TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2005;

9:10 A.M.

DEPARTMENT sw "B"

HON. JEAN E. MATUSINKA, JUDGE

(APPEARANCES AS NOTED ON TITLE PAGE.)

(LISA GUERRERO, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

--000--

THE COURT: NO. 3, ROBINSON VERSUS SKYCAR.

MR. ROBINSON: GARY ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF.

MS. NELSON: LAURA NELSON WITH METROPOLITAN EXPRESS AND SKYCAR.

THE COURT: THIS IS HERE FOR A MANAGEMENT. CONFERENCE CASE. YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED THIS COMPLAINT YET, HAVE YOU?

MS. NELSON: YES, WE DID. WE SENT IT TO THE COURT, YES. THERE ARE MANY -- I AM NOT SKYCAR, INC. I AM SKYCAR METROPOLITAN EXPRESS. SKYCAR IS ANOTHER COMPANY.

THE COURT: THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH YOUR CASE, MR. ROBINSON. SKYCAR IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. THAT ENTITY HAS TO BE SERVED PROPERLY. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED. IN YOUR COMPLAINT, YOU SET OUT SKYCAR SEPARATELY, AND THEN SOMEHOW YOU PUT IT TOGETHER WITH LAURA NELSON, D.B.A, METROPOLITAN SKYCAR. AND THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. YOU DON'T REPRESENT SKYCAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. NELSON: NOT SKYCAR, INC. SKYCAR AND METROPOLITAN EXPRESS.

THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, HERE ON YOUR --

MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: -- NOW, HERE ON YOUR DEFAULT PAPERS, YOU HAVE SKYCAR, INC. IN YOUR COMPLAINT, YOU HAVE SKYCAR, INC., THEN LAURA L. NELSON, D.B.A., METRO, METRO EXPRESS. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.

MR. ROBINSON: CORRECT. SKYCAR, INC. HAS NOT ANSWERED IN THIS CASE

THE COURT: THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED.

MR. ROBINSON: LAURA NELSON IS AN OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SKYCAR -- NOT A CORPORATION. ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS WILL BE THAT SKYCAR, INC. IS ACTUALLY THE ALTER EGO OF LAURA NELSON. BUT THE SHERIFF SERVED HER IN TWO CAPACITIES, ONE AS AN INDIVIDUAL D.B.A. AND SECOND AS AN OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC. BOTH THE PROOF OF SERVICE AND THE SUMMONS BOTH INDICATE THAT THE PROOF OF SERVICE THAT WAS CONFORMED BY HE CLERK AND ALSO HAD THE SHERIFF STAMP ON IT AFTER HE SERVED IT SHOWS THAT THE BOX LABELED FOR CORPORATION, THAT LAURA NELSON WAS BEING SUED IN THE CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC. WAS ALSO MARKED AS WELL AN INDIVIDUAL. AND AN OFFICIAL OF A CORPORATION CAN BE SUED BOTH AS AN INDIVIDUAL --

MS. NELSON: ABSOLUTELY NOT, NOT SKYCAR, INC. NEVER HAVE BEEN EVER.

THE COURT: THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY, PERIOD. DON'T ARGUE, MR. ROBINSON. PROPERLY SERVE THEM. SHE HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED. SKYCAR, INC. HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED. AND I'M LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS STUFF. WHEN ARE YOU GONNA FILE YOUR ANSWER?

MS. NELSON: I DID FILE AN ANSWER BECAUSE --THE COURT: WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT.

MR. ROBINSON: THERE WAS AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT. THERE WAS A FORM ANSWER.

MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR. IT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION --THE COURT: NO, YOU'RE WRONG, MR. ROBINSON. THE OTHER THING, TOO, IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROPOUNDING DISCOVERY. FIRST OF ALL, YOU CAN'T HAVE A DEFAULT AGAINST SKYCAR, INC. SINCE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY. YOU'VE BEEN PROPOUNDING DISCOVERY. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OF THESE DISCOVERY ORIGINAL REQUESTS?

MS. NELSON: SKYCAR, INC., WE KEEP FORWARDING METROPOLITAN -- I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE AMOUNT. I RESPONDED ON ONE DISCOVERY, WHICH THEY ARE -- PROBABLY THE ONE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT WAS STATING A BUNCH OF FACTS THAT I REJECTED IN MOST EVERYTHING. THERE WAS -- THERE WAS ONE RESPONSE. AND I THINK I LEFT THE DETAILS IN MY OFFICE 'CAUSE I DIDN'T THINK I WAS GONNA NEED A COPY.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE THE ADDRESS OF SKYCAR, INC.?

MS. NELSON: 7135 WEST MANCHESTER, YES.

MR. ROBINSON: IT'S IDENTICAL TO HER ADDRESS.

MS. NELSON: MA'AM, IT IS NOT.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU BOTH NEED TO MEET AND CONFER OVER THIS. BUT MY POSITION IS YOU HAVE NOT PROPERLY SERVED SKYCAR, INC.

MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON THIS?

THE COURT: NO. NO. WE'RE JUST GOING ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND. I'M GOING TO DENY YOUR DEFAULT ON SKYCAR, INC. --

MR. ROBINSON: OKAY.

THE COURT: -- BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR THAT ENTITY. YOU MIXED THEM BOTH UP. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. YOU MIXED HER ENTITY UP WITH SKYCAR, INC. AND I ASSUME THAT THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.

MS. NELSON: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. ROBINSON: THAT'S -- THERE ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. THE SHERIFF SERVED HER AS AN OFFICIAL. HE ASKED HER WHETHER SHE WAS AN OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON. YES.

MS. NELSON: NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.

THE COURT: OKAY. THIS IS HERE FOR YOUR CASE CONFERENCE MANAGEMENT. THE PROBLEM IS SKYCAR, INC. HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TEN DAYS TO SERVE THEM PROPERLY. AND I WANT TO SEE PROOF OF SERVICE WITH REGARD TO THAT ENTITY. DO YOU KNOW WHO THE OFFICIALS ARE WITH REGARD TO SKYCAR?

MS. NELSON: I DO.

THE COURT: GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION. GO OUT, MEET AND CONFER, COME ON BACK, I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER DATE. GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION.

MR. ROBINSON: SHE IS THE OFFICIAL.

MS. NELSON: THAT COMPANY IS OUT OF BUSINESS, MA'AM.

THE COURT: JUST GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION. LET HIM FOLLOW THROUGH.

(RECESS TAKEN.)

THE COURT: ROBINSON VERSUS SKYCAR, INC. STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.

MR. ROBINSON: GARY ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF.

MS. NELSON: LAURA NELSON, DEFENDANT.

THE COURT: AND WHAT HAVE YOU DISCOVERED IN SKYCAR, INC ?

MR. ROBINSON: I IMAGINE YOU WANT ME YOUR MOTHER AT HER RESIDENCE?

MS. NELSON: HE STATED THAT HE KNOWS ALL THE INFORMATION FOR THE PERSON WHO OWNED SKYCAR, INC. SO I WAS GONNA GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION. HE SAID HE KNEW IT.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE THE ADDRESS? YOU KNOW THE

TERMS OF TO SERVE INDIVIDUAL?

ROBINSON: HER MOTHER IS LISTED BY THE STATE AS BEING THE CFO. COURT: OF SKYCAR, INC.?

ROBINSON: OF SKYCAR, INC.

HER MOTHER, WHEN I WAS WORKING FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS, HER MOTHER WOULD OCCASIONALLY COME IN AND HELP WITH THE -- HELP WITH SKYCAR, BUT SHE WAS THE ONE THAT PAID ME EVERYDAY. SHE IS THE ONE THAT FIRED ME. I AM NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS DOING BUSINESS AS SKYCAR OR SHE WAS AN OFFICIAL AT SKYCAR. IF SHE WAS DOING BUSINESS AS SKYCAR, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT, ADD A DOE, SUING HER AS AN INDIVIDUAL, D.B.A. SKYCAR.

MR. ROBINSON: IT WAS D.B.A. METRO.

MR. ROBINSON: I DID NOT HAVE A DBA SKYCAR BECAUSE SKYCAR WAS A CORPORATION.

MS. NELSON: YOUR HONOR, EVERYTHING THIS GENTLEMAN JUST SAID IS TOTALLY INCORRECT, TOTALLY INCORRECT. AND I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE SITUATION. BUT THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE DEFINITELY -- MR. ROBINSON WAS TOLD BEFORE HE FILED THE LABOR SUIT AGAINST SKYCAR, HE KNEW SKYCAR HAD GONE OUT OF BUSINESS BEFORE HE DID THAT. ONCE HE FOUND OUT THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, HE RAN OUT AND FILED A LABOR SUIT AGAINST SKYCAR. AND THINGS HAPPENED BEFORE HE DID THIS. IT'S -- IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM FILING SUIT AGAINST THE COMPANIES. THE COMPANY HAD ALREADY DISSOLVED, AND WE WERE TOTALLY SEPARATE COMPANIES, TOTALLY SEPARATE COMPANIES. I HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN SKYCAR, INC. WHATSOEVER. JUST BECAUSE WE WERE SHARING PROPERTY, AND THEN WAS JUST A WHOLE -- JUST EVENTS STARTED OCCURRING THAT WAS AFFECTING SKYCAR, INC. THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. WHEN MR. ROBINSON FOUND OUT, HE FILED SUIT. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME OR MY COMPANY AT ALL.

THE COURT: IF YOU FOUND OUT THAT SKYCAR, INC. IS NO LONGER IN BUSINESS, THEN THERE'S NO WAY FOR YOU TO COLLECT AT ALL.

MR. ROBINSON: WHAT SHE IS STATING IS FALSE.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A SHERIFF IN HERE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT -- I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR CASE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE SAID TO ME AND GOING THROUGH YOUR FILE. I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE A MINUTE HERE. THIS IS NOT WHY WE'RE HERE. YOU FILED A LAWSUIT. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT CORRECTLY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD SEE AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU ON HOW TO DO THINGS CORRECTLY. BUT YOU HAVE SKYCAR, INC. AS A SEPARATE DEFENDANT. THEY NEED TO BE SERVED SEPARATELY. AND THEN IF YOU LATER FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER IN BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO ALSO SERVE SOMEBODY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCEPTING SERVICE OF PROCESS. THAT HAS TO BE A HUMAN BEING, NOT A COMPANY. A COMPANY ONLY ACTS THROUGH ITS --

MR. ROBINSON: OFFICIALS.

THE COURT: EXACTLY.

MR. ROBINSON: SHE WAS AT LEAST AN OSTENSIBLE OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC.

THE COURT: SHE IS SAYING NOW ON THE RECORD THAT SHE IS NOT. YOU HAVE TO GO AND SERVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AN OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC., PERIOD.

MR. ROBINSON: IS SHE SAYING THAT THERE IS A SKYCAR D.B.A., THAT SHE IS A D.B.A. ACTING AS THE INDIVIDUAL OPERATING UNDER D.B.A. SKYCAR?

MS. NELSON: NO, IT IS NOT.

THE COURT: IT IS NOT. BUT YOU BROUGHT A DEFAULT AGAINST SKYCAR, INC., WHICH YOU HAVE NOT SERVED THAT WE SkyCar .COULD BE THEM PROPERLY. AND YOU CAN'T BRING A DEFAULT AGAINST THEM AT ALL. I MEAN, IT'S IMPROPER.

MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: MR ROBINSON, PLEASE. I TOLD YOU WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SERVE THEM. SERVE THEM. AND YOU HAVE TO SERVE THE PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS BEFORE SKYCAR, INC. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL PUT THIS OVER. THIS CASE IS GETTING OLD. I MEAN, I SHOULD BE SETTING THIS FOR TRIAL ALREADY. I'M GONNA GIVE YOU UNTIL -- DID YOU GIVE HIM THE INFO RMATION HE NEEDED? MS. NELSON: HE SAID HE ALREADY HAD IT.

MR. ROBINSON: I WILL ACCEPT THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU GIVE HIM WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU HAVE.

MS. NELSON: MAY I USE YOUR PEN?

THE COURT: WOULD YOU GIVE -- KIM, COULD YOU A PIECE OF PAPER.

MR. ROBINSON: CAN I GET AN ASSURANCE THAT SHE IS NOT GONNA HELP HER MOTHER EVADE SERVICE AT HER HOME RESIDENCE? FROM HER GIVE HER

MS. NELSON: SKYCAR, INC. IS NOT IN BUSINESS ANYMORE, YOUR HONOR. IT'S AN ELDERLY LADY THAT'S 80 YEARS OLD THAT CAN HARDLY WALK; DOES NOT LEAVE HER HOUSE.YOU CAN GO, AND THAT'S FINE. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, MR. ROBINSON.

THE COURT: WE'LL PUT THIS OVER, THEN, TO A STATUS CONFERENCE TO MARCH 4TH. The Clerk: MARCH 4 IS GETTING VERY HEAVY. THE COURT: MARCH 7TH, STATUS CONFERENCE. I SEE PROOF OF SERVICE, PROPER PROOF OF SERVICE. MR. ROBINSON: I'M SORRY. SHE HANDED THIS TO WANT TO ME. WERE YOU --

MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, MY WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD EITHER ASSIST TO ACCEPT SERVICE --

THE COURT: I CAN'T DO THAT. I CAN'T GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE. I GAVE YOU MORE THAN I SHOULD. YOU NEED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED LEGALLY

--MR. ROBINSON: I'M NOT ASKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE. WHAT I'M HOPING IS THAT SHE DOESN'T CALL HER MOTHER, SAY "DON'T ANSWER THE DOOR WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER COMES TO THE DOOR" BECAUSE IF SHE DOES THAT, THERE'S NO WAY I CAN SERVE HER. SERVICE, QUESTION ABOUT OR TELL HER MOTHER THE COURT: THE OTHER THING IS, YOU MAY WANT TO FOLLOW THROUGH, DO SOME RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF SKYCAR, INC. IS A VIABLE ENTITY. IF IT IS NOT A VIABLE ENTITY, YOU NEED TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH. THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS A -- CURRENTLY THE WEBSITE FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS SKYCAR; INC. AS CURRENT AS OF TODAY. ALSO, ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THERE HAS AN EXHIBIT; SHOWS ONE OF THE CARS THAT SKYCAR WAS USING, WA REGISTERED TO SKYCAR, INC. THAT WAS FOR LAST YEAR. HER CONTENTION THAT SKYCAR, INC. WENT OUT OF BUSINESS IS FALSE.

THE COURT: I CAN'T TELL YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. I HAVE NO IDEA.

MR. ROBINSON: IF I CAN SUPPLY THE COURT WITH PROOF THAT SKYCAR, INC. STILL EXISTS, SHE WAS AN OFFICIAL OF SKYCAR, INC., MAY WE?

THE COURT: NO.YOU GO TALK TO A LAWYER ABOUT THIS.