business, or

the information is easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible

for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Additionally, if Defendant D’Errico’s

interrogatory seeks information about the company ledger sheets, Responding Party adds

that Defendant D’Errico was involved in their preparation and that they have been

produced.


State whether the handwritten accounting sheets prepared by YOU for the period

September, 2004 to December, 2006 account for all cash, compensation or property YOU

received from the COMPANY.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to

“handwritten accounting sheets” and “prepared by you.” Responding Party objects to this

interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects

to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as


6

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

overbroad in time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is




to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession.





for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Additionally, if Defendant D’Errico’s

interrogatory seeks information about the company ledger sheets, Responding Party adds

that Defendant D’Errico was involved in their preparation and that they have been

produced.


State the name of the person who signed and filed the COMPANY annual and

quarterly tax returns to the United States Internal Revenue Service, the California

Employment Development Department, the California Department of Industrial Relations,

the California Franchise Tax Board and the California Board of Equalization during the

period September, 2004 to December, 2006.

The term “COMPANY” means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a

Marina Ranch Market.


Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound as various people,

including Defendant D’Errico, signed various returns to different governmental bodies.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally

available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the

financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this

interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information.


7

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



Defendant D’Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him

as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business,

including tax preparation.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.5:

State the name of the person who hired COMPANY employees during the period

January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2006.




Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in time. Responding


Defendant. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any

responsive information.


responds as follows: Defendant D’Errico and Aurora Chavez.


Did YOU pay COMPANY employees partly by check and partly with cash during the

period September, 2004 to November, 2006?





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to

this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party


8

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

objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant

as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the

business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any






for the financial/accounting dealings of the business.


Did YOU pay COMPANY employees overtime compensation during the period

September, 2004 to November, 2006?






Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety.




as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial dealings of the business.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive

information in its possession.






9

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

for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Defendant D’Errico refused to pay

employees any overtime compensation.


Did YOU withhold federal income taxes from COMPANY employee wages paid in

cash during the period September, 2004 to November, 2006?





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its

entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding


Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings

of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has

any responsive information in its possession.




as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business,

including all tax issues.


Describe in detail the records YOU kept for COMPANY wholesale produce sales in

cash during the period September, 2004 to November, 2006?




///


10

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



Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been

established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in

its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is

equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the


interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession.



Defendant D’Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available

to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the

business. Further, Responding Party understands the ledger sheets already produced

reflect the wholesale produce sales. Responding Party also states invoices were prepared.


State what YOU did with the payments made by wholesale produce customers of

the COMPANY during the period September, 2004 to November, 2006?








established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in




11

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







business. Whenever Responding Party received payments from wholesale produce

customers, they were deposited in the company bank account.


Describe all written and computer records that exist pertaining to wholesale produce

sales and customers of the COMPANY during the period September, 2004 to November,

2006?







established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding




any responsive information in its possession.






12

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

business. Responding Party believes the ledger sheets, already produced, are responsive

to this interrogatory. Responding Party is not aware of computer records. Responding Party

also states invoices were prepared.


Identify by name, address and account number all bank accounts in which YOU

deposited compensation, cash or property received by YOU from the COMPANY during

the period September, 2004 to February, 2007.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information

protected by personal rights to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it

is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive

and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and

ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound.


established.


Identify by name and address every wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY

during the period September, 2004 to February, 2007.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information

protected by personal rights to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it

is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive


13

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

and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information

requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for

the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this






business. Responding Party does not have this information.


Describe by date, customer and amount each and every invoice YOU sent to any

wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY during the period September, 2004 to

February, 2007.







this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to

this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to


objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information protected by personal rights

to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is






14

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




business. Responding Party does not have this information.


Identify by make and present location each and every computer used to generate

any invoice, account statement or billing to any wholesale produce customer of the

COMPANY during the period September, 2004 to February, 2007.

















business. Responding Party states that the business had one computer, of unknown make,

located in the business’ office room. Another computer, located at the front of the business,

was used for Western Union wire transfers and was owned by Western Union.

///


15

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


State whether YOU ever took for personal use any produce or groceries from the

COMPANY during the period September, 2004 to February, 2007.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is not

relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible

evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to “took for personal use”.



This interrogatory is wholly irrelevant as Defendant D’Errico has not alleged

Responding Party improperly took groceries or produce from the business. Further, had

she wanted, Ms. Chavez was entitled, under the August 28th 2004 agreement between the

parties, to take produce and groceries from the business.


Describe in detail including date, substance and incident number any statement or

complaint YOU made to a police officer or sheriff about Defendant Derrico during the

period September, 2004 to November, 2006.


persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf.


Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this

interrogatory as it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure

pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Without


16

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

waiving these objections or its General Objections, Responding Party responds as follows:

Defendant D’Errico, on at least two occasions in or about November and December

of 2006, acted violently and harassingly towards Responding Party. She feared for her life

based on D’Errico’s violent acts which included, among other things, coming within inches

of her face and yelling “you and your family are pigs,” “you are a stupid snake” and “you are

just a little Mexican.” Responding Party, in fear for her immediate safety, called the Orange

County Sherriff Department and related D’Errico’s violent and threatening conduct in order

to protect herself from him. Incident report numbers are believed to be 06-227083 and 06-

236044.


Did YOU know when YOU hired certain COMPANY employees during the period

September, 2004 to November, 2006 that they were not authorized to work the United

States?







Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to



this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion.


responds as follows: Responding Party never knowingly hired any employees that were

unauthorized to work in the United States. Responding Party does not know whether

Defendant D’Errico did so.

///


17

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


State what YOU did with all payments and cash received by the COMPANY that

were not deposited into a COMPANY bank account during the period September, 2004 to

February, 2007.







Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to


this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety.


Describe by name, address and account number each and every bank account of

the COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.












as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business.


18

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

Nonetheless, Responding Party believes the business had bank accounts at First Bank

(Laguna Niguel), Union Bank of California (Dana Point), and Bank of America (Dana Point).


State the purpose of each and every bank account of the COMPANY during the

period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.





objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party









Nonetheless, Responding Party believes the First Bank account and the Bank of America

account were generally for the Western Union business and check cashing, and the Union

Bank of California account was generally for daily sales.


State the purpose of each and every bank line of credit of the COMPANY during the

period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.



///


19

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













Responding Party does not have this information.


Identify by date and amount each and every withdrawal of money from or use of a

line of credit of the COMPANY by YOU during the period January 1, 1999 to February,

2007.





Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous and

unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally

available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the


20

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




responds as follows: Responding Party does not understand what the interrogatory

requests.


Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every loan of money to the

COMPANY by YOU during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.








objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party







Responding Party’s loans to the business include: Responding Party lent the

business $154,000 in or about November 1997 as an initial loan; Responding Party lent the

business $160,000 for the construction of the business’ restaurant and renovation of the

business as a whole between late 1999 and November of 2001; Responding Party lent the

business approximately $28,000 for the purchase of business vehicles; Responding Party

lent the business approximately $4,000 in or about September 2006 for the painting of the


21

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

business; Responding Party lent the business approximately $2,750 for Defendant

D’Errico’s and his girlfriend’s use of cell phones.


Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every loan of money to YOU by the

COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.








objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding

Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding




any responsive information.



Defendant has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he

was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business.


Identify by date and amount each and every payment made by YOU for any loan of

money to YOU by the COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.





22

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


Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and


burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have

not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and

ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information

requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for

the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this




Defendant has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he

was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business.


Identify by date and amount each and every payment made to YOU for any loan of

money by YOU to the COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.







burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is







23

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

Ms. Chavez was never repaid for the construction of the business’ restaurant and

general renovation. Ms. Chavez was never repaid for the loan related to the painting of the

business, for Defendant D’Errico and his daughter’s use of cell phones, or for the loan

related to the business vehicles.


Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every payment made by YOU for the

purchase of any stock in the COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February,

2007.






scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party







Ms. Chavez lent the business $154,000 in or about November 1997 and received

375,000 shares of stock.


Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every amount YOU invested in the

COMPANY for capital improvements or capital contributions during the period January 1,

1999 to February, 2007.



24

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




Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for an expert conclusion.

Responding party does not know how an accounting or tax expert would categorize the

money she has put into the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is

overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as

compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in







Responding Party lent the business $154,000 in or about November 1997 as an

initial loan; Responding Party lent the business $160,000 for the construction of the

business’ restaurant and renovation of the business as a whole between late 1999 and

November of 2001; Responding Party lent the business approximately $28,000 for the

purchase of business vehicles; Responding Party lent the business approximately $4,000

in or about September 2006 for the painting of the business; Responding Party lent the

business approximately $2,750 for Defendant D’Errico’s and his girlfriend’s use of cell

phones.


Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every withdrawal made by YOU

from the COMPANY to return any capital improvements or capital contributions made by

YOU during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.



25

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




Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for an expert conclusion.

Responding party does not know how an accounting or tax expert would categorize the

money she has put into the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is

vague and ambiguous in its entirety and unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this

interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming

facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is

overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is




to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information.



Ms. Chavez has not been repaid for the loans she has made to the business.

Specifically, she has not been repaid for: her loan of $160,000 for the construction of the

business’ restaurant and renovation of the business as a whole; for her loan of $28,000 for

the purchase of business vehicles; for her loan of approximately $4,000 for the painting of

the business; or for the loan of approximately $2,750 for Defendant D’Errico’s and his

girlfriend’s use of cell phones.


Identify by date and amount each and every item YOU claim as damages as a result

of any of the allegations contained in YOUR First Amended Complaint dated December 28,

2006.



26

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



Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vastly overbroad in both time and


burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is

confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or

the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls

for a legal conclusion.



Ms. Chavez has suffered damages well in excess of $750,000 in the form, among

others, of:

Defendant D’Errico’s thefts of funds and property from the business;

Defendant D’Errico’s failure to repay Ms. Chavez sums she advanced for the

business;

Defendant D’Errico’s refusal to allow Ms. Chavez to retain the profits of the business

as was provided in the August 28th 2004 Agreement between the parties;

Defendant D’Errico’s closing down of the company parking lot, causing Ms. Chavez

to lose profits;

Defendant D’Errico’s harassment and firing of company employees, causing Ms.

Chavez to lose profits;

Defendant D’Errico’s towing of company vehicles, causing Ms. Chavez to lose

profits;

Defendant D’Errico’s filing of fraudulent taxes for the business, underreporting

income, and otherwise mishandling the business’ financial affairs as to expose Ms.

Chavez to tax liability;

Defendant D’Errico’s refusal to allow Ms. Chavez to operate the day to day

operations of the business without interference as provided in the August 28th 2004


27

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

Agreement between the parties;

Punitive damages related to Defendant D’Errico’s fraud with respect to the August

28th 2004 Agreement between the parties by which he never intended to abide;

Treble damages related to Defendant D’Errico’s violation of racketeering statutes;

Attorney’s fees;

Costs of suit; and

Prejudgment interest.


Describe each and every complaint YOU made to the COMPANY Board of Directors

concerning the actions of Defendant as alleged in YOUR First Amended Complaint dated

December 28, 2006.







evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and



equally available to Defendant as Defendant was the only other member of the Board of

Directors. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any




Ms. Chavez made numerous complaints to the Board of Directors regarding

Defendant D’Errico’s handling of the business, his repeated breaches of the August 28th

2004 Agreement, his underreporting of company income (when discovered), his filing of


28

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

fraudulent taxes (when discovered), his thefts of produce and groceries from the business,

his laundering of money through the business, his failure to pay employees proper overtime

pay (when discovered), his failure to remit all profits of the business to Ms. Chavez as

required under the August 28th 2004 Agreement, his harassment of company employees,

his thefts of company records, his attempts to extort more rent moneys than he was

allowed under the company lease, his illegal closing down of the company parking lot, his

firing of company employees, his towing of company vehicles, and his refusal to allow Ms.

Chavez to operate the day to day operations of the business without interference.


Describe in detail including date, amount and name of customer each and every

instance in which YOU authorized Antonio Reynoso to take money from any wholesale

produce customer of the COMPANY during the period January 1, 1999 to February, 2007.







evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and







Describe in detail all evidence YOU have to support the claim in Paragraph 21 of

YOUR December 28, 2006 Amended Complaint that “D’Errico intentionally, knowingly, and

continuously caused to be prepared and filed false and fraudulent annual tax statements


29

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

with local, state and/or federal tax agencies”.




Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is



for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vastly

overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vague,

ambiguous, and misleading as it only quotes a portion of the cited paragraph in Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.



D’Errico’s tax fraud is supported by, among other things, the company tax filings

from 1994 to 2006, the separate sets of books kept and maintained by Defendant D’Errico,

the reconciliation sheets prepared by Defendant D’Errico stating the amount he chose to

report versus the amount he chose not to report, the testimony of company employees and

former employees, as well as the testimony of other individuals with personal knowledge of

D’Errico’s finances.


Describe in detail all evidence YOU have to support the claim in Paragraph 74 of

YOUR December 28, 2006 Amended Complaint that “Plaintiff has confirmed with third

party witnesses that D’Errico has, within the past ten years, engaged in similar mail fraud

tax schemes in connection with other businesses, including his interest in D’Errico Jewelry

in Scarsdale, New York, and in his approximately fifteen years operating D’Errico and

Associates, an accounting business in southern California”.




30

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


Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is



for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vastly

overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is

oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as

compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and

misleading as it only quotes a portion of the cited paragraph in Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.



Defendant D’Errico’s history of mail fraud tax schemes is evidenced by, among other

things, tax filings and associated tax documents prepared and/or submitted by D’Errico in

connection with other businesses in which he has had an interest (as well as in connection

with his preparation and/or submission of the personal tax filings for individuals),

accounting records prepared by D’Errico, the testimony of former business partners and

associates, and the testimony of other individuals with personal knowledge of D’Errico’s

finances.

Dated: August 10, 2011 Michaël Fischer, Esq. McKASSON KLEIN & HOLMES LLP Attorneys for: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez

mckasson, klein & holmes llp - · pdf fileresponses to defendant’s special...

Documents