motion to disqualify donohue fitzgerald from representing the westlake

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.October 6, 2021

23255 1 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 Edward J. Riffle, Esq. (State Bar No. 193983) Sean F. Ryan, Esq. (State Bar No. 333748)COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Email: eriffle@ccllp.law Email: sryan@ccllp.law Email: bdoucette@ccllp.law Attorneys for Defendant DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES dba DJA PROPERTIES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN CHIAN SAEFONG, NAI CHIEM SAETERN, and SOW NAI SAETERN, Plaintiffs, vs. WESTLAKE KIRKHAM HEIGHTS, LLC, WESTLAKE REALTY GROUP, INC., ALLIANCE COMMUNITIES, INC., DJA PROPERTIES and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CGC-20-586347 [Assigned to Hon. Ethan P. Schulman / Dept. 302] DEFENDANT DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP FROM REPRESENTING THE WESTLAKE DEFENDANTS [Filed concurrently with Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette and [Proposed] Order] DATE: October 28, 2021 TIME: 9:30 a.m. DEPT.: 302 Complaint Filed: 08/24/2020 Trial Date: 11/08/2021 /// /// /// /// /// /// ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 09/16/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 23255 2 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 28, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 302 of the San Francisco County Superior Court located at 400 McAllister St, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES dba DJA PROPERTIES (“DJA”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order disqualifying the law firm of Donahue Fitzgerald LLP (“DF”) from representing Defendants WESTLAKE KIRKHAM HEIGHTS, LLC and WESTLAKE REALTY GROUP, INC. (the “Westlake Defendants”) in this matter. This motion is based upon the fact that DF previously represented both DJA and the Westlake Defendants in this very case, and now DF seeks to continue representing the Westlake Defendants as they present affirmative claims against DJA, DF’s former client. DF cannot continue its representation of the Westlake Defendants in a manner directly adverse to the interests of DJA in the same lawsuit. The Court is vested with the inherent power “to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every manner pertaining thereto.” (Code. Civ. Pro. §128 (a) (5).) DF’s continued representation of the Westlake Defendants violates Business and Professions Code Sections 6068(e), et. seq., and the Court should grant this Motion on that basis. This motion is based upon this Notice, the integrated Memorandum of Points and Authorities and exhibits thereto, the Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette and all exhibits thereto, Request for Judicial Notice and upon all matters of which the Court may or shall take judicial notice, and upon any further oral and/or documentary evidence and/or argument as may be had by the Court at the time of the hearing on this matter. DATED: September 16, 2021 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP By: ________________________________ SEAN F. RYAN EDWARD J. RIFFLE Attorneys for Defendant DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES dba DJA PROPERTIES 23255 3 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION: The Court should grant this motion to disqualify the law firm of Donahue Fitzgerald LLP (“DF”) because DF represented DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES dba DJA PROPERTIES (“DJA”) from the outset of the litigation until approximately June 29, 2021 when DF informed DJA it could no longer represent DJA. Permitting DF to stay involved in the matter while representing parties with adverse interests to DJA would not only prejudice DJA because of the confidential information inherently exchanged between clients and attorneys as part of the attorney-client relationship but is also prohibited by the Professional Rules of Conduct. This action arises the from alleged damages suffered by Plaintiffs SAN CHIAN SAEFONG, NAI CHIEM SAETERN, and SOW NAI SAETERN (collectively “Plaintiffs”) stemming from their residency and alleged wrongful eviction at the Kirkham Heights Apartments, located at 1057 5th Avenue in San Francisco, CA (the “Property”). Defendants WESTLAKE KIRKHAM HEIGHTS, LLC and WESTLAKE REALTY GROUP, INC. (the “Westlake Defendants”) are the owners and one of the former property management groups at the Property, Defendant ALLIANCE COMMUNITIES, INC. (“Alliance”) is another former property management group for the Property, and Defendant DJA currently manages the Property. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit asserts claims for damages based on alleged violation of San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.10B, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Wrongful Eviction, Violation of Labor Code Section 226, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Initially, all defendants (i.e., DJA, the Westlake Defendants, and Alliance) were jointly represented by the law firm of DF. However, on or around June 29, 2021 DF notified DJA and Alliance that due to an apparent conflict of interest it could no longer represent their interests in this matter. Despite this, DF continued to (and continues to) represent the Westlake Defendants to this day despite DF’s admission that their continued representation raises a conflict of interest. DF denies the existence of a conflict of interest and furthermore, DF has indicated it intends on bringing cross claims against DJA, its former client. 23255 4 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 As counsel for DJA and Alliance get up to speed, the parties have been actively engaged in pre-trial proceedings including seeking a trial continuance, which was graciously granted by the court. Now the parties are set to embark on extensive pre-trial work including depositions and discovery. While we understand the Westlake Defendants and DJA will likely turn their defenses to Plaintiffs’ case, it is undoubtable that the parties will need to conduct discovery against each other and proceed with bringing arguments against each others’ interests. For the last year, DJA has been protected and defended by DF through which it disclosed protected attorney-client information, discussed case strategy and privileged details, and worked collaborative as the attorney-client privilege embraces. Now, as DF continues to represent parties adverse to DJA, it is abundantly clear that such privileges can be used against it. Trial is but a few months away - DF needs to be disqualified from this matter now. II. FACTS RELATED TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST From the time when DJA first appeared in this case up until approximately June 29, 2021 DF served as DJA’s counsel of record in this matter. Declaration of Bradley D. Doucette, Esq. (“Decl. of Doucette”) 2:10-11. During this time, DJA reasonably believed that DF could competently and zealously represent its interest and objectives in this matter along with those of the other named defendants in this matter. Decl. of Doucette 2:11-14. However, sometime in June 2021, a potential conflict of interest arose between, on the one hand, DF’s professional duties to DJA and advancement of DJA’s potential defenses in this action, and on the other, DF’s representation of the other named defendants. Decl. of Doucette 2:15-17. This conflict of interest reportedly required DF’s substitution and on or about June 29, 2021, DF informed DJA that they could no longer represent DJA. Decl. of Doucette 2:17-20. The facts that gave rise to this conflict cannot be disclosed without breaching client confidences and legal strategies subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, and related ethical responsibilities. Decl. of Doucette 2:21-23. On or around July 16, 2021, Collins + Collins LLP (“C + C”) was retained as counsel for DJA, upon which C + C diligently set about analyzing the case facts in view of the applicable law 23255 5 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 with what little information it possessed. Decl. of Doucette 2:24-26. DJA filed its Notice of Association with the Court on July 20, 2021 and by the time this motion to disqualify is heard will have filed a fully-executed Notice of Substitution of Counsel. Decl. of Doucette 3:1-3. Shortly after C + C became involved with the matter, it became aware that DF, counsel for Westlake defendants, was interested in bringing crossclaims against DJA and the other named Defendant Alliance, for indemnity and various other grounds despite having previously represented DJA in this same matter. Decl. of Doucette 3:4-7. This was also mentioned in a declaration by Jessica M. Takano in support of the defendants’ prior Motion to Continue Trial in which she declared the following: “I anticipate that Westlake will seek leave of court to file indemnity cross-complaints against Alliance and/or DJA.” Decl. of Doucette 3:7-11; see also Decl. of Doucette Exhibit A. On or about August 2, 2021, C + C served DF with a letter outlining the nature of this conflict of interest and demanding that DF withdraw itself as counsel of record for the Westlake Defendants. Decl. of Doucette 3:14-16; see also Decl. of Doucette Exhibit B. C + C has attempted to meet and confer with counsel at DF regarding this matter and have issued repeated demands for their withdrawal from the present action and understands that DF will not withdraw as counsel of record for the Westlake Defendants at this time. Decl. of Doucette 3:17-19. In addition to the foregoing, the Westlake Defendants’ claims and defenses will assuredly conflict with DJA’s as the parties interests (while aligned against Plaintiffs) are misaligned against each other because they are making or will make claims against each other. Unfortunately, the parallel relationship between the joined efforts to zealously defend our clients and the conflict of interest with having DJA’s former counsel remain in the active litigation compels that there is a conflict issue to address. Since DF chose not to address this issue in an appropriate, constructive way, the issue has to be resolved by the Court. As such, the representation of the Westlake Defendants in this matter by DF is not only violative of existing laws regarding attorney conduct, but is in violation of the ongoing representation. For the reasons set forth below, as well as in the attached exhibits and declarations, this motion should be granted and DF should be disqualified from the lawsuit. /// 23255 6 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 III. DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP MUST BE DISQUALIFIED AS COUNSEL FOR THE WESTLAKE DEFENDANTS An attorney has a duty to refrain from representing an interest adverse to his client. A conflict of interest exists where the circumstances of a particular case present “a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person.” (Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 410, 426.) In People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1152, where the attorney and law firm represented opposing parties in the same litigation the court held that the record provided “no basis for considering whether an ethical screen, or other means of protecting Mobil's confidences, could serve the same prophylactic purpose as disqualification.” The court reasoned disqualification was the proper course because the undisputed facts established that the attorney and law firm seeking to be disqualified represented the party moving for disqualification based on acquisition of material confidential information concerning respondent’s claims against that party and actions taken on behalf of the party based on that information. Id. The court further reasoned that the potential for breach of the duty of confidentiality, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is apparent. A court has inherent power “to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every manner pertaining thereto.” (Code. Civ. Pro. §128(a)(5).) This includes the power to disqualify counsel in appropriate cases. (In re Complex Asbestos Litig. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 575.) One form of conflict arises when an attorney represents a current client in a matter adverse to the interests of a former client - particularly in the same case. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.9(a) Duties to Former Clients provides: “[a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed written consent.” 23255 7 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 A lawyer or law firm may not do anything that will “injuriously affect” a former client in any matter in which the lawyer formerly represented the client, nor is a lawyer or law firm permitted to use or disclose the former client’s confidential information to the former client’s disadvantage. See People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 150, 155; Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564, 571; Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821-823. Each of these factors will be addressed below: A. An attorney-client relationship exists between DJA and DF. An attorney-client relationship exists between DJA and DF. “An attorney represents a client- for purposes of a conflict of interest analysis-when the attorney knowingly obtains material confidential information from the client and renders legal advice or services as a result.” People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1148. Here, like in SpeeDee Oil, where the attorney and law firm represented multiple opposing parties in the litigation and the court found that disqualification was proper based on the disclosure of material confidential information and the attorney acting on that information, DF should be disqualified because DF represented DJA in its pre-trial defense in the ongoing litigation including responding to written discovery, law and motion practice, and pre-trial settlement negotiations. As such, it is clear that an attorney-client relationship exists between DJA and DF. B. DF’s former representation of DJA is substantially related to DF’s representation of the Westlake Defendants in the present matter. When discussing an attorney’s conflict of interest arising from successive representation of clients with potentially adverse interests, the initial issue is whether there exists a “substantial relationship” between the subjects of the former and current representations.” (Forrest v. Baeza (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 65, 73.) This substantial relationship test is pertinent in order to protect “the confidences of former clients when an attorney has been in a position to learn them.” (H.F. Ahmanson & Co. v. Salomon Bros., Inc. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1445, 1455 (emphasis added).) In determining whether such a “substantial relationship” exists between the present and former representations, courts consider the nature and extent of the attorney’s involvement with the two cases, including such matters as the time spent by the attorney on the earlier case, the type of 23255 8 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 work performed, and the attorney’s possible exposure to formulation of policy or strategy. (Id. at 1455-58.) DF’s continued representation of the Westlake Defendants here clearly meets the “substantial relationship” test - it is the same case whereby DF informed DJA that it could no longer represent DJA, DF continues to represent the Westlake Defendants, and DF has stated that it anticipates “Westlake will seek leave of court to file indemnity cross-complaints against Alliance and/or DJA.” Decl. of Doucette 2:19-20; 3:9-11; see also Decl. of Doucette Exhibit A. DF’s ongoing representation of the Westlake Defendants meets the “substantial relationship” test because it creates a conflict of interest and an unavoidable breach of attorney-client privilege with our client, DJA based on the information and legal strategy DF was privy to during its representation of DJA from the time DJA first appeared until DF informed DJA it could no longer represent DJA on approximately June 29, 2021. Decl. of Doucette 2:19-20; 3:11-13. When the necessary substantial relationship between the subjects of the previous and current representations has been established, “access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation . . . is presumed.” (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 283 (emphasis in original).) Once such a relationship is established, actual possession of confidential information or breach of confidence does not even have to be shown. (Id.) In such an instance, the “disqualification of the attorney’s representation of the second client is mandatory . . . [and] extends vicariously to the entire firm.” (Id.) A substantial relationship between DF’s previous representation of DJA and its current prosecution and defense of the Westlake Defendants’ interests has been established above. Moreover, the nature of DF’s previous representation of DJA gave the Westlake Defendants access to confidential information material to Westlake Defendants’ prosecution of its claims against DJA in the current lawsuit. This includes information regarding confidential information related to the allegations against DJA levied in Plaintiffs’’ Complaint as well as confidential information that may prove useful or necessary for DF to provide a competent and zealous defense for their clients the Westlake Defendants to the prejudice of their former client DJA. /// 23255 9 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 This information could and will be used against DJA by the Westlake Defendants. As a result, DF’s knowledge of such confidential information is conclusively presumed and the entire DF’s firm is disqualified from representing the Westlake Defendants or anyone else in the current litigation. IV. CONCLUSION DF has a conflict of interest pursuant to its continued representation of the Westlake Defendants because their continued representation of the Westlake Defendants in the ongoing litigation is directly related to the present lawsuit and is directly adverse to its former client DJA. Its present clients (Westlake Defendants) have an interest in establishing that DF’s former client (DJA) is at least partially responsible for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. DF presently owes both a duty of undivided loyalty to the Westlake Defendants as well as a duty to aggressively and zealously defend and prosecute on behalf of the Westlake Defendants within the bounds of the law. It also owes a duty of confidentiality to DJA, its former client. These conflicting duties leave DF to choose between its past and present client whose representation is certainly concurrent. Accordingly, DJA respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion, issue an order disqualifying Donahue Fitzgerald LLP, as the Westlake Defendants’ attorneys in this action, order a substitution within a time certain and bar DF from all further communication as separate, private counsel for the Westlake Defendants for any matters involving DJA and also arising from or relating to this action. DATED: September 16, 2021 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP By: ________________________________ SEAN F. RYAN EDWARD J. RIFFLE Attorneys for Defendant DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES dba DJA PROPERTIES 23255 10 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of San Diego. ) I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 207, Carlsbad, California 92011. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT DICK JAMES & ASSOCIATES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP FROM REPRESENTING THE WESTLAKE DEFENDANTS and [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Carlsbad, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Carlsbad, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in Carlsbad, California. FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached service list on September 16, 2021. (ELECTRONIC SERVICE PER CODE CIV. PROC., § 1010.6) - By prior consent or request or as required by rules of court (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6 (amended Jan. 1, 2021); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013(g); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(a)). (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). Executed on September 16, 2021 at Carlsbad, California. (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. VICKI WOOD legalservices@ccllp.law 23255 11 DJA’S NTC OF MTN AND MTN TO DISQUALIFY DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 790 E. Colorado Boulevard Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 SAN CHIAN SAEFONG, et al. v. WESTLAKE KIRKHAM HEIGHTS, LLC, et al. Case Number: CGC-20-586347 CCLLP File Number: 23255 SERVICE LIST Josephine Alioto, Esq. THE VEEN FIRM, P.C. 20 Haight St. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 673-4800 - Fax: (415) 771-5845 j.alioto@veenfirm.com; e.bertolino@veenfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SAN CHIAN SAEFONG, NAI CHIEM SAETERN, and SOW NAI SAETERN Seth A. Weisburst, Esq. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery St., Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-4313 sweisburst@grsm.com; vsantellan@grsm.com; rleonard@grsm.com; mabrown@grsm.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ALLIANCE COMMUNITIES, INC. Andrew R. Shalauta, Esq. Jessica Takano, Esq. DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 451-3300 ashalauta@donahue.com jtakano@donahue.com; ehandler@donahue.com dlewis@donahue.com ATTORNEYS FOR WESTLAKE KIRKHAM HEIGHTS, LLC and WESTLAKE REALTY GROUP, INC.