Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
News ticker
  • Staff Applications: OPEN
  • Bans issued on or after 01 Oct 19 may only be appealed if made in error
  • Bug reports are to be lodged in game via /bugreport
  • IC - Applications for Honours & Awards are open
Sign in to follow this  
LiZi606

Albertos v Los Santos Customs

Recommended Posts

6Hg8kMs.png

TOPIC TITLE - Ensure the topic title is appropriately filed
PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT DETAILS - If either the plaintiff or defendant involves an organisation (i.e if the application is made on behalf of, or against an organisation, put the organisation name in)

All images should be uploaded to imgur.com or another image hosting website, then copy and paste the actual image directly under evidence

Contact Details - Paralegal/Applicant
First Name: Thomas
Last Name: Lambo Jr
Mobile: 947320
Discord: LiZi606#3359

Contact Details - Lawyer/Applicant
First Name: John
Last Name: Lawston
Mobile: 585211
Discord: Alec#0069

Contact Details - Client
First Name: Josh
Last Name: Alberto
Mobile: 574691
Discord: Spyney#3060

Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A

Contact Details - Client
First Name: Garrett
Last Name: Alberto
Mobile: 569995
Discord: Ace#7191

Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A

Contact Details - Client
First Name: Scott
Last Name: Alberto
Mobile: 681973
Discord: GREGLESS#7829

Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A

For Original Jurisdiction
Defendant Name: CEO of Los Santos Customs (Julian Russel)
Defendant Organisation (If available): Los Santos Customs
Respondent Discord (if known): Angelo#1111

Statement of Claims:
-Mr Josh, Garrett and Scott Alberto was dismissed from their employment with in the Los Santos Custom due to the breach of the LSC employee contract. (Serving Blacklisted customers)

-Vehicle that Mr Josh Alberto was modding before the removal belongs to Garrett Alberto, Not a member of the banned party from LSC.

-Mr Scott Alberto, Who was not involved with the situation, claims that he was purely removed due to being related to Mr Josh Alberto and Mr Garrett Alberto.

-Mr Scott Alberto’s Statement:
On my flight into the city and I was presented with my options of what airport to fly into and when presented with those options, I was made aware that i wasn’t employed at LSC as I didn’t have my LSC Employee Card. So once I landed, I went into the shop and saw moe so I asked him what’s up why don’t I have my LSC Employee Card and he asked if I was apart of the Alberto family and if I was that I should go and talk to my brothers about it. That was the last time contact has been made between myself and anyone from the business

-Mr Josh, Garrett and Scott Alberto will like to seek for the following outcome:

Compensation for work lost, defamation of character.

Investigation of Los Santos Customs Management team’s conducts.

 

Witnesses:
Josh Alberto

Garrett Alberto

Scott Alberto

Sam Alberto

Unknown Los Santos Customs Management member

Evidence:
Ownership of the vehicle Mr Josh Alberto was modding comes back to Garrett Alberto https://imgur.com/9cQdHEb

Employment was not formally terminated. No notice was provided and there wasn’t any legal document for the dismissal, only verbalised effective immediately, which is contrary to Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act, DIV III, Sect, 11 a

 

Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties
1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted.
 (Y)
2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y)
3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. 
(Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)

Edited by LiZi606

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png

Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs

[2021] SADC 6

ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT

[1] The District Court accepts your writ of claim against the defendant.

[2] The defendant has seven days to file a notice of appearance or a defence with this Court. If the respondent fails to file a notice of appearance or defence, the plaintiff may request that judgment be entered in their favour by default and orders set out in the statement of claim be made.

[3] Parties to the proceeding will engage in a discovery period of 10 days (ending 14/04/2021) to disclose all of the evidence that they will rely on in the proceeding.

[4] The Court notes that if the plaintiff wishes to call the final witness on their list, they must properly identify that witness.

CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL
DATE: 05/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

SIGNATURE: 

 Simon Edward. Richter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Mick Hale and I, are representing the defendant, Los Santos Customs in this matter. We would like to file a motion to dismiss, due to lack of evidence.

Please see below for the motion:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DCe2LQszJtHvf8ct95CYB959KEK1kpm_ahCuKbcO678/

Kindest Regards,

Cormac O'Leary

Paralegal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png


Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs

[2021] SADC 6

ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT

[1] The District Court will hear the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant.

[2] This hearing will be conducted at the Rockford Hills Courthouse on 17 April 2021 at a time to be set by the Court. Parties will be notified of this time before the day of the hearing.

CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL
DATE: 12/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

SIGNATURE: 

 Simon Edward. Richter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png

Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs

[2021] SADC 6

ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT

[1] The Court rejects the defendant's motion to dismiss.

[2] The Court does so on the basis that the plaintiff's case was not shown to have no prospect of success.

[3] In the course of submissions the Court was made aware of the relevant evidence to be relied on by both parties. The Court was not satisfied that either the plaintiff or defendant had no case against the other. As such, the Court will allow the proceeding to go to trial.

[4] The Court instructs the defendant to file a defence with the Court and both parties to engage in discovery before a date for trial is set.


CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6

PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter

DIVISION: CIVIL

DATE: 15/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

SIGNATURE: 

 Simon Edward. Richter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.