Preview
1 Anthony R , Lopez, Jr., Esq. SBN: 137401 Electronically Filed
SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP 1/22/2021 1:38 PM
2 22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200 Superior Court of California
Woodland Hills, California 91367
3 Tel: (818) 591-4300 County of Stanislaus
Fax: (818) 591-4315 Clerk of the Court
4 By: Christine Zulim, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
aka SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
9
SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A Case No.: CV-20-000633
10 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION aka
SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP,
11 PLAINTIFF/CROSS DEFENDANT
Plaintiff, SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER’S,
12 >) REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY
vs. AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM
13
)
I DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS
FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
14 ACCIDENT CENTER; ADVANCED PAIN
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ; ALAMO
15 SURGERY CENTER; DISCOVERY ) Date: January 29, 2021
16 DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; DANIEL POWERS, ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
M.D., INC., JOSE L1MON PRACTICE; Dept: 22
17 GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS; )
) Case Filed: 1 /29/2020
AMADOR CARRANZA, et al.
18
19 Defendants.
20 ADVANCED PAIN MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE; ALAMO SURGERY CENTER,
21
22 Cross-Complainants,
vs.
23
)
SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, a Professional
24 Corp. aka SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP, et v
al,
25
!
26 Cross-Defendant. )
27
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST
AMENDED CROSS -
COMPLAINT
I
1 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR
2 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 Plaintiff/cross-defendant, SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A Prof. Corp. aka
4 SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP (“SOUTHWEST”), hereby replies to the opposition filed by
5 defendants/cross-complainants, ADVANCED PAIN MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE and
6 ALAMO SURGERY CENTER (“ADVANCED”) to SOUTHWEST’s motion to strike punitive
7 damages from ADVANCED’s first amended complaint.
8 It is important to note that ADVANCED voluntarily amended the cross-complaint and
9 therefore, the first amended cross-complaint is the first pleading to be the subject of a motion to
10 strike punitive damages.
11 SOUTHWEST contends ADVANCED’s first amended cross-complaint fails to plead
12 specific facts necessary to support an award of punitive damages and the motion to strike
13 should be granted without leave to amend, or in the alternative, ADVANCED being ordered to
14 amend to state additional specific facts which support the breach of fiduciary duty and fraud
15 allegations. ADVANCED’s vague, conclusory and irrelevant allegations that SOUTHWEST
16 had or will engage in a pattern of conduct in other matters does not pertain to this action and do
17 not support a prayer for punitive damages.
18 Here, SOUTHWEST entered into a written retainer agreement with its client defendant,
19 AMADOR CARRANZA, which is controlling. The attorneys fees were disbursed from the
20 [ settlement with the balance submitted to Mr. Carranza and the medical providers in this
21 interpleader action. Pursuant to the medical lien no funds from the balance of the settlement
22 were disbursed to Mr. Carranza or to any medical provider and since there was no agreement as
23 to the amount of disbursement of the balance of the settlement funds SOUTHWEST filed this
24 interpleader action. There is simply no basis or facts to support ADVANCED’s claim for
25 ! punitive damages.
26 j Further, SOUTHWEST has complied with the State Bar of California’s formal opinion
27
28
J
|
specifically providing for an attorney in such a circumstance to file an interpleader action
pertaining to the balance of the settlement funds after the attorneys fees have been deducted.
AMENDED CROSS-
I REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST
COMPLAINT
2
1 It’s unreasonable for ADVANCED to argue that SOUTHWEST’S conduct constitutes
2 fraud or breaches an alleged fiduciary duty (if a fiduciary duty even exists between
3 SOUTHWEST and ADVANCED) when SOUTHWEST’S conduct of disbursing attorneys fees
4 pursuant to the retainer agreement and filing this interpleader were recommended by the State
5 Bar of California and were made in good faith.
6 ADVANCED has failed to allege specific or relevant facts in this case, in this
7 settlement and in these set of circumstances to support an award of punitive damages and
8 ADVANCED should be required by the court to amend the cross-complaint .
9 A. ADVANCED’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF
10 FIDUCIARY DUTY FAILS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
11 WITH SOUTHWEST:
12 i SOUTHWEST is not in a fiduciary relationship with ADVANCED. Indeed, cross-
13 i complainant has not alleged anything to support such an allegation .
14 Wolf v. Super. Ct., 107 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2003) defines fiduciary relationships as
15 j follows: A fiduciary relationship is “any relation existing between parties to a transaction
16 ! wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of
17 the other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person
18 i in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if
I
19 he voluntarily accepts or assumes the accept the confidence, can take no advance from his acts
20 | relating to the interest of the other party without the latter’s knowledge or consent.’’Wolf, at 29.
21 i, There is nothing in ADVANCED’s first amended cross-complaint or opposition to the
22 | instant motion to support the contention that a fiduciary relationship has been created between
23 SOUTHWEST and ADVANCED. The logic behind ADVANCED’s alleged fiduciary
24 relationship is that because SOUTHWEST has a fiduciary relationship with its client that it
25 automatically would have one with ADVANCED is flawed. ADVANCED has not referred to
26 any admissible evidence that would create a fiduciary relationship between SOUTHWEST and
27 ADVANCED, because none exists and therefore, a claim for punitive damages is specious and
28 improper
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNUIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS -
COMPLAINT
3
;
1 B. ADVANCED FAILS TO ALLEGE ANY CONDUCT IN THE FOURTH
2 CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT THAT WOULD WARRANT PUNITIVE
!
3 DAMAGES.
4 There is nothing in the first amended cross-complaint or the opposition to this motion to
5 strike that would support a claim of fraud and the imposition of punitive damages. This is an
I
6 nterpleader action initiated by SOUTHWEST — there’s nothing fraudulent or deceitful about it.
7 ! ADVANCED allegations in the first amended cross-complaint was irrelevant and relates to
8 allegations of conduct in other matters. Statements unrelated to this matter such as
9 | SOUTHWEST “has habitually engaged in improper conduct with respect to medical liens” and
10 “on several recent occasions” SOUTHWEST “has signed contractual liens for its clients to
11 receive medical services yet has disregarded the lien agreements” (paragraph 22 of the first
I
12 amended cross-complaint) are improper and irrelevant to this matter and do not relate to
13 SOUTHWEST’s alleged conduct in this matter. ADVANCED’s allegations in the first
14 amended cross-complaint are repleat with such grandious, irrelevant, speculative and
15 | j outlandish allegations which are obviously unrelated to this matter.
16 To establish a right to punitive damages, a plaintiff must specifically allege material
17 facts which rise to the level of scienter specified in civil Code section 3294, (Smith v. Superior
18 Court (1992) 10 Cai.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042 [plaintiffs allegations are “devoid of any
19 factual assertions supporting a conclusion petitioner acted with oppression, fraud or malice”];
I
20 | Brosseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 [conclusory characterizations of conduct
21 insufficient to state a claim for punitive damages]: G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975)
i
22 49 Cal . App.3d 22, 27-32 [same; holding that the imposition of punitive damages requires a
23 showing of “evil motive”]; Henderson v. Security National Bank (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 765,
24 i 771-772 [setting forth established California law that punitive damages are not favored and that
25 ;,stringent requirements are imposed for their recovery].)
26 ADVANCED has failed to allege sufficient facts to support an allegation of fraud .
27 I ///
28 '
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS -
COMPLAINT
4
'
1 i CONCLUSION.
2 ADVANCED has failed to sufficiently allege conduct entitling it to exemplary or
3 I punitive damages relating to the third and fourth causes of action contained in the first amended
4 ;
j cross-complaint. Accordingly, SOUTHWEST respectfully requests its motion to strike be
5 1: granted in its entirety
6 '
: Dated: January 22, 2021 SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
7
8 i Bff
9 ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, JR., ESQ.
1
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
11
I
12
13 ;
14
15 i
16
17
18 :
19
20 !
21 '
22
23 ;
24
25 I
26 I
27 i
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
I
COMPLAINT
S
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
[C.C.P. 10 I3A(3), 1010.6 and CRC 2.250, et seq]
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
4 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 22440
Clarendon Street, Suite 200, Woodland Hills, California 91367.
5
6 On January 22, 2021 I served the forgoing document described as
M .A I NT IFF/CROSS DEFENDANT SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER’S REPLY TO
7 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
FROM DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
8 COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by serving a true and correct copy thereof
9 Iby electronic mail addressed as follows:
Neal M. Goldstein, Esq Attorneys for Defendant,
; ,
10 11400 West Olympic Blvd., Ste. 600 DANIEL POWERS, M. D., INC. dba
ijiLos Angeles, CA 90064 DISCOVERY DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
11 ij '
Telephone: (310) 817-6U0G
oldstein mmcom
12
|
.!
Email: nealr
^
Ogniao Gavrilov, Esq
^ Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-
13
!iEliezer Cohen, Esq . Complainants, ADVANCED PAIN
14 !1
GAVRILOV & BROOKS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, AND
15
2315 Capitol Avenue IALAMO SURGERY CENTER
--
|| Sacramento, CA 95816
'
16 Telephone: (916) 504 - 9.529
j ' Facsimile: (915) 'C 7-6877
17 Email: Ognian@ GavrilovLaw.com
Ecohentfllna vriIoviaw.com
18 ; L.
19
X 1 served a copy of the above listed document(s) to the interested parties by transmitting
20
v!.-; electronic, mad (e-mail) to the electronic service address(es) listed above with said
21 |
service made pursuant to the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 12 and
22 J consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5).
23
X. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that
24 the foregoing is true and correct.
25 : Executed on January 22, 2021 at Woodland Hills, California.
26 0
27
Ana Lopez
28
REPLY TO OPPOSI'i ION '10 MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
COMPLAINT
6
li
Preview
1 Anthony R , Lopez, Jr., Esq. SBN: 137401 Electronically Filed SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP 1/22/2021 1:38 PM 2 22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200 Superior Court of California Woodland Hills, California 91367 3 Tel: (818) 591-4300 County of Stanislaus Fax: (818) 591-4315 Clerk of the Court 4 By: Christine Zulim, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff, 5 SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION aka SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 9 SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A Case No.: CV-20-000633 10 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION aka SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP, 11 PLAINTIFF/CROSS DEFENDANT Plaintiff, SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER’S, 12 >) REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY vs. AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM 13 ) I DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 14 ACCIDENT CENTER; ADVANCED PAIN MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ; ALAMO 15 SURGERY CENTER; DISCOVERY ) Date: January 29, 2021 16 DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; DANIEL POWERS, ) Time: 8:30 a.m. M.D., INC., JOSE L1MON PRACTICE; Dept: 22 17 GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS; ) ) Case Filed: 1 /29/2020 AMADOR CARRANZA, et al. 18 19 Defendants. 20 ADVANCED PAIN MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE; ALAMO SURGERY CENTER, 21 22 Cross-Complainants, vs. 23 ) SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, a Professional 24 Corp. aka SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP, et v al, 25 ! 26 Cross-Defendant. ) 27 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS - COMPLAINT I 1 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR 2 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 Plaintiff/cross-defendant, SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A Prof. Corp. aka 4 SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP (“SOUTHWEST”), hereby replies to the opposition filed by 5 defendants/cross-complainants, ADVANCED PAIN MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE and 6 ALAMO SURGERY CENTER (“ADVANCED”) to SOUTHWEST’s motion to strike punitive 7 damages from ADVANCED’s first amended complaint. 8 It is important to note that ADVANCED voluntarily amended the cross-complaint and 9 therefore, the first amended cross-complaint is the first pleading to be the subject of a motion to 10 strike punitive damages. 11 SOUTHWEST contends ADVANCED’s first amended cross-complaint fails to plead 12 specific facts necessary to support an award of punitive damages and the motion to strike 13 should be granted without leave to amend, or in the alternative, ADVANCED being ordered to 14 amend to state additional specific facts which support the breach of fiduciary duty and fraud 15 allegations. ADVANCED’s vague, conclusory and irrelevant allegations that SOUTHWEST 16 had or will engage in a pattern of conduct in other matters does not pertain to this action and do 17 not support a prayer for punitive damages. 18 Here, SOUTHWEST entered into a written retainer agreement with its client defendant, 19 AMADOR CARRANZA, which is controlling. The attorneys fees were disbursed from the 20 [ settlement with the balance submitted to Mr. Carranza and the medical providers in this 21 interpleader action. Pursuant to the medical lien no funds from the balance of the settlement 22 were disbursed to Mr. Carranza or to any medical provider and since there was no agreement as 23 to the amount of disbursement of the balance of the settlement funds SOUTHWEST filed this 24 interpleader action. There is simply no basis or facts to support ADVANCED’s claim for 25 ! punitive damages. 26 j Further, SOUTHWEST has complied with the State Bar of California’s formal opinion 27 28 J | specifically providing for an attorney in such a circumstance to file an interpleader action pertaining to the balance of the settlement funds after the attorneys fees have been deducted. AMENDED CROSS- I REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST COMPLAINT 2 1 It’s unreasonable for ADVANCED to argue that SOUTHWEST’S conduct constitutes 2 fraud or breaches an alleged fiduciary duty (if a fiduciary duty even exists between 3 SOUTHWEST and ADVANCED) when SOUTHWEST’S conduct of disbursing attorneys fees 4 pursuant to the retainer agreement and filing this interpleader were recommended by the State 5 Bar of California and were made in good faith. 6 ADVANCED has failed to allege specific or relevant facts in this case, in this 7 settlement and in these set of circumstances to support an award of punitive damages and 8 ADVANCED should be required by the court to amend the cross-complaint . 9 A. ADVANCED’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF 10 FIDUCIARY DUTY FAILS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP 11 WITH SOUTHWEST: 12 i SOUTHWEST is not in a fiduciary relationship with ADVANCED. Indeed, cross- 13 i complainant has not alleged anything to support such an allegation . 14 Wolf v. Super. Ct., 107 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2003) defines fiduciary relationships as 15 j follows: A fiduciary relationship is “any relation existing between parties to a transaction 16 ! wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of 17 the other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person 18 i in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if I 19 he voluntarily accepts or assumes the accept the confidence, can take no advance from his acts 20 | relating to the interest of the other party without the latter’s knowledge or consent.’’Wolf, at 29. 21 i, There is nothing in ADVANCED’s first amended cross-complaint or opposition to the 22 | instant motion to support the contention that a fiduciary relationship has been created between 23 SOUTHWEST and ADVANCED. The logic behind ADVANCED’s alleged fiduciary 24 relationship is that because SOUTHWEST has a fiduciary relationship with its client that it 25 automatically would have one with ADVANCED is flawed. ADVANCED has not referred to 26 any admissible evidence that would create a fiduciary relationship between SOUTHWEST and 27 ADVANCED, because none exists and therefore, a claim for punitive damages is specious and 28 improper REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNUIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS - COMPLAINT 3 ; 1 B. ADVANCED FAILS TO ALLEGE ANY CONDUCT IN THE FOURTH 2 CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT THAT WOULD WARRANT PUNITIVE ! 3 DAMAGES. 4 There is nothing in the first amended cross-complaint or the opposition to this motion to 5 strike that would support a claim of fraud and the imposition of punitive damages. This is an I 6 nterpleader action initiated by SOUTHWEST — there’s nothing fraudulent or deceitful about it. 7 ! ADVANCED allegations in the first amended cross-complaint was irrelevant and relates to 8 allegations of conduct in other matters. Statements unrelated to this matter such as 9 | SOUTHWEST “has habitually engaged in improper conduct with respect to medical liens” and 10 “on several recent occasions” SOUTHWEST “has signed contractual liens for its clients to 11 receive medical services yet has disregarded the lien agreements” (paragraph 22 of the first I 12 amended cross-complaint) are improper and irrelevant to this matter and do not relate to 13 SOUTHWEST’s alleged conduct in this matter. ADVANCED’s allegations in the first 14 amended cross-complaint are repleat with such grandious, irrelevant, speculative and 15 | j outlandish allegations which are obviously unrelated to this matter. 16 To establish a right to punitive damages, a plaintiff must specifically allege material 17 facts which rise to the level of scienter specified in civil Code section 3294, (Smith v. Superior 18 Court (1992) 10 Cai.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042 [plaintiffs allegations are “devoid of any 19 factual assertions supporting a conclusion petitioner acted with oppression, fraud or malice”]; I 20 | Brosseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 [conclusory characterizations of conduct 21 insufficient to state a claim for punitive damages]: G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) i 22 49 Cal . App.3d 22, 27-32 [same; holding that the imposition of punitive damages requires a 23 showing of “evil motive”]; Henderson v. Security National Bank (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 765, 24 i 771-772 [setting forth established California law that punitive damages are not favored and that 25 ;,stringent requirements are imposed for their recovery].) 26 ADVANCED has failed to allege sufficient facts to support an allegation of fraud . 27 I /// 28 ' REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS - COMPLAINT 4 ' 1 i CONCLUSION. 2 ADVANCED has failed to sufficiently allege conduct entitling it to exemplary or 3 I punitive damages relating to the third and fourth causes of action contained in the first amended 4 ; j cross-complaint. Accordingly, SOUTHWEST respectfully requests its motion to strike be 5 1: granted in its entirety 6 ' : Dated: January 22, 2021 SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP 7 8 i Bff 9 ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, JR., ESQ. 1 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 I 12 13 ; 14 15 i 16 17 18 : 19 20 ! 21 ' 22 23 ; 24 25 I 26 I 27 i 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS- I COMPLAINT S 1 PROOF OF SERVICE [C.C.P. 10 I3A(3), 1010.6 and CRC 2.250, et seq] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 4 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200, Woodland Hills, California 91367. 5 6 On January 22, 2021 I served the forgoing document described as M .A I NT IFF/CROSS DEFENDANT SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER’S REPLY TO 7 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS- 8 COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by serving a true and correct copy thereof 9 Iby electronic mail addressed as follows: Neal M. Goldstein, Esq Attorneys for Defendant, ; , 10 11400 West Olympic Blvd., Ste. 600 DANIEL POWERS, M. D., INC. dba ijiLos Angeles, CA 90064 DISCOVERY DIAGNOSTICS, INC. 11 ij ' Telephone: (310) 817-6U0G oldstein mmcom 12 | .! Email: nealr ^ Ogniao Gavrilov, Esq ^ Attorneys for Defendants/Cross- 13 !iEliezer Cohen, Esq . Complainants, ADVANCED PAIN 14 !1 GAVRILOV & BROOKS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, AND 15 2315 Capitol Avenue IALAMO SURGERY CENTER -- || Sacramento, CA 95816 ' 16 Telephone: (916) 504 - 9.529 j ' Facsimile: (915) 'C 7-6877 17 Email: Ognian@ GavrilovLaw.com Ecohentfllna vriIoviaw.com 18 ; L. 19 X 1 served a copy of the above listed document(s) to the interested parties by transmitting 20 v!.-; electronic, mad (e-mail) to the electronic service address(es) listed above with said 21 | service made pursuant to the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 12 and 22 J consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5). 23 X. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that 24 the foregoing is true and correct. 25 : Executed on January 22, 2021 at Woodland Hills, California. 26 0 27 Ana Lopez 28 REPLY TO OPPOSI'i ION '10 MOTION TO STRIKE EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT 6 li