Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571
11/10/2021 11:24 AM
ScottA. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842
By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
Email: scott@ markcoffinlaw.com
Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
12 Individual, PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR
13 DEFAULT PROVE UP
Plaintiff,
14 vs.
Assigned for all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Dept: 5
16 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: (Trailing)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
I LIBEL AND DEFAMATION PER SE
Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other
fixed representation, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which
causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure a person in his or her
occupation. (Cal. Civil Code § 45.) A plaintiff must also plead and prove the requisite degree of
fault — i.e. here, at least negligence. (Brown v. Kelley Broad (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 742, 747.)
If a statement is libelous per se, the court presumes that general damages exist, and the
plaintiff need not show or prove any special damage. (Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders,
Inc. (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 760; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323.)
10 Here, Ms. Berry waged a protracted and intentional campaign to impugn the reputations of
11 Mr. BERTRAND and Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. Ms. BERRY accused Mr. BERTRAND of
12 being a “rapist,” a “criminal,” a “predator,” in a series of text and email messages to Ms.
13 CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. All of these statements were defamatory on their face. Ms. BERRY also
14 strongly implied that Mr. BERTRAND was a pedophile to his tenant, Mr. Jason Streatfeild.
15 Ms. BERRY also falsely accused Mr. BERTRAND of “forcibly raping” her to the Santa
16 Barbara Sheriff, by filing a false report charging Mr. BERTRAND with that crime.
17 Civil Code section 47(b) provides that a statement is privileged if it is made in a “judicial
18 proceeding” or “other official proceeding authorized by law,” or “in the initiation or course of any
19 other proceeding authorized by law.” However, subsection 47(b)(5) provides:
20
21 (5) This subdivision does not make privileged any communication between a person
22 and a law enforcement agency in which the person makes a false report that another
23 person has committed, or is in the act of committing, a criminal act or is engaged
24 in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention, knowing that the report is false,
25 or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Remedies for defamation include general, compensatory, and exemplary damages.
(Civil Code §§ 48a(4), 3333, and 3294; see also Triton Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v.
National Chiropractic Insurance Co. (1965) 232 Cal.A pp.2d 829, 833.)
Il. INTRUSION
An invasion of privacy occurs where one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise,
upon the solitude, seclusion, private affairs, or concerns o another, in a manner that would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200,
231; Alsenon v. American Broad. Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 162.)
Remedies for intrusion include compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, and
10 punitive damages. (Civil Code §§ 3333, 3294, Miller v. National Broad. Co. (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d
11 1463, 1484.)
12 TI. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
13 A person may recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress if he or she
14 suffers severe emotional injury caused by the defendant’s outrageous conduct absent any privilege
15 with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
16 (Huntingdon Life Sciences v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228,
17 Wilkins v. National Broad. Co. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1087.) Remedies for intentional
18 infliction of emotional distress include compensatory and punitive damages. (Civil Code §§ 3333,
19 3294.)
20 Iv. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
21 Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
22 business act or practice.” Each of the foregoing categories provides an independent basis for relief,
23 and a single business act is actionable. (Podolsky v. First Health Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.A pp.4th 632,
24 647.) Remedies include restoration of money or property acquired in violation of section 17200.
25 (Business and Professions Code § 17203.)
26 Here, Ms. BERRY diverted Air BNB rental payments which were supposed to go to Mr.
27 BERTRAND’S bank account. She then engaged in a series of acts and practices including defaming
28 Plaintiffs, for the purpose of damaging their business and professional reputations.
3
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Vv ELDER ABUSE
The Elder A buse and Dependent A dult Civil Protection Act provides for the private, civil
enforcement of laws against elder abuse and neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600, et seq.)
The Act was created to provide for the private, civil enforcement of elder abuse laws. An “elder” i:
defined as a California resident, age 65 years or older. (§ 15610.27.) “Abuse of an elder” is defined
as “[p]hysical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment
with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.” (§ 15610.07(a).) The statutory provisions
are not limited to mentally incompetent or physically impaired elders, or persons of limited financial
means. (Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15600, 15610.27, 15610.30.)
10 Financial abuse occurs when someone takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal
11 property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (Welfare
12 & Institutions Code § 15610.30(a).) It is not necessary that the taker maintain an intent to defraud if
13 it can be shown that the person took the property for a wrongful use and knew or should have known
14 that his or her conduct was likely to be harmful to the elder. (Welfare & Institutions Code
15 § 15610.30(b).) Financial elder abuse does not require a finding of mental suffering. Rather, the
16 statute requires a finding that the defendant took the property for a wrongful use or with intent to
17 defraud, or both (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30(a)(1), Bonfigli v. Stachan (2011) 192
18 Cal.App.4th 1302.)
19 “Mental suffering” is defined as “fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms
20 of serious emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating behavior, threats, [or]
21 harassment ... .” (Welfare & Institutions Code§ 15610.53.)
22 Remedies for elder abuse include compensatory, general, and exemplary damages. (Civil
23 Code §§ 3294, 3333, Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657(b).) The statute specifically provides that
24 where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants have engaged in
25 oppression/despicable conduct (CACI 3115), recklessness (CA CI 3113), malice (CACI 3114), or
26 fraud (CACI 3116), in addition to all the other cognizable damages for economic losses and general
27 damages limited by Civil Code section 3333.2, the plaintiff may also collect attorneys’ fees and
28 punitive damages. (Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.A pp.4th 1049.)
4
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Here, as supported by evidence presented at the trial of case 19CV 02357, Ms. BERRY stole
approximately $12,000 ($6,000 per year during the years 2016 and 2017) of “Air BNB” revenue that
should have gone to Mr. BERTRAND. Ms. BERRY’s testimony that “BERTRAND authorized her
to reinvest the funds” is not credible, as per the testimony of Mr. BERTRAND and Kathy Hirsch.
Furthermore, as stated, Ms. BERRY has engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment
designed to intimidate Mr. BERTRAND, threaten him with criminal prosecution, and impugn his
character with outrageous lies.
VI. QUANTUM MERIUT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND RESTITUTION
A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make
10 restitution to the other. (California Federal Bank v. Matreyek (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 125, Nibbi
11 Brothers, Inc. v. Brannan Street Investors (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1415.) The elements of a claim
12 for unjust enrichment include receipt of a benefit, and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense
13 of another. (Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank (2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 723; First Nationwide Savings v.
14 Perry (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1657, 1662-1663.)
15 Remedies for unjust enrichment include constructive trust, restitution, and/or an equitable
16 lien. (Dunkin v. Boskey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 171, 195; Pankow Construction Co. v. Advance
17 Mortgage Corp. (9th Cir., 1980) 618 F.2d 611, 616-617.)
18 Here, as supported by evidence presented at the trial of case 19CV 02357, Ms. BERRY
19 borrowed $23,231.00 from Mr. BERTRAND, and executed a Promissory Note for that amount on
20 October 16, 2009, which also provided for recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Trial Exhibit 102
21 from Case 19CV 02357.) As stated, she also unjustly diverted $12,000 in Air BNB income.
22 VII. DAMAGES
23 On September 16, 2021, both DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-
24 JOHNSON filed and served Statements of Damages for this case pursuant to Code of Civil
25 Procedure section 425.11, as well as a Notice of Plaintiffs’ Preservation of the Right to Seek
26 Punitive Damages pursuant to section 425.115. Plaintiffs seek:
27 1
28 1
5
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
DAVID BERTRAND:
Pain & Suffering: $100,000
Emotional Distress: $100,000
Defamation: $100,000
Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000
Punitive Damages: $250,000
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON:
Pain & Suffering: $100,000
Emotional Distress: $100,000
10 Defamation: $100,000
11 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit $50,000
12 Punitive Damages: $250,000
13
14 DATED: November 10, 2021 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
15
16 By
Marl offin, Si
17 Scott A. Jaske, P.L. Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
18 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP.
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I 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 November 10, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP, on the interested parties in this
action:
Address Party
Santa Barbara Superior Court
Judge Colleen Sterne and Judicial Clerk Kary
E: csterne@sbcourts.org
E: kswan@sbeourts.org Swan.
10
11
12
13
BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
14 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
15 ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
16 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
17 paid.
18 VIA EMAIL: I 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
19 collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as
complete and without error on this date.
20
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22
Executed on November 10, 2021, at Santa Barbara, California.
23
24
25 Scott A. Jaske
26
27
28
7
PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 11/10/2021 11:24 AM ScottA. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com Email: scott@ markcoffinlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 12 Individual, PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR 13 DEFAULT PROVE UP Plaintiff, 14 vs. Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Dept: 5 16 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: (Trailing) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP I LIBEL AND DEFAMATION PER SE Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure a person in his or her occupation. (Cal. Civil Code § 45.) A plaintiff must also plead and prove the requisite degree of fault — i.e. here, at least negligence. (Brown v. Kelley Broad (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 742, 747.) If a statement is libelous per se, the court presumes that general damages exist, and the plaintiff need not show or prove any special damage. (Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 760; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323.) 10 Here, Ms. Berry waged a protracted and intentional campaign to impugn the reputations of 11 Mr. BERTRAND and Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. Ms. BERRY accused Mr. BERTRAND of 12 being a “rapist,” a “criminal,” a “predator,” in a series of text and email messages to Ms. 13 CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. All of these statements were defamatory on their face. Ms. BERRY also 14 strongly implied that Mr. BERTRAND was a pedophile to his tenant, Mr. Jason Streatfeild. 15 Ms. BERRY also falsely accused Mr. BERTRAND of “forcibly raping” her to the Santa 16 Barbara Sheriff, by filing a false report charging Mr. BERTRAND with that crime. 17 Civil Code section 47(b) provides that a statement is privileged if it is made in a “judicial 18 proceeding” or “other official proceeding authorized by law,” or “in the initiation or course of any 19 other proceeding authorized by law.” However, subsection 47(b)(5) provides: 20 21 (5) This subdivision does not make privileged any communication between a person 22 and a law enforcement agency in which the person makes a false report that another 23 person has committed, or is in the act of committing, a criminal act or is engaged 24 in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention, knowing that the report is false, 25 or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report. 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Remedies for defamation include general, compensatory, and exemplary damages. (Civil Code §§ 48a(4), 3333, and 3294; see also Triton Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. National Chiropractic Insurance Co. (1965) 232 Cal.A pp.2d 829, 833.) Il. INTRUSION An invasion of privacy occurs where one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude, seclusion, private affairs, or concerns o another, in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231; Alsenon v. American Broad. Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 162.) Remedies for intrusion include compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, and 10 punitive damages. (Civil Code §§ 3333, 3294, Miller v. National Broad. Co. (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 11 1463, 1484.) 12 TI. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 13 A person may recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress if he or she 14 suffers severe emotional injury caused by the defendant’s outrageous conduct absent any privilege 15 with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress. 16 (Huntingdon Life Sciences v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 17 Wilkins v. National Broad. Co. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1087.) Remedies for intentional 18 infliction of emotional distress include compensatory and punitive damages. (Civil Code §§ 3333, 19 3294.) 20 Iv. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 21 Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 22 business act or practice.” Each of the foregoing categories provides an independent basis for relief, 23 and a single business act is actionable. (Podolsky v. First Health Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.A pp.4th 632, 24 647.) Remedies include restoration of money or property acquired in violation of section 17200. 25 (Business and Professions Code § 17203.) 26 Here, Ms. BERRY diverted Air BNB rental payments which were supposed to go to Mr. 27 BERTRAND’S bank account. She then engaged in a series of acts and practices including defaming 28 Plaintiffs, for the purpose of damaging their business and professional reputations. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Vv ELDER ABUSE The Elder A buse and Dependent A dult Civil Protection Act provides for the private, civil enforcement of laws against elder abuse and neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600, et seq.) The Act was created to provide for the private, civil enforcement of elder abuse laws. An “elder” i: defined as a California resident, age 65 years or older. (§ 15610.27.) “Abuse of an elder” is defined as “[p]hysical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.” (§ 15610.07(a).) The statutory provisions are not limited to mentally incompetent or physically impaired elders, or persons of limited financial means. (Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15600, 15610.27, 15610.30.) 10 Financial abuse occurs when someone takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal 11 property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (Welfare 12 & Institutions Code § 15610.30(a).) It is not necessary that the taker maintain an intent to defraud if 13 it can be shown that the person took the property for a wrongful use and knew or should have known 14 that his or her conduct was likely to be harmful to the elder. (Welfare & Institutions Code 15 § 15610.30(b).) Financial elder abuse does not require a finding of mental suffering. Rather, the 16 statute requires a finding that the defendant took the property for a wrongful use or with intent to 17 defraud, or both (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30(a)(1), Bonfigli v. Stachan (2011) 192 18 Cal.App.4th 1302.) 19 “Mental suffering” is defined as “fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms 20 of serious emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating behavior, threats, [or] 21 harassment ... .” (Welfare & Institutions Code§ 15610.53.) 22 Remedies for elder abuse include compensatory, general, and exemplary damages. (Civil 23 Code §§ 3294, 3333, Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657(b).) The statute specifically provides that 24 where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants have engaged in 25 oppression/despicable conduct (CACI 3115), recklessness (CA CI 3113), malice (CACI 3114), or 26 fraud (CACI 3116), in addition to all the other cognizable damages for economic losses and general 27 damages limited by Civil Code section 3333.2, the plaintiff may also collect attorneys’ fees and 28 punitive damages. (Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.A pp.4th 1049.) 4 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Here, as supported by evidence presented at the trial of case 19CV 02357, Ms. BERRY stole approximately $12,000 ($6,000 per year during the years 2016 and 2017) of “Air BNB” revenue that should have gone to Mr. BERTRAND. Ms. BERRY’s testimony that “BERTRAND authorized her to reinvest the funds” is not credible, as per the testimony of Mr. BERTRAND and Kathy Hirsch. Furthermore, as stated, Ms. BERRY has engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment designed to intimidate Mr. BERTRAND, threaten him with criminal prosecution, and impugn his character with outrageous lies. VI. QUANTUM MERIUT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND RESTITUTION A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make 10 restitution to the other. (California Federal Bank v. Matreyek (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 125, Nibbi 11 Brothers, Inc. v. Brannan Street Investors (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1415.) The elements of a claim 12 for unjust enrichment include receipt of a benefit, and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense 13 of another. (Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank (2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 723; First Nationwide Savings v. 14 Perry (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1657, 1662-1663.) 15 Remedies for unjust enrichment include constructive trust, restitution, and/or an equitable 16 lien. (Dunkin v. Boskey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 171, 195; Pankow Construction Co. v. Advance 17 Mortgage Corp. (9th Cir., 1980) 618 F.2d 611, 616-617.) 18 Here, as supported by evidence presented at the trial of case 19CV 02357, Ms. BERRY 19 borrowed $23,231.00 from Mr. BERTRAND, and executed a Promissory Note for that amount on 20 October 16, 2009, which also provided for recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Trial Exhibit 102 21 from Case 19CV 02357.) As stated, she also unjustly diverted $12,000 in Air BNB income. 22 VII. DAMAGES 23 On September 16, 2021, both DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL- 24 JOHNSON filed and served Statements of Damages for this case pursuant to Code of Civil 25 Procedure section 425.11, as well as a Notice of Plaintiffs’ Preservation of the Right to Seek 26 Punitive Damages pursuant to section 425.115. Plaintiffs seek: 27 1 28 1 5 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP DAVID BERTRAND: Pain & Suffering: $100,000 Emotional Distress: $100,000 Defamation: $100,000 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000 Punitive Damages: $250,000 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON: Pain & Suffering: $100,000 Emotional Distress: $100,000 10 Defamation: $100,000 11 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit $50,000 12 Punitive Damages: $250,000 13 14 DATED: November 10, 2021 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 15 16 By Marl offin, Si 17 Scott A. Jaske, P.L. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND 18 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP. PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I 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 November 10, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP, on the interested parties in this action: Address Party Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen Sterne and Judicial Clerk Kary E: csterne@sbcourts.org E: kswan@sbeourts.org Swan. 10 11 12 13 BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal 14 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 15 ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for 16 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 17 paid. 18 VIA EMAIL: I 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 19 collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error on this date. 20 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on November 10, 2021, at Santa Barbara, California. 23 24 25 Scott A. Jaske 26 27 28 7 PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP