Preview
eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800,
16CV300096
Santa Clara — Civil
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA 302350)
jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
MICHAEL C. MAUCERI (SBN CA 311220)
mmauceri@hinshawlaw.com
SHALINI BHASKER (SBN CA 326729)
sbhasker@hinshawlaw.com
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
Telephone: 213-680-2800
Facsimile: 213-614-7399
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
V. Castanet
Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 12/7/2021 2:35 PM
Reviewed By: V. Castaneda
Case #16CV300096
Envelope: 7810479
Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity
Portfolio Group, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARIA CANUL,
Defendant.
MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Cross-Complainant,
Vs.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
1
Case No.: 16CV300096
Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Patricia M.
Lucas, Dept. 3
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC’S
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT AND
CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION CROSS-
COMPLAINT
Complaint filed: September 20, 2016
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”), for itself and no
others, in response to the allegations of the First Amended Class Action Cross-Complaint (“FACC”)
by Defendant and Cross-Complainant (“Cross-Complainant”), for herself and on behalf of any
purported class, hereby, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
GENERAL DENIALS
Pursuant to § 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Velocity hereby generally
denies each and every allegation, paragraph, and cause of action contained in the FACC and
further denies that Cross-Complainant or any member of the purported class (“class” or “putative
class”)(collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) has been damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of
any act or omission on the part of Velocity, or on the part of any agent or employee of Velocity, or
is entitled to any relief against Velocity.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
In further response to the FACC, Velocity asserts the following affirmative defenses and
reserves the right to amend or supplement these defenses as further information becomes available.
The denomination of any matter below as a defense is not an admission that Velocity bears the
burden of persuasion, burden of proof, or burden of producing evidence with respect to any such
matter.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
1. As a first, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that
the FACC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
2. As a second, separate dense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Cross-Complainants
failed to mitigate, in whole or part, their alleged damages.
//1
HTf
2
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts or Omissions of Others)
3. As a third, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity is informed
and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the damages or losses if any, alleged in the FACC were
the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Cross-Complainants and their agents, if applicable.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Velocity’s Actions were Reasonable)
4. As a fourth, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that
its efforts to collect on the debt were neither abusive, deceptive, nor unfair, but rather were
reasonable, made in good faith, and were a lawful exercise of sound discretion.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Bona Fide Error)
5. As a fifth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, any violation
of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, the
California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which Velocity denies occurred, were not
intentional and would have resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of
procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
6. As a sixth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Velocity
alleges that Cross-Complainants’ claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the equitable theories of
estoppel, waiver, ratification, laches, and/or unclean hands.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
7. As a seventh, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Velocity
alleges that Cross-Complainants’ claims are barred to the extent that recovery from Velocity would
result in Cross-Complainants’ unjust enrichment.
3
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Arbitration Agreement Bars Bringing Suit)
8. As an eighth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Cross-
Complainants has agreed to arbitrate any or all of the purported claims asserted in the FACC. The
filing of this FACC violates such agreements to arbitrate and the FACC should be dismissed and/or
stayed and Cross-Complainants should be compelled to arbitrate.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
9. Cross-Complainants claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations for
each of the causes of action asserted in the FACC.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claims Not Representative or Typical of Class)
10. Velocity alleges that the claims of the named Cross-Complainant are not
representative or typical of the claims of the members of the putative class, and therefore this action
is not properly maintained as a class action.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claims Not Numerous)
11. Velocity alleges that the putatitve class is not so numerous such that joinder of all
members is impracticable; therefore, Cross-Complainant cannot meet the prerequisites to a class
action set forth in § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Common Questions of Law or Fact)
2 Velocity alleges that there are not questions of law or fact common to the putative
class; rather, individualized questions of law and fact predominate over any semblance of common
question. In addition, the proof peculiar to Cross-Complainant’s, and each Cross-Complainants’,
claims and defenses thereto will vary widely. Therefore, Cross-Complainant cannot meet the
prerequisites to a class action set forth in § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
HTf
4
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Class Action Not Practical)
13. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because
the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the putative class would not create a
risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications or adjudications that as a practical matter would be
dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the action.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Class Action Not Proper)
14. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because
concentrating the litigation of the Cross-Complainant’s claims, as to which individualized facts and
proof will predominate, in on particular forum is not desirable.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Class Not Manageable)
15. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because
of the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Questions of Common or General Interest)
16. Velocity alleges that the FACC does not raise questions of a common or general
interest; therefore, this action may not be properly maintained as a class action under § 382 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.
/f/
ae
ae
‘fT
/T1
ae
//1
HTf
5
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN
NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se
SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY
28
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
213-680-2800
WHEREFORE, Velocity prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Cross-Complainants be granted no relief in the action as sought in the FACC;
2. That judgment be entered against Cross-Complainants and in favor of Velocity on
the FACC;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: December 7, 2021 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By: /s/ Justin Penn
Justin Penn
Michael C. Mauceri
Shalini Bhasker
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-
Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1045141\309679993.v1xa a w
oo
PROOF OF SERVICE
Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X-Action
Case No. 16CV300096
(STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within actions; my business address is 350 South Grand Ave., Suite
3600, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476.
On December 7, 2021, I served the document(s) entitled WELOCITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC’S ANSWER AND- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
CROSS-COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
@M (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY): Pursuant to California Rules of Court,
Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Emergency Rule 12, regarding Electronic Service:
Only by emailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) note above, as mandated
by the Judicial Council and necessary during the declared National Emergency due to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, not able to send
physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
transmission.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 7, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
fete Mayes é ea.
Robin Mojica
1045141\309681129.v1xa a w
oo
SERVICE LIST
Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X-Action
Case No. 16CV300096
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) MARIA CANUL
Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854)
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, California 95112-4610
Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190
Email Address:
fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
1045141\309681129.v1
Preview
eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800, 16CV300096 Santa Clara — Civil JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA 302350) jpenn@hinshawlaw.com MICHAEL C. MAUCERI (SBN CA 311220) mmauceri@hinshawlaw.com SHALINI BHASKER (SBN CA 326729) sbhasker@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 Telephone: 213-680-2800 Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant V. Castanet Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/7/2021 2:35 PM Reviewed By: V. Castaneda Case #16CV300096 Envelope: 7810479 Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MARIA CANUL, Defendant. MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Cross-Complainant, Vs. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. 1 Case No.: 16CV300096 Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Patricia M. Lucas, Dept. 3 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION CROSS- COMPLAINT Complaint filed: September 20, 2016 VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”), for itself and no others, in response to the allegations of the First Amended Class Action Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) by Defendant and Cross-Complainant (“Cross-Complainant”), for herself and on behalf of any purported class, hereby, admits, denies and alleges as follows: GENERAL DENIALS Pursuant to § 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Velocity hereby generally denies each and every allegation, paragraph, and cause of action contained in the FACC and further denies that Cross-Complainant or any member of the purported class (“class” or “putative class”)(collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) has been damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the part of Velocity, or on the part of any agent or employee of Velocity, or is entitled to any relief against Velocity. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES In further response to the FACC, Velocity asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to amend or supplement these defenses as further information becomes available. The denomination of any matter below as a defense is not an admission that Velocity bears the burden of persuasion, burden of proof, or burden of producing evidence with respect to any such matter. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 1. As a first, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that the FACC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 2. As a second, separate dense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Cross-Complainants failed to mitigate, in whole or part, their alleged damages. //1 HTf 2 VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts or Omissions of Others) 3. As a third, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the damages or losses if any, alleged in the FACC were the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Cross-Complainants and their agents, if applicable. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Velocity’s Actions were Reasonable) 4. As a fourth, separate defense to all claims alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that its efforts to collect on the debt were neither abusive, deceptive, nor unfair, but rather were reasonable, made in good faith, and were a lawful exercise of sound discretion. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bona Fide Error) 5. As a fifth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, any violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which Velocity denies occurred, were not intentional and would have resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 6. As a sixth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that Cross-Complainants’ claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the equitable theories of estoppel, waiver, ratification, laches, and/or unclean hands. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) 7. As a seventh, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Velocity alleges that Cross-Complainants’ claims are barred to the extent that recovery from Velocity would result in Cross-Complainants’ unjust enrichment. 3 VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration Agreement Bars Bringing Suit) 8. As an eighth, separate defense to all claims for relief alleged in the FACC, Cross- Complainants has agreed to arbitrate any or all of the purported claims asserted in the FACC. The filing of this FACC violates such agreements to arbitrate and the FACC should be dismissed and/or stayed and Cross-Complainants should be compelled to arbitrate. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 9. Cross-Complainants claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations for each of the causes of action asserted in the FACC. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Claims Not Representative or Typical of Class) 10. Velocity alleges that the claims of the named Cross-Complainant are not representative or typical of the claims of the members of the putative class, and therefore this action is not properly maintained as a class action. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Claims Not Numerous) 11. Velocity alleges that the putatitve class is not so numerous such that joinder of all members is impracticable; therefore, Cross-Complainant cannot meet the prerequisites to a class action set forth in § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Common Questions of Law or Fact) 2 Velocity alleges that there are not questions of law or fact common to the putative class; rather, individualized questions of law and fact predominate over any semblance of common question. In addition, the proof peculiar to Cross-Complainant’s, and each Cross-Complainants’, claims and defenses thereto will vary widely. Therefore, Cross-Complainant cannot meet the prerequisites to a class action set forth in § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. HTf 4 VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Class Action Not Practical) 13. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the putative class would not create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications or adjudications that as a practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the action. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Class Action Not Proper) 14. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because concentrating the litigation of the Cross-Complainant’s claims, as to which individualized facts and proof will predominate, in on particular forum is not desirable. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Class Not Manageable) 15. Velocity alleges that this action is not properly maintained as a class action because of the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Questions of Common or General Interest) 16. Velocity alleges that the FACC does not raise questions of a common or general interest; therefore, this action may not be properly maintained as a class action under § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. /f/ ae ae ‘fT /T1 ae //1 HTf 5 VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1eoarAINY Dn fF WN NN KY KY KY NY NY KY NY KH Ke ee ee Se Se Se SY DU fF WwW NRK COD OD ANI DH FWY KF CO LY 28 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON we 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 213-680-2800 WHEREFORE, Velocity prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Cross-Complainants be granted no relief in the action as sought in the FACC; 2. That judgment be entered against Cross-Complainants and in favor of Velocity on the FACC; 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DATED: December 7, 2021 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By: /s/ Justin Penn Justin Penn Michael C. Mauceri Shalini Bhasker Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross- Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-CLATMANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1045141\309679993.v1xa a w oo PROOF OF SERVICE Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X-Action Case No. 16CV300096 (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within actions; my business address is 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476. On December 7, 2021, I served the document(s) entitled WELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC’S ANSWER AND- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION CROSS-COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST @M (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY): Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Emergency Rule 12, regarding Electronic Service: Only by emailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) note above, as mandated by the Judicial Council and necessary during the declared National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 7, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. fete Mayes é ea. Robin Mojica 1045141\309681129.v1xa a w oo SERVICE LIST Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Maria Canul, et al. and X-Action Case No. 16CV300096 Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) MARIA CANUL Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, California 95112-4610 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com 1045141\309681129.v1