Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 1 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH (State Bar No. 074414) THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH, A Professional Law Corporation 4328 Redwood Hwy, Suite 300 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: 415/674-8600 Facsimile: 415/674-9900 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION SERVICES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 IN AND FOR SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CAVEAT: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, submit their opposition to the Notice of Related Cases filed by defendant PURGATORY INC., a California corporation, seeking to relate the six hundred and thirty-six (636) cases listed in Exhibit A to this action. Attorney Frank S. Moore, on behalf of defendant PURGATORY INC., a California corporation, appears to have filed a Notice of Related cases totaling six hundred and thirty-six (636). It is impossible for plaintiffs' counsel to specifically respond within the required five (5) day period and can only do so on active cases as plaintiffs' counsel does not have the resources to accomplish the task of responding to cases already dismissed. Plaintiffs' counsel, therefore, will make an applicable general statement. CRAIG YATES, an individual; and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit corporation, ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ) LA ROCCA'S CORNER; LEO LAROCCA, ) TRUSTEE OF THE LEO LAROCCA ) REVOCABLE TRUST; PURGATORY ) INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1- ) 20, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) CASE NO. CGC-07-469605 OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES PROPOSED CASES: CGC-06-452090; CGC-06-459119; CGC-07-467642; CGC-07-469073; CGC-08-473260; CGC-08-473176

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 2 of 30

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

In opposition, plaintiffs wish to make the Court aware of the following information: 1. is ludicrous. 2. That each of the six hundred and thirty-six (636) cases involve different That relating thirty-eight (38) plaintiffs and six hundred and thirty-six (636) cases

defendants, with no one (1) defendant being named in more than one action (1) involving the same public accommodation. The only similarity between the defendant parties is their respective interests in the ownership and/or operation of various places of public accommodation throughout Northern and Southern California. The Court would not find that Jane Doe, the owner of the Burger King in Eureka, is substantially the same party as John Smith, the owner of the Riverbend Restaurant in Sacramento, or that either would have any relationship to the defendant City of Fort Bragg for purposes of case relation. Similarly, the Court should recognize that the defendants to the actions at issue here are separate and unique individuals and/or entities. 3. That the actions do not arise from the same or substantially identical happenings

or events insomuch as the physical premises at issue in each of the six hundred and thirty-six (636) actions are wholly unique. While there are admittedly some similarities in the categories of architectural barriers present at the subject businesses, i.e. several of the businesses may not provide disabled parking, parking signage, directional signage, accessible entrances, accessible dining areas, accessible hotel rooms, usable sidewalks, accessible men's and women's restrooms, etc.; there are numerous discrete architectural issues which are specific to each business. For instance, one restaurant has a step at the entrance which can be remedied through installation of an accessible ramp; another has doors so narrow a wheelchair user cannot pass through; a third has no disabled parking. Because the premises are different, the discrete architectural barriers encountered by plaintiffs are different, and thus, it cannot be said that the actions arise from the same or substantially identical happenings or events. 4. That the capacities of the various defendants to remove architectural barriers at

their respective places of public accommodation is very likely different, and change the legal and factual issues which will need to be decided by the Court and/or the jury in each individual case.

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-2-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 3 of 30

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

The barrier removal requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act, are intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis, with Congress and the Legislature recognizing the differing abilities of business owners to provide disability access in existing facilities. What may be a readily achievable barrier removal for one defendant, may not be readily achievable for another­ there is no cookie-cutter answer to what is or is not readily achievable. Therefore, the factually intensive inquiry which must be undertaken precludes the consolidated type of discovery and motion practice which is suggested by relating the cases. 5. That the unique construction history of each of the subject public

accommodations­when they were built, whether they have undergone alteration or modification­subjects these public accommodations to differing disability access standards. As an example, an accommodation built prior to 1990 will be subject to the barrier removal requirements of the ADA whereas an accommodation built after 1990 will be subject to the new construction standard of the ADA. Similarly, an accommodation built or altered after July 1982 must comply with the accessibility standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations ("Title 24") as they stood at the time of construction. Therefore, to the extent the six hundred and thirty-six (636) different public accommodations have their own construction histories, they are potentially liable for violation of different disability access standards each of which offer defendants different possible defenses. 6. That other types of factual issues, characterized in the Notice of Related Cases as

being identical, are in fact, quite specific to each action. (A) Whether the claimed barriers actually barred plaintiffs from the subject

businesses. This issue is obviously dependent upon the nature and severity of the architectural barriers specific to each public accommodation. As the barriers vary from place to place, the degree to which each of the thirty-eight (38) plaintiffs was denied access will also vary. (B) If there is technical non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities

Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") and Title 24, did the Defendants give each of the thirty-eight (38) plaintiffs effective, meaningful access to their facility? Again, to the extent that

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-3-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 4 of 30

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

the nature and severity of the architectural barriers vary, the degree of access will vary from case to case. (C) What is the extent of each of the thirty-eight (38) plaintiffs' alleged bodily

injuries? Was each plaintiff injured, or otherwise damaged? In almost all instances, the effort to overcome architectural barriers to access results in some level of bodily injury to a plaintiff. However, the type of injury and the extent to which it causes pain and suffering is particular to each case. In one case, plaintiff may strain his arms and shoulders while struggling to roll his wheelchair up an excessively steep ramp; while in another case, a plaintiff may slip and fall while attempting to transfer from his wheelchair to a toilet without assistance of grab bars. The injuries suffered by each of the thirty-eight (38) plaintiffs are far from identical in each case. (D) What defendants and most Courts don't realize is that what paraplegics

and functional quadriplegics rely upon is their upper extremities, (functional quadriplegics to a significantly lesser degree). Day in and day out they attempt to overcome a variety of barriers, some architectural and some natural. What is a simple task such as opening a door can become a monumental task, if that door and the pressure needed to open it take tremendous individual pressure. This often leads to what we refer to as repetitive, continuous and cumulative trauma to the upper extremities. It may only last thirty (30) seconds to two (2) minutes, but nevertheless, no one is able to say this does not constitute an injury. That's why it is so important to plead and why the public needs to understand it! Defendants need only take depositions to confirm this. 7. That many, if not all, of the potential legal issues raised by these cases are issues

which could be raised in virtually every disability access suit filed with this Court or any other Court. Just because the general causes of action pled by plaintiffs lend themselves to certain generic legal issues does not warrant relating the matters. /// /// /// /// ///

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-4-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 5 of 30

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

If such were the case, the Court would have to relate every disability access action currently pending on its docket. 8. Further, Rule 3.300 (a), Related Cases, states: A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: (1) (2) (3) (4) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; Arise from the same manner or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Plaintiffs respond to each criteria as follows: (1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims Other than the fact that many plaintiffs have filed multiple actions for access alleging violations of the ADA, Civil Code § 51, Civil Code § 54, and California Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq., there is nothing else related to these cases. Each case involves a different public accommodation. Each case involves different defendants in that it is rare that any other case has the same landlord and tenant. Each case involves different operational facts as to what took place. Each case has a different "readily achievable" standard or affirmative defense standard. Each case involves differing financial conditions for each defendant in asserting the readily achievable defense of financial inability. (2) Arise from the same manner or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact None of these cases arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents or events, to wit: how are cases that were filed in 1999, or nine years ago, conceivably related at all? How are the claims of over 38 plaintiffs related when, other than DREES, it appears that almost none were coplaintiffs in any action filed?

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-5-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 6 of 30

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 (4)

Each incident and event in each of the cases was different, i.e. no two parking lots are the same, no two entrances are the same, no placement of signage would be the same, no two men's restrooms were the same, no two women's restrooms were the same, no two buildings were the same, etc. The same can be said for the elements in the restrooms, i.e. the type and placement of paper towel dispensers, toilet tissue dispensers, soap dispensers, toilet seat heights-all are very different. The affirmative defenses of these landlord-defendants and tenantdefendants differ from one another in these cases. (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property Not applicable. Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges It's ludicrous to think there would be substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges considering the fact that the only common thread that runs between them are the causes of action that are alleged. It would be the same as saying that all air crash litigation should be related because they involve airports, airlines, manufacturers, and pilots that all led to a disaster. Not one of the cases that Defendant is trying to relate have a substantial identical transaction requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact because there are different operative facts, different landlords, different tenants and different barriers. The only thing that is similar is the fact that they are civil rights claims, as stated herein above. For all of the forgoing reasons, plaintiffs believe that it would be improper and impractical to relate and/or reassign the subject cases. Furthermore, there is absolutely no legal justification for defense counsel to file such an unmeritorious notice. As such, plaintiffs request that it be awarded attorneys fees and costs for the substantial time necessitated to respond and oppose this notice. ///

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-6-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 7 of 30

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

These sanctions would be requested pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and California Code of Civil Procedure §128.5. Finally, plaintiffs' counsel requests that Attorney Frank S. Moore be sanctioned by the courts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and California Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 for filing such a frivolous notice with the Court that has required substantial resources not only for plaintiffs' counsel but also considerable resources for the number of courts and counsel who have received and must appropriately handle this notice.

Dated: September 2, 2008

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

By:

/S/ Thomas E. Frankovich Attorneys for Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION SERVICES

OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

-7-

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 8 of 30

Exhibit A

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 9 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Name CRAIG YATES et al vs. CIGAR AMOUR et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. JUST DESSERTS et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. THE ABBEY TAVERN et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. DRAGON CITY RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. PAKWAN RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. RICO'S RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. K & L RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. CANDYSTORE COLLECTIVES et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. UNION SQUARE et al

Case No. CGC-06-452090 CGC-06-452131 CGC-06-452509 CGC-06-456662 CGC-06-459119 CGC-07-467642 CGC-07-469073 CGC-08-470951 CGC-08-473176 CGC-08-473260

Filing Date 05/09/06 05/10/06 05/23/06 10/02/06 12/28/06 09/27/07 11/09/07 01/10/08 03/11/08 03/13/08 03/27/08 07/13/05 07/14/05 07/15/05 07/18/05 0 / 8/05 05/09/06 05/10/06 05/10/06 05/10/06 05/10/06 05/10/06 05/10/06 05/23/06 06/08/06 07/25/06 08/15/06 08/15/06 10/23/06 12/28/06 01/18/07 04/24/07 05/03/07 06/27/07 11/09/07

10 CRAIG YATES et al vs. DA FLORA RESTAURANT et al

11 CRAIG YATES et al vs. BENJARONG THAI CUISINE et al CGC-08-473716 12 LES JANKEY et al vs. QUEEN ANNE HOTEL et al CGC-05-443-089 13 LES JANKEY et al vs. HERITAGE MARINA HOTEL et al 14 LES JANKEY et al vs. MARK TWAIN HOTEL et al LES JANKEY et al vs. EL HERRADERO RESTAURANT et 15 al 5 LES JANKEY et al vs. THE BLUE MUSE RESTAURANT 16 et al 17 NICOLE MOSS et al vs. RED JADE RESTAURANT et al 18 PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. TWILIGHT ZONE et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. NORTH BEACH PIZZA et 19 al s 20 LES JANKEY et al vs. ASA SUSHI et al 21 CRAIG YATES et al vs. JUST DESSERTS et al 22 NICOLE MOSS et al vs. ROYAL GROUND COFFEE et al 23 CRAIG YATES et al vs. THE ABBEY TAVERN et al 24 LES JANKEY et al vs. LAUREL INN ASSOCIATES et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. O'REILLY'S IRISH PUB & O REILLY S 25 REST. et al 26 LES JANKEY et al vs. TIA MARGARITA et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. SZECHUAN TASTE REST. 27 et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. LUISA'S RESTORANTE et 28 al 29 CRAIG YATES et al vs. PAKWAN RESTAURANT et al 30 LES JANKEY et al vs. THE HOTEL MAJESTIC et al 31 LES JANKEY et al vs. GLASS PROPERTIES LP et al 32 LES JANKEY et al vs. SONG KOO LEE et al 33 NICOLE MOSS et al vs. MOLTE COSE et al 34 CRAIG YATES et al vs. K & L RESTAURANT et al CGC-05-443128 CGC-05-443154 CGC-05-443179 CGC 05 3 9 CGC-06-452092 CGC-06-452098 CGC-06-452101 CGC-06-452129 CGC-06-452130 CGC 06 452130 CGC-06-452131 CGC-06-452133 CGC-06-452509 CGC-06-452983 CGC-06-454493 CGC-06-455148 CGC-06-455150 CGC-06-457253 CGC-06-459119 CGC-07-459698 CGC-07-462659 CGC-07-463040 CGC-07-464669 CGC-07-469073

1

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 10 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (CONTINUED) PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. GRAFFEO COFFEE ROASTING Co. et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. XOX TRUFFLES et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. CANDYSTORE COLLECTIVES et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. PETITE DELI et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. SUSHI ON NORTH BEACH-KATSU et al

35 36 37 38 39

CGC-07-469631 CGC-07-470559 CGC-08-470951 CGC-08-470953 CGC-08-472709 CGC-08-473260

11/30/07 12/31/07 01/10/08 01/10/08 02/28/08 03/13/08 03/27/08 04/29/08 04/23/08

40 CRAIG YATES et al vs. DA FLORA RESTAURANT et al

41 CRAIG YATES et al vs. BENJARONG THAI CUISINE et al CGC-08-473716 42 LES JANKEY et al vs. PLOUGH AND THE STARS et al LES JANKEY et al vs. HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL 43 ESTATE INVESTMENTS et al SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Name MARSHALL LOSKOT et al vs. AIRPORT NORTH 44 TRAVELODGE MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Name CRAIG YATES et al vs. WOODSIDE OFFICE CENTER et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. CAPRA'S RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. VIKING BAR CORP. et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. VIKING BAR CORP. et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. PETER PAN DOUGHNUTS Case No. CIV053454 CIV061583 CIV062007 CIV062223 CIV064664 CIV071909 CIV053454 CIV061134 CIV061583 CIV062007 CIV062191 CIV062650 CIV064664 CIV071909 CIV072045 Case No. o CIV456401 CGC-08-474085 CGC-08-474557

Filing Date g ate 07/24/06

Filing Date 07/28/05 04/07/06 05/12/06 05/22/06 10/19/06 04/24/07 07/28/05 03/17/06 04/07/06 05/12/06 05/18/06 06/16/06 10/19/06 04/24/07 05/01/07

45 46 47 48 49

50 CRAIG YATES et al vs. MING YEN RESTAURANT et al CRAIG YATES et al vs. WOODSIDE OFFICE CENTER et 51 al 52 PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. TACO JANE'S et al 53 CRAIG YATES et al vs. CAPRA'S RESTAURANT et al 54 CRAIG YATES et al vs. VIKING BAR CORP. et al PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. PEPPER'S RESTAURANT 55 et al 56 PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. CHAI W. CHAN et al 57 CRAIG YATES et al vs. PETER PAN DOUGHNUTS 58 CRAIG YATES et al vs. MING YEN RESTAURANT et al 59 PATRICK CONNALLY et al vs. SHAPIRO ASSOCIATES

2

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 11 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Name YATES et al vs. ASSOCIATED MAIN STREET PARTNERS et al YATES et al vs. NICOLAI BUILDING et al YATES et al vs. HELLER'S FOR CHILDREN et al YATES et al vs. WOODSIDE OFFICE CENTER et al YATES et al vs. NAPA VALLEY CASINO et al YATES et al vs. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES et al YATES et al vs. CELIA'S RESTAURANTS et al YATES et al vs. NEW TIN'S MARKET et al YATES et al vs. BELLI DELI et al YATES et al vs. THE CHEESE STEAK SHOP et al YATES et al vs FOSTER FREEZE BERKELEY et al vs. YATES et al vs. D & A CAFÉ et al YATES et al vs. WINTER PROPERTIES et al YATES et al vs. EL SOMBRERO et al YATES et al vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA et al YATES et al vs. LOTUS CUISINE OF INDIA et al YATES et al vs. DISCOUNT ALLEY et al YATES et al vs. RED'S RECOVERY ROOM et al YATES et al vs. N-O-H-R PLAZA et al YATES et al vs. LEVIN COMMERCIAL FACILITY et al YATES et al vs. UNICORN PAN ASIAN CUISINE et al YATES et al vs. BURGER KING # 3157 et al YATES et al vs. KING OF THAI NOODLE # 2 et al YATES et al vs. SWEET DELIGHT et al YATES et al vs. TWICE IS NICE et al YATES et al vs. ZEPHYR CAFÉ et al s YATES et al vs. SUSHI BISTRO et al YATES et al vs. SYERS PROPERTIES et al YATES et al vs. BENJARONG THAI CUISINE et al YATES et al vs. FRANKLIN ARDEN LLC YATES et al vs. HAPPY DRAGON et al YATES et al vs. TEQUILA GRILL et al CONE et al vs. SEQUOIA GROVE CONE et al vs. SONOMA VALLEY VISIT RAY et al vs. COMFORT INN et al JANKEY et al vs. HOTEL DEL SOL et al CONE et al vs. NAPA VALLEY MARRIOTT et al PICKERN et al vs. CITY OF EUREKA et al PICKERN et al vs. WILLOW CREEK 76 PICKERN et al vs. CHEVRON WILLOW CREEK et al RAY et al vs. PACIFIC MOTOR INN et al DORAN et al vs. BALBOA CAFÉ et al DORAN et al vs. RENDEZVOUS CAFÉ et al D'LIL et al vs. BIJOU ASSOCIATES et al DORAN et al vs. WILSON & KRATZER MORTUARIES

Case No. 3:2004cv04308-BZ 3:2004cv05087-JCS 3:2004cv05211-PJH 3:2005cv03610-JL 3:2006cv07917-MMC 3:2007cv00460-WHA 3:2007cv00946-CRB 3:2007cv01403-MHP 3:2007cv01405-WHA 3:2007cv01566-PJH 3:2007cv02100-JSW 3:2007cv02100 JSW 3:2007cv02525-MMC 3:2007cv02657-JL 3:2007cv03033-EDL 3:2007cv03326-MMC 4:2007cv03889-WDB 3:2007cv04177-EDL 3:2007cv04395-JCS 3 00 c 0 395 JCS 3:2007cv05485-MMC 3:2007cv06498-WHA 3:2008cv00356-JSW 3:2008cv00737-JCS 3:2008cv01877-WHA 3:2008cv01958-JCS 3:2008cv02165-SI 3:2008cv02293-PJH 3 2008 02293 PJH 4:2008cv02545-CW 3:2008cv02734-SI 3:2008cv02932-JL 3:2008cv03004-EDL 3:2008cv03183-BZ 4:2008cv03914-CW 3:2000cv04298-WHA 3:2000cv04352-TEH 3:2000cv04353-PJH 3:2001cv00489-SI 4:2001cv00488-CW 4:2001cv00320-WDB 3:2001cv00673-MMC 3:2001cv00675-MJJ 3:2001cv00680-PJH 4:2001cv00828-CW 3:2001cv00829-SI 3:2001cv01667-JL 3:2001cv01739-JCS

Filing Date 10/12/04 12/01/04 12/09/04 09/07/05 12/27/06 01/23/07 02/14/07 03/09/07 03/09/07 03/19/07 04/13/07 02/11/07 05/18/07 06/12/07 06/25/07 07/30/07 08/14/07 08/24/07 08/ /0 10/26/07 12/28/07 01/18/08 01/31/08 04/08/08 04/14/08 04/25/08 05/02/08 05/20/08 05/30/08 06/12/08 06/18/08 07/02/08 08/15/08 11/17/00 11/20/00 11/20/00 01/30/01 01/30/01 01/19/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/26/01 02/26/01 04/30/01 05/03/01

3

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 12 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 0 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) PICKERN et al vs. NAPA AUTO PARTS EUREKA STORE et al PICKERN et al vs. FRESH FREEZE SUPPLY CONNALLY et al vs. BAHIA BUSINESS CENTER et al KONE et al vs. ZANDONELLA REPORTING SERVICE et al SAMUEL et al vs. E Z 8 MOTELS et al GERBER et al vs. LA SCALA INN et al PICKERN et al vs. BEST WESTERN INN AT THE SQUARE et al LOSKOT et al vs. SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL et al TAUBOLD et al vs. CITY OF FORT BRAGG CONNALLY et al vs. FAST EDDIE'S STYLE BAR-B-QUE et al DORAN et al vs. REDWOOD INN et al MOELLER et al vs. BENIHANA RESTAURANT BURLINGAME et al DORAN et al vs. QUALITY INN EUREKA et al LOSKOT et al vs. BROADWAY INN MANOR et al DORAN et al vs. CAPRI MOTEL et al DORAN et al vs. PREMIER INNS CONCORD et al DORAN et al vs. NANTUCKET RESTAURANT et al DORAN et al vs. CHINA KING RESTAURNAT et al DORAN et al vs. MILL VALLEY TRAVELODGE et al LOSKOT et al vs. ZACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANT AND CATERING et al DORAN et al vs. VOGUE CLEANERS et al DORAN et al vs. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL et al DORAN et al vs. PACIFIC HEIGHTS INN et al s CONNALLY et al vs. WEST END SHOPPING CENTER et al DORAN et al vs. FRANCISCO BAY INN et al DORAN et al vs. BEL AIRE PROPERTIES et al ASHLEY et al vs. PRESIDIO INN et al CONE et al vs. SONOMA CHEESE FACTORY et al

3:2001cv02111-JL 3:2001cv02112-SI 3:2001cv01741-CRB 3:2001cv01808-MMC 5:2001cv20401-RS 3:2001cv02168-PJH 4:2001cv02202-CW 3:2001cv02237-VRW 3:2001cv02777-CRB 3:2001cv03145-PJH 3:2001cv03145 PJH 3:2001cv03268-PJH 3:2001cv03348-JCS 4:2001cv03412-SBA 3:2001cv03866-VRW 3:2001cv04016-VRW 3:2001cv05227-JL 3 00 c 05 J 3:2001cv05228-MMC 3:2001cv05364-JL 4:2002cv00229-WDB 4:2002cv01554-CW 3:2002cv01881-PJH 3:2002cv01961-EDL 3:2002cv02666-CRB 3 2002 02666 CRB 3:2002cv03341-CRB 3:2002cv03260-PJH 3:2002cv03261-JCS 3:2002cv04138-CRB 3:2002cv04536-EDL 4:2002cv04537-CW 3:2002cv04543-EDL 3:2002cv04545-MJJ 5:2002cv05269-JF 3:2002cv05448-VRW 3:2002cv05463-JL 5:2002cv05503-JF

05/31/01 05/31/01 05/03/01 05/09/01 05/10/01 06/04/01 06/06/01 06/07/01 07/20/01 08/15/01 08/27/01 09/04/01 09/07/01 10/12/01 10/25/01 12/26/01 / 6/0 12/26/01 12/27/01 01/14/02 04/01/02 04/18/02 04/22/02 06/04/02 07/11/02 07/09/02 07/09/02 08/28/02 09/18/02 09/18/02 09/18/02 09/18/02 11/01/02 11/18/02 11/18/02 11/19/02 11/19/02 12/26/02 01/02/03

133 LOSKOT et al vs. POLK STREET ECONO LODGE et al DORAN et al vs. CONCORD BEST WESTERN 134 HERITAGE INN et al 135 JANKEY et al vs. CASTLE INN et al 136 CONE et al vs. LOS ALTOS RESTAURANT et al 137 CONE et al vs. BROILER EXPRESS et al 138 LOSKOT et al vs. PIZZERIA UNO LOMBARD É 139 WELLS et al vs. WILDHORSE CAFÉ et al

140 WELLS et al vs. BEACON KING CITY TRUCK PLAZA et al 5:2002cv05507-PVT 141 CONNALLY et al vs. SEBT MALL et al 5:2002cv05947-SI 142 MOLSKI et al vs. CAMELOT RESTAURANT et al 5:2003cv00018-HRL

4

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 13 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)

143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 59 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

DORAN et al vs. NEWELL AVENUE STRIP MALL et al DORAN et al vs. PANE E. VINO RESTAURANT et al BROOKE et al vs. BELL MARKET NOVATO et al CONNALLY et al vs. HUNAN RESTAURANT et al DORAN et al vs. MONTECATINI RISTORANTE et al CONNALLY et al vs. KINKO'S et al DORAN et al vs. C.C. OLE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT et al CONNALLY et al vs. COURT SQUARE CENTER et al DORAN et al vs. RICHARDSON ECONOMY INN et al WILSON et al vs. LONGS DRUG STORE et al DORAN et al vs FRANKLIN BUILDING et al vs. WILSON et al vs. TRANCAS MALL et al DORAN et al vs. ANTIOCH HERITAGE INN et al DORAN et al vs. CASPER'S HOT DOGS et al DORAN et al vs. HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS BRENTWOOD et al DORAN et al vs. DAYS INN GEARY STREET et al LOSKOT et al vs. BEST INN EL CERRITO et al HARRISet al vs. CRESCENT CITY DAYS INN et al LOSKOT et al vs. TAQUERIA MEXICAN GRILL et al HARRIS et al vs. CURLY REDWOOD LODGE HARRIS et al vs. DENNY'S CRESCENT CITY et al HARRIS et al vs. GHIRADELLI SQUARE TRAVELODGE et al DORAN et al vs. HUNTINGTON HOTEL et al CONNALLY et al vs. MAGNOLIA CENTER et al s CONNALLY et al vs. JIM CORBET'S ACE HARDWARE et al DORAN et al vs. SEAL ROCK INN et al LOSKOT et al vs. RAMADA INN OAKLAND et al CONNALLY et al vs. WEST AMERICA BANK et al CONNALLY et al vs. Mc LERAN PROPERTIES et al STICKNEY et al vs. GIANT CHEF BURGER et al MOSS et al vs. HEARST PARKING CENTER et al CONNALLY et al vs. SEBT MALL et al

3:2003cv00192-WHA 3:2003cv00348-MEJ 3:2003cv00675-MJJ 3:2003cv01370-JL 3:2003cv01134-JSW 4:2003cv01181-CW 3:2003cv01190-CRB 3:2003cv01387-JL 3:2003cv01491-BZ 4:2003cv01762-WDB 3:2003cv01796-WHA 3:2003cv01796 WHA 3:2003cv01913-VRW 3:2003cv02427-VRW 3:2003cv02428-MMC 3:2003cv02639-MMC 3:2003cv02641-PJH 3:2003cv02697-MJJ 3 003c 0 69 JJ 3:2003cv02837-MEJ 3:2003cv02895-VRW 3:2003cv02902-MJJ 3:2003cv02904-MHP 3:2003cv03530-SI 3:2003cv04241-MEJ 3:2003cv04329-JCS 3 2003 04329 JCS 3:2003cv04688-JCS 3:2003cv04702-JSW 4:2003cv04902-SBA 3:2003cv04990-JCS 3:2003cv05049-JCS 3:2003cv05243-MEJ 3:2003cv05485-SI 3:2003cv05571-SI 3:2004cv00826-MJJ 3:2004cv01128-BZ 3:2004cv01129-CRB 3:2004cv01217-PJH 3:2004cv01241-TEH 3:2004cv01313-CRB

01/13/03 01/27/03 02/18/03 03/31/03 03/17/03 03/19/03 03/19/03 04/01/03 04/08/03 04/21/03 04/22/03 04/28/03 05/22/03 05/22/03 06/05/03 06/05/03 06/10/03 06/ 0/03 06/17/03 06/23/03 06/23/03 06/23/03 07/29/03 09/17/03 09/24/03 10/17/03 10/20/03 11/03/03 11/10/03 11/13/03 11/24/03 12/04/03 12/11/03 02/27/04 03/22/04 03/22/04 03/26/04 03/29/04 04/05/04

175 DORAN et al vs. JACKSON'S WINE AND SPIRITS et al 176 WILSON et al vs. RING'S RESTAURANT et al 177 LOSKOT et al vs. BEST WESTERN CARRIAGE INN et al CONNALLY et al vs. PACIFIC LUMBER AND 178 HARDWARE et al CONNALLY et al vs. THREE DRAGONS RESTAURANT 179 et al 180 CONNALLY et al vs. ENTENMANN'S Inc et al

5

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 14 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)

181 CONNALLY et al vs. WOODGER TRUST BUILDING et al 182 LOSKOT et al vs. HOLIDAY INN CONCORD et al 183 CONNALLY et al vs. ENTENMANN'S Inc et al CONNALLY et al vs. CELIA'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT et 184 al DORAN et al vs. CORTE MADERA INN BEST WESTERN 185 et al 186 CONE et al vs. HEALDSBURG TRAVELODGE et al 187 LOSKOT et al vs. PETE'S HENNY PENNY et al 188 CONE et al vs. DRY CREEK INN vs. 189 MOLSKI et al vs LUPITA et al 190 MOLSKI et al vs. PUMP N GO et al 191 MOLSKI et al vs. THE COVE et al 192 MOLSKI et al vs. RAPAZZINI WINERY et al 193 MOLSKI et al vs. EL 7 MARES RESTAURANT et al 194 MOLSKI et al vs. LONGHOUSE RESTAURANT et al 195 MOLSKI et al vs. ELAINE M. WEST et al 196 MOLSKI et al vs. TORO PETROLEUM et al 96 197 MOLSKI et al vs. MORGAN HILL 76 et al 198 MOLSKI et al vs. CASA MEDINA et al 199 MOLSKI et al vs. CASA DE FRUTA et al 200 MOLSKI et al vs. ROY'S DRIVE-IN et al 201 MOLSKI et al vs. ALBERTSON'S 202 MOLSKI et al vs. LA ROCHELLE et al 203 MOLSKI et al vs. GEORIS WINERY et al s 204 MOLSKI et al vs. HELLER ESTATES et al 205 MOLSKI et al vs. BERNARDUS et al 206 DORAN et al vs. STAR MOTEL et al 207 MOLSKI et al vs. GILROY BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. RUNNING IRON BAR & RESTAURANT 208 et al MOLSKI et al vs. TARPY'S ROADHOUSE RESTAURANT 209 et al MOLSKI et al vs. COPPER-GARROD ESTATE 210 VINEYARDS et al 211 PICKERN et al vs. VILLA INN et al 212 MOLSKI et al vs. SYCAMORE CREEK VINEYARDS 213 PICKERN et al vs. SURF MOTEL et al 214 MOLSKI et al vs. TINY'S RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. ROUND TABLE PIZZA SANTA CRUZ et 215 al 216 MOLSKI et al vs. SANTA CRUZ DINER et al 217 MOLSKI et al vs. THAI VILLAGE RESTAURANT et al 218 MOLSKI et al vs. WHITE OAKS PLAZA 219 MOLSKI et al vs. SUNRISE CAFÉ et al

3:2004cv01314-JL 3:2004cv01356-JL 4:2004cv01443-CRB 3:2004cv01488-VRW 3:2003cv01192-SI 3:2004cv01606-VRW 3:2004cv01607-WHA 3:2004cv01725-JSW 5:2004cv01852-PVT 5:2004cv01852 PVT 3:2004cv01854-BZ 5:2004cv01880-RMW 5:5004cv01881-PVT 5:2004cv01882-PVT 5:2004cv01942-RS 5:2004cv01943-RMW 5:2004cv01941-JF 5 00 c 0 9 J 5:2004cv01945-JW 5:2004cv01947-RMW 5:2004cv01981-PVT 5:2004cv01983-RMW 5:2004cv01984-JW 5:2004cv01985-HRL 5:2004cv02118-HRL 5:2004cv02164-PVT 5 2004 02164 PVT 5:2004cv02165-HRL 3:2001cv02203-EDL 5:2004cv02222-JW 5:2004cv02223-RMW 5:2004cv02224-RS 5:2004cv02226-PVT 3:2001cv02235-JL 5:2004cv02254-JW 4:2001cv02255-CW 5:2004cv02416-RMW 5:2004cv02438-JF 5:2004cv02439-JW 5:2004cv02465-JW 5:2004cv02466-RS 5:2004cv02471-JW

04/05/04 04/07/04 04/13/04 04/15/04 04/22/04 04/26/04 04/26/04 05/03/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/ 8/0 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/28/04 06/02/04 06/02/04 06/06/01 06/07/04 06/07/04 06/07/04 06/07/04 06/07/01 06/08/04 06/08/01 06/18/04 06/21/04 06/21/04 06/21/04 06/21/04 06/22/04

6

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 15 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) 220 CONNALLY et al vs. AKIRA SUSHI et al 221 LOSKOT et al vs. DOLLAR INN PETALUMA et al 222 LOSKOT et al vs. HOLIDAY INN WALNUT CREEK et al 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 35 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 LOSKOT et al vs. GOLDEN HORSE RESTAURANT et al CONNALLY et al vs. RED BOY PIZZA et al CONNALLY et al vs. FRANK'S PIER 15 et al CONNALLY et al vs. PEKING PALACE et al CONNALLY et al vs. THAI et al CONNALLY et al vs. CENTO STELLE et al CONNALLY et al vs. MARIN EXPRESS LUBE & DIAGNOSTIC CENTER AND PETER'S BEACON et al CONNALLY et al vs HOUSE OF LEE CHINESE vs. RESTAURANT et al CONNALLY et al vs. EDUARDO'S RESTAURANT et al LOSKOT et al vs. DIABLO MAZDA SUBARU et al CONNALLY et al vs. PACKAGING STORE et al YATES et al vs. ASSOCIATED MAIN STREET PARTNERS et al MOLSKI et al vs. CASANOVA RESTAURANT et al LOSKOT et al vs. ROYAL THAI et al MOLSKI et al vs. JACK LONDON'S BAR & GRILL et al LOSKOT et al vs.SAN FRANCISCO CENTRAL TRAVELODGE et al MOLSKI et al vs. FRIAR TUCK'S RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. CARMEL BAKERY MOLSKI et al vs. A.W. SHUCKS et al LOSKOT et al vs. WASHINGTON SQUARE BAR & GRILL s et al MOLSKI et al vs. ROBATA GRILL & SAKE BAR et al MOLSKI et al vs. LUGANO SWISS BISTRO et al CONNALLY et al vs. DRAGON CAFÉ et al MOSS et al vs. IZZY'S STEAK & CHOP HOUSE et al LOSKOT et al vs. HYDE OUT et al WILSON et al vs. MARIE CALLENDER'S CALLENDER S CONNALLY et al vs. PELICAN INN ASSOCIATES YATES et al vs. NICOLAI BUILDING et al CONNALLU et al vs. MARIN CLEANERS et al LOSKOT et al vs. TAQUERIA BAHIA: 1200 4TH STREET YATES et al vs. HELLER'S FOR CHILDREN et al ARCHULETA et al vs. JACK'S CLUB et al LOSKOT et al vs. DAYS INN SAN RAFAEL et al LOSKOT et al vs. LA BARCA et al MOSS et al vs. ALL STAR DOUGHNUTS et al YATES et al vs. WOODSIDE OFFICE CENTER et al JANKEY et al vs. TED'S SPORT BAR & GRILL et al

5:2004cv02612-RMW 3:2004cv02845-TEH 3:2004cv02848-VRW 3:2004cv02917-CRB 3:2004cv02919-SI 3:2004cv02920-VRW 3:2004cv02921-MEJ 3:2004cv03156-TEH 3:2004cv03170-JSW 3:2004cv03479-JCS 3:2004cv03651-JL 3:2004cv03914-BZ 4:2004cv03986-CW 4:2004cv04075-SBA 3:2004cv04308-BZ 5:2004cv04325-HRL 5 00 c 0 3 5 3:2004cv04355-EDL 5:2004cv04451-RMW 3:2004cv04485-VRW 5:2004cv04488-HRL 5:2004cv04590-PVT 5:2004cv04646-JF 3:2004cv04656-MJJ 5:2004cv04679-HRL 5:2004cv04713-RS 3:2004cv04739-BZ 3:2004cv04970-MMC 3:2004cv04988-PJH 3:2004cv04989-PJH 3:2004cv05058-JL 3:2004cv05087-JCS 3:2004cv05088-CRB 3:2004cv05210-TEH 3:2004cv05211-PJH 3:2004cv05318-PJH 4:2004cv05457-WDB 3:2005cv00454-JL 4:2005cv01877-CW 3:2005cv03610-JL 3:2006cv03289-JCS

06/29/04 07/14/04 07/14/04 07/19/04 07/19/04 07/19/04 07/19/04 08/03/04 08/03/04 08/20/04 08/27/04 09/16/04 09/21/04 09/27/04 10/12/04 10/14/04 0/ /0 10/14/04 10/21/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/29/04 11/02/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/08/04 11/09/04 11/23/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/30/04 12/01/04 12/01/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/15/04 12/27/04 01/31/05 05/06/05 09/07/05 05/18/06

7

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 16 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) JANKEY et al vs. HERITAGE MARINA HOTEL et al CONNALLY et al vs. FRANK'S FREEZE et al LOSKOT et al vs. INTERNATIONAL INN PIAZZA et al vs. FLAMES COFFEE SHOP et al JANKEY et al vs. TIA MARGARITA et al CONNALLY et al vs. SOL FOOD et al LOSKOT et al vs. LA QUINTA INN OAKLAND AIRPORT et al YATES et al vs. NAPA VALLEY CASINO et al YATES et al vs. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES et al YATES et al vs. CELIA'S RESTAURANTS et al CONNALLY et al vs. ROXIE FOOD & COMMERCIAL CENTER et al CONNALLY et al vs. USA SMOG & GASOLINE et al YATES et al vs. NEW TIN'S MARKET et al YATES et al vs. BELLI DELI et al LOSKOT et al vs. UNIVERSITY INN et al YATES et al vs. THE CHEESE STEAK SHOP et al YATES et al vs. FOSTER FREEZE BERKELEY et al CONNALLY et al vs. PHYLLIS'S GIANT BURGER et al YATES et al vs. D & A CAFÉ et al HEATHERLY et al vs. TALMADGE WOOD et al YATES et al vs. WINTER PROPERTIES et al YATES et al vs. EL SOMBRERO et al YATES et al vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA et al YATES et al vs. LOTUS CUISINE OF INDIA et al RAMIREZ et al vs. FIRCREST MARKET et al YATES et al vs. DISCOUNT ALLEY et al s YATES et al vs. RED'S RECOVERY ROOM et al RAMIREZ et al vs. UNION HOTEL et al RAMIREZ et al vs. OMELETTE EXPRESS et al MOSS et al vs. MOLTE COSE et al YATES et al vs. N-O-H-R PLAZA et al YATES et al vs. LEVIN COMMERCIAL FACILITY et al YATES et al vs. UNICORN PAN ASIAN CUISINE et al YATES et al vs. BURGER KING # 3157 et al RAMIREZ et al vs. MARTHA'S OLD MEXICO et al JANKEY et al vs. KING OF THAI NOODLE HOUSE et al YATES et al vs. KING OF THAI NOODLE # 2 et al YATES et al vs. SWEET DELIGHT et al JANKEY et al vs. GEARY STREET BELLA PIZZA et al YATES et al vs. TWICE IS NICE et al YATES et al vs. ZEPHYR CAFÉ et al YATES et al vs. SUSHI BISTRO et al

3:2006cv03423-CRB 3:2005cv02239-JCS 3:2006cv05923-JL 3:2006cv05920-PJH 3:2006cv06156-PJH 3:2006cv06577-WHA 3:2006cv07525-MHP 3:2006cv07917-MMC 3:2007cv00460-WHA 3:2007cv00946-CRB 3:2007cv00947-TEH 3:2007cv00947 TEH 3:2007cv01250-WHA 3:2007cv01403-MHP 3:2007cv01405-WHA 4:2007cv01537-CW 3:2007cv01566-PJH 3:2007cv02100-JSW 3:2007cv02410-SI 3 00 c 0 0S 3:2007cv02525-MMC 3:2007cv02656-JL 3:2007cv02657-JL 3:2007cv03033-EDL 3:2007cv03326-MMC 4:2007cv03889-WDB 3:2007cv03890-MEJ 3:2007cv04177-EDL 3 2007 04177 EDL 3:2007cv04395-JCS 3:2007cv04396-MEJ 3:2007cv04463-JCS 3:2007cv04813-JSW 3:2007cv05485-MMC 3:2007cv06498-WHA 3:2008cv00356-JSW 3:2008cv00737-JCS 3:2008cv01403-MEJ 3:2008cv01876-CRB 3:2008cv01877-WHA 3:2008cv01958-JCS 3:2008cv02164-JL 3:2008cv02165-SI 3:2008cv02293-PJH 4:2008cv02545-CW 3:2008cv02733-MMC

05/25/06 06/02/05 09/25/06 09/25/06 10/02/06 10/20/06 12/07/06 12/27/06 01/23/07 02/14/07 02/14/07 03/02/07 03/09/07 03/09/07 03/16/07 03/19/07 04/13/07 05/03/07 05/03/0 05/11/07 05/18/07 05/18/07 06/12/07 06/25/07 07/30/07 07/31/07 08/14/07 08/24/07 08/24/07 08/28/07 09/19/07 10/26/07 12/28/07 01/18/08 01/31/08 03/12/08 04/08/08 04/08/08 04/14/08 04/25/08 04/25/08 05/02/08 05/20/08 05/30/08

302 JANKEY et al vs. FIVE HAPPINESS RESTAURANT et al

8

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 17 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

303 304 305 306 307 308

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) YATES et al vs. SYERS PROPERTIES et al YATES et al vs. BENJARONG THAI CUISINE et al JANKEY et al vs. RED JACK SALOON et al YATES et al vs. FRANKLIN ARDEN LLC YATES et al vs. HAPPY DRAGON et al YATES et al vs. TEQUILA GRILL et al UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Name PELLECER et al vs. LAZARO WISNIA CRAIG et al vs. GUESTHOUSE HOTEL et al ELLIS et al vs LOS ROBLES REGIONAL et al vs. BAILEY HARMON et al vs. CAPTAIN JACK'S et al ELLIS et al vs. ARBY'S THOUSAND OAKS et al ELLIS et al vs. JACK'S DELI ELLIS et al vs. HERITAGE PLAZA et al JANKEY et al vs. BARONES et al ELLIS et al vs. MANNY'S ORIGINAL et al MOLSKI et al vs. SIERRA RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. YANG CHOW RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. MISSION BURRITO et al MOLSKI et al vs. ROSCOE CENTER et al ELLIS et al vs. LE RENDEZ-VOUS et al JANKEY et al vs. YANG CHOW RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. EDOKKO JAPANESE et al ELLIS et al vs. HAMSHIRE RETAIL et al JANKEY et al vs. SIZZLER'S HOLLYWOOD et al s JANKEY et al vs. OAKS CENTER PROP MOLSKI et al vs. CANOGA PARK BOWL et al JANKEY et al vs. DENNY'S SEPULVEDA et al MOLSKI et al vs. ROSCOE CENTER et al MOLSKI et al vs. SIERRA RESTAURANT et al ELLIS et al vs. HERITAGE PLAZA et al MOLSKI et al vs. N & N CHINESE RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. MISSION BURRITO et al JANKEY et al vs. BARONES et al MOLSKI et al vs. JEWEL CITY BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. CHRISS & PITTS BBQ et al MOLSKI et al vs. CHRISS & PITTS BBQ VN et al MOLSKI et al vs. VITTORIOS ITALIAN et al MOLSKI et al vs. CABLE'S RESTAURANT et al MOSS et al vs. HOLLYWOOD DAYS INN et al MOLSKI et al vs. BEAR PIT RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. VALENCIA LANES et al MOLSKI et al vs. HARLEY'S SIMI BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. JAVA LANES et al

3:2008cv02734-SI 3:2008cv02932-JL 3:2008cv02978-JCS 3:2008cv03004-EDL 3:2008cv03183-BZ 4:2008cv03914-CW

05/30/08 06/12/08 06/16/08 06/18/08 07/02/08 08/15/08

309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 3 8 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345

Case No. Filing Date 2:2000cv11564-RJK 10/30/00 2:2001cv04019-SVW 05/02/01 2:2001cv08178-RJK 2:2001cv08178 RJK 09/20/01 8:2002cv00171-DOC 02/20/02 2:2002cv04211-CAS 05/28/02 2:2002cv08837-DDP 11/18/02 2:2002cv08838-PA 11/18/02 2:2002cv06751-GAF 08/28/02 2:2003cv00029-SVW 01/02/03 2:2003cv01400-RGK 02/27/03 003c 0 00 G 0 / /03 2:2003cv01433-NM 02/28/03 2:2003cv01801-SVW 03/13/03 2:2003cv01841-R 03/14/03 2:2003cv02069-DSF 03/24/03 2:2003cv02239-ER 03/31/03 2:2003cv02240-JSL 03/31/03 2:2003cv02316-MMM 04/02/03 2:2003cv02445-LGB 2 2003 02445 LGB 04/07/03 2:2003cv02561-SVW 04/10/03 2:2003cv02656-GAF 04/15/03 2:2003cv02793-SJO 04/21/03 8:2003cv00692-CJC 05/12/03 8:2003cv00478-JVS 05/05/03 8:2003cv00673-CJC 05/12/03 2:2003cv03442-MMM 05/15/03 8:2003cv00754-JVS 05/16/03 8:2003cv00868-CJC 05/28/03 5:2003cv00620-VAP 06/02/03 2:2003cv04467-DDP 06/23/03 2:2003cv04469-DDP 06/23/03 2:2003cv04808-CBM 07/07/03 2:2003cv04809-GW 07/07/03 2:2003cv04957-MMM 07/11/03 2:2003cv05070-RSWL 07/16/03 2:2003cv05455-R 07/30/03 2:2003cv05456-ABC 07/30/03 2:2003cv05457-MMM 07/30/03

9

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 18 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) MOLSKI et al vs. ALHAMBRA BOWLING Ctr et al MOLSKI et al vs. EMPIRE BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. BRUNSWICK COVINA et al MOLSKI et al vs. PREMIER LANES et al MOLSKI et al vs. DEL RIO LANES et al MOLSKI et al vs. AMF BOWLING CENTERS et al MOLSKI et al vs. TAVA LANES BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. SUMMERWOOD WINERY et al MOLSKI et al vs. CASTORO CELLARS et al MOLSKI et al vs. EOS ESTATE WINERY et al MOLSKI et al vs. MERIDIAN VINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al vs. CHUMELA VINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al vs. DiCARLO VINEYARD et al MOLSKI et al vs LINNE CALODO CELLARS et al vs. MOLSKI et al vs. CHATEAU MARGENE et al MOLSKI et al vs. HUNT CELLARS et al MOLSKI et al vs. PENMAN SPRING VINE et al MOLSKI et al vs. BELLA LUNA WINERY et al MOLSKI et al vs. PEACHY CANYON CELLARS et al MOLSKI et al vs. EBERLE WINERY et al MOLSKI et al vs. MASTANTUONO INC. et al MOLSKI et al vs. WILD HORSE WINERY et al MOLSKI et al vs. HARMONY CELLARS et al MOLSKI et al vs. JANKRIS VINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al vs. TGIF's TORRANCE RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. GREY WOLF WINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al vs. DARK STAR CELLARS et al MOLSKI et al vs. TURLEY WINE CELLARS et al s MOLSKI et al vs. ARBY'S VENTURA et al MOLSKI et al vs. PRETTY-SMITH ENT et al MOLSKI et al vs. HARRY'S FAMILY RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. ACAPULCO RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al vs. COCO'S et al MOLSKI et al vs. SADDLEBACK LANES et al JANKEY et al vs. A-LA DRIVERS ED CTR et al MOLSKI et al vs. SIZZLER NORTHRIDGE et al MOLSKI et al vs. LA HABRA 300 BOWL et al MOLSKI et al vs. CHINA EXPRESS et al MOLSKI et al vs. EL CHAPARRAL et al MOLSKI et al vs. EL QUESO GRANDE et al JANKEY et al vs. CLARE FOUNDATION INC. et al MOLSKI et al v PRESIDENTE MEXICAN et al MOLSKI et al v JUSTIN VINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al v YORK MOUNTAIN WINERY et al JANKEY et al v. SAFETY EDUCATION CTR et al MOLSKI et al v FIRESTONE VINEYARD et al

2:2003cv05458-GAF 2:2003cv05460-GAF 2:2003cv05461-GAF 2:2003cv05462-RSWL 2:2003cv05463-CAS 2:2003cv05464-PA 2:2003cv05504-JWJ 2:2003cv05875-AHM 2:2003cv05879-NM 2:2003cv05880-GAF 2:2003cv06056-TJH 2:2003CV06062-CBM 2:2003cv06091-DT 2:2003cv06233-FMC 2:2003cv06233 FMC 2:2003cv06261-R 2:2003cv06262-RGK 2:2003cv06263-SVW 2:2003cv06264-GHK 2:2003cv06266-TJH 2:2003cv06361-TJH 2:2003cv06536-SVW 003c 06536 S 2:2003cv06593-SVW 2:2003cv06595 RJK 2:2003cv06623-CAS 2:2003cv06699-CAS 2:2003cv06765-GAF 2:2003cv06766-DT 2:2003cv06821-RSWL 2 2003 06821 RSWL 2:2003cv06891-FMC 2:2003cv06935-DDP 2:2003cv07502-WJR 2:2003cv07505-RSWL 2:2003cv08061-GPS 8:2003cv01598-JVS 2:2003cv08186-GHK 2:2003cv08189-CAS 2:2003cv08324-LGB 2:2003cv08413-TJH 2:2003cv08536-SJO 2:2003cv08537-RSWL 2:2003cv08583-SJO 2:2003cv08839-WMB 2:2003cv08887-GHK 2:2003cv08889-DT 2:2003cv09034-DT 2:2003cv09035-RGK

07/30/03 07/30/03 07/30/03 07/30/03 07/30/03 07/30/03 07/31/03 08/18/03 08/18/03 08/18/03 08/25/03 08/25/03 08/26/03 08/29/03 09/02/03 09/02/03 09/02/03 09/02/03 09/02/03 09/05/03 09/11/03 09/ /03 09/12/03 09/12/03 09/15/03 09/17/03 09/19/03 09/19/03 09/22/03 09/24/03 09/25/03 10/20/03 10/20/03 11/06/03 11/07/03 11/07/03 11/10/03 11/14/03 11/19/03 11/24/03 11/24/03 11/25/03 12/04/03 12/05/03 12/05/03 12/11/03 12/11/03

10

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 19 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) MOLSKI et al v DANIEL GEHRS HEATHER et al MOLSKI et al v LA FIESTA MEXICAN et al MOLSKI et al v SYLVESTER WINERY L P et al MOLSKI et al v TODAI RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v GAINEY VINEYARD et al MOLSKI et al v FOLEY ESTATES et al MOLSKI et al v CONRAD'S LA CANADA et al MOLSKI et al v LOS OLIVOS CAFÉ et al MOLSKI et al v BRANDER VINEYARDS et al MOLSKI et al v DONA MARIA MEXICAN et al MOLSKI et al v PRESIDENTE MEXICAN RESTAURANT NORTHRIDGE et al MOLSKI et al v CASA DEL REY SAN DIMAS et al MOLSKI et al v KAHN WINERY and AK CELLARS LLC et al

2:2003cv09133-LGB 2:2003cv09134-GAF 2:2003cv09339-RSWL 2:2003cv09346-RGK 2:2003cv09349-JFW 2:2003cv09393-CVM 2:2003cv09462-TJH 2:2003cv09463-MMM 2:2003cv09494-AHM 2:2003cv09495-LGB 2:2004cv00090-GAF 2:2004cv00205-FMC 2:2004cv00347-ER 2:2004cv00450-ER 2:2004cv00452-ER 8:2004cv00083-CJC 8:2004cv00092-CJC 8 00 c 0009 CJC 2:2004cv00569-RGK 2:2004cv00570-R 2:2004cv00610-SJO 8:2004cv00096-CJC 2:2004cv00787-ABC 2:2004cv00788-AHM 2:2004cv00838-R 2 2004 00838 R 2:2004cv00960-SJO 2:2004cv00974-DDP 2:2004cv01044-WMB 2:2004cv01047-PA 2:2004cv01071-PA 2:2004cv01075-ABC 2:2004cv01076-NM 2:2004cv01077-SVW 2:2004cv01098-RGK 2:2004cv01101-GHK 2:2004cv01263-NM 2:2004cv01268-TJH

12/15/03 12/15/03 12/19/03 12/19/03 12/19/03 12/22/03 12/24/03 02/24/03 12/26/03 12/26/03 01/07/04 01/13/04 01/20/04 01/23/04 01/23/04 01/26/04 01/27/04 0 / /0 01/27/04 01/27/04 01/28/04 01/28/04 02/05/04 02/05/04 02/06/04 02/12/04 02/12/04 02/17/04 02/17/04 02/17/04 02/17/04 02/17/04 02/17/04 02/18/04 02/18/04 02/25/04 02/25/04

405 MOLSKI et al v MANDARIN TOUCH RESTAURANT et al 406 MOLSKI et al v KALYRA WINERY LLC et al 407 MOLSKI et al v KENNETH WILKINSON et al 408 08 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 MOLSKI et al v GARDENA BOWLING CENTER, INC. et al , MOLSKI et al v CHO CHO SAN RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. CASA DEL REY TEMPLE CITY et al MOLSKI et al v CROCODILE CAFÉ GLENDALE et al MOLSKI et al v. CONCOURSE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER et al MOLSKI et al v. AW FOODS MARKETING INC et al MOLSKI et al v. KOEHLER WINERY et al MOLSKI et al v. FESS PARKER WINERY et al MOLSKI et al v. CASA DEL REY ARCADIA et al MOLSKI et al v. HOT SPOT BAR AND GRILL et al MOLSKI et al v. LA FOND WINERY et al MOLSKI et al v. SOMETHING'S FISHY et al

420 MOLSKI et al v. HITCHING POST II RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. CONRAD'S RESTAURANT GLENDALE CONRAD S 421 et al 422 MOLSKI et al v. MOSBY WINERY et al MOLSKI et al v. HITCHING POST I RESTAURANT INC et 423 al MOLSKI et al v. LAMPLIGHTER NORTH HOLLYWOOD 424 RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. LAMPLIGHTER CHATSWORTH PSG INC 425 et al MOLSKI et al v. SANFORD WINERY and VINEYARDS et 426 al MOLSKI et al v. LAMPLIGHTER SHERMAN OAKS 427 RESTAURANT et al

11

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 20 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

428 429 430 431 432

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) MOLSKI et al v. RANCHO SISQUOC et al MOLSKI et al v. MI CASITA SALVADORENA RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. CAMBRIA WINERY et al MOLSKI et al v. CRAZY TOKYO SUSHI et al MOLSKI et al v. EL PESCADOR #7 INC et al

2:2004cv01360-RSWL 2:2004cv01361-R 2:2004cv01362-GHK 2:2004cv01364-SJO 2:2004cv01366-NM 2:2004cv01394-R 2:2004cv01395-RSWL 2:2004cv01412-DDP 2:2004cv01552-GPS 2:2004cv01869-SVW 2:2004cv01875-GAF 2:2004cv01875 GAF 2:2004cv01930-ABC 2:2004cv01931-R 5:2004cv00328-VAP 2:2004cv01958-R 2:2004cv02150-GAF 2:2004cv02350-RSWL 00 c 0 350 S 2:2004cv02351-JSL 2:2004cv02352-JSL 2:2004cv02488-RSWL 2:2004cv02610-JSL 2:2004cv02723-LGB 2:2004cv02889-DSF 2:2004cv02890-CJC 2 2004 02890 CJC 2:2004cv03121-MMM 2:2004cv03122-RGK 2:2004cv03249-DSF 2:2004cv03250-JFW 2:2004cv03332-PA 2:2004cv03544-RGK 2:2004cv03598-DT 2:2004cv03599-ABC 2:2004cv03696-WJR 2:2004cv03697-DSF 2:2004cv03743-PA 2:2004cv03746-SVW 2:2004cv03747-MMM 2:2004cv03780-DDP 2:2004cv03791-CBM

02/27/04 02/27/04 02/27/04 02/27/04 02/27/04 03/01/04 03/01/04 03/02/04 03/08/04 03/18/04 03/18/04 03/19/04 03/19/04 03/19/04 03/22/04 03/29/04 04/02/04 0 /0 /0 04/02/04 04/02/04 04/08/04 04/14/04 04/19/04 04/26/04 04/26/04 05/03/04 05/03/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/11/04 05/19/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04

433 MOLSKI et al v. EL PESCADOR #4 RESTAURANT et al 434 MOLSKI et al v. ZACA MESA WINERY et al 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 MOLSKI et al v. EL PESCADOR #2 RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. CASA DI PIZZA et al MOLSKI et al v. ENCINO INVESTORS BUILDING et al MOLSKI et al v EL PESCADOR #5 et al v. MOLSKI et al v. EL PESCADOR #8 et al MOLSKI et al v. NEW LIGHT AND HEALTHY JAPANESE RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. SEAFARE INN et al MOLSKI et al v. SUSHI MARINA et al MOLSKI et al v. VALLEY RANCH BBQ et al MOLSKI et al v. LA FIESTA GRANDE et al MOLSKI et al v. CANDILEJAS RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. DOMAIN ALFRED et al MOLSKI et al v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP et al MOLSKI et al v. SPYGLASS INVESTMENT COMPANY et al MOLSKI et al v. SZECHUWAN GARDEN et al MOLSKI et al v. CLAIBORNE AND CHURCHILL et al MOLSKI et al v. KYNSI WINES INC MOLSKI et al v. LONGHOUSE RESTAURANT INC et al MOLSKI et al v. DI FRONZO PROPERTIES LLC MOLSKI et al v. HONG KONG INN INC et al MOLSKI et al v. SENOR SANCHOS-SPRING et al MOLSKI et al v. PERKOS PISMO BEACH et al

457 MOLSKI et al v. CRACKED CRAB RESTAURANTS et al 458 MOLSKI et al v. HOOVERS ENTERPRISES INC et al 459 MOLSKI et al v. WILSONS LANES et al 460 461 462 463 464 MOLSKI et al v. BILL AND CAROLS SEA SHANTY et al MOLSKI et al v. PACOS et al MOLSKI et al v. 21ST STREET DRIVE-IN et al MOLSKI et al v. AHEDOS RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. PIERSIDE INC et al

465 MOLSKI et al v. FOSTER FREEZE PASO ROBLES et al 466 MOLSKI et al v. GIRLS RESTAURANT INC et al

12

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 21 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 8 485

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) MOLSKI et al v. F. MCLINTOCKS SALOON AND DINING HOUSE et al MOLSKI et al v. AJ SPURS TEMPLETON et al MOLSKI et al v. AJ SPURS INC et al MOLSKI et al v. HARBOR HUT INC et al MOLSKI et al v. OUTRIGGER et al MOLSKI et al v. WHALES TAIL RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. FOSTER FREEZE MORRO BAY et al MOLSKI et al v. FOSTER FREEZE SAN LUIS OBISPO et al MOLSKI et al v. GREAT AMERICAN FISH CO INC. et al MOLSKI et al v. JBJ ROUND UP PIZZA et al MOLSKI et al v CAMBRIA CAFÉ et al v. MOLSKI et al v. SEA CHEST et al MOLSKI et al v. THE GALLEY et al MOLSKI et al v. Q BARGAIN et al MOLSKI et al v. M WILLIAMS STRIP MALL et al MOLSKI et al v. FISHBOWL RESTAURANT LLC MOLSKI et al v. PINE STREET PLAZA et al MOLSKI et al v. BUSIS RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. COFFEE POT RESTAURANT et al

2:2004cv03828-AHM 2:2004cv03829-GPS 2:2004cv03929-GAF 2:2004cv04059-CBM 2:2004cv04061-JSL 2:2004cv04062-JFW 2:2004cv04240-RGK 2:2004cv04241-ER 2:2004cv04242-TJH 2:2004cv04243-FMC 2:2004cv04283-JFW 2:2004cv04283 JFW 2:2004cv04284-PA 2:2004cv04428-AHM 2:2004cv04429-JFW 2:2004cv04430-TJH 2:2004cv04497-TJH 2:2004cv04498-GAF 2:2004cv04610-NM 00 c 0 6 0 2:2004cv04611-JWJ 2:2004cv04650-DT 2:2004cv04684-RNB 2:2004cv04685-SVW 2:2004cv04696-MMM 2:2004cv04697-DT 2 2004 04697 DT 2:2004cv04739-GHK 2:2004cv04822-NM 2:2004cv04826-SJO 2:2004cv04865-PA 2:2004cv04866-MMM 2:2004cv04867-ABC 2:2004cv04870-DT 2:2004cv04873-MMM 2:2004cv04874-JFW 2:2004cv05453-JFW 2:2004cv06385-SVW 2:2004cv06389-TJH 2:2005cv05946-DDP 2:2005cv06730-SJO 2:2004cv06885-TJH 2:2004cv07018-DT 8:2004cv01011-JVS

05/28/04 05/28/04 06/02/04 06/07/04 06/07/04 06/07/04 06/14/04 06/14/04 06/14/04 06/14/04 06/15/04 06/15/04 06/18/04 06/18/04 06/18/04 06/22/04 06/22/04 06/24/04 06/ /0 06/24/04 06/25/04 06/28/04 06/28/04 06/28/04 06/28/04 06/29/04 07/01/04 07/01/04 07/02/04 07/02/04 07/02/04 07/02/04 07/02/04 07/02/04 07/14/04 08/02/04 08/02/04 08/15/05 09/13/05 08/17/04 08/20/04 08/20/04

486 HARRIS et al v. MISTER T'S FAMILY RESTAURANT et al 487 MOLSKI et al v. MARGIES DINER-MORRO BAY et al MOLSKI et al v. HUNGRY FISHERMAN RESTAURANT et 488 al 489 MOLSKI et al v. CHEVRON-MORRO BAY et al 490 MOLSKI et al v. CHINA BOWL RESTAURANT et al 491 MOLSKI et al v. LA HACIENDA et al 492 MOLSKI et al v. CARLAS COUNTRY KITCHEN et al 493 JANKEY et al v. BAKERS SQUARE ALHAMBRA et al 494 MOLSKI et al v. BUSY BEE CAFÉ et al 495 MOLSKI et al v. THAI PALACE CORPORATION et al 496 MOLSKI et al v. MCCARTHY'S IRISH PUB et al ALBERTOS-LOS 497 MOLSKI et al v. TIO ALBERTOS LOS OSOS et al 498 MOLSKI et al v. PIZZA PORT et al 499 MOLSKI et al v. TACO DE MEXICO et al 500 MOLSKI et al v. MAYA RESTAURANT et al CONNALLY et al v. HOUSE OF LEE CHINESE 501 RESTAURANT et al 502 JANKEY et al v. MILLIES INC et al 503 JANKEY et al v. FAUSTINO'S ITALIAN KITCHEN et al JANKEY et al v. COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 504 CONCEPTS LLC et al 505 MOLSKI et al v. BIG BOPPER DRIVE-IN et al 506 MOLSKI et al v. BIT O DENMARK etal 507 MOLSKI et al v. LITTLE MERMAID et al

13

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 22 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 MOLSKI et al v. NEW DANISH INN RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. COPENHAGEN TS AND GIFTS et al MOLSKI et al v. SOLVANG RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. FIRST STREET BUILDING et al MOLSKI et al v. RED VIKING RESTAURANT et al JANKEY et al v. ORANGE DELIGHT et al MOLSKI et al v. DANISH MILL BAKERY et al DORAN et al v. SANTA NELLA HOTEL et al MOLSKI et al v. OLD DANISH FOOD FARM INC. et al MOLSKI et al v. BERENGARIA and GERDA'S IRON ART 517 et al 518 MOLSKI et al v. DOS AMIGOS et al MOLSKI et al v. MANNY'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. THAI-RRIFIC RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. SOLVANG BAKERY INC. et al MOLSKI et al v. PINE TREE INN et al MOLSKI et al v. CAMOZZIS et al MOLSKI et al v. HAMLET SQUARE et al MOLSKI et al v. CAMBRIA COURTYARD et al MOLSKI et al v. REDWOOD CENTER et al MOLSKI et al v. JENSENS COPENHAGEN SQUARE et al MOLSKI et al v. BELGIAN CAFÉ et al JANKEY et al v. LOS BURRITOS INC et al JANKEY et al v. RANCH HOUSE BBQ and GRILL et al JANKEY et al v. MOTHER LODE et al MOSS et al v. COMFORT INN WOODLAND HILLS et al JANKEY et al v. LANK and OXN CENTER et al MOLSKI et al v. SOLVANG THEATERFEST INC. et al MOSS et al v. EXOTIC NATURE et al MOSS et al v. NEW MOON et al MOSS et al v. VAGABOND INN SOLVANG et al 2:2004cv07051-JSL 2:2004cv07188-SJO 2:2004cv07189-DSF 2:2004cv07191-WJR 2:2004cv07192-DDP 2:2004cv07270-SJO 2:2004cv07271-MMM 2:2004cv07345-RGK 2:2004cv07346-CBM 2:2004cv07347-R 2:2004cv07417-GHK 2:2004cv07538-DDP 2:2004cv07539-PA 2:2004cv07541-RSWL 2:2004cv07725-SVW 2:2004cv07765-DSF 2:2004cv07797-CBM 2:2004cv07799-GAF 00 c 0 99 G 2:2004cv07831-MMM 2:2004cv07832-NM 2:2004cv07862-TJH 2:2004cv07864-CBM 2:2004cv07866-ABC 2:2004cv07937-FMC 2:2004cv07939-FMC 2:2004cv07985-RJK 2:2004cv07987-CAS 2:2004cv08135-TJH 2:2004cv08140-WMB 2:2004cv08255-TJH 08/23/04 08/27/04 08/27/04 08/27/04 08/27/04 08/31/04 08/31/04 09/02/04 09/02/04 09/02/04 09/07/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/16/04 09/17/04 09/20/04 09/20/04 09/ 0/0 09/21/04 09/21/04 09/22/04 09/22/04 09/22/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 09/24/04 09/24/04 09/29/04 09/29/04 10/04/04 10/14/04 10/14/04 10/18/04 10/18/04 10/21/04 10/21/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 11/04/04

519 520 521 522 523 524 525 5 5 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537

538 MOLSKI et al v. ELLENS DANISH PANCAKE HOUSE et al 2:2004cv08523-MMM 539 MOLSKI et al v. TONOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT et al MOLSKI et al v. MOTHER HUBBARDS RESTAURANT et 540 al 541 JANKEY et al v. BELMONT RESTAURANT et al 542 JANKEY et al v. BEACH PIZZA et al 543 MOLSKI et al v. GINOS PIZZA et al JANKEY et al v. EL TACO LOCO-NORTH HOLLYWOOD 544 et al 545 JANKEY et al v. HAMBURGER HAVEN et al 546 JANKEY et al v. MISTER DS LIQUOR MARKET et al 2:2004cv08524-GHK 2:2004cv08616-AHM 2:2004cv08617-MMM 2:2004cv08744-SJO 2:2004cv08745-MMM 2:2004cv08775-GHK 2:2004cv08778-JSL 2:2004cv09112-GHK

14

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 23 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 JANKEY et al v. EL CHOLO CAFÉ et al JANKEY et al v. MOON'S MARKET et al JANKEY et al v. MERMAID RESTAURANT et al JANKEY et al v. BOTTLE INN et al JANKEY et al v. SLOOPYS et al JANKEY et al v. POOP DECK et al JANKEY et al v. BEACH MARKET et al JANKEY et al v. ALOHA SHARKEEZ et al JANKEY et al v. DANS LIQUOR et al JANKEY et al v. OBS BAR AND GRILL et al JANKEY et al v. BEACH HUT et al JANKEY et al v. PEDONES PIZZA et al MOLSKI et al v ARBY'S HUNTINGTON BEACH et al v. MOLSKI et al v. PISMO BOWL et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) 561 56 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 ASHLEY et al v. BLACKWELL et al PICKERN et al v. EPPIE'S CAPITOL et al CONNALLY et al v. EPPIE'S N STREET et al LOSKOT et al v. CHICAGO TITLE et al DORAN et al v. CHICAGO TITLE RED et al LOSKOT et al v. CHICAGO TITLE INS et al DORAN et al v. PONDEROSA INN et al GERBER et al v. EPPIE'S MODESTO et al DORAN et al v. EPPIE'S RESTAURANT et al LOSKOT et al v. PINE STREET SCHOOL et al GERBER et al v. BURGER KING MADERA et al LOSKOT et al v. BEST WESTERN INN AND SUITES VALLEJO et al JANKEY et al v. TAHOE LIMITED CORP, et al RAY et al v. KML CORPORATION et al LOSKOT et al v. CRYSTAL MALL et al HAUGSTEN et al v. MERVYNS' STOCKTON, et al. MERVYNS DORAN et al v. BELL et al. DORAN et al v. CORINAS' RESTAURANT et al LOSKOT et al v. HAWES RANCH and FARM et al DLIL et al v. PAVILIONS SHOPPING et al ASHLEY et al v. FARMERS INS AGENCY et al PICKERN et al v. MARINOS PIZZA et al DORAN et al v. RED BLUFF CHRYSLER et al CONNALLY et al v. RIVER RANCH LODGE et al PICKERN et al v. ENLOE MEDICAL CTR D'LIL et al v. YREKA DAYS INN et al LOSKOT et al v. ANDERSON MEDICAL et al LOSKOT et al v. GERLINGER STEEL et al 2:1999cv01669-FCD 000c 0 3 S 2:2000cv02231-WBS 2:2000cv02232-WBS 2:2000cv02342-LKK 2:2000cv02343-WBS 2:2000cv02355-DFL 2:2000cv02364-WBS 2:2000cv02723-WBS 2:2000cv02404-WBS 2:2000cv02405-DFL 2 2000 02405 DFL 1:2000cv06886-AWI 2:2000cv02555-FCD 2:2000cv02556-MLS 2:2000cv02557-MLS 2:2000cv02671-FCD 2:2001cv00206-DFL 2:2001cv00287-GEB 2:2001cv00386-LKK 2:2001cv00876-DFL 2:2001cv00893-LKK 2:2001cv00894-FCD 2:2001cv01096-WBS 2:2001cv01122-MCE 2:2001cv01590-TFL 2:2001cv01710-MCE 2:2001cv01711-MLS 2:2001cv01747-WBS 2:2001cv01748-GEB 08/27/99 0/ /00 10/12/00 10/12/00 10/23/00 10/23/00 10/24/00 10/25/00 10/25/00 10/30/00 10/30/00 11/02/00 11/20/00 11/20/00 11/20/00 12/06/00 01/31/01 02/13/01 02/26/01 05/07/01 05/09/01 05/09/01 06/04/01 06/08/01 08/16/01 09/07/01 09/07/01 09/13/01 09/13/01 8:2004cv01295-JVS 2:2004cv09178-SGL 2:2004cv09267-ER 2:2004cv09312-GHK 2:2004cv09609-GPS 2:2004cv09741-RSWL 2:2005cv01288-TJH 2:2005cv03625-DT 2:2005cv03626-AHM 2:2005cv03842-RGK 2:2005cv03856-SVW 2:2005cv03858-SVW 8:2004cv00038-CJC 8:2004cv00038 CJC 2:2004cv02647-R 11/05/04 11/05/04 11/10/04 11/12/04 11/23/04 11/30/04 02/18/05 05/16/05 05/16/05 05/25/05 05/25/05 05/25/05 08/12/05 11/15/07

15

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 24 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 GERBER et al v. FLORENTINE RESTAURANT et al DORAN et al v. OROVILLE HOSPITAL et al LOSKOT et al v. SACTO CAPITOL CENTER et al WEYGANDT et al v. LITHIA CIMR INC et al DORAN et al v. CAMERON PARK INN et al LOSKOT et al v. 3 BROTHER'S REST et al DORAN et al v. WAFFLE SHOP et al DORAN et al v. DAYS INN OROVILLE et al DORAN et al v. SUNSET INN OROVILLE et al DORAN et al v. DQ ORANGEVALE et al DORAN et al v. WILD SPORTS ENT et al DORAN et al v. ROCKLIN DAYS INN et al DORAN et al v CROWN MOTORS et al v. WEYGANDT et al v. LA CABANA MEXICAN et al JONES et al v. FAR EAST CAFÉ et al HARRIS et al v. KOFFEE KORNER et al LONG et al v. VIKING MOTOR LODGE et al FEEZOR et al v. EL MARIACHI et al CONE et al v. AMER RIVER DR ASSOC et al JONES et al v. EL MARIACHI REST et al DORAN et al v. BEST TAHOE WEST INN et al DORAN et al v. DISCOVERY PARK DAYS et al FEEZOR et al v. COMFORT INN VALLEJO et al JONES et al v. PARK MARINA VILLAGE et al DORAN et al v. BEST WESTERN GOLDEN et al DORAN et al v. RED LION HOTEL et al CONNALLY et al v CARL'S JR SANTA et al DORAN et al v. VALLEJO QUALITY INN et al WEYGANDT et al v. PIZZA HUT HILLTOP et al DORAN et al v. OILWELL MATERIALS et al FEEZOR et al v. CARROWS RESTAURANT et al STEVIE et al v. PIZZA HUT HILLTOP et al D'LIL et al v. BAKER'S SQUARE RST et al DORAN et al v. KING'S TRADING POST et al LOSKOT et al v. HARBOR INN et al LOSKOT et al v. BAKER'S SQUARE WEST et al BOWMAN et al v. BEST WESTERN STATION et al CHAPMAN et al v. PARK WEST OFFICE CTR et al CHAPMAN et al v. DAVIS ORTHOPEDIC et al LOSKOT et al v. NORTHSTATE RECYCLING et al LOSKOT et al v. ASIAN BUFFET INC et al LOSKOT et al v. UNITED PETROLEUM et al DORAN et al v. PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S et al LOSKOT et al v. GREEN VALLEY FORD LOSKOT et al v. CASCADE RIGGING & SUPPLY 633 COMPANY INC et al 634 LOSKOT et al v. PEKING RESTAURANT et al 2:2001cv01954-WBS 2:2001cv01998-DFL 2:2002cv00086-WBS 2:2002cv00092-MCE 2:2002cv00267-GEB 2:2002cv00275-MCE 2:2002cv00916-MCE 2:2002cv01208-MCE 2:2002cv01209-MCE 2:2002cv01241-DFL 2:2002cv01242-DFL 2:2002cv01273-MCE 2:2002cv01274-LKK 2:2002cv01274 LKK 2:2002cv02048-MCE 2:2002cv02490-WBS 2:2002cv02508-GEB 2:2002cv02523-WBS 2:2002cv02617-WBS 2:2002cv02637-GEB 2:2002cv02751-LKK 00 c 0 5 2:2003cv00475-LKK 2:2003cv00539-MCE 2:2003cv00540-LKK 2:2003cv00697-FCD 2:2003cv00758-LKK 2:2003cv00759-LKK 2:2003cv00760-GEB 2:2003cv00804-FCD 2 2003 00804 FCD 2:2003cv00808-LKK 2:2003cv01052-WBS 2:2003cv01417-GEB 2:2003cv01505-LKK 2:2003cv01542-GEB 2:2003cv01946-DFL 2:2003cv02189-MCE 2:2003cv02337-GEB 2:2004cv00755-GEB 2:2004cv01520-FCD 2:2004cv01668-WBS 2:2004cv015670-LKK 2:2004cv01719-DFL 2:2004cv01992-GEB 1:2004cv06375-OWW 2:2004cv02096-GEB 2:2006cv01164-GEB 2:2007cv01324-FCD 10/22/01 10/29/01 01/14/02 01/14/02 02/01/02 02/04/02 04/29/02 06/05/02 06/05/02 06/10/02 06/10/02 06/12/02 06/12/02 09/18/02 11/18/02 11/19/02 11/21/02 12/06/02 12/10/02 12/30/02 /30/0 03/11/03 03/17/03 03/17/03 04/04/03 04/14/03 04/14/03 04/14/03 04/18/03 04/18/03 05/19/03 07/03/03 07/15/03 07/22/03 09/17/03 10/17/03 11/10/03 04/15/04 08/03/04 08/16/04 08/16/04 08/23/04 09/24/04 10/04/04 10/06/04 05/30/06 07/05/07

16

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 25 of 30

Yates, et al. v. La Rocca, et al. Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED) LOSKOT et al v. BEST WESTERN INN AND SUITES 635 VALLEJO et al 2:2007cv01519-FCD CHAPMAN et al v. SUBWAY SALADS and SANDWICHES 636 #14054 et al 2:2007cv01564-FCD

07/26/07 08/01/07

17

Case 3:08-cv-02733-MMC

Document 8

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 26 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 addressed to: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rawhi Salem P.O. Box 1341 Millbrae, CA 94030 State of California County of Marin

CERTIFICATE OR PROOF OF SERVICE ) ) ss )

I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein ment