Preview
1 R. Gregory Amundson (State Bar No. 79710)
ramundson@wshblaw.com
2 Sheila E. Fix (State Bar No. 138613)
sfix@wshblaw.com
3 S. Joanna Dyriam (State Bar No. 320995)
sdyriam@wshblaw.com
4 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
5 Glendale, California 91203
Phone: (818)551-6000 ♦ Fax: (818)551-6050
6
Attorneys for Defendants, CLEARVIEW
7 PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. and
CHRISTOPHER HULME
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, COOK DIVISION
11
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12 THOMAS KOPITNIK, an individual, Case No. 21CV02266
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
[Assigned for All Purposes to Judge James F.
13 Plaintiff, Rigali, Dept. 2]
Attorneys at Law
14 v. DEFENDANTS CLEARVIEW
PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. AND
15 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. CHRISTOPHER HULME'S REPLY TO
a California Corporation; CHRISTOPHER PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR
16 HULME, and individual; and DOES 1 DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
THROUGH 10 STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant.
18 HEARING DATE: January 3, 2023
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
19 DEPT.: SM2
20 Action Filed: 06/08/2021
Trial Date: 04/24/2023
21
22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 Defendants, CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER HULME
25 (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Reply to Plaintiff THOMAS KOPITNIK's
26 (“Plaintiff”) Opposition to their Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended
27 Complaint.
28 ///
27123707.1:05819-0110 -1-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 In reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, Defendants point out the following: (1) Plaintiff admits in his
3 own opposition that he did not specifically plead Defendants' lack of licensing in the original
4 complaint; and (2) Plaintiff incorrectly claims in his opposition that this Court denied Plaintiff's prior
5 motion for summary adjudication ("MSA") seeking disgorgement of all monies paid to Defendant
6 Clearview under its contract with Plaintiff based on a finding that Plaintiff had not yet stated a cause
7 of action for disgorgement under Section 7031. Rather, this Court denied Plaintiff's prior MSA on his
8 first cause of action for rescission of the contract based on Plaintiff's failure to allege in his First
9 Amended Complaint ("FAC") that he is seeking rescission on the theory that Defendant Clearview
10 was not properly licensed under the Business and Professions Code. (See Defendants' Request for
11 Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. 1.)
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12 As set forth in further detail below, Plaintiff's new allegation in his Second Amended
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
13 Complaint ("SAC") that Defendant Clearview was an unlicensed contractor at the time of the contract
Attorneys at Law
14 is based on a set of new and changed facts under a new and wholly distinct and different cause of
15 action (i.e. disgorgement cause of action). Therefore, the relation-back doctrine does not apply and
16 Plaintiff's disgorgement cause of action is time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of
17 limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340(a). Thus, Defendants respectfully
18 request that their Demurrer be sustained in its entirety without leave to amend and their accompanying
19 Motion to Strike be granted.
20 II. PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANTS MISREPRESENTED
21 THEIR SKILL, EXPERIENCE AND LICENSE STATUS DOES NOT PROVIDE
22 DEFENDANTS WITH SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S NEW
23 ALLEGATION THAT CLEARVIEW WAS AN UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR AT
24 THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS BASED ON A SET OF NEW AND
25 CHANGED FACTS UNDER A NEW AND WHOLLY DISTINCT CAUSE OF
26 ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY
27 Plaintiff's prior allegations in his Complaint and FAC that Defendants lacked the skill and
28 experience to undertake Plaintiff's landscaping project and misrepresented their license status does not
27123707.1:05819-0110 -2-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 amount to the equivalent of an allegation of Clearview's failure to maintain a proper license. Indeed,
2 as the Court stated in its ruling on Plaintiff's prior MSA as to his cause of action for rescission in the
3 FAC, there is no prior allegation by Plaintiff, and none reasonably can be inferred even when viewed
4 liberally, that Clearview failed to secure or obtain a contractor's license at the time of the contract.
5 (See Defendants' RJN, Ex. 1.) Further, "vague chain pleading factual allegations cannot supplant or
6 contradict specific theories offered in the body of the cause of action." (See Defendants' Request for
7 (See Defendants' RJN, Ex. 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s prior allegations that Defendants lacked and
8 misrepresented their skills, qualifications and experience, and a mere prayer for "the return of all
9 amounts paid to Clearview under the Agreement" in the FAC, do not provide Defendants with
10 sufficient notice of a specific claim of improper licensure against Defendant Clearview, which is what
11 is now alleged in Plaintiff's cause of action for disgorgement in the SAC.
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12 Plaintiff's new allegation in his SAC that Defendant Clearview was an unlicensed
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
13 contractor at the time of the contract is based on a set of new and changed facts under a new and
Attorneys at Law
14 wholly distinct and different cause of action. Specifically, while Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint
15 that Clearview was licensed, subsequently alleged Clearview misrepresented its license status in
16 his FAC, and failed to list disgorgement as a relief in the Prayer in both his Complaint and FAC,
17 Plaintiff now changes his tune in his SAC by alleging Clearview was an unlicensed contractor
18 based on Defendant Hulme's contractor's licensing history under a new cause of action for
19 disgorgement under Business and Professions Code Section 7031. Not only is the disgorgement
20 cause of action separate and wholly distinct from the recission cause of action, but the allegations
21 that Clearview was first licensed and then, that it misrepresented its license status, are very distinct
22 and different from the allegation in the SAC that Clearview was unlicensed, which thus sets forth
23 a wholly distinct and different obligation, and a significant new dimension to the lawsuit. (See
24 Grudt v. L.A. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575, 583-584.)
25 The primary consideration when applying the relation back doctrine to determine whether
26 an amended complaint is considered a new action for purposes of the statute of limitations is
27 whether the prior complaint provided the defendant with sufficient notice of the claim in the
28 amended complaint. (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 715.) Here,
27123707.1:05819-0110 -3-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 not only is there no prior clear allegation of improper licensing to have put Defendants on notice
2 that Plaintiff's new cause of action for disgorgement is based on Defendant's alleged failure to be
3 properly licensed, but the allegations based on Defendant Hulme's contractor's licensing history
4 comprise a set of new facts entirely different and unrelated to those previously plead in the
5 Complaint and FAC. Further, as stated in Defendants' moving papers, it was not until Plaintiff
6 filed his MSA on or about June 14, 2022, more than eight (8) months after the statute of
7 limitations lapsed, that he first raised the issue of disgorgement under Business and Professions
8 Code Section 7031. (RJN, ¶¶ 1-5.) Therefore, the relation-back doctrine should not apply and
9 Plaintiff's disgorgement cause of action is time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of
10 limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340(a).
11 III. CONCLUSION
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain their Demurrer
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
13 as to Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Disgorgement in the SAC, without leave to amend, and grant
Attorneys at Law
14 their accompanying motion to strike.
15 DATED: December 23, 2022 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
16
17
18 By:
R. GREGORY AMUNDSON
19
SHEILA E. FIX
20 S. JOANNA DYRIAM
Attorneys for Defendants, CLEARVIEW PROPERTY
21 SERVICES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER HULME
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27123707.1:05819-0110 -4-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Dr. Tom Kopitnik v. ClearView Property Services
Case No. 21CV02266
3
I am employed in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen
4 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite
215, Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-5827, United States.
5
On December 23, 2022, I served the following document(s) described as DEFENDANTS
6 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. AND CHRISTOPHER HULME'S REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
7 STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this
action as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an
10 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address sdyriam@wshblaw.com to the persons at the
11 electronic notification address listed in the service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was not
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12 successful.
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
Attorneys at Law
foregoing is true and correct.
14
Executed on December 23, 2022, at Thousand Oaks, California.
