Paula Skerston vs. The Versailles Homeowners association

Motion - Other

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.August 14, 2015

o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 Michele L. Gamble, Esq., (State Bar No. 188272) John D. Perkins, Esq., (State Bar No. 242984) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 750 The City Drive, Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 - FAX (714) 823-4101 Attorneys for Defendants THE VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and PHAN D. NGUYEN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER PAULA SKERSTON, CASE NO. 30-2015-00804497 Plaintiff, [Assigned to Hon Randall Sherman, Dept. C24] Vs. DEFENDANTS VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S AND PHAN D. NGUYEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN D. PERKINS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THE VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; PHAN D. NGUYEN; President of the Versailles Homeowners Association, ERIK ANDERSON,indiviual: DOES 1 TO 10 Defendants. Date: February 18, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: C-24 RESERVATION NO. 72289975 Complaint Filed: 8/14/15 Trial Date: 8/8/16 N r N r N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N N N N N r PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C-24 of the Orange County Superior Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701, Defendants The Versailles Homeowners Association and Phan D. Nguyen, pursuant to Code 19713 1 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 of Civil Procedure § 391 ef seq., will and hereby does move the Court for an order requiring plaintiff Paula Skerston, who has been declared to be a vexatiouslitigant, to furnish security. This motion will be further based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of John D. Perkins and exhibits thereto, the Request for Judicial Notice, and such oral and documentary evidence and argument as may be presented at the hearing. DATED: December 23, 2015 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: -) 16D. PERKINS MICHELE L. GAMBLE Attorneys for THE VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and PHAN D. NGUYEN 19713 2 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION According to the Complaint, plaintiff Paula Skerston (“Plaintiff”) was hired to work part time as a pool monitor at the condo complex known as “Versailles” in Newport Beach. Plaintiff alleges that defendant The Versailles Homeowners Association (“the HOA”), arranged to hire a pool monitor for the purpose of enforcing rules in their pool. Plaintiff alleges that on July 4, 2015, she got into an argument with the president of the HOA, defendant Phan D. Nguyen (“Nguyen”), regarding her job performance and enforcement of the pool rules. As against the HOA and Nguyen (collectively “Defendants”), Plaintiff alleges causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IED”). She also alleges claims for assault and battery against Nguyen for placing his hand on her shoulder in order to get her attention during that argument. There is precedent for the granting of this motion, as Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant on September 29, 2015 by the Honorable Frederick Aguirre of the Orange County Superior Court, in that matter of Paula Skerston v. Law Office of Robert Newman, Case Number 30-2015- 00772438. II. THIS COURT MAY REQUIRE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT TO FURNISH SECURITY California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391.1 and 391.3 authorize trial courts to require a vexatious litigant to furnish security if there is no reasonable probability that he or she will prevail, providing in relevant part as follows: “In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3. The motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that he or she will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1.) “Except as provided in subdivision (b), if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant, the 19713 3 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 court shall order the plaintiff to furnish, for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix. (Code Civ. Proc § 391.3(a).) Vexatious litigant statutes were enacted “to require a person found a vexatious litigant to put up security for the reasonable expenses of a defendant who becomes the target of one of these obsessive and persistent litigants whose conduct can cause serious financial results to the unfortunate object of the attack.” (Tokerud v. Capitolbank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779 (quoting First Western Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860, 867).) The code defines “security” to include “reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and not limited to taxable costs, incurred in or in connection with a litigation instituted, caused to be instituted, or maintained or caused to be maintained by a vexatiouslitigant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391(c).) IIL. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN DECLARED TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT As stated in the Declaration of John D. Perkins and the Request for Judicial Notice, both filed herewith, Plaintiff has been has recently been declared to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b)(2) and (b)(3). (Declaration of John D. Perkins (hereinafter “Perkins Decl.”) 2.) Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant by the Honorable Frederick Aguirre of the County of Orange Superior Court, Case Number 30-2015-00772438, on September 29, 2015. (Perkins Decl. {2; “Notice of Ruling,” Request for Judicial Notice, No. 1.) IV. THERE IS NOT A “REASONABLE PROBABILITY” THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL IN THE CURRENT LITIGATION The required showing that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on his or her claim is “ordinarily made by the weight of the evidence.” (Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 616, 642.) A trial court “does not assume the truth of a litigant's factual allegations and may receive and weigh evidence before deciding whether the litigant has a reasonable chance of prevailing.” (Id. at 635.) A lack of merit may also be established “by demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot prevail in the action as a matter of law.” (Id. at 642) Here, there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail on her claims. 19713 4 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 A. No Reasonable Probability that Plaintiff Will Prevail on Her Third or Fourth Causes of Action for ITED Against the HOA and Nguyen There is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will succeed on her IIED claims where Defendants’ conduct simply did not reach an outrageous level. “[M]ajor outrage is still essential to the tort [of intentional infliction of emotional distress]; and the mere fact that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as insulting, or will have his feelings hurt, is not enough. [Citations.]” (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 496.) As explained by the Cochran court, to be sufficiently outrageous, the offending conduct must be greater than that necessary to support punitive damages: “In evaluating whether the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, it is not enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice’, or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. [Citation.]” (Id. at 496, emphasis added.) Here, Defendants’ actions fall far short of this standard. The fact that Plaintiff had multiple verbal disagreements with the HOA or its president, Nguyen, regarding the enforcement of pool rules is simply not outrageous conduct - no matter how insulting, rude or demeaning the words used. It is not the type of conduct that the tort of IIED was intended to address. The conduct must be outrageous, i.e., beyond all bounds of decency; ordinary rude or insulting behavior is not enough to justify an award of damages. (Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579, 593; Bogard v. Employers Cas. Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 602, 616, 617; Rest.2d, Torts §46, Comment d [“[t]here is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where some one's feelings are hurt”].) Even if the HOA’s and/or Nguyen’s conduct ultimately led to Plaintiff’s termination from employment, as has been implied, it would still not be sufficient to state a claim for IIED. (See, Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717 [wrongful termination, without more, does not constitute malice or despicable conduct].) Plaintiff has failed to allege in her First Amended Complaint, and she will be unable to present at trial, any claims or evidence to sufficiently support her IIED allegations against 19713 5 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 Defendants. The fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any allegations that come close to outrageous conduct is alone enough to signal that there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail on these causes of action. B. No Reasonable Probability that Plaintiff Will Prevail on Her Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action for Assault and Battery Against Nguyen There is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims against Nguyen will succeed where Nguyen’s alleged actions simply did not rise to the level of actionable assault or battery. (See, So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669 [citing instructions for assault and battery causes of action].) In terms of battery, the usages of decent society determine what is offensive. (Barouh v. Haberman (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 40, 46, fn. 5.) The only “touching” alleged in Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action is that Nguyen “grabbed the plaintiff's left shoulder with his right hand” during a time when Nguyen was talking to Plaintiff. (First Amended Complaint, J] 133, 134.) Nothing more is alleged. Simply placing one’s hand on the shoulder of another during a conversation, even if it was during a heated exchange, cannot be deemed by society as “offensive.” Moreover, there is nothing in the allegations to even remotely suggest that Plaintiff was harmed in any way by this contact. With respect to assault, mere words, however threatening, will not amount to an assault. (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1604.) Plaintiff has failed to allege in the operative complaint, and she will be unable to present at trial, any claims or evidence to sufficiently support her Assault or Battery allegations against Nguyen. The fact that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is devoid of any allegations that come close to supporting this cause of action should signal that there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail. Therefore, pursuant to Code Civil Procedure § 391.3(a), Plaintiff should be required to furnish security that is sufficient to cover Defendants’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional amounts that the Court deems proper in litigating this matter. Defendants are projected to incur approximately $50,000 in legal fees to defend this case. (Perkins Decl. |3.) In In 19713 6 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 V. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request this Court to grant this motion and require Plaintiff to furnish security of $50,000, or other amount as determined by the Court, to cover attorneys’ fees and costs, to protect Defendants from this frivolous lawsuit filed by a vexatious litigant. DATED: December 23, 2015 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: Es ) 162¢D. PERKINS MICHELE L. GAMBLE Attorneys for THE VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and PHAN D. NGUYEN 19713 7 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 DECLARATION OF JOHN D. PERKINS I, John D. Perkins, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts in the State of California and am an associate in the law firm Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants, The Versailles Homeowners Association (“the HOA”), and Phan D. Nguyen (“Nguyen”). Iam one of the attorneys with primary responsibility for the handling of this matter and I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein, and if called to testify I could and would competently do so. As to those matters stated upon information and belief, I am informed and believe them to be true. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A”is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling for Paula Skerston v. Law Office of Robert Newman, County of Orange Superior Court, Case No. 30- 2015-00772438, dated September 29, 2015. The Notice of Ruling states that Paula Skertston is deemed a vexatiouslitigant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b)(2) and (b)(3). 3. Defendants are projected to incur about $50,000 in legalfees to defend this case. This amount includes but is not limited to case assessment, development and administrative activities, pre-trial pleadings and motions activities, discovery activities, and other expenses such as filing fees, subpoena costs, investigations, deposition transcripts and travel. Defendants will incur additional legalfees if this case wentto trial and if appealed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed this C)- 16D. PERKINS 23rd day of December, 2015, at Orange, California. 19713 8 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY EXHIBIT A O O © N N A W n A W N N O N b t p m b m me t be d - E N R P R V B R V B E R E Z T I a a 8 & 8 = 3 Robert Newman, Esq., SBN 178041 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT NEWMAN 207 N Broadway, Suite K ELECTROMNICALLY FILED The SantoraBullding Superior Courtof Califomia, anta Ana C. County of Orange (714) 542-7600 Facsimile (714) 542-8600 09/29/2015 2t 05:05:00 Pld Attorney for Law Office ofRobert Newman Clerk of the Superior Court By e Clerk,Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER CASE NO.: 30-2015-00772438 NOTICE OF RULING PAULA SKERSTON, Judge: Hon. Frederick Aguirre Date: September 29, 2015 Plaintiff, Dept.: C-23 Time: 8:30 a.m. vs. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT NEWMAN A SUSPENDED CORPORATION, Defendant. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: \\ \ \\ Notice ofRuling O V 0 N N O O w n R W N e N N D N N N N N N - - - B Y R R B N L E N E I T I E S = OS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the Court now rules on Defendant’s Motion to Deem Plaintiffa Vexatious Litigant as follows: Defendant’s motion to deem in pro per PlaintiffPaula Skerston a vexatious litigant is granted under Code ofCivil Procedure § 391(b)(2) & (3). The court also rules the same on its own motion after taking into account Plaintiffs response to the OSC re: Vexatious Litigant and upon judicial notice ofall relevant civil cases cited herein and opinions in each case by the Court of Appeal. The court further enters a pre-filing order prohibiting Ms. Skerston from filing any new litigation in the courts ofthis state in propria persona without first obtaining leave ofthe presidingjudge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 391.7. In at least three other cases, Skerston v. Sheehan (Case No. 07HL04690), Skerston v. Newman, Law Office ofRobert Newman (OCSC, Case No. 30-2009-00308503), and Skerston v. Sheehan, Newman, Law Office ofRobert Newman, P.C, (OCSC, Case No. 30-2010-00413685), Plaintiff has litigated and lost the issue ofthe validity ofthe 2007 restraining order obtained by Robert Newman on behalfofhis former client Linda Sheehan. Here, again in her opposition to the motion to deem her a vexatious litigant she argues that the restraining order was obtained by false testimony. In the 2009 case, Skerston v. Newman, Law Office ofRobert Newman, supra, Ms. Skerston sued for the same “conflict of interest” that she now sues Mr. Newman for in this lawsuit. (See Complaint, 42-49, breach offiduciary duty cause ofaction). She again claims that because Mr. Newman represented her in 2000, he had no right to represent Linda Sheehan in the 2007 restraining order matter against her. (See Complaint, § 142-49.) This has already been litigated. In the 2010 case, Skerston v. Sheehan, Newman, Law Office ofRobert Newman, P.C, supra, Ms. Skerston lost an anti-SLAPP motion and resulting appeal on the same issues. The Court of Appeal noted in its April 26, 2012 order that it was Ms. Skerston’s “third trip to the Court of Appeal to protest a restraining order issued against her in 2007”. Further, the validity ofthe 2007 restraining order has been confirmed, several times. Notice ofRuling O O 0 N N O N n n & W N N N N N N N N O N e e - pe d e t p t p d SS I B P R B R P E E T x I a d s o w = 3 In the present case, Ms. Skerston argues that an October 5, 2013 Yelp posting on the internet puts her in a false light. She sues forfalse light, intentional infliction ofemotional distress, violations ofBusiness & Professions Code section 17200, and breach offiduciary duty. All ofher claims in this lawsuit stem from the Yelp posting. Mr. Newman posted “In 2007, I obtained a restraining order fora client against Paula Skerston, who is an attorney: Ms. Skerston appealed the trial court’s ruling issuing the restraining order against her. Ms. Skerston lost the appeal. Read one ofthe court’s related rulings here... [Link to the Court ofAppeal provided]”. (Compl, §5.) Ofnote, Mr. Newman’s post was in response to Ms. Skerston posting on his Yelp page as follows: “Robert Carl Newman is my former attorney. I would never hire him again.” (Compl., {4.) In attempting, unsuccessfully to show she can prevail on this case, Ms. Skerston again attempts to relitigate the validity ofthe restraining order and by extension Mr. Newman’s right to post a true statement about the restraining order in response to her public comment on Yelp that she would never retain Mr. Newman as an attorney. In her Complaint she alleges that the accusations made in obtaining the restraining order werefalse, and thus they paint her in a false light. The court finds that Ms. Skerston has no reasonable probability ofprevailing on the merits ofthis lawsuit givethe final adjudication ofthe cases set forth above. \\ \\ \\ \ \\ A\\N \\ \ \\ W\ Notice ofRuling t o 9 ? 1 9 4 Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure §391.1, Plaintiff is ordered to post security with the Court in the amount of $15,000 within 10 days ofnotice ofentry ofthis order in order to proceed with this action. In the absence of such security being posted by the date specified, this action will be dismissed. Further proceedings are stayed pending Plaintiff's posting of security. Defendantis ordered to give notice ofruling and file such notice with the court. A further review hearing is set for November 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept C 23. DATED: September 29, 2015 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT NEWMAN By: Dod Robey Newman Attorney for Defendant(s) Notice of Ruling POS-030 | ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. Stale Bar number, and address) FOR COURTUSE ONLY ! Robert Newman, Esq. SBN 178041 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT NEWMAN The Santora Building 1207 N. Broadway, Suite K ELECTROMICALLY FILED Santa Ana, CA 92701 Superior Court of Califomia, mernoeno 714.542.7600 sax 10 cotemay 114.542.8600 County of Orange E-MAIL ADDRESS (Cptional} 09/29/2015 at 05:08:00 PM ATTORNEY FOR mame). Law Office of Robert Newman Clerk of the Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange By e Clerk, Deputy Clerk swreev aooress: 700 Civic Ctr Drive West | MAILING ADCRESS' civanozercons Santa Ana, CA 92701-2014 erancHaave Central Justice Center PETIMIONER/PLAINTIFF: Paula Skerston | RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Law Office of Robert Newman, A Suspended {Corporation CASE NUMBER PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL-CIVIL 30-2015-00772438 (Do not use this ProofofService to show service of a Summons and Complaint.) 1. | am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place. 2. My residence or business address is: 207 N. Broadway, Suite K, Santa Ana, CA 92701 3. On (date): 09/29/15 1 mailed from (city and state)Santa Ana, CA the following documents (specify): NOTICE OF RULING ~The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-030(D)). 4. | served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one): a.| x| depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. bl| placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business'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. 5. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: Paula Skerston, Esq. b. Address of person served: 1075 Eugene Drive, Apt. C Fullerton, CA 92832 . | The name and address of each person to whom | mailed the documents is listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail-Civil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)). | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date. September 29, 2015 5Y2c A BD cede Susan Tynes (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSCHN COMPLETING THIS FCRM) ( SIGNATURE OF PERSCH COMPLETING THIS FORM} rianhideosu PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL-CIVIL ) Code of Col Procedure. §§ 1013, 1013 POS-030 New January 1. 2005} (Proof of Service) ! ns us o e R N N n R A W N N O N N O N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m p m p m p m A U n A W N = m S N N N T R R W N N R D 27 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of Orange. ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 750 The City Drive, Suite 400, Orange, California 92868. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S AND PHAN D. NGUYEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN D. PERKINS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDERon the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Paula Skerston, Esq. 1075 Eugene Drive, #C Fullerton, CA 92832 Tel: 714/626-0586 }] (BY MAIL)- I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Orange, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [1 BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in Orange, California. 0 BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHERMETHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY [1 BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: (Date) at (Time) [ FEDERAL EXPRESS- I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. [1] BY FACSIMILE)- I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (714) 823-4101 indicated all pages were transmitted. [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE)- I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). Executed on December 24, 2015 at Orange, California. >A (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the aboveis true and correct. [1] (FEDERAL) 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. Mertued VIVIAN MAXWELL viannotti@ccmslaw.com 19713 9 MOTION FOR ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY