Preview
fl
l RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) - Ad
' ‘ “\
'
'1 :I
MADOLYN D ORR (SBN 280608) ,
2 CHARLES R. HELLSTROM (SBN 294540)
ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK SAEMETEBgOlJDNW
'
3 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 OCT 0 4 2017
San Jose, CA 95126-1493 .
4 Tel: (408) 261-4252 Clerk rior Court
Fax: (408) 261-4292 By
5
DEPUTVCLEM
Attorneys for Defendant
6 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
‘DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897
10 Partnership,
DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D.
11 Plaintiff, ORR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
12 vs. INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS
13 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, an
Wei?
DATE: Gambia-Q6; 5017
14 individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, DONG TIME: 9:00 am.
VUONG, an individual, THANH LA], and DEPT: Law & Motion
15 DOES 1 through 10,
16 Defendants. Action Filed: June 1, 2016
Trial Date: November 13, 2017
17
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Viv-538007
‘— "" "——
18 Limited Liability Company, a
m
Declaration
1
19 750671
Cross-Complainant, =
20 :l ||||l||llllllllllllllllllllIll
21 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General
’
Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10,
22
Cross-Defendant.
23
24 I, MADOLYN D. ORR, declare and state that if called as a witness I am competent to and
25 could and would testify as follows based upon my personal knowledge:
E‘ilafiuj: 26 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
27 California and am an associate in the law firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck,
r(;i§:l:z::3:ig;fz:91
28
DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR l
1 attorneys of record for Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC in this matter.
2 2. I make this Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Response to
3 Special Interrogatory and Request for Sanctions.
4 3. On August 2, 2017, I caused the Special Interrogatories, Set 3, attached hereto as
5 Exhibit “A” to be served on counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DBP Investments (“DBP”).
6 4. On September 7, 2017, DBP’s counsel, Steven Piser, served DBP’s Responses to
7 Special Interrogatories, Set 3, a true and correct copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit
8 “B”.
9 5. Upon reviewing DBP’s responses to Special Interrogatory No. 35 within Set 3, I
10 noted that the response contained solely objections, and improper objections at that.
1 1 Accordingly, on September 14, 2017, I emailed Mr. Piser, and his co-counsel of record, John
12 Fitzgerald, to attempt to meet and confer in good faith. In my e-mail, I identified the
13 interrogatory that I wished to address, and explained why their objection-only response was
14 inappropriate. A true and correct copy of this September 14, 2017 email is attached hereto as
15 Exhibit “C”.
16 6. The next day, September 15, 2017, I received a brief letter from Mr. Piser, in
17 which he carbon copied his co—counsel of record Mr. Fitzgerald, and noted he really disagreed
18 with my assessment. He did not offer to provide an amended response, or undertake any further
19 effort to provide any additional information on behalf of his client. A true and correct copy of
20 this September 15, 2017 email is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.
21 7. The same day, I emailed Mr. Piser in response to his letter, in which I requested
22 clarification that DBP was maintaining its refusal to provide any further response to Special
23 Interrogatory No. 35, and if not, to indicate whether DBP would provide amended responses. To
24 date, to have received no response to this email. A true and correct copy of this September 15,
25 2017 email is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.
Rmsi. Homerslough.
lggifgg‘fflggn 26 8. Accordingly, it appeared we were at an impasse. I identified the reasons why
Suite znn
Sun Jnsc.CA
. ' ' '. .
(5:33:32, 27 DBP’s response was evasrve, and its objectlon inappropriate, and counsel clearly stated he
FnS (M18) Zfil-4292
28 disagreed with me, and refiised to amend the response.
DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR 2
9. Accordingly, this timely motion follows.
10. My client will incur an expense of $90.00 in filing this motion. My hourly rate in
this matter is $295.00, which I am informed and believe is a reasonable rate based on my years
OLA-bulk)
of experience and education. Up to the filing of this motion, I have spent L“ 01
hours
in preparing this motion and accompanying papers, and coordinating its filing. Accordingly, my
client has incurred reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in filing this motion in the amount of
s l, Elisa-S 0
\DOOQ
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
10 Executed this 3”d of October, 2017, at San Jose, California.
day
11
12 BV:
MAfiOLYN D. ORR
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rmi. llamaslnugh.
Rcixchl dc
mm The Alameda
Chuck
26
Sui“: 200
Sun Jase. CA
95 I 26- ”9:!
(ma) lei-4252 27
Fax (408)261-4202
28
DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR 3
l PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA:
3 citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the
I am a
age of eighteen years,
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1960 The
4 Alameda, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126-1493. On the date set forth below I served the
documents described below:
5
DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
6 COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS
7
on the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
8 envelope addressed as follows:
9
'
Steven B. Piser, Esq. James M. Barrett, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER Law Office of James M. Barrett PLC
10 A Professional Corporation 5150 El Camino Real D-22
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 Los Altos CA 94022
11 Oakland, CA 94612 P 650—969-3687
510—835-5582 F 650-969—3699
12 510-832-1717 Fax Miamesbarrettlawcom
meranza06@mcbell.net (VIA U.S. MAIL)
13 (VIA PERSONAL SERVICE)
Attorney for Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien,
14 John L. Fitzgerald, Esq. Dong Vuong, and Thanh Lai
Law Offices of John L. Fitzgerald
15 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94104
16 415-689-1209
tém lfitzgeraldlawcom
17 (VIA PERSONAL SERVICE)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
l8 DBP INVESTMENTS, A California
General Partnership
19
K1 (BY MAIL? I sealed and placed for collection and mailing such envelope(s) with
20 postage thereon fu ly prepaid, addressed as stated above, in the basket for outgoing mail at
Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck. It is the firm’s ordinary business practice that all mail
21 placed in the basket is collected and taken for mailing that same day by an employee of the
U.S. Postal Service.
22
IX] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this
23 date to the offices of the addressee(s).
24 B (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully
prepaid to be placed in the Federal Express office at San Jose, California.
25
WWW“ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
gamma
Suilc 200
San Jose. CA
26
>14.
that the foregoing is true and correct.
\
27 Executed on October 4, 2017 at San Jose, California.
“2,151,231,921,
Fax (40R) 261-4292
28
0 WM mY W @‘
'CINDY A LO
S:\CL\R\R161 13\PLDGS\MTC SPECIAL ROG #35\DECL. op MDODOCX
EXHIBIT “A”
~
RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067)
MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608)
ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK
I960 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126-1493
Tel: (408) 261—4252
4:.
Fax: (408) 261—4292
Attorneys for Defendant
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
\OOONQLII
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
DBP INVESTMENTS. a California General Case No.: CIV538897
Partnership,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
Plaintiff, THREE
vs. ‘
Action Filed: June I, 2016
Trial Date: November 13, 2017
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company and DOES ‘l~10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
AND RELATED C ROSS—ACT] ON.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant KING‘PLAZA CENTER, LLC
.RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff DBP INVESTMENTS
[SET No: THREE (3)
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030;010 et seq., Defendant KING
PLAZA CENTER, LLC (hereinafter “Propounding Party") propounds the following specially
.
prepared interrogatories to Plaintiff DBP INVESTMENTS (hereinafter “Responding Party”) and
request that such interrogatories and each pan thereof be answered in writing, separately, under
oath within thirty (30) days of service of this request (with any necessary adjustment pursuant to
SPEClAL INTERROGATORIES. SET THREE 1
'
C.C.P. § 1013).
k)
In ans“ cring these interrogatories, furnish all information that is available to you. if you
U.)
cannot answer an interrogatory completely, answer to the extent possible. If you do not have the
knowledge sufficient to respond fully to the interrogatory, so state, but make a reasonable and
flak/142-
good-faith effort to obtain the information by inttttiry to other natural persons. or organizations.
unless the information is equally available to the propounding patty, pursuant to C.C.P. §
2030.2:0(c.).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 29
‘
How many parking spaces at the King Center shopping center does DBP contend are
prescntl y improperly designated for time limited parking?
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30
How many parking spaces at the King Center shopping center does DBP contend were
improperly designated for time limited parking as ot‘May 31, 201 1?
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31
IDENTIFY (means to state with specificity the name- and both the businessand
residence address information including unit or dwelling number, street name? city. state and zip
code; and business and residence telephone numberst all PERSONS. ("PERSON" or
"PERSONS.” The terms "PERSON” or "PERSONS" mean any natural person and also includes
any corporation, partnership, trust. joint venture, group. association. organization, or any other
entity) that Steven DcVincenzi contacted regarding valet parking at the King Center
shOpping center, including but not limited to “the company” referenced in the deposition
testimony of Steven DeVincenzi, a copy of the relevant portion of the transcription of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A (96:42—97: 19).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32
As to each ofthe PERSONS identified in response to Special interrogatory No. 29 above.
state the dates (month and, year, and day if known) on which Steven DeVincenzi centucted each
such PERSON relating to valet parking for the King C'entcr shopping center.
SPECIAL lNTERROGATORlES, SET THREE 2
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33
(Q IDENTIFY all PERSONS that YOU (the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” refer,
L1.)
individually and collectively, to the individual, partnership. or Corporate or other entity Plaintiff
to whom this request is addressed, all predecessors and affiliates of said Plaintiff, and all agents,
employees. partners. officers, directors and all persons acting on the behalf of said Plaintiff
and/or its predecessors and affiliates) contacted regarding valet parking at the-King Center
shopping center.
: SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34
0&0a As to each of the PERSONS identified in response to Special interrogatory No. 29 above,
state the dates (month and year, and day if known) on which YOU contacted each such PERSON
11 relating to valet parking for the King Center shopping center.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35
13 IDENTIFY each of DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees who DBP contends have
14 been wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed from usingyand crossing overfh;
15 portion- of the property constituting DBP’s casement property rights as described in
16 Exhibit A to the first amended complaint, as alleged by DB? in paragraph 19 of the first
217 amended complaint, which reads in relevant part: “Defendants. Quacli, Lien, Wong and Ly,
18 and each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed DBP‘s and its’
19 guests, agents and licensees rights to enter, use and orcss’~o’ver a portion of the property
20 constituting DB'P’s easement property rights.”
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36
22 As to each PERSON identified in response to special interrogatory no. 34 ab0've,
23 state each date on which DBP contends each such PERSON was wrongfully andknowingly
hindered and obstructed from entering, using and crossing over a portion of the property
'25 constituting DBP’s easement property rights as asserted in paragraph 19 of DBP’s first
26 amended complaint, which reads in relevant part: “Defendants, Quach, Lien, Wong and Ly.
27 and each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and‘obstructed-DBP’S and its’
28
SPEClAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE DJ
guests, agents and licensees rightsto enter. use and cross—over a portion of the property
(«J
constituting DBP’s easement property rights."
Lu SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37
State all facts upon which DBP Investments (“DBP”) bases its contention in its first
amended complaint that plaintiff “DBP will suffer irreparable harm for which damages
will not provide a remedy,” as alleged in paragraph 16 of DBP’s first amended complaint,
which reads as follows: “The acts described in paragraphs 5 through 8 of this complaint
constitute unreasonable interference with DBP’s rights under the easement. Unless this court
permanently enjoins defendant King Plaza Center LLC, its tenants and sub-tenants and their
concessionaires. suppliers, patrons, customers, invitees. guests, employees and agents from
acting in the manner described in this complaint, DBP will suffer irreparable harm “for'which
damages will not provide a remedy.”
Dated: August 2. 2017 ROSSI. HAMERSLOUGH. REISCI—lL & CHUCK
m
RONALD R. ROSSI
”be;
MADOLYN D. ORR
Attorneys for Defendant
KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC‘
4
SPECIAL INTBRROGATORIES, SET THREE
EXHIBIT “B”
#4}; 1-4 M...1*'- :4” ”5';
STEVEN B. PISER, SEN 62414 Fri} 3;: {C}; a; u WEE-.2. ring
”"74" l"
{it
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
A Professional Corporation
”i{1i
S,
M
“5
"
.9.
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 l: l
' v"
c o J
mil : 53%
i
Oakland, California 94612 ,i vi
2 i * 5i”
5.1;;
Telephone: (510) 835-5582
Facsimile: (SlO) 832—1717
\DOOQONCfl-P-OJMH
JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 689-1209
Attorneys for
DBP INVESTMENTS,
a California General Partnership
i...-
O
11
12
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14
15
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897
16 Partnership. )
)
17 Plaintifi: DBP INVESTM ENTS’ RESPONSES To
>
) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
18 v. >
)
19 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware >
Limited Liability Company, BUA~QUACH, )
2O an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, )
DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH )
21 LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 )
)
22 Defendants. >
>
23 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, )
24 )
Cross-Complainant, )
25 v. >
26 )\
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General )
Partnership and ROES through 10,
1
)
27 >
Cross—Defendants. >
28 )
Law Office: of
Sreven B. Fixer
1
DBP INVESTMENTS' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
I—n
PROPOUNDING PARTY : King Plaza Center, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY : DBP Investments
SET NUMBER : Three
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 29:
51
\DOOVOU‘l-bwlo
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
DBP has conducted a reasonable and good faith inquiry and is informed and believes that
on May 31, 2011, there were no spaces that had any time limitations.
Discovery is continuing.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 31:
On information and belief, Stephen Belton, California Parking Company, Post Office
Box 2882 San Francisco, California 94126; 415 468—4860
RESPON§E TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
Not applicable.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N9. 33:
DB? objects to the definition of the term “you." Without waiving its objection, DBP
responds as follows:
WimmhwwHOOOOfimm-bOOMI—‘O
On information and belief, Stephen Belton, California Parking Company, Post Office
MMMMMMMDMi—IHHHHHHHHH
Box 2882 San Francisco, California 94126; 415 468-4860
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
Not applicable
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORX N0. 35:
This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it is compound and conjunctive and is
prohibited by C.C.P. §2030.060(t).
RESPON§E T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
-&ES_W Not applicable
This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it seeks legal theories and legal
, Law Oflices of
Steven B. Fixer 2
DB? Invesmsms' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES, SET 'miuze
‘\ ’1
contentions, as opposed to facts. Without waiving, and subject to that objection, inj‘unctive relief
is appropriate based on the following facts:
King and its tenants, the Quaches, have interfered withDBP’s, and its
tenant’s, rights to use the parking in the common area. They have done so
\O,m\IC\CJl-l>03t0r--
by restricting the parking to the detriment of DBP’s tenant,
The Daly City Ordinance 1255 sets the rules for the use of the parking in
the common area. DBP is a member of the community for whose particular
protection the Ordinance was enacted.
The Upper lot and adjacent area’s poor maintenance and abuse by Manila
Market have created noxious conditions and conditions that interfere with
their use. These conditions-«garbage, oil residue, food waste and other
garbage---threaten the health and safety of persons who use, or want to use
the area, interfering with ‘DBP’s rights under the easement and DBP’s
private preperty right.
When the bowl was built, in the mid-80$, a variance was granted that
allowed the parking requirement to be reduced by 20%. This was done
because although the parcels were separate, they were under common
ownership. Without the variance, the bowl would not have been approved,
and its use could be curtailed by the City of Daly City if DBP’s rights
wwwmmNMHHlI—‘HHHHHHH
continue to be interfered with.
(D‘lmm-POSMI-‘OKOCXJ‘IQUILOJMHOA
When the City of Daly City approved the lot split, which enabled King to
acquire its property, it did so, in part, based on the existence of'the
easement and DBP’s right to use the parking and ingress and egress on the
parcel owned by King. Without those rights being protected, the lot split
never would have been approved because there was no way to assure
DBP’s tenant’s parking rights would be assured. Loss of those rights could
result in revocation of the use permit.
DBP’s property serves an important role in the Daly City and northern
peninsula communities. It serves as a de facto community center for the
Law Q0706 of
Steven B. Plser 3
DB? lrzsmms' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES. Sin" THREE
elderly. It provides benefits to the young people in the community,
providing a wholesome activity to younger members of the community.
*3 Interfering with an easement is a violation of the law. The court has the
power, and duty, to prevent King and the owners of Manila Market from
violating DBP’S rights under the easement.
\DmVO‘IUi-ISOJDH
Discovery is continuing.
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
A Professional Corporation
2/?
-
: x
15'9". fi’g‘
“*1"
DATED: f3,
*‘t’ 3,
‘
fittest-Qt» By: ,
{25$}
STEVEyBAt‘ISER
Attorney for
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California
General Partnership
MMNNMNDMMHHHHHHHHHH
(DNCNU'IvPQJtOI—I‘OKOOOfiOUl-POOMHO
Lmv Ojjiccs of
Steven B. I’lser
DBP Invasmmrs' Resportsissi‘gsvrnor-fi. INTEKROGATOPJES, Ser THREE
,‘ '
\ /
Re: DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case #CIV538897
*
1
VERIFICATION
: I, Mr/ oce,‘_arn a partner of,DBP Investments’ a party in the above-entitled
action.
4
I have read the foregoing document entitled: PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS’
5
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE and know the contents
6
7
thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein
8
stated upon information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
9
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californie that the
M
foregoing is true and correct. .
10
1
1. Executed this A day of September, 2017, at jg: A (5'74
12 ,
13 ’ '
14
15
16
17
18
u
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LW 0.01%? 0]
Steven B. Plser
VERIFICATION
ll
v“ a- l‘
1
2
3
4
5
X’"
\J
W i
J
DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC And Related Cross-Action
San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Case #CIV538897
I, Esperanza Izazaga, declare the following:
I am employed in Alameda County, California, am over eighteen years of age, and am
not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 1300 Clay Street, Suite
6 l
L
1050, Oakland, California 94612. -
7 On September 7, 2017, I served a copy of:
8 DBP INVESTMENT
Preview
fl l RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) - Ad ' ‘ “\ ' '1 :I MADOLYN D ORR (SBN 280608) , 2 CHARLES R. HELLSTROM (SBN 294540) ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK SAEMETEBgOlJDNW ' 3 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 OCT 0 4 2017 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 . 4 Tel: (408) 261-4252 Clerk rior Court Fax: (408) 261-4292 By 5 DEPUTVCLEM Attorneys for Defendant 6 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 ‘DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897 10 Partnership, DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. 11 Plaintiff, ORR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL 12 vs. INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 13 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, an Wei? DATE: Gambia-Q6; 5017 14 individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, DONG TIME: 9:00 am. VUONG, an individual, THANH LA], and DEPT: Law & Motion 15 DOES 1 through 10, 16 Defendants. Action Filed: June 1, 2016 Trial Date: November 13, 2017 17 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Viv-538007 ‘— "" "—— 18 Limited Liability Company, a m Declaration 1 19 750671 Cross-Complainant, = 20 :l ||||l||llllllllllllllllllllIll 21 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ’ Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, 22 Cross-Defendant. 23 24 I, MADOLYN D. ORR, declare and state that if called as a witness I am competent to and 25 could and would testify as follows based upon my personal knowledge: E‘ilafiuj: 26 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of 27 California and am an associate in the law firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck, r(;i§:l:z::3:ig;fz:91 28 DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR l 1 attorneys of record for Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC in this matter. 2 2. I make this Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Response to 3 Special Interrogatory and Request for Sanctions. 4 3. On August 2, 2017, I caused the Special Interrogatories, Set 3, attached hereto as 5 Exhibit “A” to be served on counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DBP Investments (“DBP”). 6 4. On September 7, 2017, DBP’s counsel, Steven Piser, served DBP’s Responses to 7 Special Interrogatories, Set 3, a true and correct copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 8 “B”. 9 5. Upon reviewing DBP’s responses to Special Interrogatory No. 35 within Set 3, I 10 noted that the response contained solely objections, and improper objections at that. 1 1 Accordingly, on September 14, 2017, I emailed Mr. Piser, and his co-counsel of record, John 12 Fitzgerald, to attempt to meet and confer in good faith. In my e-mail, I identified the 13 interrogatory that I wished to address, and explained why their objection-only response was 14 inappropriate. A true and correct copy of this September 14, 2017 email is attached hereto as 15 Exhibit “C”. 16 6. The next day, September 15, 2017, I received a brief letter from Mr. Piser, in 17 which he carbon copied his co—counsel of record Mr. Fitzgerald, and noted he really disagreed 18 with my assessment. He did not offer to provide an amended response, or undertake any further 19 effort to provide any additional information on behalf of his client. A true and correct copy of 20 this September 15, 2017 email is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 21 7. The same day, I emailed Mr. Piser in response to his letter, in which I requested 22 clarification that DBP was maintaining its refusal to provide any further response to Special 23 Interrogatory No. 35, and if not, to indicate whether DBP would provide amended responses. To 24 date, to have received no response to this email. A true and correct copy of this September 15, 25 2017 email is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. Rmsi. Homerslough. lggifgg‘fflggn 26 8. Accordingly, it appeared we were at an impasse. I identified the reasons why Suite znn Sun Jnsc.CA . ' ' '. . (5:33:32, 27 DBP’s response was evasrve, and its objectlon inappropriate, and counsel clearly stated he FnS (M18) Zfil-4292 28 disagreed with me, and refiised to amend the response. DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR 2 9. Accordingly, this timely motion follows. 10. My client will incur an expense of $90.00 in filing this motion. My hourly rate in this matter is $295.00, which I am informed and believe is a reasonable rate based on my years OLA-bulk) of experience and education. Up to the filing of this motion, I have spent L“ 01 hours in preparing this motion and accompanying papers, and coordinating its filing. Accordingly, my client has incurred reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in filing this motion in the amount of s l, Elisa-S 0 \DOOQ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 10 Executed this 3”d of October, 2017, at San Jose, California. day 11 12 BV: MAfiOLYN D. ORR 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rmi. llamaslnugh. Rcixchl dc mm The Alameda Chuck 26 Sui“: 200 Sun Jase. CA 95 I 26- ”9:! (ma) lei-4252 27 Fax (408)261-4202 28 DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR 3 l PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: 3 citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the I am a age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1960 The 4 Alameda, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126-1493. On the date set forth below I served the documents described below: 5 DECLARATION OF MADOLYN D. ORR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 6 COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 7 on the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 8 envelope addressed as follows: 9 ' Steven B. Piser, Esq. James M. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER Law Office of James M. Barrett PLC 10 A Professional Corporation 5150 El Camino Real D-22 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 Los Altos CA 94022 11 Oakland, CA 94612 P 650—969-3687 510—835-5582 F 650-969—3699 12 510-832-1717 Fax Miamesbarrettlawcom meranza06@mcbell.net (VIA U.S. MAIL) 13 (VIA PERSONAL SERVICE) Attorney for Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, 14 John L. Fitzgerald, Esq. Dong Vuong, and Thanh Lai Law Offices of John L. Fitzgerald 15 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94104 16 415-689-1209 tém lfitzgeraldlawcom 17 (VIA PERSONAL SERVICE) Attorneys for Plaintiff l8 DBP INVESTMENTS, A California General Partnership 19 K1 (BY MAIL? I sealed and placed for collection and mailing such envelope(s) with 20 postage thereon fu ly prepaid, addressed as stated above, in the basket for outgoing mail at Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck. It is the firm’s ordinary business practice that all mail 21 placed in the basket is collected and taken for mailing that same day by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. 22 IX] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this 23 date to the offices of the addressee(s). 24 B (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the Federal Express office at San Jose, California. 25 WWW“ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California gamma Suilc 200 San Jose. CA 26 >14. that the foregoing is true and correct. \ 27 Executed on October 4, 2017 at San Jose, California. “2,151,231,921, Fax (40R) 261-4292 28 0 WM mY W @‘ 'CINDY A LO S:\CL\R\R161 13\PLDGS\MTC SPECIAL ROG #35\DECL. op MDODOCX EXHIBIT “A” ~ RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608) ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK I960 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 Tel: (408) 261—4252 4:. Fax: (408) 261—4292 Attorneys for Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC \OOONQLII SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DBP INVESTMENTS. a California General Case No.: CIV538897 Partnership, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET Plaintiff, THREE vs. ‘ Action Filed: June I, 2016 Trial Date: November 13, 2017 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and DOES ‘l~10, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED C ROSS—ACT] ON. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant KING‘PLAZA CENTER, LLC .RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff DBP INVESTMENTS [SET No: THREE (3) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030;010 et seq., Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC (hereinafter “Propounding Party") propounds the following specially . prepared interrogatories to Plaintiff DBP INVESTMENTS (hereinafter “Responding Party”) and request that such interrogatories and each pan thereof be answered in writing, separately, under oath within thirty (30) days of service of this request (with any necessary adjustment pursuant to SPEClAL INTERROGATORIES. SET THREE 1 ' C.C.P. § 1013). k) In ans“ cring these interrogatories, furnish all information that is available to you. if you U.) cannot answer an interrogatory completely, answer to the extent possible. If you do not have the knowledge sufficient to respond fully to the interrogatory, so state, but make a reasonable and flak/142- good-faith effort to obtain the information by inttttiry to other natural persons. or organizations. unless the information is equally available to the propounding patty, pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.2:0(c.). SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 29 ‘ How many parking spaces at the King Center shopping center does DBP contend are prescntl y improperly designated for time limited parking? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30 How many parking spaces at the King Center shopping center does DBP contend were improperly designated for time limited parking as ot‘May 31, 201 1? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31 IDENTIFY (means to state with specificity the name- and both the businessand residence address information including unit or dwelling number, street name? city. state and zip code; and business and residence telephone numberst all PERSONS. ("PERSON" or "PERSONS.” The terms "PERSON” or "PERSONS" mean any natural person and also includes any corporation, partnership, trust. joint venture, group. association. organization, or any other entity) that Steven DcVincenzi contacted regarding valet parking at the King Center shOpping center, including but not limited to “the company” referenced in the deposition testimony of Steven DeVincenzi, a copy of the relevant portion of the transcription of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (96:42—97: 19). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32 As to each ofthe PERSONS identified in response to Special interrogatory No. 29 above. state the dates (month and, year, and day if known) on which Steven DeVincenzi centucted each such PERSON relating to valet parking for the King C'entcr shopping center. SPECIAL lNTERROGATORlES, SET THREE 2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33 (Q IDENTIFY all PERSONS that YOU (the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” refer, L1.) individually and collectively, to the individual, partnership. or Corporate or other entity Plaintiff to whom this request is addressed, all predecessors and affiliates of said Plaintiff, and all agents, employees. partners. officers, directors and all persons acting on the behalf of said Plaintiff and/or its predecessors and affiliates) contacted regarding valet parking at the-King Center shopping center. : SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34 0&0a As to each of the PERSONS identified in response to Special interrogatory No. 29 above, state the dates (month and year, and day if known) on which YOU contacted each such PERSON 11 relating to valet parking for the King Center shopping center. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35 13 IDENTIFY each of DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees who DBP contends have 14 been wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed from usingyand crossing overfh; 15 portion- of the property constituting DBP’s casement property rights as described in 16 Exhibit A to the first amended complaint, as alleged by DB? in paragraph 19 of the first 217 amended complaint, which reads in relevant part: “Defendants. Quacli, Lien, Wong and Ly, 18 and each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed DBP‘s and its’ 19 guests, agents and licensees rights to enter, use and orcss’~o’ver a portion of the property 20 constituting DB'P’s easement property rights.” 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36 22 As to each PERSON identified in response to special interrogatory no. 34 ab0've, 23 state each date on which DBP contends each such PERSON was wrongfully andknowingly hindered and obstructed from entering, using and crossing over a portion of the property '25 constituting DBP’s easement property rights as asserted in paragraph 19 of DBP’s first 26 amended complaint, which reads in relevant part: “Defendants, Quach, Lien, Wong and Ly. 27 and each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and‘obstructed-DBP’S and its’ 28 SPEClAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE DJ guests, agents and licensees rightsto enter. use and cross—over a portion of the property («J constituting DBP’s easement property rights." Lu SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37 State all facts upon which DBP Investments (“DBP”) bases its contention in its first amended complaint that plaintiff “DBP will suffer irreparable harm for which damages will not provide a remedy,” as alleged in paragraph 16 of DBP’s first amended complaint, which reads as follows: “The acts described in paragraphs 5 through 8 of this complaint constitute unreasonable interference with DBP’s rights under the easement. Unless this court permanently enjoins defendant King Plaza Center LLC, its tenants and sub-tenants and their concessionaires. suppliers, patrons, customers, invitees. guests, employees and agents from acting in the manner described in this complaint, DBP will suffer irreparable harm “for'which damages will not provide a remedy.” Dated: August 2. 2017 ROSSI. HAMERSLOUGH. REISCI—lL & CHUCK m RONALD R. ROSSI ”be; MADOLYN D. ORR Attorneys for Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC‘ 4 SPECIAL INTBRROGATORIES, SET THREE EXHIBIT “B” #4}; 1-4 M...1*'- :4” ”5'; STEVEN B. PISER, SEN 62414 Fri} 3;: {C}; a; u WEE-.2. ring ”"74" l" {it LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER A Professional Corporation ”i{1i S, M “5 " .9. 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 l: l ' v" c o J mil : 53% i Oakland, California 94612 ,i vi 2 i * 5i” 5.1;; Telephone: (510) 835-5582 Facsimile: (SlO) 832—1717 \DOOQONCfl-P-OJMH JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 689-1209 Attorneys for DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Partnership i...- O 11 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 14 15 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897 16 Partnership. ) ) 17 Plaintifi: DBP INVESTM ENTS’ RESPONSES To > ) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 18 v. > ) 19 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware > Limited Liability Company, BUA~QUACH, ) 2O an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH ) 21 LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 ) ) 22 Defendants. > > 23 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) Limited Liability Company, ) 24 ) Cross-Complainant, ) 25 v. > 26 )\ DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) Partnership and ROES through 10, 1 ) 27 > Cross—Defendants. > 28 ) Law Office: of Sreven B. Fixer 1 DBP INVESTMENTS' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE I—n PROPOUNDING PARTY : King Plaza Center, LLC RESPONDING PARTY : DBP Investments SET NUMBER : Three RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 29: 51 \DOOVOU‘l-bwlo RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: DBP has conducted a reasonable and good faith inquiry and is informed and believes that on May 31, 2011, there were no spaces that had any time limitations. Discovery is continuing. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 31: On information and belief, Stephen Belton, California Parking Company, Post Office Box 2882 San Francisco, California 94126; 415 468—4860 RESPON§E TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Not applicable. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N9. 33: DB? objects to the definition of the term “you." Without waiving its objection, DBP responds as follows: WimmhwwHOOOOfimm-bOOMI—‘O On information and belief, Stephen Belton, California Parking Company, Post Office MMMMMMMDMi—IHHHHHHHHH Box 2882 San Francisco, California 94126; 415 468-4860 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Not applicable RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORX N0. 35: This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it is compound and conjunctive and is prohibited by C.C.P. §2030.060(t). RESPON§E T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: -&ES_W Not applicable This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it seeks legal theories and legal , Law Oflices of Steven B. Fixer 2 DB? Invesmsms' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES, SET 'miuze ‘\ ’1 contentions, as opposed to facts. Without waiving, and subject to that objection, inj‘unctive relief is appropriate based on the following facts: King and its tenants, the Quaches, have interfered withDBP’s, and its tenant’s, rights to use the parking in the common area. They have done so \O,m\IC\CJl-l>03t0r-- by restricting the parking to the detriment of DBP’s tenant, The Daly City Ordinance 1255 sets the rules for the use of the parking in the common area. DBP is a member of the community for whose particular protection the Ordinance was enacted. The Upper lot and adjacent area’s poor maintenance and abuse by Manila Market have created noxious conditions and conditions that interfere with their use. These conditions-«garbage, oil residue, food waste and other garbage---threaten the health and safety of persons who use, or want to use the area, interfering with ‘DBP’s rights under the easement and DBP’s private preperty right. When the bowl was built, in the mid-80$, a variance was granted that allowed the parking requirement to be reduced by 20%. This was done because although the parcels were separate, they were under common ownership. Without the variance, the bowl would not have been approved, and its use could be curtailed by the City of Daly City if DBP’s rights wwwmmNMHHlI—‘HHHHHHH continue to be interfered with. (D‘lmm-POSMI-‘OKOCXJ‘IQUILOJMHOA When the City of Daly City approved the lot split, which enabled King to acquire its property, it did so, in part, based on the existence of'the easement and DBP’s right to use the parking and ingress and egress on the parcel owned by King. Without those rights being protected, the lot split never would have been approved because there was no way to assure DBP’s tenant’s parking rights would be assured. Loss of those rights could result in revocation of the use permit. DBP’s property serves an important role in the Daly City and northern peninsula communities. It serves as a de facto community center for the Law Q0706 of Steven B. Plser 3 DB? lrzsmms' RESPONSES To SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES. Sin" THREE elderly. It provides benefits to the young people in the community, providing a wholesome activity to younger members of the community. *3 Interfering with an easement is a violation of the law. The court has the power, and duty, to prevent King and the owners of Manila Market from violating DBP’S rights under the easement. \DmVO‘IUi-ISOJDH Discovery is continuing. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER A Professional Corporation 2/? - : x 15'9". fi’g‘ “*1" DATED: f3, *‘t’ 3, ‘ fittest-Qt» By: , {25$} STEVEyBAt‘ISER Attorney for DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Partnership MMNNMNDMMHHHHHHHHHH (DNCNU'IvPQJtOI—I‘OKOOOfiOUl-POOMHO Lmv Ojjiccs of Steven B. I’lser DBP Invasmmrs' Resportsissi‘gsvrnor-fi. INTEKROGATOPJES, Ser THREE ,‘ ' \ / Re: DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC San Mateo County Superior Court, Case #CIV538897 * 1 VERIFICATION : I, Mr/ oce,‘_arn a partner of,DBP Investments’ a party in the above-entitled action. 4 I have read the foregoing document entitled: PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS’ 5 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE and know the contents 6 7 thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein 8 stated upon information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. 9 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californie that the M foregoing is true and correct. . 10 1 1. Executed this A day of September, 2017, at jg: A (5'74 12 , 13 ’ ' 14 15 16 17 18 u 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LW 0.01%? 0] Steven B. Plser VERIFICATION ll v“ a- l‘ 1 2 3 4 5 X’" \J W i J DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC And Related Cross-Action San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction Case #CIV538897 I, Esperanza Izazaga, declare the following: I am employed in Alameda County, California, am over eighteen years of age, and am not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 1300 Clay Street, Suite 6 l L 1050, Oakland, California 94612. - 7 On September 7, 2017, I served a copy of: 8 DBP INVESTMENT