Reply To Nonopposition To Demurrer

Reply

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 5, 2017

© 0 uN OO Un A W N N N N N N N N N N e m e e e m e m e d pe d e d e m c o 9 NN L t BA WLW = O O N Y E W N = o Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Tel: 650.592.5400 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/14/2019 11:48 AM Reviewed By: M. Dominguez Case #17CV320053 Envelope: 2626627 California State Automobile Association Insurance Exchange IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NICK RUBINO, Plaintiff, VS. MAPFRE INSURANCE, AAA INSURANCE, SAFECO-WESTWIND- LIBERTY MUTUAL, CITY OF SAN JOSE, aliases SDA SAN JOSE POLICE Case No. 17CV320053 REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER Date: March 19, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 19 Judge: Peter Kirwan DEPARTMENT; GREEN TEAM WASTE, Defendants. Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange erroneously sued herein as AAA Insurance (hereinafter “CSAA-IE”) respectfully submits the following reply to the non-opposition to demurrer to the four causes of action set forth in plaintiff Nick Rubino’s (hereinafter “plaintiff”’) Complaint filed on December 5, 2017. I. Plaintiff Did Not Oppose the Demurrer CSAA-IE filed its demurrer to the complaint on December 5, 2018. The Court set the demurrer for a hearing on March 19, 2019. Plaintiff’s opposition to the demurrer was due to be filed on or about March 6, 2019. No such opposition was received nor does it seem that any Consequently, given plaintiff does not oppose the opposition was filed with the Court. demurrer to the Complaint, it should be sustained without leave to amend. // Reply Brief in Support of Demurrer Case No: 17CV320053 570562 Oo 0 9 O N n n BRE W N N N N N N N N N N N m m e m e m e m em p m e e e d p m C 0 NN O N R A W N D e o 0 N N N R W Oo II. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, CSAA-IE respectfully requests that the Court sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. Dated: March 14, 2019 CODDINGTONJHICKS & DANFORTH B Kt” ’ Kathryn C. Klaus Attorneys for Defendant California State Automobile Association Insurance Exchange Reply Brief in Support of Demurrer Case No: 17CV320053 570562 wm Re W N N a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 10132, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300, Redwood City, California 94065. My electronic mail address is Eva@chdlawyers.com. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. On March 14, 2019, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER United States Mail: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid on the above date placed for collection and mailing at my place of business to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Redwood City, California on this same date in the ordinary course of business. X Overnight Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled packaging for overnight delivery, with Federal Express, with all charges to be paid by my employer on the above date for collection at my place of business to be deposited in a facility regularly maintained by the overni ft delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein, or if upon attorney, by leaving the labeled envelopes with a receptionist or other person having charge of the attorney’s office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party or attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of business. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record of the transmission was propertly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents wete transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. Oo 0 9 ON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed a document with the court; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendor. The printed form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available for inspection at the request of the court or any party to the action or proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Court Rule 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of service in wtiting, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employet’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Plaintiff, in Pro Per Nick Rubino 528 S. 10th Street, #4 San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 770-7786 I certify (or declare) under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 14, 2019. Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Action No: 17CV320053 Case Name: Rubino v. Mapfre Insurance