Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 24, 2020200V371 1 23 Santa Clara - Civil CM-1 1 0R. Fleming ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): Matthew Mickelson, SBN 203867 Law Offices 0fMatthew Mickelson 16055 Ventura B1Vd., Suite 1230 Encino, CA 9 1 436 TELEPHONE No.: 8 1 8-3 82-3360 FAX No. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): matthew@mickelsonlegal.00111 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF santa Clara STREET ADDRESS: 191 NOI‘th FiI‘St Street MAILING ADDRESS: 191 NOI‘th FiI‘St Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: DOWIltOWIl Courthouse PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERzFathom Engineering DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTzRopers, Majeski, PC FOR COURT USE ONLY Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1l18l2022 4:10 PM Reviewed By: R. Fleming Case #20CV371 123 Envelope: 8081460 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE E LIMITED CASE 20CV371 123 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 exceeds $25,000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: February 1, 2022 Time: 10:00 AM Dept: 2O Div.: Room: Address of court (if different from the address above): Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): Matthew Mickelson INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided. 1. Party or parties (answer one): a. This statement is submitted by party (name):Plaintiff Fathom Engineering b. E This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names): a. The complaint was filed on (date): September 24, 2020 b. E The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date): 3. Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) a. A|| parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. E The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint (1) E have not been served (specify names and explain why not): (2) E have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names): (3) E have had a default entered against them (specify names): c. E The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and date by which they may be served): 4. Description of case a. Type of case in complaint E cross-complaint (Describe, including causes of action): 1. Breach 0f Oral Contract 2. Services Provided - Quantum Meruit Page 1 of 5 F°5'J‘df‘c?§|péidui‘lfilfifl‘fii‘é’rfiése CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2011] ral Cal. Rules of Court, IeS 3720-3730 Solut,’ n3" r” El .? us CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Fathom Engineering CASE NUMBER; _DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Ropers, Majeski, PC 20CV371 123 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (prersonal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.) Please see Attachment 4b. (If more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) 5. Jury or nonjury trial The party or parties request a jury trial E a nonjury trial. (If more than one party, provide the name of each party requesting a jury trial): 6. Trialdate a. E The trial has been setfor (date): b. No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (if not, explain): c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): 7. Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): a. days (specify number): 3-5 b. E hours (short causes) (specify): 8. Trial representation (to be answered for each party) The party or parties will be represented at trial by the attorney or party listed in the caption E by the following: a. Attorney: b. Firm: c. Address: d. Telephone number: f. Fax number: e. E-mail address: g. Party represented:E Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. 9. PreferenceE This case is entitled to preference (specify code section): 10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. (1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel has E has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the client. (2) For self-represented parties: PartyE has E has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available). (1) E This matter is subject to mandatoryjudicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 .11 or to civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. (2) E Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11. (3) E This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 ofthe California Rules of Court or from civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): CM'110 [Rev' Ju'y 1' 2°11] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Pag°2°f5 CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Fathom Engineering CASE NUMBER; EEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Ropers, Majeski, PC 200/371 123 10. c. Indicate the ADR process or processes that the party or parties are willing to participate in, have agreed to participate in, or have already participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information): The party or parties completing If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to this form are willing to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes, participate in the following ADR indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the parties'ADR processes (check all that apply): stipulation): Mediation session not yet scheduled E Mediation session scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete mediation by (date): (1) Mediation Mediation completed on (date): Settlement conference not yet scheduled (2) Settlement E Settlement conference scheduled for (date):conference Agreed to complete settlement conference by (date): Settlement conference completed on (date): Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled Neutral evaluation scheduled for (date): (3) Neutral evaluation E EDD DEED DD Agreed to complete neutral evaluation by (date): E Neutral evaluation completed on (date): E Judicial arbitration not yet scheduled (4) Nonbinding judicial E E Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date): arbitration E Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (date): E Judicial arbitration completed on (date): D Private arbitration not yet scheduledE Private arbitration scheduled for (date): (5) Binding private Earbitration E Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date):D Private arbitration completed on (date): E ADR session not yet scheduledE ADR session scheduled for (date): (6) Other (specify): E E Agreed to complete ADR session by (date):D ADR completed on (date): Page 3 of 5CW” [Rev' “'y 1’ 2°11] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Fathom Engineering CASE NUMBER: -DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Ropers, Majeski, PC 20CV371 123 11. Insurance a. E Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: E Yes E No c. E Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain): 12. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affect the court's jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status.E Bankruptcy D Other (specify): Status: 13. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination a. E There are companion, underlying, or related cases. (1) Name of case: (2) Name of court: (3) Case number: (4) Status:E Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a. b. E A motion to E consolidate E coordinate will be filed by (name party): 14. BifurcationE The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): 15. Other motionsE The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues): 16. Discovery a. E The party or parties have completed all discovery. b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery): Party Descrigtion Date Plaintiff Depositions TBD Written Discovery TBD Expert Discovery Per Code c. The following discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, are anticipated (specify): Plaintiff intends t0 file a motion t0 compel 0n a document demand that defendant has objected t0 0n work product grounds. Guidance is necessary 0n whether an Informal Discovery Conference is necessary and the procedures t0 follow 0n setting up this Informal Discovery Conference, if one is necessary. NOTE: The resolution 0f this motion may require a discovery referee t0 review defendant's emails for discoverable information. CM-“OIReV-JU'ywm CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Pag°4°f5 CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Fathom Engineering CASE NUMBER; BEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Ropers, Majeski, PC 20CV371 123 17. Economic litigation a. D This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case. b. D This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply to this case): 18. Other issuesE The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): 19. Meet and confer a. The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3.724 ofthe California Rules of Court (if not, explain): b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify): 20. Total number of pages attached (if any): 1 | am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date: January 18, 2022 Matthew Mickelson > WowW10 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) V (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)E Additional signatures are attached. CM-“O [ReV- Ju'y 1' 20111 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ”965°” Attachment 4b to Case Management Statement Fathom Engineering v. Ropers Majeski Case No.: 20CV371123 Case Management Conference February 1, 2022, 10:00 AM, Department 20 Plaintiff Fathom Engineering (FATHOM) is in Berkeley, California. Devinder Grewal, Ph.D., M.E., is the principal engineer at FATHOM. Defendant is Ropers Majeski (ROPERS), a well-known law firm located in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. ROPERS contacted FATHOM to provide expert witness and forensic consulting services in a matter entitled Maxim v. Novinium filed in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. After discussions, ROPERS issued a $10,000 check to FATHOM as part of the agreement with FATHOM that Dr. Grewal would review documents provided by ROPERS and prepare a written litigation budget for his services. FATHOM performed as ROPERS instructed. The written budget FATHOM submitted to ROPERS was $120,000. Dr. Grewal blocked time on his calendar for the proposed work so that he could provide the services he budgeted for ROPERS as an expert for trial. ROPERS informed and lead FATHOM to believe that payment of the $120,000 was forthcoming. On August 13, 2018, FATHOM was informed by its bank that ROPERS had issued a Stop Payment on the $10,000 check issued by ROPERS. FATHOM’s Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. It contains causes of action for Breach of Oral Contract and a Common Count for Services Provided - Quantum Meruit. ROPERS’ Answer consists of a General Denial and Fifteen Affirmative Defenses. FATHOM has served a Request for Production of Documents seeking ROPERS’ internal emails discussing the events surrounding the events above. ROPERS refused to comply on work product grounds. FATHOM is in the process of filing a motion to compel. ROPERS has served discovery, as well. Both parties have indicated an interest to pursue mediation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 16055 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1230, Encino, California 91436. On January 18, 2022, I served the foregoing documents described as: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action: Enrique Marinez Ropers Majeski, PC 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 175 Menlo Park, CA 94025 d (650) 780-1679 enrique.marinez@r0pers.c0m Attorneysfor Defendant Ropers Majeski, PC [ ] by placing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: [ ] BY MAIL [ ] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Encino, California. The envelope(s) was(were) mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: Pursuant to CCPI1013. I caused such document t0 be served by overnight delivery by placing a true and correct copy thereof in envelope(s) addressed as stated above, by sealing said envelope(s) and delivering it(them) t0 an authorized pickup box 0f Federal Express that same day with delivery fees provided for. [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant t0 California Rule 0f Court 2.251(b)(1)(B), I caused the document to be e-mailed from matthew@mickelsonlegal.com t0 the person shown below at the e-mail address listed below: Enrique Marinez at Ropers Majeski, PC at the following e-mail address: enrique.marinez@ropers.com I declare under penalty 0f peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 18, 2022 at Encino, California. WW» Matthew C. Mickelson -1- PROOF OF SERVICE