Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Efitered by:
Civil Department - Non-Limited
TITLE 0F CASE:
Henry Nutt vs. ASFC, LLC
Case Number:
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 21CECG00531
Hearing Date: March 30, 2022 Hearing Type: Motion — Compel (x3)
Department: 503 Judge/Temp. Judge: Kimberly A. Gaab
Court Clerk: R. Smith Reporter/Tape: Not Reported
Appearing Parties:
Plaintiff: Defendant:
Counsel: No Appearances Counsel: No Appearances
[ ]
Off Calendar
[
]Continued to [
]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _
[ ]
Submitted on points and authorities with/without argument. [ ]
Matter is argued and submitted.
[ ]
Upon filing of points and authorities.
[ ]
Motion isgranted [ ]
inpart and denied in part. [ ]
Motion is denied [
]withlwithout prejudice.
[
]Taken under advisement
[X] No party requested oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 2.2.5 and CRC 3.1308(a)(1)
[X] Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further order is necessary.
[X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1 312(a) and CCP section 1019,5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order
adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order of the court.
[X] Service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
[X] See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling.
[ ]
Judgment debtor _ sworn and examined.
[~
]
Judgment debtor _ failed to appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $_
JUDGMENT:
[ ]Money damages
‘
[
]Default [
]Other _ entered inthe amount of:
Principal $___ Interest $_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_
[ ]
Claim of exemption [
]granted [
]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per_
FURTHER, COURT ORDERS:
[
]Monies held by levying officerto be [
]releasedtojudgmentcreditor. [
]returnedtojudgmentdebtor.
[ ]$_ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor.
[ ]Levying Officer, County of_, notified. [
]Writto issue
[ ]
Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ]
Restitution of Premises
[ ]Other:__
CV-14b R0348
r-—
|l__.I_L.__.
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
(27)
Tentative Ruling
Re: -
Nufl‘ v.ASFC, LLC
Superior Court Case No. 21CECC300531
Hearing Date: March 30, 2022 (Dep’r. 503)
Mo’rion: Mo’rions by Plaintiff ’ro Compel Further Responses To Form
In’rerrogo’rories, Se’r One; Special ln’rerrogofories, Se’r One; and
for Request for Production of Documents, Set One
Tentative Ruling:
To gron’r plcin’riffs’ motions ’ro compel defendant ASFC, LLC dba Sierra Vista
Heol’rhcare (“defendant") ’ro provide further responses to Form lm‘errogo’rory No. 15.1.
Special lh’rerrogo’rories Nos. 6, 28, 29, and 32, and Request for Production of Documents
Nos. 12, 31, and 34. Defendant shall serve further verified responses wi’rhou’r objections
and produce all responsive documents wi’rhin 30 days of service of ’rhe order by ’rhe clerk.
Private po’rien’r information shall be redacted and be limited ’ro ’rhe ’rime period ’ren days
prior ’ro The decedent's admission.
To deny The mo’rions as They rela’re ’ro Special ln’rerrogo’rory No. 5 and Request for
Production of Documents No. 16.
Explanation:
Introduction
Plcim‘iffs’ reply papers sta’re that The disputed discovery has been reduced ’ro one
form inferroga’rory, five special interrogatories, and four requests for production of
documem‘s. In reviewing ploin’riffs' mo’rions, ’rhe court is guided by The principle Tha’r
discovery requests ore generally afforded liberal construction. (See Code of Civ. Proc.,
§ 201 7.01 0; Williams v. Superior Court (20] 7) 3 Cal.th 531, 54] .)
Motion to Compel Fun‘her Responses To Inferroqafories
Each answer in ’rhe response must be ”as complete and straightforward os The
information reasonably available ’ro ’rhe responding party permits. [11] . . . If on
inferrogo’rory cannot be answered completely, i’r shall be answered ’ro The exfen’r
possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (o), (b).) Where ’rhe ques’rion is specific
and explicit, an answer That supplies only a portion of ’rhe information sought is improper.
H is also improper’ro provide "def’rly worded conclusionary answers designed ’ro evade a
series of explicit questions." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Col.App.3d 771 , 783.)
Furthermore, where an in’rerrogo’rory asks for ’rhe names of all witnesses ’ro o particular
event ’rhen known ’roThe responding por’ry, a response omi’r’ring ’rhe name of o known
witness could subject ’rhe adversary To unfair surprise o’rfriol and Therefore may resul’r in
on order excluding Tho’r wi’rness' Testimony. (R & B Auto Cfr., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc.
(2006) 140 Cal.AppA’rh 327, 356.)
13
In oddi’rion, “[ilf ’rhe responding party does no’rhove personal knowledge sufficient
’ro respond fully ’ro on in’rerrogofory, fha’r party shall so s’ro’re, bu’r shall make a reasonable
and good faith effor’r ’ro obtain ’rhe information by inquiry ’ro o’rher natural persons or
organizations, except ,where ’rhe\i‘nformofion isequally available To ’rhe propounding
parry." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1998) 64 Col.App.4’rh 1496, 1504.) lf’rhe inferrogc’rory seeks information contained
in files 0nd records, ’rhe responding por’ry is under a du’ry ’ro provide “complete 0nd
"
s’rroigh’rforwor onSWers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (0).)
When The responding pan‘y answers wi’rh objections, 0nd a mo’rion ’rocompel is
filed, The burden ison ’rhe objecting party To establish whatever foc’rs are necessary To
jus’rify The objection. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1 962) 58 Ccl.2d 21 0,
220-221; Fairmonf Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Col.4fh 245, 255.)
o Form Inferrogaf‘ory 15.1
This isa Judicial Council approved in’rerrogotory. Defendan’r’s separate s’ro’remen’r
argues Tha’r discovery continues and it isunaware of responsive information outside of
the decedent's medical records. Nevertheless, To ’rhe extent investigation and discovery
are ongoing, The responding party mus’r respond wi’rh who’r information if hos ’ro date,
0nd ’rhis in’rerrogo’rory conno’r be answered by simply referencing all documents (i.e., ’rhe
decedent's medical record) already produced.
Therefore, ’rhe mofion isgranted os iTrelates to Form Inferrogo’rory 15.1.
o Special lm‘errogatories Nos. 5, 6, 28, 29, and 32
Plaintiffs' request ’ro compel a further response ’ro Special Interrogo’rory No. 5 is
denied because defendant's response identified specific individuals responsible for i’rs
”de ’ro day operations." Furthermore, ’ro ’rhe ex’rem‘ Tho’r plaintiffs seek ’rhe
“organizational structure," such o request was no’r s’ro’red in This inferrogo’rory.
Plaintiffs' reques’r To compel o further response To Special lnTerroga’rory No. 6 is
granted. This inferrogo’rory specifically sought ’rhe idem‘i’ty of “Governing Board"
members. Defendant, however, only provided The names of managing members,
wi’rhou’r specifying whefher Those some individuals comprised ’rhe governing board.
The request for further responses ’roSpecial Interrogo’rory Nos. 28, 29, 0nd 32 is
granted. Although defendant's responses ’ro These interrogatories iden’rified specific
names 0nd The dates the assessments were signed, there is no precise information cs ’ro
when The assessments Were actually performed, i.e.,plaintiffs ore [eff To speculate how
The signature do’res rela’re To The assessment.
Motion fo Compel Fun‘her Responses To Requests for Production of Documents
A response s’ro’ring inability ’ro comply with The demand shall include “[0]
representation of inability To comply with ’rhe particular demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been
made in on effort fo comply with Tha’r demand." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031 .230.)
14
In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 .310, subdivision (o) provides:
On receipt of a response ’roa demand for inspection . .. ,The demanding
pcr’ry may move for cm order compelling fur’rher response ’ro ’rhe demand if
’rhe demanding party deems Tha’r any of The following apply:
(1) A statement of compliance wi’rh The demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability ’ro comply is inadequate, incomplete, or
evasive.
(3) An objection in ’rhe response iswithout meri’r or Too general.
o Request for Production Nos. 12 and 31
These requests seek documents identifying defendant's governing body and
information concerning staff allocations based Upon po’rien’r acuity during The Time of
plaintiff Lola Nu’r’r's residency. Defendant responded ’rha’r, offer o diligent and
reasonable inquiry, no such documents could be found. However, such o sfo’remen’r
“shall also specify whether ’rhe inability ’ro comply is because the particular item or
category hos never existed, hos been destroyed, hos been Iosf, misplaced, or s’rolen, or
hos never been, or is no longer, in ’rhe possession, custody, or control of ’rhe responding
par’ry." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031 .230.) Accordingly, because ’rhis specification is absent
in defendant's response, a further response is required ’ro Request for Production Nos. 12
and 31.
o Request for Production of Documents No. 16
Plaintiffs seek “[0]” documents reflecting any agreemenfls)" related ’ro
defendant’s managing members, purportedly because such information would identify
defendant's organizational structure. (See Reply, p. 2:24-25.) However, Request for
Production No. 16 is no’r limited in ’rhe Time, scope, or nature of ’rhe agreements sought.
Therefore, plcin’riffs' mofion To compel a fur’rher response ’ro Request for Production No.
16 is denied.
\
o Request for Production of Documents No. 34
PIoin’riffs'request ’rocompel o fur’rher response To Reques’r for Production No. 34 is
granted. Al’rhough defendant osser’rs ’rhe pn'vacy of i’rs residents, There is no assertion ’rhoT
the privacy concerns conno’r be mitigated as proposed by plaintiffs through redaction
and by limifing ’rhe Time period fo The 10 days prior fo the decedent's admission. (See
Snibble v. Superior Coun‘ (2014) 224 Cal.AppA’rh 184, 196 [“Because ’rhe production of
portions of redoc’red orders would no’r invade po’rien’r privacy, real porfies in interest need
not show o compelling need for discovery."].)
Pursuant To California Rules of Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0), and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019.5, subdivision (o), no fun‘her wrifien order is necessary. The minute orde'r
15
adopting ’rhis’ren’rafive ruling will serve as ’rhe order of The cour’r and service by ’rhe clerk
will cons’ri’ru’re no’rice of The order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KAG M
K1 9n 312912022 .
(Judge’s initials) (Do’re)
16
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO FOR COURTUSE ONLY
Civil Department, Central Division
1130 "0“ Street
Fresno,California 93724-0002
(559) 457-2000
TITLE 0F CASE:
Henry Nutt vs. ASFC, LLC
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING CéiE'EE'gEEa
lcertify that|am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the:
Minute Order and Tentative Ruling
was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
following our ordinary business practice. l am readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed forcollection and mailing, itis deposited
in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service with postage fullyprepaid.
Place of mailing:
0n Date:
Fresno,California
04/01/2022
93724-0002
Cle‘rk,by
ML
R. Smith
. Deputy
Nicolette Paullin _
Brett Schoel
Johnson Moore Brett Schoel
100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 229 La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames
Thousand Oaks, CA 91 360 655 University Avenue, Suite 119
Sacramento, CA 95825
D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached
TGN-OGb R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
u
‘4
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Efitered by: Civil Department - Non-Limited TITLE 0F CASE: Henry Nutt vs. ASFC, LLC Case Number: LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 21CECG00531 Hearing Date: March 30, 2022 Hearing Type: Motion — Compel (x3) Department: 503 Judge/Temp. Judge: Kimberly A. Gaab Court Clerk: R. Smith Reporter/Tape: Not Reported Appearing Parties: Plaintiff: Defendant: Counsel: No Appearances Counsel: No Appearances [ ] Off Calendar [ ]Continued to [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _ [ ] Submitted on points and authorities with/without argument. [ ] Matter is argued and submitted. [ ] Upon filing of points and authorities. [ ] Motion isgranted [ ] inpart and denied in part. [ ] Motion is denied [ ]withlwithout prejudice. [ ]Taken under advisement [X] No party requested oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 2.2.5 and CRC 3.1308(a)(1) [X] Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further order is necessary. [X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1 312(a) and CCP section 1019,5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order of the court. [X] Service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. [X] See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling. [ ] Judgment debtor _ sworn and examined. [~ ] Judgment debtor _ failed to appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $_ JUDGMENT: [ ]Money damages ‘ [ ]Default [ ]Other _ entered inthe amount of: Principal $___ Interest $_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_ [ ] Claim of exemption [ ]granted [ ]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per_ FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: [ ]Monies held by levying officerto be [ ]releasedtojudgmentcreditor. [ ]returnedtojudgmentdebtor. [ ]$_ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor. [ ]Levying Officer, County of_, notified. [ ]Writto issue [ ] Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ] Restitution of Premises [ ]Other:__ CV-14b R0348 r-— |l__.I_L.__. LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER (27) Tentative Ruling Re: - Nufl‘ v.ASFC, LLC Superior Court Case No. 21CECC300531 Hearing Date: March 30, 2022 (Dep’r. 503) Mo’rion: Mo’rions by Plaintiff ’ro Compel Further Responses To Form In’rerrogo’rories, Se’r One; Special ln’rerrogofories, Se’r One; and for Request for Production of Documents, Set One Tentative Ruling: To gron’r plcin’riffs’ motions ’ro compel defendant ASFC, LLC dba Sierra Vista Heol’rhcare (“defendant") ’ro provide further responses to Form lm‘errogo’rory No. 15.1. Special lh’rerrogo’rories Nos. 6, 28, 29, and 32, and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 31, and 34. Defendant shall serve further verified responses wi’rhou’r objections and produce all responsive documents wi’rhin 30 days of service of ’rhe order by ’rhe clerk. Private po’rien’r information shall be redacted and be limited ’ro ’rhe ’rime period ’ren days prior ’ro The decedent's admission. To deny The mo’rions as They rela’re ’ro Special ln’rerrogo’rory No. 5 and Request for Production of Documents No. 16. Explanation: Introduction Plcim‘iffs’ reply papers sta’re that The disputed discovery has been reduced ’ro one form inferroga’rory, five special interrogatories, and four requests for production of documem‘s. In reviewing ploin’riffs' mo’rions, ’rhe court is guided by The principle Tha’r discovery requests ore generally afforded liberal construction. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 201 7.01 0; Williams v. Superior Court (20] 7) 3 Cal.th 531, 54] .) Motion to Compel Fun‘her Responses To Inferroqafories Each answer in ’rhe response must be ”as complete and straightforward os The information reasonably available ’ro ’rhe responding party permits. [11] . . . If on inferrogo’rory cannot be answered completely, i’r shall be answered ’ro The exfen’r possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (o), (b).) Where ’rhe ques’rion is specific and explicit, an answer That supplies only a portion of ’rhe information sought is improper. H is also improper’ro provide "def’rly worded conclusionary answers designed ’ro evade a series of explicit questions." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Col.App.3d 771 , 783.) Furthermore, where an in’rerrogo’rory asks for ’rhe names of all witnesses ’ro o particular event ’rhen known ’roThe responding por’ry, a response omi’r’ring ’rhe name of o known witness could subject ’rhe adversary To unfair surprise o’rfriol and Therefore may resul’r in on order excluding Tho’r wi’rness' Testimony. (R & B Auto Cfr., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.AppA’rh 327, 356.) 13 In oddi’rion, “[ilf ’rhe responding party does no’rhove personal knowledge sufficient ’ro respond fully ’ro on in’rerrogofory, fha’r party shall so s’ro’re, bu’r shall make a reasonable and good faith effor’r ’ro obtain ’rhe information by inquiry ’ro o’rher natural persons or organizations, except ,where ’rhe\i‘nformofion isequally available To ’rhe propounding parry." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Col.App.4’rh 1496, 1504.) lf’rhe inferrogc’rory seeks information contained in files 0nd records, ’rhe responding por’ry is under a du’ry ’ro provide “complete 0nd " s’rroigh’rforwor onSWers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (0).) When The responding pan‘y answers wi’rh objections, 0nd a mo’rion ’rocompel is filed, The burden ison ’rhe objecting party To establish whatever foc’rs are necessary To jus’rify The objection. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1 962) 58 Ccl.2d 21 0, 220-221; Fairmonf Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Col.4fh 245, 255.) o Form Inferrogaf‘ory 15.1 This isa Judicial Council approved in’rerrogotory. Defendan’r’s separate s’ro’remen’r argues Tha’r discovery continues and it isunaware of responsive information outside of the decedent's medical records. Nevertheless, To ’rhe extent investigation and discovery are ongoing, The responding party mus’r respond wi’rh who’r information if hos ’ro date, 0nd ’rhis in’rerrogo’rory conno’r be answered by simply referencing all documents (i.e., ’rhe decedent's medical record) already produced. Therefore, ’rhe mofion isgranted os iTrelates to Form Inferrogo’rory 15.1. o Special lm‘errogatories Nos. 5, 6, 28, 29, and 32 Plaintiffs' request ’ro compel a further response ’ro Special Interrogo’rory No. 5 is denied because defendant's response identified specific individuals responsible for i’rs ”de ’ro day operations." Furthermore, ’ro ’rhe ex’rem‘ Tho’r plaintiffs seek ’rhe “organizational structure," such o request was no’r s’ro’red in This inferrogo’rory. Plaintiffs' reques’r To compel o further response To Special lnTerroga’rory No. 6 is granted. This inferrogo’rory specifically sought ’rhe idem‘i’ty of “Governing Board" members. Defendant, however, only provided The names of managing members, wi’rhou’r specifying whefher Those some individuals comprised ’rhe governing board. The request for further responses ’roSpecial Interrogo’rory Nos. 28, 29, 0nd 32 is granted. Although defendant's responses ’ro These interrogatories iden’rified specific names 0nd The dates the assessments were signed, there is no precise information cs ’ro when The assessments Were actually performed, i.e.,plaintiffs ore [eff To speculate how The signature do’res rela’re To The assessment. Motion fo Compel Fun‘her Responses To Requests for Production of Documents A response s’ro’ring inability ’ro comply with The demand shall include “[0] representation of inability To comply with ’rhe particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in on effort fo comply with Tha’r demand." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031 .230.) 14 In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 .310, subdivision (o) provides: On receipt of a response ’roa demand for inspection . .. ,The demanding pcr’ry may move for cm order compelling fur’rher response ’ro ’rhe demand if ’rhe demanding party deems Tha’r any of The following apply: (1) A statement of compliance wi’rh The demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability ’ro comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in ’rhe response iswithout meri’r or Too general. o Request for Production Nos. 12 and 31 These requests seek documents identifying defendant's governing body and information concerning staff allocations based Upon po’rien’r acuity during The Time of plaintiff Lola Nu’r’r's residency. Defendant responded ’rha’r, offer o diligent and reasonable inquiry, no such documents could be found. However, such o sfo’remen’r “shall also specify whether ’rhe inability ’ro comply is because the particular item or category hos never existed, hos been destroyed, hos been Iosf, misplaced, or s’rolen, or hos never been, or is no longer, in ’rhe possession, custody, or control of ’rhe responding par’ry." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031 .230.) Accordingly, because ’rhis specification is absent in defendant's response, a further response is required ’ro Request for Production Nos. 12 and 31. o Request for Production of Documents No. 16 Plaintiffs seek “[0]” documents reflecting any agreemenfls)" related ’ro defendant’s managing members, purportedly because such information would identify defendant's organizational structure. (See Reply, p. 2:24-25.) However, Request for Production No. 16 is no’r limited in ’rhe Time, scope, or nature of ’rhe agreements sought. Therefore, plcin’riffs' mofion To compel a fur’rher response ’ro Request for Production No. 16 is denied. \ o Request for Production of Documents No. 34 PIoin’riffs'request ’rocompel o fur’rher response To Reques’r for Production No. 34 is granted. Al’rhough defendant osser’rs ’rhe pn'vacy of i’rs residents, There is no assertion ’rhoT the privacy concerns conno’r be mitigated as proposed by plaintiffs through redaction and by limifing ’rhe Time period fo The 10 days prior fo the decedent's admission. (See Snibble v. Superior Coun‘ (2014) 224 Cal.AppA’rh 184, 196 [“Because ’rhe production of portions of redoc’red orders would no’r invade po’rien’r privacy, real porfies in interest need not show o compelling need for discovery."].) Pursuant To California Rules of Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (o), no fun‘her wrifien order is necessary. The minute orde'r 15 adopting ’rhis’ren’rafive ruling will serve as ’rhe order of The cour’r and service by ’rhe clerk will cons’ri’ru’re no’rice of The order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: KAG M K1 9n 312912022 . (Judge’s initials) (Do’re) 16 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO FOR COURTUSE ONLY Civil Department, Central Division 1130 "0“ Street Fresno,California 93724-0002 (559) 457-2000 TITLE 0F CASE: Henry Nutt vs. ASFC, LLC CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING CéiE'EE'gEEa lcertify that|am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the: Minute Order and Tentative Ruling was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. l am readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed forcollection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service with postage fullyprepaid. Place of mailing: 0n Date: Fresno,California 04/01/2022 93724-0002 Cle‘rk,by ML R. Smith . Deputy Nicolette Paullin _ Brett Schoel Johnson Moore Brett Schoel 100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 229 La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames Thousand Oaks, CA 91 360 655 University Avenue, Suite 119 Sacramento, CA 95825 D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached TGN-OGb R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING u ‘4