Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
1 Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839) 8/24/2020 12:34 PM
mosborne@cokinoslaw.com Alex Calvo, Clerk
2 Jaskiran K. Samra (Bar No. 296149) By: Sandra Gonzalez, Deputy
jsamra@cokinoslaw.com
3 COKINOS | YOUNG
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 390
4 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-228-0208
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10
11 DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY
INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
14 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
15 Defendant. COMPLAINT
16
Action Filed: October 31, 2019
17
First Amended Complaint
18 Filed: February 5, 2020
19 Date: August 31, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 Department: 10
Judge: Hon. John Gallagher
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. (“Theta Chi”) respectfully submits this
2
Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
3
I. INTRODUCTION
4
In its underlying motion to strike, Theta Chi sought to strike portions of the First Amended
5
Complaint, including vicarious liability allegations based on a principal/agent relationship with its
6
former local chapter at University of California, Santa Cruz (“Chapter”), and allegations of hazing
7
and punitive damages. Specifically, Theta Chi argued:
8
1) As evident by the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, Theta Chi did not exercise
9
day-to-day control over the Chapter, which the California Court of Appeal in Barenborg 1,
10
following the guidance of other jurisdictions, found to be determinative in establishing that
11
a national fraternity, such as Theta Chi, cannot be held vicariously liable for the conduct of
12
its undergraduate chapter and its members;
13
2) California’s as well as University of California, Santa Cruz’s (“UCSC”) definition of hazing
14
only applies to activities conducted as part of initiation or pre-initiation into a student
15
organization, and since decedent Alexander Beletsis was already a member of the Chapter,
16
Plaintiffs cannot allege the activities, which ultimately led to Mr. Beletsis’ death, as
17
“hazing”; and
18
3) The First Amended Complaint did not satisfy the required stringent pleading requirements
19
of malice, oppression, or fraud against Theta Chi, a corporate defendant, to support
20
Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations.
21
In an effort to overcome Theta Chi’s motion, Plaintiffs, in their Opposition, futilely attempt
22
to negate established legal principles with immaterial allegations and unsubstantiated legal
23
conclusions. Plaintiffs’ arguments fail because:
24
1) Plaintiffs ignore the vast similarities between the First Amended Complaint allegations and
25
the facts in Barenborg, and instead, focus on insignificant details to differentiate the facts
26
while also failing to argue that such details somehow demonstrate Theta Chi’s “day-to-day”
27
28 1
Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 70.
1
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
control over the Chapter, which is required to hold Theta Chi vicariously liable under the
2
principal/agent theory;
3
2) Following Bogenberger 2, relied on by Barenborg, Theta Chi cannot be held vicariously
4
liable for the Chapter members’ conduct;
5
3) Plaintiffs improperly rely on alter ego allegations to support vicarious liability under agency
6
theory because alter ego and agency are two separate concepts;
7
4) Plaintiffs mistakenly presume that ratification of conduct supports vicarious liability
8
through agency when in reality, agency relationship must be established before liability,
9
pursuant to ratification, may be imposed;
10
5) Plaintiff wholly ignores the qualifying clause of UCSC’s definition of hazing, requiring any
11
activities to be conducted as part of “initiation or pre-initiation into a student organization”
12
to be deemed hazing, and incorrectly focuses on the latter part of the definition as a separate
13
clause; and
14
6) Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy the definitions of oppression, malice, or fraud, as
15
instructed by Civil Code section 3294, therefore, they do not support plaintiffs’ punitive
16
damages allegations against Theta Chi.
17
Plaintiff’s failure to present reliable allegations and legal principles, warrants that this Court
18
should grant Theta Chi’s Motion to Strike.
19
II. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, HOLD THETA CHI
20 VICARIOUSLY LIABLE THROUGH THE AGENCY AND/OR
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR ALLEGATIONS.
21
22 A. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute Theta Chi’s Contention that It Can Move to Strike Vicarious
Liability Allegations to Fine-Tune a Cause of Action.
23
Theta Chi moved to strike vicarious liability allegations based on agency and respondeat
24
25 superior because it cannot assert a demurrer against only a portion of a cause of action. (Grives v.
26 Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163.) In such instances, the substantive defect
27
28 2
Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc., 103 N.E.3d 1110 (Ill. 2018).
2
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 pertaining to a portion of a cause of action can be cured by filing a motion to strike. (PH II, Inc. v.
2 Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-3.) As Plaintiffs have not objected to this
3
procedure, this Court can strike the disputed allegations raised by Theta Chi, which are further
4
analyzed below.
5
B. Theta Chi is Not Vicariously Liable for the Chapter’s Conduct.
6
7 Plaintiffs are mistaken as to Theta Chi’s position regarding why it cannot be held vicariously
8 liable for the chapter’s conduct. Theta Chi does not argue that no national fraternity can ever be
9 held vicariously liable for its chapter’s conduct 3; Theta Chi argues that accepting the facts in the
10 First Amended Complaint, as currently pled, to be true, California law makes it clear that no
11
vicarious liability can be imposed against Theta Chi under the principal/agent or respondeat
12
superior theory. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683 (“[Motion to
13
Strike’s] use has also been approved in a case where the face of the complaint failed to state facts
14
15 showing . . . a primary duty of, or wrong committed by, the defendant”).)
16 For example, similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs attempt to hold an out-of-state national
17 fraternity, Theta Chi, liable for the conduct of the Chapter. 4 Similar to Barenborg, the Chapter
18
existed pursuant to authority granted by Theta Chi. 5 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that
19
Chapter members paid dues to Theta Chi. 6 Similar to Barenborg, Theta Chi’s bylaws are binding
20
on its local chapters. 7 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi’s policies involving
21
hazing and alcohol are binding on its local chapters. 8 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that
22
23 the Chapter’s conduct was dangerous and contrary to Theta Chi’s policies, and Theta Chi failed to
24
25 3
Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 11:3-6.
4
First Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 22, 28.
26 5
Id., at ¶ 29.
6
27 Id., at ¶ 47.
7
Id., at ¶ 105.
28 8
Id., at ¶ 56.
3
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 provide adequate supervision to ensure that its policies were being followed. 9 Similar to
2 Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that such policies are to be implemented and enforced by the chapters
3
themselves. 10 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi can discipline a chapter and
4
its members. 11 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that prior to Mr. Beletsis’ death, the Chapter
5
had been involved in various disciplinary violations. 12 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that
6
7 Mr. Beletsis, a person under the age of 21, became intoxicated at alleged Chapter events and fell
8 from a window, resulting in fatal injuries. 13
9 All such facts, which overlap with those before the Court of Appeal in Barenborg, affirm,
10 as a matter of law, that Theta Chi did not control the “day-to-day” operations of the Chapter and
11
resultantly, no vicarious liability can be imposed against Theta Chi pursuant to the agency theory.
12
Furthermore, such similar facts were analyzed by the Illinois Supreme Court in
13
Bogenberger at the pleading stage, and it ultimately dismissed the complaint against the national
14
15 fraternity, stating “[w]e find the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint insufficient to allege an agency
16 relationship and, accordingly, insufficient to hold the Nationals vicariously liable for the conduct
17 of the [Northern Illinois University] Chapter and its members.” (Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha
18
Corporation, Inc., 103 N.E.3d 1110, 1121 (Ill. 2018).)
19
Notwithstanding such clear legal authority with similar facts in California (Barenborg),
20
which is instructive in this case as well as compelling persuasive out-of-state authority
21
(Bogenberger), Plaintiffs attempt to distract this Court with the assertion that since Theta Chi’s
22
23 Constitution does not explicitly state that it does not control its chapters, as SAE’s fraternity laws
24 did in Barenborg, that somehow automatically equates to the assumption that Theta Chi does
25
9
Id., at ¶¶ 25, 52.
26 10
Id., at ¶¶ 56, 77.
11
27 Id., at ¶ 107.
12
Id., at ¶¶ 57-58.
28 13
Id., at ¶¶ 84-85.
4
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 control its chapters’ day-to-day operations. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 12:1-13.) Upon closer
2 review, Plaintiffs iterate their alter ego allegations to somehow negate Theta Chi’s position that
3
based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, it cannot be held vicariously liable
4
pursuant to the agency theory, as instructed by Barenborg. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 12:1-24,
5
13:12-14:6.) Plaintiffs appear to miss the obvious – agency and alter ego are two separate and
6
7 distinct concepts, which are evaluated independently of one another. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v.
8 Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540.)
9 Following Barenborg, Plaintiffs’ allegations in First Amended Complaint cannot
10 successfully assert vicarious liability pursuant to agency/respondeat superior against Theta Chi and
11
all such allegations should be stricken from the First Amended Complaint.
12
C. Theta Chi is not Vicariously Liable for the Chapter Members’ Conduct.
13
Plaintiff attempts to defeat Theta Chi’s stance that it is not vicariously liable under the
14
15 agency theory by arguing that the Barenborg decision did not discuss a national fraternity’s
16 vicarious liability for a chapter member’s conduct, therefore, it could still be vicariously liable for
17 the Chapter members’ activities. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 14:7-21.)
18
While Barenborg did not discuss a national fraternity’s vicarious liability for a chapter
19
member’s conduct, Bogenberger, relied on in Barenborg, cited to similar facts outlined in Section
20
II(A) above in support of its decision that the national fraternity was not vicariously liable for the
21
NIU Chapter’s members’ conduct either. (Bogenberger, supra, 103 N.E.3d at 1121.) Following
22
23 Bogenberger, which California Court of Appeal regarded to be appropriate guidance in
24 circumstances similar to this matter, Theta Chi cannot be held vicariously liable for the Chapter
25 members’ conduct, and therefore, any such allegations must be stricken from the First Amended
26
Complaint.
27
///
28
5
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 D. Plaintiffs Attempt to Hold Theta Chi Vicariously Liable for the Chapter’s Conduct by
Erroneously Arguing that Theta Chi Ratified the Chapter’s Conduct.
2
Plaintiffs allege that since Theta Chi continued supporting the Chapter and its members
3
4 after Mr. Beletsis’ death, and allegedly shared misleading and false information with UCSC, Theta
5 Chi apparently ratified the Chapter’s and its members’ conduct, making Theta Chi vicariously liable
6 for such conduct. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 14:22-16:16.)
7
In making this assertion, Plaintiffs seem to miss the blatant factor that holding one liable
8
for ratification of another’s conduct presumes the existence of an agency relationship. (C.R. v. Tenet
9
Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1112 (“ratification is a permeation of the law of
10
11 agency; . . . by ratifying an act, a principal triggers the legal consequences that follow had the act
12 been that of an agent acting with actual authority”) (internal quotations omitted)(emphasis added).)
13 As established in the underlying motion and articulated above, Barenborg provides that based on
14 the facts of this case, no agency relationship existed between the Chapter and its members, and
15
Theta Chi. Therefore, without the required agency relationship, Plaintiffs’ ratification theory also
16
fails against Theta Chi, and it cannot be vicariously liable for the Chapter’s or its members’ conduct.
17
III. CONTRARY TO PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION, UCSC’S DEFINITION OF
18
HAZING REQUIRES ANY OFFENSIVE ACTIVITY TO BE CONDUCTED
19 AS PART OF INITIATION OR PRE-INITIATION INTO AN
ORGANIZATION.
20
As included in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, hazing is defined as,
21
[A]ny method of initiation or pre-initiation into a student organization or student
22
body, whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an
23 educational institution, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury to any former,
current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college,
24 university, or other educational institution in this state (Penal Code 245.6), and in
addition, any act likely to cause physical harm, personal degradation or disgrace
25 resulting in physical or mental harm, to any former, current, or prospective student
of any school, community college, college, university or other educational
26
institution . . .
27
(Emphasis added). Plaintiffs focuses on the latter part of the definition to essentially contend that
28
6
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 any activity which may likely cause physical or mental harm to any student, constitutes hazing.
2 (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 6:12-7:5.)
3
Unless the words are ambiguous, a statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s
4
interpretation thereof. (People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 299.) When reading UCSC’s
5
definition of hazing, taken from the Standards for Student Conduct for the University of California
6
7 System 14, it is clear that the latter part of the definition after the phrase “and in addition”, is added
8 to the beginning of the standard – “any method of initiation or pre-initiation into a student
9 organization or student body . . .” The “method of initiation or pre-initiation” qualifies the entire
10 definition, and not just the first part. It is clear from reading this definition that UCSC does not
11
intend to restrict hazing to include only acts that “likely cause serious bodily injury” but also acts
12
that “likely cause physical harm, personal degradation or disgrace resulting in physical or mental
13
harm”. That is, UCSC does not require hazing to be attributed to acts that only cause serious injury
14
15 but utilizes a less severe standard in imposing that any acts, as part of an initiation or pre-initiation
16 into an organization, that may likely cause any type of injury, can be considered hazing. (Emphasis
17 added).
18
Common sense further compels Theta Chi’s argument because Plaintiffs’ reading of the
19
standard would constitute any cause of injury to any student at any educational institution as hazing.
20
As analyzed in the underlying motion, since Mr. Beletsis was already a member of the
21
Chapter at the time of his death and none of the activities he participated in were conducted as part
22
23 of his initiation or pre-initiation into the Chapter, all hazing allegations must be stricken from the
24 First Amended Complaint.
25 //
26
//
27
28 14
First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 92.
7
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
AGAINST THETA CHI AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE FIRST
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT.
3
When non-intentional torts are involved, punitive damages are only awarded “when the
4
conduct constitutes conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” and requires the plaintiff
5
to prove that the defendant was aware of the “probably dangerous consequences of his conduct,
6
7 and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo
8 Hospital (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1043-8.) Additionally, Civil Code section 3294(b) imposes
9 even more stringent pleading requirements where punitive damages are alleged against a corporate
10 defendant, such as Theta Chi.
11
As explained above and in the underlying motion, the Chapter is not Theta Chi’s agent, and
12
therefore, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the pleading requirements delineated in Civil Code section
13
3294(b) to establish a punitive damages claim against Theta Chi.
14
15 Additionally, throughout their opposition, Plaintiffs dispute the insufficiency of punitive
16 damages allegations by asserting legal conclusions yet again, e.g., conduct qualifies as “despicable”
17 and it was carried out “with a willful and conscious disregard of Alex’s rights and safety”.
18
(Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 17:12-15, 17:19-18:5.) Plaintiffs also allege another legal conclusion of
19
ratification to support punitive damages. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 17:15-18.) Conclusory
20
allegations cannot support a claim for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73
21
Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)
22
23 While Plaintiffs attempt to satisfy their requirements by arguing that there was fraud,
24 oppression and malice on Theta Chi’s part as it represented to Alex that he would not be hazed and
25 hazing was prohibited, 15 there are no allegations to suggest that Theta Chi had knowledge that Mr.
26
Beletsis would indeed be subject to any alleged hazing. Also, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi did
27
28 15
Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 18:6-21.
8
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 not tell Mr. Beletsis about the Chapter’s prior sanctions but there are no allegations to suggest that
2 such non-disclosure is considered malice, oppression, or fraud, which is required to allege punitive
3
damages.
4
As Plaintiffs have failed to plead a viable claim for punitive damages against Theta Chi, all
5
such allegations and requests for punitive damages against Theta Chi must be stricken from the
6
7 First Amended Complaint.
8 V. CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., respectfully requests this
10 Court to grant this Motion, and strike portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, as
11
specifically identified and set forth in Defendant’s underlying Notice of Motion.
12
13 Dated: August 24, 2020
COKINOS | YOUNG
14
15
16 Michael C. Osborne
Jaskiran K. Samra
17 Attorneys for Defendant
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Beletsis v. Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., et al.
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Action No. 19CV03287
3
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action or
4 proceeding. My business address is One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 390, San Francisco, CA
94111. On the below date, I caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
6 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7
by electronically serving the above reference document(s) through Email to the
person(s) set forth below. Executed by Amanda L. Sanchez on August 24, 2020, at San
8 Francisco, California.
9
by having personal delivery by Express Network of a true copy of the document(s)
listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set
10
forth below.
11
12 See Attached Service List
13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
August 24, 2020 at San Francisco, California.
14
15
16 Amanda L. Sanchez
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Douglas E. Fierberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jonathon N. Fazzola DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY
3
The Fierberg Nation Law Group, PLLC
161 East Front Steet, Suite 200 Tel: (202) 351-0510
4
Traverse City, MI 49684 Fax: (231) 252-8100
5
dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com,
6
jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com,
7 lcloutier@tfnlgroup.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ivo Labar
Sawyer & Labar, LLP DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY
9
201 Mission Street, Suite 2240
Tel: (415) 262-3820
10 San Francisco, CA 94105
labar@sawyerlabar.com
11 guzman@sawyerlabar.com
tpicard@tfnlgroup.com
12
Andrew M. Lauderdale Attorneys for Defendant
13 QUINN MCLAUGHLIN
Stratman, Pedersen & Lauderdale
14 1 Almaden Blvd Ste 400
Tel: (408) 271-5300
San Jose, CA 95113
15 andrew.lauderdale@farmersinsurance.com
16
Derek Lim Attorneys for Defendants
17 Shannon Mallory BRAD VISACKI
Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP
18 Tel: 415.949-1900
1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400 Cell 415.317.3693
Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Fax: 415.354.8380
19
lim@darlaw.com
20 mal@darlaw.com
21
22 Mary Childs Attorneys for Defendants
An McNulty EMMANUEL THOMAS, BOBBY KARKI, and
23 Aaron Case JOHN DYLAN LEITCH
Yoka & Smith, LLP
24 445 South Figueroa Street Tel: (213) 427-2300
38th Floor Fax: (213) 427-2330
25
Los Angeles, CA 90071
mchilds@yokasmith.com
26 amcnulty@yokasmith.com
acase@yokasmith.com
27
28
2
SERVICE LIST
1 Norman L. Chong Attorneys for Defendant
Joseph D. O’Neil NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON
2 Tracy Herrington
Tel: (415) 777-5501
3 Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong Fax: (415) 546-4962
201 Mission Street, Suite 710
4 San Francisco, CA 94105 nchong@to2law.com
joneil@to2law.com
5 therrington@to2law.com
Shawn Toliver Attorneys for Defendant
6 Julie Acevedo JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
7 Tel: (925) 357-3456
2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 300 Fax: (925) 478-3260
8 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Julie.Azevedo@lewisbrisbois.com
9 Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com
Kristen.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com
10 Robert T. Mackey Attorneys for Defendant
Ryne W. Osborne STEFAN MATIAS LEON
11 Veatch Carlson, LLP
Tel: (213) 404-1108
12 1055 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor Fax: (213) 383-6370
Los Angeles, CA 90017
13 rmackey@veatchfirm.com
rosborne@veatchfirm.com
14 cporter@veatchfirm.com
Thomas M. Phillips Attorneys for Defendant
15 William P. Ryan STEFAN MATIAS LEON
The Phillips Firm, APC
16 Tel: (213) 587-7414
800 West 6th Street, Suite 980
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fax: (213) 457-7515
17
tphillips@thephillipsfirm.com
18 pmckinley@thephillipsfirm.com
Ray Tamaddon Attorneys for Defendant
19 ZACHARY DAVIS
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
20 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800,
Tel: (310) 909-8078
Los Angeles, California 90025 Fax: (310) 909-8001
21
RTamaddon@hinshawlaw.com
22 Hightower, Kristina
KHightower@hinshawlaw.com
23 Attorneys for Defendant
Matthew C. Jaime
Robert W. Sweetin CHRIS GUEVARA
24
Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP
Tel: (916) 978-3434
25 3638 American River Drive Fax: (916) 978-3430
Sacramento, CA 95864
26 mjaime@mathenysears.com
rsweetin@mathenysears.com
27
Alan F. Hunter Attorneys for Defendant
28 Elizabeth G. Landess RAFAEL GARCIA, JR.
3
SERVICE LIST
1 Jack T. Bussell
Gavin Cunningham & Hunter
2 1530 The Alameda, Suite 210 Tel: (408) 294-8500
Fax: (408) 294-8596
3 San Jose, CA 95126
hunter@gclitigation.com
4
5 Patrick R. Ball Attorneys for Defendant
Idin Kashefipour MOISES TENORIO GARCIA
6 Messner Reeves LLP
Tel: (949) 612-9128
7 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Fax: (310) 889-0896
Newport Beach, CA 92660
8 pball@messner.com
ikashefipour@messner.com
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
SERVICE LIST
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz 1 Michael C. Osborne (Bar No. 95839) 8/24/2020 12:34 PM mosborne@cokinoslaw.com Alex Calvo, Clerk 2 Jaskiran K. Samra (Bar No. 296149) By: Sandra Gonzalez, Deputy jsamra@cokinoslaw.com 3 COKINOS | YOUNG One Embarcadero Center, Suite 390 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-228-0208 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 10 11 DAPHNE BELETSIS, et al., Case No. 19CV03287 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 14 THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., et al. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 15 Defendant. COMPLAINT 16 Action Filed: October 31, 2019 17 First Amended Complaint 18 Filed: February 5, 2020 19 Date: August 31, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. 20 Department: 10 Judge: Hon. John Gallagher 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. (“Theta Chi”) respectfully submits this 2 Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. 3 I. INTRODUCTION 4 In its underlying motion to strike, Theta Chi sought to strike portions of the First Amended 5 Complaint, including vicarious liability allegations based on a principal/agent relationship with its 6 former local chapter at University of California, Santa Cruz (“Chapter”), and allegations of hazing 7 and punitive damages. Specifically, Theta Chi argued: 8 1) As evident by the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, Theta Chi did not exercise 9 day-to-day control over the Chapter, which the California Court of Appeal in Barenborg 1, 10 following the guidance of other jurisdictions, found to be determinative in establishing that 11 a national fraternity, such as Theta Chi, cannot be held vicariously liable for the conduct of 12 its undergraduate chapter and its members; 13 2) California’s as well as University of California, Santa Cruz’s (“UCSC”) definition of hazing 14 only applies to activities conducted as part of initiation or pre-initiation into a student 15 organization, and since decedent Alexander Beletsis was already a member of the Chapter, 16 Plaintiffs cannot allege the activities, which ultimately led to Mr. Beletsis’ death, as 17 “hazing”; and 18 3) The First Amended Complaint did not satisfy the required stringent pleading requirements 19 of malice, oppression, or fraud against Theta Chi, a corporate defendant, to support 20 Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations. 21 In an effort to overcome Theta Chi’s motion, Plaintiffs, in their Opposition, futilely attempt 22 to negate established legal principles with immaterial allegations and unsubstantiated legal 23 conclusions. Plaintiffs’ arguments fail because: 24 1) Plaintiffs ignore the vast similarities between the First Amended Complaint allegations and 25 the facts in Barenborg, and instead, focus on insignificant details to differentiate the facts 26 while also failing to argue that such details somehow demonstrate Theta Chi’s “day-to-day” 27 28 1 Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 70. 1 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 control over the Chapter, which is required to hold Theta Chi vicariously liable under the 2 principal/agent theory; 3 2) Following Bogenberger 2, relied on by Barenborg, Theta Chi cannot be held vicariously 4 liable for the Chapter members’ conduct; 5 3) Plaintiffs improperly rely on alter ego allegations to support vicarious liability under agency 6 theory because alter ego and agency are two separate concepts; 7 4) Plaintiffs mistakenly presume that ratification of conduct supports vicarious liability 8 through agency when in reality, agency relationship must be established before liability, 9 pursuant to ratification, may be imposed; 10 5) Plaintiff wholly ignores the qualifying clause of UCSC’s definition of hazing, requiring any 11 activities to be conducted as part of “initiation or pre-initiation into a student organization” 12 to be deemed hazing, and incorrectly focuses on the latter part of the definition as a separate 13 clause; and 14 6) Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy the definitions of oppression, malice, or fraud, as 15 instructed by Civil Code section 3294, therefore, they do not support plaintiffs’ punitive 16 damages allegations against Theta Chi. 17 Plaintiff’s failure to present reliable allegations and legal principles, warrants that this Court 18 should grant Theta Chi’s Motion to Strike. 19 II. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, HOLD THETA CHI 20 VICARIOUSLY LIABLE THROUGH THE AGENCY AND/OR RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR ALLEGATIONS. 21 22 A. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute Theta Chi’s Contention that It Can Move to Strike Vicarious Liability Allegations to Fine-Tune a Cause of Action. 23 Theta Chi moved to strike vicarious liability allegations based on agency and respondeat 24 25 superior because it cannot assert a demurrer against only a portion of a cause of action. (Grives v. 26 Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163.) In such instances, the substantive defect 27 28 2 Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc., 103 N.E.3d 1110 (Ill. 2018). 2 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 pertaining to a portion of a cause of action can be cured by filing a motion to strike. (PH II, Inc. v. 2 Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-3.) As Plaintiffs have not objected to this 3 procedure, this Court can strike the disputed allegations raised by Theta Chi, which are further 4 analyzed below. 5 B. Theta Chi is Not Vicariously Liable for the Chapter’s Conduct. 6 7 Plaintiffs are mistaken as to Theta Chi’s position regarding why it cannot be held vicariously 8 liable for the chapter’s conduct. Theta Chi does not argue that no national fraternity can ever be 9 held vicariously liable for its chapter’s conduct 3; Theta Chi argues that accepting the facts in the 10 First Amended Complaint, as currently pled, to be true, California law makes it clear that no 11 vicarious liability can be imposed against Theta Chi under the principal/agent or respondeat 12 superior theory. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683 (“[Motion to 13 Strike’s] use has also been approved in a case where the face of the complaint failed to state facts 14 15 showing . . . a primary duty of, or wrong committed by, the defendant”).) 16 For example, similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs attempt to hold an out-of-state national 17 fraternity, Theta Chi, liable for the conduct of the Chapter. 4 Similar to Barenborg, the Chapter 18 existed pursuant to authority granted by Theta Chi. 5 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that 19 Chapter members paid dues to Theta Chi. 6 Similar to Barenborg, Theta Chi’s bylaws are binding 20 on its local chapters. 7 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi’s policies involving 21 hazing and alcohol are binding on its local chapters. 8 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that 22 23 the Chapter’s conduct was dangerous and contrary to Theta Chi’s policies, and Theta Chi failed to 24 25 3 Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 11:3-6. 4 First Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 22, 28. 26 5 Id., at ¶ 29. 6 27 Id., at ¶ 47. 7 Id., at ¶ 105. 28 8 Id., at ¶ 56. 3 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 provide adequate supervision to ensure that its policies were being followed. 9 Similar to 2 Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that such policies are to be implemented and enforced by the chapters 3 themselves. 10 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi can discipline a chapter and 4 its members. 11 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that prior to Mr. Beletsis’ death, the Chapter 5 had been involved in various disciplinary violations. 12 Similar to Barenborg, Plaintiffs allege that 6 7 Mr. Beletsis, a person under the age of 21, became intoxicated at alleged Chapter events and fell 8 from a window, resulting in fatal injuries. 13 9 All such facts, which overlap with those before the Court of Appeal in Barenborg, affirm, 10 as a matter of law, that Theta Chi did not control the “day-to-day” operations of the Chapter and 11 resultantly, no vicarious liability can be imposed against Theta Chi pursuant to the agency theory. 12 Furthermore, such similar facts were analyzed by the Illinois Supreme Court in 13 Bogenberger at the pleading stage, and it ultimately dismissed the complaint against the national 14 15 fraternity, stating “[w]e find the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint insufficient to allege an agency 16 relationship and, accordingly, insufficient to hold the Nationals vicariously liable for the conduct 17 of the [Northern Illinois University] Chapter and its members.” (Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha 18 Corporation, Inc., 103 N.E.3d 1110, 1121 (Ill. 2018).) 19 Notwithstanding such clear legal authority with similar facts in California (Barenborg), 20 which is instructive in this case as well as compelling persuasive out-of-state authority 21 (Bogenberger), Plaintiffs attempt to distract this Court with the assertion that since Theta Chi’s 22 23 Constitution does not explicitly state that it does not control its chapters, as SAE’s fraternity laws 24 did in Barenborg, that somehow automatically equates to the assumption that Theta Chi does 25 9 Id., at ¶¶ 25, 52. 26 10 Id., at ¶¶ 56, 77. 11 27 Id., at ¶ 107. 12 Id., at ¶¶ 57-58. 28 13 Id., at ¶¶ 84-85. 4 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 control its chapters’ day-to-day operations. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 12:1-13.) Upon closer 2 review, Plaintiffs iterate their alter ego allegations to somehow negate Theta Chi’s position that 3 based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, it cannot be held vicariously liable 4 pursuant to the agency theory, as instructed by Barenborg. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 12:1-24, 5 13:12-14:6.) Plaintiffs appear to miss the obvious – agency and alter ego are two separate and 6 7 distinct concepts, which are evaluated independently of one another. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. 8 Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540.) 9 Following Barenborg, Plaintiffs’ allegations in First Amended Complaint cannot 10 successfully assert vicarious liability pursuant to agency/respondeat superior against Theta Chi and 11 all such allegations should be stricken from the First Amended Complaint. 12 C. Theta Chi is not Vicariously Liable for the Chapter Members’ Conduct. 13 Plaintiff attempts to defeat Theta Chi’s stance that it is not vicariously liable under the 14 15 agency theory by arguing that the Barenborg decision did not discuss a national fraternity’s 16 vicarious liability for a chapter member’s conduct, therefore, it could still be vicariously liable for 17 the Chapter members’ activities. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 14:7-21.) 18 While Barenborg did not discuss a national fraternity’s vicarious liability for a chapter 19 member’s conduct, Bogenberger, relied on in Barenborg, cited to similar facts outlined in Section 20 II(A) above in support of its decision that the national fraternity was not vicariously liable for the 21 NIU Chapter’s members’ conduct either. (Bogenberger, supra, 103 N.E.3d at 1121.) Following 22 23 Bogenberger, which California Court of Appeal regarded to be appropriate guidance in 24 circumstances similar to this matter, Theta Chi cannot be held vicariously liable for the Chapter 25 members’ conduct, and therefore, any such allegations must be stricken from the First Amended 26 Complaint. 27 /// 28 5 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 D. Plaintiffs Attempt to Hold Theta Chi Vicariously Liable for the Chapter’s Conduct by Erroneously Arguing that Theta Chi Ratified the Chapter’s Conduct. 2 Plaintiffs allege that since Theta Chi continued supporting the Chapter and its members 3 4 after Mr. Beletsis’ death, and allegedly shared misleading and false information with UCSC, Theta 5 Chi apparently ratified the Chapter’s and its members’ conduct, making Theta Chi vicariously liable 6 for such conduct. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 14:22-16:16.) 7 In making this assertion, Plaintiffs seem to miss the blatant factor that holding one liable 8 for ratification of another’s conduct presumes the existence of an agency relationship. (C.R. v. Tenet 9 Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1112 (“ratification is a permeation of the law of 10 11 agency; . . . by ratifying an act, a principal triggers the legal consequences that follow had the act 12 been that of an agent acting with actual authority”) (internal quotations omitted)(emphasis added).) 13 As established in the underlying motion and articulated above, Barenborg provides that based on 14 the facts of this case, no agency relationship existed between the Chapter and its members, and 15 Theta Chi. Therefore, without the required agency relationship, Plaintiffs’ ratification theory also 16 fails against Theta Chi, and it cannot be vicariously liable for the Chapter’s or its members’ conduct. 17 III. CONTRARY TO PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION, UCSC’S DEFINITION OF 18 HAZING REQUIRES ANY OFFENSIVE ACTIVITY TO BE CONDUCTED 19 AS PART OF INITIATION OR PRE-INITIATION INTO AN ORGANIZATION. 20 As included in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, hazing is defined as, 21 [A]ny method of initiation or pre-initiation into a student organization or student 22 body, whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an 23 educational institution, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury to any former, current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college, 24 university, or other educational institution in this state (Penal Code 245.6), and in addition, any act likely to cause physical harm, personal degradation or disgrace 25 resulting in physical or mental harm, to any former, current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college, university or other educational 26 institution . . . 27 (Emphasis added). Plaintiffs focuses on the latter part of the definition to essentially contend that 28 6 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 any activity which may likely cause physical or mental harm to any student, constitutes hazing. 2 (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 6:12-7:5.) 3 Unless the words are ambiguous, a statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s 4 interpretation thereof. (People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 299.) When reading UCSC’s 5 definition of hazing, taken from the Standards for Student Conduct for the University of California 6 7 System 14, it is clear that the latter part of the definition after the phrase “and in addition”, is added 8 to the beginning of the standard – “any method of initiation or pre-initiation into a student 9 organization or student body . . .” The “method of initiation or pre-initiation” qualifies the entire 10 definition, and not just the first part. It is clear from reading this definition that UCSC does not 11 intend to restrict hazing to include only acts that “likely cause serious bodily injury” but also acts 12 that “likely cause physical harm, personal degradation or disgrace resulting in physical or mental 13 harm”. That is, UCSC does not require hazing to be attributed to acts that only cause serious injury 14 15 but utilizes a less severe standard in imposing that any acts, as part of an initiation or pre-initiation 16 into an organization, that may likely cause any type of injury, can be considered hazing. (Emphasis 17 added). 18 Common sense further compels Theta Chi’s argument because Plaintiffs’ reading of the 19 standard would constitute any cause of injury to any student at any educational institution as hazing. 20 As analyzed in the underlying motion, since Mr. Beletsis was already a member of the 21 Chapter at the time of his death and none of the activities he participated in were conducted as part 22 23 of his initiation or pre-initiation into the Chapter, all hazing allegations must be stricken from the 24 First Amended Complaint. 25 // 26 // 27 28 14 First Amended Complaint, at ¶ 92. 7 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THETA CHI AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE FIRST 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT. 3 When non-intentional torts are involved, punitive damages are only awarded “when the 4 conduct constitutes conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” and requires the plaintiff 5 to prove that the defendant was aware of the “probably dangerous consequences of his conduct, 6 7 and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo 8 Hospital (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1043-8.) Additionally, Civil Code section 3294(b) imposes 9 even more stringent pleading requirements where punitive damages are alleged against a corporate 10 defendant, such as Theta Chi. 11 As explained above and in the underlying motion, the Chapter is not Theta Chi’s agent, and 12 therefore, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the pleading requirements delineated in Civil Code section 13 3294(b) to establish a punitive damages claim against Theta Chi. 14 15 Additionally, throughout their opposition, Plaintiffs dispute the insufficiency of punitive 16 damages allegations by asserting legal conclusions yet again, e.g., conduct qualifies as “despicable” 17 and it was carried out “with a willful and conscious disregard of Alex’s rights and safety”. 18 (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 17:12-15, 17:19-18:5.) Plaintiffs also allege another legal conclusion of 19 ratification to support punitive damages. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 17:15-18.) Conclusory 20 allegations cannot support a claim for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 21 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) 22 23 While Plaintiffs attempt to satisfy their requirements by arguing that there was fraud, 24 oppression and malice on Theta Chi’s part as it represented to Alex that he would not be hazed and 25 hazing was prohibited, 15 there are no allegations to suggest that Theta Chi had knowledge that Mr. 26 Beletsis would indeed be subject to any alleged hazing. Also, Plaintiffs allege that Theta Chi did 27 28 15 Plaintiff’s Opposition, at 18:6-21. 8 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 not tell Mr. Beletsis about the Chapter’s prior sanctions but there are no allegations to suggest that 2 such non-disclosure is considered malice, oppression, or fraud, which is required to allege punitive 3 damages. 4 As Plaintiffs have failed to plead a viable claim for punitive damages against Theta Chi, all 5 such allegations and requests for punitive damages against Theta Chi must be stricken from the 6 7 First Amended Complaint. 8 V. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., respectfully requests this 10 Court to grant this Motion, and strike portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, as 11 specifically identified and set forth in Defendant’s underlying Notice of Motion. 12 13 Dated: August 24, 2020 COKINOS | YOUNG 14 15 16 Michael C. Osborne Jaskiran K. Samra 17 Attorneys for Defendant THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Beletsis v. Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., et al. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Action No. 19CV03287 3 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action or 4 proceeding. My business address is One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 390, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the below date, I caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 DEFENDANT THETA CHI FRATERNITY INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 6 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 by electronically serving the above reference document(s) through Email to the person(s) set forth below. Executed by Amanda L. Sanchez on August 24, 2020, at San 8 Francisco, California. 9 by having personal delivery by Express Network of a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set 10 forth below. 11 12 See Attached Service List 13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 24, 2020 at San Francisco, California. 14 15 16 Amanda L. Sanchez 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Douglas E. Fierberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathon N. Fazzola DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY 3 The Fierberg Nation Law Group, PLLC 161 East Front Steet, Suite 200 Tel: (202) 351-0510 4 Traverse City, MI 49684 Fax: (231) 252-8100 5 dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com, 6 jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com, 7 lcloutier@tfnlgroup.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ivo Labar Sawyer & Labar, LLP DAPHNE BELETSIS and YVONNE RAINEY 9 201 Mission Street, Suite 2240 Tel: (415) 262-3820 10 San Francisco, CA 94105 labar@sawyerlabar.com 11 guzman@sawyerlabar.com tpicard@tfnlgroup.com 12 Andrew M. Lauderdale Attorneys for Defendant 13 QUINN MCLAUGHLIN Stratman, Pedersen & Lauderdale 14 1 Almaden Blvd Ste 400 Tel: (408) 271-5300 San Jose, CA 95113 15 andrew.lauderdale@farmersinsurance.com 16 Derek Lim Attorneys for Defendants 17 Shannon Mallory BRAD VISACKI Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP 18 Tel: 415.949-1900 1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400 Cell 415.317.3693 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Fax: 415.354.8380 19 lim@darlaw.com 20 mal@darlaw.com 21 22 Mary Childs Attorneys for Defendants An McNulty EMMANUEL THOMAS, BOBBY KARKI, and 23 Aaron Case JOHN DYLAN LEITCH Yoka & Smith, LLP 24 445 South Figueroa Street Tel: (213) 427-2300 38th Floor Fax: (213) 427-2330 25 Los Angeles, CA 90071 mchilds@yokasmith.com 26 amcnulty@yokasmith.com acase@yokasmith.com 27 28 2 SERVICE LIST 1 Norman L. Chong Attorneys for Defendant Joseph D. O’Neil NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON 2 Tracy Herrington Tel: (415) 777-5501 3 Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong Fax: (415) 546-4962 201 Mission Street, Suite 710 4 San Francisco, CA 94105 nchong@to2law.com joneil@to2law.com 5 therrington@to2law.com Shawn Toliver Attorneys for Defendant 6 Julie Acevedo JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 7 Tel: (925) 357-3456 2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 300 Fax: (925) 478-3260 8 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Julie.Azevedo@lewisbrisbois.com 9 Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com Kristen.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com 10 Robert T. Mackey Attorneys for Defendant Ryne W. Osborne STEFAN MATIAS LEON 11 Veatch Carlson, LLP Tel: (213) 404-1108 12 1055 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor Fax: (213) 383-6370 Los Angeles, CA 90017 13 rmackey@veatchfirm.com rosborne@veatchfirm.com 14 cporter@veatchfirm.com Thomas M. Phillips Attorneys for Defendant 15 William P. Ryan STEFAN MATIAS LEON The Phillips Firm, APC 16 Tel: (213) 587-7414 800 West 6th Street, Suite 980 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fax: (213) 457-7515 17 tphillips@thephillipsfirm.com 18 pmckinley@thephillipsfirm.com Ray Tamaddon Attorneys for Defendant 19 ZACHARY DAVIS Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 20 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800, Tel: (310) 909-8078 Los Angeles, California 90025 Fax: (310) 909-8001 21 RTamaddon@hinshawlaw.com 22 Hightower, Kristina KHightower@hinshawlaw.com 23 Attorneys for Defendant Matthew C. Jaime Robert W. Sweetin CHRIS GUEVARA 24 Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP Tel: (916) 978-3434 25 3638 American River Drive Fax: (916) 978-3430 Sacramento, CA 95864 26 mjaime@mathenysears.com rsweetin@mathenysears.com 27 Alan F. Hunter Attorneys for Defendant 28 Elizabeth G. Landess RAFAEL GARCIA, JR. 3 SERVICE LIST 1 Jack T. Bussell Gavin Cunningham & Hunter 2 1530 The Alameda, Suite 210 Tel: (408) 294-8500 Fax: (408) 294-8596 3 San Jose, CA 95126 hunter@gclitigation.com 4 5 Patrick R. Ball Attorneys for Defendant Idin Kashefipour MOISES TENORIO GARCIA 6 Messner Reeves LLP Tel: (949) 612-9128 7 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Fax: (310) 889-0896 Newport Beach, CA 92660 8 pball@messner.com ikashefipour@messner.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 SERVICE LIST