Preview
1 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969)
E-mail: mkenyon@bwslaw.com
mkenyon@bwslaw.com
2 Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787)
E-mail: ksiegel@bwslaw.com
ksiegel@bwslaw.com
3 Albert Tong (SBN 208439) 6/23/2021
E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com
atong@bwslaw.com
4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
5 Oakland, CA 94612-3501
CA 94612-3501
Tel: 510.273.8780
Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: Fax:510.839.9104
510.839.9104
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No. 17CIV05387
TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT,
13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN Assignedfor for All Purposes to the
SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
Weiner, Dept.
14 SMITH,
CITY
CITY OF OF REDWOOD
REDWOOD CITY'S CITY’S
15 Plaintiffs, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENOR
INTERVENOR ALISON ALISON MADDEN'S
MADDEN’S
16 v. CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Date: June 29, 2021
18 Defendant. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: Two (2)
19
20
ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL
21 FLEMING, EDWARD STANCIL,
JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA
22 DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, TINA REID,
AND JOHN CHAMBERS,
23
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
24
v.
25
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
26
Defendant.
27
28
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -1-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
ATLAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY’S RESPONSE
CITY'S
CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S
RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
1 Defendant City
Defendant City of
of Redwood
Redwood City City (the
(the "City")
“City”) submits
submits this
this response
response toto Plaintiff-Intervenor
Plaintiff-Intervenor
2 Alison Madden's
Alison Madden’s (“Madden”) Case
Madden's ("Madden")
("Madden") Case Management
Case Management Statement
Statement ("CMS"),
(“CMS”), filed
filed June
June 16,
16, 2021.
2021.
3 A. Status of Discovery
4 Madden has not articulated any basis to make any discovery motion, as she has none.
5 B. Status of Settlement or Mediation
6 The City has been discussing the terms of a potential mediation with Karen Frostrom,
7 including as to a potential mediator
mediator and
and topics. The City
topics. The City asked Ms. Frostrom to coordinate on
8 behalf of all plaintiffs. The City
The City understands Ms. Frostrom is doing doing so. The City is waiting for
so. The
9 responses from Ms. Frostrom.
10 C. Anticipated Motions and Proposed Briefing Schedule
11 Madden has not explained the purpose of this CMC or any motion for which she seeks a
12 hearing date, and the City is in the the dark
dark as
as to
to what
what Madden
Madden seeks.
seeks. Below, we respond to
13 contentions Madden presents in her CMS, to the extent we understand them.
14 As the Court and the parties have discussed, the discovery deadlines were established by
15 Case Management Order No. 17, filed September 17, 2020, following a Case Management
16 Conference in which all parties discussed and and agreed
agreed toto the
the schedule.
schedule. The CityCity sees no basis to
17 deviate from these dates, other than by stipulation (e.g., to conduct depositions after the close of
18 discovery), as the parties have done.
19 The City complied with the request for production of documents attached to the deposition
20 notice that Madden served approximately ten days before the close of fact discovery, and
21 produced the
produced the City's
City’s
City's Persons
Persons Most Qualified/Knowledgeable (for the second time) per the
Most Qualified/Knowledgeable
22 deposition notice. The The City
City produced
produced 627627 documents after conducting a reasonable, good faith
documents after
23 search.1 Madden
search.'
search.' Maddenconcluded
concludedthe thedeposition
depositionandandreleased
released the
the witness, without objecting to the
witness, without
24 document production, seeking to reserve any right to further depose the witness, or otherwise
25 keeping any associated issue open.
26 1
Madden’s complaint
1 Madden's
Madden's complaint about the
complaint about the City producing
City producing "pages
“pages with
with logos”
"pages with logos" is
logos" ismisplaced.
is misplaced. Such
misplaced. Such
pages are routinely produced in litigation discovery because emails often list such logos as
27 attachments, even though they are are really
really part
part of
of aa signature
signature block.
block. If not produced, the requesting
party may mistakenly believe the producing party has withheld an attachment, when really it is
28 just a computer issue. Producing
Producing thethe pages with logos prevents pointless disputes.
pages with
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -2-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
ATLAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY’S RESPONSE
CITY'S
CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S
RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
1 Madden offers a new spin on her allegations
allegations and
and causes
causes of
of action.
action. As this Court is well-
2 aware, Madden and her co-plaintiffs allege two causes of action: (1) damages under the California
3 Relocation Assistance
Relocation Assistance Law (“CRAL”), and
Law ("CRAL"), and (2)
(2) just compensation (damages) for inverse
4 condemnation. The The original
original plaintiffs
plaintiffs had
had also
also alleged a third cause of action for declaratory
5 this Court
relief, to which this Court sustained
sustained the
the City's
City’s demurrer
demurrer without
without leave
leave to
to amend
amend on May 4, 2018.22018.2
6 On or about January 10, 2020, Madden and the other plaintiff-intervenors filed a Complaint-in-
7 Intervention that omits any claim for declaratory or other equitable relief (e.g., writ of mandate).
8 Now, Madden appears to believe that she and the other plaintiffs are pursuing claims for
9 equitable relief, rather than damages.
damages. ThisThis novel
novel contention
contention is nonsensical and without merit.
10 This case, which had been commenced as a putative class action, has always presented
11 claims seeking a judicial award of monetary relief to remedy the alleged harm caused by the
12 City’s termination
City's
City's termination of
termination of residential
residential use
use of
of Docktown.
Docktown.
Docktown. SinceSince the dismissal
Since the dismissal ofof the
the original
original plaintiffs'
plaintiffs’
plaintiffs'
13 third cause of action for declaratory relief in May 2018, there has been no claim that the Court
14 should issue a writ and/or declaration that the City must take or not take certain actions, e.g., to
15 adopt a plan for the City to award CRAL assistance prior to terminating residential use.
16 Now, nearly five years after the City Council directed staff to terminate residential use and
17 provide Docktown Plan benefits (not CRAL benefits), and after the City has largely implemented
18 that direction and successfully defended against a series of lawsuits by Madden and Madden-
19 parties,3 Madden seeks to fundamentally change the nature of this ligation from a
associated parties,3
20 damages action to a writ writ or
or declaratory
declaratory relief
relief action. Madden’s contention
action. Madden's
Madden's contention is contrary to the
21 record in this and other cases, and is an improper attempt to make an end run around nearly five
22
2
2 See Case Management Order No. 3, filed May 4, 2018.
23 3
3 The City has, among other things, provided relocation assistance under the Docktown
24 Plan to dozens of former residents, defeated a writ petition and complaint by a Madden-affiliated
to reverse
entity to reverse the
the City
City Council's
Council’s decision
decision toto terminate
terminate residential
residential use
use (San Francisco Bay
25 Marinasfor for All, Inc. v. City of
of Redwood City, Case No. 17CIV00276, decided by this Court,
based on alleged violations CEQA), defeated a writ petition by Madden et al. to reverse
26 Docktown Plan decisions awarding and denying certain benefits (Frambrough [sic] [sic] et al. v.
Redwood City, Case No. 17CIV04680, decided by this Court), and defeated a complaint by
27 Madden alleging
Madden alleging the
the City's
City’s termination of
City's termination
termination of residential
of residential use
use of
of Docktown
of Docktown constituted
constituted waste
waste under
under
Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and must be enjoined (Madden v. City of of Redwood City,
28 Case No. 17CIV00316, decided by Judge Miram and upheld on appeal).
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -3-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
ATLAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY’S RESPONSE
CITY'S
CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S
RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
1 years of administrative and judicial proceedings regarding the adoption and implementation of
2 City’s decisions
City's
City's decisions and actions
decisions and actions regarding
regarding Docktown.
Docktown.
Docktown. In In sum, this
In sum, this case
case is
is about
about 11
11 holdover
holdover tenants'
tenants’
tenants'
3 claims to a judicial award of damages (CRAL benefits and just compensation), if any, not any
4 relief.4
unstated claim for equitable relief.4
5 D. Setting of Next CMC Date
6 The City does not see a need for a further CMC at this point.
7 E. Any Other Matters for Which the Parties Seek Court Ruling or Scheduling
8 None.
9
10 Dated:
Dated: June 23,
June 23, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
11
12 By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon
13 Kevin D. Siegel
Attorneys for Defendant
14 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
15
16
17
4
18 4 It is worth highlighting that in San Francisco Bay Marinasfor for All, Inc. v. City of
All, Inc. of
Redwood City, Case No. 17C1V00276, Madden requested this Court to set aside the City
19 Council’s December
Council's
Council's December 12,
December 12, 2016
12, 2016 decision
2016 decision to
decision to terminate
terminate residential
residential use
use and
and adopt
adopt the
the Docktown
Docktown PlanPlan
to provide relocation assistance to qualified displaced residents—which decision was made by
20 City Council Resolution No. No. 15550.
15550. AsAs the
As the Court
Court will
will recall,
recall, the
the plaintiffs'
plaintiffs’ theory
theory in
in that
that suit
suit
was that
was that the
the City
City Council's
Council’s decision to
Council's decision
decision to terminate
to terminate residential
residential use
use of
of Docktown
Docktown violated
violated CEQA.
CEQA.
21 The plaintiff was a Madden-affiliated entity, entity, San
San Francisco
Francisco Bay
Bay Marinas
Marinas for All, Inc.
for All, Inc. (See para. 2
of Declaration of Alison Madden, dated July 23, 2018, in this pending action for damages; see
22 also para. 23 of Declaration of Alison Madden, filed in Case No. 17C1V00276 [describing
Madden as Chair, Secretary, and General Counsel of San Francisco Bay Marinas for All].)
23 Madden ultimately substituted in as as counsel
counsel for the plaintiff
for the plaintiff on
on December
December 11, 11,2017.
2017. The
plaintiff’s
Court denied the plaintiff's contentions and,
plaintiff's contentions and, on
on March 12, 2018, entered judgment for the City.
24
This history shows that Madden has been well-aware of opportunities to seek equitable
25 relief to preclude the City from terminating residential use at Docktown unless and until the City
complied with purported obligations, including without limitation
including without limitation CEQA
CEQA and and the
the CRAL.
CRAL. Now,
26 shortly before the August 2, 2021 trial in the pending case, Madden suddenly contends that she
seeks in this action to enjoin implementation of the City City Council's
Council’s December 12,
Council's December 12, 2016
2016 decision
decision—
27 even though she does not seek a judgment setting aside Resolution No. 15550 or otherwise seek
than
relief—rather than
declaratory or writ relief—rather monetary
monetary relief
than monetary (damages)
relief(damages)
relief caused
(damages)caused
causedbyby the
bythe City’s
theCity's action.
City'saction. The
action. The
28 Court should
Court should reject
reject Madden's
Madden’s contention.
Madden's contention.
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -4-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
ATLAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY’S RESPONSE
CITY'S
CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S
RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Laura A. Montalvo, declare:
3 I am a citizen of the United States and employed
States and employed in in Alameda
Alameda County,
County,California.
California. I am
4 over the age of eighteen years and and not
not aa party
party to
to the
the within-entitled
within-entitled action.
action. My business address
is 1901 Harrison Street,
Street, Suite
Suite 900,
900, Oakland, California 94612-3501.
Oakland,California 94612-3501. On On June
June 23, 2021, I caused
5 to be served a copy of the within document(s):
6 CITY
CITY OF REDWOOD
REDWOOD CITY’S
OF REDWOOD RESPONSE TO
CITY'S RESPONSE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR ALISON ALISON
MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT STATEMENT
STATEMENT
7
8 0
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express or GSO
Overnight Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the
envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express or GSO Overnight Delivery agent for
9 delivery.
10
11
EI
EI by transmitting via e-mail or electronic transmission the document(s) listed above
to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below.
12 Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., Esq. Alison M. Madden (pro per)
Karen R. Frostrom, Esq. P.O. Box 620650
13 Audrey Kennedy, Esq. Woodside,
Woodside, CA CA 94062
Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP Telephone:
Telephone: (920)
(920) 602-6685
th
14 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th 11th Floor E-Mail: maddenproper@gmail.com;
San Diego,
Diego, CA CA 92103 maddenlaw94062@gmail.com
15 Telephone:
Telephone: (619)
(619) 236-9363
Facsimile:
Facsimile•
Facsimile• (619) 236-9653 Plaintiff-Intervenor Alison
for Plaintiff:Intervenor
Attorney for
16 E-Mail: frostrom@tbmlawyers.com;
frostrom@tbmlawyers.com; Madden
kennedy@tbmlawyers.com
17
Attorneysforfor all Plaintiffs/Intervenors, except
18 Alison Madden
19 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
20 for mailing. Under
Under that practice itit would
that practice would bebe deposited
deposited with
with the
the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaidprepaid in
in the
the ordinary
ordinary course
course ofof business.
business. I am aware that on
21 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.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
23 is true and correct. Executed
Executed on June 23,
on June 23, 2021,
2021, at Brentwood, California.
24
25 .Spt-LA_Gja4wiltrt-
.Spt-LA_G ja4wiltrt-
26 ________________________________________
Laura A. Montalvo
27
28
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -5-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS
ATLAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY’S RESPONSE
CITY'S
CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S
RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE
MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
Preview
1 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969) E-mail: mkenyon@bwslaw.com mkenyon@bwslaw.com 2 Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787) E-mail: ksiegel@bwslaw.com ksiegel@bwslaw.com 3 Albert Tong (SBN 208439) 6/23/2021 E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com atong@bwslaw.com 4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 5 Oakland, CA 94612-3501 CA 94612-3501 Tel: 510.273.8780 Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: Fax:510.839.9104 510.839.9104 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No. 17CIV05387 TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT, 13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN Assignedfor for All Purposes to the SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 Weiner, Dept. 14 SMITH, CITY CITY OF OF REDWOOD REDWOOD CITY'S CITY’S 15 Plaintiffs, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF- INTERVENOR INTERVENOR ALISON ALISON MADDEN'S MADDEN’S 16 v. CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, Date: June 29, 2021 18 Defendant. Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: Two (2) 19 20 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL 21 FLEMING, EDWARD STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA 22 DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, 23 Plaintiff-Intervenors, 24 v. 25 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 26 Defendant. 27 28 B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -1- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS ATLAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY’S RESPONSE CITY'S CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT 1 Defendant City Defendant City of of Redwood Redwood City City (the (the "City") “City”) submits submits this this response response toto Plaintiff-Intervenor Plaintiff-Intervenor 2 Alison Madden's Alison Madden’s (“Madden”) Case Madden's ("Madden") ("Madden") Case Management Case Management Statement Statement ("CMS"), (“CMS”), filed filed June June 16, 16, 2021. 2021. 3 A. Status of Discovery 4 Madden has not articulated any basis to make any discovery motion, as she has none. 5 B. Status of Settlement or Mediation 6 The City has been discussing the terms of a potential mediation with Karen Frostrom, 7 including as to a potential mediator mediator and and topics. The City topics. The City asked Ms. Frostrom to coordinate on 8 behalf of all plaintiffs. The City The City understands Ms. Frostrom is doing doing so. The City is waiting for so. The 9 responses from Ms. Frostrom. 10 C. Anticipated Motions and Proposed Briefing Schedule 11 Madden has not explained the purpose of this CMC or any motion for which she seeks a 12 hearing date, and the City is in the the dark dark as as to to what what Madden Madden seeks. seeks. Below, we respond to 13 contentions Madden presents in her CMS, to the extent we understand them. 14 As the Court and the parties have discussed, the discovery deadlines were established by 15 Case Management Order No. 17, filed September 17, 2020, following a Case Management 16 Conference in which all parties discussed and and agreed agreed toto the the schedule. schedule. The CityCity sees no basis to 17 deviate from these dates, other than by stipulation (e.g., to conduct depositions after the close of 18 discovery), as the parties have done. 19 The City complied with the request for production of documents attached to the deposition 20 notice that Madden served approximately ten days before the close of fact discovery, and 21 produced the produced the City's City’s City's Persons Persons Most Qualified/Knowledgeable (for the second time) per the Most Qualified/Knowledgeable 22 deposition notice. The The City City produced produced 627627 documents after conducting a reasonable, good faith documents after 23 search.1 Madden search.' search.' Maddenconcluded concludedthe thedeposition depositionandandreleased released the the witness, without objecting to the witness, without 24 document production, seeking to reserve any right to further depose the witness, or otherwise 25 keeping any associated issue open. 26 1 Madden’s complaint 1 Madden's Madden's complaint about the complaint about the City producing City producing "pages “pages with with logos” "pages with logos" is logos" ismisplaced. is misplaced. Such misplaced. Such pages are routinely produced in litigation discovery because emails often list such logos as 27 attachments, even though they are are really really part part of of aa signature signature block. block. If not produced, the requesting party may mistakenly believe the producing party has withheld an attachment, when really it is 28 just a computer issue. Producing Producing thethe pages with logos prevents pointless disputes. pages with B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -2- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS ATLAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY’S RESPONSE CITY'S CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT 1 Madden offers a new spin on her allegations allegations and and causes causes of of action. action. As this Court is well- 2 aware, Madden and her co-plaintiffs allege two causes of action: (1) damages under the California 3 Relocation Assistance Relocation Assistance Law (“CRAL”), and Law ("CRAL"), and (2) (2) just compensation (damages) for inverse 4 condemnation. The The original original plaintiffs plaintiffs had had also also alleged a third cause of action for declaratory 5 this Court relief, to which this Court sustained sustained the the City's City’s demurrer demurrer without without leave leave to to amend amend on May 4, 2018.22018.2 6 On or about January 10, 2020, Madden and the other plaintiff-intervenors filed a Complaint-in- 7 Intervention that omits any claim for declaratory or other equitable relief (e.g., writ of mandate). 8 Now, Madden appears to believe that she and the other plaintiffs are pursuing claims for 9 equitable relief, rather than damages. damages. ThisThis novel novel contention contention is nonsensical and without merit. 10 This case, which had been commenced as a putative class action, has always presented 11 claims seeking a judicial award of monetary relief to remedy the alleged harm caused by the 12 City’s termination City's City's termination of termination of residential residential use use of of Docktown. Docktown. Docktown. SinceSince the dismissal Since the dismissal ofof the the original original plaintiffs' plaintiffs’ plaintiffs' 13 third cause of action for declaratory relief in May 2018, there has been no claim that the Court 14 should issue a writ and/or declaration that the City must take or not take certain actions, e.g., to 15 adopt a plan for the City to award CRAL assistance prior to terminating residential use. 16 Now, nearly five years after the City Council directed staff to terminate residential use and 17 provide Docktown Plan benefits (not CRAL benefits), and after the City has largely implemented 18 that direction and successfully defended against a series of lawsuits by Madden and Madden- 19 parties,3 Madden seeks to fundamentally change the nature of this ligation from a associated parties,3 20 damages action to a writ writ or or declaratory declaratory relief relief action. Madden’s contention action. Madden's Madden's contention is contrary to the 21 record in this and other cases, and is an improper attempt to make an end run around nearly five 22 2 2 See Case Management Order No. 3, filed May 4, 2018. 23 3 3 The City has, among other things, provided relocation assistance under the Docktown 24 Plan to dozens of former residents, defeated a writ petition and complaint by a Madden-affiliated to reverse entity to reverse the the City City Council's Council’s decision decision toto terminate terminate residential residential use use (San Francisco Bay 25 Marinasfor for All, Inc. v. City of of Redwood City, Case No. 17CIV00276, decided by this Court, based on alleged violations CEQA), defeated a writ petition by Madden et al. to reverse 26 Docktown Plan decisions awarding and denying certain benefits (Frambrough [sic] [sic] et al. v. Redwood City, Case No. 17CIV04680, decided by this Court), and defeated a complaint by 27 Madden alleging Madden alleging the the City's City’s termination of City's termination termination of residential of residential use use of of Docktown of Docktown constituted constituted waste waste under under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and must be enjoined (Madden v. City of of Redwood City, 28 Case No. 17CIV00316, decided by Judge Miram and upheld on appeal). B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -3- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS ATLAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY’S RESPONSE CITY'S CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT 1 years of administrative and judicial proceedings regarding the adoption and implementation of 2 City’s decisions City's City's decisions and actions decisions and actions regarding regarding Docktown. Docktown. Docktown. In In sum, this In sum, this case case is is about about 11 11 holdover holdover tenants' tenants’ tenants' 3 claims to a judicial award of damages (CRAL benefits and just compensation), if any, not any 4 relief.4 unstated claim for equitable relief.4 5 D. Setting of Next CMC Date 6 The City does not see a need for a further CMC at this point. 7 E. Any Other Matters for Which the Parties Seek Court Ruling or Scheduling 8 None. 9 10 Dated: Dated: June 23, June 23, 2021 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 11 12 By: Michelle Marchetta Kenyon 13 Kevin D. Siegel Attorneys for Defendant 14 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 15 16 17 4 18 4 It is worth highlighting that in San Francisco Bay Marinasfor for All, Inc. v. City of All, Inc. of Redwood City, Case No. 17C1V00276, Madden requested this Court to set aside the City 19 Council’s December Council's Council's December 12, December 12, 2016 12, 2016 decision 2016 decision to decision to terminate terminate residential residential use use and and adopt adopt the the Docktown Docktown PlanPlan to provide relocation assistance to qualified displaced residents—which decision was made by 20 City Council Resolution No. No. 15550. 15550. AsAs the As the Court Court will will recall, recall, the the plaintiffs' plaintiffs’ theory theory in in that that suit suit was that was that the the City City Council's Council’s decision to Council's decision decision to terminate to terminate residential residential use use of of Docktown Docktown violated violated CEQA. CEQA. 21 The plaintiff was a Madden-affiliated entity, entity, San San Francisco Francisco Bay Bay Marinas Marinas for All, Inc. for All, Inc. (See para. 2 of Declaration of Alison Madden, dated July 23, 2018, in this pending action for damages; see 22 also para. 23 of Declaration of Alison Madden, filed in Case No. 17C1V00276 [describing Madden as Chair, Secretary, and General Counsel of San Francisco Bay Marinas for All].) 23 Madden ultimately substituted in as as counsel counsel for the plaintiff for the plaintiff on on December December 11, 11,2017. 2017. The plaintiff’s Court denied the plaintiff's contentions and, plaintiff's contentions and, on on March 12, 2018, entered judgment for the City. 24 This history shows that Madden has been well-aware of opportunities to seek equitable 25 relief to preclude the City from terminating residential use at Docktown unless and until the City complied with purported obligations, including without limitation including without limitation CEQA CEQA and and the the CRAL. CRAL. Now, 26 shortly before the August 2, 2021 trial in the pending case, Madden suddenly contends that she seeks in this action to enjoin implementation of the City City Council's Council’s December 12, Council's December 12, 2016 2016 decision decision— 27 even though she does not seek a judgment setting aside Resolution No. 15550 or otherwise seek than relief—rather than declaratory or writ relief—rather monetary monetary relief than monetary (damages) relief(damages) relief caused (damages)caused causedbyby the bythe City’s theCity's action. City'saction. The action. The 28 Court should Court should reject reject Madden's Madden’s contention. Madden's contention. B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -4- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS ATLAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY’S RESPONSE CITY'S CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Laura A. Montalvo, declare: 3 I am a citizen of the United States and employed States and employed in in Alameda Alameda County, County,California. California. I am 4 over the age of eighteen years and and not not aa party party to to the the within-entitled within-entitled action. action. My business address is 1901 Harrison Street, Street, Suite Suite 900, 900, Oakland, California 94612-3501. Oakland,California 94612-3501. On On June June 23, 2021, I caused 5 to be served a copy of the within document(s): 6 CITY CITY OF REDWOOD REDWOOD CITY’S OF REDWOOD RESPONSE TO CITY'S RESPONSE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR ALISON ALISON MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT STATEMENT STATEMENT STATEMENT 7 8 0 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express or GSO Overnight Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express or GSO Overnight Delivery agent for 9 delivery. 10 11 EI EI by transmitting via e-mail or electronic transmission the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below. 12 Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., Esq. Alison M. Madden (pro per) Karen R. Frostrom, Esq. P.O. Box 620650 13 Audrey Kennedy, Esq. Woodside, Woodside, CA CA 94062 Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP Telephone: Telephone: (920) (920) 602-6685 th 14 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th 11th Floor E-Mail: maddenproper@gmail.com; San Diego, Diego, CA CA 92103 maddenlaw94062@gmail.com 15 Telephone: Telephone: (619) (619) 236-9363 Facsimile: Facsimile• Facsimile• (619) 236-9653 Plaintiff-Intervenor Alison for Plaintiff:Intervenor Attorney for 16 E-Mail: frostrom@tbmlawyers.com; frostrom@tbmlawyers.com; Madden kennedy@tbmlawyers.com 17 Attorneysforfor all Plaintiffs/Intervenors, except 18 Alison Madden 19 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence 20 for mailing. Under Under that practice itit would that practice would bebe deposited deposited with with the the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaidprepaid in in the the ordinary ordinary course course ofof business. business. I am aware that on 21 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. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 23 is true and correct. Executed Executed on June 23, on June 23, 2021, 2021, at Brentwood, California. 24 25 .Spt-LA_Gja4wiltrt- .Spt-LA_G ja4wiltrt- 26 ________________________________________ Laura A. Montalvo 27 28 B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4828-3512-1903 v3 -5- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS ATLAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY’S RESPONSE CITY'S CITY'S RESPONSE TO MADDEN'S RESPONSE MADDEN’S CASE MADDEN'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT