Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Saul Reiss, SBN 48528 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1 2/1/2022 2:30 PM
reisslaw@verizon.net
Fay Pugh, SBN 198708 By: Jazmine Killian, Deputy
2
fay.pugh@outlook.com
3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C.
11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E
4
Los Angeles, Ca 90064
5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885
Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN,
6 LE PHUQUE, LLC and BMI GROUP, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK COUNTY
10
GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544
11 )
GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali –
)
12 ) Dept. SM 2]
Plaintiffs, )
13 ) REPLY BY DEFENDANTS ARA
vs. ) BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO
14 )
) PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) MOTION BY DEFENDANTS ARA
PHUQUE, LLC, a business entity; ) BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO
16 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE CO., a ) STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST
business entity, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
17 )
)
18 Defendants. ) [Concurrently filed with Defendants’ Reply to
) Opposition to Demurrer]
19 )
) Date: February 8, 2022
20 )
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 ) Place: Dept. SM 2
)
22 ) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020
) Trial Date: None
23 )
24
Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) hereby
25
respectfully submit their Reply to Plaintiffs Gary E. Hauenstein and Gwen J. Hauenstein’
26
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) Improperly Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike
27
the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”).
28
1
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 I. THE OPPOSITION WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED, THEREFORE, SHOULD
2 BE DISREGARDED.
3 The Motion to Strike is scheduled for hearing on February 8, 2022. An opposition to
4 a motion is due nine court days before the hearing (Code of Civ. Proc. §1005(b)), accordingly,
5 Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion to Strike was due on January 26, 2022.
6 It appears from the proof of service attached to the Opposition that it was served by
7 regular mail on January 25, 2022. However, service was not made in a manner to ensure
8 delivery by the close of the next business day since Defendants’ counsel did not receive the
9 Opposition until January 31, 2022 – the day before Defendants’ Reply was due.
10 All papers opposing a motion must be served by personal delivery, fax, electronically,
11 express mail, or other means consistent with Code of Civ. Proc. §§1010-1013 (the service of
12 notice statutes) and “reasonably calculated to ensure delivery … not later than the close
13 of the next business day” after the papers are filed with the court. Code of Civ. Proc.
14 §1055(c).
15 Regular mail is in no way calculated to ensure delivery by the next day, accordingly,
16 Plaintiffs’ Opposition was not timely served. The improper and untimely service has
17 prejudiced Defendants in that they had only one day to prepare and file their Reply.
18 Accordingly, the Court should refuse to consider Plaintiffs’ Opposition. Papers submitted
19 after the deadline must be accepted for filing. But the court, in its discretion, may refuse to
20 consider these papers in ruling on the motion. CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).
21 II. THE SPEAKING PORTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION SHOULD BE
22 DISREGARDED.
23 The Opposition refers to matters, specifically, in the Introduction portion, e.g., the
24 alleged value of the subject property, the alleged three other “tied” cases, the conduct of
25 Plaintiffs’ own attorney (R. Robert Monterrosa) and Plaintiffs’ claims against their own
26 attorney, etc.
27 None of these allegations are part of the FAC. Additionally, whatever claim Plaintiffs
28 may have against their own attorney, Mr. Monterrosa, is completely irrelevant to Defendants.
2
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Furthermore, no notice of related cases has been filed and no fact is provided in the
2 Opposition, which would remotely suggest that the instant action is “tied” to any other action.
3 Finally, the existence of alleged “tied” cases does not cure the defects in the FAC as against
4 Defendants.
5 As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the
6 pleading under attack, or from matter, which the court may judicially notice, e.g., the court’s
7 own files or records. Code of Civ. Proc. §437. A demurrer can be used only to challenge
8 defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the
9 pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318;
10 Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (citing text).
11 No other extrinsic evidence can be considered, i.e., no “speaking demurrers”. Ion
12 Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881—error for court to consider facts
13 asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer; Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., Inc.
14 (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862 (disapproved on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v.
15 Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 250—error for court to consider contents of
16 release which was not part of any court record.
17 Accordingly, the Court should disregard the Introduction portion of the Opposition
18 starting on page 3, line 1 through page 4, line 18.
19 III. PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
20 ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
21 By their silence in the Opposition, Plaintiffs concede that the Court should grant
22 Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for attorneys’ fees from the FAC. Plaintiffs have not
23 provided a scintilla of facts or law, which remotely suggests that they are entitled to seek
24 attorneys’ fees in the FAC against Defendants, e.g., no mention of a contract provision, law
25 or statute. Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5.
26 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE STANDING.
27 As set forth in the moving papers and the demurrers, Plaintiffs are not the owners of
28 the subject property by the virtue of the fact that they deeded the same to their own attorney.
3
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 9). “The facts recited in a written instrument are
2 conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest;
3 but this rule does not apply to the recital of a consideration.” Evid. Code §622. The fact that
4 Plaintiffs signed the Grant Deed acknowledging that they received valuable consideration for
5 the transfer of the ownership of the property to their attorney is an undisputed fact. According,
6 Plaintiffs have no in interest in the property, therefore, lack standing. In their Opposition,
7 Plaintiffs provide no fact or law, which remotely suggests that they have standing. That defect
8 cannot be cured as a matter of law, therefore, leave to amend should be denied.
9 V. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED.
10 Leave to amend should be denied here because Plaintiffs have made no showing how the
11 defects in their FAC can be cured. The burden is on plaintiff to show in what manner plaintiff
12 can amend the complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.
13 Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Medina v. Safe-Guard Products (2008) 164
14 Cal.App.4th 105, 112, fn. 8 (citing text); Heritage Pac. Fin’l, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215
15 Cal.App.4th 972, 994—court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where,
16 despite ample opportunity, plaintiff failed to demonstrate it could cure defect; Shaeffer v.
17 Califia Farms, LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1145—“onus” on plaintiff to show specific
18 ways in which complaint can be amended, and denial of leave to amend affirmed where
19 plaintiff “proffered no specific amendments to the trial court”.
20 Furthermore, the defects in the FAC cannot be cured as a matter of law and the facts are
21 undisputed. There is no contract, law or statute, which provides that Plaintiffs may seek
22 attorneys’ fees. Without ownership in the property, Plaintiffs lack standing to assert any claim
23 regarding the property, including asserting a quiet title claim or seek declaratory relief as to the
24 property. Plaintiffs do not own the property and have no interest therein. That is an undisputed
25 fact. Accordingly, leave to amend should be denied.
26 The court should deny leave to amend where the facts are not in dispute and no liability
27 exists under substantive law. Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th
28 497, 535 (disapproved on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp. (2016) 62
4
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Cal.4th 919). There is no reluctance to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend where
2 the only issues are legal ones and the court decides against plaintiff as a matter of law: “Leave
3 to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is
4 clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163
5 Cal.App.3d 431, 436 (emphasis added); Schonfeldt v. State of Calif. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th
6 1462, 1465—if no liability as a matter of law, leave to amend should not be granted.
7 Finally, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, which was defective. They were granted leave
8 to amend to cure those defects. Plaintiffs filed their FAC, which continues to be defective
9 and they have not shown how the defects can be cured because they cannot. Accordingly,
10 leave to amend should be denied.
11 VI. CONCLUSION.
12 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion
13 to strike the First Amended Complaint, without leave to amend.
14
Dated: February 1, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C.
15
16
17 ________________________________
18 Saul Reiss, Esq.
Fay Pugh, Esq.
19 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN,
LE PHUQUE, LLC and BMI GROUP, INC.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E,
4
Los Angeles, Ca 90064, fax: 310/450-2888, email: fay.pugh@outlook.com.
5
On February 1, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as
6
7 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS ARA BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS ARA BALJIAN
8 AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
9
10 on the interested parties in this action
11 / X / by placing / / the original / X / a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed
12 as follows:
13 William Edwards, Esq.
William Edwards Law
14
168 H. Street
15 Bakersfield, CA 93304
Email: weejlaw@yahoo.com
16
/ X / (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice of my place
17
of employment in respect to the collection and processing of correspondence, pleadings and
18 notices for mailing with United States Postal Service. The foregoing sealed envelope was
placed for collection and mailing this date consistent with the ordinary business practice of
19 my place of employment, so that it will be picked up this date with postage thereon fully
20 prepaid at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business.
21 / X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served
through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was
22 reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be
23 maintained with the original document in my office.
24 / X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct. Executed on February 1, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26
____________________
27
Fay Pugh
28
6
REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY
DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Saul Reiss, SBN 48528 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1 2/1/2022 2:30 PM reisslaw@verizon.net Fay Pugh, SBN 198708 By: Jazmine Killian, Deputy 2 fay.pugh@outlook.com 3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C. 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E 4 Los Angeles, Ca 90064 5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885 Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN, 6 LE PHUQUE, LLC and BMI GROUP, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK COUNTY 10 GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544 11 ) GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali – ) 12 ) Dept. SM 2] Plaintiffs, ) 13 ) REPLY BY DEFENDANTS ARA vs. ) BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO 14 ) ) PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) MOTION BY DEFENDANTS ARA PHUQUE, LLC, a business entity; ) BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO 16 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE CO., a ) STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST business entity, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 ) ) 18 Defendants. ) [Concurrently filed with Defendants’ Reply to ) Opposition to Demurrer] 19 ) ) Date: February 8, 2022 20 ) ) Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 ) Place: Dept. SM 2 ) 22 ) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020 ) Trial Date: None 23 ) 24 Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) hereby 25 respectfully submit their Reply to Plaintiffs Gary E. Hauenstein and Gwen J. Hauenstein’ 26 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Improperly Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike 27 the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). 28 1 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 I. THE OPPOSITION WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED, THEREFORE, SHOULD 2 BE DISREGARDED. 3 The Motion to Strike is scheduled for hearing on February 8, 2022. An opposition to 4 a motion is due nine court days before the hearing (Code of Civ. Proc. §1005(b)), accordingly, 5 Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion to Strike was due on January 26, 2022. 6 It appears from the proof of service attached to the Opposition that it was served by 7 regular mail on January 25, 2022. However, service was not made in a manner to ensure 8 delivery by the close of the next business day since Defendants’ counsel did not receive the 9 Opposition until January 31, 2022 – the day before Defendants’ Reply was due. 10 All papers opposing a motion must be served by personal delivery, fax, electronically, 11 express mail, or other means consistent with Code of Civ. Proc. §§1010-1013 (the service of 12 notice statutes) and “reasonably calculated to ensure delivery … not later than the close 13 of the next business day” after the papers are filed with the court. Code of Civ. Proc. 14 §1055(c). 15 Regular mail is in no way calculated to ensure delivery by the next day, accordingly, 16 Plaintiffs’ Opposition was not timely served. The improper and untimely service has 17 prejudiced Defendants in that they had only one day to prepare and file their Reply. 18 Accordingly, the Court should refuse to consider Plaintiffs’ Opposition. Papers submitted 19 after the deadline must be accepted for filing. But the court, in its discretion, may refuse to 20 consider these papers in ruling on the motion. CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d). 21 II. THE SPEAKING PORTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION SHOULD BE 22 DISREGARDED. 23 The Opposition refers to matters, specifically, in the Introduction portion, e.g., the 24 alleged value of the subject property, the alleged three other “tied” cases, the conduct of 25 Plaintiffs’ own attorney (R. Robert Monterrosa) and Plaintiffs’ claims against their own 26 attorney, etc. 27 None of these allegations are part of the FAC. Additionally, whatever claim Plaintiffs 28 may have against their own attorney, Mr. Monterrosa, is completely irrelevant to Defendants. 2 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Furthermore, no notice of related cases has been filed and no fact is provided in the 2 Opposition, which would remotely suggest that the instant action is “tied” to any other action. 3 Finally, the existence of alleged “tied” cases does not cure the defects in the FAC as against 4 Defendants. 5 As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the 6 pleading under attack, or from matter, which the court may judicially notice, e.g., the court’s 7 own files or records. Code of Civ. Proc. §437. A demurrer can be used only to challenge 8 defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the 9 pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; 10 Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (citing text). 11 No other extrinsic evidence can be considered, i.e., no “speaking demurrers”. Ion 12 Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881—error for court to consider facts 13 asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer; Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., Inc. 14 (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862 (disapproved on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. 15 Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 250—error for court to consider contents of 16 release which was not part of any court record. 17 Accordingly, the Court should disregard the Introduction portion of the Opposition 18 starting on page 3, line 1 through page 4, line 18. 19 III. PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO 20 ATTORNEYS’ FEES. 21 By their silence in the Opposition, Plaintiffs concede that the Court should grant 22 Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for attorneys’ fees from the FAC. Plaintiffs have not 23 provided a scintilla of facts or law, which remotely suggests that they are entitled to seek 24 attorneys’ fees in the FAC against Defendants, e.g., no mention of a contract provision, law 25 or statute. Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5. 26 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE STANDING. 27 As set forth in the moving papers and the demurrers, Plaintiffs are not the owners of 28 the subject property by the virtue of the fact that they deeded the same to their own attorney. 3 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 9). “The facts recited in a written instrument are 2 conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; 3 but this rule does not apply to the recital of a consideration.” Evid. Code §622. The fact that 4 Plaintiffs signed the Grant Deed acknowledging that they received valuable consideration for 5 the transfer of the ownership of the property to their attorney is an undisputed fact. According, 6 Plaintiffs have no in interest in the property, therefore, lack standing. In their Opposition, 7 Plaintiffs provide no fact or law, which remotely suggests that they have standing. That defect 8 cannot be cured as a matter of law, therefore, leave to amend should be denied. 9 V. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED. 10 Leave to amend should be denied here because Plaintiffs have made no showing how the 11 defects in their FAC can be cured. The burden is on plaintiff to show in what manner plaintiff 12 can amend the complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. 13 Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Medina v. Safe-Guard Products (2008) 164 14 Cal.App.4th 105, 112, fn. 8 (citing text); Heritage Pac. Fin’l, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 15 Cal.App.4th 972, 994—court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where, 16 despite ample opportunity, plaintiff failed to demonstrate it could cure defect; Shaeffer v. 17 Califia Farms, LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1145—“onus” on plaintiff to show specific 18 ways in which complaint can be amended, and denial of leave to amend affirmed where 19 plaintiff “proffered no specific amendments to the trial court”. 20 Furthermore, the defects in the FAC cannot be cured as a matter of law and the facts are 21 undisputed. There is no contract, law or statute, which provides that Plaintiffs may seek 22 attorneys’ fees. Without ownership in the property, Plaintiffs lack standing to assert any claim 23 regarding the property, including asserting a quiet title claim or seek declaratory relief as to the 24 property. Plaintiffs do not own the property and have no interest therein. That is an undisputed 25 fact. Accordingly, leave to amend should be denied. 26 The court should deny leave to amend where the facts are not in dispute and no liability 27 exists under substantive law. Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 28 497, 535 (disapproved on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp. (2016) 62 4 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Cal.4th 919). There is no reluctance to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend where 2 the only issues are legal ones and the court decides against plaintiff as a matter of law: “Leave 3 to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is 4 clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 5 Cal.App.3d 431, 436 (emphasis added); Schonfeldt v. State of Calif. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 6 1462, 1465—if no liability as a matter of law, leave to amend should not be granted. 7 Finally, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, which was defective. They were granted leave 8 to amend to cure those defects. Plaintiffs filed their FAC, which continues to be defective 9 and they have not shown how the defects can be cured because they cannot. Accordingly, 10 leave to amend should be denied. 11 VI. CONCLUSION. 12 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion 13 to strike the First Amended Complaint, without leave to amend. 14 Dated: February 1, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C. 15 16 17 ________________________________ 18 Saul Reiss, Esq. Fay Pugh, Esq. 19 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN, LE PHUQUE, LLC and BMI GROUP, INC. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E, 4 Los Angeles, Ca 90064, fax: 310/450-2888, email: fay.pugh@outlook.com. 5 On February 1, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as 6 7 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS ARA BALJIAN AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS ARA BALJIAN 8 AND LE PHUQUE, LLC TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 10 on the interested parties in this action 11 / X / by placing / / the original / X / a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed 12 as follows: 13 William Edwards, Esq. William Edwards Law 14 168 H. Street 15 Bakersfield, CA 93304 Email: weejlaw@yahoo.com 16 / X / (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice of my place 17 of employment in respect to the collection and processing of correspondence, pleadings and 18 notices for mailing with United States Postal Service. The foregoing sealed envelope was placed for collection and mailing this date consistent with the ordinary business practice of 19 my place of employment, so that it will be picked up this date with postage thereon fully 20 prepaid at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. 21 / X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was 22 reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be 23 maintained with the original document in my office. 24 / X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 1, 2022, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 ____________________ 27 Fay Pugh 28 6 REPLY BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT