Preview
1 Mark J. Sarni, Esq. (SBN 164364)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2 3424 Carson Street, Suite 350
Ton-ance, California 90503
3 Telephone: (310) 542-0111
Facsimile: (310) 214-7254
4 Email: southbayadr@gmail.com
5 Attorney for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant, Rushmyfile, Inc.
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10
11
JASON NEEL, ) CASE NO: 22CV01758
12 )
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
13 V.
) BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE, INC.
)
) TO DEEM MATTERS IN REQUESTS
14 SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED AND
)
15 DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC.; UNITED ) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION; ) RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES
16 CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND ) AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION) AS
RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ) AGAINST PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL
17 UNKNOWN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) AND HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM;
)
) REQUEST FOR MONETARY
18
_______________ Defendants. ) SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
19 ) $3,560 AGAINST SAID PARTIES;
UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
20 CORPORATION ) AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION
) OF MARK J. SARNI IN SUPPORT
21 )
Cross-Complainant, ) THEREOF
22 )
V. ) DATE: 09/12/2023
23 ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
JASON NEEL; CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC.,� PLACE: Dept. "S"
24 professional corporation; a California TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
)
Corporation; CODY MOLICA, and ROES 1-50,)
25 Inclusive, )
26 )
Cross-Defendants. )
27 )
)
28 ---------------)
)
I
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
1 )
RUSHMYFILE, INC., a California Corporation,j
2
3 Cross-Complainant, j
)
4 V. )
)
5 CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC., a professional )
corporation; CODY MOLICA, an individual; j
6 DONALD SCHWARTZ, an individual; DEREK
7 WHEAT AKA MIGUEL WHEAT AKA SAM )
)
WHEAT, an individual; and MOES 1-50, )
8 inclusive, )
)
9 Cross-Defendants. )
)
10
11
12 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
13 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 12, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department
14 "5" of the above-entitled court located at 701 Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant,
15 RUSHMYFILE, INC. ("Defendant" or "Rushmyfile"), through its attorney ofrecord herein, will
16 move the court for an order that the truth of the matters specified in its Requests For Admission
17 (Set One) Propounded by Defendant to Plaintiff JASON NEEL ("Plaintiff' or "Neel") be
18 deemed admitted. Further, Defendant will seek a court order to compel Plaintiff and his
19 Guardian Ad Litem, to fully respond, without objection, to Form Interrogatories (Set One),
20 Special Interrogatories [Set One] and Requests for Production of Documents [Set One].
21 Defendant will also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,560.00 against Plaintiff and his
Guardian Ad Litem for their failure to respond to discovery and making this motion necessary.
22
The specific requests to be deemed admitted are attached to the accompanying
23
Declaration of Mark J. Sarni and by this reference are incorporated herein. The form
24
interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents to which
25
responses are sought to be compelled are also attached to the accompanying Declaration ofMark
26
J. Sarni and by this reference are incorporated herein.
27
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGA TORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
This motion is based on this notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached
hereto, the accompanying declaration and related exhibits of Mark J. Sarni, the pleadings on file
2
3 in this case, as well as any and all oral and documentary evidence which may be presented at the
4 time of the hearing of this motion.
5
6 Dated: July 28, 2023 MARK J. SARNI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7
8 By:_A_�-�- .,,.--=--·
----· -
Mark J. Sarni, Esq.
9 Attorney for Defendant and CrossÂ
Complainant, RUSHMYFILE,
10 INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
3 This motion is for the purpose of obtaining a court order compelling Plaintiff, and his
4 Guardian Ad Litem ("G.A.L."), to respond to discovery requests made in late March of 2023,
5 some four months prior to the filing of this motion. Multiple extensions to respond were
6 provided to Plaintiffs counsel, however, discovery responses were never provided. Defendant
7 now requests the Court's assistance. The essential facts of this case and the particulars
8 concerning Defendant's discovery requests are set forth below.
9 ***
10 On or about August 10, 2022, the instant action entitled Jason Neel, Plaintiff v. Superior
11 Loan Servicing, et al with case number HG21108386 (the "Complaint") was filed in the Superior
12 Court for the County of Alameda, alleging that a promissory note and deed of trust were
13 fraudulently executed which resulted with a lien on the Plaintiffs real property. Plaintiff alleged
14 that the loan had thereafter gone into foreclosure. Plaintiff alleged that he was mentally
15 incompetent and could not have legally entered into any contract during the applicable timeframe
16 and therefore the promissory note and deed of trust referenced in the Complaint needed to be
17 canceled as a matter of law. Cross-Defendant Donald Schwartz ("Schwartz") was Plaintiffs
18 attorney of record when the Complaint was filed and it was he, not the Plaintiff, who verified the
19 Complaint. Schwartz, on behalf of Plaintiff, sought and obtained a temporary restraining order
20 and/or a preliminary injunction precluding the foreclosure from proceeding until a further
21 decision from the court.
22 On or about August 16, 2022, the Complaint was transferred from the Superior Court for
23 the County of Alameda to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz. The case was given
24 a new case number, which is the current case number 22CV01758.
25 On or about October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") with
26 the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz. Attorneys Thornton Davidson, Pamela
27 Simmons and William Purdy were indicated as the legal representatives of Plaintiff. (Schwartz
28 was not indicated as one of Plaintiffs attorneys on the FAC.)
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
The FAC alleges a panoply of legal wrongs committed by those associated with applying
2
for various real estate loans on behalf of the Plaintiff, with those making the loans on behalf of
3
the Plaintiff, and with those servicing said loans. The FAC alleges that Plaintiff was a
4
"dependent adult with a number of cognitive impairments" at "all times relevant to the
5
Complaint" but is oddly silent as to whether he had/has the legal capacity to file and maintain the
6
original Complaint or the pending FAC in the first instance. (Later in this action, the Plaintiffs
7
counsel sought and obtained the appointment of a G.A.L. from this Court based on the grounds
8
that Plaintiff was not mentally competent to represent himself.)
9
Apparently, according to the FAC, an individual named Cody Molica ("Molica") was an
10
associate of Schwartz - when Plaintiff was allegedly either incapable or incompetent to sign legal
11
documents - and Schwartz and Molica worked together to defraud the Plaintiff out of real estate
12
assets by leveraging real property owned by the Plaintiff via powers of attorney signed by the
13
Plaintiff. The ill-gotten gains were then, apparently, distributed through Schwartz's legal trust
14
account to the wrongdoers. For reasons unclear to Defendant, neither Molica nor Schwartz -
15
both alleged by Plaintiff as the initiators of this criminal wrongdoing - were identified as
16
defendants in Plaintiffs FAC. Defendant's discovery requests address many issues but, in
17
particular, it makes inquiry into Molica and Schwartz and why these people - criminals if the
18
FAC is to be believed as true - were not sued by the Plaintiff.
19
Specifically, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff has been monetarily damaged and he seeks
20
relief based on causes of action to include: (1) Cancellation of Written Instruments; (2) Violation
21
of Truth-in-Lending Act; (3) Violation of Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act and
22
Regulation "Z;" (4) Wrongful Foreclosure; (5) Elder Abuse; (6) Conversion; (7) "Aiding and
23
Abetting;" (8) Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Restraining Order; and, (9) Declaratory
24
Relief.
25 ***
26
On March 31, 2023, Defendant sent to Plaintiff four written discovery requests. They
27
were as follows: (1) Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (3)
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
Special Interrogatories (Set One); and, (4) Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
2
These are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibits "A," "B,"
3
"C," and "D," respectively. They are incorporated herein by reference.
4
On May 2, 2023, the legal secretary for Plaintiffs counsel, Tish Sanches of Thornton
5
Davidson's office, emailed Defendant's counsel and asked for an extension of approximately one
6
week to provide responses to the above referenced discovery requests. Specifically, Ms. Sanches
7
asked for an extension to May 12, 2023. In response, and as a courtesy, Defendant's counsel
8
provided a full thirty-day extension to respond and, further, provided electronic copies of the
9
discovery requests so as to facilitate the discovery responses. (Declaration of Mark J. Sarni,
10
paragraph 6, Exhibit "E") Although a thirty-day continuance was granted, the Plaintiff did not
11
provide any discovery responses by the June 5, 2023, cutoff (Declaration of Mark J. Sarni,
12
paragraph 6.) This had been Plaintiffs first discovery extension.
13
Thereafter, Defendant's counsel waited until June 21, 2023, in the hope the outstanding
14
discovery responses would be provided. This period of time, between June 5, 2023 and June 21,
15
2023, represented a second extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding discovery
16
requests. On June 21, 2023, Defendant's counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel and advised
17
Plaintiffs counsel that there were outstanding discovery responses due. Defendant's counsel
18
then provided a third extension to June 30, 2023, for Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding
19
discovery requests. A copy of the email granting this third extension is included in the
20
Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit "F."
21
As of July 28, 2023, Plaintiff has yet to provide discovery responses although Plaintiff
22
has, by way of his attorney, had the G.A.L. appointed to assist the Plaintiff for this express
23
purpose among all others associated with the litigation. By waiting until July 28, 2023,
24
Defendant effectively granted Plaintiff a fourth extension and, notwithstanding this fact, no
25
responses to the outstanding discovery had been received. As a result, the instant motion became
26
necessary.
27
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
lNTERROGATORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
1 ARGUMENT
2 I.
3 DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER THAT THE TRUTH OF THE
4 MATTERS SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
5 PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF BE DEEMED ADMITTED, AND
6 DEFENDANT IS FURTHER ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF MONETARY
7 SANCTIONS.
8 Section 2033.230, subdivision (b) and (c), of the Code of Civil Procedure
9 provides in pertinent part, as follows:
10 "If a party to whom requests for admission are Directed fails to serve a timely
11 response, the following rules apply: ...
12 "(b) The requesting party may move for an order that The genuineness of any
13 documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
14 admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ...
15 (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that The party to whom the
16 requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the
17 motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial
18 compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a
19 monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the
20 party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for
21 admission necessitated this motion."
22
23 Section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as
24 follows:
25 " Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following...
26 "(d) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. ...
Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as
27
follows:
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTJON
1 "To the extent authorized by the section governing any particular discovery
2 method, or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected
3 party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the
4 following sanctions against any one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the
5 discovery process.
6 "(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that
7 one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process . .. pay the reasonable
8 expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.
9 ... If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court
10 shall impose the sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
11 with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of
12 the sanction unjust."
13
14 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of a "Requests for Admission."
15 This set is attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit "A."
16 Defendant has not received responses to this discovery request and the time to respond to the
17 same, including all four extensions that were granted, has expired. For these reasons, the motion
18 to deem the matters stated in Requests for Admission, Set One, served on the Plaintiff should be
l9 deemed admitted and the request for monetary sanctions should be granted as set forth in the
20 accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni.
21
22 II.
23 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS A PARTY TO MOVE TO
24 COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES WHEN NO RESPONSES
25 HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND SAID PARTY IS ALSO ENTITLED TO
MONETARY SANCTIONS.
26
27
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290 provides, in relevant part, as
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
!NTERROGA TORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
1 follows:
2 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the
3 following rules apply:
4 (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to
5 exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any
6 objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the
7 protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
8 2018.010). ...
9 (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
1O compelling response to the interrogatories.
11 (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
12 with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
13 makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds
14 that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
15 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. ... (emphasis added)
16
17 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of Form Interrogatories and
18 Special Interrogatories. These sets are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J.
19 Sarni as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C," respectively. Defendant has not received responses to
20 these discovery requests and the time to respond to the same, including all four extensions that
21 were granted, has expired. For this reason, the motion to compel responses to Form
22 Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff should be
23 granted as well as the request for monetary sanctions as set forth in the accompanying
24 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni.
25 Ill
Ill
26
III
27
Ill
28
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
III.
2 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS A PARTY TO MOVE TO
3 COMPEL A PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WHEN NONE HAVE BEEN
4 PRODUCED OR FOR A FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WHEN
5 HE DEEMS RESPONSES TO A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ARE
6 INCOMPLETE.
7
8 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
9 If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
10 directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
11 (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
12 directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or
13 on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
14 2018.010). ...
15 (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to
16 the demand.
17 (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary
18 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party,
19 person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
20 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds
21 that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
22 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. ...
23
24 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of a "Request for Production of
25 Documents." This set is attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit
26 "D." Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request and the time to respond to the
same, including all four extensions that were granted, has expired. For this reason, this motion to
27
compel responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, served on Plaintiff
28
JO
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
1 should be granted as well as the request for monetary sanctions as set forth in the accompanying
2 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni.
3
4 CONCLUSION
5
The Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery designed to elicit the factual support for
6
his various claims and whether he was even mentally competent to verify the FAC in the first
7
instance. More than ample time has been provided for him and the G.A.L. to do so. The matters
8
specified in the requests for admissions should be deemed admitted and the Plaintiff should be
9
ordered to respond to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production
10
of documents. Monetary sanctions should be assessed against the Plaintiff and his G.A.L. for
11
their failure to comply with the discovery statutes cited herein and making this motion necessary.
12
13
Dated: July 28, 2023 MARK J. SARNI
14 ATTORNEY AT LAW
15
16 � On March 31. 2023. I served the follov,,ing documents by the means indicated
below:
7
1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSlONS FROM DEFENDANT
8
RlJSHMYFILE, lNC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL (Sin ONE);
9 2. FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT
RUSHMYFILE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF .JASON NEEL (SET ONE);
10 3. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT
RUSHMYFlLE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF .JASON NEEL (SET ONE);
11
and,
12 4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL
13 (SET ONE)
14 on the interested parties as follows by the following means:
l:'i (See Attached Serv ice List)
16
17
jo (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) As follows: J am "readily familiar'' with the firm's
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
:g
practice it would be deposited with Fed Express on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid at Torrance, California in the ordinary course of business. l
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
I
19
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
20 for mailing in affidavit.
21
..,..,
1� (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readiiy famiiiar" with the finn's practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it
would be deposited \Vith U.S. postal service on that same day with postage
"''"
I thereon fully prepaid at To1wnce. California in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served. serv ice is presumed invalid JI postal
-·'
')�
canceHation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
24 for mailing in affidavit.
,- D
_:, (BY CERTlFlED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED). I deposited thes�
papers with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage
26 fully prepaid. 1 am a resident or employed in the county where the notice \Vas
mailed. l used certified mail and requested a return receipt. The envelope was
'27 addressed and mailed to the other party as follows:
28
CASE NO. 22CV01758
PROOF OF SERVICE
(1) Name:
2 (2) Address on envelope:
-� (3) Date Mailed:
4
(4) Place of mailing (city. state):
5
D (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by first class mail to the
Santa Clara County Sheriffs Oflice with 1nstructions to personally serve the
6
above identified pa11ies at the address identified or at such other address as the
' Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office can locate the above identified parties.
8 D (l3Y FAX) As follows: On at approximately p.m. by usc
of facsimile machine number (310) 214-7254, I served a copy of the foregoing on
9 the interested pa11ies in this action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the
following: [C.C.P. § 1013(e)] SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10
(BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSlON) As follows: I caused a
ll copy of the documcnt(s) to be sent from e-mail address southbavadr(a),gmail.com
to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within
J2
reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication
13 that the transmission was unsuccessful. The following parties were served
electronically at the following email addresses:
1-4
� (STATE) l declare under penalty of peLjury under the laws of the State of
l5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Ca?£p
16 D (FEDERAL) 1 declare that Jam employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made.
17
Executed on March 31. 2023. at Torrance.
!S
!9
. Sift:_
20 MARKJ. SARNI
21
26
27
28 -----·--··. ------------------------·---·--··----
CASE NO. 22CV0t758
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST
Thornton Davidson, Esq. .A:ttornev forPlaintiff. Jason Neel - (BY U.S.
THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C. MAIL .A.ND EMAIL)
I
1195 W. Shaw Ave .. Ste. A
2
Fresno, CA 93711
thornton@thorntondavidsonlaw.com
J
4
Pamda D. Simmons. Esq.
William Purdy. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jason Neel - (BY U.S.
LAW OFFICE OF STMMONS & PURDY MAI.L AND Bv1ALL)
2425 Porter Street. Suite 10
6
Soquel. CA 95073
pamela0'mamelaw.com
7
bill m.pamelaw.com
8
Jeffrey H. Lowenthal, Esq. . Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
()
Edward Egan Smith, Esq. I Complainant, United States Real Estate
10
Matthev, Vi/. Delbridge. Esq. Corporation - (BY EMAIL ONLY)
STEYER LOWENTHAL
11
12 BOODROOKAS AL VAREi. & SMITH
235 Pinc Street. 15 th Floor
LLP
San Francisco. CA 94104
13
ilowenthal11)stcvcrlaw .com
esmith1i)steverlaw.corn
14
15 rndclb_ridgecasteverlaw.com
Edward T. Weber, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Superior I ,oan
16
Kristi M. Wells, Esq. Servicing and Asset Default Management,
Law Office of Edward T. Weber Inc. (BY EMAIL ONLY)
17
17151 Ncwhope Street. Suite 203
Fountain Vallev. CA 92708
ed(d;weberlegai.�om
kr:s,:/:;;,e,.U1···ei..Ue-111 e�� 1 "O 1
e,aL\., n
19
lLUI,
..
J.. \l\·
20
Michael T. Bcuselinck. Esq. I 1
Michal Beuselinck. P.S. i Attorney for Defendant and L1v�- ::. · ::endant.
21
490 4yct Street #37 I CNA Equity Group. Inc. - (BY EMAIL
i
23 Oakland. CA 94609 I UNLY)
I
! II
mike@1av,mtb.com
Cody Molica I
24
1029 North Road #J 75
Westfield. MA O 1085
cmolical 1@gmail.com Ii Defendant and Cross-Defendant. ln Pro Per-·
(By EMAIL ONLY)
28
CASE NO. 22CV01758
PHOOF OF SERVICF.
Preview
1 Mark J. Sarni, Esq. (SBN 164364) ATTORNEY AT LAW 2 3424 Carson Street, Suite 350 Ton-ance, California 90503 3 Telephone: (310) 542-0111 Facsimile: (310) 214-7254 4 Email: southbayadr@gmail.com 5 Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Rushmyfile, Inc. 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 10 11 JASON NEEL, ) CASE NO: 22CV01758 12 ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 13 V. ) BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE, INC. ) ) TO DEEM MATTERS IN REQUESTS 14 SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED AND ) 15 DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC.; UNITED ) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION; ) RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES 16 CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND ) AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION) AS RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ) AGAINST PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL 17 UNKNOWN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) AND HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; ) ) REQUEST FOR MONETARY 18 _______________ Defendants. ) SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 19 ) $3,560 AGAINST SAID PARTIES; UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 20 CORPORATION ) AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION ) OF MARK J. SARNI IN SUPPORT 21 ) Cross-Complainant, ) THEREOF 22 ) V. ) DATE: 09/12/2023 23 ) TIME: 8:30 a.m. JASON NEEL; CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC.,� PLACE: Dept. "S" 24 professional corporation; a California TRIAL DATE: NOT SET ) Corporation; CODY MOLICA, and ROES 1-50,) 25 Inclusive, ) 26 ) Cross-Defendants. ) 27 ) ) 28 ---------------) ) I NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 1 ) RUSHMYFILE, INC., a California Corporation,j 2 3 Cross-Complainant, j ) 4 V. ) ) 5 CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC., a professional ) corporation; CODY MOLICA, an individual; j 6 DONALD SCHWARTZ, an individual; DEREK 7 WHEAT AKA MIGUEL WHEAT AKA SAM ) ) WHEAT, an individual; and MOES 1-50, ) 8 inclusive, ) ) 9 Cross-Defendants. ) ) 10 11 12 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 13 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 12, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 14 "5" of the above-entitled court located at 701 Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant, 15 RUSHMYFILE, INC. ("Defendant" or "Rushmyfile"), through its attorney ofrecord herein, will 16 move the court for an order that the truth of the matters specified in its Requests For Admission 17 (Set One) Propounded by Defendant to Plaintiff JASON NEEL ("Plaintiff' or "Neel") be 18 deemed admitted. Further, Defendant will seek a court order to compel Plaintiff and his 19 Guardian Ad Litem, to fully respond, without objection, to Form Interrogatories (Set One), 20 Special Interrogatories [Set One] and Requests for Production of Documents [Set One]. 21 Defendant will also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,560.00 against Plaintiff and his Guardian Ad Litem for their failure to respond to discovery and making this motion necessary. 22 The specific requests to be deemed admitted are attached to the accompanying 23 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni and by this reference are incorporated herein. The form 24 interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents to which 25 responses are sought to be compelled are also attached to the accompanying Declaration ofMark 26 J. Sarni and by this reference are incorporated herein. 27 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGA TORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION This motion is based on this notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the accompanying declaration and related exhibits of Mark J. Sarni, the pleadings on file 2 3 in this case, as well as any and all oral and documentary evidence which may be presented at the 4 time of the hearing of this motion. 5 6 Dated: July 28, 2023 MARK J. SARNI ATTORNEY AT LAW 7 8 By:_A_�-�- .,,.--=--· ----· - Mark J. Sarni, Esq. 9 Attorney for Defendant and Cross Complainant, RUSHMYFILE, 10 INC. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 3 This motion is for the purpose of obtaining a court order compelling Plaintiff, and his 4 Guardian Ad Litem ("G.A.L."), to respond to discovery requests made in late March of 2023, 5 some four months prior to the filing of this motion. Multiple extensions to respond were 6 provided to Plaintiffs counsel, however, discovery responses were never provided. Defendant 7 now requests the Court's assistance. The essential facts of this case and the particulars 8 concerning Defendant's discovery requests are set forth below. 9 *** 10 On or about August 10, 2022, the instant action entitled Jason Neel, Plaintiff v. Superior 11 Loan Servicing, et al with case number HG21108386 (the "Complaint") was filed in the Superior 12 Court for the County of Alameda, alleging that a promissory note and deed of trust were 13 fraudulently executed which resulted with a lien on the Plaintiffs real property. Plaintiff alleged 14 that the loan had thereafter gone into foreclosure. Plaintiff alleged that he was mentally 15 incompetent and could not have legally entered into any contract during the applicable timeframe 16 and therefore the promissory note and deed of trust referenced in the Complaint needed to be 17 canceled as a matter of law. Cross-Defendant Donald Schwartz ("Schwartz") was Plaintiffs 18 attorney of record when the Complaint was filed and it was he, not the Plaintiff, who verified the 19 Complaint. Schwartz, on behalf of Plaintiff, sought and obtained a temporary restraining order 20 and/or a preliminary injunction precluding the foreclosure from proceeding until a further 21 decision from the court. 22 On or about August 16, 2022, the Complaint was transferred from the Superior Court for 23 the County of Alameda to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz. The case was given 24 a new case number, which is the current case number 22CV01758. 25 On or about October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") with 26 the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz. Attorneys Thornton Davidson, Pamela 27 Simmons and William Purdy were indicated as the legal representatives of Plaintiff. (Schwartz 28 was not indicated as one of Plaintiffs attorneys on the FAC.) NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION The FAC alleges a panoply of legal wrongs committed by those associated with applying 2 for various real estate loans on behalf of the Plaintiff, with those making the loans on behalf of 3 the Plaintiff, and with those servicing said loans. The FAC alleges that Plaintiff was a 4 "dependent adult with a number of cognitive impairments" at "all times relevant to the 5 Complaint" but is oddly silent as to whether he had/has the legal capacity to file and maintain the 6 original Complaint or the pending FAC in the first instance. (Later in this action, the Plaintiffs 7 counsel sought and obtained the appointment of a G.A.L. from this Court based on the grounds 8 that Plaintiff was not mentally competent to represent himself.) 9 Apparently, according to the FAC, an individual named Cody Molica ("Molica") was an 10 associate of Schwartz - when Plaintiff was allegedly either incapable or incompetent to sign legal 11 documents - and Schwartz and Molica worked together to defraud the Plaintiff out of real estate 12 assets by leveraging real property owned by the Plaintiff via powers of attorney signed by the 13 Plaintiff. The ill-gotten gains were then, apparently, distributed through Schwartz's legal trust 14 account to the wrongdoers. For reasons unclear to Defendant, neither Molica nor Schwartz - 15 both alleged by Plaintiff as the initiators of this criminal wrongdoing - were identified as 16 defendants in Plaintiffs FAC. Defendant's discovery requests address many issues but, in 17 particular, it makes inquiry into Molica and Schwartz and why these people - criminals if the 18 FAC is to be believed as true - were not sued by the Plaintiff. 19 Specifically, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff has been monetarily damaged and he seeks 20 relief based on causes of action to include: (1) Cancellation of Written Instruments; (2) Violation 21 of Truth-in-Lending Act; (3) Violation of Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act and 22 Regulation "Z;" (4) Wrongful Foreclosure; (5) Elder Abuse; (6) Conversion; (7) "Aiding and 23 Abetting;" (8) Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Restraining Order; and, (9) Declaratory 24 Relief. 25 *** 26 On March 31, 2023, Defendant sent to Plaintiff four written discovery requests. They 27 were as follows: (1) Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (3) 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Special Interrogatories (Set One); and, (4) Request for Production of Documents (Set One). 2 These are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibits "A," "B," 3 "C," and "D," respectively. They are incorporated herein by reference. 4 On May 2, 2023, the legal secretary for Plaintiffs counsel, Tish Sanches of Thornton 5 Davidson's office, emailed Defendant's counsel and asked for an extension of approximately one 6 week to provide responses to the above referenced discovery requests. Specifically, Ms. Sanches 7 asked for an extension to May 12, 2023. In response, and as a courtesy, Defendant's counsel 8 provided a full thirty-day extension to respond and, further, provided electronic copies of the 9 discovery requests so as to facilitate the discovery responses. (Declaration of Mark J. Sarni, 10 paragraph 6, Exhibit "E") Although a thirty-day continuance was granted, the Plaintiff did not 11 provide any discovery responses by the June 5, 2023, cutoff (Declaration of Mark J. Sarni, 12 paragraph 6.) This had been Plaintiffs first discovery extension. 13 Thereafter, Defendant's counsel waited until June 21, 2023, in the hope the outstanding 14 discovery responses would be provided. This period of time, between June 5, 2023 and June 21, 15 2023, represented a second extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding discovery 16 requests. On June 21, 2023, Defendant's counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel and advised 17 Plaintiffs counsel that there were outstanding discovery responses due. Defendant's counsel 18 then provided a third extension to June 30, 2023, for Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding 19 discovery requests. A copy of the email granting this third extension is included in the 20 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit "F." 21 As of July 28, 2023, Plaintiff has yet to provide discovery responses although Plaintiff 22 has, by way of his attorney, had the G.A.L. appointed to assist the Plaintiff for this express 23 purpose among all others associated with the litigation. By waiting until July 28, 2023, 24 Defendant effectively granted Plaintiff a fourth extension and, notwithstanding this fact, no 25 responses to the outstanding discovery had been received. As a result, the instant motion became 26 necessary. 27 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO lNTERROGATORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 1 ARGUMENT 2 I. 3 DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER THAT THE TRUTH OF THE 4 MATTERS SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 5 PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF BE DEEMED ADMITTED, AND 6 DEFENDANT IS FURTHER ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF MONETARY 7 SANCTIONS. 8 Section 2033.230, subdivision (b) and (c), of the Code of Civil Procedure 9 provides in pertinent part, as follows: 10 "If a party to whom requests for admission are Directed fails to serve a timely 11 response, the following rules apply: ... 12 "(b) The requesting party may move for an order that The genuineness of any 13 documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed 14 admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ... 15 (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that The party to whom the 16 requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the 17 motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial 18 compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a 19 monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the 20 party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for 21 admission necessitated this motion." 22 23 Section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as 24 follows: 25 " Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following... 26 "(d) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. ... Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as 27 follows: 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTJON 1 "To the extent authorized by the section governing any particular discovery 2 method, or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected 3 party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the 4 following sanctions against any one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the 5 discovery process. 6 "(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that 7 one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process . .. pay the reasonable 8 expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. 9 ... If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court 10 shall impose the sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted 11 with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of 12 the sanction unjust." 13 14 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of a "Requests for Admission." 15 This set is attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit "A." 16 Defendant has not received responses to this discovery request and the time to respond to the 17 same, including all four extensions that were granted, has expired. For these reasons, the motion 18 to deem the matters stated in Requests for Admission, Set One, served on the Plaintiff should be l9 deemed admitted and the request for monetary sanctions should be granted as set forth in the 20 accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni. 21 22 II. 23 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS A PARTY TO MOVE TO 24 COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES WHEN NO RESPONSES 25 HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND SAID PARTY IS ALSO ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. 26 27 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290 provides, in relevant part, as 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO !NTERROGA TORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 1 follows: 2 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the 3 following rules apply: 4 (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to 5 exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any 6 objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the 7 protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 8 2018.010). ... 9 (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order 1O compelling response to the interrogatories. 11 (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing 12 with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully 13 makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds 14 that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other 15 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. ... (emphasis added) 16 17 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of Form Interrogatories and 18 Special Interrogatories. These sets are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. 19 Sarni as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C," respectively. Defendant has not received responses to 20 these discovery requests and the time to respond to the same, including all four extensions that 21 were granted, has expired. For this reason, the motion to compel responses to Form 22 Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff should be 23 granted as well as the request for monetary sanctions as set forth in the accompanying 24 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni. 25 Ill Ill 26 III 27 Ill 28 NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION III. 2 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS A PARTY TO MOVE TO 3 COMPEL A PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WHEN NONE HAVE BEEN 4 PRODUCED OR FOR A FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WHEN 5 HE DEEMS RESPONSES TO A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ARE 6 INCOMPLETE. 7 8 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 9 If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is 10 directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: 11 (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is 12 directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or 13 on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 14 2018.010). ... 15 (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to 16 the demand. 17 (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary 18 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, 19 person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 20 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds 21 that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other 22 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. ... 23 24 In the instant matter, Plaintiff was served with "Set One" of a "Request for Production of 25 Documents." This set is attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mark J. Sarni as Exhibit 26 "D." Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request and the time to respond to the same, including all four extensions that were granted, has expired. For this reason, this motion to 27 compel responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, served on Plaintiff 28 JO NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 1 should be granted as well as the request for monetary sanctions as set forth in the accompanying 2 Declaration of Mark J. Sarni. 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 The Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery designed to elicit the factual support for 6 his various claims and whether he was even mentally competent to verify the FAC in the first 7 instance. More than ample time has been provided for him and the G.A.L. to do so. The matters 8 specified in the requests for admissions should be deemed admitted and the Plaintiff should be 9 ordered to respond to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production 10 of documents. Monetary sanctions should be assessed against the Plaintiff and his G.A.L. for 11 their failure to comply with the discovery statutes cited herein and making this motion necessary. 12 13 Dated: July 28, 2023 MARK J. SARNI 14 ATTORNEY AT LAW 15 16 � On March 31. 2023. I served the follov,,ing documents by the means indicated below: 7 1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSlONS FROM DEFENDANT 8 RlJSHMYFILE, lNC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL (Sin ONE); 9 2. FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF .JASON NEEL (SET ONE); 10 3. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT RUSHMYFlLE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF .JASON NEEL (SET ONE); 11 and, 12 4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL 13 (SET ONE) 14 on the interested parties as follows by the following means: l:'i (See Attached Serv ice List) 16 17 jo (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) As follows: J am "readily familiar'' with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that :g practice it would be deposited with Fed Express on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Torrance, California in the ordinary course of business. l am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal I 19 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit 20 for mailing in affidavit. 21 ..,.., 1� (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readiiy famiiiar" with the finn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited \Vith U.S. postal service on that same day with postage "''" I thereon fully prepaid at To1wnce. California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served. serv ice is presumed invalid JI postal -·' ')� canceHation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit 24 for mailing in affidavit. ,- D _:, (BY CERTlFlED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED). I deposited thes� papers with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage 26 fully prepaid. 1 am a resident or employed in the county where the notice \Vas mailed. l used certified mail and requested a return receipt. The envelope was '27 addressed and mailed to the other party as follows: 28 CASE NO. 22CV01758 PROOF OF SERVICE (1) Name: 2 (2) Address on envelope: -� (3) Date Mailed: 4 (4) Place of mailing (city. state): 5 D (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by first class mail to the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Oflice with 1nstructions to personally serve the 6 above identified pa11ies at the address identified or at such other address as the ' Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office can locate the above identified parties. 8 D (l3Y FAX) As follows: On at approximately p.m. by usc of facsimile machine number (310) 214-7254, I served a copy of the foregoing on 9 the interested pa11ies in this action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the following: [C.C.P. § 1013(e)] SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 10 (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSlON) As follows: I caused a ll copy of the documcnt(s) to be sent from e-mail address southbavadr(a),gmail.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within J2 reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication 13 that the transmission was unsuccessful. The following parties were served electronically at the following email addresses: 1-4 � (STATE) l declare under penalty of peLjury under the laws of the State of l5 California that the foregoing is true and correct. Ca?£p 16 D (FEDERAL) 1 declare that Jam employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 17 Executed on March 31. 2023. at Torrance. !S !9 . Sift:_ 20 MARKJ. SARNI 21 26 27 28 -----·--··. ------------------------·---·--··---- CASE NO. 22CV0t758 PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST Thornton Davidson, Esq. .A:ttornev forPlaintiff. Jason Neel - (BY U.S. THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C. MAIL .A.ND EMAIL) I 1195 W. Shaw Ave .. Ste. A 2 Fresno, CA 93711 thornton@thorntondavidsonlaw.com J 4 Pamda D. Simmons. Esq. William Purdy. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jason Neel - (BY U.S. LAW OFFICE OF STMMONS & PURDY MAI.L AND Bv1ALL) 2425 Porter Street. Suite 10 6 Soquel. CA 95073 pamela0'mamelaw.com 7 bill m.pamelaw.com 8 Jeffrey H. Lowenthal, Esq. . Attorneys for Defendant and Cross- () Edward Egan Smith, Esq. I Complainant, United States Real Estate 10 Matthev, Vi/. Delbridge. Esq. Corporation - (BY EMAIL ONLY) STEYER LOWENTHAL 11 12 BOODROOKAS AL VAREi. & SMITH 235 Pinc Street. 15 th Floor LLP San Francisco. CA 94104 13 ilowenthal11)stcvcrlaw .com esmith1i)steverlaw.corn 14 15 rndclb_ridgecasteverlaw.com Edward T. Weber, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Superior I ,oan 16 Kristi M. Wells, Esq. Servicing and Asset Default Management, Law Office of Edward T. Weber Inc. (BY EMAIL ONLY) 17 17151 Ncwhope Street. Suite 203 Fountain Vallev. CA 92708 ed(d;weberlegai.�om kr:s,:/:;;,e,.U1···ei..Ue-111 e�� 1 "O 1 e,aL\., n 19 lLUI, .. J.. \l\· 20 Michael T. Bcuselinck. Esq. I 1 Michal Beuselinck. P.S. i Attorney for Defendant and L1v�- ::. · ::endant. 21 490 4yct Street #37 I CNA Equity Group. Inc. - (BY EMAIL i 23 Oakland. CA 94609 I UNLY) I ! II mike@1av,mtb.com Cody Molica I 24 1029 North Road #J 75 Westfield. MA O 1085 cmolical 1@gmail.com Ii Defendant and Cross-Defendant. ln Pro Per-· (By EMAIL ONLY) 28 CASE NO. 22CV01758 PHOOF OF SERVICF.