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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Oo oN DH & Ww

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999

a 14" Street, Suite 300 ELECTRONICALLY
Oakland, CA 94612
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net eee
Telephone: (510) 839-1200 DS) DLT:

‘elephone: 39-
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 05/2442015

BY-:ROMY RISK

Attomeys for Johna Pecot, ef al., Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, RICH OWYANG, CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE,
and OSCAR TAYLOR, ef al. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET
HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR
Plaintiffs, ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS PER THE
ve COURT’S ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S TO STRIKE CLAIMS

ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation; DAVID WONG, an
individual,

and DOES 1-100,

Date: May 21, 2015
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302

Defendants.

ee eee

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this ex parte application to have their Motion For Order Awarding
Aiiorneys’ Fees and Cosis Per the Court's Order Denying Defendants’ Second Motion to Strike
Claims set for a hearing date within the next thirty (30) days. This application is unopposed.
Defendants do not oppose this ex parte application so long as the requested hearing is set on a

date that will provide defendants with proper statutory time to file opposition. There is already a

motion on the Court’s calendar in this matter, on June 17, 2015, that would accommodate

-l-

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEnun Fw WN

defendants’ request. The motion for attorneys” fees and costs that plaintiffs now seek to file was
authorized by the Court’s ruling on Defendant's Second Motion to Strike Claims in the (First)

Amended Complaint. (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz, submitted herewith.)

FACTS

A. The Court’s Prior Order Authorized Plaintiff Filing the Motion for Attorneys Fees
and Costs That Plaintiffs Seek to Have Calendared.

The motion that this ex parte application respectfully request the Court to set for hearing
is pursuant to the Court’s January 12, 2015 order, in which the Court denied Defendant’ Second
Motion to Strike Claims in the (First) Amended Complaint (“Anti-SLAPP Order’’) and
authorized plaintiffs filing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court’s order provided
that plaintiff could file a motion to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs because the subject
ANTI-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The Court’s order stated in relevant part:

The court finds that the this Anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous and awards the fees and

costs incurred by Plaintiffs in opposing the motion, pursuant to C.C.P. sec. 425.16( c)(1).

Plaintiffs may file a motion to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

(Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz: Anti-SLAPP Order, 2:12-15.)
B. There is No Prejudice to Defendants; Defendants Do Not Oppose this Application.

There is no absolutely prejudice to defendants from plaintiffs’ motion being heard within
the next thirty days. This is also evidenced by that defendants do not oppose the motion being
heard within that time frame. (See Declaration of Paul L. Kranz, submitted herewith § 3.)
Defendants only request that the hearing date permit them the proper statutory time to file
opposition. (/d.}

The calendar clerk has informed plaintiffs that motions are currently being set in the end
of July 2015. There may be an issue as to when the five year statute runs on this case. The case
was filed on June 30, 2015, but for certain reasons, including that the case was cn appeal from
August 19, 2013 until July 18, 2014, defendants have asserted, in motions filed in this Court, and
continue to assert, that the Court lacked jurisdiction during this period (which would extend the
five year statue), However, inasmuch as this issue remains at least unsettled, plaintiffs seeks to

have their motion heard within the next 30 days. Ifthe motion is not heard within the next 30

-2-

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEvw

days, the prejudice to plaintiffs could be substantial.

Also, there is already a motion in this matter set on the Court’s calendar within the next
thirty days. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Compelling Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of
Judgment Satisfied in Fact or Entering Satisfaction Without Acknowledgment is calendared for
June 17,2015. Also, defendants agreed to that date. Thus, there should be no prejudice from
this motion that plaintiffs currently seek to calendar being calendared on the same date on which
there is currently a motion in this matter. That date would also permit defendants sufficient
statutory time to file opposition.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request that this ex parte application be granted.

Dated: May 20, 2012
Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ

7 Vliue &. Kim2,

Paul L. Kranz

3.

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEPROOF OF SERVICE

SUPERIOR COURT

)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) CASE NO. CCC-10-501168
)
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

I, the undersigned, certify and attest as follows:

1am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the cause within. My business
address is 499 14" Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94612.

On May 20, 2015, I caused the within:

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PER THE COURT’S
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIMS

to be served on counsel for each of the other parties in this action by electronic transmission via
File & Serve Express to the following addresses:

Lara C. Smith, Esq.

LAW OFFICE OF LARA C. SMITH
1086 Arlington Blvd.
El Cerrito, California 94530

Lawrence D. Murray, Esq.
Murray & Associates
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123-4426
Executed at Oakland, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and this
declaration was executed in Oakland, California on May 20, 2015.

Phu -. C2 —

Paul L. Kranz