industryterm:process server

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PLEADING

Notice was provided to parties and counsel that Plaintiff is aware of who were served to date by email.

The only party who has stated it will oppose the application is Morrison & Foerster, whose counsel asked
Plaintiff to advise the Court that the firm will oppose the ex parte application, however counsel has not to
date responded to a request that he provide the basis for the objection.

All the below named defendants have not yet been served primarily because a process-server was unable to
locate a proper address for which to serve and/or because a process-server is in the process of serving saiddefendants and/or because Plaintiff was unable to locate the address of defendants and/or Plaintiff encounteredmyriad difficulties and obstacles in serving said defendants such as Larissa Parecki, Voice of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Mary Ann Todd, Munger Tolles, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison
International, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee,Thomas Girardi,
Richard Tom, Southern California Edison, Wilson Sonsini, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin
Zellerbach, Mark Robinson, Arnold Porter, Mark Friedman - Fulcrum Properties, Mark Parnes, CalifomiaALL,Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Sarah Redfield, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, James Brosnahan,Geoffrey Brown, Ophelia Basgal, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Verizon Communications, Darrell
Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, Freada Kapor Klein, James Hsu, Jeff Bleich,
Sonnenschein Nath & RosenthaL.

Specifically, for example:

Jeff Bleich — process server who went to his office in San Francisco was informed Mr. Bleich is out of the
country. Process server recommended to Plaintiff substituted service, and it will be attempted on Becky Bleich
(his wife) at the home address in order to perfect service.

Raj Chatterjee — service has been attempted multiple times, both at his office and place of residence. Plaintiff
anticipates Mr. Chatterjee will soon be served via substitute service.

James Brosnahan — service has been attempted multiple times, both at his office and place of residence.
Plaintiff anticipates Mr. Brosnahan will soon be served via substitute service.

Geoffrey Brown — process server visited the home of Mr. Brown at least twice. Mr. Brown is either not home
or not responding to the process server’s contact efforts. An envelope containing the Summons, FAC, ADR,
CMC package was left on the stairs of his residence. The process server has advised that a “stake-out” may be
necessary to serve Mr. Brown.

Freada Kapor Klein — process-server visited Freada Kapor’s office in Oakland and was told to leave papers
with her assistant. As such, at this point Plaintiff is unsure if service has been perfected on Freada Kapor.

Sarah Redfield — out of state defendant (a resident of Maine). An attempt to serve Redfield pursuant to CCP
by first-class-mail registered, return receipt has to date been unsuccessful.

Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach — Plaintiff served her company, “Martin
Investment Mangement,” located in Illinois, but to date could not locate Cary Martin Zellerbach’s residence in
San Francisco to complete service.

Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties — Plaintiff is unsure if service was perfected as of yet.

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:17 AM

To whom it may concern:

This will serve to provide notice of an ex parte hearing scheduled on Friday, March 28, 2014 at 9. a.m. in Department 2 of the Yolo County Superior Court, located at 725 Court Street, Woodland, California, before the Honorable Timothy L. Fall, to seek an order continuing the deadline by which service of the First Amended Complaint and related pleadings must be served on the defendants named in this case.

Please let me know if you intend to oppose this application so that I can inform the Court.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Dresser, Gregory P. <GDresser@mofo.com> wrote:

Please forward your ex parte papers as soon as they are available.

Gregory Dresser
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.6396 | F: 415.276.7527
GDresser@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Mr. Dresser:

1. This will serve to inform you that the ex parte hearing has been re-scheduled by the court to Tuesday, April 1st, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 1 of Yolo County Superior Court.

Apparently, the entire Yolo County Superior Court bench, on its own, has disqualified itself from hearing this matter so it will be heard by a visiting judge from Napa County.

2. This will also serve to memorialize yesterday’s events as far as service of process on Mr. James Brosnahan and Mr. Raj Chatterjee.

Yesterday, around 2:30 p.m., a process server arrived to MoFo’s office in San Francisco. The process server informed MoFo’s receptionist that he needs to serve Mr. Brosnahan and Mr. Chatterjee with a suit in which they are named defendants. After a round of phone calls, the receptionist informed the process server that the two are not available and that no one is willing to accept service.

Later, the process server attempted, once again, to serve Mr. Brosnahan and Mr. Chatterjee by leaving copies of the suit with personnel in MoFo’s mail room, and once again was rebuffed.

Between 8 to 9 p.m., the process server visited Mr. Chatterjee’s residence in the Clairmont District of Oakland. The process server reported that upon arrival he noticed 2 cars (a passenger mini-van and a Nissan hatchback) parked in the front of the house, and the name “Chatterjee 2010” engraved on the cement of the sidewalk. The process server encountered a female who identified herself as the spouse of Mr. Chatterjee. She further stated that Mr. Chatterjee was not present. The process server informed Mrs. Chaterjee of the fact that he needs to serve Mr. Chatterjee with a lawsuit and asked her if she is willing to accept the papers. Mrs. Chatterjee answered in the affirmative, whereupon the process server handed her the envelope containing the pleadings and departed.

Later, a similar scenario took place at the residence of the Brosnahans, whereupon Mrs. Carol Brosnahan agreed to accept service for her husband by instructing the process server to leave the envelope in the mail box.

At this point, I have not conducted legal research as to whether a spouse can agree to accept service on behalf of the other spouse. However, it is clear from the facts described above that there was a meeting of the minds and full understanding as to the nature of the transaction by all those involved.

3. As far as your request to forward you copies of the ex parte papers, please note that I plan to finalize those papers only on Tuesday, prior to going to court. As such, I will be more than happy to hand you a copy of the papers if you make an appearance.

The purpose of the ex parte hearing is to ask the court to extend the time that I have to complete service on the other named defendants — primarily those defendants who reside outside of California and those who managed to evade service.

My understanding is that a plaintiff normally has 60 days to serve from the date of the filing of the original suit or 30 days from the date of the filing of a first amended complaint. Because I filed an amended complaint very shortly after I filed the original suit, I am at a bit of a disadvantage as far as the timing, and as such will ask the court to extend the time. I asked for the hearing because I needed this issue to be addressed before the court does it for me.

In any event, I obviously have no say whether you choose to show up or not, but am not sure why you would want to participate given that your client has already been served and is due to make an appearance on Friday, March 28, 2014.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I am going to defend Morrison & Foerster LLP in the action that you have filed.

Your description of the purported service of process on our firm is not accurate, and you have not yet effected service.

Please forward for my review a copy of any proof of service that you have from the process server that specifies the papers that he says he served on Mr. Coffill.

Gregory Dresser
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.6396 | F: 415.276.7527
GDresser@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Dresser:

1. With all due respect, I want no further emails from Morrison & Foerster dealing with the issue of whether Morrison & Foerster has been properly served. Please note that the failure to make a timely appearance will result in the entry of default judgment.

2. My next objective is to perfect service on Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee. A process-server has been instructed to serve Mr. Brosnahan at his place of residence located at 2808 Oak Knoll Terrace, Berkeley.

Please inform whether Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive formal service.

Thanks

REDACTED TEXT OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MYSELF AND MORRISON & FOERSTER PARTNERS DOUGLAS HENDRICKS AND ERIC COFFILL

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Hello Mr. Hendricks:

As you recall, around 2011 you wrote and introduced yourself as the associate general counsel of Morrison & Foerster .

As you probably know by now, a suit naming, among others, Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Brosnahan, and Mr. Chatterejee was filed a few days ago in Yolo County Superior Court.

Presently, I am in the process of causing the action to be served by a process server on the various defendants. As far as Morrison & Foerster defendants, however, I have learned from official records maintained by California Secretary of State Debra that Morrison & Foerster (entity number C0980795 ) is now DISSOLVED.

I do know for a fact, however, that the Sacramento office is still operational and am wondering whether I can instruct the process-server to drop off the papers at the Sacramento office instead since the San Francisco office is now DISSOLVED.

Please let me know ASAP because time is of the essence and I am being prejudiced by MoFo’s failure to maintain current records with California Secretary of State.

Thank you for your time.

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:43 AM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Mr. Hendricks:

I just noticed that other entities associated with Morrison & Foerster use a service known as CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE with an address of 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N, SACRAMENTO.

Please inform if I I can send the process server to CSC.

Thanks,

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

The Morrison & Foerster law firm operates as a California limited liability partnership and is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. CSC is not the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Douglas L. Hendricks
General Counsel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.7037 | F: +415.276 7037 | C: 510.384.8994
DHendricks@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Thank you for replying.

A search for “Morrison & Foerster” at California Secretary of State’s Business Search database ▻http://kepler.sos.ca.gov under “Corporation Name” yields:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C0980795 04/21/1980 DISSOLVED MORRISON & FOERSTER DOUGLAS L HENDRICKS
C1257410 09/21/1984 ACTIVE MORRISON & FOERSTER/GIRVAN PECK MEMORIAL FUND CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE
C1532498 06/02/1986 ACTIVE THE MORRISON & FOERSTER FOUNDATION CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

However, a similar search under “Limited Liability Company” yields: Record not found.

In essence, if I understand correctly, CSC is an agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster Foundation and Morrison & Foerster Girvan Peck Memorial Fund only. While Morrison & Foerster was structured as a corporation, you were the registered agent for service of process. Presently, Morrison & Foerster is structured as an LLP and claims that it is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. At least according to California Secretary of State, which may or may not be an appropriate authority, Morrison & Foerster LLP does not exist and/or did not designate an agent for service of process.

If not a bother, can you please write back with name and address of the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP. ?

Thank you.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

I am sorry, but I am not in a position to assist you in your suit against my law firm.

Doug Hendricks
Morrison & Foerster LLP
(415) 268-7037

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Dear Mr. Hendricks:

Thanks again for replying. I understand your predicament and accept your apology.

In any event, the entire issue is now moot because service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today.

My understanding is that the registered process server encountered both the receptionist and Mr. Coffill, and was told by Mr. Coffill that he can’t accept service on behalf of the individual defendants.

If Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive personal service, please let me know.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Coffill, Eric J. <ECoffill@mofo.com> wrote:

Please let me correct a statement below. Your statement below that “service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today” is factually incorrect. The individual who appeared in our office yesterday morning was told we could not and would not accept service of process on behalf of anyone other than Morrison & Foerster, and the individual then left. Service was not made and the individual left our office with the complete envelope of materials he arrived with.

Regards,

Eric

Eric J. Coffill
Managing Partner, SA
Morrison & Foerster LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2600
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
P: 916.325.1324 | F: 916.448.3222
ECoffill@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM
subject: Re: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Coffill, Eric J." <ECoffill@mofo.com>
cc: “Hendricks, Douglas L.” <DHendricks@mofo.com>,
“Brosnahan, James J.” <JBrosnahan@mofo.com>,
“Chatterjee, Somnath Raj” <SChatterjee@mofo.com>,
“Farman, Charles S.” <CFarman@mofo.com>

Mr. Coffill:

My understanding is that the process-server met and spoke with you and the receptionist.

Furthermore, my understating is that you told the process-server that you will only accept service on behalf of Morrison & Foerster, that you can’t accept papers on behalf of Defendant James Brosnahan and Defendant Raj Chatterjee, and that subsequently the process-server served Morrison & Foerster only with one envelope containing summons, first amended complaint, ADR package, and notice of CMC.

Personally, I view your version of events as not credible, suspect, implausible, as well as illogical. Please note that I have absolutely no reason to doubt the creditability of the process-server — who yesterday also served other defendants in Sacramento (such as Accenture, Fulcrum Properties, McGeorge, and others.) Also, why would a professional process-server would leave your office without serving Morrison & Foerster — an assignment which he was hired to complete ??!!

On the other hand, to date, Morrison & Foerster has been understandably evasive, uncooperative, and motivated to lie due to the potentially catastrophic consequences stemming from allegations relating to Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials (such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey) on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis.

Please note that a failure to appear in a timely manner will result in the entry of a default judgment against Morrison & Foerster.