Preview
1 MATTHEW S. CONSTANTINO, ESQ. BAR#: 211916
LAURA J. LOECK, ESQ. BAR#: 303577
2 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY ELECTRONICALLY
5860 Owens Drive, Suite 410
3 Pleasanton, California 94588
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Tel: (925) 734-0990 Fax: (925) 734-0888
Email: mconstantino@clappmoroney.com 05/13/2021
5 Email: lloeck@clappmoroney.com Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorney for Defendants
JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(LIMITED JURISDICTION)
10
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
MARSHALL MEYER, Case No.: CGC-20-588093
11
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J.
PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT
14 J. PETER SCATTINI, Individually, JANICE M. Complaint Filed: December 2, 2020
15 SCATTINI, Individually, JERROLD PETER Trial Date: None set
SCATTINI, JR. and JANICE SCATTINI,
16 Trustees of the Peter and Janice Scattini Family
Trust dated July 2, 2002, and DOES 1 to 10,
17 inclusive,
18 Defendants.
19
20 COMES NOW Defendants JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI (“Defendants”)
21 and hereby answer the unverified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff MARSHALL
22 MEYER (“Plaintiff”), and admit, deny, and allege as follows:
23 GENERAL DENIAL
24 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendants deny,
25 generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and purported cause
26 of action contained in Plaintiff’s FAC. Defendants further deny, generally and specifically, that
27 Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at all, by reason of any acts
28 or omissions of Defendants.
1
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 2. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that the FAC
3 fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against them.
4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 3. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants deny any
6 wrongdoing, negligence, or liability on their part but, should it be determined that Defendants are
7 liable to Plaintiff, then Defendants allege that Plaintiff was also legally at fault, and possibly others as
8 well, and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against Defendants must be reduced by
9 that percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others.
10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
11 4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff
12 has failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which he claims to have sustained and his recovery,
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13 if any, should be barred or diminished accordingly.
14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 5. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege by virtue
16 of Plaintiff’s affirmative conduct that he is estopped from making any claim against Defendants by
17 reason of the doctrine of estoppel.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that their
20 conduct was at all times reasonable and undertaken with due care.
21 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that the FAC
23 and each cause of action thereof is barred by the statute of limitations.
24 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that
26 Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in filing his FAC, which has unduly prejudiced Defendants in their
27 defense of the action, thereby barring or diminishing Plaintiff’s recovery herein, if any, under the
28 doctrine of waiver.
2
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that
3 Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were caused solely by unforeseeable and unusual conditions not
4 under the control of Defendants.
5 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 10. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that at all
7 times mentioned in the FAC, they fully complied with all obligations and/or duties imposed on them
8 by statute, contract, or any other source.
9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 11. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
11 was negligent and careless in and about the matters and events referred to in the FAC, which
12 negligence and carelessness proximately caused and/or contributed to the liability, damages, or
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13 injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any. Said negligence and carelessness completely bar and/or reduce
14 to the proportional extent of said negligence and carelessness, any decision, verdict or recovery to
15 which Plaintiff may be entitled.
16 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that
18 because the FAC is couched in conclusory terms, Defendants cannot fully anticipate all affirmative
19 defenses that may be applicable to the instant action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right to
20 add additional affirmative defenses as discovery progresses.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
3
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 WHEREFORE, Defendants JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI pray Plaintiff
2 takes nothing by way of his First Amended Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such
3 other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and proper.
4
Dated: May 13, 2021 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH,
5 BEEMAN+SCHELEY
6
7
8 By:
MATTHEW S. CONSTANTINO, ESQ.
9 LAURA J. LOECK, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants
10
JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
11
12
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Meyer v. Scattini, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-588093
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3 [Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1031a, 2015.5]
4 METHOD OF SERVICE:
5 By Personal Service By Mail By Overnight Delivery
By Messenger Service By Facsimile By E-Mail/Electronic Transmission
6
1. I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Alameda, State of
7 CALIFORNIA. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action.
8 2. My place of employment is 5860 Owens Drive, Suite 410, Pleasanton, California 94588.
9 3. On the date set forth below, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the document
described as:
10
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO
11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
12 I served the documents on the persons below, as follows:
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13 Attorney for Plaintiff
14 Leo M. LaRocca, Esq.
Niven & Smith
15 505 Sansome St., Suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94111-3179
16 T: (415) 981-5451
F: (415) 433-5439
17 E: law@nivensmith.com
18
4. The document(s) was served by the following means (specify):
19
a. BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be personally delivered the documents
20 to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4. (1) For a party represented by an
attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the
21 documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being
served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party,
22 delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence
with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
23 morning and six in the evening.
24 b. BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope
or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4 and (specify one):
25
(1) deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Services,
26 with the postage fully prepaid.
27 (2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for
28 collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
5
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
2 envelope with postage fully prepaid.
3 c. BY CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. I enclosed the
documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in
4 item 4 and (specify one):
5 (1) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for
6 collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
corre spondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
7 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid for said certified mail/return receipt
8 number (See attached copies of Certified Mail/Return Receipts Requested.)
9 I am a resident or employed in the County where the mailing occurred. The envelope or
package was placed in the mail at Pleasanton, California, County of Alameda.
10
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY
d. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or
11 package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the
addresses in item 4. I place the envelope or package for collection and overnight
12 delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410
13 e. BY MESSENGER SERVICE. I served the documents by placing them in an
envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4 and
14 providing them to a professional messenger service for service.
15 f. BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept
service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers
16 listed in item 4. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.
17 g. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. I caused all of the
above-entitled document(s) to be sent to the recipients listed by electronic mail only
18 based on the fact that during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be
working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only
19 electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
20
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 (Federal) declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction this service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
23 correct.
24 Executed on May 13, 2021 at Pleasanton, California.
25
26
Regina Chand
27
28
6
DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 MATTHEW S. CONSTANTINO, ESQ. BAR#: 211916 LAURA J. LOECK, ESQ. BAR#: 303577 2 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY ELECTRONICALLY 5860 Owens Drive, Suite 410 3 Pleasanton, California 94588 FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Tel: (925) 734-0990 Fax: (925) 734-0888 Email: mconstantino@clappmoroney.com 05/13/2021 5 Email: lloeck@clappmoroney.com Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk 6 Attorney for Defendants JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (LIMITED JURISDICTION) 10 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY MARSHALL MEYER, Case No.: CGC-20-588093 11 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 J. PETER SCATTINI, Individually, JANICE M. Complaint Filed: December 2, 2020 15 SCATTINI, Individually, JERROLD PETER Trial Date: None set SCATTINI, JR. and JANICE SCATTINI, 16 Trustees of the Peter and Janice Scattini Family Trust dated July 2, 2002, and DOES 1 to 10, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 COMES NOW Defendants JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI (“Defendants”) 21 and hereby answer the unverified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff MARSHALL 22 MEYER (“Plaintiff”), and admit, deny, and allege as follows: 23 GENERAL DENIAL 24 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendants deny, 25 generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and purported cause 26 of action contained in Plaintiff’s FAC. Defendants further deny, generally and specifically, that 27 Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at all, by reason of any acts 28 or omissions of Defendants. 1 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 2. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that the FAC 3 fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against them. 4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 3. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants deny any 6 wrongdoing, negligence, or liability on their part but, should it be determined that Defendants are 7 liable to Plaintiff, then Defendants allege that Plaintiff was also legally at fault, and possibly others as 8 well, and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against Defendants must be reduced by 9 that percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others. 10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY 11 4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff 12 has failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which he claims to have sustained and his recovery, PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 if any, should be barred or diminished accordingly. 14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 5. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege by virtue 16 of Plaintiff’s affirmative conduct that he is estopped from making any claim against Defendants by 17 reason of the doctrine of estoppel. 18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that their 20 conduct was at all times reasonable and undertaken with due care. 21 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that the FAC 23 and each cause of action thereof is barred by the statute of limitations. 24 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that 26 Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in filing his FAC, which has unduly prejudiced Defendants in their 27 defense of the action, thereby barring or diminishing Plaintiff’s recovery herein, if any, under the 28 doctrine of waiver. 2 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that 3 Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were caused solely by unforeseeable and unusual conditions not 4 under the control of Defendants. 5 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 10. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that at all 7 times mentioned in the FAC, they fully complied with all obligations and/or duties imposed on them 8 by statute, contract, or any other source. 9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 11. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY 11 was negligent and careless in and about the matters and events referred to in the FAC, which 12 negligence and carelessness proximately caused and/or contributed to the liability, damages, or PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any. Said negligence and carelessness completely bar and/or reduce 14 to the proportional extent of said negligence and carelessness, any decision, verdict or recovery to 15 which Plaintiff may be entitled. 16 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that 18 because the FAC is couched in conclusory terms, Defendants cannot fully anticipate all affirmative 19 defenses that may be applicable to the instant action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right to 20 add additional affirmative defenses as discovery progresses. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 WHEREFORE, Defendants JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI pray Plaintiff 2 takes nothing by way of his First Amended Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such 3 other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and proper. 4 Dated: May 13, 2021 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, 5 BEEMAN+SCHELEY 6 7 8 By: MATTHEW S. CONSTANTINO, ESQ. 9 LAURA J. LOECK, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants 10 JANICE SCATTINI and J. PETER SCATTINI CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY 11 12 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Meyer v. Scattini, et al. San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-588093 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 [Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1031a, 2015.5] 4 METHOD OF SERVICE: 5 By Personal Service By Mail By Overnight Delivery By Messenger Service By Facsimile By E-Mail/Electronic Transmission 6 1. I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Alameda, State of 7 CALIFORNIA. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. 8 2. My place of employment is 5860 Owens Drive, Suite 410, Pleasanton, California 94588. 9 3. On the date set forth below, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the document described as: 10 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 I served the documents on the persons below, as follows: PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 Attorney for Plaintiff 14 Leo M. LaRocca, Esq. Niven & Smith 15 505 Sansome St., Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111-3179 16 T: (415) 981-5451 F: (415) 433-5439 17 E: law@nivensmith.com 18 4. The document(s) was served by the following means (specify): 19 a. BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be personally delivered the documents 20 to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the 21 documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, 22 delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the 23 morning and six in the evening. 24 b. BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4 and (specify one): 25 (1) deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Services, 26 with the postage fully prepaid. 27 (2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for 28 collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that 5 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed 2 envelope with postage fully prepaid. 3 c. BY CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in 4 item 4 and (specify one): 5 (1) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for 6 collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that corre spondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the 7 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid for said certified mail/return receipt 8 number (See attached copies of Certified Mail/Return Receipts Requested.) 9 I am a resident or employed in the County where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Pleasanton, California, County of Alameda. 10 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN+SCHELEY d. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or 11 package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4. I place the envelope or package for collection and overnight 12 delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588 5860 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 410 13 e. BY MESSENGER SERVICE. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4 and 14 providing them to a professional messenger service for service. 15 f. BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers 16 listed in item 4. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. 17 g. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. I caused all of the above-entitled document(s) to be sent to the recipients listed by electronic mail only 18 based on the fact that during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only 19 electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 20 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 (Federal) declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 23 correct. 24 Executed on May 13, 2021 at Pleasanton, California. 25 26 Regina Chand 27 28 6 DEFENDANTS JANICE SCATTINI AND J. PETER SCATTINI’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT