Preview
Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D. F
Legum Magister Candidate suse 4
State of California Certified Mediator any Peet Sattornia
6360 Eighth Street. .
Riverbank, California. 95367 JAN 2 42020
Phone | 209-596-3023 CLERK OF THE COURT
Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com BY: ( s Raas Creech
‘ puty Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ARMANDO REYES, Case No.: CGC-19-574396
Plaintiff, DISCOVERY
vs. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN| spARBUCKS CORPORATION’S
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK | TLL. EGAL MOTION FOR A
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER) | pROTECTIVE ORDER
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER :
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU DEPT: 302
(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019
Defendants.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN MENTIONED:
Mt
Mt
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Armando Reyes hereby submits this
Declaration in vigorous opposition of Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order. This motion is|
the most fraudulent judicial request that I have ever seen, and this declaration will highlight just
how shameful these lawyers go to in order to sideline justice.
I, Armando Reyes, J.D., declare as follows:
1. lama selfrepresented litigant in the matter of Armando Reyes v. Starbucks
Corporation and case #: CGC-19-574396, in the San Francisco Superior
Court.
2. Ihave personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and this
motion and would testify to them if called to do so.
3. On March 8, 2019, I filed my personal injury and intentional torts complaint
against Starbucks Corporation and other defendants.
4. On November 12, 2019, at or about 2:42 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) I was
emailed by Counsel Genge with this, “Mr. Reyes, Thank you for your updated}
statement of damages. Please confirm you will be serving by mail a signed
copy. The only deposition notice we have received is for Jen Lu and as we
previously discussed neither I or Jen Lu are available on December 26 or 27,
thus it will not go forward on either day. Thank you.” This message is
important because Counsel Genge told me that she was not available until
January 1, 2020, and that was what she told the judge in the Site Inspection
Order, which I won. In immediate response, I told her that I would be willing
to work with her and I sent her an updated notice with a new date—AFTER—
the January 1, 2020 deadline. She told me that she was not available until this
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2day only, but then, she was not available until January 7, 2020, when she
knew that I was only going to be up in Northern California until January 6,
2020, and then I was going to return to Los Angeles for my scheduled classes;
is this pure convenience or as one would say, “strategic tactical planning?”
. I tried to meet and confer with Defendants, but they did not do so. For
example, as mentioned above, they wanted me to postpone the deposition
from December to avoid the holiday season, and I did just that—I postponed
the Deposition to January 2, 2020, to AVOID the holidays. On December 6,
2019, at or about 1:05 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) I emailed Counsel Genge
and said, “Dear Madam Genge: J hope all is well. I believe you are evading
this discovery process. Regardless, please find my enclosed meet and confer
letter for your review. May you please a blessed and prosperous Merry
Christmas. Warmly, Armando Reyes. The notice that was sent has been
marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 1.0.
. Then, on or about December 6, 2019, at or about 5:35 p.m. (Pacific Standard
Time) I emailed Counsel Genge in an attempt to meet and confer with her as
to the location of this deposition, and I told her, “Hello Madam Genge: I hope
all is well. Enclosed, you will find the history and jurisdiction of San
Francisco County; if you do not show up to this Deposition, a motion to
compel will ensue. And, I will seek to have the Court to hold YOU in
Contempt of Court.
https://www.kged.org/news/11702058/why-is-part-of-alameda-island-in-san-
francisco
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3https://www.shouselaw.com/contempt-court-laws.html
“Warmly, Armando Reyes.
https://www.kged.org/news/11702058/why-is-part-of-alameda-island-in-san-
francisco.” This message came about because she knew that I was only going to
be in Northern California until the 6" of January, so this Deposition was of utmost
concern, yet she chose not to show up, and instead, provided a list of boilerplate
objections as to why she would not attend this duly noticed deposition. Next, this
message also references the deposition venue, as Counsel Genge kept on arguing
with me as to the proper location. Also, an attorney from Spain (would I worked
with in the Czech Republic) came to visit me, and his wife was a Certified Court
Reporter before they moved to Europe, and she was going to do the reporting for
me—sadly, now, Defendant’s behavior forfeited such actions due to their illegal
abuse. They strategically planned this evasive showdown so that Plaintiff Reyes
would not be able to depose them while he was in Northern California.
7. On December 17, 2019, at or about 8:48 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time) in
response to one of Counsel Genge’s very aggressive email messages, I said
“Dear Madam Genge: I hope all is well. Thank you for your very threatening
electronic communication attachments. I am in deep painful watery tears
because you are obstructing lawful evidence from being transmitted to me;
evidence that is extremely relevant and that will assist me in the trial that
WILL ensue. I can't imagine pro per's going through this system; I tell you, I
can't wait to go to the Appeals Court. We need to make good law to help
other indigent folks fight predators like yourself. Regardless, this is hardly a
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 427
28
meet and confer. You tell me, "You do it or else we will file a protective
order". This is what one would call threats with gunfire in the police
world. When someone tells you to do something against your will without
any options. Please have a blessed day; my entire family is praying for
you. Warmly, -Armando.” It is important to note that she totally ignored my
email message, as has been common in this litigation: she chooses to respond
to the messages that suit her and then ignores the vast majority of them in toto]
No reasonable person would believe this was a méet and confer attempt: she
told me that I should do it or else (with no alternative), so this would be
deemed force against my will.
8. It was their disposition from the beginning not to meet and confer. For
example, Paul Caleo, who is one of the partners at Burnham Brown Law Firm
emailed me on December 12, 2019, at or about 8:05 a.m. (Pacific Standard
Time) in a very heated and agitated tone and said, “Mr. Reyes We will advise
our client that you have outright rejected its offer of settlement and do not
appear to be interested in any further negotiations. We are in the process of
drafting a motion for protective order regarding your PMK deposition notice
and will be strongly opposing a trial date in the summer of 2021. We will be
asking the court to schedule a trial as early as the summer in 2020. You should
not expect to receive any further offers of settlement from our clients.”
9. The supra message is important for two things: (1) they have been throwing
me rocks because I don’t want to take their little nominal offers; my law
school professor told me that he STRONGLY advised against this, so I did no’
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 527
28
take such offer. Also, (2) this was the very FIRST time that I even heard of
this Protective Order Motion; before, they even met and conferred, as
required. Look, “We are in the process of drafting a motion for protective
order regarding your PMK deposition notice”. How is this not pretextual?
He had it in him from the very beginning to file this Motion one way or
another; he wants to avoid producing Discovery! His violent messages and
his co-counsels’ equally aggressive messages only highlight how their legal
culture is to others who deal with them, and let me tell you: it has been
miserable! They did not meet and confer, as required, and they instead ran to
the courthouse to avoid giving me any type of evidence.
10. It is important to note that Counsel Genge has committed “High Crimes and
Misdemeanors” by perjuring herself several times within this litigation cycle.
Now to address some of the blunt lies of Counsel Emily Grace Genge. She
claims that I called her a “witch and/or a cow” in her non-sworn pleading. I
would be willing to go to State Prison for four (4) years if she can prove this.
I Declare under Penalty of Perjury that I have NEVER called her a “cow” and
or a “witch”. I am not sure if she dreamed of this, or if she simply is obsessed)
with disparaging illusory facts that she would make things up for the
satisfaction of destroying my reputation and integrity. Why is this not in her
sworn declaration? Answer: Because this is NOT true! More notable, she has
recently been reported to the California State Bar for investigation, as perjury
has been her modus operandi since the beginning of this litigation cycle.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 627
28
11.
12,
13.
Without this evidence, I would not be able to meet my burden of proof at trial,
and that would mean that I would lose and forfeit my right to any real
damages award.
Defendant’s Attorney, Emily Grace Genge, and her clients have been recently
admonished in their recent violation of the California Discovery Act, for their
illegal withholding of relevant addresses and other pertinent information. The
judge in question said that I “had a right to investigate.” To address
Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s statement, “Both Defendants have
provided code complaint and complete responses to those requests.” Why did
they get sanctioned? For “code complaint complete responses” or for their
failure to do so? I do not think they would have been sanctioned but for their
illegal conduct. A true copy of the Order and monetary sanctions judgment
has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 2.0.
Defendant’s Counselor Emily Grace Genge has been on an active campaign to
do whatever she can to get rid of this case. She has harassed me, extorted me,
blackmailed me, and even threated me extensively over the last few months.
In her most recent attempt, she attacked my sister, Miss. Angelica Reyes
Contreras, who is by all accounts one of the most religious people that I
know—she goes to church every Wednesday and Sunday and is very active in
the Catholic community; yet, she was disparaged by Counsel Emily Grace
Genge. Miss. Reyes never disrespects anyone, stays to herself, but for some
reason she has been the latest victim of Counsel Genge’s harassment and
disparaging campaign!
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 714,
15.
16.
17.
I requested the Most Qualified Officer and NOT a witness for this Deposition
Notice, and I will NOT accept a witness; this would undermine the Corporate
Deposition theory behind their force of “binding them to their deposition
testimony” for trial. This is exactly what the Legislators in California wanted
per C.C.P. § 2025.230.
Ineed all of this evidence because they can prove similar incidents and
injuries at the premises store, and not providing this would constitute
reversable error. This evidence is crucial and needed so that I can establish
and fulfill my burden of proof—especially for the Notice requirement under
the causes of action that I pled.
I spoke to my Civil Procedure law school professor about limitations of a
deposition location, and he told me that there were NONE; so, this deposition
can occur within any location that I chose that is within limits provided by
law.
Ironically, Defendant’s Motion states that this is, “a straight forward personal
injury case after a metal tumbler, weighing less than one pound fell on his
foot.” Okay, I want to stop right here; if this was a “straight forward” case,
then why did Counsel Genge submit a sworn Declaration on November 15,
2019, that stated “This number of specially prepared interrogatories is
warranted under section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because of
the complexity and the quantity of the existing and potential issues in this
case.” This sworn Declaration just defeated her lie in her non-sworn pleading
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 818.
19.
submission. This Declaration has been marked for identification as Plaintiff
Reyes’ Exhibit 3.0.
Next, she claims that this is a small case that merits few damages, well, she
filed a Motion to Reclassify this case and this Motion for DENIED by the
Honorable Judge Ulmer. He claimed that the damages could be much more
than the $25,000 amount that is required for the jurisdiction of this Court and
the set of facts at issue. So, if the Honorable Judge Ulmer, one of the smartest
and most respected judges in the country, denied their motion, why is it that
she continues to claim it is a small case warranting of little damages? This
Denial Order, which frankly, was a waste of time, has been marked for
identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 4.0. Monumental to state, this has
been the most IMPORTANT motion that has been filed in this litigation cycle
and I won this motion outright. This should tell this Court a lot: either (1) I
am really good at motion practice, or (2) some other party’s counsel is not
very good. Frankly, I do not appreciate that Counsel Genge continues to
misrepresent and misstate the facts—this is not only grossly unfair, but very
prejudicial to the larger legal system in general.
Another motion that I won was the Site Inspection Order. To address the law
and motion practice query that Defendant Starbucks Corporation addressed by|
their comment of “unnecessary and extensive motion practice”. This incident
occurred at a local San Francisco store, and I filed a demand to conduct a site
inspection, but they did not even want me to enter the store in question; they
sent me tons of objections, and eventually, I filed a motion to compel out of
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 927
28
necessity, and I won the Motion! Most of the most important queries were
given to me, such as the shelve and the documentation criteria. It is notable to]
point out that an Order to Show Cause/Contempt of Court Motion is to be
heard soon for Emily Grace Genge’s disrespectful conduct to this Court in
reference to this Court’s Order. This has been marked for identification as
Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 5.0.
20. Next, I filed a Motion to Amend DOE 1 in the complaint to add Defendant
Shaunta Minner, and this was also granted to me by the Honorable Judge
Ethan P. Schulman; this motion is currently the reason why an Order to Show
Cause/Hold in Contempt proceeding has been recently launched against Emil
Grace Genge for her gross disrespect to the rule of law. This has been marked
for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 6.0.
21. Next, I filed a motion to extend page limits for a Motion for Spoliation of
Evidence, and this Motion was granted to me by the Honorable Judge Ethan
P. Schulman. This Order has been marked for identification as Plaintiff
Reyes’ Exhibit 7.0.
22. Now that this is out in public, I want to mention that one of my law school
professors, who teaches torts and cybersecurity law told me to request such
information, as it would help with the willful destruction of evidence motion,
and for this case at hand. I am asking for the premises software and not the
entire “Starbucks Corporation’s International” technological systems. This
notice is very reasonable, as it only has two main categories of knowledge and]
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 10not hundreds. We have a confidentiality and protective order in place in the
event that confidential information is released.
23. Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not meet its heavy burden of proof to
get this Motion granted. They did not present a Separate Statement in
Support, nor did they provide good cause for this Motion. Discovery is very
broad in California, and per my civil procedure professor, one of the “most
liberal in the entire country.”
24. Starbucks Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and this is truly
not “unduly burdensome.” For example, back in April/May of 2019, Katrina
Durek (another lawyer assigned to this case) told me that “money was no
issue for Starbucks.” She told me this twice! Defendants now want to use
this Motion to help oppress and suppress my ability to litigate, and this should
be denied immediately.
25. I worked very hard on this motion, and I request the following sanctions
amount. These sanctions are to be deemed a proper measure of damages. I
spent twenty-nine (29) hours writing this motion, speaking to law school
professors, investigating civil procedure law books, and on the extensive legal
research required on LexisNexis. I spent $153.00 on printing fees, which
included cases and many statutory codifications of California law, since I
cannot read many documents on a computer screen, I was forced to print them
all out. I also spent money on postal fees via the United States Postal Service,
according to proof. Since I am a State Certified Mediator, per California
Business and Professions Code § 465-471.5, and the California Code of
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 11Regulations, Title 16, Chapter 36, which enables the substantive provisions of
the California Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986, and since my billing
rate is $100.00 per hour, and since I spent 29 hours of my precious time
writing and researching for this motion, hence, I would merit a $2,900 award
for my labor, plus my printing and parcel shipping fees. I respectfully request
that these sanctions amount as to my labor get sent to a local charity of my
choosing. As to what I would like back in addition to printing costs: I
anticipate on spending $94.00 on Court Call Costs, which is a reimbursable
expense. Next, transportation costs totaled $60.00 for my ability to properly
execute this Motion to Compel, and of course, the Court filing fee of $60.00
and $30.00 for the Court Reporter fee. Also, envelops and adhesives totaled
$9.00, and the postal fees are going to hit the $50.00 range, with the many
defendants required to be served, and the heavy load of documents within.
This should warrant a monetary sanction amount of about $3,356 with all fees
and expenses included.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, executed this 15" day of January, 2020, in Beverly Hills,
California.
Respectfully Submitted,
0
Armando Reyes, J.D.
Mt
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 12PLAINTIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 1.0Bureau of Mr. Armand eyes, J.D.
Legum Magister Candidate: International Human Rights
State of California Certified Mediator d
6360 Eighth Street. t 4
Riverbank, California. 95367. XY 2
- — Devi be. B
(209) 596-3023—Cellular Device SS
areyes.apadre(@email.com
HIGHLY CONF IDENTIAL!
December 6, 2019:
RE: Meet and Confer in Reference to Jen Lu’s and Starbuck
Corporation’s Deposition, and a Stiff Warning of a Potential
Motion to Compel: !
Dear Madam Genge:
I hope this letter finds you well. It pains me that you are
playing evil with me.. I have addressed your issues below:
First, per my Civil Procedure Professor, this deposition could
indeed occur within a'city park: please tell me which code/law
bars such request?
Next, I do not know the Deponent’s address, and frankly, I do
not trust you, so I cannot verify this, nor take your word as
legitimate. Also, Starbucks does not have a residential
address, does it?
Also, have you looked closely at the San Francisco County’s land
mass, including offshore assets and properties? For example, I
urge you to please kindly Google islands in Alameda County that
belong to San Francisco, and which are part of San Francisco
“ County; you will be shocked! Ms. Reyes surveyed this part of
the county, and indeed, the City of Ripon is within the 75 mile
radius allotment, I urge you to investigate for yourself if you
do not believe this.
As a side note and as;a gentle reminder, if the documents that I
requested within the deposition notices are not delivered to me
i Page 1 of 2three (3) days before :such notice date, a new motion to compel
will ensue; you are hereby warned.
Finally, you said you |were not available during the holidays,
and you said that until the day of January 1, 2020; is this
incorrect? Unfortunately, I am not able to do these depositions
on January 7th, nor on the 10th. I am trying to work with you
as hard as possible, I am in the middle of a book writing
episode, I am jointly;doing my LL.M. studies, my Human Rights
Summer Abroad coordination with other governments, and I am
trying to get as much discovery as possible so I can have this
trial in June of 2021; not 2022. Please work with me to get
this mission accomplished. Why do you enjoy making me suffer?
I just do not get it;.I am super nice to you and your staff, and
I try to work with compassion with your office, but all I get is
filth and hate.
P.S. Please find the filed Court paperwork in reference to the
depositions for June of 2020. Also, three (3) more motions will
be mailed within the next two (2) weeks. May you please have a
blessed and prosperous Merry Christmas.
I
Warmly, ,
Armando Reyes
Armando Reyes, J.D.
\ Page 2 of 2PLAIN'IVFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 2.0Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J/D.
Legum Magister Candidate
State of California Certified Mettator
6360 Eighth Street.
Riverbank, California. 95367;
Phone | 209-596-3023 i
Email: areyes.apadro( o@amall com
i
San Francisco Gounty Suntrior curt
JAN 2 2020
‘OF
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
ARMANDO REYES,
|
|
|
vs. vl
. |
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER|
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU
-|| (MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
||CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Case No.: CGC-19-574396 _
-| PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM
DEFENDANT JEN LU
DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2019
TIME: 9:00'A.M. (PST)
DEPT: 302
COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019
‘The Motion to Compt further responses from Defendant Jen Lu to Plaintiff Armando
Reyes? Form tot was set for a hearing in Department 302 of this Honorable Cout on
December 23,2019. On Detember 20, 2019, this Honorable Court issued a Tentative Ruling in
{PREPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER -
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM DEFENDANT JEN LUDATE: DECEMBER)
- ||23, 2019TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302-1
!
12.7.
favor of Plaintiff Armando Reyes’ form interrogatories 2.3 and 2.5, respectably, and denied as to
Having read and seriously considered all of the legal paperwork, memorandum,
declarations, reply briefs, supporting documents, law review articles, evidence exhibits; and oral |
arguments presented to this Honorable Court by these parties,
” IT IS HEREBY LAWFULLY ORDERED THAT:
PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ “Motion to Compel Further Responses from
Defendant Jen Lu to Form Interrogatories. Denied as to 2.7 as interrogatory has complete address
granted as to 2.3 (defendants requested similar information from plaintiff) and 2.5 (background
information that is relevant to the subject matter). Sanctions awarded in the amount of $75 as
attorney fees are not recoverable by a self-represented plaintiff (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73
CA4th 1173, 1179) and the majority of the filings were not pertinent to the issue on which
plaintiff prevailed.”
DATED: _(>/3//r9
SO bet le
Power Vane
/ THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE .
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN ~
FRANCISCO
] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM DEFENDANT JEN LUDATE: DECEMBER)
23, 2019TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302-2 .PLAINTIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 3.0wo em YN DA HM Bw NY
No YP YP YP N RN VY YP BS Be ewe ewe ew me Be em em ok,
BuURHRERRE BSE SRREAREBHE AS
DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1, EMILY G. GENGE, declare:
1. Tam presently the attorney for Defendants STARBUCKS CORPORATION and
JEN LU, parties to this action or proceeding.
2. 1 am propounding to Plaintiff ARMANDO REYES the attached set of specially
prepared interrogatories.
3. This set of specially prepared interrogatories will cause the total number of
specially prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed
the number of interrogatories permitted by section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4, T have not previously propounded specially prepared interrogatories to this party.
5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of forty [40] specially prepared
interrogatories.
6. 1am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the
parties in this case.
7. Ihave personally examined each of the interrogatories in this set of specially
prepared interrogatories.
8. This number of specially prepared interrogatories is warranted under section
2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure Weeatiseromathiercomp lem iamalggh
9. None of the interrogatories in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for
any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is
directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
10. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing
is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 15, 2019.
EMILY G. GENGE
8
DEFENDANTS STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S SPECIAL No. CGC-19-574396
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF. SET TWOPLAINTIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 4.0F LL Bed
San Francisco. Gounty Secenar Coun
ARMANDO REYES, J.D. ;
6360 Eighth Street. SEP 2 7 20193
Riverbank, California, 95367
Phone | 209-596-3023
Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com’
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ARMANDO REYES, Case No.: CGC-19-574396
Plaintiff,
ws [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN _ .| CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN) MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS ee Soe Aone 2018
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT De AM DD)
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS :
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU
(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY AND DOES | THROUGH 20,
INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019
Defendants,
The Motion to Reclassify this case from the unlimited jurisdiction of this Court to
the limited jurisdiction of this Court was set for a hearing in Department 302 of this Honorable
Court on September 26, 2019. "On September 25, 2019, this Honorable urt issued al
Tentative Ruling in favor of Plaintiff Armando Reyes, anda ruling denying Defendants Motion
to Reclassify this case.
B] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S MOTION td
RECLASSIFY CASEDATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019TIME: 9:30 A.M. (PDT)DEPT: 302COMPLAINT FILED:
MARCH 8, 2019-1Having read and wing Onis all of the legal paperwork, memorandum,
declarations, reply briefs, supporting documents, and oral arguments presented to this Honorable
Court by these parties,
ILIS HEREBY LAWFULLY ORDERED THAT:
Lu’s motion to reclassify the case to limited jurisdiction is denied. As defendants concede, the
test for their motion is whether damages in the jurisdictional amount are “virtually unattainable.”
(Ytuarte v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 266, 266-77.) Damages for pain and suffering are “not subject to
precise pretrial measurement,” so it is particularly difficult to win a reclassification motion in a
case like this one. Cay) 7 6G
DATED: 4] 24ft¢
badd Bib,
THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
RICHARD B. ULMER
] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S MOTION TO}
RECLASSIFY CASEDATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019TIME: 9:30 A.M. (PDT)DEPT: 302COMPLAINT FILED:
MARCH 8, 2019 -2PLAINTIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 5.0SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ARMANDO REYES, No. CGC-19-574396
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN PREMISES
JOHNSON, Chief Executive Officer in his
professional capacity, PATRICK GRISMER .
(Chief Financial Officer) in his professional Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019
capacity, PETER FILIPOVIC (Treasurer) in Trial Date: Not set
his professional capacity, SCOTT CARTER
(Manager) in his professional capacity, JEN
LU (Manager) in her professional capacity,
Defendants.
The Motion to Compel a Site Inspection of the Subject Premises (“Motion”) was set for
hearing in Department 302 of this Court on October 4, 2019. On October 3, 2019 this Court
issued a Tentative Ruling. Plaintiff Armando Reyes’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion sought to compel a
Site Inspection of the subject premises and requested that both parties appear. Both parties
stipulated to the Judge Pro Tem Katherine Gallo to hear the motion.
After having read and considered all the moving papers, including memoranda,
declarations, and supporting documents filed by both parties, and after hearing oral argument,
the court
HEREBY FINDS:
1
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE No. CGC-19-574396
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISESCe tN A mh eB Ww NY Re
yon Se a
BRR RRSREBE SERRE EBERE SS
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d) gives a party the right to
demand “to enter any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the
party on who the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or
sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” However, in
reviewing the demand to enter the property, plaintiff is also asking for documents that are
covered under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d). These are two separate discovery
devices and should not have been combined. Therefore, the motion of Plaintiff Armanda Reyes
to compel a Site Inspection of the subject premises is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's site inspection request is granted with the following limitations.
1, The site inspection will take place at a mutually agreed upon date and time. The site
inspection will not take place from November 23, 2019 through January 1, 2020. Itis
not to take place on or around the holidays, Parties are to meet and confer and provide
available dates on or before November 4, 2019.
2, The site inspection will not be conducted during business hours when the Starbucks store
is normally open. It will also will not be conducted within one hour after the store closes
and one hour before the opens. Parties are to meet and confer as to the exact timing,
Plaintiff will be allotted two (2) hours to perform the site inspection.
3. This Court hereby orders that a discovery referee be in attendance or readily available by
phone to the parties during the site inspection for the purposes of resolving any disputes
that arise during the site inspection. Parties are to submit names to the court no later than
November 1, 2019. Defendant to pay costs of the discovery referee at this time subject to
allotment by the court.
4. Plaintiff agrees he will be solely responsible for the costs of replacement and/or repair of
any and all property damaged as a result of Plaintiff's inspection.
5. The following “Instructions” requested by Plaintiff in his site inspection demand are
DENIED as follows:
a. No. 2: Plaintiff shall not throw any tumbler, fruit or any other object during the
site inspection. .
: 2
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE ‘No. CGC-19-574396
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISESwe mw yr Dn mH eR BW YD ee
Bee a ak
oe a Ahm FH RS Ss
No. 4: Plaintiff shall not have use of Starbucks mop or any.
No. 5: Plaintiff shall not have use or take any samples of Starbucks cleaners.
No. 8: Plaintiff shall not place any signs during site inspection.
No. 9: Plaintiff shall not place any strips of yellow caution warning tape around
site.
No, 11: Plaintiff shall not access, review or photocopy any Starbuck employee’s
personnel file. ‘
No. 12: Plaintiff shall not access, review or print any of Starbuck’s electronically
stored information on their computers, Plaintiff shall have not have access to
Starbuck’s computers or their wi-fi during this site inspection.
No. 13: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any video security footage
maintained at the store.
No. 15: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any training manuals.
No. 16: Plaintiff shall not have access review or copy any internal system that
coordinates injury intake.
No. 19: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any cleaning logs at the
premises.
6. The following “Instructions” provided by Plaintiff in his site inspection demand are
LIMITED:
a. No. 3: Plaintiff may access the small table in the area of the premises where he
sat on the day of the alleged incident. Any inspection will be limited to that table
and the required tools to measure and weigh it will not be provided by
Defendants. Plaintiff is financially responsible for any and all damage to the
property.
No. 6: access to five tumblers with SKU # 1106494, Defendant Starbucks is to
confirm whether it continues to manufacture the exact tumbler and whether they
can be purchased. Starbucks to advise plaintiff no later November 15, 2019 the
cost of the tumblers which Plaintiff may purchase. *
3
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE ‘No. CGC-19-574396
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISEScr enya nH ek Ww NY
Soe et aa
aa Fw RES
17
c. No. 7: During the site inspection Plaintiff may take photographs and/or videos of
the store and area where the incident occurred. He may under no circumstances
take photographs or video of the back offices, behind the counter, or the
restrooms. Plaintiffs may not photograph will be taken of Defendant’s employees,
experts, counsel, customers or any other individuals.
d. No. 10: Plaintiff may measure the shelf in question. Under no circumstances may
Plaintiff remove items from the shelf’ Defendant’s representatives will do so.
This is limited to the measuring of the shelf itself. However, if the shelf is fixed
to the wall, the shelf may not be removed.
e. No. 18: Plaintiff may not weigh or handle any items on the shelf. Those will be
removed by Defendant representatives only. If and only if, the shelf at the
premises is not mounted to the wall itself, Defendant representatives may assist in
the weighing of the shelf.
7. The following “Instructions” provided by Plaintiff in his demand are GRANTED:
a. No. 1: Plaintiff may access the premises for the purpose of the limited site
inspection on a mutually convenient date that will take place outside of
Defendant’s business hours. See above paragraphs 1, 2, and 3.
b. No. 14: Plaintiff may have access to a chair at the premises. He may weigh and
measure the chair with his own equipment. Plaintiff is financially responsible for
any and all damage to the property.
c. No. 17: Everyone present at the site inspection shall sign a form of attendance
sheet and all parties present shall be given a copy.
d. No. 20: Plaintiff will be provided one box of unopened tumblers that he can
examine. He is permitted to count the number of tumblers inside the box but is
not permitted to open or examine any individual tumbler or any “other work
product confidential necessities.”
8. There is no ruling on the document inspections that Plaintiff had in his site inspection
demand.
4
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE No. CGC-19-574396
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES_
yy YN _ Pe Se Re oe ee
Rh FE RB8SRESSRERARREBER SE
Cet Am F WwW DN
9. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied.
Dated: sa fuofs 2
T.
RO TE)
5
LO
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE
INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES
No. CGC-19-574396PLAIN TIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 6.0NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRO PERY
ATTORNEY (S) FOR:
Armando Reyes, J.D. (In Pro Per)
6360 Eighth Street.
Riverbank, California. 95367
Ayvmande Reves
Superior Court Case Number:
Cae - 4 - 57439
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR
DOE OR FICTITIOUS NAME
MJ No Trial Date Set :
Plaintiff(s)/Cross-Compla inant
Starbucks, etal.
Defendant(s)/Cross-Defendant:
SS mmm eer
O Trial Date
Fictitious Name {SEC. 474 C.C.P}
Upon filing the complaint/cross complaint herein, plaintiff(s) being ignorant of the true name of
the defendant, and having designated defendant in the complaint by the fictitious name of:
DOE 1
and having discovered the true name of the defendant/cross-defendant to be:
Shaunta Minner
hereby amends the complaint/cross complaint by inserting true name in place and stead of such
incorrect name wherever it appears in complaint/cross_ complaint.
OG Peg B.
D
Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff/Cross Complainant
" ORDER
Good cause appearing, the above amendment to the complaint is allowed.
Dated: Lot 6, 2012 Frfhita GA _
ETHAN P. SCHULMAN
Revised 5-2019 Form-011PLAINTIFF REYES’
EXHIBIT 7.027
28
Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D.
Legum Magister Candidate
State of California Certified Mediator
6360 Eighth Street.
|Riverbank, California. 95367
| Phone | 209-596-3023
Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com
i FF
San Francisco County Superior Court
JAN 03 2020
LEK OF THE QOURT
me ‘Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO —
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION .
ARMANDO REYES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN|
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU
(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
: Case No.: CGC-19-574396
pRorosnp; SEDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’
MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF
LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION
OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE
LIMITS
DATE: JANUARY 3, 2020
TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST)
DEPT: 302
JUDGE: HON. ETHAN P, SCHULMAN
COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019
On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff Armando Reyes filed a Motion. and Application
pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1113(e).
The Motion and Application to file a
{PREPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM
OF LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITSDATE:
JANUARY 3, 2020TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302JUDGE: HON. ETHAN P, SCHULMAN - 1|| were presented, and a-ruling-was-read-from the benehe -—
EX Dork
memorandum of law for Spoliation of Evidence exceeding the page limits was set for 4 hearing
in Department 302 of this Honorable Court on January 3, 2020. On January 3, 2020, a hearing
was held before the Honorable Judge Ethan P. Schulman in Department 302. Oral arguments
presented to this Honorable Court by these parties,
IT IS HEREBY Lawrtsaer ChobRnp THAT: .
PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ “Motion to file a memorandum of law for Motion for| -
Spoliation of Evidence is GRANTED. It is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff Armando Reyes be
allowed to submit up to twenty (20) pages in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
support of his Motion for Spoliation of Evidence.” Det. hin : tt GH
ap pone DAE of h 26 payed. Og
DATED: : y
THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM
OF LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITSDATE:
JANUARY 3, 2020TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302JUDGE: HON, ETHAN P. SCHULMAN - 2of
PROOF OF SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MAIL
(CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5)
Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stanislaus County; I am over the age
of eighteen years, and I am domiciled at 6360 Eighth Street. Riverbank, California. 95367. I am
not a party to the above-entitled action.
On January 16, 2020, I served a copy of the following documents:
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER
On the following named person by causing an envelope to be addressed thereto as
follows, via first-class mail, a copy of the foregoing documents enclosed and sealed therein, and
said envelope deposited in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, with postage
thereon fully prepaid addressed as follows:
Attention:
Paul Caleo, SBN#: 153925/ Katrina R. Durek, SBN#: 289461/
Emily Grace Genge, SBN#: 318706
Burnham Brown Law Firm
P.O. Box#: 119
Oakland, California. 94604
Mr. Scott Carter
852 Stonegate Drive.
South San Francisco, California. 94080
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the law of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 16, 2020
at Los Angeles, California.
Angelica Reyes Contreras
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 13
Preview
Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D. F Legum Magister Candidate suse 4 State of California Certified Mediator any Peet Sattornia 6360 Eighth Street. . Riverbank, California. 95367 JAN 2 42020 Phone | 209-596-3023 CLERK OF THE COURT Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com BY: ( s Raas Creech ‘ puty Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ARMANDO REYES, Case No.: CGC-19-574396 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY vs. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN| spARBUCKS CORPORATION’S HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK | TLL. EGAL MOTION FOR A GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER) | pROTECTIVE ORDER IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER : FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST) PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU DEPT: 302 (MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN MENTIONED: Mt Mt DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Armando Reyes hereby submits this Declaration in vigorous opposition of Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order. This motion is| the most fraudulent judicial request that I have ever seen, and this declaration will highlight just how shameful these lawyers go to in order to sideline justice. I, Armando Reyes, J.D., declare as follows: 1. lama selfrepresented litigant in the matter of Armando Reyes v. Starbucks Corporation and case #: CGC-19-574396, in the San Francisco Superior Court. 2. Ihave personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and this motion and would testify to them if called to do so. 3. On March 8, 2019, I filed my personal injury and intentional torts complaint against Starbucks Corporation and other defendants. 4. On November 12, 2019, at or about 2:42 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) I was emailed by Counsel Genge with this, “Mr. Reyes, Thank you for your updated} statement of damages. Please confirm you will be serving by mail a signed copy. The only deposition notice we have received is for Jen Lu and as we previously discussed neither I or Jen Lu are available on December 26 or 27, thus it will not go forward on either day. Thank you.” This message is important because Counsel Genge told me that she was not available until January 1, 2020, and that was what she told the judge in the Site Inspection Order, which I won. In immediate response, I told her that I would be willing to work with her and I sent her an updated notice with a new date—AFTER— the January 1, 2020 deadline. She told me that she was not available until this DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2day only, but then, she was not available until January 7, 2020, when she knew that I was only going to be up in Northern California until January 6, 2020, and then I was going to return to Los Angeles for my scheduled classes; is this pure convenience or as one would say, “strategic tactical planning?” . I tried to meet and confer with Defendants, but they did not do so. For example, as mentioned above, they wanted me to postpone the deposition from December to avoid the holiday season, and I did just that—I postponed the Deposition to January 2, 2020, to AVOID the holidays. On December 6, 2019, at or about 1:05 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) I emailed Counsel Genge and said, “Dear Madam Genge: J hope all is well. I believe you are evading this discovery process. Regardless, please find my enclosed meet and confer letter for your review. May you please a blessed and prosperous Merry Christmas. Warmly, Armando Reyes. The notice that was sent has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 1.0. . Then, on or about December 6, 2019, at or about 5:35 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) I emailed Counsel Genge in an attempt to meet and confer with her as to the location of this deposition, and I told her, “Hello Madam Genge: I hope all is well. Enclosed, you will find the history and jurisdiction of San Francisco County; if you do not show up to this Deposition, a motion to compel will ensue. And, I will seek to have the Court to hold YOU in Contempt of Court. https://www.kged.org/news/11702058/why-is-part-of-alameda-island-in-san- francisco DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3https://www.shouselaw.com/contempt-court-laws.html “Warmly, Armando Reyes. https://www.kged.org/news/11702058/why-is-part-of-alameda-island-in-san- francisco.” This message came about because she knew that I was only going to be in Northern California until the 6" of January, so this Deposition was of utmost concern, yet she chose not to show up, and instead, provided a list of boilerplate objections as to why she would not attend this duly noticed deposition. Next, this message also references the deposition venue, as Counsel Genge kept on arguing with me as to the proper location. Also, an attorney from Spain (would I worked with in the Czech Republic) came to visit me, and his wife was a Certified Court Reporter before they moved to Europe, and she was going to do the reporting for me—sadly, now, Defendant’s behavior forfeited such actions due to their illegal abuse. They strategically planned this evasive showdown so that Plaintiff Reyes would not be able to depose them while he was in Northern California. 7. On December 17, 2019, at or about 8:48 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time) in response to one of Counsel Genge’s very aggressive email messages, I said “Dear Madam Genge: I hope all is well. Thank you for your very threatening electronic communication attachments. I am in deep painful watery tears because you are obstructing lawful evidence from being transmitted to me; evidence that is extremely relevant and that will assist me in the trial that WILL ensue. I can't imagine pro per's going through this system; I tell you, I can't wait to go to the Appeals Court. We need to make good law to help other indigent folks fight predators like yourself. Regardless, this is hardly a DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 427 28 meet and confer. You tell me, "You do it or else we will file a protective order". This is what one would call threats with gunfire in the police world. When someone tells you to do something against your will without any options. Please have a blessed day; my entire family is praying for you. Warmly, -Armando.” It is important to note that she totally ignored my email message, as has been common in this litigation: she chooses to respond to the messages that suit her and then ignores the vast majority of them in toto] No reasonable person would believe this was a méet and confer attempt: she told me that I should do it or else (with no alternative), so this would be deemed force against my will. 8. It was their disposition from the beginning not to meet and confer. For example, Paul Caleo, who is one of the partners at Burnham Brown Law Firm emailed me on December 12, 2019, at or about 8:05 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time) in a very heated and agitated tone and said, “Mr. Reyes We will advise our client that you have outright rejected its offer of settlement and do not appear to be interested in any further negotiations. We are in the process of drafting a motion for protective order regarding your PMK deposition notice and will be strongly opposing a trial date in the summer of 2021. We will be asking the court to schedule a trial as early as the summer in 2020. You should not expect to receive any further offers of settlement from our clients.” 9. The supra message is important for two things: (1) they have been throwing me rocks because I don’t want to take their little nominal offers; my law school professor told me that he STRONGLY advised against this, so I did no’ DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 527 28 take such offer. Also, (2) this was the very FIRST time that I even heard of this Protective Order Motion; before, they even met and conferred, as required. Look, “We are in the process of drafting a motion for protective order regarding your PMK deposition notice”. How is this not pretextual? He had it in him from the very beginning to file this Motion one way or another; he wants to avoid producing Discovery! His violent messages and his co-counsels’ equally aggressive messages only highlight how their legal culture is to others who deal with them, and let me tell you: it has been miserable! They did not meet and confer, as required, and they instead ran to the courthouse to avoid giving me any type of evidence. 10. It is important to note that Counsel Genge has committed “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” by perjuring herself several times within this litigation cycle. Now to address some of the blunt lies of Counsel Emily Grace Genge. She claims that I called her a “witch and/or a cow” in her non-sworn pleading. I would be willing to go to State Prison for four (4) years if she can prove this. I Declare under Penalty of Perjury that I have NEVER called her a “cow” and or a “witch”. I am not sure if she dreamed of this, or if she simply is obsessed) with disparaging illusory facts that she would make things up for the satisfaction of destroying my reputation and integrity. Why is this not in her sworn declaration? Answer: Because this is NOT true! More notable, she has recently been reported to the California State Bar for investigation, as perjury has been her modus operandi since the beginning of this litigation cycle. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 627 28 11. 12, 13. Without this evidence, I would not be able to meet my burden of proof at trial, and that would mean that I would lose and forfeit my right to any real damages award. Defendant’s Attorney, Emily Grace Genge, and her clients have been recently admonished in their recent violation of the California Discovery Act, for their illegal withholding of relevant addresses and other pertinent information. The judge in question said that I “had a right to investigate.” To address Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s statement, “Both Defendants have provided code complaint and complete responses to those requests.” Why did they get sanctioned? For “code complaint complete responses” or for their failure to do so? I do not think they would have been sanctioned but for their illegal conduct. A true copy of the Order and monetary sanctions judgment has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 2.0. Defendant’s Counselor Emily Grace Genge has been on an active campaign to do whatever she can to get rid of this case. She has harassed me, extorted me, blackmailed me, and even threated me extensively over the last few months. In her most recent attempt, she attacked my sister, Miss. Angelica Reyes Contreras, who is by all accounts one of the most religious people that I know—she goes to church every Wednesday and Sunday and is very active in the Catholic community; yet, she was disparaged by Counsel Emily Grace Genge. Miss. Reyes never disrespects anyone, stays to herself, but for some reason she has been the latest victim of Counsel Genge’s harassment and disparaging campaign! DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 714, 15. 16. 17. I requested the Most Qualified Officer and NOT a witness for this Deposition Notice, and I will NOT accept a witness; this would undermine the Corporate Deposition theory behind their force of “binding them to their deposition testimony” for trial. This is exactly what the Legislators in California wanted per C.C.P. § 2025.230. Ineed all of this evidence because they can prove similar incidents and injuries at the premises store, and not providing this would constitute reversable error. This evidence is crucial and needed so that I can establish and fulfill my burden of proof—especially for the Notice requirement under the causes of action that I pled. I spoke to my Civil Procedure law school professor about limitations of a deposition location, and he told me that there were NONE; so, this deposition can occur within any location that I chose that is within limits provided by law. Ironically, Defendant’s Motion states that this is, “a straight forward personal injury case after a metal tumbler, weighing less than one pound fell on his foot.” Okay, I want to stop right here; if this was a “straight forward” case, then why did Counsel Genge submit a sworn Declaration on November 15, 2019, that stated “This number of specially prepared interrogatories is warranted under section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because of the complexity and the quantity of the existing and potential issues in this case.” This sworn Declaration just defeated her lie in her non-sworn pleading DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 818. 19. submission. This Declaration has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 3.0. Next, she claims that this is a small case that merits few damages, well, she filed a Motion to Reclassify this case and this Motion for DENIED by the Honorable Judge Ulmer. He claimed that the damages could be much more than the $25,000 amount that is required for the jurisdiction of this Court and the set of facts at issue. So, if the Honorable Judge Ulmer, one of the smartest and most respected judges in the country, denied their motion, why is it that she continues to claim it is a small case warranting of little damages? This Denial Order, which frankly, was a waste of time, has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 4.0. Monumental to state, this has been the most IMPORTANT motion that has been filed in this litigation cycle and I won this motion outright. This should tell this Court a lot: either (1) I am really good at motion practice, or (2) some other party’s counsel is not very good. Frankly, I do not appreciate that Counsel Genge continues to misrepresent and misstate the facts—this is not only grossly unfair, but very prejudicial to the larger legal system in general. Another motion that I won was the Site Inspection Order. To address the law and motion practice query that Defendant Starbucks Corporation addressed by| their comment of “unnecessary and extensive motion practice”. This incident occurred at a local San Francisco store, and I filed a demand to conduct a site inspection, but they did not even want me to enter the store in question; they sent me tons of objections, and eventually, I filed a motion to compel out of DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 927 28 necessity, and I won the Motion! Most of the most important queries were given to me, such as the shelve and the documentation criteria. It is notable to] point out that an Order to Show Cause/Contempt of Court Motion is to be heard soon for Emily Grace Genge’s disrespectful conduct to this Court in reference to this Court’s Order. This has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 5.0. 20. Next, I filed a Motion to Amend DOE 1 in the complaint to add Defendant Shaunta Minner, and this was also granted to me by the Honorable Judge Ethan P. Schulman; this motion is currently the reason why an Order to Show Cause/Hold in Contempt proceeding has been recently launched against Emil Grace Genge for her gross disrespect to the rule of law. This has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 6.0. 21. Next, I filed a motion to extend page limits for a Motion for Spoliation of Evidence, and this Motion was granted to me by the Honorable Judge Ethan P. Schulman. This Order has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 7.0. 22. Now that this is out in public, I want to mention that one of my law school professors, who teaches torts and cybersecurity law told me to request such information, as it would help with the willful destruction of evidence motion, and for this case at hand. I am asking for the premises software and not the entire “Starbucks Corporation’s International” technological systems. This notice is very reasonable, as it only has two main categories of knowledge and] DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 10not hundreds. We have a confidentiality and protective order in place in the event that confidential information is released. 23. Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not meet its heavy burden of proof to get this Motion granted. They did not present a Separate Statement in Support, nor did they provide good cause for this Motion. Discovery is very broad in California, and per my civil procedure professor, one of the “most liberal in the entire country.” 24. Starbucks Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and this is truly not “unduly burdensome.” For example, back in April/May of 2019, Katrina Durek (another lawyer assigned to this case) told me that “money was no issue for Starbucks.” She told me this twice! Defendants now want to use this Motion to help oppress and suppress my ability to litigate, and this should be denied immediately. 25. I worked very hard on this motion, and I request the following sanctions amount. These sanctions are to be deemed a proper measure of damages. I spent twenty-nine (29) hours writing this motion, speaking to law school professors, investigating civil procedure law books, and on the extensive legal research required on LexisNexis. I spent $153.00 on printing fees, which included cases and many statutory codifications of California law, since I cannot read many documents on a computer screen, I was forced to print them all out. I also spent money on postal fees via the United States Postal Service, according to proof. Since I am a State Certified Mediator, per California Business and Professions Code § 465-471.5, and the California Code of DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 11Regulations, Title 16, Chapter 36, which enables the substantive provisions of the California Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986, and since my billing rate is $100.00 per hour, and since I spent 29 hours of my precious time writing and researching for this motion, hence, I would merit a $2,900 award for my labor, plus my printing and parcel shipping fees. I respectfully request that these sanctions amount as to my labor get sent to a local charity of my choosing. As to what I would like back in addition to printing costs: I anticipate on spending $94.00 on Court Call Costs, which is a reimbursable expense. Next, transportation costs totaled $60.00 for my ability to properly execute this Motion to Compel, and of course, the Court filing fee of $60.00 and $30.00 for the Court Reporter fee. Also, envelops and adhesives totaled $9.00, and the postal fees are going to hit the $50.00 range, with the many defendants required to be served, and the heavy load of documents within. This should warrant a monetary sanction amount of about $3,356 with all fees and expenses included. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, executed this 15" day of January, 2020, in Beverly Hills, California. Respectfully Submitted, 0 Armando Reyes, J.D. Mt DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 12PLAINTIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 1.0Bureau of Mr. Armand eyes, J.D. Legum Magister Candidate: International Human Rights State of California Certified Mediator d 6360 Eighth Street. t 4 Riverbank, California. 95367. XY 2 - — Devi be. B (209) 596-3023—Cellular Device SS areyes.apadre(@email.com HIGHLY CONF IDENTIAL! December 6, 2019: RE: Meet and Confer in Reference to Jen Lu’s and Starbuck Corporation’s Deposition, and a Stiff Warning of a Potential Motion to Compel: ! Dear Madam Genge: I hope this letter finds you well. It pains me that you are playing evil with me.. I have addressed your issues below: First, per my Civil Procedure Professor, this deposition could indeed occur within a'city park: please tell me which code/law bars such request? Next, I do not know the Deponent’s address, and frankly, I do not trust you, so I cannot verify this, nor take your word as legitimate. Also, Starbucks does not have a residential address, does it? Also, have you looked closely at the San Francisco County’s land mass, including offshore assets and properties? For example, I urge you to please kindly Google islands in Alameda County that belong to San Francisco, and which are part of San Francisco “ County; you will be shocked! Ms. Reyes surveyed this part of the county, and indeed, the City of Ripon is within the 75 mile radius allotment, I urge you to investigate for yourself if you do not believe this. As a side note and as;a gentle reminder, if the documents that I requested within the deposition notices are not delivered to me i Page 1 of 2three (3) days before :such notice date, a new motion to compel will ensue; you are hereby warned. Finally, you said you |were not available during the holidays, and you said that until the day of January 1, 2020; is this incorrect? Unfortunately, I am not able to do these depositions on January 7th, nor on the 10th. I am trying to work with you as hard as possible, I am in the middle of a book writing episode, I am jointly;doing my LL.M. studies, my Human Rights Summer Abroad coordination with other governments, and I am trying to get as much discovery as possible so I can have this trial in June of 2021; not 2022. Please work with me to get this mission accomplished. Why do you enjoy making me suffer? I just do not get it;.I am super nice to you and your staff, and I try to work with compassion with your office, but all I get is filth and hate. P.S. Please find the filed Court paperwork in reference to the depositions for June of 2020. Also, three (3) more motions will be mailed within the next two (2) weeks. May you please have a blessed and prosperous Merry Christmas. I Warmly, , Armando Reyes Armando Reyes, J.D. \ Page 2 of 2PLAIN'IVFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 2.0Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J/D. Legum Magister Candidate State of California Certified Mettator 6360 Eighth Street. Riverbank, California. 95367; Phone | 209-596-3023 i Email: areyes.apadro( o@amall com i San Francisco Gounty Suntrior curt JAN 2 2020 ‘OF 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO | ARMANDO REYES, | | | vs. vl . | STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER| FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU -|| (MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL ||CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Case No.: CGC-19-574396 _ -| PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM DEFENDANT JEN LU DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2019 TIME: 9:00'A.M. (PST) DEPT: 302 COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 ‘The Motion to Compt further responses from Defendant Jen Lu to Plaintiff Armando Reyes? Form tot was set for a hearing in Department 302 of this Honorable Cout on December 23,2019. On Detember 20, 2019, this Honorable Court issued a Tentative Ruling in {PREPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER - RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM DEFENDANT JEN LUDATE: DECEMBER) - ||23, 2019TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302-1 ! 12.7. favor of Plaintiff Armando Reyes’ form interrogatories 2.3 and 2.5, respectably, and denied as to Having read and seriously considered all of the legal paperwork, memorandum, declarations, reply briefs, supporting documents, law review articles, evidence exhibits; and oral | arguments presented to this Honorable Court by these parties, ” IT IS HEREBY LAWFULLY ORDERED THAT: PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ “Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Jen Lu to Form Interrogatories. Denied as to 2.7 as interrogatory has complete address granted as to 2.3 (defendants requested similar information from plaintiff) and 2.5 (background information that is relevant to the subject matter). Sanctions awarded in the amount of $75 as attorney fees are not recoverable by a self-represented plaintiff (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 CA4th 1173, 1179) and the majority of the filings were not pertinent to the issue on which plaintiff prevailed.” DATED: _(>/3//r9 SO bet le Power Vane / THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE . SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN ~ FRANCISCO ] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2.3 AND 2.5 FROM DEFENDANT JEN LUDATE: DECEMBER) 23, 2019TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302-2 .PLAINTIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 3.0wo em YN DA HM Bw NY No YP YP YP N RN VY YP BS Be ewe ewe ew me Be em em ok, BuURHRERRE BSE SRREAREBHE AS DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1, EMILY G. GENGE, declare: 1. Tam presently the attorney for Defendants STARBUCKS CORPORATION and JEN LU, parties to this action or proceeding. 2. 1 am propounding to Plaintiff ARMANDO REYES the attached set of specially prepared interrogatories. 3. This set of specially prepared interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of interrogatories permitted by section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4, T have not previously propounded specially prepared interrogatories to this party. 5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of forty [40] specially prepared interrogatories. 6. 1am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the parties in this case. 7. Ihave personally examined each of the interrogatories in this set of specially prepared interrogatories. 8. This number of specially prepared interrogatories is warranted under section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure Weeatiseromathiercomp lem iamalggh 9. None of the interrogatories in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 10. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 15, 2019. EMILY G. GENGE 8 DEFENDANTS STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S SPECIAL No. CGC-19-574396 INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF. SET TWOPLAINTIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 4.0F LL Bed San Francisco. Gounty Secenar Coun ARMANDO REYES, J.D. ; 6360 Eighth Street. SEP 2 7 20193 Riverbank, California, 95367 Phone | 209-596-3023 Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com’ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ARMANDO REYES, Case No.: CGC-19-574396 Plaintiff, ws [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN _ .| CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN) MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS ee Soe Aone 2018 PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT De AM DD) CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS : PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU (MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND DOES | THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 Defendants, The Motion to Reclassify this case from the unlimited jurisdiction of this Court to the limited jurisdiction of this Court was set for a hearing in Department 302 of this Honorable Court on September 26, 2019. "On September 25, 2019, this Honorable urt issued al Tentative Ruling in favor of Plaintiff Armando Reyes, anda ruling denying Defendants Motion to Reclassify this case. B] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S MOTION td RECLASSIFY CASEDATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019TIME: 9:30 A.M. (PDT)DEPT: 302COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019-1Having read and wing Onis all of the legal paperwork, memorandum, declarations, reply briefs, supporting documents, and oral arguments presented to this Honorable Court by these parties, ILIS HEREBY LAWFULLY ORDERED THAT: Lu’s motion to reclassify the case to limited jurisdiction is denied. As defendants concede, the test for their motion is whether damages in the jurisdictional amount are “virtually unattainable.” (Ytuarte v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 266, 266-77.) Damages for pain and suffering are “not subject to precise pretrial measurement,” so it is particularly difficult to win a reclassification motion in a case like this one. Cay) 7 6G DATED: 4] 24ft¢ badd Bib, THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RICHARD B. ULMER ] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND JEN LU’S MOTION TO} RECLASSIFY CASEDATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019TIME: 9:30 A.M. (PDT)DEPT: 302COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 -2PLAINTIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 5.0SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ARMANDO REYES, No. CGC-19-574396 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN PREMISES JOHNSON, Chief Executive Officer in his professional capacity, PATRICK GRISMER . (Chief Financial Officer) in his professional Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019 capacity, PETER FILIPOVIC (Treasurer) in Trial Date: Not set his professional capacity, SCOTT CARTER (Manager) in his professional capacity, JEN LU (Manager) in her professional capacity, Defendants. The Motion to Compel a Site Inspection of the Subject Premises (“Motion”) was set for hearing in Department 302 of this Court on October 4, 2019. On October 3, 2019 this Court issued a Tentative Ruling. Plaintiff Armando Reyes’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion sought to compel a Site Inspection of the subject premises and requested that both parties appear. Both parties stipulated to the Judge Pro Tem Katherine Gallo to hear the motion. After having read and considered all the moving papers, including memoranda, declarations, and supporting documents filed by both parties, and after hearing oral argument, the court HEREBY FINDS: 1 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE No. CGC-19-574396 INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISESCe tN A mh eB Ww NY Re yon Se a BRR RRSREBE SERRE EBERE SS Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d) gives a party the right to demand “to enter any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on who the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” However, in reviewing the demand to enter the property, plaintiff is also asking for documents that are covered under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d). These are two separate discovery devices and should not have been combined. Therefore, the motion of Plaintiff Armanda Reyes to compel a Site Inspection of the subject premises is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's site inspection request is granted with the following limitations. 1, The site inspection will take place at a mutually agreed upon date and time. The site inspection will not take place from November 23, 2019 through January 1, 2020. Itis not to take place on or around the holidays, Parties are to meet and confer and provide available dates on or before November 4, 2019. 2, The site inspection will not be conducted during business hours when the Starbucks store is normally open. It will also will not be conducted within one hour after the store closes and one hour before the opens. Parties are to meet and confer as to the exact timing, Plaintiff will be allotted two (2) hours to perform the site inspection. 3. This Court hereby orders that a discovery referee be in attendance or readily available by phone to the parties during the site inspection for the purposes of resolving any disputes that arise during the site inspection. Parties are to submit names to the court no later than November 1, 2019. Defendant to pay costs of the discovery referee at this time subject to allotment by the court. 4. Plaintiff agrees he will be solely responsible for the costs of replacement and/or repair of any and all property damaged as a result of Plaintiff's inspection. 5. The following “Instructions” requested by Plaintiff in his site inspection demand are DENIED as follows: a. No. 2: Plaintiff shall not throw any tumbler, fruit or any other object during the site inspection. . : 2 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE ‘No. CGC-19-574396 INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISESwe mw yr Dn mH eR BW YD ee Bee a ak oe a Ahm FH RS Ss No. 4: Plaintiff shall not have use of Starbucks mop or any. No. 5: Plaintiff shall not have use or take any samples of Starbucks cleaners. No. 8: Plaintiff shall not place any signs during site inspection. No. 9: Plaintiff shall not place any strips of yellow caution warning tape around site. No, 11: Plaintiff shall not access, review or photocopy any Starbuck employee’s personnel file. ‘ No. 12: Plaintiff shall not access, review or print any of Starbuck’s electronically stored information on their computers, Plaintiff shall have not have access to Starbuck’s computers or their wi-fi during this site inspection. No. 13: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any video security footage maintained at the store. No. 15: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any training manuals. No. 16: Plaintiff shall not have access review or copy any internal system that coordinates injury intake. No. 19: Plaintiff shall not have access, review or copy any cleaning logs at the premises. 6. The following “Instructions” provided by Plaintiff in his site inspection demand are LIMITED: a. No. 3: Plaintiff may access the small table in the area of the premises where he sat on the day of the alleged incident. Any inspection will be limited to that table and the required tools to measure and weigh it will not be provided by Defendants. Plaintiff is financially responsible for any and all damage to the property. No. 6: access to five tumblers with SKU # 1106494, Defendant Starbucks is to confirm whether it continues to manufacture the exact tumbler and whether they can be purchased. Starbucks to advise plaintiff no later November 15, 2019 the cost of the tumblers which Plaintiff may purchase. * 3 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE ‘No. CGC-19-574396 INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISEScr enya nH ek Ww NY Soe et aa aa Fw RES 17 c. No. 7: During the site inspection Plaintiff may take photographs and/or videos of the store and area where the incident occurred. He may under no circumstances take photographs or video of the back offices, behind the counter, or the restrooms. Plaintiffs may not photograph will be taken of Defendant’s employees, experts, counsel, customers or any other individuals. d. No. 10: Plaintiff may measure the shelf in question. Under no circumstances may Plaintiff remove items from the shelf’ Defendant’s representatives will do so. This is limited to the measuring of the shelf itself. However, if the shelf is fixed to the wall, the shelf may not be removed. e. No. 18: Plaintiff may not weigh or handle any items on the shelf. Those will be removed by Defendant representatives only. If and only if, the shelf at the premises is not mounted to the wall itself, Defendant representatives may assist in the weighing of the shelf. 7. The following “Instructions” provided by Plaintiff in his demand are GRANTED: a. No. 1: Plaintiff may access the premises for the purpose of the limited site inspection on a mutually convenient date that will take place outside of Defendant’s business hours. See above paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. b. No. 14: Plaintiff may have access to a chair at the premises. He may weigh and measure the chair with his own equipment. Plaintiff is financially responsible for any and all damage to the property. c. No. 17: Everyone present at the site inspection shall sign a form of attendance sheet and all parties present shall be given a copy. d. No. 20: Plaintiff will be provided one box of unopened tumblers that he can examine. He is permitted to count the number of tumblers inside the box but is not permitted to open or examine any individual tumbler or any “other work product confidential necessities.” 8. There is no ruling on the document inspections that Plaintiff had in his site inspection demand. 4 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE No. CGC-19-574396 INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES_ yy YN _ Pe Se Re oe ee Rh FE RB8SRESSRERARREBER SE Cet Am F WwW DN 9. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. Dated: sa fuofs 2 T. RO TE) 5 LO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A SITE INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES No. CGC-19-574396PLAIN TIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 6.0NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRO PERY ATTORNEY (S) FOR: Armando Reyes, J.D. (In Pro Per) 6360 Eighth Street. Riverbank, California. 95367 Ayvmande Reves Superior Court Case Number: Cae - 4 - 57439 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR DOE OR FICTITIOUS NAME MJ No Trial Date Set : Plaintiff(s)/Cross-Compla inant Starbucks, etal. Defendant(s)/Cross-Defendant: SS mmm eer O Trial Date Fictitious Name {SEC. 474 C.C.P} Upon filing the complaint/cross complaint herein, plaintiff(s) being ignorant of the true name of the defendant, and having designated defendant in the complaint by the fictitious name of: DOE 1 and having discovered the true name of the defendant/cross-defendant to be: Shaunta Minner hereby amends the complaint/cross complaint by inserting true name in place and stead of such incorrect name wherever it appears in complaint/cross_ complaint. OG Peg B. D Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff/Cross Complainant " ORDER Good cause appearing, the above amendment to the complaint is allowed. Dated: Lot 6, 2012 Frfhita GA _ ETHAN P. SCHULMAN Revised 5-2019 Form-011PLAINTIFF REYES’ EXHIBIT 7.027 28 Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D. Legum Magister Candidate State of California Certified Mediator 6360 Eighth Street. |Riverbank, California. 95367 | Phone | 209-596-3023 Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com i FF San Francisco County Superior Court JAN 03 2020 LEK OF THE QOURT me ‘Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION . ARMANDO REYES, Plaintiff, vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN| HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU (MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. : Case No.: CGC-19-574396 pRorosnp; SEDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITS DATE: JANUARY 3, 2020 TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST) DEPT: 302 JUDGE: HON. ETHAN P, SCHULMAN COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff Armando Reyes filed a Motion. and Application pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1113(e). The Motion and Application to file a {PREPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITSDATE: JANUARY 3, 2020TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302JUDGE: HON. ETHAN P, SCHULMAN - 1|| were presented, and a-ruling-was-read-from the benehe -— EX Dork memorandum of law for Spoliation of Evidence exceeding the page limits was set for 4 hearing in Department 302 of this Honorable Court on January 3, 2020. On January 3, 2020, a hearing was held before the Honorable Judge Ethan P. Schulman in Department 302. Oral arguments presented to this Honorable Court by these parties, IT IS HEREBY Lawrtsaer ChobRnp THAT: . PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ “Motion to file a memorandum of law for Motion for| - Spoliation of Evidence is GRANTED. It is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff Armando Reyes be allowed to submit up to twenty (20) pages in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of his Motion for Spoliation of Evidence.” Det. hin : tt GH ap pone DAE of h 26 payed. Og DATED: : y THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR MOTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITSDATE: JANUARY 3, 2020TIME: 11:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302JUDGE: HON, ETHAN P. SCHULMAN - 2of PROOF OF SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MAIL (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stanislaus County; I am over the age of eighteen years, and I am domiciled at 6360 Eighth Street. Riverbank, California. 95367. I am not a party to the above-entitled action. On January 16, 2020, I served a copy of the following documents: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On the following named person by causing an envelope to be addressed thereto as follows, via first-class mail, a copy of the foregoing documents enclosed and sealed therein, and said envelope deposited in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid addressed as follows: Attention: Paul Caleo, SBN#: 153925/ Katrina R. Durek, SBN#: 289461/ Emily Grace Genge, SBN#: 318706 Burnham Brown Law Firm P.O. Box#: 119 Oakland, California. 94604 Mr. Scott Carter 852 Stonegate Drive. South San Francisco, California. 94080 I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 16, 2020 at Los Angeles, California. Angelica Reyes Contreras DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER - 13