Order: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-12-2015 8:27 am

Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: Jan-12-2015 8:26
Filed by: CYNTHIA HERBERT

Juke Box: 001 Image: 04750355
ORDER

JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
Aetal

001004750355

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LAW OFFICES OF PAULL. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999 EF

499 14" Street, Suite 300 Sar th

Oakland, CA 94612 1 Menclsco Cotunty Sigerice Boryp
kranzlaw@sboglobal.net

JAN 12 2015

Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: . (510) 444-6698

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, e7 al.,

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CASE NO. CGC-10-501168

6posed} ORDER RE
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND
MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIMS
IN THE (FIRST) AMENDED

COMPLAINT

JOHNA PECOT, et al. Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, e7 ai.

Defendants.

Date: December 18, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 302

Nel Ne el Ne el lS oe a le?

The motion of Defendants Dave Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick
McDaniels and San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation to Strike First Amended Complaint
came on regularly for hearing on December 18, 2014 at approximately 9:30 a.m in Department
302 of this Court, the Honorable Ernest H. Goldsmith, presiding. Paul L. Kranz of the Law
Offices of Paul L. Kranz, appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, Thomas Arata, Rich
Owyang, Stephen Tilton, Joseph Leake, and Oscar Taylor. Lawrence D. Murray of Murray &
Associates appearing on behalf of Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage,
Shedrick McDaniels, and The San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation. The Court, having
considered the parties pleadings filed in support and opposition to the motion, and having heard

-1-
[Proposed] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIMS IN (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINTm

So me TD HH FF YW WV

oral argument, denies the motion.
As an initial matter, Defendants set the hearing over three months after the moving papers
were filed, in violation of C.C.P. sec. 425.16(f).’ Defendants have provided no explanation of
why a hearing date within 30 days of filing was not obtained. The motion is also denied on the
merits, C.C.P. sec. 425.16(b)(1) explicitly provides that an Anti-SLAPP motion is directed to a
cause of action, Defendants seek to attack factual allegations with their Anti-SLAPP motion, but
provide no authority that an Anti-SLAPP motion can be used in such a way. In the First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have struck the causes of action to which the original
Anti-SLAPP motion was granted. As to the remaining causes of action for violation of the
Corporation:-Code-and concealment (causes of action nos. 6 and 8), Defendants engage in no.»
meaningful analysis as to how the causes of action arise from protected activity. As such, the first
prong of C.C.P. sec. 425.16 is not met. The Court finds that this Anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous
and awards the fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in opposing this motion, pursuant to C.C.P.
sec. 425.16(c)(1). Plaintiffs may file a motion to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and
costs. :
IT ISSO ORDERED.

Dated:
JAN 12 2015

ERNEST H. GOLDSMITH

Approved as to Form:

Lawrence D. Murray

2.
[Proposed] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS" MOTION TO-STRIKE CLAIMS IN (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINT