Verified AnswerResponseCal. Super. - 5th Dist.February 29, 2016© 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o SOMERS & SOMERS, LLP 4640 ADMIRALTY WAY, SUITE 417 MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90292 TELEPHONE (310) 306-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 306-4300 Robert H. Somers, Bar No. 038256 Richard B. Somers, Bar No. 038255 E mail: rbsomers@ somerslegal.com Attorneys for Defendants Earle Hyman, Trustee of the Earle Hyman Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and Title Trust Deed Service Company SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MERCED JERALD N.JORGENSEN, TRUSTEE OF THE GERALD B.JORGENSEN FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 14, 1988 dba JORGENSEN FINANCE, Plaintiff, V. EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN; ONKAR, INC., aCalifornia Corporation; JP INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; TITLE TRUST DEED SERVICE COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. 16CV-00796 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JERALD N.JORGENSEN, TRUSTEE OF THE GERALD B. JORGENSEN FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 14, 1988, DBA JORGENSEN FINANCE [Cross-Complaint filed concurrently] Complaint Filed: March 16, 2016 Trial Date: None set Defendant Earle Hyman, Trustee of the Earle Hyman Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Defendant” or “this Answering Defendant”), for himself alone and no other Defendants, hereby responds to the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint of Jerald N. J orgensen, Trustee of The Gerald B. Jorgensen Family Trust Dated June 14, 1988 dba Jorgensen Finance (“Plaintiffs”), as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations 1 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 2. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant admits the allegations contained therein are true. 3. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 4, In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 5. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 6. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 7. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant admits that Onkar acquired title to six parcels of real property located in Merced County, including Lot 12 referred to in said paragraph 7; and, except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the remaining allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein 8. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 2 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o 9, In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant affirmatively alleges that the documents referenced in said paragraph and attached to the Complaint speak for themselves; except as hereinabove affirmatively alleged, this Answering Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief to enable him to admit or deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph and, on that ground, denies both generally and specifically each and every remaining allegation contained therein. 10. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 11. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 12. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 13. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 14. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 15. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations 3 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o contained therein, and basing his denial on that ground, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 16. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant admits that a partial reconveyance of the Chopra Deed of Trust was never recorded as to Lot 12, and denies, both generally and specifically, that the Chopra Deed of Trust erroneously appears on record as a first priority lien on Lot 12, senior to the J orgensen Deed of Trust, and except as herein admitted and denied, this Answering Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief to enable him to admit or deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph and, on that ground, denies both generally and specifically each and every remaining allegation contained therein. 17. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 18. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 19. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 20. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 21. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 22. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant affirmatively alleges that the nature of Plaintiff's cause of action, and the relief sought in the action is set forth in the Complaint and the Complaint speaksfor itself. 4 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant repeats, re-pleads and re-alleges all of his responses in paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, as though set forth in full, and said responses are incorporated under this cause of action. 24. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant admits that the Chopra Deed of Trust is a first priority lien against Lot 12; and except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 25. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 26. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 27. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant affirmatively alleges that the claims and relief sought by Plaintiff in the lawsuit are set forth in the Complaint and the Complaint speaks for itself. Except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 28. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant affirmatively alleges that the claims and relief sought by Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are set forth in the Complaint and the Complaint speaks for itself. Except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 29. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant repeats, re-pleads and re-alleges all of his responses in paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, as though set forth in full, and said responses are incorporated under this cause of action. 5 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o 30. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 31. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 32. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the allegations contained therein are true. 33. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and alleges thereon that so long as the marshalling of assets does not affect Defendant's so-called one-action right, the allegations contained therein are basically true. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 34. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant repeats, re-pleads and re-alleges all of his responses in paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, as though set forth in full, and said responses are incorporated under this cause of action. 35. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant affirmatively alleges that the claims and relief sought by Plaintiff in the lawsuit are set forth in the Complaint and the Complaint speaks for itself. Except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 36. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 37. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 6 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o 38. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 39. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint, this Answering defendant repeats, re-pleads and re-alleges all of his responses in paragraphs 1 through 38, inclusive, as though set forth in full, and incorporates said responses under this cause of action. 40. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 41. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 42. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 43. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint, this Answering defendant repeats, re-pleads and re-alleges all of his responses in paragraphs 1 through 42, inclusive, as though set forth in full, and incorporates said responses under this cause of action. 44, In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant admits that the Chopra Deed of Trust is a first priority lien on Lot 12 (as well as the other 5 lots), and is senior to the Jorgensen Deed of Trust. Except as herein admitted, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every remaining allegation contained therein. 45. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 7 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o 46. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint, this Answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 1. This Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the purported causes of action in the Complaintfails to state a claim or cause of action against this Answering Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 2. This Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 333.1, 337, 338, and 339. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 3. Plaintiff, by virtue of his own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him, has unjustifiably delayed in commencing this Action, that said delay has prejudiced the rights of this Answering Defendant and therefore, the Complaint should be barred under the Doctrine of Laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 4, Plaintiff, by virtue of his/its own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him/it, is estopped from obtaining relief sought from this Answering Defendant. 8 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 5. Plaintiff, by virtue of his/its own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him/it, should be barred due to the unclean hands of Plaintiff, by virtue of his/its own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him/it. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Injury Claimed Attributable to Plaintiff) 6. That any injury suffered by Plaintiff was caused by the acts, omissions and wrongdoing of Plaintiff, by virtue of his/its own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him/it, and not any acts, omissions or wrongdoing by this Answering Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Injuries and/or Damages Caused by Negligence of Plaintiff) 7. That Plaintiff, by virtue of Plaintiff's own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him/it, failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care on Plaintiff's own behalf, in the management and maintenance of his/its person and property, and negligently and carelessly was the proximate cause of some portion, up to and including the whole thereof, of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages,if any, and therefore Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages,if any, should be barred and/or reduced according to law, up to and including the whole thereof, and this Answering Defendant is entitled to an apportionment among all such parties according to their responsibility for injuries and damages,if any, suffered by Plaintiff. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Injuries and Damages Claimed Attributable to Third Parties) 8. That Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to by the conduct, acts, omissions and wrongful conduct, acts, omissions and/or activities of a third party and/or parties either named or unnamed, and any recovery obtained by Plaintiff should be barred and/or reduced according to law, up to and including the whole thereof. 9 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Proximate Cause) 9, The conduct or omission by this Answering Defendant was not the cause in fact, or proximate cause, of any injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 10. This Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that any recovery by Plaintiff is barred by his failure to mitigate damages, or that any recovery must be reduced by those damages that Plaintiff, by virtue of his own acts and/or the acts or omissions of others chargeable to him, failed to mitigate. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification) 11. Plaintiff, by virtue of his own acts and/or or the acts and omissions of others chargeable to him, ratified the alleged acts of this Answering Defendant. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Damages Set Off) 12. This Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Plaintiff's damages,if any, are or will be set off by Plaintiff's recovery of damages from other parties. Thus, any judgment obtained by Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant should be barred and/or reduced according to law, up to and including the whole thereof. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver of Equitable Remedies) 13. Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief is barred because Plaintiff, by virtue of his own acts and/or the acts and omissions of others chargeable to him, expressly, impliedly and/or equitably waived his right to equitable remedies, mainly because Plaintiff and/or his predecessors failed to file/record a full Reconveyance at or about the time the underlying Onkar deed of trust was fully or partially satisfied. 10 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFITPENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B.JORGENSEN, ETC. ET AL. O o 0 N N B R W N N o N O N o N o N o N o N N N o J n — — — — — — — — — X X 9 A N n n l A W N = D Y N S N N R W E e o o WHEREFORE,this Answering Defendant prays as follows: 1. 2. DATED: That judgment be entered in favor of this Answering Defendant and against Plaintiff; That Plaintiff take nothing by his/its Complaint and that said Complaint be dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice; That this Answering Defendant be awarded costs ofsuit incurred herein; That this Answering Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be determined by the Court; and For any such other and furtherrelief as the Court deems just and proper. April 18,2016 SOMERS & SOMERS, LLP By: LSSLome Richard B. $omers Attorneys for Answering Defendant Earle Hyman, Trustee of the Earle Hyman Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and Defendant Title Trust Deed Service Company 11 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B. JORGENSEN, ETC., ET AL. w m B L N N O 0 3 O N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JERALD N. JORGENSEN, TRUSTEE OF THE GERALD B. JORGENSEN FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 14, 1988, DBA JORGENSEN FINANCE and know its contents. x I am a party to this action. The mattersstated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and to those matters I believe them to be true. I am O an officer O a partner Trustee of The Earle Hyman Defined Benefit Pension Plan and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. a I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. 5] The matters stated in the foregoing document are true ofmy own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Executed on April 18, 2016, at Encino, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ZB dpe Earle Hyman 12 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B. JORGENSEN, ETC., ET AL. O o 0 O N O N w n o p 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Jerald N. Jorgensen, Trustee, etc. vs. Earle Hyman, Trustee, etc., et al. Merced County Superior Court Case No. 16CV-00796 I am a resident ofthe State of California, over the age ofeighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Somers & Somers, LLP, 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 417, Marina Del Rey, California 90292. On April 19, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JERALD N. JORGENSEN, TRUSTEE OF THE GERALD B. JORGENSEN FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 14, 1988, DBA JORGENSEN FINANCE onthe interested parties in this action, as follows: John F. Cavin Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jose D. Lopez/Reyes, Steven J. Kahn Elva R. Castaneda de Lopez, and Pacific Union Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. Financial, LLC 4309 Hacienda Drive, Suite 350 Tel: (925) 224-7780 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Fax: (925) 224-7782 Email: john.cavin@hogefenton.com steven.kahn@hogefenton.com Kelley M.Lincoln Attorneysfor Jerald N. Jorgensen, Trustee ofthe Boutin Jones Inc. Gerald B. Jorgensen Family Trust Dated June 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 14, 1988 dba Jorgensen Finance Sacramento, CA 95814-4603 Tel: (916) 321-4444 Fax: (916) 442-7597 Email: klincoln@boutinjones.com Michael J. Macko Attorneysfor Onkar, Inc Fores Macko, A Professional Law Corporation Tel: (209) 527-9899 600 “G” Street Fax: (209) 527-2889 Modesto, CA 95354 Email: mmacko@foresmacko.com [] BY MAIL: I placed the envelopes containing the document, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Marina del Rey, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY FACSIMILE: I faxed a copy ofsaid document(s) to the following addressee(s) at the following number(s) in accordance with the written confirmation of counsel in this action. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to acceptelectronic service, I caused the documentsto be sent to the persons at the electronic service (email) addresses set forth above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 19, 2016, at Marina del Rey, California. Kundry Cole 13 VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EARLE HYMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE EARLE HYMAN DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, TO COMPLAINT OF GERALD B. JORGENSEN, ETC., ET AL.
