Preview
1 DANIEL JOHNSON, JR. (SBN 57409)
MAE A. STILES (SBN 304976) FILED
2 DAN JOHNSON LAW GROUP, LLP Superior Court Of Californ a.
400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 321 Sacramento
3 South San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: 415-604-4500 05/i 3/201S
4 Facsimile: 415-604-4438
By , Depu^
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CaStt Mumbai"
SUSHIL PATEL, et al
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 SUSHIL PATEL and ELIZABETH NO. 34-2016-00190681-CU-BC-GDS
BRANNON-PATEL, Individually and as
11 Trustees of THE PATEL FAMILY DECLARATION OF DANIEL
TRUST, Dated December 31, 2003, et al.. JOHNSON, J R , IN SUPPORT OF
12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
Plaintiffs, CHANGE OF VENUE
13
vs. Date: May 27, 2016
14 Time: 9:30 a.m.
EDWARD R. DeLORME, USHA Dept: 47
15 DeLORME, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive. Complaint Filed: February 19, 2016
16
Defendants. DEMAND EXCEEDS $10,000.00
17
18
19 I, Daniel Johnson, Jr., declare:
20 1. I am a partner at the Dan Johnson Law Group, LLP, attorney of record for
21 plaintiffs in the above captioned action.
22 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
23 myself and defendants' counsel dated April 21, 2016.
24 3. In the event this Court determines that plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees
25 should be granted, I will submit a supplemental declaration enumerating the exact hours that
26 have been spent preparing and arguing this Opposition.
27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
8 foregoing is true and correct.
-1-
DECL OF JOHNSON ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
1 Executed this tl day of May, 2016 at South San Francisco, California
2
3 D JOHNSON,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECL OF JOHNSON ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
EXHIBIT A
Kim Olivares
From: Dan Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Kim Olivares
Subject: FW: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
From: Dan Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:07 PM
To: Irina Mazor
Subject: Re: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
I will not bother to deal with your arguments further. We will file a reply and an appropriate motion to your frivolous claims.
From: Irina Mazor
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:24 PM
To;.Daniel Johnson <:dan@daniohnsonlawgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
Dear Dan:
We disagree. A judicial admission exists when one party alleges a fact to be true and the other party admits the truth of
that allegation. That is exactly what has happened in this case. Plaintiffs alleged the county of defendants' residence as
LA and our motion admits that allegation. As the portion of CCP 395 which you quoted states that the residence of
defendants controls venue, LA is clearly the proper venue for this case under the statute which you cite. Simply because
Presidio is headquartered in Sacramento does not mean that such county is the place of performance ofthe operating
agreement. In fact, the case law holds that this venue factor only applies when the contract expressly states on its face
that performance must be rendered in a specific county. The agreement in this case does not so specify and, as your
previous message admits, performance of that agreement occurs in multiple counties, so the place of performance
analysis simply does not apply. Again, Defendants' residence controls the question of venue and the court's file
establishes that such residence is LA.
Regards,
Irina J. Mazor, Xsq.
LindBorg & Mazor LLT
550 M 'Brand'BCvd., Suite 1830
(gCendak, CaCifomia 91203
TeQ (818)637-8325
Jax:(8i8) 637-8376
wM^v. Cm.CCp. com.
im.azor@Cm.CCp.com,
From: Dan Johnson rmailto:dan@daniohnsonlawQroup.com1
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Irina Mazor
Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
1
Excuse me. There is no admission. Your clients actually live in Woodland. A mistake in the pleadings changes nothing. I
will file the motion and by the way you are relying on the wrong portion of CCP 395 as the basis for your motion. Had
you bothered to read the relevant section of the CCP (section 395) you would have seen the following:
"Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b), when a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular
county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed or in which the contract in fact was entered into or
the county in which the defendant or any such defendant resides at the commencement of the action shall be a proper
county for the trial of an action founded on such an obligation, and the county in which such obligation incurred shall be
deemed to be the county in which it is performed unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary."
The residence of Presidio Partners in Sacramento. Your client is a member. The contract specifies where the offices
are. Please withdraw your motion and file an answer.
DAN JOHNSON
Dan Johnson Law Group
Office 415-604-4500
Mobile 415-439-3310
Fax 415-604-4999
400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 321
South San Francisco CA 94080
Please Note: This email message is for the sole use of the designated recipient and may contain attorney-client
pri\?ileged information or confidential attorney work product. If you are not the designated recipient kindly contact the
sender and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Irina Mazor lmailto:imazor@lmllp.com1
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:53 AM
To: Dan Johnson
Cc: Mae Stiles : Mario Moore
Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
Dear Dan:
As you know, your complaint alleges that the Defendants reside in LA County and you are bound by that judicial
admission. Neither the headquarters of a plaintiff company or the location of its projects serve as the statutory basis for
venue of an action under any section of the CCP. If you can provide us with authority which says otherwise, we will be
pleased to consider it.
Regards,
Irina J. Mazor, Tsq.
LindBorg & Mazor LLT
550 M 'Brand'BC'vd., Suite 1830
(gCendaCe., CaCifomia 91203
TeC (818)637-8325
fax:(8i8) 637-8376
www. CmCCp. com
imaz or@CmCCj>.com.
From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan@)daniohnsonlaworoup.com1
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Irina Mazor
Cc: Mae Stiles; Mario Moore
Subject: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions
Irina
We have reviewed your motion and the request to move the matter to LA county and request that you withdraw it or
we will move to strike it and seek sanctions. As can be seen from a recent search your clients live in Woodland, a
suburb of Sacramento and before that lived in Orange county. Mr. DeLorme is a member in Presidio and the Presidio
offices are in Sacramento as the contract he signed specifies. Moreover, Sacramento has a strong interest in the dispute
as all of the Californian projects are in northern California. There is no basis for a venue in LA county and your motion
provided no evidence other than attorney argument.
You have 5 days to withdraw your motion and answer the complaint.
DAN JOHNSON
Dan Johnson Law Group
Office 415-604-4500
Mobile 415-439-3310
Fax 415-604-4999
400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 321
South San Francisco CA 94080
Please Note: This email message is for the sole use of the designated recipient and may contain attorney-client
privileged information or confidential attorney work product. If you are not the designated recipient kindly contact the
sender and destroy all copies ofthe original message.
Preview
1 DANIEL JOHNSON, JR. (SBN 57409) MAE A. STILES (SBN 304976) FILED 2 DAN JOHNSON LAW GROUP, LLP Superior Court Of Californ a. 400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 321 Sacramento 3 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: 415-604-4500 05/i 3/201S 4 Facsimile: 415-604-4438 By , Depu^ 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CaStt Mumbai" SUSHIL PATEL, et al 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 SUSHIL PATEL and ELIZABETH NO. 34-2016-00190681-CU-BC-GDS BRANNON-PATEL, Individually and as 11 Trustees of THE PATEL FAMILY DECLARATION OF DANIEL TRUST, Dated December 31, 2003, et al.. JOHNSON, J R , IN SUPPORT OF 12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, CHANGE OF VENUE 13 vs. Date: May 27, 2016 14 Time: 9:30 a.m. EDWARD R. DeLORME, USHA Dept: 47 15 DeLORME, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: February 19, 2016 16 Defendants. DEMAND EXCEEDS $10,000.00 17 18 19 I, Daniel Johnson, Jr., declare: 20 1. I am a partner at the Dan Johnson Law Group, LLP, attorney of record for 21 plaintiffs in the above captioned action. 22 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between 23 myself and defendants' counsel dated April 21, 2016. 24 3. In the event this Court determines that plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees 25 should be granted, I will submit a supplemental declaration enumerating the exact hours that 26 have been spent preparing and arguing this Opposition. 27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the 8 foregoing is true and correct. -1- DECL OF JOHNSON ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE 1 Executed this tl day of May, 2016 at South San Francisco, California 2 3 D JOHNSON, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- DECL OF JOHNSON ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE EXHIBIT A Kim Olivares From: Dan Johnson Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:08 AM To: Kim Olivares Subject: FW: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions From: Dan Johnson Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:07 PM To: Irina Mazor Subject: Re: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions I will not bother to deal with your arguments further. We will file a reply and an appropriate motion to your frivolous claims. From: Irina Mazor Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:24 PM To;.Daniel Johnson <:dan@daniohnsonlawgroup.com> Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions Dear Dan: We disagree. A judicial admission exists when one party alleges a fact to be true and the other party admits the truth of that allegation. That is exactly what has happened in this case. Plaintiffs alleged the county of defendants' residence as LA and our motion admits that allegation. As the portion of CCP 395 which you quoted states that the residence of defendants controls venue, LA is clearly the proper venue for this case under the statute which you cite. Simply because Presidio is headquartered in Sacramento does not mean that such county is the place of performance ofthe operating agreement. In fact, the case law holds that this venue factor only applies when the contract expressly states on its face that performance must be rendered in a specific county. The agreement in this case does not so specify and, as your previous message admits, performance of that agreement occurs in multiple counties, so the place of performance analysis simply does not apply. Again, Defendants' residence controls the question of venue and the court's file establishes that such residence is LA. Regards, Irina J. Mazor, Xsq. LindBorg & Mazor LLT 550 M 'Brand'BCvd., Suite 1830 (gCendak, CaCifomia 91203 TeQ (818)637-8325 Jax:(8i8) 637-8376 wM^v. Cm.CCp. com. im.azor@Cm.CCp.com, From: Dan Johnson rmailto:dan@daniohnsonlawQroup.com1 Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 12:15 PM To: Irina Mazor Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions 1 Excuse me. There is no admission. Your clients actually live in Woodland. A mistake in the pleadings changes nothing. I will file the motion and by the way you are relying on the wrong portion of CCP 395 as the basis for your motion. Had you bothered to read the relevant section of the CCP (section 395) you would have seen the following: "Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b), when a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed or in which the contract in fact was entered into or the county in which the defendant or any such defendant resides at the commencement of the action shall be a proper county for the trial of an action founded on such an obligation, and the county in which such obligation incurred shall be deemed to be the county in which it is performed unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary." The residence of Presidio Partners in Sacramento. Your client is a member. The contract specifies where the offices are. Please withdraw your motion and file an answer. DAN JOHNSON Dan Johnson Law Group Office 415-604-4500 Mobile 415-439-3310 Fax 415-604-4999 400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 321 South San Francisco CA 94080 Please Note: This email message is for the sole use of the designated recipient and may contain attorney-client pri\?ileged information or confidential attorney work product. If you are not the designated recipient kindly contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Irina Mazor lmailto:imazor@lmllp.com1 Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:53 AM To: Dan Johnson Cc: Mae Stiles : Mario Moore Subject: RE: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions Dear Dan: As you know, your complaint alleges that the Defendants reside in LA County and you are bound by that judicial admission. Neither the headquarters of a plaintiff company or the location of its projects serve as the statutory basis for venue of an action under any section of the CCP. If you can provide us with authority which says otherwise, we will be pleased to consider it. Regards, Irina J. Mazor, Tsq. LindBorg & Mazor LLT 550 M 'Brand'BC'vd., Suite 1830 (gCendaCe., CaCifomia 91203 TeC (818)637-8325 fax:(8i8) 637-8376 www. CmCCp. com imaz or@CmCCj>.com. From: Dan Johnson [mailto:dan@)daniohnsonlaworoup.com1 Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:40 AM To: Irina Mazor Cc: Mae Stiles; Mario Moore Subject: Demand to withdraw motion or face sanctions Irina We have reviewed your motion and the request to move the matter to LA county and request that you withdraw it or we will move to strike it and seek sanctions. As can be seen from a recent search your clients live in Woodland, a suburb of Sacramento and before that lived in Orange county. Mr. DeLorme is a member in Presidio and the Presidio offices are in Sacramento as the contract he signed specifies. Moreover, Sacramento has a strong interest in the dispute as all of the Californian projects are in northern California. There is no basis for a venue in LA county and your motion provided no evidence other than attorney argument. You have 5 days to withdraw your motion and answer the complaint. DAN JOHNSON Dan Johnson Law Group Office 415-604-4500 Mobile 415-439-3310 Fax 415-604-4999 400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 321 South San Francisco CA 94080 Please Note: This email message is for the sole use of the designated recipient and may contain attorney-client privileged information or confidential attorney work product. If you are not the designated recipient kindly contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe original message.