you're reading...
CPUC, Michael Peevey, Morrison & Foerster, Somnath Raj Chatterjee, Uncategorized

YR confronts Morrison & Foerster partner Eric Coffill over allegations Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Hello Mr. Hendricks:

As you recall, around 2011 you wrote and introduced yourself as the associate general counsel of Morrison & Foerster .

As you probably know by now, a suit naming, among others, Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Brosnahan, and Mr. Chatterejee was filed a few days ago in Yolo County Superior Court.

Presently, I am in the process of causing the action to be served by a process server on the various defendants. As far as Morrison & Foerster defendants, however, I have learned from official records maintained by California Secretary of State Debra that Morrison & Foerster (entity number C0980795 ) is now DISSOLVED.

I do know for a fact, however, that the Sacramento office is still operational and am wondering whether I can instruct the process-server to drop off the papers at the Sacramento office instead since the San Francisco office is now DISSOLVED.

Please let me know ASAP because time is of the essence and I am being prejudiced by MoFo’s failure to maintain current records with California Secretary of State.

Thank you for your time.

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:43 AM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Mr. Hendricks:

I just noticed that other entities associated with Morrison & Foerster use a service known as CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE with an address of 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N, SACRAMENTO.

Please inform if I I can send the process server to CSC.

Thanks,

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

The Morrison & Foerster law firm operates as a California limited liability partnership and is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. CSC is not the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Douglas L. Hendricks
General Counsel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.7037 | F: +415.276 7037 | C: 510.384.8994
DHendricks@mofo.com | http://www.mofo.com

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Thank you for replying.

A search for “Morrison & Foerster” at California Secretary of State’s Business Search database http://kepler.sos.ca.gov under “Corporation Name” yields:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C0980795 04/21/1980 DISSOLVED MORRISON & FOERSTER DOUGLAS L HENDRICKS
C1257410 09/21/1984 ACTIVE MORRISON & FOERSTER/GIRVAN PECK MEMORIAL FUND CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE
C1532498 06/02/1986 ACTIVE THE MORRISON & FOERSTER FOUNDATION CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

However, a similar search under “Limited Liability Company” yields: Record not found.

In essence, if I understand correctly, CSC is an agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster Foundation and Morrison & Foerster Girvan Peck Memorial Fund only. While Morrison & Foerster was structured as a corporation, you were the registered agent for service of process. Presently, Morrison & Foerster is structured as an LLP and claims that it is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. At least according to California Secretary of State, which may or may not be an appropriate authority, Morrison & Foerster LLP does not exist and/or did not designate an agent for service of process.

If not a bother, can you please write back with name and address of the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP. ?

Thank you.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

I am sorry, but I am not in a position to assist you in your suit against my law firm.

Doug Hendricks
Morrison & Foerster LLP
(415) 268-7037

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Dear Mr. Hendricks:

Thanks again for replying. I understand your predicament and accept your apology.

In any event, the entire issue is now moot because service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today.

My understanding is that the registered process server encountered both the receptionist and Mr. Coffill, and was told by Mr. Coffill that he can’t accept service on behalf of the individual defendants.

If Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive personal service, please let me know.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Coffill, Eric J. <ecoffill@mofo.com> wrote:

Please let me correct a statement below. Your statement below that “service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today” is factually incorrect. The individual who appeared in our office yesterday morning was told we could not and would not accept service of process on behalf of anyone other than Morrison & Foerster, and the individual then left. Service was not made and the individual left our office with the complete envelope of materials he arrived with.

Regards,

Eric

Eric J. Coffill
Managing Partner, SA
Morrison & Foerster LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2600
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
P: 916.325.1324 | F: 916.448.3222
ECoffill@mofo.com | http://www.mofo.com

Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM
subject: Re: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Coffill, Eric J.” <ecoffill@mofo.com>
cc: “Hendricks, Douglas L.” <DHendricks@mofo.com>,
“Brosnahan, James J.” <JBrosnahan@mofo.com>,
“Chatterjee, Somnath Raj” <schatterjee@mofo.com>,
“Farman, Charles S.” <CFarman@mofo.com>

Mr. Coffill:

My understanding is that the process-server met and spoke with you and the receptionist.

Furthermore, my understating is that you told the process-server that you will only accept service on behalf of Morrison & Foerster, that you can’t accept papers on behalf of Defendant James Brosnahan and Defendant Raj Chatterjee, and that subsequently the process-server served Morrison & Foerster only with one envelope containing summons, first amended complaint, ADR package, and notice of CMC.

Personally, I view your version of events as not credible, suspect, implausible, as well as illogical. Please note that I have absolutely no reason to doubt the creditability of the process-server — who yesterday also served other defendants in Sacramento (such as Accenture, Fulcrum Properties, McGeorge, and others.) Also, why would a professional process-server would leave your office without serving Morrison & Foerster — an assignment which he was hired to complete ??!!

On the other hand, to date, Morrison & Foerster has been understandably evasive, uncooperative, and motivated to lie due to the potentially catastrophic consequences stemming from allegations relating to Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials (such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey) on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis.

Please note that a failure to appear in a timely manner will result in the entry of a default judgment against Morrison & Foerster.

Source @:   http://seenthis.net/messages/234044

About Leslie Brodie

Leslie Brodie is a reporter, writer, blogger, activist, and a religious leader in the community.

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Categories

RSS .

  • Working for the Judicial Council and a pattern of racketeering activity 2016/10/31
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Is the CJA suddenly an unauthorized collective bargaining unit? 2016/10/27
    (JCW is responsible for retitling this press release)(JCW also feels that this is a great reason to surrender your CJA membership and join the ACJ and no, we’re not judges or affiliated with the ACJ in any manner) October 25, 2016 Last May, the California Judges Association crowed that it had been given “a seat […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • What it’s like to work for the AOC 2016/10/18
    This Post will be modified  deleted and replaced to reflect individual experiences from people who have worked for the state agency currently known as the Judicial Council Staff or their predecessor, the AOC. While we currently have a few testimonials , we wanted to give you the opportunity to weigh in anonymously via our private […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • The Obligatory Election Post 2016/10/08
    It suffices to state that we were disappointed when the democratic electorate chose not to make Bernie Sanders their candidate. Many of the issues touched on by Sanders are the same issues that ensure the people of Europe economic security. Many countries in Europe offer a free college education. It’s the sole reason that Europe […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Jacobs rushes new law into court, JC (finally) deflates their balloon 2016/10/03
    There goes our promised ten years of funding! On September 9th, the Jacobs cadre of companies rushed their custom crafted legislation into court arguing that they should not be held accountable for being unlicensed and should not be required to pay the people of the State of California back. For twenty one days it appeared […]
    Judicial Council Watcher

RSS Drudge Report Feed

.
%d bloggers like this: