Preview
1 DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
2 YVONNE R. MERÉ, SBN 173594 ELECTRONICALLY
Chief Deputy City Attorney F I L E D
3 ELAINE M. O’NEIL, SBN 142234 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN 270784
4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 05/20/2022
Deputy City Attorneys Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
5 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor Deputy Clerk
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
6 Telephone: (415) 554-3957
Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
7 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org
8 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
13 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034
(Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488)
14 Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF JAIME M. HULING
15 v. DELAYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE
17 Defendant. DEADLINE TO FILE CERTAIN
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO RUN FROM
18 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, THE NEW FEBRUARY 6, 2023 TRIAL
DATE
19 Plaintiff,
Hearing Date: May 23, 2022
20 v. Hearing Judge: Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr.
Time: 11:00 a.m.
21 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Place: 302
California Corporation, and DOES 1-30,
22 Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017
Defendants. Trial Date: February 6, 2023
23
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a
24 California Corporation, Cross-Complainant,
25 v.
26 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation,
and ROES 1-20,
27
Cross-Defendants.
28
1
JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx
1 I, Jaime Huling Delaye, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California and before this
3 Court. I am employed as a Deputy City Attorney with the Office of the City Attorney for the City and
4 County of San Francisco. I am assigned to represent the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) in
5 the above-captioned litigation. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein, and I could
6 and would testify competently thereto.
7 2. I provided timely notice of this ex parte application to counsel for Synergy Project
8 Management Inc. (“Synergy”), and Synergy declined to stipulate. Synergy’s counsel stated his
9 intention to appear and to oppose the City’s application. The City also provided timely notice of this
10 application to counsel for Ghilotti Bros., Inc., who has informed counsel for the City that they will
11 appear, but not oppose the application. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the email
12 correspondence providing notice. No party has brought other applications seeking the same relief
13 sought in this application.
14 3. Synergy has indicated it may withdraw its “Corrected Fourth Amended Complaint,” but
15 has declined to commit to do so. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the relevant
16 email correspondence.
17 4. Per this Court’s February 3, 2022 Order, the former trial date of September 19, 2022
18 was set as the “initial trial date from which pre-trial motion dates will flow.” Attached as Exhibit C is
19 a true and correct copy of the Court’s February 3, 2022 Order.
20 5. On May 17, 2022, the Court, through Department 206, granted the City’s motion to
21 continue the trial, continuing the trial from September 19, 2022 to February 6, 2023 due to
22 undersigned counsel’s pregnancy and anticipated maternity leave. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and
23 correct copy of the Court’s May 17, 2022 Order. During the hearing on that motion, counsel for the
24 City asked for the confirmation that the deadlines for summary judgment and other dispositive
25 motions would flow from the continued trial date, and Judge Feng responded: “[t]hat’s up to law and
26 motion.” Also attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the May 17,
27 2022 hearing transcript. Judge Feng continued, referencing a hearing scheduled in Department 301 for
28 May 27, 2022 on Synergy’s motion to reopen discovery, stating “[i]f law and motion says that
2
JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx
1 discovery is reopened, you can ask law and motion that the discovery shall include the motions for
2 summary judgment and adjudication of issues.” Counsel for the City indicated that the City’s deadline
3 to file a summary judgment motion is five days after the hearing, and Judge Feng indicated the City
4 “can inform the Court in 302 on the 27th what the dilemma that you have is.” Finally, Judge Feng
5 confirmed the law and motion department has authority to extend the City’s summary judgment
6 deadline because “all summary judgments and motions for summary adjudication of issues go to 302.”
7 6. The City’s current deadline to file a summary judgment motion is June 3, 2022, a date
8 that is at least three weeks before the earliest date a hearing will occur on the City’s planned demurrer
9 and motion to strike to Synergy’s Fourth Amended Complaint.
10 7. Moreover, on May 17, 2022, Synergy filed a “Corrected” Fourth Amended Complaint
11 which, without leave of court, adds multiple individual defendants.
12 8. The City’s demurrer to the “Corrected” Fourth Amended Complaint is due several
13 weeks after the deadline to file a summary judgment motion, so regardless of which pleading is
14 operative, the City will have to file a summary judgment motion without knowing the results of its
15 demurrer. Synergy has moved to reopen discovery in this case, and that motion is scheduled to be
16 heard before a judge pro tempore in Department 301 on May 27, 2022. The City files this motion in
17 Department 302 because it is not clear that a judge pro tempore sitting in Department 301 has the
18 authority to extend dispositive motion deadlines. Moreover, continuing those deadlines is not part of
19 the relief that was petitioned for in that now fully-briefed motion. If Department 301 were to reopen
20 discovery in this case on May 27, 2022, responses to any new discovery served would not be due until
21 after the current summary judgment deadline.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true
23 and correct. Executed this 20th of May, 2022 at San Francisco, California.
24
25
JAIME M. HULING DELAYE
26
27
28
3
JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx
EXHIBIT A
From: Ben Rosenfeld
To: Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT); "randy daar"; Diwik, James P.; "Lewis, Ryan A."
Cc: Baruth, Ari (CAT); Poplawski, Kristine (CAT)
Subject: Re: Notice of Ex Parte Appearance in Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco,
Case No. CGC-17-560034
Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 10:04:15 AM
Attachments: P CourtCall Svc Copy (D City Ex Parte 5-23-22) 5-20-22 (Synergy).pdf
Thank you, Jaime.
Synergy will oppose. My CourtCall appearance confirmation is attached. Best, Ben
On 5/20/22 9:48 AM, Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT) wrote:
Counsel,
Please take notice that on Monday, May 23rd at 11am, the City will appear in
Department 302 of the San Francisco Superior Court to move ex parte for an
order that the deadline for dispositive motions that are set based off the trial date
in this action (including motions for summary judgment and motions for
judgment on the pleadings) shall be calculated based off of the continued trial
date of February 6, 2023.
Best,
Jaime
Jaime Huling Delaye
Deputy City Attorney
Complex and Affirmative Litigation Team
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Direct: 415-554-3957/Cell: 415-671-9841
Fax: 415-437-4644
Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of
the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or
disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
EXHIBIT B
From: Ben Rosenfeld
To: Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT); "randy daar"
Cc: Diwik, James P.; "Lewis, Ryan A."; Baruth, Ari (CAT); Poplawski, Kristine (CAT)
Subject: Re: Meet and Confer re Motion to Strike "Corrected" 4AC
Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 9:48:16 AM
Hi Jaime and All,
Per our meet and confer on 5/18, and the items I promised to inform the City about today:
1. We are still working meticulously through the additional points and authorities which you
and Kristine raised in our productive 5/18 meeting, and hope to have a further written response
for you by Monday. For this reason, we would not object to the City invoking the CCP
430.41(a)(2) 30-day extension provision. The same goes for the City's prospective motion to
strike---though I would point out that the City is not obligated to use up all of those 30 days
prior to filing its demurrer/MTS after we narrow our disputes as much as possible. In any
event, this should obviate any need to go in jointly ex parte to give/get additional time, as we
also discussed on 5/18.
2. We are still deciding how we intend to proceed with respect to reinstating Mayor Breed and
Mr. Nuru as defendants, vel non. Presently, we are leaning toward filing a CCP 472/473
motion and withdrawing our Corrected 4AC and Notice of Errata in the 4AC--though please
be advised that the Court/Clerk so far have not accepted these instruments for filing.
I am telegraphing our leaning, though this is not a final decision. I hope to inform you
definitively by the end of the day today, as we discussed (though if the Court has not yet acted
on the submitted filing, I may not be able to say that we will withdraw it, per se).
Best, Ben
On 5/18/22 1:16 PM, Ben Rosenfeld wrote:
Thank you, Jaimie. We are reviewing your points.
On 5/18/22 1:00 PM, Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT) wrote:
Ben and Randy,
I am writing this email pursuant to CCP section 435.5 to request that
you meet and confer regarding the “Corrected” Fourth Amended
Complaint (“Corrected 4AC”) that Synergy filed yesterday. The City
intends to move to strike it in its entirety.
Synergy’s latest pleading is subject to being stricken in its entirety
because (1) the “corrected” complaint was filed without first seeking
the Court’s permission for you to do so, as is required by CCP
sections 472 and 473; (2) it adds London Breed as a new party
without leave of Court to do so, as required by CCP sections 472 and
473; and (3) it adds Mohammed Nuru as a new party in direct
contravention of the Court’s March 24, 2022 Order Granting In Part
Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint,
which expressly denied Synergy’s request to name him as a
defendant, and in violation of CCP sections 472 and 473. As such, this
pleading is subject to being stricken in its entirety, or in the
alternative subject to the striking of the allegations adding parties
and causes of action as to these new parties.
Your law of the case analysis ignores the actual procedural history of
this case, which is that a final judgment was entered in favor of Breed
and Nuru. The Ninth Circuit only vacated dismissal of the intentional
interference claims against the City. That the Ninth Circuit’s
reasoning might apply to Nuru and Breed, doesn’t change what
actually happened, which is that it left undisturbed the judgement in
favor of Nuru and Breed.
Even if your “law of the case” analysis were correct (and we believe it
is not), and that the dismissal of Synergy’s claims against Mr. Nuru
and Ms. Breed was not final, such that they remain parties to this
action, the California CCP Synergy’s filing of an amended complaint
that adds these two individuals as parties would still require prior
approval of the Court. CCP section 473(a)(1) clearly contemplates
that changes to a pleading such as have been made in the Corrected
4AC require approval of the court: “The court may, in furtherance of
justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend
any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any
party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake
in any other respect, . . .”
Finally, we believe your “law of the case” analysis is flawed in several
additional respects. In dismissing all state claims against Nuru and
Breed from the First Amended Complaint arising from the Van Ness
Project, the district court did so on the additional independent basis
that Synergy had not filed a government claim with respect to them,
and that such claims were barred. In order to have preserved
Synergy’s interference claims against Mr. Nuru and Ms. Breed for
appeal, it had to have repleaded them in a subsequent amended
complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County (9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 896,
928 (en banc); see also Ho v. Recon Trust Co., N.A. (9th Cir. 2016) 840
F.3d 618, 626 (“claims dismissed without prejudice and not
repleaded are not preserved for appeal”). Synergy did not replead
the interference claims against the two individuals, and so these
claims were not preserved for appeal, nor revived by the 9th Circuit’s
ruling vacating the dismissal of the intentional interference claims
against the City.
We look forward to talking at 1:30 today.
Best,
Jaime
Jaime Huling Delaye
Deputy City Attorney
Complex and Affirmative Litigation Team
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Direct: 415-554-3957/Cell: 415-671-9841
Fax: 415-437-4644
Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and its contents
may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It
is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized
interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may
violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
EXHIBIT C
1 DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542
City Attorney , . ENDORSED
2 YVONNE R. MERE, SBN 173594 FI l ED
Chief Deputy City Attorney San Francisco County Superior Court
3 ELAINE M. O'NEIL, SBN142234
JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN270784 . FEB 0 8 2022
4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 '
Deputy City Attorneys CLEFJ1\ THE COURT
5 Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor BY.~HELLE F. VELUZ
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 --oepu1yc~
6 Telephone: (415) 554-3957
Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
7 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org
8 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034
13 (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488)
Plaintiff, @
14 (PROPOSED) ORDER SUB'fi\INING THE
v. CITY AND COUNI Y OF' SAN •
15 ERANelSCO'S OBJECTION TO TRI*L
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SETTING ORDER OR, GRANTING
16 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, OR IN
Defendant. :flIE :AL'FERNA'f'WE, FOR SEPARATE
17 4'RIALS-
--===~==,,..,,....,,...-,--,---=-=..,,...-~,,......,.,~-;..,-~~~...,:..---1
GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation,
18 Hearing Date: February 3, 2022
Plaintiff, Heating Judge: Hon. Samuel K. Feng
19 Time: 9:30 a.m.
V. Place: Dept. 206
20
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017
21 California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, Trial Date: March 7, 2022
22 Defendants.
23 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a
California. Corporation,
24
Cross-Complainant,
25
v.
26
GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation,
27 and ROES 1-20,
28 Cross-Defendants.
~rder Granting Motion fut SepaFate Trial, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li202I\180435\01573849 .docx
1 The Court, having considered the City's moving papers, the oral argument at the hearing, and
2 ail other filings from the parties in response t~ the City's moving papers, and good cause appearing,
3 orders as follows:
4 1. The City's Objection to Trial S~tting Order is SUSTAINED, and
5 2. The July 23, 2021 order setting the March 7, 2022 trial da
6 an initial trial setting conference for Synergy's claims agains
_ _ _, 2022 at _ _ _ _ __
7 - - -. Consistent with the Court's
8 prior orders, discovery is not re-opened. discovery, including written discovery and notices of
9 deposition, that was timely se prior to the discovery cut-off based upon the March 29, 2021 trial
10 emain open to allow for completion of that discovery including the motions to
11 e that discovery. All other deadlines, including the deadline to file dispositive
12 mo · ns, shall be based on the new trial date.
13 OR
14 1. The City's Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED, and
15 2. The trial in this action set for March 7, 2022 is continued to
16 , 99f1L · Jq , 2022 at 1: !Jo a.m.lp.m: in Department 206.
17. S~~~1:fsJH~~.~~~ ~~\\,~~~~~~~~~s :a~o~At°~~;~:;~:£ J.
~o\\~ olo..-l-~ LA?\\\ ..Pl~., J.:\l\ cJ.-tS~~r\.\ lO\ \\ ~Y)d oY\ 'DeP"-~\
18 wntte.a chseO'<"ery a:nd notices of dt¥os1ttoR, that Na:s ttm:ely~ ed pr10Not:he'diseo¥cry ett+-tfff based
1
3oz'S cxhr c~.q~~ 5~nerOA'S Mo-\\O'Y-\ -\-o reopen ol\5<..ove..,f"\.\.
19 af>GR the Mai:ch 29, 20tf trial "1~ tl'ris rn~r will i:emaiu open to allou,r foF completion oPfhat-
20 -tliseovcry inoludiag the motions to compel related tbe that discmrery A]] gther deatllines, itteluding
21 the deacttine to file dispositive motio.1}§ 5 shall be based on the new trial Q.~
22 OR
23 1. The March 7, 2022 trial date as to Synergy and Ghilotti remai
24 against the City shall be tried separately on------=-~ - - - - - -a.m. in
25 Department 206. Consistent with the Court's rClers, discovery is not re-opened. All discovery,
26 ces of deposition, that was timely served prior to the discovery
27 !!..J.:~~1pon the March 29, 2021 trial date in this matter will remain open to allow for
28
(j-fl?reposcd] Order Granting Motion !01 Sepmatc Triar, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01573849 .docx
1 completion of that discovery including the ml_Qo1_if.on:s.-tei-eomj:p>eefrreeiliaittee (Jeu:nsr &,/111Dtn· IJl'Ps. ~r,._st 1~ ·1
9
d..en ie.c.( • ~
lO I. The September 19, 2022 trial date as to the claims betwe~n Synergy and Ghilott_i ~
11 remains, and Synergy's claims against the City shall be tried separately on April 24~---
12 in Department 206. Discovery is only open to the eX!s;t~muw
13 iscovery. All other deadlines, including the deadline to file
14
1-5 JT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED:
SEE NEXT PAGE
17
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
18
SAMUEL K. FENG
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
~rder Granting Motion~paialb T1i&I, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li202I\180435\01594855.docx
ecnin·~
1 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS ALL PARTIES to call 415-551-3685 or e-mail the
2 court at Department206@sftc.org seven to fourteen days before the trial date and
3 provide the following information:
4 1. Party Name and Attor~ey Name (if represent~d)
5
2.· Case Name and Number
6
3. Trial date and estimate of total trial time (including motions in limine and
7
jury selection)
8
4. Are you interested in a settlement conference on the day of trial?
9
5. Provide a brief description of the case, including damages. If calling,
10
description is limited to three minutes or less.
11
6. If the case has settled, is this a global settlement as to all parties and all
12 causes of action, and is the settlement conditional or. unconditional?
13
. .
14 Parties must appear on the day of trial unless a Dismissal, Notice of Settlement,
15 or Notice of Stay is filed with courtesy copies delivered to Department 206 by 4:00 PM
16 on the Thursday before tri.al.
17 If the trial date is continued, this order applies to the new trial date. Failure to
18 comply with this order may result in monetary sanctions, C.C.P. §177.5.
19
20
21 MAY 1.] 2022
DATE:
22 HONORABLE SAMUEL K. FENG
Presiding Judge
23 San Francisco Superior Court
24
25 C(}v# # .~t_, 11' ~ 5~0C?.3Lf ;
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I, SARAH L. GUTIERREZ, declare as follows:
2
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-
3 entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building,
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
4
On May 18, 2022, I served the following document(s):
5
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
6
on the following persons at the locations specified:
7 Randolph E. Daar Attorney for Plaintiff Synergy Project
Ben Rosenfeld Management, Inc.
8 Pier 5 Law Offices
3330 Geary Boulevard, 3rd Floor East
9 San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: (415) 986-5591 – Daar
10 (415) 285-8091 – Rosenfeld
E-mail: rdaar@pier5law.com
11 ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net
12 James Patrick Diwik Attorneys for Ghilotti Bros, Inc.
Ryan Lewis
13
Troutman Sanders LLP
14 Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
15 E-mail: james.diwik@troutmansanders.com
ryan.lewis@troutmansanders.com
16
in the manner indicated below:
17
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
18 electronic service, I caused the documents to be served electronically through File & ServeXpress in portable
document format ("PDF") Adobe Acrobat.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed May 18, 2022, at San Francisco, California.
22
23
SARAH L. GUTIERREZ
24
25
26
27
28
3
Notice of Entry of Order, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602088.docx
1
2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
4 BEFORE THE HONORABLE SAMUEL K. FENG, JUDGE PRESIDING
5 DEPARTMENT NUMBER 206
6 ---oOo---
7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., )
)
8 Plaintiff, )
)
9 Vs. ) Case No.
) CGC-17-560034
10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) Consolidated
) With
11 Defendant. ) CGC-19-576488
_________________________________ )
12 )
GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a )
13 California Corporation, )
)
14 Plaintiff, )
)
15 Vs. )
)
16 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., )
)
17 Defendant. )
_________________________________ )
18
19
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings
20
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
21
22
23
Reported By: Tamara Willat, CSR No. 4609
24
25
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
13
1 reason the Court needs the judge to try a criminal
2 case, that case will have priority and your case may
3 be delayed for a week or so. Okay?
4 This case is neither a preference case, a
5 five-year statute or a UD case so that I will give
6 you that disclaimer right now.
7 So if the judge says you have a date
8 certain, but that is flexible if I need that judge
9 or 206 needs that judge for a criminal case, then
10 that judge will take that criminal case and delay
11 yours for a week or so and work with your schedule.
12 Now, please don't forget to remind the
13 Court or notify the Court within 7 or 14 days of
14 February 6, 2023, as to the status of the case and
15 please also -- we are off the record.
16 (Discussion off the Record.)
17 THE COURT: So I think that does it for
18 today.
19 MS. HULING DELAYE: I have one
20 clarification question. That the City asked that
21 the motion for summary judgment deadline and the
22 deadline for other dispositive motions flow from the
23 continued trial date so that the motion for summary
24 judgment deadline does not precede further discovery
25 in this case.
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
14
1 THE COURT: That's up to law and motion.
2 MR. ROSENFELD: We would note our
3 objection.
4 THE COURT: That is up to law and motion.
5 MS. HULING DELAYE: How so? I believe that
6 the default is that it flows from the original trial
7 date unless this court --
8 THE COURT: If law and motion says that
9 discovery is reopen, you can ask law and motion that
10 the discovery shall include the motions for summary
11 judgment and adjudication of issues.
12 MS. HULING DELAYE: And if not, then we
13 have a summary judgment motion due five days later
14 after that hearing?
15 THE COURT: You can inform the Court in 302
16 on the 27th what the dilemma that you have is.
17 Okay?
18 MS. HULING DELAYE: And if 302 denies the
19 motion to reopen discovery, does it have authority
20 to extend our summary judgment deadline?
21 THE COURT: It does. This Court will not
22 do that. Okay? Because all summary judgments and
23 motions for summary adjudication of issues go to
24 302. Does not go through here.
25 As to the February 6, 2023, trial date,
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Preview
1 DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542 City Attorney 2 YVONNE R. MERÉ, SBN 173594 ELECTRONICALLY Chief Deputy City Attorney F I L E D 3 ELAINE M. O’NEIL, SBN 142234 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN 270784 4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 05/20/2022 Deputy City Attorneys Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 5 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor Deputy Clerk San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 6 Telephone: (415) 554-3957 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 7 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org 8 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 13 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034 (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488) 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JAIME M. HULING 15 v. DELAYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE 17 Defendant. DEADLINE TO FILE CERTAIN DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO RUN FROM 18 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, THE NEW FEBRUARY 6, 2023 TRIAL DATE 19 Plaintiff, Hearing Date: May 23, 2022 20 v. Hearing Judge: Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr. Time: 11:00 a.m. 21 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Place: 302 California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, 22 Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017 Defendants. Trial Date: February 6, 2023 23 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a 24 California Corporation, Cross-Complainant, 25 v. 26 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation, and ROES 1-20, 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 1 JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx 1 I, Jaime Huling Delaye, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California and before this 3 Court. I am employed as a Deputy City Attorney with the Office of the City Attorney for the City and 4 County of San Francisco. I am assigned to represent the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) in 5 the above-captioned litigation. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein, and I could 6 and would testify competently thereto. 7 2. I provided timely notice of this ex parte application to counsel for Synergy Project 8 Management Inc. (“Synergy”), and Synergy declined to stipulate. Synergy’s counsel stated his 9 intention to appear and to oppose the City’s application. The City also provided timely notice of this 10 application to counsel for Ghilotti Bros., Inc., who has informed counsel for the City that they will 11 appear, but not oppose the application. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the email 12 correspondence providing notice. No party has brought other applications seeking the same relief 13 sought in this application. 14 3. Synergy has indicated it may withdraw its “Corrected Fourth Amended Complaint,” but 15 has declined to commit to do so. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the relevant 16 email correspondence. 17 4. Per this Court’s February 3, 2022 Order, the former trial date of September 19, 2022 18 was set as the “initial trial date from which pre-trial motion dates will flow.” Attached as Exhibit C is 19 a true and correct copy of the Court’s February 3, 2022 Order. 20 5. On May 17, 2022, the Court, through Department 206, granted the City’s motion to 21 continue the trial, continuing the trial from September 19, 2022 to February 6, 2023 due to 22 undersigned counsel’s pregnancy and anticipated maternity leave. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and 23 correct copy of the Court’s May 17, 2022 Order. During the hearing on that motion, counsel for the 24 City asked for the confirmation that the deadlines for summary judgment and other dispositive 25 motions would flow from the continued trial date, and Judge Feng responded: “[t]hat’s up to law and 26 motion.” Also attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the May 17, 27 2022 hearing transcript. Judge Feng continued, referencing a hearing scheduled in Department 301 for 28 May 27, 2022 on Synergy’s motion to reopen discovery, stating “[i]f law and motion says that 2 JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx 1 discovery is reopened, you can ask law and motion that the discovery shall include the motions for 2 summary judgment and adjudication of issues.” Counsel for the City indicated that the City’s deadline 3 to file a summary judgment motion is five days after the hearing, and Judge Feng indicated the City 4 “can inform the Court in 302 on the 27th what the dilemma that you have is.” Finally, Judge Feng 5 confirmed the law and motion department has authority to extend the City’s summary judgment 6 deadline because “all summary judgments and motions for summary adjudication of issues go to 302.” 7 6. The City’s current deadline to file a summary judgment motion is June 3, 2022, a date 8 that is at least three weeks before the earliest date a hearing will occur on the City’s planned demurrer 9 and motion to strike to Synergy’s Fourth Amended Complaint. 10 7. Moreover, on May 17, 2022, Synergy filed a “Corrected” Fourth Amended Complaint 11 which, without leave of court, adds multiple individual defendants. 12 8. The City’s demurrer to the “Corrected” Fourth Amended Complaint is due several 13 weeks after the deadline to file a summary judgment motion, so regardless of which pleading is 14 operative, the City will have to file a summary judgment motion without knowing the results of its 15 demurrer. Synergy has moved to reopen discovery in this case, and that motion is scheduled to be 16 heard before a judge pro tempore in Department 301 on May 27, 2022. The City files this motion in 17 Department 302 because it is not clear that a judge pro tempore sitting in Department 301 has the 18 authority to extend dispositive motion deadlines. Moreover, continuing those deadlines is not part of 19 the relief that was petitioned for in that now fully-briefed motion. If Department 301 were to reopen 20 discovery in this case on May 27, 2022, responses to any new discovery served would not be due until 21 after the current summary judgment deadline. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true 23 and correct. Executed this 20th of May, 2022 at San Francisco, California. 24 25 JAIME M. HULING DELAYE 26 27 28 3 JHD Declaration ISO CCSF Ex Parte Application, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602643.docx EXHIBIT A From: Ben Rosenfeld To: Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT); "randy daar"; Diwik, James P.; "Lewis, Ryan A." Cc: Baruth, Ari (CAT); Poplawski, Kristine (CAT) Subject: Re: Notice of Ex Parte Appearance in Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-17-560034 Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 10:04:15 AM Attachments: P CourtCall Svc Copy (D City Ex Parte 5-23-22) 5-20-22 (Synergy).pdf Thank you, Jaime. Synergy will oppose. My CourtCall appearance confirmation is attached. Best, Ben On 5/20/22 9:48 AM, Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT) wrote: Counsel, Please take notice that on Monday, May 23rd at 11am, the City will appear in Department 302 of the San Francisco Superior Court to move ex parte for an order that the deadline for dispositive motions that are set based off the trial date in this action (including motions for summary judgment and motions for judgment on the pleadings) shall be calculated based off of the continued trial date of February 6, 2023. Best, Jaime Jaime Huling Delaye Deputy City Attorney Complex and Affirmative Litigation Team San Francisco City Attorney's Office 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Direct: 415-554-3957/Cell: 415-671-9841 Fax: 415-437-4644 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. EXHIBIT B From: Ben Rosenfeld To: Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT); "randy daar" Cc: Diwik, James P.; "Lewis, Ryan A."; Baruth, Ari (CAT); Poplawski, Kristine (CAT) Subject: Re: Meet and Confer re Motion to Strike "Corrected" 4AC Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 9:48:16 AM Hi Jaime and All, Per our meet and confer on 5/18, and the items I promised to inform the City about today: 1. We are still working meticulously through the additional points and authorities which you and Kristine raised in our productive 5/18 meeting, and hope to have a further written response for you by Monday. For this reason, we would not object to the City invoking the CCP 430.41(a)(2) 30-day extension provision. The same goes for the City's prospective motion to strike---though I would point out that the City is not obligated to use up all of those 30 days prior to filing its demurrer/MTS after we narrow our disputes as much as possible. In any event, this should obviate any need to go in jointly ex parte to give/get additional time, as we also discussed on 5/18. 2. We are still deciding how we intend to proceed with respect to reinstating Mayor Breed and Mr. Nuru as defendants, vel non. Presently, we are leaning toward filing a CCP 472/473 motion and withdrawing our Corrected 4AC and Notice of Errata in the 4AC--though please be advised that the Court/Clerk so far have not accepted these instruments for filing. I am telegraphing our leaning, though this is not a final decision. I hope to inform you definitively by the end of the day today, as we discussed (though if the Court has not yet acted on the submitted filing, I may not be able to say that we will withdraw it, per se). Best, Ben On 5/18/22 1:16 PM, Ben Rosenfeld wrote: Thank you, Jaimie. We are reviewing your points. On 5/18/22 1:00 PM, Huling Delaye, Jaime (CAT) wrote: Ben and Randy, I am writing this email pursuant to CCP section 435.5 to request that you meet and confer regarding the “Corrected” Fourth Amended Complaint (“Corrected 4AC”) that Synergy filed yesterday. The City intends to move to strike it in its entirety. Synergy’s latest pleading is subject to being stricken in its entirety because (1) the “corrected” complaint was filed without first seeking the Court’s permission for you to do so, as is required by CCP sections 472 and 473; (2) it adds London Breed as a new party without leave of Court to do so, as required by CCP sections 472 and 473; and (3) it adds Mohammed Nuru as a new party in direct contravention of the Court’s March 24, 2022 Order Granting In Part Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint, which expressly denied Synergy’s request to name him as a defendant, and in violation of CCP sections 472 and 473. As such, this pleading is subject to being stricken in its entirety, or in the alternative subject to the striking of the allegations adding parties and causes of action as to these new parties. Your law of the case analysis ignores the actual procedural history of this case, which is that a final judgment was entered in favor of Breed and Nuru. The Ninth Circuit only vacated dismissal of the intentional interference claims against the City. That the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning might apply to Nuru and Breed, doesn’t change what actually happened, which is that it left undisturbed the judgement in favor of Nuru and Breed. Even if your “law of the case” analysis were correct (and we believe it is not), and that the dismissal of Synergy’s claims against Mr. Nuru and Ms. Breed was not final, such that they remain parties to this action, the California CCP Synergy’s filing of an amended complaint that adds these two individuals as parties would still require prior approval of the Court. CCP section 473(a)(1) clearly contemplates that changes to a pleading such as have been made in the Corrected 4AC require approval of the court: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect, . . .” Finally, we believe your “law of the case” analysis is flawed in several additional respects. In dismissing all state claims against Nuru and Breed from the First Amended Complaint arising from the Van Ness Project, the district court did so on the additional independent basis that Synergy had not filed a government claim with respect to them, and that such claims were barred. In order to have preserved Synergy’s interference claims against Mr. Nuru and Ms. Breed for appeal, it had to have repleaded them in a subsequent amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County (9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 896, 928 (en banc); see also Ho v. Recon Trust Co., N.A. (9th Cir. 2016) 840 F.3d 618, 626 (“claims dismissed without prejudice and not repleaded are not preserved for appeal”). Synergy did not replead the interference claims against the two individuals, and so these claims were not preserved for appeal, nor revived by the 9th Circuit’s ruling vacating the dismissal of the intentional interference claims against the City. We look forward to talking at 1:30 today. Best, Jaime Jaime Huling Delaye Deputy City Attorney Complex and Affirmative Litigation Team San Francisco City Attorney's Office 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Direct: 415-554-3957/Cell: 415-671-9841 Fax: 415-437-4644 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. EXHIBIT C 1 DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542 City Attorney , . ENDORSED 2 YVONNE R. MERE, SBN 173594 FI l ED Chief Deputy City Attorney San Francisco County Superior Court 3 ELAINE M. O'NEIL, SBN142234 JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN270784 . FEB 0 8 2022 4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 ' Deputy City Attorneys CLEFJ1\ THE COURT 5 Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor BY.~HELLE F. VELUZ San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 --oepu1yc~ 6 Telephone: (415) 554-3957 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 7 Email: Jaime.HulingDelaye@sfcityatty.org 8 Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034 13 (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488) Plaintiff, @ 14 (PROPOSED) ORDER SUB'fi\INING THE v. CITY AND COUNI Y OF' SAN • 15 ERANelSCO'S OBJECTION TO TRI*L CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SETTING ORDER OR, GRANTING 16 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, OR IN Defendant. :flIE :AL'FERNA'f'WE, FOR SEPARATE 17 4'RIALS- --===~==,,..,,....,,...-,--,---=-=..,,...-~,,......,.,~-;..,-~~~...,:..---1 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, 18 Hearing Date: February 3, 2022 Plaintiff, Heating Judge: Hon. Samuel K. Feng 19 Time: 9:30 a.m. V. Place: Dept. 206 20 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017 21 California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, Trial Date: March 7, 2022 22 Defendants. 23 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a California. Corporation, 24 Cross-Complainant, 25 v. 26 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation, 27 and ROES 1-20, 28 Cross-Defendants. ~rder Granting Motion fut SepaFate Trial, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li202I\180435\01573849 .docx 1 The Court, having considered the City's moving papers, the oral argument at the hearing, and 2 ail other filings from the parties in response t~ the City's moving papers, and good cause appearing, 3 orders as follows: 4 1. The City's Objection to Trial S~tting Order is SUSTAINED, and 5 2. The July 23, 2021 order setting the March 7, 2022 trial da 6 an initial trial setting conference for Synergy's claims agains _ _ _, 2022 at _ _ _ _ __ 7 - - -. Consistent with the Court's 8 prior orders, discovery is not re-opened. discovery, including written discovery and notices of 9 deposition, that was timely se prior to the discovery cut-off based upon the March 29, 2021 trial 10 emain open to allow for completion of that discovery including the motions to 11 e that discovery. All other deadlines, including the deadline to file dispositive 12 mo · ns, shall be based on the new trial date. 13 OR 14 1. The City's Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED, and 15 2. The trial in this action set for March 7, 2022 is continued to 16 , 99f1L · Jq , 2022 at 1: !Jo a.m.lp.m: in Department 206. 17. S~~~1:fsJH~~.~~~ ~~\\,~~~~~~~~~s :a~o~At°~~;~:;~:£ J. ~o\\~ olo..-l-~ LA?\\\ ..Pl~., J.:\l\ cJ.-tS~~r\.\ lO\ \\ ~Y)d oY\ 'DeP"-~\ 18 wntte.a chseO'<"ery a:nd notices of dt¥os1ttoR, that Na:s ttm:ely~ ed pr10Not:he'diseo¥cry ett+-tfff based 1 3oz'S cxhr c~.q~~ 5~nerOA'S Mo-\\O'Y-\ -\-o reopen ol\5<..ove..,f"\.\. 19 af>GR the Mai:ch 29, 20tf trial "1~ tl'ris rn~r will i:emaiu open to allou,r foF completion oPfhat- 20 -tliseovcry inoludiag the motions to compel related tbe that discmrery A]] gther deatllines, itteluding 21 the deacttine to file dispositive motio.1}§ 5 shall be based on the new trial Q.~ 22 OR 23 1. The March 7, 2022 trial date as to Synergy and Ghilotti remai 24 against the City shall be tried separately on------=-~ - - - - - -a.m. in 25 Department 206. Consistent with the Court's rClers, discovery is not re-opened. All discovery, 26 ces of deposition, that was timely served prior to the discovery 27 !!..J.:~~1pon the March 29, 2021 trial date in this matter will remain open to allow for 28 (j-fl?reposcd] Order Granting Motion !01 Sepmatc Triar, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01573849 .docx 1 completion of that discovery including the ml_Qo1_if.on:s.-tei-eomj:p>eefrreeiliaittee (Jeu:nsr &,/111Dtn· IJl'Ps. ~r,._st 1~ ·1 9 d..en ie.c.( • ~ lO I. The September 19, 2022 trial date as to the claims betwe~n Synergy and Ghilott_i ~ 11 remains, and Synergy's claims against the City shall be tried separately on April 24~--- 12 in Department 206. Discovery is only open to the eX!s;t~muw 13 iscovery. All other deadlines, including the deadline to file 14 1-5 JT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: SEE NEXT PAGE 17 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 18 SAMUEL K. FENG 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ~rder Granting Motion~paialb T1i&I, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li202I\180435\01594855.docx ecnin·~ 1 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS ALL PARTIES to call 415-551-3685 or e-mail the 2 court at Department206@sftc.org seven to fourteen days before the trial date and 3 provide the following information: 4 1. Party Name and Attor~ey Name (if represent~d) 5 2.· Case Name and Number 6 3. Trial date and estimate of total trial time (including motions in limine and 7 jury selection) 8 4. Are you interested in a settlement conference on the day of trial? 9 5. Provide a brief description of the case, including damages. If calling, 10 description is limited to three minutes or less. 11 6. If the case has settled, is this a global settlement as to all parties and all 12 causes of action, and is the settlement conditional or. unconditional? 13 . . 14 Parties must appear on the day of trial unless a Dismissal, Notice of Settlement, 15 or Notice of Stay is filed with courtesy copies delivered to Department 206 by 4:00 PM 16 on the Thursday before tri.al. 17 If the trial date is continued, this order applies to the new trial date. Failure to 18 comply with this order may result in monetary sanctions, C.C.P. §177.5. 19 20 21 MAY 1.] 2022 DATE: 22 HONORABLE SAMUEL K. FENG Presiding Judge 23 San Francisco Superior Court 24 25 C(}v# # .~t_, 11' ~ 5~0C?.3Lf ; 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 I, SARAH L. GUTIERREZ, declare as follows: 2 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- 3 entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. 4 On May 18, 2022, I served the following document(s): 5 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 6 on the following persons at the locations specified: 7 Randolph E. Daar Attorney for Plaintiff Synergy Project Ben Rosenfeld Management, Inc. 8 Pier 5 Law Offices 3330 Geary Boulevard, 3rd Floor East 9 San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 986-5591 – Daar 10 (415) 285-8091 – Rosenfeld E-mail: rdaar@pier5law.com 11 ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net 12 James Patrick Diwik Attorneys for Ghilotti Bros, Inc. Ryan Lewis 13 Troutman Sanders LLP 14 Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 15 E-mail: james.diwik@troutmansanders.com ryan.lewis@troutmansanders.com 16 in the manner indicated below: 17 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept 18 electronic service, I caused the documents to be served electronically through File & ServeXpress in portable document format ("PDF") Adobe Acrobat. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed May 18, 2022, at San Francisco, California. 22 23 SARAH L. GUTIERREZ 24 25 26 27 28 3 Notice of Entry of Order, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01602088.docx 1 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 4 BEFORE THE HONORABLE SAMUEL K. FENG, JUDGE PRESIDING 5 DEPARTMENT NUMBER 206 6 ---oOo--- 7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) 8 Plaintiff, ) ) 9 Vs. ) Case No. ) CGC-17-560034 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) Consolidated ) With 11 Defendant. ) CGC-19-576488 _________________________________ ) 12 ) GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a ) 13 California Corporation, ) ) 14 Plaintiff, ) ) 15 Vs. ) ) 16 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) 17 Defendant. ) _________________________________ ) 18 19 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings 20 Tuesday, May 17, 2022 21 22 23 Reported By: Tamara Willat, CSR No. 4609 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com 13 1 reason the Court needs the judge to try a criminal 2 case, that case will have priority and your case may 3 be delayed for a week or so. Okay? 4 This case is neither a preference case, a 5 five-year statute or a UD case so that I will give 6 you that disclaimer right now. 7 So if the judge says you have a date 8 certain, but that is flexible if I need that judge 9 or 206 needs that judge for a criminal case, then 10 that judge will take that criminal case and delay 11 yours for a week or so and work with your schedule. 12 Now, please don't forget to remind the 13 Court or notify the Court within 7 or 14 days of 14 February 6, 2023, as to the status of the case and 15 please also -- we are off the record. 16 (Discussion off the Record.) 17 THE COURT: So I think that does it for 18 today. 19 MS. HULING DELAYE: I have one 20 clarification question. That the City asked that 21 the motion for summary judgment deadline and the 22 deadline for other dispositive motions flow from the 23 continued trial date so that the motion for summary 24 judgment deadline does not precede further discovery 25 in this case. Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com 14 1 THE COURT: That's up to law and motion. 2 MR. ROSENFELD: We would note our 3 objection. 4 THE COURT: That is up to law and motion. 5 MS. HULING DELAYE: How so? I believe that 6 the default is that it flows from the original trial 7 date unless this court -- 8 THE COURT: If law and motion says that 9 discovery is reopen, you can ask law and motion that 10 the discovery shall include the motions for summary 11 judgment and adjudication of issues. 12 MS. HULING DELAYE: And if not, then we 13 have a summary judgment motion due five days later 14 after that hearing? 15 THE COURT: You can inform the Court in 302 16 on the 27th what the dilemma that you have is. 17 Okay? 18 MS. HULING DELAYE: And if 302 denies the 19 motion to reopen discovery, does it have authority 20 to extend our summary judgment deadline? 21 THE COURT: It does. This Court will not 22 do that. Okay? Because all summary judgments and 23 motions for summary adjudication of issues go to 24 302. Does not go through here. 25 As to the February 6, 2023, trial date, Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com