Preview
Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. (SBN 165358)
Dianna Albini, Esq. (SBN 152273)
2 Megan R, Irish, Esq. (SBN 271687)
ELECTRONICALLY
THE DOLAN LAW FIRM
1438 Market Sheet California F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
San Francisco, 94102 County of San Francisco
Tel: (415) 421-2800 08/13/2019
5 Fax: (415) 421-2830 Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KARA L. ESBORG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
KARA L. ESBORG, ) Case No.: CGC-16-553614
)
Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
12 v
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
DATE
)
COMCAST CORP.; COMCAST OF Action Filed: August 11, 2016
14 CALIFORNIA III INC COMCAST Trial Date: September 3, 2019
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; Time: 9:30 a.m.
15 WAVE DIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC;
Dept.: 206
ALEKSANDR FRID & MARINA FRID, )
individually and as trustees of their
Hearing Date: August 20, 2019
revocable trust; PAUL H. LUI & KAM T
Hearing Time: 9:30 am
LUI, individually and as trustees of their Department: 206
18 revocable trust; and DOES 1 to 100. )
)
Defendants. )
20 )
)
21 )
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. )
22 )
23
24
I. INTRODUCTION
25
26 Plaintiff, Kara Esborg, a bicyclist suffered severe injuries when she was "clotheslined*'nd
27 yanked off her bicycle while riding northbound on 23" Avenue, San Francisco on November 23,
2015. Numerous utility wires, called "service drops" are strung across the 600 block of 23rd
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 Avenue in San Francisco, between utility poles and houses that are receiving internet, telephone,
and television services from AT8r T and Comcast. On November 23, 2015, a bracket that held
three utility service drops to a house on the east side of 23rd Avenue broke or dislodged, causing
4 the service drops to hang low over the roadway. The service drop was attached to pole number
5 80303. Kara Esborg suffered severe cognitive and emotional injuries as a result and brought the
within action for damages.
7 This motion is brought on shortened time, pursuant to the Order of Presiding Judge Garret
Wong, attached as Exhibit "A" to the declaration of Megan Irish in support of this motion.
9 II. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
10
A. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
11
A party may seek a trial continuance by ex parte application, or a noticed motion. CRC
12
3.1332(b). See also People v Hernort (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 638, 645. As well, the court has
13
14 inherent authority to manage its own calendar pursuant to CCP $ 128.
15 The California Rule of Court 3.1332 states:
16 (b) Motion or application
A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or
17
uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a
18 continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in
chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the
19 motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the
continuance is discovered.
20
(c) Grounds for continuance
21 Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance
must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only
22 on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
23
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
25 circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other
26 excusable circumstances:
2? (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmafive
showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
28 (5) The addition of a new party if:
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery
and prepare for trial; or
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery
and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of
which the case is not ready for trial.
(d) Other factors to be considered
In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all
the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may
include:
(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of
nial due to any party;
10 (3) The length of the continuance requested;
(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to
the motion or application for a continuance;
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the
12 continuance;
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential ttial setting, the reasons for that status
13
and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
14 (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other
pending trials;
15 (8) Whether trial counsel is enaaued in another trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
16 Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial
(10)
17 of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the
18 motion or application.
(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, emphasis added.)
20
B. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IS ENGAGED IN ANOTHER
21 TRIAL — LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. BC
604952 CASTBO V EDWARDS AtitD THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.
22
Good cause exists to grant the within application because Plaintiff s Counsel are engaged in
23
24 trial in Los Angeles. While trial continuances are generally disfavored, each request must be
considered on its own merits, and the rule of court enumerates several grounds for continuance. In this
26 ainti ff s trial counsel is currently engaged in trial in Los
case, good cause exists to continue the trial. P 1
27
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 604952, Castro v Edwards and the City of Long Beach in a
28
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
traumatic brain injury matter. The Castro case includes allegations of negligence against thc
2 dcfcndant driver Edwards and dangerous condition of public property against the defendant City of
3
Long Beach. There are fifty seven witnesses on the Castro witness list. Thc rnatter was assigned to
4
Judge Margaret Oldendorf of the Pasadena courthouse, on August 1, 2019. Motions in limine were
5
provided on Thursday August 8, 2019 to Judge Oldendorf. She held argument on the motions in
6
7
limine on Tuesday August 1 3,20 1 9, the date of the within filing. The argument is expected to
8 continue into August 14, 2019. There are over thirty motions in limine to be heard and ruled upon.
Thereafter, jury selection will begin with questionnaires and hardships on August 15 and 16, with
10
voir dire the week of August 19, 2019. Openings are expected on or around August 23, 2019 and then
11
testimony will begin thereafter. Plaintiff s counsel expects the trial to last no less than six weeks, and
12
likely eight weeks in Los Angeles Superior. Recent settlement conversation demonstrates the parties
13
14 in Castro significantly differ in their valuations of the case, and settlement is not going to happen.
15 Therefore, Plaintiff s trial counsel, Christopher Dolan is unavailable to begin trial on September 3,
2019 in the Esborg matter. The other senior attorney familiar with the Esborg file, Dianna Albini, is
17
also at the Castro trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, and is also unavailable to begin the Esborg niah
18
Mr. Dolan is set with additional trials immediately thereafter, and has a matter, Evans, trailing in
19
Riverside Superior Court, following the Castro matter. Based upon CRC 3.1332(c)(3) & (d)(8), a
continuance is proper when trial counsel is unavailable because he is engaged in another trial.
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the trial.
23
C. THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY IF A
24 CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED.
25 The parties will not be prejudiced by a trial continuance. The parties continue to engage in
26 mediation discussions and the continuance time will be spent with meaningful activity on the file.
27
No party will suffer any prejudice by the requested continuance. (CRC 3.1332(d)(5)).
28
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Plaintiff will be severely prejudiced if the matter goes forward to trial without her selected trial
2 counsel. Plaintiffhired the Dolan Law Firm with the understanding trial counsel would be
Christopher Dolan, and not another less experienced attorney. Due to Mr. Dolan's current trial,
4
good cause exists to grant the requested continuance.
Plaintiff 5
6
8
D. PRIOR CONTINUANCES
There have been prior continuances in this matter sought by the defendants.
not previously sought a continuance.
ha
9 On September 22, 2017 a trial continuance was sought by AT&T because AT&T was a
10
newly added defendant to the case. The January 2018 trial date was continued to August 2018.
11
On August 20, 2018 a stipulated continuance was sought by Comcast because counsel for
12
Comcast was engaged in trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. The August 2018 trial was
13
14 continued January 2019.
15 ln January 2019 a stipulated continuance was sought by Comcast because counsel for
Comcast was engaged in trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. The continuance was
17
granted continuing the January 2019 trial date to September 3, 2019.
18
The January 2019 order required any further continuance be brought as a noticed motion.
19
20 E. MEET AND CONFER TO SELECT A NEW TRIAL DATE
21 As soon as the Castro matter was assigned a courtroom Plaintiff s counsel reached out to
the defense in the Esborg matter, enquiring if the parties would stipulate to the requested
23
continuance. (See Exh "B.") The parties have meet and conferred about the trial date, and defense
24
counsel has indicated they will not object to the continuance requested. (See Exh "C.") The
25
attorneys for each file have also reviewed trial calendars and have agreed upon March 9, 2020.
26
27 (See Exh. "C.")
28 ///
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 Due to Plaintiff's counsel being engaged in trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, Plaintiff
3
respectfully requests her trial continuance be granted, and that the September 3, 2019 trial be
4
continued to March 9, 2020 or the court's first available date thereafter.
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Dated: August I 3, 20 1 9 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM
Christopher iS. Dolan
Dianna Albini
10 Megan Irish
Attorneys for Plaintiff, KARA ESBORG
12
13
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MO11ON TO CONTINUE TRIAL
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Maricela Mendoza, declare that:
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and
am not a party to this action. My business address is 1438 Market Street, San Francisco,
California 94102.
On August 13, 2019, I served:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
in said cause addressed as follows:
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Attorney for Defendant(s):
Paul A. Bigley, Esq. Comcast of California III, INC
9 Owen T. Rooney, Esq.
44 Montgomery St, Suite 3580
10 San Francisco, CA 94104
Fax: 213-615-7100
oroonev(a;fmulaw. corn
12 nbialev(Rfinalaw. corn
13 Robert B. Mullen, Esq. Attorney for Defendant(s);
AT&T SERVICES, INC. — LEGAL DEPT. AT&T Corp. (DOE 1)
14
430 Bush Street, 3 Floor AT&T Services, Inc. (DOE 2)
15 San Francisco, CA 94108
Fax: 415-543-0418
16 robert.rnullen(ra att.corn
17 David Roth, Esq. Co-Counselfor Defendant(s):
18 Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez & Trester, AT&T Corp. (DOE 1)
LLP AT&T Services, Inc. (DOE 2)
19 One California Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
20 Fax: 415-217-6999
dvr(annannindl o.corn
21
22
/ XX / (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) By attaching a true and correct copy thereof to an electronic
23 mail addressed as noted above.
24 / XX / (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the said document to be transmitted by facsimile machine to
the number indicated after the addressee(s) noted b
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws tat fomia that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 13, San o, Cali fomia.
26
27
Mgcela Mendoza
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. (SBN 165358) Dianna Albini, Esq. (SBN 152273) 2 Megan R, Irish, Esq. (SBN 271687) ELECTRONICALLY THE DOLAN LAW FIRM 1438 Market Sheet California F I L E D Superior Court of California, San Francisco, 94102 County of San Francisco Tel: (415) 421-2800 08/13/2019 5 Fax: (415) 421-2830 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff KARA L. ESBORG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO KARA L. ESBORG, ) Case No.: CGC-16-553614 ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 12 v MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE ) COMCAST CORP.; COMCAST OF Action Filed: August 11, 2016 14 CALIFORNIA III INC COMCAST Trial Date: September 3, 2019 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; Time: 9:30 a.m. 15 WAVE DIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC; Dept.: 206 ALEKSANDR FRID & MARINA FRID, ) individually and as trustees of their Hearing Date: August 20, 2019 revocable trust; PAUL H. LUI & KAM T Hearing Time: 9:30 am LUI, individually and as trustees of their Department: 206 18 revocable trust; and DOES 1 to 100. ) ) Defendants. ) 20 ) ) 21 ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) 22 ) 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 26 Plaintiff, Kara Esborg, a bicyclist suffered severe injuries when she was "clotheslined*'nd 27 yanked off her bicycle while riding northbound on 23" Avenue, San Francisco on November 23, 2015. Numerous utility wires, called "service drops" are strung across the 600 block of 23rd 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 Avenue in San Francisco, between utility poles and houses that are receiving internet, telephone, and television services from AT8r T and Comcast. On November 23, 2015, a bracket that held three utility service drops to a house on the east side of 23rd Avenue broke or dislodged, causing 4 the service drops to hang low over the roadway. The service drop was attached to pole number 5 80303. Kara Esborg suffered severe cognitive and emotional injuries as a result and brought the within action for damages. 7 This motion is brought on shortened time, pursuant to the Order of Presiding Judge Garret Wong, attached as Exhibit "A" to the declaration of Megan Irish in support of this motion. 9 II. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 A. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE 11 A party may seek a trial continuance by ex parte application, or a noticed motion. CRC 12 3.1332(b). See also People v Hernort (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 638, 645. As well, the court has 13 14 inherent authority to manage its own calendar pursuant to CCP $ 128. 15 The California Rule of Court 3.1332 states: 16 (b) Motion or application A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or 17 uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a 18 continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the 19 motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. 20 (c) Grounds for continuance 21 Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only 22 on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 23 (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable 25 circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other 26 excusable circumstances: 2? (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmafive showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 28 (5) The addition of a new party if: 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (d) Other factors to be considered In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of nial due to any party; 10 (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the 12 continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential ttial setting, the reasons for that status 13 and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 14 (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 15 (8) Whether trial counsel is enaaued in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 16 Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial (10) 17 of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the 18 motion or application. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, emphasis added.) 20 B. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IS ENGAGED IN ANOTHER 21 TRIAL — LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. BC 604952 CASTBO V EDWARDS AtitD THE CITY OF LONG BEACH. 22 Good cause exists to grant the within application because Plaintiff s Counsel are engaged in 23 24 trial in Los Angeles. While trial continuances are generally disfavored, each request must be considered on its own merits, and the rule of court enumerates several grounds for continuance. In this 26 ainti ff s trial counsel is currently engaged in trial in Los case, good cause exists to continue the trial. P 1 27 Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 604952, Castro v Edwards and the City of Long Beach in a 28 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL traumatic brain injury matter. The Castro case includes allegations of negligence against thc 2 dcfcndant driver Edwards and dangerous condition of public property against the defendant City of 3 Long Beach. There are fifty seven witnesses on the Castro witness list. Thc rnatter was assigned to 4 Judge Margaret Oldendorf of the Pasadena courthouse, on August 1, 2019. Motions in limine were 5 provided on Thursday August 8, 2019 to Judge Oldendorf. She held argument on the motions in 6 7 limine on Tuesday August 1 3,20 1 9, the date of the within filing. The argument is expected to 8 continue into August 14, 2019. There are over thirty motions in limine to be heard and ruled upon. Thereafter, jury selection will begin with questionnaires and hardships on August 15 and 16, with 10 voir dire the week of August 19, 2019. Openings are expected on or around August 23, 2019 and then 11 testimony will begin thereafter. Plaintiff s counsel expects the trial to last no less than six weeks, and 12 likely eight weeks in Los Angeles Superior. Recent settlement conversation demonstrates the parties 13 14 in Castro significantly differ in their valuations of the case, and settlement is not going to happen. 15 Therefore, Plaintiff s trial counsel, Christopher Dolan is unavailable to begin trial on September 3, 2019 in the Esborg matter. The other senior attorney familiar with the Esborg file, Dianna Albini, is 17 also at the Castro trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, and is also unavailable to begin the Esborg niah 18 Mr. Dolan is set with additional trials immediately thereafter, and has a matter, Evans, trailing in 19 Riverside Superior Court, following the Castro matter. Based upon CRC 3.1332(c)(3) & (d)(8), a continuance is proper when trial counsel is unavailable because he is engaged in another trial. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the trial. 23 C. THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY IF A 24 CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED. 25 The parties will not be prejudiced by a trial continuance. The parties continue to engage in 26 mediation discussions and the continuance time will be spent with meaningful activity on the file. 27 No party will suffer any prejudice by the requested continuance. (CRC 3.1332(d)(5)). 28 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Plaintiff will be severely prejudiced if the matter goes forward to trial without her selected trial 2 counsel. Plaintiffhired the Dolan Law Firm with the understanding trial counsel would be Christopher Dolan, and not another less experienced attorney. Due to Mr. Dolan's current trial, 4 good cause exists to grant the requested continuance. Plaintiff 5 6 8 D. PRIOR CONTINUANCES There have been prior continuances in this matter sought by the defendants. not previously sought a continuance. ha 9 On September 22, 2017 a trial continuance was sought by AT&T because AT&T was a 10 newly added defendant to the case. The January 2018 trial date was continued to August 2018. 11 On August 20, 2018 a stipulated continuance was sought by Comcast because counsel for 12 Comcast was engaged in trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. The August 2018 trial was 13 14 continued January 2019. 15 ln January 2019 a stipulated continuance was sought by Comcast because counsel for Comcast was engaged in trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. The continuance was 17 granted continuing the January 2019 trial date to September 3, 2019. 18 The January 2019 order required any further continuance be brought as a noticed motion. 19 20 E. MEET AND CONFER TO SELECT A NEW TRIAL DATE 21 As soon as the Castro matter was assigned a courtroom Plaintiff s counsel reached out to the defense in the Esborg matter, enquiring if the parties would stipulate to the requested 23 continuance. (See Exh "B.") The parties have meet and conferred about the trial date, and defense 24 counsel has indicated they will not object to the continuance requested. (See Exh "C.") The 25 attorneys for each file have also reviewed trial calendars and have agreed upon March 9, 2020. 26 27 (See Exh. "C.") 28 /// 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Due to Plaintiff's counsel being engaged in trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, Plaintiff 3 respectfully requests her trial continuance be granted, and that the September 3, 2019 trial be 4 continued to March 9, 2020 or the court's first available date thereafter. 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 7 Dated: August I 3, 20 1 9 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM Christopher iS. Dolan Dianna Albini 10 Megan Irish Attorneys for Plaintiff, KARA ESBORG 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO OF MO11ON TO CONTINUE TRIAL PROOF OF SERVICE I, Maricela Mendoza, declare that: I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and am not a party to this action. My business address is 1438 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102. On August 13, 2019, I served: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE in said cause addressed as follows: Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Attorney for Defendant(s): Paul A. Bigley, Esq. Comcast of California III, INC 9 Owen T. Rooney, Esq. 44 Montgomery St, Suite 3580 10 San Francisco, CA 94104 Fax: 213-615-7100 oroonev(a;fmulaw. corn 12 nbialev(Rfinalaw. corn 13 Robert B. Mullen, Esq. Attorney for Defendant(s); AT&T SERVICES, INC. — LEGAL DEPT. AT&T Corp. (DOE 1) 14 430 Bush Street, 3 Floor AT&T Services, Inc. (DOE 2) 15 San Francisco, CA 94108 Fax: 415-543-0418 16 robert.rnullen(ra att.corn 17 David Roth, Esq. Co-Counselfor Defendant(s): 18 Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez & Trester, AT&T Corp. (DOE 1) LLP AT&T Services, Inc. (DOE 2) 19 One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 20 Fax: 415-217-6999 dvr(annannindl o.corn 21 22 / XX / (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) By attaching a true and correct copy thereof to an electronic 23 mail addressed as noted above. 24 / XX / (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the said document to be transmitted by facsimile machine to the number indicated after the addressee(s) noted b I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws tat fomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 13, San o, Cali fomia. 26 27 Mgcela Mendoza 28 PROOF OF SERVICE