Replies to post #63822 on Arrayit Corporation (ARYC)

[MikeCr]

This was filed asking for a postponement of the trial date from Oct 27 to Feb 2 on the Iconic vs Arrayit case.

I, Gina M. Austin, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all California courts and am the attorney of record for defendant Arrayit Corporation (“ARYC”) in the above-captioned action. I make this declaration in support of Defendant's Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial, Discovery Cut-off, and Expert Dates. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, except as to those facts stated upon information and belief, which facts I believe to be true. If called as a witness, I would testify competently thereto.

2. This has been a "friendly" litigation. ARYC and Plaintiff have been engaged in a lengthy settlement process and it has been ARYC's belief that the case would settle.

3. I engaged in these settlement discussions with Plaintiff's attorney, Alan Atlas between the months of October – December 2016.

4. Prior to this lawsuit, ARYC pledged 6,600,000 shares of stock in a company called Avant Diagnostics (the "Collateral"), to Plaintiff, as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff was given the option to have the Collateral re-registered in its name and sell the shares into the open market to reduce the Company's obligation.

5. On or about May 24, 2017, ARYC agreed in writing to re-register the Collateral in Plaintiff's name and thereafter the Collateral was re-registered in Plaintiff's name to settle this lawsuit. At the same time I contacted Mr. Atlas and informed him that the Collateral was reregistered and requested the case be dismissed as Plaintiff had been paid in full. Mr. Atlas indicated he would discuss this with his client and get back to me. I made 2 separate follow-up phone calls to Mr. Atlas between late May and mid September 2017 that were not returned.

6. The next communication from Plaintiff occurred on or about September 20, 2017, when ARYC was served with Plaintiff's association of new counsel, Matthew Mahoney. I was surprised by this as Mr. Atlas had not mentioned new counsel. Thereafter, I contacted Mr. Mahoney and was more surprised when he informed me he had been retained as trial counsel as it was my belief the case had settled in May 2017 and that Mr. Atlas would take care of the dismissal prior to the trial date.

7. On or about September 26, 2017, in light of Plaintiff's notification it wanted to go to trial, I asked Mr. Mahoney if his client would stipulate to a continuance and e-mailed him a draft stipulation.

8. On Monday October 2, Mr. Mahoney informed me he had not heard back from his client but did not think his client would agree to a continuance and Plaintiff has not agreed to a
continuance.

9. Had ARYC known that Plaintiff intended to go to trial after the Collateral was transferred, ARYC would have engaged in discovery. ARYC has been severely prejudiced by its belief the case was settled and now being forced to a trial date less than a month away.

10. Continuing trial and related discovery is necessary for ARYC in order to prepare for trial.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 4, 2017