To Plaintiffs Proposal For Statement of Decision

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 23, 2018

© 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa, Cjuz FH. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 4/30/2020 4:19 Douglas E. Johns, Esq. - SBN 314798 Alex Calvo, CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH By: Zane tten, Deputy A Professional Corporation, Lawyers / f Win 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Tel.: 650.592.5400 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Tito Manzella and Alyshia Manzella IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ MARCUS POHLMANN, Case No. 18CV01478 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ve PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSAL FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION TITO MANZELLA, ALYSHIA Trial Date: February 18, 2020 MANZELLA, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Judge: Hon. Timothy R. Volkmann Defendants. Dept.: 5 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants, Tito Manzella and Alyshia Manzella, respectfully submit their response to plaintiff, Mr. Marcus Pohlmann’s, Proposals for Statement of Decision. I. Plaintiff’s acceptance of defendants’ “998 offer” would have resolved the entire case. Put simply, if plaintiff accepted defendants’ “998 offer,” the entire case would have resolved. Plaintiff’s contention that his acceptance of defendants’ “998 offer” would not have resolved the entire case ignores critical facts and is wrong. /// //7 /// 1 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 © 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O By June 2017, Mr. Olin Edmundson completed a preliminary “Licensed Surveyor’s Map.”! That means, around a year before plaintiff filed his action, Mr. Edmundson completed an analysis of the boundaries at issue. Mr. Edmundson did not submit that map to Santa Cruz County until around November of 2019-over two years after it was completed. At trial, plaintiff argued that Mr. Edmundson’s map was correct as to the common boundary line between plaintiff and defendants’ properties. Yet, it remained a work in progress and was unapproved by the County Surveyor and, therefore, completely unreliable. Only after plaintiff filed his civil action against defendants did defendants commission Mr. Michael Beautz to generate a Record of Survey Map. In December 2018, Mr. Beautz filed his Record of Survey Map, and it was approved by the County Surveyor and recorded on December 7, 2018. Importantly, Mr. Beautz filed his Record of Survey Map after plaintiff filed his action against defendants. At trial, defendants argued that Mr. Beautz’s Record of Survey Map accurately depicted the legal common boundary line between plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property. On or around October 24, 2019, defendants served plaintiff with their “998 offer.”2 By that time, plaintiff had been aware of Mr. Beautz’s Record of Survey Map for approximately eleven months. And by that time, plaintiff had numerous opportunities to take discovery on both Mr. Beautz’s Record of Survey Map and defendants’ contentions pertaining to that map. If plaintiff accepted defendants’ “998 offer,” Mr. Beautz’s Record of Survey Map would have represented the parties’ position for the boundary at issue. During the time that plaintiff could have accepted defendants’ “998 offer,” Mr. Beautz’s Record of Survey Map was the only map on file with the County for the common boundary line at issue in this case. /1/ /1/ I Defendants admitted Mr. Edmundson’s map as Exhibit K at trial. It is attached as Exhibit A. 2 Defendants’ “998 offer” is attached as Exhibit B. 2 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 © 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O Plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ “998 offer” would not have resolved the issues with the northern boundary of his property is a nonstarter. For one thing, if plaintiff was so hung up on resolving all disputes through “998 offers,” he could have mentioned the northern boundary in his “998 offer.””? Plaintiff’s “998 offer” does not mention the northern boundary at all. For another thing, it is highly questionable whether defendants would even have standing-for lack of a better term-to resolve any issue with the northern boundary of plaintiff’s property. Defendants could have only resolved claims and disputes arising out of their own property and their common boundary line with plaintiff. And that is what defendants attempted to do by serving a “998 offer.” Indeed, any “998 offer” that defendants made that attempted to resolve the northern boundary issues would not be enforceable. If plaintiff wanted to resolve all boundary disputes, he could have brought his northern neighbor into the case. And finally, any boundary issue that plaintiff has with his neighbor to the north is irrelevant to plaintiff's dispute with defendants based on the property descriptions contained in the applicable grant deeds and survey maps in the area. That issue has been litigated and tried. For all of those reasons, plaintiff’s acceptance of defendants’ “998 offer” would have resolved the entire case as it related to the common boundary line between the parties to this action. It was not ambiguous. II. Defendants’ “998 offer” was legally “reasonable.” As a general rule, the offering party has the initial burden of demonstrating that an offer made under California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 is reasonable. See Barella v. Exch. Bank, 84 Cal. App. 4th 793, 799 (2000). But “[w]here the defendant obtains a judgment more favorable than its offer, the judgment constitutes prima facie evidence showing the offer was reasonable.” See Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., Inc., 204 Cal. App. 4th 210, 221 (2012) (internal quotations omitted). 3 Plaintiffs “998 offer” is attached as Exhibit C. 3 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 © 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O True, a reasonable “998 offer” can be represented by a prediction of the amount of money the offeror would have to pay the offeree following a trial. See Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1485 (2011). With that said, “[tJhe reasonableness of a defendant’s section 998 settlement offer is evaluated in light of what the offeree knows or does not know at the time the offer is made, along with what the offeror knew or should have known about facts bearing on the offer’s reasonableness.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “[F]or a section 998 offer to be reasonable, the defendant must reasonably believe that the plaintiff might accept his offer, and the plaintiff must have access to the facts that influenced the defendant’s determination that the offer was reasonable.” 1d. Defendants’ “998 offer” offer was reasonable as a matter of law. At the time that defendants made the offer, plaintiff was asserting a novel theory about the disputed common boundary line based on a pattern of fence lines located throughout the block without any foundation for such a theory. Plaintiff’s contentions contravened decades of documented grant deeds and recorded and unrecorded survey maps in the County. Plaintiff asserted that some parcels that even the County and the State of California acknowledged did not even exist. Of course, plaintiff has the right to argue those contentions and assertions. But plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the Court may not accept his novel theory. And plaintiff knew, or should have known, that there was a risk that the Court would find in favor of defendants. Defendants’ “998 offer” forced plaintiff to analyze that risk. And defendants believed that plaintiff would reasonably accept the offer. Defendants” “998 offer” is reasonable as a matter of law. Similarly, defendants’ “998 offer” was made in good faith. For the same reasons, defendants made their “998 offer” in good faith. When defendants made their offer, plaintiff had access to the facts that should have demonstrated to him there was a risk in not accepting the offer. /1/ /1/ 4 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 © 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O Most importantly, plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that defendants’ offer was unreasonable as a matter of law. In his response, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendants’ offer was unreasonable. Because defendants may obtain a judgment more favorable than their offer, that judgment will constitute prima facie evidence that their offer was reasonable. III. Defendants’ obtained a “more favorable” judgment than their “998 offer.” Defendants’ “998 offer” provides that they “hereby offer to waive costs and fees in exchange for . . . [t]he entry of the action with prejudice in” their favor.” Put another way, if plaintiff meets his burden of proof and the Court finds in his favor, he will have obtained a “more favorable” judgment than defendants’ “998 offer.” But, where, as in this case, the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, or if the Court does not find in his favor, he will not have obtained a “more favorable” judgment than defendants’ “998 offer.” Plaintiff’s strained interpretation of defendants’ “998 offer” confuses a straightforward issue. Defendants obtained a “more favorable” judgment than their “998 offer.” Defendants’ offer was not ambiguous. As mentioned above, by accepting the offer, plaintiff would have accepted the common boundary that Mr. Beautz proffered in his Record of Survey Map. And as mentioned above, it is highly questionable whether defendants could have prepared a valid “998 offer” that resolved plaintiff’s boundary dispute with his northern neighbor who was not a party to the litigation. Again, this is straightforward. Defendants obtained a more favorable judgment than their “998 offer.” IV. Plaintiffs “11th hour” criticism of defendants’ “998 offer is misplaced and slightly disingenuous. As a final note, plaintiffs criticism of defendants’ “998 offer” is misplaced. Plaintiff appears to contend that “998 offers” are not appropriate in boundary dispute cases. Defendants concede that “998 offers” are not the “cleanest” way to resolve a boundary dispute. Unlike personal injury cases, in some boundary dispute cases, it can be very difficult to determine if a judgment is “more favorable” than a “998 offer.” 5 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 © 00 3 Oa Wn B W ND = N N N N N N N N N m E e e m e m e m e m e m oO NI O N Un A W N = O O 0 N N W = O Yet, plaintiff served a “998 offer” on defendants. What is more, plaintiff served a “998 offer” after defendants’ served their “998 offer.” If, according to plaintiff, defendants’ “998 offer” was served at the “11th hour,” who knows what hour plaintiff served his offer. Plaintiff is attempting to discredit defendants’ tactics and strategies when they were the same tactics and strategies that he employed. Surely, plaintiff would be attempting to enforce his “998 offer” if the tables were turned. “998 offers” might best be used for cases like personal injury cases or contract cases. But the Legislature allows parties to serve “998 offers” on one another in boundary dispute cases. Indeed, both plaintiff and defendants served one. And in this case, because of Mr. Beautz’s recorded 2018 Record of Survey Map on file with the County representing the only official record of the common boundary line between the parties to this action, acceptance of defendants “998 offer” would have completely resolved the common boundary line put in dispute by plaintiff in this action. V. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, defendants served an enforceable “998 offer.” Defendants’ “998 offer” was reasonable, made in good faith, resolved the entire case, and was capable of acceptance. Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor which would include allowing defendants to recover their fees and costs under California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 as set forth further in defendants’ request dated March 26, 2020. Dated: April 30, 2020 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH /s/ #. Gregory, Plch By H. Gregory Nelch Douglas E. Johns Attorneys for Defendants Tito Manzella and Alyshia Manzella 6 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Proposals for Statement of Decision Case No: 18CV01478 672153 EXHIBIT A UUDWIYOg SNoJoN GSoved dor s6LL-gzy (168) Xv4 96LL-ST 10) pondosg 29056 VO ‘ZHI VINYS 4 INAV LHISVIS ZISt 92/002 84 YD z r ) oyues jo Ajunog Zi0z 's sunt OMA'9BIOLL od zn) Dos Jo AD E E S S u n s awl 0-£01-£00 "ON 1308vd SHOSSISSV 40 NOSaNrI3, dV S,HO0AIAYNS G3ISN3DN -wo9 0 jo sya fous fou] "010p poy opp piodsy pajou so sdow noon uo pejoidap so souy Ayado. 9 Aloubug od Aaning uo Aoning 08 = 1 91005 3 128lans "WUalap 99 0) PRIIAGIS) U0 pasoq iD PUD Auo UoHoju: unos 910 Soul Apedold ‘Aanins Aipunoq © ou st “Rani Asopunoq 589% 4.00. sr o8N F I R E (ey-n-sv) 0r29 304 dad 2/\ Nod a a ¢ 8 I ) » S : a 3 oven | _ purged . vz rons waa wouvoon Sos SB _ / 4.0087 988 § L Y = N - 5 8 ¥3d J ond M31 NLS s ig 6h - nd = 2 y pag - sadion ¥o74) 5 3 3 No) 40 | S vagy 1d 20 a Beg © 3 : ayenevst 2 vonv), av onne 1 (gpu-on L U I 2 i E E 7 o a n s o e E R E S I E (S1-nd=2) 9m oom /m ps co 2923 had e a s Si--2 ad PRE ipuosqery Wouvoon 3on34 - L43E g p g ow E N £ i N O U Y D O T 30N3J MIN x a w i e w, | Q ® > < Sw vo seos < ® KI £0 s04 100 1b tr 5 5a I N O S Y 3 A N Y s r s zopuony opaozy a VEA szzekeor WH wid 30M34 0 S001 SZNd-L5 ¥3d SINT ‘Odd m E - _ - 00°04 4.00.47485 'g onuany 2PISOZS © 89T S19 W onld av31 ONNod 6 (BL~N-011) 9927 304 vi oma ov) zi 999% R Z g . 2 ¢ . 9 4 2 8 8 \ szzelgor wwe sezpt w e g ws C o ] 8 + ons S sezsheor wes ¥3d 135 5 B Sa 9/5 20 S100 \ 5529 $1 o n ou 104 2/4 awoy {+ | 6U-N-0LH 434 SIN "d0ks v \ \ @ | Sey Sz-na-is S83 434 3 "dot w w | 58 > i « | @ \ x3 “0 %, a 056 So p ’ ® EXHIBIT B > w o NO 0 N d O Y Wi n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Telephone: 650.592.5400 Facsimile: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Tito Manzella and Alyshia Manzella IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ MARCUS POHLMANN, Case No. 18CV01478 Plaintiff, OFFER TO COMPROMISE [C.C.P. §998] VS. TITO MANZELILA, ALYSHIA MANZELLA, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants. TO: ~~ PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ACTION AND TO HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants TITO MANZELLA and ALYSHIA MANZELLA hereby offer to waive costs and fees in exchange for each and all of the following: (1) The entry of a dismissal of the action with prejudice in favor of Defendants TITO MANZELLA and ALYSHIA MANZELLA; (2) Each party is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff may indicate acceptance of this offer by signing the statement below indicating acceptance, or by filing a separate document of acceptance with the court, as set forth under Code of Civil Procedure § 998(b)(1), within 30 days from the date of this offer. Offer to Compromise [C.C.P. §998] Case No: 18CV01478 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 24, 2019 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH By: H! Grebory|Nelch Attorneysfor Defendants Tito Manzella and Alyshia Manzella Plaintiff accepts the offer on the terms stated. Dated: October __, 2019 MILLER FARR & ASSOCIATES B y: Jeffrey K. Farr Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcus Pohlmann Offer to Compromise [C.C.P. §998] Case No: 18CV01478 N o wn 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, 1013a, 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 patty to the within action. My business address is 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300, Redwood City, California 94065. My electronic mail address is aprasad@chdlawyers.com. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of cotrespondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. On October 25, 2019, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. OFFER TO COMPROMISE [C.C.P. §998] X United States Mail: The correspondence ot 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. Overnight Delivery: The correspondence or documents wete 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 depostted in a facility regularly maintained by the overni hi 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 patty 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 patty 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 propetly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents wete transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. Ww ~ N N 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 setvice in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employer’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Jeffrey K. Farr, Esq. Miller, Farr & Associates 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Oregon office: Jeffrey K. Farr, Esq. 142 West 8th Avenue, #211 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: (408) 642-1577 Facsimile: (541) 636-2736 Email: jeff@millerfarr.com I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 25, 2019. / AnitaPfasad g Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Crus; County Action No: 78C1 071478 Case Name: Pohlmann v. Manzella EXHIBIT C 1 Oo 0 ~N y wn h W JEFFREY K. FARR (SBN 269638) MILLER FARR & ASSOCIATES 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Qakland, CA 94612 Telephone: i) 642-1577 Facsimile: 541) 636-2736 E-mail: jeff@millerfarr.com Attorneys for Plaintiff MARCUS POHLMANN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR NIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARCUS POHLMANN, individually, Civil Case No.: 18CV01478 . Complaint Filed: May 23, 2018 Plaintiff, Trial Date: December 2, 201 9 Vv. OFFER TO COM PROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P §998 TITO MANZELLA, ALYSHIA MANZELLA | Judge: H on. Paul Burdick and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Dept.: 5 Defendants. TO TITO AND ALYSHIA MANZELLA, DEFENDANTS IN THE ABOVE REFRENCED ACTION, AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Plaintiff MARCUS POHLMANN hereby offers to allow a judgm ent to be entered in the above entitled action on the following terms: 1) Defendants Tito and Alyshia Manzella ("Defendants") shall rec over from Plaintiff Marcus Pohlmann ("Plaintiff") the sum of $10,000.00. 2) Defendants shall allow Plaintiff to remove the existing, disputed fence running parallel to the boundary of the parties’ adjacent parcels of real property. 3) The parties shall enter into a boundary agreement establishing the b oundary between the parties’ adjacent parcels of real property as being the location where the fence between the 1 OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P §998 [3 % O O O e N n Lh Ww two parcels of real property existed prior to Defendants relocation of said disputed fence in or about April 2015. 4) Plaintiff shall cause a new fence to be built in the location of the aforesaid, newly established boundary agreement between the parties. 5) All parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. If this offer is not accepted prior to trial or within thirty (30) days of the of date below, whichever occurs first, it shall be deemed withdrawn, and cannot be given in evidence upon the trial of the above entitled action. Defendants may indicate acceptance of this offer to compro mise by signing the statement below indicating acceptance, or by filing a separate document o f acceptance with the Court, as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure §998(b)(1). Executed this / / day of November 2019, in Eugene, Ore gon. MILLER FARR & ASSOCIATES EE A By: EY JEFFREY K-FARR, SBN 269638 ) Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcus Pohlmann Defendants hereby accept the above stated offer of compromise on the terms stated herein. Date: By: H. Gregory Nelch Attorney for Defendants Tito Manzella & Alyshia Manzella 2 OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TOC.C.P §998 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROOF OF SERVICE RE: Marcus Pohlmann v Tito Manzella, et al. CASE NO. 18CV01478 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years, am employed in Santa Cruz Coun ty and not a party to the within action; my business address is 13200 Hwy 9, Suite 15, Boul der Creek, California 95006; On November 18, 2019, I served true copies of the follow ing document(s): PLAINTIFF’S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSU ANT TO C.C.P. §998 [ X] By Personal Delivery, causing the document (s) listed above to be personally delivered to the person(s) set forth below at 701 Ocean Stre et, Santa Cruz California 95060 Gregory Nelch I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 18th day of November 2019, at Boulder Creek, California. - - ~_REBEKAHJROSE - ct i PROOF OF SERVICE 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, 1013a, 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 hporter@chdlawyers.com. I am readily familiar with my employet’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 April 30, 2020, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSAL FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION XX ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided on March 26, 2020 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. A proof of service shall follow. The service by electronic mail shall extend the time to respond by two calendar days. 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. 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 overnight 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 rovided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of Easiness The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record of the transmission was propetly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. 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 beating 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 Calitornia Rule of Court Rule 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of service in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employet’s office. I have recetved no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff Jeffrey K. Farr, Esq. Rebekah J. Rose, Esq. 142 West 8 Avenue, #211 LAW OFFICE OF REBEKAH J. ROSE Eugene, OR 97401 13200 Hwy 9, Suite 15 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 Telephone: (408) 642-1577 Facsimile: (541) 636-2736 Telephone : (408) 613-9401 Email: es Email: rebekah@rroselaw.com I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 30, 2020. Court: Action No: /s) Helen Poder Helen Porter Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz; County 18C101478 Case Name: Poblmann v. Manzella