Plaintiffs' Response To Order To Show Cause (With Ex. A)ResponseCal. Super. - 1st Dist.July 25, 2017© 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o GRANT P.FONDO (SBN 181530) gfondo@ goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: 650.752.3100 Facsimile: 650.853.1038 JEREMY N.LATEINER (SBN 238472) Jlateiner@ goodwinlaw.com BRENDAN E.RADKE (SBN 275284) bradke@ goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.733.6000 Facsimile: 415.677.9041 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SHARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. CaseNo.CGC-17-560384 and SHARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Action Filed: July 25,2017 V. Trial Date: None Set RAMI ZEIDAN, THE SHARED HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DOES 1-50, Plaintiffs, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o Plaintiffs Couchsurfing International, Inc. and Share House International, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby submit the following response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, dated J anuary 30, 2018 (“OSC”): Plaintiffs filed the present action against Defendants Rami Zeidan and The Shared House International, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) on July 25, 2017, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and fraud. The Parties thereafter stipulated, with court permission, to multiple extensions of Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline while the Parties engaged in informal settlement discussions and ultimately attended a mediation with the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) on December 8, 2017. Following the mediation, the Parties accepted and executed a M ediator’s Proposal from Judge Sabraw, the terms of which resolved this case subject to the Parties’ negotiation of a formal settlement agreement. The terms of the M ediator’s Proposal provide that (1) the formal settlement agreement will contain greater detail and specificity, and (2) if the Parties reach an impasse in their negotiations, Judge Sabraw shall make the final decision on the language of the settlement agreement. W hile the Parties have engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the settlement agreement, some issues remain outstanding. The Parties are continuing their negotiations. If they do not reach an agreement on the remaining issues soon, Plaintiffs intend to notify Judge Sabraw of the impasse and requesthis assistance. Plaintiffs anticipate that a formal settlement will be reached shortly thereafter. In the meantime, the case should not be dismissed and sanctions would not be imposed for Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain answers or enter defaults against Defendants. The OSC was issued on January 30, 2018. However, on January 26, 2018, the Parties filed a stipulation and proposed order, a copy of which is attached hereto as E xhibit A, requesting a further extension of Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline so that the Parties could continue to negotiate the terms of the settlement agreement. Following receipt of the OSC, Plaintiffs’ counsel was informed by the court clerk that the stipulation and proposed order were still in the clerk's filing queue. 1 PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o Plaintiffs therefore suspect that the Court had not yet received and reviewed the stipulation and proposed order when it issued the OSC. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 22, 2018 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP By: /s/ Grant P. Fondo 2 Grant P. Fondo (SBN 181530) gfondo@ goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Tel.: 650.752.3100 Fax.: 650.853.1038 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SHARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EXHIBITA EXHIBITA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-05-2018 3:16 pm Case Number: CGC-17-560384 Filing Date: Feb-05-2018 3:13 Filed by: JEFFREY LEE Image: 06206012 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL VS. RAMI ZEIDAN ET AL 001C06206012 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. HS O O 0 2 A N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JAN 29 7018 GRANT P. FONDO (SBN 181530) gfondo@goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: 650.752.3100 E D Facsimile: 650.853.1038 nty Superior Court JEREMY N. LATEINER (SBN 238472) 5 2018 Jlateiner@goodwinlaw.com FEB = BRENDAN E. RADKE (SBN 275284) bradke@goodwinlaw.com CLERK oF THE COURT GOODWIN PROCTER LLP BY: Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.733.6000 Facsimile: 415.677.9041 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SHARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Case No. CGC-17-560384 and SHARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. STIPULATION SRBER CONTINUING CASE Plaintiffs, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND v. TO COMPLAINT RAMI ZEIDAN, THE SHARED HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DOES 1-50, Action Filed: July 25, 2017 Trial Date: None Set Defendants. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT w o O o 0 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Couchsurfing International, Inc. and Plaintiff Share House International, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Rami Zeidan and Defendant The Shared House International, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants™), by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Defendant The Shared House International, Inc. (“Shared House”) is an out- of-state party, and Plaintiffs served summons uponit by registered mail, return-receipt requested, on August 14, 2017; WHEREAS, Defendant Shared House was originally required to file its response to the Complaint on or before September 25, 2017; WHEREAS, Mr. Zeidan has accepted service of the summons, effective September 2, 2017, and he was originally required to file his response to the Complaint on or before October 2, 2017; WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed their Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Proof Of Service Of Summons And Extension Of Time To Respond To Complaint (the “First Stipulation) in which they stipulated to continue to November 2, 2017, the deadline for Defendantsto file their response to the Complaint; WHEREAS, on October 2, 2017, the Court granted the First Stipulation and continued to November 2, 2017, the deadline for Defendants to file their response to the Complaint; WHEREAS, counsel for the parties engaged in informal settlement discussions and thereafter determined that an early mediation ofthe parties’ respective claims and defensesis appropriate; WHEREAS,on October 25, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendantsfiled their second Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Continuing Defendants’ Deadline To Respond To Complaint (the “Second Stipulation”) in which they stipulated to continue to December 7, 2017, the deadline for Defendantsto file their response to the Complaint so that they could engage in an early mediation ofthis action; WHEREAS, on October 31, 2017, the Court granted the Second Stipulation and continued to December 7, 2017, the deadline for Defendants to file their response to the Complaint; 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT o O 0 3 a N h b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS,the Parties agreed to an early mediation with the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) ofJAMS ADR (“Judge Sabraw”) on December 8, 2017, which was the earliest mutually available date for both parties and the mediator; | WHEREAS, on December 4, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed their third Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Continuing Defendants’ Deadline To Respond To Complaint (the “Third Stipulation”) in which they stipulated to continue to January 12, 2018, the deadline for Defendants to file their response to the Complaint so that they could engage in the early mediation ofthis action; WHEREAS, on December 8, 2017, the Parties engaged in early mediation with Judge Sabraw; WHEREAS, on December 8, 2017, the Court continued the Case Management Conference in this matter from December 27, 2017, to February 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 610; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2017, the Court granted the Third Stipulation and continued to January 12, 2018, the deadline for Defendantsto file their response to the Complaint; WHEREAS, on December 12, 2017, the Parties accepted and executed a Mediator's Proposal from Judge Sabraw, the terms of which resolved this action subjectto the Parties’ negotiation of a formal settlement agreement; WHEREAS,the Parties have exchanged drafts of a formal settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), and are continuing to negotiate the terms of that agreement; WHEREAS, on January 12, 2018, the Parties agreed in writing to continue to continue to January 26, 2018,the deadline for Defendants to file their response to the Complaint so that they could continue to negotiate the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.725(a), a Case Management Conference Statementis presently due from each party on January 30, 2018; WHEREAS,the Parties desire to continue the Case Management Conference and extend the deadline for Defendants to file their demurrers or otherwise respond to the Complaint so that the parties may instead focus their efforts on the Settlement Agreement and avoid incurring attorneys’ fees on matters that may become mootin the event that this action is successfully 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT H W O o 0 N a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 settled, including but not limited to the drafting and filing of Case Management Conference Statements and Defendants’ demurrers to the Complaint; NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE TO AND REQUEST that this Honorable Court grant: 1. The Parties’ request that the Case Management Conference presently scheduled for February 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 610 be continued by twenty-eight (28) days to March 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 610. 2. Defendants an additional twenty-eight (28) days to respond to the Complaint, such that their Answer, Demurrer or other responsive pleading or motion is required to be filed not later than February 23, 2018. 3. Neither defendant, by entering an- appearance and filing this Stipulation, has consented to this Court's personal jurisdiction over him or it nor otherwise waived any argument that he or it may possess as to personaljurisdiction. Each defendant has properly reserved all of his and its rights to contest this Court's jurisdiction over him orit. Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 26, 2018 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFFY & BASS LLP By: /s/ Grant P. Fondo By: /s/ Frederick C. Crombie Grant P. Fondo (SBN 181530) Frederick C. Crombie (SBN 244051) gfondo@goodwinlaw.com Jfrombie@coblentzlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS 135 Commonwealth Drive LLP Menlo Park, California 94025 One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 Tel.: 650.752.3100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Fax.: 650.853.1038 Tel.: 415.391.4800 Fax.: 415.989.1663 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COUCHSURFING INTERNATIONAL, Attorneys for Defendants INC. and SHARE HOUSE RAMI ZEIDAN and THE SHARED INTERNATIONAL, INC. HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT H O W w h 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o O 0 N N 7 TNe Court, having considered the stipufigted request by theParties to cg tinue the Case omplaint, and for good espondothe Complaint shall be continued an ads fo Ags er, Demurrer or other responsive plefiding or motion ar+23, 2018. Neither defendant by entering an® his and its rights to cmest this Court's jurisdiction over Jf n IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January _,2018 CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT W N O O 0 0 3 A W h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Couch Surfing International, Inc. et al., vs. Rami Zeidan, et al., Case No. CGC-17-560384 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and nota party to the within action. My business address is: 601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. On January 26, 2018, I served the following document(s) on the person(s) below as follows: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Frederick C. Crombie Counsel for Defendants Rees Morgan frombie@coblentzlaw.com COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP rmorgan{@coblentzlaw.com One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 Dir: (415) 391-4800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Fax: (415) 989-1663 O (FACSIMILE). Based on an agreement ofthe parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record ofthe fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. 0 (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY). By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 0 (E-MAIL or ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement ofthe parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sentto the persons at the e-mail addresses listed. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. M (MAIL). I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 1 am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californiathatthe foregoing is true and correct. O 0 ~ A A WU OB W R N ee n N N o h o n N N o n N N Y n N N I - - o t - - - - t o d - So rt . o o ~ o N w n + W w t N - < < 0 0 ~ N O N L h E N W r N o - o Executed on January 26, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. Joshua Barbatoe lot YJ \Signatére) © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o PROOF OF SERVICE | am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Three Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. On March 22, 2018, | caused to be served the following document on the person(s) below: PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Frederick C. Crombie Counsel for Defendants Rees Morgan frombie@ coblentzlaw.com COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP rmorgan@ coblentzlaw.com One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 Dir: 415. 391.4800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Fax: 415.989-1663 The documents were served by the following means: OO (MAIL). By United States mail. | enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage ully prepaid. OO (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY). By overnight delivery. | enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed. | placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. M (E-MAIL orELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) By electronic service. Based upon a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, | caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed. O (CM/ECF Electronic Filing) | caused the above document(s) to be transmitted to the office(s) of the addressee(s) listed above by electronic mail at the e-mail address(es) set forth above pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(d)(1). “A Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is generated automatically by the ECF system upon completion of an electronic filing. The NEF, when e-mailed to the e-mail address of record in the case, shall constitute the proof of service as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.5(d)(1). A copy of the NEF shall be attached to any document served in the traditional manner upon any party appearing pro se.” OO (FACSIMILE). By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, | faxed the documentsto the persons at the fax numbers listed. No error was reported by the fax machine that | used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which | printed out,is attached. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o (MESSENGER SERVICE) By messenger service. | served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.) (PERSONAL SERVICE). By personal service. | personally delivered the documentsto the persons at the addresses listed. [1] For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine (9) in the morning and five (5) in the evening. [2] For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight (8) in the morning and six (6) in the evening. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on M arch 22, 2018, at San Francisco, California. He Gareth]. Oania (Type or print name) (Signature) 2 PROOF OF SERVICE
