Motion-Secondary: BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Ann Rankin, Esq. (SBN 83690) ELECTRONICALLY

Terry Wilkens, Esq. (SBN 118469) FILED
Law Offices of Ann Rankin Superior Court of California,
3911 Harrison Street County of San Francisco
Oakland, CA 94611 MAR 15 2013
Tel.: (510) 653-8886 Clerk of the Court
Fax: (510) 653-8889 BY: WILLIAM v Naputy Clerk

Kenneth Katzoff, Esq. (SBN 103490)
Robert Riggs, Esq. (SBN 107684)
Sung Shim, Esq. (SBN 184247)
Katzoff & Riggs

1500 Park Ave #300

Emeryville, CA 94608

TEL: (510) 597-1990

FAX; (510) 597-0295

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BEACON RESIDENTIAL CASE NO.: CGC-08-478453
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

[Assigned to Honorable Curtis Karnow]
Plaintiff,

v. DECLARATION OF ANN RANKIN, ESQ.

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC, et | FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS

al, AGAINST SKIDMORE-OWINGS-
MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO

RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013

Defendants.

HEARING DATE: April 10, 2013
TIME: 10:00 a.m.

LATE DEPT: 304
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. RIAL DATE: None

1
DECLARATION OF AR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013Ce ND HW BF Ww NY

a FON = S

I, ANN RANKIN, ESQ,, declare as follows:

1. I am the principal of the Law Offices of Ann Rankin and am one of the attorneys of
record for Plaintiff BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION in the above-
entitled action. I am duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of California.
The following facts are known to me of my own personal knowledge, and, if called as a witness, I
could and would testify competently thereto.

2. Plaintiff's present counsel (my firm and co-counsel, Katzoff & Riggs, LLP)|
substituted into this case in March of 2011 and filed the operative Third Amended Complaint
(“TAC”) in April of 2011, The TAC was filed before defendants answered the Second Amended
Complaint.

3. All defendants interposed demurrers to the TAC. Due to the heavy calendar in the
Complex Litigation Department, the demurrers were not heard until October of 2011.

4, In October of 2011, the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrers
to the Third Amended Complaint that were interposed by the architects, HKS, Inc. (“HKS”) and
Skidmore-Owings-Merrill (“Skidmore”) on the ground that the architects owed no duty to
Plaintiff. Since then, the case has proceeded without participation by Skidmore. All parties
disclosed expert witnesses in August of 2012, but Skidmore did not disclose experts and has not
participated in any depositions.

5. Plaintiff appealed from the judgments dismissing HKS and Skidmore from the
case, and in December of 2012, the Court of Appeal for the First District, after full briefing and
oral argument, reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrers and entering judgments in
favor of HKS and Skidmore. The Court of Appeal held that HKS and Skidmore did owe a duty of
care to Plaintiff, both under Civil Code § 895 et. seg. and, under common law.

6. On February 27, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of
Appeal decision.

7. On January 12, 2012, Judge Richard Kramer assigned this case a trial date of
February 4, 2013.

2
DECLARATION OF AR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 20138. However, on January 2, 2013, Judge Kramer vacated the trial date for reasons set
forth in open court. A transcript of this hearing and of the subsequent hearing on January 8, 2013
in which Judge Kramer discussed his order vacating the trial date is attached as Exhibits B & C to
Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice, served and filed herewith.

9, During the hearings, Judge Kramer acknowledged that Plaintiff's counsel had been
not only “diligent” but “persistent” with respect to the prosecution of the case. Judge Kramer’s
main reason for vacating the trial was the reassignment of Judge Curtis Karnow to the complex
litigation department where the case is pending, and the reassignment of Judge Kramer to a
different department. Judge Kramer did not believe that Judge Karnow could be prepared to try
the case by February 4, 2013, Defense counsel represented to Judge Kramer, verbally and in
writing, that they could be ready for trial by June of 2013.

10. Judge Kramer advised the parties to return to court on January 17, 2013 for a trial
setting conference; this conference was moved to January 25, 2013 by Judge Karnow. On January
25, Judge Karnow did not set a new trial date, but indicated that he expected to do so at the Case
Management Conference on March 29, 2013.

11. Plaintiff did not file a motion to advance the case for trial in order to avoid the bar
of the five-year statute of limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure 583.310 prior
to now, because Plaintiff relied on the February 4, 2013 trial date that had been set by Judge
Kramer for nearly one year. It was only after Judge Kramer vacated the February 4, 2013 trial date
that Plaintiff determined it was necessary to move to reset the trial date. It was only after the
Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal decision, which did not occur until
February 27, 2013 that Plaintiff realized it was necessary to move to separate the trial of the
architects from the trial of the rest of the case,

12. During the first three years of the pendency of the case, discovery was stayed by
order of the court or by agreement among the parties for various time periods in order to allow the
parties’ time to mediate the case. Mediators have included Bruce Edwards, Keith Hunter, and
Christopher Soelling. However, all mediation efforts to date have failed, and depositions
commenced in March of 2012.

3

DECLARATION OF AR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013oe NDA WD WN

10

13. Since that time, depositions have taken place usually three to five days a week.
Some depositions have been double-tracked. Expert depositions commenced in October of 2012
and are expected to be concluded in April of 2013.

14. The parties could have been ready for the February 4, 2013 trial date by double or
triple tracking depositions and by holding depositions on the weekends, but this was unnecessary
in view of Judge Kramer’s order vacating the trial date.

15. [have read all of the cross-complaints filed herein by Defendants. As a result of
this review, | have concluded that none of the Defendants has cross-complained against Skidmore
except for Mission Place. It has since dismissed its cross-complaint against Skidmore. The
Mission Place parties have filed and prosecuted a cross-complaint for indemnity against HKS.
The architects are not parties to any other cross-complaints.

16. Plaintiff wishes to proceed to trial at this time against all parties other than
Skidmore and HKS, prior to the expiration of the five-year statute, and to separately try its claims
against Skidmore and HKS at such time as the parties have fully briefed the issues before the
California Supreme Court, oral argument has been heard, and the Supreme Court has made a
ruling. This could take several years.

17, Plaintiff believes that the case could be shortened by approximately two to three
weeks if its claims against HKS and Skidmore were tried separately, because, as a result of such
separation, Plaintiff would not have to call percipient witnesses at the first trial to testify about
HKS’ and Skidmore’s conduct in great detail, and no expert testimony would be needed as to
whether or not HKS or Skidmore’s conduct or failure to identify issues was below the applicable
standard of care, Whether the case against the architects were tried under Civil Code § 895 et seq
or under common law theories, Plaintiff would have to prove that the architects’ affirmative
conduct or their failure to have identified significant issues fell below the applicable standard of
care. Plaintiff's only claims against the architects are for common law negligence and/or for
violation of Performance Standards, and, as to the Performance Standards, Plaintiff must prove
negligence against the architects because of Civil Code § 936 requirements. Plaintiff can bring its
claims against the other parties over whom the court has jurisdiction without the need to prosecute

4

DECLARATION OF AR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013oe IND HW FF BY

the claims against the architects at this time. If the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeal’s
decision, Plaintiff can try its standard of care claims against the architects after the Supreme Court
review is concluded.

18. Plaintiff pled in the alternative its claims against all parties under SB 800, Civil §
Code 895 et. seq. and under common Jaw. The reason is that the SB 800 statute does not apply to
“condominium conversions.” Plaintiff believes the project was not a “condominium conversion”
because, among other reasons, the Catellus Parties recorded a condominium map in the chain of
title to the property before selling it to Mission Place, LLC; the Mission Place parties never
complied with the San Francisco Condominium Conversion Ordinance; the recorded CC&Rs
under which both Catellus and Mission Place were listed as “declarants” provided that in the event
of a claim for construction deficiencies, SB 800 processes would apply; and the Purchase
Agreements contained similar language. Plaintiff asked defendants to admit in discovery
responses that the project was not a “condominium conversion” and that SB 800 did apply.
Defendants gave ambiguous responses to the discovery requests; HKS contended that the project
was a conversion because Catellus had rented out some of the units for about a year before the
property was sold to Mission Place. (See Exhibit A {Requests for Admissions}; Exhibit B {Mission
Place Responses}; Exhibit C {HKS Responses} attached hereto,

19, There will be no prejudice to the other defendants arising from an order severing
the claims against Skidmore and HKS. If, after conclusion of the trial, they believe that they are
owed equitable indemnity, equitable contribution, or express indemnity by Skidmore and HKS,
they can file a separate action against Skidmore and HKS on that basis, since the duty to
indemnify does not arise until the indemnitee sustains a loss.

20. If the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal ruling and finds that Skidmore
and HKS had no duty to Plaintiff to begin with, there would be no issues to try against Skidmore
and HKS.

5
DECLARATION OF AR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct; and that this

Declaration was-executed by me-on March 14, 2013 at Oakland, California.

Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF AN NIKIN

By: (am Upp f-

Ann Rankin, Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION

6
DECLARATION OF AR IN'SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFI?S MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
SKIDMORE OWINGS MERRILL, LLP AND HKS, INC. AND TO RESET CASE FOR TRIAL ON JUNE 3, 2013KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
1900 PARK AVE, SUITE 300
EMERYVILLE, CA $4608
GLO 59721990
te

nN

ANN RANKIN (SBN 83690)
TERRY WILKENS (SBN 118469)
Law Offices of Ann Rankin

3911 Harrison Street

Oakland, CA 94611

Tel.: (510) 653-8886

Fax: (510) 653-8889

KENNETH 8S. KATZOFF (SBN 103490)
ROBERT R. RIGGS (SBN 107684)
SUNG E, SHIM (SBN 184247)

Katzoff & Riggs

1500 Park Ave #300

Emeryville, CA 94608

TEL: (510) 597-1990

FAX: (510) 597-0295

Attorneys for Plaintiff BEACON

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BEACON RESIDENTIAL ) Case No. CGC 08-478453
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, )
) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SPECIAL SET
Plaintiff, ) OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
} TODEFENDANT BKS, INC,
vs. )
) (LIMITED TO ‘SB 800° ISSUES)
CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC, )}
etal. ) Set No, [-S
)
Defendants, )
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS, )
)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Beacon Residential Community Association

{
PLAINTIFI’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDAN

EXHIBIT “A”KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300
EMERYVILLE, CA 93608

BIO) 997-1990

22

23

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant HKS, Inc.
SET NO.: Special, Set 1 (1-S)
NOS.: 1 through 44

Plaintiff BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.010 et seq., hereby requests Defendant HKS, INC,
(“YOU”), individually and doing business as HKS ARCHITECTS, INC., to admit the
truth of the following matters:

1. Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT consists of original construction
intended to be sold as individual dwelling units within the meaning of Civil Code § 896,

“BEACON PROJECT” as used herein shall mean and refer to the entire five
hundred and ninety five condominium unit development, including the exterior and
interior walls, roofs, windows, parking structure, pool and spa area, landscaping,
courtyard areas, lobby areas, and other common areas, located at 250 and 260 King
Street, San Francisco, California,

2, Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT is not a “condominium
conversion” as to which, under Civil Code § 896, SB 800 does not apply to plaintiff's
action herein,

“SB 800” as used herein shall mean and refer to Civil Code Title 7, Chapter 2,
“Actionable Defects,” codified as Civil Code §§ 896 through 945.5,

3. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein as identified in letters attached
as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F* to the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

“GOVERNED” as used herein with respect to a claim or claims, shall mean that

2
PLAINTIFFS FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE,, SUITE 300
EMERYVILLE, CA 99608
(510) 597-1990

be mi
yo = >

_
we

as to such claim or claims, except as specifically set forth in SB 800, the defendants
herein are liable for, and plaintiff's claim or cause of action is limited to, violation of the
standards enumerated in Civil Code § 896, except as specifically set forth in SB 800.

4, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for excessive heat gain through
the windows of the condominium units, and for related defective design, materials,
construction and installation of ventilation systems, mechanical systems, and window
assemblies, as alleged in paragraph 50(B) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

5. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficient ventilation in the
condominium units and common areas, as alleged in paragraph 50(C) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

6. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects in the pool and spa
boilers, as alleged in paragraph 50(D) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

7. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for inadequate and deficient
ventilation in the pool chemical room, as alleged in paragraph 50(E) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

8. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects leading to excessive
heat build up in the electrical rooms thereby causing damage and premature failure to
the electrical components in such electrical rooms, as alleged in paragraph 50(F) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

9. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for leaks in the dryer exhaust

system duct runs, as alleged in paragraph 50(G) of the Third Amended Complaint filed

3
PLAINTIFE’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

22

23

herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

10, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for excessive odor and cigarette
sinoke transmission leaks in the dryer exhaust system duct runs, as alleged in paragraph
50(H) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by
SB 800.

Il, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for excessive sound
transmission between condominium units, as alleged in paragraph 50(1) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

12. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leaks in the roofs and roof
systems, as alleged in paragraph 50(J) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

13, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leaks emanating from the
pool and spa equipment rooms, as alleged in paragraph 50(K) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

14, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for leaks emanating from the
canopy structures over the King Street entrances to the 250 and 260 buildings, as alleged
in paragraph SO(L) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800,

15. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for water infiltration into the
planter lights and electrical components installed in the podium and motor court planter
boxes, as alleged in paragraph 50(M) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

16. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leaks emanating from the

q
PLAINTIFP’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC.KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

2500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300
EMERYVILLE. CA 94608

10) 597-1990

podium, the podium level planter boxes, planter caps, the points where the planter boxes
are integrated with the exterior wall building assemblies, and the locations where planter
boxes abut building walls, and related defects in planter boxes, planter box drains and
podium parapet walls, as alleged in paragraph 50(N) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

17, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for deficient drainage in the
podium and motor court planter boxes, as alleged in paragraph 50(O) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

18. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in the drainage
systems at the sidewalks and motor court level, as alleged in paragraph 50(P) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

19, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leakage in the windows,
window assemblies, and related expansion joints, as alleged in paragraph 50(Q) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein Apri! 27, 201 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

20, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for failure of the foam building
components in and around the windows, as alleged in paragraph S50(R) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

21, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for excessive sound
transmission as a result of catwalk vibrations, as alleged in paragraph 50(S) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

22, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for water infiltration through
garage walls, ceilings and floors, as alleged in paragraph 50(T) of the Third Amended

Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

3
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
1500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300

22

23

23. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for leaks emanating from
electrical conduits, as alleged in paragraph 50(U) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

24, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for leaks emanating from the
fire pump room, as alleged in paragraph S0(V) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

25, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for structural cracks in one or
more concrete beams located adjacent to a street level plaza expansion joint, as alleged
in paragraph SO(W) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800,

26. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for extensive cracking of the
topping slab at the fourth floor entry to the building at 260 King Street, as alleged in
paragraph 50(X) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800.

27, Please adinit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in the garage
security door system, as alleged in paragraph 50(Y) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

28. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects in, and failures of,
the entrance door locks and hardware, as alleged in paragraph 50(Z) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

29, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in elevator
lighting, as alleged in paragraph SO0(AA) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

6
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,22

23

30. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for premature failure of the
“dog park” turf and related improvements, as alleged in paragraph 50(BB) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

31, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for failure of the veneer plaster
float at the curtain walls for the 250 and 260 King Street buildings, the use of non-
perforated horizontal j-mold accessories as stucco weep/drip accessories at horizontal
stucco terminations, stucco cracking at planter box walls and other exterior and parapet
wall locations, and leaning and tilting of planter box walls, as alleged in paragraph
50(CC) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED
by SB 800.

32, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in the electric
circuitry for exterior light poles, as alleged in paragraph 50(DD) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

33, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for sparks that appear behind
light switches, as alleged in paragraph 50(EE) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

34, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for fire sprinkler systems that do
not function properly, as alleged in paragraph 50(EF) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

35. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects in patio doors,
balcony doors, exterior doors and interior doors, as alleged in paragraph 50(GG) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

36. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for wind and water infiltration

7
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE,, SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, CA 99608

10) 597-1990

into the condominium units, as alleged in paragraph SO(HH) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

37, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects in the “Association
Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph 50(ID of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

38. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for defects in the “Common
Area”, as alleged in paragraph 50(JJ) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

39, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for defects in the “Exclusive
Use Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph 50(KK) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

40. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for defects in the “Limited
Association Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph SO(LL) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

41, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for defects in the “Units”, as
alleged in paragraph SO(MM) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27,
2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

42, Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for improper design and
installation of the roof pedestal and davit system for the swing stage to access exterior
building elevations, as alleged in paragraph SO(NN) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

43, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for problems and defects with

the building systems of the Project, as alleged in paragraph 50(OO) of the Third

8
PLAINTIFI’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

44, Please admit that YOU were a BUILDER of the BEACON PROJECT

within the meaning of Civil Code § 911.

“BUILDER?” as used herein shall mean and refer to the term “Builder” as defined

in Civil Code § 911.

Dated: January 9, 2012

By:

LAW OFFICES OF ANN RANKIN
KATZOFF & RIGGS

Ann Rankin
Sung E. Shim

Counsel for Plaintiff
BEACON RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

9

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC,KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

22

23

DECLARATION OF GOOD CAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

I, Sung E. Shim, declare:

I, I am one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff Beacon Residential
Community Association,

2. Tam propounding to Defendant HKS, Inc, (“Responding Party”), the
attached special set of requests for admission.

3. This special set of requests for admission will cause the fotal number of
requests propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of

requests permitted by Section 2033.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4, Plaintiff has not previously propounded any requests for admission to the
Responding Party,

5. This special set of requests for admission contains a total of 44 requests,

6. Tam familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all

of the parties in this case,

7. I have personally examined each of the requests in this special set of
requests for admission,

8, This number of requests is warranted under Section 2033.050 of the Code
of Civil Procedure because the complexity and quantity of the issues in this instant
lawsuit watrant this number of requests, and the requests are reasonably limited to the
applicability of SB 800 to the issues in the instant lawsuit.

9 None of the requests in this set is being propounded for any improper
purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed,

or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

10
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, INC.KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

n

w

T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing

is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 9, 2012, in

Sung E. Shim

Emeryville, California,

Tf
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT HKS, ING,KATZOEF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300
EMERYVILLE, Ca 94608

(510) 597-1990

ANN RANKIN (SBN 83690)
TERRY WILKENS (SBN 118469)
Law Offices of Ann Rankin

3911 Harrison Street

Oakland, CA 94611

Tel.: (510) 653-8886

Fax: (510) 653-8889

KENNETH S. KATZOFF (SBN 103490)
ROBERT R. RIGGS (SBN 107684)
SUNG E. SHIM (SBN 184247)

Katzoff & Riggs

1500 Park Ave #300

Emeryville, CA 94608

TEL: (510) 597-1990

FAX: (510) 597-0295

Attorneys for Plaintiff BEACON
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BEACON RESIDENTIAL Case No. CGC 08-478453
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SPECIAL SET
OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE

PARTNERS LLC

Plaintiff,

VS.

etal.,
Set No. 1-S

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
CATELLUS THIRD AND KINGLLC, ) (LIMITED TO ‘SB 800° ISSUES)

)

)

)

)

)

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. )

)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Beacon Residential Community Association

1
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE.
PARTNERS LLCKATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
1500 PARK AVE. SUITE 300

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mission Place Partners LLC
SET NO.: Special, Set 1 (1-S)
NOS.: 1 through 44

Plaintiff BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.010 et seq., hereby requests Defendant MISSION
PLACE PARTNERS LLC (“YOU”), to admit the truth of the following matters:

1. Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT consists of original construction
intended to be sold as individual dwelling units within the meaning of Civil Code § 896.

“BEACON PROJECT” as used herein shall mean and refer to the entire five
hundred and ninety five condominium unit development, including the exterior and
interior walls, roofs, windows, parking structure, pool and spa area, landscaping,
courtyard areas, lobby areas, and other common areas, located at 250 and 260 King
Street, San Francisco, California.

2. Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT is not a “condominium
conversion” as to which, under Civil Code § 896, SB 800 does not apply to plaintiff's
action herein.

“SB 800” as used herein shall mean and refer to Civil Code Title 7, Chapter 2,
“Actionable Defects,” codified as Civil Code §§ 896 through 945.5.

3. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein as identified in letters attached
as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F” to the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

“GOVERNED” as used herein with respect to a claim or claims, shall mean that

2
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE, SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

€510) 597-1990

as to such claim or claims, except as specifically set forth in SB 800, the defendants
herein are liable for, and plaintiff’s claim or cause of action is limited to, violation of the
standards enumerated in Civil Code § 896, except as specifically set forth in SB 800.

4. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for excessive heat gain through
the windows of the condominium units, and for related defective design, materials,
construction and installation of ventilation systems, mechanical systems, and window
assemblies, as alleged in paragraph 50(B) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

5, Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for deficient ventilation in the
condominium units and common areas, as alleged in paragraph SO(C) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

6. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in the pool and spa
boilers, as alleged in paragraph SO(D) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

7. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for inadequate and deficient
ventilation in the pool chemical room, as alleged in paragraph SO(E) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

8. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects leading to excessive
heat build up in the electrical rooms thereby causing damage and premature failure to
the electrical components in such electrical rooms, as alleged in paragraph 50(F) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

9, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leaks in the dryer exhaust

3
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOF¥ & RIGGS LLP

1800 PARK AVE, SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

(810) 597-1990

system duct runs, as alleged in paragraph SO(G) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

10. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for excessive odor and cigarette
smoke transmission leaks in the dryer exhaust system duct runs, as alleged in paragraph
50(H) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by
SB 800.

11. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for excessive sound
transmission between condominium units, as alleged in paragraph SO(I) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

12. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for leaks in the roofs and roof
systems, as alleged in paragraph 50(J) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

13. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leaks emanating from the
pool and spa equipment rooms, as alleged in paragraph 5O(K) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

14. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leaks emanating from the
canopy structures over the King Street entrances to the 250 and 260 buildings, as alleged
in paragraph 50(L) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800.

15. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for water infiltration into the
planter lights and electrical components installed in the podium and motor court planter

boxes, as alleged in paragraph 50(M) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein

4
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLC_
o

1500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300
¢810) 597-1990
=
bt

KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

16. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leaks emanating from the
podium, the podium level planter boxes, planter caps, the points where the planter boxes
are integrated with the exterior wall building assemblies, and the locations where planter
boxes abut building walls, and related defects in planter boxes, planter box drains and
podium parapet walls, as alleged in paragraph 50(N) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

17. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficient drainage in the
podium and motor court planter boxes, as alleged in paragraph 50(O) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

18. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in the drainage
systems at the sidewalks and motor court level, as alleged in paragraph 50(P) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

19. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leakage in the windows,
window assemblies, and related expansion joints, as alleged in paragraph 50(Q) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

20. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for failure of the foam building
components in and around the windows, as alleged in paragraph 50(R) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

21. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for excessive sound
transmission as a result of catwalk vibrations, as alleged in paragraph 50(S) of the Third

Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

5
PLAINTIF¥’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1900 PARK AVE. SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, Ca 94608

¢510) 597-1990

22, Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for water infiltration through
garage walls, ceilings and floors, as alleged in paragraph 50(T) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

23. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leaks emanating from
electrical conduits, as alleged in paragraph 50(U) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

24, Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for leaks emanating from the
fire pump room, as alleged in paragraph 50(V) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

25. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for structural cracks in one or
more concrete beams located adjacent to a street level plaza expansion joint, as alleged
in paragraph 50(W) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800.

26. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for extensive cracking of the
topping slab at the fourth floor entry to the building at 260 King Street, as alleged in
paragraph 5O(X) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are
GOVERNED by SB 800.

27, Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for deficiencies in the garage
security door system, as alleged in paragraph SOCY) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

28. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in, and failures of,

the entrance door locks and hardware, as alleged in paragraph 5O(Z) of the Third

6
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE., SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

({510) 597-1990

Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

29. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for deficiencies in elevator
lighting, as alleged in paragraph SO(AA) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

30. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for premature failure of the
“dog park” turf and related improvements, as alleged in paragraph 50(BB) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

31. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for failure of the veneer plaster
float at the curtain walls for the 250 and 260 King Street buildings, the use of non-
perforated horizontal j-mold accessories as stucco weep/drip accessories at horizontal
stucco terminations, stucco cracking at planter box walls and other exterior and parapet
wall locations, and leaning and tilting of planter box walls, as alleged in paragraph
50(CC) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED
by SB 800.

32. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for deficiencies in the electric
circuitry for exterior light poles, as alleged in paragraph 5O(DD) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

33. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for sparks that appear behind
light switches, as alleged in paragraph SO(EE) of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

34, Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for fire sprinkler systems that do

not function properly, as alleged in paragraph 5O(FF) of the Third Amended Complaint

7
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOF¥ & RIGGS LLP

1800 PARK AVE,, SUITE 300

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

($10) 597-1990

filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

35. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in patio doors,
balcony doors, exterior doors and interior doors, as alleged in paragraph 50(GG) of the
Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

36. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for wind and water infiltration
into the condominium units, as alleged in paragraph SO(HH) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

37. Please admit that Plaintiffs claims herein for defects in the “Association
Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph 50(ID of the Third Amended Complaint filed
herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

38. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims herein for defects in the “Common
Area”, as alleged in paragraph 50(JJ) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein
April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

39, Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in the “Exclusive
Use Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph SO(KK) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

40. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in the “Limited
Association Common Area”, as alleged in paragraph SO(LL) of the Third Amended
Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

41. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for defects in the “Units”, as
alleged in paragraph SO(MM) of the Third Amended Complaint filed herein April 27,

2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800,

8
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCKATZOFF & RIGGS LLP

1500 PARK AVE, SUITE 300

CA 94608

(510) 597-1990

21

22

42. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for improper design and
installation of the roof pedestal and davit system for the swing stage to access exterior
building elevations, as alleged in paragraph 5O(NN) of the Third Amended Complaint
filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

43. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims herein for problems and defects with
the building systems of the Project, as alleged in paragraph 50(OO) of the Third
Amended Complaint filed herein April 27, 2011 are GOVERNED by SB 800.

44, Please admit that YOU were a BUILDER of the BEACON PROJECT
within the meaning of Civil Code § 911.

“BUILDER” as used herein shall mean and refer to the term “Builder” as defined
in Civil Code § 911.

Dated: January 9, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF ANN RANKIN
KATZOFF & RIGGS

? .
\
\

Ann Rankin
Sung E. Shim

By:

Counsel for Plaintiff
BEACON RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

9
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLC{510) 597-1990.

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
1500 PARK AVE. SUITE 300

21

22

DECLARATION OF GOOD CAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
I, Sung E. Shim, declare:

1 I am one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff Beacon Residential
Community Association.

2. Tam propounding to Defendant Mission Place Partners LLC (“Responding
Party”), the attached special set of requests for admission.

3. This special set of requests for admission will cause the total number of
requests propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of
requests permitted by Section 2033.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Plaintiff's prior counsel previously propounded one set of request for
admission with total of 43 requests, to which the Responding Party objected and did not

provide any substantive response.

5. This special set of requests for admission contains a total of 44 additional
requests,
6. I am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all

of the parties in this case.

7. I have personally examined each of the requests in this special set of
requests for admission.

8. This number of requests is warranted under Section 2033.050 of the Code
of Civil Procedure because the complexity and quantity of the issues in this instant
lawsuit warrant this number of requests, and the requests are reasonably limited to the

applicability of SB 800 to the issues in the instant lawsuit.

10
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE.
PARTNERS LLC(519) 597-1990

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP
1500 PARK AVE. SUITE 300

9. None of the requests in this set is being propounded for any improper
purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed,
or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing
is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 9, 2012, in

Emeryville, California.

ii
PLAINTIFE’S FIRST SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT MISSION PLACE
PARTNERS LLCwo on DH BR WY

— oe
Bo NY | S

14

LAW OFFICES

HAIGHT, BROWN &

BONESTEEL, LLP.
Los Angeles

Steven M. Cvitanovic (Bar No. 16803 ).
HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
71 Stevenson Street, 20th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2981
Telephone: (415) 546-7500

Facsimile: (415) 546-7505

Charles A. Hansen (Bar No. 76679

Peter J. Laufenberg (Bar No. 172979
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor

Oakland, California 94607-4036
Telephone: G19) 834-6600

Facsimile: (510) 834-1928

Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Mission Place LLC; Mission Place
Mezz Holding LLC; Mission Place Mezzanine LLC; Mission Place Partners LLC;
Centurion Real Estate Investors IV, LLC; and Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC (sued
in its own name and erroneously sued as Centurion Partners LLC)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ) Case No. CGC 08-478453

ASSOCIATION,
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
Plaintiff, SPECIAL SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET 1-8, BY
v. DEFENDANTS MISSION PLACE LLC,

CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC; et
al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Beacon Residential Community Association

RESPONDING PARTIES: — Defendants Mission Place LLC; Mission Place Mezz
Holding LLC; Mission Place Mezzanine LLC, Mission
Place Partners LLC; Centurion Real Estate Investors IV,
LLC; and Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC (sued in its
own name and erroneously sued as Centurion Partners

LLC)
SET NO: 1-S
NOS.: 1 through 44
wpe
jars. Responses to Request for Admissions EXHIBIT "B1
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &
BONESTEEL, L1.P.
Los Angeles

TO PLAINTIFF AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

COMES NOW Defendants Mission Place LLC; Mission Place Mezz Holding LLC;
Mission Place Mezzanine LLC; Mission Place Partners LLC; Centurion Real Estate
Investors IV, LLC; and Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC (sued in its own name and
erroneously sued as Centurion Partners LLC) (collectively, "Mission Place") responding to
the Requests for Admissions, Set S-1 of Plaintiff Beacon Residential Community
Association pursuant to section 2033 .010, et seq, of the Code of Civil Procedure without
prejudice to further discovery and without waiver of any of its objections. Said responses
are rendered based upon information reasonably available to it in its possession at the time
of the preparation of these responses. Discovery has not yet been completed which may
yield additional information relevant to these responses.

Mission Place specifically reserves its right to and including the time of trial, to
adduce any evidence from any source which may hereafter be discovered as well as any
testimony from witnesses whose identities may hereafter be discovered. Mission Place has
not yet completed his investigation and discovery, and if any information cannot be
provided in these responses, Mission Place reserves the right to apply for relief so as to
permit the insertion of the omitted information,

These introductory comments shall apply to each and every response and shall be

incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in each and every response herein.

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1:

Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT consists of original construction intended
to be sold as individual dwelling units within the meaning of Civil Code § 896.

"BEACON PROJECT" as used herein shall mean and refer to the entire five hundred
and ninety five condominium unit development, including the exterior and interior walls,

roofs, windows, parking structure, pool and spa area, landscaping, courtyard areas, lobby

Z1U29-0000032, 2 se
3889735.1 Responses to Request for AdmissionsOo Oe YN DH A &® WN

oe
Oo

1

LAW OFFICES

HAIGHT, BROWN &

BONESTEEL, LLP.
Los Angeles

areas, and other common areas, located at 250 and 260 King Street, San Francisco,
California.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Despite reasonable inquiry, Mission Place lacks information or belief sufficient to

admit or deny this request. Mission Place was not involved in the original design or
construction of 250 and 260 King Street (hereinafter, the "project") and does not know
whether the original owner and/or its successor entities, namely, Catellus Third and King,
LLC, Catellus Development Corporation, Catellus Commercial Development Corp., Catellus
Operating Limited Partnership, Catellus Urban Development Corporation, Catellus Urban
Development Group, LLC, Third and King Investors, LLC, and Prologis (collectively,
"Catellus") intended the project to be sold as individual units or whether the units would be
part of an apartment complex. Moreover, as defined by the request, Plaintiff's definition
would necessarily include building elements that are part of the commercial and/or retail
aspects of the project. Mission Place admits that it intended to, and sold, individual
condominium units.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2:

Please admit that the BEACON PROJECT is not a "condominium conversion" as to
which, under Civil Code § 896, SB 800 does not apply to plaintiff's action herein.

"SB 800" as used herein shall mean and refer to Civil Code Title 7, Chapter 2,
"Actionable Defects," codified as Civil Code §§ 896 through 945.5,

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 2:

Despite reasonable inquiry, Mission Place lacks information or belief sufficient to
admit or deny this request. When Mission Place was in the process of acquiring the project,
Catellus was renting units as apartments to the p