Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Butte
PORTER | scoTrT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12/30/2020
Chad S. Tapp, SBN 214898
Joceline M. Herman, SBN 310897 D im
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
By Deputy
Sacramento, California 95825 Ele nically FILED
TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC
dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (ROE 22)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
11
12
JAYSON SCOUBES; NICOLE SCOUBES; Case No. 18CV02673
13 KEVIN KRATER; SHARLEEN LOWRY;
ROBERT BROWNFIELD; MARILYN NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
14 BROWNFIELD; BILL FUQUA; KAREN APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION
FUQUA; ROBERT HOLT; LUIS LOPEZ; OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
15
ANA LOPEZ; GREG MARSKEY; KATIE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2);
16 MARSKEY; ROSALVA NUNEZ; JOSE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
NUNEZ; 2017 HUSS ROBERT L & CJ AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
17 TRUST; ROBERT HUSS; CATHERINE THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
HUSS; LAURIE ROZZANO; SHERVIN JOCELINE M. HERMAN
18
SHARIATI; MARIA SHARIATI;
19 FRANCIS UDALL; CARLIE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
UEBELHARDT; CODY UEBELHARDT; JUDGE ROBERT A. GLUSMAN
20 DIANE WOOD; RAYMOND WOOD, DEPT. 10
21 LINDA HILL; CAROL LONG,
22 Plaintiffs,
Complaint filed: August 16, 2018
23 Vv.
24
BILL WEBB CONSTRUCTION; M B D
25 INC; AND DOES 1-1000, INCLUSIVE,
26 Defendants.
27
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
28
{02341163 DOCX} 1
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant/Cross-Complainant BILL WEBB
CONSTRUCTION (“Bill Webb”) and Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND
CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM Electric”) have reached a settlement in the above-entitled matter
and that Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM
Electric”) is applying to this Court for a determination of good faith and such settlement in
accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2). Any party may contest the “good
faith” nature of the settlement by filing a noticed motion with the Court consistent with California
Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2).
10 This Application is based upon this Notice of Settlement, the Memorandum of Points and
11 Authorities, the Declaration of Joceline M. Herman, the complete pleadings, records and filed
12 contained herein and upon such further documentary or other evidence as may be required by the
13 Court.
14 Any party to this action has a period of twenty-five (25) days from the mailing of the
15 Notice Of Settlement, Application and Proposed Order within which to file a Notice of Motion to
16 Contest the Good Faith Settlement. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in California
17 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). If no non-settling party in this action files a motion
18 within twenty-five days, the court may approve the settlement.
19
20 Dated: December 29, 2020 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
21
una M formar
22
23 By
Chad S. Tapp
24 Joceline M. Herman
25 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG
26 MARONGIU (ROE 22)
27 ///
28 //
{02341163.DOCX} 2
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Cross-Defendant RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU dba RCM ELECTRIC (erroneously sued as
RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU, hereinafter “RCM Electric”) applies to
this Court in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(2) for: (1) a determination of
settlement in good faith barring any further claims against RCM Electric for equitable indemnity,
equitable comparative contribution, or comparative indemnity based upon comparative negligence
or comparative fault, and (2) an order dismissing with prejudice any pending cross-complaints
against RCM Electric. The following factual statements are set forth in the Declaration of Joceline
M. Herman filed concurrently with this Application.
10 I
11 SETTLING PARTIES
12 The parties to this good-faith settlement are Defendant/Cross-Complainant BILL WEBB
13 CONSTRUCTION (“Bill Webb”) and Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND
14 CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM Electric”)
15 Il.
16 BASIS FOR SETTLEMENT.
17 The suit involves alleged construction defects at 3 homes located in Chico, California
18 (“Subject Project”). The homes were constructed between February 2013 and October 2015. The
19 homes were developed by Bill Webb.
20 RCM Electric is alleged to have performed the electrical work on the three homes in
21 Subject Project. Plaintiffs initiated this action against Bill Webb on October 10, 2018. The
22 complaint alleges the following causes of action against Bill Webb: (1) violation of building
23 standards as set forth in Cal. Civil Code § 896, (2) breach of implied warrant of merchantability,
24 (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of express warranty. On or about August 9, 2019, Bill Webb
25 filed a Roe Amendment to its Cross-Complaint substituting RCM Electric for Roe 22. Bill Webb’s
26 Cross-Complaint is alleging the following causes of action: (1) implied and equitable indemnity,
27 (2) contribution, (3) breach of contract (subcontractors), (4) express indemnity (subcontractors),
28 (5) breach of implied warranties (subcontractors), (6) breach of express warranties (subcontractors)
2
{02341163.DOCX} 3
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
(7) negligence (subcontractors), (8) declaratory relief, (9) declaratory relief re: duty to defend
(subcontractors), (10) declaratory relief re: duty to defend (carriers), (11) negligent
misrepresentation (brokers).
RCM Electric contracted with Bill Webb to perform electrical work on the three homes in
the Subject Project. Plaintiff produced a defect list and cost of repair identifying electrical issues
where RCM Electric performed work. The electrical related damages claimed by Plaintiff equal
$1,860.94.
Il.
TERMS
10 Following negotiations and limited discovery, Bill Webb and RCM Electric reached a
11 settlement. This settlement provides that Bill Webb will dismiss its Cross-Complaint against RCM
12 Electric with prejudice in exchange for RCM Electric, through its insurer, agreeing to pay two
13 thousand dollars ($2,000) to Bill Webb. Bill Webb and RCM Electric have executed a standard
14 release that, among other terms and conditions, includes (1) a Civil Code § 1542 waiver, (2) a
15 release of all claims, (3) a denial of liability, and (4) a provision that the settling parties will each
16 bear their own fees and costs. This settlement recognizes the economic realities and risks of trial
17 and represents or exceeds a rough approximation of the value of the claims against RCM Electric.
18 IV.
19 ANALYSIS
20 The court in Stambaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 231, 235, held that
21 section 877’s intent was clear, “[w]here an alleged joint tortfeasor, prior to a judicial determination
22 of his liability, in good faith settles the claim against him, he is forever discharge of further
23 obligation to the claimant, and to his joint tortfeasors, by way of contribution or otherwise.”
24 (Citations omitted.) “The law wisely favors settlements...‘it is the policy of the law to discourage
25 litigation and to favor compromises of doubtful rights and controversies, made either in or out of
26 court.’ Settlement agreements ‘are highly favored as productive of peace and goodwill in the
27 community, and reducing the expense and persistency of litigation.’ Indeed, it has been said that a
28 major goal of section 877 is the ‘encouragement of settlements.’ (Stambaugh v. Superior Court,
{02341163 DOCX} 4
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 supra, at p. 236, citations omitted.)
California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 provides for the discharge of a joint
tortfeasor upon a good faith settlement. Section 877 provides in pertinent part:
“Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue
or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to
one or more of a number of torfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or
to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall
have the following effect:
(a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so
provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount
stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the
consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater.
10
(b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any
11 contribution to any other parties.” (C.C.P § 877 (a)-(b).)
12
In Tech-Bilt, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated:
13 [T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors
14 be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery
and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the
15 allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor
should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.
16 Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance
17 policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or
tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (38 Cal.3d
18 at 499.)
19 The Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. further stated the court, in making its determination, should
20 inquire into “whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling
21 tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc.,
22
supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)
23
The settlement between RCM Electric and Bill Webb is within the reasonable range of
24 RCM Electric’s proportional share of comparative liability and is a good faith settlement within
25
the context of CCP § 877.6. The settlement was reached in a good faith manner and through open
26 and arm’s length negotiations. RCM Electric denies and continues to deny any liability against it.
27
Nonetheless, RCM Electric as agreed to pay the settlement amount referenced above, which will
28
fully resolve all claims of deficiencies relating to RCM Electric’s work at the Subject Project.
{02341163 DOCX} 5
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Ill.
CONCLUSION
RCM Electric respectfully requests that the Court find that its settlement with Bill Webb
is a good faith settlement and order that all cross-complaints in this action are barred and
dismissed with prejudice as to RCM Electric.
Dated: December 29, 2020 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
fone Mt formar.
By
10 Chad S. Tapp
Joceline M. Herman
11 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG
12
MARONGIU (ROE 22)
13
14 DECLARATION OF JOCELINE M. HERMAN
15
I, Joceline M. Herman, declare:
16
1 1 am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the above-entitled court, and am an
17
associate with the law firm of Porter Scott, P.C., attorneys of record for Cross-Defendant RCM
18
dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (“Cross-Defendant”).
19
1 I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and if called
20
upon to testify to these matters, I could and would competently do so.
21
2 This matter arises out of a complaint filed in this Court on October 10, 2018 against
22
Bill Webb Construction, Inc. (“Bill Webb”) for defects arising out of the construction of homes in
23
Chico, California.
24
3 Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following causes of action against Bill Webb: (1)
25 violation of building standards as set forth in Cal. Civil Code § 896, (2) breach of implied warrant
26
of merchantability, (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of express warranty.
27 Bill Webb filed a cross-complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) implied and
28 equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) breach of contract (subcontractors), (4) express
{02341163 DOCX} 6
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
indemnity (subcontractors), (5) breach of implied warranties (subcontractors), (6) breach of
express warranties (subcontractors) (7) negligence (subcontractors), (8) declaratory relief, (9)
declaratory relief re: duty to defend (subcontractors), (10) declaratory relief re: duty to defend
(carriers), (11) negligent misrepresentation (brokers).
4. On or about August 9, 2019, Bill Webb filed a Roe Amendment to its cross-
complaint, substituting RCM Electric for ROE 22.
5 RCM Electric contracted with Bill Webb to perform electrical work on the three
homes in the Subject Project.
6 Plaintiff produced a defect list and cost of repair identifying electrical issues where
10 RCM Electric performed work. The electrical related damages claimed by Plaintiff equal
11 $1,860.94.
12 7
RCM Electric disputes Plaintiffs’ and Bill Webb’s allegations. However, RCM
13 Electric has agreed to settle with Bill Webb in the about of $2,000. The terms of the settlement and
14 release have been agreed upon and the release has been executed by RCM Electric and Bill Webb.
15 The settlement and release is attached as Exhibit A.
16 8 RCM Electric is not aware of any other settlements in this action that relate to the
17 scope of work and allegations of defective conditions associated with the properties at the Subject
18 Project that are the subject matter of this settlement.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed this 29th day of December, 2020 at Sacramento, California.
22
fine Mt forma
23
24
Joceline M. Herman
25
26
27
28 //1
{02341163 DOCX} 7
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
EXHIBIT “A”
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“AGREEMENT”) is entered into by and between
the following parties on this 26th day of October, 2020:
DEVELOPER: Bill Webb Construction, Inc. (“BILL WEBB”).
SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR: RCM Electric dba Raymond Craig Marongiu (“SETTLING
SUBCONTRACTOR”).
(BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR are collectively referred to herein as
“SETTLING PARTIES”).
1.0 DEFINITIONS AND RECITALS
1 The term “PLAINTIFFS” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to the owners of
multiple homes that collectively filed suit against BILL WEBB ina case entitled Jayson Scoubes,
et al. v. Bill Webb Construction, et al., Butte County Superior Court Case No. 18CV02673 (“the
ACTION”). SETTLING PARTIES hereby wish to compromise claims in connection with the
ACTION.
1.2 The term “Related Persons or Entities” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to an
entity’s principals, past or present officers (whether direct or indirect), directors, managing agents,
agents, employees, servants, attorneys, representatives, shareholders, partners, limited
partnerships, predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, beneficiaries, assigns, sister
corporations, affiliated companies or corporations, parent companies or corporations, subsidiary
companies or corporations, divisions, partners, joint venturers, associated companies or
corporations, subrogees, and/or any other entity or person otherwise related to or connected with
said business.
1.3 The term “COMPLAINT” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to any and all
Complaints, including but not limited to, the operative Complaints in the ACTION, all DOE
amendments, and any and all amendments thereto.
1.4 The term “CROSS-COMPLAINT” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to any and
all Cross-Complaints, including but not limited to, the operative Cross-Complaint in the ACTION
filed by BILL WEBB on March 7, 2019, all ROE amendments, and any and all amendments
thereto.
1.5 Whereas, the intent of this AGREEMENT is to resolve completely the claims of
BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR against, amongst and between each other
arising out of or in any way related to the COMPLAINT and/or CROSS-COMPLAINT regarding
the allegations at issue, including any and all known and unknown actual and potential claims,
causes of action, and damages which arise from, or are in any way related to, the design and
construction of PLAINTIFFS’ residences except as expressly set forth in this AGREEMENT.
P\DOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc
2.0 PAYMENT AND RELEASES
2.1 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and the
mutual promises and covenants and other consideration set forth herein, BILL WEBB and
SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR agree in exchange for the releases contained in this
AGREEMENT and all other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, SETTLING
SUBCONTRACTOR, by and through its insurance carrier, shall pay to BILL WEBB the total
settlement sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00).
2.2 The settlement sum is to be made payable and delivered to the Huguenin Kahn
Client Trust, 3001 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300, Roseville, California, 95661 (Tax Identification #
82-4706765). Payment is to be forwarded to BILL WEBB’s counsel within fifteen (15) days of
SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR’s receipt of BILL WEBB’s signature to this AGREEMENT.
This payment deadline is a material term of this AGREEMENT.
3.0 GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
3.1 Upon execution of this AGREEMENT and payment of the settlement sum on
behalf of SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR, SETTLING PARTIES do hereby release one another,
and their Related Persons and Entities, from all claims, demands, causes of action, attorneys’ fees
and/or costs, including defense fees pursuant to Crawford, and/or any other liability arising out of
or in any way connected with any work performed or materials supplied by SETTLING PARTIES
at PLAINTIFFS’ residences identified in Exhibit A hereto, that now exist, or that may have
previously existed, or have been asserted, or any claims, present and/or future, known or unknown,
existing from the beginning of time to the date hereof by and between the parties hereto, including,
but not limited to, defamation, slander, libel and malicious prosecution, as related to such
PLAINTIFFS’ residences. However, released claims do not include claims for bodily/personal
injury, which were not alleged in the ACTION, nor do they include any obligations owed or
alleged to be owed to BILL WEBB by SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR’s insurance carrier(s) as
an additional insured incurred prior to the date set forth below. Further, notwithstanding anything
set forth herein to the contrary, it is acknowledged and understood by the SETTLING PARTIES
that BILL WEBB cannot and does not hereby release or impair any rights, claims or causes of
action that are held, may be held, or otherwise inure to the benefit of any insurance carrier that has
participated or later participates in BILL WEBB’s defense in the ACTION, including, rights,
claims or causes of action arising out of additional insured obligations arising prior to October 26,
2020. Any claim for additional insured status to Developers Surety and Indemnity Company shall
be cut off as of October 26, 2020.
4.0 OTHER PROVISIONS
4.1 WAIVER OF UNKNOWN CLAIMS:
(a) BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR expressly acknowledge
and agree that they have been advised by their legal counsel concerning, and are familiar with,
the provisions of Civil Code § 1542, which provides as follows:
PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_ Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc
"A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or
releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her
favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by
him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement
with the debtor or released party."
(b) SETTLING PARTIES further acknowledge that they may have sustained
damages, losses, costs or expenses that are presently unknown or unsuspected, and that such
damages, losses, costs or expenses as may have been sustained may give rise to additional
damages, losses, costs or expenses in the future pertaining to, the claims released herein.
Nevertheless, SETTLING PARTIES acknowledge that this AGREEMENT has been negotiated
and agreed upon in light of this situation, and hereby expressly waive any and all rights they may
have under Civil Code § 1542, or under any other state or federal statutes or common law
principles of similar effect, with the exception of bodily/personal injury claims.
4.2 AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL: Each
SETTLING PARTY executes this AGREEMENT acting upon its, his or her independent judgment
and/or upon the advice of their respective counsel without any representations or inducements,
express or implied, of any kind or nature, from each to the other, except as specifically set forth
herein.
4.3 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon
SETTLING PARTIES’ successors, heirs, assigns, lien claimants and personal representatives.
44 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION: SETTLING PARTIES, their attorneys, and
each of them, promise that they will not disclose any of the specific terms of this AGREEMENT to
any third parties. Further, SETTLING PARTIES and their attorneys agree that they will not issue
any press release, media disclosure, flyers, mailers, or other publications intended for circulation
among the general public with respect to any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT,
including, but not limited to, the settlement sums. This confidentiality provision does not prohibit
any party or their attorneys from disclosing any of the terms of this AGREEMENT if they are
compelled to do so for tax purposes, by law, including disclosure pursuant to the terms of Code of
Civil Procedure § 877.6, or by subpoena.
4.5 ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR PREPARATION OF THIS AGREEMENT:
SETTLING PARTIES shall bear their own attorneys’ fees for the preparation, drafting and
execution of this AGREEMENT and as to the compliance with their respective obligations as set
forth herein.
4.6 COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIMS: It is understood by SETTLING
PARTIES that this AGREEMENT is entered into solely for the purpose of compromising disputed
claims, and each party expressly agrees and acknowledges that the other parties hereto have not
admitted, and by execution and performance of this AGREEMENT, do not admit, any liability or
obligation to the other parties, or any of them. It is understood that SETTLING
SUBCONTRACTOR denies liability to BILL WEBB, and that SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR
intends merely to avoid further litigation.
PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v. Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc
4.7 SEVERABILITY: If any term or provision hereof is illegal or invalid for any
reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
AGREEMENT.
4.8 CALIFORNIA LAW GOVERNS: This AGREEMENT, its validity, the
construction of its terms and the interpretation of rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be
governed and construed under the laws of the State of California.
49 AUTHORITY: Each party to this AGREEMENT represents and warrants to the
others that the persons executing this AGREEMENT on behalf of such party are duly and fully
authorized to do so.
4.10 EXECUTION: This AGREEMENT may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which, after each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart to each other
party, shall have the same force and effect as an original executed by both parties.
4.11 ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT: If any dispute
shall arise between SETTLING PARTIES regarding the enforcement of the terms and conditions
of this AGREEMENT, the “prevailing party” shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees
and costs.
4.12 ENFORCEMENT AS JUDGMENT: In the event a SETTLING PARTY
breaches the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, any other party may move to enforce the
AGREEMENT on an ex parte application pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 664.6 and 664.7
In the event such a motion is necessary, the prevailing party on the motion shall be entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with filing the motion.
4.13 NEUTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Whenever in this instrument the context requires
the masculine, feminine and neutral gender, each shall be deemed to include the other and the
singular and plural are each deemed to refer to the other.
4.14 INTEGRATION: This AGREEMENT contains the entire release between
SETTLING PARTIES, and the terms of this release are contractual. The recitals set forth above
are intended to be agreements between SETTLING PARTIES and not merely recitals, and are
hereby expressly incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference.
4.15 MODIFICATIONS: No modification, amendment, or waiver of any of the
provisions contained in this AGREEMENT shall be binding unless made in writing and signed by
all parties and/or by their duly authorized officers or agents.
4.16 RIGHTS OR BENEFITS: This AGREEMENT is not intended to, nor shall it be
construed to create or confer any rights or benefit in anyone not a party hereto except as expressly
provided herein.
P \DOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric.doc
4.17 EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF DEFUNCT ENTITIES: SETTLING
PARTIES hereby acknowledge that to the extent any of the SETTLING PARTIES are bankrupt
entities, dissolved corporations and/or have no officers or representatives who can or who are
willing to execute this AGREEMENT on their behalf, and to the extent this AGREEMENT has
been approved by the insurance carrier(s) of such SETTLING PARTIES, counsel retained by such
approving insurance carrier(s), or by an authorized representative for the approving insurance
carrier(s) if no counsel was retained on behalf of the SETTLING PARTY, may execute this
AGREEMENT pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.7. The funding of this settlement shall
constitute the insurance carrier(s)’ approval thereto and no further action or signature to the
AGREEMENT shall be required by or on behalf of these SETTLING PARTIES pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure § 664.7.
THE FOREGOING IS AGREEABLE:
Dated: 2h 20r0 BILL WEBB C STR! ON, INC.
By:
Name: tCCr
Title:
Dated: /// 20/0 RCM ELECTRIC DBA RAYMOND CRAIG
MARONGIU
By:X wo Gi. ee
Nartfe! Meer Pv geet
Title: : So Dud yn
PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_ Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric. doc
EXHIBIT A
Property Address
Chico, Butte County, CA
Homeowner 95928
Krater, Kevin
2952 Bancroft Dr
Lowry, Sharleen
Nunez, Rosalva
2953 Bancroft Dr
Nunez, Jose
Udall, Francis 2870 Bancroft Dr
Scoubes, Jayson
2862 Wingfield Ave
Scoubes, Nicole
Wood, Diane
13 Stonehaven Ct
Wood, Raymond
PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc
Scoubes v. Bill Webb Construction
Butte County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV02673
PROOF OF SERVICE
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
On December 30, 2020, I served the following document:
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD
FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUMF OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
JOCELINE M. HERMAN
10 BY MAIL: Iplaced the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing
11 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and
mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,
12 ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: | enclosed the document(s)
13 in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service
14 List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing via Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s
15 practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the original course of
16 business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
17 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed
the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly
18
utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
19 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error
20 was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission,
which I printed out, is attached
21 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to
accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at
22 the electronic notification address listed below.
23 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By electronically serving the document(s) to the
electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 11:59 p.m. pursuant to California
24 Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 12 consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section
1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5).
25
26 Addressed as follows:
27 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
28
{02341163 DOCX}
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Bill Webb Construction
Joseph Su Edward R. Huguenin
MILSTEIN JACKSON Erik C. Tofft
FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP HUGUENIN KAHN
10250 Constellation Blvd., 14% Floor 3001 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Roseville, CA 95661
(310) 396-9600 (Ofc.) (916) 367-7098 (Ofc.)
(310) 396-9635 (Fax) ehuquenin@huqueninkahn.com
jsu@mifwlaw.com etofft@huqueninkahn.com
Counsel for John David Williams dba J Counsel for Oak Ridge Cabinets, Inc.
Williams Backhoe Namvar Mokri
Deborah A. Correll Richard A. LeVu
HOLLINGSHEAD & ASSOCIATES MOKRI VANIS & JONES LLP
3880 Atherton Road 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 750
Rocklin, CA 95765 Los Angeles, CA 90071
916-630-3803 (Ofc.) 213-784-3220 (Ofc.)
10 Assistant: Luz Loree mokri@mvyjllp.com
lloree@wedefend.com rlevu@myjllp.com
11 Counsel for John David Williams dba J
Counsel for McClelland Air Conditioning,
12 Inc. Williams Backhoe and Charles S, Crabtree
Karen M. Baytosh Painting, Inc.
13 Karen T. Wagner Deborah Ann Correll
BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK J. CAMPBELL
14 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 1090 3880 Atherton Road
Reno, NV 89501 Rocklin, CA 95765
15
775-440-2389 (Ofc.) 916-630-3803 (Ofc.)
16 775-440-2390 (Fax) 916-630-3848 (Fax)
kbaytosh@bremerwhyte.com dcorrell@unitedfiregroup.com
17 kwagner@bremerwhyte.com
Counsel for Franklin Construction, Inc. Counsel for The Door Company
18 David Harris
Jacob Koper
19 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD LAW OFFICES OF SANTANA & VIERRA
P.O. Box 64093 255 California Street, Suite 900
20 St. Paul, MN 55164 San Francisco, CA 94111
916-638-6610 (Ofc.) 415-777-1308 (Ofc.); 415-806-9143 (cell)
21 jkoper@travelers.com David. harris01 @libertymutual.com
22 Counsel for North State Plumbing, Inc. Counsel for William Greendell McNair and
Julie McElroy Jana McNair dba Defcon 1 Security
23 Jennifer Carroll System
JACOBSEN MCELROY Jennifer Snodgrass Willis
24 2401 American River Drive, Suite 100 LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN C. MOORE
Sacramento, CA 95825 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 100
25
916-971-4100 (Ofc.) Sacramento, CA 95815
26 916-971-4150 (fax) 916-921-9353 (Ofc.)
imcelroy@jacobsenmcelroy.com 855-214-7884 (fax)
27 jcarroll@jacobsenmcelroy.com Willi86@nationwide.com
28
{02341163 DOCX}
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C-P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Counsel for Hightower Masonry, Inc. Counsel for Johnson Roofing Company
Scott D. Cote dba Derek Gregory Johnson
DIEPENBROCK & COTTER, LLP Keith D. Chidlaw
1435 River Park Drive, Suite 400 SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP
Sacramento, CA 95815 400 University Avenue
916-565-6222 (Ofc.) Sacramento, CA 95825
916-565-6220 (Fax) 916-567-0400 (Ofc.)
sdc@diepenbrockcotter.com 916-568-0400 (Fax)
Counsel for Matthew Allen McHenry dba Counsel for JS Construction; Miller Glass,
Butte Creek Stone; Tyler Lee Gutierrez Inc.
dba Butte Creek Stone Kenneth O. Taylor III
Jordan Rodman RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
RODMAN & ASSOCIATES 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
149 Stony Circle, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92618
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 714-709-4400
707-278-9878 (Ofc.)
10 707-278-9880 (Fax)
Document Depository Special Master
11 Robert Bellagamba
US Legal Support
12 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, #300 CASTLE DEKKER & BELLAGAMBA
Sacramento, CA 95833 30 Oak Court
13 Danville, CA 94526
[V] Check if served 925 552-1200 (Ofc.)
14 925-552-1201 (Fax)
rbellagamba@dekkerlaw.com
15
16 [V] Check if served
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 30, 2020.
18
WH anew Reape
19
20
Maria Reyes
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02341163 DOCX}
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Scoubes v. Bill Webb Construction
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 18CV02673
PROOF OF SERVICE
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
On the date below, I served the following document:
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD
FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUMF OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
10 JOCELINE M. HERMAN
ll
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused such document(s) to be served electronically via
12 FILE & SERVEXPRESS. E-service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the
13 FILE & SERVEXPRESS service list. This service complies with the Court’s order in this case.
Ain
28-0
5G
Aare 1
vean
Addressed as follows:
ag
ZYUADR
gos
15 [SERVICE LIST MAINTAINED BY FILE & SERVXPRESS]
gx
BEAD
is 16
FGRa a< I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
of 17 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 30, 2020.
18
19
Mane Big
20 Maria Reyes
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02341200.DOCX}
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Butte PORTER | scoTrT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12/30/2020 Chad S. Tapp, SBN 214898 Joceline M. Herman, SBN 310897 D im 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 By Deputy Sacramento, California 95825 Ele nically FILED TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (ROE 22) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 11 12 JAYSON SCOUBES; NICOLE SCOUBES; Case No. 18CV02673 13 KEVIN KRATER; SHARLEEN LOWRY; ROBERT BROWNFIELD; MARILYN NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND 14 BROWNFIELD; BILL FUQUA; KAREN APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION FUQUA; ROBERT HOLT; LUIS LOPEZ; OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 15 ANA LOPEZ; GREG MARSKEY; KATIE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); 16 MARSKEY; ROSALVA NUNEZ; JOSE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND NUNEZ; 2017 HUSS ROBERT L & CJ AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 17 TRUST; ROBERT HUSS; CATHERINE THEREOF; DECLARATION OF HUSS; LAURIE ROZZANO; SHERVIN JOCELINE M. HERMAN 18 SHARIATI; MARIA SHARIATI; 19 FRANCIS UDALL; CARLIE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO UEBELHARDT; CODY UEBELHARDT; JUDGE ROBERT A. GLUSMAN 20 DIANE WOOD; RAYMOND WOOD, DEPT. 10 21 LINDA HILL; CAROL LONG, 22 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed: August 16, 2018 23 Vv. 24 BILL WEBB CONSTRUCTION; M B D 25 INC; AND DOES 1-1000, INCLUSIVE, 26 Defendants. 27 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 28 {02341163 DOCX} 1 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant/Cross-Complainant BILL WEBB CONSTRUCTION (“Bill Webb”) and Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM Electric”) have reached a settlement in the above-entitled matter and that Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM Electric”) is applying to this Court for a determination of good faith and such settlement in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2). Any party may contest the “good faith” nature of the settlement by filing a noticed motion with the Court consistent with California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2). 10 This Application is based upon this Notice of Settlement, the Memorandum of Points and 11 Authorities, the Declaration of Joceline M. Herman, the complete pleadings, records and filed 12 contained herein and upon such further documentary or other evidence as may be required by the 13 Court. 14 Any party to this action has a period of twenty-five (25) days from the mailing of the 15 Notice Of Settlement, Application and Proposed Order within which to file a Notice of Motion to 16 Contest the Good Faith Settlement. The notice shall be given in the manner provided in California 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). If no non-settling party in this action files a motion 18 within twenty-five days, the court may approve the settlement. 19 20 Dated: December 29, 2020 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 21 una M formar 22 23 By Chad S. Tapp 24 Joceline M. Herman 25 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG 26 MARONGIU (ROE 22) 27 /// 28 // {02341163.DOCX} 2 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Cross-Defendant RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU dba RCM ELECTRIC (erroneously sued as RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU, hereinafter “RCM Electric”) applies to this Court in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(2) for: (1) a determination of settlement in good faith barring any further claims against RCM Electric for equitable indemnity, equitable comparative contribution, or comparative indemnity based upon comparative negligence or comparative fault, and (2) an order dismissing with prejudice any pending cross-complaints against RCM Electric. The following factual statements are set forth in the Declaration of Joceline M. Herman filed concurrently with this Application. 10 I 11 SETTLING PARTIES 12 The parties to this good-faith settlement are Defendant/Cross-Complainant BILL WEBB 13 CONSTRUCTION (“Bill Webb”) and Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND 14 CRAIG MARONGIU (“RCM Electric”) 15 Il. 16 BASIS FOR SETTLEMENT. 17 The suit involves alleged construction defects at 3 homes located in Chico, California 18 (“Subject Project”). The homes were constructed between February 2013 and October 2015. The 19 homes were developed by Bill Webb. 20 RCM Electric is alleged to have performed the electrical work on the three homes in 21 Subject Project. Plaintiffs initiated this action against Bill Webb on October 10, 2018. The 22 complaint alleges the following causes of action against Bill Webb: (1) violation of building 23 standards as set forth in Cal. Civil Code § 896, (2) breach of implied warrant of merchantability, 24 (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of express warranty. On or about August 9, 2019, Bill Webb 25 filed a Roe Amendment to its Cross-Complaint substituting RCM Electric for Roe 22. Bill Webb’s 26 Cross-Complaint is alleging the following causes of action: (1) implied and equitable indemnity, 27 (2) contribution, (3) breach of contract (subcontractors), (4) express indemnity (subcontractors), 28 (5) breach of implied warranties (subcontractors), (6) breach of express warranties (subcontractors) 2 {02341163.DOCX} 3 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF (7) negligence (subcontractors), (8) declaratory relief, (9) declaratory relief re: duty to defend (subcontractors), (10) declaratory relief re: duty to defend (carriers), (11) negligent misrepresentation (brokers). RCM Electric contracted with Bill Webb to perform electrical work on the three homes in the Subject Project. Plaintiff produced a defect list and cost of repair identifying electrical issues where RCM Electric performed work. The electrical related damages claimed by Plaintiff equal $1,860.94. Il. TERMS 10 Following negotiations and limited discovery, Bill Webb and RCM Electric reached a 11 settlement. This settlement provides that Bill Webb will dismiss its Cross-Complaint against RCM 12 Electric with prejudice in exchange for RCM Electric, through its insurer, agreeing to pay two 13 thousand dollars ($2,000) to Bill Webb. Bill Webb and RCM Electric have executed a standard 14 release that, among other terms and conditions, includes (1) a Civil Code § 1542 waiver, (2) a 15 release of all claims, (3) a denial of liability, and (4) a provision that the settling parties will each 16 bear their own fees and costs. This settlement recognizes the economic realities and risks of trial 17 and represents or exceeds a rough approximation of the value of the claims against RCM Electric. 18 IV. 19 ANALYSIS 20 The court in Stambaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 231, 235, held that 21 section 877’s intent was clear, “[w]here an alleged joint tortfeasor, prior to a judicial determination 22 of his liability, in good faith settles the claim against him, he is forever discharge of further 23 obligation to the claimant, and to his joint tortfeasors, by way of contribution or otherwise.” 24 (Citations omitted.) “The law wisely favors settlements...‘it is the policy of the law to discourage 25 litigation and to favor compromises of doubtful rights and controversies, made either in or out of 26 court.’ Settlement agreements ‘are highly favored as productive of peace and goodwill in the 27 community, and reducing the expense and persistency of litigation.’ Indeed, it has been said that a 28 major goal of section 877 is the ‘encouragement of settlements.’ (Stambaugh v. Superior Court, {02341163 DOCX} 4 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 supra, at p. 236, citations omitted.) California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 provides for the discharge of a joint tortfeasor upon a good faith settlement. Section 877 provides in pertinent part: “Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of torfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater. 10 (b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any 11 contribution to any other parties.” (C.C.P § 877 (a)-(b).) 12 In Tech-Bilt, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated: 13 [T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors 14 be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the 15 allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. 16 Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance 17 policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (38 Cal.3d 18 at 499.) 19 The Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. further stated the court, in making its determination, should 20 inquire into “whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling 21 tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc., 22 supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.) 23 The settlement between RCM Electric and Bill Webb is within the reasonable range of 24 RCM Electric’s proportional share of comparative liability and is a good faith settlement within 25 the context of CCP § 877.6. The settlement was reached in a good faith manner and through open 26 and arm’s length negotiations. RCM Electric denies and continues to deny any liability against it. 27 Nonetheless, RCM Electric as agreed to pay the settlement amount referenced above, which will 28 fully resolve all claims of deficiencies relating to RCM Electric’s work at the Subject Project. {02341163 DOCX} 5 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Ill. CONCLUSION RCM Electric respectfully requests that the Court find that its settlement with Bill Webb is a good faith settlement and order that all cross-complaints in this action are barred and dismissed with prejudice as to RCM Electric. Dated: December 29, 2020 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION fone Mt formar. By 10 Chad S. Tapp Joceline M. Herman 11 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant RCM ELECTRIC dba RAYMOND CRAIG 12 MARONGIU (ROE 22) 13 14 DECLARATION OF JOCELINE M. HERMAN 15 I, Joceline M. Herman, declare: 16 1 1 am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the above-entitled court, and am an 17 associate with the law firm of Porter Scott, P.C., attorneys of record for Cross-Defendant RCM 18 dba RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU (“Cross-Defendant”). 19 1 I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and if called 20 upon to testify to these matters, I could and would competently do so. 21 2 This matter arises out of a complaint filed in this Court on October 10, 2018 against 22 Bill Webb Construction, Inc. (“Bill Webb”) for defects arising out of the construction of homes in 23 Chico, California. 24 3 Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following causes of action against Bill Webb: (1) 25 violation of building standards as set forth in Cal. Civil Code § 896, (2) breach of implied warrant 26 of merchantability, (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of express warranty. 27 Bill Webb filed a cross-complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) implied and 28 equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) breach of contract (subcontractors), (4) express {02341163 DOCX} 6 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF indemnity (subcontractors), (5) breach of implied warranties (subcontractors), (6) breach of express warranties (subcontractors) (7) negligence (subcontractors), (8) declaratory relief, (9) declaratory relief re: duty to defend (subcontractors), (10) declaratory relief re: duty to defend (carriers), (11) negligent misrepresentation (brokers). 4. On or about August 9, 2019, Bill Webb filed a Roe Amendment to its cross- complaint, substituting RCM Electric for ROE 22. 5 RCM Electric contracted with Bill Webb to perform electrical work on the three homes in the Subject Project. 6 Plaintiff produced a defect list and cost of repair identifying electrical issues where 10 RCM Electric performed work. The electrical related damages claimed by Plaintiff equal 11 $1,860.94. 12 7 RCM Electric disputes Plaintiffs’ and Bill Webb’s allegations. However, RCM 13 Electric has agreed to settle with Bill Webb in the about of $2,000. The terms of the settlement and 14 release have been agreed upon and the release has been executed by RCM Electric and Bill Webb. 15 The settlement and release is attached as Exhibit A. 16 8 RCM Electric is not aware of any other settlements in this action that relate to the 17 scope of work and allegations of defective conditions associated with the properties at the Subject 18 Project that are the subject matter of this settlement. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed this 29th day of December, 2020 at Sacramento, California. 22 fine Mt forma 23 24 Joceline M. Herman 25 26 27 28 //1 {02341163 DOCX} 7 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF EXHIBIT “A” SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“AGREEMENT”) is entered into by and between the following parties on this 26th day of October, 2020: DEVELOPER: Bill Webb Construction, Inc. (“BILL WEBB”). SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR: RCM Electric dba Raymond Craig Marongiu (“SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR”). (BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR are collectively referred to herein as “SETTLING PARTIES”). 1.0 DEFINITIONS AND RECITALS 1 The term “PLAINTIFFS” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to the owners of multiple homes that collectively filed suit against BILL WEBB ina case entitled Jayson Scoubes, et al. v. Bill Webb Construction, et al., Butte County Superior Court Case No. 18CV02673 (“the ACTION”). SETTLING PARTIES hereby wish to compromise claims in connection with the ACTION. 1.2 The term “Related Persons or Entities” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to an entity’s principals, past or present officers (whether direct or indirect), directors, managing agents, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, representatives, shareholders, partners, limited partnerships, predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, beneficiaries, assigns, sister corporations, affiliated companies or corporations, parent companies or corporations, subsidiary companies or corporations, divisions, partners, joint venturers, associated companies or corporations, subrogees, and/or any other entity or person otherwise related to or connected with said business. 1.3 The term “COMPLAINT” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to any and all Complaints, including but not limited to, the operative Complaints in the ACTION, all DOE amendments, and any and all amendments thereto. 1.4 The term “CROSS-COMPLAINT” as used in this AGREEMENT refers to any and all Cross-Complaints, including but not limited to, the operative Cross-Complaint in the ACTION filed by BILL WEBB on March 7, 2019, all ROE amendments, and any and all amendments thereto. 1.5 Whereas, the intent of this AGREEMENT is to resolve completely the claims of BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR against, amongst and between each other arising out of or in any way related to the COMPLAINT and/or CROSS-COMPLAINT regarding the allegations at issue, including any and all known and unknown actual and potential claims, causes of action, and damages which arise from, or are in any way related to, the design and construction of PLAINTIFFS’ residences except as expressly set forth in this AGREEMENT. P\DOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc 2.0 PAYMENT AND RELEASES 2.1 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants and other consideration set forth herein, BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR agree in exchange for the releases contained in this AGREEMENT and all other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR, by and through its insurance carrier, shall pay to BILL WEBB the total settlement sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). 2.2 The settlement sum is to be made payable and delivered to the Huguenin Kahn Client Trust, 3001 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300, Roseville, California, 95661 (Tax Identification # 82-4706765). Payment is to be forwarded to BILL WEBB’s counsel within fifteen (15) days of SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR’s receipt of BILL WEBB’s signature to this AGREEMENT. This payment deadline is a material term of this AGREEMENT. 3.0 GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS 3.1 Upon execution of this AGREEMENT and payment of the settlement sum on behalf of SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR, SETTLING PARTIES do hereby release one another, and their Related Persons and Entities, from all claims, demands, causes of action, attorneys’ fees and/or costs, including defense fees pursuant to Crawford, and/or any other liability arising out of or in any way connected with any work performed or materials supplied by SETTLING PARTIES at PLAINTIFFS’ residences identified in Exhibit A hereto, that now exist, or that may have previously existed, or have been asserted, or any claims, present and/or future, known or unknown, existing from the beginning of time to the date hereof by and between the parties hereto, including, but not limited to, defamation, slander, libel and malicious prosecution, as related to such PLAINTIFFS’ residences. However, released claims do not include claims for bodily/personal injury, which were not alleged in the ACTION, nor do they include any obligations owed or alleged to be owed to BILL WEBB by SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR’s insurance carrier(s) as an additional insured incurred prior to the date set forth below. Further, notwithstanding anything set forth herein to the contrary, it is acknowledged and understood by the SETTLING PARTIES that BILL WEBB cannot and does not hereby release or impair any rights, claims or causes of action that are held, may be held, or otherwise inure to the benefit of any insurance carrier that has participated or later participates in BILL WEBB’s defense in the ACTION, including, rights, claims or causes of action arising out of additional insured obligations arising prior to October 26, 2020. Any claim for additional insured status to Developers Surety and Indemnity Company shall be cut off as of October 26, 2020. 4.0 OTHER PROVISIONS 4.1 WAIVER OF UNKNOWN CLAIMS: (a) BILL WEBB and SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR expressly acknowledge and agree that they have been advised by their legal counsel concerning, and are familiar with, the provisions of Civil Code § 1542, which provides as follows: PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_ Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc "A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party." (b) SETTLING PARTIES further acknowledge that they may have sustained damages, losses, costs or expenses that are presently unknown or unsuspected, and that such damages, losses, costs or expenses as may have been sustained may give rise to additional damages, losses, costs or expenses in the future pertaining to, the claims released herein. Nevertheless, SETTLING PARTIES acknowledge that this AGREEMENT has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of this situation, and hereby expressly waive any and all rights they may have under Civil Code § 1542, or under any other state or federal statutes or common law principles of similar effect, with the exception of bodily/personal injury claims. 4.2 AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL: Each SETTLING PARTY executes this AGREEMENT acting upon its, his or her independent judgment and/or upon the advice of their respective counsel without any representations or inducements, express or implied, of any kind or nature, from each to the other, except as specifically set forth herein. 4.3 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon SETTLING PARTIES’ successors, heirs, assigns, lien claimants and personal representatives. 44 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION: SETTLING PARTIES, their attorneys, and each of them, promise that they will not disclose any of the specific terms of this AGREEMENT to any third parties. Further, SETTLING PARTIES and their attorneys agree that they will not issue any press release, media disclosure, flyers, mailers, or other publications intended for circulation among the general public with respect to any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, including, but not limited to, the settlement sums. This confidentiality provision does not prohibit any party or their attorneys from disclosing any of the terms of this AGREEMENT if they are compelled to do so for tax purposes, by law, including disclosure pursuant to the terms of Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, or by subpoena. 4.5 ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR PREPARATION OF THIS AGREEMENT: SETTLING PARTIES shall bear their own attorneys’ fees for the preparation, drafting and execution of this AGREEMENT and as to the compliance with their respective obligations as set forth herein. 4.6 COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIMS: It is understood by SETTLING PARTIES that this AGREEMENT is entered into solely for the purpose of compromising disputed claims, and each party expressly agrees and acknowledges that the other parties hereto have not admitted, and by execution and performance of this AGREEMENT, do not admit, any liability or obligation to the other parties, or any of them. It is understood that SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR denies liability to BILL WEBB, and that SETTLING SUBCONTRACTOR intends merely to avoid further litigation. PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v. Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc 4.7 SEVERABILITY: If any term or provision hereof is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 4.8 CALIFORNIA LAW GOVERNS: This AGREEMENT, its validity, the construction of its terms and the interpretation of rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of California. 49 AUTHORITY: Each party to this AGREEMENT represents and warrants to the others that the persons executing this AGREEMENT on behalf of such party are duly and fully authorized to do so. 4.10 EXECUTION: This AGREEMENT may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, after each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart to each other party, shall have the same force and effect as an original executed by both parties. 4.11 ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT: If any dispute shall arise between SETTLING PARTIES regarding the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, the “prevailing party” shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs. 4.12 ENFORCEMENT AS JUDGMENT: In the event a SETTLING PARTY breaches the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, any other party may move to enforce the AGREEMENT on an ex parte application pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 664.6 and 664.7 In the event such a motion is necessary, the prevailing party on the motion shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with filing the motion. 4.13 NEUTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Whenever in this instrument the context requires the masculine, feminine and neutral gender, each shall be deemed to include the other and the singular and plural are each deemed to refer to the other. 4.14 INTEGRATION: This AGREEMENT contains the entire release between SETTLING PARTIES, and the terms of this release are contractual. The recitals set forth above are intended to be agreements between SETTLING PARTIES and not merely recitals, and are hereby expressly incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference. 4.15 MODIFICATIONS: No modification, amendment, or waiver of any of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT shall be binding unless made in writing and signed by all parties and/or by their duly authorized officers or agents. 4.16 RIGHTS OR BENEFITS: This AGREEMENT is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to create or confer any rights or benefit in anyone not a party hereto except as expressly provided herein. P \DOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric.doc 4.17 EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF DEFUNCT ENTITIES: SETTLING PARTIES hereby acknowledge that to the extent any of the SETTLING PARTIES are bankrupt entities, dissolved corporations and/or have no officers or representatives who can or who are willing to execute this AGREEMENT on their behalf, and to the extent this AGREEMENT has been approved by the insurance carrier(s) of such SETTLING PARTIES, counsel retained by such approving insurance carrier(s), or by an authorized representative for the approving insurance carrier(s) if no counsel was retained on behalf of the SETTLING PARTY, may execute this AGREEMENT pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.7. The funding of this settlement shall constitute the insurance carrier(s)’ approval thereto and no further action or signature to the AGREEMENT shall be required by or on behalf of these SETTLING PARTIES pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.7. THE FOREGOING IS AGREEABLE: Dated: 2h 20r0 BILL WEBB C STR! ON, INC. By: Name: tCCr Title: Dated: /// 20/0 RCM ELECTRIC DBA RAYMOND CRAIG MARONGIU By:X wo Gi. ee Nartfe! Meer Pv geet Title: : So Dud yn PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v_ Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric. doc EXHIBIT A Property Address Chico, Butte County, CA Homeowner 95928 Krater, Kevin 2952 Bancroft Dr Lowry, Sharleen Nunez, Rosalva 2953 Bancroft Dr Nunez, Jose Udall, Francis 2870 Bancroft Dr Scoubes, Jayson 2862 Wingfield Ave Scoubes, Nicole Wood, Diane 13 Stonehaven Ct Wood, Raymond PADOCS\Hannover\Scoubes v Bill Webb Const\Settlement\SAR - RCM Electric doc Scoubes v. Bill Webb Construction Butte County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV02673 PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825. On December 30, 2020, I served the following document: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUMF OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF JOCELINE M. HERMAN 10 BY MAIL: Iplaced the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing 11 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, 12 ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. BY CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: | enclosed the document(s) 13 in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service 14 List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s 15 practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the original course of 16 business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package 17 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly 18 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 19 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error 20 was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached 21 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at 22 the electronic notification address listed below. 23 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 11:59 p.m. pursuant to California 24 Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 12 consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5). 25 26 Addressed as follows: 27 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 28 {02341163 DOCX} NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Bill Webb Construction Joseph Su Edward R. Huguenin MILSTEIN JACKSON Erik C. Tofft FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP HUGUENIN KAHN 10250 Constellation Blvd., 14% Floor 3001 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Roseville, CA 95661 (310) 396-9600 (Ofc.) (916) 367-7098 (Ofc.) (310) 396-9635 (Fax) ehuquenin@huqueninkahn.com jsu@mifwlaw.com etofft@huqueninkahn.com Counsel for John David Williams dba J Counsel for Oak Ridge Cabinets, Inc. Williams Backhoe Namvar Mokri Deborah A. Correll Richard A. LeVu HOLLINGSHEAD & ASSOCIATES MOKRI VANIS & JONES LLP 3880 Atherton Road 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 750 Rocklin, CA 95765 Los Angeles, CA 90071 916-630-3803 (Ofc.) 213-784-3220 (Ofc.) 10 Assistant: Luz Loree mokri@mvyjllp.com lloree@wedefend.com rlevu@myjllp.com 11 Counsel for John David Williams dba J Counsel for McClelland Air Conditioning, 12 Inc. Williams Backhoe and Charles S, Crabtree Karen M. Baytosh Painting, Inc. 13 Karen T. Wagner Deborah Ann Correll BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK J. CAMPBELL 14 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 1090 3880 Atherton Road Reno, NV 89501 Rocklin, CA 95765 15 775-440-2389 (Ofc.) 916-630-3803 (Ofc.) 16 775-440-2390 (Fax) 916-630-3848 (Fax) kbaytosh@bremerwhyte.com dcorrell@unitedfiregroup.com 17 kwagner@bremerwhyte.com Counsel for Franklin Construction, Inc. Counsel for The Door Company 18 David Harris Jacob Koper 19 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD LAW OFFICES OF SANTANA & VIERRA P.O. Box 64093 255 California Street, Suite 900 20 St. Paul, MN 55164 San Francisco, CA 94111 916-638-6610 (Ofc.) 415-777-1308 (Ofc.); 415-806-9143 (cell) 21 jkoper@travelers.com David. harris01 @libertymutual.com 22 Counsel for North State Plumbing, Inc. Counsel for William Greendell McNair and Julie McElroy Jana McNair dba Defcon 1 Security 23 Jennifer Carroll System JACOBSEN MCELROY Jennifer Snodgrass Willis 24 2401 American River Drive, Suite 100 LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN C. MOORE Sacramento, CA 95825 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 100 25 916-971-4100 (Ofc.) Sacramento, CA 95815 26 916-971-4150 (fax) 916-921-9353 (Ofc.) imcelroy@jacobsenmcelroy.com 855-214-7884 (fax) 27 jcarroll@jacobsenmcelroy.com Willi86@nationwide.com 28 {02341163 DOCX} NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C-P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Counsel for Hightower Masonry, Inc. Counsel for Johnson Roofing Company Scott D. Cote dba Derek Gregory Johnson DIEPENBROCK & COTTER, LLP Keith D. Chidlaw 1435 River Park Drive, Suite 400 SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP Sacramento, CA 95815 400 University Avenue 916-565-6222 (Ofc.) Sacramento, CA 95825 916-565-6220 (Fax) 916-567-0400 (Ofc.) sdc@diepenbrockcotter.com 916-568-0400 (Fax) Counsel for Matthew Allen McHenry dba Counsel for JS Construction; Miller Glass, Butte Creek Stone; Tyler Lee Gutierrez Inc. dba Butte Creek Stone Kenneth O. Taylor III Jordan Rodman RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. RODMAN & ASSOCIATES 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 149 Stony Circle, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92618 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 714-709-4400 707-278-9878 (Ofc.) 10 707-278-9880 (Fax) Document Depository Special Master 11 Robert Bellagamba US Legal Support 12 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, #300 CASTLE DEKKER & BELLAGAMBA Sacramento, CA 95833 30 Oak Court 13 Danville, CA 94526 [V] Check if served 925 552-1200 (Ofc.) 14 925-552-1201 (Fax) rbellagamba@dekkerlaw.com 15 16 [V] Check if served 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 30, 2020. 18 WH anew Reape 19 20 Maria Reyes 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {02341163 DOCX} NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Scoubes v. Bill Webb Construction Butte County Superior Court Case No. 18CV02673 PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825. On the date below, I served the following document: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 877.6(a)(2); MEMORANDUMF OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF 10 JOCELINE M. HERMAN ll BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused such document(s) to be served electronically via 12 FILE & SERVEXPRESS. E-service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the 13 FILE & SERVEXPRESS service list. This service complies with the Court’s order in this case. Ain 28-0 5G Aare 1 vean Addressed as follows: ag ZYUADR gos 15 [SERVICE LIST MAINTAINED BY FILE & SERVXPRESS] gx BEAD is 16 FGRa a< I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the of 17 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 30, 2020. 18 19 Mane Big 20 Maria Reyes 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {02341200.DOCX} PROOF OF SERVICE