Preview
1 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP
Armen Manasserian (SBN 288199)
2 Cameron H. Totten (SBN 180765)
3
650 Sierra Madre Villa Ave, Suite 304
Pasadena, CA 91107
4 Tel.: (626) 744-1838
Fax: (626) 744-3167
5 Email: cameron@cym.law
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION
9
10 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Case No. 20CV03877
limited liability company,
11 Assigned to the Hon. Donna D. Geck
Plaintiff,
12
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S
13 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
14 UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
15
GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington
16 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, Date: April 19, 2022
an individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an Dept.: 4
individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an
18
individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020
19 JR., an individual; WESTELE UTILITY Trial Date: Not Set
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited
20 liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
21
22 Defendants.
23
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
24
RECORD HEREIN:
25
Plaintiff Butler America, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits the following Opposition to
26
Defendants UCOMMG, LLC and Unified Communications Group, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Ex
27
Parte Application (“Application”) for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 8, 2022 Ruling
28
(“Order”).
1
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 This Application is a further example of Defendants’ frivolous and bad faith litigation
4 tactics. There is absolutely no basis for this Application. First, Defendants have not shown any
5 “irreparable harm” to justify this Application being brought ex parte. Moreover, there is no
6 irreparable harm to Defendants as counsel for Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the
7 sanctions award. Second, this Court has jurisdiction to issue sanctions based on Defendants’
8 wrongful conduct.
9 Lastly, there is no basis for reconsideration as there are no new facts or law that could
10 not have been presented with the motions at issue. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below
11 and at the hearing on the Application, Defendants’ Application should be denied in its entirety.
12 II. GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST FOR THIS APPLICATION
13 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c) provides that ex parte relief can only be
14 granted where an application makes an “affirmative factual showing” consisting of “competent
15 testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other
16 statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Here, Defendants have not made any showing of
17 irreparable harm or immediate danger as a result of having to pay a $4000 sanction, especially
18 given that the amount is likely miniscule compared to Defendants’ litigation fees and costs to
19 date.
20 Additionally, as the award of sanctions is against Defendants and their attorneys of
21 record herein, jointly and severally, Defendants will not suffer any irreparable harm as their
22 counsel are required to pay the full amount. Counsel can then seek reimbursement from
23 Defendants at a later date. The matter could still be appealed. To the contrary, Plaintiff is
24 prejudiced in not having the full notice period to respond to the numerous issues of law and fact
25 raised in the Application.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
1 III. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS TO ORDER THEM
2 TO FURTHER RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND ISSUE MONETARY SANCTIONS
3 FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE
4 Although Defendants assert that “[a] state must have personal jurisdiction over a
5 defendant in order to impose upon him through its courts a personal liability or obligation in
6 favor of the plaintiff,” it appears that Defendants are only seeking reconsideration of the
7 sanctions portion of the Court’s Order. Thus, Defendants do not dispute the Court’s authority to
8 order Defendants to provide further discovery responses. Instead, Defendants challenge the
9 imposition of monetary sanctions against them. Defendants fail to explain their distinction
10 between discovery orders and awards of monetary sanctions. Apparently, the former is not a
11 “personal liability or obligation.”
12 Additionally, Defendants mischaracterize the holding in City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v.
13 Ablyazov (S.D.NY. Sept. 30, 2020) No. 1:15-CV-05345 (AJN) (KHP), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14 161546. Specifically, the court noted that “Viktor Khrapunov failed to comply with discovery
15 beyond the jurisdictional discovery that was ordered by Judge Nathan.” Id. at *17. Thus,
16 Khrapunov was not sanctioned for failing to respond to jurisdictional discovery as is the case
17 here, but rather for failing to provide Rule 26 disclosures regarding the claims at issue in the
18 case.
19 Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v.
20 Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (1982) 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492, is on
21 point. In Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Defendants repeatedly failed to comply with the trial
22 court’s orders to provide discovery responses regarding personal jurisdiction. The trial court
23 then imposed sanctions under FRCP Rule 37(b) against Defendants. The United States Supreme
24 Court upheld the sanctions and reasoned that
25 “A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default
26 judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a
27 collateral proceeding. See Baldwin v. Traveling Men's Assn., 283 U.S. 522, 525
28 (1931). By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of
3
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
1 challenging jurisdiction, the defendant agrees to abide by that court’s
2 determination on the issue of jurisdiction: That decision will be res judicata on
3 that issue in any further proceedings. Id., at 524; American Surety Co. v.
4 Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166 (1932). As demonstrated above, the manner in
5 which the court determines whether it has personal jurisdiction may include a
6 variety of legal rules and presumptions, as well as straightforward factfinding. A
7 particular rule may offend the due process standard of Hammond Packing, but
8 the mere use of procedural rules does not in itself violate the defendant's due
9 process rights.
10 ...
11 Because the application of a legal presumption to the issue of personal
12 jurisdiction does not in itself violate the Due Process Clause and because there
13 was no abuse of the discretion granted a district court under Rule 37(b)(2), we
14 affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.” Id. at 706-9.
15 Similarly, Defendants chose to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction to obtain an order quashing
16 service of the subpoena, which would have res judicata effect, instead of not responding to the
17 complaint and allowing a default judgment entered against them.
18 Also, Defendants waived its right not to be subject to discovery sanctions based on
19 personal jurisdiction by asserting the same claims against Plaintiff. Id. at 704 (“[T]he
20 requirement of personal jurisdiction may be intentionally waived, or for various reasons a
21 defendant may be estopped from raising the issue.”). That is, Defendants have sought sanctions
22 against Plaintiff under the same discovery statutes upon which the Court based its sanctions
23 award against Defendants. Defendants cannot have it both ways.
24 Specifically, on November 5, 2021, Defendants filed a discovery motion for terminating
25 sanctions or, alternatively, for a protective order and monetary sanctions of $6,150.00 against
26 Plaintiff and its attorneys of record herein. The motion was brought pursuant to California Code
27 of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.030 and 2017.020. On February 18, 2022, this Court denied
28 Defendants’ motion and again held that Plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery.
4
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
1 Defendants also requested an award of monetary sanctions in the discovery motions at
2 issue here. The Court again denied Defendant’s request for sanctions but granted Plaintiff’s
3 request pursuant to the same statutory provisions upon which Defendant’s requests were made.
4 Accordingly, Defendants waived their right to challenge the award of monetary discovery
5 sanctions based on jurisdictional grounds.
6 IV. THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION
7 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 governs motions for reconsideration. It
8 does not provide that the motion can be brought on an ex parte basis. Moreover, an order can
9 only be reconsidered if there are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” Cal. Code Civ.
10 Proc. § 1008(b). Additionally, to be entitled to reconsideration, in addition to showing that
11 evidence of new or different facts or law exist, the applying party must also provide a
12 satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence or argument at the original hearing.
13 See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 213.
14 Here, there are no new or different facts or circumstances. Defendants’ jurisdictional
15 arguments have been made numerous times before and certainly could have been made in their
16 opposition to the sanctions portion of Plaintiff’s motions to compel. Defendants do not provide
17 any reasonable explanation as to why the arguments were not raised in their opposition briefs or
18 at the hearing on the motions.
19 Additionally, as shown by Defendants’ filing of their motion to quash and the Court’s
20 initial ruling on it on December 3, 2021, as well as the Court’s subsequent orders on February 9,
21 2022; February 18, 2022; and the Order at issue here, the Court has been fully aware of the
22 personal jurisdiction issue for over six months. It is certainly not a new or different fact,
23 circumstance or law.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
5
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons set forth herein and at the hearing on the Application, Plaintiff
3 respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Application in its entirety.
4
Dated: April 18, 2022 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP
5
6 By: /s/ Cameron H. Totten
Cameron H. Totten, Esq.
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 650 Sierra Madre
4
Villa Ave., Ste. 304, Pasadena, CA 91107. On April 18, 2022, I served the foregoing
5 document(s) described as PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
6 COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING on the interested parties in this action, as follows:
7
Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190) Attorneys for Defendants
8 E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca
9 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J.
San Diego, California 92121 Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele
10
Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker
11 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
12 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802)
E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com
13
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
14 3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1550
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487
15 Telephone: (602) 281-3400
Facsimile: (602) 281-3401
16
17 ( ) (BY MAIL) I placed said copy(ies) in a sealed envelope(s), postage thereon fully
prepaid, and placed for collection and processing for mailing following the business’s
18 ordinary practice, with which I am readily familiar. Under that practice it would be
deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid in the
19
city indicated below in the ordinary course of business.
20
(XX) (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused the document(s) listed above to be
21 electronically transmitted to the email addresses of the addressees as indicated above.
22
Executed on April 18, 2022, at Pasadena, California.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
24 is true and correct.
25
26 /s/ Araceli Salcedo
Araceli Salcedo
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP Armen Manasserian (SBN 288199) 2 Cameron H. Totten (SBN 180765) 3 650 Sierra Madre Villa Ave, Suite 304 Pasadena, CA 91107 4 Tel.: (626) 744-1838 Fax: (626) 744-3167 5 Email: cameron@cym.law 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION 9 10 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Case No. 20CV03877 limited liability company, 11 Assigned to the Hon. Donna D. Geck Plaintiff, 12 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S 13 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 14 UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 15 GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington 16 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, Date: April 19, 2022 an individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an Time: 8:30 a.m. 17 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an Dept.: 4 individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an 18 individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020 19 JR., an individual; WESTELE UTILITY Trial Date: Not Set SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited 20 liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 21 22 Defendants. 23 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 24 RECORD HEREIN: 25 Plaintiff Butler America, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits the following Opposition to 26 Defendants UCOMMG, LLC and Unified Communications Group, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Ex 27 Parte Application (“Application”) for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 8, 2022 Ruling 28 (“Order”). 1 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 This Application is a further example of Defendants’ frivolous and bad faith litigation 4 tactics. There is absolutely no basis for this Application. First, Defendants have not shown any 5 “irreparable harm” to justify this Application being brought ex parte. Moreover, there is no 6 irreparable harm to Defendants as counsel for Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the 7 sanctions award. Second, this Court has jurisdiction to issue sanctions based on Defendants’ 8 wrongful conduct. 9 Lastly, there is no basis for reconsideration as there are no new facts or law that could 10 not have been presented with the motions at issue. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below 11 and at the hearing on the Application, Defendants’ Application should be denied in its entirety. 12 II. GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST FOR THIS APPLICATION 13 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c) provides that ex parte relief can only be 14 granted where an application makes an “affirmative factual showing” consisting of “competent 15 testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other 16 statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Here, Defendants have not made any showing of 17 irreparable harm or immediate danger as a result of having to pay a $4000 sanction, especially 18 given that the amount is likely miniscule compared to Defendants’ litigation fees and costs to 19 date. 20 Additionally, as the award of sanctions is against Defendants and their attorneys of 21 record herein, jointly and severally, Defendants will not suffer any irreparable harm as their 22 counsel are required to pay the full amount. Counsel can then seek reimbursement from 23 Defendants at a later date. The matter could still be appealed. To the contrary, Plaintiff is 24 prejudiced in not having the full notice period to respond to the numerous issues of law and fact 25 raised in the Application. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 1 III. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS TO ORDER THEM 2 TO FURTHER RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND ISSUE MONETARY SANCTIONS 3 FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE 4 Although Defendants assert that “[a] state must have personal jurisdiction over a 5 defendant in order to impose upon him through its courts a personal liability or obligation in 6 favor of the plaintiff,” it appears that Defendants are only seeking reconsideration of the 7 sanctions portion of the Court’s Order. Thus, Defendants do not dispute the Court’s authority to 8 order Defendants to provide further discovery responses. Instead, Defendants challenge the 9 imposition of monetary sanctions against them. Defendants fail to explain their distinction 10 between discovery orders and awards of monetary sanctions. Apparently, the former is not a 11 “personal liability or obligation.” 12 Additionally, Defendants mischaracterize the holding in City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. 13 Ablyazov (S.D.NY. Sept. 30, 2020) No. 1:15-CV-05345 (AJN) (KHP), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 161546. Specifically, the court noted that “Viktor Khrapunov failed to comply with discovery 15 beyond the jurisdictional discovery that was ordered by Judge Nathan.” Id. at *17. Thus, 16 Khrapunov was not sanctioned for failing to respond to jurisdictional discovery as is the case 17 here, but rather for failing to provide Rule 26 disclosures regarding the claims at issue in the 18 case. 19 Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. 20 Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (1982) 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492, is on 21 point. In Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Defendants repeatedly failed to comply with the trial 22 court’s orders to provide discovery responses regarding personal jurisdiction. The trial court 23 then imposed sanctions under FRCP Rule 37(b) against Defendants. The United States Supreme 24 Court upheld the sanctions and reasoned that 25 “A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default 26 judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a 27 collateral proceeding. See Baldwin v. Traveling Men's Assn., 283 U.S. 522, 525 28 (1931). By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of 3 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 1 challenging jurisdiction, the defendant agrees to abide by that court’s 2 determination on the issue of jurisdiction: That decision will be res judicata on 3 that issue in any further proceedings. Id., at 524; American Surety Co. v. 4 Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166 (1932). As demonstrated above, the manner in 5 which the court determines whether it has personal jurisdiction may include a 6 variety of legal rules and presumptions, as well as straightforward factfinding. A 7 particular rule may offend the due process standard of Hammond Packing, but 8 the mere use of procedural rules does not in itself violate the defendant's due 9 process rights. 10 ... 11 Because the application of a legal presumption to the issue of personal 12 jurisdiction does not in itself violate the Due Process Clause and because there 13 was no abuse of the discretion granted a district court under Rule 37(b)(2), we 14 affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.” Id. at 706-9. 15 Similarly, Defendants chose to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction to obtain an order quashing 16 service of the subpoena, which would have res judicata effect, instead of not responding to the 17 complaint and allowing a default judgment entered against them. 18 Also, Defendants waived its right not to be subject to discovery sanctions based on 19 personal jurisdiction by asserting the same claims against Plaintiff. Id. at 704 (“[T]he 20 requirement of personal jurisdiction may be intentionally waived, or for various reasons a 21 defendant may be estopped from raising the issue.”). That is, Defendants have sought sanctions 22 against Plaintiff under the same discovery statutes upon which the Court based its sanctions 23 award against Defendants. Defendants cannot have it both ways. 24 Specifically, on November 5, 2021, Defendants filed a discovery motion for terminating 25 sanctions or, alternatively, for a protective order and monetary sanctions of $6,150.00 against 26 Plaintiff and its attorneys of record herein. The motion was brought pursuant to California Code 27 of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.030 and 2017.020. On February 18, 2022, this Court denied 28 Defendants’ motion and again held that Plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery. 4 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 1 Defendants also requested an award of monetary sanctions in the discovery motions at 2 issue here. The Court again denied Defendant’s request for sanctions but granted Plaintiff’s 3 request pursuant to the same statutory provisions upon which Defendant’s requests were made. 4 Accordingly, Defendants waived their right to challenge the award of monetary discovery 5 sanctions based on jurisdictional grounds. 6 IV. THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 governs motions for reconsideration. It 8 does not provide that the motion can be brought on an ex parte basis. Moreover, an order can 9 only be reconsidered if there are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” Cal. Code Civ. 10 Proc. § 1008(b). Additionally, to be entitled to reconsideration, in addition to showing that 11 evidence of new or different facts or law exist, the applying party must also provide a 12 satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence or argument at the original hearing. 13 See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 213. 14 Here, there are no new or different facts or circumstances. Defendants’ jurisdictional 15 arguments have been made numerous times before and certainly could have been made in their 16 opposition to the sanctions portion of Plaintiff’s motions to compel. Defendants do not provide 17 any reasonable explanation as to why the arguments were not raised in their opposition briefs or 18 at the hearing on the motions. 19 Additionally, as shown by Defendants’ filing of their motion to quash and the Court’s 20 initial ruling on it on December 3, 2021, as well as the Court’s subsequent orders on February 9, 21 2022; February 18, 2022; and the Order at issue here, the Court has been fully aware of the 22 personal jurisdiction issue for over six months. It is certainly not a new or different fact, 23 circumstance or law. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 5 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth herein and at the hearing on the Application, Plaintiff 3 respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Application in its entirety. 4 Dated: April 18, 2022 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP 5 6 By: /s/ Cameron H. Totten Cameron H. Totten, Esq. 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 650 Sierra Madre 4 Villa Ave., Ste. 304, Pasadena, CA 91107. On April 18, 2022, I served the foregoing 5 document(s) described as PLAINTIFF BUTLER AMERICA, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE 6 COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 RULING on the interested parties in this action, as follows: 7 Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190) Attorneys for Defendants 8 E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca 9 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. San Diego, California 92121 Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele 10 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker 11 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 12 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802) E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com 13 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 14 3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487 15 Telephone: (602) 281-3400 Facsimile: (602) 281-3401 16 17 ( ) (BY MAIL) I placed said copy(ies) in a sealed envelope(s), postage thereon fully prepaid, and placed for collection and processing for mailing following the business’s 18 ordinary practice, with which I am readily familiar. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid in the 19 city indicated below in the ordinary course of business. 20 (XX) (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused the document(s) listed above to be 21 electronically transmitted to the email addresses of the addressees as indicated above. 22 Executed on April 18, 2022, at Pasadena, California. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 24 is true and correct. 25 26 /s/ Araceli Salcedo Araceli Salcedo 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE