Preview
1 JOHNNY D. KNADLER (SBN 220942)
LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER
2 1527-E Pershing Drive
ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, CA 94129
3 Telephone: (310) 564-6695 F I L E D
Facsimile: (888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Email: jdknadler@gmail.com
02/16/2021
5 Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant
7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034
INC., (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488)
12
Plaintiff,
13 DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D.
vs. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF
14 MOTION TO CONTINUE THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, TRIAL DATE
15 LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED NURU,
16 Defendants.
______________________________________ Date: March 11, 2021
17 Time: 9:30 a.m.
GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Dept: 206
18 Corporation,
Complaint filed: July 10, 2017
19 Plaintiff,
20
vs,
21
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
22 INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1-30,
23 Defendants.
24 ______________________________________
25 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a
California Corporation,
26
Cross-Complainant,
27
vs.
28
1 Case No. CGC-17-560034
GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California
1 Corporation, and ROES 1-20,
2 Cross-Defendants.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 I, JOHNNY D. KNADLER, declare:
2 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of
3 California and I am counsel of record for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant Synergy Project
4 Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) in this action. As such, I have personal knowledge of the matters
5 set forth in this declaration and could and would competently testify to those matters.
6 2. The main case CGC-17-560034 has been continued zero (0) times. The
7 consolidated case has had a single continuance due to the pending COVID-19 emergency.
8 3. I am trial attorney for Plaintiff in this matter. Staring on or about January 7, 2021,
9 my spouse suffered and continues to suffer from severe medical conditions that necessitate
10 hospital care and continued treatment for a minimum of the next 30 to 60 days and possibly
11 longer. While I touch on the issues generally for privacy concerns, I am willing to discuss
12 specifics with the Court in chambers if necessary. In the past 4 weeks, my spouse was admitted
13 to the hospital through the ER twice which resulted in stays at the hospital exceeding 24 hours,
14 she had an emergency operation, she was close to suffering kidney failure, she has undergone
15 two medical procedures, she has taken numerous tests including tests to determine if growths are
16 malignant or benign, and she has been recommended for at least two more medical procedures in
17 the next 1-2 months. After each procedure, she will have a period of recovery lasting about 2
18 weeks. Plus, any of the tests she takes could necessitate more medical treatment over the next
19 few months. As COVID-19 has reduced medical care for all but the most serious cases, there
20 has been delays in treatment until it becomes very serious. This explains how serious her
21 emergency surgery was. As a result of this ongoing family emergency, I will be unavailable to
22 prepare for trial on March 29, 2021, and be unavailable for trial on March 29, 2021.
23 4. Counsel for Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (GBI) is aware of my ongoing medical
24 situation. I asked for a stipulation to continue the trial date. Rather than agree, GBI indicated
25 that they want to go to trial and that “it is what it is.” In other words, GBI is seeking to take
26 advantage of a serious medical event and to exploit the suffering and stress on Plaintiff’s
27 counsel. For example, after being told that my spouse was scheduled for more tests, GBI sent
28 out the notice of an ex parte hearing. I received that notice while my spouse was at the hospital
3 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 taking tests. When I discussed this with GBI the next day, I was told, “it is what it is.” At no
2 time during our discussions of a continuance has counsel identified any prejudice that GBI would
3 suffer from a continuance. Given the tenor of discussions with GBI in the last couple of weeks, I
4 believe that GBI wants to take advantage of trial counsel’s situation.
5 5. In addition, I have two young children who suffer from developmental disabilities
6 and they receive support for those disabilities from both Golden Gate Regional Center, a state-
7 funded non-profit serving San Francisco County, and the San Francisco Unified School District.
8 They require specialized support for both their education and their day-to-day life. With my
9 ongoing family medical situation, I am the only one who can support them while my spouse is
10 recovering from her medical situation. Due to COVID-19, they cannot receive any in-person
11 support and I have to provide it. Further, due to COVID-19, they are only receiving distance
12 learning, and I am the only one in position to provide in-person support during school hours. I
13 have requested in-person support from both Golden Gate Regional Center and the school, but I
14 have been refused based on the COVID-19 emergency. As a result of this situation, I will be
15 unavailable to prepare for trial on March 29, 2021, and be unavailable for trial on March 29,
16 2021.
17 6. In January 2020, Mohammed Nuru was charged with honest services wire fraud
18 in a federal criminal complaint, which revealed an elaborate kickback scheme through which
19 Nuru and other officials accepted money and services from, Balmore Hernandez, the principal of
20 a company named, in exchange for Nuru’s efforts to funnel contracts to Azul Works. Following
21 On or about November 30, 2020, now-former head of the SFPUC Harlan Kelly was arrested by
22 the FBI on charges arising out of the FBI’s investigation of the Nuru kickback scheme. An
23 affidavit filed by the United States Attorney’s Office with the complaint against Kelly alleges
24 that Kelly, together with Nuru, engaged in a kickback scheme from 2014-2019, in which Kelly
25 accepted bribes in exchange for Kelly’s assistance in awarding City contracts to businesses that
26 paid the bribes.
27 7. The Kelly complaints, together with documents arising out of these prosecutions
28 (including City Attorney investigation reports) disclosed that how Nuru leveraged his position as
4 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 director of DPW to influence not only DPW, but other city agencies and officials, and connected
2 that fraud scheme to Synergy’s claims in this action. Put simply, these disclosures provide
3 substantial evidence to establish that Synergy’s termination from the contracts at issue in this
4 case was caused in furtherance of a scheme by Nuru, Kelly, and other high-level City officials,
5 informally known as the “City Family”
6 8. I reviewed the Kelly Complaint approximately a week to ten days after it was
7 published publicly on November 30, 2020. Based on that complaint, together with the other
8 documents revealed by the United States Attorney’s Office investigation arising out of
9 Mohammed Nuru’s arrest, Synergy’s counsel determined that Synergy could state causes of
10 action against Nuru and Kelly for racketeering, conspiracy and fraudulent concealment, and that
11 the disclosures also disclosed facts relevant to Synergy’s originally-pled claims.
12 9. Synergy’s motion to amend to allege these claims is scheduled to be heard on
13 February 17, 2021.
14 10. To investigate these new disclosures and to prepare for trial, Synergy sought to
15 depose numerous City officials and employees, including Harlan Kelly, Naomi Kelly, and
16 Mohammed Nuru. Each of these individuals is a percipient witness to material events at issue in
17 this case. Harlan Kelly is the former head of the SFPUC, which was one of the departments
18 involved in the Haight Street Project, and the lead agency for the Van Ness Project. Nuru was
19 the head of DPW, and responsible for Synergy’s termination from the project and – as Synergy
20 learned recently – caused Synergy to be replaced on the Van Ness Project by a company that was
21 paying bribes to Nuru. Naomi Kelly was the former City Manager, and, along with Nuru and
22 Harlan Kelly, personally met with Synergy’s principal, Javad Mirsaidi, regarding key events at
23 issue in this dispute.
24 11. Obtaining the depositions of Harlan Kelly, Mohammed Nuru, Naomi Kelly and
25 the other City officials and employees Synergy seeks to depose has been inordinately difficult.
26 12. Synergy has diligently, and at significant cost, sought to serve subpoenas on these
27 witnesses. Four attempts have been made on Mohammed Nuru, who I am informed appears to
28 be evading service. Synergy served Harlan Kelly and Naomi Kelly through counsel, who
5 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 informed me that Harlan Kelly will not agree to testify at this time due to the ongoing criminal
2 action against him, and also stated that he does not believe that Naomi Kelly will testify at
3 deposition. This counsel subsequently informed me that he was substituting out as counsel for
4 both Kellys by another attorney. Counsel asked that we re-schedule any deposition until new
5 counsel can be found to represent the Kellys. It is uncertain how long this process can take but it
6 will likely be several weeks. I anticipate that establishing the scope and parameters of the
7 Kelly’s deposition will require informal negotiation and likely formal litigation.
8 13. In addition, Synergy is seeking the depositions of Mohammed Nuru, London
9 Breed and other City officials and employees. The City Attorney’s office has declined to accept
10 service for any City employees or officials. Although I served the subpoenas and deposition
11 notices for these deponents on the City Attorney (who ordinarily represents employees in City-
12 related cases), the City Attorney has refused to accept subpoenas on behalf of these officials and
13 employees (including Mayor London Breed, who has singular personal knowledge of key events
14 pre-dating her election as mayor of San Francisco), or even discuss scheduling until the
15 employees are personally served. Personal service of subpoenas on the mayor and other City
16 employees is made more difficult because of the Covid pandemic – as these officials and
17 employees cannot be reached at work. Since the City Attorney has refused to discuss scheduling
18 these depositions until personal service occurs, discussions regarding any objections the City
19 Attorney raises to the depositions also cannot begin until the deponents are served personally.
20 After attempted service on London Breed at her residence, the City Attorney has accepted
21 service for London Breed only. However, no information has been provided concerning London
22 Breed’s availability for deposition or as a trial witness. It is uncertain when or if London Breed
23 will be available at any point before March 29, 2021.
24 14. I am informed Mohammed Nuru has avoided service by leaving his home before
25 5:30 a.m. and running to his vehicle each day. Synergy has been unable to serve Mohammed
26 Nuru, despite four attempts have been unable to serve him. Even if he is served with the
27 deposition notice, Mr. Nuru is currently under criminal indictment with Mr. Kelly, and it is likely
28 that he will also refuse to testify based on his ongoing criminal trial. Although the server has not
6 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 served these witnesses, he continues to attempt service. London Breed has now accepted
2 service, but she has not provided any information about her availability for deposition or trial.
3 Given the difficulty in obtaining service, it is likely that these witnesses will not be available for
4 deposition or trial at this time. Both witnesses are critical to discovery in this case as they were
5 the City officials who were directly involved in the removal of Synergy from the Haight Street
6 Project and the Van Ness Project. While Synergy has sought to obtain discovery from the City
7 related to each of these defendants, the City has been slow to produce responsive documents
8 through either the discovery process or public records requests. The ongoing COVID-19
9 emergency has complicated matters because it has only slowed the discovery process. As a
10 result, Synergy has not been able to obtain all necessary discovery from these two witnesses, and
11 additional time is needed to obtain that discovery.
12 15. Synergy currently has a pending motion to amend to add defendants and causes of
13 action. This includes the identification of Doe 1 as Harlan Kelly. In the event that the motion to
14 granted, then new parties would be added, and Synergy would need time to engage in further
15 discovery. Given the pending criminal actions against Mr. Kelly and Mr. Nuru, it is likely that
16 discovery will not be completed in a short period. It may take months to obtain discovery as to
17 these parties. Given the difficulty, counsel anticipates it will take a few months to conduct
18 discovery with those defendants. Even if the amendment is denied, it will still take some time
19 before the key witnesses of Nuru and Kelly who were involved in the allegations regarding
20 payment on the Haight Project can be deposed.
21 16. This matter is scheduled for jury trial. Given the current COVID-19 emergency,
22 counsel does not anticipate that a jury trial would be feasible by March 29, 2021. Given the
23 current situation, counsel would think that continuing the trial date would serve public safety
24 concerns and allow for the emergency to abate and allow for a jury trial.
25 17. Based on the minimum time to complete the family medical emergency and to
26 obtain discovery from the critical witnesses in this matter, Synergy seeks a continuance of at
27 least 180 days.
28
7 Case No. CGC-17-560034
1 I declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed on February 16,
2 2021, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
3
BY:
4
JOHNNY D. KNADLER
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 Case No. CGC-17-560034
Preview
1 JOHNNY D. KNADLER (SBN 220942) LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER 2 1527-E Pershing Drive ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94129 3 Telephone: (310) 564-6695 F I L E D Facsimile: (888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Email: jdknadler@gmail.com 02/16/2021 5 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant 7 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, Case No. CGC-17-560034 INC., (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488) 12 Plaintiff, 13 DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. vs. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF 14 MOTION TO CONTINUE THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, TRIAL DATE 15 LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED NURU, 16 Defendants. ______________________________________ Date: March 11, 2021 17 Time: 9:30 a.m. GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Dept: 206 18 Corporation, Complaint filed: July 10, 2017 19 Plaintiff, 20 vs, 21 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 22 INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, 23 Defendants. 24 ______________________________________ 25 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a California Corporation, 26 Cross-Complainant, 27 vs. 28 1 Case No. CGC-17-560034 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California 1 Corporation, and ROES 1-20, 2 Cross-Defendants. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 I, JOHNNY D. KNADLER, declare: 2 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of 3 California and I am counsel of record for Plaintiff/Defendant/Cross-complainant Synergy Project 4 Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) in this action. As such, I have personal knowledge of the matters 5 set forth in this declaration and could and would competently testify to those matters. 6 2. The main case CGC-17-560034 has been continued zero (0) times. The 7 consolidated case has had a single continuance due to the pending COVID-19 emergency. 8 3. I am trial attorney for Plaintiff in this matter. Staring on or about January 7, 2021, 9 my spouse suffered and continues to suffer from severe medical conditions that necessitate 10 hospital care and continued treatment for a minimum of the next 30 to 60 days and possibly 11 longer. While I touch on the issues generally for privacy concerns, I am willing to discuss 12 specifics with the Court in chambers if necessary. In the past 4 weeks, my spouse was admitted 13 to the hospital through the ER twice which resulted in stays at the hospital exceeding 24 hours, 14 she had an emergency operation, she was close to suffering kidney failure, she has undergone 15 two medical procedures, she has taken numerous tests including tests to determine if growths are 16 malignant or benign, and she has been recommended for at least two more medical procedures in 17 the next 1-2 months. After each procedure, she will have a period of recovery lasting about 2 18 weeks. Plus, any of the tests she takes could necessitate more medical treatment over the next 19 few months. As COVID-19 has reduced medical care for all but the most serious cases, there 20 has been delays in treatment until it becomes very serious. This explains how serious her 21 emergency surgery was. As a result of this ongoing family emergency, I will be unavailable to 22 prepare for trial on March 29, 2021, and be unavailable for trial on March 29, 2021. 23 4. Counsel for Defendant Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (GBI) is aware of my ongoing medical 24 situation. I asked for a stipulation to continue the trial date. Rather than agree, GBI indicated 25 that they want to go to trial and that “it is what it is.” In other words, GBI is seeking to take 26 advantage of a serious medical event and to exploit the suffering and stress on Plaintiff’s 27 counsel. For example, after being told that my spouse was scheduled for more tests, GBI sent 28 out the notice of an ex parte hearing. I received that notice while my spouse was at the hospital 3 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 taking tests. When I discussed this with GBI the next day, I was told, “it is what it is.” At no 2 time during our discussions of a continuance has counsel identified any prejudice that GBI would 3 suffer from a continuance. Given the tenor of discussions with GBI in the last couple of weeks, I 4 believe that GBI wants to take advantage of trial counsel’s situation. 