Preview
1 Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839)
mosborne@cokinoslaw.com
2 Elaine Kobylecki (Bar No. 299311)
ekobylecki@cokinoslaw.com
3 COKINOS | YOUNG
611 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 233
4 South San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (628) 229-9180
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10
11 DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY,
INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
13 v. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE
14 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND
SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
15 Defendant.
Date: May 6, 2022
16 Time: 8:30 AM
Dept.: 10
17
18 Action Filed: October 31, 2019
19
20
I. INTRODUCTION
21
Defendant Theta Chi has moved for a severance of plaintiffs’ equitable claims of alter ego
22
and successor liability. The main thrust of plaintiffs’ opposition to Theta Chi’s motion is that
23
severance would cause undue delay in the proceedings, waste judicial resources and prejudice
24
plaintiffs. Yet, the opposite is true and notwithstanding plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, Theta
25
Chi has ultimately met its burden of proof as to the prejudice it would suffer should a severance be
26
denied and the jury permitted to receive evidence and hear witnesses relevant only to plaintiffs’
27
equitable claims. This motion is further supported by the evidence and arguments set forth in this
28
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1
Reply.
2
II. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A
3
SEVERANCE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS
4
A. Even if There is Evidence to Support a Verdict against the UC Santa Cruz Chapter
5 and Theta Chi, Judicial Economy Supports Severance of the Equitable Claims
6
1. There Is No Overlap of the Evidence for the Legal and Equitable Claims, and if
7 Severance is Denied, the Jury Trial Will Include Documents, Testimony, and Trial
Witnesses that Are Only Relevant to the Alter Ego Claims
8
Even if, for the sake of argument, the jury could find the UC Santa Cruz Chapter and Theta
9
Chi liable for the legal claims, the Court should still exercise its discretion to sever the equitable
10
claims in the spirit of judicial economy until there is a finding of such liability.
11
A joint trial of the claims at law and equity would unreasonably require additional time,
12
expense, and judicial resources, and would confuse the jury which is receiving evidence on
13
equitable issues that are not relevant to its determination of liability and compensatory damages.
14
Plaintiffs’ opposition claims there is “significant overlap” in the evidence they will put forth at trial
15
as to the legal and equitable claims. However, as acknowledged in their own opposition, none of
16
the former members of UC Santa Cruz Chapter’s Executive Board have claimed any knowledge of
17
the Chapter’s corporate structure, operations, or financial condition.
18
Additionally, out of the fourteen depositions that have been completed to date, none of these
19
witnesses have provided any testimony relevant or necessary to support plaintiffs’ equitable claims
20
of alter ego. These witnesses consist of 7 former UC Santa Cruz Chapter members who testified
21
they lacked knowledge as to the Chapter’s formation, operations and financial policies, 4 university
22
officials who had no information as to Theta Chi’s history or organizational structure, plaintiffs,
23
and Mr. Beletsis’ sister who had no affiliation with UC Santa Cruz, the local chapter or Theta Chi.
24
A joint trial on the legal and equitable claims would necessitate additional lay witnesses,
25
and hundreds of pages of documents, including accounting records and expert witness testimony
26
not relevant to a jury trial limited to liability and damages. Needless to say, severance is not only
27
appropriate here, but necessary to avoid prejudice to defendant and to preserve judicial resources.
28
2
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1 B. The Trial of the Equitable Claims Will Include Evidence that is Not Admissible and
Is Prejudicial on Issues to be Decided by the Jury
2
At the time of trial,Theta Chi will move this Court in limine under Civil Code Section
3
3295(d) for an order bifurcating evidence of its financial condition on the issue of punitive damages.
4
This statute is mandatory, and upon defendant’s making of such a motion for bifurcation, the Court
5
“shall. . . preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s financial condition until the trier
6
of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty
7
of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.” (Cal. Civ. Code §
8
3295(d))(emphasis added.)) This evidentiary restriction requiring a bifurcation “minimizes
9
potential prejudice by preventing jurors from learning of a defendant’s ‘deep pockets’ before they
10
determine the threshold issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression or fraud.
11
(Torres v. Automobile Club of Southern California (1997) 16 Cal.4th 859, 862-863.)
12
However, in a joint trial where the jurors hear evidence relevant to the alter ego claims, the
13
safeguards imposed by the mandatory bifurcation under Section 3295(d) will be completely
14
circumvented as plaintiffs will be permitted to introduce documents, testimony, and expert witness
15
opinions as to defendant’s financial condition. Plaintiffs’ experts will likely offer opinions on the
16
alter ego claims that are based, in substantial part, on Theta Chi’s financial documents and evidence
17
that would otherwise be precluded under the mandatory bifurcation procedures of Section 3295(d).
18
Accordingly, severance here of the equitable claims is appropriate to uphold the intent of
19
Section 3295(d) and avoid undue prejudice to defendant.
20
C. Denial of Severance Will Unreasonably Prejudice Theta Chi
21
As noted in the moving papers, Theta Chi will indeed suffer irreparable and unreasonable
22
prejudice if the jury deciding the issues of liability and compensatory damages is presented with
23
evidence and arguments relating to plaintiffs’ alter ego claims. Plaintiffs’ First Amended
24
Complaint alleges, upon only information and belief, that Theta Chi has “manufactured this sham
25
organizational construct, strategic and illusory separation of assets causing undercapitalization of
26
chapters in light of the risks of loss and dangerous system of implementing policies on hazing and
27
risk-management related to membership rituals and Theta Chi National’s generation of revenue for
28
3
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1
it and the Fraternity, in order to evade creditors by, inter alia, artificially limiting its and its
2
chapters’ potential legal liability for the injuries and deaths they individually, jointly, and otherwise
3
legally cause.” (First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 113.)
4
This blistering allegation – with no supporting admissible facts – follows the so-called
5
plaintiffs’ Reptile Theory, allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to submit before the jury, testimonial and
6
documentary evidence that defendant’s “generation of revenue” is part of a “sham organizational
7
construct” to avoid liability for “injuries and deaths” involving “hazing,” none of which would be
8
permitted in a trial limited solely to the issues of liability and compensatory damages.
9
Moreover, one of the questions to be addressed by the Court in a bench trial on the alter ego
10
claims will be whether defendant has acted improperly to defraud creditors, including plaintiffs
11
who allege injuries and damages. Allowing the jury to hear this evidence – irrelevant on the issues
12
of liability and compensatory damages – would severely prejudice Theta Chi and prevent it from
13
receiving a fair trial.
14
III. CONCLUSION
15
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. respectfully requests that
16
the Court grant its motion to sever plaintiffs’ equitable claims based on the doctrines of alter ego
17
and successor liability, ordering that the jury trial of plaintiffs’ claims at law proceed first and,
18
depending on the jury’s verdict and other circumstances, allowing a bench trial of plaintiffs’
19
equitable claims to then follow. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to deny this motion at this
20
time, defendant asks that a ruling on this motion, as well as additional briefing if necessary, be
21
deferred until the start of trial when additional evidence (including specifics of expert testimony,
22
which have not yet been obtained) can be presented on these issues.
23
Dated: April 28, 2022 COKINOS | YOUNG
24
25
26 Michael C. Osborne
Elaine Kobylecki
27 Attorneys for Defendant
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
28
4
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Beletsis v. Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., et al.
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Action No. 19CV03287
3
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action or
4 proceeding. My business address is 611 Gateway Blvd., Suite 233, South San Francisco, CA
94080. On the below date, I caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
6 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE
CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY
7
by electronically serving the above reference document(s) through Email to the
8 person(s) set forth below. Executed by Amanda L. Sanchez
(asanchez@cokinoslaw.com) on April 28, 2022, at South San Francisco, California.
9
by having personal delivery by Express Network of a true copy of the document(s)
10 listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set
11 forth below.
12
See Attached Service List
13
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April
14 28, 2022 at South San Francisco, California.
15
16
Amanda L. Sanchez
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Douglas E. Fierberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jonathon N. Fazzola DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY
3
The Fierberg Nation Law Group, PLLC
161 East Front Steet, Suite 200 Tel: (202) 351-0510
4
Traverse City, MI 49684 Fax: (231) 252-8100
5
dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com,
6
jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com,
7 lcloutier@tfnlgroup.com
kfarese@tfnlgroup.com
8
9 Ivo Labar Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sawyer & Labar, LLP DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY
10 1700 Montgomery St. Suite 108
Tel: (415) 262-3820
San Francisco, CA 94111
11
labar@sawyerlabar.com
12 guzman@sawyerlabar.com
13 John D. Hourihan Attorneys for Defendant
Stratman, Schwartz & Williams-Abrego QUINN MCLAUGHLIN
14 P.O. Box 258829
Tel: (510) 457-3440
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
15
John.hourihan@farmersinsurance.com
16
Derek Lim Attorneys for Defendants
17 Shannon Mallory BRAD VISACKI
Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP
18 Tel: 415.949-1900
1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor Cell 415.317.3693
19 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Fax: 415.354.8380
20 lim@darlaw.com
mal@darlaw.com
21 fra@darlaw.com
Mary Childs Attorneys for Defendants
22 An McNulty EMMANUEL THOMAS, BOBBY KARKI, and
Aaron Case JOHN DYLAN LEITCH
23 Yoka | Smith, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street Tel: (213) 427-2300
24 Fax: (213) 427-2330
38th Floor
25 Los Angeles, CA 90071
mchilds@yokasmith.com
amcnulty@yokasmith.com
26 acase@yokasmith.com
27
Norman L. Chong Attorneys for Defendant
28 Joseph D. O’Neil NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON
2
SERVICE LIST
1 Tracy Herrington
Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong Tel: (707) 576-1380
2 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 270 Fax: (707) 544-3144
nchong@to2law.com
3 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 joneil@to2law.com
therrington@to2law.com
4 Matthew C. Jaime Attorneys for Defendant
Robert W. Sweetin CHRIS GUEVARA
5 Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP
Tel: (916) 978-3434
6 3638 American River Drive Fax: (916) 978-3430
Sacramento, CA 95864
7 mjaime@mathenysears.com
rsweetin@mathenysears.com
8 Patrick R. Ball Attorneys for Defendant
Idin Kashefipour MOISES TENORIO GARCIA
9 Messner Reeves LLP
Tel: (949) 612-9128
10 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Fax: (310) 889-0896
Newport Beach, CA 92660
11 pball@messner.com
ikashefipour@messner.com
12 Daniel R. Friedenthal Attorneys for Special Appearing Defendant
Friedenthal, Heffernan & Brown, LLP THETA IOTA CHAPTER OF THETA CHI
13 FRATERNITY
1520 W. Colorado Boulevard, Second Floor
14 Pasadena, CA 91105 Tel: (626) 628-2800
Fax: (626) 628-2828
15
dfriedenthal@FHBLawyers.com
16 jbrown@fhblawyers.com
nruiz@FHBLawyers.com
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
SERVICE LIST
Preview
1 Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839) mosborne@cokinoslaw.com 2 Elaine Kobylecki (Bar No. 299311) ekobylecki@cokinoslaw.com 3 COKINOS | YOUNG 611 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 233 4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (628) 229-9180 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 10 11 DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 13 v. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE 14 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 15 Defendant. Date: May 6, 2022 16 Time: 8:30 AM Dept.: 10 17 18 Action Filed: October 31, 2019 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Defendant Theta Chi has moved for a severance of plaintiffs’ equitable claims of alter ego 22 and successor liability. The main thrust of plaintiffs’ opposition to Theta Chi’s motion is that 23 severance would cause undue delay in the proceedings, waste judicial resources and prejudice 24 plaintiffs. Yet, the opposite is true and notwithstanding plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, Theta 25 Chi has ultimately met its burden of proof as to the prejudice it would suffer should a severance be 26 denied and the jury permitted to receive evidence and hear witnesses relevant only to plaintiffs’ 27 equitable claims. This motion is further supported by the evidence and arguments set forth in this 28 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 Reply. 2 II. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A 3 SEVERANCE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS 4 A. Even if There is Evidence to Support a Verdict against the UC Santa Cruz Chapter 5 and Theta Chi, Judicial Economy Supports Severance of the Equitable Claims 6 1. There Is No Overlap of the Evidence for the Legal and Equitable Claims, and if 7 Severance is Denied, the Jury Trial Will Include Documents, Testimony, and Trial Witnesses that Are Only Relevant to the Alter Ego Claims 8 Even if, for the sake of argument, the jury could find the UC Santa Cruz Chapter and Theta 9 Chi liable for the legal claims, the Court should still exercise its discretion to sever the equitable 10 claims in the spirit of judicial economy until there is a finding of such liability. 11 A joint trial of the claims at law and equity would unreasonably require additional time, 12 expense, and judicial resources, and would confuse the jury which is receiving evidence on 13 equitable issues that are not relevant to its determination of liability and compensatory damages. 14 Plaintiffs’ opposition claims there is “significant overlap” in the evidence they will put forth at trial 15 as to the legal and equitable claims. However, as acknowledged in their own opposition, none of 16 the former members of UC Santa Cruz Chapter’s Executive Board have claimed any knowledge of 17 the Chapter’s corporate structure, operations, or financial condition. 18 Additionally, out of the fourteen depositions that have been completed to date, none of these 19 witnesses have provided any testimony relevant or necessary to support plaintiffs’ equitable claims 20 of alter ego. These witnesses consist of 7 former UC Santa Cruz Chapter members who testified 21 they lacked knowledge as to the Chapter’s formation, operations and financial policies, 4 university 22 officials who had no information as to Theta Chi’s history or organizational structure, plaintiffs, 23 and Mr. Beletsis’ sister who had no affiliation with UC Santa Cruz, the local chapter or Theta Chi. 24 A joint trial on the legal and equitable claims would necessitate additional lay witnesses, 25 and hundreds of pages of documents, including accounting records and expert witness testimony 26 not relevant to a jury trial limited to liability and damages. Needless to say, severance is not only 27 appropriate here, but necessary to avoid prejudice to defendant and to preserve judicial resources. 28 2 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 B. The Trial of the Equitable Claims Will Include Evidence that is Not Admissible and Is Prejudicial on Issues to be Decided by the Jury 2 At the time of trial,Theta Chi will move this Court in limine under Civil Code Section 3 3295(d) for an order bifurcating evidence of its financial condition on the issue of punitive damages. 4 This statute is mandatory, and upon defendant’s making of such a motion for bifurcation, the Court 5 “shall. . . preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s financial condition until the trier 6 of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty 7 of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 8 3295(d))(emphasis added.)) This evidentiary restriction requiring a bifurcation “minimizes 9 potential prejudice by preventing jurors from learning of a defendant’s ‘deep pockets’ before they 10 determine the threshold issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression or fraud. 11 (Torres v. Automobile Club of Southern California (1997) 16 Cal.4th 859, 862-863.) 12 However, in a joint trial where the jurors hear evidence relevant to the alter ego claims, the 13 safeguards imposed by the mandatory bifurcation under Section 3295(d) will be completely 14 circumvented as plaintiffs will be permitted to introduce documents, testimony, and expert witness 15 opinions as to defendant’s financial condition. Plaintiffs’ experts will likely offer opinions on the 16 alter ego claims that are based, in substantial part, on Theta Chi’s financial documents and evidence 17 that would otherwise be precluded under the mandatory bifurcation procedures of Section 3295(d). 18 Accordingly, severance here of the equitable claims is appropriate to uphold the intent of 19 Section 3295(d) and avoid undue prejudice to defendant. 20 C. Denial of Severance Will Unreasonably Prejudice Theta Chi 21 As noted in the moving papers, Theta Chi will indeed suffer irreparable and unreasonable 22 prejudice if the jury deciding the issues of liability and compensatory damages is presented with 23 evidence and arguments relating to plaintiffs’ alter ego claims. Plaintiffs’ First Amended 24 Complaint alleges, upon only information and belief, that Theta Chi has “manufactured this sham 25 organizational construct, strategic and illusory separation of assets causing undercapitalization of 26 chapters in light of the risks of loss and dangerous system of implementing policies on hazing and 27 risk-management related to membership rituals and Theta Chi National’s generation of revenue for 28 3 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 it and the Fraternity, in order to evade creditors by, inter alia, artificially limiting its and its 2 chapters’ potential legal liability for the injuries and deaths they individually, jointly, and otherwise 3 legally cause.” (First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 113.) 4 This blistering allegation – with no supporting admissible facts – follows the so-called 5 plaintiffs’ Reptile Theory, allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to submit before the jury, testimonial and 6 documentary evidence that defendant’s “generation of revenue” is part of a “sham organizational 7 construct” to avoid liability for “injuries and deaths” involving “hazing,” none of which would be 8 permitted in a trial limited solely to the issues of liability and compensatory damages. 9 Moreover, one of the questions to be addressed by the Court in a bench trial on the alter ego 10 claims will be whether defendant has acted improperly to defraud creditors, including plaintiffs 11 who allege injuries and damages. Allowing the jury to hear this evidence – irrelevant on the issues 12 of liability and compensatory damages – would severely prejudice Theta Chi and prevent it from 13 receiving a fair trial. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. respectfully requests that 16 the Court grant its motion to sever plaintiffs’ equitable claims based on the doctrines of alter ego 17 and successor liability, ordering that the jury trial of plaintiffs’ claims at law proceed first and, 18 depending on the jury’s verdict and other circumstances, allowing a bench trial of plaintiffs’ 19 equitable claims to then follow. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to deny this motion at this 20 time, defendant asks that a ruling on this motion, as well as additional briefing if necessary, be 21 deferred until the start of trial when additional evidence (including specifics of expert testimony, 22 which have not yet been obtained) can be presented on these issues. 23 Dated: April 28, 2022 COKINOS | YOUNG 24 25 26 Michael C. Osborne Elaine Kobylecki 27 Attorneys for Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 28 4 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Beletsis v. Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., et al. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Action No. 19CV03287 3 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action or 4 proceeding. My business address is 611 Gateway Blvd., Suite 233, South San Francisco, CA 94080. On the below date, I caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 6 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF ALTER EGO AND SUCCESSOR LIABILITY 7 by electronically serving the above reference document(s) through Email to the 8 person(s) set forth below. Executed by Amanda L. Sanchez (asanchez@cokinoslaw.com) on April 28, 2022, at South San Francisco, California. 9 by having personal delivery by Express Network of a true copy of the document(s) 10 listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set 11 forth below. 12 See Attached Service List 13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 14 28, 2022 at South San Francisco, California. 15 16 Amanda L. Sanchez 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Douglas E. Fierberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathon N. Fazzola DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY 3 The Fierberg Nation Law Group, PLLC 161 East Front Steet, Suite 200 Tel: (202) 351-0510 4 Traverse City, MI 49684 Fax: (231) 252-8100 5 dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com, 6 jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com, 7 lcloutier@tfnlgroup.com kfarese@tfnlgroup.com 8 9 Ivo Labar Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sawyer & Labar, LLP DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY 10 1700 Montgomery St. Suite 108 Tel: (415) 262-3820 San Francisco, CA 94111 11 labar@sawyerlabar.com 12 guzman@sawyerlabar.com 13 John D. Hourihan Attorneys for Defendant Stratman, Schwartz & Williams-Abrego QUINN MCLAUGHLIN 14 P.O. Box 258829 Tel: (510) 457-3440 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 15 John.hourihan@farmersinsurance.com 16 Derek Lim Attorneys for Defendants 17 Shannon Mallory BRAD VISACKI Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP 18 Tel: 415.949-1900 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor Cell 415.317.3693 19 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Fax: 415.354.8380 20 lim@darlaw.com mal@darlaw.com 21 fra@darlaw.com Mary Childs Attorneys for Defendants 22 An McNulty EMMANUEL THOMAS, BOBBY KARKI, and Aaron Case JOHN DYLAN LEITCH 23 Yoka | Smith, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street Tel: (213) 427-2300 24 Fax: (213) 427-2330 38th Floor 25 Los Angeles, CA 90071 mchilds@yokasmith.com amcnulty@yokasmith.com 26 acase@yokasmith.com 27 Norman L. Chong Attorneys for Defendant 28 Joseph D. O’Neil NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON 2 SERVICE LIST 1 Tracy Herrington Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong Tel: (707) 576-1380 2 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 270 Fax: (707) 544-3144 nchong@to2law.com 3 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 joneil@to2law.com therrington@to2law.com 4 Matthew C. Jaime Attorneys for Defendant Robert W. Sweetin CHRIS GUEVARA 5 Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP Tel: (916) 978-3434 6 3638 American River Drive Fax: (916) 978-3430 Sacramento, CA 95864 7 mjaime@mathenysears.com rsweetin@mathenysears.com 8 Patrick R. Ball Attorneys for Defendant Idin Kashefipour MOISES TENORIO GARCIA 9 Messner Reeves LLP Tel: (949) 612-9128 10 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Fax: (310) 889-0896 Newport Beach, CA 92660 11 pball@messner.com ikashefipour@messner.com 12 Daniel R. Friedenthal Attorneys for Special Appearing Defendant Friedenthal, Heffernan & Brown, LLP THETA IOTA CHAPTER OF THETA CHI 13 FRATERNITY 1520 W. Colorado Boulevard, Second Floor 14 Pasadena, CA 91105 Tel: (626) 628-2800 Fax: (626) 628-2828 15 dfriedenthal@FHBLawyers.com 16 jbrown@fhblawyers.com nruiz@FHBLawyers.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SERVICE LIST