Preview
Electronically Filed
11/2/2020 6:47 PM
Superior Court of California
Donald W. Fisher, Esq. (SBN 149562) County of Stanislaus
Robert K. Ulich, Esq. (SBN 306391) Clerk of the Court
ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP By: Sabrina Bouldt, Deputy
1201 Dove Street., Suite 625
Ne rt Be CA 92660
(949) 250-9797; Fax (949) 250-9777
dfisher@ulichlaw.com; rulich@ulichlaw.com
Attol for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF
CALI IRNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interestto MORRISON HOMES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
11 BASIMA POLIS, et al.; Case No. 9000434
12 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed May 30, 2017
13 VS. Assi to:
Hon. John D. Freeland, Dept. 23
14 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA,
LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA,
15 LIABILITY COMPANY; et al.; AND LLC, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
DOES 1-1000, INCLUSIVE MORRISON HOMES, INC.’S
16 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX
Defendants. PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
17 VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR
ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO
18 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE; DECLARATION OF
19 ROBERT K. ULICH
20
21 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. DATE: November 3, 2020
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
22 DEPT.: 23
23
24. Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as
25 successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. (“Taylor Momison”), hereby submits its
26 Opposition to Plaintiff BASIMA POLIS, et al.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Application for an Order
27 Vacating the Court’s Order For Entry of Additional Dates to Case Management No. 2 Timeline
28 (“Proposed Order”). 1
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
1 PLAINTIFFS HAVE WHOLLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EX PARTE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, “An ex parte application must be accompanied by a
declaration regarding notice...” CRC Rule 3.1204(b). Although Plaintiffs circulated a notice that
an ex parte would be taking place, they failed to not only circulate the required ex parte application
(“Application”), but they also failed to circulate the required accompanying declaration (see Notice,
marked as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). Because Plaintiffs
have wholly failed to comply with the requirements of noticing an ex parte application by filing
neither their Application nor the required accompanying declaration and, thus, the parties to this
10 lawsuit are left with absolutely no idea as to what exactly Plaintiffs will be arguing at the ex parte
11 hearing, their Application must be denied and the Proposed Order already entered by the Court on
12 October 21, 2020 must be upheld. However, should the Court choose to ignore Plaintiffs’ flagrant
13 disregard of the CRC requirements, Taylor Morrison raises the following arguments, below, in
14 anticipation of what it believes Plaintiffs will be arguing at the ex parte hearing.
15 2. TAYLOR MORRISON’S PROPOSED TIMELINE WENT UNOBJECTED TO AND
16 IS THE TIMELINE THAT SHOULD BE ENTERED
17 As indicated in Taylor Morison’ s Proposed Order, on September 30, 2020, pursuant to the
18 Court’s request after the September 28, 2020 Case Management Conference, counsel for Taylor
19 Monson circulated a Proposed Case Management Order Timeline (“Timeline”) to all counsel,
20 including counsel for Plaintiffs (see September 30, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit
21 “B” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). No party objected to any of the dates
22 included in the proposed Timeline. On October 7, 2020, counsel for Taylor Morrison circulated a
23 second e-mail to all counsel, this time specifically addressed to counsel for Plaintiffs, advising that
24. Taylor Momison had received no objections to the Timeline and that it would submit the proposed
25 Timeline to the Court for entry (see October 7, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “C”
26 to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). On October 9, 2020, over a week after
first
27 circulating the Timeline, and after having received no objections from counsel for Plaintiffs, Taylor
28 Monson filed the Proposed Order with the Cotrt. To its amazement given the fact that Taylor
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
Monson gave Plaintiffs every opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed Timeline,
on October 13, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted an objection (“Objection”) to Taylor Morison’ s Proposed
Order.
In their Objection, Plaintiffs argue that Taylor Morison is forcing Plaintiffs to rush their
discovery obligations, stress that trial is still 16 months away, and indicate that there is plenty of
time in the future for Plaintiffs to perform their requisite discovery. However, to the contrary,
Plaintiffs conveniently omit the fact that this lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2017 and, since then, has
dragged on for almost three and a half years.
Clearly, Plaintiffs are fully aware of all alleged defects affecting their homes or else they
10 would
not have sued. Plaintiffs are fully aware that they need to have their depositions
taken during
11 the discovery process. In fact, Taylor Morrison has already attempted to take the depositions of
12 Plaintiff-homeowners on at least two different occasions over the past three years but, curiously,
13 have been prevented from doing so each time by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs are obviously trying
14 to sandbag this litigation. This behaviorneeds
to stop. This matter has been at a standstill for almost
15 four years, and Taylor Momison will no longer sit around and wait until Plaintiffs are finally done
16 stalling.
17 Although Plaintiffs attempt to argue that trial is still 16 months away, as the Court
is more
18 than aware, construction defect litigation has been provisionally designated as a complex case due
19 to the fact that it involves numerous pre-trial motions, multiple parties, large numbers of witnesses,
20 large numbers of separately represented parties, and requires substantial coordination among all
21 parties during the pre-trial process (see Califomia Rules of Court 3.400). All of these matters take
22 time, need to be spaced out appropriately, and need to be completed
well in advance
of the trial date,
23 thus necessitating the need for a case management order and event timeline.
24. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS ARE PROPERLY NOTICED AND OVERDUE
25 Plaintiffs argue that the setting of Plaintiff-Homeowner depositions has been set without
26 enough advanced notice. As currently proposed, Plaintiffs’ depositions have been set for November
27 9-20, 2020. The Proposed Order was filed with the Court on October 9, 2020, meaning that the first
28 deposition is scheduled to take place 31 days frdm the date of filing—more than enough time to
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
apprise the Plaintiff- Homeowners of their pending depositions. In fact, as the Court is aware, Code
of Civil Procedure section 2025.270 requires only 10 days’ notice for oral depositions; the proposed.
Timeline gives 31!
Additionally, on October 27, 2020, the day that Taylor Morrison received notice that the
Court had entered the Proposed Order, it immediately, on that same day, circulated
a formal notice
(“Notice”) to all parties advising of the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions on the dates originally
proposed
in the Timeline, as well as a formal letter
to all parties advising of the Court’s entry of the
Proposed Order (see Notice of Taking of Plaintiff-Homeowner Depositions and formal letter to all
parties, marked as Exhibits “D” and “E”, respectively, to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich,
10 attached hereto). Pursuant to Code section 2025.270, this Notice was circulated well over ten days
11 in advance of the taking of the first scheduled deposition but, instead of immediately advising
12 Plaintiff-Homeowners, counsel for Plaintiffs waited a further six days before filing its Ex Parte
13 Application. What is most curious is that, due to current restrictions related to the COVID-19
14 pandemic, Plaintiff-Homeowners are not even required to attend depositions in person but, instead,
15 are able to log in to the deposition from their computers at home, which is where they presumably
16 are already located due to current lockdown and workplace related restrictions. This makes
it much
17 easier, quicker, and less stressful for Plaintiffs
to attend, thus precluding
any need or reason to file
18 their Opposition
and Application. Taylor Momison has clearly met all requirements in the Code and
19 sees absolutely no reason as to why these depositions cannot go forward.
20 Furthermore, as has already been mentioned, Taylor Morison has attempted to notice
21 Plaintiffs’ depositions on at least two other occasions over the past three and a half years, each time
22 resulting in objections by Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs are not ready. If Plaintiffs are not ready for their
23 depositions to take place three and a half years after they filed their lawsuit, when will they ever be
24. ready? Taylor Morrison and the Cross-Defendant subcontractors need these depositions to occurso
25 that they can ascertain
for themselves exactly what defects the homeowners are experiencing. Once
26 these depositions
are completed, the defense
needs time to accurately assess the claims and create a
27 Plan to address the alleged issues. If the Court enters the proposed Timeline as Plaintiffs have
28 amended it, this matter will still be at a standstift until late April of 2021—over
six months from
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
now, and the defense
will not have the requisite time to prepare fortrial. Plaintiffs
need to recognize
that this case has multiple moving parts, that this matter
is not all about what Plaintiffs
want and
when they want it, and that all parties need to come together and space out these important Timeline
events in an appropriate manner. Taylor Morison requests that Plaintiffs’ Application be denied
and that the Court’s Order, which has already
been entered, continue
to be upheld.
4. PLAINTIFFS’ DESTRUCTIVE TESTING HAS BEEN TIMELY NOTICED
Plaintiffs further object to destructive testing taking place in November of 2020, and argue
that they need at least six months’ advanced notice to coordinate with their experts. Plaintiffs’ law
firm and Taylor Momison have litigated hundreds, if not thousands, of construction defect lawsuits
10 together and, in all these years, not once have parties needed to schedule destructive testing so farin
11 advance. As counsel for Plaintiffs is well-aware, their experts are available at a moment's notice
12 and are ready, willing, and able to perform testing as soon as possible. Again, if the Court vacates
13 the Order it has already entered and, instead, enters the proposed Timeline as Plaintiffs have
14 amended it, this matter will still be at a standstill
until late April of 2021, six months fromnow. And
15 really, what have Plaintiffs been doing for the past four years? It is patently unreasonable to force
16 the defense
to be in the dark for four years, only for Plaintiffs
to then attempt to cram an entire
case
17 into the final few months before trial.
18 5 PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL DEFECT LIST HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY SCHEDULED
19 Finally, Plaintiffs object to having their final defect
list circulated to all counsel 30 days after
20 completion of destructive testing, arguing that there is no reason for Plaintiffs to incur these costs so
21 far in advance of trial. Plaintiffs’ position is laughable. The defense needs this final defect list far
22 enough
in advance of trial so that they have time to send the list to their own experts and compare
23 and contrast the differing costs associated with each alleged defect. The defense also needs this time
24. to open up negotiations and settlement discussions with each other in advance in trial, which could
25 potentially result
in a global settlement of the matter and relieve the Court from its burden of trying
26 the matter
over a multiple week period. Taylor Momison urges the Court to allow the defense more
27 time than Plaintiffs would propose in order to not only analyze Plaintiffs’ final defect list, but to also
28 5
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
begin to engage in discussions with the Cross-Defendant subcontractors, which will itself take
several months.
6 CONCLUSION
Trial in this matter is scheduled for the beginning of March of 2022, which is less than 16
months away. Although this may seem like plenty of time, Plaintiffs
have been stalling the
progression
of litigation in this matter
from the very start. This matter is over three and half years
old and, if Plaintiffs had it their way, it would continue to stall for at least another six months, which
would cram every single event into a time frame of fewerthan 10 months. Thereis simply
too much
outstanding pre-trial discovery
to be left until the last minute. The defense is tired of waiting around
10 for decisions to be made and efforts to move the case forward to be struck down again and again by
11 Plaintiffs, and respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application to Vacate the Order
12 and, instead, uphold
the Order, as is.
13
14 Respectfully submitted,
15
16
DATED: November2, 2020 ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP
17
18
By:
Kobe. KH Ulick,
Donald W. Fisher, Esq.
19 Robert K. Ulich, Esq.
Attor for Defendant/Cross-Co! jainant
20 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA,
LLC, as sucoessor-in-interest to MORRISON
21 HOMES, INC.
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28 6
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
DECLARATION OF ROBERT K. ULICH
I, Robert K. Ulich, hereby declare as follows:
1 I am an attomey at law duly licensed to practice in all courts within
the State of
Califomia and I am an associate in the law firm of ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP, attomeys of
record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as
successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. (“Taylor Momison”), herein. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness I could, and would, competently
testify to the within
facts.
2. On November 2, 2020, Plaintiffs circulated a notice that an ex parte hearing would
10 be taking place on November 3, 2020. However, they failed to not only circulate the required ex
11 parte application (“Application”), but they also failed to circulate the required accompanying
12 declaration (see Notice, marked as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached
13 hereto).
14 3. On September
30, 2020, pursuant to the Court’ s request after the September 28, 2020
15 Case Management Conference, counsel for Taylor Morrison circulated a Proposed Case
16 Management Order Timeline (“Timeline”) to all counsel, including counsel for Plaintiffs (see
17 September 30, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “B” to the Declaration of Robert K.
18 Ulich, attached hereto).
19 4. No party objected to any of the dates included in the proposed Timeline.
20 5. On October 7, 2020, counsel for Taylor Morison circulated a second e-mail to all
21 counsel, this time specifically addressed to counsel for Plaintiffs, advising that Taylor Morrison had
22 received no objections to the Timeline and that it would submit the proposed Timeline to the Court
23 for entry (see October 7, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “C” to the Declaration of
24. Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto).
25 6. On October9, 2020, over a week after first circulating the Timeline, and after having
26 received no objections from counsel for Plaintiffs, Taylor Momison filed the Proposed Order with
27 the Court.
28 7
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
7, On October 27, 2020, the day that Taylor Morison received notice that the Court had
entered the Proposed Order, it immediately, on that same day, circulated a formal notice (“Notice”)
to all parties advising of the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions on the dates originally proposed in the
Timeline, as well as a formal letter to all parties advising of the Court's entry of the Proposed Order
(see Notice of Taking of Plaintiff- Homeowner Depositions and formal letter to all parties, marked
as Exhibits “D” and “E”, respectively, to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto).
Pursuant
to Code section 2025.270, this Notice was circulated well over ten days in advance of the
taking of the first scheduled deposition.
8. Taylor Morison never received an objection from any party, including Plaintiffs, to
10 this Notice.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the foregoing
12 is true and comect. Dated this 2 day of November, 2020, at Newport Beach, Califomia.
13
Krbel KH Ulich
14
Robert K. Ulich, Esq.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28 8
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE
COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
TIMELINE
Exhibit A
MILSTEIN 10250 Constellation Boulevard
JACKSON Fourteenth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FAIRCHILD T: (310) 396-9600 F: (310) 396-9635,
& WADE www.mjfwlaw.com Please Reply To:
Mayo L. Makarczyk
mmakarczyk@mjfwlaw.com
310-396-9600 x. 106
November 2, 2020
VIA E-MAIL AND FILE&SERVEXPRESS
[TO ALL COUNSEL]
Re Basima Polis, et al. v. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 9000434.
To All Counsel:
Please take notice that Plaintiffs Basima Polis, et al. will appear ex parte tomorrow, November 3,
2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, located at 801
Tenth Street in Modesto, California.
Plaintiffs will seek an Order Vacating the Court’s Scheduling Order of October 21, 2020.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
MILSTEIN JACKSON
FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
Exhibit B
From: Robert Ulich
To: Amanda Despuio!
Subject: FW: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356
Monday, November 2, 2020 4:25:32 PM
From: Robert Ulich
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ;
Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ;
amooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com;
WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com;
smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; ktsang@petersendean.com;
JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com; jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com;
ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com;
lletofsky@letofskymcclain.com; rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com;
cardenos@villara.com; moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com;
helen @sullivanlawgroupapc.com; Yaeckel@sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy@OLES.com;
sreutter@bremerwhyte.com; jhughes@bledsoelaw.com
Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com;
kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com;
kjones@petersendean.com; TLHARWEL @travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com;
|piper@murchisonlaw.com; wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@letofskymcclain.com;
frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com; dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com;
dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com; Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com;
gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo ; Spencer Adler
; Michael Fairchild
Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No.
1100105356
Counsel,
A CMC in the above-entitled matter took place Monday moming wherein the
Court requested that parties submit
a revised PTO timeline with updated case
agenda dates. Please review the proposed dates, below, and advise should you
have any questions or comments. The dates are precise, but should parties wish
to puta TBD ora general month
for events that are farther into the future, we
can do that as well and circle back around when the dates get closer.
Additionally, Mr. Makarczyk, please provide a list of all subs to whom you
have provided issue releases.
Thank you,
Robert
EXHIBIT A
POLIS, ET AL. v. TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL.
SUMMARY OF CASE AGENDA DATES AND DEADLINES
DATE ACTION
COMPLETED Taylor Monison to file and serve responsive
pleading to Complaint
45 days from execution of All party compliance with Paragraph 9 Sections E,
this Order FE, G, and Hof this Order
COMPLETED Pre-mediation site visit at Subject Properties
(optional)
COMPLETED Plaintiffs to serve mediation defect list and cost of
repair
COMPLETED Mediation #1 (voluntary)
COMPLETED Mediation #2 (voluntary)
COMPLETED Mediation #8 (voluntary)
November 2-13, 2020 Plaintiffs to perform destructive testing
December 15, 2020 Plaintiffs to serve post-repair final defect list, final
cost of repair, and statement of 944 damages
November 2, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner compliance with Paragraph 9
Section D of this Order
November 9-20, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner depositions
Febmuary 1-12, 2021 Defense to perform destructive testing
Apsil 5, 2021 Initial expert witness designation
June 1, 2021 Supplemental expert witness designation
July 5-9, 2021 Defendant PMQ depositions
‘August 2-6, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant- In-Intervention
PMQ depositions
September 6-17, 2021 Plaintiffs’ expert depositions
October 4-15, 2021 Defendant expert depositions
November 1-12, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-in- Intervention
expert depositions
Febmuary 7, 2022 Party Pre-Trial Conference (exchange of trial
documents)
March 8, 2022 at 9:30am. | Trial
Exhibit C
From: Robert Ulich
To: Amanda Despuio!
Subject: FW: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356
Monday, November 2, 2020 4:26:01 PM
From: Robert Ulich
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ;
Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ;
amooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com;
WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com;
smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com;
jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com; ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com;
McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com; lletofsky@letofskymcclain.com;
rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com; cardenos@villara.com;
moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com; helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com;
Yaeckel@sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; sreutter@bremerwhyte.com;
jhughes@bledsoelaw.com
Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com;
kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com;
kjones@petersendean.com; TLHARWEL @travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com;
wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@letofskymcclain.com; frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com;
dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com; dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com;
Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com; gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo
; Spencer Adler ; Michael Fairchild
Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No.
1100105356
Mr. Makarczyk,
The proposed PTO timeline has now been circulated fora week. As there have
been no objections from counsel regarding the proposed dates below, I will
proceed to submitit to the Court. I understand
there is an open question
regarding Crawford discovery with the subcontractors that we will either
resolve or present to the Court, but it does not affect the current timeline. If
Plaintiffsintend to conduct DT, please advise as to exact dates in the beginning
to mid-November for when Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the DT.
Additionally, I will be circulating a Notice for the taking of Plaintiffs’
depositions during the agreed-upon time frame shortly.
Thank you,
Robert
From: Robert Ulich
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ;
Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ;
mooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com;
WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com;
smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; ktsang@petersendean.com;
JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com; jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com;
ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com;
lletofsky@letofskymeclain.com; rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com;
cardenos@villara.com; moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com;
helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; Yaeckel @sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy @OLES.com;
reutter@bremerwhyte.com; jhughes@bledsoelaw.com
Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com;
kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com;
kjones @petersendean.com; TLHARWEL@travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com;
|piper@murchisonlaw.com; wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@|letofskymcclain.com;
frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com; dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com;
dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com; Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com;
gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo ; Spencer Adler
; Michael Fairchild
Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No.
1100105356
Counsel,
A CMC in the above- entitled matter took place Monday moming wherein the
Court requested
that parties submit
a revised PTO timeline
with updated case
agenda dates. Please review the proposed dates, below, and advise should you
have any questions or comments. The dates are precise, but should parties wish
to puta TBD ora general month for events that are farther into the future, we
can do that as well and circle back around when the dates get closer.
Additionally, Mr. Makarczyk, please provide a list of all subs to whom you
have provided issue releases.
Thank you,
Robert
EXHIBIT A
P LIS, ET AL.
v. TAYLOR MORRI N OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL.
SUMMARY OF CASE AGENDA DATES AND DEADLINES
DATE ACTION
COMPLETED Taylor Monison to file and serve responsive
pleading to Complaint
45 days from execution of All party compliance with Paragraph 9 Sections E,
this Order EF, G, and Hof this Order
COMPLETED Pre-mediation site visit at Subject Properties
(optional)
COMPLETED Plaintiffs to serve mediation defect list and cost of
repair
COMPLETED Mediation #1 (voluntary)
COMPLETED Mediation #2 (voluntary)
COMPLETED Mediation #8 (voluntary)
November 2-13, 2020 Plaintiffs to perform destructive testing
December 15, 2020 Plaintiffs to serve post-repair final defect list, final
cost of repair, and statement of 944 damages
November 2, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner compliance with Paragraph 9
Section D of this Order
November 9-20, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner depositions
Febmuary 1-12, 2021 Defense to perform destructive testing
Apsil 5, 2021 Initial expert witness designation
June 1, 2021 Supplemental expert witness designation
July 5-9, 2021 Defendant PMQ depositions
‘August 2-6, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-In-Intervention
PMQ depositions
September 6-17, 2021 Plaintiffs’ expert depositions
October 4-15, 2021 Defendant expert depositions
November 1-12, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-in- Intervention
expert depositions
Febmuary 7, 2022 Party Pre-Trial Conference (exchange of trial
documents)
March 8, 2022 at 9:30am. | Trial
Exhibit D
Donald W. Fisher, Esq. (SBN 149562)
Robert K. Ulich, Esq. (SBN 306391)
ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP
4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 250-9797: Fax: (949) 250-9777
dfisher@ulichlaw.com; rulich@ulichlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC,
as successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
BASIMA POLIS, et al.; Case No. 9000434
10 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed May 30, 2017
11 VS. Assigned to:
Hon. John D. Freeland, Dept. 23
12 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY NOTICE OF TAKING
13 COMPANY; et al.; AND DOES 1-1000, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF
INCLUSIVE PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS
14 PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270;
Defendants. AND REQUEST FOR
15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
16 Date: Various - See Exhibit “A”
Time: Various - See Exhibit “A”
17 Place: Via Zoom Videoconference
18 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
19
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF
21 CALIFORNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interest MORRISON HOMES, INC., pursuant to Code of
22 Civil Procedure section 2025, et seq., California Emergency Rule 11, will take the depositions of all
23 Plaintiff-Homeowners in this action on the dates and times listed on the schedule, attached as Exhibit
24 “A” to this Notice. The depositions will commence on November 9, 2020.
25 The depositions will be conducted by way of remote Zoom video conferencing before a
26 certified shorthand reporter. Details regarding the Zoom videoconference, such as the Meeting ID,
27 password, etc. will be provided closer to the date of the depositions. The depositions will be recorded
28 stenographically and via remote electronic means consistent with Emergency Rule 11 and Code of
1
NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO
CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Civil Procedure Section 2025.210, et seq., and will continue from day to day until completed. Ifthe
deponents will require the services of an interpreter, Plaintiffs are to advise this office no later than
five days before the date set for said deposition of both the need for an interpreter as well as the
language and dialect that will be required.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Taylor Morrison requests the production of the
following documents at the depositions:
1 Any and all documents, other than those of attorney-retained experts, which reflect
any discussions, letters, quotes, bids, solicitations, estimates, or agreements for labor, material, or
services provided by any party for any actual or proposed construction, repair, remediation,
10 improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY is
11 defined as Deponent’s home which is the subject of this action.
12 2. Any and all photographs, drawings, or videotapes, except those protected under Code
13 of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 et seq., which reflect any state of the construction, repair,
14 defects, improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
15 3 Any and all correspondence with the developer defendants, subcontractors, city,
16 county, any repair contractor, or any other person regarding repairs, defects, or potential or
17 contemplated repairs to the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
18 4 Any and all warranty documents relating to the SUBJECT PROPERTY, including,
19 but not limited to, warranty booklets.
20 5 Any and all receipts reflecting payment for any construction, repair, remediation,
21 improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of rear yard improvements, or to the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
22 6 Any and all documents, including but not limited to, notices, claims, complaints, and
23 correspondence, sent from Plaintiffs to the builder of the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
24 DATED: October 27, 2020 ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP
25
26
oe Bibl,Ko Uleh
Robert K. Ulich, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
27
TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as
28 successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC.
2
NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO
CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT A
Plaintiff-Homeowner Deposition Schedule
Plaintiff-Homeowner Address Date Time
Sue E. Barnes 2374 Heartland Drive November 9, 9:00 a.m.
2020
Jeffrey Bingham 5244 Damar Court November 9, 12:00 p.m.
2020
Ramon De La Torre 5325 Perrin Court November 9, 3:00 p.m.
2020
Kerry Harwood 5255 Hannah Court November 10, 9:00 a.m.
2020
Roy Nelson 5318 Perrin Court November 10, 12:00 p.m.
2020
Sanjay Prasad 5324 Perrin Court November 10, 3:00 p.m.
2020
10 Brian Koch 5323 Hadley Court November 11, 9:00 a.m.
2020
11 Ernesto Huerto 2508 Cottage Pointe Drive November 11, 12:00 p.m.
2020
12 5257 Damar Court November 11,
Sean Conley 3:00 p.m.
2020
13 5244 Damar Court November 12,
Shelby Bingham 9:00 a.m.
2020
14 5325 Perrin Court November 12,
Sabrina De La Torre 12:00 p.m.
2020
15 5318 Perrin Court November 12,
Machelle Nelson 3:00 p.m.
2020
16 5324 Perrin Court November 13,
Ravina R. Prasad 9:00 a.m.
2020
17 5323 Hadley Court November 13,
Shauna Mandella 11:00 a.m.
2020
18 2508 Cottage Pointe Drive November 13,
Lina Villegas 2:00 p.m.
2020
19
Molly Ray-Conley 5257 Damar Court November 13, 4:00 p.m.
2020
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO
CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the County of Orange, State of California, am over the age of eighteen years, and not
a party to the within action. My business address is ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP, 1201 Dove
Street, Suite 625, Newport Beach, CA 92660. On the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing
document(s) described as: NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF
PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS in the Basima Polis, et al. v. Taylor Morrison of California,
LLC, et al. (Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 9000434) matter as follows:
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth
below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m.
By placing the document(s) listed above in sealed envelopes(s) with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Newport Beach, California, addressed as set forth
below:
10 I caused the above-entitled document(s) to be served through File & ServeXpress addressed
XX to all parties appearing on the File & ServeXpress electronic service list for the above-
11
entitled case. The file transmission was reported as completed and a copy of the “File &
12 ServeXpress Filing Receipt” page(s) will be maintained with the original document(s) in our
office.
13
By transmitting the document listed above via electronic mail to the e-mail address provided
14 below:
15
lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice the above-described document(s) would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am
17 aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
18
I have complied with C.R.C. 2057(a)(1) and the original, signed proof of service is available
19 for review and copying at the request of the court or any party.
20 (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
XX above is true and correct.
21
Executed on October 27, 2020, at Newport B alifo
22
23 Amanda M. Despujol
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit E
ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP
1201 DOVE STREET, SUITE 625, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TELEPHONE (949) 250-9797 » FACSIMILE (949) 250-9777
ATTORNEYS AT LAW * WWW.ULICHLAW.COM
ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO
October 27, 2020
Preview
Electronically Filed 11/2/2020 6:47 PM Superior Court of California Donald W. Fisher, Esq. (SBN 149562) County of Stanislaus Robert K. Ulich, Esq. (SBN 306391) Clerk of the Court ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP By: Sabrina Bouldt, Deputy 1201 Dove Street., Suite 625 Ne rt Be CA 92660 (949) 250-9797; Fax (949) 250-9777 dfisher@ulichlaw.com; rulich@ulichlaw.com Attol for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALI IRNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interestto MORRISON HOMES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 11 BASIMA POLIS, et al.; Case No. 9000434 12 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed May 30, 2017 13 VS. Assi to: Hon. John D. Freeland, Dept. 23 14 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, 15 LIABILITY COMPANY; et al.; AND LLC, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DOES 1-1000, INCLUSIVE MORRISON HOMES, INC.’S 16 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX Defendants. PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 17 VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO 18 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE; DECLARATION OF 19 ROBERT K. ULICH 20 21 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. DATE: November 3, 2020 TIME: 8:30 a.m. 22 DEPT.: 23 23 24. Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as 25 successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. (“Taylor Momison”), hereby submits its 26 Opposition to Plaintiff BASIMA POLIS, et al.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Application for an Order 27 Vacating the Court’s Order For Entry of Additional Dates to Case Management No. 2 Timeline 28 (“Proposed Order”). 1 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE 1 PLAINTIFFS HAVE WHOLLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EX PARTE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, “An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice...” CRC Rule 3.1204(b). Although Plaintiffs circulated a notice that an ex parte would be taking place, they failed to not only circulate the required ex parte application (“Application”), but they also failed to circulate the required accompanying declaration (see Notice, marked as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). Because Plaintiffs have wholly failed to comply with the requirements of noticing an ex parte application by filing neither their Application nor the required accompanying declaration and, thus, the parties to this 10 lawsuit are left with absolutely no idea as to what exactly Plaintiffs will be arguing at the ex parte 11 hearing, their Application must be denied and the Proposed Order already entered by the Court on 12 October 21, 2020 must be upheld. However, should the Court choose to ignore Plaintiffs’ flagrant 13 disregard of the CRC requirements, Taylor Morrison raises the following arguments, below, in 14 anticipation of what it believes Plaintiffs will be arguing at the ex parte hearing. 15 2. TAYLOR MORRISON’S PROPOSED TIMELINE WENT UNOBJECTED TO AND 16 IS THE TIMELINE THAT SHOULD BE ENTERED 17 As indicated in Taylor Morison’ s Proposed Order, on September 30, 2020, pursuant to the 18 Court’s request after the September 28, 2020 Case Management Conference, counsel for Taylor 19 Monson circulated a Proposed Case Management Order Timeline (“Timeline”) to all counsel, 20 including counsel for Plaintiffs (see September 30, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit 21 “B” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). No party objected to any of the dates 22 included in the proposed Timeline. On October 7, 2020, counsel for Taylor Morrison circulated a 23 second e-mail to all counsel, this time specifically addressed to counsel for Plaintiffs, advising that 24. Taylor Momison had received no objections to the Timeline and that it would submit the proposed 25 Timeline to the Court for entry (see October 7, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “C” 26 to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). On October 9, 2020, over a week after first 27 circulating the Timeline, and after having received no objections from counsel for Plaintiffs, Taylor 28 Monson filed the Proposed Order with the Cotrt. To its amazement given the fact that Taylor OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE Monson gave Plaintiffs every opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed Timeline, on October 13, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted an objection (“Objection”) to Taylor Morison’ s Proposed Order. In their Objection, Plaintiffs argue that Taylor Morison is forcing Plaintiffs to rush their discovery obligations, stress that trial is still 16 months away, and indicate that there is plenty of time in the future for Plaintiffs to perform their requisite discovery. However, to the contrary, Plaintiffs conveniently omit the fact that this lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2017 and, since then, has dragged on for almost three and a half years. Clearly, Plaintiffs are fully aware of all alleged defects affecting their homes or else they 10 would not have sued. Plaintiffs are fully aware that they need to have their depositions taken during 11 the discovery process. In fact, Taylor Morrison has already attempted to take the depositions of 12 Plaintiff-homeowners on at least two different occasions over the past three years but, curiously, 13 have been prevented from doing so each time by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs are obviously trying 14 to sandbag this litigation. This behaviorneeds to stop. This matter has been at a standstill for almost 15 four years, and Taylor Momison will no longer sit around and wait until Plaintiffs are finally done 16 stalling. 17 Although Plaintiffs attempt to argue that trial is still 16 months away, as the Court is more 18 than aware, construction defect litigation has been provisionally designated as a complex case due 19 to the fact that it involves numerous pre-trial motions, multiple parties, large numbers of witnesses, 20 large numbers of separately represented parties, and requires substantial coordination among all 21 parties during the pre-trial process (see Califomia Rules of Court 3.400). All of these matters take 22 time, need to be spaced out appropriately, and need to be completed well in advance of the trial date, 23 thus necessitating the need for a case management order and event timeline. 24. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS ARE PROPERLY NOTICED AND OVERDUE 25 Plaintiffs argue that the setting of Plaintiff-Homeowner depositions has been set without 26 enough advanced notice. As currently proposed, Plaintiffs’ depositions have been set for November 27 9-20, 2020. The Proposed Order was filed with the Court on October 9, 2020, meaning that the first 28 deposition is scheduled to take place 31 days frdm the date of filing—more than enough time to OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE apprise the Plaintiff- Homeowners of their pending depositions. In fact, as the Court is aware, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270 requires only 10 days’ notice for oral depositions; the proposed. Timeline gives 31! Additionally, on October 27, 2020, the day that Taylor Morrison received notice that the Court had entered the Proposed Order, it immediately, on that same day, circulated a formal notice (“Notice”) to all parties advising of the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions on the dates originally proposed in the Timeline, as well as a formal letter to all parties advising of the Court’s entry of the Proposed Order (see Notice of Taking of Plaintiff-Homeowner Depositions and formal letter to all parties, marked as Exhibits “D” and “E”, respectively, to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, 10 attached hereto). Pursuant to Code section 2025.270, this Notice was circulated well over ten days 11 in advance of the taking of the first scheduled deposition but, instead of immediately advising 12 Plaintiff-Homeowners, counsel for Plaintiffs waited a further six days before filing its Ex Parte 13 Application. What is most curious is that, due to current restrictions related to the COVID-19 14 pandemic, Plaintiff-Homeowners are not even required to attend depositions in person but, instead, 15 are able to log in to the deposition from their computers at home, which is where they presumably 16 are already located due to current lockdown and workplace related restrictions. This makes it much 17 easier, quicker, and less stressful for Plaintiffs to attend, thus precluding any need or reason to file 18 their Opposition and Application. Taylor Momison has clearly met all requirements in the Code and 19 sees absolutely no reason as to why these depositions cannot go forward. 20 Furthermore, as has already been mentioned, Taylor Morison has attempted to notice 21 Plaintiffs’ depositions on at least two other occasions over the past three and a half years, each time 22 resulting in objections by Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs are not ready. If Plaintiffs are not ready for their 23 depositions to take place three and a half years after they filed their lawsuit, when will they ever be 24. ready? Taylor Morrison and the Cross-Defendant subcontractors need these depositions to occurso 25 that they can ascertain for themselves exactly what defects the homeowners are experiencing. Once 26 these depositions are completed, the defense needs time to accurately assess the claims and create a 27 Plan to address the alleged issues. If the Court enters the proposed Timeline as Plaintiffs have 28 amended it, this matter will still be at a standstift until late April of 2021—over six months from OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE now, and the defense will not have the requisite time to prepare fortrial. Plaintiffs need to recognize that this case has multiple moving parts, that this matter is not all about what Plaintiffs want and when they want it, and that all parties need to come together and space out these important Timeline events in an appropriate manner. Taylor Morison requests that Plaintiffs’ Application be denied and that the Court’s Order, which has already been entered, continue to be upheld. 4. PLAINTIFFS’ DESTRUCTIVE TESTING HAS BEEN TIMELY NOTICED Plaintiffs further object to destructive testing taking place in November of 2020, and argue that they need at least six months’ advanced notice to coordinate with their experts. Plaintiffs’ law firm and Taylor Momison have litigated hundreds, if not thousands, of construction defect lawsuits 10 together and, in all these years, not once have parties needed to schedule destructive testing so farin 11 advance. As counsel for Plaintiffs is well-aware, their experts are available at a moment's notice 12 and are ready, willing, and able to perform testing as soon as possible. Again, if the Court vacates 13 the Order it has already entered and, instead, enters the proposed Timeline as Plaintiffs have 14 amended it, this matter will still be at a standstill until late April of 2021, six months fromnow. And 15 really, what have Plaintiffs been doing for the past four years? It is patently unreasonable to force 16 the defense to be in the dark for four years, only for Plaintiffs to then attempt to cram an entire case 17 into the final few months before trial. 18 5 PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL DEFECT LIST HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY SCHEDULED 19 Finally, Plaintiffs object to having their final defect list circulated to all counsel 30 days after 20 completion of destructive testing, arguing that there is no reason for Plaintiffs to incur these costs so 21 far in advance of trial. Plaintiffs’ position is laughable. The defense needs this final defect list far 22 enough in advance of trial so that they have time to send the list to their own experts and compare 23 and contrast the differing costs associated with each alleged defect. The defense also needs this time 24. to open up negotiations and settlement discussions with each other in advance in trial, which could 25 potentially result in a global settlement of the matter and relieve the Court from its burden of trying 26 the matter over a multiple week period. Taylor Momison urges the Court to allow the defense more 27 time than Plaintiffs would propose in order to not only analyze Plaintiffs’ final defect list, but to also 28 5 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE begin to engage in discussions with the Cross-Defendant subcontractors, which will itself take several months. 6 CONCLUSION Trial in this matter is scheduled for the beginning of March of 2022, which is less than 16 months away. Although this may seem like plenty of time, Plaintiffs have been stalling the progression of litigation in this matter from the very start. This matter is over three and half years old and, if Plaintiffs had it their way, it would continue to stall for at least another six months, which would cram every single event into a time frame of fewerthan 10 months. Thereis simply too much outstanding pre-trial discovery to be left until the last minute. The defense is tired of waiting around 10 for decisions to be made and efforts to move the case forward to be struck down again and again by 11 Plaintiffs, and respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application to Vacate the Order 12 and, instead, uphold the Order, as is. 13 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 16 DATED: November2, 2020 ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP 17 18 By: Kobe. KH Ulick, Donald W. Fisher, Esq. 19 Robert K. Ulich, Esq. Attor for Defendant/Cross-Co! jainant 20 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as sucoessor-in-interest to MORRISON 21 HOMES, INC. 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 6 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE DECLARATION OF ROBERT K. ULICH I, Robert K. Ulich, hereby declare as follows: 1 I am an attomey at law duly licensed to practice in all courts within the State of Califomia and I am an associate in the law firm of ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP, attomeys of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. (“Taylor Momison”), herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness I could, and would, competently testify to the within facts. 2. On November 2, 2020, Plaintiffs circulated a notice that an ex parte hearing would 10 be taking place on November 3, 2020. However, they failed to not only circulate the required ex 11 parte application (“Application”), but they also failed to circulate the required accompanying 12 declaration (see Notice, marked as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached 13 hereto). 14 3. On September 30, 2020, pursuant to the Court’ s request after the September 28, 2020 15 Case Management Conference, counsel for Taylor Morrison circulated a Proposed Case 16 Management Order Timeline (“Timeline”) to all counsel, including counsel for Plaintiffs (see 17 September 30, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “B” to the Declaration of Robert K. 18 Ulich, attached hereto). 19 4. No party objected to any of the dates included in the proposed Timeline. 20 5. On October 7, 2020, counsel for Taylor Morison circulated a second e-mail to all 21 counsel, this time specifically addressed to counsel for Plaintiffs, advising that Taylor Morrison had 22 received no objections to the Timeline and that it would submit the proposed Timeline to the Court 23 for entry (see October 7, 2020 e-mail correspondence, marked as Exhibit “C” to the Declaration of 24. Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). 25 6. On October9, 2020, over a week after first circulating the Timeline, and after having 26 received no objections from counsel for Plaintiffs, Taylor Momison filed the Proposed Order with 27 the Court. 28 7 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE 7, On October 27, 2020, the day that Taylor Morison received notice that the Court had entered the Proposed Order, it immediately, on that same day, circulated a formal notice (“Notice”) to all parties advising of the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions on the dates originally proposed in the Timeline, as well as a formal letter to all parties advising of the Court's entry of the Proposed Order (see Notice of Taking of Plaintiff- Homeowner Depositions and formal letter to all parties, marked as Exhibits “D” and “E”, respectively, to the Declaration of Robert K. Ulich, attached hereto). Pursuant to Code section 2025.270, this Notice was circulated well over ten days in advance of the taking of the first scheduled deposition. 8. Taylor Morison never received an objection from any party, including Plaintiffs, to 10 this Notice. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing 12 is true and comect. Dated this 2 day of November, 2020, at Newport Beach, Califomia. 13 Krbel KH Ulich 14 Robert K. Ulich, Esq. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 8 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR ENTRY OF ADDITIONAL DATES TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2 TIMELINE Exhibit A MILSTEIN 10250 Constellation Boulevard JACKSON Fourteenth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 FAIRCHILD T: (310) 396-9600 F: (310) 396-9635, & WADE www.mjfwlaw.com Please Reply To: Mayo L. Makarczyk mmakarczyk@mjfwlaw.com 310-396-9600 x. 106 November 2, 2020 VIA E-MAIL AND FILE&SERVEXPRESS [TO ALL COUNSEL] Re Basima Polis, et al. v. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 9000434. To All Counsel: Please take notice that Plaintiffs Basima Polis, et al. will appear ex parte tomorrow, November 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, located at 801 Tenth Street in Modesto, California. Plaintiffs will seek an Order Vacating the Court’s Scheduling Order of October 21, 2020. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP Exhibit B From: Robert Ulich To: Amanda Despuio! Subject: FW: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356 Monday, November 2, 2020 4:25:32 PM From: Robert Ulich Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:03 PM To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ; Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ; amooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com; WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com; smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; ktsang@petersendean.com; JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com; jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com; ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com; lletofsky@letofskymcclain.com; rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com; cardenos@villara.com; moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com; helen @sullivanlawgroupapc.com; Yaeckel@sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; sreutter@bremerwhyte.com; jhughes@bledsoelaw.com Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com; kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com; kjones@petersendean.com; TLHARWEL @travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com; |piper@murchisonlaw.com; wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@letofskymcclain.com; frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com; dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com; dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com; Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com; gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo ; Spencer Adler ; Michael Fairchild Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356 Counsel, A CMC in the above-entitled matter took place Monday moming wherein the Court requested that parties submit a revised PTO timeline with updated case agenda dates. Please review the proposed dates, below, and advise should you have any questions or comments. The dates are precise, but should parties wish to puta TBD ora general month for events that are farther into the future, we can do that as well and circle back around when the dates get closer. Additionally, Mr. Makarczyk, please provide a list of all subs to whom you have provided issue releases. Thank you, Robert EXHIBIT A POLIS, ET AL. v. TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL. SUMMARY OF CASE AGENDA DATES AND DEADLINES DATE ACTION COMPLETED Taylor Monison to file and serve responsive pleading to Complaint 45 days from execution of All party compliance with Paragraph 9 Sections E, this Order FE, G, and Hof this Order COMPLETED Pre-mediation site visit at Subject Properties (optional) COMPLETED Plaintiffs to serve mediation defect list and cost of repair COMPLETED Mediation #1 (voluntary) COMPLETED Mediation #2 (voluntary) COMPLETED Mediation #8 (voluntary) November 2-13, 2020 Plaintiffs to perform destructive testing December 15, 2020 Plaintiffs to serve post-repair final defect list, final cost of repair, and statement of 944 damages November 2, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner compliance with Paragraph 9 Section D of this Order November 9-20, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner depositions Febmuary 1-12, 2021 Defense to perform destructive testing Apsil 5, 2021 Initial expert witness designation June 1, 2021 Supplemental expert witness designation July 5-9, 2021 Defendant PMQ depositions ‘August 2-6, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant- In-Intervention PMQ depositions September 6-17, 2021 Plaintiffs’ expert depositions October 4-15, 2021 Defendant expert depositions November 1-12, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-in- Intervention expert depositions Febmuary 7, 2022 Party Pre-Trial Conference (exchange of trial documents) March 8, 2022 at 9:30am. | Trial Exhibit C From: Robert Ulich To: Amanda Despuio! Subject: FW: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356 Monday, November 2, 2020 4:26:01 PM From: Robert Ulich Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:40 PM To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ; Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ; amooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com; WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com; smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com; jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com; ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com; lletofsky@letofskymcclain.com; rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com; cardenos@villara.com; moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com; helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; Yaeckel@sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; sreutter@bremerwhyte.com; jhughes@bledsoelaw.com Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com; kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com; kjones@petersendean.com; TLHARWEL @travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com; wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@letofskymcclain.com; frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com; dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com; dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com; Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com; gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo ; Spencer Adler ; Michael Fairchild Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356 Mr. Makarczyk, The proposed PTO timeline has now been circulated fora week. As there have been no objections from counsel regarding the proposed dates below, I will proceed to submitit to the Court. I understand there is an open question regarding Crawford discovery with the subcontractors that we will either resolve or present to the Court, but it does not affect the current timeline. If Plaintiffsintend to conduct DT, please advise as to exact dates in the beginning to mid-November for when Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the DT. Additionally, I will be circulating a Notice for the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions during the agreed-upon time frame shortly. Thank you, Robert From: Robert Ulich Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:03 PM To: Mayo Makarczyk ; Amanda Despujol ; Amy Thornton ; Don Fisher ; mooshekh@rlattorneys.com; bhinson@fowlerlawgroup.com; bchien@kenyonweb.com; WVairetta@kenyonweb.com; cstead@bortonpetrini.com; dcrespo@bremerwhyte.com; smcdonald@bledsoelaw.com; fstarr@skanewilcox.com; ktsang@petersendean.com; JacobBell@interiorlogicgroup.com; jkoper@travelers.com; jmurphy@farmercase.com; ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com; McCarthy@OLES.com; Kthompson@larrymethvin.com; lletofsky@letofskymeclain.com; rmcclain@letofskymcclain.com; mpendleton @jeffery-grosfeld.com; cardenos@villara.com; moaks@villara.com; tmcneill@wedefend.com; helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; Yaeckel @sullivaniawgroupapc.com; McCarthy @OLES.com; reutter@bremerwhyte.com; jhughes@bledsoelaw.com Cc: acoulson@kenyonweb.com; wvairetta@kenyonweb.com; ATehrani@kenyonweb.com; kadams@bremerwhyte.com; htoschi@bledsoelaw.com; trepic@skanewilcox.com; kjones @petersendean.com; TLHARWEL@travelers.com; maguon@farmercase.com; |piper@murchisonlaw.com; wickham@oles.com; cmountjoyreza@|letofskymcclain.com; frontdesk@letofskymcclain.com; dpriest @jeffery-grosfeld.com; hendersonj@villara.com; dthomson@unitedfiregroup.com; Helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com; wickham@oles.com; gliddy@bremerwhyte.com; David Castillo ; Spencer Adler ; Michael Fairchild Subject: RE: Polis, Basima, et al. vs. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. - JAMS Ref No. 1100105356 Counsel, A CMC in the above- entitled matter took place Monday moming wherein the Court requested that parties submit a revised PTO timeline with updated case agenda dates. Please review the proposed dates, below, and advise should you have any questions or comments. The dates are precise, but should parties wish to puta TBD ora general month for events that are farther into the future, we can do that as well and circle back around when the dates get closer. Additionally, Mr. Makarczyk, please provide a list of all subs to whom you have provided issue releases. Thank you, Robert EXHIBIT A P LIS, ET AL. v. TAYLOR MORRI N OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL. SUMMARY OF CASE AGENDA DATES AND DEADLINES DATE ACTION COMPLETED Taylor Monison to file and serve responsive pleading to Complaint 45 days from execution of All party compliance with Paragraph 9 Sections E, this Order EF, G, and Hof this Order COMPLETED Pre-mediation site visit at Subject Properties (optional) COMPLETED Plaintiffs to serve mediation defect list and cost of repair COMPLETED Mediation #1 (voluntary) COMPLETED Mediation #2 (voluntary) COMPLETED Mediation #8 (voluntary) November 2-13, 2020 Plaintiffs to perform destructive testing December 15, 2020 Plaintiffs to serve post-repair final defect list, final cost of repair, and statement of 944 damages November 2, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner compliance with Paragraph 9 Section D of this Order November 9-20, 2020 Plaintiff-homeowner depositions Febmuary 1-12, 2021 Defense to perform destructive testing Apsil 5, 2021 Initial expert witness designation June 1, 2021 Supplemental expert witness designation July 5-9, 2021 Defendant PMQ depositions ‘August 2-6, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-In-Intervention PMQ depositions September 6-17, 2021 Plaintiffs’ expert depositions October 4-15, 2021 Defendant expert depositions November 1-12, 2021 Cross-Defendant/Complainant-in- Intervention expert depositions Febmuary 7, 2022 Party Pre-Trial Conference (exchange of trial documents) March 8, 2022 at 9:30am. | Trial Exhibit D Donald W. Fisher, Esq. (SBN 149562) Robert K. Ulich, Esq. (SBN 306391) ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 250-9797: Fax: (949) 250-9777 dfisher@ulichlaw.com; rulich@ulichlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS BASIMA POLIS, et al.; Case No. 9000434 10 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed May 30, 2017 11 VS. Assigned to: Hon. John D. Freeland, Dept. 23 12 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY NOTICE OF TAKING 13 COMPANY; et al.; AND DOES 1-1000, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF INCLUSIVE PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS 14 PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; Defendants. AND REQUEST FOR 15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16 Date: Various - See Exhibit “A” Time: Various - See Exhibit “A” 17 Place: Via Zoom Videoconference 18 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 19 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant/Cross-Complainant TAYLOR MORRISON OF 21 CALIFORNIA, LLC, as successor-in-interest MORRISON HOMES, INC., pursuant to Code of 22 Civil Procedure section 2025, et seq., California Emergency Rule 11, will take the depositions of all 23 Plaintiff-Homeowners in this action on the dates and times listed on the schedule, attached as Exhibit 24 “A” to this Notice. The depositions will commence on November 9, 2020. 25 The depositions will be conducted by way of remote Zoom video conferencing before a 26 certified shorthand reporter. Details regarding the Zoom videoconference, such as the Meeting ID, 27 password, etc. will be provided closer to the date of the depositions. The depositions will be recorded 28 stenographically and via remote electronic means consistent with Emergency Rule 11 and Code of 1 NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Civil Procedure Section 2025.210, et seq., and will continue from day to day until completed. Ifthe deponents will require the services of an interpreter, Plaintiffs are to advise this office no later than five days before the date set for said deposition of both the need for an interpreter as well as the language and dialect that will be required. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Taylor Morrison requests the production of the following documents at the depositions: 1 Any and all documents, other than those of attorney-retained experts, which reflect any discussions, letters, quotes, bids, solicitations, estimates, or agreements for labor, material, or services provided by any party for any actual or proposed construction, repair, remediation, 10 improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY is 11 defined as Deponent’s home which is the subject of this action. 12 2. Any and all photographs, drawings, or videotapes, except those protected under Code 13 of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 et seq., which reflect any state of the construction, repair, 14 defects, improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15 3 Any and all correspondence with the developer defendants, subcontractors, city, 16 county, any repair contractor, or any other person regarding repairs, defects, or potential or 17 contemplated repairs to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 18 4 Any and all warranty documents relating to the SUBJECT PROPERTY, including, 19 but not limited to, warranty booklets. 20 5 Any and all receipts reflecting payment for any construction, repair, remediation, 21 improvements, remodel, or retro-fit of rear yard improvements, or to the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 22 6 Any and all documents, including but not limited to, notices, claims, complaints, and 23 correspondence, sent from Plaintiffs to the builder of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 24 DATED: October 27, 2020 ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP 25 26 oe Bibl,Ko Uleh Robert K. Ulich, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant 27 TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, as 28 successor-in-interest to MORRISON HOMES, INC. 2 NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT A Plaintiff-Homeowner Deposition Schedule Plaintiff-Homeowner Address Date Time Sue E. Barnes 2374 Heartland Drive November 9, 9:00 a.m. 2020 Jeffrey Bingham 5244 Damar Court November 9, 12:00 p.m. 2020 Ramon De La Torre 5325 Perrin Court November 9, 3:00 p.m. 2020 Kerry Harwood 5255 Hannah Court November 10, 9:00 a.m. 2020 Roy Nelson 5318 Perrin Court November 10, 12:00 p.m. 2020 Sanjay Prasad 5324 Perrin Court November 10, 3:00 p.m. 2020 10 Brian Koch 5323 Hadley Court November 11, 9:00 a.m. 2020 11 Ernesto Huerto 2508 Cottage Pointe Drive November 11, 12:00 p.m. 2020 12 5257 Damar Court November 11, Sean Conley 3:00 p.m. 2020 13 5244 Damar Court November 12, Shelby Bingham 9:00 a.m. 2020 14 5325 Perrin Court November 12, Sabrina De La Torre 12:00 p.m. 2020 15 5318 Perrin Court November 12, Machelle Nelson 3:00 p.m. 2020 16 5324 Perrin Court November 13, Ravina R. Prasad 9:00 a.m. 2020 17 5323 Hadley Court November 13, Shauna Mandella 11:00 a.m. 2020 18 2508 Cottage Pointe Drive November 13, Lina Villegas 2:00 p.m. 2020 19 Molly Ray-Conley 5257 Damar Court November 13, 4:00 p.m. 2020 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the County of Orange, State of California, am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 625, Newport Beach, CA 92660. On the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF-HOMEOWNERS PURSUANT TO CCP § 2025.270; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS in the Basima Polis, et al. v. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, et al. (Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 9000434) matter as follows: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m. By placing the document(s) listed above in sealed envelopes(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Newport Beach, California, addressed as set forth below: 10 I caused the above-entitled document(s) to be served through File & ServeXpress addressed XX to all parties appearing on the File & ServeXpress electronic service list for the above- 11 entitled case. The file transmission was reported as completed and a copy of the “File & 12 ServeXpress Filing Receipt” page(s) will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office. 13 By transmitting the document listed above via electronic mail to the e-mail address provided 14 below: 15 lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 16 mailing. Under that practice the above-described document(s) would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am 17 aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 18 I have complied with C.R.C. 2057(a)(1) and the original, signed proof of service is available 19 for review and copying at the request of the court or any party. 20 (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the XX above is true and correct. 21 Executed on October 27, 2020, at Newport B alifo 22 23 Amanda M. Despujol 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit E ULICH BALMUTH FISHER LLP 1201 DOVE STREET, SUITE 625, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TELEPHONE (949) 250-9797 » FACSIMILE (949) 250-9777 ATTORNEYS AT LAW * WWW.ULICHLAW.COM ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO October 27, 2020