Preview
oO © MO ND OH FF WwW
on =
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
Kevin A. Taheny, SBN: 88146
Law Offices of Kevin A. Taheny, Inc.
A Professional Corporation
700 S. Claremont Street, Ste. 101
San Mateo, CA 94402
Fax 650.349.1000
Tel. 650.345.4000
Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Arata
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
05/18/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY:ROMY RISK
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Non Profit
Corporation, et al.,
Defendant(s).
I, Thomas Arata, declare:
Case Number: CGC 10 501168
DECLARATIONS OF THOMAS ARATA IN
SUPPORT OF 1) MOTION TO AMEND THE
PLEADINGS AND/OR PROCEEDING BY
STRIKING OUT PLAINTIFF THOMAS
ARATA’S NAME AND/OR CORRECTING A
MISTAKE; AND 2) MOTION TO CHANGE
ATTORNEY; EXHIBITS A, B and C.
(Civil Code of Procedure §§ 284, 473(a)(1), 576)
Date: June 21, 2016
Time: 9:30 A.M. Location: Dept: 302
Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Reservation Number: 05170621-06
Trial Date: 6/27/2016 Action filed: 6/30/2010
1. | was named a Plaintiff in the above matter without my knowledge or consent and this
declaration is in support of my motions to amend the pleadings and/or the proceeding by striking
out my name and/or correcting a mistake of the Plaintiffs’ attorney who named me as a party
Plaintiff and change attorney.
2. | have personal knowledge of each fact stated herein.
3. lam aretired San Francisco Deputy Sheriff.
4. On August 27, 2008, | signed a fee agreement for legal services to be rendered by the Law
Offices of Paul L. Kranz regarding San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association (SFDSA). This
agreement was presented to me by attorney Louis Garcia of Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz and it
stated that the client may discharge the attorney at any time. | asked Mr. Garcia what the process
-1-
DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW
on =
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
would be if | decided to withdraw from the lawsuit. He informed me that | would only have to submit
a letter to the firm to be released from the lawsuit along with a check for my portion of the
outstanding legal services due.
5. On November 10, 2008, Mr. Kranz filed a lawsuit in Federal court against the SFDSA, et al.
on behalf of me and four (4) other named plaintiffs, herein after "Pecot I".
6. On March 31, 2009, | decided to withdraw from Pecot | and prepared a letter to The Law
Offices of Paul L. Kranz indicating | must withdraw from this lawsuit and discharging his services. A
true and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit A.
7. On April 1, 2009, | hand delivered the original of my letter in an envelope addressed to the
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz and handed it to his office receptionist. | also enclosed my check
#1007 in the amount of $2,487 to pay in full the last bill that | had received from Mr. Kranz. A true
and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit B. That check was later cashed by the
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz, i.e. his office got my March 31, 2009 letter and | believed my
involvement in Pecot | was over.
8. On June 30, 2010, over a year later and unbeknownst to me at the time, Mr. Kranz on behalf
of the remaining Pecot | plaintiffs filed a new complaint, case no. CGC-10-501168, hereinafter
"Pecot Il" and named me as a Plaintiff without my permission or prior notice. If | had been asked to
join Pecot Il, | would have declined.
9. On January 13, 2012, | was stunned to receive a letter by email dated January 12, 2012
from Mr. Kranz (this is the first communication from him in almost three years) informing me about
the court's July 7, 2011 adverse ruling and his recommended strategy for judicial reconsideration.
10. On January 18, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz and told him that | withdrew from the lawsuit and
have had no involvement in the case for almost three (3) years. A true and correct copy of this
document is attached as Exhibit C. Mr. Kranz did not respond to my email.
11. | On February 26, 2012, | received another letter by email from Mr. Kranz dated February 25,
2012 informing me of an order awarding $20,000 in attorney's fees to the named defendants and
their attorney. Mr. Kranz requested that all the plaintiffs meet to discuss the matter. | did not attend
this meeting.
-2-
DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW
on =
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
12. On March 1, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz a second time and again told him that | dropped out
of the lawsuit, and had no involvement in the case or communication from his firm for most of the
last three (3) years.
13. On April 7, 2012, | received another letter by email dated April 6, 2012 from Mr. Kranz
informing me that he had filed a motion for reconsideration and requested the named plaintiffs meet
in person or by conference call to discuss his legal strategy. | did not attend this meeting.
14. On April 13, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz a third time and again told him that | had | withdrawn
over three years ago. | received no response from him.
15. On November 18, 2013, | received a copy of an Abstract of Judgment in the instant case
filed with the San Mateo Assessor's Office placing a lien on my home in the amount of $20,000 with
interest from March 30, 2012 arising from the Slap order for attorney fees plus interest and filing
costs in this case.
16. On November 22, 2013, | emailed Joseph Leake, one of the named plaintiffs in PECOT |
and Il, asking him to explain what's going on because | received no responses from Mr. Kranz.
17. On December 4, 2013, | also met with Joseph Leake to discuss the situation and | continued
to contact Joseph Leake again to find about the status of the case thereafter because Mr. Kranz
continues not to contact me.
18. On July 1, 2014, Joseph Leake informs me each of four plaintiffs have made payment of
$5,500 to cover the $20,000 Slap order plus interest and filing costs in this case.
19. On July 16, 2014, the lien is still in place on my property according to the San Mateo County
Assessor's Office records and | email Joseph Leake for an update about the lien. | still have had no
response from Mr. Kranz’ office.
20. On July 17, 2014, | receive an email from Joseph Leake that Mr. Murray informed Mr. Kranz
that he could not accept payment because he was appealing the $20,000 Slapp Award.
21. On August 25, 2014, Joseph Leake emails me a copy of an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction
of Judgment that Mr. Murray filed in this case on August 18, 2014 which indicates (incorrectly) only
a partial satisfaction of the Slap order.
22. On November 10, 2014, | received a letter from Mr. Kranz dated November 4, 2014 that he
-3-
DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW
on =
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
recorded a certified copy of that Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment with the County of
San Mateo-Recorder's Office. | went to the San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder's Office
and confirmed that the lien placed on my property has now been acknowledged as satisfied.
23. On March 12, 2015, | receive an email from Mr. Kranz along with an attached proposed
settlement agreement between the plaintiffs in the case and the defendants identified as the
SFDSA. Mr. Kranz stated in his email that he wants me to sign the settlement agreement
explaining,
"By signing the agreement, the only thing you give up is that you are agreeing not to sue the
DSA again over the same issues that have been part of this lawsuit, as well as trademark
and conversion suits..... it is to your advantage to sign the settlement agreement, if you
want this case with the DSA to end."
This was misleading because the case would not end as there still were four other defendants
besides the SFDSA and | did not want to settle a lawsuit brought without my permission.
24. On March 19, 2015, | received a similar email from Mr. Kranz stating,
"The DSA has agreed that you don't have to sign the settlement agreement. The DSA wants
something in writing from you, simply stating that you will not sue the DSA again or that you
will not seek attorneys fees from the DSA. If you will provide that, that will end the case with
the DSA for you. Therefore, please do so."
25. On March 20, 2015, | send an email to Mr. Kranz informing him that | have hired an attorney
Kevin Taheny. | had made up my mind that | needed to obtain my own legal counsel to extricate me
from this legal matter because Mr. Kranz has continuously refused to remove my name as a named
plaintiff in a pending court case in which he did not represent me. | told Mr. Kranz that | am not
opposed to preparing a written statement informing the DSA that | do not plan to sue them or seek
attorney's fees from them. | also told him that | am opposed to signing any settlement agreement
that identifies me as a plaintiff in any state case. | informed him that we have some questions for
him and asked to have a conference call with him on Monday March 23, 2015.
26. On March 23, 2015, | received an email from Mr. Kranz stating,
"The DSA is not going to require any statement from you based on discussions with its
attorney last Thursday and Friday. The DSA is signing the settlement agreement, after
which we can file a dismissal on your behalf." (Emphasis added.)
27. On March 8, 2016, | checked the County Clerk Recorder's Office in San Mateo County and
-4-
DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoo NO mn F&F Ww NY
wy YH RH DN |= B&B B&B Bw Be Be ew ew ew
@ ak © NSN 5 FO OAN FHA FD NH FO
27
28
Law OrFices oF
Kevin A. TAHENY, INC.
a 650.988 1000
el. 660.245.4000
discovered that Mr. Murray filed a "Notice of Removal of Abstract of Judgment" withdrawing the
$20,000 (plus interest and filing fees) Slapp award judgment and fully releasing and finally removing
the lien on my property. This document was filed in the County Clerk Recorder's Office on October
14, 2015 without notice to me.
28. On April 25, 2016, | made up my mind and asked Kevin Taheny to file a motion to have me
dismissed as a plaintiff.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Dated: May 6, 2016 Hous (aa~
THOMAS ARATA
-5-
DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSExhibit AMarch 31, 2009
Mr. Louis Garcia
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, California, 94710
Dear Louis:
This letter is served to inform you that I can no longer continue to financially provide
funding for the federal lawsuit against the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’ s Association
(known as Pecot/Owyang et.al vs Dave Wong, et al.). I was a named plaintiff in the
originally filed complaint.
I request to be released from the lawsuit due to the ever-increasing financial cost of these
legal services. I simply can no longer afford to remain involved as a named plaintiff.
The legal foundation of the complaint is accurate and represents a factual history of the
unlawful, illegal activities of Mr. Wong and his small band of followers. I believe the
case has strong merit and that your efforts in support of your legal arguments would
prevail in federal court if it is determined that this litigation is to continue. However,
because of financial reasons, I must withdrawal from the case and discharge your services
as provided in the terms of our legal agreement.
Tam enclosing a personal check in the amount of $2487.00 to pay my portion of the legal
fees identified in the last billing statement that J received.
Altogether, I have paid a total of $5709.00 in legal fees to your firm. In the event of a
settlement or coust decision that orders the legal fees of the plaintiff's to be reimbursed, I
would expect that this amount of legal fees would be refunded to me.
Thank you.
Ahnan 4, Oste-
Thomas G. Arata
1974 Eucalyptus Avenue
San Carlos, California, 94070
650) 592-69!
EXHIBIT AExhibit B[Mary . Arata 1007
1974. &. Aye, DATE Bl 00
11-7649/8210°
ae eek, CA 94122
rel es ae 1P~
gq, ae 1OPELAEH 7EECO bane a aExhibit CXFINITY Connect tyarsta@comaist.ne
Re: SFDSA lawsuit
Prom : towets@romantnet See Sees
Subject : Re: SFDSA kaveutt
Co: kpeexx729@aim.com, Rich Owyang , sfoode3aot.com,
jaisfposseS6@xgnail.com, axxartn/tryOhotrall.com
Hi Paul:
Johna called me the other day and infosmed me that I would be recaiving this letter from you. Thank you for the lether updating the
present legal sftustion with your case,
in eaty 2008, 1 informyeel your ausotigtt, Louie Garcia, that I wes going to wahcraw from this case, requested the removal of my name
from this lawsuitandthe discharge of ail legal services. Louis informed Tne that Feould do 50 a2 provisad in the tant of our lopst
Louls stated thet I would need to submit a letter to withdrew from this case and terminate our legal agreement. He dki not
state that I needed to tale any other action. So, on March 31, 2009, 1 prepared a letter to withdrew from this case and personally
delivered this letter to your office on April 1, 2009. I also paid the remainder of my postion of legal feas on that date.
‘Sinca April 1, 2009, a pariod of almost thres years, I have not had any involvernent in this case. Apemcuntly, during this period of time you
have continued to pursue legal action against Mr. Wong and other identified mambers of the San Prancisco Sheriff's
Association. So, I have no understanding of what has occurred in this case since March 31, 2009. I do not know what legal strategy
firecinas decided to pursue with this case. ‘Your frm has not provided any form of legal representation for me since March 31, 2009, when I
withdrew from this case and discharged your firm's services.
I would regummans that your firm immediethly seek to resolve this matter concerning the judge's tentative decision besad on legally and
set the record straight and terminete this casa withaut eny additions! cost ta you or the
‘Tom Arata
oer eee eee EE | 1/18/2012
BITC28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
Kevin A. Taheny, SBN: 88146
Law Offices of Kevin A. Taheny, Inc.
A Professional Corporation
700 S. Claremont Street, Ste. 101
San Mateo, CA 94402
Fax 650.349.1000
Tel. 650.345.4000
Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Arata
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case Number: CGC 10 501168
JOHNA PECOT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, DECLARATIONS OF KEVIN A. TAHENY IN
SUPPORT OF 1) MOTION TO AMEND THE
PLEADINGS AND/OR PROCEEDING BY
Plaintitf(s) STRIKING OUT PLAINTIFF THOMAS
i ARATA'S NAME AND/OR CORRECTING A
MISTAKE; AND 2) MOTION TO CHANGE
e ATTORNEY; EXHIBITS D, E and F.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Non Profit (Civil Code of Procedure §§ 284, 475(a)(1), $76)
Corporation, et al., Date: June 21, 2016
Def Time: 9:30 A.M. Location: Dept: 302
efendant(s). Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Reservation Number: 05170621-06
Trial Date: 6/27/2016 Action filed: 6/30/2010
|, Kevin A. Taheny, declare:
1. 1am the attorney for Thomas Arata and this declaration is in support of the motions to
amend the pleadings and/or the proceeding by striking out Plaintiff Thomas Arata’s name and/or
correcting a mistake of the Plaintiffs’ attorney who mistakenly named Thomas Arata as a party
Plaintiff and to change attorneys.
2. | have personal knowledge of each fact stated herein.
3. | The proposed amendment is necessary and proper in that the pleadings and records of the
proceeding incorrectly indicate Thomas Arata is a party Plaintiff and striking his name would correct
the mistake of the Thomas Arata’s former attorney who named him as a Plaintiff after that attorney
was discharged as Thomas Arata’s attorney.
4. Onor about March 20, 2015, Mr. Tom Arata requested my help with regard to an unsatisfied
abstract of judgment which was recorded against his home in San Mateo County on November 14,
-1-
DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
2013 and obtaining a dismissal from the present lawsuit.
5. On March 23, 2015, during a telephone conference with Mr. Kranz he stated that it requires a
judge to strike the provision for interest on the abstract of judgment which he stated he would take
care of the next 7 to 10 days. If claim for the interest were stricken then the abstract of judgment
would be satisfied and subject to removal. Mr. Kranz also indicated that he thought it was a mistake
to dismiss Mr. Arata which was my request.
6. On April 7, 2015, | reviewed the registry for the above action and sent Mr. Kranz a letter
because there is no indication that he had attempted to strike the interest on the abstract. Mr. Kranz
states that he is waiting for Ms. Lara Smith to file a "motion for good faith settlement” A true and
correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit D.
7. On April 20, 2015, | received a draft copy of the motion for a court order for full satisfaction
of judgment prepared by Mr. Kranz.
8. On April 21, 2015, during another telephone conference with Mr. Kranz and Mr. Arata, Mr.
Kranz asked Mr. Arata again to sign the settlement agreement with the SFDSA and he offered to
indemnify Mr. Arata in the event that he did so which was unacceptable.
9. On or about April 22, 2015, | sent a letter to Mr. Kranz reiterating that Mr. Arata had no
intention of signing the settlement agreement, that Mr. Kranz had no authority to name him in the
state litigation and that his signing the settlement agreement would indicate otherwise. A true and
correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit E.
10. On April 22"? 2015, Mr. Kranz sent me a letter indicating that he strongly anticipated resolving
the remaining part of the case against Mr. Wong, that there is no reason for Mr. Tom Arata not to
sign settlement agreement. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit F.
11. On May 5, 2015, | received an email from Mr. Kranz stating, that he filed a Request for
Dismissal as to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association (SFDSA) and that the SFDSA was
going to file a good faith settlement motion as to the other plaintiffs.
12. In August, 2015, Mr. Kranz’s motion to settle the abstract issue was heard and granted.
13. On February 22, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz requesting a status report on the case
because we had not heard from him. | stated that it appears that Tom Arata is still a named party.
-2-
DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS28
Law OFFICES oF
ax 680.249.4000,
“Te1, 650.345.4000
14. On February 24, 2016, after receiving no response from Mr. Kranz, | followed up with a
second email to Mr. Kranz informing him that | will file a motion the following week to correct the
record unless | hear from Mr. Kranz that week.
15. On February 24, 2016 Mr. Kranz respond to me by email that, "The status is that Tom Arata
will be out of the case by mid March."
16. On March 21, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz asking him if anything is happening.
17. On March 24, 2016, Mr. Kranz responded by email stating that SFDSA attorney has been
planning to file an ex parte application for approval of the settlement with the SFDSA. Mr. Kranz
stated, "her application is not being opposed, so it will be granted. | anticipate dismissing after that."
18. On March 29, 2016, | received a telephone call from Mr. Kranz explaining that the SFDSA
attorney has continued the settlement matter five times because of more pressing work in a another
case. Mr. Kranz stated that he thought the SFDSA attorney had told him that the order has actually
been signed but not registered yet on the court system so they will file a notice of settlement. Mr.
Kranz informed me that when this occurs that will take care of the litigation with the SFDSA and
then he can file a dismissal of Mr. Arata.
19. On April 5, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz stating that the signed settlement agreement
and the notice of settlement have still not been filed in the court registry. | asked Mr. Kranz to
provide any endorsed copies that have been filed. Mr. Kranz responded by email that the SFDSA
attorney is filing the Notice of Settlement and that he would check with her tomorrow.
20. On April 8, 2016, | sent to Mr. Kranz an email asking why can't he dismiss Tom Arata that if
Mr. Kranz has a settlement approved by the court and an agreed settlement with the SFDSA. |
explained to Mr. Kranz that there has been no change in the registry and that Tom Arata is anxious
to get this resolved with a pending trial date scheduled.
21. Mr. Kranz did ultimately file a motion to remove the abstract of judgment which had been
placed on Mr. Arata’s home. The present motions on behalf of Mr. Arata were not filed earlier
because it was hoped that Mr. Kranz would follow through with his stated expectations with regard to
settlement so that Mr. Arata would avoid the expense of filing this motion before the court.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
-3-
DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONStrue and correct.
Ke FTA
4 Dated: May 6, 2016 / A. y / t-
KEVIN A. TAHENY G
5
28
Law OFFices oF
-4-
DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSExhibit DLAW OFFICES OF KEVIN A. TAHENY INC
A Professional Law Corporation
700 S CLAREMONT ST., SUITE 101
SAN MATEO, CA 94402,
TEL (650) 345 - 4000
FAX (650) 349-1000
April 7, 2015
Mr. Paul L. Kranz Esq.
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
499 14th Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Pecot et al. vs. SF Deputy Sheriff's Association (SFDSA) et al.
SF Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
As you know from our telephone conference with Mr. Tom Arata on March 22,
2015, Mr. Arata has retained me with regard to the unsatisfied Abstract of Judgment
which was recorded against his home on November 14, 2013 by Mr. Murray, Esq.
During our telephone conversation, you stated that it requires a court order to strike the
provision for interest from the Abstract of Judgment which you stated you would obtain
from a judge within the next seven (7) to ten (10) days. The Superior Court’s Registry
does not indicate any application by you for such an order and | need to know the
status. Please note that the striking of the interest on the Abstract of Judgment must
also result in a recordable Full Satisfaction of Judgment to remove the Abstract as a
lien from the title to his home.
You also stated that it would be a mistake to request a dismissal of Mr. Arata as
a Plaintiff with regard to the defendants represented by Mr. Murray because you said
Mr. Murray would attempt to get money because of his predatory nature. On March 23,
2015, Mr. Arata provided me a copy of your e-mail to him that he received after our
conference in which you state, in part, that the
*,..DSA is signing the settlement agreement, after which we
can filed a dismissal on your behalf.”
Stating that you can file a dismissal after telling us it would be a mistake to do so has
caused additional concern. This is especially so since Mr. Murray has filed an appeal to
increase the amount of attorney's fees awarded him in the first anti-slapp motion that
resulted in this Abstract of Judgment which was recorded against the title of Mr. Arata’s
home. You also said during our telephone conference that you intended to make a
motion for attorneys fees for the denial of Mr. Murray's second anti-slapp motion within
a month and that might assist in settling the matter with Mr. Murray.
EXHIBIT »Mr. Paul L. Kranz Esq.
Re: Pecot vs. SFDSA
April 7, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Arata wants to be extricated from this litigation without any further harm or
potential liability to himself. You had no authority to name Mr. Arata as a plaintiff in the
above action and you still have no authority to represent him in this case or take any
action on his behalf. Naming him as a plaintiff in the case resulted in the recordation of
Mr. Murray's Abstract of Judgment as.a lien against his property in November 2013 and
now subjects him to more potential liability for additional expenses. Mr. Arata has been
patient but has directed me to pursue all legal remedies available to him unless a
satisfactory resolution is expeditiously reached.
If you are unable to resolve this matter, | suggest you consider filing a motion to
strike all references to Mr. Arata as a plaintiff from the pleadings and court filings, or
some similar application for an order from the court, on the grounds you had no
authority to name him as a piaintiff or as a party you represent. We would be willing to
cooperate with you in addressing the issue to the court. Otherwise, | will be forced to
address this to the court by intervening on his behalf which | would prefer to avoid.
However, | do not.know of any other way to unentangle him from this litigation.
Please provide me with any documents concerning Mr. Arata for my review
before you file them with the court.
Very truly yours,
KAT/yn |Exhibit E.LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN A. TAHENY INC
A Professional Law Corporation
700 S CLAREMONT ST., SUITE 101
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
TEL (650) 345 - 4000
FAX (650) 349-1000
April 22, 2015
Mr, Paul L. Kranz Esq.
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
499 14th Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Pecot et al. vs. SF Deputy Sheriff's Association (SFDSA) et al.
SF Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
After our telephone conference with Mr. Tom Arata on April 21, 2015, Mr. Arata
and | discussed your proposals regarding his signing the settlement agreement with the
SFDSA and your indemnity. Mr. Arata has no intention of signing the settlement
agreement with the SFDSA. You had no authority to name him in this state litigation and
his signing the settlement would indicate otherwise. Your offer to indemnify him with
reference to his signing the SFDSA settlement agreement is insufficient when compared
to his potential exposure for additional expenses and costs as a party to the litigation
with Mr. Wong should he ratify your actions now. He doesn’t want to become part of this
ongoing litigation in which he has not been involved.
We reviewed your motion to compel and you should only state the parties you
represent in the motion’s caption. You should not misstate that you represent him in
this case by stating “Named Plaintiffs...et al.” because we understand that you named
him as Plaintiff. We do want the abstract lien removed the title of his home but, if you
cannot do that without stating you are representing him, then, do not file the motion
because we are not engaging you to represent him and do not want to mislead the court
or parties. He wants this matter resolved soon. You indicated a time line to us and we
expect you to do what you:say to try to resolve the case. If you can’t resolve this, | will
address this to the court which again | would like to avoid.
Your courtesy and cooperation in providing me with any documents concerning
Mr. Arata before you file them with the court is appreciated. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Digitally signed by
Ko: *4 Kevin A. Taheny
Zhang Date: 2015.04.22
16:49:07 -07'00'
KEVIN A. TAHENY
KAT/yn
EXHIBIT EExhibit FLAW OFFICES
Paul L. Kranz
2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 213 7
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
TELEPHONE (510) 549-5900
FACSIMILE (510) 549-5901
April 22, 2015
Mr. Kevin A. Tehany
700 S Claremont St #101
San Mateo, CA 94402-1447
Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168
Dear Kevin:
We really want to finish the settlement with the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs
Association. 1 want to reiterate that there is no reason for Tom not to sign the settlement
agreement with the Association. There is no possible downside. I would indemnify him for any
damage that could result from signing the agreement. His current position as a plaintiff with
respect to the case against the SFDSA ends with the settlement, the mutual releases and a
dismissal,
I would also advise against separating Tom from the other plaintiffs because of Murray's
well-known propensity for predatory tactics. Also, if Tom dismisses the remainder of the case,
which at this point is only against Wong, while the other plaintiffs continue, Murray
could seek statutory costs from Tom. Murray may not do that; he may not realize that he can,
But I would not advise taking that chance. Also, I strongly anticipate resolving the remaining
part of the case with Wong. However, if Tom dismisses Wong before we do that, he would not
get the benefit with respect to statutory costs.
As for the appeal, you already realized how hard it is to overcome an abuse of discretion
standard, That would be enough by itself, but as I explained Murray has already received a
significant amount of additional fees—in fact several times the amount the trial court had already
determined he was entitled to-yet failed to disclose that to the appellate court. Then there is also
the additional problem Murray has with there being two inconsistent sets of billing records for
the identical work-one set submitted to the trial court and the other in the arbitration. Once we
settle with the SFDSA, and obtain the records concerning the additional fees Murray received, as
well as his other billing records, we expect to present those records to him, and request that he
dismiss the appeal, | think it's an understatement to say that Murray would be wise to do dismiss
the appeal at that point, rather than proceed with, what in effect would be, and we would argue is
continuing to perpetuate a fraud on the court.
>
I want to reiterate that for these reasons, we want to finalize the settlement agreement
with the Association as soon as possible. If Tom does not want to sign the settlement agreement
with the Association, please let me know that as soon as possible, I think that would be.a
mistake, for the reasons stated.
EXHIBIT &Mr. Kevin A. Tehany
April 22, 2015
Page2
Please contact me if you have any questions about the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
Virw ia
Paul L. Kranz
PLK: gr
Preview
oO © MO ND OH FF WwW on = 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 Kevin A. Taheny, SBN: 88146 Law Offices of Kevin A. Taheny, Inc. A Professional Corporation 700 S. Claremont Street, Ste. 101 San Mateo, CA 94402 Fax 650.349.1000 Tel. 650.345.4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Arata ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 05/18/2016 Clerk of the Court BY:ROMY RISK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Non Profit Corporation, et al., Defendant(s). I, Thomas Arata, declare: Case Number: CGC 10 501168 DECLARATIONS OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF 1) MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS AND/OR PROCEEDING BY STRIKING OUT PLAINTIFF THOMAS ARATA’S NAME AND/OR CORRECTING A MISTAKE; AND 2) MOTION TO CHANGE ATTORNEY; EXHIBITS A, B and C. (Civil Code of Procedure §§ 284, 473(a)(1), 576) Date: June 21, 2016 Time: 9:30 A.M. Location: Dept: 302 Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Reservation Number: 05170621-06 Trial Date: 6/27/2016 Action filed: 6/30/2010 1. | was named a Plaintiff in the above matter without my knowledge or consent and this declaration is in support of my motions to amend the pleadings and/or the proceeding by striking out my name and/or correcting a mistake of the Plaintiffs’ attorney who named me as a party Plaintiff and change attorney. 2. | have personal knowledge of each fact stated herein. 3. lam aretired San Francisco Deputy Sheriff. 4. On August 27, 2008, | signed a fee agreement for legal services to be rendered by the Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz regarding San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association (SFDSA). This agreement was presented to me by attorney Louis Garcia of Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz and it stated that the client may discharge the attorney at any time. | asked Mr. Garcia what the process -1- DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW on = 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 would be if | decided to withdraw from the lawsuit. He informed me that | would only have to submit a letter to the firm to be released from the lawsuit along with a check for my portion of the outstanding legal services due. 5. On November 10, 2008, Mr. Kranz filed a lawsuit in Federal court against the SFDSA, et al. on behalf of me and four (4) other named plaintiffs, herein after "Pecot I". 6. On March 31, 2009, | decided to withdraw from Pecot | and prepared a letter to The Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz indicating | must withdraw from this lawsuit and discharging his services. A true and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit A. 7. On April 1, 2009, | hand delivered the original of my letter in an envelope addressed to the Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz and handed it to his office receptionist. | also enclosed my check #1007 in the amount of $2,487 to pay in full the last bill that | had received from Mr. Kranz. A true and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit B. That check was later cashed by the Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz, i.e. his office got my March 31, 2009 letter and | believed my involvement in Pecot | was over. 8. On June 30, 2010, over a year later and unbeknownst to me at the time, Mr. Kranz on behalf of the remaining Pecot | plaintiffs filed a new complaint, case no. CGC-10-501168, hereinafter "Pecot Il" and named me as a Plaintiff without my permission or prior notice. If | had been asked to join Pecot Il, | would have declined. 9. On January 13, 2012, | was stunned to receive a letter by email dated January 12, 2012 from Mr. Kranz (this is the first communication from him in almost three years) informing me about the court's July 7, 2011 adverse ruling and his recommended strategy for judicial reconsideration. 10. On January 18, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz and told him that | withdrew from the lawsuit and have had no involvement in the case for almost three (3) years. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit C. Mr. Kranz did not respond to my email. 11. | On February 26, 2012, | received another letter by email from Mr. Kranz dated February 25, 2012 informing me of an order awarding $20,000 in attorney's fees to the named defendants and their attorney. Mr. Kranz requested that all the plaintiffs meet to discuss the matter. | did not attend this meeting. -2- DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW on = 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 12. On March 1, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz a second time and again told him that | dropped out of the lawsuit, and had no involvement in the case or communication from his firm for most of the last three (3) years. 13. On April 7, 2012, | received another letter by email dated April 6, 2012 from Mr. Kranz informing me that he had filed a motion for reconsideration and requested the named plaintiffs meet in person or by conference call to discuss his legal strategy. | did not attend this meeting. 14. On April 13, 2012, | emailed Mr. Kranz a third time and again told him that | had | withdrawn over three years ago. | received no response from him. 15. On November 18, 2013, | received a copy of an Abstract of Judgment in the instant case filed with the San Mateo Assessor's Office placing a lien on my home in the amount of $20,000 with interest from March 30, 2012 arising from the Slap order for attorney fees plus interest and filing costs in this case. 16. On November 22, 2013, | emailed Joseph Leake, one of the named plaintiffs in PECOT | and Il, asking him to explain what's going on because | received no responses from Mr. Kranz. 17. On December 4, 2013, | also met with Joseph Leake to discuss the situation and | continued to contact Joseph Leake again to find about the status of the case thereafter because Mr. Kranz continues not to contact me. 18. On July 1, 2014, Joseph Leake informs me each of four plaintiffs have made payment of $5,500 to cover the $20,000 Slap order plus interest and filing costs in this case. 19. On July 16, 2014, the lien is still in place on my property according to the San Mateo County Assessor's Office records and | email Joseph Leake for an update about the lien. | still have had no response from Mr. Kranz’ office. 20. On July 17, 2014, | receive an email from Joseph Leake that Mr. Murray informed Mr. Kranz that he could not accept payment because he was appealing the $20,000 Slapp Award. 21. On August 25, 2014, Joseph Leake emails me a copy of an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment that Mr. Murray filed in this case on August 18, 2014 which indicates (incorrectly) only a partial satisfaction of the Slap order. 22. On November 10, 2014, | received a letter from Mr. Kranz dated November 4, 2014 that he -3- DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoO © MO ND OH FF WwW on = 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 recorded a certified copy of that Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment with the County of San Mateo-Recorder's Office. | went to the San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder's Office and confirmed that the lien placed on my property has now been acknowledged as satisfied. 23. On March 12, 2015, | receive an email from Mr. Kranz along with an attached proposed settlement agreement between the plaintiffs in the case and the defendants identified as the SFDSA. Mr. Kranz stated in his email that he wants me to sign the settlement agreement explaining, "By signing the agreement, the only thing you give up is that you are agreeing not to sue the DSA again over the same issues that have been part of this lawsuit, as well as trademark and conversion suits..... it is to your advantage to sign the settlement agreement, if you want this case with the DSA to end." This was misleading because the case would not end as there still were four other defendants besides the SFDSA and | did not want to settle a lawsuit brought without my permission. 24. On March 19, 2015, | received a similar email from Mr. Kranz stating, "The DSA has agreed that you don't have to sign the settlement agreement. The DSA wants something in writing from you, simply stating that you will not sue the DSA again or that you will not seek attorneys fees from the DSA. If you will provide that, that will end the case with the DSA for you. Therefore, please do so." 25. On March 20, 2015, | send an email to Mr. Kranz informing him that | have hired an attorney Kevin Taheny. | had made up my mind that | needed to obtain my own legal counsel to extricate me from this legal matter because Mr. Kranz has continuously refused to remove my name as a named plaintiff in a pending court case in which he did not represent me. | told Mr. Kranz that | am not opposed to preparing a written statement informing the DSA that | do not plan to sue them or seek attorney's fees from them. | also told him that | am opposed to signing any settlement agreement that identifies me as a plaintiff in any state case. | informed him that we have some questions for him and asked to have a conference call with him on Monday March 23, 2015. 26. On March 23, 2015, | received an email from Mr. Kranz stating, "The DSA is not going to require any statement from you based on discussions with its attorney last Thursday and Friday. The DSA is signing the settlement agreement, after which we can file a dismissal on your behalf." (Emphasis added.) 27. On March 8, 2016, | checked the County Clerk Recorder's Office in San Mateo County and -4- DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSoo NO mn F&F Ww NY wy YH RH DN |= B&B B&B Bw Be Be ew ew ew @ ak © NSN 5 FO OAN FHA FD NH FO 27 28 Law OrFices oF Kevin A. TAHENY, INC. a 650.988 1000 el. 660.245.4000 discovered that Mr. Murray filed a "Notice of Removal of Abstract of Judgment" withdrawing the $20,000 (plus interest and filing fees) Slapp award judgment and fully releasing and finally removing the lien on my property. This document was filed in the County Clerk Recorder's Office on October 14, 2015 without notice to me. 28. On April 25, 2016, | made up my mind and asked Kevin Taheny to file a motion to have me dismissed as a plaintiff. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: May 6, 2016 Hous (aa~ THOMAS ARATA -5- DECLARATION OF THOMAS ARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSExhibit AMarch 31, 2009 Mr. Louis Garcia Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, California, 94710 Dear Louis: This letter is served to inform you that I can no longer continue to financially provide funding for the federal lawsuit against the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’ s Association (known as Pecot/Owyang et.al vs Dave Wong, et al.). I was a named plaintiff in the originally filed complaint. I request to be released from the lawsuit due to the ever-increasing financial cost of these legal services. I simply can no longer afford to remain involved as a named plaintiff. The legal foundation of the complaint is accurate and represents a factual history of the unlawful, illegal activities of Mr. Wong and his small band of followers. I believe the case has strong merit and that your efforts in support of your legal arguments would prevail in federal court if it is determined that this litigation is to continue. However, because of financial reasons, I must withdrawal from the case and discharge your services as provided in the terms of our legal agreement. Tam enclosing a personal check in the amount of $2487.00 to pay my portion of the legal fees identified in the last billing statement that J received. Altogether, I have paid a total of $5709.00 in legal fees to your firm. In the event of a settlement or coust decision that orders the legal fees of the plaintiff's to be reimbursed, I would expect that this amount of legal fees would be refunded to me. Thank you. Ahnan 4, Oste- Thomas G. Arata 1974 Eucalyptus Avenue San Carlos, California, 94070 650) 592-69! EXHIBIT AExhibit B[Mary . Arata 1007 1974. &. Aye, DATE Bl 00 11-7649/8210° ae eek, CA 94122 rel es ae 1P~ gq, ae 1OPELAEH 7EECO bane a aExhibit CXFINITY Connect tyarsta@comaist.ne Re: SFDSA lawsuit Prom : towets@romantnet See Sees Subject : Re: SFDSA kaveutt Co: kpeexx729@aim.com, Rich Owyang , sfoode3aot.com, jaisfposseS6@xgnail.com, axxartn/tryOhotrall.com Hi Paul: Johna called me the other day and infosmed me that I would be recaiving this letter from you. Thank you for the lether updating the present legal sftustion with your case, in eaty 2008, 1 informyeel your ausotigtt, Louie Garcia, that I wes going to wahcraw from this case, requested the removal of my name from this lawsuitandthe discharge of ail legal services. Louis informed Tne that Feould do 50 a2 provisad in the tant of our lopst Louls stated thet I would need to submit a letter to withdrew from this case and terminate our legal agreement. He dki not state that I needed to tale any other action. So, on March 31, 2009, 1 prepared a letter to withdrew from this case and personally delivered this letter to your office on April 1, 2009. I also paid the remainder of my postion of legal feas on that date. ‘Sinca April 1, 2009, a pariod of almost thres years, I have not had any involvernent in this case. Apemcuntly, during this period of time you have continued to pursue legal action against Mr. Wong and other identified mambers of the San Prancisco Sheriff's Association. So, I have no understanding of what has occurred in this case since March 31, 2009. I do not know what legal strategy firecinas decided to pursue with this case. ‘Your frm has not provided any form of legal representation for me since March 31, 2009, when I withdrew from this case and discharged your firm's services. I would regummans that your firm immediethly seek to resolve this matter concerning the judge's tentative decision besad on legally and set the record straight and terminete this casa withaut eny additions! cost ta you or the ‘Tom Arata oer eee eee EE | 1/18/2012 BITC28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 Kevin A. Taheny, SBN: 88146 Law Offices of Kevin A. Taheny, Inc. A Professional Corporation 700 S. Claremont Street, Ste. 101 San Mateo, CA 94402 Fax 650.349.1000 Tel. 650.345.4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Arata SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case Number: CGC 10 501168 JOHNA PECOT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DECLARATIONS OF KEVIN A. TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF 1) MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS AND/OR PROCEEDING BY Plaintitf(s) STRIKING OUT PLAINTIFF THOMAS i ARATA'S NAME AND/OR CORRECTING A MISTAKE; AND 2) MOTION TO CHANGE e ATTORNEY; EXHIBITS D, E and F. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Non Profit (Civil Code of Procedure §§ 284, 475(a)(1), $76) Corporation, et al., Date: June 21, 2016 Def Time: 9:30 A.M. Location: Dept: 302 efendant(s). Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Reservation Number: 05170621-06 Trial Date: 6/27/2016 Action filed: 6/30/2010 |, Kevin A. Taheny, declare: 1. 1am the attorney for Thomas Arata and this declaration is in support of the motions to amend the pleadings and/or the proceeding by striking out Plaintiff Thomas Arata’s name and/or correcting a mistake of the Plaintiffs’ attorney who mistakenly named Thomas Arata as a party Plaintiff and to change attorneys. 2. | have personal knowledge of each fact stated herein. 3. | The proposed amendment is necessary and proper in that the pleadings and records of the proceeding incorrectly indicate Thomas Arata is a party Plaintiff and striking his name would correct the mistake of the Thomas Arata’s former attorney who named him as a Plaintiff after that attorney was discharged as Thomas Arata’s attorney. 4. Onor about March 20, 2015, Mr. Tom Arata requested my help with regard to an unsatisfied abstract of judgment which was recorded against his home in San Mateo County on November 14, -1- DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 2013 and obtaining a dismissal from the present lawsuit. 5. On March 23, 2015, during a telephone conference with Mr. Kranz he stated that it requires a judge to strike the provision for interest on the abstract of judgment which he stated he would take care of the next 7 to 10 days. If claim for the interest were stricken then the abstract of judgment would be satisfied and subject to removal. Mr. Kranz also indicated that he thought it was a mistake to dismiss Mr. Arata which was my request. 6. On April 7, 2015, | reviewed the registry for the above action and sent Mr. Kranz a letter because there is no indication that he had attempted to strike the interest on the abstract. Mr. Kranz states that he is waiting for Ms. Lara Smith to file a "motion for good faith settlement” A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit D. 7. On April 20, 2015, | received a draft copy of the motion for a court order for full satisfaction of judgment prepared by Mr. Kranz. 8. On April 21, 2015, during another telephone conference with Mr. Kranz and Mr. Arata, Mr. Kranz asked Mr. Arata again to sign the settlement agreement with the SFDSA and he offered to indemnify Mr. Arata in the event that he did so which was unacceptable. 9. On or about April 22, 2015, | sent a letter to Mr. Kranz reiterating that Mr. Arata had no intention of signing the settlement agreement, that Mr. Kranz had no authority to name him in the state litigation and that his signing the settlement agreement would indicate otherwise. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit E. 10. On April 22"? 2015, Mr. Kranz sent me a letter indicating that he strongly anticipated resolving the remaining part of the case against Mr. Wong, that there is no reason for Mr. Tom Arata not to sign settlement agreement. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit F. 11. On May 5, 2015, | received an email from Mr. Kranz stating, that he filed a Request for Dismissal as to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association (SFDSA) and that the SFDSA was going to file a good faith settlement motion as to the other plaintiffs. 12. In August, 2015, Mr. Kranz’s motion to settle the abstract issue was heard and granted. 13. On February 22, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz requesting a status report on the case because we had not heard from him. | stated that it appears that Tom Arata is still a named party. -2- DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS28 Law OFFICES oF ax 680.249.4000, “Te1, 650.345.4000 14. On February 24, 2016, after receiving no response from Mr. Kranz, | followed up with a second email to Mr. Kranz informing him that | will file a motion the following week to correct the record unless | hear from Mr. Kranz that week. 15. On February 24, 2016 Mr. Kranz respond to me by email that, "The status is that Tom Arata will be out of the case by mid March." 16. On March 21, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz asking him if anything is happening. 17. On March 24, 2016, Mr. Kranz responded by email stating that SFDSA attorney has been planning to file an ex parte application for approval of the settlement with the SFDSA. Mr. Kranz stated, "her application is not being opposed, so it will be granted. | anticipate dismissing after that." 18. On March 29, 2016, | received a telephone call from Mr. Kranz explaining that the SFDSA attorney has continued the settlement matter five times because of more pressing work in a another case. Mr. Kranz stated that he thought the SFDSA attorney had told him that the order has actually been signed but not registered yet on the court system so they will file a notice of settlement. Mr. Kranz informed me that when this occurs that will take care of the litigation with the SFDSA and then he can file a dismissal of Mr. Arata. 19. On April 5, 2016, | send an email to Mr. Kranz stating that the signed settlement agreement and the notice of settlement have still not been filed in the court registry. | asked Mr. Kranz to provide any endorsed copies that have been filed. Mr. Kranz responded by email that the SFDSA attorney is filing the Notice of Settlement and that he would check with her tomorrow. 20. On April 8, 2016, | sent to Mr. Kranz an email asking why can't he dismiss Tom Arata that if Mr. Kranz has a settlement approved by the court and an agreed settlement with the SFDSA. | explained to Mr. Kranz that there has been no change in the registry and that Tom Arata is anxious to get this resolved with a pending trial date scheduled. 21. Mr. Kranz did ultimately file a motion to remove the abstract of judgment which had been placed on Mr. Arata’s home. The present motions on behalf of Mr. Arata were not filed earlier because it was hoped that Mr. Kranz would follow through with his stated expectations with regard to settlement so that Mr. Arata would avoid the expense of filing this motion before the court. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is -3- DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONStrue and correct. Ke FTA 4 Dated: May 6, 2016 / A. y / t- KEVIN A. TAHENY G 5 28 Law OFFices oF -4- DECLARATION OF KEVIN A TAHENY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONSExhibit DLAW OFFICES OF KEVIN A. TAHENY INC A Professional Law Corporation 700 S CLAREMONT ST., SUITE 101 SAN MATEO, CA 94402, TEL (650) 345 - 4000 FAX (650) 349-1000 April 7, 2015 Mr. Paul L. Kranz Esq. Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 499 14th Street, Ste. 300 Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Pecot et al. vs. SF Deputy Sheriff's Association (SFDSA) et al. SF Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: As you know from our telephone conference with Mr. Tom Arata on March 22, 2015, Mr. Arata has retained me with regard to the unsatisfied Abstract of Judgment which was recorded against his home on November 14, 2013 by Mr. Murray, Esq. During our telephone conversation, you stated that it requires a court order to strike the provision for interest from the Abstract of Judgment which you stated you would obtain from a judge within the next seven (7) to ten (10) days. The Superior Court’s Registry does not indicate any application by you for such an order and | need to know the status. Please note that the striking of the interest on the Abstract of Judgment must also result in a recordable Full Satisfaction of Judgment to remove the Abstract as a lien from the title to his home. You also stated that it would be a mistake to request a dismissal of Mr. Arata as a Plaintiff with regard to the defendants represented by Mr. Murray because you said Mr. Murray would attempt to get money because of his predatory nature. On March 23, 2015, Mr. Arata provided me a copy of your e-mail to him that he received after our conference in which you state, in part, that the *,..DSA is signing the settlement agreement, after which we can filed a dismissal on your behalf.” Stating that you can file a dismissal after telling us it would be a mistake to do so has caused additional concern. This is especially so since Mr. Murray has filed an appeal to increase the amount of attorney's fees awarded him in the first anti-slapp motion that resulted in this Abstract of Judgment which was recorded against the title of Mr. Arata’s home. You also said during our telephone conference that you intended to make a motion for attorneys fees for the denial of Mr. Murray's second anti-slapp motion within a month and that might assist in settling the matter with Mr. Murray. EXHIBIT »Mr. Paul L. Kranz Esq. Re: Pecot vs. SFDSA April 7, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Arata wants to be extricated from this litigation without any further harm or potential liability to himself. You had no authority to name Mr. Arata as a plaintiff in the above action and you still have no authority to represent him in this case or take any action on his behalf. Naming him as a plaintiff in the case resulted in the recordation of Mr. Murray's Abstract of Judgment as.a lien against his property in November 2013 and now subjects him to more potential liability for additional expenses. Mr. Arata has been patient but has directed me to pursue all legal remedies available to him unless a satisfactory resolution is expeditiously reached. If you are unable to resolve this matter, | suggest you consider filing a motion to strike all references to Mr. Arata as a plaintiff from the pleadings and court filings, or some similar application for an order from the court, on the grounds you had no authority to name him as a piaintiff or as a party you represent. We would be willing to cooperate with you in addressing the issue to the court. Otherwise, | will be forced to address this to the court by intervening on his behalf which | would prefer to avoid. However, | do not.know of any other way to unentangle him from this litigation. Please provide me with any documents concerning Mr. Arata for my review before you file them with the court. Very truly yours, KAT/yn |Exhibit E.LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN A. TAHENY INC A Professional Law Corporation 700 S CLAREMONT ST., SUITE 101 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 TEL (650) 345 - 4000 FAX (650) 349-1000 April 22, 2015 Mr, Paul L. Kranz Esq. Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 499 14th Street, Ste. 300 Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Pecot et al. vs. SF Deputy Sheriff's Association (SFDSA) et al. SF Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: After our telephone conference with Mr. Tom Arata on April 21, 2015, Mr. Arata and | discussed your proposals regarding his signing the settlement agreement with the SFDSA and your indemnity. Mr. Arata has no intention of signing the settlement agreement with the SFDSA. You had no authority to name him in this state litigation and his signing the settlement would indicate otherwise. Your offer to indemnify him with reference to his signing the SFDSA settlement agreement is insufficient when compared to his potential exposure for additional expenses and costs as a party to the litigation with Mr. Wong should he ratify your actions now. He doesn’t want to become part of this ongoing litigation in which he has not been involved. We reviewed your motion to compel and you should only state the parties you represent in the motion’s caption. You should not misstate that you represent him in this case by stating “Named Plaintiffs...et al.” because we understand that you named him as Plaintiff. We do want the abstract lien removed the title of his home but, if you cannot do that without stating you are representing him, then, do not file the motion because we are not engaging you to represent him and do not want to mislead the court or parties. He wants this matter resolved soon. You indicated a time line to us and we expect you to do what you:say to try to resolve the case. If you can’t resolve this, | will address this to the court which again | would like to avoid. Your courtesy and cooperation in providing me with any documents concerning Mr. Arata before you file them with the court is appreciated. Thank you. Very truly yours, Digitally signed by Ko: *4 Kevin A. Taheny Zhang Date: 2015.04.22 16:49:07 -07'00' KEVIN A. TAHENY KAT/yn EXHIBIT EExhibit FLAW OFFICES Paul L. Kranz 2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 213 7 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 TELEPHONE (510) 549-5900 FACSIMILE (510) 549-5901 April 22, 2015 Mr. Kevin A. Tehany 700 S Claremont St #101 San Mateo, CA 94402-1447 Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al. San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168 Dear Kevin: We really want to finish the settlement with the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association. 1 want to reiterate that there is no reason for Tom not to sign the settlement agreement with the Association. There is no possible downside. I would indemnify him for any damage that could result from signing the agreement. His current position as a plaintiff with respect to the case against the SFDSA ends with the settlement, the mutual releases and a dismissal, I would also advise against separating Tom from the other plaintiffs because of Murray's well-known propensity for predatory tactics. Also, if Tom dismisses the remainder of the case, which at this point is only against Wong, while the other plaintiffs continue, Murray could seek statutory costs from Tom. Murray may not do that; he may not realize that he can, But I would not advise taking that chance. Also, I strongly anticipate resolving the remaining part of the case with Wong. However, if Tom dismisses Wong before we do that, he would not get the benefit with respect to statutory costs. As for the appeal, you already realized how hard it is to overcome an abuse of discretion standard, That would be enough by itself, but as I explained Murray has already received a significant amount of additional fees—in fact several times the amount the trial court had already determined he was entitled to-yet failed to disclose that to the appellate court. Then there is also the additional problem Murray has with there being two inconsistent sets of billing records for the identical work-one set submitted to the trial court and the other in the arbitration. Once we settle with the SFDSA, and obtain the records concerning the additional fees Murray received, as well as his other billing records, we expect to present those records to him, and request that he dismiss the appeal, | think it's an understatement to say that Murray would be wise to do dismiss the appeal at that point, rather than proceed with, what in effect would be, and we would argue is continuing to perpetuate a fraud on the court. > I want to reiterate that for these reasons, we want to finalize the settlement agreement with the Association as soon as possible. If Tom does not want to sign the settlement agreement with the Association, please let me know that as soon as possible, I think that would be.a mistake, for the reasons stated. EXHIBIT &Mr. Kevin A. Tehany April 22, 2015 Page2 Please contact me if you have any questions about the foregoing. Very truly yours, Virw ia Paul L. Kranz PLK: gr