arrow left
arrow right
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
						
                                

Preview

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F59163A-2587-4E8B-96FB-829D9FA65FC1 wo mMarN Ao F WHY eB NY NY YN NY YN NY NY BBB BB Be ee Bee CorXdI AAR ONHKE SCO DANA DHF WHR SS Y osef Peretz (SBN 209288) yperetz@ peretzlaw.com David Garibaldi (SBN 313641) ELECTRONICALLY dgaribaldi@ peretzlaw.com PERETZ & ASSOCIATES son lc EO 22 Battery Street, Suite 200 County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94111 06/30/2020 Tel: 415.732.3777 Clerk of the Court Fax: 415.732.3791 Deputy Clerk Attomeys for Plaintiff GARY JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO GARY JOHNSON, individually and Case No. CGC-20-583239 derivatively on behalf of GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a DECLARATION OF GARY JOHNSON IN corporation, and ADJUSTERS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PERETZ & NORTHWEST, INC., a corporation, ASSOCIATES AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GARY JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC.; GORDON SCOTT, III; STEVE SEVERAID; PAUL MIGDAL; JAMES WARREN; CLAY GIBSON; DREW LUCURELL; CHRIS LUCURELL; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. I, Gary Johnson, declare as follows: 1. I am the Plaintiff in this matter, GARY JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”). I make this declaration in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Peretz & Associates as Counsel for Plaintiff Gary Johnson. If called as witness in this matter I would and could competently testify to the following. 2. I was the co-founder, co-chairman, and director of GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Greenspan”) for 36 years, including being an officer and a director DECLARATION OF GARY JOHNSON IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PERETZ & ASSOCIATES AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GARY JOHNSON -1-DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F59163A-2587-4E8B-96FB-829D9FA65FC1 wo mMarN Ao F WHY eB NY NY YN NY YN NY NY BBB BB Be ee Bee CorXdI AAR ONHKE SCO DANA DHF WHR SS at the time of my termination from Greenspan. In that capacity, I had access to all of Greenspan’s confidential and privileged information during my employment, including the allegations surrounding Fratkin’s purportedly illegal behavior and legal advice given by counsel. 3. I would have known if Masood Khan (“Khan”) had given Greenspan any legal advice concerning the illegality of Fratkin’s conduct or the implications of his employment by the company because as co-chairman and a director any such opinion would have been provided to me. As no such legal opinion by Khan was ever provided to me either by Khan himself or by anyone else, I am confident that Khan never provided legal advice concerning Frakin. 4. I learned about Fratkin’s status as a convicted felon and his inability to legally perform public adjusting work for Greenspan in 2017 from Gregg Clifford. I have never leamed any details conceming this issue from Khan in any capacity whatsoever. 5. I personally filed a complaint with the Califomia Department of Insurance (CDI) conceming Fratkin on July 5, 2018. A true and correct copy of this complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Khan was not involved in my complaint to the CDI in anyway whatsoever. I did not consult him, learn any facts relevant to the CDI complaint from Khan, or involve Khan in any way whatsoever. 7. I did not learn about Fratkin’s criminal background from Khan. 8. As | alleged in my First Amended Complaint, I expressed concern to my fellow officers and directors over Fratkin’s inability to do public adjusting work for Greenspan and the illegality of doing so as far back as 2014, but those complaints were ignored. 9. I never solicited legal advice from Khan about Fratkin’s purportedly illegal conduct for Greenspan. Khan never provided me legal advice about Fratkin at any time. 10. Neither Khan nor anyone else ever communicated any legal communication, opinion, counsel, or advice whatsoever by Khan about Fratkin’s purportedly illegal conduct or about any other legal matters relevant to this lawsuit. 11. The only individuals whom I ever consulted about Fratkin’s conduct was Fratkin and the other Individual Defendants in this matter. 12. lam not aware of any legal opinion, communication, or advice by Khan that is in any way relevant to the claims and allegations contained in my First Amended Complaint DECLARATION OF GARY JOHNSON IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PERETZ & ASSOCIATES AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GARY JOHNSON -2-DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F59163A-2587-4E8B-96FB-829D9FA65FC1 wo mMarN Ao F WHY eB NY NY YN NY YN NY NY BBB BB Be ee Bee CorXdI AAR ONHKE SCO DANA DHF WHR SS 13. Throughout the time that Greenspan was subjecting me to discriminatory, retaliatory, and harassing conduct, Greenspan was represented by outside counsel Ivo Labar. It was Labar, not Khan, whom authored the correspondence referred to in my First Amended Complaint. 14. lam informed and believe that Peretz & Associates are highly competent and experienced counsel with a long history of prevailing in complex employment disputes. 15. I see Peretz & Associates’ concurrent representation of Khan against Greenspan as a huge advantage, because Peretz & Associates because there is some overlap with respect to non- privileged facts concerning Khan’s replacement of me as the Public Adjuster in Puerto Rico and the overlap in Defendants. 16. | However, I am not aware of any fact that is known by Khan in his capacity as an attorney that I do not already know in my capacity as co-chairman, director, and shareholder. Nor do I believe that it is possible that Khan would know any facts in his capacity as a lawyer that I do not already know as co-chairman, director, and shareholder. 17. Ihave acknowledged any potential conflicts arising from Peretz & Associates’ concurrent representation of myself and Khan, and agreed to waive all such conflicts in writing before this motion was even filed. A true and correct copy of this signed waiver is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 18. Disqualifying Peretz & Associates as my counsel would also prejudice me financially, as I would be forced to seek out replacement counsel at a significant loss of time and money. 19. I am informed and believe that Daniel Cravens of Cravens & Associates, my other listed counsel is a solo practitioner based in Fresno, California and would be hard pressed to continue the litigation alone. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge and as to such matters, I am informed and believe that they are true and correct. Executed on June 30, 2020 at San Francisco, California DocuSigned by: Cary Jolson. 6 ary Johnson DECLARATION OF GARY JOHNSON IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PERETZ & ASSOCIATES AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GARY JOHNSON -3-EXHIBIT AGary W. Johnson 3839 Antonin Way Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925) 785-9058 July 5, 2018 Via E-mail and FEDEX California Department of Insurance c/o Investigative Division, Enforcement Branch Headquarters 2400 Del Paso Road, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95834 investigations@insurance.ca.gov RE: Report of Potential Insurance Fraud and Violation of 18 U.S.C 1033 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Gary W. Johnson. Along with Gordon A. Scott III, I co-founded Greenspan Adjusters International, Inc. f/k/a The Greenspan Company North (the “Company”) with its principal place of business at 400 Oyster Point Blvd., South San Francisco, CA 94080, California Corporate number C2477164. Recently I have become concerned about various management activities at the Company. While some of those activities may be bad business decisions by members of management, others may constitute violations of the state and/or federal law. Over the last several years as I have begun to wind down my involvement with the Company. I was involved in a near fatal automobile accident in late 2012 that took my focus away from the Company management while I recovered. Mr. Scott and others experimented with various potential management succession models. I understand that part of the new approach has involved a much more substantial use of Mark B. Fratkin in managing the company and leading and managing the sales team. I understand from another source that Mr. Fratkin was previously convicted of one or more felonies in connection with embezzlement or other felonies involving dishonesty or a breach of trust prior to joining the Company. It is my understanding that Mr. Fratkin was banned from engaging in the business of insurance. After learning of this issue, I was also made aware of the following criminal court records: 1. The People of the State of California v. Mark Bruce Fratkin, Case No. SC027551A, 1991, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo; 2. The People of the State of California v. Mark Bruce Fratkin, Case No. NF215912A, 1991, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.It is my understanding that Mr. Fratkin is holding himself out as the Director of Sales and appears to be participating as a member of the management team of the Company. Enclosed with this correspondence are a number of documents suggesting that Mr. Fratkin is acting in a key management role as well as Director of Sales. T also recently learned that Mr. Fratkin may be soliciting sales for the Company fraudulently using the names of other agents in e-mail correspondence in an attempt to hide his involvement from third parties. I do not know if the above was properly disclosed by the Company when it applied and/or renewed its Business Entity Application Public Adjusters License (Form CDI-181), or whether written consent from the Insurance Commissioner was sought and/or obtained. I am not aware of any waiver granted by the California Department of Insurance with respect to Mr. Fratkin. Based on my current understanding of Mr. Fratkin’s increased management and sales roles, I believe the Company may be knowingly violating state and federal law, specifically 18 USC 1033, which prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a felony involving dishonesty or a breach of trust from engaging in the business of insurance unless they have obtained the written consent of the Insurance Commissioner. I also learned that it may be a criminal offense for the Company to willfully employ such a person to engage in the business of insurance without the requisite written consent. I feel compelled to bring this matter to your attention. Sincerely, Gary JohnsonEXHIBIT B‘WAIVER OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION This WAIVER OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION is made by Gary Johnson (“the Client”) regarding the representation of Peretz & Associates and Cravens & Associates (“the Attorneys”). 1. DISCLOSURE OF CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION. You have requested concurrent representation by the A ttomeys regarding your dispute with THE GREENSPAN COMPANY, GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL/CALIFORNIA, INC.; ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC.; GORDON SCOTT; CLAY GIBSON; MARK FRATKIN; PAUL MIGDAL; AND/OR STEVE SEVERAID. Attomeys represent Masood Khan in regard to a similar action filed in San Francisco County Superior Court: CGC-19-581129. Concurrent representation has the potential to create a conflict of interest between or among you and other individuals or entities that are represented by Attorneys in these matters (“others”). For this reason, the State Bar of California requires that each affected client sign a written waiver of any potential conflict of interest. 2. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. In our opinion, based on the information provided to date, no actual conflict exists at this time, as you and all others currently share a common interest in the subject of the representation. In the event that an actual conflict, dispute or disagreement arises between or among you and others regarding your respective rights, we cannot and will not advise any one of you or others regarding any matter in which an actual conflict of interest develops, and we will decline to represent you or others in any manner regarding that conflict, dispute or disagreement. There are various ways in which a conflict of interest might arise in the future. For example, if we receive conflicting instructions from more than one of you or others, we will not be able to follow one set of instructions without violating our professional obligations to you or others of you. This situation, if unresolved, could create a conflict of interest which would require us to withdraw from representation, thus requiring each of you to seek new counsel. Therefore, as a condition of our agreeing to concurrent representation, we require that you and all others provide us with a common set of instructions for all matters, in order to prevent such a potential conflict. In addition, we require that you and all others decide among yourselves which one or two of you are authorized to speak on behalf of each and all of you or others, and provide us with the name(s) of the representative(s). Additionally, a conflict may arise because you and others develop inconsistent objectives. For example, one or more of you may wish us to pursue a path that could adversely affect the interests of another, or you may disagree among yourselves regarding which avenue(s) to pursue. This situation, if unresolved, could create a conflict of interest which would require us to withdraw from representation, thus requiring each of you to seek new counsel. To prevent this from happening, we will make every effort during the course of representation to confirm that each of you has a commonality of interest regarding the positions asserted on your Page 1 of 3respective behalves. If your interests diverge during the course of representation, further disclosure and waiver of the conflict, or withdrawal from representation, will be required. Should a divergence of your respective interests occur, each of you and others will have to expressly consent to our continuing representation of any or all of the other clients. . INDEMNIFICATION. You should each also be aware that each of you might have indemnification rights against one or more of the others. As stated above, since we are representing your common interests in this matter, we cannot represent or advise any one of you with respect to those claims. We suggest that you consult separate counsel if indemnification issues exist or arise. . ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. You should also consider that, as among yourselves, there is no right to assert the attorney-client privilege about communications we receive from any of you or others regarding the concurrent representation. By executing this letter, you confirm that you are aware of California Evidence Code section 962, which states: Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a privilege under this article as to a communication made in the course of that relationship when such communication is offered in a civil proceeding between one of such clients (or his successor in interest) and another of such clients (or his successor in interest). Further, your signature below confirms your express consent to our communicating with each of you and others regarding the communications we receive from any of you or others. Additionally, your signature below acknowledges that if information we learn from any of you or others is significant we may have an ethical duty to disclose that information to the remainder of you or others. . ATTORNEYS’ FEES. If any attomeys’ fees in this matter are paid in whole or part by one or more of you on behalf of any other(s) of you, California Rule of Professional Conduct 3- 310(F)(3) requires us to obtain your written consent for this payment. Y our signature below confirms this consent. We confirm to you that any such payment shall not interfere with the independence of our professional judgment or the attorney-client relationship between our firm and each of you or others. . DOCUMENT RETENTION. In addition to the above, your signature below confirms your express consent that, after the conclusion of services in this matter, we may retain your original file in storage for five years and then destroy it, unless before that time you have provided us with written notification, signed by each of you, that we are to furnish the original file to one of you in specific. . POTENTIAL FUTURE CONFLICTS. By executing this letter, you confirm that you have been fully informed regarding the nature of the potential conflicts which may arise from our concurrent representation of all of you and others; that you have been provided a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel of your choice regarding these potential Page 2 of 3conflicts and waiver of those conflicts; and you understand that a conflict may arise in the future which may require an additional disclosure and waiver by you, or, alternatively, our withdrawal from representing one or all of you and others. Additionally, you confirm that you will take the opportunity to retain independent counsel in the event you have any reservations regarding our concurrent representation of your interests, the issues arising from that representation, and/or the waiver of any potential conflict of interest. If the above accurately reflects your understanding, please sign this letter where indicated below and return it to me. Of course, prior to signing, feel free to reach out to me to discuss any questions or comments you may have. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: lL. T acknowledge that I have carefully read the above letter. 2; I expressly acknowledge that with respect to concurrent representation by Attorneys, the potential exists for my interests to conflict with others. Nevertheless, | knowingly and voluntarily consent to this concurrent representation. 5: I further expressly acknowledge that I have been informed that I have the right to seek independent legal counsel regarding the advisability of waiving this conflict of interest and I have had a reasonable opportunity to do so. 4/23 [2 Date signed Page 3 of 3