5 5. In addition, I have two young children who suffer from developmental disabilities 6 and they receive support for those disabilities from both Golden Gate Regional Center, a state- 7 funded non-profit serving San Francisco County, and the San Francisco Unified School District. 8 They require specialized support for both their education and their day-to-day life. With my 9 ongoing family medical situation, I am the only one who can support them while my spouse is 10 recovering from her medical situation. Due to COVID-19, they cannot receive any in-person 11 support and I have to provide it. Further, due to COVID-19, they are only receiving distance 12 learning, and I am the only one in position to provide in-person support during school hours. I 13 have requested in-person support from both Golden Gate Regional Center and the school, but I 14 have been refused based on the COVID-19 emergency. As a result of this situation, I will be 15 unavailable to prepare for trial on March 29, 2021, and be unavailable for trial on March 29, 16 2021. 17 6. In January 2020, Mohammed Nuru was charged with honest services wire fraud 18 in a federal criminal complaint, which revealed an elaborate kickback scheme through which 19 Nuru and other officials accepted money and services from, Balmore Hernandez, the principal of 20 a company named, in exchange for Nuru’s efforts to funnel contracts to Azul Works. Following 21 On or about November 30, 2020, now-former head of the SFPUC Harlan Kelly was arrested by 22 the FBI on charges arising out of the FBI’s investigation of the Nuru kickback scheme. An 23 affidavit filed by the United States Attorney’s Office with the complaint against Kelly alleges 24 that Kelly, together with Nuru, engaged in a kickback scheme from 2014-2019, in which Kelly 25 accepted bribes in exchange for Kelly’s assistance in awarding City contracts to businesses that 26 paid the bribes. 27 7. The Kelly complaints, together with documents arising out of these prosecutions 28 (including City Attorney investigation reports) disclosed that how Nuru leveraged his position as 4 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 director of DPW to influence not only DPW, but other city agencies and officials, and connected 2 that fraud scheme to Synergy’s claims in this action. Put simply, these disclosures provide 3 substantial evidence to establish that Synergy’s termination from the contracts at issue in this 4 case was caused in furtherance of a scheme by Nuru, Kelly, and other high-level City officials, 5 informally known as the “City Family” 6 8. I reviewed the Kelly Complaint approximately a week to ten days after it was 7 published publicly on November 30, 2020. Based on that complaint, together with the other 8 documents revealed by the United States Attorney’s Office investigation arising out of 9 Mohammed Nuru’s arrest, Synergy’s counsel determined that Synergy could state causes of 10 action against Nuru and Kelly for racketeering, conspiracy and fraudulent concealment, and that 11 the disclosures also disclosed facts relevant to Synergy’s originally-pled claims. 12 9. Synergy’s motion to amend to allege these claims is scheduled to be heard on 13 February 17, 2021. 14 10. To investigate these new disclosures and to prepare for trial, Synergy sought to 15 depose numerous City officials and employees, including Harlan Kelly, Naomi Kelly, and 16 Mohammed Nuru. Each of these individuals is a percipient witness to material events at issue in 17 this case. Harlan Kelly is the former head of the SFPUC, which was one of the departments 18 involved in the Haight Street Project, and the lead agency for the Van Ness Project. Nuru was 19 the head of DPW, and responsible for Synergy’s termination from the project and – as Synergy 20 learned recently – caused Synergy to be replaced on the Van Ness Project by a company that was 21 paying bribes to Nuru. Naomi Kelly was the former City Manager, and, along with Nuru and 22 Harlan Kelly, personally met with Synergy’s principal, Javad Mirsaidi, regarding key events at 23 issue in this dispute. 24 11. Obtaining the depositions of Harlan Kelly, Mohammed Nuru, Naomi Kelly and 25 the other City officials and employees Synergy seeks to depose has been inordinately difficult. 26 12. Synergy has diligently, and at significant cost, sought to serve subpoenas on these 27 witnesses. Four attempts have been made on Mohammed Nuru, who I am informed appears to 28 be evading service. Synergy served Harlan Kelly and Naomi Kelly through counsel, who 5 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 informed me that Harlan Kelly will not agree to testify at this time due to the ongoing criminal 2 action against him, and also stated that he does not believe that Naomi Kelly will testify at 3 deposition. This counsel subsequently informed me that he was substituting out as counsel for 4 both Kellys by another attorney. Counsel asked that we re-schedule any deposition until new 5 counsel can be found to represent the Kellys. It is uncertain how long this process can take but it 6 will likely be several weeks. I anticipate that establishing the scope and parameters of the 7 Kelly’s deposition will require informal negotiation and likely formal litigation. 8 13. In addition, Synergy is seeking the depositions of Mohammed Nuru, London 9 Breed and other City officials and employees. The City Attorney’s office has declined to accept 10 service for any City employees or officials. Although I served the subpoenas and deposition 11 notices for these deponents on the City Attorney (who ordinarily represents employees in City- 12 related cases), the City Attorney has refused to accept subpoenas on behalf of these officials and 13 employees (including Mayor London Breed, who has singular personal knowledge of key events 14 pre-dating her election as mayor of San Francisco), or even discuss scheduling until the 15 employees are personally served. Personal service of subpoenas on the mayor and other City 16 employees is made more difficult because of the Covid pandemic – as these officials and 17 employees cannot be reached at work. Since the City Attorney has refused to discuss scheduling 18 these depositions until personal service occurs, discussions regarding any objections the City 19 Attorney raises to the depositions also cannot begin until the deponents are served personally. 20 After attempted service on London Breed at her residence, the City Attorney has accepted 21 service for London Breed only. However, no information has been provided concerning London 22 Breed’s availability for deposition or as a trial witness. It is uncertain when or if London Breed 23 will be available at any point before March 29, 2021. 24 14. I am informed Mohammed Nuru has avoided service by leaving his home before 25 5:30 a.m. and running to his vehicle each day. Synergy has been unable to serve Mohammed 26 Nuru, despite four attempts have been unable to serve him. Even if he is served with the 27 deposition notice, Mr. Nuru is currently under criminal indictment with Mr. Kelly, and it is likely 28 that he will also refuse to testify based on his ongoing criminal trial. Although the server has not 6 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 served these witnesses, he continues to attempt service. London Breed has now accepted 2 service, but she has not provided any information about her availability for deposition or trial. 3 Given the difficulty in obtaining service, it is likely that these witnesses will not be available for 4 deposition or trial at this time. Both witnesses are critical to discovery in this case as they were 5 the City officials who were directly involved in the removal of Synergy from the Haight Street 6 Project and the Van Ness Project. While Synergy has sought to obtain discovery from the City 7 related to each of these defendants, the City has been slow to produce responsive documents 8 through either the discovery process or public records requests. The ongoing COVID-19 9 emergency has complicated matters because it has only slowed the discovery process. As a 10 result, Synergy has not been able to obtain all necessary discovery from these two witnesses, and 11 additional time is needed to obtain that discovery. 12 15. Synergy currently has a pending motion to amend to add defendants and causes of 13 action. This includes the identification of Doe 1 as Harlan Kelly. In the event that the motion to 14 granted, then new parties would be added, and Synergy would need time to engage in further 15 discovery. Given the pending criminal actions against Mr. Kelly and Mr. Nuru, it is likely that 16 discovery will not be completed in a short period. It may take months to obtain discovery as to 17 these parties. Given the difficulty, counsel anticipates it will take a few months to conduct 18 discovery with those defendants. Even if the amendment is denied, it will still take some time 19 before the key witnesses of Nuru and Kelly who were involved in the allegations regarding 20 payment on the Haight Project can be deposed. 21 16. This matter is scheduled for jury trial. Given the current COVID-19 emergency, 22 counsel does not anticipate that a jury trial would be feasible by March 29, 2021. Given the 23 current situation, counsel would think that continuing the trial date would serve public safety 24 concerns and allow for the emergency to abate and allow for a jury trial. 25 17. Based on the minimum time to complete the family medical emergency and to 26 obtain discovery from the critical witnesses in this matter, Synergy seeks a continuance of at 27 least 180 days. 28 7 Case No. CGC-17-560034 1 I declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed on February 16, 2 2021, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. 3 BY: 4 JOHNNY D. KNADLER 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Case No. CGC-17-560034