Motion-Secondary: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a i
Hy
a 12
oe
=: 1B
a<
o 7 14
a
Me 15
S216
=
o 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

339740.1 1210.40020

MARK A. LOVE (SBN 162028)

mlove@selmanlaw.com

RICHARD M. LEE (SBN 187694) ELECTRONICALLY

rlee@selmanlaw.com FILED

SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor ‘Superior Court of California,

San Francisco, CA 94105-4537 SO ee

Telephone: 415.979.0400 05/12/2016

Facsimile: 415.979.2099 evade dele oe
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Specially Appearing Intervenor FIREMAN'S FUND

INSURANCE COMPANY, the insurer of Defendant

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a

suspended Corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No, CGC-10-275731

Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX

v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
GRANTING LEAVE FOR INTERVENOR
C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS, et al., FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN
Defendants. ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST
ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF
CALIFORNIA, INC,

Date: May 12, 2016

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Garrett L. Wong
Dept.: 503

L INTRODUCTION

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("ASSOCIATED
INSULATION") was served as a defendant in the instant asbestos-related lawsuit.
ASSOCIATED INSULATION never appeared in the action. Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company ("INTERVENOR") understands that trial concluded long ago. Robert Ross and Jean
Ross (collectively “plaintiff') obtained defaults against ASSOCIATED INSULATION on
September 9, 2011 and March 20, 2012. Exhibit A.

INTERVENOR is a liability insurer of ASSOCIATED INSULATION. It appears that

1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR.
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740.11210.40020

plaintiff served ASSOCIATED INSULATION the complaint and notice of the entry of default.
INTERVENOR, however, has never been served the complaint or notice of entry of default. !
INTERVENOR never had the opportunity to participate in this lawsuit. INTERVENOR has
been severely prejudiced. As the liability insurer of ASSOCIATED INSULATION,
INTERVENOR will be bound by any default judgment entered against ASSOCIATED
INSULATION. INTERVENOR now seeks leave of the Court to intervene and set aside the
default.

IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS

ASSOCIATED INSULATION is currently a suspended corporation by the California
Secretary of State. Exhibit B. The California Franchise Tax Board does not even have any
record of ASSOCIATED INSULATION. Exhibit C. As a suspended corporation,
ASSOCIATED INSULATION lacked the capacity to defend itself in this lawsuit pursuant to
Revenue & Taxation Code §23301. INTERVENOR pursuant to the terms of its insurance
policy(ies) and solely in its capacity as insurer of ASSOCIATED INSULATION, now seeks
leave from this Court to set aside the default against ASSOCIATED INSULATION.

The lawsuit involved disputes arising out of injuries allegedly sustained as a result of
alleged exposure to asbestos. ASSOCIATED INSULATION, currently a suspended California
corporation, was a contractor doing business in the state of California. Among other allegations,
plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of several defendants, including ASSOCIATED
INSULATION.

ASSOCIATED INSULATION's ability to exercise its corporate powers, rights, and

privileges in California have been suspended pursuant to Revenue and Taxation code §23301.

! Since March of 2016, INTERVENOR has intervened in any number of cases as the insurer of
ASSOCIATED INSULATION. INTERVENOR has requested from counsel for plaintiff's a list of cases
in which plaintiffs have taken a default or default judgment against ASSOCIATED INSULATION.
INTERVENOR has received no such accounting from plaintiff's counsel. Instead, INTERVENOR has
been poring through the Court's docket and conducting its own investigations in order to identify those
cases in which plaintiffs have taken a default or default judgment against ASSOCIATED INSULATION.

2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740.1 1210.40020

California corporations, such as ASSOCIATED INSULATION, whose rights to exercise their
corporate powers, rights, and privileges in California have been suspended, cannot defend
themselves in lawsuits. Revenue and Taxation Code §23301 provides, in pertinent part, that "the
corporate powers, rights, and privileges of a domestic taxpayer may be suspended, and the
exercise of the corporate powers, rights, and privileges of a foreign taxpayer in this state may be
forfeited" if certain taxes are not paid. Once the corporate powers, rights, and privileges are
suspended or forfeited for failure to pay taxes, a corporation cannot sue or defend a lawsuit in its
name while its taxes remain unpaid. (United Medical Management Limited v. Gatto, (1996) 49
Cal.App.4th 1732, 1737.) ("A foreign corporation whose rights have been forfeited for failure to
pay state taxes may not prosecute or defend an action" pursuant to §23301 (citation omitted).
See also, Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc., (2006) 133
Cal.App.4th 212, at 215-16 (citing Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Savings & Loan Association
(1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 244).

ASSOCIATED INSULATION could not and did not defend itself in this lawsuit.
INTERVENOR never had the opportunity to participate in this lawsuit. INTERVENOR has
been severely prejudiced. As the liability insurer of ASSOCIATED INSULATION,
INTERVENOR will be bound by any default judgment entered against ASSOCIATED
INSULATION.

i. LEGAL ARGUMENT-INTERVENTION

A. Intervention Is Proper When the Insured Is a Suspended Corporation

INTERVENOR seeks leave to intervene in this case pursuant to the terms of its insurance
policy(ies) and applicable California law, including, without limitation, California Code of Civil
Procedure §387; California Revenue & Taxation Code §§19717, 19719; Bame v. City of Del Mar
(2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1346; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 385;
and Kaufman & Broad, supra. Revenue & Taxation Code §19719(b) allows an insurance

company to provide a defense for a suspended corporation in certain actions and in connection

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740.1 1210.40020

with this defense, to prosecute subrogation, contribution, or indemnity rights in the name of the
suspended corporation. The statute, however, is silent as to the proper mechanism the insurance
company may use to exercise this right, (Kaufiman, supra.) The Kaufman court held that if a
corporation is suspended and not revived, the absence of any mechanism in §19719 for the
insurance company to assert the suspended corporation's claims supports the conclusion that the
insurance company must intervene in the lawsuit to protect the rights of its insured. (/d. at 221.)

Code of Civil Procedure §387 sets forth the rules for intervention by a third party in
existing litigation, "Upon timely application, any person, who has an interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, may intervene in
the action or proceeding." (CCP §387(a).) Pursuant to §387(a), the trial court has discretion to
permit a nonparty to intervene where the following factors are met: (1) the proper procedures
have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the
intervention will not enlarge the issues.in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention
outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action. (Reliance Ins., supra at 386
(citing Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

In addition, §387(b) provides as follows:

[I]f the person secking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or

transaction which is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the

disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's

ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately

represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon application, permit that

person to intervene.

Here all of the statutory requirements are satisfied. As a liability insurer of
ASSOCIATED INSULATION, INTERVENOR has an identical interest relating to the
transactions that are the subject of this action as ASSOCIATED INSULATION would have, as
they would potentially be liable for any settlement or judgment rendered against ASSOCIATED
INSULATION in this case. In addition, INTERVENOR is so situated that the disposal of this

action without such an intervention will, as a practical matter, impair or impede

4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pe i
we
Ge 12
Er 13
oe 14
gE
=< 16
o 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

339740.1 1210.40020

INTERVENOR's abilities to protect that interest. Also, the intervention by INTERVENOR will
not enlarge the issues of the litigation, as INTERVENOR would essentially be intervening into
the case in the place of ASSOCIATED INSULATION. Lastly, INTERVENOR's interests are
not adequately represented by the existing parties. When these factors are satisfied, intervention
is essentially mandatory by virtue of the specific provisions of §387(b): "the court shall, upon
application, permit that person to intervene." (Id.)

INTERVENOR seeks to intervene in this action pursuant to CCP §387 on the grounds
that it has a direct and immediate interest in the matter in setting aside the default judgment as
INTERVENOR is ASSOCIATED INSULATION's liability insurer.

B. INTERVENOR Has a Direct Interest As It May Be Subject To Satisfying the

Default Judgment

INTERVENOR is a liability insurer of ASSOCIATED INSULATION. In Reliance
Insurance, supra, the court held, "where the insurer may be subject to a direct action under
Insurance Code §11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a
third party action against the insured, intervention is appropriate." (Id. at 386-87.) Reliance
Insurance Company was the insurer of a suspended corporation who lacked the capacity to
defend itself against claims for negligence against the insured. Pursuant to CCP §387, the Court
held that Reliance Insurance Company should be permitted to intervene, otherwise the insurance
company would not have any other opportunity or avenue to litigate fault or damage issues
against its insured. (Jd, at 385.) In such a situation, the Court noted that Reliance Insurance
Company could be bound by a default judgment, which would create an unjustified windfall to
plaintiff. (/d. at 388.) Reliance Insurance Company would essentially be punished for something
it did not do, since "[i]Jnsurers have no control over the solvency or corporate viability their
insured." Jd.)

INTERVENOR seeks to intervene in this action pursuant to CCP §387 on the grounds

that it has a direct and immediate interest in the matter in setting aside the default judgment as

5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE,
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740.1 1210.40020

INTERVENOR is ASSOCIATED INSULATION's liability insurer.

Cc. INTERVENOR'S Intervention Will Not Enlarge the Issues in this Lawsuit

INTERVENOR seeks to intervene in this case to protect its own interests and those of
ASSOCIATED INSULATION. Trial in this matter has already concluded. Therefore,
INTERVENOR will raise only the issue of setting aside the default entered against
ASSOCIATED INSULATION.

D. INTERVENOR'S Reasons for Intervention Outweigh Any Opposition

INTERVENOR seeks to intervene in order to set aside the default of its suspended and
incapacitated insured, ASSOCIATED INSULATION, for which INTERVENOR may be
potentially liable pursuant to the terms of its insurance policy(ies).

E. INTERVENOR Will be Severely Prejudiced if this Ex Parte Application is

not Granted

Since the claims against ASSOCIATED INSULATION were not defended by
ASSOCIATED INSULATION because ASSOCIATED INSULATION is a_ suspended
corporation, INTERVENOR will be severely prejudiced by any default judgment against
ASSOCIATED INSULATION. INTERVENOR will be liable for the default judgment pursuant

to the terms of its insurance policy(ies).

IV. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT

First, it is unclear to INTERVENOR why plaintiff is seeking to reduce default to
judgment beyond 45 days from the time default was taken. California Rule of Court 3.110(h)
states that "[w]hen a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain
a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered,
unless the court has granted an extension of time." California Rule of Court 3.110(h).

Second, plaintiff fails to comply with the requirement that plaintiff must inform known
counsel for INTERVENOR of any application for entry of default judgment. Plaintiff has failed

to so. Since March 9, 2016, the date INTERVENOR first filed ex parte applications to intervene
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman Breitman LLP

339740.1 1210.40020

on behalf of ASSOCIATED INSULATION, counsel for plaintiff has had notice of the identify
of INTERVENOR's retained counsel for asbestos related matters. Yet it appears on March 22,
2016, plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment. That application is set to be
heard on May 24, 2016. Plaintiffs never informed INTERVENOR or its counsel of the
application. Instead, INTERVENOR learned about plaintiff's application through
INTERVENOR's ongoing investigations regarding the identification of cases in which
ASSOCIATED INSULATION has been sued.

If plaintiff knows the identity of the lawyer representing defendant, he or she owes an
ethical obligation to warn before requesting entry of defendant's default. Failure to do so is a
professional discourtesy to opposing counsel that will not be condoned by the courts: "The quiet
speed of plaintiffs’ attorney in seeking a default judgment without the knowledge of defendants’
counsel is not to be commended."); Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 63 (1955) 133
Cal.App.2d 486, 500.

Third, pursuant to the Court's inherent, equitable powers, the Court may set aside a
default on the ground of mistake.

An insurer may move to set aside a default judgment. Western Heritage Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196 (intervening insurer is not bound by a default taken
against its insured); Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854 (in which the Supreme Court
affirmed that the trial court exercised its inherent equity power to grant relief from a default
judgment entered due to extrinsic mistake); Nasongkhla v. Gonzalez (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th
Supp. 1. This application is directed to the Court's inherent equity power under which it may
grant relief from a default or default judgment where there has been extrinsic fraud or mistake.
Weitz, supra, at 854-855; Orange Empire Nat. Bank v. Kirk (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347, 352.
The grounds for the Court's exercise of equity's jurisdiction and interfere with a judgment is
based on the absence of a fair adversary trial at law. Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570,
575.

7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740. 1210,40020

In Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, the Supreme Court set forth the law
governing equitable relief from default judgments based on extrinsic mistake, wherein three
elements must be met: (1) the defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case; (2)
the party seeking to set aside the default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a
defense to the original action; and (3) the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to
set aside the default once discovered. Jd. at 982. Here, all the criteria in Rappleyea have been
met by Intervenor.

A. Meritorious Case

INTERVENOR "does not have to demonstrate with certainty that a different result would
obtain on retrial. Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to
entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing." Jn re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 346.
Moreover, a reasonable probability of a lower damage award is a meritorious defense for
purposes of equitable relief from a default judgment. See Lieberman v. Aetna Ins, Co. (1967)
249 Cal.App.2d 515, 528 ("there is a substantial question as to the nature and extent of the injury
suffered by [plaintiff]. Consequently, there was a sufficient showing that it was reasonably
probable that a trial on the merits would result in a judgment less favorable to her.")

Here, neither ASSOCIATED INSULATION nor INTERVENOR appeared in the action
to defend the claims against ASSOCIATED INSULATION. INTERVENOR never had its day
in court. It appears plaintiff simply picked a default amount and now seeks to have that amount
reduced to judgment in the absence of any party having protected the interests of INTERVENOR
or its insured ASSOCIATED INSULATION during the pendency of the case. Plaintiff's
application amounts to the fact and expert discovery conducted in the case, none of which bear
any relation to ASSOCIATED INSULATION. Exhibit E.

B. Satisfactory Excuse

In the context of equitable relief from default judgment based on extrinsic mistake, the

term "mistake" has been given a broad meaning by the courts and tends to encompass almost any

8

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE,
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740. 1210.40020

set of extrinsic circumstances which deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing. Jn re Marriage
of Park, supra, at 346, Rappleyea, supra, at 981 ("One ground for equitable relief is extrinsic
mistake — a term broadly applied when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost
a party a hearing on the merits"); Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co., 170 Cal. App. 3d
725, 737; see also In re Marriage of Park, supra, at 342.

Here, there have been mistakes regarding the insured notifying the insurer of the filing of
suit, service of the complaint, and the intention to take a default. See Dalzell v. Northwestern
Mutual Ins. Co. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 96, 106 (the law "does not impose [on the insurer] a duty
of constantly checking the courthouse to ascertain whether summons has been served.")

Cc. Diligence

The greater the prejudice the more likely it is that the court will determine that equitable
defenses apply to the request to vacate a valid judgment. Rappleyea, supra, at 983.
INTERVENOR retained counsel for the defense of the asbestos claims against ASSOCIATED
INSULATION in February 2016. INTERVENOR has requested from counsel for plaintiff the
identification of cases in which plaintiff's counsel's clients have taken defaults or judgments
against ASSOCIATED INSULATION. INTERVENOR has not been given any accounting of
which cases defaults or judgments have been taken against ASSOCIATED INSULATION.
Instead, in a time consuming, expensive, and ongoing process INTERVENOR is conducting its
own investigations to identify the cases in which defaults or judgments have been taken against
ASSOICATED INSULATION.

INTEVENOR has located an insurance policy which appear to cover the damages alleged
against its insured, ASSOCIATED INSULATION. INTERVENOR has a direct and immediate
interests regarding any default judgment entered against ASSOCIATED INSULATION. This
drastically affects INTERVENOR’s interests because plaintiff could then proceed against
INTERVENOR under Section 11580 of the Insurance Code, which permits a judgment creditor

to proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the defendant and to obtain

9

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE,
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

339740.1 1210.40020

satisfaction up to the policy limits. See Reliance Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (Wells) (2000)
84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386-387.
Vv. CALIFORNIA POLICY DISFAVORING DEFAULTS

The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that default judgments should be disfavored and
cases should be decided on the merits whenever possible. U.S. v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of|
Yubran S. Mesle (9th Cir. 2010), 615 F.3d 1085, 1091; Eitel v. McCool ot Cir. 1986) 782 F.2d
1470, 1472; Falk v. Allen (9" Cir. 1984) 739 F.2d 461, 463. The Supreme Court has recognized
that if a defendant promptly seeks relief and there is no showing of prejudice, "very slight
evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default." Elston v, City of Turlock
(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 (superseded by statute on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birthwhisile
(1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 987); Berri v. Rogero (1914) 168 Cal. 736; see also Miller v. City of
Hermosa Beach (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1136. INTEVENOR never had the opportunity to
participate in this lawsuit. Further, the facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate that
reasonable diligence was taken in secking an application for relief once INTERVENOR learned
of the lawsuit and the defaults. As such, INTERVENOR is entitled to equitable relief from the
default.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, INTERVENOR respectfully requests that the Court set aside
and void the defaults entered against ASSOCIATED INSULATION.

DATED: May 11, 2016 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP.

By: ee pe

MARK‘A, LOVE
RICHARD M. LEE
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Intervenor
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, the
insurer of Defendant ASSOCIATED INSULATION
OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a suspended Corporation
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR
INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC.PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Robert Ross and Jean Ross vy. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731

Defendant: Intervenor FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, the insurer of
Defendant ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a suspended Corporation

I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Iam over the age of
18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 33 New Montgomery, Sixth
Floor, San Francisco, California 94105.

On May 11, 2016, I electronically served the document via File & ServeXpress described
as: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR INTERVENOR FIREMAN'S
FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO SPECIFICALLY APPEAR IN ACTION AND
ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST ASSOCIATED
INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC. on the recipients designated on the Transaction
Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May 11, 2016, at San Francisco, California.