Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-20-2012 4:09 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: Jul-20-2012 4:08
Filed by: MICHAEL RAYRAY — . .
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03694729
DECLARATION
JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
Aetal
001003694729
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO YN Dw BF BW NY S|
YN YY N NY NR NY ND He He Be Be ee se Be Se Be Se
ond AA BF Bw NH KF S&C eI DH BF Ww NHN KF SS
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, California 94710
(510) 549-5900
(510) 549-5901
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, e¢ al.,
and all others similarly situated
9017 SUL 20 Pa
clean WY
BY:
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA,
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an
individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an
individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an
individual, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
eeeeeeer>es>se>Eenrv
CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ
IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL
REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Date: July 27, 2012
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 26
I, Paul L. Kranz, declare as follows in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Opposition To
Motion For Reconsideration:
1. Ihave personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, unless noted on
information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if
called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
-l-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONoO YN DW BF WN
RN NY NY RN NN KN HY Bee Be Be Se Se BS
oN A AF YN fF SB we NHN DH BF WY SF
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and accurate copy of a page from the IRS
website concerning obtaining tax returns, Form 990s in particular, for non-profit organizations,
which I printed out from the IRS website. This is located and can be found at the following URL
address: http:www.irs.gov/foia/index/html. It states in relevant part that for “Tax-exempt or
political organization returns: . . . Forms 990 are available online through Guidestar, a privately
funded database of non-profit organizations.”
3. The Guidestar website is accessed directly from the aforementioned IRS website
by clicking on the underlined “Guidestar” identified in the previous paragraph. The
aforementioned IRS website is thus linked to the Guidestar and takes you directly to the
Guidestar website. I have accessed the Guidestar website in exactly this way.
4. On the Guidestar website, the Form 990s for the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Foundation and for the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association can be accessed and printed
out. Exhibits B through H, attached to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz In Support Of Motion
For Reconsideration, filed on March 7, 2012, were accessed and printed out from the Guidestar
website.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and accurate copy of portions of the
Constitution and Bylaws obtained from the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and accurate copy of pages from the
Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray In Support Of Continued Special Motion To Strike-SLAPP
Application For Award of Attorney Fees of $99,195.75 & Multiplier, filed in this action on or
about November 9, 2011, in which Mr. Murray states on 9, Section L., entitled: From The First
Defense Meeting I Was Alone In Insisting We Go Forward With A SLAPP Motion - No
Other Defendant Or Office Was Interested In Working On This Motion (original in bold),
and which continues with Paragraph 48, stating:
In this case, at the first defense counsel meeting, I was the only attorney who suggested
that we prepare and file a SLAPP motion. J offered all defense counsel to join in, but
none wanted to join in the work for preparation of a SLAPP motion. At that meeting,
before and since, I was the only attorney who articulated a theory to support the SLAPP
2-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONmotion, specifically all of the elections and advocacy attendant to such elections. My
history of having filed numerous SLAPP motions and my familiarity with this type of
civil litigation made me more than qualified to draft and present this SLAPP motion.
7. On page 10 of the aforementioned declaration, Paragraph 49 states:
I offer [sic] and did take the laboring oar for this motion and proceeded to the point that it
was filed. None of the other offices saw the benefit of preparing such a motion.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and accurate copy of the Court’s tentative ruling
on Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage and Shedrick McDaniels’ April 11,
2012 Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings, stating:
LAW AND MOTION 302, DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER,
BRIAN SAVAGE AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF HAS
PROPERLY PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 6333
AND 6334 AND THE COURT GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLOW
PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATELY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR CONCEALMENT. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK OUTSIDE THE FACE OF
THE PLEADINGS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS. THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE. THE PREVAILING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO
PREPARE A PROPOSED ORDER REPEATING VERBATIM THE SUBSTANTIVE
PORTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING. JUDGE: JAMES J. MCBRIDE; COURT
REPORTER: LAVENA WARD CSR #7077
The tentative ruling was not contested. However, the prevailing, the Defendants, have never
prepared a proposed order.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration of Maria
Segismundo.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and accurate copy of a letter I sent to
Lawrence D. Murray on July 30, 2011.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
//1
//1
3.
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION0 ON DW BF WN
o
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2012.
Pau . ka—~
Paul L. Kranz
-4-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT “Q”IRS Freedom of Information
lof!
IRS Freedom of information
Enacted in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, gives any person .
the right to access federal agency records or information. The FOIAis based 5US.C. § 552
oon the presumption that the government and its information belong 0 the © IRS FOIA Regulations,
people. FR § 601.702
4.1996 amendment to the FOIA, required federal agencies to make many Electronic Reading Room
types of records available online.
New law like the OPEN Government Act, as well as new policies, such as © OPEN Government Act
ret scued by the President and the Attorney General, promote the spirit of
transparency envisioned by our founding fathers.
IRS FOIA Guide HTML PDF
Some records are only available by written request. f you plan to make @
FOIA request to obtain the records you seek, you may refer to the IRS FOIA
Guide. IRS may withhold records protected from disclosure by one of the
ave ine exemptions and it must withhold when disclosure of the records is
prohibited by law.
‘As an alternative to filing formal FOIA requests, the IRS offers access fo
ather records through procedures designed to make access quick and easy.
To assist FOIA requesters each IRS Disclosure Office serves as a FOIA
Senice Center and each Disclosure Manager is a FOIA Public Liaison.
Those liaisons are advocates for FOWA requesters to help resolve problems
encountered in the process.
Alternatives to Formal FOIA Requests
[iS charges a fee of $57.00 for ‘each copy of a return ginally filed. ‘Send completed!
Form 4306 to the address provided on the form. [Note: a transcript of 2 tax account is
| To obtain a copy of a tax
ireturn, a written request is
required: Iprovided free of charge and may be accepted in lieu of an original return.)
'By phone: Obtain a copy of Form 4506 by calling the IRS Forms hotline at (600) |
|g29-3676. |
‘Transcript of account: Contact Taxpayer Service at (600) 829-1040 for individual taxpayer returns; at (800)
BMS ___'829-4933 for business taxpayers retur file Form 4506-1.
CAF Client Listing Practitioners must submit a request for t!
quest _—— _ - __
pt or poiitieal (By phone: Contact the Tax ExempGovernment Entities Hotline at (877) 629-5500, or
|
‘organization returns: send completed Form 4506-A to the address printed on the form. |
i (Online: Forms 990 are available online through Guidestar, @ privately funded database
f nonprofit organizations. Some Employee Plan information is available online through
i rch ices:
FreeERISA.com).
faxpay! (600) 829-1040.
‘oF political organizations: Contact the Tax
hotline at (877) 829-5500.
' "Tax Court cases are not Copies are available by writing to: U.S. Tax Court , 400 ‘Second Street, NW, |
: IRS records: Washington, DC 20217. _ |
} ‘Online: Available through public legal research or library services. Opinions issued |
|Singe 01/01/1999 can be retrieved from the Tax Court's Opinions Search page. _j
online version of the official copy of the IRC released by Congress can be accessed |
\d Official Guidance page. |
‘The internal Revenue Cod
‘is not an IRS reco!
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: February 14, 2012
http://www. irs.gov/foia/index.html
7/20/2012 1:06 PNEXHIBIT “R”SAN FRANCISCO
DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATIONCONSTITUTION & BYLAWS
SAN FRANCISCO
DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article I: The Name of this Organization ........... 1
Article II: Purposes ...... 00060 c cece eee en cees 1
Article III: Membership ..................20020. 3
Article IV: Membership —- Bargaining Unit......... 4
Article V: Dues ..... bbe tee e eee e eee cevenvees
Article VI: Officers of the Association ............. 7
Article VII: Terms of Office............. 00.004; 14
Article VIM: Election of Officers ................ 14
Article IX: Eligibility for Office .................. 15
Article X: Vacancy or Resignation of Office ....... 17
Article XI: Filing Vacancy of Office ............. 19
Article XH: Meeting — General ..........2..... 20
Article XIII: Meetings — Board of Directors’... ... . 22
Article XIV: QuoruMS .......... 0.00 cee cee eee 22
Article XV: Section Representatives ...........3.. 23
23
Article XVI: Guest Speakers
[i]
aae eee ee eee ee
Article XVII: Committees
Article XVII: Employment/Employees ..------->- 25
Article XIX: Life Insurance ...+--- ++ +e eerrrttt 26
Article XX: Audit... ..0000200e0 etree rer tts 26
Article XXI: Association Holdings ...-.----+++-+> 27
Article XXU: Emergency Financial Assistance ....-- 28
Article XXII: Amendments ....--+--+-ssercctee 28
Article XXIV: Effective Date ..-.-----++ssscrre 29
Article XXV: Savings Clause ......--+>+> Lee . 29
{i1]CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS
SAN FRANCISCO
DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION
EFFECTIVE
July 1, 1999
ARTICLE I
The name of this organization shall be known as the San
Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. For the sake of
brevity the organization may also be referred to as the
“SFDSA” or “DSA.”
. ARTICLE II
PURPOSE
Section 1: The purpose of the Association is as follows:
To provide representation for its members, as neces-
sary and as provided for in these Bylaws, in matters
relating to employment, working conditions and
' benefits;
To provide and maintain a “labor organization” (as
the term is used in section 501 (c) (5) of the Internal
- Revenue Code) that has as its principal purpose the
representation of its employees in such matters as
wages, hours of labor, working conditions, economic
benefits and to maintain a professional political
a.
-|-organization of the peace officers employed by the
City and County of San Francisco,
To promote and encourage the continuance and
improvement of a disability and retirement system for
peace officers employed by the City and County of
San Francisco;
To support the highest professional standards for
peace officers by encouraging the departmental estab-
lishment of training, promotional opportunities, and
to encourage educational incentives for its members
to continue higher education through accredited insti-
tutions and other methods of instruction;
To support and encourage strict adherence to the
merit system provided by Civil Service and to support
and encourage a system of competitive examinations
for both entrance and promotion under Civil Service
. (Human Resources);
To encourage activities which improve the morale
and general welfare of the members; and
To encourage activities among the association mem-
bers that provide community services in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Section 2: The Association shall take the necessary
measures toward the accomplishment of these purposes.Section 3: The Association name shall not be used for any
purpose not related to Association business, without the
majority approval of the Board of Directors present at the
meeting.
ARTICLE III.
MEMBERSHIP
Section 1: There shall be two (2) classes of membership
in this Association:
. a. Active Members
1.
Active membership shall be limited to full-time,
paid peace officers of the San Francisco County
Sheriffs’ Department, including those Deputy
Sheriffs’ on leave of absence as approved by the
Department.
All members in good standing shall have the
right to examine the books, reports and corre-
spondence of the Recording Secretary or the
Treasurer of the Association, upon request;
All members who are terminated, or otherwise
dismissed by the Department, shall remain in
good standing in this Association, until such time
as all their appellate rights have been exhausted
(including Local, State and Federal levels);
Any member who is dismissed or terminated and
who appeals such dismissal or termination, may
3.remain a member in good standing pending the -
outcome of said appeal (including any judicial
review thereof), upon a majority vote of the
Board of Directors at a General or Special
Meeting, may elect to pay the dues of any such
‘dismissed or terminated person out of the gener-
_al funds of the Association pending the outcome
of the appeal, but in no event shall this payment
be longer than one year from the date of
separation.
b. Retired Members
1.
“Retired Membership” shall be available to all
active members in good standing upon their
retirement.
Retired Members may pay dues
Association but not to the Operating Engineers
Local Union No. 3.
Retired Members may receive discount admit-
tance to all SFDSA events.
ARTICLE IV
MEMBERSHIP — BARGAINING UNIT
to the
_ Section 1: The Association is affiliated with the Public
Employees Division of the Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO.Section 2: The Bargaining unit members, represented by
the Association pursuant to Section 3500 et seq. of the
California Government Code, shall also be members in
good standing of the Public Employees Division of the
Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.
ARTICLE V
DUES
Section 1: Dues of the Association shall be set by vote of
the general membership.
Members of the bargaining unit shall pay Association
a.
dues and dues set and approved by the Public
Employee Division of the Operating Engineers, Local
No. 3.
b. Retired members: Retired members may pay five
Retired members shall also. pay the cost of maintain-
ing any insurance or other benefit available through
their Association membership.
Section 2: Payment of dues shall be an authorized payroll
deduction from each member. Retired membership will
be paid directly to Treasurer.*
(* See Article III, Section b) -
Payment thus made shall be for the pay period for
a.
which the deduction was drawn.
5.
dollars ($5.00) per month dues to the Association. .
o‘Members paying dues by salary deduction shall be
considered in active status as long as the deduction
authorization is in effect.
Any member who is drafted into service for the
Armed Forces of the United States, who is mobilized
(activated) as a member of the Military Reserve or -
National Guard for a National or State emergency,
shall remain an active DSA member without payment
of dues for the duration of their Military obligation,
involving National or State emergency. This section
does not apply to the normal obligation of
Reserve/National Guard status (Summer camp or
meetings) in any of the above military units.
Section 3: Change of Dues
a.
If a change of Association dues is to be considered,
the membership shall be advised in writing by the
Secretary through the Shop Stewards. Members shall
vote by secret ballot given to the Shop Stewards at the
monthly general body meeting. For dues changes,
ballots shall be at the work sites for a minimum of fif-
teen (15) days prior to collection. Ballots will be
returned to the Secretary via ballot boxes at a desig-
nated time for collection. A majority vote of ballots
returned is necessary to change the dues structure.b.
Changes in dues to the Public Employees Division of
the Operating Engineers, Local No. 3 shall be set in
accordance with the Union’s Bylaws.
ARTICLE VI
OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1: Management of the Association’s business
shall be vested in its Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors shall consist of seven (7) Executive Officers
(President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Sergeant-
at-Arms, Parliamentarian and Immediate Past President)
and Shop Stewards as determined by
the number of facil-
ities and satellite units needing representation.
a.
PRESIDENT: The President shall be the chief execu-
tive officer and shall preside at all meetings of the .
Association and of the Board of Directors. The
President shall enforce a strict observance of the
Bylaws and all other laws, rules, and regulations
applicable to the governing of the Association and the
Board of Directors. The President shall be empow-
ered to designate committees and appoint member-
ship there to, which are not provided for. The
President shall be an ex officio member of all com-
mittees. The President shall require all officers of the
Association to diligently and faithfully perform their
duties, and it shall be the President’s duty to forthwith
Treport to the Board of Directors any dereliction that
-7-EXHIBIT “S”Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA ‘94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH
OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH
LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an.
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual,
BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK.
McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
I, Lawrence D. Murray, declare:
Attomey for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER,
BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case No. CGC — 10 -501168
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D.
MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE - SLAPP
APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF
ATTORNEY FEES OF $99,195.75 &
MULTIPLIER AGAINST JOHNA PECOT,
THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG,
STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and
OSCAR TAYLOR [CCP 425.16]
Date: December 19, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 302
1, Lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the Courts of California and in the United States
Courts, including the US District Courts and the Ninth Circuit.
2. Ihave continuously been in the active practice of law since 1977.\
ecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168
Pagel
d Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion
i
|
iK. This Series of Suits and Litigation Required Competent Diligent and Skillful Advocacy In
Order To Secure A Proper Dismissal For These Individual Defendants
43. In order to prevail on this motion I started by investigating and research the various defenses in
order to properly represent the client. I have for 33+ years, been diligent in doing just that for my
clients. [ routinely formulate unique strategies to successfully combat persistent, frivolous and
meritless claims, as is the case here. These kind of cases tend to exert a crippling effect on
targeted individuals and organizations who have their resources depleted defending frivolous
claims. It takes skillful lawful strategy to put an end to such litigation.
44. And the preparation of a SLAPP motion, much the same as a Motion For Summary Judgment,
requires the utmost in care and attention to detail. That was exactly what was done here.
45. Having had the experience of the Plaintiffs counsel in Federal Court, I was keenly aware of the
attempts that would be made to misconstrue the underpinnings of the motion and to prepare for
just such an avalanche. I did so and at the same time attempted to keep this motion as direct and
to the point as possible.
46. My participation in these two cases has, at all times, been as the lead for the litigation overall and|
the lead and sole advocate for the individual Union official defendants.
47. The dismissals with prejudice secured on behalf of the individual Union official defendants in
US District Court were as a result of my advocacy, motions filed and guidance. On behalf of my
individual defendants, I filed (and was the only defense counsel to file) a motion to dismiss. (See|
Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage and Shedrick McDaniels’ Motion To
Dismiss, Filed November 19, 2009 Document Number 125). One month later, the Plaintiffs
stipulated to dismiss each of them with prejudice. As we put on the record, the purpose was to
put an end to the litigation. Within about six months Plaintiffs refilled the Complaint with
virtually identical allegations in the Superior Court.
L. From The First Defense Meeting, I Was Alone In Insisting We Go Forward With A SLAPP
Motion - No Other Defendant Or Office Was Interested In Working On This Motion
48. In this case, at the first defense counsel meeting, I was the only attorney who suggested that we
prepare and file a SLAPP motion. I offered all defense counsel to join in, but none wanted to
join in the work for preparation of a SLAPP motion. At that meeting, before and since, I was the
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 - 501168 Page9
Mntrrav Declaration I Supvort of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion. only attorney who articulated a theory to support the SLAPP motion, specifically all of the
elections and advocacy attendant to such elections. My history of having filed numerous SLaPP
motions and my familiarity with this type of civil litigation made me more than qualified to draft
and present this SLAPP motion.
49. I offer and did take the laboring oar for this motion and proceeded to the point that it was filed.
None of the other offices saw the benefit in preparing such a motion.
50. The posture of this case currently, as well as securing the dismissal in US District Court, are a
direct result of the litigation skills, strategy, determination and resourcefulness which I brought
to this litigation.
51. For have successfully prosecuted the SLAPP motion to ruling, I now seek the award of fees for
these services, including market rate and multiplier, as the property interest in this result. (See
Flannery v. Prentice 26 Cal.4th 572 (2001) The right to attorneys fees awarded in a case belong
to the attorneys who labored to earn them.) It is based on this right that I now seek the award of
fees and costs to myself and my office.
M. As A Litigator A Market Rate For Services Provided In This Matter Should Be Set At
$600 Per Hour Before Any Multiplier
52. I believe that my services and the quality of these services are as a direct result of my past
experiences as a litigator.
53. In early 1978, | went to work in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office as a trial lawyer for
the specific purpose of securing trial experience. I started in February 1978 and left June 23,
1983. In the five years I worked for the San Francisco District Attorney’s office, while assigned
to the trial teams, and as a leader of the trial team, I completed 50 criminal and one non-criminal
jury trial to verdicts. I also had countless court trials, preliminary hearings, motions to suppress,
sentencing and other evidentiary type hearings which would be useful in representation of
claimants in future litigation. Many of these trials were against competent and skillful attomeys
such as Willie Brown and F. Lee Bailey which required every once of skill I could present in
order to adequate meet the needs of my client.
54. Since leaving the District Attorney’s office on June 23, 1983, I have participated in another
approximately 50 jury trials to verdict where I was lead or sole counsel for one of the parties,
often the plaintiff, except in a few criminal cases where I represented the defendant.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 10
Murray Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion
i
|
{S. An Appropriate Multiplier For The Risk Inherent Should Be Set At 2.0
73. With the risk of loss in this instance being at least fifty percent (50%), the corresponding
multiplier should be at least 2.0, to mathematically correct for the risk of loss.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and tliat this declaration
was executed at San Francisco, California on November 9, 2011.
OC
Lawrence D. Murray
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 13
Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion
|
|
|PROOF OF SERVICE
1am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of|
18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco,
California 94123; (415) 673-0555.
On this date; I served the following document DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D.
MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE - SLAPP
APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES OF $99,195.75 & MULTIPLIER
AGAINST JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR [CCP 425.16] on the interested parties in this action as
follows:
Attorney for Plaintiffs: _ Attorney for Defendant
Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith
Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia, Stern, PC
Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690
Ismith@rlslawyers.com
Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy
Sheriffs’ Foundation
David R. Ongaro
Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94105
[XX] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United]
States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above.
{ ] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above
address(es).
[ ] [BY FAX] I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above
shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number
with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b)
receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact
properly received.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 9, 2011.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 — 501168 Page 14
Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion
{EXHIBIT “T”CGC-10-501168 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll
|SAVAGE AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF HAS PROPERLY PLED A CAUSE OF
. [ACTION UNDER CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 6333 AND 6334 AND THE COURT GRANTS
[LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATELY STATE
'A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONCEALMENT. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK OUTSIDE THE
| FACE OF THE PLEADINGS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
| PLEADINGS. THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE U.S.
DISTRICT COURT CASE. THE PREVAILING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A
[PROPOSED ORDER REPEATING VERBATIM THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE
(senor RULING. JUDGE: JAMES J. MCBRIDE; COURT REPORTER: LAVENA WARD
\CSR #7077
loft 7/20/2012 2:55 PMEXHIBIT “U”Declaration of Maria Scgismundo
‘
I am employed at Cannon Street, Inc., a company in San Francisco, California that provides
professional investigative services.
On February 9, 2012. [ contacted the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation by calling
(415) 550-8888, the phone number listed on a website for the San Francisco Deputy ritts?
Foundation. A person answered the phone, stating San Francisco Deputy Sherifis’ Foundation, and
"identified himself as Sonny. I told this person that I was an administrative assistant [or a person who
was considering a significant donatior. to the foundation and that I was calling to request a copy of the
foundation’s most Form 990 tax retum. He asked me the name of the donor and I stated that the
donor wished to remain anonymous.
Sonny told me that he was transferring the call to a person who was more familiar with the tax
forms than he was. Then a person who identified himself as Dave Wong came on the phone. Mr.
Wong told me that he would have to request the 2010 tax return trom the foundation’s accountant.
My call was then transferred back to “Sonny”, the person with whom I had spoken before, and who
‘orm to as soon it was received from the foundation’s accountant and offered to fax
agreed to send
it. I gave him the fax number that is located at a Fedex-Kinko’s, fax number (415) 834-1054, at 369
Pine St. San Francisco, CA 94104.
Later that day, February 9, 2012, I went to the Fedex-Kinko location to notil’y it to expect an
incoming fax. While there, the person, Sonny, with whom I had spoken before, called to check on
the fax number, and I spoke to him again from the Fedex-Kinko. He asked me why I had provided aFedex-Kinko fax number. I stated that the reason was because the donor wished to remain
anonymous. Sonny responded that he understood.
I later checked with the Fedex-Kinko and no Form 990 tax return or any other documents were
received from the foundation.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2012.
Maria SegismundeEXHIBIT “Vv”LAW OFFICES
Paul L. Kranz
2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 213
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
TELEPHONE (510) 549-5900
FACSIMILE (510) 549-5901
July 30, 2011
Lawrence D. Murray
Murray & Associates
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123-4426
Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Murray:
The proposed Order On Special Motion To Strike Causes of Action In The Complaint,
And Request For Attorney Fees Reserved is incorrect. Paragraph numbered “4" is inaccurate
stating that Plaintiff did not address the Statute of Limitations issue in their papers or in their oral
argument. Therefore, the order should be modified accordingly.
Please contact me if you have any questions about the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
Paul L. Kranz
PLK: gr
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-20-2012 4:09 pm Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Filing Date: Jul-20-2012 4:08 Filed by: MICHAEL RAYRAY — . . Juke Box: 001 Image: 03694729 DECLARATION JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, Aetal 001003694729 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO YN Dw BF BW NY S| YN YY N NY NR NY ND He He Be Be ee se Be Se Be Se ond AA BF Bw NH KF S&C eI DH BF Ww NHN KF SS LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999 kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, California 94710 (510) 549-5900 (510) 549-5901 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, e¢ al., and all others similarly situated 9017 SUL 20 Pa clean WY BY: SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, Vv. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. eeeeeeer>es>se>Eenrv CASE NO. CGC-10-501168 DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Date: July 27, 2012 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 26 I, Paul L. Kranz, declare as follows in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Opposition To Motion For Reconsideration: 1. Ihave personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, unless noted on information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. -l- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONoO YN DW BF WN RN NY NY RN NN KN HY Bee Be Be Se Se BS oN A AF YN fF SB we NHN DH BF WY SF 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and accurate copy of a page from the IRS website concerning obtaining tax returns, Form 990s in particular, for non-profit organizations, which I printed out from the IRS website. This is located and can be found at the following URL address: http:www.irs.gov/foia/index/html. It states in relevant part that for “Tax-exempt or political organization returns: . . . Forms 990 are available online through Guidestar, a privately funded database of non-profit organizations.” 3. The Guidestar website is accessed directly from the aforementioned IRS website by clicking on the underlined “Guidestar” identified in the previous paragraph. The aforementioned IRS website is thus linked to the Guidestar and takes you directly to the Guidestar website. I have accessed the Guidestar website in exactly this way. 4. On the Guidestar website, the Form 990s for the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation and for the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association can be accessed and printed out. Exhibits B through H, attached to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration, filed on March 7, 2012, were accessed and printed out from the Guidestar website. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and accurate copy of portions of the Constitution and Bylaws obtained from the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and accurate copy of pages from the Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray In Support Of Continued Special Motion To Strike-SLAPP Application For Award of Attorney Fees of $99,195.75 & Multiplier, filed in this action on or about November 9, 2011, in which Mr. Murray states on 9, Section L., entitled: From The First Defense Meeting I Was Alone In Insisting We Go Forward With A SLAPP Motion - No Other Defendant Or Office Was Interested In Working On This Motion (original in bold), and which continues with Paragraph 48, stating: In this case, at the first defense counsel meeting, I was the only attorney who suggested that we prepare and file a SLAPP motion. J offered all defense counsel to join in, but none wanted to join in the work for preparation of a SLAPP motion. At that meeting, before and since, I was the only attorney who articulated a theory to support the SLAPP 2- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONmotion, specifically all of the elections and advocacy attendant to such elections. My history of having filed numerous SLAPP motions and my familiarity with this type of civil litigation made me more than qualified to draft and present this SLAPP motion. 7. On page 10 of the aforementioned declaration, Paragraph 49 states: I offer [sic] and did take the laboring oar for this motion and proceeded to the point that it was filed. None of the other offices saw the benefit of preparing such a motion. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and accurate copy of the Court’s tentative ruling on Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage and Shedrick McDaniels’ April 11, 2012 Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings, stating: LAW AND MOTION 302, DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF HAS PROPERLY PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 6333 AND 6334 AND THE COURT GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATELY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONCEALMENT. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK OUTSIDE THE FACE OF THE PLEADINGS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE. THE PREVAILING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A PROPOSED ORDER REPEATING VERBATIM THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING. JUDGE: JAMES J. MCBRIDE; COURT REPORTER: LAVENA WARD CSR #7077 The tentative ruling was not contested. However, the prevailing, the Defendants, have never prepared a proposed order. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration of Maria Segismundo. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and accurate copy of a letter I sent to Lawrence D. Murray on July 30, 2011. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing //1 //1 3. DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION0 ON DW BF WN o is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2012. Pau . ka—~ Paul L. Kranz -4- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT “Q”IRS Freedom of Information lof! IRS Freedom of information Enacted in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, gives any person . the right to access federal agency records or information. The FOIAis based 5US.C. § 552 oon the presumption that the government and its information belong 0 the © IRS FOIA Regulations, people. FR § 601.702 4.1996 amendment to the FOIA, required federal agencies to make many Electronic Reading Room types of records available online. New law like the OPEN Government Act, as well as new policies, such as © OPEN Government Act ret scued by the President and the Attorney General, promote the spirit of transparency envisioned by our founding fathers. IRS FOIA Guide HTML PDF Some records are only available by written request. f you plan to make @ FOIA request to obtain the records you seek, you may refer to the IRS FOIA Guide. IRS may withhold records protected from disclosure by one of the ave ine exemptions and it must withhold when disclosure of the records is prohibited by law. ‘As an alternative to filing formal FOIA requests, the IRS offers access fo ather records through procedures designed to make access quick and easy. To assist FOIA requesters each IRS Disclosure Office serves as a FOIA Senice Center and each Disclosure Manager is a FOIA Public Liaison. Those liaisons are advocates for FOWA requesters to help resolve problems encountered in the process. Alternatives to Formal FOIA Requests [iS charges a fee of $57.00 for ‘each copy of a return ginally filed. ‘Send completed! Form 4306 to the address provided on the form. [Note: a transcript of 2 tax account is | To obtain a copy of a tax ireturn, a written request is required: Iprovided free of charge and may be accepted in lieu of an original return.) 'By phone: Obtain a copy of Form 4506 by calling the IRS Forms hotline at (600) | |g29-3676. | ‘Transcript of account: Contact Taxpayer Service at (600) 829-1040 for individual taxpayer returns; at (800) BMS ___'829-4933 for business taxpayers retur file Form 4506-1. CAF Client Listing Practitioners must submit a request for t! quest _—— _ - __ pt or poiitieal (By phone: Contact the Tax ExempGovernment Entities Hotline at (877) 629-5500, or | ‘organization returns: send completed Form 4506-A to the address printed on the form. | i (Online: Forms 990 are available online through Guidestar, @ privately funded database f nonprofit organizations. Some Employee Plan information is available online through i rch ices: FreeERISA.com). faxpay! (600) 829-1040. ‘oF political organizations: Contact the Tax hotline at (877) 829-5500. ' "Tax Court cases are not Copies are available by writing to: U.S. Tax Court , 400 ‘Second Street, NW, | : IRS records: Washington, DC 20217. _ | } ‘Online: Available through public legal research or library services. Opinions issued | |Singe 01/01/1999 can be retrieved from the Tax Court's Opinions Search page. _j online version of the official copy of the IRC released by Congress can be accessed | \d Official Guidance page. | ‘The internal Revenue Cod ‘is not an IRS reco! Page Last Reviewed or Updated: February 14, 2012 http://www. irs.gov/foia/index.html 7/20/2012 1:06 PNEXHIBIT “R”SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATIONCONSTITUTION & BYLAWS SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Article I: The Name of this Organization ........... 1 Article II: Purposes ...... 00060 c cece eee en cees 1 Article III: Membership ..................20020. 3 Article IV: Membership —- Bargaining Unit......... 4 Article V: Dues ..... bbe tee e eee e eee cevenvees Article VI: Officers of the Association ............. 7 Article VII: Terms of Office............. 00.004; 14 Article VIM: Election of Officers ................ 14 Article IX: Eligibility for Office .................. 15 Article X: Vacancy or Resignation of Office ....... 17 Article XI: Filing Vacancy of Office ............. 19 Article XH: Meeting — General ..........2..... 20 Article XIII: Meetings — Board of Directors’... ... . 22 Article XIV: QuoruMS .......... 0.00 cee cee eee 22 Article XV: Section Representatives ...........3.. 23 23 Article XVI: Guest Speakers [i] aae eee ee eee ee Article XVII: Committees Article XVII: Employment/Employees ..------->- 25 Article XIX: Life Insurance ...+--- ++ +e eerrrttt 26 Article XX: Audit... ..0000200e0 etree rer tts 26 Article XXI: Association Holdings ...-.----+++-+> 27 Article XXU: Emergency Financial Assistance ....-- 28 Article XXII: Amendments ....--+--+-ssercctee 28 Article XXIV: Effective Date ..-.-----++ssscrre 29 Article XXV: Savings Clause ......--+>+> Lee . 29 {i1]CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION EFFECTIVE July 1, 1999 ARTICLE I The name of this organization shall be known as the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. For the sake of brevity the organization may also be referred to as the “SFDSA” or “DSA.” . ARTICLE II PURPOSE Section 1: The purpose of the Association is as follows: To provide representation for its members, as neces- sary and as provided for in these Bylaws, in matters relating to employment, working conditions and ' benefits; To provide and maintain a “labor organization” (as the term is used in section 501 (c) (5) of the Internal - Revenue Code) that has as its principal purpose the representation of its employees in such matters as wages, hours of labor, working conditions, economic benefits and to maintain a professional political a. -|-organization of the peace officers employed by the City and County of San Francisco, To promote and encourage the continuance and improvement of a disability and retirement system for peace officers employed by the City and County of San Francisco; To support the highest professional standards for peace officers by encouraging the departmental estab- lishment of training, promotional opportunities, and to encourage educational incentives for its members to continue higher education through accredited insti- tutions and other methods of instruction; To support and encourage strict adherence to the merit system provided by Civil Service and to support and encourage a system of competitive examinations for both entrance and promotion under Civil Service . (Human Resources); To encourage activities which improve the morale and general welfare of the members; and To encourage activities among the association mem- bers that provide community services in the San Francisco Bay Area. Section 2: The Association shall take the necessary measures toward the accomplishment of these purposes.Section 3: The Association name shall not be used for any purpose not related to Association business, without the majority approval of the Board of Directors present at the meeting. ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP Section 1: There shall be two (2) classes of membership in this Association: . a. Active Members 1. Active membership shall be limited to full-time, paid peace officers of the San Francisco County Sheriffs’ Department, including those Deputy Sheriffs’ on leave of absence as approved by the Department. All members in good standing shall have the right to examine the books, reports and corre- spondence of the Recording Secretary or the Treasurer of the Association, upon request; All members who are terminated, or otherwise dismissed by the Department, shall remain in good standing in this Association, until such time as all their appellate rights have been exhausted (including Local, State and Federal levels); Any member who is dismissed or terminated and who appeals such dismissal or termination, may 3.remain a member in good standing pending the - outcome of said appeal (including any judicial review thereof), upon a majority vote of the Board of Directors at a General or Special Meeting, may elect to pay the dues of any such ‘dismissed or terminated person out of the gener- _al funds of the Association pending the outcome of the appeal, but in no event shall this payment be longer than one year from the date of separation. b. Retired Members 1. “Retired Membership” shall be available to all active members in good standing upon their retirement. Retired Members may pay dues Association but not to the Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3. Retired Members may receive discount admit- tance to all SFDSA events. ARTICLE IV MEMBERSHIP — BARGAINING UNIT to the _ Section 1: The Association is affiliated with the Public Employees Division of the Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.Section 2: The Bargaining unit members, represented by the Association pursuant to Section 3500 et seq. of the California Government Code, shall also be members in good standing of the Public Employees Division of the Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. ARTICLE V DUES Section 1: Dues of the Association shall be set by vote of the general membership. Members of the bargaining unit shall pay Association a. dues and dues set and approved by the Public Employee Division of the Operating Engineers, Local No. 3. b. Retired members: Retired members may pay five Retired members shall also. pay the cost of maintain- ing any insurance or other benefit available through their Association membership. Section 2: Payment of dues shall be an authorized payroll deduction from each member. Retired membership will be paid directly to Treasurer.* (* See Article III, Section b) - Payment thus made shall be for the pay period for a. which the deduction was drawn. 5. dollars ($5.00) per month dues to the Association. . o‘Members paying dues by salary deduction shall be considered in active status as long as the deduction authorization is in effect. Any member who is drafted into service for the Armed Forces of the United States, who is mobilized (activated) as a member of the Military Reserve or - National Guard for a National or State emergency, shall remain an active DSA member without payment of dues for the duration of their Military obligation, involving National or State emergency. This section does not apply to the normal obligation of Reserve/National Guard status (Summer camp or meetings) in any of the above military units. Section 3: Change of Dues a. If a change of Association dues is to be considered, the membership shall be advised in writing by the Secretary through the Shop Stewards. Members shall vote by secret ballot given to the Shop Stewards at the monthly general body meeting. For dues changes, ballots shall be at the work sites for a minimum of fif- teen (15) days prior to collection. Ballots will be returned to the Secretary via ballot boxes at a desig- nated time for collection. A majority vote of ballots returned is necessary to change the dues structure.b. Changes in dues to the Public Employees Division of the Operating Engineers, Local No. 3 shall be set in accordance with the Union’s Bylaws. ARTICLE VI OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION Section 1: Management of the Association’s business shall be vested in its Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall consist of seven (7) Executive Officers (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Sergeant- at-Arms, Parliamentarian and Immediate Past President) and Shop Stewards as determined by the number of facil- ities and satellite units needing representation. a. PRESIDENT: The President shall be the chief execu- tive officer and shall preside at all meetings of the . Association and of the Board of Directors. The President shall enforce a strict observance of the Bylaws and all other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the governing of the Association and the Board of Directors. The President shall be empow- ered to designate committees and appoint member- ship there to, which are not provided for. The President shall be an ex officio member of all com- mittees. The President shall require all officers of the Association to diligently and faithfully perform their duties, and it shall be the President’s duty to forthwith Treport to the Board of Directors any dereliction that -7-EXHIBIT “S”Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA ‘94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an. individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK. McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. I, Lawrence D. Murray, declare: Attomey for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case No. CGC — 10 -501168 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE - SLAPP APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES OF $99,195.75 & MULTIPLIER AGAINST JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR [CCP 425.16] Date: December 19, 2011 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 302 1, Lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the Courts of California and in the United States Courts, including the US District Courts and the Ninth Circuit. 2. Ihave continuously been in the active practice of law since 1977.\ ecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Pagel d Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion i | iK. This Series of Suits and Litigation Required Competent Diligent and Skillful Advocacy In Order To Secure A Proper Dismissal For These Individual Defendants 43. In order to prevail on this motion I started by investigating and research the various defenses in order to properly represent the client. I have for 33+ years, been diligent in doing just that for my clients. [ routinely formulate unique strategies to successfully combat persistent, frivolous and meritless claims, as is the case here. These kind of cases tend to exert a crippling effect on targeted individuals and organizations who have their resources depleted defending frivolous claims. It takes skillful lawful strategy to put an end to such litigation. 44. And the preparation of a SLAPP motion, much the same as a Motion For Summary Judgment, requires the utmost in care and attention to detail. That was exactly what was done here. 45. Having had the experience of the Plaintiffs counsel in Federal Court, I was keenly aware of the attempts that would be made to misconstrue the underpinnings of the motion and to prepare for just such an avalanche. I did so and at the same time attempted to keep this motion as direct and to the point as possible. 46. My participation in these two cases has, at all times, been as the lead for the litigation overall and| the lead and sole advocate for the individual Union official defendants. 47. The dismissals with prejudice secured on behalf of the individual Union official defendants in US District Court were as a result of my advocacy, motions filed and guidance. On behalf of my individual defendants, I filed (and was the only defense counsel to file) a motion to dismiss. (See| Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage and Shedrick McDaniels’ Motion To Dismiss, Filed November 19, 2009 Document Number 125). One month later, the Plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss each of them with prejudice. As we put on the record, the purpose was to put an end to the litigation. Within about six months Plaintiffs refilled the Complaint with virtually identical allegations in the Superior Court. L. From The First Defense Meeting, I Was Alone In Insisting We Go Forward With A SLAPP Motion - No Other Defendant Or Office Was Interested In Working On This Motion 48. In this case, at the first defense counsel meeting, I was the only attorney who suggested that we prepare and file a SLAPP motion. I offered all defense counsel to join in, but none wanted to join in the work for preparation of a SLAPP motion. At that meeting, before and since, I was the Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 - 501168 Page9 Mntrrav Declaration I Supvort of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion. only attorney who articulated a theory to support the SLAPP motion, specifically all of the elections and advocacy attendant to such elections. My history of having filed numerous SLaPP motions and my familiarity with this type of civil litigation made me more than qualified to draft and present this SLAPP motion. 49. I offer and did take the laboring oar for this motion and proceeded to the point that it was filed. None of the other offices saw the benefit in preparing such a motion. 50. The posture of this case currently, as well as securing the dismissal in US District Court, are a direct result of the litigation skills, strategy, determination and resourcefulness which I brought to this litigation. 51. For have successfully prosecuted the SLAPP motion to ruling, I now seek the award of fees for these services, including market rate and multiplier, as the property interest in this result. (See Flannery v. Prentice 26 Cal.4th 572 (2001) The right to attorneys fees awarded in a case belong to the attorneys who labored to earn them.) It is based on this right that I now seek the award of fees and costs to myself and my office. M. As A Litigator A Market Rate For Services Provided In This Matter Should Be Set At $600 Per Hour Before Any Multiplier 52. I believe that my services and the quality of these services are as a direct result of my past experiences as a litigator. 53. In early 1978, | went to work in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office as a trial lawyer for the specific purpose of securing trial experience. I started in February 1978 and left June 23, 1983. In the five years I worked for the San Francisco District Attorney’s office, while assigned to the trial teams, and as a leader of the trial team, I completed 50 criminal and one non-criminal jury trial to verdicts. I also had countless court trials, preliminary hearings, motions to suppress, sentencing and other evidentiary type hearings which would be useful in representation of claimants in future litigation. Many of these trials were against competent and skillful attomeys such as Willie Brown and F. Lee Bailey which required every once of skill I could present in order to adequate meet the needs of my client. 54. Since leaving the District Attorney’s office on June 23, 1983, I have participated in another approximately 50 jury trials to verdict where I was lead or sole counsel for one of the parties, often the plaintiff, except in a few criminal cases where I represented the defendant. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 10 Murray Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion i | {S. An Appropriate Multiplier For The Risk Inherent Should Be Set At 2.0 73. With the risk of loss in this instance being at least fifty percent (50%), the corresponding multiplier should be at least 2.0, to mathematically correct for the risk of loss. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and tliat this declaration was executed at San Francisco, California on November 9, 2011. OC Lawrence D. Murray Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 13 Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion | | |PROOF OF SERVICE 1am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of| 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco, California 94123; (415) 673-0555. On this date; I served the following document DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE - SLAPP APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES OF $99,195.75 & MULTIPLIER AGAINST JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR [CCP 425.16] on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Plaintiffs: _ Attorney for Defendant Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia, Stern, PC Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500 Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690 Ismith@rlslawyers.com Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation David R. Ongaro Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94105 [XX] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United] States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above. { ] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). [ ] [BY FAX] I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b) receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact properly received. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 9, 2011. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 — 501168 Page 14 Murrav Declaration In Support of Award of Fees & Costs On SLAPP Motion {EXHIBIT “T”CGC-10-501168 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll |SAVAGE AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF HAS PROPERLY PLED A CAUSE OF . [ACTION UNDER CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 6333 AND 6334 AND THE COURT GRANTS [LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATELY STATE 'A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONCEALMENT. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK OUTSIDE THE | FACE OF THE PLEADINGS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE | PLEADINGS. THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE. THE PREVAILING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A [PROPOSED ORDER REPEATING VERBATIM THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE (senor RULING. JUDGE: JAMES J. MCBRIDE; COURT REPORTER: LAVENA WARD \CSR #7077 loft 7/20/2012 2:55 PMEXHIBIT “U”Declaration of Maria Scgismundo ‘ I am employed at Cannon Street, Inc., a company in San Francisco, California that provides professional investigative services. On February 9, 2012. [ contacted the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation by calling (415) 550-8888, the phone number listed on a website for the San Francisco Deputy ritts? Foundation. A person answered the phone, stating San Francisco Deputy Sherifis’ Foundation, and "identified himself as Sonny. I told this person that I was an administrative assistant [or a person who was considering a significant donatior. to the foundation and that I was calling to request a copy of the foundation’s most Form 990 tax retum. He asked me the name of the donor and I stated that the donor wished to remain anonymous. Sonny told me that he was transferring the call to a person who was more familiar with the tax forms than he was. Then a person who identified himself as Dave Wong came on the phone. Mr. Wong told me that he would have to request the 2010 tax return trom the foundation’s accountant. My call was then transferred back to “Sonny”, the person with whom I had spoken before, and who ‘orm to as soon it was received from the foundation’s accountant and offered to fax agreed to send it. I gave him the fax number that is located at a Fedex-Kinko’s, fax number (415) 834-1054, at 369 Pine St. San Francisco, CA 94104. Later that day, February 9, 2012, I went to the Fedex-Kinko location to notil’y it to expect an incoming fax. While there, the person, Sonny, with whom I had spoken before, called to check on the fax number, and I spoke to him again from the Fedex-Kinko. He asked me why I had provided aFedex-Kinko fax number. I stated that the reason was because the donor wished to remain anonymous. Sonny responded that he understood. I later checked with the Fedex-Kinko and no Form 990 tax return or any other documents were received from the foundation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2012. Maria SegismundeEXHIBIT “Vv”LAW OFFICES Paul L. Kranz 2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 213 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 TELEPHONE (510) 549-5900 FACSIMILE (510) 549-5901 July 30, 2011 Lawrence D. Murray Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123-4426 Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al. San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Murray: The proposed Order On Special Motion To Strike Causes of Action In The Complaint, And Request For Attorney Fees Reserved is incorrect. Paragraph numbered “4" is inaccurate stating that Plaintiff did not address the Statute of Limitations issue in their papers or in their oral argument. Therefore, the order should be modified accordingly. Please contact me if you have any questions about the foregoing. Very truly yours, Paul L. Kranz PLK: gr