Preview
1 TODD H. MASTER [SBN. 185881] Exempt from Filing Fees
RIDLEY♦MASTER Pursuant to Government
2 1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280 Code Section 6103
San Mateo, CA 94403
3 Telephone: (650) 365-7715
Facsimile: (650) 364-5297
4 Email: tmaster@hrmrlaw.com
2/16/2023
5 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF MILLBRAE
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11
REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON, et al., Case No. 22-CIV-05181
12
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
13
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
vs. The Honorable Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21
14
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S
CITY OF MILLBRAE, et al.,
15 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
16 Defendants.
17
18
COMES NOW Defendant CITY OF MILLBRAE (“Defendant”) and hereby answers the
19
20 unverified complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON, ESTATE OF
21 ROLANDO GLORIOSO, CHRISTIAN CUNANAN; KATRYNE PIOQUINTO, JOHN
22 MATTHEW CUNANAN, AND ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO (hereinafter, collectively
23
referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and admits, denies and alleges as follows:
24
GENERAL DENIAL
25
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant
26
denies, generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and
27
purported cause of action contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant further denies, generally
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
1
1 and specifically, that Plaintiffs have been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at
2 all, by reason of any acts or omissions of this Defendant.
3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 2. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
5 that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this Defendant.
6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 3. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
8 denies any wrongdoing, negligence or liability on its part but, should it be determined that this
9 Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs, and/or any of them, then this Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs,
10 and/or any of them, including Plaintiffs’ decedents, were also legally at fault, and possibly others
11 as well, and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against this Defendant must be
12 reduced by that percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others.
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
14 4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
15 that Plaintiffs’ decedents acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding
16 their injuries and claimed damages and that said matters for which Plaintiffs’ decedents assumed
17 the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused their injuries and claimed damages.
18 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 5. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
20 alleges that Plaintiffs, and each of them, have failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which
21 they claim to have sustained, and their recovery, if any, should be barred or diminished
22 accordingly.
23 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
25 that this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the California Government Claims Act,
26 including, but not limited to California Government Code §§815, 815.2, 815.4, 818, 818.2, 818.4,
27
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
2
1 818.6, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.8, 822.2, 830, 830.2, 830.4, 830.5,
2 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.2, 831.25, 831.3, 831.4, 831.7, 831.8, 835, 835.2, 835.4, 840 and 840.6.
3 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
5 that this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations and, in particular,
6 the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 313 through 349.4 including, but not
7 limited to §§ 313, 335.1, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 338(j), 339, 340 and 342.
8 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
10 alleges that Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred by virtue of their failure to comply with
11 Government Code §§ 900 et seq. and particularly, Government Code §§ 901, 905, 910, 911.2,
12 911.4, 915, 935, 945.6, 945.8 and 946.6.
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
14 9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
15 alleges that had Plaintiffs’ decedents conducted a reasonable investigation of the property at issue
16 in this litigation prior to entering or using such property, they would have discovered the
17 underlying existing condition in the property that led to the injuries and damages alleged in the
18 Complaint.
19 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 10. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
21 by virtue of Plaintiffs’ decedents’ affirmative conduct Plaintiffs are estopped from making any
22 claim against this Defendant by reason of the doctrine of estoppel.
23 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 11. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges
25 that Plaintiffs, and each of them, lack standing to maintain this action.
26 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
3
1 alleges that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
2 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 13. As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
4 alleges that Plaintiffs has waived their right to maintain this action.
5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 14. As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
7 alleges that Plaintiffs’ decedents consented to any and all acts of the Defendant, and that such
8 consent was express and/or implied.
9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 15. As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
11 alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by virtue of Plaintiffs’
12 decedents’ conduct in causing the damages, if any, alleged by plaintiff under the doctrine of unclean
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13 hands.
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
14 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 16. As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
16 alleges that, as a matter of law, Defendant's conduct was not the legal, proximate or other cause of
17 Plaintiffs’ alleged injury or damages.
18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 17. As a sixteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
20 alleges that it has no independent knowledge, as of the filing of this answer, of all the facts
21 allegedly constituting the causes of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and based thereon, hereby
22 respectfully requests leave of court to amend this answer to include those affirmative defenses that
23 are revealed during the course of this answering Defendant's discovery.
24 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 18. As a seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
26 alleges that because the conditions alleged in the Complaint did not create a substantial risk of
27 injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
4
1 reasonably foreseeable that it will be used, there can be no dangerous condition of public property
2 for which Defendant may be liable to Plaintiffs.
3 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 19. As an eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant
5 alleges that the causes of action are frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation and therefore
6 Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038.
7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 20. As a nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges that the
9 damages and injuries claimed by Plaintiffs were caused by a natural occurrence.
10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 21. As a twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges that
12 Plaintiffs’ action is barred by virtue of the provisions of California Civil Code §846.
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by their
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
14 Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as to the Court
15 may deem reasonable and proper.
16 Date: February 16, 2023
17 RIDLEY♦MASTER
18
19
20 By:______________________________________
Todd H. Master
21
Attorneys for Defendant
22 CITY OF MILLBRAE
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
5
1 Regina Glorioso-Emerson, et al. v. City of Millbrae, et al.
San Mateo County Superior Court; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
2
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO:
5
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age
6 of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1900 O’Farrell
Street, Suite 280, San Mateo, CA 94403. On the date set forth below I served the DEFENDANT
7 CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the following person(s) in this
action:
8
9 Robert J. Ounjian ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Carpenter & Zuckerman REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON;
10 8827 West Olympic Boulevard ESTATE OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO;
Beverly Hills, CA 90211 CHRISTIAN CUNANAN;
11 Telephone: (310) 273-1230 KATRYNE PIOQUINTO;
Fax: (310) 858-1063 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and
12
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
Email: robert@cz.law ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Lemuel L. Garcia ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
14 Lem Garcia Law, PC REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON;
1720 West Cameron Avenue, Suite 210 ESTATE OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO;
15 West Covina, CA 91790 CHRISTIAN CUNANAN;
Telephone: (626) 337-1111 KATRYNE PIOQUINTO;
16
Fax: (626) 337-1112 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and
17 Email: lem@lemgarcialaw.com ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO
San Mateo County Superior Court COURTESY COPIES
18 Department 21 (PER ORDER)
Email: complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
19
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE, ONLY—Based on (1) a court order; or (2) agreement of the parties herein to accept
20 electronic service; or (3) notice of service by electronic mail due to Coronavirus (COVID-19), I caused the above-
described document(s) to be sent electronically, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the email
21 address(es) shown on the above Service List.”
(VIA MAIL -- CCP §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as
22 above, and placing each for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service
23 and correspondence placed for collection and mailing would be deposited in the U.S. Postal Service at San Mateo, California,
with postage thereon fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business.
24
(VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY -- CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s),
25 addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be hand delivered on that day by , in the ordinary course of my
firm's business practice.
26
///
27
///
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
6
1
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
2 direction the service was made. Executed on February 16, 2023, at San Mateo, California.
3
4
5
6 Faith Kelly
7
8
9
10
11
12
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
RIDLEY♦MASTER
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
13
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181
7
Preview
1 TODD H. MASTER [SBN. 185881] Exempt from Filing Fees RIDLEY♦MASTER Pursuant to Government 2 1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280 Code Section 6103 San Mateo, CA 94403 3 Telephone: (650) 365-7715 Facsimile: (650) 364-5297 4 Email: tmaster@hrmrlaw.com 2/16/2023 5 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF MILLBRAE 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON, et al., Case No. 22-CIV-05181 12 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: 13 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 vs. The Honorable Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21 14 DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S CITY OF MILLBRAE, et al., 15 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 16 Defendants. 17 18 COMES NOW Defendant CITY OF MILLBRAE (“Defendant”) and hereby answers the 19 20 unverified complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON, ESTATE OF 21 ROLANDO GLORIOSO, CHRISTIAN CUNANAN; KATRYNE PIOQUINTO, JOHN 22 MATTHEW CUNANAN, AND ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO (hereinafter, collectively 23 referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and admits, denies and alleges as follows: 24 GENERAL DENIAL 25 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant 26 denies, generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and 27 purported cause of action contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant further denies, generally 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 1 1 and specifically, that Plaintiffs have been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at 2 all, by reason of any acts or omissions of this Defendant. 3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 2. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 5 that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this Defendant. 6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 3. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 8 denies any wrongdoing, negligence or liability on its part but, should it be determined that this 9 Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs, and/or any of them, then this Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, 10 and/or any of them, including Plaintiffs’ decedents, were also legally at fault, and possibly others 11 as well, and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against this Defendant must be 12 reduced by that percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others. 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SAN MATEO, CA 94403 14 4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 15 that Plaintiffs’ decedents acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding 16 their injuries and claimed damages and that said matters for which Plaintiffs’ decedents assumed 17 the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused their injuries and claimed damages. 18 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 5. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 20 alleges that Plaintiffs, and each of them, have failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which 21 they claim to have sustained, and their recovery, if any, should be barred or diminished 22 accordingly. 23 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 25 that this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the California Government Claims Act, 26 including, but not limited to California Government Code §§815, 815.2, 815.4, 818, 818.2, 818.4, 27 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 2 1 818.6, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.8, 822.2, 830, 830.2, 830.4, 830.5, 2 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.2, 831.25, 831.3, 831.4, 831.7, 831.8, 835, 835.2, 835.4, 840 and 840.6. 3 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 5 that this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations and, in particular, 6 the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 313 through 349.4 including, but not 7 limited to §§ 313, 335.1, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 338(j), 339, 340 and 342. 8 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 10 alleges that Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred by virtue of their failure to comply with 11 Government Code §§ 900 et seq. and particularly, Government Code §§ 901, 905, 910, 911.2, 12 911.4, 915, 935, 945.6, 945.8 and 946.6. 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SAN MATEO, CA 94403 14 9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 15 alleges that had Plaintiffs’ decedents conducted a reasonable investigation of the property at issue 16 in this litigation prior to entering or using such property, they would have discovered the 17 underlying existing condition in the property that led to the injuries and damages alleged in the 18 Complaint. 19 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 10. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 21 by virtue of Plaintiffs’ decedents’ affirmative conduct Plaintiffs are estopped from making any 22 claim against this Defendant by reason of the doctrine of estoppel. 23 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 11. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges 25 that Plaintiffs, and each of them, lack standing to maintain this action. 26 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 3 1 alleges that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. 2 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 13. As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 4 alleges that Plaintiffs has waived their right to maintain this action. 5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 14. As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 7 alleges that Plaintiffs’ decedents consented to any and all acts of the Defendant, and that such 8 consent was express and/or implied. 9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 15. As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 11 alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by virtue of Plaintiffs’ 12 decedents’ conduct in causing the damages, if any, alleged by plaintiff under the doctrine of unclean 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 hands. SAN MATEO, CA 94403 14 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 16. As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 16 alleges that, as a matter of law, Defendant's conduct was not the legal, proximate or other cause of 17 Plaintiffs’ alleged injury or damages. 18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 17. As a sixteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 20 alleges that it has no independent knowledge, as of the filing of this answer, of all the facts 21 allegedly constituting the causes of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and based thereon, hereby 22 respectfully requests leave of court to amend this answer to include those affirmative defenses that 23 are revealed during the course of this answering Defendant's discovery. 24 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 18. As a seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 26 alleges that because the conditions alleged in the Complaint did not create a substantial risk of 27 injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 4 1 reasonably foreseeable that it will be used, there can be no dangerous condition of public property 2 for which Defendant may be liable to Plaintiffs. 3 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 19. As an eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant 5 alleges that the causes of action are frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation and therefore 6 Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038. 7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 20. As a nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges that the 9 damages and injuries claimed by Plaintiffs were caused by a natural occurrence. 10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 21. As a twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Defendant alleges that 12 Plaintiffs’ action is barred by virtue of the provisions of California Civil Code §846. 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by their SAN MATEO, CA 94403 14 Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as to the Court 15 may deem reasonable and proper. 16 Date: February 16, 2023 17 RIDLEY♦MASTER 18 19 20 By:______________________________________ Todd H. Master 21 Attorneys for Defendant 22 CITY OF MILLBRAE 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 5 1 Regina Glorioso-Emerson, et al. v. City of Millbrae, et al. San Mateo County Superior Court; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO: 5 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age 6 of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280, San Mateo, CA 94403. On the date set forth below I served the DEFENDANT 7 CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the following person(s) in this action: 8 9 Robert J. Ounjian ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Carpenter & Zuckerman REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON; 10 8827 West Olympic Boulevard ESTATE OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO; Beverly Hills, CA 90211 CHRISTIAN CUNANAN; 11 Telephone: (310) 273-1230 KATRYNE PIOQUINTO; Fax: (310) 858-1063 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and 12 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER Email: robert@cz.law ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 Lemuel L. Garcia ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 14 Lem Garcia Law, PC REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON; 1720 West Cameron Avenue, Suite 210 ESTATE OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO; 15 West Covina, CA 91790 CHRISTIAN CUNANAN; Telephone: (626) 337-1111 KATRYNE PIOQUINTO; 16 Fax: (626) 337-1112 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and 17 Email: lem@lemgarcialaw.com ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO San Mateo County Superior Court COURTESY COPIES 18 Department 21 (PER ORDER) Email: complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE, ONLY—Based on (1) a court order; or (2) agreement of the parties herein to accept 20 electronic service; or (3) notice of service by electronic mail due to Coronavirus (COVID-19), I caused the above- described document(s) to be sent electronically, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the email 21 address(es) shown on the above Service List.” (VIA MAIL -- CCP §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as 22 above, and placing each for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service 23 and correspondence placed for collection and mailing would be deposited in the U.S. Postal Service at San Mateo, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business. 24 (VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY -- CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), 25 addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be hand delivered on that day by , in the ordinary course of my firm's business practice. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 6 1 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose 2 direction the service was made. Executed on February 16, 2023, at San Mateo, California. 3 4 5 6 Faith Kelly 7 8 9 10 11 12 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 RIDLEY♦MASTER TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 13 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF MILLBRAE’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; Case No. 22-CIV-05181 7