Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02161/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02161-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

{00621737.DOCX } 1

June 16, 2016

Honorable Edward M. Chen, District Judge

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom #5, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Joint Letter, Sullivan v. Washington Mutual, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-02161-EMC

Dear Judge Chen:

On June 2, 2016, plaintiff Katy Sullivan (“plaintiff” or “Ms. Sullivan”) and defendants 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”), and U.S. 

Bank National Association, as Trustee, etc. (U.S. Bank, and collectively, “Defendants” or “the 

Bank”) (jointly, the “Parties”) came before this Court for a case management conference to 

discuss outstanding issues between the parties. Your Honor directed the parties to meet and 

confer to resolve the issues and file a joint letter informing the outcome to the Court. Pursuant to 

the Court’s order, the parties hereby submit the following joint letter.

The Subject Property

This case arises from a dispute between plaintiff and defendants over property located at 

2628-2628A Sutter Street, San Francisco, California (“Property”). Pursuant to a settlement 

agreement dated February 5, 2015, plaintiff transferred title and interest to Unit 2628A (“lower 

unit”) to defendants. Plaintiff retained ownership of all other portions of the subject property 

including Unit 2628 (“upper unit”), the basement, and parking area. The parties have met and 

conferred on several post-settlement issues concerning structural repairs to the exterior porch 

area attached to the lower unit, the increased charges to plaintiff’s modified loan, the increased 

charges to plaintiff’s water bill, the theft and vandalism to plaintiff’s property, and plaintiff’s 

proposal to purchase the lower unit from defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT:

A. Structural Repairs Issues are Almost Resolved

The parties met and conferred regarding the issue of whether Ms. Sullivan is responsible 

for certain structural repairs on the Property. John Sorich, counsel for Defendants, conveyed that 

defendants are only aware of structural repairs to the lower unit’s rear porch area. Mr. Sorich 

indicated that defendants are solely responsible for these structural repairs and would not be 

asking Ms. Sullivan to share in the costs of such repairs. Ms. Sullivan wants to memorialize this 

agreement in an addendum to the settlement agreement to avoid any future misunderstanding.

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 185 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4
Hon. Edward M. Chen

June 16, 2016

Page 2 of 4

{00621737.DOCX }

B. Increased Charges to Current Loan are Possibly Resolved

The parties met and conferred on the issue of increased charges to Ms. Sullivan’s current 

modified loan. Mr. Sorich has investigated this issue and determined that the increased charges 

were a result of improper property taxes (defendants’ property taxes for the lower unit) charged 

to Ms. Sullivan’s escrow account. Mr. Sorich indicated that defendants have reimbursed Ms. 

Sullivan for the “amount of overpayment” (neither Counsel nor Ms. Sullivan know the exact 

amount at this time). Mr. Sorich indicated that an amount of $3,471.31 have been refunded to 

Ms. Sullivan’s account. Mr. Sorich indicated that all future loan statements will reflect the 

previously agreed upon monthly mortgage payment amount ($3,094.51 per month). Ms. Sullivan 

has not received any refunds as of the filing of this letter. Ms. Sullivan’s most recent loan 

statement, received on the week of June 6, 2016, continues to reflect a monthly payment of 

$4,155.19, due July 1, 2016. This has to be corrected. The parties will continue to meet and 

confer to ensure that the full reimbursement is made and that the revised loan statements are 

accurately stated by defendants.

C. Increased Charges to Water Bill – No Commitment Yet

The parties met and conferred regarding the issue of Ms. Sullivan’s monthly water bill 

doubling since defendants began entering the Property in late March 2016. There is only one 

water bill account for the entire property as the condominium conversion did not require the 

separation of the water bill account. Mr. Sorich indicated that he received no information from 

defendants’ vendor to suggest that they left the water running in the lower unit. Mr. Sorich stated 

that the lower unit has not been occupied and there has been no water usage. Mr. Sorich has 

requested that Ms. Sullivan produce the water bills to determine the amount of the water bill 

increase. Ms. Sullivan believes the water bill has increased by approximately $100 for the 

months of April, May, and June 2016. Ms. Sullivan previously produced notices from the Public 

Utilities Commission reflecting continuous water use on the Property. Ms. Sullivan will also 

produce the most recent water bills to defendants. Mr. Sorich and defendants have not indicated 

that they would reimburse Ms. Sullivan for the amount of the increased water bill charges. Ms. 

Sullivan renews her request that defendants provide the contact information of its vendor who 

handles maintenance for the lower unit, so that this issue may be resolved directly with the 

vendor.

D. Theft and Vandalism – No Commitment Yet

The parties met and conferred regarding the issue of theft and vandalism to the Property. 

Ms. Sullivan believes that defendants are liable for the acts of its agents, contractors, 

subcontractors, and their insured. Defendants disagree, but ask that Ms. Sullivan provide 

information regarding the value of the patio furniture taken. Ms. Sullivan believes that the cost of 

replacing the patio furniture (1 table, 1 bench, and 4 chairs) is approximately $2,000. Ms. 

Sullivan renews her request that defendants provide the name and contact information of all 

contractors, vendors, and agents entering the Property to alleviate her safety concerns.

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 185 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4
Hon. Edward M. Chen

June 16, 2016

Page 3 of 4

{00621737.DOCX }

E. Proposal to Purchase Lower Unit

The parties met and conferred regarding Ms. Sullivan’s proposal to purchase the lower 

unit from defendants. Ms. Sullivan will present an offer for purchase this week. 

F. Whether Referral to ADR for Mediation is Required

Ms. Sullivan believes that the parties will be best served by a return to mediation in order 

to wrap up all issues herein outlined in one addendum to the settlement agreement. Ms. Sullivan 

believes that a half day mediation will complete this process.

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, John Sorich, counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

(“Chase”), spoke with attorney Kevin Liu, counsel for Ms. Sullivan, regarding the issues 

identified herein. Chase’s position on the issues is as stated below.

A. Structural Repairs

Mr. Sorich disputes the representations attributed to him in Ms. Sullivan’s discussion of 

this issue. Mr. Sorich did not state that he or his client are “only aware of structural repairs to the 

lower unit’s rear porch area,” because Mr. Sorich is not aware of whether structural repairs are 

required or not to the lower unit’s rear porch area or any other portion of the property. Chase 

maintains its previously stated position -- per the terms of the recorded CCRs, the owner of each 

unit is responsible for the repairs to its/her individual unit and the Association is responsible for 

repairs to common areas.

B. Increased Charges to Current Loan

Upon learning of this issue, Chase investigated and discovered that it had inadvertently 

billed Ms. Sullivan for taxes for both units. This billing error has been corrected and the amount 

of $3,471.31 has been refunded to Ms. Sullivan’s escrow account. Mr. Sorich likewise disputes 

the statements attributed to him in Ms. Sullivan’s discussion of this issue. Mr. Sorich did not 

state that a check was mailed by Chase to Ms. Sullivan, nor would he have, because he only 

confirmed to Ms. Sullivan’s counsel today that the monies had been refunded. 

C. Increased Charges to Water Bill

Upon learning of this issue, Chase looked into it but has not found any information to 

confirm that anyone working in its unit left the water running. Chase has received 

documentation from Ms. Sullivan showing recent water changes, but that documentation does 

not reflect that any excessive charges were caused by someone leaving the water running 

unattended in Chase’s unit. Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the matter, Mr. Sorich has asked 

Ms. Sullivan’s counsel for the amount of the water bill in excess of the “normal” monthly 

charges.

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 185 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4
Hon. Edward M. Chen

June 16, 2016

Page 4 of 4

{00621737.DOCX }

D. Theft and Vandalism

Upon learning of this issue, Chase looked into it but was not able to find any information 

to suggest that individuals working in Chase’s unit misappropriated Ms. Sullivan’s personal 

property. Ms. Sullivan’s counsel advised Mr. Sorich that they have evidence that individuals 

working in Chase’s unit took Ms. Sullivan’s patio furniture. Mr. Sorich has asked for whatever 

documentation Ms. Sullivan’s counsel has to support her contention. Mr. Sorich also asked for 

documentation showing the value of the patio furniture that was purportedly taken. To date, that 

information has not yet been provided.

E. Proposal to Purchase Lower Unit

Based on prior communications with Ms. Sullivan’s counsel, Mr. Sorich understands that 

Ms. Sullivan’s brother intends on submitting an offer to Chase to purchase Chase’s unit. To 

date, Mr. Sorich has not received any such offer. Mr. Sorich believes that Chase may be actively 

trying to market and sell its unit, so if Ms. Sullivan’s brother intends on submitting an offer, he 

should do so sooner rather than later.

F. Whether Referral to ADR for Mediation is Required

Chase does not believe that a referral to ADR for mediation is necessary because there 

are no outstanding issues remaining from the settlement of the underlying lawsuit which was 

dismissed months ago. With the possible exception of the tax issue discussed above, which has 

now been addressed, none of these other issues implicate the terms of the settlement agreement. 

It is plain that Ms. Sullivan is attempting to modify the settlement agreement rather than enforce 

it. Chase will not agree to any modification of the settlement agreement Therefore, there is no 

basis or reason to refer the matter to ADR. 

Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Therese Y. Cannata /s/ __John M. Sorich__________

THERESE Y. CANNATA John M. Sorich

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants

KATY SULLIVAN WASHINGTON MUTUAL, et. al.

Also known as Katy Marie Sullivan

IT IS SO ORDERED. ADR referral remains in place. 

________________________ 

Edward M. Chen 

U.S. District Judge 

Dated: June 21, 2016

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 185 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4