Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
Count of Placer
Lee A. Sherman (Bar No. 172198) 04/11/2024 at 03:38:05 PM
lsherman@ ctsclaw.com By: Laurel L Sanders
Shawn I. Pardo (Bar No. 315810) Deputy Clerk
spardo@ ctsclaw.com
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN
& CAUDILL, LLP
2601 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92614
Tel: (949) 261-2872
Fax: (949) 261-6060
Attorneys for Defendant,
CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER - BILL SANTUCCI JUSTICE CENTER
10
11 AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, guardian Case No.: S-CV-0049854
ad litem for MELISSA SULJIC, an
12 JUDGE: TRISHA HIRASHIMA
oO individual;
DEPARTMENT: 40
13 Plaintiff,
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
14 VS. CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
15 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR
CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS, a KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR
16 business entity; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
17 Defendants.
18 DATE: April 18, 2024
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
19 DEPT.: 3
20
21 COMPLAINT DATE: 02/02/2023
TRIAL DATE: 06/07/2024
22
23
24 Defendant CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS (“Defendant”) respectfully submits the
25 following Reply to Plaintiff AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, guardian ad litem for MELISSA
26 SULJIC’s (“Plaintiff”) Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony
27 of ASMIR KIKANOVICH (“Mr. Kikanovich”).
28 1
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion should be denied because Mr. Kikanovich is a non-
party witness and Plaintiff’s counsel, Jamil White (“Mr. White”) did not agree to accept service of
process on Mr. Kikanovich’s behalf. Mr. Kikanovich is the husband of Plaintiff and the father of
minor Melissa Suljic. At no time after Defendant initially served Mr. White with the Notice of
Deposition of Mr. Kikanovich on September 25, 2023, did he object to service or object to the
deposition notice. Instead, Mr. White provided deposition dates for Mr. Kikanovich, consistently
referred to Mr. Kikanovich as his “client”! and produced Mr. Kikanovich for deposition on February
6, 2024. Only after defense counsel suspended the deposition of Mr. Kikanovich did Mr. White
10 claim to refuse to accept service for Mr. Kikanovich. The law is clear that if the notice of deposition
11 is defective, the defect must be noticed by written objection. The party served with the defective
12 notice of deposition waives the defect unless that party serves a written objection at least three (3)
oO
13 calendar days priorto the date the deposition is scheduled. (C.C.P. § 2025.410) If Plaintiff believed
14 that the deposition notice of Mr. Kikanovich was defective and/or Mr. White did not have the
15 authority to accept service of the deposition notice on Mr. Kikanovich’s behalf, Plaintiff should have
16 noticed a formal written objection. Since no formal written objection was noticed (and Mr.
17 Kikanovich was produced for deposition pursuant to the deposition notice), any purported defect has
18 been waived.
19 Despite Defendant attaching the entirety of Mr. Kikanovich’s deposition transcript as Exhibit
20 A to the Declaration of Shawn I. Pardo in support of the Motion, Plaintiff's Opposition takes the
21 position that the deposition notice is somehow invalid because it wasn’t specifically attached as an
22 exhibit to the moving papers. As already mentioned, Plaintiff failed to notice a formal written
23 objection to the deposition notice of Mr. Kikanovich, so any purported defect has been waived. The
24 deposition transcript itself is evidence that Mr. Kikanovich was produced for deposition by Mr.
25
26
27
1 See, Ex. A to Pardo Decl. iso Mot. at 7:8; 8:16-17; 9:11; Ex. B to Pardo Decl.; Ex. 1 to White Decl. iso Opp. at p. 12;
Ex. 2 to White Decl. at 9:23.
28 2
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
White pursuant to Defendant’s deposition notice. Moreover, Plaintiff's Opposition admits “Plaintiff
agreed to produce Plaintiff and Asmir, a non-party witness...” (PIf. Opp. at 3:19.)
As already addressed in Defendant’s moving papers and Reply brief in support of its Motion
to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff, the record reflects that Plaintiff never
complained about the legibility of the exhibit presented to her; rather, the issue was that Plaintiff
could not read the “small print” of the exhibit because she chose to appear on her cell phone.” In
attempt to avoid this exact issue at Mr. Kikanovich’s deposition, defense counsel met and conferred
before, during and after the deposition of Plaintiff and the deposition of Mr. Kikanovich.
Nevertheless, Mr. Kikanovich appeared for his deposition on February 6, 2024, on his cell phone
10 thereby obligating defense counsel to suspend the deposition and seek judicial intervention.
11 II. THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW FURTHER EXAMINATION OF MR.
12 KIKANOVICH AND HAS AUTHORITY TO DO SO
oO
13 While Defendant’s moving papers provided ample authority for the Court to compel Mr.
14 Kikanovich to provide further deposition testimony (See, Def. Mot. pp. 5-6), Plaintiff argues
15 (without citing to a single supporting authority) that the Court “neither has jurisdiction nor any
16 authority to grant Defendant’s motion. ...” Moreover, Plaintiff doubles down on this incorrect notion
17 by arguing “...compelling the deposition of Asmir Kikanovich is a legal impossibility.”
18 Pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a), “If a deponent fails to answer any
19 question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the
20 deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party
21 seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”
22 Here, despite prior meet and confer efforts to avoid this exact issue, Mr. Kikanovich chose
23 to appear for his deposition on his cell phone rendering him unable to view exhibits, similar to
24 Plaintiff, and thereby failed to meaningfully participate. Mr. Kikanovich’s refusal to appear for
25 deposition by means which would allow him to see and answer questions relating to documents is
26
27
? Plaintiff disingenuously makes reference to the deposition transcript of Plaintiff, out of context, and fails to attach the
cited portions as an exhibit hereto.
28 3
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
sufficient grounds for Defendant to compel further deposition testimony pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2025.460(e). Defendant would be severely prejudiced if it was not afforded the
opportunity to question Mr. Kikanovich about directly relevant documents to this matter. As a result,
this Court has the authority to order Mr. Kikanovich’s attendance and testimony at a further
deposition on a computer with a webcam or other comparable means that ensures his ability to see,
review, and answer questions about exhibits presented to him.
Ill. IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IS MANDATORY
If a motion to compel under Section 2025.482(j) is granted, “[t]he court shall impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
10 or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production,
11 unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
12 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
oO
13 The purpose of discovery sanctions is... to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct
14 the problem presented. (See, Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.) Plaintiff
15 and Mr. White have improperly delayed discovery throughout this litigation. Defendant has been
16 forced to file multiple motions to compel in order to obtain basic discovery in this matter, including
17 motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, further deposition
18 testimony from Plaintiff and Mr. Kikanovich, which ultimately resulted in Defendant filing a
19 Motion to Continue Trial set to be heard on May 2, 2024. Even more shocking is Mr. White’s
20 incivility during the discovery process and abrasiveness during the meet and confer process.
21 Califomia Rules of Court, rule 9.7 provides in pertinent part: “As an officer of the court, I will strive
22 to conduct myselfat all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” Accordingly, Defendant believes
23 that the only way Mr. White’s misuse of the discovery process will cease is if sanctions are imposed.
24 Iv. CONCLUSION
25 Based upon Defendant’s moving papers and this Reply, Defendant respectfully requests this
26 Court grant its Motion to Compel Mr. Kikanovich to appear at deposition on a computer with a
27 webcam or other comparable means so he can be questioned about exhibits presented to him,
28 including relevant follow up questions; and impbse monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Mr.
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
1 White in the amount of $2,085.00 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Defendant has incurred
2 in bringing the instant Motion and Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process.
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN &
mn Sapy
DATED: April 11, 2024
Lee A. Sherman
Shawn I. Pardo
Attorneys for Defendant,
CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS
10
11
12
oO
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a
arty to the within action; my business address is 2601 Main Street, Suite 800, Irvine, California
92614.
On this date, April 11, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00
10 I enclosed a true copy of said documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons
noted below.
11
O (By United States Mail) I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our
12 firm’s ordinary business practices. I am familiar with our firm's practice for collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
13 collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal
Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid
14
O
15 t
(By overnight delivery) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or packa e provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed below. I place the envelope or
package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the
16 overnight delivery carrier.
O
17
18
(By messenger service) I served the documents by placii
addressed to the persons at the addresses below and providing
service for service.
‘th emthemto ina anprofessional
envelope or package
messenger
19 O (By fax transmission) Based on agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was
20 reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed
out, is attached.
21
(By electronic service) ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by emailing the
22 document(s) to the persons at the email address(es) listed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1010.6(e)(1) and (2), and § 1013(g) from [email] . No electronic message or other indication that
23 the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
24 oO (By personal service) I served the documents by delivering the envelope, by hand, to the
persons listed below.
25
O (By [Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) I caused the above-entitled documents to be served
26 through [Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) addressed to all parties appearing on the
[Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) electronic service list for the above-entitled case. The file
27 transmission was reported as completed and a cop of the
[Insert Name of Electronic Service Filing Receipt] ) pages will be maintained with the original
28 documents in our office. Service will be deemed effective as provided for in the Electronic Case
1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
signe d Proof of Service
Manat ement Order. I have complied with Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 2.257(a) and the original,
is available for review and copying at the request of the court or any party.
Executed on April 11, 2024, at Irvine, Califomia.
I declare under penal of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and
correct. I further declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
/s/ Zina V. Lomeli
ZINA V. LOMELI
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST
Case Name : Amra Kikanovich-Suljic, et al. v. California Family Fitness, et al.
Court : Placer County Superior Court
Case Number : S-CV-0049854
Nicole Hirschfield, Paralegal Attorney for Plaintiff,
LOUIS WHITE PC AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, Guardian
1700 Eureka Road, Suite 170 ad Litem for MELISSA SULJIC
Roseville, CA 95661
Tel: (916) 333-3613
Fax: (916) 274-4631
Email: jwhite@louiswhitelaw.com
nicole@louiswhitelaw.com
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“3
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, Count of Placer Lee A. Sherman (Bar No. 172198) 04/11/2024 at 03:38:05 PM lsherman@ ctsclaw.com By: Laurel L Sanders Shawn I. Pardo (Bar No. 315810) Deputy Clerk spardo@ ctsclaw.com CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP 2601 Main Street, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92614 Tel: (949) 261-2872 Fax: (949) 261-6060 Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER - BILL SANTUCCI JUSTICE CENTER 10 11 AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, guardian Case No.: S-CV-0049854 ad litem for MELISSA SULJIC, an 12 JUDGE: TRISHA HIRASHIMA oO individual; DEPARTMENT: 40 13 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 14 VS. CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 15 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS, a KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR 16 business entity; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 17 Defendants. 18 DATE: April 18, 2024 TIME: 8:30 a.m. 19 DEPT.: 3 20 21 COMPLAINT DATE: 02/02/2023 TRIAL DATE: 06/07/2024 22 23 24 Defendant CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS (“Defendant”) respectfully submits the 25 following Reply to Plaintiff AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, guardian ad litem for MELISSA 26 SULJIC’s (“Plaintiff”) Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony 27 of ASMIR KIKANOVICH (“Mr. Kikanovich”). 28 1 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion should be denied because Mr. Kikanovich is a non- party witness and Plaintiff’s counsel, Jamil White (“Mr. White”) did not agree to accept service of process on Mr. Kikanovich’s behalf. Mr. Kikanovich is the husband of Plaintiff and the father of minor Melissa Suljic. At no time after Defendant initially served Mr. White with the Notice of Deposition of Mr. Kikanovich on September 25, 2023, did he object to service or object to the deposition notice. Instead, Mr. White provided deposition dates for Mr. Kikanovich, consistently referred to Mr. Kikanovich as his “client”! and produced Mr. Kikanovich for deposition on February 6, 2024. Only after defense counsel suspended the deposition of Mr. Kikanovich did Mr. White 10 claim to refuse to accept service for Mr. Kikanovich. The law is clear that if the notice of deposition 11 is defective, the defect must be noticed by written objection. The party served with the defective 12 notice of deposition waives the defect unless that party serves a written objection at least three (3) oO 13 calendar days priorto the date the deposition is scheduled. (C.C.P. § 2025.410) If Plaintiff believed 14 that the deposition notice of Mr. Kikanovich was defective and/or Mr. White did not have the 15 authority to accept service of the deposition notice on Mr. Kikanovich’s behalf, Plaintiff should have 16 noticed a formal written objection. Since no formal written objection was noticed (and Mr. 17 Kikanovich was produced for deposition pursuant to the deposition notice), any purported defect has 18 been waived. 19 Despite Defendant attaching the entirety of Mr. Kikanovich’s deposition transcript as Exhibit 20 A to the Declaration of Shawn I. Pardo in support of the Motion, Plaintiff's Opposition takes the 21 position that the deposition notice is somehow invalid because it wasn’t specifically attached as an 22 exhibit to the moving papers. As already mentioned, Plaintiff failed to notice a formal written 23 objection to the deposition notice of Mr. Kikanovich, so any purported defect has been waived. The 24 deposition transcript itself is evidence that Mr. Kikanovich was produced for deposition by Mr. 25 26 27 1 See, Ex. A to Pardo Decl. iso Mot. at 7:8; 8:16-17; 9:11; Ex. B to Pardo Decl.; Ex. 1 to White Decl. iso Opp. at p. 12; Ex. 2 to White Decl. at 9:23. 28 2 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 White pursuant to Defendant’s deposition notice. Moreover, Plaintiff's Opposition admits “Plaintiff agreed to produce Plaintiff and Asmir, a non-party witness...” (PIf. Opp. at 3:19.) As already addressed in Defendant’s moving papers and Reply brief in support of its Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff, the record reflects that Plaintiff never complained about the legibility of the exhibit presented to her; rather, the issue was that Plaintiff could not read the “small print” of the exhibit because she chose to appear on her cell phone.” In attempt to avoid this exact issue at Mr. Kikanovich’s deposition, defense counsel met and conferred before, during and after the deposition of Plaintiff and the deposition of Mr. Kikanovich. Nevertheless, Mr. Kikanovich appeared for his deposition on February 6, 2024, on his cell phone 10 thereby obligating defense counsel to suspend the deposition and seek judicial intervention. 11 II. THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW FURTHER EXAMINATION OF MR. 12 KIKANOVICH AND HAS AUTHORITY TO DO SO oO 13 While Defendant’s moving papers provided ample authority for the Court to compel Mr. 14 Kikanovich to provide further deposition testimony (See, Def. Mot. pp. 5-6), Plaintiff argues 15 (without citing to a single supporting authority) that the Court “neither has jurisdiction nor any 16 authority to grant Defendant’s motion. ...” Moreover, Plaintiff doubles down on this incorrect notion 17 by arguing “...compelling the deposition of Asmir Kikanovich is a legal impossibility.” 18 Pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a), “If a deponent fails to answer any 19 question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the 20 deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party 21 seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” 22 Here, despite prior meet and confer efforts to avoid this exact issue, Mr. Kikanovich chose 23 to appear for his deposition on his cell phone rendering him unable to view exhibits, similar to 24 Plaintiff, and thereby failed to meaningfully participate. Mr. Kikanovich’s refusal to appear for 25 deposition by means which would allow him to see and answer questions relating to documents is 26 27 ? Plaintiff disingenuously makes reference to the deposition transcript of Plaintiff, out of context, and fails to attach the cited portions as an exhibit hereto. 28 3 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 sufficient grounds for Defendant to compel further deposition testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.460(e). Defendant would be severely prejudiced if it was not afforded the opportunity to question Mr. Kikanovich about directly relevant documents to this matter. As a result, this Court has the authority to order Mr. Kikanovich’s attendance and testimony at a further deposition on a computer with a webcam or other comparable means that ensures his ability to see, review, and answer questions about exhibits presented to him. Ill. IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IS MANDATORY If a motion to compel under Section 2025.482(j) is granted, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, 10 or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, 11 unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other 12 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” oO 13 The purpose of discovery sanctions is... to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct 14 the problem presented. (See, Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.) Plaintiff 15 and Mr. White have improperly delayed discovery throughout this litigation. Defendant has been 16 forced to file multiple motions to compel in order to obtain basic discovery in this matter, including 17 motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, further deposition 18 testimony from Plaintiff and Mr. Kikanovich, which ultimately resulted in Defendant filing a 19 Motion to Continue Trial set to be heard on May 2, 2024. Even more shocking is Mr. White’s 20 incivility during the discovery process and abrasiveness during the meet and confer process. 21 Califomia Rules of Court, rule 9.7 provides in pertinent part: “As an officer of the court, I will strive 22 to conduct myselfat all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” Accordingly, Defendant believes 23 that the only way Mr. White’s misuse of the discovery process will cease is if sanctions are imposed. 24 Iv. CONCLUSION 25 Based upon Defendant’s moving papers and this Reply, Defendant respectfully requests this 26 Court grant its Motion to Compel Mr. Kikanovich to appear at deposition on a computer with a 27 webcam or other comparable means so he can be questioned about exhibits presented to him, 28 including relevant follow up questions; and impbse monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Mr. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 1 White in the amount of $2,085.00 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Defendant has incurred 2 in bringing the instant Motion and Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process. CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & mn Sapy DATED: April 11, 2024 Lee A. Sherman Shawn I. Pardo Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS 10 11 12 oO 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a arty to the within action; my business address is 2601 Main Street, Suite 800, Irvine, California 92614. On this date, April 11, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAMILY FITNESS’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ASMIR KIKANOVICH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,085.00 10 I enclosed a true copy of said documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons noted below. 11 O (By United States Mail) I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our 12 firm’s ordinary business practices. I am familiar with our firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for 13 collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid 14 O 15 t (By overnight delivery) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or packa e provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed below. I place the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the 16 overnight delivery carrier. O 17 18 (By messenger service) I served the documents by placii addressed to the persons at the addresses below and providing service for service. ‘th emthemto ina anprofessional envelope or package messenger 19 O (By fax transmission) Based on agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was 20 reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. 21 (By electronic service) ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by emailing the 22 document(s) to the persons at the email address(es) listed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(e)(1) and (2), and § 1013(g) from [email] . No electronic message or other indication that 23 the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 24 oO (By personal service) I served the documents by delivering the envelope, by hand, to the persons listed below. 25 O (By [Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) I caused the above-entitled documents to be served 26 through [Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) addressed to all parties appearing on the [Insert Electronic Service Provider] ) electronic service list for the above-entitled case. The file 27 transmission was reported as completed and a cop of the [Insert Name of Electronic Service Filing Receipt] ) pages will be maintained with the original 28 documents in our office. Service will be deemed effective as provided for in the Electronic Case 1- PROOF OF SERVICE signe d Proof of Service Manat ement Order. I have complied with Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 2.257(a) and the original, is available for review and copying at the request of the court or any party. Executed on April 11, 2024, at Irvine, Califomia. I declare under penal of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I further declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. /s/ Zina V. Lomeli ZINA V. LOMELI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST Case Name : Amra Kikanovich-Suljic, et al. v. California Family Fitness, et al. Court : Placer County Superior Court Case Number : S-CV-0049854 Nicole Hirschfield, Paralegal Attorney for Plaintiff, LOUIS WHITE PC AMRA KIKANOVICH-SULJIC, Guardian 1700 Eureka Road, Suite 170 ad Litem for MELISSA SULJIC Roseville, CA 95661 Tel: (916) 333-3613 Fax: (916) 274-4631 Email: jwhite@louiswhitelaw.com nicole@louiswhitelaw.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “3 PROOF OF SERVICE