Preview
Richard E. Eichenbaum, Esq. SBN 157065
Jeff Atterbury, Esq. SBN 229462
CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 733-0100
oo WMA AA BW N
(408) 733-0123 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LALANI NAILAU
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11), LALANI NAILAU, Case No.: 16CV299824
2 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
| SUSAN CLARKE’S OPPOSITION TO
2B) vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
14, SUSAN M. CLARKE and ALBERT K. pOneOLW ATE: DE TION OF
JEFF ATTERBURY; POINTS &
| CLARKE and DOES 1-20, AUTHORITIES
5b
| Derenan Date: September 25, 2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 9
Complaint Filed: September 13, 2016
Trial Date: None
ra Defendant Susan Clarke makes far reaching, but unexplained, assertions regarding the
2 | propriety of consolidating the two actions, but provides very little “on point” legal authority for
B their position. Plaintiff’s reply is as follows:
m4 FACTS?
3 First it is important to quickly summarize the parties and facts/events involved in both
2% | cases. Defendant Susan Clarke is the sole remaining? defendant in the first (negligence) action for
27 —————————————
B 1 Please sce attached Declaration of Jeff Aucrbury & Plaintiff’s opening brief.
2 Defendant Albert Clarke had previously been named, as the registered owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, but has
ince been dismissed.
| | since
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 1 S15 CANDRIRL AVENUL, SUITE ID
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100! | personal injury. On August 9, 2016, Ms. Clarke was served, via Federal Express overnight mail,
: with a very large demand (over $500,000) for compensation in the personal injury lawsuit.
Subsequent to that, on August 20, 2016 (11 days after the demand was sent), Ms. Clarke
conspired with her father, Robert M. Pickle, to file a Quitclaim Deed, in favor of Defendant Pickle,
o to the real property (The Property) that is the focus of the second lawsuit under the Uniform
6 | Voidable Transfer Act (UVTA). Albert Clarke signed a Grant Deed, in which he affirmed his
Gi consent to the new Grant Deed in which Susan Clarke and Robert M. Pickle would be joint tenants
| of The Property. This was done in April of 2016, a few months before Defendant Susan Clarke
| “quitclaimed” her deed to The Property in favor of her father Robert M. Pickle.
yi Defendant Susan Clarke claims, in her opposition, that the two cases don’t have the same
ul parties,? which is an over simplification of the situation. Regardless, the similarity of the defendants|
7 does not bar consolidation. Also, Defendant Susan Clarke claims that there are no common facts
8 | between the two cases, which, while also untrue, does not bar consolidation.
4 LAW & ARGUMENT
o “The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial
16| court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Fellner v.
i Steinbaum (1955) 132 CA2d 509, 511.
ae | “The fact that evidence in the one case might not have been admissible in the other does not
| bar a consolidation.” Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal. App. 2d 861, 867, citing
a Johnson v. Western Air Exp. Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614. “Nor does the fact that all the
A | parties are not the same.” /d, citing Aufdemkamp v. Pierce (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d
| 276; People v. Ocean Shore R., Ine, (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 657.
7 A. The Identical Nature of the Parties is not Dispositive and the Defendants Should
24 not Benefit from Their Own Improper Conduct.
B The first lawsuit has Susan Clarke as the sole defendant. The second lawsuit also has Susan
26 | Clarke as a defendant but also joins her husband, Albert Clarke, and her father, Robert M. Pickle,
2) as co-defendants. The fact that there are more parties to the second lawsuit is only a function of the
be re
3 Please see Defendant's opposition, at page 5, lines 11-15.
STAINTIEP'S REPLY BRIER c CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 2 $1 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 120
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100| The Property so as to protect The Property from being subjected to a judgment against her. In
fact that a conspiracy (such as is alleged in the second lawsuit) takes 2 or more people, and
therefore required adding those additional defendants. As stated in Plaintiff’s opening brief, it is
solely the actions of the Defendants that caused the need for a second lawsuit and this
consolidation. Defendants should not be able to rely on their fraudulent behavior as both a
“sword,” to thwart Plaintiff's first lawsuit (specifically the punitive damages), and simultaneously
use that same conduct as a “shield” thwarting the consolidation of the second action.
B. The Facts Involved in the Two Cases Overlap and Naturally Flow From One
Event to the Next.
Furthermore, the facts giving rise to the second lawsuit are deeply intertwined with those
facts from the first lawsuit.4 In sum, those facts, as alleged by the Plaintiff, are that Defendant
Susan Clarke, recognizing the possibility of a substantial judgment against her, realized that The
Property could be attached as an asset to satisfy said judgment, and thereafter sought to transfer
other words, the second lawsuit is a natural offshoot of the Defendants’ conduct after the events
occurring in the first lawsuit.
C. Defendant’s Conduct has Caused Extreme Prejudice to the Plaintiff.
Defendant’s claims that she will be prejudiced by consolidation of these matters fail to
acknowledge that itis actually she Plaintiff who will suffer prejudice, due to Defendant’s conduct,
by now being forced to litigate and prosecute two lawsuits, when only one was needed prior to
Defendants’ fraudulent transfer.
Defendant claims prejudice due to the trial “being several wecks” and a “slew of lay
witnesses and experts in regards to allegations of fraud and conspiracy.”5 None of this is accurate.
First, the trial will take less than two weeks, and the only additional witness that will be needed by
the Plaintiff is a real estate expert to testify and explain about the significance of the real estate
transfer documents that were filed with the various county recorders. All the other witnesses for the
4 If there is no overlap between the two cases, then why was The Property placed into something that Defendant
Susan Clarke referred (o as an “Asset Protection” Trust?
5 Please see Defendant Susan Clarke's opposition, at page 6, lines 16-18
NTIFF Bi F E CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 3 Br ECAN rR SUE a0
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100oOo OI KHAN FF WN
SeS&UADRBEAS
8
21
| Defendant’s father, Robert Pickle, who is not a party in the auto accident case” and the “financial
UVTA (second lawsuit) are the alleged participants in the fraudulent conveyance, which includes
Defendant Susan Clarke.
Defendants prejudice claims regarding the jury hearing about the “financial condition of
relationship between Bob Pickle and his daughter defendant Susan M. Clarke”? are misplaced. The
jury will never hear about Mr. Pickle’s financial condition, until a jury makes a finding for punitive
damages, which would occur whether there were two trials or one. Furthermore, Defendant does
not explain how Defendant Susan Clarke will be prejudiced by the admission of her father’s
financial information. The level of “financial information” that will be disclosed is no more than
would be necessary and relevant to explain the fraudulent conveyance. Then, and only if, punitive
damages are imposed would Defendant Robert M. Pickle’s financial information be explored,
Defendant Susan Clarke claims that she will be prejudiced by this, but doesn’t explain how.
Finally, Defendant Susan Clarke raises concerns about “any findings or opinions of the jury
made against (the Defendants) in the property case will bleed over into the jury’s evaluation of the
accident case...” Again, Defendant Susan Clarke doesn’t explain how she will be prejudiced. In the
personal injury case, it is undisputed that Plaintiff suffered pelvic and rib fractures and further that
Defendant Susan Clarke has conceded liability for the collision.* The only real issues “in play” in
the personal injury case are whether Defendant was driving under the influence, and if yes, an
appropriate measure of punitive damages. Defendant fails to demonstrate how additional evidence
of Defendant Susan Clarke transferring real property to her father will “bleed over” into the jury
opinion and how this claimed prejudice will manifest itself.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Susan Clarke was the sole cause and driving force behind the conduct that
occurred, subsequent to the collision, regarding the real estate transaction. Plaintiff is entitled to
have the jury consider the real property if/when they determine a punitive damages award is
appropriate. Plaintiff should not have to endure the time and expense of a second trial, solely
6 Please sce Defendant Susan Clarke’s opposition, at page 6, lines 19-20
7 Please sce Defendant Susan Clarke’s opposition, al page 6, lines 20-21
8 Please sce attached declaration of Jeff Auerbury
. a y EF 5 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 4 $1 CAMPBELL AVENUE SUITE 120
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-01001
| because Defendant Susan Clarke has attempted to disrupt Plaintiff's ability to prove her damages in
2
3||
4
5
6
7\
8)
9
10
||
2
B
the personal injury case. The facts overlap and flow from one event to the next and no prejudice
has been explained or described. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to
consolidate.
Dated: September 17, 2018
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF
By:
& VANIDER WALDE, LLP
RICHARD E. EICHENBAUM, ESQ.
JEFF ATTERBURY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAGE 5 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
515. CAMPBELL AVENUG, SUITE 120
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-01001 || Case Name: Nailau v. Clarke, et al.
Case No.: 16CV299824
2)
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 | 1 am over the age of eighteen ycars and not a party to the within action. My business
| address is 51 East Campbell Avenue, Suite 120, Campbell, CA 95008. I am employed in the
5 }
county of Santa Clara where this service occurs. I am readily familiar with my employer’s normal
6) business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with U.S. Postal
7 | Service, and that practice is that the correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the
g | Same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business.
On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the
foregoing document(s) described as:
| PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SUSAN CLARKE’S OPPOSITION TO
I PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; DECLARATION OF JEFF ATTERBURY;
2 POINTS & AUTHORITIES
B on the parties listed below.
(BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thercon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail
14 at Campbell, California.
(BY FAX) by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below,
sl or as slated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m.
(BY HAND-DELIVERY BY COURIER SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to a same-day
16 courier service with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
xX (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier
17)! with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices
18 of the addressee(s).
Other: ELECTRONIC MAIL - I caused the document(s) listed above to the email addresses set forth below, or
19 as stated on the attached service list, on this date.
99|| Thomas J. Murray, Esq. Altorney for Defendants,
Geoffrey Meisner, Esq. Susan M. Clarke and Albert K. Clarke
21, Kern, Segal & Murray
1388 Sutter Strect, Suite 600
2) San Francisco, CA 94109
B | Telephone: (415) 474-1900
| Facsimile: (415) 474-0302
24 gmeisner@kernlaw.com
2 | Bradley Kass, Esq. Attorney for Defendants,
Kass & Kass Law Offices SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE,
* 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 265 ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE
| San Mateo, CA 94403 MARITAL ", ROBERT M. PICKLE AS
27) Ph: 650.579.0612 TRUSD. R TRUSTEE
| Fx: 650.579.0760
“| Email: kassoffice@sbcl gobal.net
PROOF OF SERVICES
GE BBE
om DH F&F WN |
I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
| is true and correct.
Executed on: September
' PROOF OF SERVICE
alifornia that the foregoing
Ig 2018
Corene Abrego
Preview
Richard E. Eichenbaum, Esq. SBN 157065 Jeff Atterbury, Esq. SBN 229462 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP 51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120 Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100 oo WMA AA BW N (408) 733-0123 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff LALANI NAILAU SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11), LALANI NAILAU, Case No.: 16CV299824 2 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT | SUSAN CLARKE’S OPPOSITION TO 2B) vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 14, SUSAN M. CLARKE and ALBERT K. pOneOLW ATE: DE TION OF JEFF ATTERBURY; POINTS & | CLARKE and DOES 1-20, AUTHORITIES 5b | Derenan Date: September 25, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 9 Complaint Filed: September 13, 2016 Trial Date: None ra Defendant Susan Clarke makes far reaching, but unexplained, assertions regarding the 2 | propriety of consolidating the two actions, but provides very little “on point” legal authority for B their position. Plaintiff’s reply is as follows: m4 FACTS? 3 First it is important to quickly summarize the parties and facts/events involved in both 2% | cases. Defendant Susan Clarke is the sole remaining? defendant in the first (negligence) action for 27 ————————————— B 1 Please sce attached Declaration of Jeff Aucrbury & Plaintiff’s opening brief. 2 Defendant Albert Clarke had previously been named, as the registered owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, but has ince been dismissed. | | since PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 1 S15 CANDRIRL AVENUL, SUITE ID CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100! | personal injury. On August 9, 2016, Ms. Clarke was served, via Federal Express overnight mail, : with a very large demand (over $500,000) for compensation in the personal injury lawsuit. Subsequent to that, on August 20, 2016 (11 days after the demand was sent), Ms. Clarke conspired with her father, Robert M. Pickle, to file a Quitclaim Deed, in favor of Defendant Pickle, o to the real property (The Property) that is the focus of the second lawsuit under the Uniform 6 | Voidable Transfer Act (UVTA). Albert Clarke signed a Grant Deed, in which he affirmed his Gi consent to the new Grant Deed in which Susan Clarke and Robert M. Pickle would be joint tenants | of The Property. This was done in April of 2016, a few months before Defendant Susan Clarke | “quitclaimed” her deed to The Property in favor of her father Robert M. Pickle. yi Defendant Susan Clarke claims, in her opposition, that the two cases don’t have the same ul parties,? which is an over simplification of the situation. Regardless, the similarity of the defendants| 7 does not bar consolidation. Also, Defendant Susan Clarke claims that there are no common facts 8 | between the two cases, which, while also untrue, does not bar consolidation. 4 LAW & ARGUMENT o “The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial 16| court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Fellner v. i Steinbaum (1955) 132 CA2d 509, 511. ae | “The fact that evidence in the one case might not have been admissible in the other does not | bar a consolidation.” Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal. App. 2d 861, 867, citing a Johnson v. Western Air Exp. Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614. “Nor does the fact that all the A | parties are not the same.” /d, citing Aufdemkamp v. Pierce (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d | 276; People v. Ocean Shore R., Ine, (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 657. 7 A. The Identical Nature of the Parties is not Dispositive and the Defendants Should 24 not Benefit from Their Own Improper Conduct. B The first lawsuit has Susan Clarke as the sole defendant. The second lawsuit also has Susan 26 | Clarke as a defendant but also joins her husband, Albert Clarke, and her father, Robert M. Pickle, 2) as co-defendants. The fact that there are more parties to the second lawsuit is only a function of the be re 3 Please see Defendant's opposition, at page 5, lines 11-15. STAINTIEP'S REPLY BRIER c CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 2 $1 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 120 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100| The Property so as to protect The Property from being subjected to a judgment against her. In fact that a conspiracy (such as is alleged in the second lawsuit) takes 2 or more people, and therefore required adding those additional defendants. As stated in Plaintiff’s opening brief, it is solely the actions of the Defendants that caused the need for a second lawsuit and this consolidation. Defendants should not be able to rely on their fraudulent behavior as both a “sword,” to thwart Plaintiff's first lawsuit (specifically the punitive damages), and simultaneously use that same conduct as a “shield” thwarting the consolidation of the second action. B. The Facts Involved in the Two Cases Overlap and Naturally Flow From One Event to the Next. Furthermore, the facts giving rise to the second lawsuit are deeply intertwined with those facts from the first lawsuit.4 In sum, those facts, as alleged by the Plaintiff, are that Defendant Susan Clarke, recognizing the possibility of a substantial judgment against her, realized that The Property could be attached as an asset to satisfy said judgment, and thereafter sought to transfer other words, the second lawsuit is a natural offshoot of the Defendants’ conduct after the events occurring in the first lawsuit. C. Defendant’s Conduct has Caused Extreme Prejudice to the Plaintiff. Defendant’s claims that she will be prejudiced by consolidation of these matters fail to acknowledge that itis actually she Plaintiff who will suffer prejudice, due to Defendant’s conduct, by now being forced to litigate and prosecute two lawsuits, when only one was needed prior to Defendants’ fraudulent transfer. Defendant claims prejudice due to the trial “being several wecks” and a “slew of lay witnesses and experts in regards to allegations of fraud and conspiracy.”5 None of this is accurate. First, the trial will take less than two weeks, and the only additional witness that will be needed by the Plaintiff is a real estate expert to testify and explain about the significance of the real estate transfer documents that were filed with the various county recorders. All the other witnesses for the 4 If there is no overlap between the two cases, then why was The Property placed into something that Defendant Susan Clarke referred (o as an “Asset Protection” Trust? 5 Please see Defendant Susan Clarke's opposition, at page 6, lines 16-18 NTIFF Bi F E CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 3 Br ECAN rR SUE a0 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100oOo OI KHAN FF WN SeS&UADRBEAS 8 21 | Defendant’s father, Robert Pickle, who is not a party in the auto accident case” and the “financial UVTA (second lawsuit) are the alleged participants in the fraudulent conveyance, which includes Defendant Susan Clarke. Defendants prejudice claims regarding the jury hearing about the “financial condition of relationship between Bob Pickle and his daughter defendant Susan M. Clarke”? are misplaced. The jury will never hear about Mr. Pickle’s financial condition, until a jury makes a finding for punitive damages, which would occur whether there were two trials or one. Furthermore, Defendant does not explain how Defendant Susan Clarke will be prejudiced by the admission of her father’s financial information. The level of “financial information” that will be disclosed is no more than would be necessary and relevant to explain the fraudulent conveyance. Then, and only if, punitive damages are imposed would Defendant Robert M. Pickle’s financial information be explored, Defendant Susan Clarke claims that she will be prejudiced by this, but doesn’t explain how. Finally, Defendant Susan Clarke raises concerns about “any findings or opinions of the jury made against (the Defendants) in the property case will bleed over into the jury’s evaluation of the accident case...” Again, Defendant Susan Clarke doesn’t explain how she will be prejudiced. In the personal injury case, it is undisputed that Plaintiff suffered pelvic and rib fractures and further that Defendant Susan Clarke has conceded liability for the collision.* The only real issues “in play” in the personal injury case are whether Defendant was driving under the influence, and if yes, an appropriate measure of punitive damages. Defendant fails to demonstrate how additional evidence of Defendant Susan Clarke transferring real property to her father will “bleed over” into the jury opinion and how this claimed prejudice will manifest itself. CONCLUSION Defendant Susan Clarke was the sole cause and driving force behind the conduct that occurred, subsequent to the collision, regarding the real estate transaction. Plaintiff is entitled to have the jury consider the real property if/when they determine a punitive damages award is appropriate. Plaintiff should not have to endure the time and expense of a second trial, solely 6 Please sce Defendant Susan Clarke’s opposition, at page 6, lines 19-20 7 Please sce Defendant Susan Clarke’s opposition, al page 6, lines 20-21 8 Please sce attached declaration of Jeff Auerbury . a y EF 5 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF PAGE 4 $1 CAMPBELL AVENUE SUITE 120 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-01001 | because Defendant Susan Clarke has attempted to disrupt Plaintiff's ability to prove her damages in 2 3|| 4 5 6 7\ 8) 9 10 || 2 B the personal injury case. The facts overlap and flow from one event to the next and no prejudice has been explained or described. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate. Dated: September 17, 2018 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF By: & VANIDER WALDE, LLP RICHARD E. EICHENBAUM, ESQ. JEFF ATTERBURY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff PAGE 5 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP 515. CAMPBELL AVENUG, SUITE 120 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-01001 || Case Name: Nailau v. Clarke, et al. Case No.: 16CV299824 2) 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 4 | 1 am over the age of eighteen ycars and not a party to the within action. My business | address is 51 East Campbell Avenue, Suite 120, Campbell, CA 95008. I am employed in the 5 } county of Santa Clara where this service occurs. I am readily familiar with my employer’s normal 6) business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with U.S. Postal 7 | Service, and that practice is that the correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the g | Same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the foregoing document(s) described as: | PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SUSAN CLARKE’S OPPOSITION TO I PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; DECLARATION OF JEFF ATTERBURY; 2 POINTS & AUTHORITIES B on the parties listed below. (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thercon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail 14 at Campbell, California. (BY FAX) by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below, sl or as slated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m. (BY HAND-DELIVERY BY COURIER SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to a same-day 16 courier service with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. xX (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier 17)! with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices 18 of the addressee(s). Other: ELECTRONIC MAIL - I caused the document(s) listed above to the email addresses set forth below, or 19 as stated on the attached service list, on this date. 99|| Thomas J. Murray, Esq. Altorney for Defendants, Geoffrey Meisner, Esq. Susan M. Clarke and Albert K. Clarke 21, Kern, Segal & Murray 1388 Sutter Strect, Suite 600 2) San Francisco, CA 94109 B | Telephone: (415) 474-1900 | Facsimile: (415) 474-0302 24 gmeisner@kernlaw.com 2 | Bradley Kass, Esq. Attorney for Defendants, Kass & Kass Law Offices SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE, * 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 265 ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE | San Mateo, CA 94403 MARITAL ", ROBERT M. PICKLE AS 27) Ph: 650.579.0612 TRUSD. R TRUSTEE | Fx: 650.579.0760 “| Email: kassoffice@sbcl gobal.net PROOF OF SERVICES GE BBE om DH F&F WN | I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws | is true and correct. Executed on: September ' PROOF OF SERVICE alifornia that the foregoing Ig 2018 Corene Abrego