arrow left
arrow right
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
  • FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. SAYAT OZYILMAZ ET AL BUSINESS TORT document preview
						
                                

Preview

DAVID H. SCHWARTZ (SBN 62693) NANCY CHUNG (SBN 225584) LAW OFFICES OF DAVID H. SCHWARTZ, INC. 423 Washington Street, Sixth Floor ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 399-9301 F I L E D Superior Court of California, Fax: (415) 399-9878 County of San Francisco E-mail: dhs@lodhs.com 06/10/2020 Email: nchung@lodhs.com Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff & Cross-Defendant, JOHN LITZ and Cross-Defendant YONGJIA SOLLERS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and ) Case No: CGC-19-581427 FORWARD FOOD GROUP, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATION OF DAVID H. ) SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF ) DEMURRER TO AMENDED CROSS- vs. ) COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS ) JOHN LITZ AND YONGJIA SOLLERS SAYAT OZYILMAZ, LAURA GABRIELA ) OZYILMAZ and DOES 1-100, inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) ) LAURA OZYILMAZ and SAYAT ) ) OZYILMAZ; ) ) Cross-Complainants, ) ) vs. ) ) ) JOHN LITZ, FORWARD FOOD GROUP, LLC, ) FFG RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., YONGJIA ) SOLLERS, and ROES 1 THROUGH 30; ) ) Cross-Defendants. ) ) 1 David H. Schwartz hereby declares as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the Courts in the State of California. I have offices at 423 Washington Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, California. I am lead counsel for Cross-defendants John Litz and Yongjia Sollers in this action. If called as a witness I could testify to the matters set forth in this Declaration on my personal knowledge, except for such matters as are stated to be based upon my information or belief. 2. The Amended Cross-complaint was served by mail on April 15, 2020, making the last day to file a responsive pleading May 20, 2020. 3. On May 13, 2020 my associate, Nancy Chung and I held met and conferred with counsel for Cross-complainants, Lucinda Storm and Kenneth Hollenbeck concerning our intention to demur to the Amended Cross-complaint on behalf of Cross-defendants John Litz and Yongjia Sollers. At the conclusion of that conference Ms. Storm indicated that she would be considering some of the points we had raised as to deficiencies in the Amended Cross-complaint, including, but not limited to, that the claims raised in the Cross-complaint are duplicated in a Cross-complaint and Amended Cross-complaint filed in another action pending in this Court, Litz vs. Sayat Ozyilmaz, et al. CGC- 19-580935 were identical to the claims in the Amended Cross-complaint filed in this action, and that one of these actions should be abated. Ms. Storm said she would get back to us on whether she was going to make any further amendments based on our discussions. 4. On May 20, 2020 Ms. Chung and I had another meet and confer telephonic session with Ms. Storm and Mr. Hollenbeck. In that discussion we again raised outstanding issues regarding the grounds for demurring to the Amended Cross-complaint for which Ms. Storm had not provided a definitive response, including the plea in abatement issue. Ms. Storm said she would get back to us by Friday, May 22, 2020 on those issues and we understood that she was agreeing to extend the date for filing the demurrer until the meet and confer process was completed. Later in the day on May 20, 2020 Ms. Storm sent a proposed stipulation to resolve the plea in abatement issue. I responded with a slightly revised version sent to Ms. Storm on May 22, 2020. I have not received any response whether or not Ms. Storm is agreeable to the revised stipulation on the plea in abatement, but she has 2