Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
1 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802)
E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
2 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 11/24/2021 2:50 PM
3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1550 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487
Telephone: (602) 281-3400
4 Facsimile: (602) 281-3401
5 Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190)
E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com
6 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
7 San Diego, California 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
8 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
9 Attorneys for Defendants,
UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group,
10 Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt;
Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas; Jimmie
11 Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC;
and Cynthia Baker
12
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION
15 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware CASE NO.: 20CV03877
limited liability company, [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
16
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the
17 Honorable Donna D. Geck, Dept. 4
v.
18 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
19 company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF
20 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an JURISDICTION
21 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an
individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an DATE: December 3, 2021
22 individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m.
an individual; WESTELE UTILITY DEPT.: 4
23 SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020
24 inclusive, Removal Filed: January 4, 2021
FAC Filed: April 16, 2021
25 Defendants. SAC Filed: November 15, 2021
Remanded to State Court: August 3, 2021
26 Trial Date: Not Set
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
FP 42389599.1
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Specially appearing Defendants UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, Inc.;
3 Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas hereby submit the
4 following evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Levi Smylie submitted in support of
5 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal
6 Jurisdiction.
7 Pursuant to the California Rules of Courts, Rule 3.1354, Specially Appearing Defendants
8 object to the evidence filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Quash Service
9 of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, portions of Mr. Smylie’s declaration
10 should be deemed inadmissible. Courts should only consider admissible evidence submitted.
11 (Rickel v. Schwinn Bicycle Company (1983) 144 Cal. App.3d 648, 662.) Specially Appearing
12 Defendants respectfully hereby request that the Court strike the objectionable and speculative
13 portions of the evidence as specifically set forth below.
14 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LEVI SMYLIE
Ruling:
15 Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection:
16 Objected To:
1. While employed by Butler, Bellas and Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
17 Lipkin serviced clients in California §§ 402, 403) ________
and made trips to Butler’s
18 headquarters in Santa Barbara,
California, and Bellas, on regular and Overruled:
19 numerous occasions, to its regional ________
office in Rancho Cucamonga,
20 California.
21 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 3.)
22 2. Based on information and belief, all Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
three of them are currently employed §§ 402, 403) ________
23 by Defendants Unified
Communications Group, Inc.
24 (“UCG”) and/or UCOMMG, LLC Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid. Overruled:
(“UCOMMG”)[.] Code §§ 402, 403) ________
25
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 3.)
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
FP 42389599.1
1 Ruling:
Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection:
2
Objected To:
3 3. In 2020, based upon information and Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
belief, Butler discovered that Bellas, §§ 402, 403) ________
4 Lipkin, and Baker used Butler’s
confidential information during and
5 after their respective employment with Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled:
Butler to compete against Butler for et seq.) ________
6 the same customers for the benefit of
themselves and Unified. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid.
7 Code §§ 402, 403)
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 4.)
8
Improper Legal Conclusion (Cal.
9 Evid. Code §§ 800 et seq.)
10 Irrelevant and/or immaterial for
purposes of the instant motion at issue.
11 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
12 4. Historically, Butler did a significant Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Sustained:
amount of business for Frontier purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________
13 Communications (“Frontier”). Butler (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
primarily staffed specialized
14 installation and repair (“I&R”) Overruled:
technicians for Frontier. In late 2019, Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1200- ________
15 Northwest Fiber, LLC dba Ziply 1201)
(“Ziply”) contacted Butler to inform it
16 that Ziply was purchasing Frontier’s
Pacific Northwest operations and
17 would begin operating in May 2020.
As a result, Butler and Ziply
18 scheduled a meeting in March 2020 in
Washington to discuss future business.
19
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 5.)
20
5. At the meeting in March 2020, Butler Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Sustained:
21 was represented by Bellas and other purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________
members of Butler's management. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
22 Butler proposed a "Traveling Techs"
program, wherein seasoned traveling Overruled:
23 technicians would handle most of the ________
installation work on a new project and
24 then train new local technicians to
handle the last stages of the install
25 process. The traveling technicians
would then move to another project
26 and do the same. Butler presented
slides and documentation regarding
27 this program. Butler's materials related
to the above pitch to Ziply, included,
28
2
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
FP 42389599.1
1 Ruling:
Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection:
2
Objected To:
3 but were not limited to, the Scope of
Work, Request for Quotation, and
4 training materials. This proprietary
business model was work product
5 developed by Baker and Bellas while
employed by Butler in California.
6 Additionally, Mr. Baker assisted in the
preparation of, and Bellas as Baker's
7 supervisor oversaw, Butler's
installation and repair technician
8 training materials, BIRT reports, and
other materials while working for
9 Butler in the Rancho Cucamonga
California office.
10
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 6.)
11
6. Butler began sourcing technicians for Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
12 Ziply’s projects with new recruits §§ 402, 403) ________
being vetted internally by Baker while
13 also, unbeknownst to Butler, was
working on behalf of WesTele. Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled:
14 et seq.) ________
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 7.)
15 Irrelevant and/or immaterial for
purposes of the instant motion at issue.
16 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
17
7. However, unexpectedly Unified filled Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
18 the open positions that Ziply had §§ 402, 403) ________
requested Butler fill, with the same
19 technicians that Baker had sourced and
vetted from proprietary lists Butler Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled:
possessed and developed while Bellas et seq.) ________
20
oversaw Butler’s operations in its
21 Rancho Cucamonga, California office.
22 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 7.)
23 8. Ultimately, Ziply rescinded its request Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
for I&R technicians from Butler §§ 402, 403) ________
24 because they had already been filled by
Unified.
Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled:
25 et seq.) ________
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 8.)
26
Irrelevant and/or immaterial for
27 purposes of the instant motion at issue.
(Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
28
3
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
FP 42389599.1
1 Ruling:
Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection:
2
Objected To:
3 9. Baked upon information and belief, Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
after investigating the loss of business §§ 402, 403) ________
4 and technicians, Butler determined that
Baker, Bellas, and Lipkin were, and
5 still are, actively recruiting and Improper Legal Conclusion (Cal. Overruled:
redirecting technicians from Butler’s Evid. Code §§ 800 et seq.) ________
6 list for Unified projects, and use, and
are still using, Butler’s recruitment Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid.
7 model, contracts and agreements to Code §§ 402, 403)
intentionally interfere with Butler’s
8 business relationships with, among Irrelevant and/or immaterial for
others, Ziply.
9 purposes of the instant motion at issue.
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 9.) (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
10
10. Defendants’ interference has caused Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained:
11 Butler to lose substantial business to §§ 402, 403) ________
Unified.
12
(Smylie Decl. ¶ 9.) Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Overruled:
13 purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________
(Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351)
14
15
16 DATE: November 24, 2021 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
17
18 By:
Shayna Balch Santiago
19 Kathryn M. Evans
Attorneys for Defendants
20 UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications
Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca
21 Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas;
WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia
22 Baker
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
FP 42389599.1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5)
2
I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed
3 in the County of San Diego with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address
is 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000, San Diego, California 92121.
4
On November 24, 2021, I served the following document(s) DEFENDANTS’
5 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF
6 PERSONAL JURISDICTION on the person(s) listed below by placing the original a
true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
7
8 Paul P. Young Tel: (626) 744-1838
Joseph Chora Fax: (626) 744-3167
9 Cameron H. Totten E-Mail: paul@cym.law; joseph@cym.law;
Armen Manasserian cameron@cym.law; armen@cym.law;
10 Scott O’Halloran scott@cym.law
CHORA YOUNG LLP
11 650 Sierra Madre Villa Ave, Suite 304 Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC
Pasadena, California 91107
12
[by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to
13 the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection
and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this
14 business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
15 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Diego California,
in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
16 [by FAX] - Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at fax number(s) listed above from fax number
17 (858) 597-9601. The fax reported no errors. A copy of the transmission report is
attached.
18 [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package
provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es)
19 listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an
office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier.
20 [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties
to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to
21 the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above.
[by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
22 §1010.6(e)(1), I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic
service address(es) listed above.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25 Executed November 24, 2021, at San Diego, California.
26 Amanda Funkhouser By:
Print Name Signature
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
FP 42389599.1
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara 1 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802) E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 2 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 11/24/2021 2:50 PM 3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1550 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487 Telephone: (602) 281-3400 4 Facsimile: (602) 281-3401 5 Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190) E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com 6 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 7 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 8 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 9 Attorneys for Defendants, UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, 10 Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas; Jimmie 11 Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION 15 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware CASE NO.: 20CV03877 limited liability company, [Unlimited Jurisdiction] 16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the 17 Honorable Donna D. Geck, Dept. 4 v. 18 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT 19 company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF 20 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an JURISDICTION 21 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an DATE: December 3, 2021 22 individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m. an individual; WESTELE UTILITY DEPT.: 4 23 SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020 24 inclusive, Removal Filed: January 4, 2021 FAC Filed: April 16, 2021 25 Defendants. SAC Filed: November 15, 2021 Remanded to State Court: August 3, 2021 26 Trial Date: Not Set 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FP 42389599.1 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Specially appearing Defendants UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, Inc.; 3 Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas hereby submit the 4 following evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Levi Smylie submitted in support of 5 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal 6 Jurisdiction. 7 Pursuant to the California Rules of Courts, Rule 3.1354, Specially Appearing Defendants 8 object to the evidence filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Quash Service 9 of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, portions of Mr. Smylie’s declaration 10 should be deemed inadmissible. Courts should only consider admissible evidence submitted. 11 (Rickel v. Schwinn Bicycle Company (1983) 144 Cal. App.3d 648, 662.) Specially Appearing 12 Defendants respectfully hereby request that the Court strike the objectionable and speculative 13 portions of the evidence as specifically set forth below. 14 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LEVI SMYLIE Ruling: 15 Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection: 16 Objected To: 1. While employed by Butler, Bellas and Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: 17 Lipkin serviced clients in California §§ 402, 403) ________ and made trips to Butler’s 18 headquarters in Santa Barbara, California, and Bellas, on regular and Overruled: 19 numerous occasions, to its regional ________ office in Rancho Cucamonga, 20 California. 21 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 3.) 22 2. Based on information and belief, all Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: three of them are currently employed §§ 402, 403) ________ 23 by Defendants Unified Communications Group, Inc. 24 (“UCG”) and/or UCOMMG, LLC Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid. Overruled: (“UCOMMG”)[.] Code §§ 402, 403) ________ 25 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 3.) 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FP 42389599.1 1 Ruling: Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection: 2 Objected To: 3 3. In 2020, based upon information and Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: belief, Butler discovered that Bellas, §§ 402, 403) ________ 4 Lipkin, and Baker used Butler’s confidential information during and 5 after their respective employment with Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled: Butler to compete against Butler for et seq.) ________ 6 the same customers for the benefit of themselves and Unified. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid. 7 Code §§ 402, 403) (Smylie Decl. ¶ 4.) 8 Improper Legal Conclusion (Cal. 9 Evid. Code §§ 800 et seq.) 10 Irrelevant and/or immaterial for purposes of the instant motion at issue. 11 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 12 4. Historically, Butler did a significant Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Sustained: amount of business for Frontier purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________ 13 Communications (“Frontier”). Butler (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) primarily staffed specialized 14 installation and repair (“I&R”) Overruled: technicians for Frontier. In late 2019, Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1200- ________ 15 Northwest Fiber, LLC dba Ziply 1201) (“Ziply”) contacted Butler to inform it 16 that Ziply was purchasing Frontier’s Pacific Northwest operations and 17 would begin operating in May 2020. As a result, Butler and Ziply 18 scheduled a meeting in March 2020 in Washington to discuss future business. 19 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 5.) 20 5. At the meeting in March 2020, Butler Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Sustained: 21 was represented by Bellas and other purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________ members of Butler's management. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 22 Butler proposed a "Traveling Techs" program, wherein seasoned traveling Overruled: 23 technicians would handle most of the ________ installation work on a new project and 24 then train new local technicians to handle the last stages of the install 25 process. The traveling technicians would then move to another project 26 and do the same. Butler presented slides and documentation regarding 27 this program. Butler's materials related to the above pitch to Ziply, included, 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FP 42389599.1 1 Ruling: Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection: 2 Objected To: 3 but were not limited to, the Scope of Work, Request for Quotation, and 4 training materials. This proprietary business model was work product 5 developed by Baker and Bellas while employed by Butler in California. 6 Additionally, Mr. Baker assisted in the preparation of, and Bellas as Baker's 7 supervisor oversaw, Butler's installation and repair technician 8 training materials, BIRT reports, and other materials while working for 9 Butler in the Rancho Cucamonga California office. 10 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 6.) 11 6. Butler began sourcing technicians for Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: 12 Ziply’s projects with new recruits §§ 402, 403) ________ being vetted internally by Baker while 13 also, unbeknownst to Butler, was working on behalf of WesTele. Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled: 14 et seq.) ________ (Smylie Decl. ¶ 7.) 15 Irrelevant and/or immaterial for purposes of the instant motion at issue. 16 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 17 7. However, unexpectedly Unified filled Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: 18 the open positions that Ziply had §§ 402, 403) ________ requested Butler fill, with the same 19 technicians that Baker had sourced and vetted from proprietary lists Butler Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled: possessed and developed while Bellas et seq.) ________ 20 oversaw Butler’s operations in its 21 Rancho Cucamonga, California office. 22 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 7.) 23 8. Ultimately, Ziply rescinded its request Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: for I&R technicians from Butler §§ 402, 403) ________ 24 because they had already been filled by Unified. Speculation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 800 Overruled: 25 et seq.) ________ (Smylie Decl. ¶ 8.) 26 Irrelevant and/or immaterial for 27 purposes of the instant motion at issue. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 28 3 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FP 42389599.1 1 Ruling: Evidence No. and Summary of Evidence Grounds For Objection: 2 Objected To: 3 9. Baked upon information and belief, Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: after investigating the loss of business §§ 402, 403) ________ 4 and technicians, Butler determined that Baker, Bellas, and Lipkin were, and 5 still are, actively recruiting and Improper Legal Conclusion (Cal. Overruled: redirecting technicians from Butler’s Evid. Code §§ 800 et seq.) ________ 6 list for Unified projects, and use, and are still using, Butler’s recruitment Lacks Personal Knowledge (Cal. Evid. 7 model, contracts and agreements to Code §§ 402, 403) intentionally interfere with Butler’s 8 business relationships with, among Irrelevant and/or immaterial for others, Ziply. 9 purposes of the instant motion at issue. (Smylie Decl. ¶ 9.) (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 10 10. Defendants’ interference has caused Lacks Foundation (Cal. Evid. Code Sustained: 11 Butler to lose substantial business to §§ 402, 403) ________ Unified. 12 (Smylie Decl. ¶ 9.) Irrelevant and/or immaterial for Overruled: 13 purposes of the instant motion at issue. ________ (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351) 14 15 16 DATE: November 24, 2021 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 17 18 By: Shayna Balch Santiago 19 Kathryn M. Evans Attorneys for Defendants 20 UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca 21 Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas; WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia 22 Baker 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FP 42389599.1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5) 2 I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed 3 in the County of San Diego with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address is 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000, San Diego, California 92121. 4 On November 24, 2021, I served the following document(s) DEFENDANTS’ 5 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF 6 PERSONAL JURISDICTION on the person(s) listed below by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 7 8 Paul P. Young Tel: (626) 744-1838 Joseph Chora Fax: (626) 744-3167 9 Cameron H. Totten E-Mail: paul@cym.law; joseph@cym.law; Armen Manasserian cameron@cym.law; armen@cym.law; 10 Scott O’Halloran scott@cym.law CHORA YOUNG LLP 11 650 Sierra Madre Villa Ave, Suite 304 Attorneys for Plaintiff Butler America, LLC Pasadena, California 91107 12 [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to 13 the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this 14 business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the 15 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Diego California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 16 [by FAX] - Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at fax number(s) listed above from fax number 17 (858) 597-9601. The fax reported no errors. A copy of the transmission report is attached. 18 [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) 19 listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier. 20 [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to 21 the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 22 §1010.6(e)(1), I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. 25 Executed November 24, 2021, at San Diego, California. 26 Amanda Funkhouser By: Print Name Signature 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE FP 42389599.1