Preview
1 F. Shawn Azizollahi (State Bar No. 268116)
shawn@marqueelaw.com
2
Gary Brotman (State Bar No. 287726)
3 gary@marqueelaw.com
Heidy Nurinda (SBN 333188)
4 heidy@marqueelaw.com
MARQUEE LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation
5 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445 East Tower
Beverly Hills, California 90212
6
(310) 275-1844 telephone
7 (310) 275-1801 fax
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 Monika Chopra
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
13
MONIKA CHOPRA, an individual; ) Case No.: 21-CIV-04310
14 )
Plaintiff,
)
15
vs. ) DECLARATION OF GARY S.
) BROTMAN CONCERNING THE
16
NATERA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ) COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES
17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND
) ORDER TO APPROPRIATE DISPUTE
18 Defendants. RESOLUTION
)
19 )
)
20 )
)
21
)
22 )
)
23 )
)
24
)
25 ______________________________________)
26
27
28 -1-
DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER
FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1 DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN
2 I, GARY S. BROTMAN, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State
4 of California and the Central District of California, including this Court. I am a member of
5 Marquee Law Group, APC, attorneys for Plaintiff Monika Chopra (“Plaintiff”). I have personal
6 knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and
7 would competently testify with respect thereto.
8 2. On or about December 7, 2021, my office received an Order Vacating Case
9 Management Conference As The Action Is “At Issue” And Case Is Ordered to ADR (the
10 “Order”) from the Court. Per the Court’s Order, the parties were required to complete, sign, and
11 submit a Stipulation and Order to ADR (the “Stipulation”) with twenty-one (21) days from the
12 date of the Order. Defendants were also served with a copy of the Order, a true and correct copy
13 of which is attached herein as “Exhibit 1”.
14 3. On December 17, 2021, I contacted Harold Jones, counsel for defendant Natera,
15 Inc. (“Defendant”), wherein I attached a copy of the Order and informed him that the parties had
16 until December 21, 2021 to complete and submit the Order to the Court. I did not receive a
17 response to this email, a true and correct copy of which is attached herein as “Exhibit 2”.
18 4. On December 20, 2021, I received an email from Mr. Jones’s colleague, Swaja
19 Khanna, which contained a copy of the Stipulation. Despite no recent conversation between the
20 parties, the Stipulation contained the name of mediator Jeffrey Krivis, Esq., whom Plaintiff had
21 proposed a month prior. Plaintiff was never previously informed whether Defendant would agree
22 to Mr. Krivis. No mediation date had been set with Mr. Krivis. Ms. Khanna requested that I sign
23 and return the Stipulation.
24 5. I signed and returned a copy of the Stipulation to Ms. Khanna the following
25 morning on December 21, 2021. A true and correct copy of this email exchange is attached
26 herein as “Exhibit 3”.
27
28 -2-
DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER
FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1 6. I am informed and believe that Defendant filed the Stipulation with the Court on
2 December 21, 2021. On December 22, 2021, I received a notice from that the filing of the
3 Stipulation had been rejected due to missing the neutral’s phone number and the date of the
4 session. A true and correct copy of this rejection notice is attached herein as “Exhibit 4”.
5 7. I contacted Mr. Jones via email that same day to inform him, amongst other
6 things, that the filing of the Stipulation had been rejected. I asked him to call me to discuss. Mr.
7 Jones responded via email regarding a number of other items but did not provide any response
8 regarding the Stipulation. A true and correct copy of this email is attached herein as “Exhibit 5”.
9 8. On January 5, 2022, I forwarded a copy of the rejection notice to Mr. Jones, again
10 informed him that the stipulation had been rejected, and once again asked him to call me to
11 discuss. I received no response from Mr. Jones or anyone on behalf of the Defendant. A true and
12 correct copy of this email is attached herein as “Exhibit 6”.
13
14 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
15 the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this 11th day of
16 January 2022, in Beverly Hills, California.
17
18
19 ____________________________________
20 Gary S. Brotman
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -3-
DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER
FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,
AS THE ACTION IS “AT ISSUE” AND CASE IS ORDERED TO ADR
FILED
In the Matter of: Monika Chopra vs. Natera, Inc, a SAN MATEO COUNTY
Delaware corporation, et al 11/30/2021
By /s/ Liliana Cervantes
Case Number: 21-CIV-04310 ADR Program Analyst
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
THE COURT FINDS as follows:
An initial Case Management Conference was previously ordered and scheduled for 12/13/2021
in this action.
Pursuant to Rule 3.722(d) of the California Rules of Court, based upon the Court’s review of
the filed Case Management Statement(s) and the docket of this action, the Court determines that
appearances at the Conference are not necessary at this time, as this action is “at issue”; and
determines that the Case Management Conference should be vacated as all parties have indicated in
their Case Management Statements that they are agreeable to participating in the ADR Process -
Mediation.
In accordance with Local Rules 3.805 and 3.904(b), all parties referred to ADR must complete a
Stipulation and Order to ADR (ADR-CV-1), and file it with the Clerk of the Superior Court. In
accordance with Local Rule 2.1.7, all parties, except for self-represented litigants, are required to file
the Stipulation and Order to ADR electronically.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The initial Case Management Conference is VACATED.
2. No later than 21 days from the date of this Order, parties must complete and sign a
Stipulation and Order to ADR (ADR-CV-1), and file it with the Clerk of the Superior Court, pursuant to
Local Rule 3.904(b).
3. The Mediation shall be completed no later than 90 days from the date of this Order.
4. Pursuant to Local Rule 0.2, Local Rule 3.805(h), and CRC Rule 2.30, the Court is empowered
to impose monetary sanctions of a minimum of $150.00 upon any party or their counsel for failure to
follow the requirements of this Order, or of the California Rules of Court, or of the Code of Civil
Procedure. If you fail to follow the requirements of this Order, you will be subject to an order to show
cause as to why monetary sanctions of $150.00, or some other amount, should not be imposed against
you.
5. PLAINTIFF(S) must serve this Order on all parties not listed on the Court’s proof of service
within five (5) days of the date of this Order.
DATED: 11/30/2021 Ernst A. Halperin
Honorable Ernst A. Halperin, CIVIL COMMISSIONER
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 261-5100
www.sanmateocourt.org
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
Date: 11/30/2021
In the Matter of: Monika Chopra vs. Natera, Inc, a Delaware corporation, et al
Case Number: 21-CIV-04310
I declare under penalty of perjury that on the following date I deposited in the United States Post
Office mail box at Redwood City, a true copy of the attached document(s) order continuing case
management conference, enclosed in an envelope, with proper and necessary postage thereon, and
addressed to the following:
Executed on: 11/30/2021
Neal I Taniguchi, Court Executive Officer/Clerk
By: /s/ Liliana Cervantes
Liliana Cervantes, ADR Program Analyst
Copies mailed to:
F. SHAWN AZIZOLLAHI MARQUEE LAW GROUP
9100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 445 EAST TOWER
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212
SWAJA KHANNA JACKSON LEWIS PC
50 CALIFORNIA STREET 9TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My business
address is 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445, East Tower, Beverly Hills, California 90212.
3 On January 11, 2022 I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
4 DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR
THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE
5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
6 on all interested parties in this action by transmitting a true copy of the document(s) described
above, addressed as follows:
7
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
8 (X) BY MAIL as follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and
9 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know
that the correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same
10 day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the
envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and
11 mailing on this date in the United States mail at Beverly Hills, California.
12 ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the
above addressee(s).
13
( ) BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of
14 collecting and processing overnight deliveries, which includes depositing such packages in
a receptacle used exclusively for overnight deliveries. The packages were deposited
15 before the regular pickup time and marked accordingly for delivery the next business day.
(X) BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Participants in this case were served
16 electronically to the address of the recipient(s) as set forth below. I am readily familiar
17 with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court for electronic service and
this document/these documents were duly served electronically in accordance with said
18 rules and regulations on the date stated above, and the transmission was reported as
complete and without error.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
20 true and correct. Executed on January 11, 2022 at Beverly Hills, California.
21
22 __________________________
Claudia Perez
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
PROOF OF SERVICE
31
1
2 SERVICE LIST:
JACKSON LEWIS P.C Attorneys for Defendant Natera, Inc.
3 c/o Harold R. Jones, Esq.
c/o Swaja Khanna, Esq.
4 50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
5
Email: Harold.Jones@jacksonlewis.com;
6 Swaja.Khanna@jacksonlewis.com;
beth.davis@jacksonlewis.com;
7 marilou.barairo@jacksonlewis.com
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
PROOF OF SERVICE
31
Preview
1 F. Shawn Azizollahi (State Bar No. 268116) shawn@marqueelaw.com 2 Gary Brotman (State Bar No. 287726) 3 gary@marqueelaw.com Heidy Nurinda (SBN 333188) 4 heidy@marqueelaw.com MARQUEE LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation 5 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445 East Tower Beverly Hills, California 90212 6 (310) 275-1844 telephone 7 (310) 275-1801 fax 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 Monika Chopra 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13 MONIKA CHOPRA, an individual; ) Case No.: 21-CIV-04310 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 vs. ) DECLARATION OF GARY S. ) BROTMAN CONCERNING THE 16 NATERA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ) COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES 17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ) ORDER TO APPROPRIATE DISPUTE 18 Defendants. RESOLUTION ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 ) 25 ______________________________________) 26 27 28 -1- DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1 DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN 2 I, GARY S. BROTMAN, declare: 3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State 4 of California and the Central District of California, including this Court. I am a member of 5 Marquee Law Group, APC, attorneys for Plaintiff Monika Chopra (“Plaintiff”). I have personal 6 knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and 7 would competently testify with respect thereto. 8 2. On or about December 7, 2021, my office received an Order Vacating Case 9 Management Conference As The Action Is “At Issue” And Case Is Ordered to ADR (the 10 “Order”) from the Court. Per the Court’s Order, the parties were required to complete, sign, and 11 submit a Stipulation and Order to ADR (the “Stipulation”) with twenty-one (21) days from the 12 date of the Order. Defendants were also served with a copy of the Order, a true and correct copy 13 of which is attached herein as “Exhibit 1”. 14 3. On December 17, 2021, I contacted Harold Jones, counsel for defendant Natera, 15 Inc. (“Defendant”), wherein I attached a copy of the Order and informed him that the parties had 16 until December 21, 2021 to complete and submit the Order to the Court. I did not receive a 17 response to this email, a true and correct copy of which is attached herein as “Exhibit 2”. 18 4. On December 20, 2021, I received an email from Mr. Jones’s colleague, Swaja 19 Khanna, which contained a copy of the Stipulation. Despite no recent conversation between the 20 parties, the Stipulation contained the name of mediator Jeffrey Krivis, Esq., whom Plaintiff had 21 proposed a month prior. Plaintiff was never previously informed whether Defendant would agree 22 to Mr. Krivis. No mediation date had been set with Mr. Krivis. Ms. Khanna requested that I sign 23 and return the Stipulation. 24 5. I signed and returned a copy of the Stipulation to Ms. Khanna the following 25 morning on December 21, 2021. A true and correct copy of this email exchange is attached 26 herein as “Exhibit 3”. 27 28 -2- DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1 6. I am informed and believe that Defendant filed the Stipulation with the Court on 2 December 21, 2021. On December 22, 2021, I received a notice from that the filing of the 3 Stipulation had been rejected due to missing the neutral’s phone number and the date of the 4 session. A true and correct copy of this rejection notice is attached herein as “Exhibit 4”. 5 7. I contacted Mr. Jones via email that same day to inform him, amongst other 6 things, that the filing of the Stipulation had been rejected. I asked him to call me to discuss. Mr. 7 Jones responded via email regarding a number of other items but did not provide any response 8 regarding the Stipulation. A true and correct copy of this email is attached herein as “Exhibit 5”. 9 8. On January 5, 2022, I forwarded a copy of the rejection notice to Mr. Jones, again 10 informed him that the stipulation had been rejected, and once again asked him to call me to 11 discuss. I received no response from Mr. Jones or anyone on behalf of the Defendant. A true and 12 correct copy of this email is attached herein as “Exhibit 6”. 13 14 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 15 the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this 11th day of 16 January 2022, in Beverly Hills, California. 17 18 19 ____________________________________ 20 Gary S. Brotman 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AS THE ACTION IS “AT ISSUE” AND CASE IS ORDERED TO ADR FILED In the Matter of: Monika Chopra vs. Natera, Inc, a SAN MATEO COUNTY Delaware corporation, et al 11/30/2021 By /s/ Liliana Cervantes Case Number: 21-CIV-04310 ADR Program Analyst TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: THE COURT FINDS as follows: An initial Case Management Conference was previously ordered and scheduled for 12/13/2021 in this action. Pursuant to Rule 3.722(d) of the California Rules of Court, based upon the Court’s review of the filed Case Management Statement(s) and the docket of this action, the Court determines that appearances at the Conference are not necessary at this time, as this action is “at issue”; and determines that the Case Management Conference should be vacated as all parties have indicated in their Case Management Statements that they are agreeable to participating in the ADR Process - Mediation. In accordance with Local Rules 3.805 and 3.904(b), all parties referred to ADR must complete a Stipulation and Order to ADR (ADR-CV-1), and file it with the Clerk of the Superior Court. In accordance with Local Rule 2.1.7, all parties, except for self-represented litigants, are required to file the Stipulation and Order to ADR electronically. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The initial Case Management Conference is VACATED. 2. No later than 21 days from the date of this Order, parties must complete and sign a Stipulation and Order to ADR (ADR-CV-1), and file it with the Clerk of the Superior Court, pursuant to Local Rule 3.904(b). 3. The Mediation shall be completed no later than 90 days from the date of this Order. 4. Pursuant to Local Rule 0.2, Local Rule 3.805(h), and CRC Rule 2.30, the Court is empowered to impose monetary sanctions of a minimum of $150.00 upon any party or their counsel for failure to follow the requirements of this Order, or of the California Rules of Court, or of the Code of Civil Procedure. If you fail to follow the requirements of this Order, you will be subject to an order to show cause as to why monetary sanctions of $150.00, or some other amount, should not be imposed against you. 5. PLAINTIFF(S) must serve this Order on all parties not listed on the Court’s proof of service within five (5) days of the date of this Order. DATED: 11/30/2021 Ernst A. Halperin Honorable Ernst A. Halperin, CIVIL COMMISSIONER SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 261-5100 www.sanmateocourt.org AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Date: 11/30/2021 In the Matter of: Monika Chopra vs. Natera, Inc, a Delaware corporation, et al Case Number: 21-CIV-04310 I declare under penalty of perjury that on the following date I deposited in the United States Post Office mail box at Redwood City, a true copy of the attached document(s) order continuing case management conference, enclosed in an envelope, with proper and necessary postage thereon, and addressed to the following: Executed on: 11/30/2021 Neal I Taniguchi, Court Executive Officer/Clerk By: /s/ Liliana Cervantes Liliana Cervantes, ADR Program Analyst Copies mailed to: F. SHAWN AZIZOLLAHI MARQUEE LAW GROUP 9100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 445 EAST TOWER BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 SWAJA KHANNA JACKSON LEWIS PC 50 CALIFORNIA STREET 9TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My business address is 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445, East Tower, Beverly Hills, California 90212. 3 On January 11, 2022 I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 4 DECLARATION OF GARY S. BROTMAN CONCERNING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATION AND ORDER TO APPROPRIATE 5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 6 on all interested parties in this action by transmitting a true copy of the document(s) described above, addressed as follows: 7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 8 (X) BY MAIL as follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and 9 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same 10 day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and 11 mailing on this date in the United States mail at Beverly Hills, California. 12 ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the above addressee(s). 13 ( ) BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of 14 collecting and processing overnight deliveries, which includes depositing such packages in a receptacle used exclusively for overnight deliveries. The packages were deposited 15 before the regular pickup time and marked accordingly for delivery the next business day. (X) BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Participants in this case were served 16 electronically to the address of the recipient(s) as set forth below. I am readily familiar 17 with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court for electronic service and this document/these documents were duly served electronically in accordance with said 18 rules and regulations on the date stated above, and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 20 true and correct. Executed on January 11, 2022 at Beverly Hills, California. 21 22 __________________________ Claudia Perez 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 PROOF OF SERVICE 31 1 2 SERVICE LIST: JACKSON LEWIS P.C Attorneys for Defendant Natera, Inc. 3 c/o Harold R. Jones, Esq. c/o Swaja Khanna, Esq. 4 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 5 Email: Harold.Jones@jacksonlewis.com; 6 Swaja.Khanna@jacksonlewis.com; beth.davis@jacksonlewis.com; 7 marilou.barairo@jacksonlewis.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 PROOF OF SERVICE 31