Marani Scheduling Conference

___________________________________________________________________________

JOINT REPORT FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE - 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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

CORRIGAN & MORRIS, LLP Brian T. Corrigan (State Bar no. 143188) Stanley C. Morris (State Bar no. 183620) 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 475 Santa Monica, California 90401-2212 Telephone: (310) 394-2800 Facsimile: (310) 394-2825 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

Bodie Investment Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bodie Investment Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

vs. Marani Brands, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Defendant and Counterclaimant.

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

Case No.: 8:14-CV-00308-JLS-AN JOINT REPORT FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Time: 1:30 p.m. Date: July 25, 2014 Place: Courtroom 10A

Plaintiff and Counterclaim defendant, Bodie Investment Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Plaintiff or Bodie), and Defendant and Counterclaimant, Marani Brands, Inc. (Marani), jointly submit the following report in accordance with this Courts Order Setting Scheduling Conference at Docket Entry 10:

a. Statement of the case: a short synopsis (not to exceed two pages) of the main claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses.

Case 8:14-cv-00308-JLS-AN Document 12 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:103

___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

Plaintiffs Statement of the Case: On or around February 1, 2010, Bodie invested $100,000 into Defendant,

Marani Brands, Inc. (Marani), pursuant to the terms of a Convertible Note; Subscription Agreement and Common Stock Purchase Warrant (Warrant). A dispute has arisen between Bodie and Marani with respect to the proper computation of Bodies debt, conversion rights and Warrant exercise.

Bodies conversions of its debt under the Convertible Note were made on the following dates and conversion prices (the debt includes interest of $31,907.23 and principal of $100,000.00):

DATE

DEBT CON-VERTED

CON-VERSION PRICE APPLIED BY MARANI

CON-VERSION RATE UNDER SECTION 2.1(c) OF CON-VERTIBLE NOTE

SHARES DUE TO BODIE UNDER SECTION 2.1(c) OF CON- VERTIBLE NOTE

NUMBER OF SHARES MARANI SHORTED BODIE UPON CONVERSION

10/3/2010 $ 9,333.33 .00188741 Unknown Unknown Unknown 10/12/2010 $ 5,041.99 .00130083 Unknown Unknown Unknown 10/25/2010 $ 4,500.00 .00054 Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/2/2010 $ 9,333.33 .001 Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/2/2011 $ 9,333.00 .001 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/29/2012 $ 1,799.01 .0001425 Unknown Unknown Unknown 3/25/2012 $ 5,000.00 .000285 Unknown Unknown Unknown 9/30/2013 $12,000.00 .0008 Unknown Unknown Unknown 12/2/2013 $50,000.00 .0051 Not more than

.001 At least 50,000,000

At least 40,196,079

1/23/2014 $25,566.57 .00705 Not more than .001

At least 25,566,570

At least 21,940,107

Totals $131,907.23 Unknown At least 62,136,186

On or around February 19, 2014, after Bodies final conversion notice was given and the shares issued to it, Marani disclosed, for the first time, in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that On November 7, 2013 the Company issued 30,000,000 free trading shares at a cost of $0.001, per share, to Eco Investment Properties, the assignee of a portion of a certain promissory note in the amount of $30,000. Because the Marani shares issued on November 7, 2013 were issued at a price that was a small fraction of the


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

Conversion Price applied to Bodies two later conversions, Bodies conversions were executed at conversion prices inadvertently inflated in computing the shares to which it was entitled under the most favored nations provisions of the Convertible Note, specifically sections 2.1(c) and 2.1(d). As a result, Marani issued to Bodie upon such conversions only a fraction of the number of shares to which Bodie was entitled upon making that conversion.

Bodie contends that Marani was required to disclose to Bodie any and all issuances of stock and other securities at prices below Bodies conversion price, and, whenever such an event occurred, that Bodie was automatically entitled thereafter to the benefit of the lowest price applicable to any third party, if lower than Bodies conversion prices, pursuant to sections 2.1(c) and 2.1(d) of the Convertible Note. Bodie contends that events occurred while the Convertible Note was outstanding that triggered a conversion price adjustment pursuant to section 2.1(c); but because Marani failed to disclose to Bodie the events, stock issuances and terms thereof that would trigger a conversion price adjustment under the terms of the Convertible Note, as required by section 2.1(d), Bodie was unaware of such conversion price adjustment events and inadvertently converted its debt into Marani stock at conversion prices substantially greater than the prices to which Bodie was entitled under section 2.1(c) of the Convertible Note. Bodie contends that, computed at the proper adjusted conversion prices, Bodie would be entitled to at least 62 million shares of Marani stock in excess of what Bodie received upon the exercise of its conversion rights. Based on the market value of such shares following the conversions, Bodie could have sold such shares for more than $1 million.

In addition, Bodie contends that with respect to two conversions, in November 2010 and November 2011, respectively, Bodie attempted to convert its shares at conversion prices well below $.001 and was told by Marani that it could not honor such conversions because its bylaws precluded Marani from


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

issuing shares below its stated par value of $.001. Accordingly, Marani insisted that Bodie conversion prices be set at par value, instead of the prices computed under section 2.1(c) of the Convertible Note, resulting in a drastic reduction in the number of shares issued to Bodie pursuant to such exercise. Bodie contends that Marani was not entitled to reduce or limit Bodies contract rights based on such self-imposed restriction and that Bodie is entitled to be made whole for damages suffered as a result of Maranis improper limitation on Bodies conversion rights. Bodie contends that the damages suffered as a result of the par value restriction exceeded $100,000.

Separately, with respect to Bodies Warrant exercise on December 5, 2013, Bodie claims that Bodies own error in computing the number of shares to which Bodie was entitled when it exercised its cashless warrant exercise to purchase 4 million shares of Marani common stock under the Warrant, which number was adopted by Marani, caused Bodie to be shorted by 181,820 shares of Marani common stock. Bodie suffered damages of at least $3000 as a result of such discrepancy in the number of shares issued to Bodie.

Marani has set forth a number of apparently boiler plate affirmative defenses and counterclaims, none of which appears to have any merit. The number of shares due Bodie should turn on facts learned about the terms of shares issued to third parties during the term of the Bodie Convertible Note and Warrant. None of the affirmative defenses or counterclaims alters that analysis or conclusion.

Defendants statement of the case: Marani contends that the stock issuances to third parties at prices lower

than Bodies conversion prices were Excepted Issuances as that term is defined in the Subscription Agreement. As such, Bodie was not entitled to the claimed price adjustment pursuant to Section 2.1(c)(D) of Bodies Convertible Note and Marani has fully performed its obligations under the Convertible Note.


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

Marani asserts the affirmative defenses of Off Set and Unclean Hands based on information and belief that Bodie intentionally manipulated Maranis stock price by publishing untrue statements in public investor fora designed to lower Maranis stock price. Marani is informed and believes that Bodie has already recovered over $1.8 million on its sale of stock in connection with its $100,000 Convertible Note investment. Marani believes that Bodie has been exercising its conversion rights at issue in the Complaint in order to gain from its unlawful market manipulation.

Marani filed a counterclaim against Bodie for breach of convertible note, an accounting, and declaratory relief. The counterclaim alleges that Bodie breached the Note, Subscription Agreement, and Warrant by sending conversion notices and receiving shares directly from Maranis transfer agent without notice to Marani in excess of that required by the Note and without proper accounting. Additionally, the counterclaim alleges that Bodie was improperly shorting or manipulating Maranis stocks in order to increase the amount of common stock that would convert to Bodie in exchange for its debt and under the Warrant resulting in damages to Marani.

b. Legal issues: a brief description of the key legal issues, including any unusual substantive, procedural, or evidentiary issues.

Plaintiffs Statement of Legal Issues: This case appears to be a garden variety breach of contract case, where the Courts interpretation of the facts, rather than nuances in the law, should govern the outcome.

The only legal issue peculiar to this case about which Plaintiff is presently aware involves Maranis rejection of the conversion price dictated by the Convertible Note, insisting instead on applying its par value as the floor of $001


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

applied to Bodies conversions. This argument applies only to the November 2, 2010 and November 2, 2011 conversions.

The Convertible Note is governed by New York law. A United States Supreme Court case, citing New York law on point, explains the applicable law:

We deem it unnecessary at this time to determine whether the defendant was authorized by that statute to enter into such contracts, for if we assume that the making of them was in excess of the express power conferred upon the corporation by that statute, still, as the contracts involved no moral turpitude and did not offend any express statute, they were not illegal in a sense that would prevent the maintenance of an action thereon. It is now well settled that a corporation cannot avail itself of the defence of ultra vires when the contract has been, in good faith, fully performed by the other party, and the corporation has had the benefit of the performance and of the contract. As has been said, corporations, like natural persons, have power and capacity to do wrong. They may, in their contracts and dealings, break over the restraints imposed upon them by their charters; and when they do so their exemption from liability cannot be claimed on the mere ground that they have no attributes nor facilities which render it possible for them thus to act. While they have no right to violate their charters, yet they have capacity to do so, and are bound their acts where a repudiation of them would result in manifest wrong to innocent parties, and especially where the offender alleges its own wrong to avoid a just responsibility. It may be that while a contract remains unexecuted upon both sides, a corporation is not estopped to say in its defence that it had not the power to make the contract sought to be enforced, yet when it becomes executed by the other


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

party, it is estopped from asserting its own wrong and cannot be excused from payment upon the plea that the contract was beyond its power. Bissell v. Mich. So. & No. Ind. R.R. Cos., 22 N.Y. 258; Whitney Arms Co v. Barlow, 63 N.Y. 62; Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach, 97 N.Y. 378; Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Willard, 125 N.Y. 75, 80; City of Buffalo v. Balcom, 134 N.Y. 532; Bath Gas L. Co. v. Claffy, 151 N.Y. 24; Moss v. Cohen, 158 N.Y. 240, 249; Hannon v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 167 N.Y. 244.

Eastern Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Williamson, 189 U.S. 122, 129-130 (U.S. 1903); see also In re Associated Oil Co., 289 F. 693, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1923). Thus, Plaintiff submits that Maranis par value does not excuse its obligation to Plaintiff to issue the number of shares that it agreed to issue under the terms of the Convertible Note.

Defendants statement of legal issues: This case is considerably more complex than a garden variety breach of

contract case as there are two main aspects to the case. As to the breach of contract claims, this Court will be called upon to determine issues of contract interpretation on the share issuance clause of the Convertible Note, the normal and customary practice of adjustments of convertible prices as they relate to debts and securities, and the interplay between the parties agreements and other convertible notes that preceded Bodies. How this Court interprets the parties agreement will also determine the proper method of calculating Bodies correct conversion prices, the number of shares he is actually entitled to, and whether he suffered any damages.

Additionally, Maranis counterclaim and affirmative defenses will necessarily involve complex legal issues on the subject of potential market manipulation by Bodie.


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

c. Damages: the realistic range of provable damages. Plaintiffs Statement of Damages: As detailed above, Plaintiff anticipates being able to prove more than

$1,103,000 in damages. Plaintiff has not been able to conduct discovery yet and Marani has not voluntarily provided Plaintiff with the information Plaintiff would need to compute the conversion and exercise prices applicable to its Warrant and Convertible Note, as adjusted by Maranis stock issuance transactions with third parties. However, based on the information that Bodie has secured from public filings reflecting transactions, it appears that damages are in the range stated in the Complaint.

Defendants Statement of Damages: As for Bodies damages, Bodie has not provided Marani with the

information necessary to calculate its alleged damages (e.g. the price, date, and number of Marani shares it has sold to date). Nevertheless, even assuming that Bodie prevails on its contention that it is entitled to adjustments on its conversion prices, it would be entitled to significantly less in damages in connection with its $100,000 Convertible Note than alleged above.

Marani is unable at this time to quantify its damages arising from market manipulation activities by Bodie. Marani anticipates that it will be able to establish the amount of its damages after reasonable discovery.

d. Insurance: whether there is insurance coverage, the extent of coverage, and whether there is a reservation of rights

There is no insurance available to respond to this breach of contract case. e. Motions: statement of the likelihood of motions seeking to add

other parties or claims, file amended pleadings, transfer venue, etc.

There is no present intention to add other parties or claims, file amended pleadings or seek to transfer venue. It is conceivable, although not likely based


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

on what is known to Bodie at this time, that discovery could lead to Plaintiff bringing tort actions against individuals who caused the damages asserted in the Complaint.

Defendants Statement of Likelihood of Motions Depending on the result of its discovery efforts, Marani may seek leave from this Court to add tort and securities fraud claims to its counterclaim.

f. Manual for Complex Litigation: whether all or part of the procedures of the Manual for Complex Litigation should be utilized.

It does not appear that the procedures of the Manual for Complex Litigation should be utilized in this action.

g. Status of Discovery: a discussion of the present state of discovery.

The parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(a) on June 17, 2014 and completed their FRCP, Rule 26(f) meeting on June 3, 2014. Plaintiff propounded written discovery, including interrogatories and document requests, on or around June 6, 2014. Marani propounded written discovery, including interrogatories and document requests, on or around June 27, 2014. No depositions have been noticed as of the date of this Joint Report.

h. Discovery Plan: a detailed discovery plan, as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3), including a discussion of the proposed dates for expert witness disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) (see Local Rule 261(f)). A statement that discovery will be conducted as to all claims and defenses, or other vague description, is not acceptable.

Plaintiffs Discovery Plan: As stated above, initial disclosures were made pursuant to FRCP, Rule 26(a) on June 17, 2014.


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

The subjects of the discovery are fairly narrow. Bodie will seek discovery on the conversions exercised by Bodie; and the third party stock issuances of Marani during the term of the Convertible Note, which stock issuance terms may have affected the conversion price of the Convertible Note and exercise price of the Warrant. Bodie anticipates that Marani will endeavor to find support for its utterly false and baseless claim that Bodie breached the terms of the Convertible Note by selling Marani stock short to drive down the price of Maranis stock prior to its conversions. Bodie adamantly denies any such selling. However, to the extent Marani seeks to use this baseless allegation to conduct a fishing expedition into the private financial affairs of Jack Bodenstein or any other person unrelated to the transactions at issue in this case, this Court should anticipate that discovery motions may be necessary to impose appropriate limits on such discovery.

Plaintiff anticipates professional and full compliance by Marani with all of Plaintiffs discovery. If that is the case, Bodie believes that it would be able to obtain all facts pertinent to its claims, other than with respect to expert testimony on damages, from Maranis books and records, and corporate officers and counsel. Bodie has propounded an initial set of written discovery, including requests for admissions, interrogatories and document production requests. Upon securing full answers to the same, Bodie anticipates taking depositions of approximately three of Maranis officers and counsel to determine the terms of all third party transactions that have impacted Bodies conversion prices and Warrant exercise prices. In addition, Bodie anticipates taking the depositions of one or two of Maranis officers pertaining to the allegations made by Marani in support of Maranis counterclaims. Bodie also anticipates deposing Maranis expert witness on damages, and any other expert to be designated by Marani in this case.


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

The Courts schedule at Schedule A of its Scheduling Conference Order (DE 10) is acceptable to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff anticipates that it will take Plaintiff no more than 4 months after the Scheduling Conference to complete its non-expert discovery in this case. Given the Courts non-expert discovery cutoff date at 21 weeks before trial, Plaintiff would ask the Court to set the trial date approximately 9 to 10 months after the Scheduling Conference Date that is sometime between April and May 2015. The dates in Schedule A would work backwards from that trial date. There appears to be no need for conducting discovery in phases.

There appears to be no issues pertaining to electronically stored information. Without waiving any privilege, there appears to be no issues particular to the action that would require a discussion of privileges or of protection of trial preparation materials. However, if any such issues arise, Plaintiff would endeavor to agree on a procedure to resolve such issues prior to trial. There appears to be no need to limit discovery, except as otherwise discussed herein or as otherwise provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants Discovery Plan: Marani will seek discovery on the conversions exercised by Bodie and its

communication with Maranis transfer agent though written discovery on Bodie as well as through a subpoena to Maranis transfer agent.

In addition, Marani will seek discovery related to Bodies sale of Marani shares, which may include subpoenaing documents from Bodie and its brokers. Additionally, Marani anticipates that it will subpoena documents from online investor fora as well as Bodies computers to determine the identity of those who posted untrue comments related to Marani on those fora. Thus, Marani


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

anticipates that issues pertaining to electronically stored information may arise during discovery in this matter.

Marani anticipates taking the deposition of Bodies president and its brokers as well as Bodies expert witness on damages, and any other expert to be designated by Bodie in this case.

Marani is amenable to the Courts Schedule A of its Scheduling Conference Order (DE 10). However, due to the issues related to electronically stored information and the need to subpoena documents from third parties, Marani anticipates that it will take approximately 9 to 10 months after the Scheduling Conference to complete its non-expert discovery in this case. Thus, Marani seeks a trial date in June or July 2015. The dates in Schedule A would work backwards from that trial date.

Marani agrees that there appears to be no need for conducting discovery in phases.

There appears to be no issues pertaining to electronically stored information at present which cannot be resolved between counsel.

Without waiving any privilege, there appears to be no issues particular to the action that would require a discussion of privileges or of protection of trial preparation materials. However, if any such issues arise, Marani would endeavor to agree on a procedure to resolve such issues prior to trial.

There appears to be no need to limit discovery, except as otherwise discussed herein or as otherwise provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

i. Discovery Cutoff: a proposed discovery cutoff date. This means the final day for completion of discovery.

The parties agree to the timing of events set forth in Schedule A to this Courts Scheduling Conference Order at DE 10. With respect to non-expert discovery, the discovery cutoff date would be 21 weeks before the trial date.


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

j. Dispositive motions: a description of the issues or claims that any party believes may be determined by motion for summary judgment or motion in limine.

Plaintiff intends to file a motion for summary judgment on all of its claims for relief, once it obtains discovery of all stock issuances affecting its conversion price and exercise price. Marani anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues on its denial of Plaintiffs claims and potentially on its counterclaims for affirmative relief.

k. Settlement: a statement of what settlement discussions or written communications have occurred (excluding any statement of the terms discussed) and a statement selecting either ADR Procedure No. 2 (Court Mediation Panel) or ADR Procedure No. 3 (private mediation). See generally General Order 1110, 5.1; Local Rule 1615.4. Note, however, that the parties may not choose a settlement conference before the magistrate judge. Local Rule 261(c). For more information about the Court's ADR Program, please visit the "ADR" section of the Court website, http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov. No case will proceed to trial unless all parties, including the principals of all corporate parties, have appeared personally at a mediation.

Plaintiffs Statement re Settlement and ADR Procedure Preference: Plaintiff and Defendant, both represented by counsel, endeavored to settle

the disputes set forth in this action without success. Plaintiff remains willing to discuss settlement and will endeavor to do so throughout this case.

Plaintiff would prefer ADR Procedure No. 2 (Court Mediation Panel).


___________________________________________________________________________


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

CO

RR

IGA

N &

MO

RR

IS L

LP

201

Sant

a M

onic

a B

lvd.

Sui

te 4

75

Sant

a M

onic

a, C

a. 9

0401

-221

2

Defendants ADR Procedure Preference: Maranis counsel is in close communication with Bodies counsel to find

a mutually agreeable solution to the parties disputes and will continue to do so throughout the litigation.

Marani is agreeable to ADR Procedure No. 2 (Court Mediation Panel).

l. Trial estimate: a realistic estimate of the time required for trial and whether trial will be by jury or by court. Each side should specify (by number, not by name) how many witnesses it contemplates calling. If the time estimate for trial given in the Report exceeds four court days, counsel shall be prepared to discuss in detail the estimate.

Plaintiffs Trial Estimate: Plaintiff estimates that a trial on the merits of the claims and counterclaims would require approximately 4 days.

Defendants Trial Estimate: Marani estimates that trial on the claims and counterclaims will take

approximately 7 days.

m. Trial counsel: the name(s) of the attorney(s) who will try the case.

Plaintiffs trial counsel will be Brian T. Corrigan and Stanley C. Morris. Defendants trial counsel will be Dirk O. Julander.

n. Independent Expert or Master: whether this is a case in which the Court should consider appointing a master pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 or an independent scientific expert. (The appointment of a master may be especially appropriate if there are likely to be substantial discovery disputes, numerous claims to be construed in connection with a summary judgment


Marani Scheduling Conference

Documents

Transcript of Marani Scheduling Conference