Respondent s BriefCal. Super. - 6th Dist.June 26, 20194..“ _’& Case N0. Appellate Division: 19AP002552 i L E Case N0. Limited Jurisdiction: 18CV33 1208 AUG 23 2mg SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION THE CYPRESS AT NORTHPARK, LLC, ) ) Respondent/Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) XIAOYING LIU, ) ) Appellant/Defendant. ) ) RESPONDENT'S OPENING BRIEF APPEAL FROM: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO.: 18CV33 1208 STEVEN MEHLMAN STATE BAR NO. 95881 KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1350 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 942-1690 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES.................... I. . .ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................233 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................ 4 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether Respondent served a proper Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 0r Quit upon Appellant pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §1 161, which is a question 0f fact; 2. Whether Respondent effectuated proper service 0f the complaint for unlawful detainer 0n the Appellant pursuam t0 §415.20; 3. Whether Appellant should receive reliefpursuant t0 California Code ofCiVil Procedure §473‘? 1. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................... 6, 7 H. ARGUMENT: A. A PROPER THREE DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT PURSUANT TO CCP §1 161 WAS SERVED ON APPELLANT. .. B. PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE PROPERLY SERVED ..................................... 9, 10, l} C. RELIEF UNDER CCP §473 IS NOT WARRANTED...1 1, 12, l3 HI CONCLUSION............... > ........................ 13 ii TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Cases 20m Cem‘my Insurance C0. v. Gammendi (1994) 8 Cal. 41h 216, 271 . . 6 American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (201 Ir) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389 [131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99] .............................. 9, 10 BZan/cv.Kimvan (1985) 39 C3d311,216CR718,731 ............. 6 Board \bffiusz‘ees ofLeZcmd Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013), 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 337 ........................... .9, 10 Brill v. Fox (1931)211 C. 739................................ 6,9 Caldwell v. [Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 1525 . . 12 California Government v. Kempton (2007) 4O Cal. 41h 1016, 1032 . . . . 6 Denham v. SupertCt. (Marsh & Kidder) (1970) 2 C3d 557 566, 86 CR 65, 71 .......................................... 6 Dill v. Berquz'st Construction Ca, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1444. . . 6 Estaz‘e 0f Wolper (1956) 146 CA 23 249 ........................ 6 Evarl‘r v. Super. CI. (Keller) (1979) 89 CA31‘d 795, 799 ............ 11 Fox V. Federated Dep’z‘ (1979) 94 CA 3d 867, 872 n3 ............. 6 In re Correz (1971) 6C3d 78,85,98 CR 307,311 ................ 6 Larson v. City and County OfScm Francisco (201 1) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297 ...................................... 10 Lem v. Tilson (1887) 72 C 404, 422, 14 P 71, 77-78 .............. .6 iii Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal. 2d 54, 62 ........................... 12 Nork v. Pacific Coast M'edical Enterprises, Inc. (1977) 73 Cal.App3d 410, 413 . . . .................................... 10 TOhO-Towa C0,, Ltd. V. Morgan Creek Producrz‘wis, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096 ....................................... 11 Codes California Civil Code section 415.20 .......................... 5, 9, 10 California Civil Code section 473(b)................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12 California Civil Code section 473 ......................... 5, 6, 11, 13 California Civil Code section 1161(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 California Civil Code section 1161 ........................... 5 7 83 3 iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE v This action is a proceeding in unlawful detainer regarding real property rental premises known as 85 Rio Robles East #1420, in San Jose, Caiifomia 95134 (“Premises”) [C.T. Complaint, p. 1]. Plaintiffmespondent, THE CYPRESS AT NORTHPARK, LLC, is the owner 0f said premises and rented the same t0 the Defendant/Appellant, XIAOYING LIU pursuant t0 the terms 0f a written rental agreement entered into by and between the parties 0n 0r about March 17, 2018. [C.T. Complaint, p.1] On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff/Respondent caused t0 be served 0n Appellant a Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 01‘ Quit and Three Day Notice t0 Perform Covenant 0r Quit [C.T. Complaint, p. 2]. The action was commenced by Plaintiff/Respondent THE CYPRESS AT NORTHPARK, LLC, against Defendant/Appellant XIAOYING LIU) with the filing 0f PlaintifffRespondent’s Complaint 0n July 11, 2018 [C.T. Complaint]. The basis OfPlaintiff/Respondent’s Complaint was Defendant/Appellant’s failure to pay 0r vacate the subject premises upon expiration 0f the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent 01‘ Quit and Defendant/Appellant’s failure t0 pay 0r vacate the subject premises upon expiration 0f the Three Day Notice t0 Perform Covenant 0r Quit. [C.T. Complaint, p. 2] Appellant’s Opening Brief (“A.O.B.”) concedes that she did not pay rent for July 2018. [A.O.B., P. 5] Plaintiff attempted t0 serve the summons and complaint personally 0n Defendant but after three attempts, Plaintiff Via a registered process server was able t0 serve the summons and complaint Via substitute serve and mail. [C.T. Proof 0f service, p. 27-29] Defendant/Appellant failed t0 file an Answer and/or other responsive pleading so therefore, Plaintiff/Respondent submitted its Request for Entry 0f Default and Default Judgment, which was entered} on August 2, 2018. [C.T. Judgment by Default for Possession Only] and the Sheriff lock out was effectuated 0n August 16, 201 8. [C.T. Return 0f Writ 0f Possession from Sheriff, p. 37-38] Plaintiff/Respondent submitted its Request for Emmy of Default for monetary damages and Declaration for Default Judgment by Court, which were entered 0n April 2, 2019 [C.T. Request for Entry 0f Default and Declaration for Default Judgment by Court, p. 30-33] and Judgment in the amount of$5,259.76, which was entered 0n April 11, 2019. On 0r about November 1, 201 8, Appellant XIAOYING LIU filed a Notice oprpeal (Limited Civil Case) [C.T. Notice 0f Appeal, p. 3941] On July 26, 2019, Appellant XIAOYING LIU filed Appellant’s Opening Brief. DJ STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The facts germane t0 this appeal are as follows: [\J On July 6, 201 8, the Defendant was served with the Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 01‘ Quit t0 pay the sum 0f $2,907.94 Via post and mail service. [C.T. Complaint, p. 19] On July 6; 2018, the Defendant was served With the Three Day Notice t0 Perform Covenant Via post find mail. [C.T. Complaint, p. 20] The Defendant failed t0 pay rent and other charges 0r quit and Plaintiff/Respondent filed its Complaint for Unlawful Detainer 0n July 11, 2018. [C.Tj Complaint] Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint in this action via a registered process by substitute service and mail 0n July 15, 201 8, at 2:16 p.111. [C.T. Proofof Service, p. 27] Substitute service was made only after three (3) attempts at personal service by the Registered Process Sewer [C.T. Proof 0f Service, p. 28]. Defendant failed t0 timely file an Answer and/or other responsive pleading t0 Respondent’s Complaint. Judgment by Default was entered in favor 0f Plaintiffas against Defendant 0n Augus‘ft 6, 201 8. [C.T. Request t0 Enter Default and Clerk’s Judgment for Possession, p. 30-33]. The Court issued the Writ 0f Execution for Possession 0n August 9, 2018. [C.T. Writ ofExecution, p. 34-36] The Sheriff 0f the County 0f Santa Clara effectuated the lock-out on the subject premises 0n August 16, 201 8. [C.T. Return 0f Writ 0f Possession from Sheriff, p. 37-38] QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Respondent served a proper Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent or Quit upon Appellant pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §1 161, Which is a question 0f fact; 2. Whether Respondent effectuated proper service 0f the complaint for unlawful detainer 0n the Appellant pursuant t0 §415.20; 3. Whether Appellant should receive relief pursuant t0 Califomia Code of Civil Procedure §473? l. STANDARD 0F REVIEW The first issue 0n appeal is whether the notice t0 pay rent 0r quit is proper concerns a question 0f fact. Reviewing courts only conduct an independent review when a question oflaw is presented. [Califomia Government v. Kempton (207) 40 Cal. 4th 1016, 1032; 20’“ Century Insurance C0. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal. 4‘" 216, 271 .] An appeal is not an opportunity t0 retry the case. The appellate court reviews for legal error only shown in the written record 0f appeal. Fox v. Federated Dep ’t (1979) 94 CA 3d 867, 872 n3. TO determine whether the amount in the notice t0 pay rent 01‘ quit is valid is t0 request this court t0 rule 0n a question 0f fact, Which an Appellate Court does not review. As such, this issue is void. The issue as t0 whether service 0f the complaint was valid may be considered a question 0f law but depends 0n the facts of the situation. “Compliance with the statutory procedures for service ofprocess is essential t0 establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Ca, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1444.) Here, as discussed below, Defendant, was served as prescribed by statute and as such, the defaultjudgment is valid. Further, in order for Appellant t0 Obtain relief from default, the party in default must show good cause, such as mistake, inadvenence, suxprise 0r excusable neglect similar to that required by CCP §473. Estate 0f Wolper (1956) 146 CA 2s 249. There was r10 such mistake, inadvertence, surprise 01‘ excusable neglect by Appellant as discussed below, as she was served pursuant t0 California law and admitted in her Opening briefthat she failed t0 pay rent. II. ARGUMENT A. A Proper Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 0r Quit Pursuant t0 CCP §116l was Served 0n Appellant Appellant contends the Three-Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 0r Quit was invalid because it overstated the amount 0f rent due by Appellant. Appellant’s argument is flawed. CCP §1 161 (2) states in pertinent part the following: “2. When he 0r she continues in possession, in person 0r by subtenant. .. after default in the payment 0f rent, pursuant t0 the lease 01‘ agreement under Which the property is held, and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays land other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, Stating the amount which is due, the name, telephone number, and address offlze person t0 whom the rent payment shall be made, and, ifpayment may be made personally, the usual days (md hours that person will be available to receive the payn-zent. .. that payment may be made pursuant t0 that procedure, 01‘ possession 0fthe property, shall have been served upon him 0r her and ifthere is a subtenant in actual occupation ofthe premises, also upon the subtenant.” (Emphasis added) Respondent’s Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent or Quit states the amount, which is due, the name, telephone number and address ofPIaintiff‘s agent where the rem: payment should be made and provides the days and hours 0fthe agent as t0 when they are available t0 receive the payment in person. [C.T. Complaint, p. 19] Respondent complied with CCP §1 161 by inserting a1] information necessaw in a Notice t0 Pay Rent 01‘ Quit. As such, the notice is not defective. Further, California law does not require a landlord t0 specify the time period for which the amount sought is owed in a Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 01‘ Quit. Appellant argues that the lease calls for rent 0f $2,875.00 per month and continues t0 contend that the amount in Respondent’s notice was excessive and thus the notice is defective. Appellant’s arguments fail. First, Appellant is arguing facts and not posing a legal question. This is not the purpose 0f an appeal, and based 0n that her argument should fail. Second, the monthly rent in the Lease between Respondent and Appellant is $2,875.00. However, Respondent’s Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 0r Quit does not specify the rent owed is specifically for July 2018 only. In fact, n0 time period is provided (ie. June 2018 and July 2018) in the notice, as it is not required by California law, specifically CCP §1 161. Respondent requested the sum 0f $2,907.94 in the notice as that was the amount owed for June 2018 and July 201 8. [C.T. Complaint p. 19] In fact, Appellant, through her Opening Brief, admits not paying July 201 8 or August 201 8 rem. [A.O.B., p. 5] She claims She kept in touch with her boyfriend while she was in China but did not request him to pay July 2018 rent. Payment 0f rent was her responsibility under the Lease and failure t0 d0 so resulted in her legal eviction. Thus, {he Judgments for Possession and monetary damages against Defendant/Appellant are valid, should remain in effect and not be vacated. B. Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint were Properly Served In 2013, in the case OfBoard 0f Trustees ofLelcmd Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013), 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 337, the Court was called upon t0 decide the issue 0f whether sewice 0n a tenant, who is unavailable, is valid. The tenant in the Ham case was 0n the East Coast during the unlawful detainer proceedings and she provided n0 other address other than the real property she rented from the landlord. The Court ruled that substituted service was not a Viable alternative as no other adult might be found at the premises, so the landlord was justified in seeking service by posting and mailing under CCP §415.45. The tenant’s motion t0 vacate the default and default judgment was denied. The Court noted the following: “Substituted service is permissible, however, ‘only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is 0n the plaintiffto show that the summons and complaint “cannot With reasonable diligence be personally delivered’ t0 the individual defendant.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (201 1) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389 [131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99].)....Indeed, in order t0 avail oneselfof substituted service under section 415.20, “[t]w0 01‘ three attempts t0 personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as “reasonable diligence.” (Board ofTrustees 0f Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham, (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 337 citing American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara, supra; 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 389). r The Court continued: “The unlawful detainer defendant, however, has a residence that is known t0 the plaintiff; it is therefore reasonable for the plaintiff t0 assume, at least initially, that personal service will eventually be successful. While section 415.45 does not allow the plaintiff t0 rely 0n this assumption, we cannot agree With appellant that reasonable diligence under section 415.45 requires a landlord t0 conduct an extensive investigation 0f all the possible whereabouts ofits tenant before seeking the posting alternative. ’The pulpose Ofthe unlawful detainer statutes is t0 provide the landlord With a summary, expeditious way 0f getting back his property when a tenant fails t0 pay the rent 0r refuses t0 vacate the premises at the end 0f his tenancy.’ (Board omestees ofLelcmd Stanford Junior Univemily v. Ham, 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 338 citing Nork v. Pacific Coast [Medical Enterprises, Inc. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 410, 413; see also Larson v. Cify and County ofSan Francisco (201 1) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297 [statutory scheme 0f unlawful detainer “is intended and designed t0 provide an expeditious remedy for the recovery of possession 0f real propeny’fl.” Plaintiff/Respondent through its registered process server attempted t0 personally serve Defendant/Appellant at least three different days at three different times at the Premises. On its fourth attempt, the registered process server was able t0 substitute serve and mail the summons and complaint t0 a Jane Doe 0n behalfofthe Defendant/Appellant. [C.T. Proof OfService, p. 28] This is valid service and complies with CCP §415.20. Had n0 one resided or been present at the Premises, Plaintiff/Respondent would have sought an order t0 post and mail the summons and complaint from the Court, and would likely have received such order, which would have been valid sewice. However, that wgs unnecessary because and individual was at the property and was served by substitute service. Defendant’s argument that she was unaware 0fthe unlawful detainer makes no difference, as Plaintiff complied with California law and served the summons and complaint properly. Plaintiff is not required t0 conduct an extensive investigation 0f all the possible whereabouts OfDefendant before seeking an alternative t0 personal service. Plaintiff attempted personal service 0f the summons and complaint but after three attempts and performing its due diligence, Plaintiff was able t0 serve the Summons and Complaint Via substitute sewice and mail. Respondent would also point out that the issue 0f whether a party used “reasonable diligence” t0 personally serve a Defendant before resorting t0 alternative sewice methods is a question of fact. (Evarrt v. Super. Cr. (Keller) (1979) 89 CA3rd 795, 799). The service 0fthe Summons and Complaint in this action was proper and thus the Plaintiff‘s Judgment for Possession and Monetary Judgment should be upheld. C. Relief under CCP §473 is Not Warranted: The mistake, inadveflence, 0r surprise thatjustifies a court in setting aside a default under CCP § 473(b) must be reasonable (Toho-Towa Ca, Ltd. v. M'Wgan Creek Prédllcfiwvs, Inc (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 111 lwl 1 12). Unless in arranging for his 01‘ her defense the party exercises such reasonable diligence‘as a person ofordinary prudence usually bestows 0n important business, a motion for relief under CCP § 473(b) will be denied (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal. 2d 54, 62; Caldwell v. 1146111001719: Hospital (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 1525). Appellant presented absolutely n0 evidence and/or law showing that Plaintiff conducted fraucL any misconduct 01' misrepresentation. Nor would it be reasonable t0 set aside Plaintiff‘s default judgment for possession and monetary damages. As seen in the Clerk’s Transcript and Respondent’s brief, P1aintiff did everything required by California law, from the drafting 0f the Three Day Notice t0 Pay Rent 0r Quit t0 sewice 0f the summons and complaint 0f the unlawful detainer. Appellant signed a residential lease with Plaintiff and was responsible t0 pay rent, which she did for April and May 201 8. [Appellant’s Opening Brief, p. 5] She admits to not paying rent in July 2018. [Appellant’s Opening Brief, p.5] But then she waited until August 11, 2018, a month and a half after the notice was served in July 2018, asking her boyfriend t0 make payment for July 2018. [Appellant’s Opening Brief, p.5] She cannot be reasonably smprised she was evicted, especially after waiting a substantial 12 amount 0f time t0 pay her rent, When She could have asked her boyfriend t0 make payment in July 2018 for the rent owed. Appellant did not exercise reasonable diligence 1101‘ wa‘s she surprised 0f the eviction. Her arguments d0 not support the granting 0f her appeal based 0n CCP §473. Therefore, this Court must uphold the Default Judgments for Possession and Monetary Damages in this matter. III. CONCLUSION Based 0n the above, Appellant has failed t0 Show that the notice t0 pay rent 01‘ quit was defective, Which is a factual determination. Further, Plaintiff properly served the Appellant the summons and complaint 0f the unlawfill detainer allowing the court t0 have proper jurisdiction and finally, Appellant should not receive relief under CCP §473 due t0 fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation, as there is n0 evidence 0f such. Therefore, the Judgments for possession and monetary damages must stand. Dated: [233% 8+ 22 20/ ? Respectfully submitted, ST’EVEN MEHLMAN, ESQ. KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent The Cypress at Nonhpark, LLC I V CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT (C211. Rules ofCourt, rule 141(c)(1) The text 0fthis briefconsists 0f 2,809 words as counted by Word word-processing program used t0 generate the brief. DATEDW 80/? fl _. STEVEN MEHLMAN, ESQ. KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent The Cypress at Northpark, LLC Proof of Service (Appellate Division) Instructions o This form is only for providing proofthat a document has been served (delivered) in a proceeding in the superior court appellate division, Ifyou are serving a document electronically, pleaSe use Proof(y'EZectrom'c Service (Appellate Division) (form APP-109E). o The person who serves (delivers) a document in this case and who fills out this form: o Must be at least 18 years old o Must NOT be a party in this case . Before you fill out this fornL read What Is ProonfService? (form APP-109-[NFO) l0 understand your responsibilities. ® At the time I served the documents listed in@, [was at least 18 years old. ® l am not a party in the case identified in the box 0n the right side 0f this page. ® My D home business address is: Street City Sfate Zip ® I mailed 01‘ personally delivered the following document, as indicated below (check 0173]! 2'12 the name Ofthe doczmzem you are serving and check and complete either a 0r b). Notice oprpeal/Cross Appeal (Limited Civil Case) Notice Designating Record 0n Appeal (Limited Civil Case) Proposed Statement 0n Appeal (D Limited Civil Case Appellant's Opening Brief Respondent's Brief Appeliant's Reply Brief Abcmdonmenr quppeaZ (Limited Civif Case) Peziz’ionfor Wrif (flfisdemeanor; [nfi‘acriom 0r Limited Civil Case) EDUUEUUUU Other (write in the zmnm qfrhe document): Proof of Service (Appellate Division) Proof of Electronic Service (Court of Appeal) a. (1) Service by Mail D Wlisdemeanor §Cfierk stamps date here When form is filed, AUG 2 8 2019 Clerk of th Court Saperior Court of C BY .. - You fill r‘n the name and sneer address of the cow? that issued the decision mat J’s being Challenged in Ibis case: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N. First Street 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Downtown Superior Court You fl}! in the number and name of the trial com? case in Which the decision being challenged was issued: Trial Court Case Number: 180V331208 Trial Court Case Name: The Cypress at Northpark LLC v. Liu You fill in the appellate division case number {if you know if): Appellate Division Case Number: 19AP002552 D [Jqfiacfimy I put one copy 0fthe document identified in@ in an envelope addressed to each person listed in (2), sealed the envelope, and put first-Class postage 0n the envelope. Judicia‘ Council of CaHfomia‘ wwwcomsvca gov Rev January 1. 2017‘ Optiona‘ Form (TIT ‘ EssentialLB r ceb.com éamv Proof of Service (Appellate Division) APP-1 09, Page1 0f2 9 Irvine (ICAC) Appelialc Division Case Number: Appellate Division . , 19AP002552 Case Name: W (2) The envelope 0r envelopes were addressed as follows: (a) Name ofperson served: Nicholas W. Yang - Wong Chang & Yang LLP Address 0n envelope: ? V Street City State Zip (b) Name ofperson served: Address 0n envelope: Street Cfry State Zip D Check here ifyou mailed copies Ofthe document identified in ® t0 more people. Attach a separate page listing the names and addresses 0n each additional envelope you mailed. Write "APP-109, Item 4a” 0n the top offhe page. (3) {mailed the envelope or envelopes on (dare): 8/22/201 9 from (city): Concord (Stale): CA by depositing the envelope 0r envelopes (check one); (a) D With the U.S. Postal Service 01‘ (b) m At an office 01‘ business mail drop where I know the mail is picked up every day and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, b. D Service by Personal Delivery 1 personally gave one copy 0f the document identified in ® t0 each OfIhe following people: (1) (a) Name ofperson served: (b) Address where you gave the documents t0 this person: Street City State Zip (c) Date when you gave the documents to this person: (d) Time when you gave the documents t0 this person: (:2) (a) Name 0f person served: (b) Address where you gave the documents to this person: Street City Stare Zip (c) Date when you gave the documents to this person: (d) Time when you gave the documents t0 this person: D Check here ifyou gave copies 0fthe document identified in @to more people. Attach a separate: page iisting the names 0f each 0fthese people, the address where you gave each ofthem the document, and the date and time you gave them the document Write "APP-l 09, Item 4b" on the top ofthe page. ® I declare under penalty of perjury under California state law that the information above is true and correct. Date: 8122220 IQ .._‘ # . . ’ Type 0r prim server’s name Rev. January 1, 2017 APP-109, Page 2 of 2 T v E H Proof of Service(“LB 552$"; (Appellate Division)sebum Il'Vifle ([CAC) APP-009E PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (Court 0f Appeal) Notice: This form may be used t0 provide proof that a document has been served in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Please read Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court oprpeal) (form APP-009--INFO) before completing this form. .- AUG 28 2019 Cierk of the Cour‘i Case Name: The Cypress at Northpark LLC v. Liu SuperiorCounoICA Superior Coun Case Number: 18CV33’I 208 R m' i -'un of Santa Clara Court oprpealCase Number: 19AP002552 BY" . .. _ _ DEPUTY 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age. 2. a. My D residence business D address is (specify): 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1350 Concord, CA 94520 b4 My electronic service address is (specify): Anastasia.MogileVSky@ktS-law.00m 3A | electronically sewed the following documents (exact titles): Respondent's Opening Brief Proof of Service (Appellate Division) Proof of Electronic Service (Court of Appeal) 4. lelectronically served the documents listed in 3. as follows: a‘ Name of person sewed: Nicholas Yang, Esq. On behalf 0f (name ornames ofpan‘ies represented, ff person served is an attorney): Defendant and Appellant Xiaoting Liu b. Electronic service address 0f person served: niChOIaS@chlega|.00m c; On (date): 8/22/2019 D The documents listed in 34 were served electronically on the persons and in the manner described in an attachment (write ”APP-OOQE Item 4” at the top of the page). | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, Date: 8/22/201 9M (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING TH‘S FORM) /G
