SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division
SIDEWALK DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORS, LLC
et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAINING
ACADEMY, LLC
Etal.
Defendants
Case No. 2010 CA 06760 B
Judge Macaluso
Dispositive Motions due 616/2011
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESSES
OF THE DEFENDANT AGAINST CHARLES BOSTON
HISTORY OF THIS CASE
Plaintiffs initiated this case against two Defendant entities, Heavy Equipment
Training Academy, LLC and Washington School ofTrade, LLC and individually against
Charles Boston, who is the sole owner and principal of the defendant entities. In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs sought damages from all Defendants for breach of contract.
Plaintiffs contended that Charles Boston was individually liable for such breach because
Charles Boston treated the entities as though they were his sole proprietorship,
intermingling funds and using theLLC funds for personal and non business related
activities. Defaults were issued against the two LLCs on November 9, 2010 and the
Defendant LLCs never moved to vacate the defaults. This Court has not issued any order
vacating the defaults against the two entities. Subsequently, on March 8, 2011 attorney
Craig McLaurin entered his appearance for the Defendant in this matter. Counsel for
Defendant did not move to vacate the defaults against the two LLCs. On March 22,
Page 3 of 11

. '.." . SW!;ool of
.,'
against Heavy Equipment Training Academy, LL
',-<',
';s: .
'\t
On September 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Breach
Address & Phone Number
C. NATURE OF THE CASE:
, .
By Plamhffs: Ai:,"':'::"

Trades, LLC, (WST), and Mr. Chari
have been since November 9, 2010. De
Defendants In thiS


(.,,".
such demands, Defendants failed to pay.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Charles Boston began to transition the business of
HETA to another LLC and also transferred assets and property funded by Plaintiffs to
another LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Charles Boston has intermingled the assets
and liabilities of the two different LLCs and not properly observed the separate corporate
2010 CA 006760 Sidewalk v. HETA
Joint Pretrial Statement Drnft-2.
Pllge 2. or(1 so rar)
that oi(Z21: about ?;3, 2009, Plaintiffs entered into a

Plaintiffs as advisors for $25,000.00 per
ces Plaintiffs to IffiTA. Plaintiffs provided
..
18 o(Jlfe Agreement from January 9,2009 through March

of $375,000.00. Defendants failed to make payments

<?,.
tHiJ'laintiffs made demands on defendants for payments. Despite
Whitestone Partners, LLC
81 Bellows Drive East
White Stone, V A 22578
Defendant
Charles Boston
Fill in*****
Donald C. McMillan III (DC# 98-99-65)
HANSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
4197
111
St., NW, Suite 405
Washington, D.C. 20004
202-638-6700(w), 202-638-4279(f)
Attorney
Defendant is Pro Se
fOl'malities instead treating them as if they were sole proprietorships, commingling his
personal assets with the assets of the LLCs, and vice versa. Plaintiffs seek breach of
contract cJaims.
By Defendant:
D. CLAIMS AND/OR DEFENSES:
Plaintiff's Claims:
,J".
BREACH OF CONTru\<l!T '.

The Parties entered into a supported by valuable
.
consideration. Defendants. under terms o,{ the breached the contract
'''",_ . ':;f\
causing harm to JY
.
.

E.
-.
J.
1. The Patties IHlve stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility to Plaintiffs'
Exhibits.
2.
H. NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT:
By Plaintiff:
20lOCA 006760 Sidewalk v. HETA
JoInt Prc:lrial SlIItcmcnt Dmlt2
Poge 3 of(7 so fur)
1. COlmt I: Breach ofContract: Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $445,000.00
plus punitive damages in the amount to be determined by this Honorable Court,
plus costs of this proceeding, post judgment interest, and for attorney's fees, and
for such other relief as this Court deems fit and proper.
By Defendants:
I. CITATIONS:
By Plaintiff:
None at this Time
By Defendants:
J. PENDING MOIDi0N'Sli'
.
By f:,8
tt'
K.
By Plaintiff:
1. Jeff Epperson, Representative for Plaintiffs
2. Officer Christopher Dyke, Badge #4070, 7th District DC Police Depaltment
3. Defendant Charles Boston
4. Tina Mason, HETA employee
5. Mercedes Delgado, HETA employee
6. Vivian Delgado, HETA employee
2010 CA 006760 Sidewalk v. HETA
Joint Prelrial Stlllemenl Dmn2
Page" of(7 SO fl\1)
2011, Plaintiffs filed their witness list and served interrogatories, requests for documents,
and requests for admissions on the remaining Defendant, Charles Boston. In their
Discovery Requests, Plaintiffs requested that Charles Boston identify his witnesses. See
Exhibit1: Plaintiffo' First Set ofInterrogatories and Request for Documents to Dejendant
Charles Boston. Although Atty. McLaurin confirmed with undersigned counsel that he
received the Discovery requests, the Discovery was never responded to by the Defendant,
Charles Boston. Under the present scheduling order, Discovery closed on May 23,2011.
FAILURE TO COOPERATE
Charles Boston never co-operated with or responded to his attorney, Craig
McLaul'in, which resulted in Craig McLaurin filing a motion to withdraw on May 23,
2011. In that motion, Atty McLaurin states that,
.. Mi.. Boston has neither cooperated with the undersigned nor made the agreed
payments. Further Mi'. Boston has repeatedly failed to respond to discovery
request. The undersigned. In light of the foregoing the undersigned cannot
effectively represent Mr. Boston and hereby respectfully files this Motion to
Withdraw." See Exhibit 2: Motion to Withdrmv as Counsel.
Defendant Charles Boston never responded to Discovery and he never f i l ~ a
witness list as was required of him under the Rule 16 scheduling order. Thus, Charles
Boston has violated the Rules and Orders of this Court. Having refused to co-operate
with his attorney, file a witness list, or respond to Discovery, by all intents and purposes,
Defendant Charles Boston has failed to defend this matter.
Page 4 of 11