Preview
6729·19251
Electronically Filed
1 GERALD E. BRUNN, SBN 107004 Superior Court of California
MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA, SBN 245501 County of San Joaquin
2 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN 2020-10-13 18:11:05
A Professional Corporation Clerk: Taylor Hiedeman
3 928 - 12th Street, Suite 200
Modesto, CA 95354
4 Telephone: (209) 521-2133
Facsimile: (209) 521-7584
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant,
YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC
7 (erroneously sued herein as "YO LIES TOW")
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
11
TOM SCHIFF, CASE NO: STK-CV-UBT-2019-13554
12
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
13 COMPLAINT
v.
14
YOLIES TOW, DOES 1 -25,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Defendant, YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as "YOLIES
19 TOW"), for its answer to the First Amended Complaint herein admits, denies and alleges as follows:
20 GENERAL DENIAL
21 This answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and specifically,
22 conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations of said complaint and each and every cause of action therein.
23 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
24
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
26 1. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action fail to
27 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action.
28 ///
1
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN1'
6729-19251
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertainty)
2
2. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint and to each
3
cause of action contained therein, this answering Defendant alleges that the allegations and/or contentions
4
contained in the Complaint, and all causes of action contained therein, contain allegations and references
5
which are confusing, unintelligible and voluminous and are pled in such a vague, ambiguous and
6
unintelligible manner that the Complaint and causes of action contained therein are rendered uncertain
7 thereby precluding relief.
8 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statutes of Limitations)
9
3. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of
10
action, this answering Defendant asserts that said causes of action are barred by all applicable statutes of
11
limitations including, but not limited to the following separate and distinct sections of the California
12
Code of Civil Procedure: 335,337,337.1, 337.15, 338,339,340,343, et seq., and sections 3114, 3115,
13
3116, 3117, 3144 of the California Civil Code, and Welfare and Institutions Codes Section 15657.7.
14
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Lack of Jurisdiction)
16 4. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of action,
17 this answering Defendant asserts that the Court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
18 Complaint and/or the Defendant in this case.
19 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Standing)
20
5. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of
21
action, this answering Defendant asserts that Complainant's causes of action are barred, in whole or in
22
part, by Complainant's general lack of standing and Complainant's particular lack of standing for filing
23
under an allegedly assigned cause of action which was improperly and unlawfully assigned.
24
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Waiver)
26 6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of
27 action, this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application
28 of the doctrine of waiver.
2
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6729-19251
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
2
7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
3
this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application of the
4
doctrine of estoppel.
5
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Unclean Hands)
7 8, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
8 this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application of the
9 doctrine of unclean hands.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Damages)
11
9, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
12
this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant has sustained no damages, whatsoever, as a result of
13
the conduct and events alleged in the Complaint.
14
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Speculative Damages)
16 10, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
17 this answering Defendant assert that Complainant is barred from relief, in whole or in part, because the
18 alleged damages, if any, are speculative and impossible to ascertain.
19 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
20
21 11. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
22 this answering Defendant asserts that Complainant, with full knowledge of all the facts in any way
23 connected with or relating to the matter alleged against this answering Defendant in the Complaint, duly
24 ratified, acquiesced, and confirmed in all respects the conduct and actions of this answering Defendant
25 alleged in the Complaint.
26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendant's Duties Met)
27
28 12. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
3
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6729-19251
1 this answering Defendant alleges that said answering Defendant has met its duty of good faith and fair
2 dealing.
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Privity)
4
13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
5
this answering Defendant alleges that there is no privity of contract between Cross~ Complainant and this
6
answering Defendant.
7
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Offset)
9 14. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
10 this answering Defendant alleges that Defendant has been required to pay sums of money to complete the
11 services Complainant promised to perform. Defendant demands that all sums paid to complete
12 Complainant's work be set off against the sums Defendant is required to pay Complainant if any there be.
13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mistake)
14
15. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
15
this answering Defendant asserts that the Complaint and each cause of action thereof is barred and no
16
cause of action is stated because of a mutual and/or unilateral mistake of the parties in entering the
17
contract, if any, described in the Complaint.
18
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Violation of Public Policy)
20
16. By Complainant's own acts, conduct and omissions, Complainant has waived whatever
21
rights Complainant might have had based on the allegations of the Complaint against this answering
22
Defendant. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
23
cause of action against this answering Defendant in that the contract, if any, was altered without
24
Defendant's consent. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof is void and fails to state a cause of
25
action against this answering Defendant in that it is contrary to public policy and good morals.
26
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (Reservation of Rights)
28 17. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action,
4
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6729-19251
1 this answering Defendant reserves the right to make any and all applicable defenses which will become
2 available during discovery or trial.
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Doctrine of Waiver, Estoppel and Consent)
4
18. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are
5
barred by the doctrine of waiver, estoppel and consent.
6
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Doctrine of Laches)
8 19. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are
9 barred by the doctrine of laches.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
11
20. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are
12
barred either in whole or in part by plaintiffs failure to mitigate any alleged damages.
13
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments)
15 21. This answering defendant alleges that any award of punitive damages as sought by plaintiff
16 would violate the due process and excessive fine clauses of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
17 of the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the State of California.
18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts or Omissions of Plaintiff)
19
20 22. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this
21 answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from relief because any loss or
22 harm Plaintiff may have suffered was caused by acts or omissions of Plaintiff, and was not caused or was
23 not wholly caused by any act or omission of this answering Defendant.
24
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Comparative Fault-Plaintiff)
26 23. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this
27 answering Defendant asserts the affirmative defenses of comparative fault in that Plaintiff was careless
28 and negligent in and about the matters referenced to in the Complaint and said carelessness and
5
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6729-19251
1 negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately and legally contributed to and/or was the sole proximate
2 and legal contributing cause of the matters referred to in the Complaint and any resulting damages or
3 injuries, if any there be.
4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts or Omissions of Third Parties)
5
24. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this
6
answering Defendant is informed and believes that the damages or harm, if any, sustained herein were the
7
result of negligence, strict liability, fault and/or responsibility of persons, corporations, partnerships, or
8
entities other than this answering Defendant and the acts, omissions, or liability of such were the sole
9
proximate cause of the alleged damage or harm, if any, claimed in this action. In addition, this answering
10
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the alleged injuries or damages suffered by
11
Plaintiff, if any there be, were the sole and proximate result of the willful misconduct of parties other than
12
this answering Defendant.
13
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Intervening/Superseding Cause)
15 25. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this
16 answering Defendant asserts that any cause of action Plaintiff might have is barred by intervening and/or
17 superseding cause(s) not related to or under the control of this answering Defendant.
18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)
19
20 26. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this
21 answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs causes of action are barred by Plaintiffs implied and express
22 consent.
23 PRAYER
24 WHEREFORE, defendant prays for Judgment as follows:
25 1. Plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint;
26 2. Defendant be awarded costs of suit;
27 Ill
28 Ill
6
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6729-19251
1 3. For attorneys' fees as provided by law or contract; and
2 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
3 Dated: October 13, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN
A Professional Corporation
4
5 ~~
By: _....,,..s~-==------ -~-----------
6 4vfAHANVIRs.SAH
Attorney for Defendant,
7 YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC
(erroneously sued herein as "YO LIES TOW")
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 K:\docs\CASES\6729-19251 \PLEADINGS\Answer to 1' t Amended Complaint
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
3
I, CINDY SMITH, declare that:
4
I am employed in the County of Stanislaus, California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years
5 and not a party to the within action, My business address is 928 12th Street, Suite 200, Modesto,
California, 95353,
6
On October 13, 2020, I served the within:
7
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8
on the interested parties as follows:
9
Lauren F. Weidner
10 750 Otay Lakes Road, #24 2
Chula Vista, CA 91913
11 (916) 977-0090
(916) 656-6966 - FAX
12
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
13
xx U.S. Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
14 designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the
mail is deposited in a U.S. Mailbox in the City of Modesto, California after the close of the
15 day's business.
16 ___ United Parcel Service - Next Day Air
17 ___ Express Mail
18 __ FAX
19 ___ Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
21
Executed on October 13, 2020, at Modesto, California.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
6729·19251 Electronically Filed 1 GERALD E. BRUNN, SBN 107004 Superior Court of California MAHANVIR S. SAHOTA, SBN 245501 County of San Joaquin 2 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN 2020-10-13 18:11:05 A Professional Corporation Clerk: Taylor Hiedeman 3 928 - 12th Street, Suite 200 Modesto, CA 95354 4 Telephone: (209) 521-2133 Facsimile: (209) 521-7584 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant, YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC 7 (erroneously sued herein as "YO LIES TOW") 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 11 TOM SCHIFF, CASE NO: STK-CV-UBT-2019-13554 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT v. 14 YOLIES TOW, DOES 1 -25, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Defendant, YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as "YOLIES 19 TOW"), for its answer to the First Amended Complaint herein admits, denies and alleges as follows: 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 This answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and specifically, 22 conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations of said complaint and each and every cause of action therein. 23 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 24 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 26 1. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action fail to 27 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action. 28 /// 1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN1' 6729-19251 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uncertainty) 2 2. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint and to each 3 cause of action contained therein, this answering Defendant alleges that the allegations and/or contentions 4 contained in the Complaint, and all causes of action contained therein, contain allegations and references 5 which are confusing, unintelligible and voluminous and are pled in such a vague, ambiguous and 6 unintelligible manner that the Complaint and causes of action contained therein are rendered uncertain 7 thereby precluding relief. 8 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statutes of Limitations) 9 3. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of 10 action, this answering Defendant asserts that said causes of action are barred by all applicable statutes of 11 limitations including, but not limited to the following separate and distinct sections of the California 12 Code of Civil Procedure: 335,337,337.1, 337.15, 338,339,340,343, et seq., and sections 3114, 3115, 13 3116, 3117, 3144 of the California Civil Code, and Welfare and Institutions Codes Section 15657.7. 14 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Lack of Jurisdiction) 16 4. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of action, 17 this answering Defendant asserts that the Court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 18 Complaint and/or the Defendant in this case. 19 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Standing) 20 5. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of 21 action, this answering Defendant asserts that Complainant's causes of action are barred, in whole or in 22 part, by Complainant's general lack of standing and Complainant's particular lack of standing for filing 23 under an allegedly assigned cause of action which was improperly and unlawfully assigned. 24 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Waiver) 26 6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of the Complainant's causes of 27 action, this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application 28 of the doctrine of waiver. 2 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6729-19251 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 2 7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 3 this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application of the 4 doctrine of estoppel. 5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Unclean Hands) 7 8, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 8 this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant's causes of action are barred by the application of the 9 doctrine of unclean hands. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Damages) 11 9, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 12 this answering Defendant alleges that Complainant has sustained no damages, whatsoever, as a result of 13 the conduct and events alleged in the Complaint. 14 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Speculative Damages) 16 10, As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 17 this answering Defendant assert that Complainant is barred from relief, in whole or in part, because the 18 alleged damages, if any, are speculative and impossible to ascertain. 19 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification) 20 21 11. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 22 this answering Defendant asserts that Complainant, with full knowledge of all the facts in any way 23 connected with or relating to the matter alleged against this answering Defendant in the Complaint, duly 24 ratified, acquiesced, and confirmed in all respects the conduct and actions of this answering Defendant 25 alleged in the Complaint. 26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendant's Duties Met) 27 28 12. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 3 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6729-19251 1 this answering Defendant alleges that said answering Defendant has met its duty of good faith and fair 2 dealing. 3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Privity) 4 13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 5 this answering Defendant alleges that there is no privity of contract between Cross~ Complainant and this 6 answering Defendant. 7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Offset) 9 14. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 10 this answering Defendant alleges that Defendant has been required to pay sums of money to complete the 11 services Complainant promised to perform. Defendant demands that all sums paid to complete 12 Complainant's work be set off against the sums Defendant is required to pay Complainant if any there be. 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mistake) 14 15. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 15 this answering Defendant asserts that the Complaint and each cause of action thereof is barred and no 16 cause of action is stated because of a mutual and/or unilateral mistake of the parties in entering the 17 contract, if any, described in the Complaint. 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Violation of Public Policy) 20 16. By Complainant's own acts, conduct and omissions, Complainant has waived whatever 21 rights Complainant might have had based on the allegations of the Complaint against this answering 22 Defendant. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a 23 cause of action against this answering Defendant in that the contract, if any, was altered without 24 Defendant's consent. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof is void and fails to state a cause of 25 action against this answering Defendant in that it is contrary to public policy and good morals. 26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Reservation of Rights) 28 17. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Complainant's causes of action, 4 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6729-19251 1 this answering Defendant reserves the right to make any and all applicable defenses which will become 2 available during discovery or trial. 3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Doctrine of Waiver, Estoppel and Consent) 4 18. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are 5 barred by the doctrine of waiver, estoppel and consent. 6 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Doctrine of Laches) 8 19. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are 9 barred by the doctrine of laches. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 11 20. This answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each of its causes of action are 12 barred either in whole or in part by plaintiffs failure to mitigate any alleged damages. 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) 15 21. This answering defendant alleges that any award of punitive damages as sought by plaintiff 16 would violate the due process and excessive fine clauses of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 17 of the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the State of California. 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts or Omissions of Plaintiff) 19 20 22. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this 21 answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from relief because any loss or 22 harm Plaintiff may have suffered was caused by acts or omissions of Plaintiff, and was not caused or was 23 not wholly caused by any act or omission of this answering Defendant. 24 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Comparative Fault-Plaintiff) 26 23. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this 27 answering Defendant asserts the affirmative defenses of comparative fault in that Plaintiff was careless 28 and negligent in and about the matters referenced to in the Complaint and said carelessness and 5 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6729-19251 1 negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately and legally contributed to and/or was the sole proximate 2 and legal contributing cause of the matters referred to in the Complaint and any resulting damages or 3 injuries, if any there be. 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties) 5 24. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this 6 answering Defendant is informed and believes that the damages or harm, if any, sustained herein were the 7 result of negligence, strict liability, fault and/or responsibility of persons, corporations, partnerships, or 8 entities other than this answering Defendant and the acts, omissions, or liability of such were the sole 9 proximate cause of the alleged damage or harm, if any, claimed in this action. In addition, this answering 10 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the alleged injuries or damages suffered by 11 Plaintiff, if any there be, were the sole and proximate result of the willful misconduct of parties other than 12 this answering Defendant. 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Intervening/Superseding Cause) 15 25. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this 16 answering Defendant asserts that any cause of action Plaintiff might have is barred by intervening and/or 17 superseding cause(s) not related to or under the control of this answering Defendant. 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) 19 20 26. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to each of Plaintiffs causes of action, this 21 answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs causes of action are barred by Plaintiffs implied and express 22 consent. 23 PRAYER 24 WHEREFORE, defendant prays for Judgment as follows: 25 1. Plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint; 26 2. Defendant be awarded costs of suit; 27 Ill 28 Ill 6 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6729-19251 1 3. For attorneys' fees as provided by law or contract; and 2 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 3 Dated: October 13, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF BRUNN & FLYNN A Professional Corporation 4 5 ~~ By: _....,,..s~-==------ -~----------- 6 4vfAHANVIRs.SAH Attorney for Defendant, 7 YOLIE'S TOWING & TRANSPORT LLC (erroneously sued herein as "YO LIES TOW") 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 K:\docs\CASES\6729-19251 \PLEADINGS\Answer to 1' t Amended Complaint 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 3 I, CINDY SMITH, declare that: 4 I am employed in the County of Stanislaus, California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years 5 and not a party to the within action, My business address is 928 12th Street, Suite 200, Modesto, California, 95353, 6 On October 13, 2020, I served the within: 7 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8 on the interested parties as follows: 9 Lauren F. Weidner 10 750 Otay Lakes Road, #24 2 Chula Vista, CA 91913 11 (916) 977-0090 (916) 656-6966 - FAX 12 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 13 xx U.S. Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the 14 designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the mail is deposited in a U.S. Mailbox in the City of Modesto, California after the close of the 15 day's business. 16 ___ United Parcel Service - Next Day Air 17 ___ Express Mail 18 __ FAX 19 ___ Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed on October 13, 2020, at Modesto, California. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28