Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
1 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com 2/10/2022 6:42 PM
2 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1550
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487
Telephone: (602)281-3400
4 Facsimile: (602)281-3401
5 Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190)
E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com
6 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
7 San Diego, California 92121
Telephone: (858)597-9600
8 Facsimile: (858)597-9601
Attorneys for Defendants, UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, Inc.; Kenneth
9 W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.;
WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION
13 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware CASE NO.: 20CV03877
limited liability company, [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
14
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
15 Donna D. Geck, Department 4
v.
16 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
17 company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington
18 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an [Filed concurrently with the Declaration of
individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an Kathryn M. Evans]
19 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an
individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an DATE: February 18, 2022
20 individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m.
an individual; WESTELE UTILITY Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020
21 SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited Removal Filed: January 4, 2021
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, FAC Filed: April 16, 2021
22 inclusive, SAC Filed: November 15, 2021
Trial Date: Not Set
23 Defendants.
24
25 As set forth in detail in Defendants’ moving papers, Plaintiff Butler America, LLC’s
26 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was improperly filed without leave of court or agreement
27 of Defendants on November 15, 2021. Accordingly, Defendants filed their motion to strike the
28 ///
1
DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT
FP 43074767.1
1 SAC on November 19, 2021. Defendants also filed a separately pending motion for sanctions
2 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 on November 19, 2021.
3 Defendants’ Motion to Strike was (and is) well founded, as this Court acknowledged in
4 its December 3, 2021 ruling on Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
5 that “the SAC was not filed as of right pursuant to section 472.” (Supplemental Declaration of
6 Kathryn M. Evans (“Evans Decl.”) ¶2, Ex. A.) Nonetheless, the Court construed the filing of the
7 SAC as a concession that the demurrer to the FAC was in some part meritorious and deemed the
8 SAC as filed following the sustaining of the demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend. (Ibid.)
9 The SAC was deemed filed as of December 3, 2021. (Ibid.) Despite this ruling, the Court kept
10 the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Strike the SAC on calendar and explicitly acknowledged
11 the upcoming hearing on the Motion to Strike in the December 3, 2021 ruling. (Ibid.)
12 The Court’s December 3, 2021 ruling regarding the SAC created a potential procedural
13 issue with regard to Defendants’ pending Section 128.7 Motion for Sanctions. Defendants filed
14 their Section 128.7 Motion based upon deficiencies in the FAC prior to Court’s December 3,
15 2021 order which agreed that the SAC was improperly filed but deemed the SAC as filed. The
16 Section 128.7 Motion has not been fully briefed and oral argument is set for February 25, 2022.
17 It is Defendants’ position that Plaintiff’s improperly filed SAC does not impact the
18 Section 128.7 Motion. First, the SAC was deemed filed as of December 3, 2021, well outside
19 the safe harbor period for Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. The safe harbor period expired on
20 November 18, 2021. Moreover, aside from Plaintiff’s failure to seek leave or agreement from
21 Defendants to file the SAC, the SAC does not resolve any of the deficiencies raised in
22 Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. (See Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428,
23 447-448 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions based on an amended
24 pleading filed after the Defendants filed a Section 128.7 Motion and without a new safe harbor
25 period because both the original and the amended pleading contained the same frivolous claims,
26 the Plaintiff had notice of the defects, and the Plaintiff had the benefit of the safe harbor period
27 for the original pleading].)
28 ///
2
DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT
FP 43074767.1
1 The very same deficiencies that were present in the Complaint and the FAC continue to
2 be present in the SAC. 1 The only changes Plaintiff made from the FAC to the SAC are:
3 Removal of the third cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets (Civil
4 Code §3426 et seq.);
5 “Find and replace” of the term “trade secret” to “confidential information;” and
6 Addition of causes of action for conversion and intentional interference with
7 contractual relations.2
8 These amendments did not resolve any the deficiencies raised in Defendants’
9 Section 128.7 Motion. Instead, Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion was based upon (1) Plaintiff’s
10 improper inclusion of multiple non-resident defendants with little to no connection to the state of
11 California; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to allege the requisite level of facts to properly plead any cause
12 of action against all of the Defendants; (3) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with its obligations under
13 Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 to identify the trade secrets at issue; and (4) Plaintiff’s
14 inclusion of false or misleading statements in its pleading. Plaintiff’s filing of the SAC did not
15 address the jurisdiction issues, add any additional facts, address Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
16 Section 2019.210, or remove the false and misleading statements identified in Defendants’
17 Section 128.7 Motion. In short, the SAC did not make any substantive changes that would impact
18 the Court’s analysis of Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. As set forth more fully in the
19 Section 128.7 Motion, the numerous deficiencies contained within the FAC, and now the SAC,
20 can lead the Court to only one conclusion - that Plaintiff either failed to conduct a proper
21 ///
22
1
It is also worth noting that the SAC continues to include claims involving Defendant Jimmie
23 Garrett Baker, Jr., despite this Court ordering any claims involving Mr. Baker to binding
arbitration on October 5, 2021. Notably, despite Plaintiff’s stipulation to binding arbitration,
24 Mr. Baker is still named in the caption of the SAC, identified in the “Parties” section of the SAC,
referenced multiple times throughout the body of the SAC, and causes of action five through
25 eight are alleged against “all Defendants” - which presumably includes Mr. Baker as he is still
named in the caption.
26 2
Plaintiff included these two causes of action in its original Complaint. Defendants then filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that these two causes of action (and multiple others as well)
27 were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Out of tacit recognition that the
claims were improper, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint removing the conversion and
28 intentional interference with contractual relations causes of action.
3
DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT
FP 43074767.1
1 investigation prior to filing this lawsuit or knowingly brought (and maintained) this suit against
2 Defendants without evidence to support its claims.
3 Out of an abundance of caution, Defendants attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff
4 on the potential procedural issue. First, due to Plaintiff’s consistent pattern and practice of
5 needlessly increasing motion practice by failing to properly amend its deficient pleadings and
6 thereby forcing Defendants to file Motions to Dismiss or Demurrers (four motions in total),
7 Defendants’ asked Plaintiff to confirm that Plaintiff would not be seeking any further leave to
8 amend its pleadings to re-add a trade secret cause of action or add any additional “facts” to
9 support the existing causes of action. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶4, Ex. C.) In response, Plaintiff’s
10 counsel stated that Plaintiff will continue to request leave of Court to further amend the
11 Complaint if Defendant’s pending Demurrer to the SAC is sustained. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶5,
12 Ex. D.)
13 Defendants then informed Plaintiff of the potential procedural issue and stated that
14 Defendants were unable to withdraw the Motion to Strike the SAC in light of the December 3,
15 2021 ruling because withdrawing the Motion to Strike could potentially impact the Section 128.7
16 Motion. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶7. Ex. F.) Defendants requested Plaintiff stipulate that the pending
17 Section 128.7 Motion would remain in full force and effect as to the SAC. (Ibid.) This
18 stipulation could have resolved the procedural issues and Defendants could have then withdrawn
19 the Motion to Strike. Plaintiff refused to agree to the stipulation as proposed. (Supp. Evans Decl.
20 ¶8, Ex. G.)
21 While we do not presume to know how the Court will rule on these issues, it is
22 Defendants’ belief that the Court did not intend to moot Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion by
23 virtue of deeming Plaintiff’s SAC as filed. Accordingly, while we understand the Court’s ruling
24 on the instant Motion to Strike will likely be to deny to strike the SAC (as it has already been
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4
DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT
FP 43074767.1
1 deemed filed), we respectfully request the Court to clarify in its ruling that its deeming of the
2 SAC as filed does not impact Defendants’ pending Section 128.7 Motion.
3 DATE: February 10, 2022 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4
5 By:
l
Shayna Balch Santiago
6 Kathryn M. Evans
Attorneys for UCOMMG, LLC; Unified
7 Communications Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt;
Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J.
8 Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele Utility
Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT
FP 43074767.1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5)
2
I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed
3 in the County of San Diego with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address
is 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000, San Diego, California 92121.
4
On February 10, 2022, I served the following document(s) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
5 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
6
COMPLAINT on the person(s) listed below by placing
enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: □ the original a true copy thereof
7 Paul P. Young Telephone: (626)744-1838
Joseph Chora Facsimile: (626)744-3167
8 Cameron H. Totten E-Mail: paul@cym.law; joseph@cym.law;
Armen Manasserian cameron@cym.law; armen@cym.law;
9 Scott O’Halloran scott@cym.law
CHORA YOUNG LLP Attorneys for Butler America, LLC
10 650 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Suite 304
Pasadena, California 91107
11 [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to
the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection
12 and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this
business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
13 same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Diego California,
14 in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
[by FAX] - Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
15 I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at fax number(s) listed above from fax number
(858) 597-9601. The fax reported no errors. A copy of the transmission report is attached.
16 [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package
provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es)
17 listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an
office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier.
18 [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties
to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to
19 the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above.
[by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
20 §1010.6(e)(1), I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic
service address(es) listed above.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
22 foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed February 10, 2022, at San Diego, California.
24 Susan E. Valle By:
Print Name Signature
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
FP 43074767.1
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara 1 Shayna Balch Santiago (SBN 304802) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer E-Mail: ssantiago@fisherphillips.com 2/10/2022 6:42 PM 2 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1550 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2487 Telephone: (602)281-3400 4 Facsimile: (602)281-3401 5 Kathryn M. Evans (SBN 323190) E-Mail: kmevans@fisherphillips.com 6 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 7 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858)597-9600 8 Facsimile: (858)597-9601 Attorneys for Defendants, UCOMMG, LLC; Unified Communications Group, Inc.; Kenneth 9 W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION 13 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware CASE NO.: 20CV03877 limited liability company, [Unlimited Jurisdiction] 14 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable 15 Donna D. Geck, Department 4 v. 16 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 17 company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington 18 corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an [Filed concurrently with the Declaration of individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an Kathryn M. Evans] 19 individual; MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an individual; MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an DATE: February 18, 2022 20 individual; JIMMIE GARRETT BAKER, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m. an individual; WESTELE UTILITY Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020 21 SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited Removal Filed: January 4, 2021 liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, FAC Filed: April 16, 2021 22 inclusive, SAC Filed: November 15, 2021 Trial Date: Not Set 23 Defendants. 24 25 As set forth in detail in Defendants’ moving papers, Plaintiff Butler America, LLC’s 26 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was improperly filed without leave of court or agreement 27 of Defendants on November 15, 2021. Accordingly, Defendants filed their motion to strike the 28 /// 1 DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT FP 43074767.1 1 SAC on November 19, 2021. Defendants also filed a separately pending motion for sanctions 2 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 on November 19, 2021. 3 Defendants’ Motion to Strike was (and is) well founded, as this Court acknowledged in 4 its December 3, 2021 ruling on Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 5 that “the SAC was not filed as of right pursuant to section 472.” (Supplemental Declaration of 6 Kathryn M. Evans (“Evans Decl.”) ¶2, Ex. A.) Nonetheless, the Court construed the filing of the 7 SAC as a concession that the demurrer to the FAC was in some part meritorious and deemed the 8 SAC as filed following the sustaining of the demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend. (Ibid.) 9 The SAC was deemed filed as of December 3, 2021. (Ibid.) Despite this ruling, the Court kept 10 the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Strike the SAC on calendar and explicitly acknowledged 11 the upcoming hearing on the Motion to Strike in the December 3, 2021 ruling. (Ibid.) 12 The Court’s December 3, 2021 ruling regarding the SAC created a potential procedural 13 issue with regard to Defendants’ pending Section 128.7 Motion for Sanctions. Defendants filed 14 their Section 128.7 Motion based upon deficiencies in the FAC prior to Court’s December 3, 15 2021 order which agreed that the SAC was improperly filed but deemed the SAC as filed. The 16 Section 128.7 Motion has not been fully briefed and oral argument is set for February 25, 2022. 17 It is Defendants’ position that Plaintiff’s improperly filed SAC does not impact the 18 Section 128.7 Motion. First, the SAC was deemed filed as of December 3, 2021, well outside 19 the safe harbor period for Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. The safe harbor period expired on 20 November 18, 2021. Moreover, aside from Plaintiff’s failure to seek leave or agreement from 21 Defendants to file the SAC, the SAC does not resolve any of the deficiencies raised in 22 Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. (See Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 23 447-448 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions based on an amended 24 pleading filed after the Defendants filed a Section 128.7 Motion and without a new safe harbor 25 period because both the original and the amended pleading contained the same frivolous claims, 26 the Plaintiff had notice of the defects, and the Plaintiff had the benefit of the safe harbor period 27 for the original pleading].) 28 /// 2 DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT FP 43074767.1 1 The very same deficiencies that were present in the Complaint and the FAC continue to 2 be present in the SAC. 1 The only changes Plaintiff made from the FAC to the SAC are: 3 Removal of the third cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets (Civil 4 Code §3426 et seq.); 5 “Find and replace” of the term “trade secret” to “confidential information;” and 6 Addition of causes of action for conversion and intentional interference with 7 contractual relations.2 8 These amendments did not resolve any the deficiencies raised in Defendants’ 9 Section 128.7 Motion. Instead, Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion was based upon (1) Plaintiff’s 10 improper inclusion of multiple non-resident defendants with little to no connection to the state of 11 California; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to allege the requisite level of facts to properly plead any cause 12 of action against all of the Defendants; (3) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with its obligations under 13 Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 to identify the trade secrets at issue; and (4) Plaintiff’s 14 inclusion of false or misleading statements in its pleading. Plaintiff’s filing of the SAC did not 15 address the jurisdiction issues, add any additional facts, address Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 16 Section 2019.210, or remove the false and misleading statements identified in Defendants’ 17 Section 128.7 Motion. In short, the SAC did not make any substantive changes that would impact 18 the Court’s analysis of Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion. As set forth more fully in the 19 Section 128.7 Motion, the numerous deficiencies contained within the FAC, and now the SAC, 20 can lead the Court to only one conclusion - that Plaintiff either failed to conduct a proper 21 /// 22 1 It is also worth noting that the SAC continues to include claims involving Defendant Jimmie 23 Garrett Baker, Jr., despite this Court ordering any claims involving Mr. Baker to binding arbitration on October 5, 2021. Notably, despite Plaintiff’s stipulation to binding arbitration, 24 Mr. Baker is still named in the caption of the SAC, identified in the “Parties” section of the SAC, referenced multiple times throughout the body of the SAC, and causes of action five through 25 eight are alleged against “all Defendants” - which presumably includes Mr. Baker as he is still named in the caption. 26 2 Plaintiff included these two causes of action in its original Complaint. Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that these two causes of action (and multiple others as well) 27 were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Out of tacit recognition that the claims were improper, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint removing the conversion and 28 intentional interference with contractual relations causes of action. 3 DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT FP 43074767.1 1 investigation prior to filing this lawsuit or knowingly brought (and maintained) this suit against 2 Defendants without evidence to support its claims. 3 Out of an abundance of caution, Defendants attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff 4 on the potential procedural issue. First, due to Plaintiff’s consistent pattern and practice of 5 needlessly increasing motion practice by failing to properly amend its deficient pleadings and 6 thereby forcing Defendants to file Motions to Dismiss or Demurrers (four motions in total), 7 Defendants’ asked Plaintiff to confirm that Plaintiff would not be seeking any further leave to 8 amend its pleadings to re-add a trade secret cause of action or add any additional “facts” to 9 support the existing causes of action. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶4, Ex. C.) In response, Plaintiff’s 10 counsel stated that Plaintiff will continue to request leave of Court to further amend the 11 Complaint if Defendant’s pending Demurrer to the SAC is sustained. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶5, 12 Ex. D.) 13 Defendants then informed Plaintiff of the potential procedural issue and stated that 14 Defendants were unable to withdraw the Motion to Strike the SAC in light of the December 3, 15 2021 ruling because withdrawing the Motion to Strike could potentially impact the Section 128.7 16 Motion. (Supp. Evans Decl. ¶7. Ex. F.) Defendants requested Plaintiff stipulate that the pending 17 Section 128.7 Motion would remain in full force and effect as to the SAC. (Ibid.) This 18 stipulation could have resolved the procedural issues and Defendants could have then withdrawn 19 the Motion to Strike. Plaintiff refused to agree to the stipulation as proposed. (Supp. Evans Decl. 20 ¶8, Ex. G.) 21 While we do not presume to know how the Court will rule on these issues, it is 22 Defendants’ belief that the Court did not intend to moot Defendants’ Section 128.7 Motion by 23 virtue of deeming Plaintiff’s SAC as filed. Accordingly, while we understand the Court’s ruling 24 on the instant Motion to Strike will likely be to deny to strike the SAC (as it has already been 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT FP 43074767.1 1 deemed filed), we respectfully request the Court to clarify in its ruling that its deeming of the 2 SAC as filed does not impact Defendants’ pending Section 128.7 Motion. 3 DATE: February 10, 2022 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4 5 By: l Shayna Balch Santiago 6 Kathryn M. Evans Attorneys for UCOMMG, LLC; Unified 7 Communications Group, Inc.; Kenneth W. Newbatt; Bianca Newbatt; Mitchell C. Lipkin; Michael J. 8 Bellas; Jimmie Garrett Baker, Jr.; WesTele Utility Solutions, LLC; and Cynthia Baker 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO STRIKE PLTF’S 2ND AMND COMPLAINT FP 43074767.1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5) 2 I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed 3 in the County of San Diego with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address is 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000, San Diego, California 92121. 4 On February 10, 2022, I served the following document(s) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN 5 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 6 COMPLAINT on the person(s) listed below by placing enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: □ the original a true copy thereof 7 Paul P. Young Telephone: (626)744-1838 Joseph Chora Facsimile: (626)744-3167 8 Cameron H. Totten E-Mail: paul@cym.law; joseph@cym.law; Armen Manasserian cameron@cym.law; armen@cym.law; 9 Scott O’Halloran scott@cym.law CHORA YOUNG LLP Attorneys for Butler America, LLC 10 650 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Suite 304 Pasadena, California 91107 11 [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection 12 and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the 13 same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Diego California, 14 in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. [by FAX] - Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, 15 I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at fax number(s) listed above from fax number (858) 597-9601. The fax reported no errors. A copy of the transmission report is attached. 16 [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) 17 listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier. 18 [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to 19 the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 20 §1010.6(e)(1), I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed February 10, 2022, at San Diego, California. 24 Susan E. Valle By: Print Name Signature 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE FP 43074767.1