1. F
LED
S. Todd Neal (Bar No. 174827)
Jamie L. Altman (Bar No. 280075)
C1 the Superior Court
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES AND
SAVITCH LLP
07 2 8 2013
FILE rk
clak of th• Sulorlor
525 B Street, Suite 2200
Coen aj
San Diego, CA 92101
By. A SEAMONS, Deput
Telephone: 619.238.1900
OCT 2 8 2013
Facsimile: 619.235.0398
.
Attorneys for Defendant
Medical Marijuana, Inc., a California Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Case No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DIXIE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, derivatively on behalf of RED
DICE HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited
liabiilty company,
DEFENDANT MEDICAL
MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Plaintiff,
V.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC., a California
corporation,
"IMAGED FILE"
Date
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
Defendant.
October 29, 2014
8:30 a.m.
C-73
Joel R. Wohlfield
Complaint Filed: July 19, 2013
Trial Date:
Not Set
Defendant Medical Marijuana, Inc. ("MJNA") submits the following opposition to Plaintiff
Dixie Holdings, LLC's ("Dixie") ex parte application for an extension of time to respond to
MJNA's petition to compel arbitration.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Dixie's ex parte application mischaracterizes the relief requested as seeking an "extension
of time to respond" when in fact Dixie is asking this Court to grant it relief from default.
Such
relief is governed by the high standard set forth in C.C.P. § 473(b), a statute that Dixie neglects to
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL

2. mention or address in its ex pane application. Dixie bases its misdirected application on C.C.P. §
1054(a) which pertains to enlargement of time to respond. However, Dixie's time to respond
cannot be enlarged because it expired more than two weeks ago on October 8, 2013. Whether
Dixie's mischaracterization of the relief requested is intentional or due to its continuing neglect and
lack of diligence is unclear.
(See, e.g., Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs (2009) 176
Cal.App.4th 956, 962)(factual allegations of an arbitration petition are "deemed admitted" when
petition is not timely opposed). Regardless, there is no good cause to grant the ex parte application
because it is sought on an erroneous basis and, additionally, Dixie utterly fails to satisfy the
,
procedural and substantive requirements to obtain relief under the correct basis (C.C.P. § 473(b)).
BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
Dixie's ex parte application is a continuation of a pattern of frivolous conduct that seeks to
delay and avoid its contractual obligation to arbitrate its dispute with MJNA. The following facts
are taken from MJNA's verified petition to compel arbitration filed with this Court on September
13, 2013:
On April 5, 2012, MINA and Dixie formed a limited liability company known as Red Dice
Holdings, LLC ("RDH"). [112]. MJNA and Dixie have been the only members of RDH since its
creation. [Il 3]. Section 13.4 of the RDH Operating Agreement expressly provides for arbitration
of any dispute that may arise under said agreement. Ml 6]. After a dispute arose between MJNA
and Dixie relative to RDH, on July 18, 2013, counsel for Dixie filed a lawsuit against MJNA which
asserts claims exclusively founded in the RDH Operating Agreement. [li 7].
Dixie and its counsel styled the Complaint as a derivative action brought on behalf of RDH
and thus RDH is named as a nominal plaintiff, but Dixie's counsel has repeatedly confirmed that it
does not represent RDH. 8]. Prior to filing the Complaint, counsel for Dixie sent a demand
letter to MJNA on June 11, 2013, threatening pursuit of an arbitration proceeding if MJNA did not
accede to certain demands made by Dixie. [If 9]. After receiving service of Dixie's Complaint,
MJNA demanded that Dixie dismiss the Complaint in favor of binding arbitration, as required by
2
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE NO. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

3. 1
the RDH Operating Agreement. However, Dixie refuses to abide by the arbitration provision and
2
takes the position that the nominal plaintiff, RDH, is not a member of RDH nor is it bound by the
3
arbitration provision! 10]. Dixie's position is unsupportable form over substance because RDH
4
is nothing more than the sum of its members and it cannot act except through its members, and also
5
because each and every member of RDH, and thus each and every signatory to the arbitration
6
provision, is party to the instant dispute.
Mf 111
7
At no time has Dixie provided legal authority establishing that a dispute between the only
8
two members of a limited liability company is not subject to contractual arbitration merely because
9
a derivative claim was asserted on behalf of the limited liability company. Such an easy
10
circumvention of arbitration agreements would eviscerate the enforceability of such agreements.
11
Instead, Dixie's counsel has repeatedly stated that if MJNA wishes to avoid "continued litigation,"
12
it should simply accede to Dixie's demands. [Il 12].
13
After many weeks of refusing to agree to arbitration, Dixie reversed course on September 3,
14
2013, and stated in writing that it would consent to arbitration if MJNA agreed to first meet for a
15
settlement conference:
16
18
Counsel for MJNA: Hi Robert — Do we have an agreement to
execute a stipulation submitting the matter to arbitration? If so, I
will check with my client regarding a date to meet and get back to
you. Thanks.
19
Counsel for Dixie: Yes.
17
20
13; See Exhibit H to Declaration of S. Todd Neal submitted in support of Verified Petition].
21
Nevertheless, after threatening an arbitration process per the Operating Agreement in its
22
original demand letter of June 11, 2013, and thereafter agreeing in writing to sign a stipulation
23
submitting the matter to arbitration, Dixie again reversed course and is refusing to consent to
24
arbitration. MI 14]. Now, after forcing MJNA to file an utterly unnecessary petition to compel
is
arbitration — which seeks to compel a dispute resolution process that is contractually required in
26
this instance — Dixie mischaracterizes its ex parte application and asks the Court to revive an
27
expired right without meeting the procedural and substantive requirements necessary to obtain such
28
3
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
_ CASE NO. 37-20 I 3-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

4. I
relief.
2
3
MISSTATEMENTS BY DIXIE's EX PARTE APPLICATION
4
As if it wasn't enough to misrepresent the nature of relief it is seeking, Dixie makes a series
5
of misstatements and misrepresentations in its ex parte application. Dixie suggests that it willingly
6
gave an extension of time for MJNA to respond to the underlying Complaint but that MJNA
7
refused to extend the same courtesy relative to Dixie's response to the petition to compel
8
arbitration. Dixie neglects to mention that the two day extension of time given to MJNA was
9
granted because Dixie had agreed to arbitrate the dispute subject to conditions it placed on the
10
process and the short extension of time was given to allow time for MJNA's counsel to discuss the
11
new conditions with his client. More importantly, Dixie ignores the fact that MJNA's deadline to
12
respond to the Complaint had not passed. It is one thing to ask for an extension of time before a
13
party has missed a deadline but quite another to ask for an "extension" after a deadline has passed.
14
The latter is more accurately characterized as reviving an expired right, not merely extending the
15
time to respond.
16
Next, Dixie declines to state that when it was contacted by MJNA's counsel on October 23,
17
2013, to confirm that Dixie was not contesting the petition to compel arbitration, Dixie's counsel
18
initially stated by e-mail that they believed the response was due that day "based on CCCP 1005."
19
[Sic]. This makes no sense at all since C.C.P. § 1005 refers to court days, not calendar days, and
20
thus even if Dixie's counsel believed that the response deadline was determined by C.C.P. § 1005
21
(which it is not since this is a "petition" and thus it is governed by CCP 1290 et seq.), it was still
22
untimely by multiple days.
23
Curiously, neither Dixie's ex parte application nor the supporting declaration from Robert
24
B. Hinckley, Jr., make any reference to C.C.P. § 1005, which was supposedly the real basis for
25
Dixie's confusion and failure to timely file its response. Without a discussion of the specific facts
26
that caused the failure to timely file the response, it is undeniable that Dixie has failed to establish
27
"mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect" by specific facts as required by C.C.P. § 473(b).
28
4
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE No, 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

5. I
Instead of focusing on the reason it blew the response deadline, Dixie attempts obfuscation
2
in multiple ways including the outrageous claim that "MJNA is attempting to bankrupt Red Dice
.3
Holdings, LLC through the Cannavest Action in the San Diego Superior Court, while attempting to
4
simultaneously remove the underlying action to arbitration ..." (Ex parte ap. At pg. 4, lines 7-10). 1
5
Dixie neglects to mention that RDH was not named as a defendant in the Cannavest Action until
6
after Dixie's counsel repeatedly claimed that RDH (the entity that Dixie purportedly is looking
7
after through its faux derivative claim in this action) was obligated to Cannavest. On September 6,
8
2013, counsel for Dixie, Robert Hinckley, sent an e-mail stating as follows:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Regarding your Complaint, please be on notice that Red Dice is the
proper defendant related to your causes of action. Left Bank LLC
and Dixie Holdings are improperly named as defendants. The
information which follows is conclusive evidence of this fact.
We hereby demand that you amend your Complaint to remove Left
Bank, LLC and Dixie Holdings, LLC as parties and add Red Dice
Holdings as the correct party in interest. This detailed email serves
to place you on notice of this defect in your pleading. Failure to
amend accordingly will necessitate our office bringing an
unnecessary motion to dismiss. Should we be forced to file said
motion, we will seek our attorney fees based on the frivolous nature
of the pleading. Nothing in this email serves to limit any and all
defenses and claims we may bring as a result of your lawsuit.
(See Ex. 1 to this Opposition).
It is unconscionable that Dixie claims that MJNA "is attempting to bankrupt Red Dice Holdings,
LLC through the Cannavest Action" when it was Dixie that insisted that FtDH should be added as a
defendant in that action.
Lastly, Dixie offers no evidence whatsoever to supports its claim that Cannavest is MJNA's
"affiliate." Again, Dixie is simply trying to confuse the issues to avoid application of a clear and
unambiguous arbitration provision that requires the sole members of RDH (MJNA and Dixie) to
arbitrate any dispute that may arise under the RDH Operating Agreement. In summary, none of
26
27
28
I The "CannaVest action" is a separate lawsuit filed by CannaVest Corp. against Dixie and Left Bank, LLC that is
unrelated to the instant action. Dixie's effort to link the cases is a frivolous effort to obfuscate the issues and avoid
contractual arbitration in the instant case.
5
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

6. Dixie's unsupported contentions amounts to good cause justifying a revival of its expired right to
respond to the petition to compel arbitration.
IV.
ARGUMENT
The factual allegations of a petition to compel arbitration are deemed admitted if no
response is timely served and filed. (C.C.P. § 1290; Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs 176
Cal.App.41h at 962). Although a court may relieve a party of its default for excusable neglect
(C.C.P. § 473(b)), it requires satisfaction of an explicit statutory standard.
The party moving for relief on the basis of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect" pursuant to C.C.P. § 473(b) must show specific facts demonstrating that one of these
conditions was met. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410).
Dixie's ex parte application argues that it should be given additional time to respond to the
petition to compel arbitration because it "mistakenly calendared" the deadline. As stated, Dixie
used the wrong statute and misread the statute in arriving at its erroneous deadline of October 23,
2013. However, an attorney's mistake of law is charged to the client and is not a ground for relief
when the "mistake" is "simply the result of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the
law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law." (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
1193, 1206; Standard Microsystems Corp. - v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th
868, 879).
Cutting to the chase, even if Mr. Hinckley's declaration is regarded as an attorney's
affidavit of fault (which it is not since it does not articulate specific facts that caused the failure to
timely file the response), it does not entitle Dixie to relief because it was not based on a mistake of
fact. (See Life Say. Bank v. Wilhelm (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 174, 178 (An attorney's affidavit of
fault does not prevent dismissal of an action based on running of the statute of limitations or entitle
a party to relief from other time limitations on filing claims.); Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach
(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 60, 64-65 (Attorney's affidavit of fault does not entitle party to relief from
claim-filing requirement under the Government Claims Act or excuse late filing of a claim.);
6
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CIL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

7. Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 291 (Attorney's affidavit of fault does not entitle a
party to relief from the time limit on filing a costs bill after judgment.); Leader v. Health Industries
of America. Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 619 (Nor does an attorney affidavit of fault prevent a
discretionary dismissal based on plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint within the time
allowed by the court.). Reliance upon the wrong statute and misreading the statute is a mistake of
law, not a mistake of fact. 2
Here, denial of Dixie's ex parte application will not cause it to suffer severe harm such as
dismissal or claims bar. In fact, denial does not even assure that Dixie will lose the petition to
compel arbitration because the court is still free to disagree with MINA's legal conclusions as to
why arbitration should be compelled. (See Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs 176 Cal.App.4 th
at 962 — "allegations 'deemed admitted,' when a petition to vacate is not timely opposed, are only
the factual allegations . . . not the legal conclusions). Conversely, MJNA will suffer severe
prejudice if Dixie's extraordinarily late filing is permitted because MJNA will have no opportunity
to file reply papers. In fact, the hearing on the petition to compel arbitration is set for November 1,
2013, and as of the filing of this opposition, October 28, 2013, MJNA still has not received Dixie's
response to the petition which it claims was filed on October 23, 2013. This is entirely prejudicial
and unfair to MJNA because it prevents it from filing reply papers thus providing an advantage to
Dixie despite its total neglect in its untimely response that it has still failed to serve. Certainly, a
mischaracterized ex parte application brought on an improper basis should not absolve Dixie of its
transgressions.
An example of excusable mistake of fact would be if Mr. Hinkley's assistant mistakenly entered the wrong date when
calendaring the response deadline due to typographical error.
2
7
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOES 111497-000003/1856645.1

8. V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, MJNA respectfully requests that the ex parte application be denied.
DATED: October 28, 2013
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES AND
SAVITCH LLP
By:
---
Conct
S. Todd Neal ar o. 174827)
Jamie L. Altman (Bar No. 280075)
Attorneys for Defendant
Medical Marijuana, Inc., a California
Corporation
8
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION:
CASE NO. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1856645.1

9. EXHIBIT 1

10. Culp, Barbara
Subject:
RE: Cannavest invoices, etc
From: Robert Hinckley [mailto:rhincklev@messner.coml
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 6:09 PM
To: Neal, S. Todd
Cc: Tracey Zastrow
Subject: FW: Cannavest invoices, etc
Importance: High
Todd:
Regarding your Complaint, please be on notice that Red Dice is the proper defendant related to your causes of action.
Left Bank LLC and Dixie Holdings are improperly named as defendants. The information which follows is conclusive
evidence of this fact.
We hereby demand that you amend your Complaint to remove Left Bank, LLC and Dixie Holdings, LLC as parties and
add Red Dice Holdings as the , correct party in interest. This detailed email serves to place you on notice of this defect in
your pleading. Failure to amend accordingly will necessitate our office bringing an unnecessary motion to dismiss. Should
we be forced to file said motion, we will seek our attorney fees based on the frivolous nature of the pleading. Nothing in
this email serves to limit any and all defenses and claims we may bring as a result of your lawsuit.
Best,
Rob Hinckley
1

11. MESSNER REEVES LLP
Robert B. Hinckley, Jr.
Partner
Messner Reeves LLP
11620 lilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los An eles, CA 90025
310 909 7440 main I 310 909 7889 direct I 303 807 8081 mobile I 310 889 0896 fax
messner.com
The information contained in this email message and the attachment are attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above, lithe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in en -or, please immediately notify us by telephone at
(303) 623-1800, destroy the original of this transmittal and delete this message from your computer's memory. Thank you.
Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Please contact us if you have any questions about Circular 230.
2

12. 2 8 2013
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eiglikeit•WniiVRI-Party to
the within action. My business address is PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH
LLP, 525 "B" Street, Suite 2200, San Diego, California 92101. On October 28, 2013, I served the
within documents:
DEFENDANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE based upon court order or an agreement of the parties to
accept service by electronic transmission, by electronically mailing the document(s)
listed above to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service
list and/or by electronically notifying the parties set forth below that the document(s)
listed above can be located and downloaded from the hyperlink provided. No error was
received, within a reasonable time after the transmission, nor any electronic message or
other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
Robert B. Hinckley, Jr.
Messner Reeves LLP
1430 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (303) 623-1800
Fax: (303) 623-0552
rhinckley@messner.com
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
il
(Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 28, 2013, at San Diego, California.
garbara ulp
2
PROOF OF SERVICE:
CASE No. 37-2013-00058302-CU-BC-CTL
DOCS 120497-000003/1832352.1