Preview
JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 12661 3
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, California 94402
Telephone: (415) 689-1209
STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
5 A Professional Corporation
1970 Broadway, Suite 600
6 Oakland, California 946 I 2
Telephone: (510) 835-5582
7
8 Attorneys for
DBP INVESTMENTS,
9 a California General Partnership
12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
15 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897
Partnership, )
16 )
Plai ntiff, ) PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE
) MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING
V. ) CONFERENCE STATEMENT
18 )
KiNG PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) DATE MARcit 2$ , 2022
19 Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, ) TIME 9I00 A.M.
an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) DEPT. 21
20 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH ) TRIAL NOT YET SET
LAI, and DOES Ithrough 10 )
21 )
Defendants. )
22 )
23 Subjects listedin CRCRule 3.727
24 1. Whether there are any related cases
DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC, et al., case number 19CIV071 18 filed in
26 the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, on December 3, 2019. The
action is currently abated until the conclusion of this matter.
28 2. Whether all parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint have been served,
LEIF Offices of
JFINI L EiieeemlIT I
PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
have appeared, or have been dismissed
Yes.
Whether any additional parties may be added or the pleadings may be amended
Whether, if the case is a limited civil case, the economic litigation procedures
under Code of Civil Procedure $ 90 et seq. will apply to it or the party intends to
bring a motion to exempt the case from these procedures
Not applicable.
Whether any other matters (e.g., the bankruptcy of a party) may affect the court's
10 jurisdiction or processing of the case
No
12 Whether the parties have stipulated to, or the case should be referred to, judicial
arbitration in courts having a judicial arbitration program or to any other form of
14 alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process and, if so, the date by which the
15 judicial arbitration or other ADR process must be completed.
16 No. The parties tried and failed.
17 Whether an early settlement conference should be scheduled and, if so, on what
18 date
19
20 Whether discovery has been completed and, if not, the date by which it will be
21 completed
All discovery has been completed. Discovery is closed.
23 What discovery issues are anticipated
None, as discovery is closed.
25 10. Whether the case should be bifurcated or a hearing should be set for a motion to
26 bifurcate under Code of Civil Procedure II598
27 No
28 1 1. Whether there are any cross-complaints that are not ready to be set for trial and, if
Loio Offices of
Jo/m L. Fiizgerrrla 2
PLAINTISS DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
so, whether they should be severed
12. Whether the case is entitled to any statutory preference and, if so, the statute
granting the preference
No
13. Whether a jury trial is demanded, and, if so, the identity of each party requesting
a jury trial
Jury trial has been waived.
14. If the trial date has not been previously set, the date by which the case will be
10 ready for trial and the available trial dates
The case is ready for trial. Trial was setfor March 26, 2018, September 4, 2018
12 and April 26, 2020. The parties have agreed to a limited waiver of the five-year
statute.
14 All dates are available for counsel and experts except June 2-August 1 7,
15 September 12-30; November 21- December 22, December 26-31, 2022.
16 15. The estimated length of trial
17 4-5 days
18 16. The nature of the injuries
19 No damages are sought
20 17. The amount of damages, including any special or punitive damages
21 No damages are sought
22 18. Any additional relief sought
Injunctive relief
24 19. Whether there are any insurance coverage issues that may affect the resolution of
25 the case
No
20. Any other matters that should be considered by the court or addressed in its case
28 management order
Eon Offices of
Joke n Fllzgesold 3
PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMEN'I ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
None
2 Subjects listed in CRC Rule 3.729
3 1. The type and subject matter of the action to be tried
4 King Plaza is a multi-use retail center a mixed commercial/residential district in Daly
5 City at King and Callan. DBP Investments owns one parcel. It has a single-use occupant, Classic
6 Bowl. Classic Bowl is not a party to this action. It is owned by the partners of DBP. The two
7 other parcels are owned by King Plaza Center, LLC. King has several tenants, including Manila
8 Market owned by defendants Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, Dong Vuong and Thanh Lai.
9 DBP is represented by Steven B. Piser and John L. Fitzgerald. King is represented by
10 Steven D. McLellan and Janet Fogarty. Manila Market's owners, Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, Dong
1 1 Vuong and Thanh Lai, are represented by James Barrett.
12 In the beginning, the center, on three separate parcels, had one owner, DBP Investments.
13 Parcel A has the bowling alley. It had only 22 parking spaces. Parcels B and C housed general
14 retail uses. According to the Daly City parking requirement, the bowling alley required 150
15 parking spaces. The then uses of the entire shopping center required 418 spaces. Because the
16 parcels were under common ownership/management to assure there were no issues about one
I7 parcel using another' parking, a variance was granted, allowing for a 20% reduction in the total
18 required parking spaces.
19 In 1990, DBP sold a 63% interest in the center to King Plaza Partners, a group controlled
20 Jeffrey Litke. Mr. Litke is a prominent developer who specializes in distressed properties.
21 King Plaza was distressed. The vacancy factor was high. It had garbage, graffiti and gang
22 related problems. And on October 17, 1989, the Lorna Prieta earthquake struck. The center,
23 which sits on the crest of the hillside mountain range separating Daly City from Pacifica,
24 suffered a massive jolt.
25 Litke's group, King Plaza Partners, took title to these parcels as a tenant in common with
26
28
parties'7
DBP. The tenancy-in-common relationship was intended to be short lived.
intent to get a lot split. Parcels B & C, housing the retail, would be owned by King Plaza
Partners; Parcel A, the bowling alley, by DBP.
It was the
Low Offices of
JolNI L FilsgesolIT 4
'ARE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CoNFERENcE STATEMENT
PLAINTIFF BBP iNvEs TMENTs
The purchase contract between Litke and DBP recited that all parking spaces on all
parcels were to be available to all parties. In addition to the contract, the parties agreed to
"articulate" their agreement in a reciprocal easement to be recorded.
The first application for a minor subdivision, necessary to accomplish the lot split, was
submitted to Daly City on March 3, 1990, right after close of escrow on the sale to King Plaza.
Staff rejected it. The planners had one concern: How to satisfy and enforce, the bowling alley's
parking requirements if the property is not under common ownership
What followed was nearly a decade of hearings, applications, meetings, objections,
studies and litigation.
10 Until there was a lot split, King Plaza Partners and DBP would be wed as tenants-in-
common.
12 Daly City would not approve a lot split unless parking was addressed. Neighborhood
opposition, the economy and other issues prolonged the process of achieving the lot split. But
14 the issue of parking had to be approved by the City. As contemplated when the property was
15 sold, the parties executed the reciprocal easement, guaranteeing each party mutual, non-
16 exclusive rights to use the parking on all parcels. This would ensure, the bowl, whose parking
demand — -and requirement — -was far more than 22 spaces, would have access to parking on
18 King's parcels.
When the easement was executed in 1997', the parties agreed it would be recorded. But it
20 wasn'. There is no dispute it was supposed to have been. And there is no dispute the parties,
21 Litke and DBP, abided by its terms. Nor is there any dispute the City would not have approved
22 the lot split absent the easement.
23 The official approval of the subdivision, and lot split, came on May 7, 1998, when Daly
24 City adopted Ordinance 1255, approving the split.
25 The lot split was recorded. Title to Parcels B & C was conveyed to King Plaza Partners,
'The agreement attached to the complaint was signed by Litke (for King, the then owner) in I 997. It was
27 signed by DBP in 2000. The agreement is dated 1997. There are also signature pages for DBP executed in
1997. The attorneys involved in the easement are no longer with us. The records of the City of Daly City have
28 the fully executed easement with an execution date of 1997, by all parties.
'Mr. Litke, the developer-in-chief, was charged with the obligation to record it.
LEIF offIees of
Jo/NI L. Fi IrgerolIr 5
PLAINTIFF DBP iNVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SET TLNG CONFERENCE STATEMENT
on November 14, 2000.
The reciprocal easement was intended to assure the bowling alley's users have ample
parking. It was the only way to assure DBP's tenant, Classic Bowl, would have access to parking
on the adjoining parcels, since they were no longer under common ownership. The easement
precludes either party from obstructing the other's use of the parking. And it precludes
reservation of spaces, except for emergency vehicles.
In 2007, King Plaza Partners sold its interest (composed of Parcels B & C) to defendant,
King Plaza Center, a Delaware Limited Liability Company controlled by the I-Io family. The
easement was provided to the Hos before close of escrow, who acknowledged, in writing,
10 receiving it. Jeanne Ho, a Vice President at Wells Fargo Bank, who is a real estate loan officer,
and her sister, Sabrina, who holds an MBA from Cal's Haas School of Business and licensed
12 CPA, reviewed the easement as did their then legal counsel.
The economic terms of the agreement, which require DBP to pay 50% of the common
14 area expenses for Parcels B & C, have been followed.
With the Hos'cquisition, parking became an issue.
In 2015, the Hos decided to place parking restrictions throughout the lot. All spaces were
limited to two-hour parking, with the exception of some spaces designated one-hour parking.
18 Violators* vehicles (read bowlers) were threatened with being towed.
19 Efforts to discourage the Hos from interfering with DBP's rights under the easement
20 were of no avail.
21 In 2015, the Hos, contrary to the terms of the easement, designated spaces in the center
for two-hour parking. Spaces for one of the Hos'ormer tenants, dentists'ffices, were
23 improperly designated as being reserved.'nother act prohibited by easement.
The Hos claim the easement is null and void because it was not recorded.4
25 The two-hour spaces have been eliminated, but the Hos're clear in their continued
assertion that they have the right to control the parking on their pacel, and threaten to re-impose
27
28 'The dentists have vacated. It is now a food use.
4The validity of the easement is the subject of the related case.
of
Low Offices
John L Filsgerold 6
Pi AiN DBP INVEST
TIFF MtNTS'l Sr MANnor MENT ANG TRME Sr TTING CGNFERENCE STATEMENT
the restrictions on parking in violation of the easement.
2. Whether the case has statutory priority
No
3. The number of causes of action, cross-actions, and affirmative defenses that will
be tried
The complaint has two causes of action, each seeking injunctive relief. The defendants
have asserted many affirmative defenses, it is unclear which ones they still maintain.
4. Whether any significant amendments to the pleadings have been made recently or
are likely to be made before trial
10 Not at this time.
5. Whether the plaintiff intends to bring a motion to amend the complaint to seek
12 punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure $ 425.13
13
14 6. The number of parties with separate interests who will be involved in the trial
15 There are five defendants; King and Quach are allied, so there are two sides
16 7. The complexity of the issues to be tried, including issues of first impression
17 Equitable iss'ues always have a degree of complexity
18 8. Any difficulties in identifying, locating, or serving parties
No
20 9. Whether all parties have been served and, if so, the date by which they were
21 served
22 All defendants appeared in 201 6.
23 10. Whether all parties have appeared in the action and, if so, the date by which they
24 appeared
25 King appeared on August 1, 2016. ltfiled a cross-complaint, but dismissedit on
26 February 19, 2020. Quach appeared January 12, 2017.
27 1 1. How long the attorneys who will try the case have been involved in the action
28 DBP and Quaches 'ttorneys have been involvedfrom the beginning.
Lnw Offices of
John L. Fitzgerald 7
PLAINTIFF DBP INVEETMENIS'ASe MANAGEMENT AND 17GAL SETTING CGNFERENCE STATEMENT
King was represented by Ronald Rossi from 2016 until August 1, 2018 when it hired
Janet Fogarty and Dennis Zell. Mr, Zell was replaced by current counsel on February 22. Ms.
Fogarty remains in place.
12. The trial date or dates proposed by the parties and their attorneys;
Trial in September or October 2022 would appear appropriate
13. The professional and personal schedules of the parties and their attorneys,
including any conflicts with previously assigned trial dates or other significant events
Counsel for DBP identified dates of unavailability in response to 14 above.
14. The amount of discovery, if any, that remains to be conducted in the case
10 Discovery is complete; experts have been deposed; discovery is closed.
15. The nature and extent of law and motion proceedings anticipated, including
whether any motions for summary judgment will be Gled
13 None anticipated at this time.
14 16. Whether any other actions or proceedings that are pending may affect the case
DBP filed an action for declaratory relief that is currently abated.
16 17. The amount in controversy and the type of remedy sought
17 No damages
18 1g. The nature and extent of the injuries or damages, including whether these are
19 ready for determination
20 Not applicable.
21 19. The court's trial calendar, including the pendency of other trial dates.
22 Untatown.
23 20. Whether the trial will be a jury or a nonjury trial
24 Noj ury.
25 21. The anticipated length of trial
26 4-5 days.
22. The number, availability, and locations of witnesses, including witnesses who
reside outside the county, state, or country
Lo Io Offices of
doiro L. Fiesgesold S
IEP DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PLAINT
DBP anticipates ten witnesses.
23. Whether there have been any previous continuances of the trial or delays in
setting the case for trial
Yes, see ¹14 above.
24. The achievement of a fair, timely, and efficient disposition of the case
Set a trial date.
25. Any other factor that would significantly affect the determination of the
appropriate date of trial.
None.
10
LAW OFFICES OF IOHN L. FITZGERALD
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
12
A Professional Corporation
13
14 DATED: March /5, 2022
L. F ERALD
15
16 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California
General Partnership
17
18
20
21
22
24
26
27
28
tew Ogiees of
lots n L Fitseeretd 9
PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center and Related Cross-Action
San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Case ¹CIVS88897
I,John L. Fitzgerald, declare the following:
I am a member of the State Bar of California, I am over the age of 18 and not a
party to the within action. My business address is Law Offices of John L. Fitzgerald, 177
Bovet Road, San Mateo, California 94402.
On March 15, 2022, I served a copy of:
PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMENT AND
TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
9
by sending copies via electronic mail as follows:
10
Co-Counsel for King Plaza Center, LLC Attorneys for Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien,
Steven D. McLellan Dong Vuong, ThanhLai
Gates Eisenhart Dawson James M. Barrett
12 Law Office ofJames M. Barrett
L25 South Market Street, Suite 12oo
San Jose, California 95113 1oo W. El Camino Real, Suite 81
13 Mountain View, California 94040
Telephone: (4o8) 288-81oo Telephone: (65o) 969-3687
14 Facsimile: (4o8) 288-9409 Facsimile: (65o) 969-3699
e-maih sdm@aedlaw.corn e-maih ib(Riamesbarrettlaw.corn
15
Attorneysfor King Plaza Center, LLC Co-Counselfor Plaintiffs
16 Janet Fogarty Steven B. Piser
Law Office of Janet Fogartg lit Associates Law Offices of Steven B. Piser
17 A Professional Corporation
Ioo1 Broadway, Suite 2oo
1970 Broadway, Suite 600
18 Millbrae, California 94o30
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (65o) 652-56o1 Telephone: (510) 835-5582
19 Facsimile: (65o) 652-56o4 e-maih esoeranza06Cbpacbell.net
e-maih jfoaartvlawfirm@vahoo.corn
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed March 15, 2022, at San Mateo, California.
22
23
24
25
27
28
tan Offices of
John L. Finserald PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 12661 3 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, California 94402 Telephone: (415) 689-1209 STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER 5 A Professional Corporation 1970 Broadway, Suite 600 6 Oakland, California 946 I 2 Telephone: (510) 835-5582 7 8 Attorneys for DBP INVESTMENTS, 9 a California General Partnership 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 15 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897 Partnership, ) 16 ) Plai ntiff, ) PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE ) MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING V. ) CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18 ) KiNG PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) DATE MARcit 2$ , 2022 19 Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, ) TIME 9I00 A.M. an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) DEPT. 21 20 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH ) TRIAL NOT YET SET LAI, and DOES Ithrough 10 ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) 23 Subjects listedin CRCRule 3.727 24 1. Whether there are any related cases DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC, et al., case number 19CIV071 18 filed in 26 the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, on December 3, 2019. The action is currently abated until the conclusion of this matter. 28 2. Whether all parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint have been served, LEIF Offices of JFINI L EiieeemlIT I PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT have appeared, or have been dismissed Yes. Whether any additional parties may be added or the pleadings may be amended Whether, if the case is a limited civil case, the economic litigation procedures under Code of Civil Procedure $ 90 et seq. will apply to it or the party intends to bring a motion to exempt the case from these procedures Not applicable. Whether any other matters (e.g., the bankruptcy of a party) may affect the court's 10 jurisdiction or processing of the case No 12 Whether the parties have stipulated to, or the case should be referred to, judicial arbitration in courts having a judicial arbitration program or to any other form of 14 alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process and, if so, the date by which the 15 judicial arbitration or other ADR process must be completed. 16 No. The parties tried and failed. 17 Whether an early settlement conference should be scheduled and, if so, on what 18 date 19 20 Whether discovery has been completed and, if not, the date by which it will be 21 completed All discovery has been completed. Discovery is closed. 23 What discovery issues are anticipated None, as discovery is closed. 25 10. Whether the case should be bifurcated or a hearing should be set for a motion to 26 bifurcate under Code of Civil Procedure II598 27 No 28 1 1. Whether there are any cross-complaints that are not ready to be set for trial and, if Loio Offices of Jo/m L. Fiizgerrrla 2 PLAINTISS DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT so, whether they should be severed 12. Whether the case is entitled to any statutory preference and, if so, the statute granting the preference No 13. Whether a jury trial is demanded, and, if so, the identity of each party requesting a jury trial Jury trial has been waived. 14. If the trial date has not been previously set, the date by which the case will be 10 ready for trial and the available trial dates The case is ready for trial. Trial was setfor March 26, 2018, September 4, 2018 12 and April 26, 2020. The parties have agreed to a limited waiver of the five-year statute. 14 All dates are available for counsel and experts except June 2-August 1 7, 15 September 12-30; November 21- December 22, December 26-31, 2022. 16 15. The estimated length of trial 17 4-5 days 18 16. The nature of the injuries 19 No damages are sought 20 17. The amount of damages, including any special or punitive damages 21 No damages are sought 22 18. Any additional relief sought Injunctive relief 24 19. Whether there are any insurance coverage issues that may affect the resolution of 25 the case No 20. Any other matters that should be considered by the court or addressed in its case 28 management order Eon Offices of Joke n Fllzgesold 3 PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMEN'I ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT None 2 Subjects listed in CRC Rule 3.729 3 1. The type and subject matter of the action to be tried 4 King Plaza is a multi-use retail center a mixed commercial/residential district in Daly 5 City at King and Callan. DBP Investments owns one parcel. It has a single-use occupant, Classic 6 Bowl. Classic Bowl is not a party to this action. It is owned by the partners of DBP. The two 7 other parcels are owned by King Plaza Center, LLC. King has several tenants, including Manila 8 Market owned by defendants Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, Dong Vuong and Thanh Lai. 9 DBP is represented by Steven B. Piser and John L. Fitzgerald. King is represented by 10 Steven D. McLellan and Janet Fogarty. Manila Market's owners, Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, Dong 1 1 Vuong and Thanh Lai, are represented by James Barrett. 12 In the beginning, the center, on three separate parcels, had one owner, DBP Investments. 13 Parcel A has the bowling alley. It had only 22 parking spaces. Parcels B and C housed general 14 retail uses. According to the Daly City parking requirement, the bowling alley required 150 15 parking spaces. The then uses of the entire shopping center required 418 spaces. Because the 16 parcels were under common ownership/management to assure there were no issues about one I7 parcel using another' parking, a variance was granted, allowing for a 20% reduction in the total 18 required parking spaces. 19 In 1990, DBP sold a 63% interest in the center to King Plaza Partners, a group controlled 20 Jeffrey Litke. Mr. Litke is a prominent developer who specializes in distressed properties. 21 King Plaza was distressed. The vacancy factor was high. It had garbage, graffiti and gang 22 related problems. And on October 17, 1989, the Lorna Prieta earthquake struck. The center, 23 which sits on the crest of the hillside mountain range separating Daly City from Pacifica, 24 suffered a massive jolt. 25 Litke's group, King Plaza Partners, took title to these parcels as a tenant in common with 26 28 parties'7 DBP. The tenancy-in-common relationship was intended to be short lived. intent to get a lot split. Parcels B & C, housing the retail, would be owned by King Plaza Partners; Parcel A, the bowling alley, by DBP. It was the Low Offices of JolNI L FilsgesolIT 4 'ARE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CoNFERENcE STATEMENT PLAINTIFF BBP iNvEs TMENTs The purchase contract between Litke and DBP recited that all parking spaces on all parcels were to be available to all parties. In addition to the contract, the parties agreed to "articulate" their agreement in a reciprocal easement to be recorded. The first application for a minor subdivision, necessary to accomplish the lot split, was submitted to Daly City on March 3, 1990, right after close of escrow on the sale to King Plaza. Staff rejected it. The planners had one concern: How to satisfy and enforce, the bowling alley's parking requirements if the property is not under common ownership What followed was nearly a decade of hearings, applications, meetings, objections, studies and litigation. 10 Until there was a lot split, King Plaza Partners and DBP would be wed as tenants-in- common. 12 Daly City would not approve a lot split unless parking was addressed. Neighborhood opposition, the economy and other issues prolonged the process of achieving the lot split. But 14 the issue of parking had to be approved by the City. As contemplated when the property was 15 sold, the parties executed the reciprocal easement, guaranteeing each party mutual, non- 16 exclusive rights to use the parking on all parcels. This would ensure, the bowl, whose parking demand — -and requirement — -was far more than 22 spaces, would have access to parking on 18 King's parcels. When the easement was executed in 1997', the parties agreed it would be recorded. But it 20 wasn'. There is no dispute it was supposed to have been. And there is no dispute the parties, 21 Litke and DBP, abided by its terms. Nor is there any dispute the City would not have approved 22 the lot split absent the easement. 23 The official approval of the subdivision, and lot split, came on May 7, 1998, when Daly 24 City adopted Ordinance 1255, approving the split. 25 The lot split was recorded. Title to Parcels B & C was conveyed to King Plaza Partners, 'The agreement attached to the complaint was signed by Litke (for King, the then owner) in I 997. It was 27 signed by DBP in 2000. The agreement is dated 1997. There are also signature pages for DBP executed in 1997. The attorneys involved in the easement are no longer with us. The records of the City of Daly City have 28 the fully executed easement with an execution date of 1997, by all parties. 'Mr. Litke, the developer-in-chief, was charged with the obligation to record it. LEIF offIees of Jo/NI L. Fi IrgerolIr 5 PLAINTIFF DBP iNVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SET TLNG CONFERENCE STATEMENT on November 14, 2000. The reciprocal easement was intended to assure the bowling alley's users have ample parking. It was the only way to assure DBP's tenant, Classic Bowl, would have access to parking on the adjoining parcels, since they were no longer under common ownership. The easement precludes either party from obstructing the other's use of the parking. And it precludes reservation of spaces, except for emergency vehicles. In 2007, King Plaza Partners sold its interest (composed of Parcels B & C) to defendant, King Plaza Center, a Delaware Limited Liability Company controlled by the I-Io family. The easement was provided to the Hos before close of escrow, who acknowledged, in writing, 10 receiving it. Jeanne Ho, a Vice President at Wells Fargo Bank, who is a real estate loan officer, and her sister, Sabrina, who holds an MBA from Cal's Haas School of Business and licensed 12 CPA, reviewed the easement as did their then legal counsel. The economic terms of the agreement, which require DBP to pay 50% of the common 14 area expenses for Parcels B & C, have been followed. With the Hos'cquisition, parking became an issue. In 2015, the Hos decided to place parking restrictions throughout the lot. All spaces were limited to two-hour parking, with the exception of some spaces designated one-hour parking. 18 Violators* vehicles (read bowlers) were threatened with being towed. 19 Efforts to discourage the Hos from interfering with DBP's rights under the easement 20 were of no avail. 21 In 2015, the Hos, contrary to the terms of the easement, designated spaces in the center for two-hour parking. Spaces for one of the Hos'ormer tenants, dentists'ffices, were 23 improperly designated as being reserved.'nother act prohibited by easement. The Hos claim the easement is null and void because it was not recorded.4 25 The two-hour spaces have been eliminated, but the Hos're clear in their continued assertion that they have the right to control the parking on their pacel, and threaten to re-impose 27 28 'The dentists have vacated. It is now a food use. 4The validity of the easement is the subject of the related case. of Low Offices John L Filsgerold 6 Pi AiN DBP INVEST TIFF MtNTS'l Sr MANnor MENT ANG TRME Sr TTING CGNFERENCE STATEMENT the restrictions on parking in violation of the easement. 2. Whether the case has statutory priority No 3. The number of causes of action, cross-actions, and affirmative defenses that will be tried The complaint has two causes of action, each seeking injunctive relief. The defendants have asserted many affirmative defenses, it is unclear which ones they still maintain. 4. Whether any significant amendments to the pleadings have been made recently or are likely to be made before trial 10 Not at this time. 5. Whether the plaintiff intends to bring a motion to amend the complaint to seek 12 punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure $ 425.13 13 14 6. The number of parties with separate interests who will be involved in the trial 15 There are five defendants; King and Quach are allied, so there are two sides 16 7. The complexity of the issues to be tried, including issues of first impression 17 Equitable iss'ues always have a degree of complexity 18 8. Any difficulties in identifying, locating, or serving parties No 20 9. Whether all parties have been served and, if so, the date by which they were 21 served 22 All defendants appeared in 201 6. 23 10. Whether all parties have appeared in the action and, if so, the date by which they 24 appeared 25 King appeared on August 1, 2016. ltfiled a cross-complaint, but dismissedit on 26 February 19, 2020. Quach appeared January 12, 2017. 27 1 1. How long the attorneys who will try the case have been involved in the action 28 DBP and Quaches 'ttorneys have been involvedfrom the beginning. Lnw Offices of John L. Fitzgerald 7 PLAINTIFF DBP INVEETMENIS'ASe MANAGEMENT AND 17GAL SETTING CGNFERENCE STATEMENT King was represented by Ronald Rossi from 2016 until August 1, 2018 when it hired Janet Fogarty and Dennis Zell. Mr, Zell was replaced by current counsel on February 22. Ms. Fogarty remains in place. 12. The trial date or dates proposed by the parties and their attorneys; Trial in September or October 2022 would appear appropriate 13. The professional and personal schedules of the parties and their attorneys, including any conflicts with previously assigned trial dates or other significant events Counsel for DBP identified dates of unavailability in response to 14 above. 14. The amount of discovery, if any, that remains to be conducted in the case 10 Discovery is complete; experts have been deposed; discovery is closed. 15. The nature and extent of law and motion proceedings anticipated, including whether any motions for summary judgment will be Gled 13 None anticipated at this time. 14 16. Whether any other actions or proceedings that are pending may affect the case DBP filed an action for declaratory relief that is currently abated. 16 17. The amount in controversy and the type of remedy sought 17 No damages 18 1g. The nature and extent of the injuries or damages, including whether these are 19 ready for determination 20 Not applicable. 21 19. The court's trial calendar, including the pendency of other trial dates. 22 Untatown. 23 20. Whether the trial will be a jury or a nonjury trial 24 Noj ury. 25 21. The anticipated length of trial 26 4-5 days. 22. The number, availability, and locations of witnesses, including witnesses who reside outside the county, state, or country Lo Io Offices of doiro L. Fiesgesold S IEP DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINT DBP anticipates ten witnesses. 23. Whether there have been any previous continuances of the trial or delays in setting the case for trial Yes, see ¹14 above. 24. The achievement of a fair, timely, and efficient disposition of the case Set a trial date. 25. Any other factor that would significantly affect the determination of the appropriate date of trial. None. 10 LAW OFFICES OF IOHN L. FITZGERALD LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER 12 A Professional Corporation 13 14 DATED: March /5, 2022 L. F ERALD 15 16 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Partnership 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 27 28 tew Ogiees of lots n L Fitseeretd 9 PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS 'ASE MANAGEMENT ANO TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center and Related Cross-Action San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction Case ¹CIVS88897 I,John L. Fitzgerald, declare the following: I am a member of the State Bar of California, I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Law Offices of John L. Fitzgerald, 177 Bovet Road, San Mateo, California 94402. On March 15, 2022, I served a copy of: PLAINTIFF DBP INVESTMENTS'ASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE STATEMENT 9 by sending copies via electronic mail as follows: 10 Co-Counsel for King Plaza Center, LLC Attorneys for Bua-Quach, Sovan Lien, Steven D. McLellan Dong Vuong, ThanhLai Gates Eisenhart Dawson James M. Barrett 12 Law Office ofJames M. Barrett L25 South Market Street, Suite 12oo San Jose, California 95113 1oo W. El Camino Real, Suite 81 13 Mountain View, California 94040 Telephone: (4o8) 288-81oo Telephone: (65o) 969-3687 14 Facsimile: (4o8) 288-9409 Facsimile: (65o) 969-3699 e-maih sdm@aedlaw.corn e-maih ib(Riamesbarrettlaw.corn 15 Attorneysfor King Plaza Center, LLC Co-Counselfor Plaintiffs 16 Janet Fogarty Steven B. Piser Law Office of Janet Fogartg lit Associates Law Offices of Steven B. Piser 17 A Professional Corporation Ioo1 Broadway, Suite 2oo 1970 Broadway, Suite 600 18 Millbrae, California 94o30 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (65o) 652-56o1 Telephone: (510) 835-5582 19 Facsimile: (65o) 652-56o4 e-maih esoeranza06Cbpacbell.net e-maih jfoaartvlawfirm@vahoo.corn 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed March 15, 2022, at San Mateo, California. 22 23 24 25 27 28 tan Offices of John L. Finserald PROOF OF SERVICE