HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09231986 - 1.1 (2) CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District governed by)
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 23 , 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel
CLAIMANT: MICHAEL LAGOSH ET AL
c/o Paul T. Klobas AUG 2 G 1986
ATTORNEY: Attorney At Law Martinez, CA 94553
4515 San Pablo •Dam Road
ADDRESS: E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-0.727 Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 25 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 23, 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 26, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervis ri
(�) This laimco plies substantially with Sectio s 910 and 910,2', .,
This claim
FAWS comply substantially with Sections 930 and 0.2, and we re o n fyi
claims t. The Boar canno ac for 15 days (Section 910 8). 4A'-,/,)y-.,fi � ��/t.
( ) Claim �s not ti filed, The Clerk shouldo claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claiman s right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By: .V� �eputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(x) This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 2 3 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk,. By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
Claim of MICHAEL LAGOSH and
BETTY LAG08H Against the CLAIM FOR INDEMNI ICATIO
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA RECEIVED
AUG 86
TO THE CLERK_, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS : 7 0 7 u`°R �
CLERK �
13Ya
1 . You are hereby notified that MICHAEL LAGOSH and
LAGOSH whose address is 3977 LaCima Road, El Sobrante, California,
claim indemnity from the County of Contra Costa, if and to the
extent that they are held liable to any of the parties , be they
plaintiff, cross-complainants or otherwise , arising out of the facts
alleged in that certain action pending in the Superior Court of
Contra Costa County, Rayburn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et
al. , defendants, and related cross-actions, case number 282972•
2. The County of Contra Costa is a party to said action and related
cross-actions .
3. This claim is based on the aforesaid wrongful death action
and related cross-actions which was filed on behalf of the heirs
of Martha Rayburn, deceased, and arising out of the facts alleged
in said complaint and related cross-actions .
4. Claimants do not know the names of the public employees
who caused the damage alleged in the wrongful death action as
aforesaid.
5 . The damage sustained by claimants herein consists of the
amount of any loss and liability that claimants may sustain as a
result of the aforementioned lawsuit and related cross-actions
and at this time the exact amount of any such loss is unknown.
6. Claimamts were served with summons in the aforesaid matter
on or about July 11 , 1986.
1
R' 4
Claim of MICHAEL I,AGOSH
and BETTY LAGOSH
7. All notices and communications with regard to this claim
should be sent as follows :
Paul T. Klobas
Attorney at Law
4515 San Pablo Dam Road
P.O. BOX 727
E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-0727
(415) 223-5073
Dated: 8/22/86
PAUL T . KLOBAS
Attorney for Claimants
2
AMENDED
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Clair Against the County, or District governed by)
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 23 , 1936
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Sectiorl4l np� Counsel
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
CLAIMANT: VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ET AL AUG 2 61986
c/o George G. Speir Martinez, CA 94553
ATTORNEY: Miller, Starr & Regalia
1600 Ordway Bldg. , One Kaiser Plaza
ADDRESS: Oakland, CA 94612-3883 Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 25 , 1986 CC
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 20, 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 26 , 1986 BY: Deputy e?41X
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(�() This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
(/`) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: y,Q;tZAJUA__) �14 / �ofo By: �—'�8e�uty County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order en=eputy
r this date.
SEP 2 3 1986
Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'$erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
• LAW OFFICES
MILLER, STARR & REGALIA V "
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
EDMUND L.REGALIA' MARVIN B.STARR' 101 CALIFORNIA STREET -
HARRY D.MILLER' BURCH FITZPATRICK* ONE KAISER PLAZA SUITE 2200
LUANA S.MILLER' DAVID M.VAN ATTA•
WILLIAM KELLY JEFFERSON FRAZIER* ORDWAY BUILDING,SUITE 1600 SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA 94111
WLSON F WENDT- JACK C.PROVINE' TELEPHONE:(415)982-3638
LESLIE A.JOHNSONEUGENE H.MILLER' OAKLAND,CALJFORN1A 94612 FAX NO.415956.6564
TIMOTHY L.CLACK JOHN K.SUTHERLAND'
JOHN G.SPRANKLING JAMES FRASSETTO (415)465-3800
LAWRENCE A.CALLAGHAN RICHARD B.BEAUCHFSNE 101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD
GARY E.ROSENBERG GEORGE B.SPEIR FAX NO. FOURTH FLOOR
ROBERT F.KIDD KARL E.GEIER 415-465-1202
PAUL D.MARIENTHAL RICHARD G.CARLSTON WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596
MICHAEL H.ZISCHKE AMY MATTHEW TELEPHONE(415)9359400
MARK A.CAMERON JAMES V JOYCE FAX.NO.4L5.933-4126
JON S.SINDELL MICHAEL H.LEWIS
DIANE L.GIBSON MARK HARTMAN
MATTHEW D.LEMPRES WILLIAM R.PLAPINGER McKNIGHT BRUNW
ERNESi TAI LESLIE A.BURTON OF COUNSEL
NANCY LUNDEEN MARY M.RUDSER
PAUL N.DUBRASICH STEVEN J.ADAMSKI
PETER B.MEHRBERG D.ROBERT LOHN
JEAN H.DUNKIRK SANDRA E.WFLDEN
TAMSEN L.McCRACKEN LAURENCE W.PARA
ARADIS County Counsd(,-A(/
DEBRA E.KELLER (T
•A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 20, 1986 -AUG 2 2 1986
RECEIVE rtinez, CA 94553
Mr . Victor J. Westman
County Counsel I AU G OR ,
County of Contra Costa
P.O. BOX 69 P 8AT IAA
CLE ARD UP O
Martinez, California 94553 ". A
By .. .. .. ... ................. Deputy
Re: Claim of Valley of California, Inc. and Jan Binkley
Dear Mr. Westman:
This letter is in response to the Notice of Insufficiency
and/or Non-Acceptance Of Claim mailed August 7, 1986 from your
office with respect to the claim of Valley of California, Inc.
and Jan Binkley for equitable indemnity. A photocopy of that
claim and of the Notice of Insufficiency is enclosed for your
reference.
The claim makes reference to and is intended to incorporate
the allegations, pleadings and files as set forth in the
consolidated actions referred to therein. For that reason,
claimants believe that the claim is sufficient. To the extent,
however, that the claim is deemed insufficient notwithstanding
this explanation, please allow this letter to supplement the
claim.
On or about February 19, 1986, Contra Costa County Superior
Court ordered consolidation of related actions entitled Cox v.
Lewis, Action No. 257600 , Courtney v. Contra Costa County, Action
No. 256792, and Hendricks v. Courtney, Action No. 256902. The
court ordered that Courtney v. Contra Costa County be the lead
and controlling case, and that all future documents in these
actions be filed only in the court file relating to that case.
On or about May 14, 1986,_ plaintiffs Cox served their amended
co
laint for damages and for rescission and restitution on
claimants. On June 3, 1986, cross-complainants Lewis served
Mr. Victor J. Westman
County Counsel
August 20, 1986
Page 2 -
their cross-complaint for indemnity on claimants. On or about
August 13 , 1986, cross-complainant D.J. Hudson Construction Co.
and D.J. Hudson served their cross-complaint on claimants. As a
result of the consolidated of the actions, claimants anticipate
additional cross-complaints being filed against them in the
future with respect to this matter . As of this date, the
complaints in the actions entitled Courtney v. Contra Costa
County and Hendricks v. Courtney have not been served upon
claimant.
I trust this additional information will enable you to
respond to the claim.
Very truly yours,
MI LE , STARR & REGALIA
o Speir
GBS: ttc
Enclosures
cc w/enclosures: Daniel M. Mueller, Esq.
I t
1
1 GEORGE B. SPEIR
MILLER, STARR & REGALIA
2 1600 Ordway Building
One Kaiser Plaza
3 Oakland, California 94612-3683
Telephone: (415) 465-3800
4 DANIEL" M. MUELLER
5 Office of the General Counsel
VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. , dba
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL RECEIVED
6 ESTATE SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
7 ' 7950 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100
Dublin, California 94568 JUL)S1986
8 Telephone: (415) 833-6633` ME`
y CLE ap' Su.E D�Dub
9
Attorneys for Defendants VALLEY
OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and JAN BINKLEY By
10
11 In Re The Claim Of: )
12 . VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, ) CLAIM FOR
13 INC. and JAN BINKLEY, ) EQUITABLE INDEMNITY
14 Claimants. )
15 TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD
16 CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
17 1. You are hereby notified that VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA,
18 INC. and JAN BINKLEY, through their attorneys of record George B.
19 Speir, Miller, Starr & Regalia, 1600 Ordway Building, One Kaiser
20 Plaza, Oakland, California, 94612-3683, hereby submits their
21 claim against the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
22 CONSERVATION DISTRICT for equitable implied indemnity and
23 declaratory relief, arising out of allegations made against
24 Claimants in the Amended Complaint For Damages And For Rescission
25 And Restitution in James Cox, et al. vs. Bruce Lewis, et al. ,
26 Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 257600. This
27 action has been consolidated, by order of the Superior Court,
28
LAW OFFICES
MILLER, STARR
@ REGALIA (1)
ORD.'.•4UIL01"�SUITE 1470
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA.94612
(4 15) 465.3600
1 with that action entitled John Courtney. Jr. . et al . vs. County
2 of Contra Costa, et al. , Contra Costa County Superior Court
3 Action No. 256792.
4 2. The allegations of claimants with respect to the
5 liability of the DISTRICT are set forth in their Amendment To
6 Cross-Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
7 "A" , and First Amended Cross-Complaint, a copy of which is
8 attached hereto as Exhibit "B" .
9 3 . Claimants are not currently aware of the total
10 liability, if any, which will be incurred by claimants and for
11 which claimants seek indemnity from the DISTRICT.
12 4 . All notices and communications with regard to this
13 claim should be submitted to counsel for claimants, as follows:
14 George B. Speir
Miller, Starr & Regalia
15 1600 Ordway Building
One Kaiser Plaza
16 Oakland, California 94612-3683
Telephone: (415) 465-3800
17
18 Dated: July �.�, 1986.
MILLER S ARR & REGALIA
.19
20
By:
21 e e B. Speir
Attorneys r VALLEY OF
22 CALIFORNIA, INC. and JAN BINKLEY
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES
MILLER.STARR
8 REGALIA (2)
:O.orarla«oinc,SUM FISO
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA.94612
(415) 465-9600
• 1 DANIEL M. MUELLER, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
2 VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
3 7950 Dublin Boulevard, Suite #100
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone: 415/833-6633`
4 File Number: 200.033
5 Attorney for JAN BINKLEY and
6 VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA j
10 I
JAMES COX and SHERRY COX, NO. 257600
11
Plaintiffs , [Consolidated Cases] I
12 NO. 256792
VS. NO. 256902
13
BRUCE LEWIS; ROBERTA LEWIS; AME20MENT TO CROSS-
14VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. , COMPLAINT I
doing business as VALLEY OF (CCF Section 474 )
15 REALTY; JAN BINKLEY; I
EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. ; f
16 DICK JAMES; DOES 1 through
17 50 , inclusive,
18
Defendants.
/
19 VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ,
and JAN BINKLEY,
20
Cross-complainants ,
21 I 22 vs.
BRUCE LEWIS; ROBERTA LEWIS;
23 EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. ;
DICK JAMES, and ROES 1
24 through 10 , inclusive,
o
25 Cross-defendants.
26 - r
27
28 l
1 Upon filing the First Amended Cross-complaint herein,
2 Cross-complainants VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and JAN
3 BINKLEY were ignorant of Cross-defendants ' true names ►
4 stated -that fact in the Cross-complaint , and designated the
5 Cross-defendants by fictitious names. The Cross-defendants,
1
6 true names have now been discovered and Cross-complainants
7 hereby amend. the Cross-complaint as follows: 1
8 TRUE NAMES FICTITIOUS NAME j
9 (1) Seidelman and Associates to
substitute for Roe 1
10
(2) D. J. Hudson Construction
11 Co. to substitute for Roe 2
i
12 (3) D. J. Hudson to substitute
for Roe 3
13
(4 ) Steve Rossi to substitute
14 II for Roe 4
15 (5) John Courtney, Jr. , to
substitute for Roe 5
16
(6 ) Dolores Courtney to
17 substitute for Roe 6
18 (7) Robert C. Hendricks to
substitute for Roe 7
19
(8) Carol A. Hendricks to
?0 substitute for Roe 8
21 (9) Contra Costa Flood Control
District to substitute for Roe 9
22
23
24
v
25
26
27
28 // I
1 Cross-complainants hereby amend their First Amended
2 Cross-complaint by inserting such true names in the place of
3 such fictitious names whenever they appear in the Cross-
4 complaint.
5 DATED:.
6
J � r tj � I
7 DANIEL M. MUELLER, Esq.
Attorney for JAN BINKLEY and
8 � VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
91
10
11 i
12
I
131, I
1411
15
I I
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 °
26
27
28 C:\033A14XC.TXT
•
o
S � I
PROOF OF SEWC_ FRY KLA — CCP 1013c, 2015.5 !
(I t ce:�are that:
1
i r Rr/errploy�� ink the county of Alameda
C''i+:•nib.
['.�V-IT.H►.[R(W.UAG OC�UA•fL1
1 c-n ov•- th• age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my (business!residence; address is:
I
4 7950..Dublin Boulevard, Suite #100, Dublin, California 94568
June 12 1986 AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
c I
t, ._......... .... . .....!...._ ._...._......—...__.._._, 1 setvea the. v.ilh7n --.._---- -- ---- -------- --— I
•
i -
I
1
1
i c.!.,:-, b, ;I :c;nrj o tru_ "py thereof em-.1,tied in a secied envetnpe wi!:t pcstcye thereon fuiiy prepcid, i^ tie i
ti t:ni -d Sion•: Dublin, California
rr.aii or
........................................_.._..._..--••---------------= ------ addressed cs :allows:
o Dennis R. Ames, Esq. Robert W. Shapiro, Esq.
II LAFOLLETTE, JOHNSON, RING, JOHNSON i SHAPIRO
]f ii SCHROETER i DEHAAS 401 Grand Avenue, Fifth Floor
i; 101 California Street Oakland, California 94610
it 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-5861 Howard E. Melamed, Esq.'
r
11 l; MELAMED i BIRRLEY I
Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. 319 Lennon Lane
!� GORDON, DEFRAGA, WATROOS i Walnut Creek, California 94598
PEZZAGLIA
1-� A Law Corporation Charles Wisch, Esq.
i
611 JLas Juntas Street GOLDSTEIN i PHILLIPS
's �I P.O. Box 630 Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 2280
1 Martinez, California 94553 San Francisco, California 94111
16
Scott D. Mroz, Esq. Donald W. Curran, Esq.
Ii II SEDGWICR, DETERT, MORAN i CURRAN i ALSCHULER
I' ARNOLD 629-Oakland Avenue
]� one Embarcadero Center Oakland, California 94611
i� 16th Floor
?� San Francisco, California 94111-3765 Peter Thurston, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN i CRUTCHER
i I;f• it James M. Harris, Esq. One Almaden Boulevard
t YORK, BURESH i KAPLAN San Jose, California 95113
li - •
2298 Durant Avenue
II Berkeley, California 94704 (continued on attached page)
r�
Ij
L� III I r:•;:e-c unc:•:r perinhy of perjury t!.at flit foreS.3",n3 is true enc.' ;orreei, &:.t thet tK4 declaration wes e:ecutrci on
^ � I' June 12, 1986 Dublin
it _,..._............ ..........._._ of _._._.__.—__.— — Ca!iforn c.
is —iii%'r:i_ - uc•:rca
I�
i
DONETTE M. GARVIS ,
_._...._._._.. ........__...... ....... ................. .._..._..�.___. - —
I1:.. . . 3 r.:a-.....ej.
ii o T -
I 0 e I
II +
Paul Scidelman, Esq:
SEIDLLMAN ASSOCIATES
90 Devon Avenue
Pleasant Bill, California 94523
Dean J. Hudson
D. J. Hudson Construction
112 Center Avenue
Pacheco, California 94553
0
•
a
r •
I DANIEL M. MUELLER, ESQ.
Office of the General Counsel 0n
2 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL [yj
ESTATE SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 7950 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100
Dublin, California 94568
4 Telephone: (415) 828-5610 MAY 241984
5 Attorney for VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. j, R. UL_Nw,v. (,'uuriry Clerk
and JAN BINKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
By
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10 JAMES COX and SHERRY COX, )
11 Plaintiffs, ) NO. 257 600
12 vs. ) FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY
13 BRUCE LEWIS, ROBERTA LEWIS; ) AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. , dba )
14 VALLEY REALTY; JAN BINKLEY; )
EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. ; )
15 DICI: JAMES; DOES 1 through 50, )
inclusive, )
16 )
Defendants. )
17 )
VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. , )
18 and JAN BINKLEY, )
)
19 Cross-Complainants, )
20 v s. )
21 BRUCE LEWIS; ROBERTA LEWIS; )
EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. ; )
22 DICK JAMES, ROES 1 through 100, )
inclusive,
23 )
Cross-Defendants. )
24
25
Cross-complainants VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and JAN
26
BINKLEY complain as to cross-defendants and each of them as
27 _
follows:
28
Cr Vi-77�
p xar`: 6
I FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 1 . Cross-complainant VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is a duly
3 licensed real estate brokerage firm engaged in the real estate
4 brokerage business in the State of California with its principal
5 place of business in Dublin, California.
6 2. Cross-complainant JAN BINKLEY is and was at all
7 relevant times a licensed real estate agent performing real
8 estate services on behalf of VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
9 3 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
10 allege that cross-defendant EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. is a duly
11 licensed real estate brokerage firm doing business as such in the
12 County of Contra Costa and as such represented the plaintiffs
13 JMIES COX and SHERRY COX in the transaction which is the subject
14 of this action.
15 4 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
16 allege that cross-defendant DICK MIES is a duly licensed real
17 estate agent performing real estate services on behalf of
18 EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. and as such represented the plaintiffs
19 JA4ES COX and SHERRY COX in the transaction which is the subject
20 of this action.
21 5. Cross-defendants ROES 1 through 100, inclusive,. are
22 sued herein by fictitious names; that cross-complainants do not
23 at this time know the true names, capacities nor specific
24 activities of said cross-defendants; that each of said cross-
25 defendants is or may be legally liable to cross-complainants
26 and cross-complainants therefore pray that the name of said
27 cross-defendants may be inserted herein when said name, capacity
28 and/or activity is ascertained.
-2-
1 6 . At all times herein mentioned, each cross-defendants
2 was an agent, servant, franchisee, joint venturer, partner,
3 employee and co-conspirator of the other cross-defendants herein
4 mentioned; that at all of said times each of said cross-
5 defendants was acting within the course and scope of said agency,
6 service, franchise, joint venture, partnership, employment and
7 conspiracy.
8 7 . On or about March 23 , 1984 , plaintiffs filed a complaint
9 herein against cross-complainants and cross-defendants BRUCE
10 LEWIS, ROBERTS LENTIS, EXECUTIVE BROKERS, INC. , DICK JAMES, and
11 DOES 1 through 50, concerning the subject property, commonly
12 known as 1032 Adrienne Drive, Alamo, California. Cross-
13 complainants refer to said complaint and incorporate the same
14 herein by this reference for informational purposes only.
15 8. If plaintiffs sustained damages as alleged in their
16 complaint , said damages were caused entirely or partly by cross-
17 defendants and each of them. Cross-complainants deny that they
18 have any responsibility or liability arising from plaintiffs'
19 complaint but allege that any liability they may incur as a
20 result of said complaint is only passive and secondary, and that
21 liability to plaintiffs, if any, is the result of the active and
22 primary acts, omissions and fault of cross-defendants and each of
23 them.
24 9. As a result therefore cross-defendants are obligated to
25 indemnify cross-complainants, and cross-complainants are entitled
26 to total and/or partial implied and/or equitable indemnity from
27 said cross-defendants and each of them based on principles of
28 equitable indemnity and/or comparative fault for any sums which
-3-
I cross-complainants may be compelled to pay as a result of any,
2 damages, judgment or other awards by plaintiffs against these
3 cross-complainants.
4 10. Cross-complainants are additionally entitled to
5 reasonable attorney's fees for compensation of expenditure of
6 attorney services as a result of their right to indemnification,
7 and to costs incurred herein, from cross-defendants and each of
8 them.
9 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray as hereinafter set
10 forth.
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 11 . Cross-complainants incorporate paragraphs I through
13 10 of the First Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
14 12. An actual controversy has arisen and' now exists
15 between cross-complainants and cross-defendants and each of them
16 in that cross-complainants contend and cross-defendants deny
17 that liability for the damages, if any, claimed by plaintiffs
18 rest entirely or partially on cross-defendants and each of them.
19 13 . Cross-complainants desire a judicial determination of
20 the respective rights and duties of cross-complainants and cross-
21 defendants and each of them, with respect to the damages claimed
22 in the complaint of plaintiffs. In particular, cross-
23 complainants desire a declaration of the respective liabilities
24 of cross-complainants and cross-defendants for such damages and
25 a declaration of the responsibility of cross-defendants and each
26 of them to indemnify cross-complainants for any sums which cross-
27 complainants may be compelled to pay and for which cross-defen-
28 dants and each of them have been determined responsible.
;.4
1 15. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at
2 this time in order that cross-complainants may ascertain their
3 rights and duties with respect to the claims of plaintiffs for
4 damages. The claims of plaintiffs and cross-complainants are
5 related to the same transaction and determination of both in one
6 proceeding is necessary and appropriate in order to avoid a
7 multiplicity of actions.
8 16. Cross-complainants have incurred costs, expenses and
9 compensable expenditure of attorney services in the investiga-
10 tion and defense of this action, and additional such costs and
11 expenditures will necessarily be incurred in this litigation.
12 Cross-complainants may suffer liability for the acts or failure
13 to act of cross-defendants and each of them as aforesaid.
14 Cross-complainants therefore are entitled to recover all of such
15I sums from cross-defendants and each of them.
16 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment against
17 cross-defendants and each of them as follows:
18 (1) For total and/or partial equitable and/or implied
19 indemnity against cross-defendants and each of them for damages
20 claimed by plaintiffs, if any are found to exist, as against
21 cross-complainants;
22 (2) For a declaration of the respective rights and obli-
23 gations of the parties and particularly of the obligation to
24 indemnify cross-complainants by cross-defendants if cross-
25 complainants are compelled to pay any sums as a result of any
26 judgment in favor of plaintiffs herein, including costs,
27 attorney's fees and other expenses incurred thereby;
28 (3) For such costs, expenses and compensable expenditure
-5-
1 of attorney services in defending this action for which cross-
2 complainants are entitled to on account of their rights of
3 indemnification;
4 (4) For costs of suit herein incurred;
5 (5) For such other and further relief as the Court may
6 deem just and proper.
7 DATED: May 23 , 1984.
8
li
9
10 DANIEL M. MUELLER, ESQ.
Attorney for VALLEY OF
11 CALIFORNIA, INC.
and JAN BINKLEY
12
13
14
I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
cu '
-6-
1 CERTIFICATE CY I_41LI-NO
C.C.P. 1013 (a) 2015.
2
I
3 The undersigned, at Dublin, California , declares to be true,
4lunder Penalty of perjury, that she/he is a citizen of the United
States, over 18 ►ears of age and is not arty to the within action
5 1 g party
6 business address is 7950 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100 , Dublin,
7 California 94568 . She/he executed this affidavit and served a true
8 copy; of the FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY AND
9 _DECLARATORY RELIEF.
10 '
11 by rail, placing same in an envelope, sealing, fully pre-paying
12
posta(.;e *Hereon, and depositing said envelope in U.S . Mail at �
d
13 Dublin, C.a l i corn j.n on the � �dav of ----� — 1 C) said
i
14 envclr)o was addressed as follows : i
15 ' Charles J. Wisch, Esq.
il1
Goldstein & Phillips
16 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2280
San Francisco, CA 94111
17 I
18
191
20 I
21
22
23
24
25 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
26 and correct, and that this declaration was executed on 2
?7 at Dub.lin, California.
28
Maria Bacc.i
p/
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA_
BOARD ACTION
Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANTSeptember 23 , 1986
Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by
(All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and
915.4. Please note the "WARNING" below.
County Co�nge�
Claimant: JOHN JOSEPH CONNELL
Attorney: AUG 2
Marttnez, CA 84553
Address: 901 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Amount: Unspecified By delivery to Clerk on August 21, 1986
Date Received: August 21 , 1986 By mail, postmarked on August 20, 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to .1 Late Claim.
DATED: August 21 , 1986PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
(/,v The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 9911.6).
DATED:G - �G VICTOR WESTM=, County Counsel, By, :� A-A-Waty
III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(Check one only)
( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6).
(�() This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6).
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
DATE: SEP 2 3 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
WARNING (Gov. Code $911.8)
If you Wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the
appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code
Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such
petition must be filed With the court Within six (6) months from the date your application
for leave to present a late claim Was denied.
You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection With this
matter. If you Want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately.
IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: (1).County Counsel 2 County A inis rator
Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the
Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof.
has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance With Section
29703•
DATED: SEP 2 3 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
V. FROM: '1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors
Received copies of this Application and Board Order.
DATED: County Counsel, By
County Administrator, By
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
I
AUGa�'
BOAR
11IY�-�lj� 7_ • i
r
.
&T,A
Ir
. e
v
S -SPJ�.�c"Lm-
n �.,
ck
LA
__._ .�._, _.,.�--�__:�o_�'�•__,- .. � �N_-.,----c�,--cid.-� - CSS. ,_---.
k6
,e
zn
• _
ceo
A9P!ggS'gpc.:war'.�^^ekT'3+;SFT.-,t£a"-`.='"x^��*.t-^mr_.y;rra:^"s�.i'�'ta�'.�;s'.���ac:.�R. �f"F.�'x:rr^.±Fern[nxz�.nr..a.'2±:4.a�acrrn+a�++�*r.. _ -. ..•—u�3�-..n-^°..�.-. ._�_—.._._--- - -
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
,A-ND/OR
NON-ACCEPTANCE Ur' CLAIM
TO: Valley of California, Inc. Et Al
C/O George G. Speir
Miller, Starr & Regalia
1600 Ordway Bldg. , One Kaiser Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612-3883
Re: Claim of Valley of California
Please Take- Notice as follows:
The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District
governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially
with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and
910 . 2 , or is otherwise insufficent for the reasons checked below:
1 . The claim fails to state the nome post office address
of the claimaint.
2 . The claim fails to state the post office address tov hich
the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
xx 3 . The claim fails to state the date, 4xdaoecxxx xorx
9 X of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to
the claim asserted. (See Govt. Code §901)
4 . The claim fails to state the name (s) of the public employee (s)
causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
5. The claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date
of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective
injury, damage, or loss so far as known, or the basis of
computation ofthe amount claimed.
6 . The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person
on his behalf.
7 . Other:
VICTOR J. 11F.STMAN, County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY tMIL
(C.C.P. 591012, 1013a, 2015 . 5; Evid.C. §§641 , 664)
M.v business address is the County Counsel 's Office of Contra Costa
County, Co.Admin.Bldg. , P.O. Box 69, Martinez , California 94553, and
I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, employed
in Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I served a
true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of
Claim by placing it in an envelope (s) addressed as shown above (which
is/are place (s) having delivery service by U.S. which envelope (s)
was then seal?d and postage fully prepaid thereon, and thereafter was,
or, this day deposited in the U. S. Mail at Martinez/Concord, Contra
Ccsta County, California.
c(rtify under penalty of perju; that the foregoing is true and
Dated : August 7, 1986 at atartinez , California.
J VAILI. ��. L L� -
cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Original) 0
Administrator
(NOTICE OF INSi,PFICIENCY OF CLAIM: GOVT. C. §5910, 910. 2 , 910.4 , 910. 8)
ppp—
ORDINANCE NO. 86-g2
(Re-Toning Land in the
Walnut Creek Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page P-13 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is
amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached
hereto and incorporated herein.(see also Community Development Department File No.
2679-RZ )
R-10 Single Family Residential
FROM: Land Use District M-12 ( Multiple Family Residential )
TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit Development )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly,
pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003.
0000
'N-B o
3
rVq
® G:
7 '
^oul
asr
cc
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES , a
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on September 23 , 1986 by the following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. T. M. Powers (X ) :_: ( ) ( ) C )
2. N. C. Fanden (X ) ( ) ( ) ( )
3. R. I. Schroder (X ) ( ) ( ) ( )
4. S. IV. McPeak (X ) ( ( ( )
5. T. Torlakson (X ) ( „ ( ( )
ATTf 5T: Phil 13atclielor, ( ounk1dministnit
.11141 (:lirk of he Coard of Sulu'rvisors
Chairman of the Board
By !° , Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 86-82
2679-RZ Perma-Bilt
ORDINANCE NO. 86-81
(Re-:zoning Land in the
E1 Sobrante Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page H-6 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is
amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached
hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No.
2681-RZ )
R-B Retail Business
FROM: Land Use District R-7 ( Single Family Residential )
TO: Land Use District N-B ( Neighborhood Business )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly,
pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003.
ell
,y�oy SOep M
"s
M.17
P-1 .._ :.
l Ftel ----- R-
. 04
3 ��
cam♦ IM7 4 HE i
Gt
y � i
` D-1 Cr
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in the WEST ('[�t]NTV TTMF.� a
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on September 23 , 1986 by the following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. T. M. Powers ( X) ( ) ( ) ( )
2. N. C. Fanden ( X) ( ) ( ) ( )
3. R. I. Schroder ( X) ( ) ( ) ( )
4. S. W. McPeak ( X)
5. T. Torlakson ( X) ( y ( Y ( )
j
ATTEST: Phil Batchelor. County Administrator �
au:l (:Irrl: of tl e L'uar:l of �ul�rrvisors
IChairmanof the Board
By , Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO.86-81
.2681-RZ D&B
ORDINANCE NO. 86-83
(Re-Zoning Land in the
El Sobrante
Area)
dains as follows:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors or
SECTIO- N I; Page ._ —_ ^------
of the County's 1978 Zoning Map {Ord. N mapS• a8#ached
the land in the above area shown shaded on the
tment File No.
amended by re-zoning Development D p
hereto and incorporated herein {see also Community
2672-RZ }
P-1 (
Planned Unit Development )
FROM: Land Use District }
P-1 (
Planned Unit Development
TO: Land Use District
Zoning Map accordingly,
and the Community Development Director shall change the
pursuant to,Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003.
9�yc�y
o M•17 f
� o
ON
ti•: a R.
a-t s
R �
7
r 4
vy 4L k
ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
EgpECTIVE DATE. This publish once with the names of
SECTION 11• sof passage shall be p , a
passage, and within 15 day aP st it in the W
Supervisors voting for and against
newspaper published in this County-
newspaper the following vote*-
PASSED on September 23 1986
No Ab._--ent Abstain
Ave
Suq- r °r ( x) { )
1. T. M. Powers ( X)
2. N. C. Faliden ( X) ( } ( { )
3. R. 1. Schroder (X) { } {
5. T. Torlakson
.I, t.6�
A1'�'1:ST: 1'liil Ikitcli��l+�r, (;O3UMN A<h�tini�tra r3r
J / ��
Chairma of the Board
ai�El (;lurk of 01C (SEAL)
iii Si�Irer��i�ors (SEAL)
, Dep.
BY ^� 86-83
ORDINANCE NO.
2672-RZ
Hopkins