Preview
MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP, PC
Soby M. Mathews (State Bar #208317)
39899 Balentine Dr., Ste. #200
Newark, CA 94560
Telephone: (510) 498-1949
Attorneys for Cross Defendant:
Amiseq, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11
IBANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national (Case No.: 19-CIV-04630
Se 12 lassociation,
ga
Plaintiff, (CROSS-DEFENDANT AMISEQ, INC.’S
za 13
VS.
24 IREQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE IN
14 SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS
ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
IPURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §
eas
QZ 15 [Limited Liability Company;
583.210 and 585.250;
(CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE, an
16
individual; NITESH
IHISSARIA, an individual; DOES 1-100,
17
inclusive,
18 Defendants. [Notice of Motion, Request for Judicial Notice
land Declaration of Soby M. Mathews,
19
(CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE, an \Declaration of Nilesh Jadhav and
individual, and derivatively on behalf of IMemorandum of Points and Authorities filed
20
ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware concurrently herewith]
21 limited liability company; DAVID ESPIE,
individually, and derivatively on behalf of
22 ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, (Date: March 29, 2024
23
(Time: 9:00 AM
24 Cross-Complainants, \Location: Dept. 24
VS.
25 Judge: The Hon. Jeffrey R. Finigan
INITESH HISSARIA, an individual; THE
26
(CHUGH FIRM, PC, a California (Complaint Filed: August 9, 2019
27 professional corporation; CHUGH, LLP, a (rial Date: None set
(California limited liability partnership;
28 INAVNEET CHUGH, an individual;
1
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
IDEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California
limited liability company; DIGITIZE
ISOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; GUANQIONG WU, an
individual; AMISEQ, INC., a Delaware
corporation; HORIZON CONSULTING,
IINC., a Washington corporation,
(California Corporation; BANK OF
AMERICA, a national association, and
IROES 1-20,
Cross-Defendants,
10
Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
11 following document pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453:
Se 12 1 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
ga
za gS 13
cross-complaint filed in this action on October 24, 2019. This document must be judicially
=a
14
noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be
2a 15
taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he
QZ
z&
am trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and
16
(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to
17
enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with
18
sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is
19
provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial
20
Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to
21
take judicial notice of the matter. I have performed a search of the records of the clerk of this
22
Court pertaining to the above-captioned case. My search has revealed a copy of the file-marked
23
cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A.
24
25 2 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
26 summons for the cross-complaint filed on October 24, 2019 that was issued on October 24, 2019.
27 This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d)
28
provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal.
2
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in
Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request,
through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request;
and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the
matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon
them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with
sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of
the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case has revealed a copy of the file-
marked summons attached as Exhibit B.
10
3 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
11
clerk’s copy of the amendment to the cross-complaint stamped with the date of April 7, 2023
12
a wherein the name of Amiseq, Inc., a Delaware Corporation was inserted in place of the fictitious
gS 13
name of DOE 1, which was the fictitious name by which the cross-complainants designated said
14
cross-defendant in the cross-complaint. This document must be judicially noticed for the
15
following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d)
16
Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court
17
shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives
18
each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable
19
such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient
20
information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided
21
sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice.
22
The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take
23
judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the
24
above-captioned case has revealed an amendment to the cross-complaint wherein the name of
25
Amiseq, Inc., a Delaware Corporation was inserted in place of the fictitious name of DOE 1,
26 which was the fictitious name by which the cross-complainants designated said cross-defendant in
27 the cross-complaint. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-
28
3
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
captioned case has revealed a copy of the file-marked amendment to cross-complaint attached as
Exhibit C.
4. Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
clerk’s copy of the document titled “CPQ Solutions, LLC And Christopher Campanile's Reply In
Support Of Their Motion For Leave To File Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing
of June 1, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid.
Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court ofthis
state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any
matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient
10
notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to
11
meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take
Se 12
ga judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request
za gS 13
=a through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description
14
furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In
2a 15
QZ my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have
z&
am 16
found the document attached hereto as Exhibit D which has the title “CPQ Solutions, LLC And
17
Christopher Campanile's Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Leave To File Amended Cross-
18
Complaint.” The date of filing stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is June 1, 2023.
19
5 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
20
clerk’s copy of the document titled “Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing of June
21
20, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code §
22
452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...”
23
Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter
24
specified in Section 452 ifa party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of
25
the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the
26
request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice
27
of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service
28
4
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with
sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In my search of the records
of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have found the document
attached hereto as Exhibit E which has the title “Amended Cross-Complaint.” The date of filing
stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is June 20, 2023
6. Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
clerk’s copy of the proof of service of summons on Amiseq bearing the filing date of July 19,
2023, with the substituted service being made on June 27, 2023. This document must be judicially
noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be
10
taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he
11
trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and:
Se 12
ga (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to
za gS 13
=a enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with
14
sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is
2a 15
QZ provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial
z&
am 16
Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to
17
take judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to
18
the above-captioned case has revealed a copy of the file-marked proof
of service of summons
19
attached as Exhibit F.
20
7
Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
21
clerk’s copy of a joint stipulation and order between the cross-complainants and Amiseq to extend
22
the time for Amiseq to respond to the amended cross-complaint to September 15, 2023, bearing
23
the date of filing of August 17, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following
24
reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1)
25
any court of this state . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial
26
notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse
27
party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse
28
5
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to
enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of
the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing
description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the
matter. In my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned
case, I have found the document attached hereto as Exhibit G reflecting said joint stipulation and
order between the cross-complainants and Amiseq to extend the time for Amiseq to respond to the
amended cross-complaint to September 15, 2023.
8 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
10
clerk’s copy of the document titled “Second Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing
11
of December 20, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal.
Se 12
ga Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of
za gS 13
=a this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any
14
matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient
2a 15
QZ notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to
z&
am 16
meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take
17
judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request
18
through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description
19
furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In
20
my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have
21
found the document attached hereto as Exhil it H which has the title “Second Amended Cross-
22
Complaint”. The date of filing stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is December 20,
23
2023.
24
9 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the
25
document titled “Minute Order” for the hearing on the demurrer held on January 19, 2024, to
26
discuss the merits of Amiseq’s demurrer to the Amended Cross-Complaint. This document must
27
be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial
28
6
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453
provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 ifa
party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the
pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b)
Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of
this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient
information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In my search of the records of the
clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have found the document attached
10 hereto as Exhibit I which has the title “Minute Order” for the hearing on the demurrer. The date of
11 the hearing was held on January 19, 2024.
12
a
gS 13 MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW
Date: January 22, 2024 GROUP, PC
14
15
16
17 Soby . Mathews, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250
EXHIBIT A
Electronically
MACDONALD | FERNANDEZ LLP
IAIN A. MACDONALD (SBN 051073) by Superior Court of Califomia, County of San Mateo
221 Sansome Street, Third Floor ON 10/24/2019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 362-0449 '»__isi Bay Dominia _
Facsimile: (415) 394-5544
Attorneys for Defendants and
Cross-Complainants
CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC and
CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO —- SOUTHERN BRANCH
10 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national Case No. 19-CIV-04630
association,
11
Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CPQ
12 SOLUTIONS, LLC AND CHRISTOPHER
V. CAMPANILE FOR INDEMNITY;AND TO
13 AVOID FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
14 Liability Company; CHRISTOPHER
CAMPANILE, an individual; NITESH
15 HISSARIA, an individual; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
18 CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; Christopher Campanile, an
19 Individual,
20 Cross-Complainants,
21 Vv.
22 NITESH HISSARIA, an Individual; THE
CHUGH FIRM, a Professional Corporation;
23 NAVNEET SINGH CHUGH, an Individual;
DEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California
24 Limited Liability Company; DIGITIZE
SOLUTIONS LLC, a California Limited
25 Liability Company; GUANQIONG WU, an
Individual and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive,
26
Cross-Defendants.
27
COME NOW Cross-Complainants CPQ Solutions, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
28
Company doing business in the State of California, and Christopher Campanile, an Individual residing
1
in the State of California, (collectively, the “Cross-Complainants”), by and through their undersigned
attorney, and for cause of action against Cross-Defendants, allege as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1 Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria was at all times herein an individual residing in the
County of San Mateo; Cross-Defendant Navneet Singh Chugh was at all times an attorney-at-law
who counseled, advised and assisted Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria in performing the acts and
conduct described herein; Cross-Defendant The Chugh Firm was at all times herein a California
Professional Corporation with a principal place of business in California; Cross-Defendant DevSumi
10 Republic, LLC was at all times herein a California Limited Liability Company; Cross-Defendant
11 Guanqiong Wu, was at all times herein an individual residing the County of San Mateo; Cross-
12 Defendant Digitize Solutions LLC was at all times herein a California Limited Liability Company.
13 2 This Cross-Complaint is brought under authority of California Code of Civil
14 Procedure Section 428.10(b) because it arises out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of
15 transactions or occurrences as the cause of action brought against Defendants by Plaintiff herein.
16 3 The true names and capacities of Cross-Defendants DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, are
17 unknown to Cross-Complainants at this time, who therefore sue said Cross-Defendants by such
18 fictitious names. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each
19 Defendant named as a DOE is responsible for each and every obligation hereinafter set forth.
20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Indemnity
21 (Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh)
22 4 At all times mentioned herein, and as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint herein, Cross-
23 Complainants CPQ Solutions, LLC was party to a loan agreement with Plaintiff Bank of America,
24 and Cross-Complainant Christopher Campanile was guarantor of said loan. Cross-Defendants
25 created the indebtedness of Cross-Complainants to Plaintiff Bank of America by improperly and
26 illegally drawing down the full amount of the loan and converting and appropriating the proceeds
27 thereof to their personal uses. Cross-Complainants derived no benefit from the loan proceeds as a
28 result of the conduct of said Cross-Defendants.
5 As a result of the aforesaid acts and conduct, the Plaintiff Bank of America contends
that it has a claim against Cross-Complainants for an amount of $509,684.93, together with
attorneys’ fees, interest and costs, and has brought the within action against Cross-Complainants.
Because the alleged indebtedness of Cross-Complainants was created by the wrongful acts of Cross-
Defendants, said Cross-Defendants are liable to indemnify Cross-Complainants for any and all
indebtedness that may be ultimately determined owing to Plaintiff Bank of America.
WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraudulent Transfer
(Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh)
10
11 6. Atall times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered
12 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and
13 Navneet Singh Chugh described herein.
14 7 Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of said
15 Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh.
16 8 Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendants
17 Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh caused Cross-Complainant CPQ
18 Solutions, LLC to transfer either to themselves or for their benefit sums in excess of $200,000.00.
19 9 Said transfers were made with the intent to defraud Cross-Complainants, and each of
20 them.
21 10. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants
22 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07.
23 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
24
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Fraudulent Transfer
(Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Nayneet Singh Chugh)
26
27 11. At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered
28 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein.
12. Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendants
Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh caused Cross-Complainant CPQ
Solutions, LLC to transfer either to themselves or for their benefit sums in excess of $200,000.00.
138 Said transfers were made without consideration.
14. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants
pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07.
WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraudulent Transfer
(Against All Cross-Defendants, and DOES 1-5)
10
11 15. Atall times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered
12 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein.
13 16. Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of
14 Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic,
15 LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize Solutions, LLC.
16 17. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that
17 commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria, based
18 upon the counsel and advice of The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh, caused Cross-
19 Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC to transfer to themselves and Co-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The
20 Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize
21 Solutions, LLC for their benefit sums in excess of $1,548,790.70.
22 18. The aforesaid transfers were made with the intent to defraud Cross-Complainants.
23 19. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants
24 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07.
25 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
26
Ml
27
28 Ml
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraudulent Transfer
(Against All Cross-Defendants, and DOES 1-5)
20. At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered
insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein.
21. Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of
Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh.
22. Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendant Nitesh
Hissaria, as counseled and advised by The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh, caused Cross-
Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC to transfer to themselves and Co-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The
10 Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize
11 Solutions, LLC for their benefit amounts in excess of $1,548,790.70.
12 23. The aforesaid transfers were made without consideration.
13 24. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants
14 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07.
15 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment against Cross-Defendants, and each
18 Cross-Defendants as follows:
19 First Cause of Action
20 1 For indemnification of Cross-Complainants by Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm,
21 Navneet Singh Chugh against the claims asserted by Plaintiff Bank of America;
22 Second Cause of Action
23 2. For judgment in the amount of the fraudulent transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh
24 Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh as set forth in the Second
25 Causes of Action stated hereinabove;
26 Third Cause of Action
27 3 For judgment in the amount of the transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The
28 Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh as set forth in the Second Causes of Action
stated hereinabove;
Fourth Cause of Action
4 For judgment in the amount of the transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The
Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu and
Digitize Solutions LLC as set forth in the Fourth Causes of Action stated
hereinabove;
All Causes of Action
5 For attorneys’ fees;
6 For costs of suit; and
10
7 For such other and further relief as is proper in the premises.
11
DATED: ouoberLffors MACDONALD FERNANDEZ LLP
1
13
14
15 Attorneys for Cross-Complainants,
CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC and
16 CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned state that I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of
California; that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; that my
business address is 221 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California, 94104-2323.
On the date hereon, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
L CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC AND CHRISTOPHER
CAMPANILE FOR INDEMNITY; AND TO AVOID FRAUDULENT
TRANSFERS
on the following individuals of record to this action as follows:
10 Raffi Khatchadourian, Esq.
Hemar, Rousso & Heald, LLP
11
15910 Ventura Blvd., 12 Floor
12 Encino, CA 91436
Fax: (818) 501-2985
13 Email: raffi@hrhlaw.com
14
Xx (By First Class U.S. Mail) By causing a true copy of said document(s), enclosed in a
15 sealed envelope addressed as below and with postage thereon fully prepared, to be placed
in United States mail at San Francisco, California.
16
17 (By Facsimile) By causing a true copy of said document(s),to be transmitted by facsimile
machine to telephone numbers shown below, known by or represented to me to be
18 the receiving telephone number for facsimile copy transmission of the parties/persons/
firms listed below. The transmission was reported as complete and without
19 etror.
20
(By Email Transmission) By causing a true copy of said document(s), to betransmitted
21 by email to the email addresses shown, known by or represented to me to be the parties/
persons/firms current email information. The transmission was reported as
22 complete and without error.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
24 is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at
25 whose direction the service was made and that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this24th
26 day of October, at San Francisco, California.
27
28 Brenda S. Johnson
EXHIBIT B
SUM-110
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONL|
{SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
Cross-Complaint
(CITACION JUDICIAL-CONTRADEMANDA) Electronically
NOTICE TO CROSS-DEFENDANT:
ff VISO AL CONTRA-DEMANDADO); Niv¥SH HISSARIA, an Individual;”
CHUGH FIRM, a Professional Corporation; NAVNEET SINGH CHUGH, an Individual,
by Superior Court of California, County of Sin Mateo
ON
DEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DIGITIZE SOLUTIONS LLC, a 10/24/2019
California Limited Liability Company; GUANQIONG WU, an Individual and DOES 1 through 5,
By, Is/ Rj jay Dominia
"V80°ARE BEING SUED BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT: eputy Clerk
{LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTI
CPQ SOLUTIONS, ULC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
Christopher Campanile, an Individual
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at thie court and have a
copy sorvad on the crose-complainant. A etter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper lagal form if you
want the court to hear your case, There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more
information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp}, your caunty law Ubrary, or the courthouse
nearest you.- If you cannot pay the filing fee, avk the court clerk fora fae walver form. if you de not fils your response on time, you may.
‘lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further waming from the court,
There are other legal requiroments. You may want to call an attorney right away. IF you de nat know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service, H you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for frae legal services from a nonprofit iegal services
program, You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Callfornta Legal Services Web site (wiw.fawhelpcallfornia.crg), the Callfornta
Courts Online Solf-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selltielp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The
court has a statutory tien for waived tees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more Ina civil case. The court's
lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que {e entreguen esta citacién y papeles lagales para presentar una respuesta por esqrito
en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al contrademandante. Una carta o una Hamada telefénica no Io protegen. Su respuesta
por escrito tone que estar en formate legal correcto s/ desea‘que procesen su caso en ia corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que
usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrer estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en of Centro de Ayuda da las
Cortes de Cailfornta (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte qua le quede mas cerca. Sino puede
pagarla cuota de presentacidn, pida al secretario de fa corte que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago dé cuotas. S! no presenta su
respuesta a tlempo, puede perder
ef caso por Incumplimlento y la corte le podré quitar
su sueldo, dinero
y bienes sin més edvertencia.
Hay otros requisitas legates. Ee racomendable que ilame a un abogado inmedlatamente. S]no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar aun
servicio de remisién e abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, 6s posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios iegales
gratuites de un programe de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de iucro en él sitio web
California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcaliforala.org}, en ef Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov),
oniéndose en contacto con la corte0 6! colegio da abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tlehe derecho a reciamar les cuotes y los
costos exentes por imponer ua gravamen sobre cuaiquier recuperacién de $70,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una,
concesién da arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tlene que pagar ef gravamen de fa corte antes da que la corte pueda desechar
ef caso.
The name and address of the court Is: ‘SHORT NAME OF CASE (rom Complaint:
(Nombre de O2so)-
(El nombre y direecién de Ja corte es). Bank of America v, CPQ Solutions, LLC
Superior Court of San Mateo - Southern Branch ‘CASE NUMBER: (Némero dat Caso):
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 19-CTV-04630
The name, address, and telephone number of cross-complainant's attorney, or cross-complainant without an sittomey, is
(El nombre, ladireccion y el néimero de teiéfono dei abogado de! contrademandante, o del contrademandanteqi
abogado, 8s): -Ph: (415) 362- 0149 ae (415) 394-5544
Jain A. Macdonald (SBN 051073), Macdonald Fernandez LLP, 221 Sansome St., 3rd Flr., San Francisco, CA 94104
DATE: 10/24/2019 Neal I. Taniguchi Clerk, by /s/ Rjay Dominia 1D uty
(Fecha) (Secretario) junto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010),)
(Para prueba de entraga de esta cifatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons Thosot '0).)
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
(BEAL) 1. as an individual cross-defendant,
2, [[) as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify).
AUNTOF aD
e
0)
[£1 on behatt
of (specity).
*
+B under: [1 CCP 416.10 (corporation) []. CoP 416.60 (minor
[CL] CCP 416,20 (defunct corporation) [--] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
‘OF SRY [{] CCP 416,40 (association or partriership) [—_] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
TSS
[1] ‘other (specity).
(by personal delivery on (date): Page 40f1
Form Adopted for tandatary SUMMONS—CROSS-COMPLAINT Code of Civil Procedure,§§ 412.20, 428.80, 435
Judicial Counel
of Catfornia
SUM-4110 [Rev, July1, 20093
EXHIBIT C
Attorney or Party without Attorney (Name/Address) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Kathleen Strickland (SBN 64816) Steven Polard (SBN 90319)
Farid Zakaria (SBN 280283)
Ropers Majeski PC
505 Sansome Street, Suite 1925
San Francisco, CA 94111 Electronically
Telephone: 415-543-4800
by Superior Court of California, County
of San Mates
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
ON 4/7/202
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
400 COUNTY CENTER By /s/ Salote Alipate
Deputy Clerk
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063
Plaintiff BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National Association
Defendant CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, etc et al
AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT Case Number
19-CIV-04630
FICTITIOUS NAME (no order required)
Upon filing the cross-complaint herein, Cross-Complainants being ignorant of the true name of a Cross-
Defendant and having designated said
Cross- Defendant in the complaint by the fictitious name of DOE 1
and having discovered the true name of said Cross-Defendant to be Al MISEQ, INC., a Delaware Corporation
hereby amends the cross-complaint by inserting such true name in place and stead of such fictitious name
eee
wherever it appears in said cross-complaint
DATED: April 7, 2023
SZ
ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANTS(S)
CPQ Solutions, LLC & Christopher Campanile
INCORRECT NAME (requires order thereon)
Plaintiff(s) having designated a Defendant in the complaint by the incorrect name of
and having discovered the true name of the said Defendant to be
hereby amends the complaint by inserting such true name in place and stead of such incorrect name wherever it
appears in said complaint.
ORDER
Proper cause appearing Cross-Complainants are allowed to file the above amendment to the cross-
complaint.
DATED:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CV-1 [Rev. 3/04] www.sanmateocourt.org
‘American LegalNet, Inc.
\wwww.FormsWorkflow.com
CASE NAME: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.
ACTION NO.: SAN MATEO SUPERIOR CASE NO. 19-CIV-04630
PROOF OF SERVICE
METHOD OF SERVICE
OO First Class Mail OO Facsimile Oo Messenger Service
O Overnight Delivery I] E-Mail/Electronic Delivery
1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. My business address is 801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90017,
County of Los Angeles.
3. On April 7, 2023, I served the following documents:
10
AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
11
12 4. I served the documents on the persons at the address below (along with their fax numbers
and/or email addresses if service was by fax or email):
13
14 Raffi Khatchadouri
Preview
MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP, PC Soby M. Mathews (State Bar #208317) 39899 Balentine Dr., Ste. #200 Newark, CA 94560 Telephone: (510) 498-1949 Attorneys for Cross Defendant: Amiseq, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 IBANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national (Case No.: 19-CIV-04630 Se 12 lassociation, ga Plaintiff, (CROSS-DEFENDANT AMISEQ, INC.’S za 13 VS. 24 IREQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE IN 14 SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware IPURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § eas QZ 15 [Limited Liability Company; 583.210 and 585.250; (CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE, an 16 individual; NITESH IHISSARIA, an individual; DOES 1-100, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. [Notice of Motion, Request for Judicial Notice land Declaration of Soby M. Mathews, 19 (CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE, an \Declaration of Nilesh Jadhav and individual, and derivatively on behalf of IMemorandum of Points and Authorities filed 20 ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware concurrently herewith] 21 limited liability company; DAVID ESPIE, individually, and derivatively on behalf of 22 ICPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (Date: March 29, 2024 23 (Time: 9:00 AM 24 Cross-Complainants, \Location: Dept. 24 VS. 25 Judge: The Hon. Jeffrey R. Finigan INITESH HISSARIA, an individual; THE 26 (CHUGH FIRM, PC, a California (Complaint Filed: August 9, 2019 27 professional corporation; CHUGH, LLP, a (rial Date: None set (California limited liability partnership; 28 INAVNEET CHUGH, an individual; 1 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 IDEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California limited liability company; DIGITIZE ISOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; GUANQIONG WU, an individual; AMISEQ, INC., a Delaware corporation; HORIZON CONSULTING, IINC., a Washington corporation, (California Corporation; BANK OF AMERICA, a national association, and IROES 1-20, Cross-Defendants, 10 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the 11 following document pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453: Se 12 1 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the ga za gS 13 cross-complaint filed in this action on October 24, 2019. This document must be judicially =a 14 noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be 2a 15 taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he QZ z& am trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and 16 (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to 17 enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with 18 sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is 19 provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial 20 Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to 21 take judicial notice of the matter. I have performed a search of the records of the clerk of this 22 Court pertaining to the above-captioned case. My search has revealed a copy of the file-marked 23 cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A. 24 25 2 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 26 summons for the cross-complaint filed on October 24, 2019 that was issued on October 24, 2019. 27 This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) 28 provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. 2 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case has revealed a copy of the file- marked summons attached as Exhibit B. 10 3 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 11 clerk’s copy of the amendment to the cross-complaint stamped with the date of April 7, 2023 12 a wherein the name of Amiseq, Inc., a Delaware Corporation was inserted in place of the fictitious gS 13 name of DOE 1, which was the fictitious name by which the cross-complainants designated said 14 cross-defendant in the cross-complaint. This document must be judicially noticed for the 15 following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) 16 Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court 17 shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives 18 each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable 19 such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient 20 information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided 21 sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. 22 The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take 23 judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the 24 above-captioned case has revealed an amendment to the cross-complaint wherein the name of 25 Amiseq, Inc., a Delaware Corporation was inserted in place of the fictitious name of DOE 1, 26 which was the fictitious name by which the cross-complainants designated said cross-defendant in 27 the cross-complaint. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above- 28 3 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 captioned case has revealed a copy of the file-marked amendment to cross-complaint attached as Exhibit C. 4. Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the clerk’s copy of the document titled “CPQ Solutions, LLC And Christopher Campanile's Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Leave To File Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing of June 1, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court ofthis state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient 10 notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to 11 meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take Se 12 ga judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request za gS 13 =a through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description 14 furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In 2a 15 QZ my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have z& am 16 found the document attached hereto as Exhibit D which has the title “CPQ Solutions, LLC And 17 Christopher Campanile's Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Leave To File Amended Cross- 18 Complaint.” The date of filing stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is June 1, 2023. 19 5 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 20 clerk’s copy of the document titled “Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing of June 21 20, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 22 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” 23 Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter 24 specified in Section 452 ifa party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of 25 the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the 26 request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice 27 of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service 28 4 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have found the document attached hereto as Exhibit E which has the title “Amended Cross-Complaint.” The date of filing stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is June 20, 2023 6. Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the clerk’s copy of the proof of service of summons on Amiseq bearing the filing date of July 19, 2023, with the substituted service being made on June 27, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be 10 taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he 11 trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: Se 12 ga (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to za gS 13 =a enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with 14 sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is 2a 15 QZ provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial z& am 16 Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to 17 take judicial notice of the matter. My search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to 18 the above-captioned case has revealed a copy of the file-marked proof of service of summons 19 attached as Exhibit F. 20 7 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 21 clerk’s copy of a joint stipulation and order between the cross-complainants and Amiseq to extend 22 the time for Amiseq to respond to the amended cross-complaint to September 15, 2023, bearing 23 the date of filing of August 17, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following 24 reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) 25 any court of this state . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial 26 notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse 27 party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse 28 5 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case, I have found the document attached hereto as Exhibit G reflecting said joint stipulation and order between the cross-complainants and Amiseq to extend the time for Amiseq to respond to the amended cross-complaint to September 15, 2023. 8 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 10 clerk’s copy of the document titled “Second Amended Cross-Complaint” bearing a date of filing 11 of December 20, 2023. This document must be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Se 12 ga Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of za gS 13 =a this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any 14 matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient 2a 15 QZ notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to z& am 16 meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take 17 judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request 18 through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description 19 furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In 20 my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have 21 found the document attached hereto as Exhil it H which has the title “Second Amended Cross- 22 Complaint”. The date of filing stamped on the clerk’s copy of this document is December 20, 23 2023. 24 9 Cross-Defendant Amiseq, Inc. requests that this Court take judicial notice of the 25 document titled “Minute Order” for the hearing on the demurrer held on January 19, 2024, to 26 discuss the merits of Amiseq’s demurrer to the Amended Cross-Complaint. This document must 27 be judicially noticed for the following reasons: Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) provides that judicial 28 6 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state...” Cal. Evid. Code § 453 provides that [t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 ifa party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Each adverse party is provided sufficient notice of the request through the service upon them of this Request for Judicial Notice. The foregoing description furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. In my search of the records of the clerk of this Court pertaining to the above-captioned case I have found the document attached 10 hereto as Exhibit I which has the title “Minute Order” for the hearing on the demurrer. The date of 11 the hearing was held on January 19, 2024. 12 a gS 13 MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW Date: January 22, 2024 GROUP, PC 14 15 16 17 Soby . Mathews, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 CROSS-DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 583.210 and 583.250 EXHIBIT A Electronically MACDONALD | FERNANDEZ LLP IAIN A. MACDONALD (SBN 051073) by Superior Court of Califomia, County of San Mateo 221 Sansome Street, Third Floor ON 10/24/2019 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-0449 '»__isi Bay Dominia _ Facsimile: (415) 394-5544 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC and CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO —- SOUTHERN BRANCH 10 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national Case No. 19-CIV-04630 association, 11 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CPQ 12 SOLUTIONS, LLC AND CHRISTOPHER V. CAMPANILE FOR INDEMNITY;AND TO 13 AVOID FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited 14 Liability Company; CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE, an individual; NITESH 15 HISSARIA, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Christopher Campanile, an 19 Individual, 20 Cross-Complainants, 21 Vv. 22 NITESH HISSARIA, an Individual; THE CHUGH FIRM, a Professional Corporation; 23 NAVNEET SINGH CHUGH, an Individual; DEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California 24 Limited Liability Company; DIGITIZE SOLUTIONS LLC, a California Limited 25 Liability Company; GUANQIONG WU, an Individual and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, 26 Cross-Defendants. 27 COME NOW Cross-Complainants CPQ Solutions, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 28 Company doing business in the State of California, and Christopher Campanile, an Individual residing 1 in the State of California, (collectively, the “Cross-Complainants”), by and through their undersigned attorney, and for cause of action against Cross-Defendants, allege as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1 Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria was at all times herein an individual residing in the County of San Mateo; Cross-Defendant Navneet Singh Chugh was at all times an attorney-at-law who counseled, advised and assisted Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria in performing the acts and conduct described herein; Cross-Defendant The Chugh Firm was at all times herein a California Professional Corporation with a principal place of business in California; Cross-Defendant DevSumi 10 Republic, LLC was at all times herein a California Limited Liability Company; Cross-Defendant 11 Guanqiong Wu, was at all times herein an individual residing the County of San Mateo; Cross- 12 Defendant Digitize Solutions LLC was at all times herein a California Limited Liability Company. 13 2 This Cross-Complaint is brought under authority of California Code of Civil 14 Procedure Section 428.10(b) because it arises out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of 15 transactions or occurrences as the cause of action brought against Defendants by Plaintiff herein. 16 3 The true names and capacities of Cross-Defendants DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, are 17 unknown to Cross-Complainants at this time, who therefore sue said Cross-Defendants by such 18 fictitious names. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each 19 Defendant named as a DOE is responsible for each and every obligation hereinafter set forth. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Indemnity 21 (Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh) 22 4 At all times mentioned herein, and as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint herein, Cross- 23 Complainants CPQ Solutions, LLC was party to a loan agreement with Plaintiff Bank of America, 24 and Cross-Complainant Christopher Campanile was guarantor of said loan. Cross-Defendants 25 created the indebtedness of Cross-Complainants to Plaintiff Bank of America by improperly and 26 illegally drawing down the full amount of the loan and converting and appropriating the proceeds 27 thereof to their personal uses. Cross-Complainants derived no benefit from the loan proceeds as a 28 result of the conduct of said Cross-Defendants. 5 As a result of the aforesaid acts and conduct, the Plaintiff Bank of America contends that it has a claim against Cross-Complainants for an amount of $509,684.93, together with attorneys’ fees, interest and costs, and has brought the within action against Cross-Complainants. Because the alleged indebtedness of Cross-Complainants was created by the wrongful acts of Cross- Defendants, said Cross-Defendants are liable to indemnify Cross-Complainants for any and all indebtedness that may be ultimately determined owing to Plaintiff Bank of America. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Transfer (Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh) 10 11 6. Atall times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered 12 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and 13 Navneet Singh Chugh described herein. 14 7 Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of said 15 Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh. 16 8 Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendants 17 Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh caused Cross-Complainant CPQ 18 Solutions, LLC to transfer either to themselves or for their benefit sums in excess of $200,000.00. 19 9 Said transfers were made with the intent to defraud Cross-Complainants, and each of 20 them. 21 10. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants 22 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07. 23 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Fraudulent Transfer (Against Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Nayneet Singh Chugh) 26 27 11. At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered 28 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein. 12. Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh caused Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC to transfer either to themselves or for their benefit sums in excess of $200,000.00. 138 Said transfers were made without consideration. 14. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Transfer (Against All Cross-Defendants, and DOES 1-5) 10 11 15. Atall times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered 12 insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein. 13 16. Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of 14 Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, 15 LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize Solutions, LLC. 16 17. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that 17 commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria, based 18 upon the counsel and advice of The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh, caused Cross- 19 Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC to transfer to themselves and Co-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The 20 Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize 21 Solutions, LLC for their benefit sums in excess of $1,548,790.70. 22 18. The aforesaid transfers were made with the intent to defraud Cross-Complainants. 23 19. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants 24 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07. 25 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 26 Ml 27 28 Ml FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Transfer (Against All Cross-Defendants, and DOES 1-5) 20. At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC was rendered insolvent by the acts and conduct of Cross-Defendants described herein. 21. Cross-Complainants were, at all times relevant herein, and now are, creditors of Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, and Navneet Singh Chugh. 22. Commencing on or about 2018 and continuing through 2019, Cross-Defendant Nitesh Hissaria, as counseled and advised by The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh, caused Cross- Complainant CPQ Solutions, LLC to transfer to themselves and Co-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The 10 Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu, and Digitize 11 Solutions, LLC for their benefit amounts in excess of $1,548,790.70. 12 23. The aforesaid transfers were made without consideration. 13 24. The aforesaid transfers are fraudulent transfers and avoidable by Cross-Complainants 14 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.07. 15 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment against Cross-Defendants, and each 18 Cross-Defendants as follows: 19 First Cause of Action 20 1 For indemnification of Cross-Complainants by Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, 21 Navneet Singh Chugh against the claims asserted by Plaintiff Bank of America; 22 Second Cause of Action 23 2. For judgment in the amount of the fraudulent transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh 24 Hissaria, The Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh as set forth in the Second 25 Causes of Action stated hereinabove; 26 Third Cause of Action 27 3 For judgment in the amount of the transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The 28 Chugh Firm and Navneet Singh Chugh as set forth in the Second Causes of Action stated hereinabove; Fourth Cause of Action 4 For judgment in the amount of the transfers to Cross-Defendants Nitesh Hissaria, The Chugh Firm, Navneet Singh Chugh, DevSumi Republic, LLC, Guangiong Wu and Digitize Solutions LLC as set forth in the Fourth Causes of Action stated hereinabove; All Causes of Action 5 For attorneys’ fees; 6 For costs of suit; and 10 7 For such other and further relief as is proper in the premises. 11 DATED: ouoberLffors MACDONALD FERNANDEZ LLP 1 13 14 15 Attorneys for Cross-Complainants, CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC and 16 CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I the undersigned state that I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California; that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; that my business address is 221 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California, 94104-2323. On the date hereon, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: L CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC AND CHRISTOPHER CAMPANILE FOR INDEMNITY; AND TO AVOID FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS on the following individuals of record to this action as follows: 10 Raffi Khatchadourian, Esq. Hemar, Rousso & Heald, LLP 11 15910 Ventura Blvd., 12 Floor 12 Encino, CA 91436 Fax: (818) 501-2985 13 Email: raffi@hrhlaw.com 14 Xx (By First Class U.S. Mail) By causing a true copy of said document(s), enclosed in a 15 sealed envelope addressed as below and with postage thereon fully prepared, to be placed in United States mail at San Francisco, California. 16 17 (By Facsimile) By causing a true copy of said document(s),to be transmitted by facsimile machine to telephone numbers shown below, known by or represented to me to be 18 the receiving telephone number for facsimile copy transmission of the parties/persons/ firms listed below. The transmission was reported as complete and without 19 etror. 20 (By Email Transmission) By causing a true copy of said document(s), to betransmitted 21 by email to the email addresses shown, known by or represented to me to be the parties/ persons/firms current email information. The transmission was reported as 22 complete and without error. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 24 is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at 25 whose direction the service was made and that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this24th 26 day of October, at San Francisco, California. 27 28 Brenda S. Johnson EXHIBIT B SUM-110 SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONL| {SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) Cross-Complaint (CITACION JUDICIAL-CONTRADEMANDA) Electronically NOTICE TO CROSS-DEFENDANT: ff VISO AL CONTRA-DEMANDADO); Niv¥SH HISSARIA, an Individual;” CHUGH FIRM, a Professional Corporation; NAVNEET SINGH CHUGH, an Individual, by Superior Court of California, County of Sin Mateo ON DEVSUMI REPUBLIC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DIGITIZE SOLUTIONS LLC, a 10/24/2019 California Limited Liability Company; GUANQIONG WU, an Individual and DOES 1 through 5, By, Is/ Rj jay Dominia "V80°ARE BEING SUED BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT: eputy Clerk {LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTI CPQ SOLUTIONS, ULC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Christopher Campanile, an Individual You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at thie court and have a copy sorvad on the crose-complainant. A etter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper lagal form if you want the court to hear your case, There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp}, your caunty law Ubrary, or the courthouse nearest you.- If you cannot pay the filing fee, avk the court clerk fora fae walver form. if you de not fils your response on time, you may. ‘lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further waming from the court, There are other legal requiroments. You may want to call an attorney right away. IF you de nat know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service, H you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for frae legal services from a nonprofit iegal services program, You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Callfornta Legal Services Web site (wiw.fawhelpcallfornia.crg), the Callfornta Courts Online Solf-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selltielp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory tien for waived tees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more Ina civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que {e entreguen esta citacién y papeles lagales para presentar una respuesta por esqrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al contrademandante. Una carta o una Hamada telefénica no Io protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tone que estar en formate legal correcto s/ desea‘que procesen su caso en ia corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrer estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en of Centro de Ayuda da las Cortes de Cailfornta (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte qua le quede mas cerca. Sino puede pagarla cuota de presentacidn, pida al secretario de fa corte que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago dé cuotas. S! no presenta su respuesta a tlempo, puede perder ef caso por Incumplimlento y la corte le podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més edvertencia. Hay otros requisitas legates. Ee racomendable que ilame a un abogado inmedlatamente. S]no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar aun servicio de remisién e abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, 6s posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios iegales gratuites de un programe de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de iucro en él sitio web California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcaliforala.org}, en ef Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), oniéndose en contacto con la corte0 6! colegio da abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tlehe derecho a reciamar les cuotes y los costos exentes por imponer ua gravamen sobre cuaiquier recuperacién de $70,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una, concesién da arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tlene que pagar ef gravamen de fa corte antes da que la corte pueda desechar ef caso. The name and address of the court Is: ‘SHORT NAME OF CASE (rom Complaint: (Nombre de O2so)- (El nombre y direecién de Ja corte es). Bank of America v, CPQ Solutions, LLC Superior Court of San Mateo - Southern Branch ‘CASE NUMBER: (Némero dat Caso): 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 19-CTV-04630 The name, address, and telephone number of cross-complainant's attorney, or cross-complainant without an sittomey, is (El nombre, ladireccion y el néimero de teiéfono dei abogado de! contrademandante, o del contrademandanteqi abogado, 8s): -Ph: (415) 362- 0149 ae (415) 394-5544 Jain A. Macdonald (SBN 051073), Macdonald Fernandez LLP, 221 Sansome St., 3rd Flr., San Francisco, CA 94104 DATE: 10/24/2019 Neal I. Taniguchi Clerk, by /s/ Rjay Dominia 1D uty (Fecha) (Secretario) junto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010),) (Para prueba de entraga de esta cifatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons Thosot '0).) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served (BEAL) 1. as an individual cross-defendant, 2, [[) as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify). AUNTOF aD e 0) [£1 on behatt of (specity). * +B under: [1 CCP 416.10 (corporation) []. CoP 416.60 (minor [CL] CCP 416,20 (defunct corporation) [--] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) ‘OF SRY [{] CCP 416,40 (association or partriership) [—_] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) TSS [1] ‘other (specity). (by personal delivery on (date): Page 40f1 Form Adopted for tandatary SUMMONS—CROSS-COMPLAINT Code of Civil Procedure,§§ 412.20, 428.80, 435 Judicial Counel of Catfornia SUM-4110 [Rev, July1, 20093 EXHIBIT C Attorney or Party without Attorney (Name/Address) FOR COURT USE ONLY Kathleen Strickland (SBN 64816) Steven Polard (SBN 90319) Farid Zakaria (SBN 280283) Ropers Majeski PC 505 Sansome Street, Suite 1925 San Francisco, CA 94111 Electronically Telephone: 415-543-4800 by Superior Court of California, County of San Mates SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. ON 4/7/202 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 400 COUNTY CENTER By /s/ Salote Alipate Deputy Clerk REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 Plaintiff BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National Association Defendant CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, etc et al AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT Case Number 19-CIV-04630 FICTITIOUS NAME (no order required) Upon filing the cross-complaint herein, Cross-Complainants being ignorant of the true name of a Cross- Defendant and having designated said Cross- Defendant in the complaint by the fictitious name of DOE 1 and having discovered the true name of said Cross-Defendant to be Al MISEQ, INC., a Delaware Corporation hereby amends the cross-complaint by inserting such true name in place and stead of such fictitious name eee wherever it appears in said cross-complaint DATED: April 7, 2023 SZ ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANTS(S) CPQ Solutions, LLC & Christopher Campanile INCORRECT NAME (requires order thereon) Plaintiff(s) having designated a Defendant in the complaint by the incorrect name of and having discovered the true name of the said Defendant to be hereby amends the complaint by inserting such true name in place and stead of such incorrect name wherever it appears in said complaint. ORDER Proper cause appearing Cross-Complainants are allowed to file the above amendment to the cross- complaint. DATED: JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CV-1 [Rev. 3/04] www.sanmateocourt.org ‘American LegalNet, Inc. \wwww.FormsWorkflow.com CASE NAME: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V CPQ SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL. ACTION NO.: SAN MATEO SUPERIOR CASE NO. 19-CIV-04630 PROOF OF SERVICE METHOD OF SERVICE OO First Class Mail OO Facsimile Oo Messenger Service O Overnight Delivery I] E-Mail/Electronic Delivery 1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My business address is 801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90017, County of Los Angeles. 3. On April 7, 2023, I served the following documents: 10 AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 11 12 4. I served the documents on the persons at the address below (along with their fax numbers and/or email addresses if service was by fax or email): 13 14 Raffi Khatchadouri