Preview
HELTON LAw Group, APC
EDWARD STUMPP (State Bar No. 157682) Electronically Filed
CASEY E. MITCHNICK (State Bar No. 298550) 3/8/2021 2:39 PM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Superior Court of California
1590 Corporate Drive
County of Stanislaus
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
TELEPHONE: (562) 901-4499 Clerk of the Court
FACSIMILE: (562) 901-4488 By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
11 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF Lead Case No: 2021796
MODESTO, INC., [Consolidated with Case Nos. 9000631 and
12 CV-19-003530]
Plaintiff,
13 VS. ASSIGNED TO: JUDGE JOHN FREELAND
DepT.: 23
14 GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California
15 Corporation; and DOES | through 25, UNLIMITED — DAMAGES EXCEED $25,000
inclusive,
16 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE
Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
17 JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
18
DATE: March 10, 2021
19 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT.: 23
20
[Plaintiff Intends to Appear Telephonically at
21 Hearing]
22 COMPLAINT FILED: 09/20/16
TRIAL DATE: 7/13/21
23
24 Mil
25 Mil
26 Mil
27 Mil
28 Mil
1
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiffs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC.; DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA, INC.; LOS ALAMITOS MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER;
and LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Plaintiffs” or “Hospitals”) submits this brief in response to the Court’s February 3, 2021, Order for
Further Hearing on Defendant GARDNER TRUCKING, INC.’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) Motion for
Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication (hereinafter “MSJ’”).
I INTRODUCTION
Defendant’s brief argues that if this Court denies Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment,
10 taken under submission on February 3, 2021, that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint of the consolidated
11 matter makes the MSJ moot with respect to the consolidated matter and would thereby entitle Defendant
12 to file another MSJ. (Def. Brief, 3:19-21). To the extent there is a separate and distinct basis to move
13 for summary judgment, Defendant should have that right, as would Plaintiff. To the extent a new MSJ
14 merely reiterates what this Court has already addressed it would be barred by the doctrine of horizontal
15 “law of the case.” (The basic rule being that this Court’s ruling should be binding on all subsequent
16 proceedings where there has been no change in law or fact.)
17 Furthermore, the Defendant has offered no reason why this Court should sua sponte
18 Reconsider its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, particularly when that amended
19 complaint has already been filed and discovery of the consolidated matter is being resolved between
20 the parties with the assistance of the appointed Discovery Referee. Without any new facts or law, there
21 is no basis to consider, much less allow, Defendant’s request for reconsideration. This is particularly so
22 because the procedural posture of the case is in large part due to Defendants insistence of the filing of
23 amended complaint. Defendant was asked to stipulate to this Court’s ruling allowing for addition ofa
24 17200 cause of action in the lead case to apply to the consolidated matter. (See, Ex. 1). Defendant
25 however rejected that request, and also rejected a subsequent request to allow Plaintiff Leave to Amend,
26 forcing Plaintiffs to file the Motion for Leave that allowed the amended complaint for which Defendant
27 now says renders its own motion moot.
28
2
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Based on the above and the authority contained here, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Court deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety and apply the doctrine of the “law of the case” to future
proceedings unless there is new law or fact for the Court to consider.
IL. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A The “Law of the Case” Doctrine Must Apply to Future Proceedings Absent New
Law or Facts
Defendant’s further briefing indicates that the filing of the amended complaint in the Section
Action makes the MSJ moot as to the consolidated matter. However, a ruling or holding stated in an
appellate court opinion is binding on all inferior courts in all subsequent proceedings related to the
10 same parties in the same action. Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491. This doctrine,
11 known as the “law of the case,” applies also to trial court’s own prior rulings. See In re Marriage of
12 Nicolas. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1577-1578. This is known as a horizonal application to the
13 doctrine, and it is discretionary.
14 This Court should not be forced to decide identical legal issues and be asked to render an
15 inconsistent ruling with its ruling on the pending MSJ. If the moving party fails to identify a new
16 controlling issue that would resolve the dispute, and the record does not otherwise compel summary
17 judgment or summary adjudication, the court has discretion to deny the motion or to give the opposing
18 party an opportunity to respond to the issue identified by the court before ruling. Juge v. County of
19 Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 62.
20 If Defendant does intend to file another dispositive motion, Plaintiffs maintain that based on the
21 authority above, this Court has discretion based on the doctrine of the “law of the case” to deny a
22 subsequent and identical motion that fails to raise any new law or facts. This Court could deny such a
23 motion without Plaintiffs having to respond, thereby preserving scares judicial resources. As such,
24 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety, sand that said ruling
25 be applied to any subsequent dispositive motion that fails to raise any new law or fact.
26 Mil
27 Mil
28 Mil
3
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
B Defendant Failed to Include Any Reason for This Court to Reconsider Its Prior
Ruling Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration
Defendant’s second argument included in its brief relates to a completely unsupported request
for this Court to Reconsider its prior ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Defendant’s brief
however fails to include any statutory or case authority warranting this Court to reconsider its prior
ruling on that motion.
The “different state of facts” language in the statute relating to these types of requests requires
that the party seeking reconsideration provide both newly discovered evidence and an explanation for
the failure to have produced such evidence earlier. Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982)
10 132 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1013. Defendant has offered neither new facts nor evidence. Furthermore,
11 Defendant’s brief also includes a frivolous request for this Court to impose monetary sanctions on
12 Plaintiffs, which not unsurprisingly is also unsupported by any statutory or case authority.
13 As demonstrated above, Defendant was required to introduce new facts, law, or evidence to
14 warrant reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.
15 Similarly. Defendant’s further and continued requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff are
16 completely unavailing and not supported by anything factual or legal authority. Plaintiff thus
17 respectfully requests that the Court not reconsider its prior Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
18 Amend or consider Defendant’s relentless and unsupported requests for monetary sanctions.
19 Til. CONCLUSION
20 Based on the case authority above, this Court should use its discretion under the doctrine of
21 “law of the case” to not allow Defendant to file identical dispositive motions without a new factual
22 and/or legal basis. To the extent that this Court’s rulings have preclusive effects on legal and factual
23 issues that the Defendant has previously argued were so similar that it warranted this matter being twice
24 consolidated, then those particular issues should not be relitigated.
25 To the extent that any subsequent dispositive motion is filed by the Defendant with identical
26 facts and law, the “law of the case” doctrine should control. Not only as a practical matter, but to
27 preserve scare judicial resources and ensure efficiency in this matter, Plaintiffs respectfully requests
28 that this Court Deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety.
4
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
DATED: March 8, 2021 HELTON LAW Group, APC.
By:
EDWARD
Nibil
JTUMPP
CASEY E- ITCHNICK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Exhibit1
helton
HELTON Law Group, APG
1590 CORPORATE DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
Casey E. Mitchnick
Attorney-at-law
(562) 901-4499
Fax: (562) 901-4488
Email: cmitchnick@helton.law
VIA EMAIL ONLY
August 12, 2020
Greg L. Johnson, Esq.
Timothy J. Nally, Esq.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
2020 West EL Camino Ave., Ste. 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Re: Doctors Hospital of Modesto, Inc. vs. Gardner Trucking, Inc.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Lead Case No.: 2021796
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiffs send this correspondence to follow up regarding Plaintiffs’ Amended Protective Order sent to
Defendant Gardner Trucking on August 5, 2020. The terms and conditions are the same as the one Defendant
agreed to in the lead case. As such, please return an executed copy to Plaintiffs at your earliest convenience.
Additionally, included with this correspondence is a proposed stipulation allowing Plaintiffs in this
consolidated matter to join the cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As you are
aware, Defendant’s Demurrer and Motions to Strike relating to that cause of action in the lead case were
overruled and denied on June 10, 2020. Thereafter, Defendant asserted in its pleadings opposing Plaintiffs
Motions to Compel that the cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 only applies to
claims in the lead case brought by Doctors Hospital of Modesto, Inc. The Plaintiffs in this consolidated
matter however seek to join that cause of action. Given that Defendant consolidated these matters on the
basis that they have “significant overlapping factual and legal issues,” as well as the Court’s recent ruling
on Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs request that Defendant execute the attached
stipulation or send a revised version for Plaintiff's review. Failure to do so will force Plaintiffs to seek
immediate intervention from the Court given that a discovery referee is being appointed and further pleading
disputes will result in significant time and expense of all parties.
If you would like to discuss any of the foregoing further, including any revisions of the attached stipulation,
please contact your undersigned. If Plaintiffs do not receive a response by Friday, August 14, 2020 as to
whether Defendant will stipulate to allow Plaintiffs to allege a cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200, Plaintiffs will be forced to seek immediate Court intervention.
Respectfully,
Casey E.
Hith
itchnick, Esq.
CEM:ck
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Iam employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 1590 Corporate Dr., Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
On March 8, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFFS’
FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION as follows:
Greg L. Johnson Attorneys for Defendant
Timothy J. Nally
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2020 W. El Camino Ave., Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Greg.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
Timothy.Nally@lewisbrisbois.com
10
XxX BY E-MAIL SERVICE
11 Based on a court order or by consent of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the
document(s) to be sent to the interested parties herein described at the electronic service
12 addresses listed.
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
14 true and correct.
15 Executed on March 8, 2021, at Santa Ana, California.
16
17 Lam Lia
Lam Luu
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Preview
HELTON LAw Group, APC EDWARD STUMPP (State Bar No. 157682) Electronically Filed CASEY E. MITCHNICK (State Bar No. 298550) 3/8/2021 2:39 PM ATTORNEYS AT LAW Superior Court of California 1590 Corporate Drive County of Stanislaus Costa Mesa, CA 92626 TELEPHONE: (562) 901-4499 Clerk of the Court FACSIMILE: (562) 901-4488 By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 11 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF Lead Case No: 2021796 MODESTO, INC., [Consolidated with Case Nos. 9000631 and 12 CV-19-003530] Plaintiff, 13 VS. ASSIGNED TO: JUDGE JOHN FREELAND DepT.: 23 14 GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California 15 Corporation; and DOES | through 25, UNLIMITED — DAMAGES EXCEED $25,000 inclusive, 16 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 18 DATE: March 10, 2021 19 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT.: 23 20 [Plaintiff Intends to Appear Telephonically at 21 Hearing] 22 COMPLAINT FILED: 09/20/16 TRIAL DATE: 7/13/21 23 24 Mil 25 Mil 26 Mil 27 Mil 28 Mil 1 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiffs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC.; DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; LOS ALAMITOS MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER; and LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Hospitals”) submits this brief in response to the Court’s February 3, 2021, Order for Further Hearing on Defendant GARDNER TRUCKING, INC.’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication (hereinafter “MSJ’”). I INTRODUCTION Defendant’s brief argues that if this Court denies Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment, 10 taken under submission on February 3, 2021, that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint of the consolidated 11 matter makes the MSJ moot with respect to the consolidated matter and would thereby entitle Defendant 12 to file another MSJ. (Def. Brief, 3:19-21). To the extent there is a separate and distinct basis to move 13 for summary judgment, Defendant should have that right, as would Plaintiff. To the extent a new MSJ 14 merely reiterates what this Court has already addressed it would be barred by the doctrine of horizontal 15 “law of the case.” (The basic rule being that this Court’s ruling should be binding on all subsequent 16 proceedings where there has been no change in law or fact.) 17 Furthermore, the Defendant has offered no reason why this Court should sua sponte 18 Reconsider its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, particularly when that amended 19 complaint has already been filed and discovery of the consolidated matter is being resolved between 20 the parties with the assistance of the appointed Discovery Referee. Without any new facts or law, there 21 is no basis to consider, much less allow, Defendant’s request for reconsideration. This is particularly so 22 because the procedural posture of the case is in large part due to Defendants insistence of the filing of 23 amended complaint. Defendant was asked to stipulate to this Court’s ruling allowing for addition ofa 24 17200 cause of action in the lead case to apply to the consolidated matter. (See, Ex. 1). Defendant 25 however rejected that request, and also rejected a subsequent request to allow Plaintiff Leave to Amend, 26 forcing Plaintiffs to file the Motion for Leave that allowed the amended complaint for which Defendant 27 now says renders its own motion moot. 28 2 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Based on the above and the authority contained here, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety and apply the doctrine of the “law of the case” to future proceedings unless there is new law or fact for the Court to consider. IL. LEGAL ARGUMENT A The “Law of the Case” Doctrine Must Apply to Future Proceedings Absent New Law or Facts Defendant’s further briefing indicates that the filing of the amended complaint in the Section Action makes the MSJ moot as to the consolidated matter. However, a ruling or holding stated in an appellate court opinion is binding on all inferior courts in all subsequent proceedings related to the 10 same parties in the same action. Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491. This doctrine, 11 known as the “law of the case,” applies also to trial court’s own prior rulings. See In re Marriage of 12 Nicolas. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1577-1578. This is known as a horizonal application to the 13 doctrine, and it is discretionary. 14 This Court should not be forced to decide identical legal issues and be asked to render an 15 inconsistent ruling with its ruling on the pending MSJ. If the moving party fails to identify a new 16 controlling issue that would resolve the dispute, and the record does not otherwise compel summary 17 judgment or summary adjudication, the court has discretion to deny the motion or to give the opposing 18 party an opportunity to respond to the issue identified by the court before ruling. Juge v. County of 19 Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 62. 20 If Defendant does intend to file another dispositive motion, Plaintiffs maintain that based on the 21 authority above, this Court has discretion based on the doctrine of the “law of the case” to deny a 22 subsequent and identical motion that fails to raise any new law or facts. This Court could deny such a 23 motion without Plaintiffs having to respond, thereby preserving scares judicial resources. As such, 24 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety, sand that said ruling 25 be applied to any subsequent dispositive motion that fails to raise any new law or fact. 26 Mil 27 Mil 28 Mil 3 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION B Defendant Failed to Include Any Reason for This Court to Reconsider Its Prior Ruling Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration Defendant’s second argument included in its brief relates to a completely unsupported request for this Court to Reconsider its prior ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Defendant’s brief however fails to include any statutory or case authority warranting this Court to reconsider its prior ruling on that motion. The “different state of facts” language in the statute relating to these types of requests requires that the party seeking reconsideration provide both newly discovered evidence and an explanation for the failure to have produced such evidence earlier. Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982) 10 132 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1013. Defendant has offered neither new facts nor evidence. Furthermore, 11 Defendant’s brief also includes a frivolous request for this Court to impose monetary sanctions on 12 Plaintiffs, which not unsurprisingly is also unsupported by any statutory or case authority. 13 As demonstrated above, Defendant was required to introduce new facts, law, or evidence to 14 warrant reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. 15 Similarly. Defendant’s further and continued requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff are 16 completely unavailing and not supported by anything factual or legal authority. Plaintiff thus 17 respectfully requests that the Court not reconsider its prior Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 18 Amend or consider Defendant’s relentless and unsupported requests for monetary sanctions. 19 Til. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the case authority above, this Court should use its discretion under the doctrine of 21 “law of the case” to not allow Defendant to file identical dispositive motions without a new factual 22 and/or legal basis. To the extent that this Court’s rulings have preclusive effects on legal and factual 23 issues that the Defendant has previously argued were so similar that it warranted this matter being twice 24 consolidated, then those particular issues should not be relitigated. 25 To the extent that any subsequent dispositive motion is filed by the Defendant with identical 26 facts and law, the “law of the case” doctrine should control. Not only as a practical matter, but to 27 preserve scare judicial resources and ensure efficiency in this matter, Plaintiffs respectfully requests 28 that this Court Deny Defendant’s MSJ in its entirety. 4 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION DATED: March 8, 2021 HELTON LAW Group, APC. By: EDWARD Nibil JTUMPP CASEY E- ITCHNICK Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Exhibit1 helton HELTON Law Group, APG 1590 CORPORATE DRIVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 Casey E. Mitchnick Attorney-at-law (562) 901-4499 Fax: (562) 901-4488 Email: cmitchnick@helton.law VIA EMAIL ONLY August 12, 2020 Greg L. Johnson, Esq. Timothy J. Nally, Esq. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP 2020 West EL Camino Ave., Ste. 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 Re: Doctors Hospital of Modesto, Inc. vs. Gardner Trucking, Inc. Stanislaus County Superior Court Lead Case No.: 2021796 Dear Counsel: Plaintiffs send this correspondence to follow up regarding Plaintiffs’ Amended Protective Order sent to Defendant Gardner Trucking on August 5, 2020. The terms and conditions are the same as the one Defendant agreed to in the lead case. As such, please return an executed copy to Plaintiffs at your earliest convenience. Additionally, included with this correspondence is a proposed stipulation allowing Plaintiffs in this consolidated matter to join the cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As you are aware, Defendant’s Demurrer and Motions to Strike relating to that cause of action in the lead case were overruled and denied on June 10, 2020. Thereafter, Defendant asserted in its pleadings opposing Plaintiffs Motions to Compel that the cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 only applies to claims in the lead case brought by Doctors Hospital of Modesto, Inc. The Plaintiffs in this consolidated matter however seek to join that cause of action. Given that Defendant consolidated these matters on the basis that they have “significant overlapping factual and legal issues,” as well as the Court’s recent ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs request that Defendant execute the attached stipulation or send a revised version for Plaintiff's review. Failure to do so will force Plaintiffs to seek immediate intervention from the Court given that a discovery referee is being appointed and further pleading disputes will result in significant time and expense of all parties. If you would like to discuss any of the foregoing further, including any revisions of the attached stipulation, please contact your undersigned. If Plaintiffs do not receive a response by Friday, August 14, 2020 as to whether Defendant will stipulate to allow Plaintiffs to allege a cause of action for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Plaintiffs will be forced to seek immediate Court intervention. Respectfully, Casey E. Hith itchnick, Esq. CEM:ck PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Iam employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1590 Corporate Dr., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. On March 8, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION as follows: Greg L. Johnson Attorneys for Defendant Timothy J. Nally LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 2020 W. El Camino Ave., Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 Greg.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com Timothy.Nally@lewisbrisbois.com 10 XxX BY E-MAIL SERVICE 11 Based on a court order or by consent of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the interested parties herein described at the electronic service 12 addresses listed. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 14 true and correct. 15 Executed on March 8, 2021, at Santa Ana, California. 16 17 Lam Lia Lam Luu 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER BRIEF RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION