Preview
cent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
Ryan P. Harley, Esq. (SBN 245059) Electronically Filed
Bradley D. Doucette, Esq. (SBN 322611) by Superior Court of CA,
COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP County of Santa Clara,
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1700 on 3/4/2020 11:45 AM
Oakland, CA 94612 Reviewed By: M Vu
(510) 844-5100 — FAX (510) 844-5101 Case #17CV310601
. Envelope: 4119283
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
YOUQIN CAO, an Individual, and
XINRONG JIANG, an Individual,
) CASE NO. 17CV310601
) [Assigned to Hon. Maureen A. Folan, Dept. 6]
)
Plaintiffs, ) WEC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
) TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF
vs. ) BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE
)
CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & )
DESIGN, INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES )
[Concurrently filed with [Proposed] Order]
& DESIGNS, INC., a California Corporation; ) DATE: March 26, 2020
CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DESIGN CENTER, INC., a California DEPT: 20
3)
)
)
Corporation; WEC ASSOCIATES, INC.,a__)
California Corporation; and DOES 2 through )
)
)
)
)
)
)
100,
Complaint Filed: 5/19/17
Defendants. FAC Filed: 8/15/17
Trial Date: 4/6/20
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS.
)
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 26, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this
matter may be heard in Department 20 of the above-entitled Court, located at 191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113, Defendant/Cross-Complainant WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”) will and
hereby does move this Court for an order vacating the current trial date of April 6, 2020, the
mandatory settlement conference date of April 1, 2020, and all corresponding motion, discovery, and
FILE #20705
1
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
pre-trial cut off dates. WEC therein moves for a new trial date of no earlier than June 1, 2020, or as
soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may accommodate the trial and related dates and deadlines.
This motion is made pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, et seq. and Code of
Civil Procedure section 1005, and is based upon grounds that good cause exists for the requested
relief. As is stipulated between the parties, additional damages and additional bases for liability have
arose, and the parties will need to conduct further investigation and analysis of these new allegations.
Further, the parties have been engaged in substantial discovery efforts, including taking multiple
depositions of all parties involved and exchanging extensive written discovery, and the parties are in
agreement that that these efforts have and will aid in analysis of the new allegations as well as support
the ongoing settlement discussions that have been conducted thus far. As such, the parties agree that
the continuance is needed to allow them to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as
opposed to ongoing discovery and final trial preparations for the upcoming April trial date in this
matter. This is the first request for a trial continuance and all parties have stipulated to the trial
continuance, as was submitted to the Court on February 26, 2020 in connection to the prior Ex Parte
Application brought by WEC. (See Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette, Exhibit A.)
This motion is made pursuant to this notice of motion, the attached memorandum of points and
authorities, the Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this
action and on any oral argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this motion.
DATED: March 4, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP
By:
rDOUCE:
RYAN P. HARLEY
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE #20705
2
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION: A TRIAL CONTINUANCE IS NECESSARY AND PROPER
This matter concerns a lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Youquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), owners of a single-family residence located at 2651 South Court, Palo
Alto, California (the “Property”). Plaintiffs allege various issues with the Property, and have brought
suit against the general contractor who was retained by Plaintiffs to construct their home,
Defendants/Cross-Defendants California Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes &
Designs, Inc. and California Homes and Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California
Homes”), and the architect/engineer/land surveyor for the Property, Defendant/Cross-Complainant
WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”).
WEC, with the knowledge and support of the parties, brings this motion to continue the trial
and all trial-related given the recent introduction of new damages and theories of liability from
Plaintiffs ,the ongoing discovery efforts by the parties, and efforts by the parties to continue
substantial settlement negotiations. (See Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette (“Doucette Decl.”),
Exhibit A.)! A brief continuance of the upcoming trial and related dates would serve the best interest
of all parties and allow time for the experts in this complicated matter to explore and reevaluate the
additional damages and bases for liability recently raised by Plaintiffs, as well as allow for the parties
to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as opposed to preparing for the April trial date.
All parties have stipulated to the continuance and no party will be prejudiced if trial is
continued to date of no earlier than June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may
accommodate the trial and related dates and deadlines. These reasons provide good cause for this trial
continuance, and WEC respectfully requests that this court grant a trial continuance so that the parties
can adequately prepare the claims and defenses in the instant action.
Mil
Mt
' On February 26, 2020, WEC brought a Stipulated Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Trial, Mandatory
Settlement Conference, and All Trial-Related dates. The Court heard the Ex Parte Application and ordered that a fully
noticed Motion to Continue the Trial be submitted per Code. (See Doucette Declaration, Exhibit A.)
FILE #20705
3
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
Il.
THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE PARTIES A TRIAL CONTINUANCE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1332(c), this Court has authority to grant a continuance
in the matter upon a showing of good cause by the parties. Each individual case must be considered
on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(c).) A variety of circumstances may be
considered in determining whether good cause exists to the continue the trial, including whether “(7)
A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready
for trial.” (/d.) The court acknowledges that “[flor many — perhaps all — lawyers, a litigation practice
entails a continual barrage of unexpected and unplanned for events.” (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54
Cal.App.4th 11, 15.) The court encourages trial courts to “accommodate” counsel whenever it was
not “impractical” to do so. (/d. at 16.) And while it is true that the trial judge must have control of
the courtroom and calendar, “it is equally true that, absent a lack of diligence or other abusive
circumstances, a request for a continuance supported by a showing of good cause usually ought to be
granted.” (Oliveras v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1396.)
Ill.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT AND
UNANTICIPATED CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF THE CASE HAS OCCURRED
This Court has authority to grant a continuance in the matter upon a showing of good cause
by the parties. (Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Courts are encouraged to accommodate counsel
where it is not impractical to do so. (See Pham, supra at 16.) In addition to this overarching policy,
the California Rules of Court identify a number of specific factors a court must consider when making
a good cause determination in addition to all relevant facts and circumstances:
(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of
trial due to any party;
(3) The length of the continuance requested;
Mil
FILE #20705
4
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to
the motion or application for a continuance;
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the
continuance;
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status
and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other
pending trials;
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial
of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the
motion or application.
(Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)
Here, a review of the grounds for continuance as well as the Court’s factors for consideration
shows a trial continuance is necessary and proper under the circumstances. First, pursuant to
California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(7), a significant and unanticipated change in the status of
the case has resulted in the case not being ready for trial. Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq.,
recently produced additional documents including photographs of the foundation of the Property.
(Doucette Decl., Exhibit A.) According to Mr. Belote, those photographs have caused Plaintiffs’
experts to reevaluate additional damages related to the foundation and additional bases for liability.
(id.) Plaintiffs conducted an additional inspection of the subject property on or about February 20,
2020, and Defense experts conducted an inspection of the subject property on February 26, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. including inspecting the test pits drilled by Plaintiffs’ experts. (/d.) As of the time of this
motion, the parties have retained at least ten expert witnesses, the depositions of which are set to start
on March 17, 2020 and continue through April 2020. (See id.; see also Doucette Decl. 4-5.) Due
to this recently discovered evidence and undisclosed theories of liability, as well as the additional
FILE #20705
5
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
ongoing work being conducted by the numerous experts, additional time is necessary to assess the
opinions and conclusions of Plaintiffs’ experts prior to their depositions and prior to the fast-
approaching trial date. (/d.)
Another factor for consideration is whether the parties will be prejudiced if a continuance is
not granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(5).) Here, the Parties have engaged in, and
continue to engage in, substantive settlement discussions with mediator Brad Benning, Esq. and have
scheduled a mediation with Mr. Benning on March 13, 2020 in an effort to continue such settlement
discussions and attempt to resolve the matter. (Doucette Decl., {93-5 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs are
expected to provide additional materials concerning their experts’ reevaluation of damages sometime
prior to the March 13, 2020 mediation, and should the matter not resolve, the parties have tentatively
agreed to begin conducting expert witness depositions on or around March 17, 2020 depending on
the availability of counsel and the expert witnesses. (/d.) The parties anticipate taking at least ten to
twelve expert depositions, and based on the availability of counsel and the experts as well as the need
for the opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, the parties will not be able to conduct all expert
depositions by the time of trial. (/d.) As such and in light of the currently scheduled trial date, the
parties will be prejudiced if unable to finalize expert discovery prior to trial.
Another consideration for the Court is whether the parties’ have stipulated to the continuance,
which the parties have in this matter. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(9); see also (Doucette
Decl., Exhibit A.) The Court may also consider the proximity of the trial date, the length of the
continuance requested, whether any prejudice will be suffered as a result of the continuance, and
whether the interest of judices are best served by a continuance. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule
3.1332(d)(1), (3), (6), and (10).) Here, this brief request comes just over a month before the trial date,
and seeks a continuance of only two to three months. (Doucette Decl. at {6-8 and Exhibit A.) The
parties agree that they will not suffer any prejudice by this short continuance. (/d.) Also, pursuant to
California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(8), the Court may consider whether trial counsel is engaged
in another trial — trial counsel for WEC is engaged in a trial only a week before the April trial date.
(id.)
Mil
FILE #20705
6
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
Finally, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d)(9), this is the first request for
a continuance in the matter by any party. (/d.)
Iv.
CONCLUSION
This is a complicated matter, and as outlined herein, recent events and changing theories of
liability beg the need for more time to evaluate the issues and prepare for trial. Accordingly, WEC,
with the support and stipulation of all parties, hereby moves for a new trial date of no earlier than
June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may accommodate the trial and related
dates and deadlines. WEC has shown good cause justifies a continuance and that none of the parties
will be prejudiced and will only benefit form a continuance.
DATED: March 4, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP
By:
rPCUCE:
RYAN P. HARLEY
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE #20705
7
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE
I, Bradley D. Doucette, declare:
1. I am an attorney in good standing, admitted and licensed to practice before the courts
of the State of California. I am an associate with the law firm of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart, LLP,
counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”) I have
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except as to those matters that I state upon information
and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. If called upon to testify, I could and
would competently do so.
2. Currently pending in this matter are the following dates which were set by the Court:
Trial Date: April 6, 2020
Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 1, 2020
3. The parties have entered into a stipulation to continue the trial, mandatory settlement
conference, and all trial-related dates. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the
stipulation between the parties which was filed with this Court on February 26, 2020 with WEC’s
Stipulated Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Trial. Exhibit A also contains the Order
by this Court setting a Motion to Continue Trial for March 26, 2020. I personally appeared for the
Stipulated Ex Parte Application hereto and was informed by the Honorable Socrates P. Manoukian
that the request for a trial continuance needed to be brought by a noticed motion. This stipulation is
based on new theories of damages and liability by the Plaintiffs, ongoing discovery efforts by all
parties, as well as ongoing settlement discussions between all parties and their counsel. At the time
of filing of this motion, the parties are scheduled to participate in a mediation with mediator Brad
Benning, Esq. on March 13, 2020.
4. On or around January 21, 2020, counsel for Plaintiffs Yoquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang
(“Plaintiffs”) produced additional documents to all parties including photographs of the foundation
of the subject property to this lawsuit. Some of these documents have been used as exhibits in recent
depositions, such as the deposition of California Homes’ Simon Krek. For example, attached hereto
as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel to all counsel
containing two exhibits that were produced and used in a recent deposition. I am informed and believe
FILE #20705
8
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
that these documents and others, paired with the deposition testimony of party witnesses thus far, has
recently caused Plaintiffs’ experts to reevaluate additional damages and bases for liability. Plaintiffs’
experts are expected to provide additional reports and/or analyses concerning their experts’
reevaluation of damages prior to March 13, 2020. Accordingly, WEC and Defendants/Cross-
Defendants California Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes & Designs, Inc. and
California Homes and Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California Homes”) will require
additional time to evaluate any and all supplemental materials and opinions provided by Plaintiffs’
experts and prepare defenses and responses accordingly.
5. In advance of the March 13, 2020 mediation, the parties have met and conferred at
length in good faith with each other regarding settlement discussions, necessary expert discovery,
depositions, and the need for a brief trial continuance. Numerous percipient witness depositions have
taken place, and the parties have tentatively agreed to begin taking depositions of expert witnesses
on or around March 17, 2020 based on the availability of counsel and expert witnesses. The parties
have discussed taking the Plaintiffs’ experts’ depositions in late March, followed by the depositions
of expert witnesses for WEC and California Homes in early to mid-April. I am informed and believe
that Plaintiffs’ experts’ deposition testimony will need to be reviewed by the other expert witnesses
in preparation for their depositions and in connection with forming their expert opinions and
conclusions in this matter.
6. After entering into a stipulation regarding a trial continuance, the parties agreed that a
brief continuance until at least June 1, 2020 was acceptable. I am informed and believe that on or
around 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, counsel for all parties met and conferred and further
confirmed their availability for a trial continuance until June 1, 2020 through July 15, 2020, and/or
later pending the Court’s availability. Further, trial counsel for WEC, Ryan P. Harley, is set to begin
trial on another matter on March 30, 2020 (Macarthur Transit Community v. Sandis Civil Engineers,
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. HG18899280) and has informed the other parties as such.
7. There have been no other requests for trial continuances in this matter by any party.
MI
Ml
FILE #20705
9
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
8. There would be no prejudice to any party by the granting of a trial continuance and to
allow for the orderly completion of discovery and expert investigation. However, the parties would
be prejudiced by not having this necessary evidence accumulated and evaluated prior to trial.
9. I sent a draft of this motion to counsel for all parties on March 3, 2020 via email and
asked for comments and objections, if any. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy
of that email correspondence.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed this 4" day of March, 2020 at Oakland, California.
FILE #20705
10
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEEXHIBIT "A"Woe bb
ILE
FEB 2 6 2020
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
YOUQIN CAO, an Individual. and CASE NO. 17CV310601
)
XINRONG JIANG, an Individual, ) [Assigned to Hon. Maureen A. Folan, Dept. 6]
)
Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO
) CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-
vs. ) RELATED DATES;4PROPOSED] ORDER
)
CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & )
DESIGN, INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES.)
& DESIGNS, INC., a California Corporation; )
CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN _ )
DESIGN CENTER, INC., a California )
Corporation; WEC ASSOCIATES, INC..a_)
California Corporation; and DOES 2 through )
100, . )
) Complaint Filed: 5/19/17
Defendants. ) FAC Filed: 8/15/17
Trial Date: 4/06/20
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
ClarkHill\67652\383450\2233605 1 1.v1-2/24/20TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
Plaintiffs Youquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang (collectively “Plaintiffs”), Defendant California
Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes & Designs, Inc. and California Homes and
Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California Homes”), and Defendants WEC and Associates,
Inc. (*WEC”) (collectively “the Parties”) do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, the Trial date in this matter is currently set for April 6, 2020 at 8:45 a.m., and
the Mandatory Settlement Conference is currently set for April 1, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.:
WHEREAS, the Parties propose a brief Trial continuance of thirty to forty-five days, with the
parties preference being that the Trial date be set for the week of May 4, 2020, or a date as reasonably
close to the thirty to forty-five-day timeframe as possible, pending the Court’s availability;
WHEREAS, good cause exists to continue the Trial and all Trial-related dates in this matter
as the Parties have engaged in, and continue to engage in, substantive settlement discussions with
mediator Brad Benning, Esq. and have scheduled a mediation with Mr. Benning on March 13, 2020
in an effort to continue such settlement discussions and attempt to resolve the matter. The Parties
have been engaged in substantial discovery efforts, including taking multiple depositions of all parties
involved and exchanging extensive written discovery, and the Parties agree that these efforts have
and will aid in settlement discussions at the forthcoming mediation. The Parties agree that the
continuance is needed to allow the Parties to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as
opposed to ongoing discovery final Trial preparations for the upcoming April trial date in this matter;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq., recently produced additional
documents before the conclusion of depositions of his clients including photographs of the foundation
of the subject property. According to Mr. Belote, those photographs had caused Plaintiffs experts to
reevaluate additional damages related to the foundation and additional bases for liability. Plaintiffs
conducted an additional inspection of the subject property on or about February 20, 2020, and
Defense experts are scheduled to conduct another inspection of the subject property on February 26,
2020 beginning at 10:00 a.m. including inspecting the test pits drilled by Plaintiffs experts. Due to
x
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
ClarkHill\67652\383450\2233605 11 w1-2/24/20nn e Ww
these recently discovered photographs and the additional work being conducted by the experts, it is
anticipated that the experts will need additional time to assess the new information prior to their
depositions. Accordingly, the Parties agree that at least ten to twelve expert depositions will need to
be conducted prior to the current Trial date.
WHEREAS, no Parties in this matter have previously requested a Trial continuance;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the short continuance would promote judicial economy
and no prejudice by any of the Parties will be suffered by the short continuance of the Trial date and
all Trial-related dates;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that all dates and deadlines, including discovery cutoffs and
dispositive motion deadlines, shall correspond to the continued trial date.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this Stipulation may be singed in counterparts and that
signatures transmitted via facsimile or electronically shall be given the same force and effect as if
originals, and all of the counterparts when executed and taken together shall constitute one and the
same instrument,
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: February 24, 2020 CLARK HILL LLP
By:
Torey Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG
DATED: February 24, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP
By:
RYAN P. HARLEY, ESQ.
BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
ClarkHilN67652\383450\22336051 1.v1-2/24/20
sven= “2
mn
these recently discovered photographs and the additional work being conducted by the experts, it is
anticipated that the experts will need additional time to assess the new information prior to their
depositions. Accordingly, the Parties agree that at least ten to twelve expert depositions will need to
be conducted prior to the current Trial date.
WHEREAS, no Parties in this matter have previously requested a Trial continuance;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the short continuance would promote judicial economy
and no prejudice by any of the Parties will be suffered by the short continuance of the Trial date and
all Trial-related dates;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that all dates and deadlines, including discovery cutoffs and
dispositive motion deadlines, shall correspond to the continued trial date.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this Stipulation may be singed in counterparts and that
signatures transmitted via facsimile or electronically shall be given the same force and effect as if
originals, and all of the counterparts when executed and taken together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: February 24, 2020 CLARK HILL LLP
By:
JEFFREY H. BELOTE, ESQ.
MELISSA PALAZOLA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG
DATED: February 24, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP
By: — =
SRABE DOUCETTE—
RYAN P. HARLEY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
ClarkHill\67652\383450\223360511.v1-2/24/20CS oO Se Ch Om Gh
by oR PW B® BP NR KN Ye Be Be Be ee ee ee
e2rxrtanank F&F OR fF FS CHAKA AeA FBR SE S
DATED: February 24, 2020 KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC
BF fl phar a—
KEVIN P. KENNEDY, ESQ.
E. VAL. MENESES, ESQ.
By:
Associated with:
DATED: February 24, 2020
Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants
CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN,
INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES & DESIGNS,
INC., CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN
DESIGN CENTER, INC.
4
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
ClarkHill\67652\383450\22336051 1.v1-2/24/20cent Am ke Ww
PROPOSED] ORDER
Having read and reviewed the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties, and having found good
cause therefor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. tstsfe t nd Mandatory Settlement Conference
indftory YSéttleme| onfeérehce of April 1, 2020 shall be continued to
at 9:00 a.m. i
4. All Tri ines; i Sand dispositive motion
deadlines, s f continued Trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
patep: 4 Pron 00
2
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Clark Hill\67652\383450\223360511.v1-2/24/2068 Sp on Se
28
COLLINS COLLINS
MUIR + STEWART.
1899 Harrison St, Sta.1700,
Oakland, CA s4si2
Phone (510) 844-5100
Fax (510) 844.5101
PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5)
State of California, )
County of San Diego )
1 am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my
business address is 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 207, Carlsbad, California 92011.
On this date, | served the foregoing document described as STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL
AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed
envelope, addressed as follows
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Oakland, Califor:
to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. | am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S, Postal Service on that same day wit
postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served]
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing i
affidavit.
(BY CERTIFIED MAIL) — I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Retum Receipt Request
to be placed in the United States Mail in Oakland, California,
BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
& (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) — | served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated
recipients listed on the attached Service List on: February 25, 2020.
(1 FEDERAL EXPRESS - | caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents wit
delivery fees provided for.
1 (BY FACSIMILE) - | caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimil
number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (510) 844-5101 indicated al
pages were transmitted.
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - [ caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee{s).
Executed on February 25, 2020 at Carlsbad, California.
BJ (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
VICKI WOOD
ywood@ cemslaw.com | legalservices(@ cemslaw.com
20705
PROOF OF SERVICECoen
28
COLLINS COLLINS
MUIR + STEWART.
1998 Harrison St, Ste.1700
‘Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (810) 844-5100
Fax (510) 844.5101
20705
YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG v, CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.,, et al.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 17CV310601
Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq.
CLARK HILL LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-984-8500 — Fax: 415-984-8599
belote ilL.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
YOUQUIN CAO & XINRONG JIANG
Kevin P. Kennedy, Esq
E, Val Meneses, Esq.
KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC
7964 Arjons Drive, Suite I
San Diego, CA 92126
858-267-4127 — Fax: 858-267-4128
kkennedy@kennedysouza.com
vn
souza.com
OUR FILE NO. 20705
SERVICE LIST
Brian Preston, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN PRESTON
111 North Market Street, Suite 705
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 293-2700 — FAX (408) 293-2711
bp@brianprestonlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND
KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA
HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.
ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR CALIFORNIA
HOMES AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC.,
and CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN,
IN
PROOF OF SERVICEEXHIBITFrom: Rosman, Debora A.
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:09 PM
To: 'kkennedy@kennedysouza.com' ; 'vmeneses@kennedysouza.com'
; brian preston ; Ryan P. Harley
Cc: Belote, Jeffrey H. ; Rosman, Debora A. ; Brown,
Lydia
Subject: Cao/Jiang v. California Home [Construction Pictures - CAO/JIANG 001853 - 002413] 021220 on
Workshare
Good afternoon counsel of record:
Mr. Belote requested that I provide you with the electronic link to the construction pictures which
were previously produced.
Ihave shared Cao/Jiang v. California Home [Construction Pictures - CAO/JIANG 001853 -
002413] 021220 with you via Workshare Connect.
Click here to access:
Mr. Belote requested that I provide you with the attached selected pictures marked as Exhibits 58
and 69 to Mr. Krek’s deposition.Please let Mr. Belote know if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Debora
Debora Rosman
Paralegal
CLARK HILL PLC
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 | San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 984-8515 (direct) | (415) 984-8599 (fax)
DRosman@ClarkHill.com | www.clarkhill.com\ eH wr Se Se
F rs 7
Soto KM ’ ad OK i id a i
bl
s 7) Py * es
a a | ae a i . Pe” Figg?
- Pains ee Me ey
soe
BotaccaeseEXHIBIT "C"From: Bradley D. Doucette
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:40 PM
To: Belote, Jeffrey H.; Palozola, Melissa M.; Brown, Lydia; Val Meneses; Donna Dolezal; brian preston
Ce: Ryan P. Harley; Legal Assistant Services; Denise Welch
Subject: Motion to Continue Trial (03-26-20) | Yougin Cao, et al. v. California Home Builders & Design, Inc., et
al. | 20705
Attachments: DRAFT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL.pdf
Categories: COMPLETE
Counsel,
Attached please find a draft of WEC’s Motion to Continue Trial which we intend to file tomorrow. Per our discussions
last week and today, let us know if you have any objections or changes, preferably by 10:00AM tomorrow morning.
Please also confirm if you are willing to accept service of the final motion via e-mail.
Thank you,
Bradley D. Doucette
Attorney at Law
T: 510-844-5100 | C: 626-807-8439
F: 510-844-5101
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
bdoucette@ccmslaw.com
COLLINS COLLINS
MUIR + STEWART.
www.ccmslaw.com
South Pasadena 626-243-1100 - Orange 714-823-4100 - San Diego 760-274-2110
Oakland 510-844-5100 - Inland Empire 909-581-6100
PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the
e-mail. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that
we do not intend to waive any privilege that might ordinarily attach to this communication and that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the information contained in this e-mail is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of
any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone number shown below and to delete the e-mail.
Thank you for your cooperation.cent Dn Rh Ww
28
‘COLLINS COLLINS.
MUIR + STEWART.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5)
State of California, )
Ss.
County of Los Angeles. )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business
address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, Califomia 91030.
On this date, I served the foregoing document described as WEC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE on the interested parties in this action by placing same
ina sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena,
California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing, Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business, I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date
of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(BY CERTIFIED MAIL) ~ I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California.
BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
& (Y ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) — I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated
recipients listed on the attached Service List.
FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with
delivery fees provided for.
(BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile
number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 indicated all
pages were transmitted.
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s).
Executed on March 4, 2020 at South Pasadena, California.
(] (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) - | declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
xo Parner
DEBBIE PARKER
FILE #20705
li
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE28
COLLINS COLLINS
MUIR + STEWART...
YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG y, CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.,, et al.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 17CV310601
OUR FILE NO. 20705
SERVICE LIST
Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq. Brian Preston, Esq.
CLARK HILL LLP LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN PRESTON
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 111 North Market Street, Suite 705
San Francisco, CA 94111 San Jose, CA 95113
415-984-8500 — Fax: 415-984-8599 (408) 293-2700 — FAX (408) 293-2711
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND
YOUQUIN CAO & XINRONG JIANG KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA
HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.
Kevin P. Kennedy, Esq.
E. Val Meneses, Esq.
KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC
7964 Arjons Drive, Suite I
San Diego, CA 92126
858-267-4127 — Fax: 858-267-4128
kkennedy@kennedysouza.com
ymeneses@kennedysouza.com
ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES
AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and
CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.
FILE #20705
12
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE
Preview
cent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. Ryan P. Harley, Esq. (SBN 245059) Electronically Filed Bradley D. Doucette, Esq. (SBN 322611) by Superior Court of CA, COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP County of Santa Clara, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1700 on 3/4/2020 11:45 AM Oakland, CA 94612 Reviewed By: M Vu (510) 844-5100 — FAX (510) 844-5101 Case #17CV310601 . Envelope: 4119283 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA YOUQIN CAO, an Individual, and XINRONG JIANG, an Individual, ) CASE NO. 17CV310601 ) [Assigned to Hon. Maureen A. Folan, Dept. 6] ) Plaintiffs, ) WEC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ) TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF vs. ) BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE ) CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & ) DESIGN, INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES ) [Concurrently filed with [Proposed] Order] & DESIGNS, INC., a California Corporation; ) DATE: March 26, 2020 CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN TIME: 9:00 a.m. DESIGN CENTER, INC., a California DEPT: 20 3) ) ) Corporation; WEC ASSOCIATES, INC.,a__) California Corporation; and DOES 2 through ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 100, Complaint Filed: 5/19/17 Defendants. FAC Filed: 8/15/17 Trial Date: 4/6/20 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. ) TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 26, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department 20 of the above-entitled Court, located at 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113, Defendant/Cross-Complainant WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order vacating the current trial date of April 6, 2020, the mandatory settlement conference date of April 1, 2020, and all corresponding motion, discovery, and FILE #20705 1 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. pre-trial cut off dates. WEC therein moves for a new trial date of no earlier than June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may accommodate the trial and related dates and deadlines. This motion is made pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, et seq. and Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, and is based upon grounds that good cause exists for the requested relief. As is stipulated between the parties, additional damages and additional bases for liability have arose, and the parties will need to conduct further investigation and analysis of these new allegations. Further, the parties have been engaged in substantial discovery efforts, including taking multiple depositions of all parties involved and exchanging extensive written discovery, and the parties are in agreement that that these efforts have and will aid in analysis of the new allegations as well as support the ongoing settlement discussions that have been conducted thus far. As such, the parties agree that the continuance is needed to allow them to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as opposed to ongoing discovery and final trial preparations for the upcoming April trial date in this matter. This is the first request for a trial continuance and all parties have stipulated to the trial continuance, as was submitted to the Court on February 26, 2020 in connection to the prior Ex Parte Application brought by WEC. (See Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette, Exhibit A.) This motion is made pursuant to this notice of motion, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action and on any oral argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. DATED: March 4, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: rDOUCE: RYAN P. HARLEY Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE #20705 2 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION: A TRIAL CONTINUANCE IS NECESSARY AND PROPER This matter concerns a lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Youquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang (collectively “Plaintiffs”), owners of a single-family residence located at 2651 South Court, Palo Alto, California (the “Property”). Plaintiffs allege various issues with the Property, and have brought suit against the general contractor who was retained by Plaintiffs to construct their home, Defendants/Cross-Defendants California Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes & Designs, Inc. and California Homes and Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California Homes”), and the architect/engineer/land surveyor for the Property, Defendant/Cross-Complainant WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”). WEC, with the knowledge and support of the parties, brings this motion to continue the trial and all trial-related given the recent introduction of new damages and theories of liability from Plaintiffs ,the ongoing discovery efforts by the parties, and efforts by the parties to continue substantial settlement negotiations. (See Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette (“Doucette Decl.”), Exhibit A.)! A brief continuance of the upcoming trial and related dates would serve the best interest of all parties and allow time for the experts in this complicated matter to explore and reevaluate the additional damages and bases for liability recently raised by Plaintiffs, as well as allow for the parties to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as opposed to preparing for the April trial date. All parties have stipulated to the continuance and no party will be prejudiced if trial is continued to date of no earlier than June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may accommodate the trial and related dates and deadlines. These reasons provide good cause for this trial continuance, and WEC respectfully requests that this court grant a trial continuance so that the parties can adequately prepare the claims and defenses in the instant action. Mil Mt ' On February 26, 2020, WEC brought a Stipulated Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Trial, Mandatory Settlement Conference, and All Trial-Related dates. The Court heard the Ex Parte Application and ordered that a fully noticed Motion to Continue the Trial be submitted per Code. (See Doucette Declaration, Exhibit A.) FILE #20705 3 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. Il. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE PARTIES A TRIAL CONTINUANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1332(c), this Court has authority to grant a continuance in the matter upon a showing of good cause by the parties. Each individual case must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(c).) A variety of circumstances may be considered in determining whether good cause exists to the continue the trial, including whether “(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (/d.) The court acknowledges that “[flor many — perhaps all — lawyers, a litigation practice entails a continual barrage of unexpected and unplanned for events.” (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 15.) The court encourages trial courts to “accommodate” counsel whenever it was not “impractical” to do so. (/d. at 16.) And while it is true that the trial judge must have control of the courtroom and calendar, “it is equally true that, absent a lack of diligence or other abusive circumstances, a request for a continuance supported by a showing of good cause usually ought to be granted.” (Oliveras v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1396.) Ill. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT AND UNANTICIPATED CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF THE CASE HAS OCCURRED This Court has authority to grant a continuance in the matter upon a showing of good cause by the parties. (Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Courts are encouraged to accommodate counsel where it is not impractical to do so. (See Pham, supra at 16.) In addition to this overarching policy, the California Rules of Court identify a number of specific factors a court must consider when making a good cause determination in addition to all relevant facts and circumstances: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; Mil FILE #20705 4 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) Here, a review of the grounds for continuance as well as the Court’s factors for consideration shows a trial continuance is necessary and proper under the circumstances. First, pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(7), a significant and unanticipated change in the status of the case has resulted in the case not being ready for trial. Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq., recently produced additional documents including photographs of the foundation of the Property. (Doucette Decl., Exhibit A.) According to Mr. Belote, those photographs have caused Plaintiffs’ experts to reevaluate additional damages related to the foundation and additional bases for liability. (id.) Plaintiffs conducted an additional inspection of the subject property on or about February 20, 2020, and Defense experts conducted an inspection of the subject property on February 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. including inspecting the test pits drilled by Plaintiffs’ experts. (/d.) As of the time of this motion, the parties have retained at least ten expert witnesses, the depositions of which are set to start on March 17, 2020 and continue through April 2020. (See id.; see also Doucette Decl. 4-5.) Due to this recently discovered evidence and undisclosed theories of liability, as well as the additional FILE #20705 5 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. ongoing work being conducted by the numerous experts, additional time is necessary to assess the opinions and conclusions of Plaintiffs’ experts prior to their depositions and prior to the fast- approaching trial date. (/d.) Another factor for consideration is whether the parties will be prejudiced if a continuance is not granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(5).) Here, the Parties have engaged in, and continue to engage in, substantive settlement discussions with mediator Brad Benning, Esq. and have scheduled a mediation with Mr. Benning on March 13, 2020 in an effort to continue such settlement discussions and attempt to resolve the matter. (Doucette Decl., {93-5 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs are expected to provide additional materials concerning their experts’ reevaluation of damages sometime prior to the March 13, 2020 mediation, and should the matter not resolve, the parties have tentatively agreed to begin conducting expert witness depositions on or around March 17, 2020 depending on the availability of counsel and the expert witnesses. (/d.) The parties anticipate taking at least ten to twelve expert depositions, and based on the availability of counsel and the experts as well as the need for the opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, the parties will not be able to conduct all expert depositions by the time of trial. (/d.) As such and in light of the currently scheduled trial date, the parties will be prejudiced if unable to finalize expert discovery prior to trial. Another consideration for the Court is whether the parties’ have stipulated to the continuance, which the parties have in this matter. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(9); see also (Doucette Decl., Exhibit A.) The Court may also consider the proximity of the trial date, the length of the continuance requested, whether any prejudice will be suffered as a result of the continuance, and whether the interest of judices are best served by a continuance. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(1), (3), (6), and (10).) Here, this brief request comes just over a month before the trial date, and seeks a continuance of only two to three months. (Doucette Decl. at {6-8 and Exhibit A.) The parties agree that they will not suffer any prejudice by this short continuance. (/d.) Also, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d)(8), the Court may consider whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial — trial counsel for WEC is engaged in a trial only a week before the April trial date. (id.) Mil FILE #20705 6 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. Finally, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d)(9), this is the first request for a continuance in the matter by any party. (/d.) Iv. CONCLUSION This is a complicated matter, and as outlined herein, recent events and changing theories of liability beg the need for more time to evaluate the issues and prepare for trial. Accordingly, WEC, with the support and stipulation of all parties, hereby moves for a new trial date of no earlier than June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may accommodate the trial and related dates and deadlines. WEC has shown good cause justifies a continuance and that none of the parties will be prejudiced and will only benefit form a continuance. DATED: March 4, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: rPCUCE: RYAN P. HARLEY Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE #20705 7 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE I, Bradley D. Doucette, declare: 1. I am an attorney in good standing, admitted and licensed to practice before the courts of the State of California. I am an associate with the law firm of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart, LLP, counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant WEC and Associates, Inc. (“WEC”) I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except as to those matters that I state upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently do so. 2. Currently pending in this matter are the following dates which were set by the Court: Trial Date: April 6, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 1, 2020 3. The parties have entered into a stipulation to continue the trial, mandatory settlement conference, and all trial-related dates. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the stipulation between the parties which was filed with this Court on February 26, 2020 with WEC’s Stipulated Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Trial. Exhibit A also contains the Order by this Court setting a Motion to Continue Trial for March 26, 2020. I personally appeared for the Stipulated Ex Parte Application hereto and was informed by the Honorable Socrates P. Manoukian that the request for a trial continuance needed to be brought by a noticed motion. This stipulation is based on new theories of damages and liability by the Plaintiffs, ongoing discovery efforts by all parties, as well as ongoing settlement discussions between all parties and their counsel. At the time of filing of this motion, the parties are scheduled to participate in a mediation with mediator Brad Benning, Esq. on March 13, 2020. 4. On or around January 21, 2020, counsel for Plaintiffs Yoquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang (“Plaintiffs”) produced additional documents to all parties including photographs of the foundation of the subject property to this lawsuit. Some of these documents have been used as exhibits in recent depositions, such as the deposition of California Homes’ Simon Krek. For example, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel to all counsel containing two exhibits that were produced and used in a recent deposition. I am informed and believe FILE #20705 8 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. that these documents and others, paired with the deposition testimony of party witnesses thus far, has recently caused Plaintiffs’ experts to reevaluate additional damages and bases for liability. Plaintiffs’ experts are expected to provide additional reports and/or analyses concerning their experts’ reevaluation of damages prior to March 13, 2020. Accordingly, WEC and Defendants/Cross- Defendants California Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes & Designs, Inc. and California Homes and Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California Homes”) will require additional time to evaluate any and all supplemental materials and opinions provided by Plaintiffs’ experts and prepare defenses and responses accordingly. 5. In advance of the March 13, 2020 mediation, the parties have met and conferred at length in good faith with each other regarding settlement discussions, necessary expert discovery, depositions, and the need for a brief trial continuance. Numerous percipient witness depositions have taken place, and the parties have tentatively agreed to begin taking depositions of expert witnesses on or around March 17, 2020 based on the availability of counsel and expert witnesses. The parties have discussed taking the Plaintiffs’ experts’ depositions in late March, followed by the depositions of expert witnesses for WEC and California Homes in early to mid-April. I am informed and believe that Plaintiffs’ experts’ deposition testimony will need to be reviewed by the other expert witnesses in preparation for their depositions and in connection with forming their expert opinions and conclusions in this matter. 6. After entering into a stipulation regarding a trial continuance, the parties agreed that a brief continuance until at least June 1, 2020 was acceptable. I am informed and believe that on or around 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, counsel for all parties met and conferred and further confirmed their availability for a trial continuance until June 1, 2020 through July 15, 2020, and/or later pending the Court’s availability. Further, trial counsel for WEC, Ryan P. Harley, is set to begin trial on another matter on March 30, 2020 (Macarthur Transit Community v. Sandis Civil Engineers, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. HG18899280) and has informed the other parties as such. 7. There have been no other requests for trial continuances in this matter by any party. MI Ml FILE #20705 9 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEcent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. 8. There would be no prejudice to any party by the granting of a trial continuance and to allow for the orderly completion of discovery and expert investigation. However, the parties would be prejudiced by not having this necessary evidence accumulated and evaluated prior to trial. 9. I sent a draft of this motion to counsel for all parties on March 3, 2020 via email and asked for comments and objections, if any. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of that email correspondence. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4" day of March, 2020 at Oakland, California. FILE #20705 10 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTEEXHIBIT "A"Woe bb ILE FEB 2 6 2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA YOUQIN CAO, an Individual. and CASE NO. 17CV310601 ) XINRONG JIANG, an Individual, ) [Assigned to Hon. Maureen A. Folan, Dept. 6] ) Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO ) CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL- vs. ) RELATED DATES;4PROPOSED] ORDER ) CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & ) DESIGN, INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES.) & DESIGNS, INC., a California Corporation; ) CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN _ ) DESIGN CENTER, INC., a California ) Corporation; WEC ASSOCIATES, INC..a_) California Corporation; and DOES 2 through ) 100, . ) ) Complaint Filed: 5/19/17 Defendants. ) FAC Filed: 8/15/17 Trial Date: 4/06/20 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER ClarkHill\67652\383450\2233605 1 1.v1-2/24/20TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Plaintiffs Youquin Cao and Xinrong Jiang (collectively “Plaintiffs”), Defendant California Home Builders & Design Inc. dba California Homes & Designs, Inc. and California Homes and Kitchen Design Center, Inc. (collectively “California Homes”), and Defendants WEC and Associates, Inc. (*WEC”) (collectively “the Parties”) do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, the Trial date in this matter is currently set for April 6, 2020 at 8:45 a.m., and the Mandatory Settlement Conference is currently set for April 1, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.: WHEREAS, the Parties propose a brief Trial continuance of thirty to forty-five days, with the parties preference being that the Trial date be set for the week of May 4, 2020, or a date as reasonably close to the thirty to forty-five-day timeframe as possible, pending the Court’s availability; WHEREAS, good cause exists to continue the Trial and all Trial-related dates in this matter as the Parties have engaged in, and continue to engage in, substantive settlement discussions with mediator Brad Benning, Esq. and have scheduled a mediation with Mr. Benning on March 13, 2020 in an effort to continue such settlement discussions and attempt to resolve the matter. The Parties have been engaged in substantial discovery efforts, including taking multiple depositions of all parties involved and exchanging extensive written discovery, and the Parties agree that these efforts have and will aid in settlement discussions at the forthcoming mediation. The Parties agree that the continuance is needed to allow the Parties to focus their efforts and resources towards settlement as opposed to ongoing discovery final Trial preparations for the upcoming April trial date in this matter; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq., recently produced additional documents before the conclusion of depositions of his clients including photographs of the foundation of the subject property. According to Mr. Belote, those photographs had caused Plaintiffs experts to reevaluate additional damages related to the foundation and additional bases for liability. Plaintiffs conducted an additional inspection of the subject property on or about February 20, 2020, and Defense experts are scheduled to conduct another inspection of the subject property on February 26, 2020 beginning at 10:00 a.m. including inspecting the test pits drilled by Plaintiffs experts. Due to x STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER ClarkHill\67652\383450\2233605 11 w1-2/24/20nn e Ww these recently discovered photographs and the additional work being conducted by the experts, it is anticipated that the experts will need additional time to assess the new information prior to their depositions. Accordingly, the Parties agree that at least ten to twelve expert depositions will need to be conducted prior to the current Trial date. WHEREAS, no Parties in this matter have previously requested a Trial continuance; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the short continuance would promote judicial economy and no prejudice by any of the Parties will be suffered by the short continuance of the Trial date and all Trial-related dates; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that all dates and deadlines, including discovery cutoffs and dispositive motion deadlines, shall correspond to the continued trial date. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this Stipulation may be singed in counterparts and that signatures transmitted via facsimile or electronically shall be given the same force and effect as if originals, and all of the counterparts when executed and taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: February 24, 2020 CLARK HILL LLP By: Torey Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG DATED: February 24, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: RYAN P. HARLEY, ESQ. BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER ClarkHilN67652\383450\22336051 1.v1-2/24/20 sven= “2 mn these recently discovered photographs and the additional work being conducted by the experts, it is anticipated that the experts will need additional time to assess the new information prior to their depositions. Accordingly, the Parties agree that at least ten to twelve expert depositions will need to be conducted prior to the current Trial date. WHEREAS, no Parties in this matter have previously requested a Trial continuance; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the short continuance would promote judicial economy and no prejudice by any of the Parties will be suffered by the short continuance of the Trial date and all Trial-related dates; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that all dates and deadlines, including discovery cutoffs and dispositive motion deadlines, shall correspond to the continued trial date. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this Stipulation may be singed in counterparts and that signatures transmitted via facsimile or electronically shall be given the same force and effect as if originals, and all of the counterparts when executed and taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: February 24, 2020 CLARK HILL LLP By: JEFFREY H. BELOTE, ESQ. MELISSA PALAZOLA, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG DATED: February 24, 2020 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: — = SRABE DOUCETTE— RYAN P. HARLEY, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WEC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER ClarkHill\67652\383450\223360511.v1-2/24/20CS oO Se Ch Om Gh by oR PW B® BP NR KN Ye Be Be Be ee ee ee e2rxrtanank F&F OR fF FS CHAKA AeA FBR SE S DATED: February 24, 2020 KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC BF fl phar a— KEVIN P. KENNEDY, ESQ. E. VAL. MENESES, ESQ. By: Associated with: DATED: February 24, 2020 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC. dba CALIFORNIA HOMES & DESIGNS, INC., CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC. 4 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER ClarkHill\67652\383450\22336051 1.v1-2/24/20cent Am ke Ww PROPOSED] ORDER Having read and reviewed the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties, and having found good cause therefor. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. tstsfe t nd Mandatory Settlement Conference indftory YSéttleme| onfeérehce of April 1, 2020 shall be continued to at 9:00 a.m. i 4. All Tri ines; i Sand dispositive motion deadlines, s f continued Trial date. IT IS SO ORDERED. patep: 4 Pron 00 2 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER Clark Hill\67652\383450\223360511.v1-2/24/2068 Sp on Se 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1899 Harrison St, Sta.1700, Oakland, CA s4si2 Phone (510) 844-5100 Fax (510) 844.5101 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) County of San Diego ) 1 am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 207, Carlsbad, California 92011. On this date, | served the foregoing document described as STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Oakland, Califor: to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. | am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S, Postal Service on that same day wit postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served] service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing i affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) — I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Retum Receipt Request to be placed in the United States Mail in Oakland, California, BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY & (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) — | served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: February 25, 2020. (1 FEDERAL EXPRESS - | caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents wit delivery fees provided for. 1 (BY FACSIMILE) - | caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimil number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (510) 844-5101 indicated al pages were transmitted. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - [ caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee{s). Executed on February 25, 2020 at Carlsbad, California. BJ (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. VICKI WOOD ywood@ cemslaw.com | legalservices(@ cemslaw.com 20705 PROOF OF SERVICECoen 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 1998 Harrison St, Ste.1700 ‘Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (810) 844-5100 Fax (510) 844.5101 20705 YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG v, CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.,, et al. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 17CV310601 Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 415-984-8500 — Fax: 415-984-8599 belote ilL.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS YOUQUIN CAO & XINRONG JIANG Kevin P. Kennedy, Esq E, Val Meneses, Esq. KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC 7964 Arjons Drive, Suite I San Diego, CA 92126 858-267-4127 — Fax: 858-267-4128 kkennedy@kennedysouza.com vn souza.com OUR FILE NO. 20705 SERVICE LIST Brian Preston, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN PRESTON 111 North Market Street, Suite 705 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 293-2700 — FAX (408) 293-2711 bp@brianprestonlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC. ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, IN PROOF OF SERVICEEXHIBITFrom: Rosman, Debora A. Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:09 PM To: 'kkennedy@kennedysouza.com' ; 'vmeneses@kennedysouza.com' ; brian preston ; Ryan P. Harley Cc: Belote, Jeffrey H. ; Rosman, Debora A. ; Brown, Lydia Subject: Cao/Jiang v. California Home [Construction Pictures - CAO/JIANG 001853 - 002413] 021220 on Workshare Good afternoon counsel of record: Mr. Belote requested that I provide you with the electronic link to the construction pictures which were previously produced. Ihave shared Cao/Jiang v. California Home [Construction Pictures - CAO/JIANG 001853 - 002413] 021220 with you via Workshare Connect. Click here to access: Mr. Belote requested that I provide you with the attached selected pictures marked as Exhibits 58 and 69 to Mr. Krek’s deposition.Please let Mr. Belote know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Debora Debora Rosman Paralegal CLARK HILL PLC One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 | San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 984-8515 (direct) | (415) 984-8599 (fax) DRosman@ClarkHill.com | www.clarkhill.com\ eH wr Se Se F rs 7 Soto KM ’ ad OK i id a i bl s 7) Py * es a a | ae a i . Pe” Figg? - Pains ee Me ey soe BotaccaeseEXHIBIT "C"From: Bradley D. Doucette Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:40 PM To: Belote, Jeffrey H.; Palozola, Melissa M.; Brown, Lydia; Val Meneses; Donna Dolezal; brian preston Ce: Ryan P. Harley; Legal Assistant Services; Denise Welch Subject: Motion to Continue Trial (03-26-20) | Yougin Cao, et al. v. California Home Builders & Design, Inc., et al. | 20705 Attachments: DRAFT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL.pdf Categories: COMPLETE Counsel, Attached please find a draft of WEC’s Motion to Continue Trial which we intend to file tomorrow. Per our discussions last week and today, let us know if you have any objections or changes, preferably by 10:00AM tomorrow morning. Please also confirm if you are willing to accept service of the final motion via e-mail. Thank you, Bradley D. Doucette Attorney at Law T: 510-844-5100 | C: 626-807-8439 F: 510-844-5101 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94612 bdoucette@ccmslaw.com COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. www.ccmslaw.com South Pasadena 626-243-1100 - Orange 714-823-4100 - San Diego 760-274-2110 Oakland 510-844-5100 - Inland Empire 909-581-6100 PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the e-mail. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive any privilege that might ordinarily attach to this communication and that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this e-mail is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone number shown below and to delete the e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.cent Dn Rh Ww 28 ‘COLLINS COLLINS. MUIR + STEWART. PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) Ss. County of Los Angeles. ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, Califomia 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as WEC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE on the interested parties in this action by placing same ina sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing, Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business, I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) ~ I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY & (Y ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) — I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List. FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. (BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 indicated all pages were transmitted. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). Executed on March 4, 2020 at South Pasadena, California. (] (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) - | declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. xo Parner DEBBIE PARKER FILE #20705 li MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART... YOUQIN CAO and XINRONG JIANG y, CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC.,, et al. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 17CV310601 OUR FILE NO. 20705 SERVICE LIST Jeffrey H. Belote, Esq. Brian Preston, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN PRESTON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 111 North Market Street, Suite 705 San Francisco, CA 94111 San Jose, CA 95113 415-984-8500 — Fax: 415-984-8599 (408) 293-2700 — FAX (408) 293-2711 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND YOUQUIN CAO & XINRONG JIANG KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC. Kevin P. Kennedy, Esq. E. Val Meneses, Esq. KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC 7964 Arjons Drive, Suite I San Diego, CA 92126 858-267-4127 — Fax: 858-267-4128 kkennedy@kennedysouza.com ymeneses@kennedysouza.com ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR CALIFORNIA HOMES AND KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER, INC., and CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDERS & DESIGN, INC. FILE #20705 12 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF BRADLEY D. DOUCETTE