Exhibit,Appendix: D. BUCKLEY PROPERTIES INC., VS. PALOMA GAOS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                EMA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Nov-02-2012 10:00 am

Case Number: CUD-12-642294
Filing Date: Nov-02-2012 09:30 am
Filed by: JUDY MURRAY
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03826974
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

D. BUCKLEY PROPERTIES INC., VS. PALOMA GAOS et al

001C03826974

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO OD YN DN MW Bw wD KH

BN RRP RP NR BR ee ew ew ew we ee
SoU AVM FY HF SOE wed aE G RTS

JOANNA KOZUBAL, State Bar No. 237960
1965 Market Street, 2"! Floor

San Francisco, California 94103

Tel: (415) 864-6962

Fax: (415) 626-9835 F LeDp
Suparior Court of. California
Attorney for Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest ABP, Ot
D. Buckley Properties Inc.
yerop NOV 0 22uiz
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: DY MUR
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LIMITED JURISDICTION

PALOMA GAOS, ANDRES LOPEZ, FELIX Superior Court Appellate Division
GAOS, MARIANO GAOS,
Case No. CUD-12-642294
Petitioners,
v. OBJECTION OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST,
D. BUCKLEY PROPERTIES INC, TO
DEFENDANTS PALOMA GAOS, ANDRES
LOPEZ, FELIX GAOS, MARIANO GAOS’
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

Respondent.

D. BUCKLEY PROPERTIES INC., a
California Corporation

Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest.

Se

Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest objects to supplemental exhibits provided by Petitioners and
Defendants. The Exhibits 7 and 8 are ircelevant, untimely and misrepresent the facts of this case.
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.486(b) states:

“Contents of supporting documents
(1) A petition that seeks review of a trial court ruling must be accompanied by an
adequate record, including copies of:
(A) The ruling from which the petition seeks relief:
1

Objection to Supplemental ExhibitsoO Oe IN AW FB WH

RP NR Ye NY NY NR NN YB ew Be ee Re ee ea
eo ND HY FSF BY F So we QA AR DH SB Ss

(B) All documents and exhibits submitted to the trial court supporting and
opposing the petitioner's position;

(C) Any other documents or portions of documents submitted to the trial court
that are necessary for a complete understanding of the case and the ruling
under review; and

(D) A reporter's transcript of the oral proceedings that resulted in the ruling under
review.” Emphasis added.

Petitioners were obligated to served all documents at the time of filing of the Petition for the
Writ of Mandate, so that Real Party in Interest may have an opportunity to address any evidence then
submitted in its Opposition to the Petition.

With the distegards for the rules, Petitioners attempt to sneak in additional evidence and theories
in their Reply and even after their Reply was filed in supplemental Exhibits and comments.

Exhibit 7 is not relevant to this case and does not have any bearing in this matter.

Exhibit 8 misrepresents the statements made by Plaintiff. Exhibit 8 does not establish anything
other then amendment of the notice in the previous Ellis Act.’ Defendants footnote states “document
establishes that after February 2011 when D Buckley Properties Inc. allegedly became aware that Felix
and Mariano Gaos were not tenants, David Buckley... did not dispute the claim of Andres Lopez Felix
Gaos and Maraino Gaos... of their right to the extension and additional relocation fees.”

Exhibit 2 in support of the Writ, Declaration of David Buckley clearly states that in February
2011 David Buckley activated the cameras that started monitoring the entry ways to the subject unit.
(See paragraph 21 of the Declaration of David Buckley) It does not establish that Plaintiff was aware of
fraud committed by Petitioners on that date. The final conclusion that Defendants Mariano Gaos and
Felix Gaos do not reside at the subject property was made after David Buckley spoke with Paloma Gaos’
brother in law, Bernardo Lucero. (par. 50 of the Declaration of David Buckley).

Defendants misstate facts that are clearly stated in opposing papers.

Date: November 2, 2012 Zp lO

Joanna Kozubal
Attorney for Real Party in Interest
D, Buckley Properties

Objection to Supplemental Exhibitsa

om IN

PROOF OF SERVICE

Tam a citizen of the United States, employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California.
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action.
My business address is 1965 Market Street, 2" Floor, San Francisco, California 94103.

On the date below, I served true and correct copies of the following documents:
OBJECTION OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST TO SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
on the following named person or entity:

Raquel Fox, Esq.
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
126 Hyde Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

by:

[x]  U.S.MAIL: Causing an envelope to be addressed thereto, true copy of the foregoing

documents to be enclosed and sealed therein, with postage prepaid and deposited said envelope in the
United States Post Mail at San Francisco, California, for the collection and mailing to the office of the
addressee on the date shown herein following ordinary business practices.

T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true an correct.

Executed on November 2, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

JOANNA KOZUBAL
Declarant