Preview
1 Scott M. Pearson (SBN 173880)
pearsons@ballardspahr.com
2 Taylor Steinbacher (SBN 285335)
steinbachert@ballardspahr.com
3 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 800
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
Telephone: 424.204.4400
5 Facsimile: 424.204.4350
6 Attomeys for Defendants and Real Parties in
Interest
7 ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP AND
HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 PATTY JOHNSON; JOE TEIXEIRA; OMAR Case No. 34-2016-80002493
AHMED, JR.; XIN GUO; and CAROLYN
12 SCARES, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REAL
PARTIES IN INTEREST AND
13 Petitioners and DEFENDANTS ELK GROVE TOWN
Plaintiffs, CENTER, LP AND THE HOWARD
14 HUGHES CORPORATION'S
V. DEMURRER TO VERIFIED AMENDED
15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
CITY OF ELK GROVE, AND COMPLAINT FOR t ^
16 DECLARATORY RELIEF
Respondent and
17 Defendant Judge Hon. Shellyanne W.L. Chang
Date: June 2, 2017
18 Time: 11:00 a.m.
ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP; THE Dept.: Department 24
19 HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION;
and DOES 1-20, Action Filed: November 23,2016
3
20 Real Parties in Trial Date: Not set
Interest and
21 Defendants,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DM WEST #16538636 v7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Notwithstanding its length, Petitioners' opposition to EGTC's Demurrer is almost entirely
3 unresponsive. The principal grounds for the Demurrer are that EGTC no longer owns the property
4 Petitioners are concerned about, that EGTC is not a govenmiental entity subject to the relief
5 Petitioners are seeking, that several claims fail to allege any specific facts concerning or seek
6 specific relief against EGTC, and that there are specific, fatal defects in Petitioners' legal claims.
7 As explained below. Petitioners largely ignore the grounds for the Demurrer, and instead raise
8 numerous red herrings providing no reason to keep EGTC in this case. The entire Complaint
9 should be dismissed as to EGTC, in its entirety and without leave to amend.
10 II. ARGUMENT
11 Petitioners devote the first several pages of their opposition to demurrers briefed by the
12 City and joined in by EGTC.' In order to simplify this matter for the Court, EGTC refers the
13 Court to the City's reply brief for responses to these arguments. This brief focuses on the issues
14 raised in EGTC's brief in support of its demurrer, i.e., those issues unique to EGTC or which were
15 not raised by the City in its brief
16 A. Petitioners Concede That the Third and Fourth Causes of Action Should Be
17 Dismissed as to EGTC.
18 As demonstrated in EGTC's initial brief, the Third and Fourth Causes of Action allege no
19 facts establishing a claim against EGTC, and they fail to and cannot seek relief against EGTC.
20 Petitioners concede that these claims were not intended to be alleged against EGTC. See
21 Opposition at 12-13. Accordingly, EGTC's demurrers to these causes of action should be
22 sustained without leave to amend.
23 B. The First Cause of Action Fails Because Petitioners Have No Private Cause of Action
24 and EGTC No Longer Owns The Property.
25 EGTC demurred to the First Cause of Action, for breach of zoning ordinance, on two
26 grounds: that zoning ordinances can only be enforced against private parties when there is a
27
' EGTC requests that the Court disregard Petitioners' completely inappropriate (and inaccurate)
28 disclosures of privileged settlement communications.
DMWEST #16538636 v7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST
1 private nuisance claim, and that no claim can be asserted against EGTC because Petitioners
2 concede that EGTC no longer owns the property.
3 Petitioners' only argument here is that they have standing to challenge a zoning ordinance
4 under the public interest exception. This ignores, however, that the public interest exception does
5 not allow a private party to seek a writ of mandate against another private party (as opposed to a
6 govemmental entity). See People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480, 490-91,
7 487 P.2d 1193 (1971) ("A writ of mandate will lie to 'compel the performance of an act which the
8 law specifically enjoins, as a duty resultingfroman office, tmst, or station' The writ will
9 issue against a countv. city or other r>ublic body or against a public officer."') (emphasis added);
10 Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento, 17 Cal. App. 4th 791, 796, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779 (1993) (same);
11 see also Sklar v. Franchise Tax Bd., 185 Cal. App. 3d 616, 622, 230 Cal. Rptr. 42 (1986); James v.
12 State of California, 229 Cal. App. 4th 130, 136, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 806 (2014); Mclntyre v. Sonoma
13 UnifiedSch. Dist., 206 Cal. App. 4th 170,179,141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540 (2012). As demonstrated in
14 EGTC's initial brief, a private party may seek to enforce a zoning ordinance against another
15 private party only when there is a private nuisance.
16 Petitioners expressly admit that they have no claim for private nuisance against EGTC.
17 See Opposition at 7 ("Petitioners here do not attempt to privately enforce zoning regulations
18 against already ongoing nuisances . . . or even assert that proposed development of a casino/hotel
19 is a private nuisance"). Furthermore, Petitioners completely ignore the second ground for EGTC's
20 demurrer to the First Cause of Action, which is that EGTC no longer owns the property, defeating
21 any claim. Accordingly, the First Cause of Action should be dismissed as to EGTC with
22 prejudice.
23 C. The Second Cause of Action for "Breach of the 2014 Development Agreement" Fails
24 As a Matter of Law.
25 As explained in EGTC's initial brief, the Second Cause of Action fails because it is only
26 alleged against the City and, in any case, there was no breach of the development agreement as a
27 matter of law because EGTC never assigned itsrightsunder the Development Agreement, so no
28 hearings or other proceedings conceming such an assignment were required.
DMWEST #16538636 v7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST
1 Rather than attempt to dispute what the agreement says, which they cannot do, Petitioners
2 rely on a red herring, that Govemment Code Section 65868.5 requires recordation of development
3 agreements and provides that they are binding on successors-in-interest. This ignores that the
4 breach Petitioners have purported to allege is that hearings supposedly required by the agreement
5 were not held. As the agreement itself makes clear, those hearings would only be required if
6 EGTC had sought to convey to the Tribe itsrightsimder the 2014 Development Agreement.
7 However, as established in EGTC's initial brief, only the property was conveyed. Thus, there was
8 no breach of the agreement as a matter of law. Furthermore, to the extent Govemment Code
9 Section 65868.5 has any relevance here, it is only with respect tb the Tribe, which now owns the
10 property. Petitioners fail to allege any claim against EGTC, so the Second Cause of Action should
11 be dismissed with prejudice.
12 D. The Fifth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Fails as a Matter of Law.
13 Petitioners' only argument on their declaratory relief claim is that they seek a declaration
14 that EGTC is obligated to seek a hearing on its "proposed" transfer of the property to the Tribe.
15 As demonstrated above, EGTC has no such obligation on the merits. See Faunce v. Cate, 222 Cal.
16 App. 4th 166,173, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 (2013) ("injunctive and declaratory relief are equitable
17 remedies, not causes of action. Thus, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer as to these
18 claims because they were 'wholly derivative of other nonviable causes of action.") (intemal
19 citation omitted). Furthermore, since the transfer of the property already has taken place, there is
20 no "actual, present controversy" as required for a declaratory relief claim. EGTC's Demurrer to
21 the Fifth Cause of Action should be sustained without leave to amend.
22 E . Petitioners' Entire Complaint is Moot
23 As demonstrated in EGTC's initial brief, this Court cannot grant any effectual relief
24 against EGTC because it no longer owns the property. Neither argument made in response by
25 Petitioners saves their moot claims. First, it is irrelevant that Petitioners base their claims on
26 events that occurred before the Property was transferred. The fact remains that EGTC no longer
27 owns the property, and this Court cannot order EGTC to take actions conceming a property it no
28 longer ovms. See. e.g., San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 893, 935 n.25,
DMWEST #16538636 v7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
1 920 P.2d 669 (1996) (request for injunctive relief became moot after occupants vacated the
2 property). The question is whether the court can grant Petitioners any effective relief against
3 EGTC now, not five months ago. See Cuenca v. Cohen, 8 Cal. App. 5th 200, 217, 213 Cal. Rptr.
4 3d 689 (2017) (explaining that when "an event occurs which renders it impossible for [the] court,
5 if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him [or her] any effectual relief whatever,
6 the court will not proceed to formal judgment.").
7 Petitioners' second argument, that they are not seeking injunctive relief, is contradicted by
8 the amended petition. See Complaint, TIK 91, 96, 100, 104; Prayer for Relief Furthermore, even if
9 Petitioners abandoned their requests for injunctive relief and sought only declaratory relief, their
10 claims would still be moot. Courts are required to "decide actual controversies by a judgment
11 which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or . . . to declare
12 principles or mles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." Cuenca, 8
13 Cal. App. 5th at 217.
14 IIL CONCLUSION
15 Petitioners fail to and cannot justify continued litigation against EGTC. EGTC
16 respectfully requests that all of its demurrers be sustained without leave to amend.
17 DATED: May 26, 2017 Respectfully submitted.
•^ BALLARD SPAHR LLP
SCOTT M. PEARSON
19 TAYLOR STEINBACHER
20
21 I By:
Taylor Steinbacher
22
23 Attomeys for Defendants and Real Parties in
Interest
24 ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP and THE
HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION
25
26
27
28
DMWEST#165386.36 v7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is BALLARD SPAHR LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite
800, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909, On May 26, 2017,1 served the within documents: REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND DEFENDANTS ELK GROVE
TOWN CENTER, LP AND THE HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION'S DEMURRER
TO VERIFIED AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
6 • BY FAX: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
7
• BY HAND: by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s)
8 at the address(es) set forth below.
9 • BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope wdth
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, Califomia
10 addressed as set forth below.
11 • BY E-MAIL: by attaching an electronic copy of the document(s) listed above to
the e-mail address listed below.
12
0 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an
13 overnight delivery service company for delivery to Ae addressee(s) on the next
business day.
14
• BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery by First Legal
15 Support Services of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es)
set forth below.
16
Brigit S. Barnes, Esq. Jonathan P. Hobbs, City Attomey
17 bsbaraes@landlawbybames.com jhobbs@elkgrovecity.org
Annie R. Embree, Esq. Jennifer A. Alves, Asst. City Attomey
18 arembree@landlawbybames.com j aIves@elkgrovecity.org
Brigit S, Barnes & Associates, Inc. Suzanne Kennedy, Asst. City Attomey
19 3262 Penryn Road skennedy@eIkgrovecity.org
Loomis, CA 95650 City of EUc Grove
20 Telephone: 916-660-9555 Office of the City Attomey
Facsimile: 916-660-9554 8401 Lagtma Palms Way
21 Elk Grove, CA 95758
Attomeys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Telephone: 916-683-7111
22 Facsimile: 916-627-4100
23 Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant
CITY OF ELK GROVE
24
25
26
27
28
DMWEST #16538636 v7 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Mona G. Ebrahimi, Esq.
mebrahimi@kmtg.com
Leslie Z. Walker, Esq.
lwalker@kmtg.com
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard
400 Capitol Mall, 27* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916-321-4500
Facsimile: 916-321-4555
Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant
CITY OF ELK GROVE
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereonfiiUyprepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
10
I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the
11 foregoing is tme and correct.
12 Executed on May 26, 2017, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
13
Kristine Nakashima
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DMWEST #16538636 v7
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Scott M. Pearson (SBN 173880) pearsons@ballardspahr.com 2 Taylor Steinbacher (SBN 285335) steinbachert@ballardspahr.com 3 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 800 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909 Telephone: 424.204.4400 5 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 6 Attomeys for Defendants and Real Parties in Interest 7 ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP AND HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 11 PATTY JOHNSON; JOE TEIXEIRA; OMAR Case No. 34-2016-80002493 AHMED, JR.; XIN GUO; and CAROLYN 12 SCARES, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND 13 Petitioners and DEFENDANTS ELK GROVE TOWN Plaintiffs, CENTER, LP AND THE HOWARD 14 HUGHES CORPORATION'S V. DEMURRER TO VERIFIED AMENDED 15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE CITY OF ELK GROVE, AND COMPLAINT FOR t ^ 16 DECLARATORY RELIEF Respondent and 17 Defendant Judge Hon. Shellyanne W.L. Chang Date: June 2, 2017 18 Time: 11:00 a.m. ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP; THE Dept.: Department 24 19 HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20, Action Filed: November 23,2016 3 20 Real Parties in Trial Date: Not set Interest and 21 Defendants, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DM WEST #16538636 v7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Notwithstanding its length, Petitioners' opposition to EGTC's Demurrer is almost entirely 3 unresponsive. The principal grounds for the Demurrer are that EGTC no longer owns the property 4 Petitioners are concerned about, that EGTC is not a govenmiental entity subject to the relief 5 Petitioners are seeking, that several claims fail to allege any specific facts concerning or seek 6 specific relief against EGTC, and that there are specific, fatal defects in Petitioners' legal claims. 7 As explained below. Petitioners largely ignore the grounds for the Demurrer, and instead raise 8 numerous red herrings providing no reason to keep EGTC in this case. The entire Complaint 9 should be dismissed as to EGTC, in its entirety and without leave to amend. 