Preview
I JOHNNY D, KNADLER (SBN 220942)
LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D KNADLER
2 1527-E Pershing Drive
San Francisco, CA 94129 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Telephone:
Facsimile:
(310) 564-6695 F I L E D
(888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California,
4 County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Plaintiff 03/19/2020
SYNERGY PRO.IECT MANAGEMENT, INC. Clerk of the Court
BY: ERNALYN BURA
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMFNT, Case No. CGC-17-560034
INC.,
DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D.
Plaintiff, KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
14
CONSOLIDATE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al., Date: April 2, 2020
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: 302
Reservation JJ; 003020402-08
17
18
Complaint filed: July 10, 2017
19
20
I, JOHNNY D. KNADLER, declare:
21
l. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California
22
and I am counsel of record for Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc. (hereafter "Synergy" ) in
23
this action. As such, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could
24
and would competently testify to those matters.
25
2. On June 5, 2019, Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (hereafter "GBI"), filed a complaint against
26
Synergy Project Management, Inc. (hereafter "Synergy" ), Case No. CGC-19-576488 (hereafter
27
"Second case No. 576488"). GBI alleged millions of dollars of damage against Synergy for, among
28
others, breach of contract.
DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 3. Previously, on July 10, 2017, Synergy filed a claim against the City and County of San
2 Francisco, Case No. CGC-17-560034 (hereafter "Original case No. 560034"). Subsequently,
3 Synergy amended the coniplaint to add the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the San
4 Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the San Francisco Department of Public Works, London
Breed, and Mohammed Nuru (collectively "City Defendants" ). It also added federal claims.
6 Consequently, the matter was removed to federal court on November 27, 2017.
7 4. Over the course of the next two years, Synergy litigated the claims against the City
8 Defendants. Synergy later amended its complaint to add GBI as a defendant. Eventually, the district
9 court dismissed the claims against the City Defendants and remanded the remaining state claims to
10 the San Francisco Superior Court on November 25, 2019. Synergy appealed the district courps
11 orders including the order of remand, and the matter is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of
12 Appeals.
13 5. GBI has not filed any counterclaims against Synergy in the Original case No. 560034.
14 ln addition, thc Original case No. 560034, also involved the City and County of San Francisco and
15 other City Defendants. The Second case, does not have these parties. So, thc underlying lawsuits Iil'c
16 not entirely similar.
17 6. As ot'today's date. Ihc San I'rancisco Superior Court docltct docs not indicate Ihiit GBI
18 has ansivcrcd the Original case No. 560034. So, as of today's date, GBI is not a party to the Original
19 case No. 560034. This may create some confusion as to the cases and it complicates the issue of
20 consolidation. If the cases are consolidated, GBI should be required to file an answer as it is long
21 overdue.
22 7. Consolidation would prejudice Synergy Project Management, Inc., and consolidation
23 would not serve the interests of justice in these matters. Synergy would point out that a consolidation
24 without changing the trial date would prejudice Synergy because Synergy has not been able to
25 conduct depositions or obtain documents necessary for trial due, in part, to the outbreak of the
26 coronavirus. Many facilities including the law libraries are closed or have limited functionality like
27 the San Francisco Superior Court. In addition, due to the closures ol'the school, Synergy's Counsel
28
DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
isunavailable June 22, 2020, for trial. Consolidating the cases and leaving the trial date would result
2 in severe prejudice for those reasons.
3 8. Synergy's counsel is unavailable through the end of September 2020. A new trial date
4 with the condition that the new trial date be considered the original trial date for all purposes would
5 allow for Synergy to conduct discovery in both cases.
6 9. In the Original case No. 560034, Synergy has demanded a jury trial and paid the jury
7 trial fee. Synergy requests that the court consolidate the cases as a jury trial with the fee already paid.
8 This would ensure that Synergy's right to a jury trial is not harmed by the consolidation of the cases.
9 10. Synergy is in the process of amending its complaints to add new claims against GBI.
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
/'4 Synergy
I
simply offers this information to the court for its consideration on this motion.
declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury.
the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
~ Y: iv:. ".,
Executed on March
IVI
JOHNNY D.
I
I
(
Jt
KNADEEII.
19, 2020, in
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 I am employed in the 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 Law Offices of Johnny D. Knadler,
4 1527-E Pershing Drive, San Francisco, CA 94129
5 On March 19, 2020, 1 served the foregoing document(s):
6 DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D.
7 KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
8
on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s)
9 addressed and sent as follows:
10 DENNIS J. HERRERA) CITY ATTORNEY
RONALD P. FLYNN, CFHEF DEPUTY CITY
DEFENDANTS
ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
FOX PLAZA LONDON BREED, AND MOHAMMED NURU
12 1390 MARKET STREET) STE. 425
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-540S
13 TEL: (415) 554-470S
FAx: (415) 255-0733
14 EMAIL: RONALD. FLYNN SFCITYATTY.ORG
15 TROUTiYIAN SANDERS LLP
JAMES P. DIWIK AND RYAN A. LEWIS
DEFENDANT
16 THREE E)YIBARcADERo CENTER) STE. 800 GHILOTTI BROS., INC.
SAN FRANCISCO) CA 94111
17 TEL: (415) 477-5700
FAx: (415) 477-5710
19 [X] BY ELECTRONIC FILING: Pursuant to Local Rule 2.11(P), the documents were served
via an approved electronic filing service to all parties to this matter.
20
[I BY MAIL (By Following Office Business Practice): I am readily familiar with this firm's
21 practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I placed such
22 envelope(s) for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
23 [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope(s) to each addressee(s).
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
25 Executed on March 19, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
26
27
II,,XP.).AA 1
28 Johnny D. Knadler
PROOF OF~SERVICE-'
Preview
I JOHNNY D, KNADLER (SBN 220942) LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D KNADLER 2 1527-E Pershing Drive San Francisco, CA 94129 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Telephone: Facsimile: (310) 564-6695 F I L E D (888) 323-0611 Superior Court of California, 4 County of San Francisco Attorneys for Plaintiff 03/19/2020 SYNERGY PRO.IECT MANAGEMENT, INC. Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMFNT, Case No. CGC-17-560034 INC., DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. Plaintiff, KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 14 CONSOLIDATE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Date: April 2, 2020 Time: 9:30 a.m. Defendants. Dept.: 302 Reservation JJ; 003020402-08 17 18 Complaint filed: July 10, 2017 19 20 I, JOHNNY D. KNADLER, declare: 21 l. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California 22 and I am counsel of record for Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc. (hereafter "Synergy" ) in 23 this action. As such, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could 24 and would competently testify to those matters. 25 2. On June 5, 2019, Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (hereafter "GBI"), filed a complaint against 26 Synergy Project Management, Inc. (hereafter "Synergy" ), Case No. CGC-19-576488 (hereafter 27 "Second case No. 576488"). GBI alleged millions of dollars of damage against Synergy for, among 28 others, breach of contract. DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 3. Previously, on July 10, 2017, Synergy filed a claim against the City and County of San 2 Francisco, Case No. CGC-17-560034 (hereafter "Original case No. 560034"). Subsequently, 3 Synergy amended the coniplaint to add the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the San 4 Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the San Francisco Department of Public Works, London Breed, and Mohammed Nuru (collectively "City Defendants" ). It also added federal claims. 6 Consequently, the matter was removed to federal court on November 27, 2017. 7 4. Over the course of the next two years, Synergy litigated the claims against the City 8 Defendants. Synergy later amended its complaint to add GBI as a defendant. Eventually, the district 9 court dismissed the claims against the City Defendants and remanded the remaining state claims to 10 the San Francisco Superior Court on November 25, 2019. Synergy appealed the district courps 11 orders including the order of remand, and the matter is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of 12 Appeals. 13 5. GBI has not filed any counterclaims against Synergy in the Original case No. 560034. 14 ln addition, thc Original case No. 560034, also involved the City and County of San Francisco and 15 other City Defendants. The Second case, does not have these parties. So, thc underlying lawsuits Iil'c 16 not entirely similar. 17 6. As ot'today's date. Ihc San I'rancisco Superior Court docltct docs not indicate Ihiit GBI 18 has ansivcrcd the Original case No. 560034. So, as of today's date, GBI is not a party to the Original 19 case No. 560034. This may create some confusion as to the cases and it complicates the issue of 20 consolidation. If the cases are consolidated, GBI should be required to file an answer as it is long 21 overdue. 22 7. Consolidation would prejudice Synergy Project Management, Inc., and consolidation 23 would not serve the interests of justice in these matters. Synergy would point out that a consolidation 24 without changing the trial date would prejudice Synergy because Synergy has not been able to 25 conduct depositions or obtain documents necessary for trial due, in part, to the outbreak of the 26 coronavirus. Many facilities including the law libraries are closed or have limited functionality like 27 the San Francisco Superior Court. In addition, due to the closures ol'the school, Synergy's Counsel 28 DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE isunavailable June 22, 2020, for trial. Consolidating the cases and leaving the trial date would result 2 in severe prejudice for those reasons. 3 8. Synergy's counsel is unavailable through the end of September 2020. A new trial date 4 with the condition that the new trial date be considered the original trial date for all purposes would 5 allow for Synergy to conduct discovery in both cases. 6 9. In the Original case No. 560034, Synergy has demanded a jury trial and paid the jury 7 trial fee. Synergy requests that the court consolidate the cases as a jury trial with the fee already paid. 8 This would ensure that Synergy's right to a jury trial is not harmed by the consolidation of the cases. 9 10. Synergy is in the process of amending its complaints to add new claims against GBI. 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 /'4 Synergy I simply offers this information to the court for its consideration on this motion. declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury. the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. ~ Y: iv:. "., Executed on March IVI JOHNNY D. I I ( Jt KNADEEII. 19, 2020, in 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 I am employed in the 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 Law Offices of Johnny D. Knadler, 4 1527-E Pershing Drive, San Francisco, CA 94129 5 On March 19, 2020, 1 served the foregoing document(s): 6 DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; DECLARATION OF JOHNNY D. 7 KNADLER IN SUPPORT OF SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 8 on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) 9 addressed and sent as follows: 10 DENNIS J. HERRERA) CITY ATTORNEY RONALD P. FLYNN, CFHEF DEPUTY CITY DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FOX PLAZA LONDON BREED, AND MOHAMMED NURU 12 1390 MARKET STREET) STE. 425 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-540S 13 TEL: (415) 554-470S FAx: (415) 255-0733 14 EMAIL: RONALD. FLYNN SFCITYATTY.ORG 15 TROUTiYIAN SANDERS LLP JAMES P. DIWIK AND RYAN A. LEWIS DEFENDANT 16 THREE E)YIBARcADERo CENTER) STE. 800 GHILOTTI BROS., INC. SAN FRANCISCO) CA 94111 17 TEL: (415) 477-5700 FAx: (415) 477-5710 19 [X] BY ELECTRONIC FILING: Pursuant to Local Rule 2.11(P), the documents were served via an approved electronic filing service to all parties to this matter. 20 [I BY MAIL (By Following Office Business Practice): I am readily familiar with this firm's 21 practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I placed such 22 envelope(s) for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. 23 [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope(s) to each addressee(s). 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 25 Executed on March 19, 2020, at San Francisco, California. 26 27 II,,XP.).AA 1 28 Johnny D. Knadler PROOF OF~SERVICE-'