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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

Oakland, CA 94612
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net

Telephone:
Facsimile:

(510) 839-1200
(510) 444-6698

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, ef al.,

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

MAY 13 2015

Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, RICH OWYANG,
STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE,
and OSCAR TAYLOR, et al.

Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation; DAVID WONG, an
individual,
and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

ee eee

CASE NO. CGC-10-501168

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET
HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR
ORDER COMPELLING
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING
SATISFACTION WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Date: May 14, 2015
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this ex parte application to have a Motion For Order Compelling

Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Satisfied in Fact or Entering Satisfaction Without

Acknowledgment set for a hearing date within the next thirty (30) days. Defendants’ counsel has

indicated that he is not opposed to the motion being heard within 30 to 40 days. Plaintiffs’

counsel has been informed by the Court that it is currently setting such motions for July 21, 2015.

-]-

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEDefendants recorded abstracts of judgment against real properties of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
have paid the full amount of the judgment, but defendants have provided only partial satisfaction
of judgments. Moreover, defendants have repeatedly refused to provide any explanation for their
refusal to provide full satisfactions of judgment. Therefore, “clouds” remain on plaintiffs’ real
properties, with no understanding of the reason or reasons why.

The recorded abstracts of judgment present continuing clouds on plaintiffs’ real
properties and have created and continue to create limitations obstacles to plaintiffs’ abilities to
refinance or convey their real properties. Therefore, plaintiffs request that their motion be heard
within the next thirty days.

Also, 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 on appeal from
August 19, 2013 until July 18, 2014, during which time, during which time, defendants have
asserted in motions, that the Court lacked jurisdiction (which would extend the five year statue).
Finally, there is no absolutely prejudice to defendants from plaintiffs’ motion being heard within
the next thirty days. By comparison, there is ongoing prejudice to plaintiffs from the continued
existence of unwarranted clouds on the titles of their real properties for which there is no
apparent justification constitutes prejudice to plaintiffs.

FACTS

Pursuant to a court order for attorneys’ fees, defendants obtained abstracts of judgment
and recorded them against real properties of plaintiffs. Thereafter, plaintiffs paid defendants the
judgment by certified check, including interest and recording fees, and requested defendants
provide a satisfaction of judgment so that they could clear the titles to their real properties.
However, rather than provide a full satisfaction of judgment, defendants provided only a partial
satisfaction of judgment. Defendants thereafter refused and have continued to refuse plaintiffs”
requests for either a full satisfaction of judgment or an explanation for defendants’ refusal to
provide a full satisfaction of judgment. As a result, judgments remain recorded against plaintiffs’
properties. This has imposed unwarranted limitations on plaintiffs’ abilities to negotiate, for

example, re-financing, and even conveyances, in connection with their properties.

-2-

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEPlaintiffs request that their motion for an order that defendants provide a full satisfaction
of judgment be heard within the next thirty days, in order to remove the clouds on their titles, for
the reasons stated.

On March 12, 2014, plaintiffs noticed defendants of their intention to bring this ex parte
application. (See Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz, submitted herewith.)
‘There is no prejudice to defendants from this motion be heard as soon as would be convenient for
the Court within the next thirty days. In fact, defendants’ attorney has responded to the notice of
ex parte application and indicated that he is willing to agree to that the motion may be set within
“thirty to forty” days.

CONCLUSION

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

Dated: May 13, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ

By: ‘Yau ars

Paul L. Kranz

3-

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATEop we YW DAH FF WN

wR NY RNY NN KN Dm
ota AA ek OND S& SO we IN DH BR WH HK Oo

PROOF OF SERVICE
SUPERIOR COURT )
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) CASE NO. CCC-10-501168
)
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
J, the undersigned, certify and attest as follows:
lam over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the cause within. My business
address is 499 14"-Sireet, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94612.
On May 14, 2015, I caused the within:
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR
ORDER COMPELLING ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING SATISFACTION WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
to be served on counsel for each of the other parties in this action by electronic transmission via
File & Serve Express:
Lara Cullinane-Smith, Esq.
Shrem & Smith
11720 San Pablo Ave Ste C
E] Cerrito, CA 94530
Lawrence D. Murray, Esq.
Murray & Associates
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123-4426

Executed May 13, 2015, 2015 at Oakland, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Phun Ya

Paul Kranz