Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
tj ones(@archemorris.com
2 Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184)
gfederico@archemorris.com
3 ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
•4 301 University Avenue, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95825
5 Telephone: 916 646.2480
Facsimile: 916.646.5696
6
Attomeys for Defendant
7 R4C0RP, INC., a Califomia Corporation
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450
12 ABBOTT,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO
14 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
15 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.,
Date: October 29,2010 ^<^/
16 Defendants. Time; 2;00 p.m.
Dept: 53
17
Action Filed: September 24, 2007
18
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS, Eras
19
20 I.
21 INTRODUCTION
Defendant R4C0RP, INC., a Califomia Corporation ("R4C0RP, INC.") hereby files Ajs*.
22 ^
memorandum of points and authorities in support of its reply to Plaintiffs FLORENTINE and
23
RODNEY ABBOTT'S ("Plaintiffs") Opposition to R4C0RP, INC.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Doe
24
Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
NIC549/1039345-1
R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 IL
ARGUMENT
2
•J ^' The Court Should Exclude Certain Evidence Improperly Referred To By
^ Plaintiffs:
^ Plaintiffs appear to concede that the only causes of action that could potentially apply to
5 demurring party R4C0RP, INC. are the 4th, Sth, and 6th causes of action. This concession is
^ based on the fact that Plaintiffs believe R4C0RP, INC. is a successor-in-interest and/or alter-ego
^ of Richard Ruybalid dba CA Constmction. R4C0RP, INC. reminds the Court that there are
^ absolutely no alter ego allegations or successor-in-interest allegations contained in the original
^ complaint, first amended complaint, second amended complaint, or doe amendment to complaint.
^0 As Plaintiffs' correctly point out, "No other extrinsic evidence - such as declarations or other
^^ documents - may be considered." Ion Equip,. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.
^2 Thus, Plaintiffs' reference to alter ego and successor-in-interest theories is irrelevant to this
13 demurrer unless and until those allegations are the subject of a pleading properly before the
14 Court.
1^ Further, Plaintiffs' incorporate by reference the Introduction and Legal Argument sections
16 contained in their Opposition to Motion to Quash/Strike/Dismiss. In those opposition papers,
1^ Plaintiffs' improperly reference facts pertaining to Navigator's Insurance Company, potential
18 coverage issues, and reservation of rights letters. When mling on a demurrer, the court looks to
19 the face of the complaint, attached exhibits, and to matters of which the court takes j udicial
20 notice. Franz v Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94. Thus, this Court is limited to tiie four
21 comers of Plaintiffs' Doe Amendment to the SAC and the matters for which the parties request
22 judicial notice. None ofthe alleged facts referenced by Plaintiffs were the subject of a request for
23 judicial notice. These alleged facts are irrelevant to the Court's detennination of whether
24 Plaintiffs have properly alleged any causes of action against R4C0RP, INC., and they are not
25 properly before this Court on demurrer. R4C0RP, INC. respectfully requests that the Court
26 disregard Plaintiffs' reference to these alleged facts.
27 ///
28
NIC549/1039345-1
R4C0RP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 B. The Doe Amendment And The Second Amended Complaint Fail To State A
Cause Of Action Against R4C0RP. INC.
Plaintiffs assert that the "charging allegations" contamed in Paragraph 6 ofthe SAC are
sufficient. The problem remains that the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction make no reference to
"Does" or R4C0RP, INC. Further, the 4th, Sth and 6tii causes ofaction clearly refer to
"Defendant" in the singular, and not "Defendants" in the plural. A plural reference could be seen
as incorporating the Doe Allegation contained in Paragraph 6. "Although the ironclad mle that
the original complaint must contain charging allegations against thefictitiousdefendants may tiap
the unwary, compliance is relatively simple. The addition of's' to 'defendant' in the charging
allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word 'defendants' to those sued
by their correct names." See Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 186,
194-196. The express language ofthe 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction clearly limits the
application ofthose allegations to a defendant that is sued in its correct name - Defendant
Richard Kirk Ruybalid. Thus, the 4th, Sth, and 6tii causes ofaction fail to state a cause ofaction
on any ground as to R4C0RP, INC.
C. The 4th, Sth and 6th Causes Of Action Are Uncertain
The 4th, Sth and 6th causes of action are also unclear and cannot apply to R4C0RP, INC.
Again, Plaintiffs carry the burden of showing a complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish
every element of each cause ofaction. Blankv. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Rakestraw v
Cahforma Physicians' Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39,43. They are confined to the pleadings
only, as well as matters subject to judicial notice. Thus, the covirt should not consider Plaintiffs'
purported theories of alter-ego or successor-in-interest liability.
Plaintiffs rely on Paragraph 6 ofthe SAC to say that the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction
have been sufficiently pled as to R4C0RP, INC. However, a closer examination of Paragraph 6
and its relation to the 4th, Sth and 6th causes of action leads to a different conclusion. Plaintiffs
allege the following at Paragraph 6:
R4CORP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 while acting in such capacity Plaintiffs are further informed and
believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that each of
2 the DOE Defendants were somehow negligent and/or at fault with
respect to the work done on Plaintiffs' real property as more
3 specifically referred to herein and that said Doe Defendants
somehow proximately caused the daraages of which Plaintiffs
4 complain.
5 First, there are no allegations anywhere in the pleadings that R4C0RP, INC. is an agent or
6 employee of any ofthe named defendants in the case. Second, there are no allegations in the
7 pleadings that R4C0RP, INC. proximately caused the Plaintiffs' damages while purportedly
8 acting as an agent or employee of a named defendant. Third, there are no allegations pertaining
9 to R4C0RP, INC.'s negligence and/or fault with respect to work done on Plaintiffs' property.
10 There are no facts because none exist as to R4C0RP, INC.
\\ Plaintiffs' SAC contains causes ofaction for negligence, breach of contract, and alleged
12 violations of various sections ofthe Business and Professions Code, none of which are properly
13 alleged as to R4C0RP, INC.
14 With respect to negligence in the constmction of Plaintiffs' home, no cause of action lies
15 as to R4C0RP, INC. because it performed no work at Plaintiffs' home. In fact, R4C0RP, INC.
16 was not even in existence at the time the work was performed. It was not created until March 21,
17 2006, well after the concrete work was finished on Plaintiffs' property. (See Request for Judicial
18 Notice, Exhibit-A, previously filed with the demurrer). If any such facts existed, they would
19 have been pled in the SAC, or at a minimum. Plaintiffs should be required to do so.
20 With respect to an alleged breach of contiact no cause ofaction lies as to R4C0RP, INC,
21 because R4C0RP, INC. was not a party to the contract between Plaintiffs and Richard Ruybalid.
22 (Please see the subject contract which is attached as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiffs' SAC on file with
23 the Court herein). Ifany such facts existed, they would have been pled in the SAC, or at a
24 minimum. Plaintiffs should be required to do so.
25 With respect to alleged violations ofthe Business & Professions Code, no cause ofaction
26 hes as to R4C0RP, INC. First, R4C0RP, INC, perfonned no work on the subject home, it did
27 not enter into the contract that is the subject of Plaintiffs' complaint, and it did not even exist at
28 the time the work was performed at the subject home. Second, the 6th cause of action specifically
NIC549/I039345-1 4
R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 states that "Defendant Ruybalid", and no one else, allegedly violated various provisions ofthe
2 Business & Professions Code Third, and more specifically, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant
3 Ruybalid" violated Business & Professions Code §7160 by knowingly making false or fraudulent
4 representations to Plaintiffs regarding his ability to perform the work he contracted for with
5 Plaintiffs. How can a corporation that has not been formed be said to have made false or
6 fi-audulent representations? Since the corporation was not even in existence at the time these
7 alleged representations were made, it cannot be held liable for them as alleged in the pleadings. If
8 any such facts existed, they would have been pled in the SAC, or at a minimum. Plaintiffs should
9 be required to do so.
10 D, Leave To Amend:
11 R4C0RP, INC. believes that this demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend as
12 it believes Plaintiffs cannot allege a sustainable cause ofaction against R4C0RP, INC.
13 If the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend, R4C0RP, INC. requests that this
14 Court order Plaintiffs to clarify the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction and the application ofthose
15 causes of action to R4C0RP, fNC. as outlined above.
16 Finally, Plaintiffs allege alter-ego and/or successor-in-interest theories throughout their
17 oppositions to the demurrer and the motion to quash/strike/dismiss. Although these theories are
18 not properly before the Court for purposes ofthis demuner or the motion to quash/strike/dismiss,
19 R4C0RP, INC. respectfiilly requests that this Court order Plaintiffs to include any alter-ego
20 and/or successor-in-interest allegations in any subsequent pleading they file with the Court. This
21 would avoid any further motions related to uncertainty in the pleadings, it would place the parties
22 on notice of all of Plaintiffs' allegations, and it would potentially cure R4C0RP, INC.'s concems
23 related to its due process rights and responding to subsequently raised alter-ego and/or successor-
24 in-interest theories.
25 III.
CONCLUSION
26
For the foregoing reasons, R4C0RP, INC. respectfully requests tiiat this court sustain hs
27
demuner without leave to amend. In the altemative, R4C0RP, INC. requests that the Court order
28
NIC549/1039345-1 5
R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 Plaintiffs to file an amended pleading consistent with the above arguments.
2
Dated. October ^ ,2010 ARCHER NORRIS
3
4
5 Gregory K. Federico
Attomeys for Defendant R4C0RP, INC., a
6 California Corporation
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC549/1039345-1
R4C0RP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al.
Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450
3
I, Marie Cantreii, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action
4 or proceeding. My business address is 301 Univershy Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento, Califomia
95825. On October 22,2010,1 caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AM) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
6 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
7
^ By placing a tme copy ofthe docimients listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business
address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
9 with this business' practice for collection and processing of conespondence for
10 mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope
is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business
11 with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
12 r~J By having a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above transmitted by facsimile to the
person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5-00 p.m. The transmission
was reported as complete without enor by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile
J4 machine.
15 I3cl ^y placing a tme copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or
16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope
designated by the express service canier, with delivery fees paid or provided for,
1' addressed as set forth below.
^^ r-J bv having personal deliverv bv FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES a tme copv of
J9 the docuraent(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the
address(es) set forth below.
20
21 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
22
23 I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and conect. Executed on
October 22, 2010, at Sacramento, Califomia.
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/608293-1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Service List
2
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
3 Stephanie Finelli PLAINTIFFS
Law Offices of Stephanie J. Finelli
4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel-(916) 443-2144
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax:(916)443-1511
5 E-mail. sfinelli700@yahoo com
6
VIA REGULAR MAIL
7 Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Wheatley Sopp LLP
8 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857
Folsom, CA 95630 Fax: (916) 988-5296
9 Email: rds@mwsblaw.com
10 Mark Smith in Pro Per
8549 Willow Valley Place
11 Granite Bay, CA 95746
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/608293-I
SERVICE LIST
Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) tj ones(@archemorris.com 2 Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184) gfederico@archemorris.com 3 ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation •4 301 University Avenue, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95825 5 Telephone: 916 646.2480 Facsimile: 916.646.5696 6 Attomeys for Defendant 7 R4C0RP, INC., a Califomia Corporation 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450 12 ABBOTT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO 14 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al., Date: October 29,2010 ^<^/ 16 Defendants. Time; 2;00 p.m. Dept: 53 17 Action Filed: September 24, 2007 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS, Eras 19 20 I. 21 INTRODUCTION Defendant R4C0RP, INC., a Califomia Corporation ("R4C0RP, INC.") hereby files Ajs*. 22 ^ memorandum of points and authorities in support of its reply to Plaintiffs FLORENTINE and 23 RODNEY ABBOTT'S ("Plaintiffs") Opposition to R4C0RP, INC.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Doe 24 Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 NIC549/1039345-1 R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 IL ARGUMENT 2 •J ^' The Court Should Exclude Certain Evidence Improperly Referred To By ^ Plaintiffs: ^ Plaintiffs appear to concede that the only causes of action that could potentially apply to 5 demurring party R4C0RP, INC. are the 4th, Sth, and 6th causes of action. This concession is ^ based on the fact that Plaintiffs believe R4C0RP, INC. is a successor-in-interest and/or alter-ego ^ of Richard Ruybalid dba CA Constmction. R4C0RP, INC. reminds the Court that there are ^ absolutely no alter ego allegations or successor-in-interest allegations contained in the original ^ complaint, first amended complaint, second amended complaint, or doe amendment to complaint. ^0 As Plaintiffs' correctly point out, "No other extrinsic evidence - such as declarations or other ^^ documents - may be considered." Ion Equip,. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881. ^2 Thus, Plaintiffs' reference to alter ego and successor-in-interest theories is irrelevant to this 13 demurrer unless and until those allegations are the subject of a pleading properly before the 14 Court. 1^ Further, Plaintiffs' incorporate by reference the Introduction and Legal Argument sections 16 contained in their Opposition to Motion to Quash/Strike/Dismiss. In those opposition papers, 1^ Plaintiffs' improperly reference facts pertaining to Navigator's Insurance Company, potential 18 coverage issues, and reservation of rights letters. When mling on a demurrer, the court looks to 19 the face of the complaint, attached exhibits, and to matters of which the court takes j udicial 20 notice. Franz v Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94. Thus, this Court is limited to tiie four 21 comers of Plaintiffs' Doe Amendment to the SAC and the matters for which the parties request 22 judicial notice. None ofthe alleged facts referenced by Plaintiffs were the subject of a request for 23 judicial notice. These alleged facts are irrelevant to the Court's detennination of whether 24 Plaintiffs have properly alleged any causes of action against R4C0RP, INC., and they are not 25 properly before this Court on demurrer. R4C0RP, INC. respectfully requests that the Court 26 disregard Plaintiffs' reference to these alleged facts. 27 /// 28 NIC549/1039345-1 R4C0RP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 B. The Doe Amendment And The Second Amended Complaint Fail To State A Cause Of Action Against R4C0RP. INC. Plaintiffs assert that the "charging allegations" contamed in Paragraph 6 ofthe SAC are sufficient. The problem remains that the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction make no reference to "Does" or R4C0RP, INC. Further, the 4th, Sth and 6tii causes ofaction clearly refer to "Defendant" in the singular, and not "Defendants" in the plural. A plural reference could be seen as incorporating the Doe Allegation contained in Paragraph 6. "Although the ironclad mle that the original complaint must contain charging allegations against thefictitiousdefendants may tiap the unwary, compliance is relatively simple. The addition of's' to 'defendant' in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word 'defendants' to those sued by their correct names." See Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 186, 194-196. The express language ofthe 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction clearly limits the application ofthose allegations to a defendant that is sued in its correct name - Defendant Richard Kirk Ruybalid. Thus, the 4th, Sth, and 6tii causes ofaction fail to state a cause ofaction on any ground as to R4C0RP, INC. C. The 4th, Sth and 6th Causes Of Action Are Uncertain The 4th, Sth and 6th causes of action are also unclear and cannot apply to R4C0RP, INC. Again, Plaintiffs carry the burden of showing a complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause ofaction. Blankv. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Rakestraw v Cahforma Physicians' Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39,43. They are confined to the pleadings only, as well as matters subject to judicial notice. Thus, the covirt should not consider Plaintiffs' purported theories of alter-ego or successor-in-interest liability. Plaintiffs rely on Paragraph 6 ofthe SAC to say that the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction have been sufficiently pled as to R4C0RP, INC. However, a closer examination of Paragraph 6 and its relation to the 4th, Sth and 6th causes of action leads to a different conclusion. Plaintiffs allege the following at Paragraph 6: R4CORP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 while acting in such capacity Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that each of 2 the DOE Defendants were somehow negligent and/or at fault with respect to the work done on Plaintiffs' real property as more 3 specifically referred to herein and that said Doe Defendants somehow proximately caused the daraages of which Plaintiffs 4 complain. 5 First, there are no allegations anywhere in the pleadings that R4C0RP, INC. is an agent or 6 employee of any ofthe named defendants in the case. Second, there are no allegations in the 7 pleadings that R4C0RP, INC. proximately caused the Plaintiffs' damages while purportedly 8 acting as an agent or employee of a named defendant. Third, there are no allegations pertaining 9 to R4C0RP, INC.'s negligence and/or fault with respect to work done on Plaintiffs' property. 10 There are no facts because none exist as to R4C0RP, INC. \\ Plaintiffs' SAC contains causes ofaction for negligence, breach of contract, and alleged 12 violations of various sections ofthe Business and Professions Code, none of which are properly 13 alleged as to R4C0RP, INC. 14 With respect to negligence in the constmction of Plaintiffs' home, no cause of action lies 15 as to R4C0RP, INC. because it performed no work at Plaintiffs' home. In fact, R4C0RP, INC. 16 was not even in existence at the time the work was performed. It was not created until March 21, 17 2006, well after the concrete work was finished on Plaintiffs' property. (See Request for Judicial 18 Notice, Exhibit-A, previously filed with the demurrer). If any such facts existed, they would 19 have been pled in the SAC, or at a minimum. Plaintiffs should be required to do so. 20 With respect to an alleged breach of contiact no cause ofaction lies as to R4C0RP, INC, 21 because R4C0RP, INC. was not a party to the contract between Plaintiffs and Richard Ruybalid. 22 (Please see the subject contract which is attached as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiffs' SAC on file with 23 the Court herein). Ifany such facts existed, they would have been pled in the SAC, or at a 24 minimum. Plaintiffs should be required to do so. 25 With respect to alleged violations ofthe Business & Professions Code, no cause ofaction 26 hes as to R4C0RP, INC. First, R4C0RP, INC, perfonned no work on the subject home, it did 27 not enter into the contract that is the subject of Plaintiffs' complaint, and it did not even exist at 28 the time the work was performed at the subject home. Second, the 6th cause of action specifically NIC549/I039345-1 4 R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 states that "Defendant Ruybalid", and no one else, allegedly violated various provisions ofthe 2 Business & Professions Code Third, and more specifically, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant 3 Ruybalid" violated Business & Professions Code §7160 by knowingly making false or fraudulent 4 representations to Plaintiffs regarding his ability to perform the work he contracted for with 5 Plaintiffs. How can a corporation that has not been formed be said to have made false or 6 fi-audulent representations? Since the corporation was not even in existence at the time these 7 alleged representations were made, it cannot be held liable for them as alleged in the pleadings. If 8 any such facts existed, they would have been pled in the SAC, or at a minimum. Plaintiffs should 9 be required to do so. 10 D, Leave To Amend: 11 R4C0RP, INC. believes that this demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend as 12 it believes Plaintiffs cannot allege a sustainable cause ofaction against R4C0RP, INC. 13 If the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend, R4C0RP, INC. requests that this 14 Court order Plaintiffs to clarify the 4th, Sth and 6th causes ofaction and the application ofthose 15 causes of action to R4C0RP, fNC. as outlined above. 16 Finally, Plaintiffs allege alter-ego and/or successor-in-interest theories throughout their 17 oppositions to the demurrer and the motion to quash/strike/dismiss. Although these theories are 18 not properly before the Court for purposes ofthis demuner or the motion to quash/strike/dismiss, 19 R4C0RP, INC. respectfiilly requests that this Court order Plaintiffs to include any alter-ego 20 and/or successor-in-interest allegations in any subsequent pleading they file with the Court. This 21 would avoid any further motions related to uncertainty in the pleadings, it would place the parties 22 on notice of all of Plaintiffs' allegations, and it would potentially cure R4C0RP, INC.'s concems 23 related to its due process rights and responding to subsequently raised alter-ego and/or successor- 24 in-interest theories. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, R4C0RP, INC. respectfully requests tiiat this court sustain hs 27 demuner without leave to amend. In the altemative, R4C0RP, INC. requests that the Court order 28 NIC549/1039345-1 5 R4C0RP, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 Plaintiffs to file an amended pleading consistent with the above arguments. 2 Dated. October ^ ,2010 ARCHER NORRIS 3 4 5 Gregory K. Federico Attomeys for Defendant R4C0RP, INC., a 6 California Corporation 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC549/1039345-1 R4C0RP, INC 'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al. Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450 3 I, Marie Cantreii, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action 4 or proceeding. My business address is 301 Univershy Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento, Califomia 95825. On October 22,2010,1 caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AM) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO 6 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 ^ By placing a tme copy ofthe docimients listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, 8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar 9 with this business' practice for collection and processing of conespondence for 10 mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business 11 with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. 12 r~J By having a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above transmitted by facsimile to the person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5-00 p.m. The transmission was reported as complete without enor by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile J4 machine. 15 I3cl ^y placing a tme copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or 16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope designated by the express service canier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, 1' addressed as set forth below. ^^ r-J bv having personal deliverv bv FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES a tme copv of J9 the docuraent(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth below. 20 21 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] 22 23 I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and conect. Executed on October 22, 2010, at Sacramento, Califomia. 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/608293-1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Service List 2 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL 3 Stephanie Finelli PLAINTIFFS Law Offices of Stephanie J. Finelli 4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel-(916) 443-2144 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax:(916)443-1511 5 E-mail. sfinelli700@yahoo com 6 VIA REGULAR MAIL 7 Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. Wheatley Sopp LLP 8 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857 Folsom, CA 95630 Fax: (916) 988-5296 9 Email: rds@mwsblaw.com 10 Mark Smith in Pro Per 8549 Willow Valley Place 11 Granite Bay, CA 95746 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/608293-I SERVICE LIST