Preview
MORIS DAVIDOVITZ (SBN #70581)
CHARLES BOLCOM (SBN #193762)
COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
505 Sansome St., Suite 1550
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Tel: (415) 956-9700
Fax: (415) 391-0274
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/26/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant H. K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff.
vs.
H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC., a California
Corporation, FRYMASTER, LLC, an Unknown
Business Entity; NIECO CORPORATION, an
Unknown Business Entity; GLOBE
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Michigan
Corporation; THE MANIWOTOC COMPANY,
INC., an Unknown Business Entity; UNITED
TECHNOLGIES CORPORATION, an Unknown
Business Entity, AND DOES 1 through 100,
Defendant.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
Case No. CGC-17-557590 (Lead)
(Consolidated with Case No. CGC-17-
558406)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT
Date: December 4, 2019
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: 613
Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Complaint Filed: March 16, 2017
Trial Date: None Set
The parties hereby submit their Case Management Conference Statement for the December
4, 2019 conference.
1. Factual Background
This case involves two actions, Amco Insurance Co. v. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc. et al., Case
No. CGC-17-557590, and Delsie et al. v. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-17-558406
arising from a restaurant fire at the Burger King Restaurant in San Francisco, at 35 Powell
Street in April, 2014.
Page 1 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406A. Parties
Plaintiff AMCO Insurance (hereinafter “Amco”) is the property insurance company for
Plaintiff Delsie Incorporated (hereinafter “Delsie”), which is a Burger King franchisee and operator
of the Burger King restaurant at 35 Powell at the time of the fire. Delsie is owned by Plaintiff]
James Hatley as Trustee for The Leonard A. Hatley And Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A And As
Trustee For The Leonard A. Hatley And Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust B (hereinafter “Hatley”), the
property owner where the restaurant is located. Defendant H.K. Fire Protection Inc. (hereinafter
“H.K. Fire”), serviced certain kitchen and fire suppression equipment at the restaurant. Cross-
Defendants Frymaster, LLC, (hereinafter “Frymaster”) Nieco Corporation (hereinafter “Nieco”) and
WKPE, Inc. dba Badger Fire Protection (hereinafter “Badger Fire Protection”) are manufacturers of
the kitchen equipment and/or fire suppression equipment at the Burger King restaurant at the time of
the fire. Cross-Defendant Burger King Corporation (hereinafter “BKC”) is the franchisor of the
restaurant.
B. Procedural History
1. Amco v. H.K. Fire et al. (Case No. CGC-17-557590)
Amco filed its complaint in March 2017 naming H.K. Fire, Frymaster, Nieco, Globe
Technologies Corp., the Manitowoc Co., Inc., Badger Fire Protection as defendants for their alleged
negligence in causing the fire. Defendant H.K. Fire filed its cross-complaint on or about July 5,
2017 naming the same parties as cross-defendants and adding Cross-Defendant BKC. Defendant
and Cross-Defendant Nieco filed a cross-complaint against H.K. Fire.
2. Delsie et al. v. H.K.Fire et al. (Case No. CGC-17-558406)
Delsie and Hatley filed a separate complaint alleging negligence against H.K. Fire and
product liability against Frymaster, Nieco, Globe Technologies Corp., the Manitowoc Company Inc.;
Badger Fire Protection in April, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged that Delsie had not been able to operate the
restaurant for approximately 11 months and claims to have lost rents totaling more than $600,000.
In May 2018, the Court approved H.K. Fire’s motion to consolidate the two actions and
designated as complex the new consolidated action, Case No. CGC-17-557590. Since that time, the
plaintiffs have dismissed all the defendants except for H.K. Fire, which has maintained its cross-
Page 2 —Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F, Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406SC OMe ND
13
15
complaint against Frymaster, Nieco, BKC, Delsie, Hatley and Badger Fire Protection. H.K. Fire has
dismissed Globe Technologies Corp. H.K. Fire has been negotiating with Badger Fire Protection’s
defense counsel regarding a possible dismissal but it is H.K. Fire’s position that it needs additional
information before making a decision on that issue.
2. Ongoing Written Discovery
HLK. Fire has propounded written discovery on Cross-Defendants Nieco, Frymaster, BKC,
Delsie, Badger Fire Protection and Plaintiff Delsie regarding their potential liabilities and defenses
including: the cause of the fire; the fire suppression system; the cross-defendants’ warnings
regarding grease vapors and grease deposits in the kitchen exhaust system; the standards governing
the inspection and cleaning of grease in an exhaust system; the loss of rents alleged; the extent of the
remediation repairs and other alleged damages in the case. Although H.K. Fire has a number of
ongoing disputes with the cross-defendants, H.K. Fire has successfully met and conferred with
Cross-Defendant Delsie and received supplemental responses so that there is no longer any dispute
between the two parties. Plaintiff Delsie and Cross-Defendant BKC have agreed to provide
additional responses but they have yet to provide those additional responses despite H.K. Fire
following up several times.
H.K. Fire and Frymaster have met and conferred on the phone and in writing since the last
case management hearing. Despite H.K. Fire’s arguments and offers, Frymaster maintains that its
answers are sufficient and no further responses are needed. At this point, the two parties agree that
an informal discovery conference would be beneficial regarding H.K. Fire’s requests for admissions,
set one and two, 17.1 form interrogatories, set one and two, and special interrogatories, set one.
HK. Fire has also recently propounded to Frymaster requests for production, set one, and special
interrogatories, set two, in hopes of narrowing the issues between the two parties.
Likewise, despite extensive meet-and-confer efforts and meeting in person, H.K. Fire and
Nieco Corp. have been unable to bridge their differences regarding H.K. Fire’s previous requests for
admissions, set one and two, form interrogatories, set one and two, and special interrogatories, set
one. H.K. Fire believes that an informal discovery conference now would be beneficial for the
parties as it might provide guidance on some of the disputes. As explained in more detail below,
Page 3 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406Nieco believes that an informal discovery conference now would be premature, in large part because
H..K. Fire has recently propounded extensive additional discovery to Nieco relating to the previous
discovery, and Nieco’s responses to some of that additional discovery were just served and Nieco’s
responses to the remainder are not yet due. Nieco submits that H.K. Fire’s recent additional
discovery and Nieco’s responses thereto may resolve, or at least limit and narrow, any disputes that
may exist regarding the previous discovery. It would be premature to have an informal discovery
conference before these outstanding contingencies are addressed by the parties. H.K. Fire disagrees
and believes the disputes involve so many difference pieces of discovery that two hearings are
needed.
The following is a brief summary of the outstanding discovery disputes:
A. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Defendant BKC
Shortly after the last case management hearing, on August 21, 2019, H.K. Fire wrote BKC
asking for times when the two parties could meet-and-confer on the phone. When BKC did not
respond, H.K. Fire wrote again on August 22, 2019 requesting times when the two parties could
meet and confer on the phone regarding BKC’s responses to special interrogatories, set one and set
two and requests for production set one and set two. With still no response, H.K. Fire called and left
a message for BKC requesting times to meet and confer on the phone. That same day, BKC’s
counsel responded with an e-mail that she had not been able to respond because she been in
depositions the last two days. She also said she would not be available to meet and confer on the
phone before she went on vacation on August 27, 2019 due to her busy schedule. She also disagreed
with scheduling an informal discovery conference since BKC would provide additional responses
and documents.
On August 27, 2019, the parties scheduled a telephone conference for September 24, 2019.
On August 30, 2019, BKC cancelled the meeting due to a family emergency. The meeting was
rescheduled for September 30, 2019. During that phone call, BKC’s counsel indicated that an
ongoing family emergency and a pending trial had prevented BKC from answering H.K. Fire’s
discovery. BKC’s counsel proposed a new deadline of November 15, 2019 for responses. H.K. Fire
agreed to the November 15, 2019 deadline on the condition that BKC agreed the parties had
Page 4 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S, F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406exhausted the meet-and-confer process for special interrogatories, set one and set two and requests
for production of documents, set one and set two. BKC agreed to the deadline subject to new meet-
and-confer efforts if new issues were raised. On November 15, 2019, BKC produced no responses
or documents. On November 20, 2019, H.K. Fire called in hopes of meeting and conferring on the
phone regarding the lack of responses and documents. BKC’s counsel was not available and did not
return the call. Instead, BKC wrote that it was still in the process of producing responses and that no
documents could be provided until a confidential order was in place. H.K. Fire reminded BKC that a
confidentiality order was already in place and that was not a reason for not producing documents and
further supplemental responses had not been produced.
1. Cross-Defendant BKC’s Response:
BKC acknowledges that H.K. Fire has been more than accommodating in allowing BKC
time to respond to H.K. Fire’s discovery requests. However, BKC disagrees with version of events
provided to the Court, and believes that H.K. Fire has misrepresented the scope of BKC’s meet and
confer efforts.
a. Set One Discovery Requests
BKC served responses to HK Fire’s Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents, Set One, on August 10, 2018. BKC did not attempt to meet and confer until June 2019,
while the parties were meeting and conferring regarding the scope of H.K. Fire’s Set Two requests to
BKC.
b. Set Two Discovery Requests
In February 2019, H.K. Fire served Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents, Set Two, which requested documents and information dating back to 1980. Due to the
broad nature of the requests, BKC and H.K. Fire engaged in months of meet and confer efforts in an
attempt to narrow the scope of the requests. By June 2019, the parties agreed to allow BKC to
produce a document storage index for responsive documents and information from 1980 through
2013, and agreed to a list of search terms for an electronic search of BKC’s electronic database for
responsive documents and information for the year 2014. BKC then searched for and compiled
documents.
i
Page 5 - Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S, F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406c. Meet and Confer Efforts
As BKC was completing this search, H.K. Fire sent its first meet and confer letter about
BKC’s responses Set One discovery responses (served in 2018). H.K. Fire also continued meet and
confer efforts regarding BKC’s Set Two responses.
Despite H.K. Fire’s representations, BKC has not refused to meet and confer, although BKC
acknowledges that preparing the responses has taken a long time for various reasons. In light of the
agreements between H.K. Fire and BKC’s counsel regarding the scope of BKC’s search for
documents and information, in September 2019 BKC’s counsel represented to H.K. Fire’s counsel
that it would amend its responses H.K. Fire’s Set One discovery requests taking into account all
newly discovered documents and information since 2018, as well as prepare responses to the Set
Two requests. BKC has always represented that it would continue meet and confer efforts after the
responses are served if H.K. Fire still has concerns.
It is true that the parties agreed that BKC would serve responses to the Set One and Set Two
discovery by November 15, 2019. On November 13, 2019, BKC’s counsel advised H.K. Fire’s
counsel that the responses had been prepared and that complete drafts had been sent to general
counsel for BKC to confirm accuracy of the information, to approve service of the responses, and to
verify the responses. H.K. Fire’s counsel has been advised that the responses will be served as soon
as BKC’s general counsel gives authority to do so. Until the responses are served, there is nothing
for the parties to meet and confer about. BKC’s counsel hopes to have responses served before the
CMC, at which point the parties can discuss whether further meet and confer efforts are necessary.
d. Production of Documents Delayed by Failure to Submit Stipulation
Pursuant to the Court’s August 10, 2019 Order
BKC’s counsel did advise H.K. Fire’s counsel that BKC could produce documents and a
privilege log before serving the written responses as early as November 13, 2019. However, the
parties have not all signed the joint stipulation and protective order regarding the disclosure of
confidential information required by the Court’s August 10, 2019 Order (regarding procedures for
challenging confidential designations). BKC has advised H.K. Fire that as soon as the stipulation is
submitted to the Court, BKC will produce documents. BKC’s counsel does not have authority to
produce privileged and/or confidential documents without this stipulation in place.
Page 6 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406NI Dw Fw N
B. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Defendant Nieco
Following the case management hearing in August 2019, H.K. Fire wrote meet-and-confer
letters to Nieco on August 30, 2019 and September 12, 2019 regarding its written discovery and the
parties’ outstanding disputes. In its letters, H.K. Fire suggested that the parties had exhausted its
meet-and-confer efforts and that the parties should seek an informal discovery conference to resolve
the parties’ differences. H.K. Fire also suggested holding a telephone conference instead of
conducting an in-person meeting since the in-person meetings had not resulted in narrowing the
issues.
Nieco responded that it was considering a motion for protective order from H.K. Fire’s
discovery because H.K. Fire would not be able to prove its failure to warn case given Delsie’s
written responses. H.K. Fire disputed that it would not be able to prove its cause of action and said
any such argument would have to wait for summary judgment.
Although H.K. Fire and Nieco have continued to meet and confer, the two parties remain far
apart and cannot even agree on the timing for an informal discovery conference. H.K. Fire seeks an
informal discovery conference as soon as possible while Nieco asserts that any informal discovery
conference should be scheduled after Nieco provides its latest responses. Nieco had asked and
received additional time to respond to H.K. Fire’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One
and Set Two and H.K. Fire’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.
1. Nieco’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Complainant H.K. Fire
With respect to the previous discovery propounded by H.K. Fire to Nieco, the parties have
had several face to face meetings and exchanged numerous letters and emails in an attempt to meet
and confer to resolve, or, at least, limit and narrow, any disputes. Nieco submits this meet and
confer process is not complete and Nieco is willing to continue the process, preferring to meet and
confer in person as opposed to by telephone.
In October 2019, while this meet and confer process was still ongoing, H.K. Fire propounded
extensive additional discovery to Nieco that is closely related to the previous discovery. The
additional discovery included a total of 52 new document requests and 59 new special interrogatories
(which were in addition to the 28 previous special interrogatories, 74 previous requests for
Page 7 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406admission, and two previous sets of form interrogatories). It appears that this recent additional
discovery was prepared by H.K. Fire in an effort to overcome what Nieco believes were legitimate
objections to some of the previous discovery. Nieco’s responses to some of this recent additional
discovery were just served, and its responses to the remainder of this discovery are not yet due.
Because the recent additional discovery is related to the previous discovery, Nieco submits
that its responses to this recent discovery may resolve, or at least limit, narrow, or reframe, any
disputes that were the subject of the prior meet and confer discussions. For that reason, Nieco
believes it would be premature to have an informal discovery conference now before all the
responses to the recent additional discovery are served and before the parties meet and confer on any
possible disputes remaining after that discovery is completed. In addition, because the previous
discovery and recent additional discovery are inter-related, Nieco believes it would be more
efficient, more economical, and lead to more consistency to have an informal discovery conference,
if one is necessary at all, after the meet and confer process is exhausted as to both the previous
discovery and the recent additional discovery.
Cc. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery Cross-Defendant Frymaster
Following the August 2019 case management hearing, H.K. Fire wrote a further meet-and-
confer letter to Frymaster requesting further responses to its requests for admissions, set one and set
two, and arguing that many admissions did not require knowing the serial number of Frymaster’s
fryer. Frymaster maintained that without the serial number, it could not respond to the requests in
question.
On October 15, 2019, H.K. Fire wrote a further meet-and-confer letter requesting further
responses to its special interrogatories. On October 21, 2019, the two parties met and conferred on
the telephone discussing their differences and agreed further efforts should be made to narrow the
disputes. On November 13, 2019, H.K. Fire proposed to withdraw certain requests for admissions
and special interrogatories in hopes that Frymaster would agree to provide supplemental responses.
On November 15, 2019, Frymaster rejected the offer and stated that its responses were compliant
with the code.
if
Page 8 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F, Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406D. ELK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Plaintiff Delsie
Following the case management conference, H.K. Fire asked when Delsie would be available
to discuss on the phone H.K. Fire’s special interrogatories and requests for admissions. Eventually,
the parties met and conferred on the phone and Delsie agreed to provide further responses. Since
that telephone conference, Delsie has yet to provide the additional responses.
E. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery to Cross-Defendant Badger Fire Protection
H.K. Fire propounded special interrogatories and requests for production of documents to
Badger Fire Protection on August 15, 2019. After Badger Fire Protection asked for additional time,
it filed responses on October 24, 2019. H.K. Fire has written a meet-and-confer letter to Badger Fire
Protection requesting further responses and documents. Badger Fire Proection has said that it will
provide a response in the near future.
1. Cross-Defendant Badger Fire Protection's Response
Badger Fire Protection timely served their discovery responses and timely produced
documents on October 24, 2019. No discovery dispute issues were raised by H.K. Fire's counsel
until approximately a month later. On November 20, 2019, counsel for H.K. Fire sent Badger Fire
Protection's counsel an email raising for the first time discovery dispute issues as to certain
responses. Defense counsel for Badger Fire Protection replied to that email the very same day,
advising H.K. Fire's counsel that Badger Fire Protection was evaluating H.K. Fire's meet and confer
positions, that counsel would be pleased to meet and confer on the matter, and that counsel for
Badger Fire Protection would let H.K. Fire's counsel know Badger Fire Protection's positions on
those meet and confer issues in due course. Accordingly, the meet and confer process has just
recently begun, and is ongoing at this time".
3. Proposed Next Case Management Conference
H.K. Fire suggests a further case management conference in early April 2020.
Dated: November 26, 2019 COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
By: /s/ Moris Davidovitz
Moris Davidovitz
Charles Boleom
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
Page 9 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406cS 0D em DD DH
Dated: November 26, 2019
Dated: November 26, 2019
Dated: November 26, 2019
Dated: November 26, 2019
Dated: November 26, 2019
Dated: November 26, 2019
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. SCHNEIDER
By: /s/ Michael Deal
Michael Deal
Attorney for Plaintiff
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY
HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP
By: /s/ Thomas Michael Frieder
Attorney for Cross-Defendants
WKPE, INC. DBA BADGER FIRE
PROTECTION and UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
MANNING, GROSS & MASSENBURG LLP
By: /s/ Haley Hansen
Haley L. Hansen, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
FRYMASTER, LLC
LAW OFFICES OF MARY CATHERINE
WIEDERHOLD
By: /s/ Mary Catherine Wiederhold
Attorney for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
James Hatley As Trustee for the Leonard A.
Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A
and as Trustee for the Leonard A. Hatley and
Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust B
McDOWALL COTTER A.P.C.
By: /s/ Jennifer A. Emmaneel
Jennifer A. Emmaneel, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
BKC CORPORATION
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT DE VRIES
By: /s/ Robert De Vries
Robert De Vries, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant
DELSIE INCORPORATED
Page 10 ~ Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-1 7-558406oN DA wn
Oo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: November 26, 2019 TARKINGTON, O’NEILL, BARRACK & CHONG
By: /s/ Thomas Burch
Thomas C. Burch
Attorney for Cross-Defendant NIECO
CORPORATION
Dated: November 26, 2019 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN AND
SCHELEY
By: /s/ Jeffrey Vucinich
Jeffrey Vucinich, Esq.
Cleve Collado, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant
DELSIE INCORPORATED
Page 11 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406PROOF OF SERVICE
AMCO Insurance Company vs. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-17-557590
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the above-
entitled action. Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California, with the law
firm of Cooper & Scully, A Professional Corporation (“firm”), located at 101 California Street, Suite
3650, San Francisco, California 94111. On this date I served the following document(s):
PARTIES JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
on the party(ies) identified below, in the following manner:
By First Class Mail. I am familiar with the firm’s practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course
of business, correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the
same day such correspondence is collected. I placed true and correct copies of the
document(s) listed above in sealed envelope(s) addressed as shown below and affixed
with first-class postage. I caused such envelope(s) to be collected for mailing in
accordance with the firm’s ordinary business practice.
By Overnight Express Service. I placed a true and correct copy of the document(s)
listed above in sealed envelope(s) addressed as shown below, and caused each such
envelope to be deposited, with delivery fees paid, with an overnight express service
carrier at San Francisco, California.
By EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. I Am readily familiar with the
firm’s practice of email transmission; on this date, I caused the said document to be
electronically served via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the
Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website and that such
transmission was reported as complete and without error or that I did not receive, within a
reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
& I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
Executed November 26, 2019, at San Francisco, California.
Parties Case Management Conference Statement
San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-17-557590SERVICE LIST
Michael Deal, Esq.
Law Office Of McCarthy & Beavers
4685 MacArthur Court, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 250-5536; Fax: (855) 880-5646
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY
Thomas Chambers Burch, Esq.
Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong
201 Mission Street, Suite 710
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 777-5501
Attorneys for Defendant
NIECO CORPORATION
Thomas Michael Frieder, Esq.
Hassard Bonnington LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 288-9800
Attorneys for Defendants
BADGER FIRE PROTECTION and
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
Davis S. Rosenbaum, Esq.
Jennifer A. Emmaneel, Esq.
McDowell Cotter A.P.C.
2070 Pioneer Court
San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650) 572-7933 Fax: (650) 572-0834
Email: jemmaneel@mcdlawyers.net
Attorneys for Defendant
BURGER KING CORPORATION
Haley Hansen, Esq.
Manning, Gross + Massenburg
201 Spear Street, 18" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 527-2804
Fax: (415) 512-6791
Email:hhansen@mgmlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
FRYMASTER, LLC
Robert DeVries, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT DEVRIES
150 Post Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94108
Email: rd@devrieslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DELSIE, INC.
Mary Catherine Wiederhold
Courtney M. Brown
Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold
1458 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: (415) 533-0735; Fax: (415) 843-0496
mew @mewrealestatelaw.com
Attorney for Cross-Defendant JAMES HATLEY
As Trustee for the Leonard A. Hatley and
Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A and as Trustee
of the Leonard A. Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley
1985 Trust B
Jeffrey M. Vucinich, Esq.