15
16
/s/ S. Joanna Dyriam
17 S. Joanna Dyriam
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27123707.1:05819-0110 -5-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SERVICE LIST
Dr. Tom Kopitnik v. ClearView Property Services
2 Case No. 21CV02266
3 Jason H. Anderson
Andrew Mason
4 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH,
APC
5 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
6 Tel: 949-725-4000
janderson@stradlinglaw.com
7 amason@stradlinglaw.com
KMilanowski@stradlinglaw.com
8 kkirkpatrick@stradlinglaw.com
smjohnson@stradlinglaw.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, THOMAS
KOPITNIK
10
11
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100
TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050
12
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203
13
Attorneys at Law
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27123707.1:05819-0110 -6-
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 R. Gregory Amundson (State Bar No. 79710) ramundson@wshblaw.com 2 Sheila E. Fix (State Bar No. 138613) sfix@wshblaw.com 3 S. Joanna Dyriam (State Bar No. 320995) sdyriam@wshblaw.com 4 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100 5 Glendale, California 91203 Phone: (818)551-6000 ♦ Fax: (818)551-6050 6 Attorneys for Defendants, CLEARVIEW 7 PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER HULME 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, COOK DIVISION 11 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 THOMAS KOPITNIK, an individual, Case No. 21CV02266 GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge James F. 13 Plaintiff, Rigali, Dept. 2] Attorneys at Law 14 v. DEFENDANTS CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. AND 15 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. CHRISTOPHER HULME'S REPLY TO a California Corporation; CHRISTOPHER PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR 16 HULME, and individual; and DOES 1 DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO THROUGH 10 STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. 18 HEARING DATE: January 3, 2023 TIME: 8:30 a.m. 19 DEPT.: SM2 20 Action Filed: 06/08/2021 Trial Date: 04/24/2023 21 22 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 Defendants, CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER HULME 25 (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Reply to Plaintiff THOMAS KOPITNIK's 26 (“Plaintiff”) Opposition to their Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended 27 Complaint. 28 /// 27123707.1:05819-0110 -1- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 In reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, Defendants point out the following: (1) Plaintiff admits in his 3 own opposition that he did not specifically plead Defendants' lack of licensing in the original 4 complaint; and (2) Plaintiff incorrectly claims in his opposition that this Court denied Plaintiff's prior 5 motion for summary adjudication ("MSA") seeking disgorgement of all monies paid to Defendant 6 Clearview under its contract with Plaintiff based on a finding that Plaintiff had not yet stated a cause 7 of action for disgorgement under Section 7031. Rather, this Court denied Plaintiff's prior MSA on his 8 first cause of action for rescission of the contract based on Plaintiff's failure to allege in his First 9 Amended Complaint ("FAC") that he is seeking rescission on the theory that Defendant Clearview 10 was not properly licensed under the Business and Professions Code. (See Defendants' Request for 11 Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. 1.) WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 As set forth in further detail below, Plaintiff's new allegation in his Second Amended GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 13 Complaint ("SAC") that Defendant Clearview was an unlicensed contractor at the time of the contract Attorneys at Law 14 is based on a set of new and changed facts under a new and wholly distinct and different cause of 15 action (i.e. disgorgement cause of action). Therefore, the relation-back doctrine does not apply and 16 Plaintiff's disgorgement cause of action is time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of 17 limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340(a). Thus, Defendants respectfully 18 request that their Demurrer be sustained in its entirety without leave to amend and their accompanying 19 Motion to Strike be granted. 20 II. PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANTS MISREPRESENTED 21 THEIR SKILL, EXPERIENCE AND LICENSE STATUS DOES NOT PROVIDE 22 DEFENDANTS WITH SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S NEW 23 ALLEGATION THAT CLEARVIEW WAS AN UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR AT 24 THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS BASED ON A SET OF NEW AND 25 CHANGED FACTS UNDER A NEW AND WHOLLY DISTINCT CAUSE OF 26 ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY 27 Plaintiff's prior allegations in his Complaint and FAC that Defendants lacked the skill and 28 experience to undertake Plaintiff's landscaping project and misrepresented their license status does not 27123707.1:05819-0110 -2- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 amount to the equivalent of an allegation of Clearview's failure to maintain a proper license. Indeed, 2 as the Court stated in its ruling on Plaintiff's prior MSA as to his cause of action for rescission in the 3 FAC, there is no prior allegation by Plaintiff, and none reasonably can be inferred even when viewed 4 liberally, that Clearview failed to secure or obtain a contractor's license at the time of the contract. 5 (See Defendants' RJN, Ex. 1.) Further, "vague chain pleading factual allegations cannot supplant or 6 contradict specific theories offered in the body of the cause of action." (See Defendants' Request for 7 (See Defendants' RJN, Ex. 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s prior allegations that Defendants lacked and 8 misrepresented their skills, qualifications and experience, and a mere prayer for "the return of all 9 amounts paid to Clearview under the Agreement" in the FAC, do not provide Defendants with 10 sufficient notice of a specific claim of improper licensure against Defendant Clearview, which is what 11 is now alleged in Plaintiff's cause of action for disgorgement in the SAC. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 Plaintiff's new allegation in his SAC that Defendant Clearview was an unlicensed GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 13 contractor at the time of the contract is based on a set of new and changed facts under a new and Attorneys at Law 14 wholly distinct and different cause of action. Specifically, while Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint 15 that Clearview was licensed, subsequently alleged Clearview misrepresented its license status in 16 his FAC, and failed to list disgorgement as a relief in the Prayer in both his Complaint and FAC, 17 Plaintiff now changes his tune in his SAC by alleging Clearview was an unlicensed contractor 18 based on Defendant Hulme's contractor's licensing history under a new cause of action for 19 disgorgement under Business and Professions Code Section 7031. Not only is the disgorgement 20 cause of action separate and wholly distinct from the recission cause of action, but the allegations 21 that Clearview was first licensed and then, that it misrepresented its license status, are very distinct 22 and different from the allegation in the SAC that Clearview was unlicensed, which thus sets forth 23 a wholly distinct and different obligation, and a significant new dimension to the lawsuit. (See 24 Grudt v. L.A. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575, 583-584.) 25 The primary consideration when applying the relation back doctrine to determine whether 26 an amended complaint is considered a new action for purposes of the statute of limitations is 27 whether the prior complaint provided the defendant with sufficient notice of the claim in the 28 amended complaint. (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 715.) Here, 27123707.1:05819-0110 -3- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 not only is there no prior clear allegation of improper licensing to have put Defendants on notice 2 that Plaintiff's new cause of action for disgorgement is based on Defendant's alleged failure to be 3 properly licensed, but the allegations based on Defendant Hulme's contractor's licensing history 4 comprise a set of new facts entirely different and unrelated to those previously plead in the 5 Complaint and FAC. Further, as stated in Defendants' moving papers, it was not until Plaintiff 6 filed his MSA on or about June 14, 2022, more than eight (8) months after the statute of 7 limitations lapsed, that he first raised the issue of disgorgement under Business and Professions 8 Code Section 7031. (RJN, ¶¶ 1-5.) Therefore, the relation-back doctrine should not apply and 9 Plaintiff's disgorgement cause of action is time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of 10 limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340(a). 11 III. CONCLUSION WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain their Demurrer GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 13 as to Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Disgorgement in the SAC, without leave to amend, and grant Attorneys at Law 14 their accompanying motion to strike. 15 DATED: December 23, 2022 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 16 17 18 By: R. GREGORY AMUNDSON 19 SHEILA E. FIX 20 S. JOANNA DYRIAM Attorneys for Defendants, CLEARVIEW PROPERTY 21 SERVICES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER HULME 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27123707.1:05819-0110 -4- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Dr. Tom Kopitnik v. ClearView Property Services Case No. 21CV02266 3 I am employed in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen 4 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215, Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-5827, United States. 5 On December 23, 2022, I served the following document(s) described as DEFENDANTS 6 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. AND CHRISTOPHER HULME'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO 7 STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an 10 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address sdyriam@wshblaw.com to the persons at the 11 electronic notification address listed in the service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was not 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 successful. GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Attorneys at Law foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed on December 23, 2022, at Thousand Oaks, California. 15 16 /s/ S. Joanna Dyriam 17 S. Joanna Dyriam 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27123707.1:05819-0110 -5- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SERVICE LIST Dr. Tom Kopitnik v. ClearView Property Services 2 Case No. 21CV02266 3 Jason H. Anderson Andrew Mason 4 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, APC 5 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 6 Tel: 949-725-4000 janderson@stradlinglaw.com 7 amason@stradlinglaw.com KMilanowski@stradlinglaw.com 8 kkirkpatrick@stradlinglaw.com smjohnson@stradlinglaw.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, THOMAS KOPITNIK 10 11 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 505 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE 818 551-6000 ♦ FAX 818 551-6050 12 GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 13 Attorneys at Law 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27123707.1:05819-0110 -6- DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT