Stipulation and OrderCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 30, 2021on 9/23/2021 12:18 P|\Reviewed By: A. Floresca Case #21 CV381444 Envelope: 7326826 EFS-020 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N0: FOR counr use o~Lv NAME; Jen-Feng Lee (SBN 204328) FIRM NAME; LT Pacific Law Group LLP STREET ADDRESS; 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 560 CITY; City Of Industry, CA STATE; CA ZIP CODE; 91748 TELEPHONE No; (626) 81 0-7200 FAX N0; (626) 81 0-7300 E-MAIL ADDRESS; jflee@|tpacificlaw.com ATTORNEY Fomname); Plaintiff, Paper 360, lnC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDREss; 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITYAND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME; DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER: pLAmnFF/pETmowER; PAPER 360, INC. 21CV381444 JUDICIAL OFFICER:DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: ADVOQUE, et al. Hm- Christopher G_ Rudy OTHER: DEPT: PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) 7 NOTE: This cover sheet is to be used to electronically file and su order in PDF format are filed. electronically to the court must be in PDF format and must be attached to this cover sheet. In addition, a version of the proposed order in an editable word-processing format must be sent to the court at the same time as this cover sheet and the attached proposed bmit to the court a proposed order. The proposed order sent 1. Name of the party submitting the proposed order: Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc. 2. Title of the proposed order: Order for Leave t0 File Second Amended Complaint 3. The proceeding to which the proposed order relates is: not applicable a. Description of proceeding: b. Date and time: c. Place: 4. The proposed order was served on the other parties in the case. Order was served on Defendant, Advoque Jen-Feng Lee (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California EFS-020 [Rev. February 1, 2017] PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) (Electronic Filing) F ls/ Jen-Feng Lee (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Page 1 of 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.252, 3.1312 www.courts.ca.gov American LegalNet, Inc. www,FormsWorkFlow‘com EFS-020 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: PAPER 360, INC. v. ADVOQUE 21CV381444 PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROPOSED ORDER 1. | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. a. My residence or business address is (specify): 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 560, City of Industry, CA 91748 b. My electronic service address is (specify): ktanji@ltpacificlaw.com 2. | electronically served the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with a proposed order in PDF format attached, and a proposed order in an editable word-processing format as follows: a. On (name ofperson served) (If the person served is an attorney, the party or parties represented should also be stated): Christopher Karic; Corey Timpson b. To (electronic service address ofperson served): ckaric@sellarlaw.com; ctimpson@sellarlaw.com c. On (date): September 23, 2021 X Electronic service of the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with the attached proposed order in PDF format and service of the proposed order in an editable word-processing format on additional persons are described in an attachment. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: September 23, 2021 Kenneth Tanji, Jr. P ls/ Kenneth Tanji, Jr. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME 0F DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) EFS-020[Rev. February1,2017] PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) Page20f2 (Electronic Filing) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jen-Feng Lee, SBN 204328 iflee@ltpacificlaw.com Kenneth K. Tanji, Jr., SBN 162273 ktanii@ltpacificlaw.com LT Pacific Law Group, LLP 17800 Castleton Street, #560 City of Industry, CA 91748 T: 626-810-7200 F: 626-810-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paper 360, Inc. Superior Court of California County 0f Santa Clara PAPER 360, INC., a California Case No, 21CV38 1444 corporation, STIPULATION AND [-PRGPG-SEBj Plaintiff ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE a SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT VS. ADVOQUE, a California corporation; ADVOQUE SAFEGUARD LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants. Stipulation for Leave t0 File Second Amended Complaint 1 Filed October 4, 2021 County of Santa Clara Superior Court of CA Clerk of the Court 21CV381444 By: raragon 21CV381444 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Advoque (“Defendant”), by and through their undersigned counsel 0f record, hereby stipulated and agree, subj ect to Court approval, the following: RECITALS A. On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action. B. On July 30, 2021, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. In response t0 the Demurrer t0 Complaint, 0n August 4, 2021, Plaintiff submitted for filing its First Amended Complaint. C. Defendant met and conferred With Plaintiff regarding pleading issues concerning the First Amended Complaint. As Defendant intended to file a Demurrer t0 the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, in the interest 0f avoiding unnecessary motions, propose t0 file a Second Amended Complaint, attached herein as Exhibit A. IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION, AS FOLLOWS: The Parties request that the Court grant Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc., leave t0 file the Second Amended Complaint attached herein as Exhibit A. Dated: September 14, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 2% 7“ Jen-Feng (Jeff) Lee Kenneth Tanji, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc. Stipulation for Leave t0 File Second Amended Complaint 2 21CV381444 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: September 14, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,WW Christopher K. Karic Corey M. Timpson Attorney for Defendant, Advoque Stipulation for Leave t0 File Second Amended Complaint 3 21CV381444 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .mOP-G-SEB ORDER Having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation by and among Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc., and Defendant, Advoque, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plaintiff” s request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to submit the Second Amended Complaint for filing. Dated:wz1 Signed: 10/4/2021 10:49 A2 JUDGE OF THfSUPERIOR COURT Christopher G. Rudy Stipulation for Leave t0 File Second Amended Complaint 4 21CV381444 EXHIBIT A lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jen-Feng Lee, SBN 204328 iflee@ltpacificlaw.com Kenneth K. Tanji, Jr., SBN 162273 ktanii@ltpacificlaw.com LT Pacific Law Group, LLP 17800 Castleton Street, #560 City of Industry, CA 91748 T: 626-810-7200 F: 626-810-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paper 360, Inc. Superior Court 0f California County 0f Santa Clara PAPER 360, INC., a California Case No, 21CV38 1444 corporation, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, F0R= 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN VS. CONTRACT , , , 2. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT ADVOQUE, a Callfornla corporatlon; ADVOQUE SAFEGUARD LLC’ a 3. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF - - - - - - - , MERCHANTABILITY Callfornla 11m1ted 11ab111ty company, and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, 4. FRAUD 5. RESCISSION BASED UPON FRAUD 6. RECISSION BASED UPON FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION 7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE Defendants. Comes now Plaintiff, Paper 360, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) and presents its Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Advoque and Advoque Safeguard LLC (“Defendants”), and other Doe defendants, as stated below: Second Amended Complaint 1 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 General Allegations . Plaintiff is a California corporation having a business location at 2910 S. Archibald Avenue, Suite A537, Ontario, California 91761. . Plaintiff is generally in the business of, among others, Wholesale paper products With a focus on government agency and school district end-users. . On information and belief, Defendant Advoque is a California corporation having a business location at 1040 Richard Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050. . On information and belief, Defendant Advoque is in the business of, among others, selling certain personal protective equipment (“PPE”) including, but not limited to, masks that provide protection to medical personnel and for everyday uses. . On information and belief, Defendant Advoque Safeguard LLC is a California limited liability company having a business location at 1040 Richard Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050. . On information and belief, Advoque and Advoque Safeguard LLC have the same or substantially the same owners, and that Advoque transferred at least part of its PPE business to Advoque Safeguard LLC sometime after June 15, 2020. It is unclear to Plaintiff at this time if that transfer included the business dealings between Plaintiff and Advoque. . Plaintiff does not know the true names and identities of defendants sued as DOES 1 - 10, and therefore sues by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to allege the true names of said DOE defendants When the information becomes known. . On information and belief, and at all relevant times, each of the defendants, including the DOE defendants, are acting as agent or representative of one another and are acting in concert in relation to the wrongful acts as alleged Second Amended Complaint 2 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 herein and are liable as charged either directly or indirectly, jointly and severally. 9. Roughly starting in late 2019 and throughout 2020, the pandemic, known as Coronavirus-19 (“COVID-19”) hit much of the world, including the United States. 10. COVID-19, based upon the limited knowledge learned by the scientific and medical community, spreads easily through air and surface contact. People can easily contract the Virus, or some variants of the Virus, by breathing the air around people already infected. 11.Based upon reliable science and CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines, wearing certain PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is an effective way of preventing the spread of the Covid-19 Virus. 12. Among the PPE options, NIOSH-approved (NIOSH-certified) masks are the most effective choices. The need for such NIOSH-certified masks, as a result, increased dramatically in the United States. 13. On information and belief, NIOSH stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a US federal agency responsible for setting the standards or recommendations for the prevention of work-related disease and injury. 14. The NIOSH-approved masks refer to masks that meet the standards set by NIOSH. 15. On information and belief, Defendant Advoque, at relevant times, advertised to sell certain masks that are NIOSH-approved. 16. On information and belief, Defendant Advoque, at relevant times, also advertised to sell certain masks that are pre-NIOSH-approved. Meaning, these masks are not NIOSH-approved yet, but are manufactured by the same equipment and process that produced NIOSH-approved masks. Second Amended Complaint 3 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. On information and belief, Defendant Advoque represented that its pre- NIOSH-approved masks are of the same quality and safety standard as the NIOSH-approved masks; the pre-NIOSH-approved masks would pass the NIOSH certification requirement if such products were submitted for tested/inspected in due course. 18. On information and belief, Defendant represented that the pre-NIOSH approved masks would pass Without obj ection in the trade and are fit for the purpose/use in the Covid-19 context and conforming to the CDC/NIOSH guidelines in its quality, labeling and packaging. 19. Starting in around March 2020, Advoque solicited Plaintiff as to Whether they were interested in purchasing N95 masks for resale. Plaintiff had not previously sold N95 masks or other PPE. In April 2020, Advoque provided packaging of the N95 masks offered for sale to Plaintiff. Within that packaging, Advoque represented the N95 masks offered for sale to Plaintiff were FDA approved under the Emergency Usage Act (EUA). 20. On or about May 15, 2020, Plaintiff agreed to purchase 1,944 boxes, With 50 21. masks per box, of U.S. government approved N95 masks based on Advoque’s representations, memorialized by purchase order number P20168 (“P20168 PO”) Which identified the N95 masks purchased by Plaintiff as part number 519105. The total cost of the masks was $229,392. By June 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was Widespread and N95 masks were in high demand and short supply. On or about June 10, 2020, Kevin Kennedy, Executive Vice President of Advoque, represented to Plaintiff that due to production delays, Advoque would not be able to provide “NIOSH approved masks” for the rest of 2020. Mr. Kennedy represented that Advoque had What he called “pre-NIOSH approved” N95 masks that “were made for the NIOSH N95 testing and approval process and were made With Second Amended Complaint 4 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the same material and equipment as our [Advoque’s] current NIOSH approved versions.” 22. Based on Advoque’s representations, Plaintiff agreed that Advoque could provide the “pre-NIOSH approved” N95 masks that Advoque represented were the same as the NIOSH approved masks. Advoque represented that the “pre-NIOSH approved” N95 masks were Advoque part number 52085 1. There was no change in the total price of the masks ($229,392). 23. In late June 2020 or early July 2020, Plaintiff received the masks from Advoque. 24. On or about September 14, 2020, the State of California recalled N95 masks from Defendants on the grounds that Advoque masks were no longer NIOSH approved as of September 10, 2020. According to news reports, Defendants had contracted to provide $90 million worth ofN95 masks to the State of California for distribution to the public. The State of California recall notice mandated to immediately cease use and distribution of the Advoque N95 masks. Further, the recall notice stated Advoque N95 masks distributed by the State could be returned to the State and the State would replace the masks With NIOSH-approved masks. 25. After the State of California recall of Advoque N95 masks and Defendants’ loss ofNIOSH approval for N95 masks, it was impossible and impracticable for Plaintiff to sell the N95 masks received from Defendants. 26. Plaintiff has made repeated demands to Advoque for a refund, or for replacement of masks that are NIOSH-approved, but Advoque has refused. 27. Plaintiff suffered substantial damages due to Advoque’s wrongful acts as stated herein and as more facts to be discovered Via discovery. Claim One: Breach 0f Written Contract 28. Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. Second Amended Complaint 5 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. On or about May 15, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written contract wherein Plaintiff agreed to purchase 1,944 boxes, With 50 masks per box, of U.S. government approved N95 masks based on Advoque’s representations, memorialized by purchase order number P20 1 68 (“P20 1 68 PO”) Which identified the N95 masks purchased by Plaintiff as part number 519105. The total cost of the masks was $229,392. 30. On or about June 10, 2020, the aforementioned contract was modified by oral agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants wherein Plaintiff agreed to pay, and did pay, for pre-NIOSH approved masks that Defendants represented were the same as the NIOSH-approved masks. 3 1 . Defendants breached the contract as Defendants delivered masks that were not NIOSH-approved or even pre-NIOSH approved as confirmed by the State of California’s recall ofAdvoque N95 masks and Advoque’s loss of NIOSH approval for N95 masks. 32. As a result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach in an amount to be proven at trial but at least $ 144,058. Claim Two: Breach of Oral Contract 33. Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 34. On or about June 10, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an oral contract wherein Plaintiff agreed to purchase 1,944 boxes, and did purchase, pre-NIOSH approved masks that Defendants represented were the same as the NIOSH-approved masks. 35. Defendants breached the contract as Defendants delivered masks that were not NIOSH-approved or even pre-NIOSH approved as confirmed by the State of California’s recall ofAdvoque N95 masks and Advoque’s loss of NIOSH approval for N95 masks. 36. As a result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach in an amount to be proven at trial but at least $ 144,058. Second Amended Complaint 6 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Claim Three: Breach of Warranty of Merchantability 37. Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants represented and warranted that the products it provided to Plaintiff were pre-NIOSH approved With the products being of the same quality as NIOSH-approved masks. 39. Defendants knew Plaintiff intended to resell the products as pre-NIOSH approved masks being of the same quality as NIOSH-approved masks. 40. Defendants represented that the pre-NIOSH approved masks would be merchantable and fit for the purpose/use in the Covid-19 context, including the product quality to be NISOH-approved or at the same NIOSH level for pre-NIOSH approved products that can pass in the trade Without obj ection. 41. In fact, the N95 masks received by Plaintiffwas not of the same quality as NIOSH-approved masks or pre-NIOSH approved masks and were not fit for the ordinary purposes for Which the N95 masks are used because Advoque’s N95 masks were not NIOSH-approved as confirmed by the State of California recall and Advoque’s loss ofNIOSH approval for N95 masks. 42. Plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify Advoque that Advoque’s N95 masks did not have the expected quality, but Advoque refused to refund Plaintiff or to replace the masks With masks that did have NIOSH approval. 43. As a result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach in an amount to be proven at trial but at least $144,058. Claim Four: Fraud 44. Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 45. In the course of Advoque’s solicitations to Plaintiff to sell N95 masks, on or about March 3 1 , 2020, Kevin Kennedy, Executive Vice President of Sales for Advoque, made a written representation to Ed Sung of Plaintiff that the Second Amended Complaint 7 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 46. 47. 48. 49. N95 masks offered for sale to Plaintiff were FDA approved under the Emergency Usage Act (EUA). After Plaintiff placed an order for the U.S. government approved masks part number 5 1 9105 based on Kevin Kennedy’s March 3 1 , 2020, representation, on or about June 10, 2020, Kevin Kennedy made oral and written representations to Ed Sung of Plaintiff that due to production delays, Advoque would not be able to provide “NIOSH approved masks” for the rest of 2020. Mr. Kennedy further represented that Advoque had What he called “pre-NIOSH approved” N95 masks that “were made for the NIOSH N95 testing and approval process and were made With the same material and equipment as our [Advoque’s] current NIOSH approved versions.” Plaintiff is informed and believes that Kevin Kennedy either knew the June 10, 2020, representations were false or had no reasonable ground for believing the June 10, 2020, representations were true because Plaintiff is informed and believes that Kevin Kennedy knew on June 10, 2020, that Advoque’s NIOSH approval of its N95 masks was already in the process of being Withdrawn. Based on Plaintiff’ s inexperience in selling PPE during an unprecedented pandemic and Advoque’s apparent experience and expertise in PPE, Plaintiffjustifiably relied upon Kevin Kennedy’s aforementioned representations to place an Order for Defendant’s N95 masks part number 5 1 9105 and later acceptance of Defendant’s N95 masks part number 52085 1 . Plaintiff’s reliance on the aforementioned misrepresentations is a substantial factor in the resulting harm, the result of which harmed Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial but at least $144,058. 50. Defendant, acting by its officer, director, and/or managing agent Kevin Kennedy, acted With oppression, fraud, and malice in a willful and Second Amended Complaint 8 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 intentional manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. Claim Five: Rescission Based Upon Fraud 5 1 . Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 52. As a result of the aforementioned fraud, Plaintiff is entitled for the restitution of all benefits received by Defendants including recission of the contract due to the fraud committed. 53. Service of this action constitutes notice of rescission of the N95 mask contract between Plaintiff and Defendants and an offer to restore benefits received under the contract, as provided in section 1691 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Claim Six: Rescission Based Upon Failure of Consideration 54. Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 55. There has been a material failure in the consideration received by Plaintiff in the aforementioned N95 mask contract With Defendants, in that after the State of California recall ofAdvoque N95 masks and Defendants’ loss of NIOSH approval for N95 masks, it was impossible and impracticable for Plaintiff to sell the N95 masks received from Defendants. 56. As a result of this failure, Plaintiff has been deprived of the benefits of its bargain and has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but at least $ 1 44,05 8. 57. Service of this action constitutes notice of rescission of the N95 mask contract between Plaintiff and Defendants and an offer to restore benefits received under the contract, as provided in section 1691 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Second Amended Complaint 9 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 58. 59. 60. 61. Claim Seven: Unfair Business Practice Plaintiff incorporates prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. California B&P code section 17200, in relevant part, provides: unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibit by Chapter 1 (commencing With Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professional Code. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive advertising and business acts that caused harm to Plaintiff, including but not limited to Mr. Kennedy June 10, 2020, oral and written representations that Advoque had What he called “pre-NIOSH approved” N95 masks that “were made for the NIOSH N95 testing and approval process and were made With the same material and equipment as our [Advoque’s] current NIOSH approved versions.” As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and unfair acts, Plaintiff suffered harm of at least $144,058 and other additional amount to be determined at trial. Praver for Relief WHEREFOR, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find for the following relief: a. Judgment against Defendants in the amount of no less than $144,058; b. For a rescission of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants and order the restitution in favor of Plaintiff; c. For pre-suit and pre-judgment interest on the principal amount as requested herein; d. For general, special, and consequential damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial; Second Amended Complaint 10 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial; f. For costs of the action and reasonable attorney fees; g. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 9, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Jen-Feng Lee Jen-Feng (Jeff) Lee Attorney for Plaintiff Paper 360, Inc. Second Amended Complaint 11 10 ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 560, City 0f Industry, CA 91748. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and am not a party t0 the within action; On September 15, 2021, I served the following document(s) entitled STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT in this action as follows: BY E-MAIL: By emailing a copy 0f the above-listed document(s) t0 the addresses listed below per agreement [CRC 2.25 1] and/or pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Appendix I, Emergency Rule 12 and/or California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6. ckaric@sellarlaw.com; ctimpson@sellarlaw.com Christopher Karic; Corey Timpson Sellar Hazard & Lucia 201 N Civic Drive, #145 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n September 15, 2021, at City 0f Industry, California. /s/ Kenneth Tanji, Jr. Kenneth Tanji, Jr.
