Laurence Harper vs. Raul Najera Lopez

Motion in Limine

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 13, 2016

A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 SS OO 0X NN YN nn B R A W N - = = e m e m e m A N hn A L N D = 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 No No No No No No - - - Wn +B wo No - << O 0 ~ DN aN 27 €3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ELECTRONICALLY FILED ATTICUS N. WEGMAN, ESQ. (SBN 273496) Superior Court of California, AITKEN + AITKEN 4 COHN County of Orange 3 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 800 06MB/2018 at 03:00:00 A P.O. BOX 2555 Clerk of the Superior Court penar Lau SANTA ANA, CA 92707-2555 By Jorge A Gomez, Deputy Clark (714) 434-1424/(714) 434-3600 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAURENCE HARPER and MICHAELYN MILOSEVICH-HARPER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER LAURENCE HARPER, an individual; CASE NO: 30-2016-00846007 MICHAELYN MILOSEVICH-HARPER, an [Hon. Theodore Howard, Dept. C18] individual; oo Flatutiit, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Vs. NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ, an individual; WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE CAPISTRANO FORD, a business organization, OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT form unknown; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. N r ’ N r N r ” N e N e ” N e ae N e N a N e a a a a S N Trial Date: June 18,2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: C18 Complaint Filed: 4/13/16 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4+ A I T K E N 4+ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 S S OO 0 NN NY nn R A L -_- e e e a e a A A Wn» BRA WLW = 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 No No No No [N S DO -_ - -_ Ww A Ww \) -_ > © oo ~ DO aN 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs will move the Court for issuance of the following order relating to Motion in Limine No. 9: An order limiting Defendant's expert witness Michael Weinstein, M.D. from testifying to any opinions which were not stated in his deposition; An order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses of the court's exclusionary order on this motion; and An order requiring the attorney for Defendants, prior to making any references, comments, or assertions concerning such matters, to approach the bench and make an offer of proof to the court so that the court, prior to any presentation of the above-referenced evidence to the jury, can make a preliminary determination of the relevancy and admissibility thereof. This motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman, the complete file maintained by the Court in this action, and all such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing on this motion. Dated: June 15, 2018 AITKEN4+AITKEN+ COHN ow (Lor b le - ATTICUS N. WEGMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4+ A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 A WLW S S O O 0 9 O N Wn 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On December 7, 2015, around 2:00 p.m., Plaintiff Mr. Laurence Harper was traveling alone in his four-door sedan on his way to his house on Camino Capistrano Boulevard in San Juan Capistrano, Ca. There are four lanes of travel on Camino Capistrano Boulevard, two Northbound lanes and two Southbound lanes, separated by an open median. Plaintiff Mr. Harper was traveling Southbound in the slow lane. Without any warning or ability to take evasive action, Defendant Raul Lopez, working for his employer Defendant Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford, Inc., entered into Plaintiff Mr. Harper’s lane of travel as he negotiated a left turn onto Camino Capistrano Boulevard from the Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford, Inc. car dealership. Both vehicles collided, and Plaintiff Mr. Harper sustained major injuries to his neck (requiring fusion surgery), back (requiring fusion surgery), left shoulder (requiring surgery), right shoulder (requiring surgery), and minor injuries to his right wrist and right foot. Defendant Mr. Lopez and Defendant Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford, admit they were partially negligent, but dispute the nature and extent of Plaintiffs” harms and losses. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER - 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 13 ZeZ38 16 EECFE <3 18 ’ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 €2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Defendants Mr. Lopez and Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford and Plaintiffs Mr. Harper and Mrs. Harper (who maintains a claim for loss of consortium) allege that Defendant Cervando Salgado, working for his employer Defendant URS Midwest, Inc., is at least partly responsible for parking its car hauler and trailer with cars loaded on an adjacent red curb, thus impeding the ability for motorists to see each other. Defendant Mr. Salgado and Defendant URS Midwest, Inc., admit they were parked illegally, but do not admit they were negligent or that Mr. Harper and Mrs. Harper were harmed. II. DEFENSE EXPERT DR. MICHAEL WEINSTEIN’S NEW AND CHANGED OPINIONS MUST BE PRECLUDED On June 7, 2018, this Court denied Defendant Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford’s Ex Parte Application to add a new expert radiologist to bolster its designated orthopedic surgeon’s opinions related to the interpretation of imaging studies in this case. The Court’s ruling, attached as Exhibit A, stated that orthopedic surgeon Dr. Weinstein had already provided his affirmative opinions on this subject at his deposition. Last week, on June 8, 2018, for the first time, Defendant Tuttle Click Capistrano Ford sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an email indicating Dr. Weinstein changed his opinions and intends to offer new and additional opinions related to his interpretation of imaging studies in this matter. This was presumably in response to the Court’s denial of their motion to add a radiologist. Attached to Defendant’s email was a supplemental report issued by Dr. Weinstein encompassing his new and changed opinions related to Mr. Harper’s transverse process fractures. Attached as Exhibit B, please find an email from Defendant's counsel with Dr. Weinstein’s Supplemental Report. Interestingly, Dr. Weinstein’s supplemental report was authored on May 17, 2018, well before Defendant even moved this Court to add a new radiologist. It is also equally suspicious why Defendant waited to notify Plaintiff of Dr. Weinstein’s new and changed opinions for nearly a month. Recall, Defendants notified, Plaintiff of Dr. Weinstein’s new opinions on June §, 2018 yet they had Dr. Weinstein’s supplemental report from as early as May 17, 2018! This sort of 4 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 SS OO XX NN O N n n BA W N = -_ = e e e d e d e e d aA nv A L N D = 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 No No No No No No - - - Wn ES N Ww No - (a ) Oo 0 ~ yo ] AN 2d £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER game playing is exactly what the Code of Civil Procedure and Kennemur (cited below) are designed to prevent. Not only has Dr. Weinstein changed his opinions, Defendants provided one week notice to take his deposition when they knew for nearly one month prior of Dr. Weinstein’s changed opinions. Why did Defendant wait so long to let Plaintiff know of Dr. Weinstein’s new and changed opinions? One of the goals of Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.010 et seq. is to allow the parties to properly prepare for trial and “allowing new and unexpected testimony for the first time at trial is contrary to that purpose.” To permit accomplishment of this goal, expert witnesses must be limited to those opinions offered at their deposition, and not be permitted to expand on them or offer different conclusions. See Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557, 566 and Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907. In Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to exclude the trial testimony of the plaintiff’s expert where the expert had, at his deposition, testified that those were the only opinions he intended to offer. The Court noted, “when an expert deponent testifies as to specific opinions and affirmatively states those are the only opinions he intends to offer at trial, it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional opinions at trial.” Jones v. Moore, supra, 80 Cal. App.4th at p. 565. Similarly, in Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, the Court of Appeal ruled: “a party must disclose either in his witness list or at his expert’s deposition, if the expert is asked, the substance of the facts and opinions which the expert will testify to at trial. Only by such a disclosure will the opposing party have reasonable notice of the specific areas of investigation by the expert, the opinions he has reached and the reasons supporting the opinions, to the end the opposing party can prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal of the expert’s testimony.” The court explained: The Legislature has singled out the pretrial discovery of expert opinions for special treatment. When appropriate demand is made for exchange for 5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4+ A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 BA L N SS oO c o 9 O N WD» 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 25 26 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER expert witness lists, the party is required to disclose not only the name, address and qualifications of the witness, but the general substance of the testimony the witness is expected to give at trial. In our view, this means the party must disclose either in his witness list or at his expert’s deposition, if the expert is asked, the substance of the facts and the opinions which the expert will testify to at trial. Only by such a disclosure will the opposing party have reasonable notice of the specific areas of investigation by the expert, the opinions he has reached and the reasons supporting the opinions, to the end the opposing party can prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal of the expert’s testimony. /d. Defendant’s expert Dr. Michael Weinstein’s deposition was taken on April 27, 2018. During this deposition, he was asked if he reviewed the imaging studies in this case including the reports and the actual images. He replied that he had. He was then asked if he found any fractures in reviewing those imaging studies. He stated that he did not. At the end of Dr. Weinstein’s two-hour deposition, he was asked very clearly whether he had any other opinions that he planned to offer at trial: Q Okay. Do you have any other opinions that you haven't expressed today that you plan to express at the time of trial? A No. Based on all of the records and the information I have now, these are my opinions. Again, you know, it's an ongoing process, just if further records are brought in. Attached as Exhibit C, please find pertinent parts of Dr. Weinstein’s Deposition Testimony. Dr. Weinstein admitted that he provided all of his opinions at his deposition. He attempted to leave the door open if “further records” are brought it. However, the basis for Dr. Weinstein’s new and additional opinions is not new records in this case. His new and additional opinions are based on the same records available to him since he first became involved in this case. See Supplemental Report attached as Exhibit B, whereby Dr. Weinstein admits his new opinions are based on imaging conducted long before his deposition was taken. As such, pursuant to precedential case law, including Kennemer and Jones cited above, Dr. Weinstein should not be permitted to add additional opinions at trial. 6 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; |[PROPOSED| ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4+ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 No ~~ Ww S S OO 0 NN O Y Wn 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER III. DEFENDANTS DID NOT DESIGNATE DR. WEINSTEIN AS A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT It is anticipated that Defendant will argue that Dr. Weinstein did not know that Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Liauw would relate the transverse process fractures in the lumbar spine to the incident until Dr. Liauw’s deposition was taken. Defendants may also attempt to argue that Defendant Weinstein’s deposition was taken before Dr. Liauw’s at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request. Therefore, Dr. Weinstein could not possibly have had any reason to believe that Plaintiffs transverse process fractures, which healed over time, were related to the incident. This argument is unpersuasive and not true for the reasons stated below. Dr. Weinstein was affirmatively designated as an expert in this matter. Defendant did not designate any supplemental expert. Because the Defendant deliberately chose to designate Dr. Weinstein as an affirmative expert, Defendant’s counsel is charged with ensuring that Dr. Weinstein is sufficiently familiar with this case to sit for a meaningful deposition including his specific opinions to be given at trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260(c)4 states: If any witness on the list is an expert as described in subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210, the exchange shall also include or be accompanied by an expert witness declaration signed only by the attorney for the party designating the expert, or by that party if that party has no attorney. This declaration shall be under penalty of perjury and shall contain: A representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including any opinion and its basis, that the expert is expected to give at trial. As such, Dr. Weinstein cannot now venture off and change his opinions. Further, there is no new information that was provided to Dr. Weinstein that would allow him to change his opinions. Dr. Weinstein’s new and changed opinions are based on the same imaging studies, as he admits in his report, that were available to him well before this deposition 5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 B L N SO OO 0 NN A N Wn 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER was taken. Dr. Weinstein admitted during his deposition that he had reviewed all these images prior to giving his deposition and provided his specific opinions at this deposition. To be clear, Dr. Weinstein’s new and changed are light years away from the specific opinions he gave during his deposition. In his deposition, he affirmatively stated that he did not see any fractures to the lumbar spine on the imaging studies. His supplemental report indicates that he not only does he now see fractures, but he sees four (4) fractures, however, they all preexist this incident. If the jury is allowed to hear this information, not only would it be in violation of Kennemur, the Code of Civil Procedure, but it would also be severely prejudicial and run afoul Evidence Code section 352 Last, Defendant may attempt to argue that Dr. Weinstein’s deposition was taken before Dr. Liauw’s at the request of Plaintiff and therefore he did not have the luxury to respond to Dr. Liauw’s opinions. To be accurate, attached as Exhibit D, the Court will find Plaintiffs’ notice for taking Dr. Weinstein’s deposition and Defendants’ notice for taking opposing expert Dr. Liauw’s deposition. The Court will note that Plaintiffs notice for Dr. Weinstein’s deposition was served earlier than Defendant’s noticed the deposition of Dr. Liauw. Naturally, Dr. Weinstein’s’ deposition would be taken first. Further, Dr. Liauw stated in his deposition that he did not have the luxury of Dr. Weinstein’s opinions, which would not matter any way. Also, and of particular interest to this topic, is an email sent from Defendant’s counsel Debra Braasch to Plaintiffs’ counsel whereby she indicates that she intended to designate Dr. Weinstein to rebut Dr. Liauw’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded and advised Defendants counsel that Dr. Weinstein was not designated as a supplemental expert and he cannot be held back to rebut Dr. Liauw’s opinions. Per the Code of Civil Procedure, he must be re-designated as a supplemental expert or be ready to provide affirmative opinions. Defendant’s counsel, knowing this, declined to re-designate Dr. Weinstein as a supplemental expert. Attached as Exhibit E, please see email correspondence indicating that Dr. Weinstein should be designated as a supplemental expert. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 = L N S S © 0 NN O N Wn 1 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 23 24 25 26 27 £2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in its entirety. Dated: June 15, 2018 AITKEN4+AITKEN4 COHN li By: a ATTICUS N. re aa Attorneys for Plai 9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4+ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 OO ©0 0 J O N wn H r WLW ND = -_ e m e d e m SAA N nm BA W L W N D = OO 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 92 70 7 No [N e] No No No NS No \® ) - -_ -_ 3 aN Wn = Ww No -_ oS Oo le e] 3 No oo €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800, Santa Ana, California, 92707. On June 15, 2018 I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO LIMIT DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, M.D. TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AT DEPOSITION on the parties herein in this action by placing ( ) the original (x) a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated on the attached service list. (X) BY MAIL (X) As follows: Iam "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, 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 OF igus meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. ( ) By Personal Service: I caused the above-referenced the document(s) to be delivered by hand to the attached addressees. ( ) By Overnight Courier: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the above address(es). ( ) By Facsimile Machine: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named persons at the following telephone number(s) see attached Proof of Service list. () By Email Transmission: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the persons listed in the attached Proof of Service lists. Executed on June 15,2018 at Santa Ana, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californig that the above is true and correct. 2. Mind. Kfistin McCarthy ) D 1 PROOF OF SERVICE A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 A W S S oO x Nu 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 7 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER HARPER v. LOPEZ, et al. SERVICE LIST Debra L. Braasch BROWN, BONN & FRIEDMAN, LLP 4 Hutton Center, Suite 350 Santa Ana, CA 92707 714-427-3900 714-427-5449-fax and Scott L.. MacDonald MACDONALD & CODY LLP 38 Executive Park, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92614 (714) 831-1713 (714) 823-3229-fax Attorneys for Defendants/ Cross- Complainants/Cross-Defendants TUTTLE CLICK'S CAPISTRANO FORD, INC. (erroneously sued and served as "Capistrano Ford") and RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ Richard C. Moreno, Esq. Steven J. McEvoy, Esq. MURCHISON & CUMMING LLP 801 South Grand Ave., 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 623-7400 (213) 623-6336-fax Attorneys for Defendants/Cross- Complainants /Cross-Defendants DNJ SERVICES LLC, DONALD PINKUS; Defendants/Cross-Defendants CERVANDO SALGADO, ROE 1 AND URS MIDWEST, INC., ROE 2 2 PROOF OF SERVICE