Preview
e it ll | IO C |
515189"
MARIA A. CARUANA, Esgq., SBN 139901
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD
FILED
Ne
P.O. Box 64093
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0093 ALAMED, COL: 4
iTy
Physical Address:
WD
40] Lennon Lane, Suite 125
JUL 02 den...
2021
SP
Walnut Creek, California 94598
Telephone No:(925) 945-449]
CLERK
OF Tah —
By L's UESY AT
WwW
Facsimile No: (855) 668-5559
HD
Deruty
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant,
PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
1
©
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
LETICIA MONTES, Case No: RG20082639
Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM
TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
Vv.
PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC; 1. Partial Indemnity
and DOES 1-100, 2. Full Equitable Indemnity
3. Declaratory Relief
Defendants. 4. Contractual Indemnity
Complaint filed: December 11, 2020
PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC,
Cross-Complainant,
Vv.
ROES 1 through 10,
Cross-Defendants.
e
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-]-
COMES NOW CROSS-COMPLAINANT PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
(“Cross-Complainant’”) and alleges as follows as to each and every cross-defendant.
NY
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Ww
(Partial Indemnity against all Cross-Defendants)
FP
1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of
WO
Cross-Defendants ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to the Cross Complainant, who
HD
therefore sues said Cross-Defendants by such fictitious names. The Cross-Complainant is informed
~
wo
and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the Cross-Defendants so
designated are negligently, strictly or vicariously liable for the events and happenings referred to
Oo
herein, and by such conduct, proximately caused the injuries and damages to the plaintiffs and/or
fan)
Cross-Complainant as hereinafter alleged. The Cross-Complainants will amend the cross-complaint to
—_
allege the true names and capacities of said Cross-Defendants when the same has been ascertained.
NO
2. That on or about December 11, 2020, Plaintiff LETICIA MONTES, filed a complaint in
eS)
the above-entitled court naming Cross-Complainant and others as Defendants. Without admitting the
aay
truth of the allegations contained in said complaint, and for the purposes of reference only, the
nr
complaint is incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
lon)
3. The aforementioned complaint alleges, inter alia, states that this Cross-Complainant is
~
liable along with other Defendants, for the alleged injuries and damages complained to have been
co
suffered by the Plaintiffs arising out of the incident that occurred on or about September 28, 2017.
\o
4. Cross-Complainant has denied all of the allegations in the complaint and has
oO
specifically denied that it was negligent, careless, or at fault and that the Plaintiff was injured or
—
damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever by reason of any act or omission by this Cross-Complainant.
N
However, if the Cross-Complainant is found liable to the Plaintiffs, based on any of the allegations in
(es)
the complaint, or any other party to this action, this Cross-Complainant would be responsible only for a
-
portion of the damages alleged based upon the percentage of negligence or fault attributable to Cross-
in
Complainant in these proceedings.
n
ll
~
Ii
oo
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-2-
|
] ‘
e e
The remaining percentage of negligence or fault is that of Cross-Defendants ROES 10 to 25,
inclusive, and each of them, in the negligent or wrongful performance or failing to perform those acts
specified in the complaint. By their respective acts and failures to act, Cross-Defendants, and each of
Ww
them, knew or should have known that such actions would result in injuries to Plaintiff.
&
-
5. In the event Cross-Complainant are held liable to the Plaintiffs based on any of the
WA
allegations of the complaint, Cross-Complainant is entitled to partial indemnity from the Cross-
HD
Defendants in accordance with the percentage of fault attributable to each.
SY
WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays as set forth below.
Oo
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Oo
10 (Equitable Indemnity against all Cross-Defendants)
iv 6. Cross-Complainant incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 |.
12 through 5 of the First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth at this point.
13 7. Cross-Complainant has denied all of the allegations in the complaint and has
14 specifically denied that Cross-Complainant was negligent, careless, or at fault and that the Plaintiff
15 were injured or damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever by reason of any act or omission by this
16 cross-complainant. However, if Cross-Complainant is found liable to the Plaintiff, based on any of the
17 allegations of the complaint, or any other party to this action, said liability would arise out of conduct
18 by Cross-Complainant of a passive nature and upon the primary and active conduct, negligence, or
19 fault of Cross-Defendants, ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, in the negligent or
20 wrongful performance or failing to perform those acts specified in the complaint. By their respective
21 acts and failures to act, Cross-Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that such
22 actions would result in injuries to Plaintiff.
23 8. In the event Cross-Complainant is held liable to the Plaintiff based on any of the
24 allegations of the complaint, Cross-Complainant is entitled to full indemnity from the Cross-
Defendants.
26 Ml
27 IH
28 Mit
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-3-
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief against all Cross-Defendants)
NWN
9. Cross-Complainant incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs |
WY
through 8 of the First and Second Causes of Action, as if fully set forth at this point.
FSF
10. A dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between Cross-Complainants and
Wn
Cross-Defendants, and each of them, in that Cross-Complainant claims that Cross-Defendants, and
DK
each of them, are obligated fully or partially to indemnify Cross-Complainant, for any amounts which
IN
COCO
Cross-Complainant may pay by way of judgment, settlement, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs
and other expenses as may be incurred in defense of the claims of Plaintiffs and any other Cross-
Oo
10 Complainants herein. Cross-Defendants, and each of them, dispute these contentions.
iv 11. Cross-Complainant desires a declaration of Cross-Complainants’ rights with respect to
12 whether Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are obligated to indemnify Cross-Complainants as
13 alleged above. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that Cross-
14 Complainant may ascertain Cross-Complainants’ rights with respect to Cross-Defendants, and each of
15 them, in conjunction with Plaintiff's claims herein.
16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Contractual Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants)
18 12. Cross-Complainant hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
19 paragraphs | through 5 of the GENERAL ALLEGATIONS as if fully set forth herein.
20 13. Cross-Complainant entered into certain contracts in relation with its work which is an
21 alleged subject of this incident. Defendant is presently ignorant of whether it has a right of action
22 against other individuals or entities. To the extent any contractual relationships exist which form the
23 basis for contractual indemnity, Cross-Complainant is in the process of evaluating its status. Should it
24 later be learned that such contractual indemnity obligations are owed, Cross-Complainant will amend
this Cross-Complaint to name the appropriate party(ies). In that event, Cross-Complaint alleges and
26 will allege that:
27 14. The claims made by Plaintiff here are encompassed within this indemnity provision, in
28 that they arose out of the Agreement which will be identified in the future.
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-4-
| @ @
15. | Cross-Complamant acted with reasonable care in the retention of Cross-Defendants, and.
it was neither negligent nor solely negligent in connection with Plaintiff. accident or alleged resulting
WN
injuries.
WwW
16. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2778 and Crawford v. Weather Shield
BR
Manufacturing, Inc., Cross-Defendant owes an unmediate duty to defend the claims made by Plaintiff
AN
in this action, but has refused to do so despite Cross-Complainant’s tender of its defense in this action.
HR
17. Based on refusal to provide the defense to Cross-Complainant as required under the
STD
indemnity provision in the Lease, a dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between Cross-
Oo
Complainant and Cross-Defendant in that Cross-Complainant contends it is entitled to a complete
Oo
10 defense in this action and Cross-Defendant refuses to provide that defense.
iv 18. Cross-Complainant desire a declaration of its rights with respect to whether Cross-
12 Defendants are required to defend Complainants in this action.
13 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays judgment against the Cross-Defendants, and each of
14 them, as follows:
15 1. For partial indemnification and apportionment of the respective responsibilities of
16 Cross-Defendants for any amounts which Cross-Complainant may pay by way of settlement,
17 judgment, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs and such other expenses as may be incurred in the
18 defense of the claims of Plaintiff and any other party to this action herein, in accordance with the
19 percentage of fault attributable to each;
20 2. For full mdemnification of Cross-Complainant for any amounts which Cross-
21 Complainant may pay by way of judgment, settlement, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs and
22 other such expenses as may be incurred in defense of the claims of Plaintiff and any other party to this
23 action;
24 If
25 HH
26 If
27 Hf
28 Hf
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-5-
3. For a judicial declaration that Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are obligated to
indemnify Cross-Complainant as set forth above in this cross-complaint;
NH
4. For attorneys’ fees;
WD
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
FP
6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
A
DBD
DATED: July 2, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD
YN
Oo
oOo
MARIA A. CARUANA
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant,
PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
|
YP
WY
FF
nO
DH
HA
BO
BO
DOD
-—
NY
WD
FP
TW
WO
HN
oo
CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC
-6-
Leticia Montes v. PPM Technologies Holdings, LLC, et al.
Alameda County Superior Court # RG20082639
LY
PROOF OF SERVICE
WD
F&F
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the above-captioned matter. My business address is 401 Lennon Lane, Suite 125 in
OH
Walnut Creek, California 94598.
DBO
On this date, I served the foregomg CROSS-COMPLAINT; SUMMONS TO CROSS-
SN
COMPLAINT on the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same
on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
DB
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, LETICIA
o
MONTES:
10
1] John E. Hill
Luis Landeros
12 Law Offices of John E. Hill, A-P.C.
333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
13
Oakland, CA 94621
14 EM: johnhill@hill-law-offices.com
luislanderos@hill-law-offices.com
16
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
17
CL) | By Mail: by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed
18 envelope, addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the
business address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily
19 familiar with this business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is
20 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the
United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
21 L] | By Facsimile: by having a true copy of the document(s) listed above transmitted by facsimile
to the person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The transmission
22 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile
machine.
23 L] | By Personal Service: | caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s)
24 noted above.
KI | By Electronic Service ONLY: By personally transmitting a true copy of the document(s) via
25 an electronic mail account maintained at the law firm of Law Offices of John A. Biard to the
e-mail address(es) above. The transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error.
26 C) | By Electronic Filing & Service: 1 am familiar with the business practice for electronic
service. The above described document was filed and served electronically and the
27 transmission reported as complete and without error to the parties listed on the service list with
(-] File&Serve [JOne Legal [J Santa Clara County Superior Court’s efiling website. This
28 service complies with the Court’s order in this case.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(] | By Overnight Mail. I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the above named
_ | document(s) by placing the same in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be
YK
placed for pickup by Federal Express in Walnut Creek, California.
WY
I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
F&F
foregoing is true and correct and this document was executed at Walnut Creek, California on July 2, 2021.
yy Pose
WO
Denee Pousard
DH
4
CO
o
&
KF
wet
NYO
WD
BP
DH
DB
HI
om
HW
wm
OO
OD
DR
FK&
NOD
POO
NO
KYO
WO
F&F
KO
PO
A
HN
HN
nN
KN
ao
wo
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
e it ll | IO C | 515189" MARIA A. CARUANA, Esgq., SBN 139901 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD FILED Ne P.O. Box 64093 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0093 ALAMED, COL: 4 iTy Physical Address: WD 40] Lennon Lane, Suite 125 JUL 02 den... 2021 SP Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone No:(925) 945-449] CLERK OF Tah — By L's UESY AT WwW Facsimile No: (855) 668-5559 HD Deruty Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC 1 © IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA LETICIA MONTES, Case No: RG20082639 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC Vv. PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC; 1. Partial Indemnity and DOES 1-100, 2. Full Equitable Indemnity 3. Declaratory Relief Defendants. 4. Contractual Indemnity Complaint filed: December 11, 2020 PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC, Cross-Complainant, Vv. ROES 1 through 10, Cross-Defendants. e CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -]- COMES NOW CROSS-COMPLAINANT PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC (“Cross-Complainant’”) and alleges as follows as to each and every cross-defendant. NY FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Ww (Partial Indemnity against all Cross-Defendants) FP 1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of WO Cross-Defendants ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to the Cross Complainant, who HD therefore sues said Cross-Defendants by such fictitious names. The Cross-Complainant is informed ~ wo and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the Cross-Defendants so designated are negligently, strictly or vicariously liable for the events and happenings referred to Oo herein, and by such conduct, proximately caused the injuries and damages to the plaintiffs and/or fan) Cross-Complainant as hereinafter alleged. The Cross-Complainants will amend the cross-complaint to —_ allege the true names and capacities of said Cross-Defendants when the same has been ascertained. NO 2. That on or about December 11, 2020, Plaintiff LETICIA MONTES, filed a complaint in eS) the above-entitled court naming Cross-Complainant and others as Defendants. Without admitting the aay truth of the allegations contained in said complaint, and for the purposes of reference only, the nr complaint is incorporated herein as though fully set forth. lon) 3. The aforementioned complaint alleges, inter alia, states that this Cross-Complainant is ~ liable along with other Defendants, for the alleged injuries and damages complained to have been co suffered by the Plaintiffs arising out of the incident that occurred on or about September 28, 2017. \o 4. Cross-Complainant has denied all of the allegations in the complaint and has oO specifically denied that it was negligent, careless, or at fault and that the Plaintiff was injured or — damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever by reason of any act or omission by this Cross-Complainant. N However, if the Cross-Complainant is found liable to the Plaintiffs, based on any of the allegations in (es) the complaint, or any other party to this action, this Cross-Complainant would be responsible only for a - portion of the damages alleged based upon the percentage of negligence or fault attributable to Cross- in Complainant in these proceedings. n ll ~ Ii oo CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -2- | ] ‘ e e The remaining percentage of negligence or fault is that of Cross-Defendants ROES 10 to 25, inclusive, and each of them, in the negligent or wrongful performance or failing to perform those acts specified in the complaint. By their respective acts and failures to act, Cross-Defendants, and each of Ww them, knew or should have known that such actions would result in injuries to Plaintiff. & - 5. In the event Cross-Complainant are held liable to the Plaintiffs based on any of the WA allegations of the complaint, Cross-Complainant is entitled to partial indemnity from the Cross- HD Defendants in accordance with the percentage of fault attributable to each. SY WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays as set forth below. Oo SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Oo 10 (Equitable Indemnity against all Cross-Defendants) iv 6. Cross-Complainant incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 |. 12 through 5 of the First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth at this point. 13 7. Cross-Complainant has denied all of the allegations in the complaint and has 14 specifically denied that Cross-Complainant was negligent, careless, or at fault and that the Plaintiff 15 were injured or damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever by reason of any act or omission by this 16 cross-complainant. However, if Cross-Complainant is found liable to the Plaintiff, based on any of the 17 allegations of the complaint, or any other party to this action, said liability would arise out of conduct 18 by Cross-Complainant of a passive nature and upon the primary and active conduct, negligence, or 19 fault of Cross-Defendants, ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, in the negligent or 20 wrongful performance or failing to perform those acts specified in the complaint. By their respective 21 acts and failures to act, Cross-Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that such 22 actions would result in injuries to Plaintiff. 23 8. In the event Cross-Complainant is held liable to the Plaintiff based on any of the 24 allegations of the complaint, Cross-Complainant is entitled to full indemnity from the Cross- Defendants. 26 Ml 27 IH 28 Mit CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -3- THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief against all Cross-Defendants) NWN 9. Cross-Complainant incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs | WY through 8 of the First and Second Causes of Action, as if fully set forth at this point. FSF 10. A dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between Cross-Complainants and Wn Cross-Defendants, and each of them, in that Cross-Complainant claims that Cross-Defendants, and DK each of them, are obligated fully or partially to indemnify Cross-Complainant, for any amounts which IN COCO Cross-Complainant may pay by way of judgment, settlement, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs and other expenses as may be incurred in defense of the claims of Plaintiffs and any other Cross- Oo 10 Complainants herein. Cross-Defendants, and each of them, dispute these contentions. iv 11. Cross-Complainant desires a declaration of Cross-Complainants’ rights with respect to 12 whether Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are obligated to indemnify Cross-Complainants as 13 alleged above. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that Cross- 14 Complainant may ascertain Cross-Complainants’ rights with respect to Cross-Defendants, and each of 15 them, in conjunction with Plaintiff's claims herein. 16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (Contractual Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants) 18 12. Cross-Complainant hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 19 paragraphs | through 5 of the GENERAL ALLEGATIONS as if fully set forth herein. 20 13. Cross-Complainant entered into certain contracts in relation with its work which is an 21 alleged subject of this incident. Defendant is presently ignorant of whether it has a right of action 22 against other individuals or entities. To the extent any contractual relationships exist which form the 23 basis for contractual indemnity, Cross-Complainant is in the process of evaluating its status. Should it 24 later be learned that such contractual indemnity obligations are owed, Cross-Complainant will amend this Cross-Complaint to name the appropriate party(ies). In that event, Cross-Complaint alleges and 26 will allege that: 27 14. The claims made by Plaintiff here are encompassed within this indemnity provision, in 28 that they arose out of the Agreement which will be identified in the future. CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -4- | @ @ 15. | Cross-Complamant acted with reasonable care in the retention of Cross-Defendants, and. it was neither negligent nor solely negligent in connection with Plaintiff. accident or alleged resulting WN injuries. WwW 16. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2778 and Crawford v. Weather Shield BR Manufacturing, Inc., Cross-Defendant owes an unmediate duty to defend the claims made by Plaintiff AN in this action, but has refused to do so despite Cross-Complainant’s tender of its defense in this action. HR 17. Based on refusal to provide the defense to Cross-Complainant as required under the STD indemnity provision in the Lease, a dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between Cross- Oo Complainant and Cross-Defendant in that Cross-Complainant contends it is entitled to a complete Oo 10 defense in this action and Cross-Defendant refuses to provide that defense. iv 18. Cross-Complainant desire a declaration of its rights with respect to whether Cross- 12 Defendants are required to defend Complainants in this action. 13 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays judgment against the Cross-Defendants, and each of 14 them, as follows: 15 1. For partial indemnification and apportionment of the respective responsibilities of 16 Cross-Defendants for any amounts which Cross-Complainant may pay by way of settlement, 17 judgment, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs and such other expenses as may be incurred in the 18 defense of the claims of Plaintiff and any other party to this action herein, in accordance with the 19 percentage of fault attributable to each; 20 2. For full mdemnification of Cross-Complainant for any amounts which Cross- 21 Complainant may pay by way of judgment, settlement, investigation, attorney’s fees, court costs and 22 other such expenses as may be incurred in defense of the claims of Plaintiff and any other party to this 23 action; 24 If 25 HH 26 If 27 Hf 28 Hf CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -5- 3. For a judicial declaration that Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are obligated to indemnify Cross-Complainant as set forth above in this cross-complaint; NH 4. For attorneys’ fees; WD 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and FP 6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. A DBD DATED: July 2, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD YN Oo oOo MARIA A. CARUANA Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC | YP WY FF nO DH HA BO BO DOD -— NY WD FP TW WO HN oo CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PPM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC -6- Leticia Montes v. PPM Technologies Holdings, LLC, et al. Alameda County Superior Court # RG20082639 LY PROOF OF SERVICE WD F&F I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-captioned matter. My business address is 401 Lennon Lane, Suite 125 in OH Walnut Creek, California 94598. DBO On this date, I served the foregomg CROSS-COMPLAINT; SUMMONS TO CROSS- SN COMPLAINT on the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: DB ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, LETICIA o MONTES: 10 1] John E. Hill Luis Landeros 12 Law Offices of John E. Hill, A-P.C. 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500 13 Oakland, CA 94621 14 EM: johnhill@hill-law-offices.com luislanderos@hill-law-offices.com 16 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 17 CL) | By Mail: by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed 18 envelope, addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily 19 familiar with this business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is 20 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. 21 L] | By Facsimile: by having a true copy of the document(s) listed above transmitted by facsimile to the person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The transmission 22 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. 23 L] | By Personal Service: | caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) 24 noted above. KI | By Electronic Service ONLY: By personally transmitting a true copy of the document(s) via 25 an electronic mail account maintained at the law firm of Law Offices of John A. Biard to the e-mail address(es) above. The transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error. 26 C) | By Electronic Filing & Service: 1 am familiar with the business practice for electronic service. The above described document was filed and served electronically and the 27 transmission reported as complete and without error to the parties listed on the service list with (-] File&Serve [JOne Legal [J Santa Clara County Superior Court’s efiling website. This 28 service complies with the Court’s order in this case. PROOF OF SERVICE (] | By Overnight Mail. I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the above named _ | document(s) by placing the same in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be YK placed for pickup by Federal Express in Walnut Creek, California. WY I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the F&F foregoing is true and correct and this document was executed at Walnut Creek, California on July 2, 2021. yy Pose WO Denee Pousard DH 4 CO o & KF wet NYO WD BP DH DB HI om HW wm OO OD DR FK& NOD POO NO KYO WO F&F KO PO A HN HN nN KN ao wo PROOF OF SERVICE