Preview
© oO
Matthew
M.
C. Bradford,
Robinson ,
Esq.
Esq. —
— SBN
SBN
196798
305611
FILED
Nathan Superior Court of California
County of Plecer
ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP
NWN
3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 FEB 28 2018
WwW
Stockton, CA 95219
Telephone: (209) 954-9001 dake Chatters
bh
Rxécutive Officer & Clerk
Facsimile: (209) 954-9091 By. Lucaiuorto, Deputy
Attorney for Defendants,
Roseville Petroleum, Inc., Nirmal Singh
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER -UNLIMITED CIVIL
VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a CASE NO.: S-CV-0035599
10
California corporation
1 DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY
Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
12 STATEMENT
vs.
13
'
A
CORPORATION, a MSC: March 2, 2018
14
woo'adinlagsssoolgAyQuenty
SONORA GASOLINE
Gall
California corporation formerly known as Time: 8:30 a.m.
15 SONOR A PETRO LEUM, INC., a California Dept:
corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWA L, Judge:
Ad
16 SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; 2012-S IP-1 Trial: March 19, 2018
17
XV4
VENTURE LLC, A Delaware limited
liability company as successor to Tennessee
18 State Charted Bank, ROSEVILLE
19 PETROLEUM, INC., a California
corporation, NIRMAL SINGH, and DOES
20 ONE through TWENTY, inclusive
21 Defendants.
22 Defendants Roseville Petroleum Inc. (“RPI”) and Nirmal Singh submit the following
23 settlement conference statement in compliance with California Rules of Court rule
mandatory
24
3.1380.
25
1. ATTORNEY SUBMITTING STATEMENT
26
C. Bradford, Esq., who represents Defendants RPI and Nirmal Singh submits
Attorney, Matthew
em
28 the following mandatory settlement conference statement.
1
DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
2. PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Parties Counsel
NY
Paul A. Warner
YW
Plaintiff,
Inc. 1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220
Voyager Restaurant Group
&
Roseville, CA 95661
HH
Defendants,
and Gurraj S. Grewal Jack B. Burstein
DH
Sonora Petroleum Inc.
1730 Sonoma Boulevard
Vallejo, California 94590
oN
Defendants, Brian Healy
Venture LLC and 575 Market Street, Suite 3050
2012-SIP-1
Do
Group LP San Francisco, California 94105
Saban Financial
10
1 Denea Budde
Defendant,
California Blvd, Suite 1010
12 Parmar LLC 2121 N.
Creek, CA 94596
Walnut
13
Defendant, Unknown
14 Tennessee Commerce Bank
15 Unknown
Cross-Defendant,
16 Mitra Alizadeh
17
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS
18
as alleged by Plaintiff. Defendants do not agree that the following
19 - The following are facts
20 facts are allcorrect.
21 Voyager Restaurant Group Inc.. (“Voyager”) alleges in its third amended complaint
22 (“TAC”) that it entered into a lease (“Lease”) on or about August 31, 2011 with Sonora
23 to be Sonora Gasoline Company or “SGC”) as the landlord
Petroleum Inc. (“SPI”) (now alleged
24 located at2998
and Voyager as a tenant, in order to build a Sonic Restaurant on the real property
25
CA 95661 (“Real Property”). At all relevant times, Defendant
Foothills Boulevard, Roseville,
26
RPL operated an ARCO AM PM on the premises of the Real Property.
27
28
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DEFENDANTS’
© Oo
Lease provided that SPI and Gurraj S. Grewal (“Grewal”) were
Plaintiff alleges that the
to make improvements on the Real Property and Plaintiff would
going to loan Plaintiff funds
NY
Plaintiff alleges that sometime after the
WY
eventually open a restaurant on the property. However,
F&F
and 2012-SIP-1, enforced their legal rights pursuant to a
Lease was executed, Defendants Sabal
UU
which prevented ‘SPI and Grewal from having the funds to
loan agreement with SPI and Grewal,
An
loan money to Plaintiff for the property improvements.
Lease
oN
alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh interfered with Plaintiff's
Plaintiff only
lease with the receiver and asserting control of the entire premises,
renegotiating RPI’s
Oo
by
Plaintiff then alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh have
including the restaurant premises.
o
S
of the Real Property and interfered
EZ
intentionally asserted control
=
negligently and alternatively
Plaintiff.
NH
and quiet enjoyment thereof to the detriment and damage to
with Plaintiff's Lease
BH
WwW
AM PM on the premises of the Real Property, itis -
Although Defendant RPI operates an ARCO
hb
alleged interference
DE
from Plaintiffs TAC how Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh’s
entirely unclear
WwW
Plaintiff does not state how RPI and Mr. Singh were aware
with Plaintiff's Lease was wrongful.
an
DR
failsto state how the act of taking over the premises was
of the alleged Lease and furthermore
~~
not state facts that show how Defendants RPI and
addition, Plaintiff does
oo
wrongful conduct. In
SE
to disrupt the relationship between Voyager and SGC.
Mr. Singh intended
any communications
©
does not provide any facts that show a relationship or even
Plaintiff
RNNY
—_
Voyager’s TAC does not show any facts that there is a
between Voyager and RPI or Mr. Singh.
N
Singh and the other named defendants, beside from being
separate relationship between RPI/Mr.
WwW
In short, Voyager does not provide any facts as to
a current tenant of the Real Property at issue.
&
NR
when or how the RPI tenancy relates to Voyager’s claims.
ur
we
IONS
an
4. FACTUAL
FACT UAL SDPULAT
STIP VLA I™
stipulated to any facts.
oN
os
’ The parties have not
Db
eo
3
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DEFENDANTS’
© oO
5, CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND DEFENSES
almost every fact. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest the allegation
The parties contest
NY
the terms of Plaintiffs Lease during the relevant periods of time.
of
W
that they were aware
FF
contest any allegation that the alleged conduct by them was
Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh
vw
that it allegedly interfered with Plaintiffs Lease. Defendants RPI
wrongful, beyond the mere fact
BD
allegation that when Defendants reversed their “previously express
and Mr. Singh contest the
oN
premises that they only had the Arco AMPM had nothing to do with the
position with regard to the
independently tortious. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest the
reversal was
Oo
restaurant” such a
action of taking over the restaurant premises was wrongful conduct.
allegation that Defendants
CO
CU
Singh contest any allegation by Plaintiff that Defendants intended to
RPI and Mr.
U6hOGUlUlU
Defendants
AB NE
Voyager and SPI or SGC. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest
disrupt the relationship between
YH
alleged by Plaintiff, was wrongful or unlawful proscribed by
eS
that none of Defendants conduct, as
R
regulatory, common law, or another determinable legal standard.
some constitutional, statutory,
ASe
for the second and third causes of action is2 years as set forth in
The statute of limitations
B AA SP
1. The second and third causes of action are based upon the following
339, subd
Be
CCP §
Se!
R SGae
allegations:
Inc. for the
Se
entered into a written agreement with Voyager Restaurant Group,
a) Sonora
yReR
oN
XIV.
RS
lease of certain real property. TAC 7
mb
to lend $250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. TACY
b) The lease required Sonora
XV.
$250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. TAC { XIX.
c) Sonora failed to lend
action of RPI and Mr. Singh, they interfered with and caused
d) By some unspecified
N
not lend the $250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc.
Sonora to
lease, specifically paragraph two, the Effective Date isthe date
By the terms of the
4
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DEFENDANTS’
© Oo
last signature. The lease was signed by the tenant on August 26, 2011 and by the landlord
=
of the
Date is August 31, 2011.
NHN
on August 31, 2011. Therefore, the Effective
to be funded within sixty
YW
The funds to be lent by the landlord to the tenant were required
FF
the Effective Date. This deadline isclearly set forth in the lease agreement and cited
(60) days for
UH
by Plaintiff in paragraph XV of the TAC.
DO
Sixty (60) days after the Effective Date is October 30, 2011. As the landlord, SPI/SGC,
oN
Plaintiff was aware of the breach at that time. As such, based upon a two-
failed to fund the loan,
Plaintiff had no later than October 30, 2013 in which to file this action.
limitation,
oo
year statute of
solely for the purposes of this settlement conference statement that the TAC relates
Conceding
DS
hmL6pp|UUCUmD6S
was filed in December 2014, more than a year
|
back to the initialcomplaint, the initialcomplaint
after the deadline.
RYH
6. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW
UP
To Defendants’ knowledge, there are no contested issues of law.
Oe
Aw
7, SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
et
there have been no offers to settle or other settlement discussions between Plaintiff and
To date
S|
BCMA
Singh.
eS
Defendants RPI and Mr.
PF
8. LIMITS ON INSURANCE COVERAGE
NNO
Not applicable.
FS
9, ARBITRATION
Ny
PeePPRRPRBS
This case has not been through arbitration.
10. SPECIAL PROBLEMS RELATING TO SETTLEMENT
NH
and Mr. Singh are not aware of any special problems relating to settlement.
NY
Defendants RPI
NNN
5
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DEFENDANTS’
© Oo
DATED: February 28, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP
i
Ww
>
M eer ls
Attorney for te Petroleum, Inc.
WN
and Nirmal Sing
DO
4
fe&
Oo
6
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DEFENDANTS’
© oO
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
I,the undersigned, certifyand declare asfollows: | am over the age of eighteen yearsand.nota paity tothis
BRADFORD LLP, 3439 BROOKSIDE ROAD, Suite 212, Stockton,
bo
action. My business address isROBINSON
California95219, which islocated in San Joaquin County where the mailing and/or deliverybelow took place.
; On February 28, 2018, I served thefollowing document(s): DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY
Sw
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT inthe above-referenced case, by placinga truecopy thereof,
enclosed in.asealed envelope, addressed and served as follows:
BY PERSONALLY DEPOSITING THE MAIL: On thedate specifiedabove, 1 deposited inthe mail atthe
WH
place specified above a copy of the document described above in a sealed.envelope, with postage fully
prepaid addressed to theindividualsand/or to theofficesof the addressee(s)below:
DA
X | BY BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: | am readily familiar with the
businesspractice atmy place of for
business. collectionand processing of correspondence for mailing with
NHN
ihe United States Service.
Postal. Correspondence so collectedand processed deposited
is. with the United
States PostalService thatsame day in.theordinary course of business. On the date specified below, atmy
C6
place ofbusiness at Stockton, a
California, copy of the document described above was placed fordepositin
the United States PostalService mailbox ina sealed envelope, with.postage fully prepaid addressed tothe
Oo
individualsand/or to theoffices ofthe addressee(s) below, and thatenvelope was placed for collectionand
410 mailing on thatdate following ordinary businesspractice.
BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER: On the date specifiedbelow, |deposited ina box or other facility
il regularly maintained by Federal Express, United Parcel Service or other express service carrier,or
delivered to acourier or driverauthorized by said express service carriertoreceive documents, a-copy of
the document mentioned above, in-an envelope designed by thesaid express.service carrier,with delivery”
“
“| feespaid or provided for addtessed tothe individuals:and/orto.theofficesof theaddressee(s) below.
1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: On the date specifiedbelow, |caused such erivelope.tobe delivered by hand
1
14 addresséd to theindividuals and/orto theoffices ofthe addréssee(s)below.
FAX TRANSMISSION: On the date specified below, I transmitted from a facsimile transmission
BY
the documents described above addressed to the individuals and/or to. the offices of the
15 machine
addressee(s) below. The above-described transmission was reported ascomplete witheut error by a
transmission issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was
16
following the transmission tothe individualsand/or tothe officesof the below.
addressee(s).
“{rimediately
17. Paul A. Warner, Esq. Brian S.Healy, Esq.
Clara Drive, Suite220 TIERNEY, WATSON & HEALY PC
1624.Santa
18 Roseville,CA 95661 575 Market Street,Suite3050
Telephone: (916) 996-3100 San Francisco, CA 94105
19 1) Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 Telephone: (415)974-1900
Email: pwarner@pacdining.com Facsimile: (415)974-6433
20 , Email: Brian@tw2law.com
Attorneyfor Plaintiff,Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. :
21 Attorney for Defendant,
Jack Burstein,Esq. Denae Budde, Esq. —
Blvd Hildebrand, Alborg, Veiluva & Martin LLP
22 1730 Sonoma
Vallejo,CA 94590 2121 N. California Blvd, Suite 1010
23 |||Telephone: (707) 643-8405 Wainut Creek, CA 94596
Email: smithandburstein@comecast net
Attorney for Cross-Defendant, Parmar LLC
24
‘J / |
Attorney for Defendant, Sonora Gasoline
under penaltyof perjury under thelaws of the Stgt of that
Californidl the-foregoing js
25 icertifyand declare
2% trueand correct. |
Executed on February 28, 2018, atStockton, California.
27
28 NNEC me ae (J)
|
| 7
PROOF OF SERVICE \
Preview
© oO Matthew M. C. Bradford, Robinson , Esq. Esq. — — SBN SBN 196798 305611 FILED Nathan Superior Court of California County of Plecer ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP NWN 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 FEB 28 2018 WwW Stockton, CA 95219 Telephone: (209) 954-9001 dake Chatters bh Rxécutive Officer & Clerk Facsimile: (209) 954-9091 By. Lucaiuorto, Deputy Attorney for Defendants, Roseville Petroleum, Inc., Nirmal Singh SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER -UNLIMITED CIVIL VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a CASE NO.: S-CV-0035599 10 California corporation 1 DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 12 STATEMENT vs. 13 ' A CORPORATION, a MSC: March 2, 2018 14 woo'adinlagsssoolgAyQuenty SONORA GASOLINE Gall California corporation formerly known as Time: 8:30 a.m. 15 SONOR A PETRO LEUM, INC., a California Dept: corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWA L, Judge: Ad 16 SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a Delaware limited partnership; 2012-S IP-1 Trial: March 19, 2018 17 XV4 VENTURE LLC, A Delaware limited liability company as successor to Tennessee 18 State Charted Bank, ROSEVILLE 19 PETROLEUM, INC., a California corporation, NIRMAL SINGH, and DOES 20 ONE through TWENTY, inclusive 21 Defendants. 22 Defendants Roseville Petroleum Inc. (“RPI”) and Nirmal Singh submit the following 23 settlement conference statement in compliance with California Rules of Court rule mandatory 24 3.1380. 25 1. ATTORNEY SUBMITTING STATEMENT 26 C. Bradford, Esq., who represents Defendants RPI and Nirmal Singh submits Attorney, Matthew em 28 the following mandatory settlement conference statement. 1 DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 2. PARTIES AND COUNSEL Parties Counsel NY Paul A. Warner YW Plaintiff, Inc. 1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220 Voyager Restaurant Group & Roseville, CA 95661 HH Defendants, and Gurraj S. Grewal Jack B. Burstein DH Sonora Petroleum Inc. 1730 Sonoma Boulevard Vallejo, California 94590 oN Defendants, Brian Healy Venture LLC and 575 Market Street, Suite 3050 2012-SIP-1 Do Group LP San Francisco, California 94105 Saban Financial 10 1 Denea Budde Defendant, California Blvd, Suite 1010 12 Parmar LLC 2121 N. Creek, CA 94596 Walnut 13 Defendant, Unknown 14 Tennessee Commerce Bank 15 Unknown Cross-Defendant, 16 Mitra Alizadeh 17 3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 18 as alleged by Plaintiff. Defendants do not agree that the following 19 - The following are facts 20 facts are allcorrect. 21 Voyager Restaurant Group Inc.. (“Voyager”) alleges in its third amended complaint 22 (“TAC”) that it entered into a lease (“Lease”) on or about August 31, 2011 with Sonora 23 to be Sonora Gasoline Company or “SGC”) as the landlord Petroleum Inc. (“SPI”) (now alleged 24 located at2998 and Voyager as a tenant, in order to build a Sonic Restaurant on the real property 25 CA 95661 (“Real Property”). At all relevant times, Defendant Foothills Boulevard, Roseville, 26 RPL operated an ARCO AM PM on the premises of the Real Property. 27 28 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DEFENDANTS’ © Oo Lease provided that SPI and Gurraj S. Grewal (“Grewal”) were Plaintiff alleges that the to make improvements on the Real Property and Plaintiff would going to loan Plaintiff funds NY Plaintiff alleges that sometime after the WY eventually open a restaurant on the property. However, F&F and 2012-SIP-1, enforced their legal rights pursuant to a Lease was executed, Defendants Sabal UU which prevented ‘SPI and Grewal from having the funds to loan agreement with SPI and Grewal, An loan money to Plaintiff for the property improvements. Lease oN alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh interfered with Plaintiff's Plaintiff only lease with the receiver and asserting control of the entire premises, renegotiating RPI’s Oo by Plaintiff then alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh have including the restaurant premises. o S of the Real Property and interfered EZ intentionally asserted control = negligently and alternatively Plaintiff. NH and quiet enjoyment thereof to the detriment and damage to with Plaintiff's Lease BH WwW AM PM on the premises of the Real Property, itis - Although Defendant RPI operates an ARCO hb alleged interference DE from Plaintiffs TAC how Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh’s entirely unclear WwW Plaintiff does not state how RPI and Mr. Singh were aware with Plaintiff's Lease was wrongful. an DR failsto state how the act of taking over the premises was of the alleged Lease and furthermore ~~ not state facts that show how Defendants RPI and addition, Plaintiff does oo wrongful conduct. In SE to disrupt the relationship between Voyager and SGC. Mr. Singh intended any communications © does not provide any facts that show a relationship or even Plaintiff RNNY —_ Voyager’s TAC does not show any facts that there is a between Voyager and RPI or Mr. Singh. N Singh and the other named defendants, beside from being separate relationship between RPI/Mr. WwW In short, Voyager does not provide any facts as to a current tenant of the Real Property at issue. & NR when or how the RPI tenancy relates to Voyager’s claims. ur we IONS an 4. FACTUAL FACT UAL SDPULAT STIP VLA I™ stipulated to any facts. oN os ’ The parties have not Db eo 3 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DEFENDANTS’ © oO 5, CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND DEFENSES almost every fact. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest the allegation The parties contest NY the terms of Plaintiffs Lease during the relevant periods of time. of W that they were aware FF contest any allegation that the alleged conduct by them was Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh vw that it allegedly interfered with Plaintiffs Lease. Defendants RPI wrongful, beyond the mere fact BD allegation that when Defendants reversed their “previously express and Mr. Singh contest the oN premises that they only had the Arco AMPM had nothing to do with the position with regard to the independently tortious. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest the reversal was Oo restaurant” such a action of taking over the restaurant premises was wrongful conduct. allegation that Defendants CO CU Singh contest any allegation by Plaintiff that Defendants intended to RPI and Mr. U6hOGUlUlU Defendants AB NE Voyager and SPI or SGC. Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh contest disrupt the relationship between YH alleged by Plaintiff, was wrongful or unlawful proscribed by eS that none of Defendants conduct, as R regulatory, common law, or another determinable legal standard. some constitutional, statutory, ASe for the second and third causes of action is2 years as set forth in The statute of limitations B AA SP 1. The second and third causes of action are based upon the following 339, subd Be CCP § Se! R SGae allegations: Inc. for the Se entered into a written agreement with Voyager Restaurant Group, a) Sonora yReR oN XIV. RS lease of certain real property. TAC 7 mb to lend $250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. TACY b) The lease required Sonora XV. $250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. TAC { XIX. c) Sonora failed to lend action of RPI and Mr. Singh, they interfered with and caused d) By some unspecified N not lend the $250,000 to Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. Sonora to lease, specifically paragraph two, the Effective Date isthe date By the terms of the 4 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DEFENDANTS’ © Oo last signature. The lease was signed by the tenant on August 26, 2011 and by the landlord = of the Date is August 31, 2011. NHN on August 31, 2011. Therefore, the Effective to be funded within sixty YW The funds to be lent by the landlord to the tenant were required FF the Effective Date. This deadline isclearly set forth in the lease agreement and cited (60) days for UH by Plaintiff in paragraph XV of the TAC. DO Sixty (60) days after the Effective Date is October 30, 2011. As the landlord, SPI/SGC, oN Plaintiff was aware of the breach at that time. As such, based upon a two- failed to fund the loan, Plaintiff had no later than October 30, 2013 in which to file this action. limitation, oo year statute of solely for the purposes of this settlement conference statement that the TAC relates Conceding DS hmL6pp|UUCUmD6S was filed in December 2014, more than a year | back to the initialcomplaint, the initialcomplaint after the deadline. RYH 6. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW UP To Defendants’ knowledge, there are no contested issues of law. Oe Aw 7, SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS et there have been no offers to settle or other settlement discussions between Plaintiff and To date S| BCMA Singh. eS Defendants RPI and Mr. PF 8. LIMITS ON INSURANCE COVERAGE NNO Not applicable. FS 9, ARBITRATION Ny PeePPRRPRBS This case has not been through arbitration. 10. SPECIAL PROBLEMS RELATING TO SETTLEMENT NH and Mr. Singh are not aware of any special problems relating to settlement. NY Defendants RPI NNN 5 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DEFENDANTS’ © Oo DATED: February 28, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP i Ww > M eer ls Attorney for te Petroleum, Inc. WN and Nirmal Sing DO 4 fe& Oo 6 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DEFENDANTS’ © oO 1 PROOF OF SERVICE I,the undersigned, certifyand declare asfollows: | am over the age of eighteen yearsand.nota paity tothis BRADFORD LLP, 3439 BROOKSIDE ROAD, Suite 212, Stockton, bo action. My business address isROBINSON California95219, which islocated in San Joaquin County where the mailing and/or deliverybelow took place. ; On February 28, 2018, I served thefollowing document(s): DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY Sw SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT inthe above-referenced case, by placinga truecopy thereof, enclosed in.asealed envelope, addressed and served as follows: BY PERSONALLY DEPOSITING THE MAIL: On thedate specifiedabove, 1 deposited inthe mail atthe WH place specified above a copy of the document described above in a sealed.envelope, with postage fully prepaid addressed to theindividualsand/or to theofficesof the addressee(s)below: DA X | BY BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: | am readily familiar with the businesspractice atmy place of for business. collectionand processing of correspondence for mailing with NHN ihe United States Service. Postal. Correspondence so collectedand processed deposited is. with the United States PostalService thatsame day in.theordinary course of business. On the date specified below, atmy C6 place ofbusiness at Stockton, a California, copy of the document described above was placed fordepositin the United States PostalService mailbox ina sealed envelope, with.postage fully prepaid addressed tothe Oo individualsand/or to theoffices ofthe addressee(s) below, and thatenvelope was placed for collectionand 410 mailing on thatdate following ordinary businesspractice. BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER: On the date specifiedbelow, |deposited ina box or other facility il regularly maintained by Federal Express, United Parcel Service or other express service carrier,or delivered to acourier or driverauthorized by said express service carriertoreceive documents, a-copy of the document mentioned above, in-an envelope designed by thesaid express.service carrier,with delivery” “ “| feespaid or provided for addtessed tothe individuals:and/orto.theofficesof theaddressee(s) below. 1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: On the date specifiedbelow, |caused such erivelope.tobe delivered by hand 1 14 addresséd to theindividuals and/orto theoffices ofthe addréssee(s)below. FAX TRANSMISSION: On the date specified below, I transmitted from a facsimile transmission BY the documents described above addressed to the individuals and/or to. the offices of the 15 machine addressee(s) below. The above-described transmission was reported ascomplete witheut error by a transmission issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was 16 following the transmission tothe individualsand/or tothe officesof the below. addressee(s). “{rimediately 17. Paul A. Warner, Esq. Brian S.Healy, Esq. Clara Drive, Suite220 TIERNEY, WATSON & HEALY PC 1624.Santa 18 Roseville,CA 95661 575 Market Street,Suite3050 Telephone: (916) 996-3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 19 1) Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 Telephone: (415)974-1900 Email: pwarner@pacdining.com Facsimile: (415)974-6433 20 , Email: Brian@tw2law.com Attorneyfor Plaintiff,Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. : 21 Attorney for Defendant, Jack Burstein,Esq. Denae Budde, Esq. — Blvd Hildebrand, Alborg, Veiluva & Martin LLP 22 1730 Sonoma Vallejo,CA 94590 2121 N. California Blvd, Suite 1010 23 |||Telephone: (707) 643-8405 Wainut Creek, CA 94596 Email: smithandburstein@comecast net Attorney for Cross-Defendant, Parmar LLC 24 ‘J / | Attorney for Defendant, Sonora Gasoline under penaltyof perjury under thelaws of the Stgt of that Californidl the-foregoing js 25 icertifyand declare 2% trueand correct. | Executed on February 28, 2018, atStockton, California. 27 28 NNEC me ae (J) | | 7 PROOF OF SERVICE \