On February 01, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chen, Susan,
and
C. Cournale & Co.,
C. Cournale & Co., Inc.,
Chaippari, Annette,
Chaippari, Philip,
Chiaparri, Annette,
Chiaparri, Philip,
Chiappari, Annette,
Chiappari, Philip,
Does 1 To 20, Inclusive,
Drosos, Margo,
Drosos, Steve,
for WRONGFUL EVICTION
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
co OU eo ND HW FF BW NY =
PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (SBN #144364)
BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG PC
2298 Durant Avenue
Berkeley, California 94704
Telephone: (510) 548-7474
Facsimile: (510) 548-7488
Attorneys for Defendants
STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS,
PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE
CHIAPPARI and C, COURNALE & CO., INC.
F
San Francisco County Suoerior Court
JAN X 8 2020
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY Dewluty Clerk
‘SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
SUSAN CHEN, ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVE DROSOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEE OF THE STEVE DROSOS AND
MARGO C. DROSOS 2015 REVOCABLE
TRUST DATED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2015,
MARGO DROSOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEVE DROSOS
AND MARGO C. DROSOS 2015
REVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER
10, 2015, PHILIP CHIAPPARI, AN
INDIVIDUAL, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI, AND
INDIVIDUAL, ©. COURNALE & CO, AND
DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants,
Case No.: ‘C-19-573470
[RROP ] ORDER RE: EXPARTE
APPLICATION BY DEFENDANTS
STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS,
PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE
CHIAPPARI AND C. COURNALE & CO.,
INC. FOR LEAVE TO
AUGMENT/AMEND EXPERT WITNESS
LIST AND DECLARATION REPLACING
COMPTON WITH PEARCE
FIRST AM. COMPL. FILED: 3/5/19
TRIAL DATE: 2/3/20
APPLICATION DATE: 1/ 8/2020
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
DEPARTMENT: 501
‘
An application for leave to augment/amend expert witness list came up for hearing on the}
ex parte calendar on the above identified date and time. Moving party showed that it was
brought after meet and confer discussion with opposing counsel. Upon review of the application
and the supporting declaration by their counsel Peggy Chang, Esq, the Court finds GOOD
CAUSE due to unavoidable surprise, mistake and/or excusable neglect of the need to replace an
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXPARTE APPLICATION BY DEFTS FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT/AMEND
EXPERT WITNESS LISTCo Oe rQI DW BR WN
NN NY N YN NN NY Be Be Be we Be Be eB eB eB
oN A A BF BH F&F So eA DH FB WN SF
expert expected for trial with another.
The court has confirmed, pursuant to C.C.P §2034.610, that it has the power to allow
augmentation or amendment where there was a timely exchange of expert information. The
court finds that the opposing party has been advised of the name and address of the expert
subsequently retained by Defendants after their timely disclosure. The court finds that pursuant
to C.C.P §2034.620 the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in that very little time has elapsed since
the disclosure, so itis unlikely for Plaintiff to have relied on the disclosure of Compton. The
court agrees that Plaintiff is unlikely to be prejudiced by the order requested as she has been
provided with the proposed amended disclosure in sufficient time to conduct expert discovery to
which she is entitled, under the expert witness timeline set out under CCP 2034 et seq.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby grants the application for leave for Defendants to
amend and augment their expert disclosure so they can replace their originally designated expert,
Scott se Comaenn wi whee anothe: qo" rt by the name of Cheryl fe ele! p
IS So ORDERE -
: (cle q dene, et uw es
wm ‘ Leek
: JUDGE OF THE Ld Sone
glreee
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXPARTE APPLICATION BY DEFTS FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT/AMEND
EXPERT WITNESS LIST
Document Filed Date
January 08, 2020
Case Filing Date
February 01, 2019
Category
WRONGFUL EVICTION
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
co OU eo ND HW FF BW NY = PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (SBN #144364) BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG PC 2298 Durant Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 Telephone: (510) 548-7474 Facsimile: (510) 548-7488 Attorneys for Defendants STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS, PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI and C, COURNALE & CO., INC. F San Francisco County Suoerior Court JAN X 8 2020 CLERK OF THE COURT BY Dewluty Clerk ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION SUSAN CHEN, , Plaintiff, vs. STEVE DROSOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEVE DROSOS AND MARGO C. DROSOS 2015 REVOCABLE TRUST DATED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2015, MARGO DROSOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEVE DROSOS AND MARGO C. DROSOS 2015 REVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2015, PHILIP CHIAPPARI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI, AND INDIVIDUAL, ©. COURNALE & CO, AND DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.: ‘C-19-573470 [RROP ] ORDER RE: EXPARTE APPLICATION BY DEFENDANTS STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS, PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI AND C. COURNALE & CO., INC. FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT/AMEND EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND DECLARATION REPLACING COMPTON WITH PEARCE FIRST AM. COMPL. FILED: 3/5/19 TRIAL DATE: 2/3/20 APPLICATION DATE: 1/ 8/2020 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPARTMENT: 501 ‘ An application for leave to augment/amend expert witness list came up for hearing on the} ex parte calendar on the above identified date and time. Moving party showed that it was brought after meet and confer discussion with opposing counsel. Upon review of the application and the supporting declaration by their counsel Peggy Chang, Esq, the Court finds GOOD CAUSE due to unavoidable surprise, mistake and/or excusable neglect of the need to replace an 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXPARTE APPLICATION BY DEFTS FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT/AMEND EXPERT WITNESS LISTCo Oe rQI DW BR WN NN NY N YN NN NY Be Be Be we Be Be eB eB eB oN A A BF BH F&F So eA DH FB WN SF expert expected for trial with another. The court has confirmed, pursuant to C.C.P §2034.610, that it has the power to allow augmentation or amendment where there was a timely exchange of expert information. The court finds that the opposing party has been advised of the name and address of the expert subsequently retained by Defendants after their timely disclosure. The court finds that pursuant to C.C.P §2034.620 the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in that very little time has elapsed since the disclosure, so itis unlikely for Plaintiff to have relied on the disclosure of Compton. The court agrees that Plaintiff is unlikely to be prejudiced by the order requested as she has been provided with the proposed amended disclosure in sufficient time to conduct expert discovery to which she is entitled, under the expert witness timeline set out under CCP 2034 et seq. ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby grants the application for leave for Defendants to amend and augment their expert disclosure so they can replace their originally designated expert, Scott se Comaenn wi whee anothe: qo" rt by the name of Cheryl fe ele! p IS So ORDERE - : (cle q dene, et uw es wm ‘ Leek : JUDGE OF THE Ld Sone glreee 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXPARTE APPLICATION BY DEFTS FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT/AMEND EXPERT WITNESS LIST