Subject: Re: Dulberg v. Popovich 17 LA 377 To: Sabina Walczyk , Nikki Cc: Office Office References: <6697d80d-761f-7694-6f71-d70b8c1af698@comcast.net> From: me Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:07:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3C4D42CFF6C14F17A5142C46" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3C4D42CFF6C14F17A5142C46 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------939607395427C504F9CD071C" --------------939607395427C504F9CD071C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Sabina and Tom, Below are the changes, questions and comments. They are also attached as a text file called, amended_complaint_comments2.txt Comments on FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Very well stated arguments.  Some possible corrections and changes... page 2, section 7:  "lost control ..." could be changed to "inadvertently cut the arm of DULBERG" Question:  How were the amounts $260,000 and $250,000 arrived at? page 3, section 11:  "property" should read "properly". page 3, section 13:  Incorrect.  MAST incorrectly informed DULBERG that the insurance policy limit for Gagnon was only $100,000, when in reality the policy limit was $300,000. (Proof:  see file 2-104.pdf in email folder). At no time was DULBERG ever informed of the McGuires' policy limits. In addition, when MAST later gave DULBERG all documents related to his case, DULBERG noticed that the Gagnon policy information and the McGuires' policy information was not included among the files.  The medical depositions were also missing from the files.   (Much email proof of this.) page 3, section 15:  correct.  direct quotes from file 2-207.pdf and 2-205.pdf email exchanges from file 2-208.pdf to file 2-182.pdf show clearly that DULBERG does not agree or understand why McGuires are not liable for injury. page 3, section 16:  correct.  Direct quote from 2-201.pdf. Extracted from the sentence:  "We don't have to accept the $5,000, but if we do not, the McGuires will get out for FREE on a motion." page 4, section 17:  Why the quotations?  It cannot be proven that this is a direct quote, though the emails quoted above can be proven.  Not sure about the quote.  Not sure that the meeting was the day before a court appearance yet, that is what DULBERG was told by MAST but Tom Kost who is DULBERGS' brother and was in the meeting does not exactly recall this but says he remembers it was time sensitive. There were actually 2 meetings in Hans Mast office on the McGuires. The first Dulberg attended with his Mother Barbara Dulberg and the second was with Thomas Kost, Dulbergs' brother. However, I, DULBERG, am currently putting together a timeline of all documented court events along with the emails and this should narrow down the dates of these meetings. I, DULBERG, believe that we should not include anything in the complaint that is not backed up by verifiable documented proof. Witness testimony can come out during the discovery phase, not the complaint. I dont want anything the defense can pounce on. Why the statement "DULBERG would not see a dime from either case"? McGuires' and Gagnon's?  No proof of this.  Not sure of the claim. Again this is not backed up by the emails but is close to DULBERGS' recollection of the conversation with MAST and should come out in testimony, not in the complaint. He claimed the McGuires would be dismissed for nothing if DULBERG did not accept the offer promptly.  This can be proven through DULBERG as a witness and by his brother, THOMAS KOST, who was also present at the meeting.  The claim can also be proven through emails. page 4, section 18:   It is written "having no choice in the matter".  This can be replaced by "feeling he had no choice in the matter".  (This is proven through the email record from file 2-208.pdf to 2-182.pdf.)  In the email exchanges he is clearly in disagreement with McGuires' liability and clearly reluctant to accept the offer. page 4, section 20:  correct.  Proof of direct quote in file 2-180.pdf. page 4, section 22:   correct.  Proof of direct quote is in file 2-104.pdf page 6, section 29:  "reasonable" should read "reasonably". "forcing" could be changed to "pressuring" or "coercing". page 7, section 31 j):  correct.  Direct quote from file 2-201.pdf. I am available anytime to discuss any of this. Thank you, Paul 847-497-4250 On 6/1/2018 10:32 AM, Sabina Walczyk wrote: > Yes it does thank you. > > Get Outlook for iOS > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* me > *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 10:31:04 AM > *To:* Nikki > *Cc:* Sabina Walczyk; Office Office > *Subject:* Re: Dulberg v. Popovich 17 LA 377 > > Hi Sabrina, > > Thank you for providing this for my review. > > I opened it and by the 3rd page already noticed some simple but > fundamental errors we need to correct. > > I'm going to read it in detail and hope to have all corrections to you > by Monday the 4th of June. > Does that give you enough time to review my concerns and still meet > the deadline of the 6th? > > Thanks again, > Paul > > > On 6/1/2018 9:33 AM, Nikki wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> I have attached a draft of the First Amended Complaint for your case. >> Please review and advise. Thank you. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Nikki Justiniani >> >> /Office Assistant/ >> >> // >> >> The Gooch Firm >> >> 209 S. Main Street >> >> Wauconda, IL 60084 >> >> P: 847-526-0110 >> F: 847-526-0603 >> >> E:nikki@goochfirm.com >> >> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications >> Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended to >> remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client >> and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient >> of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in >> error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then >> delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute >> or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the >> intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action >> in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or >> any attachments. >> >> > --------------939607395427C504F9CD071C Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Sabina and Tom,

Below are the changes, questions and comments.
They are also attached as a text file called, amended_complaint_comments2.txt


Comments on FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Very well stated arguments.  Some possible corrections and changes...

page 2, section 7:  "lost control ..." could be changed to "inadvertently cut the arm of DULBERG"

Question:  How were the amounts $260,000 and $250,000 arrived at?


page 3, section 11:  "property" should read "properly".

page 3, section 13:  Incorrect.  MAST incorrectly informed DULBERG that the insurance policy limit for Gagnon was only $100,000, when in reality the policy limit was $300,000. (Proof:  see file 2-104.pdf in email folder).

At no time was DULBERG ever informed of the McGuires' policy limits.

In addition, when MAST later gave DULBERG all documents related to his case, DULBERG noticed that the Gagnon policy information and the McGuires' policy information was not included among the files.  The medical depositions were also missing from the files.   (Much email proof of this.)

page 3, section 15:  correct.  direct quotes from file 2-207.pdf and 2-205.pdf email exchanges from file 2-208.pdf to file 2-182.pdf show clearly that DULBERG does not agree or understand why McGuires are not liable for injury.

page 3, section 16:  correct.  Direct quote from 2-201.pdf.  Extracted from the sentence:  "We don't have to accept the $5,000, but if we do not, the McGuires will get out for FREE on a motion."

page 4, section 17:  Why the quotations?  It cannot be proven that this is a direct quote, though the emails quoted above can be proven.  Not sure about the quote.  Not sure that the meeting was the day before a court appearance yet, that is what DULBERG was told by MAST but Tom Kost who is DULBERGS' brother and was in the meeting does not exactly recall this but says he remembers it was time sensitive.
There were actually 2 meetings in Hans Mast office on the McGuires. The first Dulberg attended with his Mother Barbara Dulberg and the second was with Thomas Kost, Dulbergs' brother.
However, I, DULBERG, am currently putting together a timeline of all documented court events along with the emails and this should narrow down the dates of these meetings.
I, DULBERG, believe that we should not include anything in the complaint that is not backed up by verifiable documented proof. Witness testimony can come out during the discovery phase, not the complaint. I dont want anything the defense can pounce on.

Why the statement "DULBERG would not see a dime from either case"? McGuires' and Gagnon's?  No proof of this.  Not sure of the claim. Again this is not backed up by the emails but is close to DULBERGS' recollection of the conversation with MAST and should come out in testimony, not in the complaint.

He claimed the McGuires would be dismissed for nothing if DULBERG did not accept the offer promptly.  This can be proven through DULBERG as a witness and by his brother, THOMAS KOST, who was also present at the meeting.  The claim can also be proven through emails.

page 4, section 18:   It is written "having no choice in the matter".  This can be replaced by "feeling he had no choice in the matter".  (This is proven through the email record from file 2-208.pdf to 2-182.pdf.)  In the email exchanges he is clearly in disagreement with McGuires' liability and clearly reluctant to accept the offer.

page 4, section 20:  correct.  Proof of direct quote in file 2-180.pdf.

page 4, section 22:   correct.  Proof of direct quote is in file 2-104.pdf

page 6, section 29:  "reasonable" should read "reasonably".  "forcing" could be changed to "pressuring" or "coercing".

page 7, section 31 j):  correct.  Direct quote from file 2-201.pdf.

I am available anytime to discuss any of this.

Thank you,
Paul

847-497-4250


On 6/1/2018 10:32 AM, Sabina Walczyk wrote:
Yes it does thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: me <pdulberg@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 10:31:04 AM
To: Nikki
Cc: Sabina Walczyk; Office Office
Subject: Re: Dulberg v. Popovich 17 LA 377
 

Hi Sabrina,

Thank you for providing this for my review.

I opened it and by the 3rd page already noticed some simple but fundamental errors we need to correct.

I'm going to read it in detail and hope to have all corrections to you by Monday the 4th of June.
Does that give you enough time to review my concerns and still meet the deadline of the 6th?

Thanks again,
Paul


On 6/1/2018 9:33 AM, Nikki wrote:

Hi Paul,


I have attached a draft of the First Amended Complaint for your case. Please review and advise. Thank you.


Regards, 


Nikki Justiniani

Office Assistant

 

The Gooch Firm

209 S. Main Street

Wauconda, IL 60084

P: 847-526-0110
F: 847-526-0603

E: nikki@goochfirm.com

This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.

 




--------------939607395427C504F9CD071C-- --------------3C4D42CFF6C14F17A5142C46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="amended_complaint_comments2.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="amended_complaint_comments2.txt" Comments on FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Very well stated arguments. Some possible corrections and changes... page 2, section 7: "lost control ..." could be changed to "inadvertently cut the arm of DULBERG" Question: How were the amounts $260,000 and $250,000 arrived at? page 3, section 11: "property" should read "properly". page 3, section 13: Incorrect. MAST incorrectly informed DULBERG that the insurance policy limit for Gagnon was only $100,000, when in reality the policy limit was $300,000. (Proof: see file 2-104.pdf in email folder). At no time was DULBERG ever informed of the McGuires' policy limits. In addition, when MAST later gave DULBERG all documents related to his case, DULBERG noticed that the Gagnon policy information and the McGuires' policy information was not included among the files. The medical depositions were also missing from the files. (Much email proof of this.) page 3, section 15: correct. direct quotes from file 2-207.pdf and 2-205.pdf email exchanges from file 2-208.pdf to file 2-182.pdf show clearly that DULBERG does not agree or understand why McGuires are not liable for injury. page 3, section 16: correct. Direct quote from 2-201.pdf. Extracted from the sentence: "We don't have to accept the $5,000, but if we do not, the McGuires will get out for FREE on a motion." page 4, section 17: Why the quotations? It cannot be proven that this is a direct quote, though the emails quoted above can be proven. Not sure about the quote. Not sure that the meeting was the day before a court appearance yet, that is what DULBERG was told by MAST but Tom Kost who is DULBERGS' brother and was in the meeting does not exactly recall this but says he remembers it was time sensitive. There were actually 2 meetings in Hans Mast office on the McGuires. The first Dulberg attended with his Mother Barbara Dulberg and the second was with Thomas Kost, Dulbergs' brother. However, I, DULBERG, am currently putting together a timeline of all documented court events along with the emails and this should narrow down the dates of these meetings. I, DULBERG, believe that we should not include anything in the complaint that is not backed up by verifiable documented proof. Witness testimony can come out during the discovery phase, not the complaint. I dont want anything the defense can pounce on. Why the statement "DULBERG would not see a dime from either case"? McGuires' and Gagnon's? No proof of this. Not sure of the claim. Again this is not backed up by the emails but is close to DULBERGS' recollection of the conversation with MAST and should come out in testimony, not in the complaint. He claimed the McGuires would be dismissed for nothing if DULBERG did not accept the offer promptly. This can be proven through DULBERG as a witness and by his brother, THOMAS KOST, who was also present at the meeting. The claim can also be proven through emails. page 4, section 18: It is written "having no choice in the matter". This can be replaced by "feeling he had no choice in the matter". (This is proven through the email record from file 2-208.pdf to 2-182.pdf.) In the email exchanges he is clearly in disagreement with McGuires' liability and clearly reluctant to accept the offer. page 4, section 20: correct. Proof of direct quote in file 2-180.pdf. page 4, section 22: correct. Proof of direct quote is in file 2-104.pdf page 6, section 29: "reasonable" should read "reasonably". "forcing" could be changed to "pressuring" or "coercing". page 7, section 31 j): correct. Direct quote from file 2-201.pdf. --------------3C4D42CFF6C14F17A5142C46--