Preview
PLD-C-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS): TELEPHONE: 559-476-5064 FOR COURT USE ONLY:
Thornton Davidson, SBN 166487
Thornton Davidson, PC
1195 W. Shaw Ave, Ste A
Fresno, CA 93711
ATTORNEY FOR (NAME): JASON NEEL
Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any, and post office and street address:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
701 Ocean
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
| PLAINTIFF:
JASON NEEL
DEFENDANT:
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING, et al.
ANSWER—Contract (CASE NUMBER:
— TO COMPLAINT OF (name): 22CV01758
[¥] TO CROSS-COMPLAINT (name): United Real Estate Corporation
1. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: ll
2, DEFENDANT (name): JASON NEEL.
answers the complaint or cross-complaint as follows:
3. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes:
a. [-] Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Do not check this box if
the verified complaint or cross-complaint demands more than $1,000.)
b, Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT:
(1) Defendant claims the following statements are false (use paragraph numbers or explain):
4, Deny that Plaintiff is the borrower on the $439,000 loan.
5. Deny only as to Cody Malica being Plaitiffs authorized attorney in fact, that the POA is
valid on its face and you, USREC, as relied upon the POA in good faith.
13, 19, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 43.
[1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(1).
(2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements are true, so defendant denies them (use
paragraph numbers or explain):
8,9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 28, 31, 36, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48, and 49
[1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(2).
If this form Is used to answer a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant.
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use C Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12
‘Judicial Council of California ANSWER—Contract vin curthieca gov
PLD-C-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]PLD-C-010
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
NEEL v. SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING 22CV01758
ANSWER—Contract
4. [¥] AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following additional reasons that plaintiff is not
entitled to recover anything:
Please see attachment 4.
Continued on Attachment 4.
5. Other
6. DEFENDANT PRAYS
a. that plaintiff take nothing.
b. ¥_| for costs of suit.
c. LY] other (specify):
For such other and further relief as the courts may grant.
Thornton Davidson, Es
“Type or print name) ature of party or attorney)
PLD-C - 010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]
ANSWER—Contract
Page 2 of 2ATTACHMENT 4
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to State a Cause of Action
As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint, in its entirety,
nor any purported cause of action set forth therein, allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against this answering Cross-Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Ambiguity
As a second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint does not clearly
state the amount or issues in this case, making it difficult for this answering Cross-Defendant to
respond. This answering Cross-Defendant requests that the court grant leave to amend this answer
to allow additional defenses once additional information is discovered that will allow any
additional defenses to be known by the Cross-Defendant.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Statute of Limitations
As a third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are time barred due to the
running of the applicable statutes of limitations on those claims.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Laches
As a fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint is time barred by
laches, due to Cross-Complainants’ unreasonable delay in filing the Complaint. Cross-Defendant’
ability to defend against the Complaint has been severely prejudiced due to Cross-Complainants’
unreasonable delay in filing the Complaint.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1oO YN DAA BR Ww NY
Yb NYY YN NK NY BS Bee ee we eB BK
eA DA BOHN FF FS GCH AA ARSE HR SF S
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Breach of Contract by Cross-Complainants
As a fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are forfeited or
proportionally reduced because of Cross-Complainants’ breach of the terms of any and all
agreements with Cross-Defendant, including any express and implied warranties, and negligently
and carelessly performing their own obligations.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Breach of Contract by Cross-Defendant
Asa sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that they performed all duties owed under the contract with
Cross-Complainants, other than any duties which were prevented or excused, and therefore never
breached the agreement.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate Damages
As a seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are forfeited or
proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ failure to mitigate any damages that they
allege.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Waiver
As an eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants have waived each and every of
the claims stated in their Complaint by their representations or actions, and therefore cannot
sustain their Complaint.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Estoppel
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2Cem NDA BF WY
Nw NR NY RY NY NY NK KY KY BBB Be Be eB Be eB ew
eo IA DA A FH NH fF SO He AA A BR HOH KFS
As a ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants are equitably estopped from making
the claims contained in their Complaint against Cross-Defendant.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unjust Enrichment
As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants are seeking to recover damages from
Cross-Defendant, to which Cross-Complainants are not entitled and Cross-Defendant is not liable,
and any award of damages to Cross-Complainants would constitute unjust enrichment of the
Cross-Complainants.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Statute of Frauds
As an eleventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are based on a theory of
an oral contract, but such a contract would be unenforceable because it is required to be in writing
pursuant to Civil Code § 1624(a)(1-7).
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Parol Evidence Rule
As a twelfth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this’
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the written agreement between the parties was intended to
be the full agreement between the parties, and that the Cross-Complainants cannot present any
evidence not in writing to establish any terms of the contract not in the written agreement.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Accord and Satisfaction
As a thirteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Prevention of Performance
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
3So em IND HW BR HW NY
om I A HA KR wB WY
NbN YY Y NY YY WY
ord A aA fF ow NH SF SS
As a fourteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants prevented, precluded or excused
Cross-Defendant from performing under the agreements as defined under Civil Code § 1511, if
any were unperformed at all, and therefore Cross-Complainants’ claims against Cross-Defendant
is barred or proportionally reduced.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Anticipatory Repudiation
As a fifteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants anticipatorily repudiated the
contract, and therefore no further performance was required by the Cross-Defendant.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Rescission of Contract
As a sixteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants rescinded the contract as
described in Civil Code § 1691, and therefore no further performance was required by the Cross-
Defendant.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation by Cross-Complainants
As a seventeenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants claims are barred due to
Cross-Complainants’ fraud, deceit or misrepresentations in the inception of and throughout the
transactions.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure of Consideration
As an eighteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims contained in their
Complaint are barred due to the failure of consideration on Cross-Complainants’ behalf and due to
no fault of Cross-Defendant, and that any recovery by Cross-Complainants would be
unconscionable.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4oom IN DH RB WN
=
oN DA BR WN
19
20
21
2
2B
24
25
26
27
28
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Quantum Meruit
As anineteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced under the doctrine of quantum meruit.
/if
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Offset
As a twentieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants owe money or other valuable
consideration to Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainants’ claims are offset by the money or
other valuable consideration owed to Cross-Defendant.
TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Damage to Cross-Complainants
As a twenty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that, even if all of Cross-Complainants’ other claims are
true, Cross-Complainants did not suffer any damages and are thus barred from recovery from
Cross-Defendant.
TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Novation
As a twenty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to novation of the agreement.
TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unclean Hands
As a twenty third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
5oD mI DH BR WY
=
oem ND A RB WN
NN YY Y NY YY DY
eI naan FB YN - SS
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of unclean hands, and that any
recovery by Cross-Complainants would be unconscionable.
TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Frustration of Purpose
As a twenty fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of frustration of purpose.
TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Impracticality
As a twenty fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of impracticality.
TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Release
As a twenty sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ actions constituted a full
release by Cross-Complainants of any and all claims which they may have had against this
answering Cross-Defendant.
TWENTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Full Performance
As a twenty seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges their full performance of any agreement or act
required of them, if there be such agreements or acts, fulfills all of their duties and obligations to
Cross-Complainants, if any there be, contractual, fiduciary, or otherwise, and no other duty or
obligation to Cross-Complainants remains on behalf of this answering Cross-Defendant.
TWENTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In Pari Delicto
As a twenty eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
6coo em IN DW RB WY
Ce tN DHA KR WD
Nw oN YY Y NY YY WY
ot A aA fF Bw NH | S
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants’ actions and courses
of conduct rendered them in pari delicto.
TWENTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Ratification of Acts
As a twenty ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants, by their acts, conduct
and/or omissions, have ratified the acts, conduct and omissions, if any, of this answering Cross-
Defendant; therefore, Cross-Complainants are barred from seeking any relief from this answering
Cross-Defendant.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Reasonable Reliance
As a thirtieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants did not reasonably rely upon any
alleged misrepresentations or nondisclosure of material facts made by this answering Cross-
Defendant. Therefore, Cross-Complainants are barred from seeking any recovery from this
answering Cross-Defendant.
THIRTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Comparative Negligence
As a thirty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ comparative negligence. This
answering Cross-Defendant alleges that any and all events and happenings, injuries and damages,
if any, referred to in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence
and fault of Cross-Complainants in that Cross-Complainants did not exercise ordinary care on
their own behalf at the time and places referred to in the Complaint. Therefore, Cross-
Complainants are completely barred from recovery herein. In the alternative, under the doctrine of
pure comparative negligence and fault, said acts of Cross-Complainants reduce their right to
recovery herein by the amount in which said acts contributed to their damages, if any.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
7Ceo ND HW RF WH
Nw NY NY YN YN KY BS Be Be Be Be ewe Be eB eH
ont DA A BF BY F&F Soe we IN DH BR Ww NH KS
THIRTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure of Condition Precedent
As a thirty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to the failure of conditions precedent in the
agreement between the parties.
THIRTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Act in a Commercially Reasonable Manner
As a thirty third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ failure to act in a commercially
reasonable manner.
THIRTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Mistake in Law or Fact
As a thirty fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their
Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to a mistake in law or fact in the terms of the
agreement,
THIRTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unilateral Mistake
As a thirty fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced due to a unilateral mistake.
THIRTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Mutual Mistake
As a thirty sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are
barred or proportionally reduced due to a mutual mistake.
THIRTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
De Minimis
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8eC em ND HW RFR WN
YN YY NY VY NY NY KY KY HB Bee we Be Be Be Be Be
2 I DA A BF Yow YH F Se we AA A RB wWwNH KE STS
As a thirty seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the damages alleged by Cross-Complainants
are de minimis and trivial in nature.
THIRTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Attorney’s Fees Available to Cross-Complainants
As a thirty eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the Complaint and each of the purported
causes of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees against
this answering Cross-Defendant. This answering Cross-Defendant has incurred, and will incur in
the future, attorney’s fees costs and request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by the
Cross-Complainants pursuant to the contract terms and provisions.
THIRTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure of Contract
As a thirty-ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that any duty or obligation to Cross-Complainants have
been excused by the failure of consideration, waiver, breach of condition precedent, breach of
contract, default, election of remedies, impossibility of performance, prevention, frustration of
purpose and/or acceptance by Cross-Complainants, their representatives, agents, and/or
employees.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Good Faith of Cross-Defendant
As a fortieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this|
answering Cross-Defendant asserts that answering Cross-Defendant has at all times acted in good
faith and observed all reasonable standards in his/its actions and dealings with Cross-
Complainants,
FORTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Consent of Cross-Complainants
As a forty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein,
this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that each purported cause of action of the Complaint is
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
9eC em IN DH RF WHY
Nw NY YN KY YN NY NY KY B&B Be Be eB Be eB ew
oN DA BY YH F- So we NIN DH BRB WH KS
barred by reason of Cross-Complainants’ consent to the acts and/or conditions alleged in the
complaint.
FORTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Intervening Negligence of Third Parties
As a forty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believe and based thereon allege that any
and all events and happenings in connection with the matters alleged in the Complaint, and the
resulting injuring and damages, purportedly suffered by the Cross-Complainants, if any, were
proximately caused and contributed to by the independent, intervening, negligent, intentional,
willful and unlawful conduct of other Cross-Complainants, independent third parties and/or their
agents, which therefore bars Cross-Complainants from recovering the damages sought in the
Complaint from this answering Cross-Defendant.
FORTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Incapacity
As a forty-third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that he was mentally incapacitated or
disabled in such a way that he did not have the legal capacity to enter into any agreement or
contract, rendering the Power of Attorneys signed on March 17, 2019, May 1, 2019, and May 28,
2020, void ab initio as a matter of law.
FORTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
Asa forty-fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that the Power of Attorneys he signed on
March 17, 2019, May 1, 2019, and May 28, 2020, were obtained through fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, and that as a result they are void ab initio as a matter of law.
FORTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unenforceability due to Forgery and Fraud
As a forty-fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file
herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that the $35,000 deed of trust recorded on
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10Cem YN DA HW RF WN BS
NN NY NY YN NY KY KY Bee Be Be Be Be Be eB ee
ot A A FY YH F&F So ew IRA HWA KRW NH FS
September 11, 2020, and the corresponding Promissory Note are forgeries as defined in California
Penal Code Section 115 in that the beneficiary of these obligations, Vigil Real Estate, LLC, does
not exist and has no legal standing and the parties who recorded various documents with this false
name knew or with the exercise of ordinary care should have known, there was no such lender.
Therefore, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant has no responsibility for the alleged $35,000
debt.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1DocuSign Envelope ID: DE3328F 1-996D-4EE7-B4D0-9007EB3F95EA
VERIFICATION
NEEL V. SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING, et al.
Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 22CV01758
I, JASON NEEL, declare:
1. Lam the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter.
2. Ihave read the accompanying ANSWER TO CROSS COMPLAINT OF
UNITED REAL ESTATE COPROTATION and verify the responses as true of my own
knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on, January 11, 2023, (ie California.
congepSBtEBSHEe—
JASON NEEL,Ceo YN DH RF YW NY
YN BY YY NY NY NY NY Be ee Be Be Be Be RB eB
eoNQ A A KF OB NH FF SOM AIA DAA RB wWH FS
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) SS.
I certify and declare as follows:
Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within above entitled action; my business address is 1195
W. Shaw Ave., Ste. A, Fresno, California 93711, which is located in the county where the mailing
described below took place.
Iam readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United Stated Postal Service. Correspondence
so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the
ordinary course of business.
On January 13, 2023, at my place of business in Fresno, California, I served the within:
e Answer to Cross-Complaint of UREC
as follows:
Edward Egan Smith Attorney for Defendant United States Real
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS Estate Corporation
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
235 Pine Street, 15" floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
esmith@steyerlaw.com
Julian Karl Bach Attorney for Defendant United States Real
Law Office of Julian Bach Estate Corporation
7911 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
julianbach@sbcglobal.net
julian@jbachlaw.com
Matthew W. Delbridge Attorney for Defendant Rushmyfile
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
235 Pine Street, 15" floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
mdelbridge@steyerlaw.com
Michael Beuselinck Attorney for CNA Equity Group, LLC
Michael Beuselinck, P.C.
490 43" St., #37
Oakland, CA 94609
mike@lawmtb.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
1oo wm ND
16
17
Kristi M. Wells Attorney for Asset Default Management, Inc.
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD T. WEBER
17151 Newhope St., Ste. 203
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
kristi@eweberlegal.com
Samuel C. Bellicini Attorney for Donald Schwartz
3001 Bridgeway, No. 331
Sausalito, CA 94965
Sam@statebaradvice.com
X] BY EMAIL: I electronically transmitted a true and correct copy thereof to the
interested parties’ electronic notification address(es) of record before close of business for the
purpose of effecting service and the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
X] +BY U.S. MAIL: I placed a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States at Fresno, California
] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused each envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, to be sent by overnight express delivery carrier
] BY FACSIMILE: I caused a true and correct copy thereof to be sent by facsimile
transmission to the above-listed numbers.
] BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused a true and correct thereof to be delivered by hand|
to the offices listed above.
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
ExeCuted on Ja 13, 2023, at Fresno, California.
2
“~~ “Letitia Sanches
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
Preview
PLD-C-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS): TELEPHONE: 559-476-5064 FOR COURT USE ONLY: Thornton Davidson, SBN 166487 Thornton Davidson, PC 1195 W. Shaw Ave, Ste A Fresno, CA 93711 ATTORNEY FOR (NAME): JASON NEEL Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any, and post office and street address: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 701 Ocean Santa Cruz, CA 95060 | PLAINTIFF: JASON NEEL DEFENDANT: SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING, et al. ANSWER—Contract (CASE NUMBER: — TO COMPLAINT OF (name): 22CV01758 [¥] TO CROSS-COMPLAINT (name): United Real Estate Corporation 1. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: ll 2, DEFENDANT (name): JASON NEEL. answers the complaint or cross-complaint as follows: 3. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes: a. [-] Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Do not check this box if the verified complaint or cross-complaint demands more than $1,000.) b, Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT: (1) Defendant claims the following statements are false (use paragraph numbers or explain): 4, Deny that Plaintiff is the borrower on the $439,000 loan. 5. Deny only as to Cody Malica being Plaitiffs authorized attorney in fact, that the POA is valid on its face and you, USREC, as relied upon the POA in good faith. 13, 19, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 43. [1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(1). (2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements are true, so defendant denies them (use paragraph numbers or explain): 8,9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 28, 31, 36, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48, and 49 [1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(2). If this form Is used to answer a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant. Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use C Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 ‘Judicial Council of California ANSWER—Contract vin curthieca gov PLD-C-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]PLD-C-010 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: NEEL v. SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING 22CV01758 ANSWER—Contract 4. [¥] AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following additional reasons that plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything: Please see attachment 4. Continued on Attachment 4. 5. Other 6. DEFENDANT PRAYS a. that plaintiff take nothing. b. ¥_| for costs of suit. c. LY] other (specify): For such other and further relief as the courts may grant. Thornton Davidson, Es “Type or print name) ature of party or attorney) PLD-C - 010 [Rev. January 1, 2007] ANSWER—Contract Page 2 of 2ATTACHMENT 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State a Cause of Action As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint, in its entirety, nor any purported cause of action set forth therein, allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Cross-Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Ambiguity As a second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint does not clearly state the amount or issues in this case, making it difficult for this answering Cross-Defendant to respond. This answering Cross-Defendant requests that the court grant leave to amend this answer to allow additional defenses once additional information is discovered that will allow any additional defenses to be known by the Cross-Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Statute of Limitations As a third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are time barred due to the running of the applicable statutes of limitations on those claims. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Laches As a fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ verified Complaint is time barred by laches, due to Cross-Complainants’ unreasonable delay in filing the Complaint. Cross-Defendant’ ability to defend against the Complaint has been severely prejudiced due to Cross-Complainants’ unreasonable delay in filing the Complaint. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1oO YN DAA BR Ww NY Yb NYY YN NK NY BS Bee ee we eB BK eA DA BOHN FF FS GCH AA ARSE HR SF S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Breach of Contract by Cross-Complainants As a fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are forfeited or proportionally reduced because of Cross-Complainants’ breach of the terms of any and all agreements with Cross-Defendant, including any express and implied warranties, and negligently and carelessly performing their own obligations. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Breach of Contract by Cross-Defendant Asa sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that they performed all duties owed under the contract with Cross-Complainants, other than any duties which were prevented or excused, and therefore never breached the agreement. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Mitigate Damages As a seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are forfeited or proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ failure to mitigate any damages that they allege. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Waiver As an eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants have waived each and every of the claims stated in their Complaint by their representations or actions, and therefore cannot sustain their Complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Estoppel ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2Cem NDA BF WY Nw NR NY RY NY NY NK KY KY BBB Be Be eB Be eB ew eo IA DA A FH NH fF SO He AA A BR HOH KFS As a ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants are equitably estopped from making the claims contained in their Complaint against Cross-Defendant. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unjust Enrichment As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants are seeking to recover damages from Cross-Defendant, to which Cross-Complainants are not entitled and Cross-Defendant is not liable, and any award of damages to Cross-Complainants would constitute unjust enrichment of the Cross-Complainants. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Statute of Frauds As an eleventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims are based on a theory of an oral contract, but such a contract would be unenforceable because it is required to be in writing pursuant to Civil Code § 1624(a)(1-7). TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Parol Evidence Rule As a twelfth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this’ answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the written agreement between the parties was intended to be the full agreement between the parties, and that the Cross-Complainants cannot present any evidence not in writing to establish any terms of the contract not in the written agreement. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Accord and Satisfaction As a thirteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Prevention of Performance ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 3So em IND HW BR HW NY om I A HA KR wB WY NbN YY Y NY YY WY ord A aA fF ow NH SF SS As a fourteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants prevented, precluded or excused Cross-Defendant from performing under the agreements as defined under Civil Code § 1511, if any were unperformed at all, and therefore Cross-Complainants’ claims against Cross-Defendant is barred or proportionally reduced. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Anticipatory Repudiation As a fifteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants anticipatorily repudiated the contract, and therefore no further performance was required by the Cross-Defendant. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Rescission of Contract As a sixteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants rescinded the contract as described in Civil Code § 1691, and therefore no further performance was required by the Cross- Defendant. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation by Cross-Complainants As a seventeenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants claims are barred due to Cross-Complainants’ fraud, deceit or misrepresentations in the inception of and throughout the transactions. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure of Consideration As an eighteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims contained in their Complaint are barred due to the failure of consideration on Cross-Complainants’ behalf and due to no fault of Cross-Defendant, and that any recovery by Cross-Complainants would be unconscionable. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 4oom IN DH RB WN = oN DA BR WN 19 20 21 2 2B 24 25 26 27 28 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Quantum Meruit As anineteenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced under the doctrine of quantum meruit. /if TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Offset As a twentieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants owe money or other valuable consideration to Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainants’ claims are offset by the money or other valuable consideration owed to Cross-Defendant. TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Damage to Cross-Complainants As a twenty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that, even if all of Cross-Complainants’ other claims are true, Cross-Complainants did not suffer any damages and are thus barred from recovery from Cross-Defendant. TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Novation As a twenty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to novation of the agreement. TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unclean Hands As a twenty third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5oD mI DH BR WY = oem ND A RB WN NN YY Y NY YY DY eI naan FB YN - SS Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of unclean hands, and that any recovery by Cross-Complainants would be unconscionable. TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Frustration of Purpose As a twenty fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of frustration of purpose. TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Impracticality As a twenty fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced by the doctrine of impracticality. TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Release As a twenty sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ actions constituted a full release by Cross-Complainants of any and all claims which they may have had against this answering Cross-Defendant. TWENTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Full Performance As a twenty seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges their full performance of any agreement or act required of them, if there be such agreements or acts, fulfills all of their duties and obligations to Cross-Complainants, if any there be, contractual, fiduciary, or otherwise, and no other duty or obligation to Cross-Complainants remains on behalf of this answering Cross-Defendant. TWENTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE In Pari Delicto As a twenty eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6coo em IN DW RB WY Ce tN DHA KR WD Nw oN YY Y NY YY WY ot A aA fF Bw NH | S Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants’ actions and courses of conduct rendered them in pari delicto. TWENTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Ratification of Acts As a twenty ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants, by their acts, conduct and/or omissions, have ratified the acts, conduct and omissions, if any, of this answering Cross- Defendant; therefore, Cross-Complainants are barred from seeking any relief from this answering Cross-Defendant. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Reasonable Reliance As a thirtieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced because Cross-Complainants did not reasonably rely upon any alleged misrepresentations or nondisclosure of material facts made by this answering Cross- Defendant. Therefore, Cross-Complainants are barred from seeking any recovery from this answering Cross-Defendant. THIRTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Comparative Negligence As a thirty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ comparative negligence. This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that any and all events and happenings, injuries and damages, if any, referred to in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence and fault of Cross-Complainants in that Cross-Complainants did not exercise ordinary care on their own behalf at the time and places referred to in the Complaint. Therefore, Cross- Complainants are completely barred from recovery herein. In the alternative, under the doctrine of pure comparative negligence and fault, said acts of Cross-Complainants reduce their right to recovery herein by the amount in which said acts contributed to their damages, if any. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 7Ceo ND HW RF WH Nw NY NY YN YN KY BS Be Be Be Be ewe Be eB eH ont DA A BF BY F&F Soe we IN DH BR Ww NH KS THIRTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure of Condition Precedent As a thirty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to the failure of conditions precedent in the agreement between the parties. THIRTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Act in a Commercially Reasonable Manner As a thirty third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to Cross-Complainants’ failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner. THIRTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Mistake in Law or Fact As a thirty fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to a mistake in law or fact in the terms of the agreement, THIRTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unilateral Mistake As a thirty fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to a unilateral mistake. THIRTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Mutual Mistake As a thirty sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that Cross-Complainants’ claims in their Complaint are barred or proportionally reduced due to a mutual mistake. THIRTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE De Minimis ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 8eC em ND HW RFR WN YN YY NY VY NY NY KY KY HB Bee we Be Be Be Be Be 2 I DA A BF Yow YH F Se we AA A RB wWwNH KE STS As a thirty seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the damages alleged by Cross-Complainants are de minimis and trivial in nature. THIRTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Attorney’s Fees Available to Cross-Complainants As a thirty eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that the Complaint and each of the purported causes of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees against this answering Cross-Defendant. This answering Cross-Defendant has incurred, and will incur in the future, attorney’s fees costs and request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by the Cross-Complainants pursuant to the contract terms and provisions. THIRTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure of Contract As a thirty-ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that any duty or obligation to Cross-Complainants have been excused by the failure of consideration, waiver, breach of condition precedent, breach of contract, default, election of remedies, impossibility of performance, prevention, frustration of purpose and/or acceptance by Cross-Complainants, their representatives, agents, and/or employees. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Good Faith of Cross-Defendant As a fortieth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this| answering Cross-Defendant asserts that answering Cross-Defendant has at all times acted in good faith and observed all reasonable standards in his/its actions and dealings with Cross- Complainants, FORTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Consent of Cross-Complainants As a forty first, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant asserts that each purported cause of action of the Complaint is ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 9eC em IN DH RF WHY Nw NY YN KY YN NY NY KY B&B Be Be eB Be eB ew oN DA BY YH F- So we NIN DH BRB WH KS barred by reason of Cross-Complainants’ consent to the acts and/or conditions alleged in the complaint. FORTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Intervening Negligence of Third Parties As a forty second, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believe and based thereon allege that any and all events and happenings in connection with the matters alleged in the Complaint, and the resulting injuring and damages, purportedly suffered by the Cross-Complainants, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to by the independent, intervening, negligent, intentional, willful and unlawful conduct of other Cross-Complainants, independent third parties and/or their agents, which therefore bars Cross-Complainants from recovering the damages sought in the Complaint from this answering Cross-Defendant. FORTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Incapacity As a forty-third, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that he was mentally incapacitated or disabled in such a way that he did not have the legal capacity to enter into any agreement or contract, rendering the Power of Attorneys signed on March 17, 2019, May 1, 2019, and May 28, 2020, void ab initio as a matter of law. FORTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation Asa forty-fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that the Power of Attorneys he signed on March 17, 2019, May 1, 2019, and May 28, 2020, were obtained through fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and that as a result they are void ab initio as a matter of law. FORTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unenforceability due to Forgery and Fraud As a forty-fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the verified Cross-Complaint on file herein, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant asserts that the $35,000 deed of trust recorded on ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10Cem YN DA HW RF WN BS NN NY NY YN NY KY KY Bee Be Be Be Be Be eB ee ot A A FY YH F&F So ew IRA HWA KRW NH FS September 11, 2020, and the corresponding Promissory Note are forgeries as defined in California Penal Code Section 115 in that the beneficiary of these obligations, Vigil Real Estate, LLC, does not exist and has no legal standing and the parties who recorded various documents with this false name knew or with the exercise of ordinary care should have known, there was no such lender. Therefore, this answering Cross-Cross-Defendant has no responsibility for the alleged $35,000 debt. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1DocuSign Envelope ID: DE3328F 1-996D-4EE7-B4D0-9007EB3F95EA VERIFICATION NEEL V. SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING, et al. Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 22CV01758 I, JASON NEEL, declare: 1. Lam the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. 2. Ihave read the accompanying ANSWER TO CROSS COMPLAINT OF UNITED REAL ESTATE COPROTATION and verify the responses as true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on, January 11, 2023, (ie California. congepSBtEBSHEe— JASON NEEL,Ceo YN DH RF YW NY YN BY YY NY NY NY NY Be ee Be Be Be Be RB eB eoNQ A A KF OB NH FF SOM AIA DAA RB wWH FS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF FRESNO ) SS. I certify and declare as follows: Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above entitled action; my business address is 1195 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. A, Fresno, California 93711, which is located in the county where the mailing described below took place. Iam readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United Stated Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On January 13, 2023, at my place of business in Fresno, California, I served the within: e Answer to Cross-Complaint of UREC as follows: Edward Egan Smith Attorney for Defendant United States Real STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS Estate Corporation ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP 235 Pine Street, 15" floor San Francisco, CA 94104 esmith@steyerlaw.com Julian Karl Bach Attorney for Defendant United States Real Law Office of Julian Bach Estate Corporation 7911 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 julianbach@sbcglobal.net julian@jbachlaw.com Matthew W. Delbridge Attorney for Defendant Rushmyfile STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP 235 Pine Street, 15" floor San Francisco, CA 94104 mdelbridge@steyerlaw.com Michael Beuselinck Attorney for CNA Equity Group, LLC Michael Beuselinck, P.C. 490 43" St., #37 Oakland, CA 94609 mike@lawmtb.com PROOF OF SERVICE 1oo wm ND 16 17 Kristi M. Wells Attorney for Asset Default Management, Inc. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD T. WEBER 17151 Newhope St., Ste. 203 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 kristi@eweberlegal.com Samuel C. Bellicini Attorney for Donald Schwartz 3001 Bridgeway, No. 331 Sausalito, CA 94965 Sam@statebaradvice.com X] BY EMAIL: I electronically transmitted a true and correct copy thereof to the interested parties’ electronic notification address(es) of record before close of business for the purpose of effecting service and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. X] +BY U.S. MAIL: I placed a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States at Fresno, California ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused each envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be sent by overnight express delivery carrier ] BY FACSIMILE: I caused a true and correct copy thereof to be sent by facsimile transmission to the above-listed numbers. ] BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused a true and correct thereof to be delivered by hand| to the offices listed above. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ExeCuted on Ja 13, 2023, at Fresno, California. 2 “~~ “Letitia Sanches PROOF OF SERVICE 2