Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 16, 202010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V373489 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Jane Doe by Superior Court of CA, 1n Pm per County of Santa Clara, 5424 sunol Blvd Ste 10-475 on 7/23/2021 12:55 PM Pleasanton, CA 94566 Reviewed By: F. Miller Telephone: (510) 679- Case #20CV373489 1288 Envelope: 6913568 janedoegrowtogether@gmail.com Self-Represented SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JANE DOE, Case No.2 20CV373489 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO University of Southern CA, Alfred E. Mann TRANSFER VENUE Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Dr. hearing date! AugUSt 5, 2021 Gerald Loeb, an individual, and ROES 1 TO 50 VS. trial date: not set Assigned t0 Hon. Drew Takaichi, Dept 2 Defendants I INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jane Doe obj ects and opposes Defendant Dr. Gerald Loeb’s (hereinafter “Dr. Loeb” or “Defendant”) Motion for Change of Venue. Defendants hereinafter refers t0 the University of Southern California (“USC”), the Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering (“AMI”), Dr. Gerald Loeb and DOES 1 t0 50. Plaintiff s current opposition to Dr. Loeb’s Motion to Transfer Venue fully incorporates Plaintiff” s prior opposition to Defendant USC and Defendant AMI’S Motion t0 Transfer Venue (stamped as filed by the clerk on May 11, 2021). California courts have long held that where a plaintiff s action is for physical injury, the action is proper and triable in the county where the injury occurred. Additionally, the considerations of the convenience of witnesses and in the interest 0f justice, venue is proper in Santa Clara County and the matter should remain in this court. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Venue is not only proper in Santa Clara County but is necessary to ensure substantial justice. Plaintiff also objects to Defendants' misrepresentations and attempts to bypass established rules and procedures. II VENUE IS PROPER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WHERE THE PHYSICAL INJURY OCCURRED. CCP 395(a) Defendants state that Plaintiff misrepresents CCP 395(a). However, as previously established and quoting plaintiff’ s opposition, "California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a) provides in pertinent part that '[i]f the action is for injury t0 person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county Where the injury occurs 0r the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, 0r some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action' (emphasis added, same as in Plaintiff opposition)." For cases 0f physical injury, California case law has interpreted the law and long held that in the instance of a personal physical injury, as here, Plaintiff has the right to select venue, subj ect to the court's discretion regarding the convenience of Witness and in the interest ofjustice (Monk V. Ehret, 192 Cal. 186 1219 P. 4521, Carruth V. Sup.Ct. (Stoike)(1978) 80)). The personal physical injury is the place Where the happening occurs, and the physical injury took place in Santa Clara, as stated in the complaint. It is clear from the plain language of Civil Code 395(a), case law and the complaint that this action arose out 0f the conduct of Defendants for person injury and as such, plaintiff is entitled to determine venue, subject to the convenience of witnesses and the interest ofjustice, Which all support this court retaining venue. III DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF Defendants have the burden t0 demonstrate that the plaintiff s venue selection is not proper under any 0f the statutory grounds" (Fontaine V. Super Ct (2009) 175 Cal.App 4th 830, 836; Archer V. Super. Ct. In and For Humboldt County (1962) 202 Ca1.App.2d417,420; California State Parks Foundation V. Super Ct. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826,833). Without proof that venue is not proper, the presumption is that the PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 county in which the action is brought is, prima facie, the venue for trial (Mission Imports, Inc. V. Super. Ct (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921,929; Lakeside Ditch Co. V. Packwood Canal Co., 50 Cal. App. 296 [195 P. 284); J. C. Millett Co. V. Latchford-Marble Glass C0., 144 Cal. App. 2d 838 [302P.2d 914]). Defendants have failed to demonstrate that venue should not remain in Santa Clara County. 1. Defendants Failed t0 Establish a Basis for Transfer Based on Witness Convenience. If a party files a motion t0 transfer venue based on Witness convenience, the party must submit affidavits listing witness names for those Who are expected t0 testify for both parties, the substance of anticipated testimony, Whether the witness was deposed or provided a statement, explanations for Why and how it would inconvenience Witnesses, and how a transfer of venue would promote justice (Juneau V. Juneau (1941) 45 Ca1.App.2d 14,16; Edwards V. Pierson (1957) 156 Ca1.App.2d72,75). Defendants have not provided any information t0 satisfy these requirements, although Plaintiff did serve Defendants and file her own Witness information With the Court. Defendants’ perfunctory allegations in the Motion t0 Transfer Venue is woefully inadequate. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, all witnesses do not reside in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff provided her Witness list The court ordered Defendants t0 provide the identity 0f their witnesses and a brief description 0f their material testimony by June 30, 2021. On June 30, 2021, their attorney Ms. Hannah Dunn filed a supplemental declaration indicating that Dr. Jonathan Lasch, head ofAMI, and Dr. Gerald Loeb would testify for Defendants. Ms. Dunn stated that both Dr. Lasch and Dr. Loeb Will “testify that the Sencil was never used 0r distributed outside of the lab Where it was created, Which is located in Los Angeles. Dr. Loeb Will testify that the Sencil was never tested 0r otherwise implanted in humans and n0 plans were ever made t0 test or otherwise implant the Sencil in humans.” This testimony is highly dubious given Plaintiff” s factual allegations including but not limited to the fact that the technology was used t0 Violate Plaintiff” s intimate parts repeatedly, among other factual allegations. The allegations contained therein are not supported, have not been subjected to cross PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 examination, the rigors of the discovery process and purely self serving. The allegations in this declaration should be stricken. Plaintiff s action is brought in the county in which the injury occurred and where the witnesses are located in 0r in close proximity thereof. On June 1, 2021, the Court noted that it wanted clarification regarding the physical location 0f the incident (device insertion). Plaintiff clarifies herein that she felt the puncture and penetration in her intimate parts on May 23, 2018 on the grounds 0f Santa Clara University’s campus. Plaintiff” s Declaration filed herein sets forth her witnesses Which include, but are not limited to, Plaintiff, plaintiff” s husband, the Santa Clara Police Department, medical providers, Santa Clara District Attorney's Office and Santa Clara University. In Willingham V. Pecora, 44 Cal. App.2d 289,295 [112P2d. 328], the court held that respondent's affidavit and listed Witnesses including medical staff and investigating highway patrol official(s) would be inconvenienced by a transfer of venue. These circumstances are the essential equivalent to Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff filed her witness list and other information with the court, Whereas Defendants failed t0 meet their obligations. 2. The Interest of Justice Require Venue Remain in Santa Clara County Plaintiff is an individual as opposed to Defendants who benefit from USC'S long established, prominent, apparent well-endowed resources and support as a maj or regional institution. USC'S reputation, financial affluence and influence in Los Angeles is without question. Defendants have not presented a cogent argument for a change of venue. In View of the Defendants' status, financial resources and regional influence, neither the interests ofjustice nor fundamental fairness will be advanced through the requested change in venue. Rather, Plaintiff and the witnesses will be unduly burdened and prejudiced. Venue should remain in Santa Clara County. IV Defendants’ Motion for Transfer 0f Venue Should be Denied Because the Time Allotted t0 Bring the Motion had Expired Contrary to the flagrant and knowing misrepresentations 0f Defendants, the time in Which Defendants had in Which t0 bring this motion expired prior t0 their filing 0f this motion. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A11 Defendants were served as shown in Table 1 below and in the filed proofs of service by OneLegal, Inc. (see "Exhibit A" attached hereto as a true and correct copy of proofs of service and due diligence for each Defendant). Table 1. Dates 0f Service 0f Processl USC by substituted service 12/18/2020 Mailing 0n Response due 12/28/2020 2/6/2021 AMI by substituted service 12/ 1 8/2020 Mailing 0n Response due 12/24/2020 2/2/2021 Dr. Geral Loeb by substituted 1/15/2021 Mailing 0n Response due service 1/22/2021 3/3/2021 1. Defendants Have Entirely Misrepresented the Service 0f Process Chain 0f Events Dates listed 0n filed Proofs 0f Service comprise Plaintiff s consistent beliefs about dates for service of process. Defendants misrepresent Plaintiff s motive in mailing a copy of the complaint to Dr. Loeb. In their reply, Defendants' May 24,2021Reply states, "It appears Plaintiff was aware that this attempt [i.e., substitute service] was not effective service, as the Complaint along with a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt...was subsequently sent Via first-class mail t0 Dr. Loeb's home address 0n February 22,2021." Nevertheless, Plaintiff over email on March 5,2021 already clarified that the date for original service of process remains intact, "D0 note that Dr. Loeb was already properly served, per the proof of service filed With the court. Nevertheless, this notice and acknowledgment process is a redundancy and a courtesy, since you were making claims that he had not been served" (see "Exhibit B" attached hereto as a true and correct copy of the email communication). 1 Table 1 errata note: Response due dates in this table corrected for minor typos that are not material (i.e., Defendants failed t0 meet any listed due dates). Plaintiff agreed to an extension with a due date 0fMarch 3, 2021. Defendants e-served Plaintiff With motions for transfer of venue, to strike portions of the complaint and for demurrer on March 5, 202 1. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Substituted service became necessary after Dr. Loeb avoided diligent and repeated service 0f process attempts not only at his workplace but also at his home (i.e., lights on and off, blinds open and closed, vehicle present, so changes at his home) (see "Exhibit C" attached hereto as a true and correct copy 0f OneLegal’s Non-Service Report for Dr. Loeb). Once it became clear that Dr. Loeb had avoided many service attempts at more than one location, substituted service became necessary. Defendants ignore the rules for service 0f process. The date for service of process is NOT simply when Defendant claims he 0r she received service of process documents. "Substituted service is complete 10 days after the day the papers are mailed" (CA Courts on Service 0f Court Papers, retrieved from https://WWW.courts.ca.g0V/selfhelp-serving. htm?rdeLocaleAttr==en on May 25,202 1). Dr. Loeb's refusal to open or acknowledge his mail does not change the dates 0f effective service. Defendants further contend that because "Dr. Loeb has n0 agreement With USC that they may accept service 0n his behalf," substituted service at his workplace is somehow ineffective. In fact, "If the server is trying to serve the papers at the other party's work, then the papers can be left With someone at the office that appears to be in charge and is at least 18 years 01d" (id). Defendants' argument for an automatic 30-day extension in these circumstances is ludicrous. According t0 Defendants' argument, a defendant, as here, could be served, wait for months passed the time their response was due, then request a meet and confer and if the terms that the defendant advance are not met, they can claim they "automatically" get an additional 30 days to reply Without consequence (and more likely to the prejudice 0f the Plaintiff). There was no identified reason for Defendants' failure t0 timely respond. Defendants attempt t0 impugn Plaintiff s character by suggesting repeatedly that there was a known problem With service in contrast to Plaintiff s transparent representations and evidence. This is knowingly false and Defendants should be admonished and sanctioned for making this suggestion. Defendants were properly served by a third party (OneLegal,Inc.) and by substituted service in View 0f apparent attempts t0 avoid service. There was n0 justifiable reason for defendants" failure t0 timely respond. The law is clear When responses ate due, 3O says after service, period. If defendants wanted an PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 extension, they should have brought their motion for such within the specified timeframe. Defendants' motion is untimely and should be denied. 2. Defendants Attempt t0 Deprive Plaintiff 0f Fundamental Due Process is Unjustifiable. In Defendants' May 24,2021 reply brief, they advance the argument, for the first time, that Defendant Loeb's motion lbr change of venue, Which is calendared for August 5 12021, should be heard June 1, 2021. This request was denied. The Motion to Change Venue 0n behalf ofUSC and AMI originally scheduled for June 1 was continued to August 5, 2021, so that it could be heard along With Dr. Loeb's motion t0 Change Venue. There is a well-established process for requesting the changing 0f hearing dates, starting With the need to meet and confer With involved parties, and then properly seeking the court's approval. None of this was done. Defendants are beginning t0 establish a pattern of using their resources t0 undermine the very tenets that are the foundation of our Civil process. There is n0 legal basis allowing a defendant the right t0 deprive the Plaintiff time t0 respond t0 the motion scheduled t0 be heard 0n August 5, 2021. Such overreaching necessitated this response and should not go unnoticed and should not be excused Without consequences. V Conclusion California Code of Civil Procedure Section 396(a) provides, in pertinent part, venue is proper in cases 0f physical injury Where the injury occurred (Santa Clara County). The witnesses reside in and around Santa Clara County and the interests of convenience and justice would not be served by a transfer 0f venue. Plaintiffmade a compelling showing by providing her witness list. The time for filing a motion t0 transfer venue has passed. Defendants misrepresent Plaintiff s positions, misrepresent the chain of events for service 0f process, misrepresent evidence/filed documents including proofs 0f service by a third party and misrepresent applicable laws. In View of the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants' motion be denied in its entirety and all appropriate costs and fees be assessed against the Defendants. Plaintiff further requests that the Court admonish Defendants in order to ensure a more ethical and honest process going forward. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted: Dated: July 23, 2021 Jane Doe, Plaintiff VERIFICATION I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true ofmy own knowledge except as t0 those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as t0 those matters, Ibelieve them to be true. Executed on July 23, 2021 in Deschutes County, Oregon. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ymfii Jane Doe, Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LOEB’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 8 EXHIBIT AHI I 20cv373489 Santa Clara - Civil pOS.010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ( /ane, Stafe Bat nunber, and addrcss): Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 Sunol Blvd. Suite 10-475. Pleasanton, CA 94566 TELEpHoNE No.: 51 06291 2gg ATToRNEY FoR (Naz,sr' Plaintiff E b c o FORCOURT USE ONLY ectronically Filed r Superior Gourt of CA, )unty of Santa Clara, r 118120213:52 PM )viewed By: A. Rodriguez rse #20CV373489 rvelope: 5607436 SUPERIOR GOURT OF CALIFORNIA" COUNTY OF Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County 191 N. FirstStreet San Jose, CA95113-1090 F c E PLAINTIFF/PETITIoNER: JANE DOE DEFENDANT/RESpoNDENT: Dr. Gerald Loeb. an individual. et al CASE NUMBER: 20cv373489 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUIMMONS Ref. No. or File Na: At the time of service I was a citizen of the United States, at least 18 yeqrs of age and not a party to this action. 2' I served copies of: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Surmmons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution Info 3. a, Partyserved: Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering, an independent 501(cX3) b. Person Served: Beong-Soo Kim - Person Authorized to AccBpt Service of Process 4. Address where the party was served: 3551 Trousdale Parkway, ADM 352 Los Angele$, CA 90089 5. I served the party b. by substituted service. On (date): 1211812020 at (time): 1 :00PM I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of: officer chua- Public safety officer - person in charge of office (1) (business) a person at least 18 years of ag-e apparently in chargp at the o:ffice or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) A declaration of mailing is attached. 6. The "Notice to the Person Seryed" (on the summons) was completed as follows: d. on behalf of: Alfred E. Mann lnstitute for Biomedical Engineering, an independent 501(cX3) under: Other: Business Oroanization Form Unknown 7. Person who served papers a. Name: Daniel F. Marion b. Address: One Legal - p-O0961g-Sonoma 1400 North McDorell Blvd, Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 c. Telephone number: 415-491-0606 d. The fee for service was: $ 159.25 e. lam: (3) registered California process seryer. (i) Employee or independent contractor. (ii) Reqistration No,:2105310801 (iii) County Los Angeles 8. I declare under penalty of periury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 1Z31|2O2O W4-I Daniel F. Marion (MME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS) (SIGMTURE) Form Adopted for Mandatory UBe Judicial Council of Califomia POS-010 [Rev. Jan 1, 2004 Code of Civil Pfoedure, S 417.10 oL# 15627052 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AITORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUTATTORNEY (Nffi gId Mws): Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 SunolBlvd. Suite 10475. Pleasanton, CA 94566 ATToRNEY FOR f/vsm); Dl a i nf iff TELEPHONE NO,: 5106791288 Raf. No or File No. FOR COURT USE ONLY Insst r€me of court, jrJdici€{ di8fid or brandl 6u( if aql Santa Clara - First Street 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA95113-1090 PI.AINTIFF: JANE DOE Dr. Gerald Loeb, an individual, et al PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CASE NUMEER: 20cv373489 FAX I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 1 8 and noll a party to the within action. My business address is 1400 N. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94954. On 1212412020, after substituted service under section CCP 4115.20(a) or 415.20(b) or FRCP a(eX2XB) or FRCP 4(hX1 XB) was made (if applicable), I mailed copies of the: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution lnfo to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail iat Petaluma, Califomia, addressed as follows: Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering, an independent 501(c)(3) Beong-Soo Kim 3551 Trousdale Parkway, ADM 352 Los Angeles, CA 90089 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collectionr and processing of documents br mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited within the United States Postal Service, on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in lhe ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Fee for Service: $ 159.25 One Legal - P-000618-Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd, Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 12/2412020 at Petaluma. California. \, c-.- Travis Caroenter oL# 15627052 ATTORNEY OR PARry WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nans, Stats Bar numbr, and adidresJ: ,Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 Sunol Blvd., Suite 10-475, Pleasanton, CA94566 TELEPHoNE No.: 51 06791288 ATToRNEY FoR (N"'*)' Plaintiff E b c ectronically Filed t Superior Court of CA, )unty of Santa Clara, | 118120213:50 PM lviewed By: A. Rodriguez rse #20cv373489 rvelope: 5607393 SUPER]OR COURT OF GALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Superior Court of California, Santa Clara Countv 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 13-1090 F ( E PLAINTIFF/PETITIoNER: JANE DOE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dr. GETAId LOEb. Et AI CASE NUMBER: 20cv373489 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUIMMONS Ref. No. or File No.: 1 . At the time of service I was a citizen of th 2. I served copies of: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution Info 20cv373489 Santa Clara - Civil POS410 e United States, at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 3. a. Partyserved: University of Southern CA, a plublic nonprofit entity b. Person served: Office of General Counsel - Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process 4. Address where the party was served: 3551 Trousdale Parkway, ADM 352 Los Angele$, CA 90089 5. I served the party b. by substituted service. On (date): 1211812020 at (time): 1:00pM I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of: OFFICER CHUA (M/W30yl5'10l2001b) _ person ln Charge Of Office (1 ) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the ,general nature of the papers. (4) A declaration of mailing is attached. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: d. on behalf of: University of Southern CA, a public nonprofit entity uncler: ccP 416.50 (oublic entitv) 7. Person who served papens a. Name: Daniel F. Marion b. Address: One Legal - p-00061g-Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd. Ste 1300 Petaluma. CA 94954 c. Telephone number: 415-491-0606 d. The fee for service was: $ 159.25 e. lam: (3) registered California process server. (i) Employee or independent contractor. (ii) Reoistration No. 210531080'1 (iii) County Los Angeles 8. I declare under penalty of periury underthe laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Datei 1212412020 Daniel F. Marion (NAT\,EOF PERSON WHOSERVED PAPERS) (SIGNATURE) @t Fom Adopted for Mandatory Ue Judicial Council of Califomia POS-o10 lRev. Jan 1, 20071 Code ol Civil Procedure, S 4'17.10 oL# 15627054 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ATTORNEY OR PARTY W|THOUT ATTORNEY (|,I*re and Adfess); TELEPHONE NO.: Jane Doe Self-Represented 51067912g9 5424 Sunol Blvd., Suite 10-475. pleasanton,CA94566 ffi ATloRNEyFoR(r,,am)'Plaintitf I FORCOURTUSE ONLY lrcrt nan'E of 6u4 judici€t dlsdct oa branch cou( if any: Santa Clara - First Street 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 13-1090 PLAINTIFF: JANE DOE DEFENDAAIT: Dr. Gerald Loeb, et al PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL SASE NUMBER: 20cv373489 BY FAX I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1400 N. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94954. On 1212812020, after substituted service under section CCP 415.20(a) or 415.20(b) or FRCP a(eX2XB) or FRCP 4(hX1 XB) was made (if applicable), I mailed copies of the: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution Info to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Petaluma, California, addressed as follows: University of Southem CA, a public nonprofit entity Office of General Counsel 3551 Trousdale Parkway, ADM 352 Los Angeles, CA 90089 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for 66llss116n and processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited within the United States Postal Service, on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Fee for Service: $ 159.25 One Legal - P-000618-Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd. Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 I declare underpenalty of perjury underthe laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 12128/2020 at Petaluma. California. \c-- Travis Carpenter oL# 15627054 ATTORNEY OR PARry WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): t Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 SunolBlvd., Suite 10-475 Pleasanton, CA 94566 TELEPHoNENo.: 51 06791288 ArroRNEyFoR (N"'"1 Plaintiff E b c FoRcoURTUsEoNLY Sysiem Sl ectronically Filed 'Superior Court of CA, )unty of Santa Glara, t 211112021 1:11 PM rviewed By: System System rse #20CV373489 rvelope:5827906 suPERtoR couRT oF cALtFORNtA COUNTY OF Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County 19'1 N. First Street San Jose, CA95113-1090 R c E PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JAN E DOE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dr. Gerald Loeb, et aI CASE NUN'BER: 20cv373489 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Ref. No. or File No.: 1 , At the time of service I was a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 20cv373489 Santa Clara - Civil POS-010 2. lserved copies of: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution lnfo 3. a. Party served: Dr. Gerald Loeb, an individual b. Person Served; Partyin item 3a 4. Address where the party was served: 3667 MCCLINTOCK AVE Los Angeles, CA 90089 5. I served the party b. by substituted service. On (date): 0111512021 at (time): 1:41PM I teft the documents tisted in item 2 with or in the presence of: ROOSEVELT STARLING - public safetv officer (1 ) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in chdrge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) A declaration of mailing is attached. (5) | attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. 6, The 'Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. as an individual defendant. 7. Person who served papers a' Name: Daniel F. Marion b' Address: one Legal- p-000618-sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd. Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 c. Telephone number: 415-491-0606 d. The fee for service was: $ 159.25 e. lam: (3) registered California process seryer. (i) Employee or independent contractor. (ii) Reqistration No,: 2105310801 (iii) County: Los Anqeles 8. I declare under penalty of periury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 02105121 qil {rl Daniel F. Marion NAME OF PFRSON WHO SERVED PAPERSI (SIGMTURE) Form Adoptod fs lvandatory [jse Judichl Council of California POS010 lRev. Jan 1,2004 Code of Civil Procedure, S 417.10 oL# 15714417 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ATTORI€Y OR PARTY WITHO{TT ATTOR^EY (Naflp ad Att(r€ls) t Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 Sunol Blvd. Pleasanton, CA 94566 ATrcRNEY FoR (r'tam€), Pl a i ntiff TELEPT{OI€ },1O.: 5106791288 lR.f.NotrFht\b. FOR COURT USE OI{.Y lr[dlnsflbcf oout, juddal drtlctorb.$dl cd]rt itsny Santa Clara - First Street 191 N. First Stiaet San Jose, CA 9511$1090 PlA|NTIFF: JANE DOE DEFENTIA'{T; Dr. Gerald Loeb, et al DEC1ARATIONOF T'IIJGENCE CASiE NUMEEFI 20c\f373489 I received the within prcc€ss on and that after due and diligent effort I have been unable to personally serve said party. The following itemization of the dates and times of attempts details the efiorb required b efiect parsonal servics. Additional cosb br diligence are rccovorable under CCP 51033.5 (aX4XB). PARTYSERVED: Dr. Gerald LOeb, an individUal (1)Business: DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 3667 MCCLINTOCKAVE, , Los Angeles, CA 90089 As enumerated belov: On 1/,13/2021 1:45:00 PM ataddress (1) above. NO ONE lN WHO CAN ACCEPT DOCUMENTS BY FAX On 111412021 9:50:00 AM at address (1) above. SUBJECT lS NOT lN, HE WORKS ON ANOTHER PART OF THE CAMPUS RIGHT NOW. Qn 111512A21 1 :41:00 PM ataddress (1) above. PUBLIC SAFTEY OFFICER STATED THIS lS WHERE ALL SERVICE OF PROCESS IS ACCEPTED. I dedare under penalty d perjury under the laws of the United Ststos of Arnerica and the State of Califurnia that the bregoing is true and con€c:t and that thb dedaration was €x€cutod on OtA f2O21 at Petalu ma, Calibmh. Registered Califomia proc€ss s6n er. County: Los Angeles Regisfation No.: 21 0531 0801 DanielF. Marion One Leoal - P{0061&Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd, Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 q oL# 1511M17 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEy(itam snd A.tdEss): t Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 Sunol Blvd. Pleasanton, CA 94566 FOR COURT USE ONLY In$il nsnE of cou4 judlcbl dlstlctof bEnchdlt lf any: Santa Clara - First Street 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA95113-1090 PI-AINNFF: JANE DOE Dr. Gerald Loeb, et al PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1400 N. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94954. On O112212Q21, after substituted service under section CCP 415.20(a) or 415.20(b) or FRCP (e)(2)(B) or FRCP a(h)(1)(B) was made (if applicable), lmailed copies of the: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons, Gomplaint, Altemative Dispute Resolution lnfo to the person to be served at he place where ttre copies were left by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at , California, addressed as follows: Dr. Gerald Loeb, an individual 3667 MCCLINTOCK AVE Los Angeles, CA 90089 I am readily familiar with the firm's prac{ice for collection and processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited within the United States Postal SeMce, on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after dale of deposit for mailing in affidavit. FeeforService: $ 15925 One Legal - P-00061&Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd, Ste 300 Petialuma, CA 94954 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of Califomla that the foregcing is true and correct and that this declaration was execuEd on 01 122 12021 at Petaluma, Galifomia. \y c-' oL# 15714417 EXHIBIT BiHI I i F{ Gmail Jpne Doe Doe, Jane vs. University of southern Galifornia - Acknowledgment of Receipt for Loeb Jane Doe Fri, Mar 12,2021at 12:58 pM To: Emelie Gerard , Jane Doe Cc: Patrick Stockalper , Suzanng Swartz , Hannah Dunn Thank you. Do note that Dr. Loerb was already properly served, per the proof of service filed with the court. Nevertheless, this notice and acknowledgment process is a redundancy and a courtesy, since you were making claims that he had not been served. Best wishes, Jane Doe On Fri, Mar 12,2021, 12:43 PM Emelie Gerard wrote: Please see the attached correlspondence from Patrick Stocfialper, as well as the Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint, senred on Dr. Gerald Loeb. lf yop have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Stockalper or Ms. Dunn. Emelie C. Gerard Paralegal to Melissa Wellkowski, Esq. and Hannah R. Dunn, E:;q. KJAR, McKENNA & STTOCKALPER, LLP 841 Apollo Street, Suite 100 El Segundo, California 9t0245 424-217-3067- Direct 424-367-0384- Direct Fax No. 424-217-3026- Main No. (Ext. 1010) egerard@kmslegal.com www.kmslegal.com EXHIBIT C:HI I Z ATTORNEY OR PARry WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nams andAdd€ss)l Jane Doe Self-Represented 5424 Sunol Blvd., Suite 10-475 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ATToRNEY FoR (Namet, plgin{iff TELEPHONE NO.: 5106791288 FOR COURT USE ONLY ln$rt name of court, judicid district or bEnch 6urt, if any: Superior Court of California, Santa Clarar County 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA95113-1090 PLAINTIFF: JANE DOE DEFENDANT: Dr. Gerald Loeb, et al NON SERVICE REPORT DATE: IME: DEPT/DIV: CASE NUMBER: 20cv373489 I am and was on the dates herein mentioned a r:itizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not a party to this action, and I received copies of the following: Civil Lawsuit Notice, Civil Case Cover {iheet, Summons, Complaint, Alternative Dispute Resolution Info After due search, careful inquiry and diligent attempts at the following address(es), I have been unable to effect service of said process on: Dr. Gerald Loeb, an individual By FAX (1)Home: 1642 Camino Lindo, , South Pasadena, CA 91030 Process is being returned without service for the following reason(s): An 11512021 5:40:00 PM at address ('11)above. Car at driveway. Blinds open. Lights on inside. Lights on inside. No response at door. Qn 11612A21 11:23:00 AM at address (1) above. Blinds open. Car at driveway. No activity inside. Newspaper at door. No response at door. On 11812021 8:49:00 AM at address ('l) above. Blinds closed. Car at driveway. Newspaper at driveway. No response at door. On 111Q12021 6:03:00 PM at address (1) above. Blinds closed. Lights on inside. Car at driveway. No activity. NO response at door. On 111212021 7:44:00 PM at address (1) above. Premises dark. Blinds closed. Car at driveway. Package ai door. No activity. No response at door. On 111412021 8:20:00 AM at address (1) above. Blinds closed. No car at driveway. Newspaper at door. No activity. No response at door. No visible changle. Fee for Service: $ 130.00 Registered California process server. County: Los Anoeles Registration No.: 201 31 54334 Juan Medina One Legal - P-000618-Sonoma 1400 North McDowell Blvd. Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this decfaration was executed on Q112612021 at Petaluma, California. Juan Medina oL# 15687509