Wendy Sawyer vs. Jason R. Sawyer

Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.June 1, 2016

BUCHALTER IRvins 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APRCTF CO COROT HTN BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation MICHAEL W. CASPINO (SBN: 171906) MEGAN M. HOLBROOK (SBN: 280468) 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Telephone: (949) 760-1121 Fax: (949) 720-0182 E-mail: mcaspino@buchalter.com; mholbrook@buchalter.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs WENDY SAWYER, an individual, SAWYER CONSULTING, LLC, SUNSET COAST PROPERTIES, LLC, WAW CONSULTING, a California corporation, IWC HOLDINGS, LLC, INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER WENDY SAWYER, an individual; SAWYER CONSULTING, LLC; SUNSET COAST PROPERTIES, LLC; WAW CONSULTING,a California corporation; IWC HOLDINGS, LLC; INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. JASON R. SAWYER; STEPHEN D. SAWYER; SHARI SAWYER; SAWYER & SAWYER, LLP; and DOES 2 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. STEPHEN D. SAWYER, Cross-Complainant, VS. WENDY SAWYER, Cross-Defendant. CASE NO. 30-2016-00855339-CU-FR-CJC ASSIGNED TO HONORABLE THOMAS A. DELANEY, DEPARTMENT C24 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT STEPHEN SAWYER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DATE: October 5, 2018 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT.: C24 RESERVATION NO.: 72851237 Complaint filed: June 1, 2016 Cross-Complaint filed: July 11, 2016 Jury Trial: January 29, 2018 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618v1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT that on October 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department C24 of the above entitled court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701, Plaintiffs Wendy Sawyer, Sawyer Consulting, LLC, Sunset Coast Properties, WAW Consulting, Inc., IWC Holdings, Inc., and Industrial Insurance Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) will, and hereby do, move the court for an order taxing the costs claimed by Defendant Stephen Sawyer (“Stephen”) in the above-captioned matter. This motion is made on the grounds that Stephen has requested costs that are either not authorized by sections 1032 or 1033.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or are unreasonable and/or were unnecessary to the resolution of this case. Stephen’s claimed costs of $64,297.07 are unreasonable and excessive and should be reduced to $17,737.10. This motion is based on California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b), CCP §§ 1032 and 1033.5, this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers onfile in this action, and such other evidence and oral argument as may be before the court at the time of the hearing of the motion. DATED: July 17, 2018 BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation or | MIGNAEL W. CASPINO MEGAN M. HOLBROOK Attorneys for Plaintiffs, WENDY SAWYER, SAWYER CONSULTING, LLC, SUNSET COAST PROPERTIES, LLC, WAW CONSULTING, IWC HOLDINGS, LLC, and INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. BN 33035618vi NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS bives 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER Acie or Correatte I. INTRODUCTION After almost two years of litigation, followed by a trial spanning approximately six weeks, Plaintiffs Wendy Sawyer, Sawyer Consulting, LLC, Sunset Coast Properties, WAW Consulting, Inc., IWC Holdings, Inc., and Industrial Insurance Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) received a directed verdict against Defendants Jason Sawyer (“Jason”) and Sawyer & Sawyer, LLP (“Sawyer & Sawyer”). Stephen was also the prevailing party on Plaintiffs Wendy Sawyer, Sawyer Consulting, LLC, WAW Consulting, Inc., IWC Holdings, Inc., and Industrial Insurance Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) claim against him for breach fiduciary duty’. Stephen’s Memorandum of Costs seeks $64,297.07 in costs, however, this amount is deceiving. Stephen has already sought, and was awarded $221,292.82 in costs as damages on the Cross-Complaint. Therefore, in total, Stephen has sought, and is seeking, $185,589.89 in costs. In summary, the following claimed costs are improper or excessive and should be taxed: Item Description Claimed Taxable Allowable 1 Filing and motion fees $1,141.92 $486.95 $654.97 2 Jury fees $3,005.02 $0 $3,005.02 4 Deposition costs $12,863.95 $12,863.95 $0.00 5 Service of process $397.87 $308.34 $89.53 8 Witness fees $396.46 $396.46 $0.00 11 Court reporterfees $41,823.41 $27,882.27 $13,941.14 12 Models/enlargements/copies $3,847.23 $3,847.23 $0 14 Fees for electronic filing or service $774.77 $774.77 $0 16 Other $46.44 $0 $46.44 Totals $64,297.07 $46,559.97 $17,737.10 II. STEPHEN IS ONLY ENTITLED TO REASONABLE COSTS NECESSARY TO THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION The right to recover costs is governed strictly by statute and a court has no discretion to award [categories of] costs that are not statutorily authorized. Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assoc. ' Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal onthis decision. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 330356181 APES BUCHALTER wero Cosre Isis 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-74 (1993). Plaintiffs’ may dispute any or all of the items in Stephen’s Memorandum of Costs. Rule 3.1700(b), California Rules of Court. Some costs are specifically allowable as a matter of right. Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(a). Others are expressly prohibited. Id., §1033.5(b). Those costs not mentioned in section 1033.5 are left to the court’s discretion. Id., §1033.5(c)(4). However, Stephen’s right as the “prevailing party” to recover costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 is not absolute. All “allowable costs” must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1033.5(c)(2)-(3); see also Nelson v. Anderson 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129 (1999); Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774. The court has powerto disallow even costs “allowable as a matter of right, if they were not ‘reasonably necessary’;” and to reduce the amount of any cost item to that whichis “reasonable.” Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises, 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 (1992) (finding that the intent and effect of §1033.5, subd. (c)(2) is to authorize trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines costs were incurred unnecessarily). Prior to awarding costs, this court has a duty to determine whether the cost is reasonable in need and amount. Nelson, 72 Cal. App.4th at 129 (in awarding item of costs, court must first determine whetherstatute expressly allows the particular item and whetherit appears proper on its face). If the item of cost does not on its face appear proper, the burden of showing that it is reasonable and necessary shifts to the party claiming the cost. Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 761 (where items appearing in a memorandum of costs are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden is on the party claiming them as costs). If the correctness of the memorandum of costs is challenged either in whole or in part, the burden is then on the party claiming the costs and disbursements to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action. Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co, 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 699 (1963). Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation is a question of fact. Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 773-74. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should use its discretion to tax any costs Stephen is requesting that were not allowable or reasonable necessary. 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618vl Adore Teaonge BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. THE COSTS SOUGHT BY STEPHEN SAWYER EXCEED THOSE ALLOWED BY STATUTE, LACK SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION, OR ARE UNREASONABLE AND SHOULD BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY a. Stephen is Not Entitled to All of the Claimed Filing and Motion Fees Because They Were Not Reasonable or Necessary or Because they Lacked Sufficient Description “[A] trial court may disallow costs, including filing fees, which it determines were incurred unnecessarily.” Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244. Stephen’s request for filing fees includes vague descriptions and misdated entries and should be taxed accordingly. Stephen seeks to recovera fee for the delivery of a courtesy copy of the demurrer to a first amended complaint in a related case on 1/24/18 for $27.95. This was related to a cost from a separate matter and is therefore $27.95 is not recoverable here and should be taxed. The two page attachment to Stephen’s memorandum of costs concerning filing fees (attachment 1g) includes entries which are particularly unhelpful, especially when cross- referenced to this court’s register of actions. Plaintiffs therefore object to the following filing fees on the basis that the inadequate description in the attachment renders it impossible to determine if the fees were reasonable or necessary: Date Amount Description 2/27/2017 $26.95 Charges for delivering courtesy copy to department 9/28/2017 $27.95 Courtesy copy of separate statement, opposition and declaration 12/27/2017 $27.95 Court mandated courtesy cop of opposition to plaintiff's motion for orders 1/24/2018 $60.00 Opposition 3/30/2018 $27.95 Court mandated copy of defendants’ amended trial exhibit lists, etc. 3/30/2018 $27.95 Court mandated copy of defendants® amended trial exhibit lists, etc. All of Stephen’s entries are extremely vague, leaving Plaintiffs to have to cross-reference 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618v] Tavinis BUCHALTER AFUs 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the docket and files to determine what charges Stephen is seeking and whether they are proper. The costs set forth above were the worst offending entries and should be taxed. Additionally, there are two entries for 3/30/18 for courtesy copies of trial documents. Stephen sought these costs twice. Further, the trial concluded on March 7. For these reasons, $198.75 should be taxed. Stephen is also seeking the costs incurred to for: “Motion for attorney fees” and “Reply” and court mandated courtesy copies of both documents (see entries on 3/27/18, 3/27/18, 3/28/18, 3/29/18 and 3/30/18). Once again, Stephen’s descriptions are extremely vague and Plaintiffs were left to guess as to what these amounts related to. Plaintiffs assume that this refers to Stephen’s Brief Re: Attorney’s Fees to be Awarded on His Cross-Complaint. Given that these costs were related to the Cross-Complaint, they should have been sought previously as damages under the Cross-Complaint. Seeking them here is improper, and the amount of $166.20 should also be taxed. Presumably Stephen sought these same costs in his Brief for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on the Cross-Complaint. Therefore, the entire amount, not just 54%, should be taxed here to account for the overstatement of costs in both of Stephen’s requests for costs. Stephen’s claimed filing fees of $1,141.92 should be taxed in the amount of $486.95, leaving a recoverable amount of $654.97. b. Stephen’s Claimed Deposition Costs Are Unreasonable A prevailing party is entitled to recover only the reasonable costs of taking and attending necessary depositions. Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(3). The defendants in this matter asserted the joint defense privilege, refusing to provide discovery based upon those grounds and often joining in each other’s motions. As such, the parties shared in the costs of litigation. During the trial, Plaintiffs and Stephen lodged copies of all of the depositions in this matter. Defendants Jason and Sawyer & Sawyer only lodged one transcript - the transcript oftheir expert, Christopher Anderson. Plaintiffs have strong reason to believe that the Defendants shared in the cost of deposition transcripts. Therefore, the costs for deposition transcripts sought by Stephen should be divided in half to account for Jason and Sawyer & Sawyer’s share of the costs of the actual deposition transcripts. As set forth in the 4 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618v] Abie BUCTHALTER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 chart below, $8,683.97 should be taxed. The following costs should be divided in half: Date Amount Sought Description Amount Recoverable 6/23/17 $1,287.50 Depo transcript of Anne Elizabeth $643.75 Sawyer 11/16/17 $2,308.00 Deposition transcript of Matthew $1,154.00 Sawyer, Vol. 1 12/6/17 $2,023.80 Deposition Transcript of Wendy $1,011.90 Sawyer 12/12/17 $524.95 Deposition Transcript of Matthew $262.48 Sawyer Vol. 2 12/12/17 $1,375.45 Deposition transcript of Matthew $687.73 Weiss as PMK 1/23/18 $1,502.10 Transcript of Stephanie Sawyer $751.05 deposition 1/23/18 $340.00 Transcript of Jason Sawyer deposition $170.00 1/23/18 $2,026.80 Transcript of Carole Buckner and $1,013.40 Jeffrey Moffat 1/24/18 $649.05 Transcript of Gary Capata $324.53 1/24/18 $2,325.70 Transcript of Richard Avery $1,162.85 1/24/18 $917.72 Transcript of Carol Langford $458.86 1/24/18 $777.33 Transcript of Mark Barrie $388.67 1/24/18 $1,309.54 Transcript of Brandy Ungar $654.77 TOTAL $8,683.97 It also appears that Stephen has double charged for the deposition of Wendy Sawyer; thereare entries for “Deposition Transcript of Wendy Sawyer” on 12/6/17 for $2,023.80 (in chartabove) and another charge on 12/29/17 for “Transcript of Wendy Sawyer Vol. 17 for $3,997.54. BN 33035618vl 5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS Lp BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no explanation of a difference between these two costs, leading Plaintiffs to assume that Stephen ordered two copies of Wendy’s transcript. One of these charges should be taxed. Plaintiffs’ paid $2,615.01 for a copy of Wendy's Transcript. Therefore, Plaintiffs believe that Stephen’s claimed costs of $3,997.54 should be taxed in its entirety. If the Court finds that this second charge is allowable, only 50% should be recoverable, $1,998.77, as set forth above. Further, Stephen is seeking express mail charges for sending deposition notices and messenger delivery. These costs are not allowable under CCP §1033.5(3) and and therefore the following entries,totaling $288.01 should be taxed: Date Description Amount 11/13/17 Express mail charges for 10/14 deposition notice $61.09 11/13/17 Express mail charges for 10/20 deposition notice $54.46 11/13/17 Express mail charges for 10/25 deposition notice $54.24 11/22/17 Messenger delivery to Buchalter of notice to $80.00 consumer with subpoena for Gary Capata 12/12/17 Express mail charges for 11/20 deposition notice $38.22 TOTAL $288.01 In summary, the amount sought by Stephen for deposition costs should be taxed $12,9693.52. This amount exceeds the total sought by Stephen because he multiplied the pre- 2/2/18 amount by 54%. Stephen already received an orderthat his was entitled to recover 46% of his deposition costs pursuant to his claim for costs and fees pursuant to his Cross-Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ contend his is not entitled to any additional deposition costs pursuant to his Memorandum of Costs. c. Stephen’s Request for Witness Fees is Unreasonable “Ordinary witness fees pursuant to Section 68093 of the Government Code” are recoverable costs.” Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(a)(11). Government Code section 68093 provides that witness’ fees for each day’s actual attendance, when legally required to attend a civil action or proceeding in the superior courts, are thirty-five dollars ($35) a day and mileage actually 6 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618v] Alo BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 traveled, both ways, twenty cents ($0.20) a mile.” Witness Stephen is seeking $396.46 in witness fees. The only explanation given for this cost is “J.P. Morgan Chase - Records.” Plaintiffs assume, despite the vague description,that this was the costs charged by J.P. Morgan Chase to provide Stephen with documents pursuant a subpoena. These are not recoverable as witness fees pursuant to CCP §1033.5, and Gov’t Code §68093. Further, Stephen never used, or even referenced, these documents during the trial. The documents were not relevant or necessary costs of litigation. For this reason, this entire cost of $396.46 should be taxed. d. Stephen’s Service of Process Costs are Unreasonable Costs related to service of process are recoverable under Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5(4). Stephen is seeking $461.00 for the service of his own daughter, Stephanie Sawyer. Stephanie lives in northern California. It is logical that the costs to serve Stephanie would be higher than serving a local witness. However, this amount is unreasonably high. Further, instead of trying to reach his own daughter when she was at home, or at least a neutral location, Stephen had his daughter served on stage, in front of at least 100 people, at an event she was speaking at in Oregon called Bioneers. Stephanie was so distraught after being served on stage by her own father, that she was unable to proceed with the questions and answers portion of her presentation. Therefore, $461.00 should be taxed. Stephen is also seeking costs for serving Gary Capata twice (11/29/17 - $110, and 1/11/18 - $25.00). The amount of $110.00 should therefore be taxed. In summary, $308.34 should be taxed (this reflects 54% of $571.00). e. Stephen’s Request for Court Reporter Fees is Unreasonable Recovery of “[c]ourt reporters fees as established by statute” is allowable. Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(11). Stephen’s Memorandum of Costs seeks a// of the Court Reporter fees paid by the Defendants at trial. However, the parties agreed prior to trial that the court reporter fees would be split in half - half to be paid by Plaintiffs and halfto be paid by Defendants. There were three defendants at trial, therefore, this cost should have been allocated three ways between Stephen. Jason and Sawyer & Sawyer. Stephen is only entitled to recover one third of this cost, 7 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618vI Ala BUCHALTER 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not 100%. Therefore, this costs should be taxed $27,882.27. At the very least this amount should be divided in half ($20,911.71), if the Court determines that Jason and Sawyer & Sawyer should bear half of the cost, rather than two-thirds. f. Stephen’s Request for Costs for Trial Exhibits is Unreasonable The cost of blowups, models and exhibits are not recoverable as a matter of right. Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(13) provides that costs for models and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits may be recovered only “if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” The initial trial date for this matter was set for January 16, 2018. Therefore, the parties were expected and required to meet and confer about exhibits in the weeks prior to work together to create a joint exhibit list. However, despite numerous email and phone calls from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Stephen’s counsel failed to meaningfully participate in this process. Plaintiffs were forced to create their own exhibit list, rather than a joint document, and proceed with preparing exhibit binders. Plaintiffs’ exhibits were prepared and ready for trial on January 16™ (and all documents had been exchanged pursuant to the code and local rules). Even after the trial was continued to January 29, 2018, Stephen’s counsel did not attempt to remedy this problem. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Stephen’s counsel had separate sets of exhibits for trial. Plaintiffs’ filed a motion in limine on this issue at the start of the trial>. The exhibit binders were almost identical, just organized in a different way. This led to confusion, duplicate documents and delay during the trial. Ultimately, almost all of the admitted exhibits came from Plaintiffs’ set. Further, Section 11 of Stephen’s Memorandum of Costs worksheet simply states that the cost was for “Trial exhibits” with no further explanation. This explanation provides no way for the court or for Plaintiffs to determine what specific amount can be allocated to costs for exhibits actually used at trial. (See Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 775 [trial exhibits, binders and tabs not useful to aid the trier of fact are not allowable as costs]; County ofRiverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616, 629 [request for recovery of costs for blow-ups and ? Plaintiffs” Motionin Limine No. 5 to Exclude All Evidence Not Previously Disclosed by Defendants. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 33035618vl BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 277 28 ATECcsiesen vn Corpoi es lenis photocopies properly denied whenitems not reasonably helpful to trial court].) For this reason, Stephen’s request for his costs to create exhibit binders could have been avoided and was unreasonable. Therefore, the amount of $3,847.23 should be taxed. g. Stephen’s Request for Fees for Electronic Filing is Unreasonable “Fees for the electronic filing or service of documents” is recoverable under CCP 1033.5(14). Stephen’s Memorandum of Costs seeks $774.77 in electronic filing costs. However, Stephen attaches no support for this amount. Plaintiffs have no way to determine whether these costs were reasonable or even attributable to this matter. As seen above, Stephen tried to include costs from other related matters in his Memorandum of costs. Until backup is provided for these costs, they should be taxed in their entirety, $774.77. IV. CONCLUSION Stephen’s claimed costs of $64,297.07 are unreasonable and excessive. For the reasons set forth above, these claimed costs should be taxed and the recoverable amount limited to $17,737.10. DATED: July 17,2018 BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation oo Memo Holby, IQHAEL W. CASPINO aM. HOLBROOK Me for Plaintiffs, WENDY SAWYER, SAWYER CONSULTING, LLC, SUNSET COAST PROPERTIES, LLC, WAW CONSULTING, IWC HOLDINGS, LLC, and INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. 9 PLAINTIFFS® MOTION TO TAX COSTS BN 330356181 Alen BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Corpora PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Tam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is at BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation, 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612-0514. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as: PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT STEPHEN SAWYER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on all other parties and/or their attorney(s) of record to this action by electronically serving [J] faxing and/or [J placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope as follows: [See attached Service List] 0 BY MAIL Iam readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The address(es) shown above is(are) the same as shown on the envelope. The envelope was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service at Buchalter in Irvine, California on July 17, 2018. The envelope wassealed and placed for collection and mailing with first-class prepaid postage on this date following ordinary business practices. UJ BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL I caused the above-named document(s) to be sent via facsimile transmission to the law office(s) and facsimile number(s) stated above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) properly issued by one or more of Buchalter’s Xerox 745 WorkCenter facsimile machine(s) [telephone number(s): (949) 720-0182 is(are) made a part ofthis proof of service pursuant to CRC §2.306. 1am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The correspondence will be deposited in an envelope with the United States Postal Service this day in the ordinary course of business for mailing to the address(es) shown above. The envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service at Buchalterin Irvine, California on July 17, 2018, following ordinary business practices. ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY On July 17, 2018, I placed the Federal Express/GSO Overnight Delivery package for overnight delivery in a box or location regularly maintained by Federal Express/GSO Overnight Delivery at my office, or I delivered the package to an authorized courier or driver authorized by Federal Express/GSO Overnight Delivery to receive documents. The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by Federal Express/GSO Overnight Delivery with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whomit is to be served at the address(es) shown above, as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause; otherwise at that party’s place ofresidence. Od BY PERSONAL DELIVERY On July 17,2018, I placed the above-referenced envelope or package in a box orlocation regularly maintained at my office for our messenger/courier service or I delivered the envelope or package to a courieror driver authorized by our messenger/courier service to receive documents. The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by our messenger/courier service with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whomit is to be personally served at the address(es) shown above as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause. The BN 20935274v] 1|| messenger/courier service was provided with instructions that the envelope or package be personally served on the addressee(s) by same day delivery (C.C.P. §1011). Ll BY EMAIL On July 17, 2018, I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent in 31 electronic PDF format as an attachmentto an email addressed to the person(s) on whom such document(s) is/are to be served at the email address(es) shown above, as last given by that 4|| person(s) or as obtained from an internet website(s) relating to such person(s), and I did not receive an email response upon sending such email indicating that such email was not delivered. 4] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE On July 17, 2018, via electronic transmission to 6|| OneLegal e-service via the Internet as a scanned image of the document. “a [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge. Executed on July 17, 2018,at Irvine, California. 10 11 Darci Watanabe \ | y/ (Sianaturd) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER EE RRST Paes 2 BN 20935274vl 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Sawyer v. Sawyer OCSC Case No. 30-2016-00855339-CU-FR-CJC 3 4|ll Edith R. Matthai Attorneys for Defendant, STEPHENSAWYER John Fitzgibbons >| ROBIE & MATTHAL Telephone: (213) 706-8000 6lll A Professional Corporation Facsimile: (213) 706-9913 500 S. Grand Ave, 15th Floor Email: ematthai@romalaw.com 71ll Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: jfitzgibbons@romalaw.com 8|i| Earll M. Pott Attorneys for Defendant, JASONSAWYER and KLINEDINST SAWYER & SAWYER, LLP 9 . 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-8131 10 ) Facsimile: (619) 238-8707 1 Email: epott@klinedinstlaw.com 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER to 3 BN 20935274 vi