Preview
1 STEPHEN A. SCOTT (SBN NO. 67467)
CHARLES E. TlLLAGE (SBN 177983)
2 BENJAMIN L. CHEN (SBN 325988)
HA YES SCOTT BONINO ELUNGSON
3 GUSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE LLP
999 Skyway Road, Suite 310
4 San Carlos, California 94070
Telephone: 650.637.9100
5 Facsimile: 650.637.8071
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CONSERVICE, LLC,
7 OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP,
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. and PACH
8 AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
10 SUPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 lN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
12
13 ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN CASE NO. RG21-100261
BLANCO, and MELINA TESSIER, on behalf
14 of themselves and all others similarly situated, ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS
15 Plaintiffs, CONSERVICE, LLC, 0AK9 PORTFOLIO
OWNER, LP, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.,
16 vs. AND PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS,
LLC
17 NEVEO MOSSER, THE MOSSER
COMPANIES, INC., 553 SYCAMORE
18 STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, 1428
JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LP,
19 CONSERVICE, LLC, FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC., OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP,
20 OAK 406 VAN BUREN A VE PROPERTY,
LLC, OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK
21 1425 HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, Complaint Filed: May 28, 202 l
LLC, OAK-1428 JACKSON, LLC, PACH Trial Date: Not Yet Set
22 AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, Y ARDI
SYSTEMS, INC, YES ENERGY
23 MANAGEMENT, INC., DOES one through
five hundred,
24
Defendants.
25
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill
1940261
-- -- ----
DEFENDANTS CONSEH.VICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. H.G21-100261
1 COMES NOW Defendants CONSERVICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP. FPI
2 MANAGEMENT, INC., and PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC in answer to the Third
3 Amended Complaint filed by ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN BL/\NCO, and
4 MELINA TESSIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
5 GENERAL DENIAL
6 Defendants, in answer to the unverified Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs herein.
7 herewith deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said Third Amended Complaint,
8 and in this connection Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in any of the
g sums mentioned in said Third Amended Complaint, or in any sum, or at al I as the result of any act
1O or omission of these answering defendants.
11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Failure to State Facts)
13 As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
14 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering
15 defendants allege that said Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
16 cause of action against these answering defendants.
17 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Apportionment of Fault)
19 As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
20 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, other parties or
21 entities, unrelated to these answering defendants, whether or not current parties to these action,
22 proximately caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint. Should any damages be
23 awarded, they must be apportioned among all such other persons or entities.
24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Lack of Proximate Causation/Proportionate Liability)
26 As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
27 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, these answering defendants
28 allege that the acts of which they have been accused of were not the proximate cause or any
1940261 -1-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT-CASE NO. RG21-100261
1 damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs. and plaintiffs' damages are instead attributable to the acts
2 of others, including plaintiffs, over which answering defendants have no control. Defendants
3 further allege that the sole and proximate cause of the circumstances and events complained by
4 plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint were due to the acts or omissions of persons and entities
5 other than these answering defendants. In the event that defendants are found liable for any
6 damages asserted by plaintiffs, answering defendants are entitled to have their liability, if any,
7 diminished in proportion to the damages attributable to the culpable conduct of such persons or
8 entities other than these answering defendants.
9 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1O (Statute of Limitations)
11 As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
12 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, the Complaint is barred by
13 the applicable statutes of limitations, including, without limitation, sections 335 ct seq., including
14 but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337a, 337.l(a-f), 337.15(a-g), 338(a-m),
15 338.l, 339(1-3), 340(1-5), 340.2(a-c), 342, 343, 344 and by§§ 2607(3)(a) and 2725(1). and (2) of
16 the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California.
17 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
19 As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
20 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, plaintiffs are not entitled to
21 recover damages in any sum, as plaintiffs failed and refused to mitigate their damages at all times
22 relevant herein. Third Amended Complaint's failure to mitigate is a bar to their recovery under the
23 Third Amended Complaint.
24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Apportionment/Contribution/Fault of Others)
26 As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and each and
27 every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, it is alleged that should answering
28 defendants in any manner be legally responsible for the damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs,
1940261 -2·
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD A VIENDF:D CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG2l-l00261
1 which answering defendants specifically denies, then such damages were proximately caused or
2 contributed to by other parties in these case, whether served or unserved, and/or by other persons or
3 entities not presently parties to these action. and it is necessary that a proportionate degree of
4 negligence of fault of each and every other said person or entity, whether or not made party to these
5 action, be determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against these
6 answering defendants be reduced not only by that degree of negligence found to exist as to
7 plaintiffs, but by the total of the degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to other persons
8 or entities, including the plaintiffs.
9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Waiver)
11 As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
12 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering
13 defendants allege that the plaintiffs has waived any right to obtain their requested relief as a result
14 of their own acts, misconduct and omissions.
15 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Lachcs and Estoppel)
17 As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
18 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering
19 defendants allege that the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing these action against
20 defendants and that such delay prejudiced these answering de fend ants and, therefore, these action
21 against these defendants is barred by the doctrine of laches and estoppel.
22 NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Lack of Duty)
24 As a nineth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
25 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering
26 defendants allege that they owed no duty to plaintiffs.
27
28 Ill
1940261 -3-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACll'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT-CASE NO. RG21-100261
1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Lack of Standing)
3 As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
4 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering
5 defendants allege that plaintiffs lack standing.
6 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Assumption of Risk)
8 As an eleventh separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to
g each and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, defendants
1O allege that plaintiffs acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding their
11 losses and assumed the risk of the matters causing the injury, and that said matters of which
12 plaintiffs assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused the losses to the
13 plaintiffs.
14 TWEL TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Compliance with Oakland's Rent Adjustment Ordinance)
16 As a twelfth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each
17 and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they are
18 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent
19 Adjustment Ordinance, including OMC § 8.22.020 ct seq.
20 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Compliance with Oakland's Rent Adjustment Ordinance Regulation)
22 As a thirteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to
23 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants. al lcgc that they are
24 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent
25 Adjustment Ordinance Regulation, including Regulation 10.1.10 ct seq.
26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (Compliance with Civil Code Section 827(b)(2))
28 As a fourteenth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint, and to
194026] .4.
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, 0AK9, FPl'S, AND PACI-I'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG21-100261
1 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they arc
2 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Civil Code §
3 82 7(b )(2).
4 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Compliance with Oakland's Tenant Protection Ordinance)
6 As a fifteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. and to
7 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they are
8 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent
9 Tenant Protection Ordinance, including OMC § 8.22.610, 8.22.640 et seq.
10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Ripeness)
12 As a sixteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to the
13 Tenant Protection Ordinance specifically alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that
14 the Third Amended Complaint fails to slate a claim which is ripe for review.
15 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Procedural Due Process)
17 As a seventeenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to
18 these answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it
19 seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to §3294 of the Civil Code, violates defendants'
20 right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21 and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause or action upon
22 which either punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded.
23 EITHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17, of the
25 Constitution of the State of California)
26 As an eighteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
27 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it seeks
28 punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to §3294 of the Civil Code, violates defendants' rights to
1940261 -5-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACI-I'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-I00261
1 protection from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States
2 Constitution and Article I, Section 17. of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates
3 Defendant's rights to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
4 of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Stale of California, and therefore fails
5 to state a cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed.
6 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Consent)
8 As a nineteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
g answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have consented and acquiesced to the matters alleged in
1 O the Third Amended Complaint.
11 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Unclean Hands)
13 As a twentieth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
14 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have unclean hands related to the matters alleged in the
15 Third Amended Complaint.
16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Uncertain/ Ambiguous)
18 As a twenty-first separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these
19 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs did not clearly state the amount or issues in this case,
20 making it difficult for Defendant to respond. Answering Defendant request that the Court grant
21 leave to amend this Answer to allow additional defenses once additional information is discovered
22 that will allow any additional defenses to be known by Defendant.
23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Res Judicata)
25 As a twenty-second separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint,
26
these answering defendants allege that the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs· Complaint arc
27
barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
28
1940261 -6-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261
1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Release of Liability)
3 As a twenty-third separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
4 answering defendants allege that the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs' Complaint arc barred in
5 their entirety as a result of a release of liability executed by plaintiffs.
6 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Accounting)
8 As a twenty-fourth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint. these
9 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs are not the original creditor of Answering Defendant,
10 and plaintiffs failed to identify the original owner of the account and that plaintiffs are now the
11 legal owner of this account and has the right to sue on it.
12
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(Plaintiff Voluntarily Satisfied Claim)
14
As a twenty-fifth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these
15
answering defendants allege that plaintiffs, in satisfying the claim sued on, acted officiously and as
16 a mere volunteer for their own purposes, without any obligation or interest in the property and
17
thereby acquired no rights against answering defendants.
18
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
20
As a twenty-sixth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
21
answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies,
22
and are thus precluded from prosecuting this action against answering defendants.
23
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Unforeseen Acts and/or Omissions)
25
As a twenty-seventh separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint.
26
these answering defendants allege that unforeseen and unforeseeable acts and omissions by others
27
constituted superseding intervening cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, if any.
28
1940261 -7-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261
1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Substantial Compliance)
3 As a twenty-eighth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
4 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' claims are barred because answering defendants'
5 conduct was in substantial compliance with the requirements of all statutes, laws. regulations.
6 and/or applicable ordinances.
7 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Allocation of Damages)
9 As a twenty-ninth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
10 answering defendants allege that if liability is assessed against answering defendants, they shall be
11 liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to them in direct proportion to the
12 percentage of fault assessed against answering defendants by the trier of fact and request that a
13 separate judgment be rendered against them only for that amount.
14
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
(Justification)
16
As a thirtieth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint, these
17
answering defendants allege that all acts of answering defendants were justified and within their
18
rights under the Law.
19
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Indemnification)
21
As a thirty-first separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these
22
answering defendants allege that should plaintiffs recover from answering defendants, they are
23
entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all persons or entities. including
24
plaintiffs, whose negligence or fault proximately contributed to plaintiffs' damages, if any.
25
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(Lack of Intent)
27
As a thirty-second separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
28
1940261 -8-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRI> AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-I00261
1 answering defendants allege that the claims against these answering defendants do not al lcge facts
2 demonstrating the required intent on the part of defendants to sustain claims of violation of the
3 statutes upon which plaintiffs have relied in the Third Amended Complaint.
4 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFl~NSE
5 (Good Faith)
6 As a thirty-third separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these
7 answering defendants allege that answering defendants· alleged actions were at all times taken in
8 good faith exercise of their reasonable professional j udgrnent and business judgment and.
9 moreover, answering defendants at all times relevant herein exercised due care and acted in good
10 faith regarding all acts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.
11 I
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(No Attorneys' Fees)
13 As a thirty-fourth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
14 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys' fees in this action pursuant
15 to Civil Code Section 171 7 or by any other basis.
16
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
(Ratification)
18
As a thirty-fifth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these
19
answering defendants allege that plaintiffs expressly andfor impliedly through their conduct or
20
otherwise, approved, authorized, participated in, ratified the acts, omissions, and transactions
21
complained of and caused defendant to change position, and to act to their detriment and prejudice.
22
23
THIRTY ~SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Reserve the Right to Additional Affirmative Defenses)
25
As a thirty-sixth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to
26
each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, defendants alleged
27
that the defendants have insufficient knowledge and information on which to form a belief as to
28
1940261 ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~- -9-
·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG2l-100261
1 whether there exist additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses. Defendants reserve herein the
2 right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such a
3 defense would be appropriate.
4 WHEREFORE, Defendants CONSERVICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP and
5 FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. pray for the following relief:
6 1. That plaintiffs ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN BLANCO, and
7 MELINA TESSIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. take
8 nothing by virtue of their Third Amended Complaint;
g 2. That judgment be entered in favor of defendants;
10 3. That defendants be awarded costs of suit herein; and
11 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
12 Dated: June 16, 2022 HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON
GUSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE. LLP
13
14 By ~p-
s-fEPHTc:6TT
15 CHARLES E. TILLAGE
BENJAMIN L. CHEN
16 Attorneys for Defendants
CONSER.VICE, LLC
17 OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. and
18 PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1940261 -10-
DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261
CASE NAME: Andrew Yen, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al.
2 ACTION NO.: Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21100261
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
4
5 I am a resident of the State of California. My business address is 999 Skyway Road, Suite
3 10, San Carlos, California 94070. I am employed in the County of San Mateo where this service
6 occurs. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause. I am readily familiar with
my employer's normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
7 mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business.
8
On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the
9
foregoing document(s) described as:
10
ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS
11 CONSER.VICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, FPI MA!\AGEMENT, INC.,
AND PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC
12
(BY EMAIL) by transmitting via email the document(s) listed above to the
13 ~ corresponding email address(es), or as stated on the attached service list, on this date
before 5 :00 p.m,
14
(BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in
15 the United States mail at San Carlos, California.
16
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
17
(State) [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 above is true and correct.
19 Executed on June 16, 2022 at San Carlos, California.
20 I
21
Marianne DeRitis
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-I -
PROOF OF SERVIO:- CASE NO. RC2 I I00506
CASE NAME: Andrew Ye11, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al.
2 ACTION NO.: Alameda Count)' Superior Court Case No. RG21100261
3
SERVICE LIST
4
Robert Salinas Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5 Rocio Toriz
Annie Banh
6
SALINAS LAW GROUP
428 13111 Street 8111 Floor
Oakland, CA 9460' I
7
Phone: 510-663-9240
8 Fax: 510-663-9241
Email: bob@ssrplaw.com
9 rtoriz@ssrplaw.com
abanh@ssrplaw.com
10 dlopez@ssrplaw.com
1I Leah Simon-Weisberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jackie Zaneri
12 Ethan Silverstein
ACCE lNSTlTUTE
13 P.O. Box 7226
Oakland, CA 9460 I
14 Phone: 5 I 0.269.4692
Email: lsw@calorganize.org
15 jzaneri@calorganize.org
esi 1 verstein@calorganize.org
16
17 Enrique Martinez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL
18 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 9462 I
19 Phone: 510.588.1000
Email: emartinez 15@comcast.net
20
Jeffrey M. Vucinich Attorneys/or Defendants
21 X. Jackson Zhou MOSSER
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH,
22 BEEMAN & SCHELEY
1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300
23 San Bruno, CA 94066
Phone: 650.989.5400
24 Facsimile: 650.989.5499
Email: jvucinich@clappmoroncy.com
25 xzhou@clappmoroney.com
26
27
28
1935834 •2-
PROOF OF SERVICE- CASE NO. RG2 I 100506
CASE NAME: Andrew Yen, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al.
2 ACTION NO.: Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21100261
3 SERVICE LIST (CONT'D)
4 Abraham Tabaie Attorneys/or YARD/ SYSTEMS,
Raza Rasheed INC. and YES ENERGY
5 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGER & FLOM LLP MANAGEME/\11~ INC.
525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
6 Palo Alto, CA 9430 I
Phone: 650.470.4560
7 Email:Abraham.tabaie@skaddcn.com
Raza.rashecd@skadden.com
8
Islam Ahmad Attorneys for FPI
9 George Guthrie MANAGEMENT, INC.
WILKE FLEURY
10 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
I1 Phone: 916.441.2430
Email: iahmad@wilkefleury.com
12 gguthrie@wilkefleuy.com
13 Anna S. Mcl.ean Attorneys for OAK9
Joseph P. Sakai PORTFOLIO OWNJ:."'Jl, LP and
14 Arthur Friedman PACH AFFORDABLE
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP HOLDINGS, LLC
15 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94 l l I
16 Phone: 415.434.9100
Fax: 415.434.394 7
17 Email: amclean@sheppardmullin.com
jsakai@sheppartmullin.com
18 afriedman@sheppardmullin.com
19
20 John M. Neukom, Esq. Attorney for Defendants YARD/ SYSTl,'ft-JS,
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP INC AND YES ENERGV
21 650 California Street MANAGE'A1ENT,INC
San Francisco, CA 94108
22 Tel: 415.738.5719
Email: ineukom@.debevoise.com
23
24
25
26
27
28
1935834 .J .
PROOF OF SERVICE - CASE NO. RG2 I 100506
Preview
1 STEPHEN A. SCOTT (SBN NO. 67467) CHARLES E. TlLLAGE (SBN 177983) 2 BENJAMIN L. CHEN (SBN 325988) HA YES SCOTT BONINO ELUNGSON 3 GUSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE LLP 999 Skyway Road, Suite 310 4 San Carlos, California 94070 Telephone: 650.637.9100 5 Facsimile: 650.637.8071 6 Attorneys for Defendants CONSERVICE, LLC, 7 OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. and PACH 8 AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC 9 10 SUPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 lN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12 13 ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN CASE NO. RG21-100261 BLANCO, and MELINA TESSIER, on behalf 14 of themselves and all others similarly situated, ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS 15 Plaintiffs, CONSERVICE, LLC, 0AK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., 16 vs. AND PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC 17 NEVEO MOSSER, THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., 553 SYCAMORE 18 STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, 1428 JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, 19 CONSERVICE, LLC, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, 20 OAK 406 VAN BUREN A VE PROPERTY, LLC, OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 21 1425 HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, Complaint Filed: May 28, 202 l LLC, OAK-1428 JACKSON, LLC, PACH Trial Date: Not Yet Set 22 AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, Y ARDI SYSTEMS, INC, YES ENERGY 23 MANAGEMENT, INC., DOES one through five hundred, 24 Defendants. 25 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Ill 1940261 -- -- ---- DEFENDANTS CONSEH.VICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. H.G21-100261 1 COMES NOW Defendants CONSERVICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP. FPI 2 MANAGEMENT, INC., and PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC in answer to the Third 3 Amended Complaint filed by ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN BL/\NCO, and 4 MELINA TESSIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 5 GENERAL DENIAL 6 Defendants, in answer to the unverified Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs herein. 7 herewith deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said Third Amended Complaint, 8 and in this connection Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in any of the g sums mentioned in said Third Amended Complaint, or in any sum, or at al I as the result of any act 1O or omission of these answering defendants. 11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Failure to State Facts) 13 As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 14 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering 15 defendants allege that said Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a 16 cause of action against these answering defendants. 17 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Apportionment of Fault) 19 As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 20 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, other parties or 21 entities, unrelated to these answering defendants, whether or not current parties to these action, 22 proximately caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint. Should any damages be 23 awarded, they must be apportioned among all such other persons or entities. 24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Lack of Proximate Causation/Proportionate Liability) 26 As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 27 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, these answering defendants 28 allege that the acts of which they have been accused of were not the proximate cause or any 1940261 -1- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-CASE NO. RG21-100261 1 damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs. and plaintiffs' damages are instead attributable to the acts 2 of others, including plaintiffs, over which answering defendants have no control. Defendants 3 further allege that the sole and proximate cause of the circumstances and events complained by 4 plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint were due to the acts or omissions of persons and entities 5 other than these answering defendants. In the event that defendants are found liable for any 6 damages asserted by plaintiffs, answering defendants are entitled to have their liability, if any, 7 diminished in proportion to the damages attributable to the culpable conduct of such persons or 8 entities other than these answering defendants. 9 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1O (Statute of Limitations) 11 As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 12 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, the Complaint is barred by 13 the applicable statutes of limitations, including, without limitation, sections 335 ct seq., including 14 but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337a, 337.l(a-f), 337.15(a-g), 338(a-m), 15 338.l, 339(1-3), 340(1-5), 340.2(a-c), 342, 343, 344 and by§§ 2607(3)(a) and 2725(1). and (2) of 16 the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California. 17 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 19 As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 20 and every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, plaintiffs are not entitled to 21 recover damages in any sum, as plaintiffs failed and refused to mitigate their damages at all times 22 relevant herein. Third Amended Complaint's failure to mitigate is a bar to their recovery under the 23 Third Amended Complaint. 24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Apportionment/Contribution/Fault of Others) 26 As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and each and 27 every cause of action alleged against these answering defendants, it is alleged that should answering 28 defendants in any manner be legally responsible for the damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs, 1940261 -2· DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD A VIENDF:D CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG2l-l00261 1 which answering defendants specifically denies, then such damages were proximately caused or 2 contributed to by other parties in these case, whether served or unserved, and/or by other persons or 3 entities not presently parties to these action. and it is necessary that a proportionate degree of 4 negligence of fault of each and every other said person or entity, whether or not made party to these 5 action, be determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against these 6 answering defendants be reduced not only by that degree of negligence found to exist as to 7 plaintiffs, but by the total of the degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to other persons 8 or entities, including the plaintiffs. 9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Waiver) 11 As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 12 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering 13 defendants allege that the plaintiffs has waived any right to obtain their requested relief as a result 14 of their own acts, misconduct and omissions. 15 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Lachcs and Estoppel) 17 As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 18 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering 19 defendants allege that the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing these action against 20 defendants and that such delay prejudiced these answering de fend ants and, therefore, these action 21 against these defendants is barred by the doctrine of laches and estoppel. 22 NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Lack of Duty) 24 As a nineth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 25 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering 26 defendants allege that they owed no duty to plaintiffs. 27 28 Ill 1940261 -3- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACll'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-CASE NO. RG21-100261 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Lack of Standing) 3 As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 4 and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, these answering 5 defendants allege that plaintiffs lack standing. 6 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Assumption of Risk) 8 As an eleventh separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to g each and every cause of action alleged therein against these answering defendants, defendants 1O allege that plaintiffs acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding their 11 losses and assumed the risk of the matters causing the injury, and that said matters of which 12 plaintiffs assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused the losses to the 13 plaintiffs. 14 TWEL TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Compliance with Oakland's Rent Adjustment Ordinance) 16 As a twelfth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to each 17 and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they are 18 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent 19 Adjustment Ordinance, including OMC § 8.22.020 ct seq. 20 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Compliance with Oakland's Rent Adjustment Ordinance Regulation) 22 As a thirteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to 23 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants. al lcgc that they are 24 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent 25 Adjustment Ordinance Regulation, including Regulation 10.1.10 ct seq. 26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Compliance with Civil Code Section 827(b)(2)) 28 As a fourteenth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint, and to 194026] .4. DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, 0AK9, FPl'S, AND PACI-I'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG21-100261 1 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they arc 2 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Civil Code § 3 82 7(b )(2). 4 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 (Compliance with Oakland's Tenant Protection Ordinance) 6 As a fifteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. and to 7 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that they are 8 informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants at all times complied with Oakland's Rent 9 Tenant Protection Ordinance, including OMC § 8.22.610, 8.22.640 et seq. 10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Ripeness) 12 As a sixteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to the 13 Tenant Protection Ordinance specifically alleged therein against answering defendants, allege that 14 the Third Amended Complaint fails to slate a claim which is ripe for review. 15 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Procedural Due Process) 17 As a seventeenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to 18 these answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it 19 seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to §3294 of the Civil Code, violates defendants' 20 right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 21 and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause or action upon 22 which either punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded. 23 EITHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17, of the 25 Constitution of the State of California) 26 As an eighteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 27 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it seeks 28 punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to §3294 of the Civil Code, violates defendants' rights to 1940261 -5- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACI-I'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-I00261 1 protection from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States 2 Constitution and Article I, Section 17. of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates 3 Defendant's rights to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 4 of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Stale of California, and therefore fails 5 to state a cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed. 6 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Consent) 8 As a nineteenth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these g answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have consented and acquiesced to the matters alleged in 1 O the Third Amended Complaint. 11 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Unclean Hands) 13 As a twentieth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 14 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have unclean hands related to the matters alleged in the 15 Third Amended Complaint. 16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Uncertain/ Ambiguous) 18 As a twenty-first separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these 19 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs did not clearly state the amount or issues in this case, 20 making it difficult for Defendant to respond. Answering Defendant request that the Court grant 21 leave to amend this Answer to allow additional defenses once additional information is discovered 22 that will allow any additional defenses to be known by Defendant. 23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Res Judicata) 25 As a twenty-second separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, 26 these answering defendants allege that the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs· Complaint arc 27 barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 28 1940261 -6- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261 1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Release of Liability) 3 As a twenty-third separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 4 answering defendants allege that the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs' Complaint arc barred in 5 their entirety as a result of a release of liability executed by plaintiffs. 6 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Accounting) 8 As a twenty-fourth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint. these 9 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs are not the original creditor of Answering Defendant, 10 and plaintiffs failed to identify the original owner of the account and that plaintiffs are now the 11 legal owner of this account and has the right to sue on it. 12 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Plaintiff Voluntarily Satisfied Claim) 14 As a twenty-fifth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these 15 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs, in satisfying the claim sued on, acted officiously and as 16 a mere volunteer for their own purposes, without any obligation or interest in the property and 17 thereby acquired no rights against answering defendants. 18 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 20 As a twenty-sixth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 21 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, 22 and are thus precluded from prosecuting this action against answering defendants. 23 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Unforeseen Acts and/or Omissions) 25 As a twenty-seventh separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. 26 these answering defendants allege that unforeseen and unforeseeable acts and omissions by others 27 constituted superseding intervening cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, if any. 28 1940261 -7- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261 1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Substantial Compliance) 3 As a twenty-eighth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 4 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs' claims are barred because answering defendants' 5 conduct was in substantial compliance with the requirements of all statutes, laws. regulations. 6 and/or applicable ordinances. 7 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Allocation of Damages) 9 As a twenty-ninth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 10 answering defendants allege that if liability is assessed against answering defendants, they shall be 11 liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to them in direct proportion to the 12 percentage of fault assessed against answering defendants by the trier of fact and request that a 13 separate judgment be rendered against them only for that amount. 14 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Justification) 16 As a thirtieth separate and affirmative defense lo the Third Amended Complaint, these 17 answering defendants allege that all acts of answering defendants were justified and within their 18 rights under the Law. 19 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Indemnification) 21 As a thirty-first separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these 22 answering defendants allege that should plaintiffs recover from answering defendants, they are 23 entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all persons or entities. including 24 plaintiffs, whose negligence or fault proximately contributed to plaintiffs' damages, if any. 25 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Lack of Intent) 27 As a thirty-second separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 28 1940261 -8- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRI> AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-I00261 1 answering defendants allege that the claims against these answering defendants do not al lcge facts 2 demonstrating the required intent on the part of defendants to sustain claims of violation of the 3 statutes upon which plaintiffs have relied in the Third Amended Complaint. 4 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFl~NSE 5 (Good Faith) 6 As a thirty-third separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint. these 7 answering defendants allege that answering defendants· alleged actions were at all times taken in 8 good faith exercise of their reasonable professional j udgrnent and business judgment and. 9 moreover, answering defendants at all times relevant herein exercised due care and acted in good 10 faith regarding all acts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. 11 I THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (No Attorneys' Fees) 13 As a thirty-fourth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 14 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys' fees in this action pursuant 15 to Civil Code Section 171 7 or by any other basis. 16 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Ratification) 18 As a thirty-fifth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, these 19 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs expressly andfor impliedly through their conduct or 20 otherwise, approved, authorized, participated in, ratified the acts, omissions, and transactions 21 complained of and caused defendant to change position, and to act to their detriment and prejudice. 22 23 THIRTY ~SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Reserve the Right to Additional Affirmative Defenses) 25 As a thirty-sixth separate and affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, and to 26 each and every cause of action alleged therein against answering defendants, defendants alleged 27 that the defendants have insufficient knowledge and information on which to form a belief as to 28 1940261 ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~- -9- ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG2l-100261 1 whether there exist additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses. Defendants reserve herein the 2 right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such a 3 defense would be appropriate. 4 WHEREFORE, Defendants CONSERVICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP and 5 FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. pray for the following relief: 6 1. That plaintiffs ANDREW YEN, JAMES BALL, KAITLIN BLANCO, and 7 MELINA TESSIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. take 8 nothing by virtue of their Third Amended Complaint; g 2. That judgment be entered in favor of defendants; 10 3. That defendants be awarded costs of suit herein; and 11 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 12 Dated: June 16, 2022 HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON GUSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE. LLP 13 14 By ~p- s-fEPHTc:6TT 15 CHARLES E. TILLAGE BENJAMIN L. CHEN 16 Attorneys for Defendants CONSER.VICE, LLC 17 OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. and 18 PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1940261 -10- DEFENDANTS CONSERVICE, OAK9, FPl'S, AND PACH'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT- CASE NO. RG21-100261 CASE NAME: Andrew Yen, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al. 2 ACTION NO.: Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21100261 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 4 5 I am a resident of the State of California. My business address is 999 Skyway Road, Suite 3 10, San Carlos, California 94070. I am employed in the County of San Mateo where this service 6 occurs. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause. I am readily familiar with my employer's normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for 7 mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. 8 On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the 9 foregoing document(s) described as: 10 ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS 11 CONSER.VICE, LLC, OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, FPI MA!\AGEMENT, INC., AND PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC 12 (BY EMAIL) by transmitting via email the document(s) listed above to the 13 ~ corresponding email address(es), or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5 :00 p.m, 14 (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in 15 the United States mail at San Carlos, California. 16 PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 17 (State) [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 above is true and correct. 19 Executed on June 16, 2022 at San Carlos, California. 20 I 21 Marianne DeRitis 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -I - PROOF OF SERVIO:- CASE NO. RC2 I I00506 CASE NAME: Andrew Ye11, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al. 2 ACTION NO.: Alameda Count)' Superior Court Case No. RG21100261 3 SERVICE LIST 4 Robert Salinas Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 Rocio Toriz Annie Banh 6 SALINAS LAW GROUP 428 13111 Street 8111 Floor Oakland, CA 9460' I 7 Phone: 510-663-9240 8 Fax: 510-663-9241 Email: bob@ssrplaw.com 9 rtoriz@ssrplaw.com abanh@ssrplaw.com 10 dlopez@ssrplaw.com 1I Leah Simon-Weisberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jackie Zaneri 12 Ethan Silverstein ACCE lNSTlTUTE 13 P.O. Box 7226 Oakland, CA 9460 I 14 Phone: 5 I 0.269.4692 Email: lsw@calorganize.org 15 jzaneri@calorganize.org esi 1 verstein@calorganize.org 16 17 Enrique Martinez Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL 18 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 9462 I 19 Phone: 510.588.1000 Email: emartinez 15@comcast.net 20 Jeffrey M. Vucinich Attorneys/or Defendants 21 X. Jackson Zhou MOSSER CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, 22 BEEMAN & SCHELEY 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300 23 San Bruno, CA 94066 Phone: 650.989.5400 24 Facsimile: 650.989.5499 Email: jvucinich@clappmoroncy.com 25 xzhou@clappmoroney.com 26 27 28 1935834 •2- PROOF OF SERVICE- CASE NO. RG2 I 100506 CASE NAME: Andrew Yen, et al. v. Neveo Mosser, et al. 2 ACTION NO.: Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21100261 3 SERVICE LIST (CONT'D) 4 Abraham Tabaie Attorneys/or YARD/ SYSTEMS, Raza Rasheed INC. and YES ENERGY 5 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGER & FLOM LLP MANAGEME/\11~ INC. 525 University Avenue, Suite 1400 6 Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Phone: 650.470.4560 7 Email:Abraham.tabaie@skaddcn.com Raza.rashecd@skadden.com 8 Islam Ahmad Attorneys for FPI 9 George Guthrie MANAGEMENT, INC. WILKE FLEURY 10 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 I1 Phone: 916.441.2430 Email: iahmad@wilkefleury.com 12 gguthrie@wilkefleuy.com 13 Anna S. Mcl.ean Attorneys for OAK9 Joseph P. Sakai PORTFOLIO OWNJ:."'Jl, LP and 14 Arthur Friedman PACH AFFORDABLE SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP HOLDINGS, LLC 15 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94 l l I 16 Phone: 415.434.9100 Fax: 415.434.394 7 17 Email: amclean@sheppardmullin.com jsakai@sheppartmullin.com 18 afriedman@sheppardmullin.com 19 20 John M. Neukom, Esq. Attorney for Defendants YARD/ SYSTl,'ft-JS, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP INC AND YES ENERGV 21 650 California Street MANAGE'A1ENT,INC San Francisco, CA 94108 22 Tel: 415.738.5719 Email: ineukom@.debevoise.com 23 24 25 26 27 28 1935834 .J . PROOF OF SERVICE - CASE NO. RG2 I 100506