Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
1 Tara Macomber, SBN 264725
OPEN DOOR LEGAL F I L E D
2 60 Ocean Avenue Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94112
3 03/27/2020
Clerk of the Court
4 Attorney for Plaintiff BY: ERNALYN BURA
Deputy Clerk
Timothy Bonnici
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO
7
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
8
9
Timothy Bonnici, an individual, Case No.: CGC-17-557688
10
PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM OF
11 Plaintiff POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
12 MOTION TO STRIKE THIRD
vs.
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT.
14 Charles McMackin, an individual, Carroll Date: Tuesday April 14, 2020
Henry, an individual, and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
15 Dept: 302
Defendants.
16 Judge: Ethan P. Shulman
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT S MOTION TO STRIKE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.
2
3 I. BACKGROUND.
4 The instant case was filed on March 23, 2017. On May 8, 2019, the hearing for
5 Defendant s demurrer to first amended complaint came before this court. On May 14, 2019,
6
the court issued order on demurrer. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 31,
7
2019. Defendants filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint on November 26, 2019.
8
The hearing on the demurrer was reserved for January 14, 2019. On January 14, 2020, the
9
10 c ga e ea ef Pa ff f ea h da e ded c a ( TAC ). The c g ed he
11 order on Thursday January 16, 2020 that Plaintiff would file the TAC by January 20, 2020.
12
Plaintiff filed the TAC on January 18, 2020. Since January 20, 2020 was a court holiday, the
13
complaint appeared in the case register of actions on January 21, 2020.
14
A g he h g , he TAC a ege : On or around July 2016, Jude Seyks, the owner of
15
16 vintage collection, was holding an estate sale for a customer in Noe Valley. Plaintiff went to
17 the sale with his girlfriend Sharon. Jude Seyks does many estate sales for people and she is
18 one of the foremost estate sellers in the area. When Sharon and Tim entered the sale, Jude
19
Sykes walked up to them and told them they need to leave. They had worked with her in the
20
past with no issues and then suddenly, she told them they could no longer attend her estate
21
22 sales. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that that
23 Chuck McMackin and Carroll henry told Jude Seyks on that day that Plaintiff is a thief and
24 not to do business with him, thus damaging his business. (TAC ¶ 16.)
25
I f he a ege ha , n or around July 2016, an estate sale in San Mateo was advertised
26
on Craigslist. Tim Bonnici went there with his friend James Carter at the time of the day it
27
28 was advertised as open. When Tim and Jim got to the house, the owner of the house
1
1 approached them. She said she knew who are and that she did not want to get involved in
2 what they are doing, then she told them to leave or she will call the police. Tim left
3
immediately. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges
4
that Chuck McMackin and Carroll Henry told the woman holding the estate sale, on the day
5
of the estate sale, that Plaintiff is a thief and not to do business with him, thus damaging his
6
7 business. (TAC ¶ 17.)
8
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
9
A. THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF S THIRD AMENDED
10
COMPLAINT AS ALL MATTER IS ESSENTIAL, THERE ARE NO
11 IMPROPRIETIES, AND A MOTION TO STRIKE IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS.
12
California code of civil procedure § 436 ae : The court may, upon a motion made
13
14 pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper (a)
15 Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted. in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or
16 any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule,
17
or an order of the court. CCP § 436.
18
Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure § 437 states: (a) The grounds for a
19
20 motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which
21 the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of
22 which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code,
23
such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities,
24
except as the court may otherwise permit. CCP § 437.
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
1 i. The Court must deny D motion to strike as Defendants attack
the pleading as a whole and not matter inserted and all matter inserted is
2 essential to a cause of action should not be struck.
3
The governing statute authorizes such a motion in two situations. The first is where a
4
5 a cha e ge ee a , fa e, e a e e ed a ead g. (C de C .
6 P c., 436, bd. (a).) Th d e de c be e de a ac a e a c a .
7 The dd a ac a e e ed ha ead g, b he eading as a whole. The cited
8
subdivision does not authorize attacks on entire causes of action, let alone entire pleadings.
9
(Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 222].) Its
10
purpose is to authorize the excision of ef ab ea ega . [M]a e ha
11
12 e e a a ca e f ac h d be c a d e d . (Ibid.)
13 Defendants move the court to strike Plaintiffs first and second causes of action as a
14
whole. Civil code of procedure section 436 does not authorize a court to strike causes of action
15
as a whole and thus the court must deny Defendants motion to do so. Defendants also request
16
that the court strike Plaintiffs third amended complaint as a whole but this too is outside of the
17
18 c a h .
19 F he e, Defe da ch ef b ec h he f ca e f ac ha e fac
20 are time-barred or are not operative facts. However, the facts alleged in the complaint, although
21
might be outside of the statute of limitations to be actionable themselves, give notice to the
22
defendants of Plaintiffs evidence and what plaintiff bases his information and belief upon.
23
24 Namely, that defendants have engaged in a long pattern of spreading vicious lies about his illegal
25 activities at estate sales, the place where he buys his wares that he sells as his business.
26 Plaintiff was asked not only to leave the sales but was told the sellers were going to call
27
the police on him. Plaintiff has provided names and addresses of the seller and defendant is on
28
3
1 notice where both parties can find out more information during discovery. The statute of
2 limitations is not a defense to the entire claim here and all the statements could be considered
3
together to show a pattern of conduct.
4
Defendants objection with the second cause of action is that it fails to show any particular
5
buyer or seller. However, defendant is incorrect. The third amended complaint alleges that Jude
6
7 Sykes, the owner of vintage collection, was holding an estate sale for a customer in Noe Valley.
8 Plaintiff went to the sale with his girlfriend Sharon. Jude Seyks does many estate sales for people
9
and she is one of the foremost estate sellers in the area. When Sharon and Tim entered the sale,
10
Jude Sykes walked up to them and told them they need to leave. They had worked with her in the
11
past with no issues and then suddenly, she told them they could no longer attend her estate sales.
12
13 Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that that Chuck
14 McMackin and Carroll henry told Jude Seyks on that day that Plaintiff is a thief and not to do
15
business with him, thus damaging his business.
16
The complaint further alleges that Tim Bonnici went to an estate sale in San Mateo with
17
his friend James Carter at the time of the day it was advertised as open. When Tim and Jim got to
18
19 the house, the owner of the house approached them. She said she knew who are and that she did
20 not want to get involved in what they are doing, then she told them to leave or she will call the
21 police. Tim left immediately. Defendants can discover who held the estate sale in San Mateo on
22
that day as it was advertised on craigslist, Plaintiff alleges that they were present there so if the
23
allegation is true, as it is assumed to be in a complaint, Defendants have superior knowledge of
24
25 this fact, and that James Carter also attended this sale. Defendants can discover the name of the
26 estate sale holder through discovery or their own records. Therefore, this pleading is specific
27 enough to put Defendants on notice as to who the owner of the house was.
28
4
1 The court must deny Defe da motion to strike as it wrongly proposes to attack the
2 pleading as whole and all the matter asserted in the complaint is essential to each cause of action.
3
ii. The court must not strike Plaintiffs pleading as there are not improprieties
4 in the form or procedure in which it was filed.
5
Code of Civil Procedure section 436 (section 436(b)), which authorizes a challenge to
6
7 a a a fa ead g da filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a
8 c e, a de f he c . Wh e h a g age gh be b ad c ed each any
9 deficiency in a pleading, including substantive ones, that is not its purpose or effect. Rather it
10
authorizes the striking of a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures
11
pursuant to which it was filed. This provision is commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed
12
in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court. (E.g., Leader v.
13
14 Health Industries of America, Inc., supra, 89 Ca .A .4 h 603, 613 [ a ff fa e f ea
15 amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subjected any subsequently filed
16
pleading to a motion to strike, either by defe da he c ].) Ferraro v.
17
Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528.
18
Defendants motion to strike the complaint is wholly inappropriate here. Defendants seek
19
20 to strike the first cause of action because it does not allege operative facts and they seek to strike
21 the second cause of action because it fails to allege a particular prospective buyer or seller.
22 Defendants do not argue any improprieties in the form or in the procedure pursuant to
23
which it was filed such as a violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of
24
the court. The court must deny Defendants motion to strike as it fails to argue any ground on
25
26 which a pleading can be stricken.
27 ///
28 ///
5
1 iii. The Court Must D D M S P P
Defendants Objections are Not Appropriate for a Motion To Strike.
2
3 The gist of these objections is that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to
4 constitute a cause of action. This is ground not for a motion to strike, but for a general demurrer.
5 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) We will therefore view the order as one sustaining
6
such a demurrer without leave to amend. As such it presents only questions of law, i.e., whether
7
a e a c a ba ed face, he face f dca ceab e a e ,b
8
orders or the statute of limitations. Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529.
9
10 The e e f Defe da b ections to the third amended complaint argued in the
11 memorandum supporting their motion to strike are not grounds for a motion to strike but for a
12
ge ea de e . The c f defe da ag e ha he ca e f ac he h d
13
amended complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A motion to strike
14
is not the appropriate procedural form in which to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings and
15
16 a ch, he c de Defe da e.
17
CONCLUSION
18
Based on the reasons stated above, and forgoing facts, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the
19
court deny Defe da ePa ff Third amended complaint.
20
21
22 Dated: March 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted;
23
24
OPEN DOOR LEGAL
25
__________________
26
27 Tara Macomber
Attorney For Plaintiff
28 Tim Bonnici
6
Case Name / Case #: Bonnici v. McMackin, et al. CGC-17-557688
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3 I declare that I am a resident of the County of Alameda. I am over the age of eighteen years and
not a party to the foregoing action. My business address is Open Door Legal, 60 Ocean Avenue, San
4
Francisco, CA 94112.
5
On March 27, 2020 I served the following document(s):
6
- P ai iff O ii Defe da de e f Thi dA e ded C ai
7 - P ai iff O ii Defe da M i S i e Thi dA e ded C ai
- P ai iff Re e f Judicial Notice
8
9 _ x_ (by facsimile transmission) on all interested parties by transmitting said document(s)
From our offices by facsimile machine to facsimile number(s) shown below, pursuant to Local
10
Rule 27. following transmission, I received a T a mi i Re f m fa machi e
11
indicating the transmission had been transmitted without error
12
_ x_ (by email) to the following email address: monica@michaelliebermanlaw.com
13
14
__ (by personal service) I Personally delivered the documents to the persons at the address listed
15
bel . Deli e a made he a e add e a d gi e a e i hi he a e
16 office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, to a
receptionist or individual in charge of the office; or if there was no person in the office within
17 whom the papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the
hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening.
18
19 R. Michael Lieberman
Law Offices of R. Michael Lieberman
20
1398 Post Street
21
San Francisco, CA 94109
Fax: 1 (415) 929-3476
22
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
25 true and correct.
26
Date: March 27, 2020
27
_______________
28 Tara Macomber
29
Page 1
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY 1 Tara Macomber, SBN 264725 OPEN DOOR LEGAL F I L E D 2 60 Ocean Avenue Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94112 3 03/27/2020 Clerk of the Court 4 Attorney for Plaintiff BY: ERNALYN BURA Deputy Clerk Timothy Bonnici 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO 7 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 8 9 Timothy Bonnici, an individual, Case No.: CGC-17-557688 10 PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM OF 11 Plaintiff POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS 12 MOTION TO STRIKE THIRD vs. 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT. 14 Charles McMackin, an individual, Carroll Date: Tuesday April 14, 2020 Henry, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. 15 Dept: 302 Defendants. 16 Judge: Ethan P. Shulman 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO STRIKE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. 2 3 I. BACKGROUND. 4 The instant case was filed on March 23, 2017. On May 8, 2019, the hearing for 5 Defendant s demurrer to first amended complaint came before this court. On May 14, 2019, 6 the court issued order on demurrer. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 7 2019. Defendants filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint on November 26, 2019. 8 The hearing on the demurrer was reserved for January 14, 2019. On January 14, 2020, the 9 10 c ga e ea ef Pa ff f ea h da e ded c a ( TAC ). The c g ed he 11 order on Thursday January 16, 2020 that Plaintiff would file the TAC by January 20, 2020. 12 Plaintiff filed the TAC on January 18, 2020. Since January 20, 2020 was a court holiday, the 13 complaint appeared in the case register of actions on January 21, 2020. 14 A g he h g , he TAC a ege : On or around July 2016, Jude Seyks, the owner of 15 16 vintage collection, was holding an estate sale for a customer in Noe Valley. Plaintiff went to 17 the sale with his girlfriend Sharon. Jude Seyks does many estate sales for people and she is 18 one of the foremost estate sellers in the area. When Sharon and Tim entered the sale, Jude 19 Sykes walked up to them and told them they need to leave. They had worked with her in the 20 past with no issues and then suddenly, she told them they could no longer attend her estate 21 22 sales. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that that 23 Chuck McMackin and Carroll henry told Jude Seyks on that day that Plaintiff is a thief and 24 not to do business with him, thus damaging his business. (TAC ¶ 16.) 25 I f he a ege ha , n or around July 2016, an estate sale in San Mateo was advertised 26 on Craigslist. Tim Bonnici went there with his friend James Carter at the time of the day it 27 28 was advertised as open. When Tim and Jim got to the house, the owner of the house 1 1 approached them. She said she knew who are and that she did not want to get involved in 2 what they are doing, then she told them to leave or she will call the police. Tim left 3 immediately. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges 4 that Chuck McMackin and Carroll Henry told the woman holding the estate sale, on the day 5 of the estate sale, that Plaintiff is a thief and not to do business with him, thus damaging his 6 7 business. (TAC ¶ 17.) 8 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 9 A. THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF S THIRD AMENDED 10 COMPLAINT AS ALL MATTER IS ESSENTIAL, THERE ARE NO 11 IMPROPRIETIES, AND A MOTION TO STRIKE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS. 12 California code of civil procedure § 436 ae : The court may, upon a motion made 13 14 pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper (a) 15 Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted. in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or 16 any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, 17 or an order of the court. CCP § 436. 18 Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure § 437 states: (a) The grounds for a 19 20 motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which 21 the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of 22 which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, 23 such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, 24 except as the court may otherwise permit. CCP § 437. 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 i. The Court must deny D motion to strike as Defendants attack the pleading as a whole and not matter inserted and all matter inserted is 2 essential to a cause of action should not be struck. 3 The governing statute authorizes such a motion in two situations. The first is where a 4 5 a cha e ge ee a , fa e, e a e e ed a ead g. (C de C . 6 P c., 436, bd. (a).) Th d e de c be e de a ac a e a c a . 7 The dd a ac a e e ed ha ead g, b he eading as a whole. The cited 8 subdivision does not authorize attacks on entire causes of action, let alone entire pleadings. 9 (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 222].) Its 10 purpose is to authorize the excision of ef ab ea ega . [M]a e ha 11 12 e e a a ca e f ac h d be c a d e d . (Ibid.) 13 Defendants move the court to strike Plaintiffs first and second causes of action as a 14 whole. Civil code of procedure section 436 does not authorize a court to strike causes of action 15 as a whole and thus the court must deny Defendants motion to do so. Defendants also request 16 that the court strike Plaintiffs third amended complaint as a whole but this too is outside of the 17 18 c a h . 19 F he e, Defe da ch ef b ec h he f ca e f ac ha e fac 20 are time-barred or are not operative facts. However, the facts alleged in the complaint, although 21 might be outside of the statute of limitations to be actionable themselves, give notice to the 22 defendants of Plaintiffs evidence and what plaintiff bases his information and belief upon. 23 24 Namely, that defendants have engaged in a long pattern of spreading vicious lies about his illegal 25 activities at estate sales, the place where he buys his wares that he sells as his business. 26 Plaintiff was asked not only to leave the sales but was told the sellers were going to call 27 the police on him. Plaintiff has provided names and addresses of the seller and defendant is on 28 3 1 notice where both parties can find out more information during discovery. The statute of 2 limitations is not a defense to the entire claim here and all the statements could be considered 3 together to show a pattern of conduct. 4 Defendants objection with the second cause of action is that it fails to show any particular 5 buyer or seller. However, defendant is incorrect. The third amended complaint alleges that Jude 6 7 Sykes, the owner of vintage collection, was holding an estate sale for a customer in Noe Valley. 8 Plaintiff went to the sale with his girlfriend Sharon. Jude Seyks does many estate sales for people 9 and she is one of the foremost estate sellers in the area. When Sharon and Tim entered the sale, 10 Jude Sykes walked up to them and told them they need to leave. They had worked with her in the 11 past with no issues and then suddenly, she told them they could no longer attend her estate sales. 12 13 Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that that Chuck 14 McMackin and Carroll henry told Jude Seyks on that day that Plaintiff is a thief and not to do 15 business with him, thus damaging his business. 16 The complaint further alleges that Tim Bonnici went to an estate sale in San Mateo with 17 his friend James Carter at the time of the day it was advertised as open. When Tim and Jim got to 18 19 the house, the owner of the house approached them. She said she knew who are and that she did 20 not want to get involved in what they are doing, then she told them to leave or she will call the 21 police. Tim left immediately. Defendants can discover who held the estate sale in San Mateo on 22 that day as it was advertised on craigslist, Plaintiff alleges that they were present there so if the 23 allegation is true, as it is assumed to be in a complaint, Defendants have superior knowledge of 24 25 this fact, and that James Carter also attended this sale. Defendants can discover the name of the 26 estate sale holder through discovery or their own records. Therefore, this pleading is specific 27 enough to put Defendants on notice as to who the owner of the house was. 28 4 1 The court must deny Defe da motion to strike as it wrongly proposes to attack the 2 pleading as whole and all the matter asserted in the complaint is essential to each cause of action. 3 ii. The court must not strike Plaintiffs pleading as there are not improprieties 4 in the form or procedure in which it was filed. 5 Code of Civil Procedure section 436 (section 436(b)), which authorizes a challenge to 6 7 a a a fa ead g da filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a 8 c e, a de f he c . Wh e h a g age gh be b ad c ed each any 9 deficiency in a pleading, including substantive ones, that is not its purpose or effect. Rather it 10 authorizes the striking of a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures 11 pursuant to which it was filed. This provision is commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed 12 in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court. (E.g., Leader v. 13 14 Health Industries of America, Inc., supra, 89 Ca .A .4 h 603, 613 [ a ff fa e f ea 15 amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subjected any subsequently filed 16 pleading to a motion to strike, either by defe da he c ].) Ferraro v. 17 Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528. 18 Defendants motion to strike the complaint is wholly inappropriate here. Defendants seek 19 20 to strike the first cause of action because it does not allege operative facts and they seek to strike 21 the second cause of action because it fails to allege a particular prospective buyer or seller. 22 Defendants do not argue any improprieties in the form or in the procedure pursuant to 23 which it was filed such as a violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of 24 the court. The court must deny Defendants motion to strike as it fails to argue any ground on 25 26 which a pleading can be stricken. 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 iii. The Court Must D D M S P P Defendants Objections are Not Appropriate for a Motion To Strike. 2 3 The gist of these objections is that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to 4 constitute a cause of action. This is ground not for a motion to strike, but for a general demurrer. 5 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) We will therefore view the order as one sustaining 6 such a demurrer without leave to amend. As such it presents only questions of law, i.e., whether 7 a e a c a ba ed face, he face f dca ceab e a e ,b 8 orders or the statute of limitations. Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529. 9 10 The e e f Defe da b ections to the third amended complaint argued in the 11 memorandum supporting their motion to strike are not grounds for a motion to strike but for a 12 ge ea de e . The c f defe da ag e ha he ca e f ac he h d 13 amended complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A motion to strike 14 is not the appropriate procedural form in which to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings and 15 16 a ch, he c de Defe da e. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Based on the reasons stated above, and forgoing facts, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the 19 court deny Defe da ePa ff Third amended complaint. 20 21 22 Dated: March 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted; 23 24 OPEN DOOR LEGAL 25 __________________ 26 27 Tara Macomber Attorney For Plaintiff 28 Tim Bonnici 6 Case Name / Case #: Bonnici v. McMackin, et al. CGC-17-557688 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 I declare that I am a resident of the County of Alameda. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the foregoing action. My business address is Open Door Legal, 60 Ocean Avenue, San 4 Francisco, CA 94112. 5 On March 27, 2020 I served the following document(s): 6 - P ai iff O ii Defe da de e f Thi dA e ded C ai 7 - P ai iff O ii Defe da M i S i e Thi dA e ded C ai - P ai iff Re e f Judicial Notice 8 9 _ x_ (by facsimile transmission) on all interested parties by transmitting said document(s) From our offices by facsimile machine to facsimile number(s) shown below, pursuant to Local 10 Rule 27. following transmission, I received a T a mi i Re f m fa machi e 11 indicating the transmission had been transmitted without error 12 _ x_ (by email) to the following email address: monica@michaelliebermanlaw.com 13 14 __ (by personal service) I Personally delivered the documents to the persons at the address listed 15 bel . Deli e a made he a e add e a d gi e a e i hi he a e 16 office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, to a receptionist or individual in charge of the office; or if there was no person in the office within 17 whom the papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. 18 19 R. Michael Lieberman Law Offices of R. Michael Lieberman 20 1398 Post Street 21 San Francisco, CA 94109 Fax: 1 (415) 929-3476 22 23 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 25 true and correct. 26 Date: March 27, 2020 27 _______________ 28 Tara Macomber 29 Page 1