Motion-Secondary: BRUCE JAMES BERGER et al VS. AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                we

we

JEANNE SCHERER, Chief Counsel

LAUREN A. MACHADO, Deputy Chief Counsel

JOANN GEORGALLIS, Assistant Chief Counsel
ALEKSANDRA SACHOWICZ, Deputy Attorney, Bar No. 169597
Aleksandra. Sachowicz(idot.ca.gov

1120 N Street (MS 57) P.O. Box 1438

Sacramento, California 95812-1438

Telephone: (916) 654-2630

Facsimile: (916) 654-6128

Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent California
Department of Transportation

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

09/21/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY-MADONNA CARANTO

Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BRUCE JAMES BERGER; KEVIN D.
CHURCHILL; CHARLES C. FRANCO;
EDWARD LEACH; WILLIAM WEST, IL;
MARK WRIGHT, and CHARLES A.
PATRICK

Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
v.

AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
INC.; AMEC ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DEPT: 302

Defendants/Respondents.

Case No. CPF-12-511817

DECLARATION OF ALEKSANDRA
SACHOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S EX-PARTE MOTION FOR
ORDER SHORTENTING TIME

DATE: September 22, 2016
TIME: 11:00 a.m.

Action Filed January 11, 2012

1. Tam an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California. I

am employed as Caltrans Deputy Attorney IV in the Legal Division of the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) at 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA.

Nw

I became the attorney of record in this case in July of 2016. I took over the

representation of Caltrans from attorneys Alice Ramsey and Richard Mitchell. Alice

Ramsey retired in 2015.

1

DECLARATION OF ALEKSANDRA SACHOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE

MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENTING TIMEon DH wn

3. After I took over the case I familiarized myself with the contents of the pleadings and
correspondence exchanged to date. I also contacted the plaintiffs’ attorney, Alan Davis,
and the co-defendant’s attorney, Robert Roginson to discuss the case and learn what I
potentially may not have gleaned from studying the contents of the file.

4, Thad a conversation with Mr. Alan Davis in July of 2016 wherein he referenced
settlement discussions brokered by Alice Ramsey, I told him I was aware of the
correspondence on the issue and that I did not see any evidence that a settlement
agreement was reached on any terms. I asked Mr. Davis outright if he believed that there
was a valid, enforceable settlement agreement between Caltrans and the plaintiffs and/or
the plaintitts and Amec. Mr. Davis expressly and explicitly said to me that there was no
enforceable settlement agreement,

5. In my subsequent conversations with Mr. Davis he kept alluding to the existence of a
binding settlement “agreement with” and/or “commitment from” Alice Ramsey. I made it}
clear that if he believed there was an enforceable settlement agreement, he should send
me a letter stating its terms and evidence of same and that I would be willing to honor it.
He never provided me with any such document and in fact, in our conversations, kept
referring to the fact that the settlement amount was never discussed with specificity or
agreed upon. In fact, Mr. Davis said he was in no position to commit to a settlement
figure because he was not even aware of what the value of his clients’ claims were. He
stated that he lacked sufficient payroll records from his clients and/or Amec to ascertain
what they were paid and what they could be owing if prevailing wage rates had been
applicable. I informed Mr. Davis that the records Caltrans had in its possession from
Amec were too inadequate to ascertain what the plaintiffs were actually paid. In our
conversations in August and September of 2016 Mr. Davis kept inviting me to arrive at a
settlement offer based on Caltrans’ estimates and assumptions about what may be owed
to the plaintiffs and kept saying he was inclined to enter into a setilement agreement in

the 60 to 70 thousand dollar range.
2

DECLARATION OF ALEKSANDRA SACHOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX-PARTE

MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENTING TIMEyo

6.

On July 14, 2016, I sent a letter to both Mr. Davis and co-defendant’s attorney Robert
Roginson setting forth the Caltrans position regarding a potential settlement. A true and
correct copy of said letter is attached to the plaintiff's Ex Parte Application as an exhibit.
1 wanted to ensure that both parties understood that Caltrans has no liability in this case
and that it has no intention of paying any money in furtherance of the settlement. I urged
the parties to bring the case to trial so that we may finally have a resolution and I offered

to work cooperatively with both sides.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct.

Executed this 20" day of September 2016 at Sacramento, CA.

“ ALEKSANDRA SACHOWICZ
Declarant

3

DECLARATION OF ALEKSANDRA SACHOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX-PARTE

MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENTING TIME