Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Electronically Filed
GREG L. JOHNSON, SB# 132397 2/10/2021 4:09 PM
2 E-Mail: Greg.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
TIMOTHY J. NALLY, SB# 288728 Superior Court of California
3 E-Mail: Timothy.Nally@lewisbrisbois.com County of Stanislaus
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 Clerk of the Court
4 Sacramento, California 95833 By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy
Telephone: 916.564.5400
5 Facsimile: 916.564.5444
6 Attorneys for Defendant GARDNER
TRUCKING, INC. a California Corporation
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
11 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF CASE NO. 2021796
MODESTO, INC.,
12
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING
13 INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING
vs. ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14 JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
15 Corporation and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, DATE: March 10, 2021
16 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. DEPT: 23
17
Action Filed: September 20, 2016
18 Trial Date: July 13, 2021
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant Gardner Trucking, Inc. (“Gardner Trucking”), submits this brief in response to
3 the Court’s February 3, 2021, Order for Further Hearing on Defendant Gardner Trucking, Inc.’s
4 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, and addresses the
5 specific issue of whether the filing of the amended complaint by Plaintiffs Doctors Medical Center
6 of Modesto, Inc. (“DMC”), Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc.,
7 Emanuel Medical Center, and Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
8 in Case No. CV-19-003530 (“the Second Action”), moots Gardner Trucking’s Motion for
9 Summary Judgment on the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in the Second Action.
10 As a preliminary matter, the filing of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the Second Action
11 does not impact in any way Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion with respect to the
12 causes of action asserted in DMC’s operative complaint filed in Case No. 2021796, which is the
13 lead case in this consolidated action. However, controlling case law dictates that the filing of an
14 amended complaint during the pendency of a summary judgment motion, as Plaintiffs did in the
15 Second Action, moots any motion, including a summary judgment motion, directed at the
16 superseded complaint. That outcome, however, does not preclude the movant from refiling its
17 motion as to the amended complaint.
18 Here, should the Court concluded that Gardner Trucking’s motion is moot to the extent it
19 is based on Plaintiffs’ causes of action in the Second Action, Gardner Trucking intends to refile its
20 motion to ensure it preserves its objections and arguments regarding the lack of evidentiary
21 support for Plaintiffs’ causes of action. The inefficiency caused by Plaintiffs’ filing of their
22 amended complaint may be able to be avoided, however, should the Court exercise its inherent
23 authority and sua sponte reconsider its prior order granting Plaintiffs leave to amend.
24 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
25 This action (“the First Action”) originated when DMC filed its initial complaint against
26 Gardner Trucking on September 20, 2016. That complaint asserted causes of action for breach of
27 implied in fact contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and open book account. DMC filed
28 an amended complaint on January 3, 2020, which added a cause of action under Cal. Bus. & Prof.
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Code § 17200.
2 The Second action was initiated when Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Gardner
3 Trucking on June 21, 2019. That complaint asserted causes of action for breach of implied in fact
4 contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and open book account. The Second Action was
5 consolidated into the First Action on January 3, 2020, the same date DMC was granted leave to
6 file its amended complaint in the First Action.
7 Gardner Trucking filed its summary judgment motion on July 23, 2020. Its motion was
8 scheduled to be heard on October 9, 2020. The motion sought summary judgment and,
9 alternatively, summary adjudication, on all causes of action DMC asserted in the First Action, as
10 well as all causes of action Plaintiffs asserted in the Second Action.
11 On August 26, 2020, nearly eight months after DMC was granted leave to file its amended
12 complaint in the First Action and over a month after Gardner Trucking filed its summary judgment
13 motion, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file an amended complaint, with a hearing date
14 scheduled for October 9, 2020, the same date as the hearing on Gardner Trucking’s summary
15 judgment motion. The proposed amended pleading sought to add a cause of action under Cal. Bus.
16 & Prof. Code § 17200. All other causes of action remained the same. Gardner Trucking opposed
17 the motion and, due to the impending trial date, filed a motion to continue the trial date and to
18 impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs for the delay to be caused by their motion for leave
19 to amend.
20 At the time both the summary judgment motion and the motion for leave to amend had
21 been fully briefed, the summary judgment motion was set to be heard and decided at the same time
22 as the motion for leave to amend, such that the mootness of the summary judgment had not been
23 put at issue. However, after briefing on both motions closed, the Court on its own motion moved
24 the hearing on Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
25 amend was heard as scheduled, and the motion was granted. Gardner Trucking’s summary
26 judgment motion was heard on January 14, 2021.
27 ///
28 ///
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 2
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
2 A. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Moots Gardner Trucking’s Motion for
Summary Judgment with Respect to the Causes of Action at Issue in the
3 Second Action.
4 Controlling case law is clear that the filing of an amended complaint during the pendency
5 of a summary judgment motion renders the motion moot. “Because there is but one complaint in a
6 civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior
7 complaint.” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131
8 [filing of amended complaint moots pending summary judgment motion]; Board of Trustees v.
9 Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1173 [affirming trial court order denying summary
10 judgment motion as moot based on filing of amended complaint after summary judgment motion
11 was filed].)
12 However, a determination that a summary judgment motion is moot does not reach the
13 merits of the motion and therefore does not preclude the movant from seeking summary judgment
14 motion as to an amended complaint. “After a cause of action is amended, the court may rule in
15 favor of the defendant if, upon subsequent motion, or perhaps renewal of the earlier motion if
16 appropriately framed, it is shown . .. there are no triable material issues of fact which would
17 permit recovery on that theory.” (Hejmadi v. AMFAC, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 536
18 [citation omitted].)
19 Here, Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint during the pendency of Gardner
20 Trucking’s motion for summary judgment moots the motion to the extent it was based on the
21 causes of action asserted in the prior complaint. Plaintiffs’ initial complaint has been superseded
22 by their amended complaint.
23 B. The Court has Inherent Discretion to Reconsider Its Prior Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
24
25 A trial court has inherent authority to reconsider its prior rulings without regard to the
26 specific requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, provided the court’s reconsideration is done
27 sua sponte. (Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61
28 Cal.4th 830, 844.)
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 3
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Here, the inefficiencies created by Plaintiffs’ filing of an amended complaint during the
2 pendency of Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion can be avoided by the Court’s sua
3 sponte reconsideration of its prior order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended
4 complaint and strike the amended complaint from the record.
5 Alternatively, should the Court declines to strike the amended complaint from the record,
6 Gardner Trucking’s only recourse would be to refile its summary judgment motion. In that event,
7 the Court should reconsider its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended
8 complaint and impose monetary sanctions against them in an amount equal to cost incurred by
9 Gardner Trucking in bringing a renewed summary judgment motion, the amount of which can be
10 determined by a subsequent motion made by Gardner Trucking. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
11 473(a)(2).)
12 IV. CONCLUSION
13 Based on applicable case law, Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint moots Gardner
14 Trucking’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication to the
15 extent it is based on their initial complaint filed in the Second Action, but does not prevent
16 Gardner Trucking from renewing its motion with respect to the amended complaint. The
17 inefficiencies created by Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint can be avoided by the
18 Court’s sua sponte reconsideration of its prior order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
19 amend.
20
21 DATED: February 10, 2021 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
22
23
By:
24 Greg L. Johnson
Timothy J. Nally
25 Attorneys for Defendant, GARDNER
TRUCKING, INC.
26
27
28
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 4
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Doctors Medical Center v Gardner Trucking, Inc. - Case No. 9000631
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My
business address is 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95833.
5
On February 10, 2021, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT GARDNER
6 TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
7
I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
8 numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
9 Edward Stumpp
Helton Law Group, APC
10 1590 Corporate Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
11 Telephone: 562.901.4499
Email: estumpp@helton.law
12
13
The documents were served by the following means:
14
(BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an
15 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
documents to be sent from e-mail address Lola.McCutcheon@lewisbrisbois.com to the
16 persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time
after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
17 unsuccessful.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on February 10, 2021, at Sacramento, California.
20
21
/s/ Lola C. McCutcheon
22 Lola C. McCutcheon
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1
BRISBOIS 5
BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Electronically Filed GREG L. JOHNSON, SB# 132397 2/10/2021 4:09 PM 2 E-Mail: Greg.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com TIMOTHY J. NALLY, SB# 288728 Superior Court of California 3 E-Mail: Timothy.Nally@lewisbrisbois.com County of Stanislaus 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 Clerk of the Court 4 Sacramento, California 95833 By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy Telephone: 916.564.5400 5 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 6 Attorneys for Defendant GARDNER TRUCKING, INC. a California Corporation 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 11 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF CASE NO. 2021796 MODESTO, INC., 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING 13 INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING vs. ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 15 Corporation and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, DATE: March 10, 2021 16 TIME: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. DEPT: 23 17 Action Filed: September 20, 2016 18 Trial Date: July 13, 2021 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant Gardner Trucking, Inc. (“Gardner Trucking”), submits this brief in response to 3 the Court’s February 3, 2021, Order for Further Hearing on Defendant Gardner Trucking, Inc.’s 4 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, and addresses the 5 specific issue of whether the filing of the amended complaint by Plaintiffs Doctors Medical Center 6 of Modesto, Inc. (“DMC”), Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc., 7 Emanuel Medical Center, and Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 8 in Case No. CV-19-003530 (“the Second Action”), moots Gardner Trucking’s Motion for 9 Summary Judgment on the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in the Second Action. 10 As a preliminary matter, the filing of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the Second Action 11 does not impact in any way Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion with respect to the 12 causes of action asserted in DMC’s operative complaint filed in Case No. 2021796, which is the 13 lead case in this consolidated action. However, controlling case law dictates that the filing of an 14 amended complaint during the pendency of a summary judgment motion, as Plaintiffs did in the 15 Second Action, moots any motion, including a summary judgment motion, directed at the 16 superseded complaint. That outcome, however, does not preclude the movant from refiling its 17 motion as to the amended complaint. 18 Here, should the Court concluded that Gardner Trucking’s motion is moot to the extent it 19 is based on Plaintiffs’ causes of action in the Second Action, Gardner Trucking intends to refile its 20 motion to ensure it preserves its objections and arguments regarding the lack of evidentiary 21 support for Plaintiffs’ causes of action. The inefficiency caused by Plaintiffs’ filing of their 22 amended complaint may be able to be avoided, however, should the Court exercise its inherent 23 authority and sua sponte reconsider its prior order granting Plaintiffs leave to amend. 24 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 25 This action (“the First Action”) originated when DMC filed its initial complaint against 26 Gardner Trucking on September 20, 2016. That complaint asserted causes of action for breach of 27 implied in fact contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and open book account. DMC filed 28 an amended complaint on January 3, 2020, which added a cause of action under Cal. Bus. & Prof. LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Code § 17200. 2 The Second action was initiated when Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Gardner 3 Trucking on June 21, 2019. That complaint asserted causes of action for breach of implied in fact 4 contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and open book account. The Second Action was 5 consolidated into the First Action on January 3, 2020, the same date DMC was granted leave to 6 file its amended complaint in the First Action. 7 Gardner Trucking filed its summary judgment motion on July 23, 2020. Its motion was 8 scheduled to be heard on October 9, 2020. The motion sought summary judgment and, 9 alternatively, summary adjudication, on all causes of action DMC asserted in the First Action, as 10 well as all causes of action Plaintiffs asserted in the Second Action. 11 On August 26, 2020, nearly eight months after DMC was granted leave to file its amended 12 complaint in the First Action and over a month after Gardner Trucking filed its summary judgment 13 motion, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file an amended complaint, with a hearing date 14 scheduled for October 9, 2020, the same date as the hearing on Gardner Trucking’s summary 15 judgment motion. The proposed amended pleading sought to add a cause of action under Cal. Bus. 16 & Prof. Code § 17200. All other causes of action remained the same. Gardner Trucking opposed 17 the motion and, due to the impending trial date, filed a motion to continue the trial date and to 18 impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs for the delay to be caused by their motion for leave 19 to amend. 20 At the time both the summary judgment motion and the motion for leave to amend had 21 been fully briefed, the summary judgment motion was set to be heard and decided at the same time 22 as the motion for leave to amend, such that the mootness of the summary judgment had not been 23 put at issue. However, after briefing on both motions closed, the Court on its own motion moved 24 the hearing on Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to 25 amend was heard as scheduled, and the motion was granted. Gardner Trucking’s summary 26 judgment motion was heard on January 14, 2021. 27 /// 28 /// LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 2 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 2 A. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Moots Gardner Trucking’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Causes of Action at Issue in the 3 Second Action. 4 Controlling case law is clear that the filing of an amended complaint during the pendency 5 of a summary judgment motion renders the motion moot. “Because there is but one complaint in a 6 civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior 7 complaint.” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 8 [filing of amended complaint moots pending summary judgment motion]; Board of Trustees v. 9 Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1173 [affirming trial court order denying summary 10 judgment motion as moot based on filing of amended complaint after summary judgment motion 11 was filed].) 12 However, a determination that a summary judgment motion is moot does not reach the 13 merits of the motion and therefore does not preclude the movant from seeking summary judgment 14 motion as to an amended complaint. “After a cause of action is amended, the court may rule in 15 favor of the defendant if, upon subsequent motion, or perhaps renewal of the earlier motion if 16 appropriately framed, it is shown . .. there are no triable material issues of fact which would 17 permit recovery on that theory.” (Hejmadi v. AMFAC, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 536 18 [citation omitted].) 19 Here, Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint during the pendency of Gardner 20 Trucking’s motion for summary judgment moots the motion to the extent it was based on the 21 causes of action asserted in the prior complaint. Plaintiffs’ initial complaint has been superseded 22 by their amended complaint. 23 B. The Court has Inherent Discretion to Reconsider Its Prior Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. 24 25 A trial court has inherent authority to reconsider its prior rulings without regard to the 26 specific requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, provided the court’s reconsideration is done 27 sua sponte. (Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 28 Cal.4th 830, 844.) LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 3 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Here, the inefficiencies created by Plaintiffs’ filing of an amended complaint during the 2 pendency of Gardner Trucking’s summary judgment motion can be avoided by the Court’s sua 3 sponte reconsideration of its prior order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended 4 complaint and strike the amended complaint from the record. 5 Alternatively, should the Court declines to strike the amended complaint from the record, 6 Gardner Trucking’s only recourse would be to refile its summary judgment motion. In that event, 7 the Court should reconsider its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended 8 complaint and impose monetary sanctions against them in an amount equal to cost incurred by 9 Gardner Trucking in bringing a renewed summary judgment motion, the amount of which can be 10 determined by a subsequent motion made by Gardner Trucking. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 11 473(a)(2).) 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 Based on applicable case law, Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint moots Gardner 14 Trucking’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication to the 15 extent it is based on their initial complaint filed in the Second Action, but does not prevent 16 Gardner Trucking from renewing its motion with respect to the amended complaint. The 17 inefficiencies created by Plaintiffs’ filing of their amended complaint can be avoided by the 18 Court’s sua sponte reconsideration of its prior order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to 19 amend. 20 21 DATED: February 10, 2021 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 22 23 By: 24 Greg L. Johnson Timothy J. Nally 25 Attorneys for Defendant, GARDNER TRUCKING, INC. 26 27 28 LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 4 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Doctors Medical Center v Gardner Trucking, Inc. - Case No. 9000631 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95833. 5 On February 10, 2021, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT GARDNER 6 TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 7 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax 8 numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): 9 Edward Stumpp Helton Law Group, APC 10 1590 Corporate Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 11 Telephone: 562.901.4499 Email: estumpp@helton.law 12 13 The documents were served by the following means: 14 (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an 15 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent from e-mail address Lola.McCutcheon@lewisbrisbois.com to the 16 persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 17 unsuccessful. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on February 10, 2021, at Sacramento, California. 20 21 /s/ Lola C. McCutcheon 22 Lola C. McCutcheon 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4844-6976-3035.1 BRISBOIS 5 BISGAARD DEFENDANT GARDNER TRUCKING INC.’S FURTHER BRIEF REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION