Opposition Objections

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 2021

A KOOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WALTERS LAW GROUP Christopher L. Walters, Esq. (SBN 205510) 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 888-5759 Email: clw@walterS-laW-group.com SPECIAL APPEARANCE Attorneys for Defendant Krzysztof Sywula Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/4/2021 3:41 PM Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Case #21 CH009837 Envelope: 6997206 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALEXIS DACOSTA, an individual Plaintiff, V. KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, Defendant. Case N0. 2 1 CH009837 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER, AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Date: August 10, 2021 Time: 9:00 am. Crtrm: 4 Judge: Hon. Erik S. Johnson DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Court should end the improper maneuverings and filings by Plaintiff DaCosta and dismiss this matter in its entirety. This matter was filed improperly and has no merit, but there is n0 need for this Court t0 even reach the merits due t0 Plaintiff’s failure t0 comply with procedural requirements. This matter was initiated by Plaintiff on February 1, 202 1. The initial restraining order was granted without notice to Defendant. Now, over six months later, Plaintiff has still failed to serve or t0 even attempt t0 serve Defendant despite having a confirmed residential address for several months and despite this Court’s directive at the May 25, 2021 hearing. Further, Plaintiff has failed t0 provide this Court with actual evidence t0 justify his unsubstantiated and wild allegations 0f Defendant’s alleged harassment. Indeed, there has been n0 contact between the parties for several months now, and there has not been any Violence 0r threats of Violence. [Nothing to the contrary is contained in any of the multiple declarations filed by Plaintiff] Plaintiff and Defendant are simply involved in a pending civil dispute regarding the ownership 0f their company and the related intellectual property. Unfortunately, it appears Plaintiff is improperly using this Court t0 try and inflict further damage, threats, and t0 ratchet up the costs for Defendant by making false and fraudulent harassment allegations. This is further evidenced by Plaintiff’s most recent, and not credible, claims that Defendant’s counsel, the undersigned, is actively involved in interfering with Plaintiff” s rights and engaging in improper conduct in this matter - again though, Plaintiff offers no actual evidence t0 support his salacious allegations. Plaintiff cannot even comply With basic procedural requirements as he files unnecessary and improper documents Without any legal basis t0 do so, and those filings fail t0 meet applicable evidentiary requirements and can best be described as frivolous - as evidenced by his July 18, 2021 declaration.1 While Plaintiff has filed several unpermitted and improper declarations, he has failed t0 present any evidence t0 rebut the declaration 0f Defendant Sywula 0r show that there has been 1 Plaintiff is being represented by counsel. Two separate law firms have inserted themselves and improperly attempted service. This matter would proceed more efficiently, and comply With procedural requirements, if these attorneys would simply appear in this action 0n behalf of Mr. DaCosta. -1- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 any improper conduct (including any conduct that should be addressed by a harassment restraining order as opposed t0 the litigation he had filed by Teleport Mobility). The Court should dismiss this matter in its entirety Without prejudice. To the extent that there is any future actionable conduct, Plaintiff can seek a restraining order if he has actual admissible evidence to support his purported allegations that satisfy the statutory requirements for the issuance of a restraining order. II. DEFENDANT HAS STILL NOT SERVED DEFENDANT DESPITE THE COURT’S DIRECTIVE AT THE MAY 25, 2021 HEARING AND DESPITE HAVING THE CONFIRMED RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT WHICH TO SERVE DEFENDANT - THUS, THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER MR. SYWULA Plaintiff still has not served Defendant in this matter, despite the fact that this matter has been pending for over five months. It is undisputed that: o Defendant is not currently in Santa Clara County (0r the State 0f California), and has not been there for several months. Defendant has been in Poland since February 202 1 . o Plaintiff has had a confirmed residential address in Poland for Defendant for over five months. o Despite this Court’s directive at the May 25, 2021 hearing that Plaintiff was required to personally serve Defendant, Plaintiff has made no efforts to personally serve Defendant at his confirmed address in Poland. Plaintiff knows that Defendant has been living in Poland since February 2021 - this 0f course was caused by Plaintiff and his father’s (Mel DaCosta) threats which included a threat to go after Defendant’s green card as set forth in the earlier Sywula declaration. Plaintiff’s July 18, 2021 declaration makes unsubstantiated allegations that Defendant is evading service (DaCosta July 18, 2021 Dec at 1H 3, 5) but fails to provide any evidence of trying to actually serve Defendant at the confirmed address in Poland. [Attempts t0 serve at an address that you know the Plaintiff is not located at d0 not satisfy the procedural requirements, 0r the directive of this Court] Plaintiff makes a vague reference in his July 18th declaration t0 “numerous attempts from law enforcement and a professional service company, Knox Process Servers”, but again -2- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provides n0 evidence of service attempts made on Defendant in Poland and n0 evidence to support his allegation that Defendant (and his counsel) are evading service or engaging in gamesmanship. And, again, this Court made clear at the May 25, 2021 hearing that Plaintiff needed t0 serve Defendant personally (which meant in Poland). The obvious conclusion is that Plaintiff” s failure to serve is intentional. Additionally, Plaintiff, while pro se in this matter, is represented by experienced litigation counsel in the federal civil matter (now stayed and pending in arbitration) between the parties. Plaintiff has more than sufficient resources and guidance as t0 how t0 serve the applicable papers 0n Defendant in Poland for this matter? Plaintiff should not be permitted t0 evade the requirements 0f the United States treaty that governs international service. E Water Splash, Inc. V. Menon (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1504, 1504 (“the Hague Service Convention specifies certain approved methods 0f service and “pre- empts inconsistent methods 0f service” wherever it applies”); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft V Schlunk (1988) 468 U.S. 694, 699 (“By Virtue 0f the Supremacy Clause, U.S. C0nst., Art. VI, the Convention pre-empts inconsistent methods of service prescribed by state law in all cases to which it applies. Schlunk does not purport t0 have served his complaint 0n VWAG in accordance with the Convention. Therefore, if service of process in this case falls within Article 1 of the Convention, the trial court should have granted VWAG'S motion t0 quash”); Inversiones Papluchi S.A.S. V Super. Q (2018) 20 Ca1.App.5th 1055, 1064 (““Failure t0 comply With the Hague Service Convention procedures voids the service even though it was made in compliance With California law. [Citation] This is true even in cases where the defendant had actual notice 0f the lawsuit. [Citations.]””). Because Plaintiff has still not served Defendant With the applicable papers, this Court has n0 2 As Defendant has previously noted, in February 2021, at the same time that Plaintiff sought his restraining order here, Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in federal court against Defendant relating to a business dispute among Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the ownership and intellectual property associated with the two companies 0fwhich Plaintiff and Defendant are co-owners/principals - Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC. In the federal proceeding (Which is currently stayed as the court ordered it to arbitration pursuant to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration), and pursuant to that federal court’s order, Defendant’s counsel provided a residential address for Defendant in Poland such that Plaintiff s counsel could serve Defendant in Poland. Defendant has been in Poland for several months and can be served there at the address provided t0 Plaintiff and his counsel (in the federal lawsuit). The address in Poland was provided to the same counsel that have represented and attempted service on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff and these counsel know that service must be personal. -3- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jurisdiction over Defendant and this matter (and the present temporary restraining order) should be dismissed in its entirety. III. PLAINTIFF MAKES FALSE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS IN HIS JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION - PLAINTIFF PROVIDES NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE/FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS WILD AND PURPORTED HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff unfortunately makes various false and unsubstantiated statements in his July 18th declaration that fraudulently represents that Defendant is no longer an owner/member 0f Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC; that Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Christopher Walters (the undersigned), has engaged in unethical conduct; and that Defendant and his counsel are engaged in ongoing harm and harassment. Plaintiff s conduct and his July 18th declaration have moved beyond frivolous and have progressed into making false, unsubstantiated sworn statements to this Court. Plaintiff” s July 18th declaration unfortunately makes spurious and inflammatory allegations about Defendant’s counsel (Mr. Walters). Plaintiff claims: Walters is “actively facilitating a Violation 0f the Restraining Order this court ordered”, “Walters is trying use this civil court t0 get free discovery for an unrelated Federal case”3, “Walters continues his gamesmanship, harassment, and intimidation, which has caused my wife, my family, and I, much emotional distress”, “ongoing harm/harassment caused by Walter[s] [sic].” [DaCosta July 18’ 2021 Decl. 1W 3, 5]. Yet again though, Plaintiff offers no actual evidence for his wild allegations - nor could he. Mr. Walters is a 20-year plus attorney, with an impeccable attorney conduct record, that has done nothing but advocate for his client (Defendant) and follow the applicable civil procedure and Court rules. He has not engaged in any harassment or other improper or unethical conduct. The fact that Plaintiff does not understand the rules of civil procedure (including the submission 0f a proposed Order to the Court) does not mean that Defendant’s actions are improper. Further, the fact that Plaintiff is involved in a separate litigation with Defendant and has received communications and other pleadings from Defendant and his counsel (Mr. Walters) in that other litigation and in this matter does not constitute harassment. Lastly, as discussed below, the submission 0f a shareholder 3 As previously noted, Plaintiff initiated the federal lawsuit against Defendant regarding a business dispute as t0 the ownership and related intellectual property for the two entities that Plaintiff and Defendant own - Teleport Mobility Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC. That federal lawsuit is currently stayed as the federal court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration regarding the parties’ business dispute. -4- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 inspection demand is not improper and is authorized by the California Corporations Code. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations against Mr. Walters is further evidence that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and that this Court should dismiss this matter and the pending temporary restraining order. Plaintiff continues t0 allege mere conclusions and other unsubstantiated allegations that Defendant and his counsel (Walters) are engaged in “ongoing harm/harassment” and that Defendant’s “conduct and ongoing, Vicious acts 0f harassment are greatly disturbing t0 my family and I.” [DaCosta July 18th Dec. 1} 5.].4 Yet Plaintiff cannot identify any actual facts t0 justify his harassment allegations. Indeed, Plaintiff’s declaration is pure speculation which is evidenced, in part, by his statement that “cyber-attacks, invasion of privacy, unfettered access, unauthorized access, and constant harassment over the internet are greater concerns with Sywula ’s background.” [DaCosta July 18th Dec. 1] 6 - Emphasis added]. Plaintiff’s own declaration therefore admits that he has n0 evidence 0f actual harassment, rather “concerns” given Defendant’s background. However, baseless “concerns” cannot serve as a basis for a restraining order, particularly Where Plaintiff cannot provide any actual evidence to support his numerous conclusory allegations 0f alleged harassment. Plaintiff has failed t0 meet his burden to show that Defendant has engaged in any harassment. Plaintiff also unfortunately makes baseless allegations regarding Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Walters, that are not grounded in any sort of reality and appear to be nothing more than an attempt to attack his integrity and ruin his reputation. The Court should dismiss this matter in its entirety and end the pending temporary restraining order. IV. PLAINTIFF IS THE ONE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN IMPROPER CONDUCT AND WHOSE BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE RESTRAINED BY THIS COURT. In addition t0 the improper, unauthorized, and false statements made t0 this Court, Plaintiff has engaged in misconduct. It is undisputed that Defendant has had n0 communications 0r contact with Plaintiff since the issuance 0f the restraining order (and further, Defendant engaged in no 4 Plaintiff makes reference t0 Defendant having his marriage certificate. No explanation is provided on how Defendant would have had access to this personal document. T0 the extent Plaintiff s allegation is that he chose t0 store the marriage certificate on the Teleport system and that Defendant, as the Chief Technical Officer 0f Teleport, had access t0 all company files, there was no improper conduct by Defendant. -5- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 actionable misconduct prior t0 the issuance 0f the restraining order). However, the evidence shows that in fact Plaintiff is the one Who is stalking Defendant and is the one Who appears t0 be obsessed. As this Court may recall at the last hearing, after statements made by Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff admitted to the Court that he and his wife had Visited the residence rented by Defendant. This was allegedly t0 serve Defendant, but in fact it was a stake-out of his residence and Defendant believes it was an attempt by Plaintiff t0 have Defendant Violate the restraining order. While trying to avoid admitting this, the May 25, 2021 Declaration 0f DaCosta in fact acknowledges this Visit (in a round-about way). “In paragraph 5 of Sywula’s declaration, Sywula states hearsay that my wife and I appeared at his residence. Ihonestly can’t remember but if this was the case it was t0 properly serve Sywula because officers said he wasn't properly served.” In this declaration, Mr. DaCosta also attempts to explain Why his wife would be calling Mr. Sywula after the restraining order had been issued. “On March 24, 2021 my wife accidently called Sywula for literally one second (didn't even ring/connect) in attempt to pull up his address from her phone. so she could personally serve him after the court rejected numerous service attempts by sheriffs and Knox Services.” Unfortunately, these are not the only two instances in which Mr. DaCosta and his wife attempted to initiate contact. Defendant has now obtained data from Verizon which undisputably evidences the stalking engaged in by both Mr. DaCosta and his wife. The Verizon data shows that Mr. DaCosta was in proximity t0 the apartment rented by Mr. Sywula 0n the following dates: February 1, 2021 (Monday) February 2, 2021 (Tuesday) February 4, 2021 (Thursday) February 5, 2021 (Friday) February 6, 2021 (Saturday) February 8, 2021 (Monday) February 10, 2021 (Wednesday) February 12, 2021 (Friday) February 13, 2021 (Saturday) -6- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION .p KOOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 February 15, 2021 (Monday) February 18, 2021 (Thursday) February 19, 2021 (Friday) February 22, 2021 (Monday) February 23, 2021 (Tuesday) February 26, 2021 (Friday) March 2, 2021 (Tuesday) March 3, 2021 (Wednesday) March 4, 2021 (Thursday) March 6, 2021 (Saturday) March 9, 2021 ((Tuesday) March 10, 2021 (Wednesday) March 11, 2021 (Thursday) March 18, 2021 (Thursday) March 19, 2021 (Friday) March 22, 2021 (Monday) March 23, 2021 (Tuesday) March 24, 2021 (Wednesday) March 25, 2021 (Thursday) March 26, 2021 (Friday) March 29, 2021 (Monday) March 30, 2021 (Tuesday) E EXh. A.5 This need for Mr. DaCosta t0 Visit Mr. Sywula’s apartment is disturbing. T0 the extent a restraining order should be issued, it should be against Mr. DaCosta. Such misconduct also supports dismissal 0f the existing restraining order. V. PLAINTIFF’S COURT FILINGS AND RESTRAINING ORDER REQUESTS ARE FRIVOLOUS AND FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COURT RULES. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE SANCTIONED. 5 The data provided by Verizon ended 0n March 30, 2021. It is suspected that there are more recent Visits by Mr. DaCosta to Mr. Sywula’s apartment. -7- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At this point it should be plain to the Court that Plaintiff” s July 18th declaration is a morass of false information, unsubstantiated allegations, baseless attacks, and is well outside the scope 0f civil procedure rules and the law. For example, Plaintiffnow requests in his declaration that the current restraining order be expanded: “I request that the Court expands [sic] the scope 0f the current scope 0f the Order to prohibit Sywula and Mr. Walters from communicating and [demand] Visiting my family, extended family, residences, investors, prospect [sic] investors, and business development relationships.” Plaintiff’s request has n0 legal merit and violates the rules 0f civil procedure. Plaintiff seeks t0 obtain a restraining order against Defendant’s counsel. This is clearly improper and the issuance 0f a restraining order against an attorney could have negative effects upon Mr. Walters. Plaintiff also seeks t0 expand the scope 0f the existing restraining order against Defendant. The undisputed facts are that Plaintiff and Defendant are almost equal owners in Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights. “Through subsequent third-party investments, your equity stake in Teleport Mobility was (and still is) approximately 45% and DaCosta’s was (and still is) between 49% - 50.8%.” 1/3 1/21 Letter from Plaintiff’s Counsel attached t0 Plaintiff’s 2/1/21 Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders filed in this action. Yet, Plaintiffnow seeks to restrain Plaintiff “from communicating and [demand] Visiting my family, extended family, residences, investors, prospect investors, and business development relationships.” DaCosta 7/198/21 Decl. at 1T7. This attempt at a prior restraint of speech, which is done in an attempt to avoid further exposure of DaCosta’s fraudulent conduct [including the identity theft detailed in Sywula’s earlier declaration in this matter], is not only contrary t0 the rules 0f civil procedure but a Violation 0f the First Amendment. Plaintiff” s July 18th declaration is an impermissible and unnecessary filing - it was not ordered by the Court, not required by any pending motion or related briefing schedule, and not in accordance with any applicable civil procedure or Court rule. By filing it, Plaintiff has now forced t0 Defendant t0 unnecessarily expend attorneys’ fees and costs t0 respond to it. The simple fact is that Defendant (and his counsel) understands the California statutes and Plaintiff does not. -8- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o Defendant did submit a proper shareholder/director/officer/manager inspection demand upon Teleport Mobility and Northern Lights. Defendant’s exercise 0f such rights is not a Violation of any restraining order, is not harassment, and is completely proper. Again, Plaintiff is the one attempting t0 cover up improper conduct. 0 The federal litigation matter referred t0 by Plaintiff (“Walters is trying t0 use this civil court t0 get free discovery for an unrelated Federal case.”) was filed improperly under the direction of Plaintiff. That federal case has been stayed and ordered to arbitration. This matter has nothing t0 d0 with Defendant’s legitimate requests for, and legal entitlement t0 (under the California Corporations Code), documents from the entities in which he has an ownership interest. Plaintiff s reference t0 and use 0f these irrelevant document requests (found in Exhibit M 0f the July 18th DaCosta declaration) is simply more evidence 0f Plaintiff’s frivolous arguments and bad faith. The mere fact that Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in civil litigation relating t0 their co-owned businesses (Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC) and that Plaintiffmay not want t0 be in business with Defendant any more, cannot serve as a basis for Plaintiff’s purported need for a restraining order. Rather, it is plain evidence 0f Plaintiff abusing the litigation process t0 inflict emotional and financial harm against Defendant. The Court should not allow such egregious and bad faith behavior. It should dismiss this matter and the pending restraining order immediately. Plaintiff should be sanctioned for his misconduct. The July 19, 2021 Declaration was improper and not permitted pursuant t0 the rules 0f civil procedure. Plaintiff” s improper filing caused Defendant to incur needless legal fees in preparation 0f this Reply. Further, Plaintiff has intentionally and deliberately failed to serve (0r even attempt to serve) Defendant despite the clear instruction 0f this Court which has resulted in unnecessary proceedings (and unnecessary legal fees). Defendant seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,415.00 relating t0 this filing. fl Declaration of Walters, fl 4. Defendant also seeks leave t0 file a request for monetary sanctions relating t0 all legal fees incurred in connection with this matter once the restraining order is dismissed as it was improper and baseless from the very beginning. -9- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI. CONCLUSION As set forth above, this matter and the current pending restraining order should be dismissed in its entirety for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has still not served and has not attempted to serve Defendant even though the Court directed Plaintiff t0 d0 so at the May 25, 2021 hearing, and despite having the exact address and location t0 serve Defendant for nearly five months; (2) Plaintiff has failed t0 set forth any evidence to support the allegations of harassment (and even the allegations made by Plaintiff do not meet the statutory standard for the issuance 0f a restraining order); (3) Plaintiff continues t0 file improper and frivolous declarations with this Court (including personal attacks upon Defendant’s litigation counsel). This matter should be dismissed. In the event that Plaintiff obtains actual evidence of improper conduct (Which will not occur since communications with Mr. DaCosta and his companies are now being directed through counsel), Plaintiff can file for a new restraining order (and properly serve it upon Defendant). DATED: August 4, 2021 Submitted by, WALTERS LAW GROUP s/Christopher L. Walters, Esq. CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS, ESQ. Attorneysfor Defendant KrzysztofSywula -10- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: 1. I am over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. My business address is 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor, San Diego, California 92101 Which is located in the county Where the service described below took place. 2. On August 4, 2021, I served the following documents: DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER, AND PROTECTIVE ORDER DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , EVIDENCE PRESERVATION ORDER, AND PROTECTIVE ORDER XXXX By US Mail: By placing a true copy thereof in an envelope, properly sealed, addressed as shown above for collection and mailing on the below indicated day pursuant to the ordinary business practice of this office Which is that correspondence for mailing is collected and deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, on the same day in the ordinary course of business for sending 0f mail. XXXX By E-Mail I certify and declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 4, 2021, at San Diego, California. s/Christopher L. Walters, Esq. CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS, ESQ. -11- DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S JULY 18, 2021 DECLARATION