arrow left
arrow right
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Coe WM OH BR WY =

WON NR RD ND ee
BNRRRARFRBERBSERWIREGDEEBDHETS

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 14 2013
Tel.: (510) 653-8886 Clerk of the Court
Fax: (510) 653-8889 BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK

. Deputy 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

Attomeys 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, DECLARATION OF ANN RANKIN, ESQ. IN
SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE APPLICATION
vy. FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR
HEARING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et, | SEPARATE TRIAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
al. DEFENDANTS SKIDMORE-OWINGS-
MERRILL & HKS ARCHITECTS, INC., TO

RESET TRIAL DATE FOR JUNE 3, 2013.
Defendants, WITH MARCH 29, 2013CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
And Related Cross-Actions, Hearing Date: March 15, 2013

Time: 10:00 a.m,

Department.: 304

Trial Date: None; Feb. 4, 2013 Trial Date was
Vacated by Previous Trial Judge

1
DECLARATION OF ANN RANKIN, ESQ,Cent DAH eB Ww

S

il

I, ANN RANKIN, ESQ., declare:

1. Iam 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 in to 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. In October, 2011, the trial court sustained without leave to amend 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.

4, Plaintiff appealed from the resulting judgments dismissing HKS and Skidmore
from the case, and in December, 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. seq. and under common law.

5. On January 12, 2012, Judge Kramer assigned the case a trial date of February 4,
2013.

6. However, on January 2, 2013, Judge Kramer vacated the trial date for reasons set
forth in open court.

7. On February 27, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of
Appeal decision. As a result, the trial court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against the
architects, However, the court has jurisdiction over all of the other parties,

8 Plaintiff has been waiting nearly five years to have its day in court, My office

maintains a database of Plaintiff's out of pocket expenses for consultants’ fees, legal fees, and out

2
DECLARATION OF ANN RANKIN, ESQ,Oo 2S ewe RW Dw FB wr |

of pocket costs related to the lawsuit. Plaintiff has spent approximately $6,000,000 on the case.
‘The declaration of Board President Anthony Lin in support of the Motion shows that the owners
of units at the Beacon are concerned about health and safety hazards at ihe property and about
their difficulty or inability to refinance or sell their homes due to the pendency of the litigation.

9, On or about March 7, 2013, 1 circulated a draft CMC Statement asking defense
counsel to agree: to a separate trial against the architects so that Plaintiff could proceed to trial
against the other parties in June, 2013. Defense counsel failed and refused to agree. | was first
notified of their refusal to agree by counsel for HKS on March 11, 2013.

10. Because defense counsel would not agree to Plaintiff's proposal, which is needed to
avoid further delay and prejudice to Plaintiff, Plaintiff brings this application for an order
shortening time so that the Motion.can be heard concurrently with the trial setting conference on

March 29, Having the Motion heard after the trial setting conference would. cause more delay and

would preclude the court from having a full picture about the logistics-of the case at the time the
court is called on to set a new trial date.

11. I gave notice of the ex parte hearing of this Application for an Order Shortening

Time electronically to all of the Defendants, which stated the time, place and nature of the hearing

‘on Plaintiff's request for an order shortening time for the hearing of the motion on March 12, 2013
at 4:04 p. m. (Attached Hereto as Exhibit A).
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the. laws of the State of California: that the
foregoing facts are true and correct.
DATE: March 14, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF

}
By: Hy

Ann Rankin, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff BEACON RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

3
DECLARATION OF ANN RANKIN, ESQ.Gwen Bernier

Ann Rankin, Esq. [arankin@annrankin.com]

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:04 PM

‘Adam Brezine’; ‘Brent Basilico’; ‘Christian Lucia’; ‘Christopher Olson’; 'Cvitanovic, Steven’;
‘Dana Duncan’; 'David S. Webster’; 'Denae Olivier’, ‘Erin Dunkerly’;
ghanson@gordonrees.com; 'Gregory Jung’, ‘James Castles’; ‘John Koeppel’; ‘Julien Capers’;
‘Kevin McCarthy’; ‘Mark J. D'Argenio’; ‘Noel Macaulay’; 'Peter Laufenberg'; Philip Bazzano;
’Randel J. Campbell’; ‘Richard Young’; ‘Samuel Muir’; 'Sandy Kaplan’; 'Scott Cloud’ 'Scott
Reinstein’; ‘Steven Mcdonald’; ‘Steven Schwartz’; ‘Thomas R. Matteson", "Todd WEnzel';

‘William Staples!
Cea: ‘Robert Riggs’, Stephen Preonas; Gwen Bernier; John Mangiafridda
Subject: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; HEARING 1S

MARCH 15 AT 10 A.M. IN DEPT. 304

importance: High

Hello Defense Attorneys.

Please take notice that on Friday, March 15, at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Plaintiff BRCA
will appear ex parte in Dept. 304 of the SF Superior Court to ask the Judge for an Order Shortening Time for a Hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion for Separate Trials of its claims against HKS and Skidmore; such separate trials to be scheduled
following the conclusion of the Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal decision,

Plaintiff will seek a hearing on shortened time for it motion to re-set the Trial Date, We will ask for a June 3, 2013 trial
date as to all claims other than Plaintiff's claims against HKS and Skidmore.

Plaintiff will also seek in the alternative relief from the expiration of the S year statute of CCP 583.310,

All 3 requests will be included in the same motion.

Plaintiff wishes to set the hearing on Friday March 29, 2013 along with the CMC and trial setting conference and the
hearing on the summary adjudication motion for the seventh cause of action.

Plaintiff will send you the ex parte application shortly.
Plaintiff will send you the moving papers for the motion shortly.
Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Thank you
AR

Anu Rankin

LAW OFFICES OF ANN RANKIN
3911 Harrison Street

Oakland, CA 94611

Tel.: (510) 653-8886

Fax: (510) 653-8889

email: arankin@aunrankin.com
website: www.annrankin.com

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you
are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. [f you are not
the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply
email, delete the communication and destroy all copies.

i

EXHIBIT “A”