10 II. ARGUMENT 11 Petitioners devote the first several pages of their opposition to demurrers briefed by the 12 City and joined in by EGTC.' In order to simplify this matter for the Court, EGTC refers the 13 Court to the City's reply brief for responses to these arguments. This brief focuses on the issues 14 raised in EGTC's brief in support of its demurrer, i.e., those issues unique to EGTC or which were 15 not raised by the City in its brief 16 A. Petitioners Concede That the Third and Fourth Causes of Action Should Be 17 Dismissed as to EGTC. 18 As demonstrated in EGTC's initial brief, the Third and Fourth Causes of Action allege no 19 facts establishing a claim against EGTC, and they fail to and cannot seek relief against EGTC. 20 Petitioners concede that these claims were not intended to be alleged against EGTC. See 21 Opposition at 12-13. Accordingly, EGTC's demurrers to these causes of action should be 22 sustained without leave to amend. 23 B. The First Cause of Action Fails Because Petitioners Have No Private Cause of Action 24 and EGTC No Longer Owns The Property. 25 EGTC demurred to the First Cause of Action, for breach of zoning ordinance, on two 26 grounds: that zoning ordinances can only be enforced against private parties when there is a 27 ' EGTC requests that the Court disregard Petitioners' completely inappropriate (and inaccurate) 28 disclosures of privileged settlement communications. DMWEST #16538636 v7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST 1 private nuisance claim, and that no claim can be asserted against EGTC because Petitioners 2 concede that EGTC no longer owns the property. 3 Petitioners' only argument here is that they have standing to challenge a zoning ordinance 4 under the public interest exception. This ignores, however, that the public interest exception does 5 not allow a private party to seek a writ of mandate against another private party (as opposed to a 6 govemmental entity). See People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480, 490-91, 7 487 P.2d 1193 (1971) ("A writ of mandate will lie to 'compel the performance of an act which the 8 law specifically enjoins, as a duty resultingfroman office, tmst, or station' The writ will 9 issue against a countv. city or other r>ublic body or against a public officer."') (emphasis added); 10 Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento, 17 Cal. App. 4th 791, 796, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779 (1993) (same); 11 see also Sklar v. Franchise Tax Bd., 185 Cal. App. 3d 616, 622, 230 Cal. Rptr. 42 (1986); James v. 12 State of California, 229 Cal. App. 4th 130, 136, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 806 (2014); Mclntyre v. Sonoma 13 UnifiedSch. Dist., 206 Cal. App. 4th 170,179,141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540 (2012). As demonstrated in 14 EGTC's initial brief, a private party may seek to enforce a zoning ordinance against another 15 private party only when there is a private nuisance. 16 Petitioners expressly admit that they have no claim for private nuisance against EGTC. 17 See Opposition at 7 ("Petitioners here do not attempt to privately enforce zoning regulations 18 against already ongoing nuisances . . . or even assert that proposed development of a casino/hotel 19 is a private nuisance"). Furthermore, Petitioners completely ignore the second ground for EGTC's 20 demurrer to the First Cause of Action, which is that EGTC no longer owns the property, defeating 21 any claim. Accordingly, the First Cause of Action should be dismissed as to EGTC with 22 prejudice. 23 C. The Second Cause of Action for "Breach of the 2014 Development Agreement" Fails 24 As a Matter of Law. 25 As explained in EGTC's initial brief, the Second Cause of Action fails because it is only 26 alleged against the City and, in any case, there was no breach of the development agreement as a 27 matter of law because EGTC never assigned itsrightsunder the Development Agreement, so no 28 hearings or other proceedings conceming such an assignment were required. DMWEST #16538636 v7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES I N INTEREST 1 Rather than attempt to dispute what the agreement says, which they cannot do, Petitioners 2 rely on a red herring, that Govemment Code Section 65868.5 requires recordation of development 3 agreements and provides that they are binding on successors-in-interest. This ignores that the 4 breach Petitioners have purported to allege is that hearings supposedly required by the agreement 5 were not held. As the agreement itself makes clear, those hearings would only be required if 6 EGTC had sought to convey to the Tribe itsrightsimder the 2014 Development Agreement. 7 However, as established in EGTC's initial brief, only the property was conveyed. Thus, there was 8 no breach of the agreement as a matter of law. Furthermore, to the extent Govemment Code 9 Section 65868.5 has any relevance here, it is only with respect tb the Tribe, which now owns the 10 property. Petitioners fail to allege any claim against EGTC, so the Second Cause of Action should 11 be dismissed with prejudice. 12 D. The Fifth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Fails as a Matter of Law. 13 Petitioners' only argument on their declaratory relief claim is that they seek a declaration 14 that EGTC is obligated to seek a hearing on its "proposed" transfer of the property to the Tribe. 15 As demonstrated above, EGTC has no such obligation on the merits. See Faunce v. Cate, 222 Cal. 16 App. 4th 166,173, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 (2013) ("injunctive and declaratory relief are equitable 17 remedies, not causes of action. Thus, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer as to these 18 claims because they were 'wholly derivative of other nonviable causes of action.") (intemal 19 citation omitted). Furthermore, since the transfer of the property already has taken place, there is 20 no "actual, present controversy" as required for a declaratory relief claim. EGTC's Demurrer to 21 the Fifth Cause of Action should be sustained without leave to amend. 22 E . Petitioners' Entire Complaint is Moot 23 As demonstrated in EGTC's initial brief, this Court cannot grant any effectual relief 24 against EGTC because it no longer owns the property. Neither argument made in response by 25 Petitioners saves their moot claims. First, it is irrelevant that Petitioners base their claims on 26 events that occurred before the Property was transferred. The fact remains that EGTC no longer 27 owns the property, and this Court cannot order EGTC to take actions conceming a property it no 28 longer ovms. See. e.g., San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 893, 935 n.25, DMWEST #16538636 v7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST 1 920 P.2d 669 (1996) (request for injunctive relief became moot after occupants vacated the 2 property). The question is whether the court can grant Petitioners any effective relief against 3 EGTC now, not five months ago. See Cuenca v. Cohen, 8 Cal. App. 5th 200, 217, 213 Cal. Rptr. 4 3d 689 (2017) (explaining that when "an event occurs which renders it impossible for [the] court, 5 if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him [or her] any effectual relief whatever, 6 the court will not proceed to formal judgment."). 7 Petitioners' second argument, that they are not seeking injunctive relief, is contradicted by 8 the amended petition. See Complaint, TIK 91, 96, 100, 104; Prayer for Relief Furthermore, even if 9 Petitioners abandoned their requests for injunctive relief and sought only declaratory relief, their 10 claims would still be moot. Courts are required to "decide actual controversies by a judgment 11 which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or . . . to declare 12 principles or mles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." Cuenca, 8 13 Cal. App. 5th at 217. 14 IIL CONCLUSION 15 Petitioners fail to and cannot justify continued litigation against EGTC. EGTC 16 respectfully requests that all of its demurrers be sustained without leave to amend. 17 DATED: May 26, 2017 Respectfully submitted. •^ BALLARD SPAHR LLP SCOTT M. PEARSON 19 TAYLOR STEINBACHER 20 21 I By: Taylor Steinbacher 22 23 Attomeys for Defendants and Real Parties in Interest 24 ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP and THE HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION 25 26 27 28 DMWEST#165386.36 v7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is BALLARD SPAHR LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909, On May 26, 2017,1 served the within documents: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND DEFENDANTS ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER, LP AND THE HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO VERIFIED AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 6 • BY FAX: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. 7 • BY HAND: by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) 8 at the address(es) set forth below. 9 • BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope wdth postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, Califomia 10 addressed as set forth below. 11 • BY E-MAIL: by attaching an electronic copy of the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address listed below. 12 0 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an 13 overnight delivery service company for delivery to Ae addressee(s) on the next business day. 14 • BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery by First Legal 15 Support Services of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 16 Brigit S. Barnes, Esq. Jonathan P. Hobbs, City Attomey 17 bsbaraes@landlawbybames.com jhobbs@elkgrovecity.org Annie R. Embree, Esq. Jennifer A. Alves, Asst. City Attomey 18 arembree@landlawbybames.com j aIves@elkgrovecity.org Brigit S, Barnes & Associates, Inc. Suzanne Kennedy, Asst. City Attomey 19 3262 Penryn Road skennedy@eIkgrovecity.org Loomis, CA 95650 City of EUc Grove 20 Telephone: 916-660-9555 Office of the City Attomey Facsimile: 916-660-9554 8401 Lagtma Palms Way 21 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Attomeys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Telephone: 916-683-7111 22 Facsimile: 916-627-4100 23 Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant CITY OF ELK GROVE 24 25 26 27 28 DMWEST #16538636 v7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Mona G. Ebrahimi, Esq. mebrahimi@kmtg.com Leslie Z. Walker, Esq. lwalker@kmtg.com Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard 400 Capitol Mall, 27* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-321-4500 Facsimile: 916-321-4555 Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant CITY OF ELK GROVE I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereonfiiUyprepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the 11 foregoing is tme and correct. 12 Executed on May 26, 2017, at Los Angeles, Califomia. 13 Kristine Nakashima 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DMWEST #16538636 v7 PROOF OF SERVICE