Preview
1 Law Offices of
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
2 RONALD E. ENABNIT, ESQ. (SBN 138062)
3638 American River Drive 11/16/2020
3 Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: (916) 978-3434
4 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430
Email: renabnit@mathenysears.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF BUTTE
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
10
95864
11 MEGAN PAGE and RONALD PAGE, Case No. 17CV02270
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12 Plaintiffs, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
LAW OFFICES OF
JUDGE ROBERT A. GLUSMAN
13 v.
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S
14 SKYWAY HOUSE, INC., and DOES 1 to OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
50, inclusive, FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT
Defendants.
16 Date: November 18, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17 Dept: 10
18
19 I.
20 INTRODUCTION
21 Motions for leave to amend a complaint are liberally construed in favor of plaintiffs.
22 Plaintiffs here acknowledge, however, that the moving plaintiff must timely make the motion and
23 that the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the defendant. Morgan v. Superior
24 Court (1959) 172 Cal.App. 2d 527, 530. Plaintiffs’ motion is not timely and defendant Skyway
25 House, Inc. would be prejudiced by the granting of this motion. Furthermore, as is discussed below,
26 plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint is a sham pleading. Because the second amended
27 complaint is being used as a procedural device to overturn this court’s order compelling plaintiff to
28 appear for a December 7, 2020, mental examination, this motion is actually the first stage in what
1
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 amounts to a de facto improper motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.
2 II.
3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS UNTIMELY AND IS A SHAM PLEADING
4 Plaintiffs candidly admit that the only reason for the second amended complaint is to
5 overturn this court’s ruling on November 4, 2020, compelling plaintiff to appear for a mental
6 examination on Dec. 7, 2020 (Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Declaration of James Schacht). Amended
7 complaints are routinely allowed to be filed because they present unanticipated new facts or new
8 legal theories exist. Such is not the case here.
9 It is abundantly clear in our case that plaintiffs had hoped that they could defeat defendant’s
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
10 motion to compel the mental examination without having to amend their first amended complaint
95864
11 (The filing of a second amended complaint would not be sufficient to overturn the November 4,
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12 2020 Order, but that specific issue is not before the court in the subject motion). If this court would
LAW OFFICES OF
13 have denied the motion to compel the mental exam, plaintiffs undoubtedly would not have filed the
14 subject motion and plaintiffs could have then proceeded to trial with a complaint that alleged
15 ongoing emotional distress. Plaintiffs were hoping that they could successfully oppose the motion
16 to compel mental examination, without having to dismiss Megan Page’s claim of ongoing
17 emotional distress damages. Only after this court ordered plaintiff Megan Page to appear for her
18 mental examination, did plaintiffs propose to amend their complaint, in the misguided hope of
19 laying a stronger foundation for a yet to be filed motion for protective order which would seek to
20 overturn the November 4, 2020 Order. This amounts to an improper “second bite at the apple” and
21 a de facto motion for reconsideration.
22 Plaintiffs knew about the Doyle opinion months ago and yet did not file the subject motion
23 until after Ms. Page was ordered to appear for the December 7, 2020, mental examination. Because
24 Ms. Page waited until after the adverse order on November 4 to finally state (however ambiguously)
25 that now she no longer intends to assert a claim for ongoing emotional distress, the subject motion
26 is untimely.
27 Both the Court and Skyway House, Inc. were entitled to know every argument and all the
28 facts that plaintiffs intended to assert in their opposition to compel the mental examination before
2
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 the court ruled on that motion. It would be extraordinarily unfair to Skyway House, Inc. for
2 plaintiffs to be allowed to engage in such litigation practice. Plaintiffs understand that there is no
3 basis for a proper motion for reconsideration under C.C.P. section 1008. Yet what plaintiffs now
4 propose is a motion for reconsideration with a different name attached to it.
5 It is also noteworthy that this issue of emotional distress damages has been a moving target.
6 In her opposition to the motion to compel her mental examination, plaintiff Megan Page proposed
7 that the court limit her emotional distress damages claim to a three year period (ending in August
8 2017). She now has abandoned that limited time frame, although it is unclear exactly what Ms.
9 Page now proposes regarding the duration of her emotional distress claim. Did her emotional
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
10 distress damages claim continue up to November 9, 2020 - five days after the November 4, 2020
95864
11 ruling from the court? Did it end at a yet to be defined date when she established her relationship
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12 with the boyfriend she describes in paragraph 3 of her declaration? It is still possible that Ms. Page
LAW OFFICES OF
13 may reverse course yet again before trial and claim special and general damages for ongoing
14 emotional distress, in light of the deliberately vague statement in paragraph 4 of her declaration
15 (she does “not anticipate the need for future therapy”…) (highlighting added).
16 Although plaintiffs contend that the second amended complaint serves to limit the scope of
17 her emotional distress damages, it, in fact, increases the length of Ms. Page’s emotional distress
18 damages claim by more than three years, when compared to the August 2017 damages cut-off date
19 stated in her opposition to the motion to compel mental examination. Ms. Page should not be
20 permitted to change the facts of her emotional distress damages claim, depending upon how it suits
21 her particular interests at any specific point in the litigation.
22 If plaintiffs’ previously proposed August 2017 damages cut-off date was just an arbitrary
23 date with no basis in fact and was presented solely to defeat defendant’s motion, then plaintiffs
24 wasted a considerable amount of this court’s and the defendant’s time in the adjudication of the
25 defendant’s motion to compel the mental examination by presenting a “stipulation” that could never
26 be effectively enforced at trial and which plaintiffs knew was illusory. If on the other hand, the
27 August 2017 damages cut-off date truly stated the duration of the emotional distress damages claim
28 of Ms. Page, then the proposed second amended complaint overstates Ms. Page’s damages claim
3
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 by at least three years.
2 Because plaintiffs are using the proposed second amended complaint solely to seek to
3 reverse the November 4, 2020 Order, it should be regarded as a sham pleading and plaintiffs’
4 motion should be denied. See Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, 131 Cal. App. 4th
5 621, 653: (“[A] court is not required to accept an amended complaint that is not filed in good faith,
6 is frivolous or sham. [Citation.]” (American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western
7 Transport (1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 875, 878 [199 Cal. Rptr. 735].) In considering a motion to
8 amend, the court may examine the movant's prior pleading to determine whether the proposed
9 pleading is a sham. (Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929,
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
10 946 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 669].) In doing so, the movant must explain inconsistencies between the prior
95864
11 and proposed [***65] pleadings. (Ibid.) Stated otherwise, “ ‘a plaintiff may not discard factual
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12 allegations of a prior complaint, or avoid them by contradictory averments, in a superseding,
LAW OFFICES OF
13 amended pleading.’ [Citations.]” (Continental Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th
14 637, 646…”).
15 III.
16 SKYWAY HOUSE WOULD SUFFER PREJUDICE IF THE MOTION WERE GRANTED
17 Skyway House, Inc. would suffer prejudice if the motion for leave to file a second amended
18 complaint were granted, because it would incur substantial attorneys’ fees and costs in conducting
19 another deposition of plaintiff Megan Page to determine the nature and extent of her new emotional
20 distress damages claim, which is at odds with her previously stated contention that such damages
21 had concluded by September 2017.
22 IV.
23 CONCLUSION
24 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint should be denied because
25 it is a sham pleading. It is simply a procedural tool by plaintiffs to overturn this court’s November
26 4th Order compelling Megan Page to attend a mental examination. Plaintiffs made a calculated
27 decision to try to defeat the motion to compel the mental examination by proposing what proved to
28 be an illusory and unworkable “stipulation” to limit Megan Page’s emotional distress damages to
4
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 an arbitrary period of three years. When that strategy failed, plaintiffs moved on to Plan B, which
2 was to propose a new complaint which actually would expand her period of recoverable emotional
3 damages from three years to more than six years (and perhaps beyond that), from what was
4 proposed in plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to compel mental examination. Plaintiffs’ misuse
5 of the pleading process should be denied.
6
Dated: November 16, 2020 MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
7
8
By:____________________________
9 RONALD E. ENABNIT, ESQ.
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
Attorneys for Defendant SKYWAY
10 HOUSE, INC.
95864
11
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12
LAW OFFICES OF
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
[Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1013(a)(3) & 2015.5]
2
MEGAN PAGE, et al. v. SKYWAY HOUSE, INC., et al.
3 Butte County Superior Court No. 17CV02270
4 (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO)
5 I am a resident of the United States and employed in Sacramento County. I am over the age
6 of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 3638
American River Drive, Sacramento, California.
7
On this date, I served the following documents on the parties in this action as follows:
8
SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
9 AMEND COMPLAINT
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP
10
[] BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
95864
11 thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
forth below. I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice of collection and processing
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
12 correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in
LAW OFFICES OF
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is
13 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than 1 day after
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
14
[] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an overnight
15 delivery service company for delivery to the address(es) on the next business day.
16 [] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed
above to the person(s) at the addressee(s) set forth below.
17
[X] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL BY AGREEMENT: by sending the attached document via
18 electronic mail to the e-mail addresses set forth below:
19 Joseph M. Earley, III, Esq. Attorneys for Jane Doe
James Schacht, Esq. Joe@JosephEarley.com
20 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. EARLEY, III James@josephearley.com
121 W. 1st Avenue Secretary: Mary Bunn
21 Chico, CA 95928 mary@josephearley.com
Tel: (530) 876-1111 cameron@josephearley.com
22 Fax: (530) 876-1122
23 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
24
Executed on this 16th day of November 2020 at Sacramento, California.
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Law Offices of MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 2 RONALD E. ENABNIT, ESQ. (SBN 138062) 3638 American River Drive 11/16/2020 3 Sacramento, California 95864 Telephone: (916) 978-3434 4 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 Email: renabnit@mathenysears.com 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant SKYWAY HOUSE, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF BUTTE MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 10 95864 11 MEGAN PAGE and RONALD PAGE, Case No. 17CV02270 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 Plaintiffs, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO LAW OFFICES OF JUDGE ROBERT A. GLUSMAN 13 v. DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S 14 SKYWAY HOUSE, INC., and DOES 1 to OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 50, inclusive, FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT Defendants. 16 Date: November 18, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Dept: 10 18 19 I. 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Motions for leave to amend a complaint are liberally construed in favor of plaintiffs. 22 Plaintiffs here acknowledge, however, that the moving plaintiff must timely make the motion and 23 that the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the defendant. Morgan v. Superior 24 Court (1959) 172 Cal.App. 2d 527, 530. Plaintiffs’ motion is not timely and defendant Skyway 25 House, Inc. would be prejudiced by the granting of this motion. Furthermore, as is discussed below, 26 plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint is a sham pleading. Because the second amended 27 complaint is being used as a procedural device to overturn this court’s order compelling plaintiff to 28 appear for a December 7, 2020, mental examination, this motion is actually the first stage in what 1 DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 amounts to a de facto improper motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. 2 II. 3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS UNTIMELY AND IS A SHAM PLEADING 4 Plaintiffs candidly admit that the only reason for the second amended complaint is to 5 overturn this court’s ruling on November 4, 2020, compelling plaintiff to appear for a mental 6 examination on Dec. 7, 2020 (Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Declaration of James Schacht). Amended 7 complaints are routinely allowed to be filed because they present unanticipated new facts or new 8 legal theories exist. Such is not the case here. 9 It is abundantly clear in our case that plaintiffs had hoped that they could defeat defendant’s MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 10 motion to compel the mental examination without having to amend their first amended complaint 95864 11 (The filing of a second amended complaint would not be sufficient to overturn the November 4, 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 2020 Order, but that specific issue is not before the court in the subject motion). If this court would LAW OFFICES OF 13 have denied the motion to compel the mental exam, plaintiffs undoubtedly would not have filed the 14 subject motion and plaintiffs could have then proceeded to trial with a complaint that alleged 15 ongoing emotional distress. Plaintiffs were hoping that they could successfully oppose the motion 16 to compel mental examination, without having to dismiss Megan Page’s claim of ongoing 17 emotional distress damages. Only after this court ordered plaintiff Megan Page to appear for her 18 mental examination, did plaintiffs propose to amend their complaint, in the misguided hope of 19 laying a stronger foundation for a yet to be filed motion for protective order which would seek to 20 overturn the November 4, 2020 Order. This amounts to an improper “second bite at the apple” and 21 a de facto motion for reconsideration. 22 Plaintiffs knew about the Doyle opinion months ago and yet did not file the subject motion 23 until after Ms. Page was ordered to appear for the December 7, 2020, mental examination. Because 24 Ms. Page waited until after the adverse order on November 4 to finally state (however ambiguously) 25 that now she no longer intends to assert a claim for ongoing emotional distress, the subject motion 26 is untimely. 27 Both the Court and Skyway House, Inc. were entitled to know every argument and all the 28 facts that plaintiffs intended to assert in their opposition to compel the mental examination before 2 DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 the court ruled on that motion. It would be extraordinarily unfair to Skyway House, Inc. for 2 plaintiffs to be allowed to engage in such litigation practice. Plaintiffs understand that there is no 3 basis for a proper motion for reconsideration under C.C.P. section 1008. Yet what plaintiffs now 4 propose is a motion for reconsideration with a different name attached to it. 5 It is also noteworthy that this issue of emotional distress damages has been a moving target. 6 In her opposition to the motion to compel her mental examination, plaintiff Megan Page proposed 7 that the court limit her emotional distress damages claim to a three year period (ending in August 8 2017). She now has abandoned that limited time frame, although it is unclear exactly what Ms. 9 Page now proposes regarding the duration of her emotional distress claim. Did her emotional MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 10 distress damages claim continue up to November 9, 2020 - five days after the November 4, 2020 95864 11 ruling from the court? Did it end at a yet to be defined date when she established her relationship 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 with the boyfriend she describes in paragraph 3 of her declaration? It is still possible that Ms. Page LAW OFFICES OF 13 may reverse course yet again before trial and claim special and general damages for ongoing 14 emotional distress, in light of the deliberately vague statement in paragraph 4 of her declaration 15 (she does “not anticipate the need for future therapy”…) (highlighting added). 16 Although plaintiffs contend that the second amended complaint serves to limit the scope of 17 her emotional distress damages, it, in fact, increases the length of Ms. Page’s emotional distress 18 damages claim by more than three years, when compared to the August 2017 damages cut-off date 19 stated in her opposition to the motion to compel mental examination. Ms. Page should not be 20 permitted to change the facts of her emotional distress damages claim, depending upon how it suits 21 her particular interests at any specific point in the litigation. 22 If plaintiffs’ previously proposed August 2017 damages cut-off date was just an arbitrary 23 date with no basis in fact and was presented solely to defeat defendant’s motion, then plaintiffs 24 wasted a considerable amount of this court’s and the defendant’s time in the adjudication of the 25 defendant’s motion to compel the mental examination by presenting a “stipulation” that could never 26 be effectively enforced at trial and which plaintiffs knew was illusory. If on the other hand, the 27 August 2017 damages cut-off date truly stated the duration of the emotional distress damages claim 28 of Ms. Page, then the proposed second amended complaint overstates Ms. Page’s damages claim 3 DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 by at least three years. 2 Because plaintiffs are using the proposed second amended complaint solely to seek to 3 reverse the November 4, 2020 Order, it should be regarded as a sham pleading and plaintiffs’ 4 motion should be denied. See Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, 131 Cal. App. 4th 5 621, 653: (“[A] court is not required to accept an amended complaint that is not filed in good faith, 6 is frivolous or sham. [Citation.]” (American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western 7 Transport (1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 875, 878 [199 Cal. Rptr. 735].) In considering a motion to 8 amend, the court may examine the movant's prior pleading to determine whether the proposed 9 pleading is a sham. (Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 10 946 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 669].) In doing so, the movant must explain inconsistencies between the prior 95864 11 and proposed [***65] pleadings. (Ibid.) Stated otherwise, “ ‘a plaintiff may not discard factual 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 allegations of a prior complaint, or avoid them by contradictory averments, in a superseding, LAW OFFICES OF 13 amended pleading.’ [Citations.]” (Continental Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 14 637, 646…”). 15 III. 16 SKYWAY HOUSE WOULD SUFFER PREJUDICE IF THE MOTION WERE GRANTED 17 Skyway House, Inc. would suffer prejudice if the motion for leave to file a second amended 18 complaint were granted, because it would incur substantial attorneys’ fees and costs in conducting 19 another deposition of plaintiff Megan Page to determine the nature and extent of her new emotional 20 distress damages claim, which is at odds with her previously stated contention that such damages 21 had concluded by September 2017. 22 IV. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint should be denied because 25 it is a sham pleading. It is simply a procedural tool by plaintiffs to overturn this court’s November 26 4th Order compelling Megan Page to attend a mental examination. Plaintiffs made a calculated 27 decision to try to defeat the motion to compel the mental examination by proposing what proved to 28 be an illusory and unworkable “stipulation” to limit Megan Page’s emotional distress damages to 4 DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 an arbitrary period of three years. When that strategy failed, plaintiffs moved on to Plan B, which 2 was to propose a new complaint which actually would expand her period of recoverable emotional 3 damages from three years to more than six years (and perhaps beyond that), from what was 4 proposed in plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to compel mental examination. Plaintiffs’ misuse 5 of the pleading process should be denied. 6 Dated: November 16, 2020 MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 7 8 By:____________________________ 9 RONALD E. ENABNIT, ESQ. MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP Attorneys for Defendant SKYWAY 10 HOUSE, INC. 95864 11 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 LAW OFFICES OF 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1013(a)(3) & 2015.5] 2 MEGAN PAGE, et al. v. SKYWAY HOUSE, INC., et al. 3 Butte County Superior Court No. 17CV02270 4 (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) 5 I am a resident of the United States and employed in Sacramento County. I am over the age 6 of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 3638 American River Drive, Sacramento, California. 7 On this date, I served the following documents on the parties in this action as follows: 8 SKYWAY HOUSE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 9 AMEND COMPLAINT MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 10 [] BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage 95864 11 thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE forth below. I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice of collection and processing SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 12 correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in LAW OFFICES OF the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is 13 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 14 [] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an overnight 15 delivery service company for delivery to the address(es) on the next business day. 16 [] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the addressee(s) set forth below. 17 [X] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL BY AGREEMENT: by sending the attached document via 18 electronic mail to the e-mail addresses set forth below: 19 Joseph M. Earley, III, Esq. Attorneys for Jane Doe James Schacht, Esq. Joe@JosephEarley.com 20 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. EARLEY, III James@josephearley.com 121 W. 1st Avenue Secretary: Mary Bunn 21 Chico, CA 95928 mary@josephearley.com Tel: (530) 876-1111 cameron@josephearley.com 22 Fax: (530) 876-1122 23 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on this 16th day of November 2020 at Sacramento, California. 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE