arrow left
arrow right
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
  • Dallas Johns vs. Centex Homes / COMPLEX10 Unlimited - Construction Defect document preview
						
                                

Preview

E-FILED 6/18/2018 12:31 PM Luke P. Ryan, Esq., SBN 167634 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Ernie W. Chen, Esq. SBN 309880 By: L. Whipple, Deputy echen@srfirms.com SHINNICK & RYAN LLP 1650 Hotel Circle North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 239—5900 Fax: (619) 239-1833 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 DALLAS JOHNS, an individual, et al., Case No.2 16CECG01799 ll [CONSTRUCTION DEFECT] 12 Plaintiffs, JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE l3 V. STATEMENT l4 CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership, Efiggfigllfgggfzrgylyeéfiigfmn and DOES 1-500, inclusive, Dept: 402 l6 Hearing Date: June 21, 201 8 l7 Defendants. Hearing Time: 3:30 pm 18 19 20 21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD: 22 Plaintiffs DALLAS JOHNS, et a1, (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys ofrecord, Shinnick 23 & Ryan LLP, and Defendant Centex Homes (“Defendant”), by and through their attorneys 0f record, 24 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement with regard to the above— 25 entitled action (“Action”): 26 1. This case isa construction defect action involving eleven (1 1) homes in Clovis, 27 California. 28 2. The SB 800 prelitigation process is now complete. 3. Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed that the stay should be lifted. A stipulation and proposed order was filed on or around Friday, June 15, 2018. 4. At this juncture, the parties have begun preliminary negotiations regarding the terms of a proposed Case Management Order (“CMO”) that Will govern the litigation. 5. The parties respectfully request a 90-day continuance of the status conference (currently set for June 21, 2018) in order t0 finalize and file the proposed CMO for the Court’s review. 10 Dated: 643 4 23 SHINNICK & RYAN LLP ll 12 l3 Luk'g P. Ryan\‘/ 14 Ernie W. Chen Attorneysfor Plaintiffs 15 16 Dated: kg /§ fg NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP l7 M 18 l9 /"‘"7<”/7‘?2w ~~~~~~ 20 /J. Brian Morro/w 21 Ivo G. Daniele Matthew K. McCull Attorneysfor Centex 0/ gh Homes 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 )[N'l’ §§‘l".~'\'l‘!_3:?VI£{NT .I( _9 - ?SEIEEERE'GR CGER E {3? CAHFORNIA mg: TREE Casw 2'? 3 0F ?RESNO FOR COURT USE ONLY TITLE OF CASE : DALLAS JOEENS, ct V. 2i}. CENTEX HOMES, ct a1. ATTORNE‘E‘fi) NA ME? AWE} faiéiéiinSS: Luke P. Ryan sq Iii SI3N 67634 phone; 619-239-5900 Ernie W. Che: .331 ..SBN 309880 Fax; 619-239-1833 SHINNECE‘; RYAN 4:3: LL? 1650 Hotel Circle North, Suite 200 San Diego. {IA 92} ()8 ATTORNEE/{S} F82: E—iiCARING: DATE—TIME-DEPT CASE NUMBER: Plaintiffs, Johns. ct211. $TA?~CON: June 21, 2018 —— 16CECG01799 3:30p.m. — 402 E’EEZCLARATION OF SERVICE I. the asmicrsigncd. declare: that Iam, and was at the time of service ofthe papers herein referred t0, over the age of 18 yczm. and not a party 10 she action; and Iam employed in the County 0f San Diego, California, Within which county ihc subject service occurred. My business address is 1650 Hotel Circle North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92 E <38.On June i8 201 8 i served the following documents: 3%}??? SE‘ATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT of Which [he document(s). {‘zz‘iginal or a true and correct copy, is attached, by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for «sach addressee named hereafter, addressed to each such addressee respectively as follows: Mi /\SI SEE ATFACHED SERVICE LIST [X] (BY ?\rij‘am) I caused such document(s) t0 be placed in an envelope With postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in; ’ E initcd States mai! m Sam Diego, California. I am readily familiar With the practices 0f Shinnick & Ryan LL m collection zmd processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, Federal Ex plv ss 21nd UPS. Such cm'rcspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service, Federal Express. 0r UPS; the same day in {he ordinary course ofbusiness. Ideclare under penalty o!"perjury that the foregoing istrue and correct. Executed on June 18, 2018, at San ifiacgo. C uhfm‘mzk. Katie Maing, Declarant PROOF 0F SERVICE (0.0.9. § 1013A and § 2105.5) DALLAS JOHNS, et a1. v. CENTEX HOMES. et al. Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 16CECG01799 File N0. 2931 PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE LIST CenteX—Clovis Attorney/Firm: Phone: Fax: Party: Joseph A. Ferrentino, Esq. 925—988-3200 925-988—3290 CENTEX HOMES; J. Brian Morrow, Esq. ivo.daniele@ndlf.com CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORP 1V0 G. Daniele, Esq. NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP 1333 N. California B1Vd., Ste. 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 David S. Lee, Esq. 9259392000 925—939-2008 Associated Counselfor: Heather Ingle Gernhardt, Esq. dlee@lee—1awfirrn.com CENTEX HOMES Bao Nguyen, Esq. hingle@lee— LEE, HERNANDEZ, LANDRUM lawfixmcom & GAROFALO bnguyen@lee- 1600 Riviera Ave, Ste. 310 lawfirmcom Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Box Checked if Served: SPECIAL MASTER D DOCUMENT DEPOSITORY D PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE LIST 1|§3age