Preview
Cc we ND
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net
499 14" Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
kranzlaw@sbeglobal.net
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al.,
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of Califoinia,
County of San Francisto
MAY 13 201
Clerk of the Cou
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, RICH OWYANG,
STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE,
and OSCAR TAYLOR, er al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation; DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an
individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an
individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an
individual, and DOES 1-100,
Dept.: 302
Defendants.
I, Paul L. Kranz, declare:
1. 1am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State
of California. I know the following facts of my own knowledge and could and would testify to
them in a court of law if called upon to do so. I am attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this
matter.
2. Plaintiffs seek heard as soon as possible with the next thirty (30 days a Motion
For Order Compelling Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Satisfied in Fact or
eee
CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ
IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SET HEARING
DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER
COMPELLING
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING
SATISFACTION WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Date: May 14, 2015
Time: 11:00 a.m.
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR
HEARINGWw
oC wo NID
Entering Satisfaction Without Acknowledgment in order have a judgment recorded against their
real properties removed because they have paid that judgment. Since receiving notice of this ex
parte, defendants’ attorney has stated that he is not opposed to the motion being heard within the
next thirty (30) to forty (40) days. (Please see Paragraph 7 below.)
3. Despite having paid the judgment against real properties of plaintiffs, defendants have
provided only partial satisfaction of judgments. In addition to refusing to provide plaintiffs with
a full satisfaction of judgment, defendants have repeatedly refused to provide any explanation for
their refusal.
4. The recorded abstracts of judgments have presented and continue to present
limitations on plaintiffs’ abilities to utilize their properties, e.g., to obtain refinancing or to
convey their properties. There is no valid reason for plaintiffs’ properties to continue to be
encumbered in this way.
5, There is no prejudice to defendants from their Motion For Order Compelling
Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Satisfied in Fact or Entering Satisfaction Without
Acknowledgment being heard within the next thirty (30) days. By comparison, plaintiffs suffer
prejudice from their properties continuing to be encumbered.
6. In addition, there may be an issue as to whether the five year dismissal statute runs on
June 30, 2015. The case was on appeal from August 19, 2013 to July 18, 2014. Defendants have
argued in motions, e.g., in a motion to strike, that Court was without jurisdiction over this mater
during that time. Nevertheless, since this issue has not been fully decided, plaintiffs respectfully
request that their motion be heard within the next thirty days.
7. On March 12, 2015, at approximately 3:45 p.m., and 4:15 p.m., I sent a letter by fax
and by facsimile, respectively, to defendants’ attorney advising him that I would be making this
application on May 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 302 of this Court . I also requested that
the provide me with dates when he would be available for the aforesaid motion in the next thirty
(30) days. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of my letter, which stated as
follows:
AHI
2-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR
HEARINGPlaintiff will appear ex parte on Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Department 302 at
11:00 a.m. to request that the Court calendar a motion to be heard within the next thirty
days for an order that plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment that is the basis for the
abstracts of judgment recorded against real properties of plaintiffs.
Please advise me with regard to dates when you would be available for such a
motion. Altematively, please advise whether you will agree to provide a full
acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.
-
look forward to hearing from you.
Earlier today, I received a message from defendants’ attorney Lawrence Murray stating that he
would agree to the motion being calendared within thirty (30) to forty (40) days.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Oakland, California, on May 13,
rue. ¢-2—
Paul L. Kranz,
2015.
3.
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR
HEARINGEXHIBIT ALaw OFFICES
Paul L. Kranz
499 14™ STREET, SUITE 300
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
TELEPHONE (510) 839-1200
FACSIMILE (510) 444-6698
May 12, 2015
Via Facsimile: (415) 928-4084
Lawrence D. Murray, Esq.
Murray & Associates
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123-4426
Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr, Murray:
Plaintiff will appear ex parte on Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Department 302 at 11:00 a.m.
to request that the Court calendar a motion to be heard within the next thirty days for an order
that plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment that is the basis for the abstracts of judgment recorded
against real properties of plaintiffs.
Please advise me with regard to dates when you would be available for such a motion.
Alternatively, please advise whether you will agree to provide a full acknowledgment of
satisfaction of judgment.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
“Poul ¢, rang
Paul L. Kranz
PLK: grPROOF OF SERVICE
SUPERIOR COURT )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CASE NO. CCC-10-501168
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO }
1, the undersigned, certify and attest as follows:
Tam over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the cause within. My business
address is 499 14" Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94612.
On May g 2015, I caused the within:
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER
COMPELLING ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING SATISFACTION WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
to be served on counsel for each of the other parties in this action by electronic transmission via
File & Serve Express:
Lara Cullinane-Smith, Esq.
Shrem & Smith
11720 San Pablo Ave Ste C
E] Cerrito, CA 94530
Lawrence D. Murray, Esq.
Murray & Associates
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 9412. eC
Executed May 18, 2015, 2015 at Oakland, California.
2
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Paul, Ca
Paul Kranz
Preview
Cc we ND LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999 kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net 499 14" Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 kranzlaw@sbeglobal.net Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al., ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Califoinia, County of San Francisto MAY 13 201 Clerk of the Cou BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, er al. Plaintiffs, v. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation; DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Dept.: 302 Defendants. I, Paul L. Kranz, declare: 1. 1am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California. I know the following facts of my own knowledge and could and would testify to them in a court of law if called upon to do so. I am attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this matter. 2. Plaintiffs seek heard as soon as possible with the next thirty (30 days a Motion For Order Compelling Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Satisfied in Fact or eee CASE NO. CGC-10-501168 DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING SATISFACTION WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT Date: May 14, 2015 Time: 11:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR HEARINGWw oC wo NID Entering Satisfaction Without Acknowledgment in order have a judgment recorded against their real properties removed because they have paid that judgment. Since receiving notice of this ex parte, defendants’ attorney has stated that he is not opposed to the motion being heard within the next thirty (30) to forty (40) days. (Please see Paragraph 7 below.) 3. Despite having paid the judgment against real properties of plaintiffs, defendants have provided only partial satisfaction of judgments. In addition to refusing to provide plaintiffs with a full satisfaction of judgment, defendants have repeatedly refused to provide any explanation for their refusal. 4. The recorded abstracts of judgments have presented and continue to present limitations on plaintiffs’ abilities to utilize their properties, e.g., to obtain refinancing or to convey their properties. There is no valid reason for plaintiffs’ properties to continue to be encumbered in this way. 5, There is no prejudice to defendants from their Motion For Order Compelling Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Satisfied in Fact or Entering Satisfaction Without Acknowledgment being heard within the next thirty (30) days. By comparison, plaintiffs suffer prejudice from their properties continuing to be encumbered. 6. In addition, there may be an issue as to whether the five year dismissal statute runs on June 30, 2015. The case was on appeal from August 19, 2013 to July 18, 2014. Defendants have argued in motions, e.g., in a motion to strike, that Court was without jurisdiction over this mater during that time. Nevertheless, since this issue has not been fully decided, plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion be heard within the next thirty days. 7. On March 12, 2015, at approximately 3:45 p.m., and 4:15 p.m., I sent a letter by fax and by facsimile, respectively, to defendants’ attorney advising him that I would be making this application on May 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 302 of this Court . I also requested that the provide me with dates when he would be available for the aforesaid motion in the next thirty (30) days. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of my letter, which stated as follows: AHI 2- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR HEARINGPlaintiff will appear ex parte on Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Department 302 at 11:00 a.m. to request that the Court calendar a motion to be heard within the next thirty days for an order that plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment that is the basis for the abstracts of judgment recorded against real properties of plaintiffs. Please advise me with regard to dates when you would be available for such a motion. Altematively, please advise whether you will agree to provide a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. - look forward to hearing from you. Earlier today, I received a message from defendants’ attorney Lawrence Murray stating that he would agree to the motion being calendared within thirty (30) to forty (40) days. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Oakland, California, on May 13, rue. ¢-2— Paul L. Kranz, 2015. 3. DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CALENDAR HEARINGEXHIBIT ALaw OFFICES Paul L. Kranz 499 14™ STREET, SUITE 300 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 TELEPHONE (510) 839-1200 FACSIMILE (510) 444-6698 May 12, 2015 Via Facsimile: (415) 928-4084 Lawrence D. Murray, Esq. Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123-4426 Re: Pecot, et al. v. SFSDA, et al. San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr, Murray: Plaintiff will appear ex parte on Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Department 302 at 11:00 a.m. to request that the Court calendar a motion to be heard within the next thirty days for an order that plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment that is the basis for the abstracts of judgment recorded against real properties of plaintiffs. Please advise me with regard to dates when you would be available for such a motion. Alternatively, please advise whether you will agree to provide a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, “Poul ¢, rang Paul L. Kranz PLK: grPROOF OF SERVICE SUPERIOR COURT ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CASE NO. CCC-10-501168 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO } 1, the undersigned, certify and attest as follows: Tam over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the cause within. My business address is 499 14" Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94612. On May g 2015, I caused the within: DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT SATISFIED IN FACT OR ENTERING SATISFACTION WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL to be served on counsel for each of the other parties in this action by electronic transmission via File & Serve Express: Lara Cullinane-Smith, Esq. Shrem & Smith 11720 San Pablo Ave Ste C E] Cerrito, CA 94530 Lawrence D. Murray, Esq. Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 9412. eC Executed May 18, 2015, 2015 at Oakland, California. 2 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Paul, Ca Paul Kranz