Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 23, 2019Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 Dominique M. Jacques, SBN 290036 RANDICK O'DEA TOOLIATOS VERMONT dk SARGENT, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 460-3700 Facsimile: (925) 460-0969 Attorneys for Plaintiff Crescent Dixon Plaza, I, LLC and Crescent Dixon Plaza, II, LLC, 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Crescent Dixon Plaza, I, LLC and Crescent Dixon Plaza, II, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. Larn Ha dba Tea Villa and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants. Case No.: 19CV357198 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT Date: January 15, 2020 Time: 9;15 a.m. Dept: 11 Judgment Entered: December 18, 2019 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446297 6 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1/14/2020 9:28 AM Reviewed By: S. Uy Case #19CV357198 Envelope: 3883595 Plaintiffs Crescent Dixon Plaza, I, LLC and Crescent Dixon Plaza, II, LLC (collectively, "Crescent Dixon") herein submits its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Judgment (the "Motion") entered against defendant Lam Ha dba Tea Villa ("Defendant") on the grounds that Defendant has failed to establish any valid reason for such Motion, Defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirements of CCP section 473(b), this Court is obligated to enforce the Stipulation, Defendant has habitually failed to comply with deadlines and should not be granted further leniency, Plaintiff s management company has never lost a rent payment prior to Defendant's alleged missing payment. 9 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10 Defendant is the defaulted tenant of commercial real property located at 1678 N. Milpitas Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 (the "Property"), as assignee of a Lease originally entered into in 12 2002. The Property is managed by GS Management Company ("GS") (Crescent Dixon and GS 13 are collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiff'or ease of reference). Defendant was assigned 14 the Lease on or about May 9, 2016. The Lease and its subsequent amendments and assignments 15 are attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Brenda MecKenstock ("MecKenstock Dec."), 16 submitted herewith (collectively, the "Lease"). The Lease makes clear that a waiver of any 17 breach by Tenant shall not be a waiver of any other breach. (Lease P 25.5, 35.6.) 18 19 Under the Lease, Defendant was required to pay rent on or before the first day of each month. (Lease P 9.1.) Under the Lease, Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff $5,105.00 in 20 base rent per month, plus common area charges ("CAMs") (collectively, "Rent"). (MecKenstock 21 Dec. tt 5.) The CAMs were $2,435.00 per month throughout 2019. (MecKenstock Dec. P 5.) In 22 December 2018, Defendant stopped paying the full amount of Rent due. (MecKenstock Dec. g 23 8.) Between January I, 2019 through October I, 2019, Defendant only made the following 24 payments for Rent on or about the following dates: 25 26 27 28 January 11, 2019 May 10, 2019 May 23, 2019 June 20, 2019 June 20, 2019 $4,157.30 $7,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 I OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 July 17, 2019 August 28, 2019 August 28, 2019 September 25, 2019 $5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 (MecKenstock Dec. Exh. B.) As of October I, 2019, Defendant owed $30,347.45 in past due Rent and late fees. (MecKenstock Dec. g 9.) Defendant was required to pay rent by cashier' check due to his prior late payments. (MecKenstock Dec. P 7,) On October 2, 2019, Defendant was served with a 3-Day Notice to Pay Estimated Rent or Quit and Plaintiff subsequently commenced the above-entitled action for unlawful detainer against Defendant on October 23, 2019. On or about November 11, 2019, Plaintiff and 10 Defendant entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment/Settlement ("Stipulation") to resolve 12 13 14 15 16 the above-entitled action, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Phillip G. Vermont ("Vermont Dec."), filed herewith. The Stipulation states, in pertinent part: 10. The parties agree that Defendant may remain in possession of the Property pursuant to the terms of the Lease so long as Defendant complied with the payment plan stated in the "Payments" section, below. If Defendant failed to perform the terms of this Stipulation, then Plaintiffs shall be entitled to judgment and possession of the Property as stated in the "Defendant's Breach section, below. 17 18 20 21 11. Defendant shall make payments of $2,000.00 each month, until all past due amounts, attorneys'ees and costs, and replenishment of the security deposit, as stated herein, are paid in full ("Additional Payment"). Defendant shall make this payment on or before the twenty-second (22" ) of each month and such payment shall be in addition to all other amounts then due... 13. In addition, Defendant shall replenish the security deposit of $5,956.00 upon execution of this Stipulation. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. In addition, Defendant shall pay all base rent and CAMs due pursuant to the Lease on or before the first (I") of each month. 16. If Defendant does not comply with any of the conditions as set forth in this Stipulation or the terms of the Lease. Plaintiff shall provide a one-time three-day notice to cure to Defendant by email at: ha I h yahoo.corn. If Defendant fails to cure the default within three (3) days, and only the, Plaintiffs are entitled to file this "Stipulation for Settlement and for Entry of Judgment for Possession and Damages" with the Court, and to enter judgment immediately in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant... 2 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446797 dcc 23. COMPREHENSION OF STIPULATION. When entering into this Stipulation, the parties represent that they have read the contents of this Stipulation and the terms are fully understood and accepted by them. 33. WAIVER OF PROVISION. No breach of any provision hereof can be waived unless done so expressly and in writing. Express waiver of any one breach shall not be deemed a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision hereof. 34. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Time is off the essence. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 1.) On or about November 14, 2019, Defendant paid $7,140.00 as Rent for November 2019, $400.00 less than due, and did not pay the late fee due of $377.00 at all. 10 (MecKenstock Dec. P 12.) To date, Defendant has not replenished the security deposit, as promised in the Stipulation. (MecKenstock Dec. tt 13.) On December 1, 2019, Defendant failed 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to pay Rent due. (MecKenstock Dec, tt 14.) On December 11, 2019, Defendant paid only $4,000.00 toward the outstanding December 2019 Rent. (MecKenstock Dec. P 14.) On December 12, 2019 at 9:12 a.m., counsel for Plaintiff, Phillip G. Vermont, provided a three (3) day notice pursuant to the Stipulation, requiring Defendant to pay $3,917, which included a late fee of $ 377.00. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 11.) There was no agreement that payment would be accepted after December 15, 2019 at that time. (Vermont Dec. tt'.) That same day, Defendant responded via email that he was aware of his obligation to pay rent on time. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 10.) He stated he would try to pay the remaining rent by the subsequent Monday, December 16, 2019. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 10.) On December 16, 2019 at 8:52 a.m., Mr. Vermont notified Defendant via email that the outstandurg amount for December 2019 had not been received and that counsel would appear on December 18, 2019 to submit an ex parte application for judgment, providing Defendant with an extra day of notice. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 pp. 7-8.) Mr. Vermont stated if Defendant paid on December 16, 2019, the ex parte application date would be cancelled. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 7.) No further "instruction" was provided to Defendant. On December 17, 2019 at 2:24 p.m., Defendant notified counsel and Plaintiff that he allegedly dropped off a check the prior evening and acknowledged his lateness. (Vermont Dec. 3 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 Exh. 2 pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff performed a thorough search of its business and questioned its employees but was unable to locate any payment from Defendant. (MecKenstock Dec. tt 17.) Defendant was notified within minutes of his email that payment had not been received by Plaintiff. (MecKenstock Dec. g 17.) Defendant stated in a response email that the payment may have fallen out of the mail slot. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 3.) To date, the alleged payment has not been found. (MecKenstock Dec. tt 18.) Defendant did not and does not allege that he provided any payment on December 17, 2019. On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffprovided a declaration and confirmed with counsel that no payment had been received as of close of business that day. (MecKenstock Dec., Exh. C.) 10 On December 18, 2019, counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and submitted its ex parte application for entry ofjudgment against Defendant. Defendant did not appear despite notice and 12 13 judgment was entered. Plaintiff was required to pay Defendant's first appearance fee of $450.00.'4 Some time on December 18, 2019, Plaintiff received a check from Defendant for the 15 outstanding Rent. (MecKenstock Dec. g 20.) Defendant alleges that he paid the outstanding rent 16 on December 18, 2019 at 12:34 a.m., three (3) days after it was due. 17 On December 19, 2019, Mr. Vermont notified Defendant that judgment had been entered 18 pursuant to the Stipulation and provided a copy of the judgment to Defendant. (Vermont Dec. 19 Exh. 2.) Mr. Vermont informed Defendant that Plaintiff would not accept the payment received 20 on December 18, 2019. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 2 p. 1.) The check was returned to Defendant. 21 (Vermont Dec. Exh. 3.) 22 On January 9, 2020, Defendant appeared ex parte for an Order Shortening Time to File 23 and Serve Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Counsel for Plaintiff was present. At the hearing, 24 Defendant represented that he intended to file and serve the Motion that same day. Due to 25 Defendant's representations, this Court ordered Defendant to file and serve the Motion on or 26 before January 9, 2020. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 4.) Defendant did not serve Plaintiff on January 9, 27 28 'efendant has proceeded ex parte on several occasions, has filed the instant Motion and seeks the benefit of this Court's rulings without payment and at Plaintiff's further expense. 4 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446297 doc 2020. (Vermont Dec. tt 18.) On January 10, 2020 at I:37 p.m., Mr. Vermont demanded receipt of the Motion and the Order from Defendant. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 5.) Despite this Court's Order and counsel's written demand, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or counsel with the Motion until January 10, 2020 at 4:11 p.m., after counsel had left the office for the weekend. (Vermont Dec. ]t 20, Exh. 5,) The Motion was not received until January 13, 2020. (Vermont Dec. g 20.) In the Motion, Defendant now alleges that he has "always been ready, willing and able to pay any rent for the Property", and that he "intend[s] to comply with the parties'ettlement agreement..." Defendant acknowledges in his Motion that his payment was not made on December 15, 2019, the expiration date of the period to cure, that he was notified that his alleged 10 payment, supposed1y made after hours, was not received on December 16, 2019, and that Plaintiff did not receive any payment from Defendant until December 18, 2019. Defendant 12 further acknowledges that he received notice from Mr. Vermont of his intent to appear ex parte 13 on December 18, 2019 ifpayment was not received. Despite each of these acknowledgements, 14 Defendant alleges that he has complied with the Stipulation and that he was surprised by the 15 judgment entered against him due to his nonpayment. 16 IL LAW 17 Defendant's reliance on California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) ("Section 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 473(b)") is misplaced. Section 473(b) states, in pertinent part: "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party... from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted...'* The purpose of Section 473(b) "is to give a party the opportunity of repairing the damage done because ofhis failure or that of his counsel to make the showing he could have made, provided, of course, that the failure is due either to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, [Citations omitted.]" (8'ilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1176.) "Surprise" refers to "some condition or situation in which a party... is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any 5 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guardedagainst.*'Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921.) "Excusable neglect" requires circumstances that could not have been avoided with reasonable care and prudence. (Elms v. Elms (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 513.) The burden is on the party seeking relief to show why he is entitled to it (Brusky v. Brust97 (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 472, 479.) Before a trial court can exercise its discretion granting relief, the party seeking relief must not only show good excuse but also a meritorious defense to the action. (Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd, (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 275, 281-282.) In other words, it must be made to appear prima facie that a different result would 10 probably be reached or that a different result may possibly be reached if the judgment were set aside. (Ibid.) "The policy that the law favors trying all cases and controversies upon their merits should not be prostituted to permit the slovenly practice of law or to relieve courts of the duty of 12 scrutinizing carefully the affidavits or declarations filed in support of motions for relief to 13 ascertain whether they set forth, with adequate particularity, grounds for relief." (Ld. at p. 282.) 14 15 A. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY VALID REASON TO JUSTIFY HIS RELIEF UNDER SECTION 473(B). 16 Defendant failed to make a showing that could have been made in opposing the ex parte 17 application for entry ofjudgment but for his valid surprise or excusable neglect. Defendant attached the Stipulation to his Motion, which states that Rent is due on or before the first of each month and that time is of the essence. Defendant acknowledges: (I) he did not pay rent on or 20 before December 1, 2019, (2) he did not pay full rent before the expiration of the notice to cure, 21 December 15, 2019, (3) he was properly notified of counsel's intent to appear ex parte to enter 22 23 judgment against Defendant if payment was not received on December 16, 2019, (4) he was notified by Plaintiff that no payment had been received on December 16, 2019, and (5) payment 24 was not received until December 18, 2019, after both the expiration of the period to cure and the 25 26 "grace period" given by Mr. Vermont. Despite such knowledge, Defendant chose not to appear at the ex parte hearing. The entry ofjudgment against Defendant based on this knowledge and 27 Defendant's elected failure to appear is not unexpected and was caused by Defendant's own 6 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 444297 doc negligence and lack of ordinary prudence. There has been no "surprise'* which could justify the setting aside of the judgment, especially after such acknowledged and thorough notice. Further, there is no valid excusable neglect presented here, excusable neglect presumes circumstances that could not have been avoided with reasonable prudence. (Elms v. Elms (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 513.) As stated supra, Defendant knew what was required ofhim and when the ex parte hearing would take place and failed act with even de minimus care. Such neglect is inexcusable and does not justify setting aside the judgment against Defendant. Notably, upon breach of the Stipulation, Plaintiff was required to provide only a one-time 3-Day Notice to cure, which Plaintiff provided for Defendant*s breach of timely payment of 10 December 2019 Rent. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 1.) However, Defendant has also failed to pay the full amount of Rent owed for November 2019 or to replenish the security deposit upon execution of 12 13 the Stipulation.. (MecKenstock Dec. ltd 12-13.) No further notice was required to enter judgment against Defendant on either of these additional grounds. (Vermont Dec. Exh. 1.) Therefore, no 14 different result could have been reached as Defendant has breached the Stipulation repeatedly 15 and no further notice was needed before judgment could be entered against Defendant. 16 Defendant has not complied with the requirements of Section 473(b) by failing to set forth any 17 valid reason why his Motion should be granted. 18 19 B. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 473(B). 20 Section 473(b) explicitly states, "Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a 21 copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the auplication 22 shall not be granted." (Emphasis added.) Defendant has failed to submit any pleading which he 23 24 proposes should have been submitted in opposition to the ex parte application that was granted. Therefore, Defendant's Motion cannot be granted pursuant to the statutory requirement. 25 C. THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE STIPULATION. 26 The law is clear that stipulations negotiated between parties are enforceable, and the court 27 is bound to enforce them. (See Carter v. Carter (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 479; Webster v. Webster 7 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446297 do (1932) 216 Cal. 485.) In Webster, the court, in discussing stipulations, explained that such stipulations are: "...not only agreements between the parties, but between them and the court, which the latter is bound to enforce, not only for the benefit of the party interested, but for the protection of its own honor and dignity. [Citation omitted]" In Kaufman v. Goldman (2011) 195 Cal.App.4 743, the parties in an unlawful detainer action entered into a stipulation which provided a date certain for the defendant to vacate the subject premises. When the time came for the defendant to vacate the premises, defendant sought to void the stipulation contending, inter alia, that its terms constituted a violation of the 10 San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. The court flatly rejected this argument and upheld the terms of the stipulation. The court also discussed the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 strong public policy favoring settling of disputes. In short, this court has the ~dut to enforce the Stipulation, and by expressly agreeing to the Stipulation, Defendant is bound to it. Defendant agreed to timely pay Rent, which he failed to do. Proper notice was provided and Defendant failed to cure on time. Defendant was given a "grace period" to pay on December 16, 2019 and still failed to pay rent before close of business at 7:00 p.m., even assuming Defendant attempted to make such payment (discussed infra). While Defendant alleges that he immediately sought a new check, he admits no payment was provided until 12:34 a.m. on December 18, 2019, over 18 days after the original payment was due in full, 3 days after the expiration of the notice to cure, and 2 days after the "grace period" expired. The Stipulation explicitly states that time is of the essence. Defendant further failed to pay the security deposit and was short on Rent for November 2019. The Stipulation states that no further notice needs to be provided to Defendant to enter judgment against him for these additional violations. Therefore the Motion should be overruled and the Stipulation terms enforced. 25 26 27 28 'ven if Defendant did make a payment on December 16, 2019, such payment was made after close of business and could not have been received by Plaintiff on that date. Plaintiff therefore had the right to deny such payment. 8 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446297 466 DEFENDANT CONTINUES TO FAIL TO ABIDE BY DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 For over a year, Defendant has failed to abide by the contractual terms of the Lease. Defendant subsequently failed to abide by the contractual obligations in the Stipulation, which granted him the ability to remain at the Property if only he complied. Defendant did not timely pay Rent for December 2019 and did not timely cure the past due Rent amount despite proper notice. Defendant still has not replenished the security deposit, which was due in November 2019 and Defendant has not remedied the Rent shortage from November 2019. The Stipulation specifically states that "time is of the essence." (Vermont Dec., Exh. 1 g 34.) Additionally, this Court ordered Defendant to serve his Motion by January 9, 2020. Defendant agreed to this requirement and Plaintiff's counsel agreed to service by email to allow Defendant to timely comply. Despite this Court's Order, Defendant's agreement, and Plaintiff s counsel's accommodation, Defendant did not file or serve the Motion until January 10, 2020 and Plaintiff s counsel had to make a written demand for the Motion before it was provided. (Vermont Dec. tt 19.) Further, Defendant did not provide the Motion until 4:11 p.m. on Friday, January 10, 2020, after Plaintiff's counsel had left the office, despite informing Plaintiff at 1:18 p.m. that the Motion had been filed. (Vermont Dec. Pg 19-20.) This prevented Plaintiff's receipt of the Motion until January 13, 2020, well after it was due. Even on this Court's Order, Defendant has refused to abide by the deadlines and requirements he expressly agrees to and further leniency should not be granted. E. DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT ON DECEMBER 16, 2019. 23 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff s management company, GS, has been in business and at its current location for over twenty (20) years. (MecKenstock Dec. tt 21.) GS has never had a payment made through the mail slot of its business go missing, nor have any of Defendant's payments made in the same fashion gone missing previously. (MecKenstock Dec. Ptt 21-22.) The busienss is typically open from 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. to accommodate payments outside of a normal work schedule. 9 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 (MecKenstock Dec. tt 23.) The last person at the business each night typically closes the mail slot to the business at the end of the business day, so if any payment is received overnight, the mail slot is open in the morning. (MecKenstock Dec. ltd 17, 23.) Defendant has not provided any evidence of putting the alleged December 16, 2019 payment into the mail slot or the check inside of the business . The mail slot was further observed closed on December 17, 2019. (MecKenstock Dec. PP 17, 24.) Based on GS'wenty (20) year record and Defendant's history of nonpayment, it is clear that no payment was made by Defendant as alleged and the judgment should not be vacated based on unsupported allegations of a mysteriously missing payment. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Defendant has not provided any valid reason for his alleged surprise based on the entry of judgment against him and Defendant received proper notice of counsel's intent to file an ex parte 12 13 application ofjudgment. Defendant has further failed to adhere to the statutory requirements of Section 473(b). This Court is obligated to enforce the Stipulation, which permits entry of 14 judgment against Defendant for various violations. Defendant has habitually failed to abide by 15 the time commitments placed upon him, even under order of this Court, and should not be 16 granted additional leniency. It is clear that no payment was made by Defendant on December 16, 17 18 2019, as alleged, based on the circumstances surrounding the missing payment, even if the payment was made on December 16, 2019 it could have been rejected by Plaintiff as it was not 19 received until the following day, and Defendant has failed to pay its first appearance fee and is 20 proceeding by Motion despite such failure to pay. For these reasons, Defendant's Motion should 21 be denied. 22 23 Date: January 14, 2020 RANDICK O'DEA TOOLIATOS VERM 24 25 By: Dominique M. Jacques 26 27 28 'efendant has provided in his Motion a photo of the payment made on December 18, 2019, taken through the glass window and/or glass fioa door of the business but did not provide similar proof for the December 16„2019 alleged payment. Defendant has provided an alleged photo of the December 16, 2019 check outside of the business. 10 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT - CASE NO. 19CV357198 446297 666 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sue Betti, declare: I am employed in Alameda County, State of Californi, am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225, Pleasanton, California 94588. 1 am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and/or other overnight delivery. Under overnight delivery practice, all mailings are deposited in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course ofbusiness. On the date set forth below, I served the within: l. 2. 3. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DECLARATION OF PHILLIP G. VERMONT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DECLARATION OF BRENDA MECKENSTOCK IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SKT ASIDE JUDGMENT 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, and each envelope addressed as follows: Lam Ha dba Tea Villa ha 1 h@yahoo.corn [x] (By Electronic Service) The above-referenced document was served by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Randick 04Dea k Tooliatos LLP's electronic mail system, to the email addresses set forth as listed above, and in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 14, 2020, at Pleasanton, California. 19 20 Sue-'Beeti MEX( 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 446997 dcc
