phonenumber:415.268.6396

Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM

At the ex parte hearing on Tuesday, please inform the court that our client opposes your ex parte motion.

Please also inform the Court that, on March 25, 2014, I requested that you send me copies of your ex parte papers. You have refused to provide the papers, other than to say that you will hand them to me if I show up in Court next Tuesday. Your refusal to send me your ex parte papers is contrary to the requirements of CRC 3.1206, which states that you need to serve your ex parte papers “at the first reasonable opportunity.”

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

Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Dear Mr. Dresser:

1. Thank you for clarifying the date on which your email was sent.

2. You have asked me to inform the court that your client opposes my
ex parte motion. I will of course do so, both orally and in writing.
However, just in case the court asks me what is the basis for your
opposition. Could you please let me know why you are opposing the
motion?

3. Next, you have asked me to "please also inform the Court that, on
March 24, 2014, I requested that you send me copies of your ex parte
papers. You have refused to provide the papers, other than to say
that you will hand them to me if I show up in Court next Tuesday. Your
refusal to send me your ex parte papers is contrary to the
requirements of CRC 3.1206, which states that you need to serve your
ex parte papers “at the first reasonable opportunity.”

Please note that I am making a distinction between “send” and “serve”.
I did not and would not “refuse” to serve you with the papers. As I
stated in my previous email, I plan to “finalize those papers only
on Tuesday, prior to going to court.” Because the papers will include
exhibits (such as signed return receipts from out of state defendants
etc, ) I planned on finalizing the papers at Kinko’s (or similar
establishment) on Tuesday morning and head straight to court.
Nevertheless, in order to streamline events and to accommodate your
client, I will finalize my papers by Monday night and will email (i.e.
send) them to you by Monday night no later than 9:00 pm. I will also
provide a hard copy (i.e. serve) them on you if you make an appearance
at the hearing. Please let me know if this will be satisfactory to
your client.

4. You are correct, Morrison & Foerster’s response is due on April 2,
2014. In that I extended the time for several other defendants to
respond by 10 additional days, I would be happy to provide your client
the same courtesy. Please let me know if you would like the
extension.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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