Preview
1 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
JAMES P. DIWIK (State Bar No. 164016)
2 james.diwik@troutman.com
RYAN A. LEWIS (State Bar No. 307253) ELECTRONICALLY
3 ryan.lewis@troutman.com F I L E D
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 Superior Court of California,
4 San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco
Telephone: 415.477.5700 03/15/2021
5 Facsimile: 415.477.5710 Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
6 Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Deputy Clerk
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 CIVIL DIVISION
11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034 [Consolidated with
INC., Case No. CGC-19-576488]
12
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF/
13 CROSS-DEFENDANT GHILOTTI BROS.,
vs. INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
14 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN TO PLAINTIFF SYNERGY PROJECT
15 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION FOR
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED
16 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL COMPLAINT AND FIRST AMENDED
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, SAN CROSS-COMPLAINT
17 FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, LONDON BREED, Date: March 26, 2021
18 MOHAMMED NURU, and DOES 1-100, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
19 Defendants.
Trial Date: March 29, 2021
20
21 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California
Corporation,
22
Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
25 INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1-30,
26
Defendants.
27
28
T RO U TMA N PE PPE R
HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION
3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800
TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
1
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
2 INC., a California Corporation,
3 Cross-Complainant,
4 v.
5 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California
Corporation, and ROES 1-20,
6
Cross-Defendants.
7
8
9 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
10 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 450, 451,
11 452, and 453, and California Rule of Court 3.1306(c), Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
12 Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (“GBI”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following
13 documents in support of GBI’s Opposition to Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s (“Synergy”)
14 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint and First Amended Cross-Complaint as
15 follows below.
16 1. The following documents constitute “[t]he decisional, constitutional, and public
17 statutory law of this state” pursuant to Section 451(a), and/or “[o]fficial acts of the legislative,
18 executive, and judicial departments” of this state under Section 452(c), and/or the “[r]ecords of
19 (1) any court of this state” under Section 452(d). See Williams v. Wraxall, 33 Cal. App. 4th 120,
20 130 n.7 (1995) (“We may take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court
21 documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders,
22 statements of decision, and judgments.” Section 453 requires the trial court to “take judicial
23 notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it” and has given the adverse
24 party sufficient notice and furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take
25 judicial notice of the matter. Accordingly, GBI respectfully requests that this Court take judicial
26 notice of the following documents:
27 2. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy
28 the tentative order issued by Department 302 on February 16, 2021 regarding Synergy’s motion
T RO U TMA N PE PPE R
-2-
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION
HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP
TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT
3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
1 for leave to file its proposed fourth amended complaint.
2 3. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy
3 of Synergy’s operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), originally filed in the U.S. District
4 Court for the Northern District of California in Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project
5 Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. as Dkt. No. 77, and remanded to this
6 consolidated action.
7 4. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy
8 of Synergy’s First Amended Complaint filed in this action on October 19, 2017 against
9 defendants the City and County of San Francisco, London Breed, and Mohammed Nuru, among
10 others.
11 5. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy
12 of the docket report for U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-
13 06763-JST, Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., as of
14 March 12, 2021.
15 6. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy
16 of Synergy’s [Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint filed on August 14, 2019, Dkt. 114-1, in
17 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy
18 Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al.
19 7. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy
20 of the District Court’s November 21, 2019 Order Granting City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
21 and Remanding Case (Dkt. 128) filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
22 Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San
23 Francisco et al.
24 8. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy
25 of GBI’s Complaint against Synergy filed in this Court on June 5, 2019 in case number CGC-19-
26 576488 (“the ’6488 Action”). The ’6488 Action was consolidated with this action for all
27 purposes.
28 9. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy
T RO U TMA N PE PPE R
-3-
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION
HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP
TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT
3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
1 of Synergy’s Cross-Complaint against GBI filed in this Court in case number CGC-19-576488
2 (“the ’6488 Action”), captioned Ghilotti Bros., Inc. v. Synergy Project Management, Inc. et al.
3 10. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy
4 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit General Docket # 19-17558, captioned Synergy
5 Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., as of as of March 12, 2021.
6 11. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct
7 copy of Synergy’s opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 19-
8 17558, captioned Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,
9 filed May 26, 2020.
10 12. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct
11 copy of the Court’s August 12, 2020 Order Granting Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Ghilotti Bros.,
12 Inc’s Motion to Consolidate, which consolidated the ’6488 Action with this action for all
13 purposes.
14 13. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct
15 copy of Synergy’s proposed fourth amended complaint (“FAC”), filed as Exhibit 1 to the
16 Declaration of Johnny D. Knadler in Support of Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Cross-
17 Complaint on January 22, 2021.
18 14. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct
19 copy of Synergy’s February 22, 2021 Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from Judgment;
20 Request to be Heard on Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice; Request for Indicative Ruling,
21 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST,
22 Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al.
23 15. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct
24 copy of Synergy’s [Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint filed February 22, 2021 in the U.S.
25 District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project
26 Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. as an exhibit to Synergy’s Motion
27 for Relief from Judgment.
28 16. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct
T RO U TMA N PE PPE R
-4-
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION
HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP
TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT
3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
1 copy of the Synergy’s March 26, 2019 Petition for Rehearing, Court of Appeal for the State of
2 California, First Appellate District, City and County of San Francisco v. Synergy Project
3 Management, Inc. et al., No. A151199.
4 17. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct
5 copy of Notice of Entry of Judgment in Case No. CPF-16-514783, Synergy Project Management,
6 Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, filed February 14,
7 2017.
8
Dated: March 15, 2021 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
9
10
By: /s/ Ryan A. Lewis
11 JAMES DIWIK
RYAN A. LEWIS
12 Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
T RO U TMA N PE PPE R
-5-
GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION
HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP
TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT
3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
EXHIBIT 1
Lewis, Ryan A.
From: Contestdept302tr
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:42 PM
To: 'jdknadler@gmail.com'; Lewis, Ryan A.
Subject: Tentative Ruling for 2/17/21 at 9:30 a.m. for Line 4; San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. CGC-17-560034
Importance: High
EXTERNAL SENDER
Counsel:
Due to the court website’s character limitations, we are emailing the parties in San Francisco Superior Court Case No.
CGC-17-560034 directly with the below tentative ruling in its entirety for the motion for leave to file fourth amended
complaint set for hearing on February 17, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 302.
Thank you,
Dept. 302 Clerk
Line 4
CGC-17-560034 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Notice Of Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint
Moving Party: SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Filed: Jan 22, 2021
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint is denied. This action
was originally filed on July 10, 2017. The case was removed to federal court on November 27, 2017, and was remanded
on November 25, 2019. On August 12, 2020, the case was consolidated with a second action between Synergy and
Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc. On September 16, 2020, the consolidated actions were set for trial on March 29,
2021. Ghilotti Bros. filed its answer to the third amended complaint on November 4, 2020.
Synergy now seeks to add a Doe defendant, to add numerous new factual allegations, and to add five new causes of
action against Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc., including claims for racketeering and federal civil rights violations, as well as
a claim for treble damages. In August 2019, while the case was pending in federal court, Synergy unsuccessfully sought
leave to file similar claims against the City and County of San Francisco and other City defendants based on substantially
the same set of facts and allegations; its appeal from that order is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. Should it prevail on appeal, it may pursue its claims against the City defendants in federal court.
While the policy of liberality in pleading generally supports allowing amendment even on the eve of trial, “In spite of this
policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting
it.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147.) A request to amend a complaint is properly denied where, as
here, the party had at its disposal the facts related to the amendment but did not act promptly. (See P&D Consultants,
Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 [upholding denial of leave to amend complaint where party
had knowledge of relevant authority for ten months before seeking leave to amend]; Huff v. Wilkins (2006), 138
Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [upholding denial of motion to amend complaint where plaintiff “failed to offer any explanation for
his delay in seeking leave to amend.”]; Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486-487 [affirming denial of motion
to amend complaint due to unwarranted delay where plaintiff had knowledge of the circumstances on which he based
1
the amended complaint almost three years before he sought leave to amend]; Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review
Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1428 [upholding denial of leave to amend where the proposed amendments were
offered more than two years after the original complaint was filed and shortly before a final resolution of the
case].) Here, Synergy offers no justification for its lengthy delay in seeking leave to amend. Further, allowing it to
amend at this late date would prejudice Ghilotti by requiring it to reopen discovery, imposing additional burden and
expense, and delaying the trial. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487 [upholding
denial of amendment where amendment was proposed nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed, and
plaintiff did not give an explanation for not pleading the proposed claim in the original complaint or for bringing the
request to amend so late].)
As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be
conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court’s website at sfsuperiorcourt.org
under “Online Services,” navigate to “Tentative Rulings,” and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding
phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other
parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line
of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name
and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for
Ghilotti Bros. is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative
ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
- End
2
EXHIBIT 2
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 1 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 2 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 3 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 4 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 5 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 6 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 7 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 8 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 9 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 10 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 11 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 12 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 13 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 14 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 15 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 16 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 17 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 18 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 19 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 20 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 21 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 22 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 23 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 24 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 25 of 26
Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 26 of 26
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 1 of 18
ADRMOP,APPEAL,CLOSED,PROTO,REFSET−LB
U.S. District Court
California Northern District (Oakland)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:17−cv−06763−JST
Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Francisco et al Date Terminated: 11/21/2019
Assigned to: Judge Jon S. Tigar Jury Demand: None
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 19−17558 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
San Francisco County Superior Court,
CGC−17−560034
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Synergy Project Management, Inc. represented by Johnny Dee Knadler
Attorney at Law
1527−E Pershing Drive
San Francisco, CA 94129
310−564−6695
Email: jdknadler@yahoo.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
G. Whitney Leigh
Law Offices of Whitney Leigh
One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415−470−4055
Email: leigh1sansome@gmail.com
TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
V.
Defendant
City and County of San Francisco represented by Ronald P. Flynn
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
Chief Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102−5408
(415) 554−4708
Fax: (415) 255−0733
Email: ronald.flynn@sfcityatty.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Suite 425
San Francisco, CA 94102−5408
(415) 554−3897
Fax: (415) 255−0733
Email: ari.baruth@sfcityatty.org
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Suite 425
San Francisco, CA 94102−5408
Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 2 of 18
415−554−3881
Fax: 415−255−0733
Email: Elaine.ONeil@sfcityatty.org
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Marke Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 941025342
(415) 554−3957
Fax: (415) 437−4644
Email: jaime.hulingdelaye@sfcityatty.org
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
San Francisco Public Utilities represented by Ronald P. Flynn
Commission (See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
San Francisco Municipal represented by Ronald P. Flynn
Transportation Agency (See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
San Francisco Department of Public represented by Ronald P. Flynn
Works (See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 3 of 18
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Mohammed Nuru represented by Kevin J. Holl
Gordon−Creed, Kelley Holl & Sugerman
LLP
101 Montgomery Street
Suite 2650
San Francisco, CA 94104
415−421−3100
Fax: 415−421−3150
Email: holl@gkhs.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald P. Flynn
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 03/09/2021
Sara Lee
1901 Harrison Street
13th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
415−421−3100
Email: lee@gkhs.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
London Breed represented by Ronald P. Flynn
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ari Adam Baruth
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Mary O'Neil
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime Marie Huling Delaye
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 4 of 18
Defendant
Ghilotti Bros., Inc. represented by James P. Diwik
Troutman Sanders LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
415−477−5700
Fax: 415−477−5710
Email: james.diwik@troutmansanders.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan A. Lewis
Troutman Sanders LLP
Three Embarcadaro Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
415−477−5700
Email: ryan.lewis@troutman.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
03/09/2021 Electronic filing error. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Kevin J. Holl. The docket shows a
different address from what is appearing on the document (dkt. #: 147 Order on
Motion to Subs titute Attorney). Please update your personal profile on ECF. (jmlS,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/09/2021 148 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 141 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(mllS,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/09/2021 147 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 140 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(mllS,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/08/2021 Electronic filing error. REMINDER: Case division and case location information are
incorrect. The correct information, per the ECF notification sent August 21, 2019, is
Oakland D ivision and the case number should be 4:17−cv−6763 JST. Please make
sure the correct information is on all future filings. Re: 142 Opposition/Response to
Motion, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 145 Declaration in
Support, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 144 Declaration in
Support, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 143 Request for
Judicial Notice, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco (jmlS,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/08/2021 Electronic filing error. REMINDER: Case division and case location information are
incorrect. The correct information, per the ECF notification sent August 21, 2019,
i s Oakland Division and the case number should be 4:17−cv−6763 JST. Please
make sure the correct information is on all future filings. Re: 146 Opposition/Response
to Motion filed by Mohammed Nuru (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2021)
(Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/08/2021 146 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 138 MOTION to Alter Judgment or Indicative Ruling )
Joinder filed byMohammed Nuru. (Holl, Kevin) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered:
03/08/2021)
03/08/2021 145 Declaration of Peter Gabancho in Support of 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, for
Relief from Judgment filed byLondon Breed, City and County of San Francisco.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
E)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Huling Delaye, Jaime) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered:
03/08/2021)
03/08/2021 144 Declaration of Jaime Huling Delaye in Support of 142 Opposition/Response to
Motion, for Relief from Judgment filed byLondon Breed, City and County of San
Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
D)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Huling Delaye, Jaime) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered:
03/08/2021)
Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 5 of 18
03/08
Preview
1 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP JAMES P. DIWIK (State Bar No. 164016) 2 james.diwik@troutman.com RYAN A. LEWIS (State Bar No. 307253) ELECTRONICALLY 3 ryan.lewis@troutman.com F I L E D Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 Superior Court of California, 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone: 415.477.5700 03/15/2021 5 Facsimile: 415.477.5710 Clerk of the Court BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ 6 Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Deputy Clerk GHILOTTI BROS., INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 CIVIL DIVISION 11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034 [Consolidated with INC., Case No. CGC-19-576488] 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF/ 13 CROSS-DEFENDANT GHILOTTI BROS., vs. INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 14 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN TO PLAINTIFF SYNERGY PROJECT 15 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 16 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL COMPLAINT AND FIRST AMENDED TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, SAN CROSS-COMPLAINT 17 FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, LONDON BREED, Date: March 26, 2021 18 MOHAMMED NURU, and DOES 1-100, Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 19 Defendants. Trial Date: March 29, 2021 20 21 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, 22 Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 25 INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, 26 Defendants. 27 28 T RO U TMA N PE PPE R HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 1 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2 INC., a California Corporation, 3 Cross-Complainant, 4 v. 5 GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, and ROES 1-20, 6 Cross-Defendants. 7 8 9 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 10 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 450, 451, 11 452, and 453, and California Rule of Court 3.1306(c), Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant 12 Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (“GBI”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following 13 documents in support of GBI’s Opposition to Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s (“Synergy”) 14 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint and First Amended Cross-Complaint as 15 follows below. 16 1. The following documents constitute “[t]he decisional, constitutional, and public 17 statutory law of this state” pursuant to Section 451(a), and/or “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, 18 executive, and judicial departments” of this state under Section 452(c), and/or the “[r]ecords of 19 (1) any court of this state” under Section 452(d). See Williams v. Wraxall, 33 Cal. App. 4th 120, 20 130 n.7 (1995) (“We may take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court 21 documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, 22 statements of decision, and judgments.” Section 453 requires the trial court to “take judicial 23 notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it” and has given the adverse 24 party sufficient notice and furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take 25 judicial notice of the matter. Accordingly, GBI respectfully requests that this Court take judicial 26 notice of the following documents: 27 2. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy 28 the tentative order issued by Department 302 on February 16, 2021 regarding Synergy’s motion T RO U TMA N PE PPE R -2- GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 1 for leave to file its proposed fourth amended complaint. 2 3. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy 3 of Synergy’s operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), originally filed in the U.S. District 4 Court for the Northern District of California in Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project 5 Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. as Dkt. No. 77, and remanded to this 6 consolidated action. 7 4. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy 8 of Synergy’s First Amended Complaint filed in this action on October 19, 2017 against 9 defendants the City and County of San Francisco, London Breed, and Mohammed Nuru, among 10 others. 11 5. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy 12 of the docket report for U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv- 13 06763-JST, Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., as of 14 March 12, 2021. 15 6. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy 16 of Synergy’s [Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint filed on August 14, 2019, Dkt. 114-1, in 17 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy 18 Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. 19 7. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy 20 of the District Court’s November 21, 2019 Order Granting City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 21 and Remanding Case (Dkt. 128) filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 22 Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San 23 Francisco et al. 24 8. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy 25 of GBI’s Complaint against Synergy filed in this Court on June 5, 2019 in case number CGC-19- 26 576488 (“the ’6488 Action”). The ’6488 Action was consolidated with this action for all 27 purposes. 28 9. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy T RO U TMA N PE PPE R -3- GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 1 of Synergy’s Cross-Complaint against GBI filed in this Court in case number CGC-19-576488 2 (“the ’6488 Action”), captioned Ghilotti Bros., Inc. v. Synergy Project Management, Inc. et al. 3 10. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy 4 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit General Docket # 19-17558, captioned Synergy 5 Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., as of as of March 12, 2021. 6 11. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct 7 copy of Synergy’s opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 19- 8 17558, captioned Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., 9 filed May 26, 2020. 10 12. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct 11 copy of the Court’s August 12, 2020 Order Granting Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Ghilotti Bros., 12 Inc’s Motion to Consolidate, which consolidated the ’6488 Action with this action for all 13 purposes. 14 13. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct 15 copy of Synergy’s proposed fourth amended complaint (“FAC”), filed as Exhibit 1 to the 16 Declaration of Johnny D. Knadler in Support of Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Cross- 17 Complaint on January 22, 2021. 18 14. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct 19 copy of Synergy’s February 22, 2021 Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from Judgment; 20 Request to be Heard on Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice; Request for Indicative Ruling, 21 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, 22 Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. 23 15. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct 24 copy of Synergy’s [Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint filed February 22, 2021 in the U.S. 25 District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST, Synergy Project 26 Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al. as an exhibit to Synergy’s Motion 27 for Relief from Judgment. 28 16. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct T RO U TMA N PE PPE R -4- GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 1 copy of the Synergy’s March 26, 2019 Petition for Rehearing, Court of Appeal for the State of 2 California, First Appellate District, City and County of San Francisco v. Synergy Project 3 Management, Inc. et al., No. A151199. 4 17. Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct 5 copy of Notice of Entry of Judgment in Case No. CPF-16-514783, Synergy Project Management, 6 Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, filed February 14, 7 2017. 8 Dated: March 15, 2021 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 9 10 By: /s/ Ryan A. Lewis 11 JAMES DIWIK RYAN A. LEWIS 12 Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant GHILOTTI BROS., INC. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T RO U TMA N PE PPE R -5- GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.’S OPPOSITION HA M IL TON S A ND E RS LLP TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 1ST AMEND. CROSS-COMPLAINT 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 EXHIBIT 1 Lewis, Ryan A. From: Contestdept302tr Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:42 PM To: 'jdknadler@gmail.com'; Lewis, Ryan A. Subject: Tentative Ruling for 2/17/21 at 9:30 a.m. for Line 4; San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-560034 Importance: High EXTERNAL SENDER Counsel: Due to the court website’s character limitations, we are emailing the parties in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-560034 directly with the below tentative ruling in its entirety for the motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint set for hearing on February 17, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 302. Thank you, Dept. 302 Clerk Line 4 CGC-17-560034 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Notice Of Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint Moving Party: SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. Filed: Jan 22, 2021 Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc.’s motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint is denied. This action was originally filed on July 10, 2017. The case was removed to federal court on November 27, 2017, and was remanded on November 25, 2019. On August 12, 2020, the case was consolidated with a second action between Synergy and Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc. On September 16, 2020, the consolidated actions were set for trial on March 29, 2021. Ghilotti Bros. filed its answer to the third amended complaint on November 4, 2020. Synergy now seeks to add a Doe defendant, to add numerous new factual allegations, and to add five new causes of action against Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc., including claims for racketeering and federal civil rights violations, as well as a claim for treble damages. In August 2019, while the case was pending in federal court, Synergy unsuccessfully sought leave to file similar claims against the City and County of San Francisco and other City defendants based on substantially the same set of facts and allegations; its appeal from that order is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Should it prevail on appeal, it may pursue its claims against the City defendants in federal court. While the policy of liberality in pleading generally supports allowing amendment even on the eve of trial, “In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147.) A request to amend a complaint is properly denied where, as here, the party had at its disposal the facts related to the amendment but did not act promptly. (See P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 [upholding denial of leave to amend complaint where party had knowledge of relevant authority for ten months before seeking leave to amend]; Huff v. Wilkins (2006), 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [upholding denial of motion to amend complaint where plaintiff “failed to offer any explanation for his delay in seeking leave to amend.”]; Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486-487 [affirming denial of motion to amend complaint due to unwarranted delay where plaintiff had knowledge of the circumstances on which he based 1 the amended complaint almost three years before he sought leave to amend]; Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1428 [upholding denial of leave to amend where the proposed amendments were offered more than two years after the original complaint was filed and shortly before a final resolution of the case].) Here, Synergy offers no justification for its lengthy delay in seeking leave to amend. Further, allowing it to amend at this late date would prejudice Ghilotti by requiring it to reopen discovery, imposing additional burden and expense, and delaying the trial. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487 [upholding denial of amendment where amendment was proposed nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed, and plaintiff did not give an explanation for not pleading the proposed claim in the original complaint or for bringing the request to amend so late].) As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court’s website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under “Online Services,” navigate to “Tentative Rulings,” and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for Ghilotti Bros. is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. - End 2 EXHIBIT 2 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 1 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 2 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 3 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 4 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 5 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 6 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 7 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 8 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 9 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 10 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 11 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 12 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 13 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 14 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 15 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 16 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 17 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 18 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 19 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 20 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 21 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 22 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 23 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 24 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 25 of 26 Case 3:17-cv-06763-JST Document 77 Filed 05/26/19 Page 26 of 26 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 1 of 18 ADRMOP,APPEAL,CLOSED,PROTO,REFSET−LB U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:17−cv−06763−JST Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Date Filed: 11/24/2017 Francisco et al Date Terminated: 11/21/2019 Assigned to: Judge Jon S. Tigar Jury Demand: None Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 19−17558 Jurisdiction: Federal Question San Francisco County Superior Court, CGC−17−560034 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc. represented by Johnny Dee Knadler Attorney at Law 1527−E Pershing Drive San Francisco, CA 94129 310−564−6695 Email: jdknadler@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED G. Whitney Leigh Law Offices of Whitney Leigh One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−470−4055 Email: leigh1sansome@gmail.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2019 V. Defendant City and County of San Francisco represented by Ronald P. Flynn San Francisco City Attorney's Office Chief Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 (415) 554−4708 Fax: (415) 255−0733 Email: ronald.flynn@sfcityatty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth San Francisco City Attorney's Office Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Suite 425 San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 (415) 554−3897 Fax: (415) 255−0733 Email: ari.baruth@sfcityatty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil San Francisco City Attorney's Office Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Suite 425 San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 2 of 18 415−554−3881 Fax: 415−255−0733 Email: Elaine.ONeil@sfcityatty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye San Francisco City Attorney's Office Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Marke Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 941025342 (415) 554−3957 Fax: (415) 437−4644 Email: jaime.hulingdelaye@sfcityatty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant San Francisco Public Utilities represented by Ronald P. Flynn Commission (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant San Francisco Municipal represented by Ronald P. Flynn Transportation Agency (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant San Francisco Department of Public represented by Ronald P. Flynn Works (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 3 of 18 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Mohammed Nuru represented by Kevin J. Holl Gordon−Creed, Kelley Holl & Sugerman LLP 101 Montgomery Street Suite 2650 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−421−3100 Fax: 415−421−3150 Email: holl@gkhs.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ronald P. Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2021 Sara Lee 1901 Harrison Street 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 415−421−3100 Email: lee@gkhs.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant London Breed represented by Ronald P. Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ari Adam Baruth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elaine Mary O'Neil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jaime Marie Huling Delaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 4 of 18 Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc. represented by James P. Diwik Troutman Sanders LLP Three Embarcadero Center Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−477−5700 Fax: 415−477−5710 Email: james.diwik@troutmansanders.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ryan A. Lewis Troutman Sanders LLP Three Embarcadaro Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−477−5700 Email: ryan.lewis@troutman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 03/09/2021 Electronic filing error. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Kevin J. Holl. The docket shows a different address from what is appearing on the document (dkt. #: 147 Order on Motion to Subs titute Attorney). Please update your personal profile on ECF. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021) 03/09/2021 148 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 141 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021) 03/09/2021 147 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 140 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021) 03/08/2021 Electronic filing error. REMINDER: Case division and case location information are incorrect. The correct information, per the ECF notification sent August 21, 2019, is Oakland D ivision and the case number should be 4:17−cv−6763 JST. Please make sure the correct information is on all future filings. Re: 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 145 Declaration in Support, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 144 Declaration in Support, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco, 143 Request for Judicial Notice, filed by London Breed, City and County of San Francisco (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021) 03/08/2021 Electronic filing error. REMINDER: Case division and case location information are incorrect. The correct information, per the ECF notification sent August 21, 2019, i s Oakland Division and the case number should be 4:17−cv−6763 JST. Please make sure the correct information is on all future filings. Re: 146 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Mohammed Nuru (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021) 03/08/2021 146 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 138 MOTION to Alter Judgment or Indicative Ruling ) Joinder filed byMohammed Nuru. (Holl, Kevin) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/08/2021) 03/08/2021 145 Declaration of Peter Gabancho in Support of 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, for Relief from Judgment filed byLondon Breed, City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Huling Delaye, Jaime) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/08/2021) 03/08/2021 144 Declaration of Jaime Huling Delaye in Support of 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, for Relief from Judgment filed byLondon Breed, City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Huling Delaye, Jaime) (Filed on 3/8/2021) (Entered: 03/08/2021) Case: 4:17-cv-6763 As of: 03/12/2021 09:39 AM PST 5 of 18 03/08