Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 9, 2019

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/4/2019 10:49 AM Reviewed By: J. Duong Case #19CV351016 Envelope: 3480473 1 Anthony P. Schoenberg (State Bar N0. 203714) Kelly M. Matayoshi (State Bar No. 284596) ' Farella Braun + Martel LLP 23S Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 4 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 tschoenberg@/bm. com 5 kmatayoshi@fbm.com Ix) b.) 6 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 1 1 JOHN FERNANDEZ, LINDA Case No. 19CV35101 6 HERNANDEZ, 12 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S NOTICE TO Plaintiffs, STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL 13 ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT vs. l4 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC Cmnplaillt Filed! July 9, 201 9 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 16 MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, 17 INCLUSIVE 1 8 Defendants. 19 2O 21 22 Please take notice that on October 3, 2019, Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM LLC”) 23 removed this action t0 the United States District Coufi for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Jose 24 . , . - . . . . . Dwxswn, by i‘llmg a Nonce ofRemoval m that Court. A copy ofthe Notxce ofRemoval 1s attached as 25 Exhibit A. Pursuant t0 28 U.S‘C. § 1446(d), this Court may proceed no further unless the case is 26 remanded. 27 Eucllu Hmm 4 Manet uJ' {m a M 3;",1533" 38023127226451 ” GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’s NOTICE 0F FILING 0F NOTICE 0F REMOVAL -- Case No. 19CV35 1016 k) DATED: October 3, 201 9 FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 5 b Kéllf M: Matayoshi Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 28 Fnrclh nmuu ‘ Maud LI r 23$ Momgumcny 5mm. 17’ mum Sanmesm Caurmmav-um 2 38022\12722645J “W" GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE 0F REMOVAL -- Case No. :9cv35 1016 EXHIBIT A 19 l-‘znvuu txumm Maud u p 2.1.5 Mammnmv Sum, {7“ Hm: Sm mexcism ('ulirmma w iul H IS} ‘IM-Hh) Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page l 0f 42 Anthony P. Schoenberg (State Bar No. 203714) Kelly M. Matayoshi (State Bar No. 284596) Farclla Braun + Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94} O4 Telephone: (415) 9544400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 lschoenberg@fbm. com lcmalayoshi@flmz. com Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No.: NOTICE OF REMOVAL JOHN FERNANDEZ and LINDA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 19CV351016 vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and MOTORS LIQUIDA'I‘ION CORPORATION, Defendants. VV‘vvvaVVV\_/\ /\ gx 2 "J_‘O: THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DIS'I‘RIC’I‘ COURT FOR THE NOR'I‘i-IERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA Pursuant to 28 U‘SC. §§ 1332, 1441, and I446, Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM LLC”), by and through the undersigned cuunscl, respectfully removes the above-captioned case from the Superior Court for the County 0f Santa Clara, State of California, t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California 0n the ground that original diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § .1332. In support 0f removal, GM LLC states as follows: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On Juiy 9, 20 I 9, Plaintiffs John Fernandez and Linda Hernandez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Cali‘ibmia, County of Santa Clara, Case N0. 19CV3510I6 (the “State Court: Complaint”). 1n accordance with 28 {J.SC § 1446(a), a true and correct copy 0f 3082mm 19730.1 NO’I‘ICE OF REMOVAL IQ mQGm-{D‘ 28 k-‘axc’la Ihmm w Maud Lu' 2“ Mculwmcu 5mm, l7" Hum San Humsw. l'nllhmm ’H I(N (J Ls) ‘IM-um Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page 2 of 42 all served process, pleadings, and orders, including Plaintiffs" summons and compiaint served on GM LLC, are attached as Exhibit A. 2. The above-captioned action is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs to recover damagss for alleged injuries and other damages arising out of a motor vehicic accident that purportedly occurred 0n 0r about July 9, 2017. Plaintiffs assert claims for products iiability, strict liability, negligence, and breach ofimplied warranty; Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages. 3. GM LLC, through its registered agent, was served with the summons and complaint 0n September 3, 2019. This notice of removal is timely filed within 30 days of formal service ofprocess 0n GM LLC under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2). See Murphy Bras; Inc. v. Michelli Pipe Stringing, Ina, 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999) (holding that the time for removal runs from the receipt of formal service of process). 4. GM LLC has answered the complaint in state court. A true and correct copy 0f GM LLC’S state court answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B. ‘ JURISDICTION 5. This Court has original jurisdiction “0f all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and cost, and is between ‘ . . citizens oi’different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(21). 6. As more fully set forth balow, there is complete diversity 0f citizenship between all Plaimifit‘s and Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Accordingly, this action is properly remcvable. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 7. Plaintiffs arc citizens of the State ofCalifornia. 8. Defendants include the GM LLC, General Motors Corporation, Motors Liquidation Corporation, and DOES l through 50. It is well established that “Mn determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis ofjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) . . . the citizenship 0f defiandants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded." 28 U.S.C. § I44l(b)(1); see also ljzjyrmt v. Ford Mom," (30., 886 F.2d 1526, 1528 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Congress obviously reached the conclusion that doe defendants should not defeat diversity jurisdiction”). 7 30822\127 I 9730. iHWW ' NOTICE 012' REMOVAL 26 27 28 Fawlm (Mun z Mmdur 7x3 Mcmmzuy sum n‘1-‘nm m. Mammy mum“: v: 1m (HS) *uqaqm Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 3 of 42 9. CM LLC is now, andrwas. at the time of thé commencement 0f this action, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place 0f business in Michigan. GM LLC is iOO-percent owned by General Motors Holdings, LLC, Which is also a Delawam limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan. General Motors Holdings, LLC, in turn, is 100~percent owned by General Motors Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place 0f business in Michigan. GM LLC is therefore a citizen of Delaware and Michigan for purposes 0f diversity jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 89.9 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that for purposes 0f determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state 0f which its owners/members are citizens). 10. Motors Liquidation Company (“MLC”), ibrmerly General Motors Corporation, no longer exists; it was previously a Delaware corporation that had its principal place of business in Michigan. H. General Motors Corporation (“GMC”) no longer exists; it was previously a Delaware corporation that had its principal place of business in Michigan. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 12. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs. Plaintiff’s’ State Court Complaint alleges an indeterminate amount 0f damages. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.10 (“. . . where an action is brought to recover actual 0r punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount demanded shall r101 be stated . . .”). 13. “{A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible ailegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dar! Cherokee Basin Operating C0,, LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014); see also 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(2)(13). This plausible allegation is sufficient unless “contested by the plaintiffor questioned by the coum.” Darl, 135 S. CL at 553. I4. Here, Plaintiff Fernandez claims to have suffered serious physical injuries, including head trauma and orthopedic injuries. See Slate Court Complaint at fl 14. Both Plaintiftk seek damages for past and future lost earnings; and past and future hospital}, medical, and 3 30822\I27l9730.l Norma 0F REMOVAL; 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mme! In nxu u. l7“ Hour Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 4 of 42 incidental expenses. 1d.- at W 15-16. Plaintiffié also seek punitive daniages. 1d. at ‘fl 70. Givén that Plaintiffs seek the above~referenced damages, the amount in controversy exceeds {ha jurisdictional threshold of $75,000, exclusive ofintcrest and costs. I 15. Accordingly, because the diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy requirements are met, this action is removable t0 this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(21). VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 16. Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifomia is proper because the State Court Complaint was commenced in the Superior Court ot‘Califomia in Santa Clara County. 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Pursuant 1‘0 Local Rule 3-2(c)&(e), this case arises in tho San Jose Division. 17. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446((1), GM LLC served, 0r will promptly sewe, written notice of the filing of this Notice OfRemovaI upon Plaintiffs’ counsel and will file a copy 0f the Notice 0f Removal in the Superior Court 0f California, Santa Clara County, Case N0. 19CV3SIOI6. 18. AU defendant‘s who have been properly joined and served join in and consent t0 the removal 0f this action. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (b)(2)(A). 19. 1n the event Plaintiffs seek t0 remand this case, 0r the Court considers remand sua .sponte, GM LLC requests the opportunity t0 submit such additional argument 0r evidence in support oi" removal as may be necessary. 20. This Notice 0f Removal is signed pursuant t0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1'1. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). WHEREFORE, this action should proceed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as an action properiy removed thereto. DATED: October 3, 201 9 FARELI A BRAUN & MAR 'I EL LI P By: @//%//%k:" K611y M. Matayoshi ,Attomeys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS. LLC 4 30822\l27 t 9730.! N0T1c:t§"5fikEMOVAL’ ' Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 5 of 42 EXHIBIT A Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 6 of 42 . . sum-wo SUMMONS (sotggAcRoAuggougg giggékrfi) (CITACION JUDICIAL) E F‘LED NOTICE To DEFENDANT: ' ' (Awso AL DEMANDADO): 8/7/201 9 4:1 3 PM 013mm LMMQQQgsa 1:140. GENERAL MOTORS COREORATIONMOTORS C’erk Pf court UQULDATION COMPANY, and Doss 1 THROUGH so, inclusive SUpenor com 0f CA' County of Santa Clara YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: 1gcv351o16 (Lo ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE}: Reviewed By. L De; Mundo JOHN FERNANDEZ and LINDA HERNANDEZ Envelope: 3233688 NOTICE! You have been sued. The com: may decide against you wlthoutyour being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the Information bdow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after (hie summons and $998! papers are served on you to file a written Iespcnso at this mud and have a copy served on me pialnmf. A letter or phone coll wm not protect you. Yourwrluen response musk be in props: legal form u you wan! (he court to hear your case. There may be a coud ronn that you can use {ar your response. You can find meae couxt (orms and more infalmatlon at the California Coons Onlme Seu-Holp Center (www.courflnfo.ca.gov/sa(lhelp). your county iaw library. or the coufihouse nearest you‘ lf y0u cannot pay the filing fee‘ 83K me coun dark for a tee waiver form. 1f you do not me your (espouse on “me, you may lose the cane by dcrauit. and yourwages. money. and pvoperiy may be taken withoul {miner warning (mm me cowl. There me other Iegai requirements. You may want {o cal! an mtorney rightaway. nyou do not know an aunrney, you may wank to can an attorney referrai sewice, 1f you comm! afford an anomey. yuu may be euglbie fo: free Raga! servlcea 1mm a nonprofit legal services program. You can locale mesa nonprofit groups a! the Caliromia Legal Semicaa Web she (MM.lawheincalllorniamg). lhe California Courts Onllne SeIf-Help Canker (www.camiin/o.cn.gov/sel/bolp). or by comacfinu your local com or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a smtmory Ilen (or waived fees and costs on any samemem ocarbikration award o! $1 0.000 or mote m a dun case. The court‘s Xian mus: be paid before the court wlll d‘amlss {ha case. ;AVISOI Lo mm denmndado. s! no responda denim do 30 dias‘ Ia code puedo docldlr en su contra sin ascualmr su versldn. Lea (a Infomacidn a continuacidn. Tiene 30 DIAS DE GALENDARIO daspués r19 qua (e antrsguvn 63m clIacldn ypapolos legalas para prosvnmr Una respuesla par escn‘lo en asta coda y hacsrqus so entregua una copia a! domandanla. Una cede o um llamada {alaldnlca no lo prolegsn. Su raspuasra par oscrita Ilene qua aslar on lormelo legal carreclo sl desea qua procasen su caso en It: corte. Es poslbro qua beya un forlnwa/Io qua uslod pueda userpara su respuesla. Puado enconlmr eslos formallarfos d6 Ia coda y mfis Informaoldn en al Centre do Ayuda d9 [as Cortes do California (wvm.sucorle.ua.gov), on la blbflofaca de Ieyes ds su condado o en la aorta qua [a quado mds coma. Slno pueda pagarla cuota (Ia presanlacldn, pida a! socrohzllo d6 la coda qua ls dé un Iormularla do exencién de page do cuolas. SI no pressnm su respuasfa a lismpo, puoda pordar a! cnso porlncumpllmlenfo y Ia cells Ia padré qulrar su sualdo. dinero y bienea sin més aduedenciu. Hay altos requisites Iegales. Es racomendebfe qua [fame a an obogado inmediulumenla. SI no conoce a un abogadol puoda llamar a un senllclo d9 remlslcin a abogados. Si rro puode pagnre an abogado, as poslble qua cumpla con (cs requfsllos para pbmner smvlcfoa legalas gratuilos d9 un programn dc sarvlclos Isgalas sin {Ines do lucro. Funds encontrar estos grupos sin fines do lucm en el silio web do Califomla Luge! Sem'cos. (wwaawhelpoauforme.org}. en a) Contra d9 Ayuda d9 Ins Codes do Calilomla, (ww.suco;le.ca.gov) o ponléndose en oontaclo con Ia aorta a cl colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: For lay. Ia coda Ilene derecho a reclemarlas cuotas y los castes axon!” par Imponer un gmvamen sabre cualquier racupamclm) de 870.000 6 més de valorreciblda madianlo un acuerdo o’clna catwasién do arbllra/e en un caao d9 demoho 0M], Tiene qua pagar o! gravaman do [a coda antes de qua Ia calm pueda dosechar el case. The name 2nd addt‘ess of {he court is: owe Humuum (Ndmum d9) cam): (E! nombre y dlrecc/dn de Ia code es): Superior Court of California, Santa Clara IQCVES I 016 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95'! 13 The name, address. and aeiephone number of p|ainliff‘s auomey, or plaintiff wlihout an attorney. ls: Nicole N. Hancock (El nombm, la d(reccfdn y e! namero d9 Ieléfono del abogado dal damandanla, o def demundante qua no Ilene abogado, as): SHEA & SHEA, 2007 West Heddiug Street, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95128 DAT": . Cierk, by i DBPUW (Fecga) 8/7/2019 4‘13 PM C‘erk' Of 0mm {Socretado} L Deg mundo (Adan!!!) (Forproof of ser/ce or [Ills summons. use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-O'IOM (Para prueba de entmga de esta citatlén use e1 formularlo Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-Ow». NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. [j as anlndividualdefendant. 2. [:3 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3, nbehalfoflspecify): C&CWQVOA whys! F%c- under: C] CCP 416310 (corporation) C] CCP 416.60 (mlnor) [j CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) E] CCP 416.70 (conservalee) - C] COP 416.40 (association or partnershlp) [j CCP 416.90 (authorized person) . ?mher (specify): i 3 C,4Q b personaidezivery on (dale): q CLAW\,‘ \ Page 1 0H ‘ SUMMONS [ ‘ ' coda otcmachwumsgm.zo.of California. 3. At a1! times herein mentioned, PlaintiffHBRNANDEZ was and 1's an individual and a resident of the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California. -1. FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC. et 8!. CASE NO: C0MPLAINT FOIL DAMAGES x Case 3:19-cv~06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 8 of 42 4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC was and is a limited liability company established under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. GM is the successor-in-imerest to General Motors Company, which manufactured the vehicle Plaintiff was driving at the time of the motor vehicIc incident which gives rise to this action. GM regularly does business in the State ofCaXifomia. 5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, was and is a foreign corporation incorporated under the laws ofthe State of Delaware. It is believed and atleged that GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION manufactured, assembled, and/or sold the vehicle Plaintiffwas driving at the time of the motor vehicle incident which gives rise to this action. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION regularly does bUSiness in the State of Califomia. 6. At all times herein mentioned, defendant MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, was and is a foreign corporation iilcorporated under the laWS of the State of Delaware. 1t is believed that MOTORS LIQUHDATION COMPANY may have liability after the General Motors bankruptcy. 7. Plaintiffs are ignorant ofthe 'Lme names and éapacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES I through 50. inclusive, and, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave t0 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each 0f said fictitiousiy named Defendants is responsible, either strictly, negligently, or in some actionable manner for the occurrences and happenings herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alieg'ed were proximately caused by said negligence, either through said Defendant’s OWn conduct or through the conduct of its agents; servants, employees, or representatives in some other manner. 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times mentioned herein each ofthe defendants, including defendants DOES 1 flmugh 50, inclusive, and each of them were at all times acting within the authorized course un‘d scope of said agency, . _2_ FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et a}. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES (om'flQOT-AmM-A m M m M m N re m .4. .4 .4 .4 .A .A .2. Case 3:19-cv«06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 9 of 42 service, employment, and/or representation, and/or that all of said acts, conduct and omissions were subsequently ratified by their respective principals and the benefits hereofaccepted by such principals. 10. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, impacting; servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, leasing, renting, retailing, wholesaling, and advertising a certain 2000 GMC Sonoma and each and every component part thereof, which defendants knew, or in the exercise ofreasonable case should have known, would be used without inspection for defects in its parts, mechanisms or design, for use in the State of Califomia and elsewhere. There were defects present in the 2000 GMC Sonoma which are manifest by a comparison ofthe mechanics of the crash and the injuries sustained. 1 I. On or around July 9, 2017, at approximately 3:15 p.m., FERNANDEZ was stopped at a left tum red light of the intersection of Monterey Road and Palm Road in his gold 2000 GMC Sonoma with license plate number 6649406 and VIN 1GTCSIQW6YB8127160 ( heieinafler “SUBJECT SONOMA”) when he was struck from the rear by a 2007 Honda Ridgeline. 12. FERNANDEZ was found unresponsive in the driver’s seat and transported by AMR to Regional Medical Center. 13. At all times heroin mentioned, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, was a passenger in the SUBJECT SONOMA at the time ofthg incident. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ, sustained serious physical injuries and head trauma due to the defects herein ailegcd, causing him to Suffer, and continue to suffer, from symptoms relating to head trauma and orthopedic injuries, among others. HERNANDEZ sustained less serious injuries. 15. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ, were required to, and did employ, physicians to examine, treat, and care for them, and did incur, and will continue to incur medical, hospital, and . incidental expenses. The exact amount of said expenses is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. and -3- FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct al. CASE No.1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Dmflmmth-x [\J N N N N M N N A .3- -\ A ~9- Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 10 of 42 Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZAND HERNANDEZ, will scak leave to amend this complaint when the exact amount has been ascertained, or according to proof. 16. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs were prevented fiom attending to their usual occupation and thereby lost earnings. Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ are informed and believes, and allege, that they will thereby be prevented from attending to said occupation in the fixture and will thereby sustain a further loss of earnings, all to their damage- in a sum presently unascertained. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ, will seek leave to amend this complaint when the exact amount has boon usccmained, or according to proof. 17. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs’ earning capacity has been impaired, both in the past and in the present, in an amount according t0 proof. 18. Discovezy is yet to commence but it is alleged that Defendants, and each 0f them, designed and manufactured the SUBJECT SONOMA in such a way that it could not withstand the type of rear end collision in which Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ were injured and that Defendants, and each ofthem, knew or should have known about the lack or crashworthiness of the vehicle but sold it to the public anyways. In addition, it is alleged that the defendants did not do sufficient testing as to rear end crashwordfiness of the vehicle, nor of the seats and scat backs of the vehicle and put the vehicle on the market with full knowledge of the defects mentioned above. Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ reserve the right to make further allegations regarding exemplary damages after discovery is completed FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION (Products Liabilifiu Strict Liability) l9. Plaintiffs re~allege paragraphs 1 through 18 ofthc genera! allegations as though fully set forth at length herein. -4- FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct al. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (DmNCDUl-P-OJN-l MNNNNNMM-Aéé Case 3:19-Cv-06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page 11 of 42 20. Defendants, and each ofthem, knew that the SUBJECT SONOMA was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle including but not limited to PlaintiffFERNANDEZ. 21. The SUBJECT SONOMA and each of its component parts were manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labaled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, adj ustcd, and selected by Defendants, and each ofthem, with inherent Vices and defects both in design and manufacturing (hereinafter “SUBJECT DEFECTS”), and by these defendants’ faiiure to warn ofthe SUBJECT DEFECTS ofwhich they were at all times aware, which subject defects made the SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts, dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe both for its/thcir intended use(s) or for reasonably foreseeable misuses. 22. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the following: A. Defective and unsafe tea: mush zone performance in reasonably foreseeable rear end crashes rendering the vehicle defective, unreasonably dangerous, and unsafe. B. Defaetivc and unsafe seatback position performance and protection in reasonably foreseeable rear end crashes rendering the vehicle defective, unreasonably dangerous, and unsafe. C. Inadequate and/or lack of any warning regarding the above defect. 23. The SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts were unsafe for their intended uses and reasonably foreseeable misuses by reason of the defects in its/thex'r design and/or manufacturing and/or failure or warn by said defendanis, and each of them, in that when the SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts were used by PlaintiffFERNANDEZ on July 9, 201 7, as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, during a reasonably foreseeable rear end impact event, were dangerous and defective. The SUBJECT SONOMA was therefore not crashworthy, legally causifxg the injuries and damages alleged above. .5. FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, at a1. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES OGmNmm-LQNA NNNNNNNNA-é-é womhmonmmw$ESEESF334 Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 12 of 42 24. Defendants, and each ofthcm, are strictly liable to the Plaintiffs for the injuries suffered, for the losses occurred, and for the losses which they will incur in the future because the SUBJECT SONOMA was not crashworthy and failed to provide adequate seatback protection. SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION (Products Liabilitwaegligence) 25. Plaintiffs reallege pamgraphs 1 through 24 ofthe above allegations as fully set fonh at Ieugth herein. 26. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each ofthem, had a duty to use reasonable due care in the manufacture, design, assembly, packaging, testing, fabricating, analysis, inspection, merchandising, marketing, distributing, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, supply, leaée, rental, warning, selection, inspection, and repair ofthe SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts. 27. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each ofthem, knew, 3nd/or in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known, that the SUBJECT SONOMA and ifs component parts were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected, and provided inadequate warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likeiy to injure the person who used said product, each of its component parts and/or afiermarket parts and/or installation guides. 28. Defendants, and each of them, so negfigently .and carelessly, manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, adveniscd, promoted, sold, supplied,‘lcased, rented, repaired, selectcd and provided inadequate warnings and provided said SUBJECT SONOMA . and its component parts so that the same was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe and not crashworthy for the respective' use and purpose for which it was intended when used and driven -5- FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct a]. CASE NO; COMPLAINT FOR. DAMAGES m‘NIODCfi-bwm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1'9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 3:19-cw06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page l3 0f 42 as recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by members of the public, including the action of the driver who hit plaintiff from behind in a reasonably foreseeable and statistically inevitable rear end impact event. 29. As a direct and legai result ofthe negligence, carelessness, and unlawfijl conduct of Defendants, and each ofthem, and 111a defects inherent in the vehicle, defendants legally caused plaintiffs injuries and damages as alleged above. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability- Failure to Warn) 41. Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ incorporate by reference and hereby re-alleges all fiuz'agraphs previously alleged herein. 42. Defendants, and each of them, designed, engineered, developed, manufactured, merchandized, fabricated, assembled, produced, tested, inspected, sewiced, repaired, advertised, promoted, marketed, supplied, distributed, and sold the SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts and constituents, to be used as a passenger vehicle and for other related activities. 43. The SUBJECT SONOMA had potential risks and dangers that were known or knowable at the time 0f the defective manufacture, distribution and sale. 44. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known ofthe substantial dangers involved in the reasonably foreseeable use of these vehicles, whose defective design, manufacturing, and lack of sufficient warnings caused them to have an unreasonably dangerous propensity to cause serious injuries. 45. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known that that the ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks, side effects or dangers, and that consumers wouid purchase and use these products without inspection. 46. At all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each ofthem, failed to provide adéquatc warnings, instructions, guidelines or admonitions to members of the consuming public, including FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ, of the defects, which Defendanm knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to have existed in the subject vehicle, and its -7- FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et a1. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES {DmNCDUl-waA NNNNNNNN-X-AAAA \zmmnwmgommummfiafii’S Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 14 of 42 component parts. 47. On or about July 9, 2017, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ sustained injuries and damages while using the SUBJECT SONOMA for the purpose for which it was intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 48. As a legal and proximate result of the failure to warn, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ were hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her body and shock and injury to her nervous system and person. Physical injuries include but are not limited to, a crushing injuxy t0 the calf, a shoulder injury requiring alfln'oscopic surgery, and substantial scar tissue forming in both the calf and shouldey. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) 49. Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ incoxporate by reference and hereby rc~alleges an paragraphs previously alleged herein. 50. Defendants, and each ofthem, designed, engineered, devgloped, manufactured, merchandizegfabricated, assembled, produced, tested, inspected, serviced, repaired, advertised, promoted, marketed, supplied, distributed, and sold the SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts and constituents, to be used as a passenger vehicle and for other related activities. 51. Defendants, and each ofthem, had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, engineering, development, manufacture, merchandizing, fabrication, assembly, production, testing, inspection, servicing, repair, advertising, promotion, marketing, supply, distribution, and sale of the SUBJECT SONOMA it placed in the stream of commerce, including a duty to ensure that thé crush zone and seat backs and would not cause FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ unnecessary injuries. 52. Defendants, and each ofthcm, knew 0r in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known of the substantial dangers involved in the reasonably foreseeable use of the SUBJECT SONOMA, whose defective design, manufacture, and iack of sufficient warnings caused it to have an unreasonably dangerous propensity to cause serious injuries. .8. FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC. ct al. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES .4 AommflmmkmN A 13 14 ‘15 16 17 18 19 20 2’? 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 3:19-cv-06388 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 15 0f 42 53. Defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care and were negligent in designing, engineering, developing, manufacturing, merchandizing, fabricating, assemblmg, producing, testing, inspecting, servicing, repairing, advertising, promoting, marketing, supplying, distributing, and selling the SUBJECT SONCMA with a defectively designed and manufactured crush zone and seat backs. 54. On or about July 9, 2017, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ used the SUBJECT SONOMA for the purpose for which it was intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. During the coursc and use and as a legal result of the defects herein described, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ sustained serious injuries due to the defects described herein. 55. As a direct and proximate result ofthc negligence of Defendants, and each of them, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ were hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her body and shock and injury to their nervous system and person. Physical injuries include but are not limited to, head trauma and orthopedic injuries FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence - Failure to Warn) 56. Plaintiffs FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ incorporates by reference and hereby re-alieges all paragraphs previously alleged heroin. 57. Defendants, and each of them, designed, engineered, developed, manufactured, merchandized, fabricated, assembled, produced, tested, inspected, serviced, repaired, advenised, promoted, marketed, supplied, distributed, and sold the SUBJECT SONOMA and its component parts and constituents, to be used as a passenger vehicle and for other related activities. 58. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known ofthe substantial dangers involved in the reasonably foreseeable use of the SUBJECT SONOMA, whose defective design, manufacturing, and lack of sufficient wamings caused it to have an unreasonably dangerous propensity cause serious injuries. 59. Defendants, and each ofthe, knew or reasonably should have known that that the ordinary consuumrs would not have recognized the potentiai risks, side effects or dangers, and .9- FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, at n1. CASE NO; COMPLAIN'I‘ FORDAMAGES O(DmNmGT-htflk); NNNNNNNNAA-AA-AAAA Nmm-fimNéommNmCfihmmj-A Case 3:19~cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 16 of 42 that the SUBJECT SONOMA would be purchased and used without inspection for defect's by FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ and the general public. 60. At all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide adequate warnings, instructions, guidelines or admonitions to members of the consuming public, including FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ, of the defects, Which Defendants knew, or in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known, to have existed in the subject vehicle, and its component parts. 61. A reasonable manufacturer, distributor, and seller of automobiles, under the same or similar circumstances, would have provided adequate warnings, instructions, guidelines or admonitions to the consuming public regarding their defective product. 62. On 0r about July 9, 2017, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ sustained injuries and damages while using the SUBJECT SONOMA for the purpose for which it was intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 63. As a legal and proximate result ofthe negligence, of Defendants, and each of them, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ ware hurt and injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their body and shock and injury to her nervous system and person. Physical injuries include but arc not limited to, head trauma and orthopedic injuries SIXTH CAUSE 0F ACTION (Breach of Implied Warranty) 64. Piaintiffs FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ incorporate by reference and hereby re~alleges all paragraphs previously alleged herein: 65. Prior to the time ofthe incident, the Defendanis, and each of them, impliedly warranted to FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ and members of the general public, that the SUBJECT SONOMA was of merchantable quality and was safe for the use for which it was intended, namely, for the purpose of use as a passenger vehicle, and other related activities. . 1 0.. "FFREKNDEZ, HERNANDEZ v‘s. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, e: a1. CASE No; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (GmxlmmhLOM-é NNNNNNMNA-t-A Case 3:19~cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03l19 Page 17 of 42 66. FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ relied on the skin and judgment of Defendants in the selection, purchase and use of the SUBJECT SONOMA as a safe and reliable means for transportation. 67. The SUBJECT SONOMA was not safe for its intended use nor was it of merchantable quality as warranted by Defendants, in that it was defectively designed, manufactured, and lacked the proper warnings, thereby dangerously exposing the users of said vehicle and those around it to serious injury. 68. As a legal and proximate result of the breach of said implied warranties, FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ Were hurt and injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their body and shock and injury to her nervous system and person. Physical injuries include but are not limited to, head trauma and orthopedic injuries. 69. After FERNANDEZ and HERNANDEZ received the injuries described herein, notice was given by Plaintiff to Defendants, by filing this lawsuit in the time and in the manner and in the form prescribed by law, ofthe breach of said implied warranty. PUNITIVE DAIHAGES 70, Defendants and each ofthem designed and manufactured the SUBJECT SONOMA in a way such that it couid not withstand the type ofrear end collision in which Plaintiffs Were injured. Defendants knew or should hava known about the Iack of crashworthiness 0f the vehicle but sold it to the public anyway. In addition, it is alleged that Defendants did not do sufficient testing as to rear end crashworthiness of the vehicle, nor of the seats and seat backs of the vehicle and put the vehicle on the market with full knowledge of the defects mentioned above in conscious disregard for the public’s safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ AND HERNANDEZ, pray judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For general damages in a sum according t0 proof; 2. For interest on said judgment at the legal rate from July 9, 201 7; 3. For medical and related expenses according to proof; .1 1- . FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct a1. CASENO.: COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES mummgmm.‘ 11 12 1:.3 14 15 1.6 17 ‘1 8 1-9 2O .2 'l 22 2‘3 24' 25 26 ‘27 Case. 3:19-Cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 18 of 42 4:. For other economic damages in a sum according to proof; 5. For loss of earning"s.and camingcapacity accordingto proof; 6;. For costs of suit incurred herein; 7. thpunitim‘: damages; and 8.. .For .s'uéh other and further 'rielief as the‘ court may deem proper}. ' DATED: July 8, 20 1:9 SHEAS; SHEA NICOLE N; .I’IANCOCK, ESQ. Attorney for'Pla’inti‘ffs By: ‘ _‘ . _ _ 4 , ~12.- . , , FERNANDEZ; HERNANDEZ vS‘. GENERAL MOTORS LDC, Gt 3L CASE NO.:~ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 19 of 42 - . QM __A_ (132g £7qu [iliRa‘Q’chgEDUTAWORNEY (Name, g‘gigfirfiténib g?nd omega). FOR COURTUSE ONLY SHEA & SHEA 2007 Weeredding Street, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95128 ‘ V V Electronicafly Filed TELEPHONQNOJ 408) 29242434 ' FAX m: (408) 292-1264 by Superior Court 0f 0A AnonNevron Wm).- Iaintiffs a supamoarcoum pF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY or Santa Clam county 0f santa mam: swaearmoafiss; 191 N First Street 0n 7191201 9 12:26 PM mum monass: 191 N‘ First Street Reviewed By: Yuet Lai cmgmo 2m cone: Earl Jotse, C? 95 ll 3 Case #1 9CV351 O1 6 . O . I1 0WD 61‘10 f cmmggzm- W “P r Envelope: 3103518 Fernandez, et a) chnexalMotors, LLC, et a1 01V“- CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Deslgnaflbn CASE NUMBER: 190V351 01 6 Unnmned E3 Limited [j E] (Amount (Amount Cpunter ngnder demanded, demanded Is Filed with first appearance by defendant ““6““ exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or fess) (Cal. Rmes of Court. rute 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-6 below mast b9 completed (see insfmction‘son page 2). ‘1. Check one box'beiow for the case iype (hat best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionaily Complex leil Litigatlgu [:1 NM”) C] Breach omn‘meaflamymg) ‘(CaL Ruiss' of Court. rules 140013.403) [:3 Uninsuyed mourns: (46) C3 Rule 3.740 couecflons <09) C], Anmrusm‘mde regutauon (03) Other PJIPDIWD (Porsonal Injurx/Properiy O(harcollecflons (09) E] Construpthn'deie'ct (1:0) Dan‘agammnflw' Daa”‘7T°" Insurance covarage(18) C] MassiortMO) [:3 Asbestos (04) _ [:1 omerconnacuan D Securiuss Iitigauon (2a) CZ] Pmduculabmy (2") Real Property [:3 Envtronmenlalrroxic ton (30)D medic“ malpracuw (45) D Emmam domfiln/‘Wefse E] Insurance coverage ciatms adsln’gvfrom the [:3 Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (1 4) aboye Ilstgd provisionally compl'ax casé NomH/meo (Other) Tor: ‘Wr‘ong‘ful ?qullon (33> WWW”)m Busingss (omunfak buglness pracnce (o7) D Other real property [26) Enforcement of JudgmentD CM! rights (OB) Unlawfqi Datglnar‘ E] Entqrcempnl of'ludgmant (20) C3 Defamation (t3) [:3 Comtneréial (3‘1) Miscananaqus own Complaint,-D anud (16} [:3 Residentla! (32i m RICO (27) [:3 xmeuecnua: property (19) B, Drugs <38) E] omar'pugnpsamuno: specmadabove) (42). E] PWGSSECM' “8911991“ (25) JUdlcm Rewew Miscellane'ous CM! PetitionB Other flon-PUPWD {0ft (35) [j ASS?‘ fmeimm (05) E] Parfneramp and corporate governance (21) Empioyment a ““50“ W5 a‘bi‘wu‘m “’3’" (1 1) [:1 other penuon (no? specified above) (43)E Wrongful ietminatlpn.(36) D Writ. of mandate (02) [:3 Other employmen'i (i 5) m Olher iudlcla’l review (-39) 2.. Thisnase [1,} is [a is not compiex under ruie 3.400 of the Ca‘fiforma Rules of Court. If the case‘is.compl‘ax. mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. C] Large number of separately represented partles d.» [:3 Large number of wilnes‘ses b. [:3 Extensive moi'ion practice raising difficuu or novel .9,D Coordination with r'elgted acflons pending in ‘one-or more coufls Issues that win be time-consumlng to resolve in' ojher qou‘mies. states‘ or‘countries. or» in a federal coufl c.D Substantial amount of'documemary evidence ‘f; [:3 Substantial posi}udgmem judigia! supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): ea. monetaw hm nanmonetary: d_eclaralory or injunctive refi'ef c. .punitive . Number of;causes of action (special): Products Liability, Su‘ict Liability”, Negligence, Breach of‘Implied Warranty . This case [j is ls not a class action suit. 6. lf there are any known related cases. file and sgwe a 'noticeof related case. (You may use (atm-CM- Date: July 8,2019 flM .Nicole N. Hancock ‘ / {TYPE 0R PR'NT NAME) V NOTICE . Plaintiff musf file {his cover sheet with the first paper filed imhe acfion or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate‘ Code, Family Odds, or We‘lfare and Insmuflons Code). (Cal. Rules Q‘f Court, rule 3.220.) Faliure to flie maylresult in sanctions. -- Fige this cover sheet in additi'on lo any cover shee( required by focal coun rule: _ v "r this case Is cmnpfex under rule 3,400 e! seq. of the Caflfornia Ruies of Courttyou must sewe a copy of ‘his cover sheet on all other pariles to ihe acflon or proceeding. t Unless this Is a coilections case under'mla 3,740 or a complex case, this cover shee‘twill be ,used for statistical purposes onm‘“ {a . ‘ D . m3 u _ (w. Ru(eu olComm»: 2.30.3220. 3.4004403, 3.740; FudtsdfimpCowfiwactflhgimgmda“ CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CDL Slander!” of Judicial Amwtziakggafigemom mov. My 1. 2007) Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 20 of 42 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET- To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. 1f you are filing a first paper ( complete and file. aiong with your first pa ' statistics about the types and numbers o one box for the case type that best describes the case. check ma mom specific one. If the case has multlple causes of actian. CM-O‘I 0 for example, a compialnt) in a civil case. you must per, the Civil Cas'e Cover Sheetconiained on page 1. This Information will be used to commie ' fcases filed, You must complete Items 1 through 6 on the sheet. 1n Item 1. you must check if the case ms both a genera: and a more specific 1ype of case listed in item 1. check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you In completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provlded betow. A cover sheet must be filed onIy with your lnfllal paper. Rs counsel. or both to sanctions under rules 2,30 and 3.220 ofma Cafilomta Rules of Court. Failure 1n file a cover sheet with the first paper filed 1n a civil case may subject a party, To Parties Sn Ruie 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" Under rule 3.740 ls defined as em action {or recovery of money owed In a sum skated to be cenain that is not more than $25,000. exclusive of interest and axtorney's fees. arising from a transaction in which property. services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not Include an actton seekIng the foliowing: (1) ion damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real pro auachment. The Identification of a case as a rule 3.740 co time-for~servlca requirements and case management Mes, case wlfl be subject to the requiremants for service and obtaining aJudgment [n rule 3‘740. To Parties In Complex Cases. In complex cases only, case is complex. 1f a Nahum believes the case is complex under rule 8.4 pefly. (4) recovery of persona! properiy. or (5) a prejudgment writ of Ilectlons case on this form means that It Mil be exempt from the genera! unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections parties mus: aiso use the Civil Case Covar Sheet to designate whelher the 00 of the Canfumia Rules of Court. thls must be indicated by compteling the appropriate boxes !n items 1 and 2. lf a plaintiff designates a case as complex. the cover sheet must be served wilh the ‘ "complaim on all parfles ‘0 {he action. A defendant may ma and serve no later than the time of ils first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation, a counterdesignation that the case la not compiex. or, if the plaintiff has made no designation. a designation thai the case ls complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)~Pa(sonai InjurylProperty Damage/Wrongrul Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (ifthe case Involves an uninsumd malaria! claim sub/ecl to arbitration, check (his Item ins(eadofAuto) other PIIPDIWD (Personal injury! Property DamageIWrongful Death} Ton Asbestos (04) Asbesios Property Damage Asbestos Persona! lnxury/ Wrongful Dealh Produc‘ L‘abllily (not asbastos or {oxIc/environmantal} (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Maipracuce~ Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpracnce Other PllPD/WD (23) Ptemises Llabmty (e.g., slip and tau) intentional Bodliy InjurylPD/WQ ' (e.g., assault, vandaflsm) lntenflenal Infllctlon of Emotional Distress Negligent ‘nfllcfion of Emotional Distress O‘her PUPD/WD Non-PHPDIWD (Other) Tort Business TortIUnfair Business Pmctlce (07) Civil Rights (9.9., disodmlnauon, farse arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (9.9., slander, Ilbal) (13 Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (1 9) Professionat Negilgence (25) Legal Maipraclice Other Professional Malpractkw (no! medical orlagal) Other Ncn-PUPDIWO Tod (35) Empioymant Wtongful Tanninntlon (38) Other Employment (1 5) ammo (Rev. July 1. 2007; CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warramy (06) Breach of RentaULeaae Contract (no! unlawful detalner or wrongful ew‘cflon) ContracVWarranty Breach-Souer Pialnim‘ (not fraud orneg/igance) Negligent Breach ofcomracll Watranty Other Breach of CcnlracUWarranly Collacuons (6.9.. money owed. open book accounts) (09) Coliectlon Case~Seflar Plaintiff Other Promissory NoteICollacUons ass Insurance Cavarage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogallon Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Coniraclual Fraud Other Comma: Dispme Real Propsrty Eminent Domalnilnverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Evlcuon (33) Other Rea! Propedy (e.gq qutet Ulla) (26) Wtit oi Possession of Raal Property Mortgage Foreclosure Qulet Tme Other Real Pmpedy (not eminent domain, IandIo/d/Ienant, or (oracmsure) Unlawml Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Dwgs (38) (ff {ha case Involves Mags} dmgs, check (ms lmm; othelwlse, report as Commercial or Rasldenfial) Judlclal Rovlaw Assel Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitraflon Award (1 1) Writ or Mandate (02) Writ~Adminlstrauva Mandamus Wdt-Mandamus on Limited Cou:t Case Mafler Writ~0ther Umlled Court Case Review " Okher Judicial Review (39) Revlaw of Hsatlh Officer Order Nance of Appeal-Labor CommissionerAnpeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provlstonolly Complex CM] Litigation (Cal Rules of Court Rules 3.400445%) Animustfrrada Raguialmn (03) Consmcflon Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Ullgatlon (28) Environmentavroxlc Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Ctaims (arising from mesionally complex case (ype listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgmem (non- dameslic refations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Age ncy Award (not unpaid faxes) Pelikion/Cerfificauon of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Omecrggorcement of Judgment Miscellaneous CM! Ccmplalnt RICO (27) Olher Complain! (no! specified abave) (42) Deciaratory Relief Only lnjuncfive Relief Only (now harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial complain! Case (non-tcri/pomcamplex) Other CM! Complaint (nan-(ori/non-complex) _ Miscallaneous Olvll Petmon Partnership and Corporata Governance (21) Other Petition (not specifiud above) (43) CM! Harassment Workplacs Vloienca EidexIDependant Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Clvll Peflllon Fags 2 DI Z I Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 21 of 42 ' . ' ATTACHMENT cv-smz Clvn... LAWSUIT NOTICE 19Cv351016 Superior Court of_Califamia, County ofSanra Clara CASE NUMBER: 191 North First St, San José, CA 95113 PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE FORM 5PLAINTIFF (the person suing): Within 60 days after fifing {he lawsuit, you must serve each Defendant with the Complaint: Summons. an Al(emafive Dispute Resolufion (ADR) lnfonnailon Sheet and a copy of this Civil Lawsuit Notice, and you must file Vm’tlen proof of such service. J: You must do each of the following to protect your rights;.~ ._IDEFENDANT(The person sued 1. You must file a written response to the Complaint, using the properlegal form or format, in the Clerk’s Office of the Court, within 30 days of the date you were sewed with the Summons and Complaint“. 2. ' You must sen/e by mail ‘a copy of your written response on the Plaintiff's attorney or on the Piainlifi if Plaintiff has no attorney (to "serve by mail” means to have an aduit other than yourself max! a copy); and 3. You must attend the first Case Management Conference. Warning: l! you, as the Defendant, do not follow these Instructions, you may automatically lose this case. “RULES AND FORMS: You must follow the California Rules of Court and the Supen’or Court of California. County of <~CountyName_> Local Civli Rules and Use proper forms. You can obtain Regal informatlon, view the ruies and receive forms. free of charge, from {he SeIf-Help Canker at 201 North FirstStreet. San José (408-882-2900 x-2926). I- Stale Rules and Judicial Council Forms: VMw.ooun§nfo.ca.qovlform§ and www.courtinfo.ca.aov/rufe§ - Local Rules and Forms: httgtllwwmccsugsdorcouN.org/civiI/ruim{oahlmf}V .CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC): You must meet with the other parties and discuss (he case, in persan or by telephone at least 30 calendar days before the CMC. You must also fill out, file and serve a Cass Management Statement (Judicial Council form CM-1 10) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You oryour attorney mus: appear at the CMC. You may ask to appearby reIephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. _ Kulkarni, Sunil R 8 Your Case Management Judge Is: Department: The 1“ CMC is ac heduled for: (CompSeted by Clerk 0f Court) Date: 10/22/2079 Tsme: 2:1 5pm 1n Department: 8 The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 15‘ CMC was continued or has passed) Date: Time: in Department ALTERNA TIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADE): If all parties have appeared and filed a completed ADR Slipulaflon Fonn (local form CV-5008) at Ieast 15 days before the CMC, the Coud will cancel the CMC and mail notice of an ADR Status Confereficef \fisit the Court’s website at W,sccsugertorcoud.orgldvil/ADRI or cal) the ADR Administrator (403882-2100 x-2530) for a Hst of - ADR providers and their qualifications, services. and fees. ' - .~..WARN1NG: Sanctions may be imposed if you do not foilow the Caiifomia Rules of Court or the Luca! Ruies of Court. cv-so12 REVomma CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page 1 on Case 3:19-cv~06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 22 of 42 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT VALTERNATWE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET Many cases can be resozved to (ha salisfactlan of all parifes wifhoutthe necessity of traditional litigation. which can be expensive, time consuming. and stressful. The Court finds (hat it ls In the best interests of [ha parties that they participate 1n aitemafiues to traditional litigation, Including arbllratlon, mediation, neutral evaluation, special masters and referees, and sememeni conferences. Therefore‘ all mailers shall be referred ib an appropriate form ofAfiemaflve Dispute Resoluflon (ADR) before they are setfortrial. unless there l5 good caUse to dlspense with the ADR requirement. What 15 ADI? ? ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dlsputg resututlon processes that arealtematlvea to Hugatlen. Types o!ADR processes include mediation, arbitration. neutra! evaluation, special masters and referees. and settlement conferences, among others forms. What are the advantages orcfgoosing ADR Instead of litigation? ADR can have a number of advantages over liligallan: ADR can save time. A dispute can be resolved In a matter of months. or even weeks. while litigation can take years.O ADR can aave money. Attorneyls fags, (2mm costs, and experi fees can be reduced or avoided allogel‘ner. ADR provides m'orge participafion. Parfles have more opportunities with ADRto express flush: interests and concerns, instead o'f focusing exclusiveiy on Segal rigms. - ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR proaess that Is most likeiy {o bring a satisfactory resolution lo {heir dispute. . ADR c‘at} reduce stress. ADR encourages moperation and communication, while discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation. Suweys of parties who have participated m an ADR process have found much greatarsaxisfaction than with parties who have gone through litigation. A What are the main farms ofADR offered by (he Court? Mediation Is an informal, confidential. flexible and non-binding process In {he mediator hetps the padies lo understand the Interests of everyone involved. and their practical and legal choices. Tho medlatorhelps the paras; lo communicate better. expmra iegal and practical settlement options. and reach an acceptable solution ofthe problem. The mediatordoes not decide {he solution to the dispute; {he parties do. i Mediation may be appropriate when: - The parties want a nqn-adversary procedure c The parties have a conflnutng business or personal relationship o Communication problems ere interfering with a resolution - There Is an emotional element involved The parties are interested {n an Injunction. consent decree. or other [arm of equitable relief Neutral evaluation, sometimes nailed “Early Name! Evaiuallon“ or"ENE". is an informal process in which the evamator, an experienced neuiral lawyer, hears a compaqt presentation ofboth sides cflha case; gives a non-bmdlng assessment ofthe strengths and weaknessas on each side, and predlcts (he iikely outcome. The evalqatorcan help parties to Identify issues, prepare stipulations. and draft discovery plan; Th‘e padias may use the neutral's evaiuaflon to discuss settlement Neutral evaluafion may be apprépriale when: - The panies are far apart in their view of the law or vaiue‘ of the case o The cage involves a technical issue 5n which the evaluator has expertise ( Casaplannlng assistance would be helpful and would save legal fees and cos!s The parties are interested in an Injunction. consent decree, or other form of equitable reiief I ~DVBF- ALTERNATWE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEETcV-sooa REV 6126/13 CIVIL DIVISION Case 3:19~cv-06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page 23 of 42 Arbitration Is a less formai process than a frial. with no jury. The arbitrator hears the evidence and arguments qf the parties and then makes a written decision. The parties can agree to blndlng or non-blnding arbitrationlln binding arbitration, [he arbltrator’a dedsion is final and completely resolves {he case. without the opporlunliy for appeal. In non-binding arbitration, (he arbflrator‘é decision could resolve the case. without the opportunity for appeal.‘unless a party Hmely rejects the arbitrator‘s decision wimin 30 days and requestsa ma}. Private arhilralors are auowed to charge for their tlme. Arbitration may be appropriate when: - The action is for personal injury. progeny damage, or breach of contract a Onty monetary damages are sought ' o Witnessiesfimony, under oath. needs to be evaluated ~ An advisory opinion ls sought from an expafiancgd litigator (Ira non-bindlng arbltratfon) Civil Judge ADR allows parties, to have a mediation or settlement conference with an experienced judge ofthe' Superior Court. Mediation is an informal. confidentiai. flexible and nonubindlng precess in whfch thajudge heips th‘a parties (o understand the Interests of everyone Involved, and their practical and legal cholces. A semamenl conference ls an Informal process In which mejudge meets wiih [he parties or their attorneys, hears the facts cfthe dispute. helps Identify issues to be resolved, and normaily sugges‘s a resolution that the partles may accept or use as a basis forfuflhernegotialions. The request for mediation or settlement conference may be made promptly by stlpulatlon (agreement) upon the filing of the Clvll complalntand th'e answer. There ls no charge for this service. CM! Judge ADR may be appropriate when: a The paflies have complex facts to review - The case Involves multiple parties and problems v The courthouse surroundmgs would he helpful to the seflfameni process Special masters and referees are neutrat pafltes who may be appointed by (ha court to obtain information or to make specific fact findings that may Iead to a resolution of a dispute. Specie! masters and referees can be particularly effective in complex cases with a number of parties, like construction disputes. Settlement conferences are informal processes In which the neutrat (a judge or an experienced attorney) meets with the padies ortheir altomays, hears. the facts of ihe dispute, helps identify issuas to be resolved. and normaHy suggests a resoluflon that the parties may accept or use as a basis for further negoflafions. Selljement conferences can be effective when the authority or expertise ofthefudge or experienced attorney may help the parties reach a reaofution. : What kind of disputes can be resolved byADR? ‘ ' . Ailhough some diSputes must go to court, ammst any dispute can be resolved through ADR. This indudes dlspmes Involving business mailers: clvu rights: collections: corporalions; construction; consumer pmtacflon; contracts; copyrights: defamation; dIsabiliiies; dlscrimlnatlon; employment: envlrbnrnenlal probiems: fraud; harassment; health care; hbualng; lnsuranca; Intellectual property; labor: landlordltenant; media; medical malpractice and'other professional negligence; neighborhood problems; partnerships; patents; persona} injury; probate; product iiabillty; propedydamage; real estate; securities; sports: trade secret; and wrongful deaih. among other mailers. Where can you get assistance with selecting an appropriate form ofADR and a neutral foryour aasé, information aboutAQR procedures, or answars to other questions aboutADR? Contact: . Santa Ciara CountySuparior C‘ourt Santa Clara County DRPA Coordinator ADR Administrator 408-792-2784 1108-8824530 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION‘INFORMATION SHEETcwsooa REV 6126/13 CIV!L DIWSIGN Case 3:19-Cv-06338 Document l Fiied 10/03/19 Page 24 0f 42 6M4 j 0 ATTORNEY 0R PARTYWlTHOUT ATYORNE‘I (Nam Stale Bsrnumbfll, and nudfiessfi' FOR COURTUSE ONLY mEPHDNE N0; FAX HO. (Worm: E-MMLADDRESS {Oplbnoy ' Arronusvron (Hamel: SUPERtDR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STREEY ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CHY AND 2|? CODE: BRANCH NAME: PLAmnFFIPETmONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: ' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT '“ASEWM (Check one).- EZ] UNLIMITED CASE [:1 LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded ls $25 000 exceeds $25 000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE :ssoheduled as renows: . Date: Time: Dept: Div; Room: Address of court (ifdifferent from the address above): [:3 Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (namé): iNSTRUGTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, .and the speclfled lnformatign must ho provided. 1. Party or parties (answerone): a. D This statement is submitted by parly (name): b. D This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names): 2. Complaint ‘and crosa complaint (1‘0 be answered byplaintlffs and crass-complazhanfs. only) a. The complaint was filed on (dam): b. CI] The cross compralm ifany, was med on (dale). 3. Service (to be answemd by plaintiffs and cross complainants only)m AH parties named in the complaint and crass complaint have been served, have appeared or have bean dismissed. b. am The following paflies named [n the complaint or cross complalnt (1 ) [:3 have not been served (specify names and explain why not): (2) E have been sen/ed but have not appeared and have not been dlsméssed (specify names): . (3) {:3 have had a default entered against them (specify names): E] The foltowing additional parties may be added (spechj/ names, nature ofinvolvement In case, and dale by which they may be served): 4. Description ofcase a. Type ofcasein [:3 complain! m cross-complalnt (Describe,lnclud!ng causes ofacfion}: ‘ ‘ Pagu 1 ors Fm"M°PW°'W“‘°’V”‘° CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 80$? cmugmgzgg ' €31 Judicial Chasm orcaliiomla CM-Homw JuI-jL 1011] 3g Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 25 of 42 cmmé PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE Numen: TJEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 4. b. Provide a brlsf statement of the case, Inciuding any damages. (lfpaisonm injury damages are sought, specifythe Injury and damages claimad‘ lncfuding medical expenses (a date flndicaie sourc'e and amount], estimated future medical expenses, last earnings (a date, end estimaied future lost eamings. Ifsquifabla (allefis sought, dascn‘ba the naz’ure ofrhe reliefi) E3 {Ifmore space ls needed, check this box and attach a page designated es Allachment 4b.) 5. Jury or non}ury trial The party or parties requast requesting ejury (rial): C] a Jury trlat [:3 a nonjury trial. ((fmom than one party, provide (he name of each parly 6. Tri‘a! date a. {:3 The trial has. been set for {date}: ' b. {:3 No triaI date has beenfiet. This case Wm be ready for trial within 12 months of {ha date of the filing of the complaint (if not, explain): . c. Dates on which padles or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailabi/ily): 7. Estimated length of trial ?ne party or parties estimate that the iriai will take (check one): a. C3 days (specifynumber): b. D hours (short causes) (spew’ty): 8. Trial representation (tobe answered for each party) The party or parties will ba represenged at trial [:3 by the attorney or patty listed in the caption [:3 by me following: a. Aflerney: b. Firm: c. Address: d. Telephone number; f. Fax n‘umber: E-mafl address: g, Party represented:e. C] Additional representation is described In Attachment 8. 9. Preference [:3 This case is entitled to preference (specify code seclion): 10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Piease note that dlfierentADR pTocassea are availabie In different courts and communities; read the ADR informatian package provided by the court under rule 3.221 forlnformafion about the processes available through ihe court and community programs In this case. _ (1) For parties represented by counsel: Counse) E] has [:3 has not provided the ADR Information package Identified in rule 3.221 to. the-client and reviewed ADR options with the client. (2) ForseIf-represanted parties: Patty C3 has CI] has no! reviewed the ADR information package identified In rule 3.221. ~ b1 Referral to judicia! arbitration or civil action mediation (if aVaHable). (1) {:3 This matter is subject to mandatoyy judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure sscfion 1141.11 er (o civil action medlatlo’n under Code of CM! Procedure secflon 1775‘3 because the amount In controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. (2) m Piainflff eSects to refer this case to judicial arbitraflon and agrees {o Hm“ recovery to the amountspecmed 1n Code of CM: Procedure section ’1141A1. - ’ (3) [:3 This case Is exempt from judicial arbitrafion under rule 3.811 of theJCallfomia Rules of Court or from civil action mediation under Code of CM! Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): Page 2 ow ' W410!“ M“, 2°") CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 26 of 42 CM"! 'I O PLANTIFEIPEHTIONER: SEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CASE HUMBER: 10. c. indicate the ADR process 'or processes ihat the p‘arty or padies are willing to participate in. have agreed to participate in, or have already participated tn (check all that appiy and provide the specified lnfonnax‘ion): The party or parties Completing this form are willing to participate in the following ADR processes {check all that apply): If the party or‘ parties cumpleting this form in the case have agreed to participate in orhave already compkiated an ADR process or processes. indicate the slams of the processes (aflach a copy ofihe parties’ADR stipulatlan): D Mediation session not yet scheduled {:3 Mediation session scheduled for (date): 1) Mediation i l( {:3 Agreed to commute mediation by (date):D Mediation completed On (date): [:1 Settlement conference not yet scheduled (2) Sememem E3 [:3 Settlement conference §cheduled for (date): (”Marenw [:3 Agreed to complete settfiement conference by (dale): [:J Seiflement Conference cumpleted on (data): [j Neutral evaluation not yet scheduledE Neutrai evakuafion scheduled for (dole): (3) Neutral evaluafion I I D Agreed to compiete neutral evaluation by (date): 1:3 Neuica! evalualian completed on (dais): D Judkfial arbitration not yet scheduled (4) Nonbinding judicial t: E] Judmal arbitration scheduled for (date): ’ arbitration C] Agreed to compieiejudlcial arbitration by (date): 1:] Judicial arbltraflon completed on (date): ‘ [:3 Private arbitration not yet scheduled . , _ (5) Binding private [:3 Private arbitration schedu.ed for (date). arbitration E3 {:3 Agreed to compiete private arbitration by (date): [j P{lvate arbitration completed on (date): E ADR session not yet scheduled ' [2:] ADR session scheduled {er (date).- (6) Other (specify): C3 [j Agreed to compieta ADR session by (dale): [:1 ADR completed an (date): CM~110 mov. Jviy 1. 20H] Pagan)” CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 27 of 42 C ~11 ”nFFFNnANT/RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFFIPETITIONFR: CASE Mumam 1‘1 12. ‘13. 14. '15. 1B. insurance a- [:3 Insurance carrier, 1f any, for party filing mls sistement (name): b. Reservation of rights: D Yes a No c. m Coverage Issues will significanfly affect resoiufion of ibis case (explain): Jurisdictian Indicate any matters that may affect the court‘s jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status. E3 Bankruptcy m O&her (specify): Status: Related cases. consolidation. and coordination a‘ E There are companion, underlying, or related cases. (1) Name of case: (2) Name ofccurt (3) Case number: (4) Status:D Additional cases are described In Attachment 133. b. E: A mollon to D consolidate B coordinate will be filed byjname paliy): Bifurcation [:3 The party or parties lntend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing. or coordinatlng the following Issues or causes of action (specify moving paliy. type of'moflon, and reasons): Other motions E] The party or parties. expect ‘0 mame following motions before trial {spepify moving pariy, type cfmotiom and issues): Discovery a. D The party or parties have compieted a" discovery. b. [:3 The following discovery will be completed by‘ lhe date specified (describe all anticipated d(scovery): Barty Desmigfiog gag c; [:3 The following discovery Issues‘ including issues regarding the discovery of eiacironfcany stored Information, are anticipated (specifil): “MMW MY 1- 20m CA3 E MANAGEMENT STATEMENT P0504016 Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 28 of 42 CWI-‘MO PLANrIFF/PETITIONER: case NUMBER: ‘BEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 17. Economiclitigaiion a. C3 This- ls a limited civl! case (1.9.. (he amount demanded is $25,000 or Iess) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure secflons 90-98 win apply-to this case. b.E This ls; a Hmited civil case and a motion {a withdraw (ha case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery wul be fled (ifchecked, explain specificallywhy economic lifigalion procedures relaling to discovery ortn‘al should nofapply to this case): 18. Other issues [:J Thaparty or padres reques! that the following addlilonai matters be considered ur determined at the case management conference (speoilj/J: 19. Meet and confer a. [j The party or games have met and conferred with all parties on an subjects required by rule 3.724 ofthe Callfomia Ruies of Court (ifnot, explain): b. After meeting and conferring as required .by ruie 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the padies agree on the following (specify): ‘ 20. Total number of pages auached fifany): l am completely familiar with {his "case and win be fuliy prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution. as well as other issues raised by Unis statement. and wm possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these Issues at the time of thé case management conferepce, Including the written authority of the partywhere required. Date: P (TYI‘E0R PRINT IMAGE) (SIGNATURE 0F PkRT‘Y ORATIORNEY) F (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY OR ATTORNEY)(TYPE OR PRmr NAME) I i Additional signatures are attached. Pages nfs‘WWW:-Wv 20m CAsaimANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page 29 of 42 CM-ZOO ATmImEYOR PARTY WITHOUTATrnnNFY (MM, Stale Bar number. andam“): mumumuseONLY - Tmepnoue Nu: Fax N0. {cprlanaoz EMAIL Aobness (ommw: ATTORNEY FOR Mal: SUPERIGR COURT CF CALIFORNlA. COUNTY OF maamuamzss: mum; Anonass: cmMum? cons: salmon NAME: PLAINTIFFIPEUTIONERZ DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: CASE NUMBER: . NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE ’UDGE' DEPT; NOTBE TO PLAINTIFF OR OTHER PARTY SEEKING RELIEF You must fiie a request for dismissal of the entire case within 45 days after the date ofme settlement if the semament is unconditional. You must file a dismissal of the entire case within 45 days after the date specified in item 1b below ifthe settlement ls oondItlonaL Unless you file a dismissal within the required lime or have shown good cause before (he time for dismissal has expired why the case should not he dismissed, the court w!!! dismiss the entire case. To the court, all parfiesl and any arbitrator or other court-conne'cted ADE neufial involved in this case: 1. This entire case has been settled. The rsettfement is: ~ a. D Unconditional. A request for dfsmlssal wm be filed wilhlrf 45 days afier the date of the settlement. Date of settlement: b. E Conditionai. The settlement agreement conditions dismissal ofthis matter on'the satisfactory completion of specified terms [hat are not to be pérformed wiihin 45 days of the date of the settlement. A request for dismissal will be filed no later than (date): 2. Dafie initlat pleading filed: 3. Next scheduled hearing or conference: a. Purpose: b: a (1) Date: (2) Time: (3) Department: 4. Trial dais: a. E Noirialdate’ set. b. {:3 (1) Date: (2) Time: (3) Depanmantz I deciare under penauy 'of pedury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing lstrus and correct. Date: (TYPE OR PRINTNAME OF i IATTDRNEY l l PARTY WITHOU!‘AWORNEY) (SIGNATURE) mg, 1 a(g F I Adm! dl’ M :31 U - ' ' ' , 1 Cal RubisoanumruloMZBfi 013m gwavgncfirgflgu NOTXCE 0F SETTLEMENT 0F ENTIRE CASE Sn 135:3“. CMQOU {Rom January 1. 20071 2), ?lus Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Fiied 10/03/19 Page 30 of 42 s OM~200 PLAiNflFFIPETlTIONER: cA'se Mwasm DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: PROOF OF SERVlCE BY FIRST‘CLASS MAIL NOTICE 0F SETTLEMENT 0F ENTIRE CASE - (NOTE: You canndt ssrve the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case lfyau are a pady In (he action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof cfservice.) _ 1. l am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. E am a resident ofor employed In the county where the mailing took place. and my residence or business address is (spacim: 2. | sewed a copy of the Notice ofé‘eiflement ofEnIlm Case by enclosing n In a seated envelope with postage fulfy prepaid and (check one): ' a. E: depasited me sealed enveiope with the United States Postal Servlca. - b. [:3 placed thé seated envelope for collection and processing for mailing. following this business‘s usual practices. with which I am readily famiiiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mamng, It is daposfled 1n the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. 'The Notice 0f Setflement ofEnIire Case was malled: ‘ a. o‘n (date): b. from (city and state}: 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: ' c. Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: , City: Stats and zipvcude: I Sfate and zip coda: b. Name of person served: d. Name of person sewed: Streak address: Street address: City: , ‘ City: Slate and zip code: State and zip code: D Names and addresaes of additional persons served are attached. {You may use form P05303047?) 5. Number of pages attached I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws o? lhe State of California'that the foregoing is, true and correct. Date: (TYPE OR PRINTW6 OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE 0F DEGLARANTX 6511-200 (RM, January 1. 20071 NOTiCE OF SETTLEMENT 0F ENTiRE CASE ' ' Pans zof-z Case 3:19~cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 31 of 42 EXHIBIT B Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 32 of 42 19CV351 01 6 Santa Ciara~ Civil ¥ Y. Chavez 1. Anthony P. Schoenberg (State Bar No. 203714) Eleggoggoaflgfggdof CA Kelly M. Matayosm (State Bar No. 284596) Cy p v 2 Farella Braun + Martel LLP ounty 0f sama C'ara' 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 0n 1019/2019 12:54 PM 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Telephone: (41 S) 9544400 Case #1 QCV351 O1 6 4 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 Envelope; 3459791 Ls‘choenberg@,/bm.com 5 kmalayoshi@/bm.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THESTATB OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 20 I 1 JOHN FERNANDEZ, LINDA Case No. 190V35 1016 HERNANDEZ, 12 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S ANSWER Plaintiffs, T0 PLAINTIFFS, JOHN FERNANDEZ 13 AND LINDA HERNANDEZ’S, vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; I4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ‘ Ii6 ¥£g%%§ggl?%§?£gé%lhggMPANY’ Complaint Filed: July 9, 201 9 i7 INCLUSIVE l 8 Defendants. 19 20 21 r) Genera) Motors LLC (“GM LLC”) answers Plaintiffs, John Fernandez and Linda 2“ Hernandez’s, Complaint for Damages as follows: :3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ”4 The vehicle at issue in this case is a 2000 GMC Sonoma with Vehicle Identification 25. Number (VIN) IG'I‘CS 1 9W6Y8 1271 60 (the “Subject Vehicle”). GM LLC did not design, 26 manufacture, or assemble the Subject Vehicle. GM LLC did not exist when {he Subj cct Vehicle 27 was designed, manufactured, 01' assembled. The Subject Vehicle was designed in part, l‘mcflu mum ¢ Maud ur 10628U27 K 8453 .l LEI??$”“""“““"“‘”°”’ GEN 13km; MOTORS, LLc's ANSWER To pLAIN'I‘IFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATNEmm). Csmfunma ‘muu “”"“““" DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No. t9cv351016 mm: Hum. - Mme! um 2M Mmmuuy Sum. ”Wm: Sm r'mmsw. (.‘nmmnu v: am (1m 754mm Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document l Fited 10/03/19 Page 33 of 42 nmnufacturcd in part, assembled in final form, marketed, mid sold by General Motors Corporation, subsequently known as Motors Liquidation Company. General Motors Company, formally known asNGMCO, 1110., acquired substantially all ofthc assets 0f Motors Liquidation Company on July 10, 2009, in a transaction executed under the jurisdiction, and pursuant to approval, ofthe United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District ofNew York} GM LLC was known as General Mators Company between July 9, 2009 and October 16, 2009, when it converted from a corporation to a limitedVliability company with a different name. The present General Motors Company is a holding company that has no automotive business operations. Autmnotivc operations in the United States arc conducted by GM LLC, which i3 owned by an intermediate subsidiary of the present General Motors Company? GENERAL DENIAL GM LLC generally and Specifically denies each and every ailcgation ofthe Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 43 1 .30(d); denies that GM LLC or any defendant is liable under the theories or in the manner set forth in the Compiaint, 0r at all; and further denies that Plaintiffs suffered injury 01' damages in any sum alleged, t0 be alleged, or at all, as a result of the alleged conduct ofGM LLCag; set forth in the Complaint and each cause of action thereof, 01' at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Genera] Motors LLC relies on those 0f the following defenses that may pro ve applicable after discovery or at triaL I See, generallyln re Gen. Molors Com, 407 BR. 463 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Sale Opinion") (approving sale transaction). 2 The October 16, 2009 conversion of Generai Motors LLC to a limited liability company was pazt ofa reorganization that was completed when Genera] Motors LLC transferred all 0f its asset's and liabilities, except for those related to the U,S. automotive operations, to its parent, General Motors Holdings LLC, on October 19, 2009 and November 2, 2009. These restructuring activities were described to the Securities and Exchange Con‘lmission in a Current Report 0n Form 8-K, filed October 23, 2009. * 2 mamnnsam GENERAL MOTORS, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS‘ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATEVE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No. I9CV351016 Case 3:19-0v-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 34 of 42 I FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 3 1. The Complaint, and each of the causes of action afleged therein, fails to allege facts 4 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against" GM LLC upon which relief can be granted. 5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Compara tive Fault) 7 2. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, ifany, were caused or contributed to by the 8 negligence 0r faukt of Plaintiffs, or others whose conduct is imputable t0 Plaintiffs, and that 9 Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should therefore be diminished or barred in accordance with the 10 doctrine of comparative negligence. 1 l THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Third Party Liabiiily) 13 3. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the l4 negligence 0r fault of Plaintiffs, or others whose conduct is imputable to Piaintiffs, and that 15 Plaimiffs’ recovery, ifany, should therefore be diminished or barred in accordance with the 16 doctrine Ofcomparative negligence. 17 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE l 8 (Prior Settlement - Comparative Fault) 19 4. Any recovery 0r settlement Plaintiffs may have obtained from other individuals, 20 firms, corporations, or entities over whom GM LLC has or had no control or right of contra} must 91 reduce 0r bar altogether any recovery which Plaintiffs might obtain from GM LLC. 22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Prior Release) 24- 5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent there has been a release or releases 25 executed by Plaintiffs and individuals, firms, corporations, or entities other than GM LLC. 26 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Fair Responsibility Act) 28 6. Pursuant t0 California Civil Code §§ 1431.1 and 1431.2, that GM LLC’s liability, if Ia-x‘cuuunmu c hu-«cuu 3 [0623\12715453J "‘"““"““‘”‘““'$‘"‘“""3”” GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S ANSWER To PLAINTlFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFI-‘lRMATWESm I’quixn. (.‘nfilmuil 'JJ llll “""‘“'“"‘ DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND ~- Case No. 19cv35 £016 k-‘mfln 11mm t Mmlcl Lu' 3.23 m...q;umm- aw. n“ lam 5.“: FuvKisco. Czulilmwn 'IJI‘N ms) 954mm Case 3:19-cv-O6338 Document 1 Fiied 10/03/19 Page 35 of 42 any, for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint with any other existing defendant, potential defendant, cross-compiainant, cross~dcfendant, or other person or entity. GM LLC can oniy be held liable for the amount of non-economic damages allocated t0 it in direct preportion of its percentage of fault, if any, determined at trial, and a separatejudgment shat} be rendered against GM LLC for that amount. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 7. Plaintiffs claims are barred to the: extent they were capable. ofand failed to mitigate their claimed damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 8. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activity sufficient to constitute waiver 0f any alleged breach ofduty, negligence, act, omission, or any other conduct, if any, as set forth in the Complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 9. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activities with respect t0 the subject of this Complaint and, by reason ofthese activities and conduct, are estOpped from asserting any claims for damages 01‘ seeking any other relief against GM LLC. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening/Superscdiug Acts) 10. The damages of which Plaintiffs complain wers proximately caused by or contributed t0 by the acts of other parties, persons, 01‘ entities, and that these acts Were an intervening and superseding cause of the damages, if any, of which Plaintiffs complain, thus barring Piaintiffs from any recovery against GM LLC. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk} I l. H’Plaintiffs sustained any injuries or incurred any loss or damage as alleged in the 4 10628\:27m453.1 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATIVE DEI’ENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No. 19CV35 1016 WM O \O QC \3 O, mel-x Hum ( Mum u: d‘ :7‘ mow .xu{n.|in VI m1 Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Fired 10/03/19 Page 36 of 42 Complaint, then their injuries and damages were legally and proximately caused by, and arose out of, risks of which Plaintiffs had both knowledge and understanding and that Plaintiffs voluntarily assumed. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Product Misuse/Abuse) 12. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the misuse 01‘ abuse of or the failure to propefly maintain or repair the vehicle involved in the subject accident. To the extent there was any abuse, alteration, misuse, or unintended use of the product by Plaintiffs or others, which was without GM LLC’s knowledge or approval and was a proximate cause of: the loss or damage alleged in the Complaint, then to that same extent, such abuse, alteration, misuse, or unintentional use shall bar recovery against GM LLC. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (State of the Art) 13, The vehicle involved in the accident that is the subj ect. of Plaintiffs’ Complaint confomxed to the state-of-the-art at the time of saie and was designed, mamzfactured, and tested pursuant to generally recognized and prevailing standards and in confomnance with the statutes, regulations, and requirements that governed the vehicle at the time of design, manufacture, and sale. FOURTEEN’I‘H AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Abusc/Altcmtion/Modification) 14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent the subject vehicle was altered after it left GM LLC’S control, in a way that was not reasonably foreseeable to GM LLC, and this alteration proximately caused the claimed losses and damages. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMA’I’IVE DEFENSE (Failure to Follow Instructions) 15‘ Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by Plaintiffs’ failure to Comply with the written and oral instructions relating to use and umintcnance of the vehicle involved in the subject accident, and that Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should therefore be 5 mazxuzvmm GENERAL MOTORS, LLC'S ANSWER 'I‘O PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No. 'I9CV35 10 16 Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 37 0f 42 diminished or barred in accordance with law. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Heed Warnings) 16. Any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiffs were proximately caused by the failure of Plaintiffs, 01' other parties, unrelated to GM LLC, to follow the warning(s) suppIied with the vehicle invoived in the subject accident -- warnings which adequately warned 0fthe risks involved in the vehicle’s use or misuse. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) 17. Plaintiffs’ claims and causes ofactions are barred, in whoie 0r in part, by the doctrine of preemption. EIGH’I‘EENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 01" Limitations) 18. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the expiration ofthc applicable statutes of‘limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335, 335.1, 338, and 343, and a]! other appiicabie provisions of California’s Code ofCivil Procedure. ' NINETEENTH AFFIRMA’I‘IVE DEFENSE (Lachcs) I9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of Iaches. TWEN'I‘IETI-I AFFIRM’ATIVE DEFENSE (Nonjoindcr or Misjoiuder of Necessary 0r Indispensable Parties) 20. Plaintiffs failed to join a party or parties necessary and indispensable to this action. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Res Judicata/Collatcral Estoppel) 21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. _ 6 I0623U2718453J GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS‘ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATWE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -~ Case Nu 1,9CV351016 SO 12 13 l4 IS 16 1-2":le lh'mu I- Mm»! m‘ 2M Mcmmmw Sum. n“ mm Sm l’nmm‘oV CauhumN I(ll (us; «54mm Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 38 of 42 TWEN’I‘Y-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statutory Bar t0 Recovery) 22. Piaintiffi’ damages, if any, are limited 01‘ barred by the provisions of Caiifornia Civii Code §§ 3333.3 and 3333.4. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper or Inconvenient Venue) 23. The venue selected by Plaintiffs to file this action is improper or inconvenient. ’I‘WENTY-FO UR’I‘I‘} AFFIRMATI‘IVE DEFENSE (A&ditional Warnings) 24. No additiona} warnings would have or could have prevented the alleged incident, injuries, loss, or damages alleged in the Complaint. 'I‘WEN'I‘Y-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Privity) 25. There was no privity between Plaintiffs and GM LLC to support 21 claim for breach of warranty. 'I‘WEN’I‘Y-SEVENTI-I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE {Failure to Give Timely Notice) 26. Plaintiffs did not give GM LLC timely notice ofthe breach of any alleged warranty, implied, express or otherwise. 'l‘WENTYcEIGHTI-I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fulfilhnent: ofObligations) 27. Prior to the commencement of this action, GM LLC duly performed, satisfied, and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed to Plaintiffs arising out 0f any and all agreements, representations, 0r contracts made by it or on behalf 0fGM LLC, to the extent they exist, except those obligations GM LLC was prevented 01‘ excused from performing by the acts or omissions o‘f‘Plaintiffs or other individuals or entities not named as defendants in Plaintiffs" Complaint. 7 WGZSUZS’XS’ISM GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S ANSWER TO I’LAIN'I'WPS‘ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -~ Case No. 19CV35 1016 Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 39 of 42 1 TWENTYuNINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Expiration of Express Warranty) 3 28. A11 express warranties issued by GM LLC expired prior to the filing ofthe ciaims 4 upon which this litigation is based, S THIR’I‘IETI-I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Limited Warranty) 7 29. By the applicable law and terms 0f the limited warranty for the subject vehicle, 8 there is no liabiiity for incidental, consequential: personal injury, or emotional distress damages. 9 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Spoiiatiou of Evidence) 11 30, Piainfiffs or Plaintiffs" agents negligently or intentionaHy failed to preserve and 12 permitted the spoliation ofmaterial evidence that Plaintiffs allege gives rise to the allegations in 13 the Complaint. Such cenduct bars Plaintiffs’ action or gives rise t0 cvidentiary sanctions against 14 Plaintiffs or other remedies for GM LLC. 15 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Worker’s Compensation) 17 31. To the extent Plaintiffs ciaim their purported injuries or damages occurred in the 18 course and scope 0f Plaintiffs’ employment, and that one 0r more of Plaintiffs’ employers 01‘ 19 employees of such employer, none ofwhich was GM LLC, was negligent and careless in 01' about ”O the matters alleged in the Complaint, such negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of ’71 any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiffs, if any were suffered. 22 'I‘HIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23‘ (Additional Affirmative Defenses Reserved Pending Discovery) 24 32. GM LLC may have additional defenses or claims available to it ofwhich it is not 25 now aware. GM LLC reserves the right to assert additional defenses or cross~claims, 26 counterclaims, or third-party claims as may be revealed to be appropriate through discovery 0r 27 otherwise. Fucmmzmw MMMI} , 8 [0628“27l8453J ““"“"“““ “’ "”" GENERAL MOTORS, LLC's ANSWER To PLAIN'I‘IFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATIVESan t’nunnum l. “"‘""""““‘ DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No‘ 19cv3§10'|6 Case 3:19-cv~06338 Document l Filed 10/03/19 Page 4O of 42 l WHEREFORIE, GM LLC prays that nothing be taken by the Complaint, tbrjudgment. in 2 l’avor MGM LLC, 1702‘ costs, and for ail other relief as the Court may deem proper. 3 Respectfuily sulnnitted, 5 DATED: October 2, 2O i 9 FARELLA BRAUN «S’s, MAR’I‘EL LLP r 6 By:7 Kflly M. M'z’ltayoshi 8 Attorneys {"or Defendant GENERAL MO'I‘ORS, LLC 9 [0628“ 37 i 3453‘! lunilla [Mun “ “ ‘3' cn.aNtsmAL. M(yroxs, st ANSWER To PLMN'riFr-‘S‘ C<>MMJR1NF FOR DAMAGES; Ar-‘HRMATwr-t\‘mmevm l'amcmu wml mammsxss; AND JURY DEMAND -- Case No. 19cv35 lo 1 (s l'mcny “mm ‘x‘ Mann um u namgamq 5x“ n‘! mom (\J 4:. 03%0. 27 28 San anmm. (ta Nllu um) vSJ-Hml Case 3:19-cv-06338 Document 1 Filed 10/03/19 Page 41 of 42 John Fernandez, Linda Hernandez vs. General Motors LLC, et a]. Santa Clara County Supeior Court, Case No. 19CV35 101 6 I, the undersigned, decIarc: PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident ofthe United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 235 Montgomery Street, 17‘“ Floor, San Francisco, Califomia 94104. My e-mail address is 1112appas@fbm.com. On October 2, 2019, I served a copy of the within document(s): GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS, JOHN FERNANDZ AND LINDA I-IERNANDEZ’S, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AND JURY DEMAND E] U.S. MAIL: by placing the‘docmnenqs) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepazd, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed as set forth beiow. DD E-MAIL TRANSMISSION: by transmitting via email PDF the document(s) listed above to the e-mail addresses set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.111. FEDERAL EXPRESS: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre~paid air bill, and causing the enveIOpe to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. XX MESSENGER: by personally delivering the docunmnt(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below via Bender’s Legai Service, IncA, 1625 The Alameda, #51 1, San Jose, CA 95126. Michael M. Shea, Jr, Esq. Mark B. O‘Connor, Esq. Nicole N. Hancock, Esq. Shea & Shea A Professional Law Corm‘ation 2007 West Bedding Street, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95128 Teicphone: (408) 292-2434 Facsimile; (408) 292-1264 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 106mm?!846M PROOF OF SERVICE - CASE NO. I9CV35 1016 Case 3:19~cv-06338 Document 1 Fiied 10/03/19 Page 42 of 42 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of‘CaUtbmia that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 2, 2019, at San Francisco, California. 4 L7/ .VZWW S MariaWé/ppus u ~zu un m. r Mun Har [0628\12713-169J \zu mmu- 1-“" Hum ‘ U" PROOF or: sxz-zlwsms - CASE No. 19C‘v35 to x 6 OWNOM-b 27 28 Fm'clln Umum k Mallcl LLP $5 Mmugmucry SL. l7“ Hour Sam Franclscn. CA ‘NHIJ (-HS) 95.1441"! PROOF OF SERVICE John Fernandez, Linda Hernandez vs. General Motors LLC, er a1. Santa Clara County Supeior Court, Case N0. 19CV35 1016 I, the undersigned, declare: I am a resident of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 235 Montgomery Street, 17‘“ Floor, San Francisco, California 94104. My e-mail address is 1112appas@fbm.com. On October 4, 2019, I served a copy of the within document(s): XX DE] D GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT U.S. MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed as set forth below. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION: by transmitting via email PDF the document(s) listed above t0 the e-mail addresses set forth below 0n this date before 5:00 p.111. FEDERAL EXPRESS: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill} and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. MESSENGER: by personally delivering the document(s) listed above t0 the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below via Bender’s Legal Service, Inc, 1625 The Alameda, #51 1, San Jose, CA 95 126. Michael M. Shea, Jr, Esq. Mark B. O’Connor, Esq. Nicole N. Hancock, Esq. Shea & Shea A Professional Law Cororation 2007 West Hedding Street, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95128 Tekphone: Facsimile: (408) 292-2434 (408) 292-1264 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 38022127238534! PROOF OF SERVICE - CASE NO. 19CV35 10] 6 Ab) ©00\)C\ 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ucllzx Bmlm v Mam! LL!’ Mnmgumcry 5L, l1“ Floor Snn qucisco. CA 94H” (J 15) 9544“") I declare under penalty of per}ury under the laws of'the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n October 4, 2019, at San Francisco, California. Mari aps 38022\12723853.l PROOF OF SERVICE ~- CASB NO‘ 19CV35 1 01 6