arrow left
arrow right
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • 2555 PULGAS EPA A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                AEA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-21-2010 9:50 am

Case Number: CGC-06-459175
Filing Date: Oct-13-2010 9:49
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03009060
ORDER

1A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS A CA

001C03009060

Instructions:

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.CM NI DAD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Harlan B. Watkins — 176458
Karen K. Sttomeyer — 245712

MURPHY, EARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY

88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisgo, CA 94108-5530
Tel: (415) 788-1900

Fax: (415) 393-8087
Attorneys for Defendants

SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS
RS ASSOCIATION

2555 PULGAS EPA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS, a
California Limited Liability Company, et al.

Defendants.

NABEEL YOUSSEF, individually and dba
GOOD FRIKIN CHICKEN,

Plaintiff,
v.

BRIAN MALONEY, et al.
Defendants.

SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

Plaintiffs,

TIFFANY GARDENS LP., etal.
Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

‘ior Court of Catifornia
Superior orsan Francisco.

OCT 132010

CLERK oF HE COURT
ey: Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case No. CGC-06-459175
(Consolidated with Action No. CGC-07-459371
& Action No. CGC-07-465139)

[SSOP] ORDER GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO

TIFFANY GARDEN’S MOTION TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFFS 2555 PULGAS EPA, LLC
AND 29TH AND MISSION, LLC

DATE: June 2, 2010
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
DEPT: 304

TRIAL DATE: Not Assigned

Assigned for all purposes to the
Honorable Richard A. Kramer
Dept. 304The Imotion of San Francisco Tiffany Gardens Homeowners Association for an Order
dismissing the Compliant of Plaintiffs 2555 Pulgas EPA, LLC and 29th & Mission, LLC (“Plaintiffs”)
and expunging the notice of pendency of action recorded in this action was heard in Department 304 of
the above-entitled court on June 2, 2010, the Honorable Richard A. Kramer presiding.
The Court, having considered the motion, points and authorities, and other documents and
evidence su; porting and Opposing the motion, and having heard the arguments of counsel, finds finds
that Plaintiffs failed to serve and file Proof of service of summons and complaint as to the named
defendants in their Complaint, and the unnamed but identifiable “Doe” defendants within the
mandatory three-year statutory deadline proscribed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 538.210 and
338.250. Th¢ Court finds that accordingly it no longer has jurisdiction over these defendants and
Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed as to them. The Court further finds that it is not necessary for
full adjudication of the rights and issues presented to have any of the individual homeowners as parties
to this action.| The presence of the Homeowners Association as a defendant to this action is sufficient
for the Court to accord compete relief among the parties,

ITISt HEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed as to EDNA CHOO;
ANDREA vis HVESHWARA; ANDREW SCHULTZ; MICHAEL wW. WOIJCIK; LISA
COOPERSMIITH; GLENN HEUSER; JACQUELINE BROWN-SCOTT; CLAYTON SCOTT; AMIT

SINHA; RI BHAGAT; DON HOWERTON; ALEXANDER SHAPIRO; CHRISTOPHER
STOCKTON; KAORU KOBAYASHI; OSCAR SALAS-SOLANO; PAUL ALCOTT; and LIANA
DUMA action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed as to any unnamed but
identifiable “Doe” defendants who have not yet been served with the summons and complaint in this
action pursuant|to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs will withdraw the Notices'of Pending Action Recorded
in the City and ounty of San Francisco Official Records on December 26, 2006, and against cach of
the following Units based on this pending action so that neither the notice nor any information derived
from it shall constitute actual or constructive notice of any of the matters contained, claimed, alleged,
or contended in it or of any of the matters relating to the action, or shall create a duty of inquiry of any

-2-
RO ROER ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS 2535 PULGAS EPA, LLC AND 29TH AND MISSION, LLCCo Bm ND MW BRB YW BD Mm

N ee a a a
BS RRESRYES SES ZZ EGE ES

~ >

person thergafier dealing with the affected Property: Unit 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209,
210, 211, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,
408, 409, 4110, 411.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ Quiet Title cause of action is
dismissed.

Plaintiffs shall forward to counsel for the San Francisco Tiffany Gardens Homeowners
Association both a copy of the items sent to the Recorder’s Office to accomplish this, and a copy of the
items returned by the Recorder’s Office pertaining to each specific unit. This shall be completed by
July 8, 2010,

IT IS|FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is Denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

‘HONORABLE RICHARD A. KRAMER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

20126774.doc

-3-
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO TIFFANY GARDENS MOTION
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS 2555 PULGAS EPA, LLC AND 29TH AND MISSION, LLC