Upload
document-repository
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
1/11
Specifically, Mr. Moses, through counsel, stated: "[u]pon receiving
confirmation that Traton is willing to dialogue with Chris [Mr. Moses], he[Mr. Moses] has agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice."30 No otherdemands were made in conjunction with Mr. Moses' request for areasonable dialogue.
30 Admitted by Defendant, Traton's Second Admissions, 153.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
2/11
Despite Mr. Moses' generous offer, Traton refused to rationally discuss this
matter with Mr. Moses, giving as its reason that it did not want "word toget around that all you have to do is file a lawsuit to get the head man atTraton to meet with you . . . ."31
31 Email Exchange between Traton Officers, December 8, 2005, Exhibit P.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
3/11
Upon discovering additional facts, Mr. Moses filed a Motion to Add
Defendants and Amend Its Complaint ("Motion to Add Defendants").32
32 Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants and Amend Its Complaint, and Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion, Exhibit Q.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
4/11
The Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint, which accompanied
the Motion to Add Defendants, included the following Counts:(1) Trespass, under O.C.G.A. 51-9-1 and 51-9-3;(2) Continuing Trespass, under O.C.G.A. 51-9-6;(3) Liability for Torts of Independent Employee, under O.C.G.A. 51-2-4;(4) Liability for Torts of Contractors, under O.C.G.A. 51-2-5;(5) Civil Conspiracy;(6) Breach of Contract;(7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(8) Officers' Personal Liability for Corporate Action;(9) Litigation Expenses, under O.C.G.A. 13-6-11; and(10) Punitive Damages, under O.C.G.A. 51-12-5.1.33
33 Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit R.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
5/11
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
6/11
Despite the ongoing discovery, in yet another effort to resolve this without
further escalating costs, Mr. Moses presented his third settlement offer toTraton on February 13, 2006.34
34 February 13, 2006, Email from Mr. Moses to Traton, Exhibit S.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
7/11
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
8/11
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
9/11
In that offer, Mr. Moses requested the following:
(1) Face-to-face meeting with Traton officers (Bill Poston, DaleBercher, Millburn Poston, etc.);(2) Admission of wrong by Traton, and issue written apology toMr. Moses;(3) Repair of damaged yard to Mr. Moses' satisfaction;(4) Promise to refrain from future damage;(5) Promise to fix future damage that can be attributed to Traton;and(6) Payment of out-of-pocket litigation expenses (~$500) (but not
any costs for attorney time).35
35 February 13, 2006, Email from Mr. Moses to Traton.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
10/11
Mr. Moses' third offer was rejected.36
36 February 27, 2006, Email from Traton to Mr. Moses, Exhibit T.
8/14/2019 EXH D 00 SJ Hearing Exh 45 55
11/11
Thus, rather than rationally dialoguing with Mr. Moses, Traton deliberately
chose to continue with discovery, which Traton certified would cost anestimated $2,950,000.00.37
37 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants and Amend Complaint, pp. 2-3 (Traton's attorneys certified to this
Court that compliance with discovery was "estimated to cost $2,950,000.00"), Exhibit U.