On July 10, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
City And County Of San Francisco,
City And County Of San Francisco (Consolidated,
Ghlotti Bros., Inc., A California Corporation,
Synergy Project Management, Inc.,
and
Breed, London,
City And County Of San Francisco,
Does 1-100,
Does 2-100, Et Al.,
Ghilotti Bros., Inc.,
Nuru, Mohammed,
San Francisco Department Of Public Works,
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency,
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS (Intentional interference with contractual relations)
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 JOHNNY D. KNADLER (SBN 220942)
LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER
2 1527-E Pershing Drive
ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94129
3 Telephone: (310) 564-6695 F I L E D
Facsimile: (888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Email: jdknadler@gmail.com
05/04/2021
5 Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant
7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034
INC., (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488)
12
Plaintiff,
13 SYNERGY PROJECT
vs. MANAGEMENT, INC.’S
14 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, OBJECTIONS
15 LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED NURU,
16 Defendants.
______________________________________ Date: May 7, 2021
17 Time: 9:00 a.m.
GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Dept: 301
18 Corporation,
Complaint filed: July 10, 2017
19 Plaintiff,
20 DISCOVERY
vs,
21
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
22 INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1-30,
23 Defendants.
24 ______________________________________
25 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a
California Corporation,
26
Cross-Complainant,
27
vs.
28
1 Case No. CGC-17-560034
GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California
1 Corporation, and ROES 1-20,
2 Cross-Defendants.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s (“Synergy”) responds to Ghilotti Bros., Inc.’s objections
2 to
3 I. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULLED
4 California Rule of Court 3.3154 set forth the content and format requirements for written
5 objections. Rule of Court 3.1354 states:
6
(b) Format of objections
7 All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other
papers in support of or in opposition to the motion. Objections to specific evidence
8 must be referenced by the objection number in the right column of a separate
statement in opposition or reply to a motion, but the objections must not be restated
9 or reargued in the separate statement. Each written objection must be numbered
consecutively and must:
10 (1) Identify the name of the document in which the specific material objected to is
located;
11 (2) State the exhibit, title, page, and line number of the material objected to;
(3) Quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material; and
12 (4) State the grounds for each objection to that statement or material;
13 Cal. R.Ct. 1354(b). Rule 1354 further provides two formats written objections must follow. Id.
14 Defendants’ objections do not comply with the content or format requirements of Rule 1354.
15 This failure is material, because resolution of GBI’s objections depends on an inquiry that blanket
16 objections do not permit.
17 Submission of rebuttal evidence in a reply conforms to the general rule that “a trial court has
18 inherent power, independent of statute, to exercise its discretion and control over all proceedings
19 relating to the litigation before it [citation]. One phase of such power ‘necessary to the orderly and
20 efficient exercise of jurisdiction’ [citation] is the power to obtain evidence upon which the judgment
21 of the court may rest [citation]. Johnson v. Banducci (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 254, 260; see Weiss v.
22 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098. Defendants cite Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.
23 App. 4th 1522 (2013), in support of their objections, but that case makes it clear that reply evidence
24 is appropriate to respond to evidentiary issues raised in opposition papers See Jay v. Mahaffey, 218
25 Cal. App. 4th at 1538, (2013) (reply declarations appropriate to fill gaps regarded by opposition
26 papers). Evidence which is used to fill gaps in the original evidence created by the opposition is
27 particularly appropriate to consider in a reply. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Torres Constr. Corp., 57 Cal.
28 App. 5th 480, 499 (2020). Thus, responsive arguments and declarations are appropriate to respond
3 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 when invited by arguments raised in an opposition. See RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal
2 Co., Inc., 56 Cal. App. 5th 413, 432, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 (2020 (overruling court’s order striking
3 reply declarations); Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills, 46 Cal. App. 5th 665, 679
4 (2020) (rejecting objections to reply where reply arguments followed arguments made in opening
5 petition).
6 Here, the argument and evidence presented in Synergy’s reply papers responded to
7 contentions made in opposition and did not raise issues not raised in Synergy’s opening papers.
8 Moreover, GBI’s failure to satisfy the content and format requirements of Rule 3154(b) make it
9 impossible to ascertain the specific arguments or evidence GBI contends is improper, and not invited
10 as a response to arguments and evidence made in GBI’s opposition papers. GBI’s blanket objections
11 should be overruled.
12
LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D.
13 KNADLER
14
15 Dated: May 4, 2021 By: /s/ Johnny D. Knadler
16 JOHNNY D. KNADLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-
17 complainant
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
18 INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 Case No. CGC-17-560034
Preview
1 JOHNNY D. KNADLER (SBN 220942) LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER 2 1527-E Pershing Drive ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94129 3 Telephone: (310) 564-6695 F I L E D Facsimile: (888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Email: jdknadler@gmail.com 05/04/2021 5 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant 7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034 INC., (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488) 12 Plaintiff, 13 SYNERGY PROJECT vs. MANAGEMENT, INC.’S 14 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, OBJECTIONS 15 LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED NURU, 16 Defendants. ______________________________________ Date: May 7, 2021 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Dept: 301 18 Corporation, Complaint filed: July 10, 2017 19 Plaintiff, 20 DISCOVERY vs, 21 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 22 INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, 23 Defendants. 24 ______________________________________ 25 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a California Corporation, 26 Cross-Complainant, 27 vs. 28 1 Case No. CGC-17-560034 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California 1 Corporation, and ROES 1-20, 2 Cross-Defendants. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s (“Synergy”) responds to Ghilotti Bros., Inc.’s objections 2 to 3 I. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULLED 4 California Rule of Court 3.3154 set forth the content and format requirements for written 5 objections. Rule of Court 3.1354 states: 6 (b) Format of objections 7 All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion. Objections to specific evidence 8 must be referenced by the objection number in the right column of a separate statement in opposition or reply to a motion, but the objections must not be restated 9 or reargued in the separate statement. Each written objection must be numbered consecutively and must: 10 (1) Identify the name of the document in which the specific material objected to is located; 11 (2) State the exhibit, title, page, and line number of the material objected to; (3) Quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material; and 12 (4) State the grounds for each objection to that statement or material; 13 Cal. R.Ct. 1354(b). Rule 1354 further provides two formats written objections must follow. Id. 14 Defendants’ objections do not comply with the content or format requirements of Rule 1354. 15 This failure is material, because resolution of GBI’s objections depends on an inquiry that blanket 16 objections do not permit. 17 Submission of rebuttal evidence in a reply conforms to the general rule that “a trial court has 18 inherent power, independent of statute, to exercise its discretion and control over all proceedings 19 relating to the litigation before it [citation]. One phase of such power ‘necessary to the orderly and 20 efficient exercise of jurisdiction’ [citation] is the power to obtain evidence upon which the judgment 21 of the court may rest [citation]. Johnson v. Banducci (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 254, 260; see Weiss v. 22 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098. Defendants cite Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. 23 App. 4th 1522 (2013), in support of their objections, but that case makes it clear that reply evidence 24 is appropriate to respond to evidentiary issues raised in opposition papers See Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 25 Cal. App. 4th at 1538, (2013) (reply declarations appropriate to fill gaps regarded by opposition 26 papers). Evidence which is used to fill gaps in the original evidence created by the opposition is 27 particularly appropriate to consider in a reply. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Torres Constr. Corp., 57 Cal. 28 App. 5th 480, 499 (2020). Thus, responsive arguments and declarations are appropriate to respond 3 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 when invited by arguments raised in an opposition. See RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal 2 Co., Inc., 56 Cal. App. 5th 413, 432, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 (2020 (overruling court’s order striking 3 reply declarations); Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills, 46 Cal. App. 5th 665, 679 4 (2020) (rejecting objections to reply where reply arguments followed arguments made in opening 5 petition). 6 Here, the argument and evidence presented in Synergy’s reply papers responded to 7 contentions made in opposition and did not raise issues not raised in Synergy’s opening papers. 8 Moreover, GBI’s failure to satisfy the content and format requirements of Rule 3154(b) make it 9 impossible to ascertain the specific arguments or evidence GBI contends is improper, and not invited 10 as a response to arguments and evidence made in GBI’s opposition papers. GBI’s blanket objections 11 should be overruled. 12 LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. 13 KNADLER 14 15 Dated: May 4, 2021 By: /s/ Johnny D. Knadler 16 JOHNNY D. KNADLER Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross- 17 complainant SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 18 INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No. CGC-17-560034