Preview
Cc Ot DH RF BW NY eS
Yy N Y YB YB N NR NR NY Be Be we ewe ie ee e
2A Ama HHH SF Ce AAQAaE BHR S
PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (#144364)
BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG PC
2298 Durant Avenue ELECTRONICALLY
Berkeley, California 94704 FILED
Telephone: | (510) 548-7474 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (510) 548-7488 County of San Francisco
Email: pchang@bfc-legal.com 01/07/2020
Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Attorneys for Defendants Deputy Clerk
STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS,
PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE
CHIAPPARI and C. COURNALE & CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
SUSAN CHEN, Case No. CGC-19-573470
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF P. CHANG IN
v. SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT
STEVE DROSOS, individually and as trustee | EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING
of the Steve Drosos and Margo C. Drosos 2015 | MOLD EXPERT COMPTON WITH
Revocable Trust dated September 10, 2015, PEARCE
MARGO DROSOS, individually and as trustee
of the Steve Drosos and Margo C. Drosos 2015 | First Am. Compl. Filed: 3/5/19
Revocable Trust dated September 10, 2015, Trial Date: 2/3/2020
PHILIP CHIAPPARI, an individual,
ANNETTE CHIAPPARI, and individual, C. Ex Parte Hearing Date: January 8, 2020
COURNALE & CO, and DOES 1 to 20, Time: 9:00 a.m.
inclusive, Location: Dept. 501
Defendants.
I, Peggy Chang, declare,
1. I am a member of Beckman, Feller & Chang, PC, counsel for Defendants in this action.
2. I met and conferred with opposing counsel Ryan Vlasak immediately upon learning on
December 3 1, 2019 that the mold expert I expected to use in this action was unable to act as our expert
at the upcoming trial. Mr. Vlasak declined my request for a stipulation for the substitution and thus we
bring this ex parte application for leave of court to amend and augment the expert disclosure with a
It
1
Chen v. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-573470
DECL OF P. CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING
MOTD BYDEDT CAMDTAN WITH DRADOTCe nr AnH FWY
RY» NR Y NY BY NR N VN VY S& & Fe EF Fe ee OS Oe
e2IA an & BDNF SBE HH HN AH BF BW NF SS
substitute expert. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer email and response are attached as
Exhibit 1
3. I directed a former attorney working for our firm, Mike Bolgatz to retain Scott Compton
or his son Ryan Compton as our mold expert in this case in August of 2019. I believed this was done
by Mr. Bolgatz when Mr. Compton provided us with a letter with his opinions on some mold tests
disclosed early in the case by the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of Compton’s letter is attached as
Exhibit 2.
4. I contacted Scott Compton personally in early December 2019 regarding the need to go
to trial and asking for a current copy of his CV and rate for depositions. I had a reasonable belief that
Mr. Bolgatz had given him background information about the mold issues in the case, the complaint
and information about the trial date because this is what I asked him to do. The requested information
was provided to me in an email response by Scott Compton, with no indication that the expert’s time
was going to be limited before trial. A true and correct copy of emails with Mr. Compton are attached
as Exhibit 3. I had no reason to suspect that Mr. Compton did not think he had been retained for the
trial, as he did not raise any question about my comment regarding going to trial and his deposition.
5. Based upon my belief that we had retained Mr. Compton as our defense mold expert, I
disclosed him on December 16, 2019 in a timely expert disclosure listing and declaration. A copy of
this disclosuré without attachments is attached as Exhibit 4. After the disclosure, I received notices
from opposing counsel for my experts’ depositions during the Christmas week. When I returned to the
office after that holiday, I sent out emails to my experts asking to confirm availability for the dates of
their deposition and asking to schedule meetings for deposition preparation. On December 31, 2019, I
was shocked and horrified to get a call from Scott Compton advising with much alarm that he was too
busy to participate in the deposition process or trial. I learned for the first time that he had no
understanding that we had retained him for the case and he was unwilling to be retained at this late date.
6. ° Limmediately contacted opposing counsel, without delay in an effort to meet and confer
about my need to amend the expert list and substitute my mold expert with another. I then reached out
to another mold expert, Cheryl Pearce, who has personal experience with plaintiffs unit conditions in
2017 and asked if she had been retained by Plaintiff for trial. She was not so I asked if she was willing
2
Chen v. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-573470
DECL OF P, CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING
MATT) PYPEDT COMPTON WITH DP ADOTCer an & BW N
RB NR RP YP YR KN KR KN NY & B&B eB Be Be Be eB Be eB
cot Am F&F BNR KF SF CMH KN AH F&F BW NRHN eS TS
to replace Mr. Compton as Defense mold expert for trial. She is available and has agreed to testify as
Defendants expert if this application is granted. Plaintiff has already seen her report and photographs
and the only new testimony would be about her opinions about plaintiffs other mold reports and the
significance of mold found inside and outside residential apartments like the one in this litigation.
7. I had no advance warning of this current expert problem, otherwise I would not have
designated Scott Compton as Defendants’mold expert. I had worked with Mr Compton and his son, of
HMA on several prior cases and assumed he was retained once he was contacted and provided his
written report earlier in the case.
8. My mistaken belief that Mr. Compton was retained was only recently discovered and I
immediately provided opposing counsel with notice of our need to amend and augment our expert
witness list for the case. I do not see how Plaintiff could be prejudiced, as there is still time for expert
discovery to be completed before trial.
9. Defendants in this action should not be penalized for my mistake, inadvertence and
neglect. If there was some point where I could have discovered this problem earlier, and I did not, I
respectfully ask that the court excuse my error and allow the leave requested, pursuant to the authority
available to the Court under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2034.620.
10. My proposed new expert has been disclosed. I hand served opposing counsel with an
amended and supplemental expert disclosure of Cheryl Pearce, her address, qualification and report and
photographs on January 6, 2020. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 5.
11. There are ten more days for expert discovery to be completed per code and nearly a
month before trial begins on February 3, 2020. If granted, adding Cheryl Pearcy by an augmented/
amended expert list will not prejudice the Plaintiff in her trail preparations as she will have sufficient
time to conduct expert discovery regarding the substituted expert’s opinions within the ordinary period
for expert discovery before trial.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and of my personal
knowledge, Executed this 7” day of January, 2020 in Berkeley, Californi
Peggy Chahg, Esq.
3
Chen y. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No, CGC-19-573470
DECL OF P. CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING
MAT EVDEDT CAMDTAN WITH DEADOTtN
oD em IND OH BR Ow
PROOF OF SERVICE
Tam employed in Alameda County, California. I am over eighteen (18) years of age and
not a party to this action or proceeding; my business address is 2298 Durant Avenue, Berkeley,
California 94704.
On January 7, 2020, I served true copies of the following documents:
DECLARATION OF P. CHANG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING MOLD
EXPERT COMPTON WITH PEARCE
on the following parties to this action:
Ryan J. Vlasak, Esq.
Bracamontes & Vlasak, P.C.
220 Montgomery Street, Ste. 870
San Francisco, CA 94104
Ph: (415) 835-6777
Fax: (415) 835-6780
rvlasak@bvlawsf.com
(Attorneys for Plaintiff Susan Chen)
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FILE & SERVEXPRESS, By sending |
electronically true and correct copies thereof to File & ServeXpress for electronic
service on the persons listed above. The transmission was reported as complete
and without error.
x (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL): By sending the above documents by electronic mail to the
email addresses noted above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
BY MAIL): By placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in accordance with the above business practice, as addressed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 7, 2020, at Berkeley, California.
i
:
Preview
Cc Ot DH RF BW NY eS Yy N Y YB YB N NR NR NY Be Be we ewe ie ee e 2A Ama HHH SF Ce AAQAaE BHR S PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (#144364) BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG PC 2298 Durant Avenue ELECTRONICALLY Berkeley, California 94704 FILED Telephone: | (510) 548-7474 Superior Court of California, Facsimile: (510) 548-7488 County of San Francisco Email: pchang@bfc-legal.com 01/07/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Attorneys for Defendants Deputy Clerk STEVE DROSOS, MARGO DROSOS, PHILIP CHIAPPARI, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI and C. COURNALE & CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION SUSAN CHEN, Case No. CGC-19-573470 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF P. CHANG IN v. SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT STEVE DROSOS, individually and as trustee | EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING of the Steve Drosos and Margo C. Drosos 2015 | MOLD EXPERT COMPTON WITH Revocable Trust dated September 10, 2015, PEARCE MARGO DROSOS, individually and as trustee of the Steve Drosos and Margo C. Drosos 2015 | First Am. Compl. Filed: 3/5/19 Revocable Trust dated September 10, 2015, Trial Date: 2/3/2020 PHILIP CHIAPPARI, an individual, ANNETTE CHIAPPARI, and individual, C. Ex Parte Hearing Date: January 8, 2020 COURNALE & CO, and DOES 1 to 20, Time: 9:00 a.m. inclusive, Location: Dept. 501 Defendants. I, Peggy Chang, declare, 1. I am a member of Beckman, Feller & Chang, PC, counsel for Defendants in this action. 2. I met and conferred with opposing counsel Ryan Vlasak immediately upon learning on December 3 1, 2019 that the mold expert I expected to use in this action was unable to act as our expert at the upcoming trial. Mr. Vlasak declined my request for a stipulation for the substitution and thus we bring this ex parte application for leave of court to amend and augment the expert disclosure with a It 1 Chen v. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-573470 DECL OF P. CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING MOTD BYDEDT CAMDTAN WITH DRADOTCe nr AnH FWY RY» NR Y NY BY NR N VN VY S& & Fe EF Fe ee OS Oe e2IA an & BDNF SBE HH HN AH BF BW NF SS substitute expert. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer email and response are attached as Exhibit 1 3. I directed a former attorney working for our firm, Mike Bolgatz to retain Scott Compton or his son Ryan Compton as our mold expert in this case in August of 2019. I believed this was done by Mr. Bolgatz when Mr. Compton provided us with a letter with his opinions on some mold tests disclosed early in the case by the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of Compton’s letter is attached as Exhibit 2. 4. I contacted Scott Compton personally in early December 2019 regarding the need to go to trial and asking for a current copy of his CV and rate for depositions. I had a reasonable belief that Mr. Bolgatz had given him background information about the mold issues in the case, the complaint and information about the trial date because this is what I asked him to do. The requested information was provided to me in an email response by Scott Compton, with no indication that the expert’s time was going to be limited before trial. A true and correct copy of emails with Mr. Compton are attached as Exhibit 3. I had no reason to suspect that Mr. Compton did not think he had been retained for the trial, as he did not raise any question about my comment regarding going to trial and his deposition. 5. Based upon my belief that we had retained Mr. Compton as our defense mold expert, I disclosed him on December 16, 2019 in a timely expert disclosure listing and declaration. A copy of this disclosuré without attachments is attached as Exhibit 4. After the disclosure, I received notices from opposing counsel for my experts’ depositions during the Christmas week. When I returned to the office after that holiday, I sent out emails to my experts asking to confirm availability for the dates of their deposition and asking to schedule meetings for deposition preparation. On December 31, 2019, I was shocked and horrified to get a call from Scott Compton advising with much alarm that he was too busy to participate in the deposition process or trial. I learned for the first time that he had no understanding that we had retained him for the case and he was unwilling to be retained at this late date. 6. ° Limmediately contacted opposing counsel, without delay in an effort to meet and confer about my need to amend the expert list and substitute my mold expert with another. I then reached out to another mold expert, Cheryl Pearce, who has personal experience with plaintiffs unit conditions in 2017 and asked if she had been retained by Plaintiff for trial. She was not so I asked if she was willing 2 Chen v. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-573470 DECL OF P, CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING MATT) PYPEDT COMPTON WITH DP ADOTCer an & BW N RB NR RP YP YR KN KR KN NY & B&B eB Be Be Be eB Be eB cot Am F&F BNR KF SF CMH KN AH F&F BW NRHN eS TS to replace Mr. Compton as Defense mold expert for trial. She is available and has agreed to testify as Defendants expert if this application is granted. Plaintiff has already seen her report and photographs and the only new testimony would be about her opinions about plaintiffs other mold reports and the significance of mold found inside and outside residential apartments like the one in this litigation. 7. I had no advance warning of this current expert problem, otherwise I would not have designated Scott Compton as Defendants’mold expert. I had worked with Mr Compton and his son, of HMA on several prior cases and assumed he was retained once he was contacted and provided his written report earlier in the case. 8. My mistaken belief that Mr. Compton was retained was only recently discovered and I immediately provided opposing counsel with notice of our need to amend and augment our expert witness list for the case. I do not see how Plaintiff could be prejudiced, as there is still time for expert discovery to be completed before trial. 9. Defendants in this action should not be penalized for my mistake, inadvertence and neglect. If there was some point where I could have discovered this problem earlier, and I did not, I respectfully ask that the court excuse my error and allow the leave requested, pursuant to the authority available to the Court under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2034.620. 10. My proposed new expert has been disclosed. I hand served opposing counsel with an amended and supplemental expert disclosure of Cheryl Pearce, her address, qualification and report and photographs on January 6, 2020. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 5. 11. There are ten more days for expert discovery to be completed per code and nearly a month before trial begins on February 3, 2020. If granted, adding Cheryl Pearcy by an augmented/ amended expert list will not prejudice the Plaintiff in her trail preparations as she will have sufficient time to conduct expert discovery regarding the substituted expert’s opinions within the ordinary period for expert discovery before trial. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and of my personal knowledge, Executed this 7” day of January, 2020 in Berkeley, Californi Peggy Chahg, Esq. 3 Chen y. Drosos, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No, CGC-19-573470 DECL OF P. CHANG ISO EXPARTE APP FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING MAT EVDEDT CAMDTAN WITH DEADOTtN oD em IND OH BR Ow PROOF OF SERVICE Tam employed in Alameda County, California. I am over eighteen (18) years of age and not a party to this action or proceeding; my business address is 2298 Durant Avenue, Berkeley, California 94704. On January 7, 2020, I served true copies of the following documents: DECLARATION OF P. CHANG IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND/AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST BY REPLACING MOLD EXPERT COMPTON WITH PEARCE on the following parties to this action: Ryan J. Vlasak, Esq. Bracamontes & Vlasak, P.C. 220 Montgomery Street, Ste. 870 San Francisco, CA 94104 Ph: (415) 835-6777 Fax: (415) 835-6780 rvlasak@bvlawsf.com (Attorneys for Plaintiff Susan Chen) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FILE & SERVEXPRESS, By sending | electronically true and correct copies thereof to File & ServeXpress for electronic service on the persons listed above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. x (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL): By sending the above documents by electronic mail to the email addresses noted above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. BY MAIL): By placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordance with the above business practice, as addressed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 7, 2020, at Berkeley, California. i :