Adelson, Testan, Brundo, Novell & Jimenez vs. Misa Stefen Koller, Ward Llp

Motion for Leave to Amend

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 4, 2016

C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 8 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : (7 14 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M eo 3 O N Dn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 03/22/2017 at 11:46:00 Ad Clerk of the Superior Court By Angelina Nguyen-Do, Deputy Clerk CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC Daniel J. Callahan (Bar No. 91490) Michael J. Sachs (Bar No. 134468) Christopher B. Queally (Bar No. 229154) John D. Van Ackeren (Bar No. 240739) 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor Santa Ana, California 92707 Telephone: (714) 241-4444 Facsimile: (714) 241-4445 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL & JIMENEZ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL CASE NO. 30-2016-00850385-CU-BT-CJC & J IMENEZ, a California Professional Corporation, Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Theodore Plaintiff, Howard, Dept. C18 V. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD LLP, a SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; business entity of unknown form; MICHAEL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND N. MISA, an individual; MARTIN W. AUTHORITIES STEFEN, an individual, MATTHEW S. KOLLER, an individual; TERESA E. WARD, . } . an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, [Declaration of Christopher B. Queally Filed inclusive, Concurrently Herewith] Defendant. Date: May 4, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C18 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION. Resv No. 72556266 Complaint Filed: May 4, 2016 Trial Date: None Set PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A A N A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : ( 7 1 4 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M co 3 — o O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 4, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C18 of this Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701, Plaintiff and Cross- Defendant Adelson, Testan, Brundo, Novell & Jimenez (“Plaintiff or “ATB”) will move the Court for an order permitting the filing of a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The Motion will be made on the ground that it is in the interests of justice and of judicial efficiency to allow the proposed amendments, as the amendments are related to the subject matter of the existing controversy between the parties and will not result in prejudice to Defendants. Allowing the amendments will therefore promote the efficient resolution of all claims between the parties. Plaintiff also requests an Order that the proposed SAC attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher B. Queally filed concurrently herewith be deemed filed and served as of the date the Motion is granted. The Motion will be based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Christopher B. Queally filed concurrently herewith, the files and records in this action, and any further evidence and argument that the Court may receive at or 7 BLAINE, APLC wo NL Daniel7. Callahan Michael J. Sachs Christopher B. Queally John D. Van Ackeren Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL & JIMENEZ before the hearing. Dated: March 22, 2017 -1- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : (7 14 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M cw J N n b \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Upon the termination of his employment from Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Adelson, Testan, Brundo, Novell & Jimenez (“Plaintiff” or “ATB”), Defendant and Cross-Complainant Martin Stefen (“Stefen”) intentionally wiped and reset his ATB-issued smartphone prior to returning the phone to ATB. By taking these actions, Stefen essentially purged all of the information stored on the phone. The scope and legal implications of Stefen’s actions were not fully understood by ATB until recently. Furthermore, Defendants recently admitted Stefen’s actions in a reply brief filed with the Court on March 16, 2017. Accordingly, ATB now seeks to amend its pleading to assert three additional causes of action against Stefen based on his intentional destruction of ATB’s data, including evidence critical to the claims in this case. The proposed amendments are necessary and proper to allow ATB to recover all damages it suffered from all of Defendants” wrongful acts related to the subject matter of this action in a single lawsuit. Defendants will not suffer any prejudice if ATB is granted leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). As of the filing of this Motion, the case is not yet at issue, and no trial date has been set. No significant additional discovery will be generated by the addition of these claims, and the additional claims will not result in any delay. Thus, the interests of justice and of judicial efficiency will be served by granting ATB leave to file the SAC. IL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Summary of Dispute This case pertains to a dispute between ATB and four former attorneys who were planning the launch of their own competing worker’s compensation law firm for approximately 18 months while employed at ATB. During those 18 months, Defendants used Plaintiff’s computer systems, mined Plaintiff’s client lists, and marketed to Plaintiffs clients at Plaintiff’s expense, all while collecting paychecks from Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendants intended to stay employed with Plaintiff until August 2016 while they continued to work on the launch of their competing firm. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 9 1-3. On April 4, 2016, when Plaintiff learned that the individual Defendants were conspiring to 21 - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 TE LE PH ON E: (7 14 ) 24 1- 44 44 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M 0 3 O N nn S o 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 launch a competing law firm, Plaintiff immediately terminated them. Upon their termination, Defendants were required to return their ATB-issued smartphones and computers. Defendants had each signed an acknowledgement of ATB’s comprehensive Employee Handbook which notified Defendants that firm devices were to be used for firm purposes only, that personal information should not be stored on the devices, and that ATB monitored and made use of the information on the devices regularly. See FAC 99 19-25. ATB collected the individual Defendants’ smartphones on the day Defendants were fired. The phones were then turned over to ATB’s counsel who delivered the phones to a forensic information technology expert for imaging. See FAC 9 26. B. Additional Factual Allegations and Claims Against Stefen in Proposed SAC Following the termination of the individual Defendants, it was discovered that Defendant Stefen, after he was notified of his termination but prior to returning his ATB-issued phone, reset the phone to factory settings. This act essentially purged all information stored on the phone. Stefen, an ex-employee at the time and an officer of the court, was not permitted to delete files on the phone. ATB contends the purpose of his conduct was to destroy evidence of his actions.’ Based on Stefen’s knowing and intentional destruction of data, ATB seeks to amend its pleading to assert three additional causes of action against Stefen: a seventh cause of action for violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502); an eighth cause of action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18. U.S.C. § 1030); and a ninth cause of action for violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2707). See Declaration of Christopher B. Queally filed concurrently herewith (“Queally Decl.””) § 3. The substantive additions in the proposed SAC supporting these claims identified by page, line, and paragraph number are as follows: !Stefen’s factory-reset of the smartphone is admitted in a reply brief that was recently-filed with the Court by Defendants. See Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses (ROA No. 210) at 1:27-2:3. = = PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : (7 14 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 PAGE:LINE PARAGRAPH TION oo : . - a 7:12-16 26 Add “collected their firm-issued smartphones and” 9:19-25 42 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that at the time Stefen was terminated Stefen had on his firm-issued smartphone electronically stored data, including emails, text messages, documents, downloads, photographs, notes, applications, contacts, calendar entries, phone logs, and other data which belonged to ATB. After Stefen was informed of his termination Stefen did not have had the right or authority to access, use, modify, or delete electronically stored data on the firm-issued smartphone. The electronically stored data was proprietary to ATB and the accessing and usage of such data was governed by the Handbook.” 9:26-10:3 43 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that after Stefen was terminated but before returning his ATB-issued smartphone Stefen, or an agent of Stefen at Stefen’s direction, knowingly and intentionally accessed, used, deleted, purged, and destroyed electronically stored data on the smartphone. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Stefen accomplished the deletion by performing a factory data reset on the smartphone which permanently deleted all existing emails, text messages, and other data.” 10:4-6 44 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes Stefen performed the factory data reset for the purpose of concealing evidence of Stefen’s tortious conduct and breach of Stefen’s obligations to ATB.” 21:4 109 Add “Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 108 as though repeated here.” 20:28-21:3 N/A Add: “SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT, Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Against Defendant Stefen and DOES 1-10)” 21:5-6 110 Add “ATB owned the data contained on the smartphone issued by ATB to Stefen. The Handbook governed Stefen’s accessing and use of any and all data on the smartphone.” 4. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R SA NT A AN A, CA LI FO RN IA 92 70 7 TE LE PH ON E: (7 14 ) 24 1- 44 44 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Zl 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE:LINE . apbbmON 21:7-10 111 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that after Stefen was terminated but before handing in the Stefen smartphone, Stefen violated California Penal Code section 502(c)(2) by knowingly and without permission accessing and knowingly and without permission taking, copying and/or using ATB data from the Stefen smartphone.” 21:11-14 112 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that after Stefen was terminated but before handing in the Stefen smartphone, Stefen violated California Penal Code section 502(c)(3) by knowingly and without permission using or causing to be used ATB’s data on the Stefen smartphone.” 21:15-17 113 Add “As a direct and proximate result of Stefen’s unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502, Stefen has caused damage to ATB in an amount to be proven at trial, and including, but not limited to, harm to ATB’s occupation” 21:18-20 114 Add “The acts of Stefen as alleged herein were malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent in that they were done with the intent to injure ATB in its business and to improve MSKW’s business.” 21:21-24 115 Add “Accordingly, in addition to actual damages, pursuant to California Penal Code section 502(e)(4), ATB seeks punitive or exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Stefen and deter such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be proven at trial.” 2125-27 116 Add “ATB has suffered irreparable injury from these acts, and due to the continuing threat of such injury, has no adequate remedy at law, entitling ATB to equitable and injunctive relief.” 22:1-2 117 Add “ATB is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees pursuant to California Penal Code section 502(e)(2).” 22:4-6 N/A Add: “EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 1030 (Against Defendant Stefen and DOES 1-10)” 22:7 118 Add “Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 117 as though repeated here.” -4. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : (7 14 ) 24 1- 44 44 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M co NN O Y Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 22:8-9 119 Add “ATB owned the data contained on the smartphone issued by ATB to Stefen. The Handbook governed Stefen’s accessing and use of all data on the smartphone.” 22:10-13 120 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that without the permission or authorization of ATB, or in excess of such permission or authorization, Stefen knowingly and intentionally accessed the Stefen smartphone after being terminated, and as a result of such access recklessly caused damage to ATB in excess of $5,000 by performing a factory data reset.” 22:14-17 121 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that without the permission or authorization of ATB, or in excess of such permission or authorization, Stefen knowingly and intentionally accessed the Stefen smartphone after being terminated, and as a result of such access caused damage and loss to ATB in excess of $5,000 by performing a factory data reset.” 22:18-19 122 Add “As of a direct and proximate result of Stefen’s illegal actions as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, ATB has suffered damage and loss in excess of $5,000, to be proven at trial.” 22:20-22 123 Add “ATB has suffered irreparable injury from these acts, and due to the continuing threat of such injury, has no adequate remedy at law, entitling ATB to equitable and injunctive relief.” 22:24-26 N/A Add: “EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2707 (Against Defendant Stefen and DOES 1-10)” 22:27 124 Add “Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-123 as though repeated here.” 23:1-2 123 Add “ATB owned the data that comprised and contained on the Stefen smartphone and such data was of value and contained information of value.” -5- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A A N A , C A L I F O R N I A 8 2 7 0 7 (7 14 ) 24 1- 44 44 T E L E P H O N E : W W W C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M Oo 0 3 On 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes that after Stefen was terminated but before Stefen turned in the Stefen smartphone, Stefen knowingly and intentionally accessed without authorization, and/or in excess of authorization, ATB emails while such electronic communications were in electronic storage systems maintained by ATB, and obtained ATB’s electronic communications.” 23:3-7 126 23:8-10 127 Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes Stefen intentionally deleted, destroyed and purged such electronic communications after accessing such electronic communications without authorization and/or in excess of authorization after Stefen was terminated.” Add “Plaintiff is informed and believes Stefen accessed the emails using log-ins and/or passwords issued by or created for Stefen to use or access ATB’s data when Stefen was an employee.” 23:11-13 128 23:14-15 129 Add “ATB is entitled to recover ATB’s attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2707, subsections (b) and (c).” 23:16-20 130 Add “The acts of Stefen as alleged herein were willful and intentional, in that they were done with the intent to injure ATB in its business and to improve MSKW’s business. Accordingly, in addition to actual damages, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2707, ATB seeks punitive or exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Stefen and deter such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be proven at trial.” III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Standard for Granting Leave to Amend The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. For example, a party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380. Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the judge. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading ....” Code Civ. -6- PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 8 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : ( 7 1 4 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proc. § 473(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, a court’s discretion to permit amendment of a complaint should be exercised liberally. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. B. ATB Should Be Granted Leave to File the SAC. The proposed SAC adds three claims against Defendant Stefen: a seventh cause of action for violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502); an eighth cause of action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18. U.S.C. § 1030); and a ninth cause of action for violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2707). See Queally Decl. § 3. These new claims are all related to the subject matter of the dispute that is the subject of the operative FAC. Id. The scope and legal implications of Stefen’s conduct was recently discovered. ATB learned through an expert consultant that Defendant Stefen’s phone had been wiped and reset in late April 2016. See Queally Decl. 4. ATB waited to seek leave to amend until it had conducted appropriate research and made the determination that Stefen’s conduct was tortious and violated several state and federal statutes. Id. It was not until Defendants filed a Reply Brief on March 16, 2017 that Stefen, through his counsel, admitted to performing the factory data reset. The proposed amendments are necessary and proper to allow ATB to recover all damages it suffered from all of Defendants’ wrongful acts related to the subject matter of this action — including Stefen’s destruction of data — in a single lawsuit. See Queally Decl. § 5. Defendants will not suffer any prejudice if ATB is granted leave to file the SAC. The case is not yet at issue, as ATB has not responded to Defendants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint as of the filing of this Motion. See Queally Decl. § 6. No trial date has been set. Id. Written discovery -7- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : (7 14 ) 24 1- 44 44 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M 5H WwW ~~ O&O Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and document productions are in the early stages, and the first party deposition was taken on March 22,2017. Id. ATB anticipates that no significant additional discovery will be generated by the addition of these claims, and the additional claims will not result in any delay. Id. It is in the interests of justice and of judicial efficiency to allow the proposed SAC, as the amendments are related to the subject matter of the existing controversy between the parties. Allowing the amendments will therefore promote the efficient resolution of all claims between the parties. Accordingly, ATB should be granted leave to file the SAC. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant it leave to file the SAC and order that the proposed SAC attached as Exhibit A to the concurrently-filed Declaration of Christopher B. Queally be deemed filed and served as of the date the Motion is granted. Dated: March 22, 2017 CALLAHA BLAINE, APLC ow (A Daniel J. Callahan Michael J. Sachs Christopher B. Queally John D. Van Ackeren Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL & JIMENEZ 2 ATB requested that Defendants stipulate to the filing of the SAC, but Defendants refused. See Queally Decl. § 7. -8- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E DR IV E, N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A A N A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : ( 7 1 4 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M x ~~ DN —_ — o O 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707. On March 22, 2017, 1 served the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; and [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing: [] the original & a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Please see attached “Service List”. 0 BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Santa Ana, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. Iam “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be hand delivered by Nationwide Legal to the addressees below. 0 BY GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: I deposited such envelopes at Santa Ana, California for collection and delivery by Golden State Overnight with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing packages for overnight delivery by Golden State Overnight. They are deposited with a facility regularly maintained by Golden State Overnight for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE ONE LEGAL: I transmitted the foregoing documents by electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list by using the electronic mail as indicated. Said electronic mail was verified as complete and without error. 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. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 2017, at Santa Ana, California. N Nee A | Monique Kingsbury N\ ) ) RY N ; fF * WON Proof of Service C A L L A H A N & B L A I N E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 3 H U T T O N C E N T R E D R I V E , N I N T H F L O O R S A N T A A N A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 0 7 T E L E P H O N E : ( 7 1 4 ) 2 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 W W W . C A L L A H A N - L A W . C O M R x ON Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Adelson, Testan, Brundo, Novell & Jimenez v. Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LIP, et al. Case No.: 30-2016-00850385 Daniel J. O’Rielly Dena M. Roche Jessica E. Hawk O’RIELLY & ROCHE LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 23" Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 213-437-3910 Fax: 415-520-9394 djo@oriellyroche.com dena@oriellyroche.com jeh@oriellyroche.com Attorneys for Defendants and Cross Complainants = Proof of Service