Preview
Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2484CV01317
CIVIL DOCKET NO. Trial Court of Massachusetts
Summons
SR 2484CV01317
The Superior Court
CASE NAME:
John E. Powers III GiSrk of Courts
Suffolk County
CFGI, LLC COURT NAME & ADDRESS:
Plaintiff(s) Suffolk Superior Civil Court
vs.
Three Pemberton Square
Boston, MA. 02108
CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP.
F/K/A HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP.
Defendant(s)
CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP.
THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED ToF/K/A HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP,
(Defendant's name)
You are being sued. The Plaintiff(s) named above has started a lawsuit against you. A copy of the Plaintiff's Complaint filed
against you is attached to this Summons and the original Complaint has been filed in the Suffolk Superior Court.
YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
1. You must respond to this lawsuit in writing within 20 days.
lf you do not respond, the Court may decide the case against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the Complaint.
You will also lose the opportunity to tell your side of the story. You must respond to this lawsuit in writing even if you expect to
resolve this matter with the Plaintiff. If you need more time to respond, you may request an extension of time in writing
from the Court.
2. How to Respond.
To respond to this lawsuit, you must file a written response with the Court and mail a copy to the Plaintiff's attorney (or the
Plaintiff, if unrepresented). You can do this by:
a) Filing your signed original response with the Clerk's Office for Civil Business, Suffolk Superior Court
Three Pemberton Sq., 12th Fir., Boston, MA 02108 (address), by mail, in person, or electronically through
the web portal www.eFileMA.com if the Cornplaint was e-filed through that portal, AND
b) Delivering or mailing a copy of your response to the Plaintiff's attorney/Plaintiff at the following address:
Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. and Colin T. Barrett, Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP
One Financial Center, Suite 3500, Boston, MA 02111
3. What to Include in Your Response.
An "Answer" is one type of response to a Complaint. Your Answer must state whether you agree or disagree with the fact(s)
alleged in each paragraph of the Complaint. Some defenses, called affirmative defenses, must be stated in your Answer or
you may lose your right to use them in Court. If you have any claims against the Plaintiff (referred to as "counterclaims") that
are based on the same facts or transaction described in the Complaint, then you must include those claims in your Answer.
Otherwise, you may lose your right to sue the Plaintiff about anything related to this lawsuit. If you want to have your case
heard by a jury, you must specifically request a jury trial in your Court no more than 10 days after sending your Answer.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM
Su rior_Court. Suffolk
Docket Number 2484CV01317
3. (cont.) Another way to respond to a Complaint is by filing a "Motion to Dismiss," if you believe that the Complaint is
legally invalid or legally insufficient. A Motion to Dismiss must be based on one of the legal deficiencies or reasons listed
under Rule 12 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. If you are filing a Motion to Dismiss, you must follow
the filing rules for "Civil Motions in Superior Court," available at:
www.mass.gov/law-library/massachusetts-superior-court-rules
4. Legal Assistance.
You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you cannot get legal help, some basic information for people who represent
themselves is available at www.mass.gov/courts/selfhelp.
5. Required Information on All Filings.
The "Civil Docket No." appearing at the top of this notice is the case number assigned to this case and must appear on the
front of your Answer or Motion to Dismiss. You should refer to yourself as the "Defendant."
Witness Hon. Michael D, Ricciuti , Chief Justice on May 28, 120 24 . (Seal)
Acting Clerk Sh fe
Note: The docket number assigned to the original Complaint by the Clerk should be stated on this Summons before it is
served on the Defendant(s).
PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
| hereby certify that on , | served a copy of this Summons, together with a copy of the Complaint
in this action, on the Defendant named in this Summons, in the following manner (See Rule 4(d)(1-5) of the Massachusetts
Rules of Civil Procedure):
a —
Dated:
Signature:
N.B. TO PROCESS SERVER:
PLEASE ENTER THE DATE THAT YOU MADE SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT IN THIS BOX - BOTH ON THE ORIGINAL
SUMMONS AND ON THE COPY OF THE SUMMONS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT.
See: Affidavit of Service
Date:
rev. 1/2023
Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2484CV01317
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
enemies Civil Action No. 2484CV01317
CFGI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP.
{/k/a HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP.
Defendant,
srcometh pe menen cementite aipangrenenartinissarennte
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, John R. White, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is over the age of eighteen
years, is an agent of Beacon Hill Research, Inc., and is nota party to this action, being duly
appointed special process server.
That on the 29th day of May, 2024 at approximately the time of 9:42 am PDT, I served
the following documents upon Heather Close as person authorized to accept service on behalfof
United States Corporation Agents, Inc. as Resident Agent for the defendant Cunningham Natural
Resources Corp. f/k/a Houston Natural Resources Corp. at 6605 Grand Montecito Parkway,
Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89149:
y) Summons
2) Complaint
3) Civil Action Cover Sheet
4) Tracking Order
5) {Allowed) Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server 4
LA
John hi rent for
Beacon ill Research, Inc.
Appointed Special Process Server
Pursuant to MRCP 4(c)
Related Content
in Suffolk County
Ruling
MORA vs DPEP, INC.
Jul 23, 2024 |
CVSW2303245
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
CVSW2303245 MORA VS DPEP, INC. INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS BY JOSHUA MORA,
SHANNON MORA
Tentative Ruling: Take the hearing on the motion off calendar. The parties are ordered to meet
and confer further. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences, then they should request
an IDC (Informal Discovery Conference). If after an IDC the court is unable to help the parties
resolve any remaining issues, then the court will re-calendar the hearing on the motion.
A motion to compel further responses to SPROGs must be accompanied by a declaration
describing in detail the reasonable and good-faith efforts that each party has made to resolve
informally each issue presented by the motion. (C.C.P. §§2016.040, C.C.P. § 2030.300(b)(1).)
Each party must “confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney,”
and make a “reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning
discovery”; failure by any party to do so is a misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P.
2023.010(i).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to force lawyers to reexamine
their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling
upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016-17.) Evaluating whether a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to meet
and confer was made requires an “evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable
person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appears likely to bear fruit.”
(Clement v. Alegra (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The level of effort that is reasonable is
different in different circumstances and may vary with the prospects for success, but the law
requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.
(Ibid.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel sent one letter to FCA’s counsel, who responded and also extended Plaintiffs’
motion to compel deadline. (Decl. of Armando Lopez [“Lopez Decl.”] at ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiffs made
no other attempts to resolve these matters before filing the motion. Had the parties properly met
and conferred, at least some of the issues in this motion likely could have been resolved.
Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs did not meet their statutory obligation to make a good faith
attempt to resolve the issues raised by the motion.
Ruling
SARGON RESTORATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MORRISON STUDIOS, LTD. L.P.
Jul 26, 2024 |
23BBCV01735
Case Number:
23BBCV01735
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
NCB
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
North Central District
Department B
sargon restoration, inc.
,
et al.
,
Plaintiffs,
v.
morrison studios, ltd. lp
,
Defendant.
Case No.:
23BBCV01735
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
[
TENTATIVE] order RE:
Motion for attorneys fees pursuant to CCP § 8488 in the amount of $4,550.00
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiffs Sargon Restoration, Inc. (Restoration), Environmental Abatement, Inc. (Abatement), and L.Y. Environmental, Inc. (L.Y.) allege that they each entered into an agreement with Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P. (Defendant) by which Plaintiffs each agreed to furnish certain labor, services, equipment, and materials for a work of improvement at the property located at 5001 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, CA 91601.
Plaintiffs allege that they performed all conditions and obligations required, but Defendants breached their contractual obligations by failing and refusing to compensate each of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the reasonable value and market price of said labor, services, equipment, and materials when provided and at all relevant times herein mentioned and now is as follows: (1) the sum of $378,950.05 to Restoration for fire and water restoration &; (2) the sum of $16,000.00 to Abatement for construction and fire/water restoration &; and (3) the sum of $6,375.00 to L.Y. for environmental testing&.
(FAC, ¶13, Exs. B-D.)
The first amended complaint (FAC), filed July 2, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract (Restoration); (2) breach of oral contract (Abatement); (3) breach of oral contract (L.Y.); (4) Quantum Meruit (Restoration); (5) Quantum Meruit (Abatement); and (6) Quantum Meruit (L.Y.).
B.
Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar
On April 30, 2024, Defendant filed a petition for removal of the mechanics lien on the property located at 5001 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91601.
On May 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief.
On May 16, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief.
On May 31, 2024, the Court granted Defendants petition to release the property from the mechanics lien.
On May 31, 2024, the Court signed the Order on the Petition to Remove Mechanics Lien from Property Pursuant to Civil Code, § 8480.
LEGAL STANDARD
Civil Code, § 8488 states:
(a) At the hearing both (1) the petition [for an order to release the property from the claim of lien] and (2) the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article are deemed controverted by the claimant. The
petitioner has the initial burden of producing evidence on those matters.
The petitioner has the burden of proof as to the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article. The
claimant
has the burden of proof as to the validity of the lien.
(b) If judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order the property released from the claim of lien.
(c)
The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
.
(Civ. Code, § 8488 [emphasis added].)
DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for attorneys fees in the amount of $4,550.00 pursuant to Civil Code, § 8488(c).
[1]
In opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant succeeded on the merits of its petition but argue that the attorneys fees claimed are excessive.
(Opp. at p.2.)
Plaintiff does not take issue with defense counsels hourly rate of $350, but argues that the 13 hours she spent on a simple petition in light of her accomplished experience is unreasonable when Defendants motion to remove the lien and the motion for attorneys fees appear to be forms that were reproduced with dates and information to fill in.
(
Id.
)
As stated above, the parties do not dispute that Defendant prevailed on the petition for removal of the mechanics lien.
As such, Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees from Plaintiffs.
The only issue is whether the $4,550.00 requested by Defendant is reasonable in amount.
Defense counsel, Araksya Boyadzhyan, provides her declaration in support of the motion for attorneys fees.
Ms. Boyadzhyan states that her hourly rate is currently $350/hour.
(Boyadzhyan Decl., ¶5.) She details her legal experience; she was admitted into practice in Claifornia in December 2014 and spearheaded Mgdesyan Law Firms civil litigation department.
(
Id.
, ¶¶6-7.)
She states that she spent 13 hours on this action, which included: 0
.5 hour expended drafting correspondence and meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs counsel regarding the removal of the mechanics lien; .4 hours researching in preparing the Petition; 3 hours expending in drafting the Petition to Remove the Mechanics Lien, the Request for Judicial Notice, and my declaration in support of the Petition; 2 hours expended on researching and drafting the Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the Petition; 1 hour to attend the hearing on the Petition; 0.5 hour expended drafting the Proposed Order on Removal of the Mechanics Lien; and 2 hours expended in researching and drafting the instant motion for attorneys fees.
(
Id.
, ¶8.)
Ms.
Boyadzhyan anticipates spending additional time if the motion for attorneys fees is opposed.
(
Id.
, ¶9.)
Plaintiffs argue that Ms.
Boyadzhyans 4 hours spent in researching to prepare the petition and 3 hours to draft the petition are unreasonable in light of Plaintiffs belief that the petition was clearly a form documents with dates and names filled in.
(Opp. at p.2.)
They also argue that spending 2 hours on this motion for attorneys fees is also unreasonable when it is a form motion with stock declarations with blanks filled in.
(
Id.
)
The Court finds that the time spent by Ms. Boyadzhyan to research and prepare the Petition is not unreasonable.
The Court will not make a determination regarding whether the Petition or this attorneys fees motion were forms as claimed by Plaintiffs.
Regardless of whether they were form documents, Ms. Boyadzhyan would still have had to have expended time to research the law and the facts of the particular case before her, prepare the Petition and attorneys fees motion, and draft the requisite accompanying papers (declarations, requests for judicial notice, etc.).
The expenditure of 13 hours for two law and motion matters is not unreasonably high.
Ms. Boyadzhyan has adequately explained the time she has spent and the Court sees no grounds to reduce the fees.
The requested sum is reasonable for the work done on the Petition and the attorneys fees motion and is not excessive in amount.
The motion for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $4,550.00.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P.s motion for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $4,550.00.
Defendant shall provide notice of this order.
DATED: July 26, 2024
___________________________
John J. Kralik
Judge of the Superior Court
[1]
(The Court notes that Defendants make reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, § 8488, but the correct section is
Civil Code
, § 8488(c).)
Ruling
GUADALUPE AGBABIAKA VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
Jul 24, 2024 |
CGC23606379
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, Jul-24-2024, Line 2, PLAINTIFF GUADALUPE AGBABIAKA's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Request For Production From Defendant Ford Motor Company, And Request For Sanctions. Off calendar per notice of settlement of entire case filed July 11, 2024. (D302)
Ruling
NOTARO vs REYNOLDS, et al.
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Contractual Fraud) |
23CV028479
23CV028479: NOTARO vs REYNOLDS, et al.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant Janelle P. Santi's Notice of Demurrer and
Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 07/19/2024 Jenna Whitman
The Hearing on Demurrer Defendant Janelle P. Santi's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to
Plaintiff's Complaint scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 11/21/2024 at 03:00 PM in
Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .
Ruling
JAMES BRADY III VS. SUNRUN, INC. ET AL
Jul 23, 2024 |
CGC23606778
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 5. DEFENDANT SUNRUN INC.'s MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND. The motion is granted as unopposed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)
Ruling
JOHN A. KITHAS VS. BRANDILYNN S. THOMAS
Jul 25, 2024 |
CGC23608309
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 25, 2024, Line 13. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL AS TO DEFENDANT. Hearing required re apparent lack of emergency circumstances. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
LELAND SPELMAN, ET AL VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL
Jul 23, 2024 |
CIV2202485
DATE: 07/19/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: E CASE NO: CIV2202485
PRESIDING: HON. ANDREW SWEET
REPORTER: CLERK:
PLAINTIFF: LELAND SPELMAN, ET
AL
vs.
DEFENDANT: STATE FARM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL
2) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
3) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL
RULING
The following persons are ordered to appear:
1 Merlin Law Group (counsel for Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman)
2. Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B)
to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in
person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in
accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the
announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for July, 2024 is as follows:
https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1605153328?pwd=eUU1 OE9BTG5tWHgrOFNK Mm Vvd2tFQT09
Meeting ID: 160 515 3328
Passcode: 360075
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252
and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on
the Court’s website: marin,.courts.ca.go
Ruling
KC DBW D1, LLC vs WILLIAM SUMP, II, et al
Jul 28, 2024 |
22CV01122
22CV01122
KC DBW D1, LLC v. SC BLOOM NETWORK, INC., WILLIAM JOSEPH SUMP, II
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF KC DBW D1, LLC’S MOTION TO ENTER
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §664.6
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 and the stipulation entered between the
parties (Gallagher Declaration, Exhibit A), judgment in the sum of $63,959.09 ($47,180.00 plus
late penalties of $4,718, and costs and fees of $12,061.09) will be entered in favor of plaintiff
and against defendant SC Bloom Network, Inc.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Preview
Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2484CV01317 CIVIL DOCKET NO. Trial Court of Massachusetts Summons SR 2484CV01317 The Superior Court CASE NAME: John E. Powers III GiSrk of Courts Suffolk County CFGI, LLC COURT NAME & ADDRESS: Plaintiff(s) Suffolk Superior Civil Court vs. Three Pemberton Square Boston, MA. 02108 CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP. Defendant(s) CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP. THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED ToF/K/A HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP, (Defendant's name) You are being sued. The Plaintiff(s) named above has started a lawsuit against you. A copy of the Plaintiff's Complaint filed against you is attached to this Summons and the original Complaint has been filed in the Suffolk Superior Court. YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. 1. You must respond to this lawsuit in writing within 20 days. lf you do not respond, the Court may decide the case against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the Complaint. You will also lose the opportunity to tell your side of the story. You must respond to this lawsuit in writing even if you expect to resolve this matter with the Plaintiff. If you need more time to respond, you may request an extension of time in writing from the Court. 2. How to Respond. To respond to this lawsuit, you must file a written response with the Court and mail a copy to the Plaintiff's attorney (or the Plaintiff, if unrepresented). You can do this by: a) Filing your signed original response with the Clerk's Office for Civil Business, Suffolk Superior Court Three Pemberton Sq., 12th Fir., Boston, MA 02108 (address), by mail, in person, or electronically through the web portal www.eFileMA.com if the Cornplaint was e-filed through that portal, AND b) Delivering or mailing a copy of your response to the Plaintiff's attorney/Plaintiff at the following address: Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. and Colin T. Barrett, Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP One Financial Center, Suite 3500, Boston, MA 02111 3. What to Include in Your Response. An "Answer" is one type of response to a Complaint. Your Answer must state whether you agree or disagree with the fact(s) alleged in each paragraph of the Complaint. Some defenses, called affirmative defenses, must be stated in your Answer or you may lose your right to use them in Court. If you have any claims against the Plaintiff (referred to as "counterclaims") that are based on the same facts or transaction described in the Complaint, then you must include those claims in your Answer. Otherwise, you may lose your right to sue the Plaintiff about anything related to this lawsuit. If you want to have your case heard by a jury, you must specifically request a jury trial in your Court no more than 10 days after sending your Answer. Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM Su rior_Court. Suffolk Docket Number 2484CV01317 3. (cont.) Another way to respond to a Complaint is by filing a "Motion to Dismiss," if you believe that the Complaint is legally invalid or legally insufficient. A Motion to Dismiss must be based on one of the legal deficiencies or reasons listed under Rule 12 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. If you are filing a Motion to Dismiss, you must follow the filing rules for "Civil Motions in Superior Court," available at: www.mass.gov/law-library/massachusetts-superior-court-rules 4. Legal Assistance. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you cannot get legal help, some basic information for people who represent themselves is available at www.mass.gov/courts/selfhelp. 5. Required Information on All Filings. The "Civil Docket No." appearing at the top of this notice is the case number assigned to this case and must appear on the front of your Answer or Motion to Dismiss. You should refer to yourself as the "Defendant." Witness Hon. Michael D, Ricciuti , Chief Justice on May 28, 120 24 . (Seal) Acting Clerk Sh fe Note: The docket number assigned to the original Complaint by the Clerk should be stated on this Summons before it is served on the Defendant(s). PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS | hereby certify that on , | served a copy of this Summons, together with a copy of the Complaint in this action, on the Defendant named in this Summons, in the following manner (See Rule 4(d)(1-5) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure): a — Dated: Signature: N.B. TO PROCESS SERVER: PLEASE ENTER THE DATE THAT YOU MADE SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT IN THIS BOX - BOTH ON THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND ON THE COPY OF THE SUMMONS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT. See: Affidavit of Service Date: rev. 1/2023 Date Filed 5/31/2024 7:49 AM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2484CV01317 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT enemies Civil Action No. 2484CV01317 CFGI, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CUNNINGHAM NATURAL RESOURCES CORP. {/k/a HOUSTON NATURAL RESOURCES CORP. Defendant, srcometh pe menen cementite aipangrenenartinissarennte AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, John R. White, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is over the age of eighteen years, is an agent of Beacon Hill Research, Inc., and is nota party to this action, being duly appointed special process server. That on the 29th day of May, 2024 at approximately the time of 9:42 am PDT, I served the following documents upon Heather Close as person authorized to accept service on behalfof United States Corporation Agents, Inc. as Resident Agent for the defendant Cunningham Natural Resources Corp. f/k/a Houston Natural Resources Corp. at 6605 Grand Montecito Parkway, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89149: y) Summons 2) Complaint 3) Civil Action Cover Sheet 4) Tracking Order 5) {Allowed) Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server 4 LA John hi rent for Beacon ill Research, Inc. Appointed Special Process Server Pursuant to MRCP 4(c)