arrow left
arrow right
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
  • WILLIAM MINGRAM VS. RILEY POWER INC; ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

wn oem ND 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Morcan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Avtornevs AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP JOSEPH DUFFY, State Bar No. 241854 joseph. duffy@morganlewis.com AMY J. TALARICO, State Bar No. 209112 amy.talarico@morganlewis.com MARISA R. CHAVES, State Bar No. 236533 marisa.chaves@morganlewis.com One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 Attorneys for Defendant GRINNELL LLC ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/15/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WILLIAM MINGRAM, as Successor-in- Interest to and as Wrongful Death Heir of ROBERT MILGRAM, Deceased, Plaintiffs, vs. RILEY POWER INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR, SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOS DB2/ 37750361.1So Oo Om ND HW BF WN NY N NY NY NR NY KY Be Bee ewe ewe Be eB eB Be ee DA vn BH &- SO we I DA HW FF WN 27 2) Morcan, Lewis & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT Lat SAN FRANCISCO. GRINNELL LLC (“Defendant” or “Grinnell’”), answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Survival, Wrongful Death - Asbestos (“Complaint”) as follows: Under the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all. Whenever “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiffs” is used in this Answer, that reference embraces each Plaintiff individually as well as collectively, plus the words “each of them.” FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Defendant has purportedly been named or served in this action as a Doe defendant, such effort by Plaintiffs is invalid on the grounds that Plaintiffs knew or should have known of the identify of Defendant and the Plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action against Defendant at the time of the filing of the complaint. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each of its purported causes of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.15, 340.2, 343 and 361, and California Commercial Code section 2725. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant). FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the equitable Doctrine of Waiver. 1 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTIONS ~ ASBESTOS, DB2/ 37750361.1Co ON DH BB Bw NY RN NN NR NY KY He Be ewe ewe ee Re ee ew DA A &F BH F&F SOD we WY DA FB NH & SS 27 MorcaAN, Lewis & Bock1us LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN Francisco SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the equitable Doctrine of Estoppel. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are thereby barred from recovery herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiffs from any relief as prayed for herein. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff was advised, informed, and/or warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the products, substances, and/or equipment described in the Complaint. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors or other intermediaries, including Plaintiff's employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, from the use of the products. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, because Plaintiff and/or his employers are sophisticated users. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said damages. 2 Case No, CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOS12 13 Morcan, Lewis & Bockius LLP AvTornays AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any exposure of Plaintiffs to Defendant’s products was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss to Plaintiffs. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiffs, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiffs as alleged. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring or reducing Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiffs was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct, or products of persons, entities or parties other than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiffs must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities, and parties the amount of damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiffs was the result of superseding or intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any products and/or equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, 3 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSoom NO 11 12 27 Morcan, Lewis & Bockrus LLP ATTORNEYS AT Lat SAN FRANCISCO the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which was made of said products and/or equipment, and each of them, by other persons, entities, or parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The product(s) involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than and without the permission of Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages, if any. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiffs, nor knew, nor could have known, that its products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs in the normal and expected use of such products. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any products, substances, and/or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or supplied by Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art applicable to said products, substances, and/or equipment at the time of their manufacture, sale, formulation, or supply. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The products, substances, and/or equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and/or equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused, and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any, thus barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged, supplied, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co- 4 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSom ND 27 Morcan, Lewis & BOcKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiffs employers, and/or by third parties yet to be identified. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred under the government contractor defense. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, which are admittedly based upon a lack of identification of the manufacturer(s) and/or supplier(s) of the alleged injury- causing product(s), fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff have asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Defendant’s constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred under O'Neil v. Crane Co., (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335 and Taylor y. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, among other cases, because Plaintiffs have not pleaded and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos- containing products that were manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant or that were original to any equipment alleged to be manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable diligence in caring for Plaintiff's injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to accomplish their healing. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if any, alleged in the Complaint. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs were not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars 5 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOS27 MorGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP Artorneys AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Plaintiffs’ recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs herein have failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil Procedure section 389) such that the Complaint is defective, and Plaintiffs are thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant in that Plaintiffs have failed to join a substantial market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the asbestos-containing products that allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiffs based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the applicable market. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action for loss of consortium against Defendant does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, including, without limitation, because any purported asbestos exposure allegedly caused by Defendant occurred before Plaintiffs’ marriage. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs have no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty, deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code sections 1708-1710, and therefore each such cause of action in the Complaint, if any, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant. 6 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSCoe NDA BF BW NY Ss 27 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LA\ SAN FRANCISCO THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from general damages. Therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this Defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general damages. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against Defendant, if any, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that these words purportedly apply to Defendant, which Defendant denies, the Complaint does not state sufficient facts constituting “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as these terms are used in California Civil Code section 3294. FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that California Civil Code Section 3294, et seq. violates the California and/or the United States Constitutions because, among other things, it violates the due process clauses and the equal protection clauses thereof, respectively; it is void because it is vague and ambiguous; it constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; and it violates the Eighth 7 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSoe ND 27 Moran, Lewis & Bock1us LLP ATTORNEYS ATLA SAN FRANCISCO we Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery thereunder. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiffs, which responsibility is expressly denied, Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiffs only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California Civil Code sections 1431, et seq.). FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or supply of asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiffs claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable, and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which. Defendant manufactured, sold, or supplied products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure. FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiffs assert Defendant’s alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line, or a portion thereof; assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a portion thereof; parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos. FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint because the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein against Defendant are barred by the provisions of California Labor Code sections 3600, et seq. 8 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSMorGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their employment. Said employers and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said employers and each of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiffs, if there were any. By these premises, any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiffs herein must be reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff's employers or their compensation carrier(s) under Witt vs. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360 P.2d 641]. FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs have received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiffs are awarded damages against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that Plaintiffs have received or may in the future receive. FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant owed no duty to warn Plaintiffs regarding secondary exposure to any asbestos allegedly present at any premises where Plaintiff worked. Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 34 (2012). Each denial of Plaintiffs’ allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations, defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as 9 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR’ DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH — ASBESTOSSom NI DH RB BW N wioN 14 27 Morcan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Attorveys AT Law SAN FRANCISCO denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4). WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed and that Plaintiffs take nothing by virtue of this Complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’ Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Dated: November 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP isa R. Chaves One Market, Spear et Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 442-1000 SBN 236533 Attorneys for Defendant GRINNELL LLC 10 Case No. CGC-19-276801 DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DB2/ 37750361.1 SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH ~ ASBESTOSSUD em ID HW RB WN NY N NY NR NY NY NY Be Be we ewe ewe ewe we eR ee DA A BF BH = SO we ARQ A A FB WN 27 2 Morcan, Lewis & Bockius LLP ArTorNeys AT Lai SAN FRANCISCO. PROOF OF SERVICE William Mingram, et al. v Riley Power Inc., et al. San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-276801 Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action, my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105-1126. On November 15, 2019, I served the within documents: DEFENDANT GRINNELL LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL, WRONGFUL DEATH - ASBESTOS BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to San Francisco Court General x Order No. 158, CCP 1010.6 and CRC 2.251, or pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Authorizing Electronic Service, or by an agreement of the parties, at approximately 4:30p.m. I electronically eserved through File & ServeXpress and caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the transmission, the transmission was reported as complete and without error. ] Executed on November 15, 2019, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. Paula BY. Lesure Morgan, Lewis & Bockius One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 415-442-1000 1 Case No, CGC-19-276801 PROOF OF SERVICE DB2/ 37750361.1