©
0
N
N
A
N
O
n
A
W
N
=
N
O
N
N
N
D
N
D
N
N
N
N
O
N
m
m
e
d
p
d
p
d
h
t
ee
d
be
d
m
d
e
d
p
e
0
N
N
A
N
n
n
B
R
A
W
N
e
e
O
V
O
N
N
Y
Y
D
A
W
N
=
O
SCHLICHTER & SHONACK, LLP
STEVEN C. SHONACK, Bar No. 173395
JAMIE L. KEETON,Bar No. 265267
KEVIN B. WHEELER,Bar No. 307023
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 326
El Segundo, CA 90245
Ph: (310) 643-0111 | Fax: (310) 643-1638
scs@sandsattorneys.com
jlk@sandsattorneys.com
kbw@sandsattorneys.com
Attorneys for Defendant H.K. FIRE
PROTECTION, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF
MARYLAND AS SUBROGEE TO WELLS
FARGO & CO.
Plaintiff,
VS.
HK. FIRE PROTECTION, INC., and DOES
1-20 inclusive,
Defendants.
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervener,
Vv.
H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC. and ROES 1
through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: CGC-16-555351
Complaint Filed November 14, 2016
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION,
INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF
MARYLAND AS SUBROGEE TO WELLS
FARGO & CO.’S OBJECTIONS TO
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION AS TO:
1. OPERATIVE COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF FIDELITY AND
DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND AS
SUBROGEE TO WELLS FARGO &
CO.; AND
2. OPERATIVE COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION OF INTERVENER
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY
Reservation No. 04110703-11
Hearing Date: July 3, 2018
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Department: 302
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
1
1
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
©
0
2
O
N
w
n
A
W
N
=
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
m
m
m
m
p
m
e
m
p
t
m
d
e
d
e
d
p
d
a
0
0
0
A
A
W
n
b
h
W
N
=
O
L
O
N
N
N
N
R
W
DN
DN
=
C
O
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT defendant H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC. (“H.K. Fire
Protection” or “defendant™) hereby submits its response to plaintiff FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT
CO. OF MARYLAND AS SUBROGEE TO WELLS FARGO & CO.’s (“Zurich” or “plaintiff”)
objections to evidence in support ofits reply to plaintiff and AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY’s
(“Amco” or “Intervener”) oppositions to motion for summaryjudgment or,in the alternative,
summary adjudication in favor of defendant and against plaintiff and intervener.
GENERAL RESPONSE
Note that the only objections Fidelity lodges are to specific excerpts of Scott Buske’s
declaration. None of the separate statement facts that Fidelity wholly or partially attempted to
dispute rely upon Buske’s declaration alone. The specific objectionsto his declaration are all to
foundation and speculation, Buske provides extensive foundation and reasoning for each ofhis
opinions. Even if, however, all of the specific objections to Buske’s declaration were sustained,
Fidelity has either not disputed or not objected to the other evidence carrying H.K.’s burden on
these Undisputed Facts. Accordingly, even if all of Fidelity’s objections were sustained, it would
not result in H.K. failing to carry its burden on any undisputed fact.
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION NO. 1:
OBJECTION TO:
Declaration of Scott Buske, Page 4; Lines 4-5
“Had the system been properly cleaned, the use offire extinguishers could and should
have been able toput outthefire.”
OBJECTION GROUNDS:
Lack offoundation; speculation.
2
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE INSUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
©
0
9
O
N
W
n
S
A
W
N
=
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
m
m
m
d
p
d
p
d
p
d
pe
d
h
d
pe
d
h
d
pe
d
0
0
N
J
O
N
W
n
b
h
W
N
=
O
O
O
0
0
N
N
S
Y
R
A
W
N
=
O
o
REASONS THE OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
Fidelity fails to explain their position as to why the specified testimony lacks foundation or
is speculative. The declaration of Scott Buske lays the foundation for this testimony. Buske is a
“certified fire and explosion expert and a licensed engineer with over 20 years of electro-
mechanical engineering experience. [He has] conducted forensic investigations into the causation of
fires involving electrical and gas appliances, heavy industrial machinery and manufacturing
facilities, electro mechanical device failures, as well as truck and automotive fires. [He] graduated
from California State University, Sacramento in 1992, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mechanical Engineering. [He] received a Masters of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
with a concentration in Electrical Controls from California State University, Sacramento in 2005.
[His] professional affiliations include the Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists, National
Society of Professional Engineers and the California Association of Accident Reconstruction
Specialists.” (Buske Decl. § 2). He also attached a copy of his curriculum vitae as Exhibit 20 which
provides further evidence of his relevant training, education and experience. He has also reviewed
the relevant documents,inspected the property, and participated in the destructive testing ofthe fire
suppression system. (Buske Decl. § 3) This experience with the relevant facts ofthe case, combined
with his training, education and experience, provide the foundation and qualify him to provide this
testimony.
This testimonyis also not speculative, but based on facts observed by Buske. Buske
declared, “[t]he NFPA also requires that fire suppression systems, such as the subject system at the
Restaurant, be inspected for cleaning quarterly, or once every three months. According to the Fire
Investigation Report and the invoices from Tang’s Power Wash, Inc., the system was last cleaned
on June 9, 2015 — almost nine months prior to the date of the fire. During my inspection ofthe
system, it was apparent that the system was in dire need of cleaning at the time ofthe incident. The
system’s grease filters were coated in grease and the areas under the burners were coated with
grease and oil soaked food debris which was a serious fire hazard and allowed the fire to spread out
of control.” (Buske Decl. § 8) These observations ofthe system and documents provide a factual
foundation and sound reasoning for this opinion.
3
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE INSUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
©
0
0
3
O
N
W
n
HS
H
W
W
N
D
=
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
e
e
m
p
m
p
m
e
m
h
m
m
d
0
0
3
A
N
W
n
A
W
N
=
O
O
L
V
N
Y
N
N
B
R
E
W
N
=
O
Based on the foundation and reasoning provided in Buske’s declaration,this testimony is not
objectionable and Fidelity’s objection should be overruled.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION NO.2:
OBJECTION TO:
Declaration of Scott Buske, Page 4; Lines 14-15
“No act or omission on thepart ofH.K. was the cause ofthefire suppression system's
failure to put out thefire that occurred at the Restaurant on March 18, 2016.”
OBJECTION GROUNDS:
Lack offoundation, speculation.
REASONS THE OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
Fidelity fails to explain their position as to why the specified testimony lacks foundation or
is speculative. The declaration ofBuske lays the foundation for this testimony. Buske is a “certified
fire and explosion expert and a licensed engineer with over 20 years of electro-mechanical
engineering experience. [He has] conducted forensic investigations into the causation of fires
involving electrical and gas appliances, heavy industrial machinery and manufacturing facilities,
electro mechanical device failures, as well as truck and automotive fires. [He] graduated from
California State University, Sacramento in 1992, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mechanical Engineering. [He] received a Masters of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
with a concentration in Electrical Controls from California State University, Sacramento in 2005.
[His] professionalaffiliations include the Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists, National
Society of Professional Engineers and the California Association of Accident Reconstruction
Specialists.” (Buske Decl. § 2). He also attached a copy ofhis curriculum vitae as Exhibit 20 which
provides further evidence of his relevant training, education and experience. He has also reviewed
the relevant documents, inspected the property, and participated in the destructive testing ofthe fire
4
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE INSUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
N
o
©
0
3
A
N
w
n
~
~
W
w
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suppression system. (Buske Decl. § 3) This experience with the relevant facts of the case, combined
with his training, education and experience, provide the foundation and qualify him to provide this
testimony.
This testimony is also not speculative, but based on facts observed by Buske. Buske
reviewed the relevant documents which included the description of the work performed by H.K. and
the actions performed by the restaurant employees. Buske also inspected the system and the
restaurant site. Based on this wealth of information he determined that H.K. was not the cause of the
fire suppression system’s failure to put out the fire. He further concluded the cause of the intensity
ofthe fire and the failure or the system to beattributable to the actions ofthe Restaurant.
Based on the foundation and reasoning provided in Buske’s declaration, this testimony is not
objectionable and Fidelity’s objection should be overruled.
Dated: June 28, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
& SHONACK, LLP
Bf: STEVEN C. SHONACK
JAMIE L. KEETON
KEVIN B. WHEELER
Attorneys for Defendant H.K. FIRE
PROTECTION, INC.
5
DEFENDANT H.K. FIRE PROTECTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE INSUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