Stephen V. Harrington, Esq.
Arthur Khurin, Esq.
CLAPP, MARONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN
& SCHELEY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300
San Bruno, CA 94066
Tel: 650-989-5400
Fax: 650-989-5495
Email: jvucinich@clappmaroney.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
DELSIE, INC.
Parties Case Management Conference Statement
San Francisco Superior Court No, CGC-17-557590
Preview
MORIS DAVIDOVITZ (SBN #70581) CHARLES BOLCOM (SBN #193762) COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 505 Sansome St., Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA. 94111 Tel: (415) 956-9700 Fax: (415) 391-0274 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/26/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant H. K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff. vs. H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC., a California Corporation, FRYMASTER, LLC, an Unknown Business Entity; NIECO CORPORATION, an Unknown Business Entity; GLOBE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation; THE MANIWOTOC COMPANY, INC., an Unknown Business Entity; UNITED TECHNOLGIES CORPORATION, an Unknown Business Entity, AND DOES 1 through 100, Defendant. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS Case No. CGC-17-557590 (Lead) (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-17- 558406) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: December 4, 2019 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 613 Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson Complaint Filed: March 16, 2017 Trial Date: None Set The parties hereby submit their Case Management Conference Statement for the December 4, 2019 conference. 1. Factual Background This case involves two actions, Amco Insurance Co. v. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-17-557590, and Delsie et al. v. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-17-558406 arising from a restaurant fire at the Burger King Restaurant in San Francisco, at 35 Powell Street in April, 2014. Page 1 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406A. Parties Plaintiff AMCO Insurance (hereinafter “Amco”) is the property insurance company for Plaintiff Delsie Incorporated (hereinafter “Delsie”), which is a Burger King franchisee and operator of the Burger King restaurant at 35 Powell at the time of the fire. Delsie is owned by Plaintiff] James Hatley as Trustee for The Leonard A. Hatley And Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A And As Trustee For The Leonard A. Hatley And Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust B (hereinafter “Hatley”), the property owner where the restaurant is located. Defendant H.K. Fire Protection Inc. (hereinafter “H.K. Fire”), serviced certain kitchen and fire suppression equipment at the restaurant. Cross- Defendants Frymaster, LLC, (hereinafter “Frymaster”) Nieco Corporation (hereinafter “Nieco”) and WKPE, Inc. dba Badger Fire Protection (hereinafter “Badger Fire Protection”) are manufacturers of the kitchen equipment and/or fire suppression equipment at the Burger King restaurant at the time of the fire. Cross-Defendant Burger King Corporation (hereinafter “BKC”) is the franchisor of the restaurant. B. Procedural History 1. Amco v. H.K. Fire et al. (Case No. CGC-17-557590) Amco filed its complaint in March 2017 naming H.K. Fire, Frymaster, Nieco, Globe Technologies Corp., the Manitowoc Co., Inc., Badger Fire Protection as defendants for their alleged negligence in causing the fire. Defendant H.K. Fire filed its cross-complaint on or about July 5, 2017 naming the same parties as cross-defendants and adding Cross-Defendant BKC. Defendant and Cross-Defendant Nieco filed a cross-complaint against H.K. Fire. 2. Delsie et al. v. H.K.Fire et al. (Case No. CGC-17-558406) Delsie and Hatley filed a separate complaint alleging negligence against H.K. Fire and product liability against Frymaster, Nieco, Globe Technologies Corp., the Manitowoc Company Inc.; Badger Fire Protection in April, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged that Delsie had not been able to operate the restaurant for approximately 11 months and claims to have lost rents totaling more than $600,000. In May 2018, the Court approved H.K. Fire’s motion to consolidate the two actions and designated as complex the new consolidated action, Case No. CGC-17-557590. Since that time, the plaintiffs have dismissed all the defendants except for H.K. Fire, which has maintained its cross- Page 2 —Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F, Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406SC OMe ND 13 15 complaint against Frymaster, Nieco, BKC, Delsie, Hatley and Badger Fire Protection. H.K. Fire has dismissed Globe Technologies Corp. H.K. Fire has been negotiating with Badger Fire Protection’s defense counsel regarding a possible dismissal but it is H.K. Fire’s position that it needs additional information before making a decision on that issue. 2. Ongoing Written Discovery HLK. Fire has propounded written discovery on Cross-Defendants Nieco, Frymaster, BKC, Delsie, Badger Fire Protection and Plaintiff Delsie regarding their potential liabilities and defenses including: the cause of the fire; the fire suppression system; the cross-defendants’ warnings regarding grease vapors and grease deposits in the kitchen exhaust system; the standards governing the inspection and cleaning of grease in an exhaust system; the loss of rents alleged; the extent of the remediation repairs and other alleged damages in the case. Although H.K. Fire has a number of ongoing disputes with the cross-defendants, H.K. Fire has successfully met and conferred with Cross-Defendant Delsie and received supplemental responses so that there is no longer any dispute between the two parties. Plaintiff Delsie and Cross-Defendant BKC have agreed to provide additional responses but they have yet to provide those additional responses despite H.K. Fire following up several times. H.K. Fire and Frymaster have met and conferred on the phone and in writing since the last case management hearing. Despite H.K. Fire’s arguments and offers, Frymaster maintains that its answers are sufficient and no further responses are needed. At this point, the two parties agree that an informal discovery conference would be beneficial regarding H.K. Fire’s requests for admissions, set one and two, 17.1 form interrogatories, set one and two, and special interrogatories, set one. HK. Fire has also recently propounded to Frymaster requests for production, set one, and special interrogatories, set two, in hopes of narrowing the issues between the two parties. Likewise, despite extensive meet-and-confer efforts and meeting in person, H.K. Fire and Nieco Corp. have been unable to bridge their differences regarding H.K. Fire’s previous requests for admissions, set one and two, form interrogatories, set one and two, and special interrogatories, set one. H.K. Fire believes that an informal discovery conference now would be beneficial for the parties as it might provide guidance on some of the disputes. As explained in more detail below, Page 3 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406Nieco believes that an informal discovery conference now would be premature, in large part because H..K. Fire has recently propounded extensive additional discovery to Nieco relating to the previous discovery, and Nieco’s responses to some of that additional discovery were just served and Nieco’s responses to the remainder are not yet due. Nieco submits that H.K. Fire’s recent additional discovery and Nieco’s responses thereto may resolve, or at least limit and narrow, any disputes that may exist regarding the previous discovery. It would be premature to have an informal discovery conference before these outstanding contingencies are addressed by the parties. H.K. Fire disagrees and believes the disputes involve so many difference pieces of discovery that two hearings are needed. The following is a brief summary of the outstanding discovery disputes: A. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Defendant BKC Shortly after the last case management hearing, on August 21, 2019, H.K. Fire wrote BKC asking for times when the two parties could meet-and-confer on the phone. When BKC did not respond, H.K. Fire wrote again on August 22, 2019 requesting times when the two parties could meet and confer on the phone regarding BKC’s responses to special interrogatories, set one and set two and requests for production set one and set two. With still no response, H.K. Fire called and left a message for BKC requesting times to meet and confer on the phone. That same day, BKC’s counsel responded with an e-mail that she had not been able to respond because she been in depositions the last two days. She also said she would not be available to meet and confer on the phone before she went on vacation on August 27, 2019 due to her busy schedule. She also disagreed with scheduling an informal discovery conference since BKC would provide additional responses and documents. On August 27, 2019, the parties scheduled a telephone conference for September 24, 2019. On August 30, 2019, BKC cancelled the meeting due to a family emergency. The meeting was rescheduled for September 30, 2019. During that phone call, BKC’s counsel indicated that an ongoing family emergency and a pending trial had prevented BKC from answering H.K. Fire’s discovery. BKC’s counsel proposed a new deadline of November 15, 2019 for responses. H.K. Fire agreed to the November 15, 2019 deadline on the condition that BKC agreed the parties had Page 4 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S, F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406exhausted the meet-and-confer process for special interrogatories, set one and set two and requests for production of documents, set one and set two. BKC agreed to the deadline subject to new meet- and-confer efforts if new issues were raised. On November 15, 2019, BKC produced no responses or documents. On November 20, 2019, H.K. Fire called in hopes of meeting and conferring on the phone regarding the lack of responses and documents. BKC’s counsel was not available and did not return the call. Instead, BKC wrote that it was still in the process of producing responses and that no documents could be provided until a confidential order was in place. H.K. Fire reminded BKC that a confidentiality order was already in place and that was not a reason for not producing documents and further supplemental responses had not been produced. 1. Cross-Defendant BKC’s Response: BKC acknowledges that H.K. Fire has been more than accommodating in allowing BKC time to respond to H.K. Fire’s discovery requests. However, BKC disagrees with version of events provided to the Court, and believes that H.K. Fire has misrepresented the scope of BKC’s meet and confer efforts. a. Set One Discovery Requests BKC served responses to HK Fire’s Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on August 10, 2018. BKC did not attempt to meet and confer until June 2019, while the parties were meeting and conferring regarding the scope of H.K. Fire’s Set Two requests to BKC. b. Set Two Discovery Requests In February 2019, H.K. Fire served Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, which requested documents and information dating back to 1980. Due to the broad nature of the requests, BKC and H.K. Fire engaged in months of meet and confer efforts in an attempt to narrow the scope of the requests. By June 2019, the parties agreed to allow BKC to produce a document storage index for responsive documents and information from 1980 through 2013, and agreed to a list of search terms for an electronic search of BKC’s electronic database for responsive documents and information for the year 2014. BKC then searched for and compiled documents. i Page 5 - Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S, F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406c. Meet and Confer Efforts As BKC was completing this search, H.K. Fire sent its first meet and confer letter about BKC’s responses Set One discovery responses (served in 2018). H.K. Fire also continued meet and confer efforts regarding BKC’s Set Two responses. Despite H.K. Fire’s representations, BKC has not refused to meet and confer, although BKC acknowledges that preparing the responses has taken a long time for various reasons. In light of the agreements between H.K. Fire and BKC’s counsel regarding the scope of BKC’s search for documents and information, in September 2019 BKC’s counsel represented to H.K. Fire’s counsel that it would amend its responses H.K. Fire’s Set One discovery requests taking into account all newly discovered documents and information since 2018, as well as prepare responses to the Set Two requests. BKC has always represented that it would continue meet and confer efforts after the responses are served if H.K. Fire still has concerns. It is true that the parties agreed that BKC would serve responses to the Set One and Set Two discovery by November 15, 2019. On November 13, 2019, BKC’s counsel advised H.K. Fire’s counsel that the responses had been prepared and that complete drafts had been sent to general counsel for BKC to confirm accuracy of the information, to approve service of the responses, and to verify the responses. H.K. Fire’s counsel has been advised that the responses will be served as soon as BKC’s general counsel gives authority to do so. Until the responses are served, there is nothing for the parties to meet and confer about. BKC’s counsel hopes to have responses served before the CMC, at which point the parties can discuss whether further meet and confer efforts are necessary. d. Production of Documents Delayed by Failure to Submit Stipulation Pursuant to the Court’s August 10, 2019 Order BKC’s counsel did advise H.K. Fire’s counsel that BKC could produce documents and a privilege log before serving the written responses as early as November 13, 2019. However, the parties have not all signed the joint stipulation and protective order regarding the disclosure of confidential information required by the Court’s August 10, 2019 Order (regarding procedures for challenging confidential designations). BKC has advised H.K. Fire that as soon as the stipulation is submitted to the Court, BKC will produce documents. BKC’s counsel does not have authority to produce privileged and/or confidential documents without this stipulation in place. Page 6 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406NI Dw Fw N B. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Defendant Nieco Following the case management hearing in August 2019, H.K. Fire wrote meet-and-confer letters to Nieco on August 30, 2019 and September 12, 2019 regarding its written discovery and the parties’ outstanding disputes. In its letters, H.K. Fire suggested that the parties had exhausted its meet-and-confer efforts and that the parties should seek an informal discovery conference to resolve the parties’ differences. H.K. Fire also suggested holding a telephone conference instead of conducting an in-person meeting since the in-person meetings had not resulted in narrowing the issues. Nieco responded that it was considering a motion for protective order from H.K. Fire’s discovery because H.K. Fire would not be able to prove its failure to warn case given Delsie’s written responses. H.K. Fire disputed that it would not be able to prove its cause of action and said any such argument would have to wait for summary judgment. Although H.K. Fire and Nieco have continued to meet and confer, the two parties remain far apart and cannot even agree on the timing for an informal discovery conference. H.K. Fire seeks an informal discovery conference as soon as possible while Nieco asserts that any informal discovery conference should be scheduled after Nieco provides its latest responses. Nieco had asked and received additional time to respond to H.K. Fire’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Set Two and H.K. Fire’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. 1. Nieco’s Account of Discovery with Cross-Complainant H.K. Fire With respect to the previous discovery propounded by H.K. Fire to Nieco, the parties have had several face to face meetings and exchanged numerous letters and emails in an attempt to meet and confer to resolve, or, at least, limit and narrow, any disputes. Nieco submits this meet and confer process is not complete and Nieco is willing to continue the process, preferring to meet and confer in person as opposed to by telephone. In October 2019, while this meet and confer process was still ongoing, H.K. Fire propounded extensive additional discovery to Nieco that is closely related to the previous discovery. The additional discovery included a total of 52 new document requests and 59 new special interrogatories (which were in addition to the 28 previous special interrogatories, 74 previous requests for Page 7 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406admission, and two previous sets of form interrogatories). It appears that this recent additional discovery was prepared by H.K. Fire in an effort to overcome what Nieco believes were legitimate objections to some of the previous discovery. Nieco’s responses to some of this recent additional discovery were just served, and its responses to the remainder of this discovery are not yet due. Because the recent additional discovery is related to the previous discovery, Nieco submits that its responses to this recent discovery may resolve, or at least limit, narrow, or reframe, any disputes that were the subject of the prior meet and confer discussions. For that reason, Nieco believes it would be premature to have an informal discovery conference now before all the responses to the recent additional discovery are served and before the parties meet and confer on any possible disputes remaining after that discovery is completed. In addition, because the previous discovery and recent additional discovery are inter-related, Nieco believes it would be more efficient, more economical, and lead to more consistency to have an informal discovery conference, if one is necessary at all, after the meet and confer process is exhausted as to both the previous discovery and the recent additional discovery. Cc. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery Cross-Defendant Frymaster Following the August 2019 case management hearing, H.K. Fire wrote a further meet-and- confer letter to Frymaster requesting further responses to its requests for admissions, set one and set two, and arguing that many admissions did not require knowing the serial number of Frymaster’s fryer. Frymaster maintained that without the serial number, it could not respond to the requests in question. On October 15, 2019, H.K. Fire wrote a further meet-and-confer letter requesting further responses to its special interrogatories. On October 21, 2019, the two parties met and conferred on the telephone discussing their differences and agreed further efforts should be made to narrow the disputes. On November 13, 2019, H.K. Fire proposed to withdraw certain requests for admissions and special interrogatories in hopes that Frymaster would agree to provide supplemental responses. On November 15, 2019, Frymaster rejected the offer and stated that its responses were compliant with the code. if Page 8 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F, Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406D. ELK. Fire’s Account of Discovery with Plaintiff Delsie Following the case management conference, H.K. Fire asked when Delsie would be available to discuss on the phone H.K. Fire’s special interrogatories and requests for admissions. Eventually, the parties met and conferred on the phone and Delsie agreed to provide further responses. Since that telephone conference, Delsie has yet to provide the additional responses. E. HK. Fire’s Account of Discovery to Cross-Defendant Badger Fire Protection H.K. Fire propounded special interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Badger Fire Protection on August 15, 2019. After Badger Fire Protection asked for additional time, it filed responses on October 24, 2019. H.K. Fire has written a meet-and-confer letter to Badger Fire Protection requesting further responses and documents. Badger Fire Proection has said that it will provide a response in the near future. 1. Cross-Defendant Badger Fire Protection's Response Badger Fire Protection timely served their discovery responses and timely produced documents on October 24, 2019. No discovery dispute issues were raised by H.K. Fire's counsel until approximately a month later. On November 20, 2019, counsel for H.K. Fire sent Badger Fire Protection's counsel an email raising for the first time discovery dispute issues as to certain responses. Defense counsel for Badger Fire Protection replied to that email the very same day, advising H.K. Fire's counsel that Badger Fire Protection was evaluating H.K. Fire's meet and confer positions, that counsel would be pleased to meet and confer on the matter, and that counsel for Badger Fire Protection would let H.K. Fire's counsel know Badger Fire Protection's positions on those meet and confer issues in due course. Accordingly, the meet and confer process has just recently begun, and is ongoing at this time". 3. Proposed Next Case Management Conference H.K. Fire suggests a further case management conference in early April 2020. Dated: November 26, 2019 COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. By: /s/ Moris Davidovitz Moris Davidovitz Charles Boleom Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC. Page 9 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406cS 0D em DD DH Dated: November 26, 2019 Dated: November 26, 2019 Dated: November 26, 2019 Dated: November 26, 2019 Dated: November 26, 2019 Dated: November 26, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. SCHNEIDER By: /s/ Michael Deal Michael Deal Attorney for Plaintiff AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP By: /s/ Thomas Michael Frieder Attorney for Cross-Defendants WKPE, INC. DBA BADGER FIRE PROTECTION and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION MANNING, GROSS & MASSENBURG LLP By: /s/ Haley Hansen Haley L. Hansen, Esq. Attorney for Defendant FRYMASTER, LLC LAW OFFICES OF MARY CATHERINE WIEDERHOLD By: /s/ Mary Catherine Wiederhold Attorney for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant James Hatley As Trustee for the Leonard A. Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A and as Trustee for the Leonard A. Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust B McDOWALL COTTER A.P.C. By: /s/ Jennifer A. Emmaneel Jennifer A. Emmaneel, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BKC CORPORATION LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT DE VRIES By: /s/ Robert De Vries Robert De Vries, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant DELSIE INCORPORATED Page 10 ~ Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-1 7-558406oN DA wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 26, 2019 TARKINGTON, O’NEILL, BARRACK & CHONG By: /s/ Thomas Burch Thomas C. Burch Attorney for Cross-Defendant NIECO CORPORATION Dated: November 26, 2019 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN AND SCHELEY By: /s/ Jeffrey Vucinich Jeffrey Vucinich, Esq. Cleve Collado, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant DELSIE INCORPORATED Page 11 — Parties Joint Management Conference Statement, S. F. Superior Court Cases Nos.CGC-17-55790 & CGC-17-558406PROOF OF SERVICE AMCO Insurance Company vs. H.K. Fire Protection, Inc., et al. San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-17-557590 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the above- entitled action. Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California, with the law firm of Cooper & Scully, A Professional Corporation (“firm”), located at 101 California Street, Suite 3650, San Francisco, California 94111. On this date I served the following document(s): PARTIES JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT on the party(ies) identified below, in the following manner: By First Class Mail. I am familiar with the firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day such correspondence is collected. I placed true and correct copies of the document(s) listed above in sealed envelope(s) addressed as shown below and affixed with first-class postage. I caused such envelope(s) to be collected for mailing in accordance with the firm’s ordinary business practice. By Overnight Express Service. I placed a true and correct copy of the document(s) listed above in sealed envelope(s) addressed as shown below, and caused each such envelope to be deposited, with delivery fees paid, with an overnight express service carrier at San Francisco, California. By EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. I Am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of email transmission; on this date, I caused the said document to be electronically served via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website and that such transmission was reported as complete and without error or that I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST & I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed November 26, 2019, at San Francisco, California. Parties Case Management Conference Statement San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-17-557590SERVICE LIST Michael Deal, Esq. Law Office Of McCarthy & Beavers 4685 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 250-5536; Fax: (855) 880-5646 Attorneys for Plaintiff AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY Thomas Chambers Burch, Esq. Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong 201 Mission Street, Suite 710 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 777-5501 Attorneys for Defendant NIECO CORPORATION Thomas Michael Frieder, Esq. Hassard Bonnington LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 288-9800 Attorneys for Defendants BADGER FIRE PROTECTION and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Davis S. Rosenbaum, Esq. Jennifer A. Emmaneel, Esq. McDowell Cotter A.P.C. 2070 Pioneer Court San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel: (650) 572-7933 Fax: (650) 572-0834 Email: jemmaneel@mcdlawyers.net Attorneys for Defendant BURGER KING CORPORATION Haley Hansen, Esq. Manning, Gross + Massenburg 201 Spear Street, 18" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 527-2804 Fax: (415) 512-6791 Email:hhansen@mgmlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant FRYMASTER, LLC Robert DeVries, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT DEVRIES 150 Post Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94108 Email: rd@devrieslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DELSIE, INC. Mary Catherine Wiederhold Courtney M. Brown Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold 1458 Sutter Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 533-0735; Fax: (415) 843-0496 mew @mewrealestatelaw.com Attorney for Cross-Defendant JAMES HATLEY As Trustee for the Leonard A. Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust A and as Trustee of the Leonard A. Hatley and Dorothy C. Hatley 1985 Trust B Jeffrey M. Vucinich, Esq. Stephen V. Harrington, Esq. Arthur Khurin, Esq. CLAPP, MARONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN & SCHELEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300 San Bruno, CA 94066 Tel: 650-989-5400 Fax: 650-989-5495 Email: jvucinich@clappmaroney.com Attorneys for Cross-Defendant DELSIE, INC. Parties Case Management Conference Statement San Francisco Superior Court No, CGC-17-557590