Motion-Secondary: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                om rN DAW

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

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
499 14" Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED

Superior Court of Cc:

kranzlaw @sbeglobal.net County of San Francisco
09/28/2016
Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Clerk of the Court

BY:GARY FELICIANO

Facsimile:
Deputy cl

(510) 444-6698

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, ) CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, _)
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Individually and on Behalf of All Others) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
Similarly Situated, ) MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR
) DISMISSALS TO BE FILED
Plaintiffs, )
) Date: October 21, 2016
v. ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
) Dept: 302
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S )
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit —) Reservation No. 09271021-13
Corporation, et al. }
Defendants. )
)
INTRODUCTION

The Court’s August 25, 2016 orders require court approval of dismissal of this action on
the grounds that this is a class action case. While the law requires court approval of dismissals of
a class action, class certification was never obtained, or sought, in this action. Moreover, all
causes of action that were alleged on behalf of any class were dismissed by the Court’s June 7,
2011 order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. Therefore, this case should not

be considered a class action requiring the Court’s approval for dismissal.

1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGScf OU wm ND HW Bw HY HY

RO NR = Ss

15

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 27, 2016, dismissals were filed and entered against defendants. On that same
day, the parties appeared before the Honorable John K. Stewart. Defendants agreed that there
were no longer any class allegations in the case. (Declaration of Paul L. Kranz, filed herewith,
6.) On August 25, 2016, the Court issued two orders, each stating in relevant part: “This is a
Class Action and requires a court order for any party being dismissed.” The Court orders struck
the dismissals that had been filed on June 27, 2016.

This case was never certified as a class action. The original complaint in this action
contained seven causes of action in the following order: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Intentional
Interference with the Performance of a Contract, (3) Fraud, (4) Conspiracy, (5) Unfair
Competition, (6) Concealment of SFDSA Books and Records, Corporations Code Sections 6333
and 6334 and (7) Removal of Directors. (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz, filed
herewith: pages from the original Complaint in this action that contain the seven causes of
action.) The first five above causes of action were brought on behalf of a class; the concluding
paragraphs for each of these five causes of action stated that it was alleged on behalf of the class
and sought damages on behalf of the class. (id, J 147, 151, 156, 159 and 163.)

These five causes of action (as well as the seventh cause of action, Removal of Directors),
were dismissed pursuant to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. (Exhibit B: Court’s July 7, 2011.)
A single cause of action remained, Concealment of Books and Records, pursuant to Corporation
Code §§ 6333 and 6334, and it was not alleged on behalf of any class. It sought permission for
certain specific plaintiffs to inspect certain corporate records.

On March 14, 2012, Defendant David Wong filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, as a result of which the Court ruled on April 11, 2012, granting plaintiffs leave to
“amend” the remaining sixth cause of action, by adding a cause of action for concealment.
(Exhibit C: Order Re Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.) Plaintiff amended accordingly,
and as a result there were two causes of action for denying inspection of corporate records to
specific plaintiffs. (Exhibit D: pages from the First Amended Complaint in this action that

contain the two existing causes of action.) Neither sought damages on behalf of any class. (d.)

2
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGSCo em N DH BF BW NY

a ROR FS

16

These were the only causes of action remaining in the operative complaint at the time dismissals
were sought to be filed on June 27, 2016.

On June 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant
SFDSA and a Request for Dismissal without Prejudice as to Defendant David Wong. On that
same day, the parties appeared before the Honorable John K. Stewart and defendants agreed that
there were no remaining class allegations. Thereafter, on August 25, 2016, in two separate
orders, the Court struck the two Requests for Dismissal on the grounds that, as a class action,

dismissal required court approval.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Dismissal of a class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires
court approval. (C.C.P. § 581(k); C.R.C. 3.770(a).) However, this case was never certified as a
class action.

As detailed above, the original complaint alleged five causes of action on behalf of a
class. These causes of action were dismissed by the Court in ruling on July 7, 2011 on an anti-
SLAPP motion to dismiss. The remaining cause of action was later “split” into two causes of
action as a result of defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. They were not alleged
on behalf of a class and did not seek damages on behalf of a class; they were premised on certain
individual plaintiffs being denied access to certain corporate records. Thus, this case was not a
representative action in June 2016 when dismissals were filed. Therefore, the Court should
instruct the clerk of the Court to file the two Requests for Dismissal that were originally filed on
June 27, 2016 and that were subsequently stricken on August 25, 2016.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this motion should be granted.
Dated: September 27, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ

By: “P Cut L . | Gur
Paul L. Kranz

3

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS