Complaint,Petition: 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASOCIATION, VS. 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oa De ND UH BF YN

Steven M. Cvitanovic (Bar No. 168031)
Jessica M. Lassere Ryland (Bar No. 286724)

HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 200 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, California 94111 FILED
Telephone: — (415) 546-7500 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (415) 546-7505 County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Defendants 699 SECOND MAY o2 2014
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and CANNON BY. GUDISH NUNES
CONSTRUCTORS, INC. Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS Case No. CGC-13-531203
ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit
mutual benefit corporation, DECLARATION OF JESSICA M.
LASSERE RYLAND IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS CANNON
CONSTRUCTORS INC., AND 669
vs. SECOND STREET DEVELOPMENT,

LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF 88
TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS
ASSOCIATION'S MOTION SEEKING

LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE SECOND
California corporation; STERNBERG

AMENDED COMPLAINT
BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, INC., a
California Corporation; MARVIN WINDOWS ) Complaint Filed: | May 6, 2013
AND DOORS, a Minnesota Corporation; ) Trial Date: September 15, 2014
BLOMBERG BUILDING MATERIALS DBA )
BLOMBERG WINDOW SYSTEMS, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, 102- )
125, and 129-150, inclusive,

699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a

ee Ne Ne ee Ne ee Ne ee

Defendants.

)
DECLARATION OF JESSICA M, L, RYLAND

I, Jessica M. L. Ryland, declare as follows:
1. Tam an attorney at the law firm of Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, L.L.P., counsel of
record for 669 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC and CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

(collectively "Defendants"), [ am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I

1

sp29-coeoo1 DECLARATION OF JESSICA M, LASSERE RYLAND ISO
100673064 OPPOSITION FOR MOTION TO LEAVECo Oe YN DAW FF WY NY &

NM RM YN N NN DY DQ wm eet
ond DHA BH YH EF SD we AI HW BF WHY eFC

have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could
and would testify competently to such facts under oath.

2. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in the San Francisco County Superior
Court, Case Number CGC-13-5312-3, alleging one claim against Defendant for violations of
California Civil Code sections 896 and 897.

3. On May 24, 2013, Defendants were served with a Summons and Complaint.

4, On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, alleging additional
claims for negligence, strict product liability, building, strict product liability, windows, breach of
implied warranty, and negligence of design professionals.

5. On April 17, 2014 Defendants filed their Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint.

6. On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The hearing on the Demurrer is scheduled for May 12,
2014.

7. On April 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Motion and Motion Seeking Leave
to File and Serve Second Amended Complaint, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of Motion Seeking Leave to File and Serve Second Amended Complaint, and Declaration of
Thomas E. Miller in Support thereof.

8. Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges two new and additional
claims for improper setting of reserves and negligent misrepresentation for failure to disclose
defects.

9. The proposed SAC amendments make new, substantive factual and legal
allegations which must be addressed in additional discovery. Further, granting Plaintiff's Motion
would severely prejudice Defendants, who intend to file a motion for sammary adjudication or
summary judgment motion on Plaintiffs two new proposed causes of action.

10. On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, counsel for Defendants, Jessica M. L. Ryland,
spoke with counsel for Plaintiff, Emma E. Nelson-Munson, to discuss Plaintiff's proposed SAC

and negotiate a continuance of the date of trial.

2

'§29-0000001 DECLARATION OF JESSICA M. LASSERE RYLAND ISO
40067306.1 OPPOSITION FOR MOTION TO LEAVECoO Oe HN DH BF WY =

11. On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, counsel for Defendants, Jessica M. L. Ryland,
spoke with counsel for Plaintiff, Emma E. Nelson-Munson, to discuss Plaintiff's proposed SAC
and a continuance of the date of trial

12. Later that day, Jessica M. L. Ryland made a good faith proposal that if Plaintiff
agreed to stipulate to continue the trial date for a minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) days,
Defendants would agree not oppose the instant motion.

13. Defense counsel explained that Defendants intended to file a summary judgment on
the new allegations in Plaintiff's SAC, but are unable to do so given the September 15, 2014 trial
date and the statutorily mandated deadlines for filing a motion for summary judgment.

14, Plaintiff's counsel declined and instead proposed an order shortening time in which
to hear a dispositive Motion.

15. Even with a shortened notice period, Defendants would not have sufficient time to
gather the necessary evidence and draft its motion, and as such, Defendants could not stipulate to a
shortening notice period.

16. Trial is scheduled to begin September 15, 2014. The latest Defendants can file its
Motion for Summary judgment is June 6, 2014.

17. Plaintiff's Motion to Grant Leave to File and Serve Second Amended Complaint is
scheduled for hearing on May 15, 2014, leaving Defendants only twenty two (22) days to conduct
discovery and file its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Executed on May 2, 2014, at San Francisco, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct

Dated: May 2, 2014 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP