Preview
1 Mark W. Skanes (SBN 322072)
Marija Cvetanoska (SBN 335905)
2 ROSEWALDORF LLP
4100 W. Alameda Ave
3 Suite 300 PMB 1038
Burbank, California 91505
4 Telephone: (518) 869-9200
Facsimile: (518) 869-3334
5 Email: mskanes@rosewaldorf.com
mcvetanoska@rosewaldorf.com
6 calimail@rosewaldorf.com
Attorneys for Defendants TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. and
7 MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN
10
DAVID GARCIA, Case No.: BCV-24-100804
11
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to:
12
Honorable Judge Mark T. Smith
vs.
13 Department T-2
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., a
14 corporation; MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR
CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
15 LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD, a corporation; and ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, COMPLAINT
16
Defendants.
17 Action Filed: March 6, 2024
Trial Date: Unassigned
18
Defendant, MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S (“Defendant”)
19
hereby responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff, DAVID GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
20
GENERAL DENIAL
21
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendant denies each and every
22
allegation in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum whatsoever.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28 1
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
3 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
4 a cause of action against Defendant.
5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Mitigation)
7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any,
8 are the result, in whole or in part, of Plaintiffs’ failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or mitigate
9 damages.
10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Statute of Limitations)
12 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of
13 action thereof, is barred by the application of the statute of limitations set forth in California Code of
14 Civil Procedure sections 337(1), 337(3), 338(a), 339(a), 339(3), 340(a), 343, Commercial Code section
15 2725 and/or any other statute of limitations applicable to the present action.
16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Misuse of Subject Vehicle)
18 Any and all injuries, if any, and damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiffs was or were
19 directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the misuse of and the unreasonable and improper
20 use of the subject vehicle. Further, the misuse or failure to use properly the subject vehicle contributed
21 to the loss, injury, damage or detriment, if any, alleged in the Complaint and the damages, if any,
22 recoverable by Plaintiffs herein must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to
23 such misuse or unreasonable or improper use.
24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Alteration of Subject Vehicle)
26 The subject vehicle was not in a defective or unmerchantable condition at any time when it left
27
28 2
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 the possession, custody and control of Defendant. Any damage to the subject vehicle was caused and
2 created by changes and alterations made to the subject vehicle, subsequent to the time of the subject
3 vehicle’s manufacture and/or sale, by persons other than defendant or any of their agents, servants or
4 employees, barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein.
5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Disclaimer)
7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that prior to and at the time of the alleged
8 acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant as alleged in the Complaint, Defendant expressly disclaimed,
9 negated and excluded all warranties of the type herein alleged by Plaintiffs, and or any type, express or
10 implied, whatsoever.
11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements)
13 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the claims alleged against
14 Defendant in the Complaint are barred by the failure of Plaintiffs to comply with the applicable statutory
15 requirements before filing this action.
16 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Not Intended Use)
18 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiffs was or were proximately caused
19 and contributed to by the use of the subject vehicle for a purpose for which it was not intended to be
20 used. Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that the subject vehicle was not used in a manner for
21 which the subject vehicle was manufactured or intended, and that such unintended use could cause
22 damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ recovery must be barred or reduced in proportion to the amount
23 attributable to the Plaintiffs’ use of the subject vehicle in an unintended manner.
24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Failure to Perform Maintenance)
26 Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Plaintiffs
27
28 3
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 and/or Plaintiffs’ agents, employees or representative, in that they negligently, carelessly, recklessly,
2 knowingly, and willfully operated, maintained, and serviced the subject vehicle which is the subject of
3 this lawsuit and/or directed and controlled all operations and maintenance of said subject vehicle.
4 Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, in whole or in part and/or were
5 contributed to or aggravated by the conduct of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ agents, employees or
6 representatives, when they so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, knowingly and willfully failed to repair
7 the said subject vehicle, knowing that said subject vehicle needed repair, but, instead proceeded to
8 operate, and otherwise make use of the subject vehicle and/or make improper and inadequate repairs to
9 said subject vehicle. Plaintiffs’ right to recovery should be barred or reduced by an amount equivalent
10 to such percentage of fault.
11 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (No Consequential Damages)
13 Defendant, in response to the Complaint and each of its causes of action, states that Plaintiffs’
14 claims for consequential damages are specifically barred by the terms of the warranty in question and
15 applicable law.
16 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Privity)
18 Plaintiffs and Defendant were not in privity of contract wherefore Plaintiffs may not obtain the
19 requested relief from Defendant.
20 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Release)
22 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs have released Defendant
23 from any and all claims, including those raised in the Complaint.
24 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Qualified Third-Party Dispute Resolution Process)
26 Defendant maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process, which substantially
27
28 4
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 complies with section 1793.22 of the California Civil Code. Defendant is informed and believes, and
2 thereon alleges, Plaintiffs received timely and appropriate notification of the availability of the third-
3 party resolution process. Accordingly, since Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the third-party dispute
4 resolution process prior to filing this litigation, section 1794(e)(2) of the California Civil Code
5 affirmatively bars Plaintiffs from recovering damages for (i) attorney’s fees, (ii) costs, and (iii) treble
6 damages (as provide under California Civil Code section 1794(e)) and Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves
7 of the rebuttable presumption pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.22(b).
8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Compliance with the Law)
10 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for
11 Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because Defendant is in compliance with all
12 of the requirements under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.
13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Lack of Deception)
15 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for
16 Violation and Professions Code section 17200 because there was no deception on the part of Defendant
17 and the acts of Defendant would not likely mislead a reasonable person.
18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Adequate Remedy At Law)
20 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state damages under the
21 cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because Plaintiff has an
22 adequate remedy at law.
23 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Economic Loss Rule)
25 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the economic loss rule as a matter of law.
26
27
28 5
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Binding Arbitration)
3 Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration provision.
4 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Reservation of Rights)
6 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to
7 whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right to
8 assert additional defenses in the event that they would be appropriate.
9 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
10 1. That Plaintiffs recover nothing by way of the Complaint;
11 2. That the present action be dismissed with prejudice;
12 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant for attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and
13 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
14 Dated: April 12, 2024 ROSEWALDORF LLP
15
By:
16 Mark W. Skanes
Maria Cvetanoska
17 Attorneys for Defendant,
MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF
18 BAKERSFIELD
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 DAVID GARCIA v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., a corporation; MCLB, INC. DBA
MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
3
Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-24-100804
4
5 I, the undersigned, am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business
address is 4100 W. Alameda Ave., Suite 300 PMB 1038, Burbank, California 91505. On the date below,
6 I served the following document(s) described as:
7 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
8
To the following party or parties in this matter:
9 MFS Legal, Inc. Attorney for Plaintiff
Neal F. Morrow III (SBN 295497)
10 Christopher Joo Hyung Im (SBN 333778)
5318 East 2nd Street, Suite 490
11 Long Beach, CA 90803
12 Tel: (562) 379-2654
Email: lawclerk@calemonlawteam.com (contact)
13 eservice@calemonlawteam.com (documents)
14 ☐ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the foregoing document(s) to be personally delivered to the
above addressee(s) by One Legal, LLC via a registered process server pursuant to C.C.P. § 1011.
15
☐ BY U.S. MAIL: By enclosing the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope to the addressee(s)
16 above and, under the firm’s ordinary course of business, placing said envelope(s) for pick-up and
mailing pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and
17 processing of outgoing mail. Under that practice, the outgoing mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on the same day as collected, with postage fully prepaid.
18
☐ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the foregoing documents in a sealed envelope or
19 package to the addressee(s) listed above and placed said envelope or package for pick-up for overnight
delivery via UPS under the firm’s ordinary course of business. I am familiar with the firm’s practice
20 of collecting and processing documents for overnight delivery via UPS. Under that practice, the
envelope or package would be deposited for pick up by an authorized UPS courier or driver that same
21 day and delivered to the addressee(s) the following business day pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013.
22 ☒ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE/EMAIL: I electronically filed the document(s) with this Court
using the Court’s designated electronic filing service provider, which sent notification of that filing to
23 the person(s) listed above to accept service by electronic transmission, and/or I caused the
document(s) to be transmitted via electronic mail to the addressees as listed above pursuant to C.C.P. §
24 1010.6 and 1013(g), Cal. Rule of Court 2.251, and/or agreement or stipulation between the parties.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
true and correct.
26
Dated: April 12, 2024 Patricia Moore
27 Patricia Moore
28 7
DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Preview
1 Mark W. Skanes (SBN 322072) Marija Cvetanoska (SBN 335905) 2 ROSEWALDORF LLP 4100 W. Alameda Ave 3 Suite 300 PMB 1038 Burbank, California 91505 4 Telephone: (518) 869-9200 Facsimile: (518) 869-3334 5 Email: mskanes@rosewaldorf.com mcvetanoska@rosewaldorf.com 6 calimail@rosewaldorf.com Attorneys for Defendants TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. and 7 MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN 10 DAVID GARCIA, Case No.: BCV-24-100804 11 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to: 12 Honorable Judge Mark T. Smith vs. 13 Department T-2 TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., a 14 corporation; MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S 15 LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD, a corporation; and ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, COMPLAINT 16 Defendants. 17 Action Filed: March 6, 2024 Trial Date: Unassigned 18 Defendant, MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S (“Defendant”) 19 hereby responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff, DAVID GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendant denies each and every 22 allegation in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum whatsoever. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 3 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute 4 a cause of action against Defendant. 5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Mitigation) 7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, 8 are the result, in whole or in part, of Plaintiffs’ failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or mitigate 9 damages. 10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Statute of Limitations) 12 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of 13 action thereof, is barred by the application of the statute of limitations set forth in California Code of 14 Civil Procedure sections 337(1), 337(3), 338(a), 339(a), 339(3), 340(a), 343, Commercial Code section 15 2725 and/or any other statute of limitations applicable to the present action. 16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Misuse of Subject Vehicle) 18 Any and all injuries, if any, and damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiffs was or were 19 directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the misuse of and the unreasonable and improper 20 use of the subject vehicle. Further, the misuse or failure to use properly the subject vehicle contributed 21 to the loss, injury, damage or detriment, if any, alleged in the Complaint and the damages, if any, 22 recoverable by Plaintiffs herein must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to 23 such misuse or unreasonable or improper use. 24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Alteration of Subject Vehicle) 26 The subject vehicle was not in a defective or unmerchantable condition at any time when it left 27 28 2 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 the possession, custody and control of Defendant. Any damage to the subject vehicle was caused and 2 created by changes and alterations made to the subject vehicle, subsequent to the time of the subject 3 vehicle’s manufacture and/or sale, by persons other than defendant or any of their agents, servants or 4 employees, barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. 5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Disclaimer) 7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that prior to and at the time of the alleged 8 acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant as alleged in the Complaint, Defendant expressly disclaimed, 9 negated and excluded all warranties of the type herein alleged by Plaintiffs, and or any type, express or 10 implied, whatsoever. 11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements) 13 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the claims alleged against 14 Defendant in the Complaint are barred by the failure of Plaintiffs to comply with the applicable statutory 15 requirements before filing this action. 16 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Not Intended Use) 18 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiffs was or were proximately caused 19 and contributed to by the use of the subject vehicle for a purpose for which it was not intended to be 20 used. Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that the subject vehicle was not used in a manner for 21 which the subject vehicle was manufactured or intended, and that such unintended use could cause 22 damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ recovery must be barred or reduced in proportion to the amount 23 attributable to the Plaintiffs’ use of the subject vehicle in an unintended manner. 24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Failure to Perform Maintenance) 26 Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Plaintiffs 27 28 3 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 and/or Plaintiffs’ agents, employees or representative, in that they negligently, carelessly, recklessly, 2 knowingly, and willfully operated, maintained, and serviced the subject vehicle which is the subject of 3 this lawsuit and/or directed and controlled all operations and maintenance of said subject vehicle. 4 Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, in whole or in part and/or were 5 contributed to or aggravated by the conduct of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ agents, employees or 6 representatives, when they so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, knowingly and willfully failed to repair 7 the said subject vehicle, knowing that said subject vehicle needed repair, but, instead proceeded to 8 operate, and otherwise make use of the subject vehicle and/or make improper and inadequate repairs to 9 said subject vehicle. Plaintiffs’ right to recovery should be barred or reduced by an amount equivalent 10 to such percentage of fault. 11 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (No Consequential Damages) 13 Defendant, in response to the Complaint and each of its causes of action, states that Plaintiffs’ 14 claims for consequential damages are specifically barred by the terms of the warranty in question and 15 applicable law. 16 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Privity) 18 Plaintiffs and Defendant were not in privity of contract wherefore Plaintiffs may not obtain the 19 requested relief from Defendant. 20 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Release) 22 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs have released Defendant 23 from any and all claims, including those raised in the Complaint. 24 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Qualified Third-Party Dispute Resolution Process) 26 Defendant maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process, which substantially 27 28 4 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 complies with section 1793.22 of the California Civil Code. Defendant is informed and believes, and 2 thereon alleges, Plaintiffs received timely and appropriate notification of the availability of the third- 3 party resolution process. Accordingly, since Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the third-party dispute 4 resolution process prior to filing this litigation, section 1794(e)(2) of the California Civil Code 5 affirmatively bars Plaintiffs from recovering damages for (i) attorney’s fees, (ii) costs, and (iii) treble 6 damages (as provide under California Civil Code section 1794(e)) and Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves 7 of the rebuttable presumption pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.22(b). 8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Compliance with the Law) 10 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for 11 Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because Defendant is in compliance with all 12 of the requirements under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. 13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Lack of Deception) 15 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for 16 Violation and Professions Code section 17200 because there was no deception on the part of Defendant 17 and the acts of Defendant would not likely mislead a reasonable person. 18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Adequate Remedy At Law) 20 Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state damages under the 21 cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because Plaintiff has an 22 adequate remedy at law. 23 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Economic Loss Rule) 25 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the economic loss rule as a matter of law. 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Binding Arbitration) 3 Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration provision. 4 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 (Reservation of Rights) 6 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to 7 whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right to 8 assert additional defenses in the event that they would be appropriate. 9 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 10 1. That Plaintiffs recover nothing by way of the Complaint; 11 2. That the present action be dismissed with prejudice; 12 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant for attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and 13 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 14 Dated: April 12, 2024 ROSEWALDORF LLP 15 By: 16 Mark W. Skanes Maria Cvetanoska 17 Attorneys for Defendant, MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF 18 BAKERSFIELD 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 DAVID GARCIA v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., a corporation; MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive 3 Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-24-100804 4 5 I, the undersigned, am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 4100 W. Alameda Ave., Suite 300 PMB 1038, Burbank, California 91505. On the date below, 6 I served the following document(s) described as: 7 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 8 To the following party or parties in this matter: 9 MFS Legal, Inc. Attorney for Plaintiff Neal F. Morrow III (SBN 295497) 10 Christopher Joo Hyung Im (SBN 333778) 5318 East 2nd Street, Suite 490 11 Long Beach, CA 90803 12 Tel: (562) 379-2654 Email: lawclerk@calemonlawteam.com (contact) 13 eservice@calemonlawteam.com (documents) 14 ☐ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the foregoing document(s) to be personally delivered to the above addressee(s) by One Legal, LLC via a registered process server pursuant to C.C.P. § 1011. 15 ☐ BY U.S. MAIL: By enclosing the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope to the addressee(s) 16 above and, under the firm’s ordinary course of business, placing said envelope(s) for pick-up and mailing pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and 17 processing of outgoing mail. Under that practice, the outgoing mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day as collected, with postage fully prepaid. 18 ☐ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the foregoing documents in a sealed envelope or 19 package to the addressee(s) listed above and placed said envelope or package for pick-up for overnight delivery via UPS under the firm’s ordinary course of business. I am familiar with the firm’s practice 20 of collecting and processing documents for overnight delivery via UPS. Under that practice, the envelope or package would be deposited for pick up by an authorized UPS courier or driver that same 21 day and delivered to the addressee(s) the following business day pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013. 22 ☒ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE/EMAIL: I electronically filed the document(s) with this Court using the Court’s designated electronic filing service provider, which sent notification of that filing to 23 the person(s) listed above to accept service by electronic transmission, and/or I caused the document(s) to be transmitted via electronic mail to the addressees as listed above pursuant to C.C.P. § 24 1010.6 and 1013(g), Cal. Rule of Court 2.251, and/or agreement or stipulation between the parties. 25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 26 Dated: April 12, 2024 Patricia Moore 27 Patricia Moore 28 7 DEFENDANT MCLB, INC. DBA MOTOR CITY LEXUS OF BAKERSFIELD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT