Preview
IAI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
dan-12-2012 10:42 am
c
| Case Number: CGC-10-501168
| Filing Date: Jan-12-2012 10:41
|
|
|
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03450222
i DECLARATION
JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et
001C03450222
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) a
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES I L E Db
1781 Union Street 88n Franoiatio County Superior Coun
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 JAN 1B 2012
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE. CLERK BE THE pouRT
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS BY: ue
japuty Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH Case No, CGC — 10 -501168
OWYANG. STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH
LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, individually DECLARATION OF JOEY NAKAMURA IN
and on behalf of ail other similarly situated | OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
| APPLICATION FOR ORDER
Plaintiffs, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES
vy.
Date: January 31, 2012
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S Time: 9:30 a.m.
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Dept: 302
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF'S FOUNDATION, a California
Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual,
BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK
MEeDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
I, Joey Nakamura, declare that,
1. fama staff member of Murray & Associates and have personal knowledge of attorney Lawrence
D. Murray's calendar and can testify thereto.
2. On December 2, 2011, we appeared and opposed defendant’s ex parte application for order
continuing the hearing on fees because we waited approximately six (6) months for the other side
to give us their availability and they had not. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct
Pecot, et al. ¥: DSA, et ai; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 501168 Page 1
Declaration Of Joey Nakamura in Opposition To Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On Feeswo
a
copy of the Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Order
Continuing the Hearing on Fees as Part of the Special Motion to Strike Causes of Action in the
Complaint.
3. The Honorable Judge Harold Kahn of the San Francisco Superior Court signed an order granting
continuance of the hearing for the motion for attorney’s fees to January 31, 2012. A true and
correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In this order, it is stated that “if Mr. Murray is in
trial or unavailable...the court will continue the hearing.”
4. Mr. Murray began trial in Fresno on January 3, 2012 and is scheduled to be completed in early
February. Mr. Murray is not in trial on Fridays and can appear in San Franeisco Superior Court
on any of those days.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
signed on January 11, 2012, in San Francisco. California.
Chih tikuees
Ametiag whiaciesite-
Chor Origined )
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.: San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC -- 10 - 501168 Page 2
Declaration Of Joey Nakamura In Opposition ‘Io Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On FeesPROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, | 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 JOEY NAKAMURA IN
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING
ON FEES 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 Fax: (510) $49 590} 2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Suite 500
Pleasant Hill. CA 94523
Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690
Ismith@erlslawyers.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
[ 1 [BY MAIL] | 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] _ | 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 January. 2012.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page3
Declaration Of Joey Nakamura In Opposition To Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On FeesEXHIBIT Aae
Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE,
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
FLL. ED.
NGV 3 0 Batt
CLERK QE THE. COURT
a Bapuly Cle —
SUPERIOR COURT 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 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.
Mt
it
if
Mf
Case No. CGC — 10 -501168
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D.
MURRAY IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES
AS PART OF THE SPECIAL MOTION TO
STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE
COMPLAINT, (CCP § 425.16)
Date: December 1, 2011
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept: 302
Pecot, et al. vs, SFDSA, et al; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing
PagelI, Lawrence D. Murray, declare based on my own personal knowledge:
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing
_ >
A. Introduction
1. Iam the attorney for the past president and past treasurers of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's
Association, (the “union), defendants in this action, all of whom are officers of a non-profit
corporation which represents the individual deputy sheriffs of the City and County of San
Francisco.
2. On November 30, 2011, at about 9:48 am, I received a phone call from Paul Kranz requesting a
continuance of the hearing on the fee motion. I explained to him at that time that I could not
agree to a continuance beyond December 2011, because (a) I am set to start a Jury Trial for all of
January and possibly much of February 2012, in Fresno Superior Court, (b) that for the last five
(5) months I have asked Mr. Kranz for a hearing date on the SLAPP fee motion which would
work for him, which he has repeatedly ignored and refused to respond to, (c) that this seems to
be a pattern for him to call right before his opposition papers are due asking for a continuance
because he is suddenly unavailable.
3. Lobject to a continuance of the hearing date on the fee application in this matter, as will be
explained below: (a) Since July 2011 I have repeatedly called and written to Mr. Kranz in an
attempt to avoid what happened in prior hearings where he sought continuance after continuance
because he claimed he was unavailable, and with numerous phone calls and letters faxed to him,
he has never so much as once responded to my request for a hearing date or dates when he is
unavailable, (b) I am in a Jury Trial in Fresno Superior Court in January and likely February
2012, in Fresno, California which will not permit me to be in this court for a hearing. The Fre
matter is a trial on a case where the five year statute has rm and the trial itself must start because
there is an offer of zero and clients who insist on it going forward, and (c) in this case and in this
matter in as it was presented in the US District Court, a pattern developed that when the
opposition papers were due from Kranz office, he seeks a continuance because they were
unavailable.
B. Plaintiff's Claims Date Back To Events In 2002 & All Claims Were Dismissed By A SLAPP|
Ruling5. Al of the claims against these individual defendants were dismissed by reason of the court’s
- These Claims Are Virtually Identical To Those Dismissed With Prejudice in District Court
. Over the course of the next two months I called Paul Kranz approximately three (3) times leavin;
The claims in this action date back to elections which occurred in 2002.
ruling on the SLAPP motion itself. See Exhibit A, attached. The only thing left is for a ruling onl
the application for attorneys fees on the SLAPP motion and the entry of judgment.
I have read the Complaint in this matter and reviewed the actions and inactions which forms the
basis for the Complaint here.
I was the attorney who defended these identical defendants in US District Court on identical
factual claims and secured a dismissal with prejudice of all of these claims. Then, these plaintiffs
brought them here for a second time.
. I Have Repeatedly Sought A Hearing Date From Mr. Kranz By Phone Requests And
Written Requests For A Hearing Date Without Any Response Indicating When He Was
Available Or When He Was Unavailable.
Even before the ruling was posted on the merits of the SLAPP motion I asked Mr. Kranz for
hearing dates which would not conflict with his calendar. See Exhibit B, attached which I sent
by fax and US Mail on July 7, 2011. No dates were given to me by Mr. Kranz or his office as a
result of this request.
The final ruling on the merits of the SLAPP motion was made in late July 2011. [immediately
asked for a hearing date from Mr. Kranz by letter of July 27, 2011. On July 27, 2011, 1 sent
Exhibit C to Mr. Kranz by fax and US Mail. No dates were given to me by Mr. Kranz or his
office as a result of this request.
a message on his recorder asking for a hearing date which he could make. I never received a
response to any of these three requests.
. Because Mr. Kranz has previously sought continuances of the hearing dates on motions at about
the time his opposition papers were due, and more particularly on the merits portion of the
SLAPP motion itself twice, I did not want to go through the repeated requests for continuance,
Additionally, although I set a copy of the form of final order to Mr. Kranz which he refuses to
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 3
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing16.
sign, I submitted to the Clerk of this court an d have been waiting for a copy of the signed order
to be able to proceed. Having delayed the proceedings so far, I have filed the motion prior to the
Start of a lengthy jury trial in the Fresno Superior Court matter.
. On October 11, 2011, 1 sent to Mr. Kranz by fax and US mail a letter remind him that J have
written to him and called him repeatedly asking for an agreed hearing date on the motion for fees
which has received no response. A true copy of the letter that I sent to him is attached as Exhibit
D, and incorporated herein. I never received a Tesponse to any of the written requests or phone
requests for Mr. Kranz to designate a hearing date.
. Approximately one month later, at the time that Mr. Kranz was unable to come up with a date for,
a hearing in this matter, he noticed the deposition of the person most knowledgeable for the
union in his office going after private information about my clients. The deposition was to be in
November 2011. I wrote to him repeatedly that any deposition was stayed pending a filed
ruling in the SLAPP motion pursuant to CCP 425.16 {g).
. [faxed to Mr. Kranz and mailed to him at the same address and fax number my letter indicating
that I would move to quash the notice of deposition if I did not receive a stipulation to withdraw
the notice by Noon on November 3, 2011. A true and correct copy of the two letters (October
27, 2011, and November 2, 2011) which I sent to Mr. Kranz is attached as Exhibit E and F.
. On November 3, 2011, after we had drafted the motion, prepared it to file and was on the way to
court, having indicated that we were going to file the motion to quash the deposition notice, on
November 3, 2011, Mr. Kranz called my office and stated that he was taking the Depositions
Off Calendar. [He had time to schedule his own depositions but would not give me dates he was
available. And, more importantly he received my letters give as a prelude to this motion.]
Again, with every opportunity to provide hearing dates, Mr. Kranz never any dates for hearing on
this SLAPP motion for fees nor did he claim to be unavailable for any particular dates,
Thave therefore scheduled this motion near the end of December 2011, when I am still in San
Francisco and prior to the start of trial in Fresno Superior Court.
. Mr. Kranz Has A Practice Of Waiting To The Time His Opposition Papers Are Due Than
Asking For A Continuance Because He Is Unavailable
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing17. And this request, about the time his opposition papers are due, is not unusual. ‘Mr. Kranz has in
this court and in the US District Court repeatedly submitted requests for continuances at about
the time that his opposition for a motion was due for filing. And it is not unusual for him to
claim that he was suddenly “unavailable.”
F. I Can Not Be Available In January or February 2012 Due To A Trial On A Five Year Case
In Fresno County Superior Court
18. I cannot stipulate to a hearing on this SLAPP fee motion to go into January 2012, or February
2012, as I am set to start trial on January 3, 2012, in Fresno County Superior Court, in the matter
of Richard Gains, et al, v. City of Fresno, on a case where the five year statute has run and was
extended by Defendant City of Fresno to that date.
19. I object to any continuance as this seems to be a regular practice by Mr, Kranz office of seeking a|
continuance about the time that their papers are due, and I have sought since July to get a hearing
date from him only to be ignored and rebuffed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
signed on November 30, 2011, in San Francisco, CalifStpia-
(CE D. MURRAY. (J
Pecot, et al, vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 ~ 501168 Page 5
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingEXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY
OBJECTING TO CONTINUANCE OF THE SLAPP FEE MOTION
-XHIBIT AUTHOR DESCRIPTION
A Hon, LorettaM. | Ruling on SLAPP Motion GRANTING SLAPP Motion
Giorgi
B Lawrence D, Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on July 7,
Murray 2011
c Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on July 27,
| Murray 2011 (see page 2)
D Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on October
Murray 11, 2011
E Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on October
Murray 27,2011 Re Motion For Protective Order
F Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on
Mu November 2, 2011, re Motion For Protective Order
G Lawrence D. Ltr to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on November 3, 2011 confirming
Murray deposition withdrawn
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10 — 501168 Page 6
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingPROOF OF SERVICE '
Tam 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 OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING
THE HEARING ON FEES AS PART OF THE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF
ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT, (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: ($10) 549 5900 Fax: (510) 549 5901 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
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 November 30, 2011.
ae, Lil
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7 |
Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MINUTES.
July 7, 2011 Deparment: 302
JOHNA PECOT et al Case Number: CGC-10-501168
PLAINTIFF Nature of Cause: DEFENDANTS:
DAVID WONG, MICHAEL
vs. ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and
SHEDRICK MCDANIELS, and the
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al SHERIFF'S FOUNDATION'S
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE
COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR,
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
RESERVED FOR LATER MOTION
DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and
SHEDRICK MCDANTELS,and the SAN FRANCISCO. DEPUTY SHERIFF'S.
FOUNDATION'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE
COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS RESERVED FOR
LATER MOTION.
APPEARANCES: Paul L, Kranz, Esq. of Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz $10/$49-5900
for phtfs & opposing parties; Lawrence D. Murray, Esq. of Law Offices of Murray &
Associates 673-0555 for individual defts & moving parties, Andrew J. Maithot, Esq, of
Ongard Burtt & Louderback 433-3900 for deft San Francisco Deputy Sherif’s
Foundation.
RULING: Argued and the Court took the matter under submission. Court ruled on
defendants objections to plaints evidence, sustained in part & overruled in part, order
simed.
After hearing, the Court's final fuling on the motion to strike is as follows:
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Case Title: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, A et al
-i- Date: July 22, 2071
Form: C01006
_ EXHIBIT ADefendants Special Motion to Strike the 1-Sth and 7th causes of action under the anti-
SLAPP statute is granted. Each of these causes of. action arise from both protected
petitioning/free speech activity (presenting the proposed Union dues increase for a vote
of the members and inducing the Union's members to vote for the increase) and
unprotected activity (misappropriation of the dues for purposes other than what was
promised). Because the gravamen of these causes of action is based on nonicidental
protected activity and well as unprotected activity, the first prong of the anti-SLAPP
analysis is satisfied. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures
(2010) 184 Cal. App.4th 1539.
Defendant's argument that the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis is met because of
the preclusive effect of a dismissal of a related Federal Court lawsuit with prejudice as 10
these Defendants fails as to the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th causes of action. The Court has
reviewed the Federal Court action which is a derivative action asserting Federal Statutory
racketeering violations based upon the same facts as asserted here, However, the 7th
cause of action (Removal of Directors for Cause) is identical to one of the causes of
action in the Federal Action. Because that cause of action was dismissed with prejudice
as to the Defendants, it is likely plaintiffs would not prevail on this cause of action under
the doctrine of Res Judicata.
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff would likely not prevail on the 1-5th causes of
action as they are brought long beyond the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs did not
address this argument in their moving papers nor at oral argument. In feviewing the
complaint and the timelines provided therein, the Court agrees that these causes of action
have been brought long beyond the statute of limitations. Accordingly, it is likely that
the Plaintiffs will not prevail on these causes of action as well.
Mr. Murray to prepare an order teflecting the Court's decision as stated above.
(302/LMG) Judge: Loretta M. Giorgi, Reporter: Karla Ellis-Davis, CSR #12998
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Case Title: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, A et al
-2- Date: July 22,
2011
Form: C01006o~ x
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
July 7, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v, San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
Please advise of any dates, in the next six to eight weeks, on which you will not be available for
hearing before Judge Breyer. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Murray & Associates
Lawrence D. Murray
ce: Clients
Ongaro Burtt via fax: (415) 433-3950
Lara Cullinanae-Smith via fax: (925) 609-1690
EXHIBIT B
NSBROADCAST REPORT
TIME : 87/87/2011 13:48
NAME =: MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
FAX =: 1d1592B4a84
TEL | : 14156730555
SER.# : BROD3J388572
[ PAGE(S} a1
DATE TIME FAX NO. /N&ME DURATION PAGE(S) | RESULT COMMENT
o7/e7 | 13:38 | 151a5495981 14 81 QK ECM
a7/a7 | 13:39 | 4333958 id 81 Ok ECM
a7/@7 | 13:39 | 19256891699 36 41 OK
Busy: BUSY/NQ_ RESPON:
RESPONSE
NG: POOR LINE CONDITION
Go: i GOVERPAGE
PC PG-FAX™ o™~
5
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
July 27, 2011
Paul Kranz Via email, Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
First, I would like to ask that you return the signed order after hearing so that I may file that with
the court. Absent that, J will proceed pursuant to California Rules of Court for an unsigned
order.
Second, please consider this letter a request that you immediately and unconditionally dismiss
my clients, the individual plaintiffs with prejudice from the Complaint in San Francisco Superior
Court Case Number CGC-10-501168. Failure to do so will result in a number of motions to be
filed shortly. The reasons are simple.
(a) Each of the individual defendants, other than David Wong, served a nonprofit
corporation without compensation. They are sued by you for conduct while acting
within their capacity as treasurer. (Complaint ff 13-17, 27-31) You did not
seek leave of court to sue then prior to instituting suit against them in violation of
Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.15 either in U.S. District Court or in the
Superior Court of California. Thus, your suit is properly dismissed with prejudice
and the failure to provide me with a dismissal with prejudice by Friday will cause us
to file a motion to dismiss on behalf of the individual defendants under Section
425.15.
(b) Your sole remaining claim, the Sixth Claim for Relief, involves the SFDSA and
David Wong for a violation of Corporation’s Code Section 6333 and 6334 for the
failure to provide inspection of all of the books and records requested. However the
sections you sue on, for a “public benefit corporation,” which the SFDSA is not, can
only be brought against the corporation. Also, it makes no sense to include Wong
since he is no longer President of the SFDSA, and that the only remedy is against the
EXHIBIT C~ ~
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
Paul L. Kranz
Re: Pecot et al v. SFDSA et al
July 27, 2011
Page 2
corporation on the filing of a verified complaint, which this is not. Please see
Corporation's Code Section 6337 and 6338, where all of the requirements and
remedies are against the Corporation and not against the individual.
Please also note that with some limited exceptions, liability for the conduct of a
corporation’s officers is against the corporation and not the individual even when the
conduct alleged is intentional. See Jones vy. The Lodge at Torrey Pines (California
Supreme Court 03/03/2008)
(©) Also, please recall that we stipulated to a stay on all proceedings until the SLAPP
motion was heard and ruled on. (Notably, the first part of the SLAPP motion has
been completed, and we are preparing the second part.) Hence, please consider this a
demand for the payment of security of $50,000 before you take any further action in
this matter. You have sued Mr. Wong, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's
Association (a nonprofit corporation) and the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's
Foundation (a nonprofit corporation). Corporations Code Section 5710 (c) and (e),
applicable to Public Benefit Corporations, and Section 7710 (c) and (e), applicable to
Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporations, which the SFDSA is, provides for the order
of the court for security of up to $50,000, when suit involves a nonprofit. Given the
prior dismissal of the identical claim in Federal District Court, and that you have been
provided with every document you requested in the federal proceeding, we have a
substantial likelihood of success the ultimate case and therefore in securing a bond for
both Wong (as an officer of the nonprofit) and the Foundation, as a nonprofit.)
Please advise if you will stipulate to the entry of an order for the payment of $50,000
as security for your claims against Wong, the SFDSA, and the Foundation.
(Finally, if you do not dismiss with prejudice as requested here for all individuals and the
| Foundation, please advise of your availability in September 2011, otherwise I will schedule the
hearing when convenient for this office.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Murray & Associates
Lawrence D. Murray
ce: Clients
Ongaro Burtt via email and fax: (415) 433-3950
Lara Cullisanae-Smith via email and fax: (925) 609-1690BROADCAST REPORT
TIME ; 87/27/2811 14:38
NAME =: MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
FAX =: 14159284984
TEL oo: 14156730555
SER. # : BROD3J388572
[ PAGE(S) a2
DATE. TIME FAX NO. /NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT | COMMENT
}—___
07/27 | 14:27 | 151@5495901 32 @2 OK ECM
@7/27 | 14:28 | 14154333950 29 a2 OK ECM
87/27 | 14:29 | 19286091690 61:16 a2 OK
BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE
NG; POOR LINE CONDITION
CV: COVERPAGE
PC > PC-FAX\
>
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
October 11, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501 168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
Ihave written to you and called you repeatedly over the past two months in an attempt to get
your agreement on a hearing date for a motion for attomey fees.
To date I have not received a letter, call back or any other response. I will therefore need to file
the motion on a date convenient for me and will object if you complain about the date. Please
respond within two days.
Attached you please find the proposed form of judgment which we will ask the court to sign and
enter after the amount of fees is fixed. Please review and call us within the next two days or we
will schedule the hearing without your input. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Murray & Associates
{Sent without review or signature to avoid delay.]
Lawrence D. Murray
Encl.
EXHIBIT D—- >
ANSMISSTON VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME : 18/11/2011 17:22
: MURRAY &
NAME: ASSOC:
FAX 14159284894 TATES
TEL i 14156730555
SER.# 2 BRODZI398572
DATE, TIME 18/11 17:22
FAX NO. /NAME 15185495981
DURATION 88: 88: 49
PAGE(S)
RESULT OK
FINE
ECM
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
October 11, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L, Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
Thave written to you and called you repeatedly over the past two months in an attempt to get
your agreement on a hearing date for a motion for attorney fees.
Attached you please find the Proposed form of judgment which we will ask the court to sign and
enter after the amount of fees is fixed. Please review and call us within the next two days or we~ ~
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
Arrorneys At Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
October 27, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association
Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents” and enclose the following the
objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order
comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist that I go
through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina
position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed in Superior Court. Please see
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery
occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a
notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in
bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain.
You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining
cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and
not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this
case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which
have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the
foregoing rule.
Very truly yours,
Murray & Associates
Lawrence D. Murray
ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. Ongaro
' EXHIBIT ETIME : 18/27/2911 15:85
NAME: MURRA
: ¥_& ASSOCIATES
FAX : 14159294994
TEL : 14156738555
SER. # : BROD3J388572
PAGE(S) a4
FAX NO. /NAME DURATION [me (Ss) RESULT COMMENT
15185495991 47 a4 OK ECM
29256891690 62:12 64 OK
BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE
NG: POOR LINE CONDITION
CV: COVERPAGE
POC > PC-FAX~ 7
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS At Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
November 2, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 2011 regarding my objections to
the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association Person Most
Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my
previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section
425.16(g).
Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by
removing the deposition from calendar or I will be Torced to file a motion for protective order to
“Block ihe deposition Or the Person Most Knowledgeab fe and request sanctions "you in the
amount of $2,500.
Very truly yours,
Murray & Associates
Lawrence D. Murray
ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. Ongaro
Encl.
EXHIBIT F
SeEXHIBIT B
Preview
IAI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet dan-12-2012 10:42 am c | Case Number: CGC-10-501168 | Filing Date: Jan-12-2012 10:41 | | | Juke Box: 001 Image: 03450222 i DECLARATION JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et 001C03450222 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) a MURRAY & ASSOCIATES I L E Db 1781 Union Street 88n Franoiatio County Superior Coun San Francisco, CA 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 JAN 1B 2012 Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE. CLERK BE THE pouRT and SHEDRICK McDANIELS BY: ue japuty Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH Case No, CGC — 10 -501168 OWYANG. STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, individually DECLARATION OF JOEY NAKAMURA IN and on behalf of ail other similarly situated | OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE | APPLICATION FOR ORDER Plaintiffs, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES vy. Date: January 31, 2012 SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S Time: 9:30 a.m. ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Dept: 302 Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK MEeDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. I, Joey Nakamura, declare that, 1. fama staff member of Murray & Associates and have personal knowledge of attorney Lawrence D. Murray's calendar and can testify thereto. 2. On December 2, 2011, we appeared and opposed defendant’s ex parte application for order continuing the hearing on fees because we waited approximately six (6) months for the other side to give us their availability and they had not. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct Pecot, et al. ¥: DSA, et ai; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 501168 Page 1 Declaration Of Joey Nakamura in Opposition To Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On Feeswo a copy of the Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing the Hearing on Fees as Part of the Special Motion to Strike Causes of Action in the Complaint. 3. The Honorable Judge Harold Kahn of the San Francisco Superior Court signed an order granting continuance of the hearing for the motion for attorney’s fees to January 31, 2012. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In this order, it is stated that “if Mr. Murray is in trial or unavailable...the court will continue the hearing.” 4. Mr. Murray began trial in Fresno on January 3, 2012 and is scheduled to be completed in early February. Mr. Murray is not in trial on Fridays and can appear in San Franeisco Superior Court on any of those days. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed on January 11, 2012, in San Francisco. California. Chih tikuees Ametiag whiaciesite- Chor Origined ) Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.: San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC -- 10 - 501168 Page 2 Declaration Of Joey Nakamura In Opposition ‘Io Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On FeesPROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, | 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 JOEY NAKAMURA IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES 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 Fax: (510) $49 590} 2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Suite 500 Pleasant Hill. CA 94523 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690 Ismith@erlslawyers.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 [ 1 [BY MAIL] | 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] _ | 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 January. 2012. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page3 Declaration Of Joey Nakamura In Opposition To Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing The Hearing On FeesEXHIBIT Aae Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK McDANIELS FLL. ED. NGV 3 0 Batt CLERK QE THE. COURT a Bapuly Cle — SUPERIOR COURT 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 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. Mt it if Mf Case No. CGC — 10 -501168 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES AS PART OF THE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT, (CCP § 425.16) Date: December 1, 2011 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept: 302 Pecot, et al. vs, SFDSA, et al; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing PagelI, Lawrence D. Murray, declare based on my own personal knowledge: Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing _ > A. Introduction 1. Iam the attorney for the past president and past treasurers of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, (the “union), defendants in this action, all of whom are officers of a non-profit corporation which represents the individual deputy sheriffs of the City and County of San Francisco. 2. On November 30, 2011, at about 9:48 am, I received a phone call from Paul Kranz requesting a continuance of the hearing on the fee motion. I explained to him at that time that I could not agree to a continuance beyond December 2011, because (a) I am set to start a Jury Trial for all of January and possibly much of February 2012, in Fresno Superior Court, (b) that for the last five (5) months I have asked Mr. Kranz for a hearing date on the SLAPP fee motion which would work for him, which he has repeatedly ignored and refused to respond to, (c) that this seems to be a pattern for him to call right before his opposition papers are due asking for a continuance because he is suddenly unavailable. 3. Lobject to a continuance of the hearing date on the fee application in this matter, as will be explained below: (a) Since July 2011 I have repeatedly called and written to Mr. Kranz in an attempt to avoid what happened in prior hearings where he sought continuance after continuance because he claimed he was unavailable, and with numerous phone calls and letters faxed to him, he has never so much as once responded to my request for a hearing date or dates when he is unavailable, (b) I am in a Jury Trial in Fresno Superior Court in January and likely February 2012, in Fresno, California which will not permit me to be in this court for a hearing. The Fre matter is a trial on a case where the five year statute has rm and the trial itself must start because there is an offer of zero and clients who insist on it going forward, and (c) in this case and in this matter in as it was presented in the US District Court, a pattern developed that when the opposition papers were due from Kranz office, he seeks a continuance because they were unavailable. B. Plaintiff's Claims Date Back To Events In 2002 & All Claims Were Dismissed By A SLAPP| Ruling5. Al of the claims against these individual defendants were dismissed by reason of the court’s - These Claims Are Virtually Identical To Those Dismissed With Prejudice in District Court . Over the course of the next two months I called Paul Kranz approximately three (3) times leavin; The claims in this action date back to elections which occurred in 2002. ruling on the SLAPP motion itself. See Exhibit A, attached. The only thing left is for a ruling onl the application for attorneys fees on the SLAPP motion and the entry of judgment. I have read the Complaint in this matter and reviewed the actions and inactions which forms the basis for the Complaint here. I was the attorney who defended these identical defendants in US District Court on identical factual claims and secured a dismissal with prejudice of all of these claims. Then, these plaintiffs brought them here for a second time. . I Have Repeatedly Sought A Hearing Date From Mr. Kranz By Phone Requests And Written Requests For A Hearing Date Without Any Response Indicating When He Was Available Or When He Was Unavailable. Even before the ruling was posted on the merits of the SLAPP motion I asked Mr. Kranz for hearing dates which would not conflict with his calendar. See Exhibit B, attached which I sent by fax and US Mail on July 7, 2011. No dates were given to me by Mr. Kranz or his office as a result of this request. The final ruling on the merits of the SLAPP motion was made in late July 2011. [immediately asked for a hearing date from Mr. Kranz by letter of July 27, 2011. On July 27, 2011, 1 sent Exhibit C to Mr. Kranz by fax and US Mail. No dates were given to me by Mr. Kranz or his office as a result of this request. a message on his recorder asking for a hearing date which he could make. I never received a response to any of these three requests. . Because Mr. Kranz has previously sought continuances of the hearing dates on motions at about the time his opposition papers were due, and more particularly on the merits portion of the SLAPP motion itself twice, I did not want to go through the repeated requests for continuance, Additionally, although I set a copy of the form of final order to Mr. Kranz which he refuses to Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 3 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing16. sign, I submitted to the Clerk of this court an d have been waiting for a copy of the signed order to be able to proceed. Having delayed the proceedings so far, I have filed the motion prior to the Start of a lengthy jury trial in the Fresno Superior Court matter. . On October 11, 2011, 1 sent to Mr. Kranz by fax and US mail a letter remind him that J have written to him and called him repeatedly asking for an agreed hearing date on the motion for fees which has received no response. A true copy of the letter that I sent to him is attached as Exhibit D, and incorporated herein. I never received a Tesponse to any of the written requests or phone requests for Mr. Kranz to designate a hearing date. . Approximately one month later, at the time that Mr. Kranz was unable to come up with a date for, a hearing in this matter, he noticed the deposition of the person most knowledgeable for the union in his office going after private information about my clients. The deposition was to be in November 2011. I wrote to him repeatedly that any deposition was stayed pending a filed ruling in the SLAPP motion pursuant to CCP 425.16 {g). . [faxed to Mr. Kranz and mailed to him at the same address and fax number my letter indicating that I would move to quash the notice of deposition if I did not receive a stipulation to withdraw the notice by Noon on November 3, 2011. A true and correct copy of the two letters (October 27, 2011, and November 2, 2011) which I sent to Mr. Kranz is attached as Exhibit E and F. . On November 3, 2011, after we had drafted the motion, prepared it to file and was on the way to court, having indicated that we were going to file the motion to quash the deposition notice, on November 3, 2011, Mr. Kranz called my office and stated that he was taking the Depositions Off Calendar. [He had time to schedule his own depositions but would not give me dates he was available. And, more importantly he received my letters give as a prelude to this motion.] Again, with every opportunity to provide hearing dates, Mr. Kranz never any dates for hearing on this SLAPP motion for fees nor did he claim to be unavailable for any particular dates, Thave therefore scheduled this motion near the end of December 2011, when I am still in San Francisco and prior to the start of trial in Fresno Superior Court. . Mr. Kranz Has A Practice Of Waiting To The Time His Opposition Papers Are Due Than Asking For A Continuance Because He Is Unavailable Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee Hearing17. And this request, about the time his opposition papers are due, is not unusual. ‘Mr. Kranz has in this court and in the US District Court repeatedly submitted requests for continuances at about the time that his opposition for a motion was due for filing. And it is not unusual for him to claim that he was suddenly “unavailable.” F. I Can Not Be Available In January or February 2012 Due To A Trial On A Five Year Case In Fresno County Superior Court 18. I cannot stipulate to a hearing on this SLAPP fee motion to go into January 2012, or February 2012, as I am set to start trial on January 3, 2012, in Fresno County Superior Court, in the matter of Richard Gains, et al, v. City of Fresno, on a case where the five year statute has run and was extended by Defendant City of Fresno to that date. 19. I object to any continuance as this seems to be a regular practice by Mr, Kranz office of seeking a| continuance about the time that their papers are due, and I have sought since July to get a hearing date from him only to be ignored and rebuffed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed on November 30, 2011, in San Francisco, CalifStpia- (CE D. MURRAY. (J Pecot, et al, vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 ~ 501168 Page 5 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingEXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY OBJECTING TO CONTINUANCE OF THE SLAPP FEE MOTION -XHIBIT AUTHOR DESCRIPTION A Hon, LorettaM. | Ruling on SLAPP Motion GRANTING SLAPP Motion Giorgi B Lawrence D, Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on July 7, Murray 2011 c Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on July 27, | Murray 2011 (see page 2) D Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on October Murray 11, 2011 E Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on October Murray 27,2011 Re Motion For Protective Order F Lawrence D. Ltr requesting hearing dates to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on Mu November 2, 2011, re Motion For Protective Order G Lawrence D. Ltr to Mr. Kranz fax and US Mail on November 3, 2011 confirming Murray deposition withdrawn Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10 — 501168 Page 6 Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingPROOF OF SERVICE ' Tam 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 OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON FEES AS PART OF THE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT, (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: ($10) 549 5900 Fax: (510) 549 5901 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500 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 November 30, 2011. ae, Lil Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7 | Murray Opp. To Continue SLAPP Fee HearingSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MINUTES. July 7, 2011 Deparment: 302 JOHNA PECOT et al Case Number: CGC-10-501168 PLAINTIFF Nature of Cause: DEFENDANTS: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL vs. ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK MCDANIELS, and the SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al SHERIFF'S FOUNDATION'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS RESERVED FOR LATER MOTION DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK MCDANTELS,and the SAN FRANCISCO. DEPUTY SHERIFF'S. FOUNDATION'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS RESERVED FOR LATER MOTION. APPEARANCES: Paul L, Kranz, Esq. of Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz $10/$49-5900 for phtfs & opposing parties; Lawrence D. Murray, Esq. of Law Offices of Murray & Associates 673-0555 for individual defts & moving parties, Andrew J. Maithot, Esq, of Ongard Burtt & Louderback 433-3900 for deft San Francisco Deputy Sherif’s Foundation. RULING: Argued and the Court took the matter under submission. Court ruled on defendants objections to plaints evidence, sustained in part & overruled in part, order simed. After hearing, the Court's final fuling on the motion to strike is as follows: Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Case Title: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al -i- Date: July 22, 2071 Form: C01006 _ EXHIBIT ADefendants Special Motion to Strike the 1-Sth and 7th causes of action under the anti- SLAPP statute is granted. Each of these causes of. action arise from both protected petitioning/free speech activity (presenting the proposed Union dues increase for a vote of the members and inducing the Union's members to vote for the increase) and unprotected activity (misappropriation of the dues for purposes other than what was promised). Because the gravamen of these causes of action is based on nonicidental protected activity and well as unprotected activity, the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis is satisfied. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures (2010) 184 Cal. App.4th 1539. Defendant's argument that the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis is met because of the preclusive effect of a dismissal of a related Federal Court lawsuit with prejudice as 10 these Defendants fails as to the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th causes of action. The Court has reviewed the Federal Court action which is a derivative action asserting Federal Statutory racketeering violations based upon the same facts as asserted here, However, the 7th cause of action (Removal of Directors for Cause) is identical to one of the causes of action in the Federal Action. Because that cause of action was dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendants, it is likely plaintiffs would not prevail on this cause of action under the doctrine of Res Judicata. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff would likely not prevail on the 1-5th causes of action as they are brought long beyond the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs did not address this argument in their moving papers nor at oral argument. In feviewing the complaint and the timelines provided therein, the Court agrees that these causes of action have been brought long beyond the statute of limitations. Accordingly, it is likely that the Plaintiffs will not prevail on these causes of action as well. Mr. Murray to prepare an order teflecting the Court's decision as stated above. (302/LMG) Judge: Loretta M. Giorgi, Reporter: Karla Ellis-Davis, CSR #12998 Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Case Title: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al -2- Date: July 22, 2011 Form: C01006o~ x MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 July 7, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v, San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: Please advise of any dates, in the next six to eight weeks, on which you will not be available for hearing before Judge Breyer. Thank you. Sincerely, Murray & Associates Lawrence D. Murray ce: Clients Ongaro Burtt via fax: (415) 433-3950 Lara Cullinanae-Smith via fax: (925) 609-1690 EXHIBIT B NSBROADCAST REPORT TIME : 87/87/2011 13:48 NAME =: MURRAY & ASSOCIATES FAX =: 1d1592B4a84 TEL | : 14156730555 SER.# : BROD3J388572 [ PAGE(S} a1 DATE TIME FAX NO. /N&ME DURATION PAGE(S) | RESULT COMMENT o7/e7 | 13:38 | 151a5495981 14 81 QK ECM a7/a7 | 13:39 | 4333958 id 81 Ok ECM a7/@7 | 13:39 | 19256891699 36 41 OK Busy: BUSY/NQ_ RESPON: RESPONSE NG: POOR LINE CONDITION Go: i GOVERPAGE PC PG-FAX™ o™~ 5 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 July 27, 2011 Paul Kranz Via email, Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: First, I would like to ask that you return the signed order after hearing so that I may file that with the court. Absent that, J will proceed pursuant to California Rules of Court for an unsigned order. Second, please consider this letter a request that you immediately and unconditionally dismiss my clients, the individual plaintiffs with prejudice from the Complaint in San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168. Failure to do so will result in a number of motions to be filed shortly. The reasons are simple. (a) Each of the individual defendants, other than David Wong, served a nonprofit corporation without compensation. They are sued by you for conduct while acting within their capacity as treasurer. (Complaint ff 13-17, 27-31) You did not seek leave of court to sue then prior to instituting suit against them in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.15 either in U.S. District Court or in the Superior Court of California. Thus, your suit is properly dismissed with prejudice and the failure to provide me with a dismissal with prejudice by Friday will cause us to file a motion to dismiss on behalf of the individual defendants under Section 425.15. (b) Your sole remaining claim, the Sixth Claim for Relief, involves the SFDSA and David Wong for a violation of Corporation’s Code Section 6333 and 6334 for the failure to provide inspection of all of the books and records requested. However the sections you sue on, for a “public benefit corporation,” which the SFDSA is not, can only be brought against the corporation. Also, it makes no sense to include Wong since he is no longer President of the SFDSA, and that the only remedy is against the EXHIBIT C~ ~ MURRAY & ASSOCIATES Paul L. Kranz Re: Pecot et al v. SFDSA et al July 27, 2011 Page 2 corporation on the filing of a verified complaint, which this is not. Please see Corporation's Code Section 6337 and 6338, where all of the requirements and remedies are against the Corporation and not against the individual. Please also note that with some limited exceptions, liability for the conduct of a corporation’s officers is against the corporation and not the individual even when the conduct alleged is intentional. See Jones vy. The Lodge at Torrey Pines (California Supreme Court 03/03/2008) (©) Also, please recall that we stipulated to a stay on all proceedings until the SLAPP motion was heard and ruled on. (Notably, the first part of the SLAPP motion has been completed, and we are preparing the second part.) Hence, please consider this a demand for the payment of security of $50,000 before you take any further action in this matter. You have sued Mr. Wong, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association (a nonprofit corporation) and the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation (a nonprofit corporation). Corporations Code Section 5710 (c) and (e), applicable to Public Benefit Corporations, and Section 7710 (c) and (e), applicable to Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporations, which the SFDSA is, provides for the order of the court for security of up to $50,000, when suit involves a nonprofit. Given the prior dismissal of the identical claim in Federal District Court, and that you have been provided with every document you requested in the federal proceeding, we have a substantial likelihood of success the ultimate case and therefore in securing a bond for both Wong (as an officer of the nonprofit) and the Foundation, as a nonprofit.) Please advise if you will stipulate to the entry of an order for the payment of $50,000 as security for your claims against Wong, the SFDSA, and the Foundation. (Finally, if you do not dismiss with prejudice as requested here for all individuals and the | Foundation, please advise of your availability in September 2011, otherwise I will schedule the hearing when convenient for this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Murray & Associates Lawrence D. Murray ce: Clients Ongaro Burtt via email and fax: (415) 433-3950 Lara Cullisanae-Smith via email and fax: (925) 609-1690BROADCAST REPORT TIME ; 87/27/2811 14:38 NAME =: MURRAY & ASSOCIATES FAX =: 14159284984 TEL oo: 14156730555 SER. # : BROD3J388572 [ PAGE(S) a2 DATE. TIME FAX NO. /NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT | COMMENT }—___ 07/27 | 14:27 | 151@5495901 32 @2 OK ECM @7/27 | 14:28 | 14154333950 29 a2 OK ECM 87/27 | 14:29 | 19286091690 61:16 a2 OK BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE NG; POOR LINE CONDITION CV: COVERPAGE PC > PC-FAX\ > MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 October 11, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501 168 Dear Mr. Kranz: Ihave written to you and called you repeatedly over the past two months in an attempt to get your agreement on a hearing date for a motion for attomey fees. To date I have not received a letter, call back or any other response. I will therefore need to file the motion on a date convenient for me and will object if you complain about the date. Please respond within two days. Attached you please find the proposed form of judgment which we will ask the court to sign and enter after the amount of fees is fixed. Please review and call us within the next two days or we will schedule the hearing without your input. Thank you. Sincerely, Murray & Associates {Sent without review or signature to avoid delay.] Lawrence D. Murray Encl. EXHIBIT D—- > ANSMISSTON VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 18/11/2011 17:22 : MURRAY & NAME: ASSOC: FAX 14159284894 TATES TEL i 14156730555 SER.# 2 BRODZI398572 DATE, TIME 18/11 17:22 FAX NO. /NAME 15185495981 DURATION 88: 88: 49 PAGE(S) RESULT OK FINE ECM MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 October 11, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L, Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: Thave written to you and called you repeatedly over the past two months in an attempt to get your agreement on a hearing date for a motion for attorney fees. Attached you please find the Proposed form of judgment which we will ask the court to sign and enter after the amount of fees is fixed. Please review and call us within the next two days or we~ ~ MURRAY & ASSOCIATES Arrorneys At Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 October 27, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents” and enclose the following the objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist that I go through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed in Superior Court. Please see California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain. You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the foregoing rule. Very truly yours, Murray & Associates Lawrence D. Murray ce: Harry S. Stern David R. Ongaro ' EXHIBIT ETIME : 18/27/2911 15:85 NAME: MURRA : ¥_& ASSOCIATES FAX : 14159294994 TEL : 14156738555 SER. # : BROD3J388572 PAGE(S) a4 FAX NO. /NAME DURATION [me (Ss) RESULT COMMENT 15185495991 47 a4 OK ECM 29256891690 62:12 64 OK BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE NG: POOR LINE CONDITION CV: COVERPAGE POC > PC-FAX~ 7 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS At Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 November 2, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 2011 regarding my objections to the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(g). Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by removing the deposition from calendar or I will be Torced to file a motion for protective order to “Block ihe deposition Or the Person Most Knowledgeab fe and request sanctions "you in the amount of $2,500. Very truly yours, Murray & Associates Lawrence D. Murray ce: Harry S. Stern David R. Ongaro Encl. EXHIBIT F SeEXHIBIT B