Laurence Harper vs. Raul Najera Lopez

Opposition

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

A I T K E N ¢ 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 9 O N Wn BA W N - e m mt e d e d e d A N On B R A W N = O 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 N o N o N o N o N o N o N o -_ - dh [ - AN Wn ~~ Ww No - oS Oo oo ~ No ~ 7Q £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER WYLIE A. AITKEN, ESQ. SBN (37770) ATTICUS N. WEGMAN, ESQ. (SBN 273496) AITKEN 4 AITKEN + COHN ELECTRONICALLY FILED 3 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 800 Superior Court of California, P.O. BOX 2555 County of Orange SANTA ANA, CA 92707-2555 05/3/2018 at 03:43:00 PI (714) 434-1424/(714) 434-3600 FAX Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAURENCE HARPER and MICHAELYN MILOSEVICH-HARPER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER CASE NO: 30-2016-00846007 [Hon. Theodore Howard, Dept. C18] LAURENCE HARPER, an individual; MICHAELYN MILOSEVICH-HARPER, an individual; Co Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST VS. RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ, an individual; CAPISTRANO FORD, a business organization, form unknown; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Defendants. Date: June 7, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. Complaint Filed: 4/13/16 Trial Date: 6/18/18 er N r N r N r N r N a Na N a N a N a Na Na N a a a a a a Na a N e N a a TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiffs LAURENCE HARPER and MICHAEL YN MILOSEVICH-HARPER oppose Defendant TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD’s and RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ’ motion for an order allowing them to augment their expert designation list, as follows: 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST f d 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 SEs 5 1 359.2 “2 18 ” 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 %9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LL INTRODUCTION This action arises out of a motor vehicle crash that occurred on December 7, 2015 in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Plaintiff Laurence Harper was operating his gray sedan with the right of way when Defendant Raul Lopez, employed by Tuttle Click’s Capistrano Ford, pulled out in front of him from a business driveway causing a collision in his truck. At the same time, Defendant Cervando Salgado, employed by URS Midwest and DNJ Services, was parked alongside a red curb blocking both motorists’ line of sight: Photograph of Collision Scene) Plaintiff Laurence Harper was severely injured in this crash. He suffered fractures to his L2 and L3 transverse processes in his back (which was identified three (3) days post-crash on x ray imaging and again on imaging on July 14, 2017), right foot laceration, right wrist injury, neck injuries, and other lumbar spine injuries. As such, Plaintiffs Laurence Harper and his wife, who presents a loss of consortium claim only, filed suit on April 13, 2016, and discovery commenced thereafter. The initial trial date for this matter was set on August 7, 2017. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. Trial has since been continued four (4) times. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST 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 3 O N wn BA W O N = - = = e d pe d p d A A n n B R A W N = O 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 N o N o N o N o N o \ ] N O -_- - ik [@ ) Wn ~~ Ww N o - oS \ O 0 ~ No 7 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Defendants do not demonstrate Good Cause to add another unnecessary set of experts to this case, especially due to the fact that all information relating to the basis for their request has been available for the past two (2) years. Defendants already have sufficient experts who have already opined to the topic of Plaintiff’s transverse process fractures. Defendants further admit their already designated expert Dr. Michael Weinstein, which Plaintiffs agree, is qualified to render his interpretation of the imaging studies in this case. What Defendants are doing is trying to improperly add another expert to bolster its existing expert, Dr. Michael Weinstein’s opinions. Their offer to now limit Dr. Weinstein’s opinions as to the cause of the transverse process fractures and replace them with an expert radiologist is equally improper. There are no new facts in this case and no new opinions that would justify the adding of another expert and thus forcing Plaintiffs to also add a rebuttal expert to Defendants’ newly added expert. This would severely prejudice Plaintiffs, unnecessarily increase litigation costs, and unnecessarily prolong this trial. Discovery deadlines have passed, and Plaintiffs respectfully ask that they be enforced. II. DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CANNOT BE A BASIS TO ADD A NEW EXPERT IN THIS MATTER This case should already be resolved had it not been continued on May 7, 2018, at Defendants’ request because Defendants’ trial counsel was unavailable. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. The Court continued this matter, and in doing so, clearly ruled that no further discovery would take place. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. Defendants’ moving papers indicate that the expert deadline in this case is not until June 8, 2018. Such a statement is incorrect. Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared ready for trial on May 7, 2018, and only after it was decided that the trial would be continued to June 18, 2018, Judge Howard inquired about discovery deadlines. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that all discovery deadlines, including expert discovery, have expired and concluded. See Declaration of] Atticus N. Wegman. The parties agreed, and Judge Howard asked if all parties would waive notice to which all parties consented. See Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman. Independently and 3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST 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 uN OO nN hh W O N - e d e d e d pe A N nh B R A W N = O 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 ND N N N N N N = =m = SA N Wn A WL W N = O O 0 No ~ nQ £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER additionally, trial continuances, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties, do not act to reopen discovery proceeds. Code of Civil Procedure 2024.020 states: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a mater of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30™ day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15™ day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. See also Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568. The Code of Civil Procedure provides clear deadlines for parties to engage in legal discovery, including expert discovery. The discovery deadline in this case was 30 days before trial, which passed on April 7, 2018. See Civil Code of Procedure section 2024.030. The expert discovery cut off deadline is 15 days before trial, which passed on April 23, 2018. See Civil Code of Procedure section 2024.010. Due to experts’ limited availability to provide a deposition in this case, the parties stipulated to extending the deadline to May 7, 2018, to take depositions of designated experts, only. The Code of Civil Procedure provides clear deadlines and enforcement including in cases such as this where both parties are represented by sophisticated counsel that understand these rules. Without a procedure in place to discover identities and opinions of experts hired shortly before trial, there would be flurries of last-minute discovery attempts and motions for continuance of trial. Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1423. This matter was filed on April 13, 2016. For more than two years, defense counsel had the ability to engage in discovery and retain any and all experts they felt necessary to support their defenses. On March 19, 2018, the parties exchanged expert designations to which neither party designated a radiologist. Both parties did, however, designate medical doctors. Further, 4 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST A I T K E N ¢ 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 9 O N Wn BRA W N = - em p m pe e m e a A A Ln BA W N = O 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 [\ ®] N o N o N o N o N Y | ) - I " ph lo ) wh F N Ww No - = O o o 3 No = 7Q £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER after the initial exchange date expired, no party provided a supplemental expert designation list including a radiologist either. Fast-forward to today, we are now for the first time receiving word that defense counsel would like to designate a new and entirely different expert than any parties have designated in this matter. There was no mention of this when we appeared ready for trial on May 7, 2018. The only excuse defense counsel provided to the Court was their trial counsel’s unavailability. Defendants’ failure to abide by the expert designation laws pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure cannot justify the inclusion of an entirely new expert in an entirely new area of medicine, which would undoubtedly prejudice Plaintiffs. III. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO ADD MORE EXPERTS TO THIS CASE Defense counsel’s mischaracterization of the facts does not provide the Court with any cause to reopen and re-litigate any issue in this case including the addition of a radiologist. Defendants’ moving papers state that prior to May 3, 2018, when Defendants took Plaintiffs’ expert treating physician Dr. Liauw’s deposition, no expert opined to fractures in Plaintiff’s transverse processes in his back nor was there any mention of such in Dr. Liauw’s report. First, information related to Plaintiff Laurence Harper’s transverse process fractures has been available to all parties since the date Plaintiffs brought the instant lawsuit on April 16, 2016. All parties and their experts have seen multiple documents that indicate that Mr. Harper suffered transverse process fractures in this crash. Attached as Exhibit A, please find two reports that indicate such. The first record is dated December 11, 2015, just three (3) days after this crash. The second is dated July 14, 2017, nearly a year ago. As such, it is mind boggling that defense counsel is now, all of a sudden, acting surprised by this finding and seeking the Court’s approval to unjustly reopen discovery, which will unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. Second, Dr. Liauw is a treating physician and he did not author any reports in this case for purposes of litigation; his only writings are his medical records, so it should not be a surprise that when he began treating Plaintiff in June 2017, after the transverse process fractures had healed, that he did not mention them in his report as there was not treatment for these now healed 5 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST A I T K E N 4+ A I T K E N ¢ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , SU IT E 80 0 SO S OO 0 uN O N wn RA W N - p d e d e d p d pe A N nn BA W N = 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 N N N ND N N N N = =m = AN Wn A Ww W ND = O O No ~ 7Q €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER bones. There is nothing “new” about Dr. Liauw’s opinions at all. By law, defense counsel was entitled to take Dr. Liauw’s deposition at any point during that past year as he is a treating physician in this case. They did not have to wait until expert discovery to do so. The fact that during his treatment of Plaintiff he did not mention transverse process fractures in his medical records is not surprising as they were not relevant to his purpose of providing treatment. Outside the arena of worker’s compensation law, of which this case has no such elements, treating doctors, including Dr. Liauw in this case, do not author medical records for the purposes of potential future litigation including potential future opinions they may be asked to render if called upon to act as an expert in a legal case. Dr. Liauw was not retained as an expert until 2018. Third, and even more concerning, is that Defendants have already designated an expert to opine on the issue of the causation of the transverse process fractures. His name is Dr. Michael Weinstein and his deposition has already been taken. Defendants cannot now add another expert to bolster an existing expert’s opinions, nor can they remove an expert and replace with a better one. All parties have already designated the proper experts to speak to the issue of Plaintiffs’ injuries including lumbar transverse process fractures. Plaintiffs’ treating retained expert Dr. Liauw has expressed his opinion after reading the reports and analyzing the images that Plaintiff sustained lumbar transverse process fractures in this motor vehicle crash. Defendants’ retained expert Dr. Michael Weinstein has also provided his opinion related to Mr. Harper’s transverse process fractures. Attached as Exhibit B, please find pertinent deposition testimony from Dr. Weinstein relating to the issue of transverse process fractures. Dr. Weinstein has already opined that he reviewed the actual images on the lumbar x rays (December 11, 2015) and lumbar CT images dated (July 14, 2017) and read the radiology reports relating to the lumbar spine. Dr. Weinstein opines that he saw mention of a “transverse process abnormality” in a report yet it is his opinion that he did not find any “acute or traumatic injuries” on the imaging studies related to the crash. // 6 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST A I T K E N ¢ 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 9 O N Wn BRA W N - e t e m e d e m e d pe A N Ln A W N = O 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 ND No ND N N N N =m = = AN Wn A L O N D = O O oo No = 7 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 0 Okay. You didn't find any traumatic findings of any fractures in his spine, at all, after the crash, did you? A 1 did not. Okay. And what did you look at to determine that? A I looked at the X-rays of 12/11/2015. --Deposition Testimony of Dr. Weinstein, pg. 48, lines 18-24. Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Liauw are both more than capable to interpret diagnostic images, which they admittedly do on a daily basis in their profession before performing spinal surgeries. It is not unheard of to have experts that provide opinions contrary to other experts at trial. In fact, CACI No. 221 jury instruction, states specifically: If the expert witnesses disagreed with one another, you should weigh each opinion against the others. You should examine the reasons given for each opinion and the facts or other matters that each witness relied on. You may also compare the experts’ qualifications. The fact that these experts disagree on the causation of the transverse process fractures in this case is not a basis for including more experts after the discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs have never intended on calling an expert radiologist and nor have Defendants. Both experts Dr. Michael Weinstein and Dr. Jason Liauw are surgeons and within their realm of expertise have already provided their opinions on this subject. Opening up discovery and allowing for more experts, in an already expert-heavy yet straightforward motor vehicle crash case, in unnecessary, unwarranted, and severely prejudicial to Plaintiffs. This would seem to clearly run afoul Evidence Code section 352. In I" nn In / ” OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST A I T K E N ¢ 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 O O 0 9 OO Wn BA W O N -_- = e m e d e d ed p e A N Dn BA W N = O 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 DO No ND No No No Ny = - - AN Wn = Ww No - OS Oo 0 No ne £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER IV. DEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO AUGMENT THEIR EXPERT WITNESS LIST Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 (a) -(c) states in pertinent part that Defendant must meet all conditions: “The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses. (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (c¢) The court has determined either of the following: (1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness. (2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: (A) Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. (B) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action. For the Court to grant Defendants’ motion to augment their expert witness list, the Court will have to (1) take into account the extent Plaintiffs have relied on Defendants’ list of expert witnesses, (2) determine if Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by the inclusion of Defendants’ expert. Then, if the Court finds in favor of defense counsel’s position on those points, the Court additionally must find that either Defendants would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness, or that Defendants failed to determine to call that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 8 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST 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 O O 00 9 O N Wn BA W N - t e d pe d e d e d pe d A N nn BA W N = O 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 ND No ND N N N = =m = AN Wn A LW NO = O O x \) ~ Q 9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Based on the above, Defendants cannot meet their burden on any of these points, yet alone all of them. Plaintiffs have relied 100% on Defendants designations in this case and have been ready for trial as required the by the Court since the last trial date of May 7, 2018. Plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced if the Court grants this motion in a variety of ways. Plaintiffs would be forced to pay for another rebuttal expert. Plaintiffs have already incurred great costs to rebut the numerous defenses asserted by Defendants in this clear liability case. Further, the Code does not allow parties after all discovery deadlines and after four (4) trial continuances to supplement with new experts to bolster existing experts’ opinions. Prejudice would also result as the trial will be prolonged to accompany two (2) and possible three (3) new expert radiologists, one for each party. Defendants admit in their moving papers that the reason they are attempting to add a radiologist is because he is “better suited to opine about Plaintiffs’ Jractures...” Defendants do not, and they cannot, claim that they are without an expert to interpret the imaging studies as this case. Both experts admitted at their depositions that their interpretation of the imaging studies is a basis for their opinions. Assuming the Court finds Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced and that Plaintiffs did not rely on Defendants’ list of experts, the Court must also find that either “Defendants would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness, or that Defendants failed to determine to call that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” See Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620. As stated above, the Defendants knew about the subject transverse process fractures when this litigation began in 2016. They subpoenaed all of these records in 2016 and if they wanted to dispute the fractures on the x-rays they could have consulted with a radiologist or even taken the deposition of the radiologist that interpreted the scans on December 11, 2015. Further, additional and separate CT scans on July 14, 2017, explicitly stated that Plaintiff had “Old L.2 and L3 transverse process fractures.” See Exhibit A CT Scan Report. Both of these dates were many months before any expert designation in this case. 9 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST p d 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 13 Z = “8 18 ’ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 “ 7Q %J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Equally, Defendants cannot argue there was any surprise or excusable neglect. Defendants’ counsel is sophisticated and has tried many cases. They cannot argue that because Plaintiffs’ treating surgeon Dr. Jason Liauw did not write in his medical records, a year before trial and before he even agreed to also act as an expert, all of his opinions that he might potentially be asked to give at trial is a basis for excuse. Defendants had the all the same imaging that showed the fractures and could have hired a radiologist and designated him prior to the discovery deadline. They also could have taken Dr. Liauw’s deposition at any point. They did not have to wait until he was designated as an expert because he was a treating physician. The Code of Civil Procedure allows Defendants to take depositions of treating physicians in personal injury cases in California. Only on rare occasion has case law allowed a motion to augment an expert list; however, even those circumstances did not involve, as we have here, a party’s failure to comply with expert designation deadlines. For instance, case law has allowed a party to augment their expert list when an expert properly listed dies. See Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal. App.4th 81, 85. It should also be noted that monetary sanctions shall attach to any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to augment an expert witness list. See Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.630. However, Plaintiffs will waive their right to seek sanctions in this matter. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ motion. Dated: May 31, 2018 AITKEN 4 AITKEN 4+ COHN By: (abil WYLIE A. AITKEN, ESQ. ATTICUS N. WEGMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST 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 O O 0 3 O&O Un KB WwW N N = - e t p d e d e d e d A A nn BA W N = O 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 N D N N N N N ND = - -_ ~N OY Dn A W N = O O DN 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 May 31, 2018 I served the foregoing documents described as OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TUTTLE CLICK’S CAPISTRANO FORD AND RAUL NAJERA LOPEZ REGARDING THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THEIR] EXPERT DESIGNATION LIST 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) Asfollows: 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. Iam 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 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. ( X) 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 May 31, 2018 at Santa Ana, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ) J Kristin McCarthy { 1 PROOF OF SERVICE P m 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 22 <3 18 ” 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 26 27 28 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER HARPER v. LOPEZ, et al. SERVICE LIST Debra L. Braasch 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