Preview
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
-- WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (SBN 115042) Electronically
LOGAN MOONEY LLP
by Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
~ — TeLePHoNe no.(415)738-0764 FAX NO. (Oatnan: (415)376-0956 ON 9/1/2021
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com By. /s/ Mia Marlowe
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Edgewater Holding Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo
stREET Appress: 400 County Center
MAILING ADDRESS:
city AND ziP cove: Redwood City CA 94063
BRANCH Name: Southern Branch
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edgewater Holding Corporation
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Xiaozheng Ye, et al.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER:
OR ORDER
20-CIV-05770
(Check one): [X] UNLIMITED CASE CJ uimitep cAseE
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 08/31/2021
2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date:09/01/2021
William A. Logan, Jr. > (iA
(IVE ORPRINT NAME OF LX] ATTORNEY [—] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
Page 1 of2
www courtinto.ca. gov
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California
CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CEB
www.ceb.com
ClV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edgewater Holding Corporation (CASE NUMBER:
20-CIV-05770
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Xiaozheng Ye, et al.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
. lam atleast 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA. 94111
2. | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a, deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. (J placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a. on (date): September 1, 2021
b. from (city and state): Orinda, CA.
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a, Name of person served: Xiaozheng Ye c. Name of person served: Qingqing Lu
Street address: 1256 Formosa Drive Street address: 1256 Formosa Drive
City: San Jose City: San Jose
State and zip code: CA 95131 State and zip code: CA 95131
Name of person served: Name of person served:
Street address: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
[-] Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 09/01/2021
Jeffery W. Brown
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT)
» Sha (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of2
(C1V-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CEB
www,ceb.com
Proof of Service
(Edgewater Holding Corporation v. Xiaozheng Ye, et al.
San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 20-CIV-05770
I, Jeffery W. Brown, declare:
Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to this
action. | am an employee of Logan Mooney LLP, and my business address is 100 Pine Street, Suite
1250, San Francisco, CA 94111. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the
facts stated within.
On September 1, 2021, I caused the following document to be served:
(1) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
By Electronic Service: I caused the document to be sent to the person at the e-mail address
on the service list below on the date stated herein. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after
10 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
ll The electronic notification address of the person making the service is jbrown@loganmooneyllp.com.
12 Service List
13 Rami Kayyali, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Xiaozheng Ye and
DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM PC Qingging Lu
14 923 E Valley Blvd., Ste. 268
San Gabriel, CA 91776
15 E-mail: rami@demidchiklawfirm.com
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
18 is true and correct. Executed on September 1, 2021 at Orinda, California.
19
20 Jeffery W. Brown
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Electronically
WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (BAR NO. 115042) FILED
LAURA M. MOONEY (BAR NO. 203692) By Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
ON 08/31/2021
LOGAN MOONEY LLP Electronically
100 Pine St., Suite 1250 By ‘sl Tovar, Priscilla
San Francisco, CA 94111 RECEIVED Deputy Clerk
8/30/2021
Tel: (415) 738-0764
Fax: (415) 376-0956 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
E-mail: wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com SAN MATEO COUNTY
Imooney@loganmooneyllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Edgewater Holding Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12 EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION, a Case No: 20-CIV-05770
California corporation, NF
13 ORDER DENYING
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
14 ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS
Vv,
15
XIAOZHENG YE, an individual; QINGQING Date: August 10, 2021
16 LU, an individual; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 4
17 Defendants.
Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
18
19
20 Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons came on for hearing on August 10, 2021,
21 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Nancy L. Fineman, in Department 4 of the above-captioned Court
22 On August 9, 2021, the Court duly issued its tentative ruling denying Defendants’ Motion for
23 Order Quashing Summons. Neither Plaintiff nor the moving party defendants contested the Court’s
24 tentative ruling, and the Court therefore adopts in its entirety the tentative ruling denying Defendants >
25
26
27
28
1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS
Motion for Order Quashing Summons. A true and correct copy of the Court’s tentative ruling issued
on August 9, 2021, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Electronically
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED
By /s/Fineman, Nancy
Dated:
Judge of the Superior Court
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Plaintiff has established
DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM compliance with CRC 3.1312 of
10 this proposed order. Defense
counsel appeared late at the
11 B hearing, had not provided notice
Rami Kayyali that Defendants would contest,
12 and was told to contact defense
Attorneys for Defendants Xiaozheng Ye counsel and then the Court if there
13 and QingQing Lu was any issue to resolve. Defense
14 counsel did not contact the Court
with any issue.
15
NF
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS
EXHIBIT A
August 10, 2021 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10
Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04
2:00
20-CIV-05770 EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION VS. XIAOZHENG YE, ET AL
EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION WILLIAM A. LOGAN
XIAOZHENG YE RAMI KAYYALI
MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS BY XIAOZHENG YE AND QINGQING LU
TENTATIVE RULING:
Specially Appearing Defendants Xiaozheng Ye’s and QingQing Lu’s ’ Motion to Quash Summons
is DENIED.
When a defendant challenges the Court’s jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is
on the plaintiff to establish the facts requisite to jurisdiction. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.,
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440. Service of process statutes are generally construed
liberally, but there must be at least substantial compliance with the statutory requisites for service.
Lebel v. Mai, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1165. Ifa copy of the summons and of the complaint
“cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served” ... another
type of substituted service may be used. Witkin, March 2020 Update, California Procedure, Fifth
Edition, §1011; Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).
The Sevilla Decl., §3, Ex. B, establishes that Plaintiffs employed a process server, Ameer Aziz,
who made attempts to serve Defendants Ye and Lu on three separate days, at differing times, at
Defendants last known address, 20 Port Royal Avenue, Foster City, California 94404, and
determined that the occupants seemed to be in the process of moving based on the residence
appearing vacant. Plaintiffs also made two attempts in February and March 2021 to receive Notices
of Acknowledgement via email contact at an email address Defendant Lu had used to correspond
with Plaintiffs. Jd at §2-3. Plaintiffs then investigated whether Defendants had a new business or
residence in California and were unable to locate one. /d at §4. These efforts show a diligent effort
to effect physical delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §416.90.
Specially appearing Defendants argue that 1256 Formosa Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 is not
Defendants usual mailing address per Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and that Defendant
Lu’s November 11, 2020 email shows “that Grace's only role was to deliver the premises key to
the plaintiff landlord and meet with the landlord. They contend that Grace was never designated as
defendants' agent for service of process or mail forwarding address.” Reply, 2:5-7. The Court finds
otherwise after a review of the evidence. That email states
“My friend Grace Li will be there representing me since I’m in China. And here is Grace’s home
address as forwarding address: 1256 Formosa Dr. San Jose, CA 95131.” Chen Decl., Ex. F, p.1.
That came in response to Ms. Chen’s earlier email that same day requesting that Defendant Amy
Lu “please provide your new address for notice and forwarding address.” /d., p. 2. In that context,
Defendant’s designation of Grace’s address as a forwarding address established it as a usual
mailing address as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and physical delivery was
accomplished. The authenticity of the email is confirmed because the email stated that Grace Li
August 10, 2021 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11
Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04
would meet Plaintiff’s representative to provide the key and that exchange occurred. Chen Decl.
4 7-9, Ex. F.
The Campos Decl. establishes that on April 13, 2021 the declarant mailed copies of the Summons,
Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Notice of Case Management Conference, a blank Case
Management Statement on form CM-! 10, and ADR Information Packet by placing the copies in
sealed envelopes addressed to each defendant at 1256 Formosa Drive, San Jose, California 95131,
and depositing the sealed envelopes with the United States Postal Service with postage prepaid.
Campos Decl., 42. This demonstrates compliance with the mailing requirement of Code of Civil
Procedure § 415.20(b).
Plaintiff has therefore established the facts requisite to jurisdiction.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for
Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all
parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
I, Jeffery W. Brown, declare:
lam resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to this
action. I am an employee of Logan Mooney LLP, and my business address is 100 Pine Street, Suite
1250, San Francisco, CA 94111. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the facts
stated within.
On August 10, 2021, I caused the following documents to be served:
(1) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER
QUASHING SUMMONS
By Electronic Service: I caused the documents to be sent the persons at the e-mail addresses
10 on the service list below on the date stated herein. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
11 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. The
12 electronic notification address of the person making the service is jbrown@loganmooneyllp.com.
13 Service List
Rami Kayyali, Esq.
14 Demidchik Law Firm PC
15 923 E Valley Blvd., Suite 268
San Gabriel, CA 91776
16 E-mail: rami@demidchiklawfirm.com
E-mail: rami@dcklawfirm.com
17 Counsel for Defendants Xiaozheng
Ye, et al.
18
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
20 is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2021, at Orinda, California.
21
22
Jeffery W. Brown
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
LOGAN MOONEY 1..."
100 PINE STREET
SUITE 1250
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
Tel: 415/738.0758 Fax: 415/376.0956
—
WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR.
wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com.
Direct: (415) 738-0764
August 30, 2021
The Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
Department 4
San Mateo County Superior Court
1050 Mission Road
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: Edgewater Holding Corporation v Xiaozheng Ye, et al.
San Mateo County Superior Case No. 20-CIV-05770
Dear Judge Fineman:
Shortly after the August 10, 2021, hearing during which the Court adopted its tentative
tuling denying Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons, we served our proposed order
incorporating verbatim the Court’s tentative ruling on Defendants’ counsel, Rami Kayyali.
However, Mr. Kayyali refused to approve the order as to form and, instead, requested that
Plaintiff consider a stipulation to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the complaint.
Mr. Kayyali did not state any reasons for disapproving the form of the order. Accordingly, and
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court, we have lodged with
LOGAN MOONEY 1:
The Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
August 30, 2021
Page -2-
the Clerk our proposed order denying Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons without
Mr. Kayyali’s approval as to forrn, and we submit a copy with this letter.
W, A. Logan, Jr.
Enclosure
ce: Rami Kayyali, Esq. (via e-mail) (with enclosure)
Preview
CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY -- WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (SBN 115042) Electronically LOGAN MOONEY LLP by Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 ~ — TeLePHoNe no.(415)738-0764 FAX NO. (Oatnan: (415)376-0956 ON 9/1/2021 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com By. /s/ Mia Marlowe Deputy Clerk ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Edgewater Holding Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo stREET Appress: 400 County Center MAILING ADDRESS: city AND ziP cove: Redwood City CA 94063 BRANCH Name: Southern Branch PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edgewater Holding Corporation DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Xiaozheng Ye, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: OR ORDER 20-CIV-05770 (Check one): [X] UNLIMITED CASE CJ uimitep cAseE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 08/31/2021 2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date:09/01/2021 William A. Logan, Jr. > (iA (IVE ORPRINT NAME OF LX] ATTORNEY [—] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of2 www courtinto.ca. gov Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CEB www.ceb.com ClV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edgewater Holding Corporation (CASE NUMBER: 20-CIV-05770 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Xiaozheng Ye, et al. PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) . lam atleast 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA. 94111 2. | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a, deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. (J placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a. on (date): September 1, 2021 b. from (city and state): Orinda, CA. 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a, Name of person served: Xiaozheng Ye c. Name of person served: Qingqing Lu Street address: 1256 Formosa Drive Street address: 1256 Formosa Drive City: San Jose City: San Jose State and zip code: CA 95131 State and zip code: CA 95131 Name of person served: Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: [-] Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 09/01/2021 Jeffery W. Brown (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) » Sha (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of2 (C1V-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CEB www,ceb.com Proof of Service (Edgewater Holding Corporation v. Xiaozheng Ye, et al. San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 20-CIV-05770 I, Jeffery W. Brown, declare: Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to this action. | am an employee of Logan Mooney LLP, and my business address is 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA 94111. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the facts stated within. On September 1, 2021, I caused the following document to be served: (1) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER By Electronic Service: I caused the document to be sent to the person at the e-mail address on the service list below on the date stated herein. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after 10 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. ll The electronic notification address of the person making the service is jbrown@loganmooneyllp.com. 12 Service List 13 Rami Kayyali, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Xiaozheng Ye and DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM PC Qingging Lu 14 923 E Valley Blvd., Ste. 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776 15 E-mail: rami@demidchiklawfirm.com 16 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 18 is true and correct. Executed on September 1, 2021 at Orinda, California. 19 20 Jeffery W. Brown 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Electronically WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (BAR NO. 115042) FILED LAURA M. MOONEY (BAR NO. 203692) By Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo ON 08/31/2021 LOGAN MOONEY LLP Electronically 100 Pine St., Suite 1250 By ‘sl Tovar, Priscilla San Francisco, CA 94111 RECEIVED Deputy Clerk 8/30/2021 Tel: (415) 738-0764 Fax: (415) 376-0956 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT E-mail: wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com SAN MATEO COUNTY Imooney@loganmooneyllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Edgewater Holding Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 12 EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION, a Case No: 20-CIV-05770 California corporation, NF 13 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS Vv, 15 XIAOZHENG YE, an individual; QINGQING Date: August 10, 2021 16 LU, an individual; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 4 17 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman 18 19 20 Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons came on for hearing on August 10, 2021, 21 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Nancy L. Fineman, in Department 4 of the above-captioned Court 22 On August 9, 2021, the Court duly issued its tentative ruling denying Defendants’ Motion for 23 Order Quashing Summons. Neither Plaintiff nor the moving party defendants contested the Court’s 24 tentative ruling, and the Court therefore adopts in its entirety the tentative ruling denying Defendants > 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS Motion for Order Quashing Summons. A true and correct copy of the Court’s tentative ruling issued on August 9, 2021, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Electronically IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED By /s/Fineman, Nancy Dated: Judge of the Superior Court APPROVED AS TO FORM Plaintiff has established DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM compliance with CRC 3.1312 of 10 this proposed order. Defense counsel appeared late at the 11 B hearing, had not provided notice Rami Kayyali that Defendants would contest, 12 and was told to contact defense Attorneys for Defendants Xiaozheng Ye counsel and then the Court if there 13 and QingQing Lu was any issue to resolve. Defense 14 counsel did not contact the Court with any issue. 15 NF 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS EXHIBIT A August 10, 2021 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 2:00 20-CIV-05770 EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION VS. XIAOZHENG YE, ET AL EDGEWATER HOLDING CORPORATION WILLIAM A. LOGAN XIAOZHENG YE RAMI KAYYALI MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS BY XIAOZHENG YE AND QINGQING LU TENTATIVE RULING: Specially Appearing Defendants Xiaozheng Ye’s and QingQing Lu’s ’ Motion to Quash Summons is DENIED. When a defendant challenges the Court’s jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the facts requisite to jurisdiction. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440. Service of process statutes are generally construed liberally, but there must be at least substantial compliance with the statutory requisites for service. Lebel v. Mai, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1165. Ifa copy of the summons and of the complaint “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served” ... another type of substituted service may be used. Witkin, March 2020 Update, California Procedure, Fifth Edition, §1011; Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). The Sevilla Decl., §3, Ex. B, establishes that Plaintiffs employed a process server, Ameer Aziz, who made attempts to serve Defendants Ye and Lu on three separate days, at differing times, at Defendants last known address, 20 Port Royal Avenue, Foster City, California 94404, and determined that the occupants seemed to be in the process of moving based on the residence appearing vacant. Plaintiffs also made two attempts in February and March 2021 to receive Notices of Acknowledgement via email contact at an email address Defendant Lu had used to correspond with Plaintiffs. Jd at §2-3. Plaintiffs then investigated whether Defendants had a new business or residence in California and were unable to locate one. /d at §4. These efforts show a diligent effort to effect physical delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §416.90. Specially appearing Defendants argue that 1256 Formosa Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 is not Defendants usual mailing address per Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and that Defendant Lu’s November 11, 2020 email shows “that Grace's only role was to deliver the premises key to the plaintiff landlord and meet with the landlord. They contend that Grace was never designated as defendants' agent for service of process or mail forwarding address.” Reply, 2:5-7. The Court finds otherwise after a review of the evidence. That email states “My friend Grace Li will be there representing me since I’m in China. And here is Grace’s home address as forwarding address: 1256 Formosa Dr. San Jose, CA 95131.” Chen Decl., Ex. F, p.1. That came in response to Ms. Chen’s earlier email that same day requesting that Defendant Amy Lu “please provide your new address for notice and forwarding address.” /d., p. 2. In that context, Defendant’s designation of Grace’s address as a forwarding address established it as a usual mailing address as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and physical delivery was accomplished. The authenticity of the email is confirmed because the email stated that Grace Li August 10, 2021 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 would meet Plaintiff’s representative to provide the key and that exchange occurred. Chen Decl. 4 7-9, Ex. F. The Campos Decl. establishes that on April 13, 2021 the declarant mailed copies of the Summons, Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Notice of Case Management Conference, a blank Case Management Statement on form CM-! 10, and ADR Information Packet by placing the copies in sealed envelopes addressed to each defendant at 1256 Formosa Drive, San Jose, California 95131, and depositing the sealed envelopes with the United States Postal Service with postage prepaid. Campos Decl., 42. This demonstrates compliance with the mailing requirement of Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b). Plaintiff has therefore established the facts requisite to jurisdiction. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. I, Jeffery W. Brown, declare: lam resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to this action. I am an employee of Logan Mooney LLP, and my business address is 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA 94111. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the facts stated within. On August 10, 2021, I caused the following documents to be served: (1) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS By Electronic Service: I caused the documents to be sent the persons at the e-mail addresses 10 on the service list below on the date stated herein. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 11 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. The 12 electronic notification address of the person making the service is jbrown@loganmooneyllp.com. 13 Service List Rami Kayyali, Esq. 14 Demidchik Law Firm PC 15 923 E Valley Blvd., Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776 16 E-mail: rami@demidchiklawfirm.com E-mail: rami@dcklawfirm.com 17 Counsel for Defendants Xiaozheng Ye, et al. 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 20 is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2021, at Orinda, California. 21 22 Jeffery W. Brown 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE LOGAN MOONEY 1..." 100 PINE STREET SUITE 1250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 Tel: 415/738.0758 Fax: 415/376.0956 — WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. wlogan@loganmooneyllp.com. Direct: (415) 738-0764 August 30, 2021 The Hon. Nancy L. Fineman Department 4 San Mateo County Superior Court 1050 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Edgewater Holding Corporation v Xiaozheng Ye, et al. San Mateo County Superior Case No. 20-CIV-05770 Dear Judge Fineman: Shortly after the August 10, 2021, hearing during which the Court adopted its tentative tuling denying Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons, we served our proposed order incorporating verbatim the Court’s tentative ruling on Defendants’ counsel, Rami Kayyali. However, Mr. Kayyali refused to approve the order as to form and, instead, requested that Plaintiff consider a stipulation to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the complaint. Mr. Kayyali did not state any reasons for disapproving the form of the order. Accordingly, and pursuant to subdivision (a) of Rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court, we have lodged with LOGAN MOONEY 1: The Hon. Nancy L. Fineman August 30, 2021 Page -2- the Clerk our proposed order denying Defendants’ Motion for Order Quashing Summons without Mr. Kayyali’s approval as to forrn, and we submit a copy with this letter. W, A. Logan, Jr. Enclosure ce: Rami Kayyali, Esq. (via e-mail) (with enclosure)