Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 5, 2013

~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 DAVID D. PIPER, CASB No. 179889 david.piper@kyl.com TYSON W. KOVASH, CASB No. 279465 tyson.kovash@kyl.com KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN A Professional Corporation 400 Oceangate Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 436-2000 Facsimile: (562) 436-7416 Attorneys for Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER WAYNE T. HETMAN, Plaintiff, VS. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Does 1-20, Defendants. N r N N N N N N N e N N N N N N N N N r Case No. 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC Action Filed: July 5, 2013 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: Judge Frederick P. Horn, Dept. C-31 Date: Time: Place: January 13, 2015 1:30 p.m. C-31 Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (“Chase” or “Defendant”) submits this Opposition to Plaintiff WAYNE T. HETMAN’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Terminating Sanctions. In KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions (“Motion”) is utterly without merit. In his Motion, Plaintiff completely and conveniently ignores the events which took place before this Court during at the November 18, 2015 hearing on Plaintiff’s motions to compel. He misrepresents by his omission that the parties agreed before this Court to allow thirty days for Chase to provide its responses. Plaintiff is improperly attempting to take advantage of a scrivener’s error in the minute order from the November 18th hearings, which unfortunately did not reflect the agreement reached, and provides that Chase shall have ten days to comply. Chase has been more than reasonable in its efforts to comply with the Court’s final order from the November 18, 2014 hearing, which Chase received on November 24, 2015. Plaintiff has refused to meet and confer in good faith or even respond to multiple attempts by Chase to calendar a date for Chase’s continued Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK?”) deposition. Plaintiff has also been completely unresponsive to Chase’s request that he sign a confidentiality agreement to not disclose certain sensitive and proprietary documents that Chase has been ordered to produce. Chase has acted in good faith to schedule a PMK deposition date, and Chase has produced, or will respond to all outstanding discovery responses before the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion. Chase’s continued efforts to comply with its obligations has been met with Plaintiff’s stonewalling and gamesmanship. Chase is sincerely apologetic that the Court must devote its resources to entertaining the motion. If Plaintiff had simply worked in good faith to with Chase, this hearing would be unnecessary. Chase’s conduct certainly does not warrant the imposition of terminating sanctions, and the motion should be denied. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On November 18, 2015, The Court heard four of Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery. (Register of Actions 282-286.) In granting in part, and denying in part, Plaintiff’s motions, the Court’s Tentative Ruling ordered Chase to produce the additional discovery and a PMK 5. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 witness within ten (10) days. (Declaration of Tyson Kovash (“Kovash Decl.” at 2.) Before the Court, Plaintiff and Chase’s counsel agreed to permit Chase thirty (30) days, and the Court acknowledged the agreement and stated that the order would provide for the thirty (30) day timeframe. (Kovash Decl. at 3.) Counsel for Chase received the final Minute Order from the November 18, 2015 hearing on November 24, 2015. (Kovash Decl. at {5.) Unfortunately, the Minute Order reflects the ten (10) day timeframe for Chase’s additional production rather than the agreed-upon thirty (30) day timeframe. (ROA 288.) Chase has attempted in good faith to schedule a deposition date for its PMK witness, but Plaintiff has been unwilling to even discuss dates. (Kovash Decl. at | 10; Ex. C.) Instead, Plaintiff simply demanded that Chase produce its witness on a single date, and refuses to even discuss alternatives. As of December 30, 2015, Chase has served the supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Admission (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). (Kovash Decl. at {[13.) III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE PREMATURE, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND IMPERMISSIBLY PUNITIVE IN NATURE. Although he does gloss over the rule for terminating sanctions, Plaintiff completely ignores the “abundant case law to the effect that the purpose of discovery sanctions ‘is not to provide a 299 weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits.” McGinty v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210 (1994) (quoting Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 303 (1961)). Also, “the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” Id. at 211 (quoting Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 771,793 (1978)). “In the particular matter of witness or evidence preclusion sanctions, California cases have affirmed . . . such sanctions when the offender has engaged in a long history of abuse of process, but have reversed severe sanctions that are disproportionate to the sanctioned 3. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 conduct.” Id. (emphasis added). In Wilson v. Jefferson, 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 958 (1985), after defendant failed to comply with a discovery order, the plaintiff brought a motion to strike defendant’s answer and enter default. The trial court granted the motion, citing the defendant’s willful disobedience of the order and “continuing history of flaunting discovery requirements.” Id. The California Court of Appeal reversed the terminating sanctions because the penalty was not “appropriate to the dereliction” and a lesser sanction would have been appropriate. Id. at 958-59. The court acknowledged defendant’s “calculated” and “obstinate failure to cooperate in the discovery process,” and noted that defendant “systematically sought to avoid meaningful inquiry” into his affirmative defenses. Id. at 958. Nevertheless, the court held that “the ultimate sanction of entirely precluding him from any further participation in the case” was an abuse of discretion. Id. Terminating sanctions, the court reasoned, “went beyond what was necessary to protect [plaintiff’s] interests vis-a-vis her discovery efforts, but unjustifiably precluded him from any defense respecting aspects of the case” which were inadequately connected to defendant’s discovery dereliction. Id. at 959; see also Caryl Richards, 188 Cal. App. 2d 300 (vacating sanction which struck the entire answer as disproportionate); Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App. 2d 605 (1966) (reversing trial court’s sanction of striking defendant’s answer as too drastic). In Caryl Richards, the court noted that, although the trial court has the power to impose sanctions that will accomplish the purpose of discovery, “when its order goes beyond that and denies a party any right to defend the action or to present evidence upon issues of fact which are entirely unaffected by the discovery procedure before it, it not only abuses its discretion but deprives the recalcitrant party of due process of law.” 188 Cal. App. 2d at 305. The court held that striking the entire answer was disproportionate to the offense, even though the party refused to comply with the court’s order, because such recalcitrance “could not be the basis for an inference or a presumption that all of the other essential facts alleged in the complaint . . . were true or that the allegations as to [other defenses] were untrue.” Id. “The use of the ultimate sanction . . . is a drastic penalty and case law recognizes that it should be sparingly used.” Thomas v. Luong, 187 Cal. App. 3d 76, 81 (1986). Indeed, as the Thomas court 4. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 recognized: In exercising its sanction power under the discovery statutes the trial court must keep a ‘fundamental precept’ fairly in mind. That is, that “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery [so that a] sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause. Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Thomas court made clear that a court “should not deprive a party of all right to defend an action if the discriminating [i.e., narrowly tailored] imposition of a lesser sanction will serve to protect the legitimate interests of the party harmed by the failure to provide discovery.” Id. 1. Plaintiff has been completely unwilling to schedule a date available to all parties for the deposition of Chase’s PMK witness. Chase is not refusing to comply with the Court’s order. In fact, Chase has been working diligently to do just that. The issue is one of timing, not of unwillingness to comply. Chase has made multiple attempts to schedule a date for its PMK witness’ deposition, but Plaintiff has been completely uncooperative. Before the Court, Plaintiff and Chase’s counsel agreed to extend the timeframe to conduct the PMK deposition to thirty (30) days, and the Court agreed to put the thirty (30) day timeframe in the Minute Order. (Kovash Decl. at 3.) On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff served notice of the PMK deposition for December 21, 2015. (Kovash Decl. at {{4. Ex. A.) Tellingly, in his letter accompanying the Notice of Deposition Plaintiff himself confirmed that he agreed to the thirty (30) day timeframe. (/d.) This is obviously in stark contrast to the ten (10) day timeframe Plaintiff asserts in his Motion. (Mot. at 2:20-21.) On or about December 9, 2015, counsel for Chase informed Plaintiff that its PMK witness was unavailable on December 21, 2015, but would be available on December 22, 2015, if Plaintiff could confirm that date. (Kovash Decl. at 6.) Counsel for Chase also informed Plaintiff that its witness could be available the week of December 28, 2015 if Plaintiff could confirm a date that week. (Id.) On December 16, 2015, counsel for Chase received a 5. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 letter from Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff confirmed that he was unavailable on December 22, 2015, and falsely asserted that counsel for Chase claimed no other dates were available. (Kovash Decl. at { 8; Ex. B.) In fact, on December 15, 2015, Chase’s counsel again called Plaintiff at 1:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m., and 4:30 p.m., each time leaving voicemails confirming that the PMK witness would be available on December 22, 2015 or the week of December 28, 2015 if Plaintiff would confirm a date. (Kovash Decl. at 7.) After receiving Plaintiff’s December 16 letter, counsel for Chase called Plaintiff again and left a voicemail to try to schedule the deposition for the week of December 28, 2015. (Kovash Decl. at 9.) On December 17, 2015, counsel for Chase sent Plaintiff a letter via overnight courier detailing Chase’s efforts to schedule the PMK deposition on a mutually agreeable date. (Kovash Decl. at 10.) Plaintiff chose to ignore the proposal for alternative dates, and simply declined the December 22,2015 date. (Id.) Because the Court’s order only compels Chase’s PMK to answer four pending questions (ROA 288), Chase’s counsel also offered via letter on December 23, 2015 to make a witness available via telephone if it would better fit Plaintiff’s schedule. (Kovash Decl. at q 11; Exhibit D.) Plaintiff has not responded. Counsel for Chase detailed Chase’s efforts to produce a PMK witness in a letter to Plaintiff dated December 17, 2015. (Kovash Decl. at 10; Ex. C.) To date, Plaintiff has not acknowledged to Chase’s offer of proposed alternative dates for the PMK deposition, nor has Plaintiff proposed any alternative dates of his own. (Kovash Decl at 12.) Chase has made numerous attempts through phone messages and overnight delivery of letters, to cajole Plaintiff into providing another date for the deposition, all to no avail. (Plaintiff’s fax machine only allows for outgoing faxes and he refuses to provide an e-mail address so when he refuses to return phone calls, communications take at least 48 hours.) (Id.) Instead, Plaintiff decided to file this Motion. Due to Chase’s continued efforts to produce a PMK witness for deposition on a mutually agreeable date, and proposal of alternative dates (which went ignored), terminating sanctions would be extremely disproportionate and impermissibly punitive. Chase’s continued attempts in good faith to schedule a deposition date is not even close to the level conduct required to deny it further participation in this case. See, Caryl Richards, 188 Cal. App. 2d at 305. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion. _B- KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 2. Chase has provided or will provide the supplemental discovery responses before the hearing on this Motion. As of December 30, 2015, Chase has served the supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Admission (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). (Kovash Decl. at 13.) Chase will provide the additional responses before the hearing on this Motion. Again, Plaintiff attempts to have the Court ignore the fact that he stood before the Court and stipulated to the thirty (30) day timeframe, and instead hold Chase to a ten (10) day timeframe to respond. (Mot. at 2:22-3:2.) Chase acknowledges that thirty days have passed since its receipt of the Minute Order on November 24, 2015, but it has an continues to labor in good faith to comply with the Court’s order. Chase has been diligently trying to determine whether some of the information it has been ordered to produce even exists and/or whether it can be obtained. Chase also asked Plaintiff to sign a routine confidentially agreement to protect its proprietary information, and save the parties’ time and this Court’s resources in having to bring a motion for protective order. Plaintiff has refused to even acknowledge the request. Chase’s continued and good faith efforts to comply with its discovery obligations and the Court’s order are not of the type for which the threat of terminating sanctions is even uttered, much less seriously considered. Because all responses to outstanding written discovery have been, or will be, served on Plaintiff before the hearing on this Motion, terminating sanctions would be extreme and disproportionate. Chase has never refused to engage in discovery, and has never ignored Plaintiff’s requests. Chase simply needs some additional time to perform a reasonably diligent search and verify its responses. These circumstances should not deprive Chase the ability to defend this action. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 3. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS INAPPROPRIATE. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanction of $2,400 because he “had to bring this action for terminating sanctions.” (Mot. at 5:12.) As noted above, Plaintiff did not have to bring this Motion. Indeed, Chase has continuously told Plaintiff that it is not only willing to provide a PMK witness for deposition, but has proposed several dates and has even suggested a telephonic deposition, if it is more 7. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 convenient to Plaintiff. Instead of communicating in good faith regarding these matters to find a practicable solution, Plaintiff decided to file this Motion. Plaintiff was not forced to file this Motion. This is especially true in this instance where terminating sanctions would be disproportionate and extreme given the circumstances. Accordingly the Court should deny Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. Iv. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion. DATED: December 30, 2015 La ua DAWAD D. PIPER TYSON W. KOVASH KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN Attorneys for Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. _3- KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH I, TYSON W. KOVASH, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before this Court and am an associate with the law firm of Keesal, Young & Logan, attorneys for Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (“Chase”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called upon to testify as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto. 2. On November 18, 2015, The Court heard four of Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery. In granting in part, and denying in part, Plaintiff’s motions, the Court’s Tentative Ruling ordered Chase to produce the additional discovery and a Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) witness within ten (10) days. 3. Before the Court, Plaintiff and Chase’s counsel orally agreed to expand this timeframe to thirty (30) days, and the Court agreed to put the thirty (30) day timeframe in the Minute Order. 4, On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition for the PMK deposition for December 21, 2015. (Exhibit A attached hereto.) 5. My office received the final Minute Order from the November 18, 2015 hearing on November 24, 2015. 6. On or about December 9, 2015, I informed Plaintiff that Chase’s PMK witness was unavailable on December 21, 2015, but would be available on December 22, 2015, if Plaintiff could confirm that date. I also informed Plaintiff that the witness could be available the week of December 28, 2015 if Plaintiff could confirm a date that week. 7. On December 15, 2015, I again called Plaintiff at 1:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m., and 4:30 p-m., each time leaving voicemails confirming that the PMK witness would be available on December 22, 2015 or the week of December 28, 2015 if he would confirm a date. 9. KYL_LB1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH ~N O N n n BR W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 8. On December 16, 2015, I received a letter from Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff confirmed that he was unavailable on December 22, 2015, and falsely asserted that I claimed no other dates were available. (Exhibit B attached hereto.) 9. After receiving Plaintiff’s December 16 letter, I called Plaintiff again and left a voicemail to try to schedule the deposition for the week of December 28, 2015. 10. On December 17, 2015, I sent Plaintiff a letter via overnight courier detailing Chase’s efforts to schedule the PMK deposition on a mutually agreeable date. (Exhibit C attached hereto.) Plaintiff did not meet and confer on an alternative date. 11. Because the Court’s order only compels Chase’s PMK to answer four pending questions, Chase’s counsel also offered via letter on December 23, 2015 to make a witness available via telephone if it would better fit Plaintiff’s schedule. (Exhibit D attached hereto.) Plaintiff did not respond to this proposal. 12. To date, Plaintiff has not acknowledged to Chase’s offer of proposed alternative dates for the PMK deposition, nor has Plaintiff proposed any alternative dates of his own. 13. As of December 30, 2015, Chase has served the supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Admission (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of December 2015, at Long Beach, California. Ao Ted TYSON W. KOVASH -10- KYL _1.B1886433 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH EXHIBIT A 0 ® NN 66 a ¢ KK NN ~~ H O pe pe pd pd @ GQ & OO NN = © N N ON N O N O N D N N N N e ® NN ® OO a G N MH OO © @ = Wayne T. Hetman P.O. Box 9574 Fountain Valley, CA, 92728 Telephone: (949) 454-9533 In Propria Persona SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER WAYNE T. HETMAN Plaintiff Vs. J. P. Morgan Chase Bank Title Trust Deed Service Company Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. Does 3-20 Defendants Case No.: 30-2013-00660100 Assigned for All Purposes To: Honorable Frederick Horn Dept. C-31 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEPOSITION OF CHASE BANK (PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGABLABLE) AND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AT DEPOSITION Unlimited Civil Trial Date: February 1, 2016 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff, Wayne T. Hetman (“Hetman™) will take the deposition on oral examination of Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”). Said deposition will take NS at dL my Anh BACSL Pas Des EP A Arta a © OO NN O&O Oo ¢ KA N N ~~ op N = Oo = pe p p & QO Pp» «KR N N N N N N N N N H e ® NN ® Bb Q B N ~~ OO © @ = place at 10:00 a. m. on December 21, 2015, at Esquire Solutions, 535 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, 92626, telephone 714-668-0166. The deposition will be taken pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2025.010 et seq., on oral examination before a certified shorthand reporter authorized to administer oaths in the State of California, and shall continue from day to day, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excluded until completed, unless aici, Pursuant to CCP § 2025.230, since the deponent Chase is not a natural person, it is required to designate and produce, at the deposition, those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents, who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the a on which examination is requested as set forth in Exhibit A, Section III attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. If there is no single witness who can testify as to all of the matters set forth in Exhibit A, Section II, then Chase is required to produce for deposition all of the witnesses necessary to respond to each area of examination. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the person(s) designated by Chase to testify at said “deposition is/are required to bring to and produce at said deposition, the books, documents, records, agreements, invoices and other things in Chase’s possession, custody, or control that are set forth on Exhibit A, Section II, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. J . Vi ~ =z Ps Dated: November 20, 2015 - ’ J Vz Wayne Hetman, In Pro Per EXHIBIT A TERMS “YOU” “YOUR”, OR “CHASE” means Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank., and each and every PERSON acting on its behalf, and any other entity which Chase now holds an interest, and each and every PERSON acting on their behalf. XR Nooo 7° ConAfrovan.g A Dewys teven FA Chase was secured against the Subject Property by that certain Deed of Trust dated October 22, 2002 and recorded in the Orange County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 200209553312. 8. The “HETMAN EQUITY LOAN” means that certain loan in the principal amount of $185,000.00 made by CHASE to HETMAN with loan number 426370594663. 9. “TITLE TRUST” means Defendant Title Trust Deed Services, Inc. and each and every person acting on its behalf, and any other entity which Title Trust now holds an interest, and each and every person acting on their behalf. 10. “NORTHWEST” means Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. and each and every person acting on its behalf, and any other entity which Northwest now holds an interest, and each and every person acting on their behalf. II. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED AT DEPOSITION 1. All documents that are the notes, telephone log, or other record of any talks between Deponent and Title Trust Deed Services, Inc., pertaining to the Hetman residence, including any legal services riders in case of suit, and the contract of employment with Alvarado and Associates, who acted as the intermediary. 2. All documents that are the Deponent’s Policy of Insurance and cover page showing liability amounts. 3. All documents that are business license, Articles of Incorporation, or others corporate formation documents. 4. All documents that are notes or a list of the telephone contacts between Deponent and Hetman., 5. All documents that are files containing information on the Subject Property. 6. All documents that are contact notes concerning letters between Deponent and Hetman, including payments by Hetman to the deponent. 7. All documents that are supportive of your affirmative defenses in your Answer to the Complaint. 8. All documents that are files containing any records on the Hetman Loan or Hetman Equity Loan. 9. All documents that are records of suspense accounts or other accounts that are holding any funds paid by Hetman. 10. All documents that concern contact between the Deponent and any agent of the Deponent and James Harm, Soraya Harm or their legal representative Richard Jones, or any other attorney that represents the Harms. 11. All documents that show substitutions for Chase, as originally in the Hetman loan documents, to any and all other agents, and that change the trustee. 12. All documents that are recordings against Subject Property at the Orange County Recorder’s Office including related payments, contacts between Chase and Title Trust and Northwest regarding recording documents, and preliminary or unrecorded documents that Deponent never filed but prepared. 13. All documents that are contracts, contacts, and payments of agents of Deponent that did work regarding Subject Property. 14. All documents that are concerning reinstatement of any Hetman Loan or Hetman Equity Loan. 15. All documents that are concerning Chase’s hiring of the Trustees, Title Trust and Northwest, to handle loans from Washington Mutual Bank including all files therefrom. 16. All documents that use the loan number10756664. > ~ WNetree ot Conrnwance Deposit e 17. All documents that are a list of those Washington Mutual Bank Loans that Chase obtained from the FDIC, including the loan numbers of each loan, and the dollar amount of each loan. 18. All documents that are concerning the Injunctive Relief under this Complaint, including notices of the Injunction prohibiting foreclosure, and documents regarding contact or actions taken by Deponent. 19. All documents that are the notes, telephone log, or other record of any talks between Deponent and Northwest pertaining to the Hetman residence, including any legal services riders in case of suit. 20. All documents that are records of the impound account on the Hetman loan and Hetman equity loan including records showing any payment of PMI. 21. All documents that show the use of Alvarado and Associates as an agent of Chase, including all documents related to the subject property, contract of services with Alvarado, and loans handled. III. AREAS OF EXAMINATION 1. All matters related to the Deponent’s contract with Defendant’s Trustees, Title Trust and Northwest and Alvarado and Associates. 2. All matters related to the founding of the business, including ownership, stock issued, and process or requirements that allow the business to act as a trustee for foreclosure. 3. All matters related to training of individuals to acts as mortgage specialists, or to do foreclosures, including seminars conducted. 4. All matters related to Washington Mutual Bank Loans that Chase obtained from the FDIC. 5. All matters related to the Injunctive Relief granted under this Complaint. 6. All matters related to the Subject Property. 7. All matters related to the Hetman Loan. 8. All matters related to the Hetman Equity Loan. 9. All matters related to the Recording of Documents at the Orange County Recorder’s Office on Subject Property. 10. All matters related to the Insurance Policy carried by the Deponent. 11. All matters related to how records are kept, including the telephone logs and recorded calls. 12. All matters related to the publishing or posting of foreclosure on the Subject Property. 13. All matters related to the contracts with vendors working on the Subject Property. 14. All matters related to contacts with Hetman or related to Hetman. 15. All matters related to verifying the payments made to Northwest on foreclosure of Subject Property. 16. All matters related to payment of any and all vendors regarding Subject Property. 17. All matters related to the payments made under the Hetman equity loan regarding Subject Property. 18. All matters related to any Reinstatements of the Hetman Loan or Hetman Equity Loan. 19. All matters related to information obtained on Subject Property, from all sources. 20. All matters related to loan number10756664. 21. All matters related to the lawsuit Chase Bank vs. the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in its capacity as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, filed on 12/17/2013. 22. All matters related to the gathering of tax information on the subject property. 23. All matters related to the impound accounts on the Hetman loan or the Hetman equity loan. 24. All matters related to verifying the payments made to Title Trust on foreclosure of Subject Pr operty. NSS re sf Vn ert CE JP Deposirion, ro PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I declare that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Orange, California. I'am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action. My residence is: 18902 E. Apple Tree Lane, Orange, CA 92869 On__ / // 20/. / 5 » I served the foregoing documents described as: /V, Fee 4 EC ntin vesrce of Deopos fro OF Chase Bonk pmp), | yrra Lefer regarding Discovery onthe interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, with first class delivery postage paid addressed as follows: TR TO 70 doen fo X/7 30 , [A SL ar Log (>. 208 [~/73 ders A 1 UG __ By Personal Service : & = s 76 By delivering a copy of the above-named document to the address listed above. Z-By U.S. Mail By placing a copy of the above-described document in an envelope, addressed as set forth above, with first class postage pre-paid for delivery to the above named person at the above-listed address and depositing such envelope in a U.S. Mail collection box. : By Overnight Delivery By placing a copy of the above-described document in an over night delivery envelope, addressed as set forth above, with delivery charges paid on account and depositing such envelope in an OverNite Express collection box. By Facsimile The above-described document was transmitted via facsimile from a facsimile machine at (949) 454-9533 to the facsimile number(s) set forth above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on / / /- 20 / / 5 , at Top Zell Lynch , California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. CHR) Felicia EXHIBIT B DEC—1e—-2815 a5:44 FM HM.HETMAHN 949 454 9SIS 12/16/15 Wayne T. Hetman POBox 9574 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Tyson W., Kovash Keesel, Young, and Logan 400 Oceangate, P O Box 1730 Long Beach, CA 90801-1730 Fax # 562-436-7416 Re: Hetman v, J P Morgan Chase Bank Case Number: 30-2013-00660100 Dear Mr, Kovash: I received your telephone message regarding a sudden date of availability by your PMK. This message came after I faxed my letter of 12/15/15. It is strange that the onl in all of ber that your PMK is available is the one that you know from our conversation, is a day that 1 have appointments with my doctor, December 22, 2015. You claim no other dates are open although you must produce the PMK by order of the court. As you know I am unavailable for deposition on this date as my doctor’s date has been set for months. Previously in attempting to set a date you stated that your person would not be available at all during the week beginning December 21, 2015, and not until January. As | stated before I will not go beyond 30 days in taking this deposition. | was available to set this deposition earlier, which is still beyond the 10 days given you by the court to produce your person most knowledgeable. I tried to set the date for any date beginning the week of December 14, 2015 and you refused that entire week of dates. It is just impossible to change the date that has been properly noticed for this deposition, especially with the claim of unavailability for an entire month, except for the one day when | must take care of medical needs. Sorry. Thank you for your kind assistance with this matter, Sincerely, Wayne Hetman EXHIBIT C SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR. STEPHEN YOUNG MICHAEL M. GLESS PETER R. BOUTIN SCOTT T. PRATT TERRY ROSS JOHN D. GIFFIN PHILIP A. MCLEOD NEAL SCOTT ROBB BEN SUTER ALBERT E. PEACOCK III§ ROBERT J. STEMLER LISA M. BERTAIN ROBERT J. BOCKO*} MICHELE R. UNDERWOOD ELIZABETH P. BEAZLEY HERBERT H. RAY, JR.*} JODI S. COHEN PHILIP R. LEMPRIERE*} JULIE L. TAYLOR STACEY MYERS GARRETT JON W. ZINKE"® ELIZABETH H. LINDH CARA L. FINAN SARAH TONG SANGMEISTER JULIE A. KOLE DAVID D. PIPER GLEN R. PIPER SANDOR X. MAYUGA ESTHER E. CHO CHRISTOPHER A. STECHER MELANIE L. RONEN JOHN COX AUDETTE PAUL MORALES BENTLEY P. STANSBURY III GARRETT R. WYNNE JAMES A. MARISSEN DAVID A. TONG STEFAN PEROVICH AILAN LIU OF COUNSEL ROBERT H. LOGAN WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR. DOUGLAS R. DAVIS*{ RICHARD A. APPELBAUM + REAR ADMIRAL, U.S.C.G. (RET.) ELIZABETH A. KENDRICK DAVID W. TAYLORt WILLIAM McC. MONTGOMERY Via Overnight Courier Wayne T. Hetman 42 La Perla Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 LAW OFFICES KEESAL, YOUNG 8 LOGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OCEANGATE LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (562) 436-2000 FACSIMILE: (562) 436-7416 www.kyl.com December 17, 2015 TARA B. VOSS NATHAN R. JASKOWIAK KENDRA S. CANAPE JENNIFER M. PORTER MOLLY J. HENRY HELEN H. LAYERLE MICHAEL T. WEST BRYAN A. GLESS RYAN S. LEAN KRISTY H. SAMBOR ELYSE W. WHITEHEAD TYSON W. KOVASH ERIN WEESNER-MCKINLEY SEAN B. COONEY ADMITTED IN ALASKA op D H % ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON & CALIFORNIA ADMITTED IN ALASKA & CALIFORNIA ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & FLORIDA REGISTERED FOREIGN LAWYER WITH THE LAW SOCIETY CHRISTOPHER R. FARNSWORTH IAN ROSS ARTHUR A. SIMPSON} COURTNEY L. COLLINS*} SAMANTHA W. CARLSON HILLARY A. DARNELL CAITLYN M. CRISP JENNA D. BLACKMON JOSHUA NORTON ANNE P. DAHER WILL P. RIFFELMACHER FRANCESCA M. LANPHER VALERIE I. HOLDERYT OF HONG KONG & ADMITTED IN NEW YORK H+ IRELAND SOLICITOR ADMITTED IN ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA Re: Wayne T. Hetman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al. Case No.: 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC Our File No.: 7365-1005 Dear Mr. Hetman: In response to your recent faxes on December 15 and 16, I now write to confirm that I informed you last week that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Chase") person most knowledgeable would not be available on December 21 for a deposition. I left you multiple voicemails on December 15 and 16 informing you that Chase's witness would be available on December 22 if you would confirm that date. I did not hear back from you until well after business hours on December 16, when you sent a fax noting that you are unavailable on December 22. This fax incorrectly stated that Chase's witness's only availability during December was limited to December 22. This is directly opposed to the multiple voicemails of December 15 and 16 confirming that Chase's witness could be available the week of December 28 for a deposition, but that we would need to communicate to confirm a date. After receipt of your fax after business hours on December 16, I left you an additional voicemail informing you that Chase's witness could be available the week of December 28 if you would be willing to meet and confer on a date. I have not heard from you. At your earliest convenience, please let me know what dates during the week of December 28 might work for this deposition. Best, pnd SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 450 PACIFIC AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 (415) 981-0136 » (415) 981-7729 Tyson W. Kovash tyson.kovash@kyl.com TWK:jd (KYL_LB1884249) ANCHORAGE OFFICE SUITE 650 1029 WEST THIRD AVENUE ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-1954 (907) 279-9696 FACSIMILE: (907) 279-4239 SEATTLE OFFICE SUITE 3300 1301 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 622-3790 FACSIMILE: (206) 343-9529 HONG KONG OFFICE SUITE 1603 299 QUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL HONG KONG (852) 2854-1718 FACSIMILE: (852) 2541-6189 (415) 398-6000 FACSIMILE: From: UPS Quantum View To: Divinagracia, | ackie Subject: UPS Delivery Notification,Reference Number 1: 7365-1005 Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 11:49:16 AM Your package has been delivered. Delivery Date: Friday, 12/18/2015 Delivery Time: 11:35 AM = Set Delivery Instructions Track Package Status View Delivery Planner At the request of KEESAL YOUNG & LOGAN, this notice is to confirm that following shipment has been delivered. Shipment Details Tracking Number: 179920320199447168 WAYNE T. HETMAN Shp To: FOOTHILL RANCH, CA 92610 us UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR Number of Packages: il] Package Weight: 0.0 LBS Delivery Location: FRONT DOOR Reference Number 1: 7365-1005 A Get the UPS My Choice app for Facebook IE Download the UPS mobile app © 2015 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks, trade names, or service marks that appear in connection with UPS's services are the property of their respective owners. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Notice. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copying, disclosure or other use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. UPS Privacy Notice Contact UPS EXHIBIT D SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR. STEPHEN YOUNG MICHAEL M. GLESS PETER R. BOUTIN SCOTT T. PRATT TERRY ROSS JOHN D. GIFFIN PHILIP A. MCLEOD NEAL SCOTT ROBB BEN SUTER ALBERT E. PEACOCK III§ ROBERT J. STEMLER LISA M. BERTAIN ROBERT J. BOCKO*} MICHELE R. UNDERWOOD ELIZABETH P. BEAZLEY HERBERT H. RAY, JR.*} JODI S. COHEN PHILIP R. LEMPRIERE*} JULIE L. TAYLOR STACEY MYERS GARRETT JON W. ZINKE"® ELIZABETH H. LINDH CARA L. FINAN SARAH TONG SANGMEISTER JULIE A. KOLE DAVID D. PIPER GLEN R. PIPER SANDOR X. MAYUGA ESTHER E. CHO CHRISTOPHER A. STECHER MELANIE L. RONEN JOHN COX AUDETTE PAUL MORALES BENTLEY P. STANSBURY III GARRETT R. WYNNE JAMES A. MARISSEN DAVID A. TONG STEFAN PEROVICH AILAN LIU OF COUNSEL ROBERT H. LOGAN WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR. DOUGLAS R. DAVIS*{ RICHARD A. APPELBAUM + REAR ADMIRAL, U.S.C.G. (RET.) ELIZABETH A. KENDRICK DAVID W. TAYLORt WILLIAM McC. MONTGOMERY LAW OFFICES KEESAL, YOUNG 8 LOGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OCEANGATE LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (562) 436-2000 FACSIMILE: (562) 436-7416 www.kyl.com December 23, 2015 TARA B. VOSS NATHAN R. JASKOWIAK KENDRA S. CANAPE JENNIFER M. PORTER MOLLY J. HENRY HELEN H. LAYERLE MICHAEL T. WEST BRYAN A. GLESS RYAN S. LEAN KRISTY H. SAMBOR ELYSE W. WHITEHEAD TYSON W. KOVASH ERIN WEESNER-MCKINLEY SEAN B. COONEY ADMITTED IN ALASKA op D H % ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON & CALIFORNIA ADMITTED IN ALASKA & CALIFORNIA ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & FLORIDA REGISTERED FOREIGN LAWYER WITH THE LAW SOCIETY CHRISTOPHER R. FARNSWORTH IAN ROSS ARTHUR A. SIMPSON} COURTNEY L. COLLINS*} SAMANTHA W. CARLSON HILLARY A. DARNELL CAITLYN M. CRISP JENNA D. BLACKMON JOSHUA NORTON ANNE P. DAHER WILL P. RIFFELMACHER FRANCESCA M. LANPHER VALERIE I. HOLDERYT OF HONG KONG & ADMITTED IN NEW YORK H IRELAND SOLICITOR ADMITTED IN ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 450 PACIFIC AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 (415) 981-0136 » (415) 981-7729 Via Overnight Courier Wayne T. Hetman 42 La Perla Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Re: Wayne T. Hetman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al. Case No.: 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC Our File No.: 7365-1005 Dear Mr. Hetman: I am in receipt of your correspondence dated December 21, 2015. Thank you for giving me the correct hearing time. As you are aware, we stood before Judge Horn and stipulated to thirty (30) days to produce documents and a witness to answer the four pending questions at deposition. You noticed the deposition for December 21, 2015, and then my office was served with the final order on November 24, 2015. After informing you that the Chase witness would not be available on December 21, 2015, Chase offered to comply with the order by producing a witness on December 22, 2015 or the week of December 28, 2015. I requested by telephone and by letter to meet and confer to pick a date. You have refused to do so. Accordingly, your contention that Chase has not made a witness available until “28 days beyond the court ordered completion of the deposition” is entirely meritless. Please contact me to calendar a date for this deposition. In the alternative, and because the court’s order only compels answers to four (4) questions, we are willing to arrange for a telephonic deposition. Chase will not withdraw its subpoena for your medical records. The Court denied your motion to quash. We served an additional Notice to Consumer as a courtesy, as you were clearly already on notice of the subpoena by virtue of your filing the motion to quash. As for the date(s) of documents requested, the subpoena states January 1, 2010 through present. Chase is willing to stipulate that Dr. Newsome produce only the last five (5) years of information per the court order. Finally, I received a fax indicating that Dr. Newsome will be unavailable for her noticed deposition of December 29, 2015 until after mid-January 2016. As you know, trial is set for ANCHORAGE OFFICE SUITE 650 1029 WEST THIRD AVENUE ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-1954 (907) 279-9696 FACSIMILE: (907) 279-4239 SEATTLE OFFICE SUITE 3300 1301 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 622-3790 FACSIMILE: (206) 343-9529 HONG KONG OFFICE SUITE 1603 299 QUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL HONG KONG (852) 2854-1718 FACSIMILE: (852) 2541-6189 (415) 398-6000 FACSIMILE: Wayne T. Hetman December 23, 2015 Page 2 Re: Wayne T. Hetman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al. Case No.: 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC Our File No.: 7365-1005 February 1, 2015. Had it not been for consecutive motions to quash, both of which the Court denied, this deposition would have taken place months ago. Please meet contact me so we can find a solution to this issue. Best, prio Tyson W. Kovash tyson.kovash@kyl.com TWK:jd (KYL_LB1885425) From: UPS Quantum View To: Divinagracia, | ackie Subject: UPS Delivery Notification,Reference Number 1: 7365-1005 Date: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:28:46 PM Your package has been delivered. Delivery Date: Thursday, 12/24/2015 Delivery Time: 12:17 PM = Set Delivery Instructions Track Package Status View Delivery Planner At the request of KEESAL YOUNG & LOGAN, this notice is to confirm that following shipment has been delivered. Shipment Details Tracking Number: 179920320194264507 WAYNE T. HETMAN Shipilo: FOOTHILL RANCH, CA 92610 us UPS Service: NEXT DAY AIR Number of Packages: il] Package Weight: 0.0 LBS Delivery Location: FRONT DOOR Reference Number 1: 7365-1005 A Get the UPS My Choice app for Facebook IE Download the UPS mobile app © 2015 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks, trade names, or service marks that appear in connection with UPS's services are the property of their respective owners. Please do not reply directly to this e-mail. UPS will not receive any reply message. For more information on UPS's privacy practices, refer to the UPS Privacy Notice. For questions or comments, visit Contact UPS. This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copying, disclosure or other use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. UPS Privacy Notice Contact UPS ~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Name: Wayne T. Hetman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al. Case No.: 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC KYL File No.: 7365-1005 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Keesal, Young & Logan, 400 Oceangate, Long Beach, California 90802. On December 30, 2015, I served the foregoing documents described as JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.” S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TYSON W. KOVASH on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: VIA OVERNIGHT Attorneys for Plaintiff (In Pro Per) Wayne T. Hetman 42 La Perla Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: (949) 454-9533 VIA MAIL Attorneys for Defendant Title Trust Deed Service Company Jason J. Stillman Esq. 26540 Agoura Rd., Suite 102 Calabasas, CA 91302 VIA MAIL Attorneys for Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. Jason Savlov, Esq. RCO Legal 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92606 M BY U.S. MAIL: [enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the above-named persons at the addresses exhibited therewith and (specify one): 1 I deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. M I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Long Beach, California. M BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the above-named persons at the addresses exhibited therewith. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 1 KYL_LB1746216 Proof of Service ~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Name: Wayne T. Hetman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al. Case No.: 30-2013-00660100-CU-BT-CJC KYL File No.: 7365-1005 Executed on December 30, 2015 at Long Beach, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. JACKIE DRANAGRACIA -2- KYL_LB1746216 Proof of Service