Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/29/2020 04:33 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk
1 I. HOOSHIE BROOMAND (SBN: 210206)
hbroomand@grsm.com
2 HEATHER-ANN T. YOUNG (SBN: 283211)
hyoung@grsm.com
3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 565-2900
5 Facsimile: (916) 920-4402
6 Attorneys for Defendants
MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER;
7 VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC
dba MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE
8 (erroneously sued as Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC dba Verdugo
Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre); BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.;
9 ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and SHLOMO RECHNITZ
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
12 JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor- ) CASE NO. 20STCV12538
Sacramento, CA 95825
in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE )
13 MOR, an individual, ) Assigned to Judge Melissa Williams Court
) Department 74, all purposes
14 Plaintiffs, )
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15 vs. ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH
16 MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING ) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO
& WELLNESS CENTER; VERDUGO ) GENEVIEVE BAUTISTA
17 VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & )
WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba VERDUGO ) RESERVATION ID: 268759636676
18 VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & ) Date: May 20, 2021
WELLNESS CENTRE; BRIUS ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ROCKPORT ) Dept: 74
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; )
20 SHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1 ) Complaint Filed: March 30, 2020
THROUGH 60, inclusive, ) Trial Date: January 25, 2021
21 )
Defendants. )
22
23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 Plaintiffs’ subpoena directed to Genevieve Bautista, former Rockport employee violates
25 CCP 2024.020 because it is untimely. Despite the violation of the Civil Discovery Act and
26 despite Defendants’ meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs have failed to withdraw the subpoena. As
27 a result, Defendants are left with no other recourse but to file this motion to quash.
28 ///
-1-
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista
1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2 Discovery closed on November 2, 2020. Yet, Plaintiff’s unilaterally noticed Genevieve
3 Bautista’s deposition six weeks after discovery cut off, on December 17, 2020 and scheduled the
4 deposition for December 29, 2020. (See, Young Decl., ¶12; see also Ex. D) On October 16,
5 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the deposition of Rockport’s Regional Quality Assurance Nurse
6 for a specified deposition date of October 28, 2020. (See, Young Decl., ¶2; see also Ex. A.)
7 Defendants objected and this deposition did not go forward. (See, Young Decl., ¶3; see also Ex.
8 B.) Plaintiffs’ did not file a Motion to Compel.
9 During the Informal Discovery Conference held on November 2, 2020, various discovery
10 issues were discussed. (Young Decl., ¶4.) The parties agreed that they would notify each other
11 of the motions to compel that they would keep on calendar and indicate what responses would be
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
12 supplemented by November 6, 2020. (Young Decl., ¶4.) Due to the aggressive and busy
Sacramento, CA 95825
13 deposition schedule, neither party was able to meet the Friday, November 6th date. (Young Decl.,
14 ¶4.) On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, defense counsel indicated to Plaintiffs’ counsel what
15 motions to compel were staying on calendar and what discovery responses would be
16 supplemented, this included informing Plaintiffs’ that Rockport’s Regional Quality Assurance
17 Nurse from 2/8/19-4/24/19 was former employee, Genevieve Bautista and that Rockport does
18 not have any control over her to produce her for a deposition. (See, Young Decl., ¶5; see also Ex.
19 C.) This put Plaintiffs’ squarely on notice that should they want to depose Rockport’s Regional
20 Quality Assurance Nurse, they needed to either subpoena her or file a Motion to Compel.
21 Plaintiffs’ did neither. From November 10, 2020 until December 16, 2020, there was no mention
22 of this deposition. (See, Young Decl., ¶6;) Between November 10, 2020 and December 16,
23 2020, counsel have met and conferred at great length to schedule the outstanding depositions
24 including facility staff members, corporate executives and expert witnesses. (See, Young Decl.,
25 ¶7;)
26 On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs’ filed Motions to Compel further discovery responses
27 from Defendants Shlomo Rechnitz, Rockport and Verdugo Valley. (See, Young Decl., ¶8;) On
28 November 16, 2020, this court held an ex parte hearing regarding advancing the hearing dates for
-2-
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista
1 Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and Defendants Motions (protective order for Shlomo Rechnitz
2 and Motion to Compel Plaintiff Marie Mor’s deposition). (See, Young Decl., ¶9;) During the
3 November 16th hearing, the Judge set the hearings for all Motions to Compel for December 15th,
4 with oppositions due 12/2 and replies due on 12/8. During this same hearing, the Judge
5 continued the trial to January 25, 2021. (See, Young Decl., ¶10;) Discovery was not re-opened
6 and remained with the original trial date. (See, Young Decl., ¶11).
7 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
8 A. Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena is Untimely
9 The Court should grant Defendants’ Motion to Quash Bautista’s deposition subpoena
10 because it is untimely and past discovery cut off. Discovery closed on November 2, 2020. Here,
11 Plaintiffs took no action or recourse after Defendants objected to October 20, 2020, to the
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
12 deposition of Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse. On November 10, 2020, defense counsel
Sacramento, CA 95825
13 abided by the agreement made in the Informal Discovery Conference to let Plaintiffs know what
14 their positions were on the discovery disputes. This letter made it abundantly clear that
15 Defendants were not producing Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse for deposition. Two days
16 later, Plaintiffs acted on the November 10th letter and filed motions to compel against Rockport,
17 Shlomo Rechnitz and Verdugo Valley. Plaintiffs did nothing to compel the deposition of
18 Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse.
19 Per CCP §2024.020:
20 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, ant party shall be entitled as a matter of
21 right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions
22 concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of
23 the action.
24 (b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial
25 date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.
26 Plaintiffs’ counsel did not follow up or move to compel this deposition and have waived
27 the right to do so. Rather, Plaintiffs’ counsel waited until after the trial was continued to January
28 25, 2021, after the rulings on the motions to compel and after several rounds of other depositions
-3-
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista
1 to now notice the deposition of Genevieve Bautista. (See, Young Decl., ¶6-7) This deposition is
2 not for Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse, but instead noticed for Genevieve Bautista.
3 B. Plaintiffs’ Attorney Should Reimburse Cross-Defendants For Having To File
This Motion To Quash
4
5 Finally, Defendants request that this Court impose sanctions on Plaintiffs and/or their
6 attorney to reimburse them for being unjustly forced to file this unnecessary motion. Code of
7 Civil Procedure section 1987.2 (a) allows a court to award the amount of the reasonable expenses
8 incurred in making or opposing a motion to quash, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, if the
9 court finds that the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification
10 or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (See also Vasquez v.
11 California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 41.)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
12 Here, the Court should impose a sanction on Plaintiffs and their attorneys because they
Sacramento, CA 95825
13 misused the discovery process and forced Defendants to incur avoidable litigation expenses
14 consequentially incurred by filing this motion to quash. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is untimely and a
15 last ditch effort to take more depositions in an effort to harass Defendants. Accordingly, the
16 Court should order sanctions against Plaintiff and their counsel in the amount of $1,354.15
17 (Young Decl., ¶12.)
18 IV. CONCLUSION
19 For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Quash and Request for Sanctions
20 should be granted.
21 Dated: December 29, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
22
By:
23 I. Hooshie Broomand
Heather-Ann T. Young
24 Attorneys for Defendants Montrose Springs Skilled
Nursing & Wellness Center, Verdugo Valley Skilled
25 Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose
Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre
26 (erroneously sued as Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing
& Wellness Centre, LLC dba Verdugo Valley Skilled
27 Nursing & Wellness Centre), Brius Management Co.,
Inc., Rockport Administrative Services, LLC and
28 Shlomo Rechnitz
-4-
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista
1 Re: Mor v. Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Center, et al.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV12538
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200,
4 Sacramento, California 95825. I am employed in the City and County of Sacramento where this
service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am readily
5 familiar with my employer’s normal business practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence
6 is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary
course of business.
7
On December 29, 2020, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the
8 foregoing document(s) described as:
9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO GENEVIEVE BAUTISTA
10
11 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6, I caused the
documents to be sent to the person(s) at the E-Mail address(es) listed below. I did not
receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
13
Sacramento, CA 95825
Lisa Trinh Flint
Moran Law
14 5 Hutton Centre, Suite 1050
Santa Ana, CA 92707
15 T: 714-549-0333; F: 714-549-0444
lflint@moranelderlaw.com
16 dbrown@moranelderlaw.com
ahorii@moranelderlaw.com
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on December 29, 2020, at Sacramento, California.
20
21 _______________________________________
VERONICA WHITAKER
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/29/2020 04:33 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk 1 I. HOOSHIE BROOMAND (SBN: 210206) hbroomand@grsm.com 2 HEATHER-ANN T. YOUNG (SBN: 283211) hyoung@grsm.com 3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 4 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 565-2900 5 Facsimile: (916) 920-4402 6 Attorneys for Defendants MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER; 7 VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE 8 (erroneously sued as Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC dba Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre); BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; 9 ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and SHLOMO RECHNITZ 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 12 JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor- ) CASE NO. 20STCV12538 Sacramento, CA 95825 in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE ) 13 MOR, an individual, ) Assigned to Judge Melissa Williams Court ) Department 74, all purposes 14 Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 vs. ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH 16 MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING ) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO & WELLNESS CENTER; VERDUGO ) GENEVIEVE BAUTISTA 17 VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & ) WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba VERDUGO ) RESERVATION ID: 268759636676 18 VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & ) Date: May 20, 2021 WELLNESS CENTRE; BRIUS ) Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ROCKPORT ) Dept: 74 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; ) 20 SHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1 ) Complaint Filed: March 30, 2020 THROUGH 60, inclusive, ) Trial Date: January 25, 2021 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 Plaintiffs’ subpoena directed to Genevieve Bautista, former Rockport employee violates 25 CCP 2024.020 because it is untimely. Despite the violation of the Civil Discovery Act and 26 despite Defendants’ meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs have failed to withdraw the subpoena. As 27 a result, Defendants are left with no other recourse but to file this motion to quash. 28 /// -1- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista 1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Discovery closed on November 2, 2020. Yet, Plaintiff’s unilaterally noticed Genevieve 3 Bautista’s deposition six weeks after discovery cut off, on December 17, 2020 and scheduled the 4 deposition for December 29, 2020. (See, Young Decl., ¶12; see also Ex. D) On October 16, 5 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the deposition of Rockport’s Regional Quality Assurance Nurse 6 for a specified deposition date of October 28, 2020. (See, Young Decl., ¶2; see also Ex. A.) 7 Defendants objected and this deposition did not go forward. (See, Young Decl., ¶3; see also Ex. 8 B.) Plaintiffs’ did not file a Motion to Compel. 9 During the Informal Discovery Conference held on November 2, 2020, various discovery 10 issues were discussed. (Young Decl., ¶4.) The parties agreed that they would notify each other 11 of the motions to compel that they would keep on calendar and indicate what responses would be Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 12 supplemented by November 6, 2020. (Young Decl., ¶4.) Due to the aggressive and busy Sacramento, CA 95825 13 deposition schedule, neither party was able to meet the Friday, November 6th date. (Young Decl., 14 ¶4.) On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, defense counsel indicated to Plaintiffs’ counsel what 15 motions to compel were staying on calendar and what discovery responses would be 16 supplemented, this included informing Plaintiffs’ that Rockport’s Regional Quality Assurance 17 Nurse from 2/8/19-4/24/19 was former employee, Genevieve Bautista and that Rockport does 18 not have any control over her to produce her for a deposition. (See, Young Decl., ¶5; see also Ex. 19 C.) This put Plaintiffs’ squarely on notice that should they want to depose Rockport’s Regional 20 Quality Assurance Nurse, they needed to either subpoena her or file a Motion to Compel. 21 Plaintiffs’ did neither. From November 10, 2020 until December 16, 2020, there was no mention 22 of this deposition. (See, Young Decl., ¶6;) Between November 10, 2020 and December 16, 23 2020, counsel have met and conferred at great length to schedule the outstanding depositions 24 including facility staff members, corporate executives and expert witnesses. (See, Young Decl., 25 ¶7;) 26 On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs’ filed Motions to Compel further discovery responses 27 from Defendants Shlomo Rechnitz, Rockport and Verdugo Valley. (See, Young Decl., ¶8;) On 28 November 16, 2020, this court held an ex parte hearing regarding advancing the hearing dates for -2- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista 1 Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and Defendants Motions (protective order for Shlomo Rechnitz 2 and Motion to Compel Plaintiff Marie Mor’s deposition). (See, Young Decl., ¶9;) During the 3 November 16th hearing, the Judge set the hearings for all Motions to Compel for December 15th, 4 with oppositions due 12/2 and replies due on 12/8. During this same hearing, the Judge 5 continued the trial to January 25, 2021. (See, Young Decl., ¶10;) Discovery was not re-opened 6 and remained with the original trial date. (See, Young Decl., ¶11). 7 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 8 A. Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena is Untimely 9 The Court should grant Defendants’ Motion to Quash Bautista’s deposition subpoena 10 because it is untimely and past discovery cut off. Discovery closed on November 2, 2020. Here, 11 Plaintiffs took no action or recourse after Defendants objected to October 20, 2020, to the Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 12 deposition of Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse. On November 10, 2020, defense counsel Sacramento, CA 95825 13 abided by the agreement made in the Informal Discovery Conference to let Plaintiffs know what 14 their positions were on the discovery disputes. This letter made it abundantly clear that 15 Defendants were not producing Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse for deposition. Two days 16 later, Plaintiffs acted on the November 10th letter and filed motions to compel against Rockport, 17 Shlomo Rechnitz and Verdugo Valley. Plaintiffs did nothing to compel the deposition of 18 Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse. 19 Per CCP §2024.020: 20 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, ant party shall be entitled as a matter of 21 right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions 22 concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of 23 the action. 24 (b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial 25 date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. 26 Plaintiffs’ counsel did not follow up or move to compel this deposition and have waived 27 the right to do so. Rather, Plaintiffs’ counsel waited until after the trial was continued to January 28 25, 2021, after the rulings on the motions to compel and after several rounds of other depositions -3- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista 1 to now notice the deposition of Genevieve Bautista. (See, Young Decl., ¶6-7) This deposition is 2 not for Rockport’s Quality Assurance Nurse, but instead noticed for Genevieve Bautista. 3 B. Plaintiffs’ Attorney Should Reimburse Cross-Defendants For Having To File This Motion To Quash 4 5 Finally, Defendants request that this Court impose sanctions on Plaintiffs and/or their 6 attorney to reimburse them for being unjustly forced to file this unnecessary motion. Code of 7 Civil Procedure section 1987.2 (a) allows a court to award the amount of the reasonable expenses 8 incurred in making or opposing a motion to quash, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, if the 9 court finds that the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification 10 or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (See also Vasquez v. 11 California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 41.) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 12 Here, the Court should impose a sanction on Plaintiffs and their attorneys because they Sacramento, CA 95825 13 misused the discovery process and forced Defendants to incur avoidable litigation expenses 14 consequentially incurred by filing this motion to quash. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is untimely and a 15 last ditch effort to take more depositions in an effort to harass Defendants. Accordingly, the 16 Court should order sanctions against Plaintiff and their counsel in the amount of $1,354.15 17 (Young Decl., ¶12.) 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Quash and Request for Sanctions 20 should be granted. 21 Dated: December 29, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 22 By: 23 I. Hooshie Broomand Heather-Ann T. Young 24 Attorneys for Defendants Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Center, Verdugo Valley Skilled 25 Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre 26 (erroneously sued as Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC dba Verdugo Valley Skilled 27 Nursing & Wellness Centre), Brius Management Co., Inc., Rockport Administrative Services, LLC and 28 Shlomo Rechnitz -4- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista 1 Re: Mor v. Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Center, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV12538 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200, 4 Sacramento, California 95825. I am employed in the City and County of Sacramento where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am readily 5 familiar with my employer’s normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence 6 is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. 7 On December 29, 2020, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the 8 foregoing document(s) described as: 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO GENEVIEVE BAUTISTA 10 11 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the E-Mail address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 13 Sacramento, CA 95825 Lisa Trinh Flint Moran Law 14 5 Hutton Centre, Suite 1050 Santa Ana, CA 92707 15 T: 714-549-0333; F: 714-549-0444 lflint@moranelderlaw.com 16 dbrown@moranelderlaw.com ahorii@moranelderlaw.com 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on December 29, 2020, at Sacramento, California. 20 21 _______________________________________ VERONICA WHITAKER 22 23 24 25 26 27 28