Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Scott A. Butcher, #26940 2024 Jun 18 PM 7:08
CLERK OF THE FORD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. CASE NUMBER: FO-2024-CV-000094
324 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Pll COMPLIANT
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-7737
scott.butcher@crowedunlevy.com
IN THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT, FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
Renewa I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. FO-2024-CV-000094
Iron Star Wind Project, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and Iron Horse Wind Land
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.
Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60
RETURN OF SERVICE
I certify that I served a copy of the attached Summons (along with a copy of the Petition) on
Iron Star Wind Project, LLC, by causing to be delivered on the 13° day of June, 2024, the
documents by return receipt delivery to their registered service agent, Capitol Corporate Services,
Inc., 700 SW Jackson St. Ste. 100, Topeka, KS 66603, and delivery being made by the U.S. Postal
Service. A copy of the Summons, return receipt evidencing delivery, and an Affidavit of Service are
also attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.
Dated: June 18, 2024 s Scott A. Butcher
SCOTT A. BUTCHER, #26940
CROWE & DUNLEVY
A Professional Corporation
Braniff Building
324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
(405) 235-7737
(405) 272-5922 (Facsimile)
scott.butcher@crowedunlevy.com
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
RENEwA I, LLC
5602138v.1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2024 Jun 07 PM 1:12
CLERK OF THE FORD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
CASE NUMBER: FO-2024-CV-000094
Pll COMPLIANT
IN THE 16th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
Renewa |, LLC, )
Plaintiff, )
Vv ) Case No. FO-2024-CV-000094
lron Star Wind Project, LLC )
et. al.,
Defendant. )
Defendant's Name and Address
Iron Star Wind Project, LLC
c/o Registered Agent
Capitol Corporate Services,
Inc.
700 SW Jackson St., Ste.
100
Topeka, KS 66603
Proceeding Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60
SUMMONS
To: Iron Star Wind Project, LLC
(Defendant's name)
A civil lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you
received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached petition or a motion
under K.S.A. 60-212. Under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 113, you may seek from the
clerk of the court an extension of up to 14 additional days to serve and to file an answer
or a K.S.A. 60-212 motion.
EXHIBIT
1
Rev. 12/2022 KSJC
If you fail within 21 days to serve and to file an answer or a K.S.A. 60-212 motion or
obtain a Rule 113 extension, the court may enter default judgment against you for the relief
demanded in the petition. If you were served outside of Kansas, however, the court may
not enter default judgment against you until at least 30 days after service of this summons.
The answer or K.S.A. 60-212 motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, or
the plaintiff if plaintiff has no attorney, at the following address:
Scott Butcher
(Attorney's name or Plaintiff's name)
324 N ROBINSON AVE
SUITE 100
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK _ 73102
(Attorney's address or Plaintiff's address)
You also must file your answer or K.S.A. 60-212 motion with the court.
When you file an answer, you must state as a counterclaim(s) any related claim(s)
that you may have against the plaintiff. If you fail to do so, you will thereafter be barred
from making such claim(s) in any other action.
f
,
Clerk of the District Court.
By Kelly Co:
Clerk or Deputy
Documents to be served with the Summons
Rev. 12/2022 KSJC
ORO Jer] ora (=)
oft 8a] PMN en) ed =
Peace
ices Mon tn Oiitorenn ra
F |
(CertifiedMail Fee
“0
GEE & Fees (heck box, add foo as appropriate)
fRetum Receipt (hardcopy)
Cireturn Recelt (letronic) $
SS
Cicartiod
tai Resticted Dotvory VO
adut signature Regio €.
[Adur signature Restricted
Delivery $.
Postage
Postage
and Foes OKUN
eee “ botnd. Djeoks.. Lee
lop
PO
oC Ve
Peat eps Dackoon 3
2p Snes
Peeve mt my 7
ES}-4\
2) 5 oe)
7m ir ana 09 se) (oro Jest ets] easel Meo) 181334
@ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A. Signature
@ Print your name and address on the reverse Agent
so that we can return the card to you. X / Ls a 1D Addressee
ih a “2p
| Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, received “ Date of Deliver
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
AA BAe
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? [1 Yes
Iron Star Wind Project, LLC If YES, enter delivery address below: CNo
c/o Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
700 SW Jackson St Ste 100
Topeka, KS 66603
Service Type Priority Mail Express®
Il HY AL
9590 9402 7676 2122 7054 85
eee
it Signature
t Signature Restricted Delivery
jertitied Mail®
Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
Oi Registered Mail™
istered Mail Restricted
‘Signature Confirmation™
D Collecton Delivery 1D Signature Confirmation
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) O Collecton Delivery Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
7016 O340 GOO0 6216 O1452 Restricted Delivery
; PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt +
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA)
I, Scott A. Butcher, swear or affirm that the foregoing Return of Service of Summons is true
and correct.
Executed this 18" day of June, 2024.
-
Ly A iS =
Scott A. Butcher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18" day of June, 2024.
My Commission Expires:
KELLEY A. WII LLIAMS| :
NOTARY PUBLIC :
SUES. STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
ARTs
EANRHAT, Foie ott |
Related Content
in Ford County
Ruling
King, et al. vs. Tyner, et al.
Jul 22, 2024 |
23CV-0202922
KING, ET AL. VS. TYNER, ET AL.
Case Number: 23CV-0202922
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of arbitration or dismissal. The Court is in receipt of a
status report in which Plaintiff reports that the arbitration scheduled for July has been rescheduled to August 6 th
and 8th. The case will be continued to Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at 9:00 am for review regarding status of
arbitration or dismissal. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
United Business Bank vs. Lynne Bui
Jul 22, 2024 |
C23-02049
C23-02049
CASE NAME: UNITED BUSINESS BANK VS. LYNNE BUI
*HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY COMPELLING DEFTKHLORIS BIOSCIENCES TO PROVIDE
FURTHER RESPONSE, PRODUCE ALL RESPONSIVE DOCS, PROVIDE PRIVILEGE LOG FILED BY
PLAINTIFF
FILED BY:
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
Pursuant to a prior notice of stay of proceedings filed by plaintiff, a stay was filed in this lawsuit on
November 30, 2023. The court is aware of no further action concerning this stay. As a result,
plaintiff’s motion is off calendar.
Ruling
VASTUEZ vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Jul 25, 2024 |
CVSW2302060
DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED
VASTUEZ VS FORD MOTOR
CVSW2302060 COMPLAINT BY FORD MOTOR
COMPANY COMPANY
Tentative Ruling: OVERRULE the demurrer.
Although fraud claims require a heightened pleading standard, it is not practical to allege facts
showing how, when, and by what means something did not happen. (Alfaro v. Community
Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.) However,
if the concealment is based on providing false or incomplete statements, the pleadings must at
least set forth the substance of the statements at issue. Ibid. Additionally, the specificity
requirement of fraud is “relaxed when it is apparent from the allegations that the defendant
necessarily possesses knowledge of the facts.” (Quelimane Co. v. Steward Title Guaranty Co.
(1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 27.)
For fraudulent concealment to be actionable, defendant must have been under a duty to disclose
the facts to plaintiff. (People v. Highland Fed. Sav. & Loan (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1718;
Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 608-610.) A duty to disclose may arise (1)
when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had
exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively
conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; or (4) when the defendant makes partial
representations but also suppresses some material facts. (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1186.)
Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 (review granted 2/1/23,
S277568) addressed the sufficiency for concealment for pleading purposes in fraud in a lemon
law case. While this matter is up on review and is not binding authority, it is persuasive
authority. The Dhital court found that it was sufficient that plaintiffs alleged a transmission
defect in numerous vehicles, including the plaintiff’s, the defendant knew of the defect and the
hazards they posed, defendant had exclusive knowledge of the defect and failed to disclose that
information, defendant intended to deceive plaintiffs by concealing known defects, the plaintiffs
would not have purchased the car if they had known of the defects, and they suffered damages on
the sums paid to purchase the vehicle. Here, Plaintiff pleads the same facts as Dhital.
Plaintiff pleads that their vehicle experienced transmission slipping, hesitation, delayed
acceleration, delayed engagement, and shuddering. (FAC, ¶¶ 26 and 27.) Ford allegedly knew
that vehicles with the same transmission as Plaintiff (10R80) had a transmission defect that
resulted in hesitation, delayed, acceleration, and shuddering (FAC ¶ 29); Ford knew about the
issue but consumers did not as it was provided by testing data, consumer complaints, aggregate
warranty data, testing and other internal information (¶¶ 30 and 67); had Plaintiff known about
the defect, thet would not have purchased it (¶ 68); Ford issued multiple service bulletins about
the transmission (including notices regarding the make, model, and year of Plaintiff’s vehicle) (¶
31-39); and Ford continued to conceal the defect (¶ 68). This is sufficient for pleading purposes.
Ford argues that this cause of action fails because Plaintiff does not allege a transactional
relationship, which would give rise to a duty to disclose. Where material facts are known to one
party and not to the other, failure to disclose them is not actionable fraud unless there is some
relationship between the parties which gives rise to a duty to disclose such known facts.
(Hoffman, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 1178 at 1187.) A relationship between the parties is present if
there is “some sort of transaction between the parties,” i.e., between a seller and buyer, employer
and prospective employee, doctor and patient, and parties to a contract. (Id.) The First Amended
Complaint alleges that Ford supplied Plaintiff with an express warranty as part of their lease of
the vehicle. Ford fails to point to any authority that such a relationship does not constitute a
transaction between the parties.
Finally, the First Amended Complaint alleges that Ford had exclusive knowledge of the defect
based on pre-production testing data, early consumer complaints and its network of dealers,
aggregate warranty data compiled by Ford, testing conducted by Ford, and warranty repair and
part replacement data received by Ford. (FAC, ¶ 70(a).) It is alleged that this information is not
readily available to consumers. It appears that Plaintiff alleges that based on a number of facts
Ford knew that its product was defective. While it appears that some of these facts were known
to other entities – like the technical service bulletins and that repairs were being done, Ford cites
to no authority that all of the information that forms the basis of a defendant’s knowledge of an
issue must be known only to the defendant to establish exclusive knowledge of material fact. A
lot of this knowledge, like pre-product testing data, consumer complaints, testing done by Ford,
and the cumulative data of warranty repairs and replacements would not be known by individual
dealerships. For pleading purposes, these allegations are sufficient.
Finally, Plaintiff spends a significant amount of time discussing the economic loss rule. While
Defendant briefly mentions the economic loss rule in its moving papers, it does no legal analysis
and does not fully set forth an argument regarding this issue. As such, any argument that
Defendant was attempting to assert as to the economic loss rule fails.
Ruling
BIGBATTERY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS XI WANG, ET AL.
Jul 29, 2024 |
23CHCV02952
Case Number:
23CHCV02952
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
F47 Dept. F47
Date: 7/29/24
TRIAL DATE: 9/29/25
Case #23CHCV02952
MOTION FOR TRIAL SETTING PREFERENCE
Motion filed on 3/22/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BigBattery, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xi Wang; Defendants Bixia Liu, BatteryEvo, Inc. and IT Asset Partners, Inc.
NOTICE: ok (The motion was served on Responding Parties attorney at the time.
New counsel subsequently substituted in to represent Responding Parties).
RELIEF REQUESTED
: An order for trial setting precedence pursuant to CCP 1062.3.
RULING
: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a corporate dispute between Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BigBattery, Inc. (Big Battery/Company) and one of its shareholders, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xi Wang (Wang) who BigBattery claims to be a former officer and director.
In its complaint, BigBattery alleges that Wang used his access to its bank accounts to embezzle more than $660,000, and then used his position as an agent of BigBattery to seize and divert major shipments of the Company inventory to his own facility overseas in Panama for the purpose of relabeling and reselling the Company inventory as his own property and products and for his own profit.
BigBattery alleges Wang concurrently engaged in a broad scheme of publishing and disseminating false information to Company clients, business partners and vendors to divert attention from his own conduct and to poison the Companys existing and prospective business relationships to further divert, redirect and usurp these Company business relationships for his own gain and to the deliberate detriment of the Company.
As a result of Wangs alleged wrongful conduct, the Company removed Wang as an officer and director of the Company.
On 10/2/23, BigBattery filed this action against Wang, Bixia Liu, IT Asset Partners, Inc., BatteryEvo, Inc, and Does 1-10 for: (1) Conversion, (2) Concealment, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Trespass to Chattels, (5) Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations, (6) Negligence Misrepresentation, (7) Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage and (8) Violation of Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq. Intentional Infringement of Right of Integrity and Violation of Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)
In the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint, Wang alleges causes of action against BigBattery, Clifford Eric Lungren (Lungren) and Does 1-15 for: (1) Determining Directors of Corporation (Corporations Code 709), (2) Involuntary Dissolution of Corporation, (3) Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Imposition of Constructive Trust, and (6) Accounting.
On 3/22/24, BigBattery filed and served the instant motion seeking an order for trial setting precedence pursuant to CCP 1062.3.
No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.
ANALYSIS
The motion cites CCP 1060, CCP 1062.3 and CRC 3.729 in support of the relief requested.
CCP 1060 provides:
Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.
CCP 1062.3 provides:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b),
actions brought under the provisions of this chapter
shall be set for trial at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence may be given by law.
(b)
Any action brought under the provisions of this chapter
in which the plaintiff seeks any relief, in addition to a declaration of rights and duties, shall take such precedence only upon noticed motion and a showing that the action requires a speedy trial.
(emphasis added)
Neither the complaint nor the First Amended Cross-Complaint contain causes of action for declaratory relief brought under Title 14 of Miscellaneous Provisions, Chapter 8, Declaratory Relief, of the California Code of Civil Procedure beginning with CCP 1060 and ending with CCP 1062.5.
(
See
Complaint, generally; First Amended Cross-Complaint, generally).
As such, BigBattery has failed to establish that it is entitled trial preference under CCP 1062.3.
BigBattery also cites CRC 3.729(2) which provides:
In setting a case for trial, the court, at the initial case management conference or at any other proceeding at which the case is set for trial, must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant. These may include:
. . .
(2) Whether the case has statutory priority;
. . .
As noted above, BigBattery has failed to establish that the case has statutory priority as neither the complaint nor operative cross-complaint contain causes of action based on the statute relied on (i.e., CCP 1060).
Additionally, it does not appear that BigBatterys counsel raised the issue when the Court set the case for trial on 6/20/24.
(
See
6/20/24 Minute Order).
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.
Ruling
ARKADY BERGER ET AL VS. DAVID DEDIA ET AL
Jul 25, 2024 |
CGC23611334
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 25, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT DAVID DEDIA, OLGA DEDIA MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Continued to August 1, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 2.7B for Plaintiffs to lodge courtesy copies of the opposition papers, physical copies to be delivered to Department 501 by July 29, 2024.=(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
GALLO, EMELIA vs COHN, ARTHUR
Jul 27, 2024 |
CV-22-004006
CV-22-004006 – GALLO, EMELIA vs COHN, ARTHUR – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs – DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.
Ruling
Fontanila VS R.V. Esau Development Co., Inc.
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...) |
HG20063283
HG20063283: Fontanila VS R.V. Esau Development Co., Inc.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209)
filed by Miguelito C Fontanila (Cross-Defendant) + in Department 24
Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson
The Motion re: RE RV ESAUs INDIRECT CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF COURT
ORDER RENDERED OCTOBER 19 2022 FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES filed by
Margaret Fontanila, Miguelito C Fontanila on 07/05/2024 is Denied.
Plaintiffs’ motion for an order that Defendant is in contempt for violation of the Court’s October
19, 2022 order for payment of attorney fees is DENIED.
The Court’s October 19, 2022 order awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs against
Defendant in the amount of $4,622.83, but it did not set forth any date by which those fees and
costs had to be paid. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to pay those fees and costs by any particular
date is not amenable to contempt.
Plaintiffs are free to seek to enforce the October 19, 2022 order the same way they would seek to
enforce any monetary judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608,
615 and Lucky v. United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 143-
144.)
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Scott A. Butcher, #26940 2024 Jun 18 PM 7:08 CLERK OF THE FORD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. CASE NUMBER: FO-2024-CV-000094 324 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Pll COMPLIANT Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7737 scott.butcher@crowedunlevy.com IN THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT, FORD COUNTY, KANSAS Renewa I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Plaintiff, v. Case No. FO-2024-CV-000094 Iron Star Wind Project, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Iron Horse Wind Land Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60 RETURN OF SERVICE I certify that I served a copy of the attached Summons (along with a copy of the Petition) on Iron Star Wind Project, LLC, by causing to be delivered on the 13° day of June, 2024, the documents by return receipt delivery to their registered service agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 700 SW Jackson St. Ste. 100, Topeka, KS 66603, and delivery being made by the U.S. Postal Service. A copy of the Summons, return receipt evidencing delivery, and an Affidavit of Service are also attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. Dated: June 18, 2024 s Scott A. Butcher SCOTT A. BUTCHER, #26940 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7737 (405) 272-5922 (Facsimile) scott.butcher@crowedunlevy.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF RENEwA I, LLC 5602138v.1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2024 Jun 07 PM 1:12 CLERK OF THE FORD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER: FO-2024-CV-000094 Pll COMPLIANT IN THE 16th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF FORD COUNTY, KANSAS Renewa |, LLC, ) Plaintiff, ) Vv ) Case No. FO-2024-CV-000094 lron Star Wind Project, LLC ) et. al., Defendant. ) Defendant's Name and Address Iron Star Wind Project, LLC c/o Registered Agent Capitol Corporate Services, Inc. 700 SW Jackson St., Ste. 100 Topeka, KS 66603 Proceeding Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60 SUMMONS To: Iron Star Wind Project, LLC (Defendant's name) A civil lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached petition or a motion under K.S.A. 60-212. Under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 113, you may seek from the clerk of the court an extension of up to 14 additional days to serve and to file an answer or a K.S.A. 60-212 motion. EXHIBIT 1 Rev. 12/2022 KSJC If you fail within 21 days to serve and to file an answer or a K.S.A. 60-212 motion or obtain a Rule 113 extension, the court may enter default judgment against you for the relief demanded in the petition. If you were served outside of Kansas, however, the court may not enter default judgment against you until at least 30 days after service of this summons. The answer or K.S.A. 60-212 motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, or the plaintiff if plaintiff has no attorney, at the following address: Scott Butcher (Attorney's name or Plaintiff's name) 324 N ROBINSON AVE SUITE 100 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK _ 73102 (Attorney's address or Plaintiff's address) You also must file your answer or K.S.A. 60-212 motion with the court. When you file an answer, you must state as a counterclaim(s) any related claim(s) that you may have against the plaintiff. If you fail to do so, you will thereafter be barred from making such claim(s) in any other action. f , Clerk of the District Court. By Kelly Co: Clerk or Deputy Documents to be served with the Summons Rev. 12/2022 KSJC ORO Jer] ora (=) oft 8a] PMN en) ed = Peace ices Mon tn Oiitorenn ra F | (CertifiedMail Fee “0 GEE & Fees (heck box, add foo as appropriate) fRetum Receipt (hardcopy) Cireturn Recelt (letronic) $ SS Cicartiod tai Resticted Dotvory VO adut signature Regio €. [Adur signature Restricted Delivery $. Postage Postage and Foes OKUN eee “ botnd. Djeoks.. Lee lop PO oC Ve Peat eps Dackoon 3 2p Snes Peeve mt my 7 ES}-4\ 2) 5 oe) 7m ir ana 09 se) (oro Jest ets] easel Meo) 181334 @ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A. Signature @ Print your name and address on the reverse Agent so that we can return the card to you. X / Ls a 1D Addressee ih a “2p | Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, received “ Date of Deliver or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: AA BAe D. Is delivery address different from item 1? [1 Yes Iron Star Wind Project, LLC If YES, enter delivery address below: CNo c/o Capitol Corporate Services, Inc. 700 SW Jackson St Ste 100 Topeka, KS 66603 Service Type Priority Mail Express® Il HY AL 9590 9402 7676 2122 7054 85 eee it Signature t Signature Restricted Delivery jertitied Mail® Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Oi Registered Mail™ istered Mail Restricted ‘Signature Confirmation™ D Collecton Delivery 1D Signature Confirmation 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) O Collecton Delivery Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery 7016 O340 GOO0 6216 O1452 Restricted Delivery ; PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt + AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA) I, Scott A. Butcher, swear or affirm that the foregoing Return of Service of Summons is true and correct. Executed this 18" day of June, 2024. - Ly A iS = Scott A. Butcher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18" day of June, 2024. My Commission Expires: KELLEY A. WII LLIAMS| : NOTARY PUBLIC : SUES. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ARTs EANRHAT, Foie ott |