Court Hearings Oct. 2023

Who’s Who:
Plaintiff lawyers: David Andersson and Matt Davis              MJ Lawyers: Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers
18 Paradise lawyer: Ben VandenBerghe                                 Judge Grochmal filled in for Judge Freeman for Sept. 21st hearing

Oct. 5, 2023 Hearing:
The night before this hearing, plaintiff lawyers filed 142 pages with the court, including one of the confidential documents that was in violation of Judge Grochmal’s ruling on Sept. 21. The opposing lawyers (MJ and 18 Paradise) argued that Andersson and Davis had taken advantage of a time-delay to post confidential documents a second time, despite the standing Protective Order and Judge Grochmal’s ruling.

Judge Freeman asked Mr. Andersson why he filed the confidential document on Oct. 4th when he knew it was disputed by the other lawyers. 

Mr. Andersson explained the new lawyers, Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers, had de-railed the lawsuit, all had been going well until they were hired by MJ. 

Per Mr. Andersson, Judge Freeman’s Protective Order had confused interim Judge Grochmal, otherwise, she would not have ruled against them. He said they (Davis and Andersson) have been defending the homeowners against MJ who threatened homeowners with sanctions if they did not pay their fees.

Mr. Andersson then explained to Judge Freeman that he and Mr. Davis carefully review each and every document before posting on their website, to make sure it is not confidential or privileged. Judge Freeman interrupted, saying he recalled they (Davis and Andersson) had claimed the plaintiffs managed the website, not the lawyers. Mr. Andersson quickly explained he can’t even operate his own cell phone, let alone manage a website. 

Both Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis added they do not believe any documents qualify as “privileged” in this lawsuit. 

Judge Freeman appeared perturbed, stated he needed to “walk away” and left the court room for 10 minutes. When he returned, his ruling was as follows:

1. Grant injunctive relief, all 142 pages filed Oct. 4th, will be sealed
2. The Lease documents are public, not confidential
3. There is concern irreparable harm could have been done
4. Plaintiffs did not maintain the status quo
5. Judge’s Protective Order was not followed, and he is considering sending contempt motions for Judge Grochmal to rule

Judge Freeman was asked to determine the guardrails for the upcoming evidentiary hearing due to plaintiff attorneys’ tendency to go off-script.
Judge Freeman agreed to narrow the scope for Oct. 25 & 26 hearing, and agreed there should be an exchange of documents between all parties by Oct. 18.
Bottom line: There is strong animosity between lawyers. Judge Freeman has repeatedly asked them to be civil towards each other but that has yet to be achieved.

Oct 13, 2023 Hearing:
A Motion for a Protective Order was to be heard on this date.

Oct. 25 & 26, 2023 Hearing:
This hearing was a two-day evidentiary hearing which allows witnesses to be questioned and testimony to be heard. The five witnesses scheduled; Mick O’Bryan, Josh Williams, Scott Hillius, Matt Davis, and David Andersson. 

At the beginning of the hearing, lawyers for 18 Paradise and MJ Management informed Judge Freeman that plaintiff lawyers, Mr. Davis and Mr. Andersson, had done a “document dump” the night before which included at least one confidential document. Due to the last minute nature of this filing, lawyers for 18 Paradise and MJ had not had time to read all of the documents. Ben VandenBerghe (18 Paradise) requested these documents be kept off the record due to the confidential document, and be sent to court clerk.

Mr. Davis (plaintiff lawyer) admitted he included documents the other lawyers considered “protected” because he wants to prove there are no protected documents in this case. His reason was MJ’s accountant, Ms. Polley, presented documents at her deposition without any objection from the other parties, therefore, he does not see them as confidential.

Mr. Possinger (MJ lawyer) clarified the purpose for this hearing was to present evidence to disqualify Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, therefore, they needed to stay on task. If they were to continue spending time on Mr. Davis’ issues, there would not be enough time to call each witness.

Deposition of Josh Williams:
Mr. Possinger’s questions were followed by Mr. Davis’ questions for each of the three witnesses. We have summarized what each stated below:

Josh’s education is in business and sports management. Employment has been 24 years in golf course management. 

Mr. Williams formed legal partnership, MJ Management, with Mick O’Bryan in 2017, but once he was hired by Loomis Trail golf course in 2018, was no longer involved with Homestead golf course. 

Josh confirmed he has general knowledge of legal terms but was not aware the attorney-client privilege could be waived. He now understands MJ’s counterclaim is for money owed MJ but not Mr. Williams personally.

MJ was dismissed from the lawsuit July 2022, and then brought back into the lawsuit Jan. 2023. Their previous lawyer, Philip Buri, withdrew as their lawyer June 2023.

Josh was shown copies of texts he received from lead plaintiff Scott Hillius, April – June 2023. The texts included an offer to talk with Mr. Hillius about previous lawyer, Mr. Buri, to which Josh explained he had left MJ in 2020, and that Scott should speak with Mick. Scott told Josh he (Josh) would be responsible for liability and that Josh should have stayed out of the lawsuit once MJ was dismissed. Josh did not recall meeting Scott prior to the texts.

Mick arranged for both of them to meet with plaintiff lawyers, Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, on 6-12-23.
Josh recalled discussing the following points with lawyers Andersson and Davis:

1. Lawyers told Mick and Josh they could be dismissed by signing a legal document dismissing their counterclaim
2. Mr. Buri was the reason for MJ being pulled back into the lawsuit, which was grounds for a malpractice lawsuit against Mr. Buri
3. Lawyers asked if and what Mr. Buri’s advice had been to MJ
4. 18 Paradise is who the plaintiffs are after, not MJ, who were just “straw men” for 18 Paradise
5. If MJ remains in the lawsuit, they will be personally liable for $15 million
6. Lawyers will prepare a Declaration for each of them to sign, which will dismiss them from the lawsuit
7. Josh believed signing the Declaration was the correct process to be dismissed, and that he didn’t need a lawyer because he had Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis advising him
8. Josh believed he would have asked Mr. Buri to drop the counterclaim for past-due maintenance fees if he had known he could be dismissed
9. At a hearing when Mr. Buri withdrew as MJ’s lawyer (6/23), Josh’s signed Declaration was presented but Josh was not dismissed
10. Mr. Andersson explained that 18 Paradise’s lawyer, Ben, was the reason Josh was not dismissed

Exhibits: Declaration emailed from Mr. Andersson to Josh Williams
                 Declaration signed by Josh Williams dated June 22, 2023
                 Email from Mr. Davis to Josh, admitting he (Davis) did not have confidence Judge Freema would dismiss MJ 

Josh had previously been deposed twice by Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, but Josh was not represented by counsel at 2nd deposition.

Mr. Davis asked Josh that if his and Mr. Andersson’s advice did not work out for him, how does he know Mr. Possinger’s (Mick’s lawyer) advice will work out?

Deposition of Lead Plaintiff Scott Hillius:
Mr. Hillius stays updated on the lawsuit by reviewing court documents on line, or documents received from plaintiffs. 

Lives in Bellingham, owns property in Homestead, and is HOA president for Sports Club Cabana Condos in Lynden.

Scott recalls speaking with Josh when he was a HOAG member, Jan. 2020, and that his niece used to work with Josh at a different golf course. He felt comfortable reaching out to Josh to find out what was going on.

When asked why, if counterclaim had been in place for 3 years, he texted Josh about, “now that counterclaim filed.”
Scott explained he was “astonished” Josh had been pulled back into the lawsuit after being dismissed, he just wanted to see what had happened.
He was also surprised their lawyer, Mr. Buri, had withdrawn from representing them.

When asked why he had questioned Josh if he was no longer with MJ, Scott admitted he still considered Josh a part of MJ despite now realizing Josh is no longer with MJ.

Deposition of Mick O’Bryan:
Note: At 11:00 am, there was time to depose Mick O’Bryan but he was not in the courthouse. His lawyer, Jeff Possinger, called and texted but was unable to reach Mick, so the judge called for an early recess. Court resumed at 1:30 for Mr. Hillius’ deposition, followed by Mick’s deposition at 3:00.

Mr. Possinger questioned Mick:
Mick still works for MJ Management as his company worked jobs “outside of Homestead.” Current jobs are “irrigation blow-outs and pipe work.”
When asked if that kind of physical labor was difficult, Mick replied it was as he’s now 50 years old. Mr. Possinger asked if fatigue from doing physical work was why Mick slept through his phone calls earlier, Mick agreed it was and that he had also slept through his alarm.

1. Mick began working at Homestead in 1993 as a teen.
2. He kept paperwork from MJ’s outside businesses separate from Homestead’s paperwork.
3. Philip Buri became MJ’s lawyer in 2018, which was pre-lawsuit, and Mick trusted Mr. Buri to handle all legal matters. 
4. Mick understands the lawsuit is over an increase in fees in 2019, and there is a counterclaim for MJ.
5. As of Sept. 2021, Josh legally withdrew from MJ Management, but Josh physically left MJ in 2019. 
6. MJ and Mick are now one and the same entity
7. June 2023, Mick and Josh met with plaintiff lawyers, Andersson and Davis, to be dismissed from lawsuit. The lawyers explained their target was 18 Paradise, and MJ had been brought back into lawsuit due to Mr. Buri’s counterclaim. Lawyers asked for copy of indemnification contract between MJ and 18 Paradise, which Mick provided. He now realizes it is a protected document.
8. Mick was concerned he would not get paid if dismissed, the lawyers explained MJ could still be paid with owed fees if they won the lawsuit.
9. Mick provided with Declaration to sign to be dismissed, but he changed his mind and did not sign it.

Mr. Davis questioned Mick:
Mr. Davis had 10 exhibits to present to the court. He began with three Profit & Loss statements from 2018 with three different net amounts. Two of the numbers were in the minus, one showed a profit. Mick was asked to explain why the numbers were different for the same year, he could only confirm the numbers were as stated. Mr. Davis explained that to determine which amount was correct, he would need protected documents.

Mr. Davis recalled advising MJ to sign Declarations in order to be dismissed from lawsuit, as well as asking MJ for financial records at their 6-12-23 meeting.
Mr. Davis filed a Motion to Compel the release of those financial records, and then Mr. Buri withdrew as MJ’s counsel soon after.

On 6-15-23, Mr. Davis emailed MJ’s bookkeeper, Ms. Polley, who emailed a response. 

At this point, Judge Freeman ended the hearing. The lawyers agreed to work on final exhibit together, and Mr. Possinger informed Judge Freeman the remaining evidence would be submitted to the court as Declarations. 

Once Judge Freeman reviews the evidence presented, as well as submitted Declarations for what was not presented, it is our understanding he will rule on whether the evidence was enough to disqualify plaintiff lawyers.

Bottom line: This lawsuit continues to reveal there was far more happening behind the scenes than we realized. How will a jury be capable of realistically grasping the twists, turns and changing parties in this lawsuit in order to make an informed ruling?