Motion for Entry of Default in David G Bertrand et al vs Jessica Berry| Trellis.Law

On May 07, 2019 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Bertrand, David G, Churchill-Johnson, Dorothy, and Berry, Jessica, for Unlimited Defamation (13) in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 9/10/2019 3:59 PM
21 E. Camillo Street, Suite 240 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
Santa Barbara, Califomia 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com

Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an.
11 Individual, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY
12 Plaintiff, OF DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF
13 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
VS.
DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, DATE: September 23, 2019
15 TIME: 9:30 a.m.
Defendants. DEPT: Five
16
Assignedfor all purposes to the
17
a Hon. Colleen K. Steme

18 Complaint Filed: May 7, 2019
Trial Date: TBA
19

1
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs, DAVID G. BERTRAND and DORORTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, submit the

following points and authorities in opposition to Defendant JESSICA BERRY’s Motion for Relief of

Default.

I INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As indicated in Plaintiffs’ prior Ex Parte Application to Serve Defendant BERRY by

Publication, Defendant lived as a guest at Mr. BERTRAND’s residence in Montecito since the mid-

2000s. In late 2015, Ms. BERRY began assisting Mr. BERTRAND with his rental properties, such
as advertising vacancies, speaking
with prospective tenants, and arranging
for maintenance and

10 repair services. In October
of 2016, Defendant
began living in a Santa Y nez apartment owned by

11 Mr. BERTRAND. In October of 2017 at the expiration of Defendant's one-year-lease, Ms. BERRY

12 was asked
to vacate Defendant’
s apartment in Santa Ynez. Plaintiff
was forced to file an Unlawful

13 Detainer lawsuit to evict Defendant (SBSC case number 17CV 04551).

14 As alleged in Plaintiffs’ current Complaint, since vacating Mr. BERTRAND’ s premises Ms.

15 BERRY has engaged in numerous written communications to third parties, disparaging and

16 defaming Mr. BERTRAND by falsely accusing him of being a “criminal,” a “rapist,” a “molester,”

17 anda “monster.” Ms. BERRY likewise defamed Mr. Bertrand’s assistant, DOROTHY

18 CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, by falsely calling her a “Criminal,” a “Felon,” anda “Liar,” among other

19 things. Mr. BERTRAND’s Complaint pleads claims against Ms. BERRY for Libel, Defamation Per

20 Se, Intrusion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unfair Business Practices, Elder Abuse,

21 Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment/Restitution. (Coffin Declaration, par. 2.)

The need to serve Defendant BERRY arose from the fact that, after being evicted by

23 unlawful detainer judgment from Plaintiff BERTRAND’s apartment which she rented, Ms. BERRY

24 did not leave any forwarding address. Plaintiffs hired a private investigator, who traced Defendant’ s

25 cellular telephone number to a private mailbox. However, the on-site management
company at the

26 private mailbox location informed Plaintiffs process server that Ms. BERRY did not rent the

2
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
mailbox number
in question, nor did Ms. BERRY rent any other mailbox at that facility. (Coffin

Declaration par. 3; Exbs. “A” and “B”, attached.)

In the past, Ms. BERRY has also filed several administrative actions against Mr.

BERTRAND, including a wage and hour claim through the Califomia Labor Commission.

However, in spite of Mr. BERTRAND’ several requests, the Labor Commissioner
has consistently

refused to provide
a physical address for Ms. BERRY. As indicated
in Plaintiff’ s Ex Parte

Application, in response to his Public Records Act request for all records filed by Ms. BERRY in

connection with the wage/hour case, the Labor Commissioner redacted any information which
would allow Plaintiff to personally serve Ms. BERRY. After exhausting all reasonable means to

10 locate Ms. BERRY, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ request
for an Order to serve her by means
of

11 publication pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50. (Coffin Declaration, par. 4, 5.)

12 Plaintiff has appealed the Labor Commission’s administrative decision dated April 22, 2019,

13 which is currently pending de novo before this Court as a separate action (SBSC case number

14 19CV02357). At the July 22, 2019 Case Management Conference for that case, Ms. BERRY

15 appeared in person. As reflected on the July 22, 2019 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings by Shelli

16 V. Porter, C.S.R. #9729 (Exb. “C”, attached), Plaintiffs’ counsel physically handed Ms. BERRY a

17 copy of the service package for this case (consisting of Summons, Complaint, Order of Publication,

18 ADR Package, and Civil Case Cover Sheet). On the record, Ms. BERRY acknowledged receipt of

19 that package. Plaintiffs’ counsel told the Court and Ms. BERRY that her response to the Complaint

20 was due in approximately one (1) week. (Coffin Declaration, par. 6.) [Although initially self-

21 represented in that case, Ms. BERRY has since substituted in counsel, on or about July 26, 2019.]

However, Ms. BERRY did not file her General Denial until August 6, 2019, one day after Plaintiffs

23 filed their Request
for Entry of Default. (See Exb. “D” — Court’s Minute Order
of August 13,

24 2019, attached.)

25 //1
26 //1
27 //1

3
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
II DEFENDANT HAS NOT, AND CANNOT TRUTHFULLY DEMONSTRATE

MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT

Defendant’ s motion to set aside default lists three reasons why default should be set aside:

1 “.. Service was said to have been made by publication. However, it was ina

newspaper I do not read published in a town I do not live in...” (Motion, par. 8.)

This argument does not assist Defendant, because: 1.) Service by publication was properly

accomplished
according to the statutory process, and was necessitated
by Defendant’
s own refusal to

provide
her physical address to the Labor Commission, which in tum refused to provide it to
Plaintiff. 2.) Furthermore, irrespective of whether Defendant ever saw the published notice,

10 Defendant was provided with actual notice of service at the J uly 22, 2019 Case Management

11 Conference. Defendant acknowledges this in her own Motion, in which paragraph 3 states:

12 “Service provided July 22, 2019 in Department 5 and in front of Judge Stem who did note this on

13 her calendar.” (Motion, par. 3.) In fact, Defendants’ Request for Entry of Default was not filed

14 until fourteen (14) days later, on August 5, 2019. At any point during those two weeks, Defendant

15 could have filed her response with impunity. Her failure to do so was not the result of any “mistake,

16 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

18 2. “,.. Additionally, this was timed when I was forced to vacate my residence for

19 inability to pay; a condition which is resulting from the 3 illegitimate lawsuits of the

20 plaintiff listed herein.”

21 This statement appears to be a ploy for sympathy, and entirely immaterial
to the issues at

stake in this Motion. Assuming that Defendant was “forced to vacate her residence” on or around

23 the time the Request
for Entry of Default
was filed, that fact was known only to Defendant, and was

24 entirely unknown to Plaintiffs or their counsel.

25 ///
26 ///
27 ///

4
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
3. “... The plaintiff is under investigation at present time by both the Dept. of Fair
Housing and Employment and also the SB District Attorney for fraud, grand theft,

abuse of a vulnerable person.” (Motion, par. 9.)

This statement is presumably made to suggest certain potential or hypothetical affirmative

defenses. Even if true, the fact that the DFEH or District Attorney is “investigating” anything or

anyone as a result of Ms. BERRY’S complaints is immaterial to this motion. The statement does not

constitute a properly-stated affirmative defense, and does not factually support a meritorious defense
to any of Plaintiffs’ causes of action.

10 ILL. CONCLUSION

ll For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Motion be DENIED.
12 Respectfully submitted,
13

14 DATED: September 10, 2019 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
z
15

16 B
Mark. Coffin
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
18

19
20

22
23

24
25

27
28
5
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
DECLARATION OF MARK T. COFFIN IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT

I, Mark T. Coffin, declare:

I aman attomey licensed to practice law in the State of Califomia, and the principal

of the Law Office of Mark T. Coffin, P.C. I am the attomey of record for Plaintiffs

David G. Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-J ohnson in the above-captioned litigation.

If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following
facts, under oath, from my own personal knowledge. This Declaration is submitted in

10 support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’ s Motion for Relief From Entry of

11 Default.

12 As alleged in Plaintiffs’ current Complaint, since vacating Mr. Bertrand’ s premises Ms.

13 Berry has engaged
in numerous written communications to third parties, disparaging and

14 defaming Mr. Bertrand by falsely accusing him of being a “criminal,” a “rapist,” a

15 “molester,” and a “monster.” Ms. Berry likewise defamed Mr. Bertrand’s assistant, Dorothy

16 Churchill-Johnson, by falsely calling her a “Criminal,” a “Felon,” anda “Liar,” among other

17 things. Plaintiffs’ Complaint pleads claims against Ms. Berry for Libel, Defamation Per Se,

18 Intusion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unfair Business Practices, Elder

19 Abuse, Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment/Restitution.

20 On or about May 24, 2019, on behalf of Plaintiffs my office filed an Ex Parte

21 Application for an Order Allowing Service of Summons and Complaint by

Publication upon Defendant Jessica Berry. As stated in my declaration for that

23 motion, on behalf of my clients I hired private investigator John Taylor
to locate Ms.

24 Beny in order to serve her with the Summons and Compliant in this litigation.

25 Because
the defendant was a former tenant of my client David G. Bertrand’s
who did

26 not leave any forwarding address, the only relevant piece of contact information I

27 could supply the investigator with was an old cellular telephone number. The

6
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
investigator traced the number
to a private mailbox, believed to belong to Ms. Berry.

However, when my firm's process server attempted to serve Ms. Berry at the private

mailbox facility, the on-site management informed
the process server that Jessica

Benz did not rent the mailbox number
in question, nor did she rent any other mailbox

at that facility. I confirmed this information by calling the private mailbox facility

myself on May 20, 2019. I was given the same information, i.e. that Ms. Berry did

not have any mailbox with the business.

Ms. Berry previously filed several administrative actions against Plaintiff David G. Bertrand,
including a wage and hour claim through the Califomia Labor Commission. My client has

10 appealed the Labor Commission’ s wage and hour decision of April 22, 2019, and that appeal

11 is currently pending before this Court as a separate action with Case number 19CV02357.

12 However, Ms. Berry
has yet to appear
in that action. Also, in spite
of several requests from

13 my Office, the Labor Commissioner
has consistently refused to provide a physical address for

14 Ms. Berry. In response
to the Public Records
Act request for all records filed by Ms. Berry

15 that I sent in connection with the wage/hour case, the Labor Commissioner produced

16 documents after redacting any information conceming Ms. Bemy’s address, or which would

17 otherwise allow my client to personally serve Ms. Berry.

18 On or about May 29, 2019, this Court issued an Order Allowing Service by Publication upon

19 Defendant Jessica Berry. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit

20 A. My office proceeded to publish notice of the summons and complaint
through the Santa

21 Barbara News Press, and filed the resulting proof of service onJune 28, 2019, a true and

correct copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.

23 At theJuly 22, 2019 Case Management Conference for the case titled Jessica Bi v. David

24 Bertrand, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case number 19CV023357, I personally handed Ms.

25 Beny an envelope containing courtesy copies of the summons, complaint, civil case sheet,

26 and ADR package for the present case (19CV02429). I also pointed
out to Ms. Berry that her

27 response to the summons and complaint would be due “next Monday, if I calculate correctly”

7
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
(i.e. Monday, July 29, 2019). [In fact, as the Court later pointed out, Ms. Berry’s response

was not actually due until Monday, August 5, 2019.] On the record at that Case Management
Conference, Ms. Berry acknowledged receipt of those documents. She also acknowledged

that “I have received documentation, legal documentation, in my P.O. Box every single day

for months on end.” Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of selected

pages from the court reporter’s transcript of the July 22, 2019, evidencing the facts stated in

this paragraph.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of this Court’s Minute Order

Vacating General Denial of August 13, 2019, wherein the Court recognized that Plaintiffs”

10 Request for Entry of Default filed on August 5, 2019 was properly filed, and that Ms. Berry's

11 General Denial filed on August 6, 2019 must be vacated.

13 I declare under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and

14 correct, and that this Declaration was executed on September 10, 2019 at Santa Barbara,

15 California.

18 Mark'¥. Coffin, Declarant

20
21

25
26

28
8
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS
10

EXHIBIT A
13

EXHIBITA
é Pursuant to CRC 2,259 this document has been electronically filed by the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, on 5/28/2019

Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 16857]
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 FILED
SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA
Santa Barbara, Califomia 93101 CUUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Teiephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 MAY 29 2019
Gate! g Ei Extoutive Otficer
Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G, BERTRAND BY,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
ll Plaintiff,
12 [PHROSED] ORDER ON EX PARTE
vS.
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
13 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 ALLOWING SERVICE OF SUMMONS
through 106, Inclusive, AND COMPLAINT BY PUBLICATION
14
Defendants, {CCP §§ 415.50;
13
DATE: Wednesday, May 29, 2019
16 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT:: 5
17
Assigned for all purposes to the
18 Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
19 Dept.:5
Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
20 Trial Date; No Trial Date Set
21
22

23
24
25
26
27

28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE OF SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT BY PUBLICATION
ORDER
On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, in Department 5, the Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff for an
Order Allowing Service by Publication of Defendant was heard. Having reviewed the moving
papers, memorandum of points and authorities, che Declaration of Mark T. Coffin, the Court finds
that, for GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the Application of Plaintiff should be granted,
THEREFORE, IT 1S ORDERED that Plaintiff shal! serve the Defendant, JESSICA BERRY. ,

an Individual, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Santa Barbara County in the
Manner prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50, by pubtishing the Summons in the Santa

Barbara News Press newspaper, in the manner prescribed in § 6064 of the California Government
10 Code.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 S129 Ig CK Tins
i4 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
1S Colleen K Steme
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23

28
2
{PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE OF SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT BY PUBLICATION
10

EXHIBIT B
13

EXHIBIT B
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 6/28/2019 2:22 PM
By: Tina Contreras, Deputy
21 E. Camillo Street, Suite 240
Santa Barbara, Califomia 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028

Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND
and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

10
DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
11 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an.
Individual,
12 PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA
13
BARBARA COUNTY OF SUMMONS
VS.
14 OF DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY
JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1
15 through 100, Inclusive,

16 Defendants. Assignedfor all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Steme
Dept: 5
17 a Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
18 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set

1
PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OF SUMMONS OF
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY
TO ALL PARTIFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY

CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, hereby files their Proof
of Service by Publication in Santa Barbara

County of Summons of Defendant JESSICA BERRY in the above-captioned matter. Proof of

Publication from the Santa Barbara News Press are attached as “Exhibits A” (Summons) hereto.

DATED: June 28, 2019 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.

10
By:
ll Mask. Coffin
Attomeys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
12 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-IOHNSON

13
14

19
20

22
23

27
28
=, . 2
PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OF SUMMONS OF
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY
10

EXHIBIT A
13

EXHIBITA
SANTA BARBARA NEWS PRESS
Proof of Publication
(2015.5C.C.P)

Superior Court of
the State of California
In and For The County of Santa Barbara

oo
In the Matter of:

Legal 54947
EER 2OURT of Gi
ot NTA BA
IFORNGA
BARA

Ad# 4104890 JUN 26 209
Darr x, Executive Officer
Summons
BY,
Case Na, 19CV02429 ‘Tina Contreras, Sant Clo

The undersigned, being the principal clerk of the printer of the Santa Barbara
News Press, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily
in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, California and which
newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, Adjudication
Number 47171; and that uffiant is the principal clerk of said Santa Barbara
News Press. That the printed notice hereto annexed was published in the
SANTA BARBARA NEWS-PRESS, in the issucs of the following named dates:

dune 5, 12, 19, 26, 2019

all in the ycar 2019, I hereby certify (or declare} under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 26" of June 2019 at Santa Barbara, CA,

7 Ted Aah
P, Matsumaru
SANTA BARBARA NEWS PRESS
Proof of Publication
(2015.5C.C.P) escuchar
saci
o oi aleve
CALEND
setaeTe clony
ara |
Secritg an-eatocorte y hacer |
una copia a}
ta:
In the Matter of: ere rerpuestarbor
eser iene a
eorrecte 2
Legal 54947 inert et ponte 2 guea usted
Ad # 4104890 vedo encontrar estos
INCLUSIVE Informacion envel Centro se
Ayuda de tas Cortes de
you Al
(6 ae : pateTa AN Nee
8 ING SUED
seltiet BY
eae vaosa
te
ane in
iD,
chun
DREMILE JON Reson, pre:
© Gore ae
acién. pia.
Ja corte aui
‘un formulario de exenci
NOTICE! Vou have been de page de cuo! Sino
|. The cou presenta su re:
coins! Su without your eoee eee:
being heard uniess you side,
EB dinero y wisn s mos
You have CALENDAR
faeces
YS, otros requisites
Teal sabers abe SReues on
this court ond ‘un servicio de
ntitte
Te enone call wilt aot egor a un abogado,es
et reer arition cumpia con,
Yor if you want ththe Brotuitos de
may be a court 1 otvou de servicios
ge lvcro.
‘con use for your respon:
mation at the ‘en'el sitio
California Courts Onilne
Vee www. tornia.org),
6), your county law library, ude
de las
if you ce per ee thine
me corte0 e! colegio
de aboaados
orm, I you do fot AVISO: Bor lay, Ia
Wie'voue ise on time,
= rs our wag! cuotasy fos
warning
There re eenee tans) un
to coll Sn
a suforney cl
lant
4 Ve sravomen
de lo corte antes
de que ta corte puedo
call an attorney refi ral el caso.
an attorne: wu may be ‘ond address
of the
from a nonprofit Tegal (er Y direccién
de to
rvies corte es):
oretit
er the carite Fn
or
tes ‘at Superior Court - Anocopa
1109 Anacapa si
Barbora, CA 93101
the Ci ia Courts
Set de! Coso):
pani jaca
court or y bar Darrell E. Parker
hos a y tien tor, The name, address, and
ed|
tty biainnf’s otforsey or
Biaint itt withoutem attorney,
he,
be Po ‘he cose, nombre, la direccién, y e!
abogado de! dem sangante,0
del
demangante ave no 1
joe: P. i
Fecha) za
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. | am over the age of 18
years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Santa
Barbara, California 93101. On June 28, 2019, I served the foregoing documents described as
PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
OF SUMMONS OF DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY, on the interested parties in this action:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
Service. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s)
at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our
ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
10
collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
Il paid.
12
BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission
was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission report is
13
available upon request.
14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: The document(s) were served by overnight delivery via
OnTrac. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s)
15 and the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for pick-up by OnTrac. I am readily
familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence on the same day
16 with this courier service, for overnight delivery.
17
VIA EMAIL: | served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to the
addresses as listed on the attached service list, following my employer's business practice for
18 collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as
19
complete and without error on this date.

(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
21
Executed on June 28, 2019, at Santa Barbara, California.
22

24 “Scott Ay Garcia

25
26

28
6
PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OF SUMMONS OF
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY
SERVICE LIST

Address Party
Jessica Berry
P.O. Box 541 JESSICA BERRY, in pra per.
Santa Ynez, CA 93460

22
23

27
28
7
PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OF SUMMONS OF
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY
10

EXHIBIT C
13

EXHIBIT C
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

SANTA BARBARA BRANCH; FIGUEROA DIVISION

DEPARTMENT SB-5 HONORABLE COLLEEN STERNE, JUDGE

a
)
JESSICA BERRY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. )NO. 19CV023357

DAVID BERTRAND,

Defendant.
10 —— _—_

11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

12
Monday, July 22, 2019
13

15 APPEARANCES:

16 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: IN PRO PER

20 FOR THE DEFENDANT: MARK T. COFFIN
Attorney at Law
21

27
REPORTED BY: SHELLI V. PORTER, C.S.R.# 9729
28 Official Court Reporter
identifies in her written discovery.

We also, based on what she tells us, will

potentially serve record subpoenas on some of the

state entities and/or PRA requests. I haven't

decided yet, but one or the other is likely. So I

think within 60 days most of that will be if not

handled, it'll be within view.

I do also want to bring to the Court's

attention the fact that we have served a separate

10 action against Ms. Berry for defamation, elder abuse,

11 unjust enrichment and a few other claims. You may

12 recall, Your Honor, that we did that by publication.

13 Publication has already been, that period has already

14 run. The appearance date is next Monday, if I

15 calculate correctly.

16 So just in case Ms. Berry did not receive

17 our mailed copies of all that, I have given her a

18 courtesy copy of all that this morning.

19 THE COURT: So he gave it to you here at

20 court?

21 MS. BERRY: I have received documentation,

22 legal documentation in my P.O. Box every single day

23 for months on end.

24 THE COURT: But my only question today is

25 whether he handed you the documents?

26 MS. BERRY: Yes, he did, he handed it to me

27 in the back. That's correct.

28 THE COURT: So my September is really full
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA )

I, Shelli v. Porter, C.S.R., Official Court

Reporter of the Superior Court of the Santa

Maria Judicial District, State of California, in and

for the County of Santa Barbara hereby certify that

the foregoing pages 2 to 8 comprise a

full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings

had in the within-entitled matter, recorded by me by
10
stenotype on the date and at the hour herein written,
11
and thereafter transcribed by me into typewriting.
12
In compliance with section 8016 of the
13
Business and Professions Code, I certify under
14
penalty of perjury I am a certified shorthand
15
reporter with license number 9729 in full force and
16
effect.
17
Dated this 6th day of September, 2019.
18

20
a a
21 Shelli V Porter, NO. 9729

28
10

EXHIBIT D
13

EXHIBIT D
oe
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Dated Entered: Case # 19CV02429 F
August 13, 2019
Honorable Judge: Colleen K Sterne Department: SBS ce

Deputy Clerk: Sarah Sisto CA

Plaintiff: David G Bertrand et al AC
¥S. SR
Defendant; Jessica Berry
boc X
—

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: VACATING GENERAL DENIAL FILED BY DEFENDANT

On 5/7/2019, Plaintiffs David Sertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson filed their Complaint for Damages
against Defendant Jessica Berry, On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff was granted an Ex-Parte Application to have
Defendant served the Summons via Publication through the Santa Barbara News Press, Publication started
on June 5 and ended on June 26 2019. Pursuant to CA Gov Code 6064, service is deemed complete
(effective) 29 days after the first day of publication. Defendant then has 30 days from that effective date to
respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.

On 8/6/2019, Defendant filed her Generel Denial to Plaintiffs Complaint. After further review of a pending
Request for Entry of Default submitted to the Court on 8/5/2019, it has been determined that Defendant's
General Denial must be vacated, as the Court must accept the Request for Entry of Default submitted on
8/5/2019.

On the Court's own motion, the Request for Entry of Default submitted on 8/5/2019 is hereby deemed filed
and entered, and Defendant’s General Denial filed on 8/6/2019 is hereby vacated.

The clerk shall give notice.

Darrel £. Parker, Executive Officer-- SF
Judge Colleen K Sterne

Civil Minute Order
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA FAG Ds: ONLY
STREET ADDRESS, SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA
1100 Anacapa Street
(OUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Barbara CA 93101
BRANCH NAME: Anacapa
AUG 13 2019
CAPTION. Qo Salt Execu

Case Info

Judge

Sterne, Colleen K Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 10, 2019

Case Filing Date

May 07, 2019

County

Parties

Berry, Jessica Defendant
Bertrand, David G Plaintiff
Churchill-Johnson, Dorothy Plaintiff
Coffin, Mark T Attorney for the Plaintiff
Pro Se Attorney for the Defendant
Colleen Sterne Attorney
David Allard Attorney
Colleen Keeley Attorney
Jan Kaestner Attorneys for Defendants
Robert Hutchins Attorney
Michael Holtzman Attorney
Scott Jaske Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark Thompson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ashley Reese Attorney
Jay Valentine Attorney
Brian Hoffman Attorney
Wabel Moussly Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: David G Bertrand et al vs Jessica Berry

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties