Preview
28
SHERMAN Law Guour
9454 Wishize Boulevard, Suite 85
Beverly His, California 90212
TLE
RICHARD LLOYD SHERMAN, ESQ. (STATE BAR No. 106597) Superior Court of California
ABHAY KHOSLA, ESQ. (State Bar No. 77556)
SHERMAN LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Beverly Hills, California 90212-2929
Telephone: (310) 246-0321
Facsimile: (310) 246-0305
Attorneys for Defendants BOHEMIA
Grovp, INC. and SUSAN FERRIS
‘ounty of Los Angeles
JAN 26 2021
he tive OticafGlerk of Court
4 Ri. Carter, Executive
senii§, DREW
De
Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JENNIFER DARE,
BOHEMIA GROUP, INC., a California
corporation; SUSAN FERRIS, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Plaintiff
Defendants
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NO. 19STCV36624
DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE
STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
TERMINATING AND/OR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
Date: January 27, 2021
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 14
Ve
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Pursuant to this Court’s Minute Order of January 5, 2021 (the “Minute Order”), Defendants
BOHEMIA GROUP INC. and SUSAN FERRIS (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their
counsel of record, hereby submit their Status Conference Statement:
///
///
///
///
1960.001
DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28
SHERMAN Law GROUP
9454 Wishire Boulevard, Suis 85
I. PLAINTIFF HAS VIOLATED A COURT ORDER FOR THE FOURTH TIME
At this Court’s request, Defendants’ counsel after the Status Conference of October 5, 2020
immediately contacted Plaintiff's counsel to discuss this case, namely to meet and confer about a
Motion to Deny Class Certification, which Defendants have long made clear that they intended to
file based upon a lack of numerosity that was apparent from the outset of this case and which makes
this case entirely improper to be a class action. Defendants’ counsel then followed up the call with
an e-mail, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the telephone call or the e-mail. Accordingly on or
about November 18, 2020, Defendants’ counsel left a post on the instant case’s message board,
stating, inter alia, the following:
[Despite knowing about the need to meet and confer (a) from the October 5th hearing
and the Court's unmistakable instructions thereat, and (b) the e-mail from Defendants!
counsel sent immediately thereafter, Plaintiff's counsel has neither responded to the
e-mail from Defendants' counsel nor returned the call from Defendants! counsel, nor
otherwise even attempted to engage in a meaningful meet and confer.
It has thus become apparent that any further effort to try to meet and confer remains
futile. Defendants respectfully request that this Court set a briefing schedule for a
Motion to Deny Class Certification, based on the class issues previously referenced.
Defendants respectfully request at least three weeks in which to file their Motion, in
light of the holiday season. In the alternative, Defendants respectfully request that
this Court set an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not issue for Plaintiff's
failure to respect and follow this Court's instructions.
See, Court’s Message Board on Case Anywhere.
Plaintiffs counsel left a response denying that Defendants had attempted to contact them
(which was false and is contradicted by the e-mail attached hereto as EXHIBIT A), but
conspicuously has never contacted Defendants’ counsel at that time or thereafter.
Thereafter, on January 5, 2021, the Court issued its Minute Order, ordering that “a Joint
Status Report is to be filed AND posted by 1/20/2021.” As Defendants have long made clear, (a)
they do not have the financial resources to “chase down the Plaintiff’, and (b) Plaintiff has a long
history of not returning calls or e-mails from Defendants’ counsel— such efforts by Defendants have
repeatedly proven to be pointless, including as recently as October 2020. It was thus incumbent
upon the Plaintiff to contact Defendants’ counsel and to ensure that a Joint Status Report was filed.
Bevedy Eis, Caliomia 90212, 1960.001 1 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28
SHERMAN Law Group
19454 Wilhie Boulevard, Suze 850
Beverly His, Calfornia 90212
It was Plaintiff's responsibility. Nevertheless, Plaintiff made no effort to contact Defendants’
counsel. Accordingly, this was the fourth order of this Court that Plaintiff violated— the other three
orders are summarized in §II, below.
At previous hearings, Defendants have expressed to this Court that (a) Plaintiff refuses to
comply with this Court’s orders and (b) Defendants lack the resources to waste attorneys fees
chasing after Plaintiff's counsel (who does not return calls), in the desperate hopes of convincing
him to comply. To date, however, this Court has been reluctant to sanction Plaintiff, perhaps
believing that its generosity would convince Plaintiff and her counsel to “see the light.” Every
hearing to date has thus seen (a) this Court tell Plaintiff's counsel to “straighten up and fly right”, (b)
Plaintiffs counsel promise this Court that he would do so and (c) Plaintiffs counsel thereafter
ignore all its promises and continue to refuse to prosecute this matter in a diligent or professional
manner.
Plaintiff has disrespected this Court, Defendants, and Defendants’ counsel on numerous
occasions, and shows no sign of doing otherwise, absent some discipline by this Court. Enough is
enough. Monetary sanctions and/or terminating sanctions are warranted, as set forth in §IIT below.
Il. A SUMMARY OF ORDERS VIOLATED BY PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff has violated the following orders:
1. This Court in its Initial Status Conference Order (“Order”) stated “Counsel for
Plaintiff is ordered to initiate contact with counsel for Defense.” The Court further
ordered that a Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response Statement
(“Joint Report”) be filed by January 10, 2020.
Plaintiffs counsel not only never initiated contact with defense counsel as he was ordered by
the Court, he also has ignored repeated attempts by defense counsel to communicate with him. On
January 16, 2020, Defendants filed a declaration with the Court evidencing their efforts to contact
Plaintiff's counsel. Amazingly, Plaintiff's counsel never even attempted to contact defense counsel
after the filing of the Declaration.
1960.001 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORTBs, This Court issued an Order Authorizing Electronic Service dated June 26, 2020
which required Plaintiff counsel to set-up the Case Anywhere system and provide a
service list thereto.
Plaintiff failed to do, forcing Defendants to spend valuable time setting up Case Anywhere
because Plaintiff refused to follow this Court’s orders.
3. On or about July 30, 2020, this Court scheduled a Telephonic Pleading Conference
for August 11, 2020.
On or about August 11, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the Informal Pleading
Conference. This Court set an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why sanctions should not issue for
October 1, 2020. Plaintiffs counsel failed to file any declaration in connection with that OSC, but
thereafter the Court on its own initiative continued that hearing to October 5, 2020. Plaintiff filed a
declaration on October 2, 2020.
At the October 5" hearing, the Court left the issue of monetary sanctions open as against
Plaintiff, based upon Plaintiff's empty and false promise that he would comply with Court orders
thereafter. But as set forth above, Plaintiff then immediately ignored (a) Defendants’ efforts to
contact them, (b) the Minute Order, and (c) the responsibilities to file a Joint Status Report.
Plaintiff has thus now for the fourth time violated orders of this Court. This is in addition to
| a long history of failing and refusing to communicate with Defendants’ counsel that has been
documented repeatedly to this Court in prior declarations and Defendants’ Motion to Quash.
Plaintiff's counsel has demonstrably ignored communications from Defendants’ counsel since
November 29, 2019.
Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that this Court can not (and should not have to)
convince the Plaintiff to act in good faith in this litigation, and Plaintiff has absolutely no respect for
this Court or this judicial process. It is time to bring this circus to an end.
M11
//1
1960.001 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28
SIIERMAN Law GRouP
5454 Wilehire Boulevard, Suite 85
Bevery Hil, Califor 90212
TH. TERMINATING AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED;
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS COURT SHOULD SET A BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY CLASS
CERTIFICATION
On or about August 24, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking for $2,552.50 in
monetary sanctions based upon “the ongoing failure by Plaintiff and her counsel to litigate this
matter in good faith.” At that time, this Court was not inclined to grant such sanctions, but left the
issue of sanctions open . Sanctions should be awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel.
Furthermore, this matter has only risen to the level of terminating sanctions since then.
“Tt is the imperative duty of an attorney to respectfully yield to the rulings of the court,
whether right or wrong.” Hawk v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal App. 3d 108, 126 (emphasis in
original). Thus, in Osborne v. Todd Farm Service (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4" 43, the Court of Appeals
affirmed a terminating sanction of dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to the trial court’s inherent
authority to compel obedience with its orders and process:
Trial courts have inherent authority to control the proceedings before them. This includes the
authority to impose a terminating sanction where a party willfully violates the court's orders.
In reviewing the order, our task is not to supplant our own judgment for that of the trial court
but to ascertain whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a terminating
sanction. The question “is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction;
rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it
chose. It did not.
Id. at 54 (terminating sanctions warranted for repeated violations of an order excluding certain
evidence from trial)(internal citations, quotations omitted), citing, inter alia, Williams v. Russ (2008)
167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223; Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1272, 1292.
Plaintiff has been given every opportunity to litigate this matter professionally by this Court.
Plaintiff has refused to do so. Terminating sanctions are justified.
To the extent that this Court is not inclined to grant terminating sanctions, Defendants repeat
and renew their request for $2,552.50 in sanctions as requested on August 24, 2020. Defendants
further respectfully request that in that case, this Court also set a briefing schedule for a Motion to
Deny Class Certification, and that Defendants have to mid-February 2021 to file their Motion.
1960.001 4 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT1 || Dated: January 25, 2021 SHERMAN LAW GROUP
: By: [Ettlild lage —$$
RICHARD LLOYD SHERMAN, Esq.
4 Attorneys for Defendants BOHEMIA GROUP,
INC. and SUSAN FERRIS
28
SHERMAN LAW GrouP
9454 Wilshie Bolerard, Suite 850 .
Beverly Hils,Caiforsia 90212 1960.001 s DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORTEXHIBIT AFrom: Richard Sherman
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:24 AM
To: seg@rglawyers.com
Subject: Tried to call you
Your line was fast busy. Call me when you can?
Richard Lloyd Sherman, Esq.
SHERMAN LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
Beverly Hills, California 90212
(310) 246-0321 phone
(310) 246-0305 fax
www, spermaniawsTOup.Co!
Bal suerwan LAW GROUPPROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 9454 Wilshire Blvd., 850 Beverly
Hills, California 90212.
On January 26, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as DEFENDANTS’
STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATING
AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS on the interested parties in this action addressed as
follows:
Mr. Solomon E. Gresen
RGLAWYERS LLP
16255 Ventura Blvd. Ste., 940
Encino, California 91436
Telephone: (818) 815-2727
Facsimile: (818) 815-2737
Email: seg@rglawyers.com
By placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated above.
BY MAIL (CCP §1013(a)&(b)): I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service.
Under that practice such envelope(s) is deposited with the U.S. postal service on the same
day this declaration was executed, with postage thereon fully prepaid at 9454 Wilshire
Blvd., 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212, in the ordinary course of business.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (CCP §1013(c)&(d)): Iam readily familiar with the
firm’s practice of collection and processing items for delivery with Overnight Delivery.
Under that practice such envelope(s) is deposited at a facility regularly maintained by
Overnight Delivery or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by
Overnight Delivery to receive such envelope(s), on the same day this declaration was
executed, with delivery fees fully provided for at 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Beverly
Hills, California 90212, in the ordinary course of business.
BY FACSIMILE: (CCP §1013(e) and (f) and CRC Rule 2.306(h)): Pursuant to CCP
§1013(e) and (f) and CRC Rule 2.306(h), I served the above stated document by
facsimile from the facsimile machine with phone number is (310) 246-0305 to the
addressee(s) at the facsimile numbers as stated above. The facsimile machine used
complies with CRC Rule 2.306(h). Pursuant to CRC Rule 2.306(h) the transmission by
facsimile was reported as complete and without error.
(Via E-Mail) I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses
above on the dates and the times stated thereon. I did not receive, within a reasonable
time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indications that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California thatthe above is true
and correct. Executed on January 26, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
LQ
‘Abhay Khosla
Preview
28 SHERMAN Law Guour 9454 Wishize Boulevard, Suite 85 Beverly His, California 90212 TLE RICHARD LLOYD SHERMAN, ESQ. (STATE BAR No. 106597) Superior Court of California ABHAY KHOSLA, ESQ. (State Bar No. 77556) SHERMAN LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212-2929 Telephone: (310) 246-0321 Facsimile: (310) 246-0305 Attorneys for Defendants BOHEMIA Grovp, INC. and SUSAN FERRIS ‘ounty of Los Angeles JAN 26 2021 he tive OticafGlerk of Court 4 Ri. Carter, Executive senii§, DREW De Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JENNIFER DARE, BOHEMIA GROUP, INC., a California corporation; SUSAN FERRIS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiff Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CASE NO. 19STCV36624 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATING AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: January 27, 2021 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 14 Ve TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to this Court’s Minute Order of January 5, 2021 (the “Minute Order”), Defendants BOHEMIA GROUP INC. and SUSAN FERRIS (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby submit their Status Conference Statement: /// /// /// /// 1960.001 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28 SHERMAN Law GROUP 9454 Wishire Boulevard, Suis 85 I. PLAINTIFF HAS VIOLATED A COURT ORDER FOR THE FOURTH TIME At this Court’s request, Defendants’ counsel after the Status Conference of October 5, 2020 immediately contacted Plaintiff's counsel to discuss this case, namely to meet and confer about a Motion to Deny Class Certification, which Defendants have long made clear that they intended to file based upon a lack of numerosity that was apparent from the outset of this case and which makes this case entirely improper to be a class action. Defendants’ counsel then followed up the call with an e-mail, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the telephone call or the e-mail. Accordingly on or about November 18, 2020, Defendants’ counsel left a post on the instant case’s message board, stating, inter alia, the following: [Despite knowing about the need to meet and confer (a) from the October 5th hearing and the Court's unmistakable instructions thereat, and (b) the e-mail from Defendants! counsel sent immediately thereafter, Plaintiff's counsel has neither responded to the e-mail from Defendants' counsel nor returned the call from Defendants! counsel, nor otherwise even attempted to engage in a meaningful meet and confer. It has thus become apparent that any further effort to try to meet and confer remains futile. Defendants respectfully request that this Court set a briefing schedule for a Motion to Deny Class Certification, based on the class issues previously referenced. Defendants respectfully request at least three weeks in which to file their Motion, in light of the holiday season. In the alternative, Defendants respectfully request that this Court set an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not issue for Plaintiff's failure to respect and follow this Court's instructions. See, Court’s Message Board on Case Anywhere. Plaintiffs counsel left a response denying that Defendants had attempted to contact them (which was false and is contradicted by the e-mail attached hereto as EXHIBIT A), but conspicuously has never contacted Defendants’ counsel at that time or thereafter. Thereafter, on January 5, 2021, the Court issued its Minute Order, ordering that “a Joint Status Report is to be filed AND posted by 1/20/2021.” As Defendants have long made clear, (a) they do not have the financial resources to “chase down the Plaintiff’, and (b) Plaintiff has a long history of not returning calls or e-mails from Defendants’ counsel— such efforts by Defendants have repeatedly proven to be pointless, including as recently as October 2020. It was thus incumbent upon the Plaintiff to contact Defendants’ counsel and to ensure that a Joint Status Report was filed. Bevedy Eis, Caliomia 90212, 1960.001 1 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28 SHERMAN Law Group 19454 Wilhie Boulevard, Suze 850 Beverly His, Calfornia 90212 It was Plaintiff's responsibility. Nevertheless, Plaintiff made no effort to contact Defendants’ counsel. Accordingly, this was the fourth order of this Court that Plaintiff violated— the other three orders are summarized in §II, below. At previous hearings, Defendants have expressed to this Court that (a) Plaintiff refuses to comply with this Court’s orders and (b) Defendants lack the resources to waste attorneys fees chasing after Plaintiff's counsel (who does not return calls), in the desperate hopes of convincing him to comply. To date, however, this Court has been reluctant to sanction Plaintiff, perhaps believing that its generosity would convince Plaintiff and her counsel to “see the light.” Every hearing to date has thus seen (a) this Court tell Plaintiff's counsel to “straighten up and fly right”, (b) Plaintiffs counsel promise this Court that he would do so and (c) Plaintiffs counsel thereafter ignore all its promises and continue to refuse to prosecute this matter in a diligent or professional manner. Plaintiff has disrespected this Court, Defendants, and Defendants’ counsel on numerous occasions, and shows no sign of doing otherwise, absent some discipline by this Court. Enough is enough. Monetary sanctions and/or terminating sanctions are warranted, as set forth in §IIT below. Il. A SUMMARY OF ORDERS VIOLATED BY PLAINTIFF Plaintiff has violated the following orders: 1. This Court in its Initial Status Conference Order (“Order”) stated “Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to initiate contact with counsel for Defense.” The Court further ordered that a Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response Statement (“Joint Report”) be filed by January 10, 2020. Plaintiffs counsel not only never initiated contact with defense counsel as he was ordered by the Court, he also has ignored repeated attempts by defense counsel to communicate with him. On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed a declaration with the Court evidencing their efforts to contact Plaintiff's counsel. Amazingly, Plaintiff's counsel never even attempted to contact defense counsel after the filing of the Declaration. 1960.001 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORTBs, This Court issued an Order Authorizing Electronic Service dated June 26, 2020 which required Plaintiff counsel to set-up the Case Anywhere system and provide a service list thereto. Plaintiff failed to do, forcing Defendants to spend valuable time setting up Case Anywhere because Plaintiff refused to follow this Court’s orders. 3. On or about July 30, 2020, this Court scheduled a Telephonic Pleading Conference for August 11, 2020. On or about August 11, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the Informal Pleading Conference. This Court set an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why sanctions should not issue for October 1, 2020. Plaintiffs counsel failed to file any declaration in connection with that OSC, but thereafter the Court on its own initiative continued that hearing to October 5, 2020. Plaintiff filed a declaration on October 2, 2020. At the October 5" hearing, the Court left the issue of monetary sanctions open as against Plaintiff, based upon Plaintiff's empty and false promise that he would comply with Court orders thereafter. But as set forth above, Plaintiff then immediately ignored (a) Defendants’ efforts to contact them, (b) the Minute Order, and (c) the responsibilities to file a Joint Status Report. Plaintiff has thus now for the fourth time violated orders of this Court. This is in addition to | a long history of failing and refusing to communicate with Defendants’ counsel that has been documented repeatedly to this Court in prior declarations and Defendants’ Motion to Quash. Plaintiff's counsel has demonstrably ignored communications from Defendants’ counsel since November 29, 2019. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that this Court can not (and should not have to) convince the Plaintiff to act in good faith in this litigation, and Plaintiff has absolutely no respect for this Court or this judicial process. It is time to bring this circus to an end. M11 //1 1960.001 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT28 SIIERMAN Law GRouP 5454 Wilehire Boulevard, Suite 85 Bevery Hil, Califor 90212 TH. TERMINATING AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS COURT SHOULD SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION On or about August 24, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking for $2,552.50 in monetary sanctions based upon “the ongoing failure by Plaintiff and her counsel to litigate this matter in good faith.” At that time, this Court was not inclined to grant such sanctions, but left the issue of sanctions open . Sanctions should be awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel. Furthermore, this matter has only risen to the level of terminating sanctions since then. “Tt is the imperative duty of an attorney to respectfully yield to the rulings of the court, whether right or wrong.” Hawk v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal App. 3d 108, 126 (emphasis in original). Thus, in Osborne v. Todd Farm Service (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4" 43, the Court of Appeals affirmed a terminating sanction of dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to the trial court’s inherent authority to compel obedience with its orders and process: Trial courts have inherent authority to control the proceedings before them. This includes the authority to impose a terminating sanction where a party willfully violates the court's orders. In reviewing the order, our task is not to supplant our own judgment for that of the trial court but to ascertain whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a terminating sanction. The question “is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. It did not. Id. at 54 (terminating sanctions warranted for repeated violations of an order excluding certain evidence from trial)(internal citations, quotations omitted), citing, inter alia, Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223; Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1272, 1292. Plaintiff has been given every opportunity to litigate this matter professionally by this Court. Plaintiff has refused to do so. Terminating sanctions are justified. To the extent that this Court is not inclined to grant terminating sanctions, Defendants repeat and renew their request for $2,552.50 in sanctions as requested on August 24, 2020. Defendants further respectfully request that in that case, this Court also set a briefing schedule for a Motion to Deny Class Certification, and that Defendants have to mid-February 2021 to file their Motion. 1960.001 4 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT1 || Dated: January 25, 2021 SHERMAN LAW GROUP : By: [Ettlild lage —$$ RICHARD LLOYD SHERMAN, Esq. 4 Attorneys for Defendants BOHEMIA GROUP, INC. and SUSAN FERRIS 28 SHERMAN LAW GrouP 9454 Wilshie Bolerard, Suite 850 . Beverly Hils,Caiforsia 90212 1960.001 s DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE REPORTEXHIBIT AFrom: Richard Sherman Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:24 AM To: seg@rglawyers.com Subject: Tried to call you Your line was fast busy. Call me when you can? Richard Lloyd Sherman, Esq. SHERMAN LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212 (310) 246-0321 phone (310) 246-0305 fax www, spermaniawsTOup.Co! Bal suerwan LAW GROUPPROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 9454 Wilshire Blvd., 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212. On January 26, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as DEFENDANTS’ STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATING AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: Mr. Solomon E. Gresen RGLAWYERS LLP 16255 Ventura Blvd. Ste., 940 Encino, California 91436 Telephone: (818) 815-2727 Facsimile: (818) 815-2737 Email: seg@rglawyers.com By placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated above. BY MAIL (CCP §1013(a)&(b)): I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. Under that practice such envelope(s) is deposited with the U.S. postal service on the same day this declaration was executed, with postage thereon fully prepaid at 9454 Wilshire Blvd., 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212, in the ordinary course of business. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (CCP §1013(c)&(d)): Iam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing items for delivery with Overnight Delivery. Under that practice such envelope(s) is deposited at a facility regularly maintained by Overnight Delivery or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by Overnight Delivery to receive such envelope(s), on the same day this declaration was executed, with delivery fees fully provided for at 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Beverly Hills, California 90212, in the ordinary course of business. BY FACSIMILE: (CCP §1013(e) and (f) and CRC Rule 2.306(h)): Pursuant to CCP §1013(e) and (f) and CRC Rule 2.306(h), I served the above stated document by facsimile from the facsimile machine with phone number is (310) 246-0305 to the addressee(s) at the facsimile numbers as stated above. The facsimile machine used complies with CRC Rule 2.306(h). Pursuant to CRC Rule 2.306(h) the transmission by facsimile was reported as complete and without error. (Via E-Mail) I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses above on the dates and the times stated thereon. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indications that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California thatthe above is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. LQ ‘Abhay Khosla