Preview
1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN: 240424)
shugret@grsm.com
2 JORDAN A. WILLETTE (SBN: 327386)
jwillette@grsm.com
3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
4 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-5900
5 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
6 Attorneys for Defendant
FCA US LLC
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF KERN
9
NATHAN SCHULTZ, ) Case No. BCV-23-102342
10 ) Unlimited Jurisdiction
Plaintiff, )
11 ) DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
vs. ) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 COMPLAINT
)
San Francisco, CA 94111
FCA US, LLC; JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE
13 )
RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, ) Complaint Filed: July 20 2023
14 ) Trial Date: None set
Defendants. )
15 )
16 Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), for itself alone and for no other parties, hereby
17 answers Plaintiff NATHAN SCHULTZ’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint as follows:
18 Under the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
19 FCA denies each and every allegation, both specifically and generally, of each cause of action
20 contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof, and denies Plaintiff was
21 damaged in any sum or sums, or at all.
22 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Failure to State Cause of Action)
24 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
25 against FCA.
26 //
27 //
28 //
-1-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unclean Hands)
3 2. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
4 against FCA are barred by the doctrine of unclear hands.
5 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Estoppel)
7 3. FCA is informed and believes, and on that bases alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
8 are, in whole or in part, barred by estoppel.
9 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Waiver)
11 4. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 are, in whole or in part, barred by waiver.
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Laches)
15 5. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
16 are, in whole or in part, barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
17 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Statute of Limitations)
19 6. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
20 are, in whole or in part, barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Code of Civil
21 Procedure, specifically sections 335.1, 337, 338, 338.1, and 340; Civil Code section 1783 and
22 1791.1; and/or Commercial Code section 2725.
23 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Mitigation of Damages)
25 7. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has made no
26 effort to attempt to mitigate any damages or protect the value of the subject vehicle, and as such,
27 any damages awarded would be reduced accordingly.
28 //
-2-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Good Faith Belief)
3 8. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims as
4 related to allegations of statements published by FCA are barred, in whole or in part, because the
5 statements were true or FCA had a good faith believe that the statement was true.
6 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Complete Performance)
8 9. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, it has appropriately,
9 completely, and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising
10 out of the matters alleged in the Complaint.
11 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 (Set Off)
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 10. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that if it is established
14 that FCA is in any manner legally responsible for any of the damages claimed by Plaintiff, which
15 is denied, FCA is entitled to a set off of these damages, if any, that resulted from the wrongful
16 acts of Plaintiff and/or others.
17 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Preemption)
19 11. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, in whole, or in
20 part, are preempted by the Federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pursuant to 49
21 U.S.C. sections 30118, et seq.
22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (State-of-the-Art)
24 12. FCA’s acts at the time of design, manufacture, and/or distribution of the subject
25 vehicle were in conformity with the state-of-the-art based upon the mechanical, technical, and
26 scientific knowledge existing at the relevant time, and FCA complied with all industry and
27 government standards.
28 //
-3-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Economic Loss Rule)
3 13. Plaintiff’s causes of action have not accrued because Plaintiff cannot establish she
4 suffered injury directly from the subject vehicle or any of its component parts, and therefore,
5 Plaintiff’s contention that the subject vehicle or products failed to adequately perform their
6 functions are barred by the economic loss rule.
7 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Failure to Provide Notice of Breach)
9 14. Claims by Plaintiffs of breach of warranty are barred because of Plaintiff’s failure
10 to give timely and appropriate notice of any claim of breach of warranty.
11 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 (Arbitration Agreement)
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 15. FCA is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
14 this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly
15 brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court.
16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Recoupment or Set-Off)
18 16. In the event Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, FCA is entitled to a recoupment right
19 or set-off for the value of Plaintiff’s use of the product, sale of the product, or other permissible
20 reductions or offsets and other or further relief to prevent any unjust enrichment.
21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Comparative Fault)
23 17. If Plaintiff sustained any damages as alleged in the Complaint, that damage was
24 proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff in failing to conduct himself in a manner
25 ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of his affairs and business. The
26 contributory negligence and fault of Plaintiff diminishes any recovery herein.
27 //
28 //
-4-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Vehicle Fit for Intended Purpose)
3 18. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the subject vehicle
4 was fit for providing transportation at all relevant times hereto. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not
5 entitled to relief for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. American Suzuki Motor
6 Corporation v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291.
7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Duration of Implied Warranty)
9 19. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some of the alleged
10 defects did not arise until more than one year had elapsed since the subject vehicle was sold to
11 Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for such concerns under the breach of the
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code §1791.1(c).
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Disclaimer of Incidental and Consequential Damages)
15 20. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that by the terms of the
16 limited warranty for the subject vehicle at issue, FCA is not liable for incidental or consequential
17 damages.
18 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Abuse or Failure to Maintain)
20 21. Plaintiff is barred from recovery by virtue of Civil Code § 1794.3 since the
21 claimed defect or nonconformity was caused by the unauthorized or unreasonable use of the
22 vehicle following sale.
23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Failure to State Cause of Action for Civil Penalties)
25 22. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to warrant the imposition of
26 civil penalties because it was believed that replacement or repurchase of the subject vehicle was
27 not appropriate under the circumstances then known.
28 //
-5-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Civil Penalties)
3 23. Any cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking civil penalties is
4 barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically § 340.
5 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Additional Defenses)
7 24. FCA alleges that it may have additional affirmative defenses available to it of
8 which it is not now fully aware. FCA reserves the right to assert affirmative defenses after
9 the same shall have been ascertained.
10 WHEREFORE, FCA prays as follows:
11 1. For dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice;
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
2. For judgment in favor of FCA against Plaintiff;
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 3. For the costs of suit herein; and,
14 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: September 13, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
15
16 By:
Spencer P. Hugret
17 Jordan A. Willette
Attorneys for Defendant
18 FCA US LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Nathan Schultz v. FCA US LLC, et al.
2 Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-23-102342
3 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, 275 Battery
4 Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date below, I served the within documents:
5 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
6 by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
7
by transmitting VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (jpotter@grsm.com) the document(s)
8 listed above to the email address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. (Per
agreement of the parties.)
9 by having Nationwide PERSONALLY DELIVER the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
10
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
11 fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
addressed as set forth below.
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12
San Francisco, CA 94111
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated
13 for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by
FEDEX as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
14 LLP described below, addressed as follows:
15 Tionna Dolin
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
16 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
17 Tel.: (310) 929-4900
Fax: (310) 943-3838
18 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com
Email: mrajpal@slpattorney.com
19 Email: mgibson@slpattorney.com
Email: emailservices@slpattorney.com
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff
21 I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
22 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
23 meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
25
Executed on September 13, 2023 at San Francisco, California.
26
27
Jessica Potter
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN: 240424) shugret@grsm.com 2 JORDAN A. WILLETTE (SBN: 327386) jwillette@grsm.com 3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 5 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 6 Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF KERN 9 NATHAN SCHULTZ, ) Case No. BCV-23-102342 10 ) Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiff, ) 11 ) DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP vs. ) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 COMPLAINT ) San Francisco, CA 94111 FCA US, LLC; JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE 13 ) RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) Complaint Filed: July 20 2023 14 ) Trial Date: None set Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), for itself alone and for no other parties, hereby 17 answers Plaintiff NATHAN SCHULTZ’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint as follows: 18 Under the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, 19 FCA denies each and every allegation, both specifically and generally, of each cause of action 20 contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof, and denies Plaintiff was 21 damaged in any sum or sums, or at all. 22 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Failure to State Cause of Action) 24 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 25 against FCA. 26 // 27 // 28 // -1- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unclean Hands) 3 2. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims 4 against FCA are barred by the doctrine of unclear hands. 5 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Estoppel) 7 3. FCA is informed and believes, and on that bases alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims 8 are, in whole or in part, barred by estoppel. 9 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Waiver) 11 4. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 are, in whole or in part, barred by waiver. San Francisco, CA 94111 13 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Laches) 15 5. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims 16 are, in whole or in part, barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 17 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Statute of Limitations) 19 6. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims 20 are, in whole or in part, barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Code of Civil 21 Procedure, specifically sections 335.1, 337, 338, 338.1, and 340; Civil Code section 1783 and 22 1791.1; and/or Commercial Code section 2725. 23 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Mitigation of Damages) 25 7. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has made no 26 effort to attempt to mitigate any damages or protect the value of the subject vehicle, and as such, 27 any damages awarded would be reduced accordingly. 28 // -2- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Good Faith Belief) 3 8. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims as 4 related to allegations of statements published by FCA are barred, in whole or in part, because the 5 statements were true or FCA had a good faith believe that the statement was true. 6 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Complete Performance) 8 9. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, it has appropriately, 9 completely, and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising 10 out of the matters alleged in the Complaint. 11 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 (Set Off) San Francisco, CA 94111 13 10. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that if it is established 14 that FCA is in any manner legally responsible for any of the damages claimed by Plaintiff, which 15 is denied, FCA is entitled to a set off of these damages, if any, that resulted from the wrongful 16 acts of Plaintiff and/or others. 17 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Preemption) 19 11. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, in whole, or in 20 part, are preempted by the Federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pursuant to 49 21 U.S.C. sections 30118, et seq. 22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (State-of-the-Art) 24 12. FCA’s acts at the time of design, manufacture, and/or distribution of the subject 25 vehicle were in conformity with the state-of-the-art based upon the mechanical, technical, and 26 scientific knowledge existing at the relevant time, and FCA complied with all industry and 27 government standards. 28 // -3- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Economic Loss Rule) 3 13. Plaintiff’s causes of action have not accrued because Plaintiff cannot establish she 4 suffered injury directly from the subject vehicle or any of its component parts, and therefore, 5 Plaintiff’s contention that the subject vehicle or products failed to adequately perform their 6 functions are barred by the economic loss rule. 7 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Failure to Provide Notice of Breach) 9 14. Claims by Plaintiffs of breach of warranty are barred because of Plaintiff’s failure 10 to give timely and appropriate notice of any claim of breach of warranty. 11 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 (Arbitration Agreement) San Francisco, CA 94111 13 15. FCA is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that 14 this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly 15 brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court. 16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Recoupment or Set-Off) 18 16. In the event Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, FCA is entitled to a recoupment right 19 or set-off for the value of Plaintiff’s use of the product, sale of the product, or other permissible 20 reductions or offsets and other or further relief to prevent any unjust enrichment. 21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Comparative Fault) 23 17. If Plaintiff sustained any damages as alleged in the Complaint, that damage was 24 proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff in failing to conduct himself in a manner 25 ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of his affairs and business. The 26 contributory negligence and fault of Plaintiff diminishes any recovery herein. 27 // 28 // -4- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Vehicle Fit for Intended Purpose) 3 18. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the subject vehicle 4 was fit for providing transportation at all relevant times hereto. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not 5 entitled to relief for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. American Suzuki Motor 6 Corporation v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291. 7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Duration of Implied Warranty) 9 19. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some of the alleged 10 defects did not arise until more than one year had elapsed since the subject vehicle was sold to 11 Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for such concerns under the breach of the Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code §1791.1(c). San Francisco, CA 94111 13 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Disclaimer of Incidental and Consequential Damages) 15 20. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that by the terms of the 16 limited warranty for the subject vehicle at issue, FCA is not liable for incidental or consequential 17 damages. 18 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Abuse or Failure to Maintain) 20 21. Plaintiff is barred from recovery by virtue of Civil Code § 1794.3 since the 21 claimed defect or nonconformity was caused by the unauthorized or unreasonable use of the 22 vehicle following sale. 23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Failure to State Cause of Action for Civil Penalties) 25 22. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to warrant the imposition of 26 civil penalties because it was believed that replacement or repurchase of the subject vehicle was 27 not appropriate under the circumstances then known. 28 // -5- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Civil Penalties) 3 23. Any cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking civil penalties is 4 barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically § 340. 5 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Additional Defenses) 7 24. FCA alleges that it may have additional affirmative defenses available to it of 8 which it is not now fully aware. FCA reserves the right to assert affirmative defenses after 9 the same shall have been ascertained. 10 WHEREFORE, FCA prays as follows: 11 1. For dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice; Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 2. For judgment in favor of FCA against Plaintiff; 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 San Francisco, CA 94111 13 3. For the costs of suit herein; and, 14 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 13, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 15 16 By: Spencer P. Hugret 17 Jordan A. Willette Attorneys for Defendant 18 FCA US LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Nathan Schultz v. FCA US LLC, et al. 2 Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-23-102342 3 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, 275 Battery 4 Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date below, I served the within documents: 5 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 6 by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. 7 by transmitting VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (jpotter@grsm.com) the document(s) 8 listed above to the email address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. (Per agreement of the parties.) 9 by having Nationwide PERSONALLY DELIVER the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 10 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon 11 fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP addressed as set forth below. 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 San Francisco, CA 94111 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated 13 for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FEDEX as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, 14 LLP described below, addressed as follows: 15 Tionna Dolin STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 16 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 17 Tel.: (310) 929-4900 Fax: (310) 943-3838 18 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com Email: mrajpal@slpattorney.com 19 Email: mgibson@slpattorney.com Email: emailservices@slpattorney.com 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same 22 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage 23 meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 25 Executed on September 13, 2023 at San Francisco, California. 26 27 Jessica Potter 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE