Francisco Aguero vs. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc

Demurrer to Complaint

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 16, 2018

O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Gwen H. Ribar, Esq., SBN 188024 James J. Ramos, Esq., SBN 252916 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel. (949) 477-5050; Fax (949) 477-9200 Attorney for Defendant, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER FRANCISCO AGUERO, Case No.: 30-2018-00966988-CU-BT- CIC Plaintiff, NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND V. DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S and Does 1 through 50 COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF Defendants. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: May 18, 2018 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept. C-20 (Judge David R. Chaffee) Reservation No.: 72790652 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard in Department C-20 of the above-referenced Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, 92701, Defendant SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (“SPS” or “Defendant”), will demur to each and every cause of action alleged in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff FRANCISCO AGUERO (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds set forth in the accompanying Demurrer. -1- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT - The Demurrer is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §430.10(e) on the basis that Plaintiff’s fails to state facts sufficient to support any of the causes of action alleged against Defendants. This demurrer is based on this Notice of Hearing on Demurrer, the accompanying Demurrer and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action, and upon such further oral and/or documentary evidence as may be O O 0 N N O N W n B A W N N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O presented at the hearing on this matter. Dated: April 11, 2018 2 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP s/ James J. Ramos, Esq. Gwen H. Ribar, Esq., James J. Ramos, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O DEMURRER Defendant generally and specially demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each of the below enumerated causes of action contained therein, on the following grounds: The Entire Complaint Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each individual Cause of Action alleged therein, fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted in that Plaintiff lacks standing and because the entire Complaint is barred by res judicata. Additionally, each claim fails due to Plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the agreement on which his claims are based or set forth its verbatim terms. The First Cause of Action Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Quiet Title fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted in that Plaintiff has failed to discharge the underlying debt and because he has failed to allege facts to suggest why title should be quieted in his favor. Finally, this claim fails for the same reasons as do Plaintiff’s other Causes of Action. The Second Cause of Action Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Foreclosure fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted for the same reasons as do Plaintiff’s other Causes of Action. The Third Cause of Action Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted in that there was no valid contract between the parties and no breach by Defendant. In In In In In In In 3. NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O The Fourth Cause of Action Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for “Void or Cancel Assignment of Deed of Trust” fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted in that the underlying theory ofliability is without merit, the claim is time-barred, and because Plaintiff’s mere conclusions of law are insufficient to state a viable claim. Finally, this claim fails to allege the required specificity. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Dated: April 11, 2018 By: s/James J. Ramos, Esq. Gwen H. Ribar, Esq., James J. Ramos, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. 4- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION The Causes of Action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not belong to Plaintiff at all. Rather, these claims constitute property of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate. Only Plaintiffs bankruptcy trustee has standing to allege them. For this reason alone, each and every one of “Plaintiff’s” claims must be dismissed. Notwithstanding the above, the fact remains that each one of the claims alleged in the Complaint is barred by res judicata anyway. Indeed, this very court already dismissed a nearly-identical lawsuit involving these very same parties two years ago. As such, Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from re-asserting these same defective claims. Finally, each and every Cause of Action alleged is procedurally defective, as discussed in greater detail herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer must be granted. And, since Plaintiff has already enjoyed his bite at the proverbial litigation apple, leave to amend should be denied. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Loan and Plaintiff’s Default: On or about March 24, 2006, Plaintiff obtained a loan from Long Beach Mortgage Company in the amount of $478,400.00 (“the Loan”), the repayment of which was secured by a Deed of Trust (“Deed of Trust”) recorded against certain real property located at 4932 E. Budlong St., Anaheim, CA (“the Property™).' The Loan was eventually assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-4 (“the Trust”), as evidenced by an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded against the Property on June 23, 2009. After Plaintiff defaulted on his repayment obligations owing on the Loan, a Notice of Default was recorded against the Property on June 22, 2017.% After Plaintiff failed to cure the ' See Deed of Trust, attached to Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herein (“RIN”) as Exhibit “A.” * See Assignment of Deed of Trust,attached to RIN as Exhibit “B”. ? See Notice of Default,attached to RIN as Exhibit “C”. -5- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O arrearages owed on the Loan, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded against the Property on September25, 2017.4 The Litigation: In or around August 2014, Plaintiff filed suit in the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2014-00752094-CU-BC-CJC) against SPS wherein she sought to quiettitle to the Property and alleged that SPS had breached a modification contract between the parties (“First Action”).” In the First Action, Plaintiff alleged Causes of Action for Quiet Title, Breach of Contract, Fraud, and Negligence. The First Action was dismissed with prejudice after SPS’ Demurrer to the Complaint was sustained, Plaintiff failed to timely amend, and the Court granted SPS’ Motion to Dismiss due to said failure.’ Plaintiff filed a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy relief in January 2018.’ III. ARGUMENT California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section(s) 430.10(e)(f) and 430.30(a) allow a defendant to interpose general and special demurrers to a Complaint. Section 430.10 provides, in pertinent part: “the party against whom a complaint or cross complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer, as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible.” Furthermore, “without supporting facts demonstrating the illegality of a rule or regulation, an allegation that (the defendant) is in violation of a specific statute is purely conclusionary and insufficient to withstand demurrer.” Baker v. Miller (1923) 190 Cal. 263, 267, 212 P. 11; Joyce v. Tomasini (1914) 168 Cal. 234, 237-238, 142 P. 67; Taliaferro v. Wampler (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 306, 308, 273 P.2d 829; 3; Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. * See Notice of Trustees Sale, attached to RIN as Exhibit “D”. > See Complaintfiled in First Action,attached to RIN as Exhibit “E”. % See Notice of Ruling after Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Amend in First Action, attached to RIN as Exhibit “F”. 7 See Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy,attached to RIN as Exhibit “G.” -6- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O 1971) Pleading, s 272, pp. 1944, 1945. Instead, a Plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp., (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879. Moreover,if any element of a cause of action is negated, a demurrer to (that) cause of action is properly sustained. Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Company, Inc., et al. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4™ 736, 748. A. The Entire Complaint Lacks Facts Upon Which Relief May Be Granted. 1. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Any Causes of Action Alleged in the Complaint. Standing is typically treated as a threshold issue, in that without it no justiciable controversy exists. People v. Superior Crt. (Plascencia), (2002) 103Cal.App.4™ 409,420. “As a general principle, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justifiable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury...” Holmes v. California Nat. Guard, (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 297, 314-315. “Without standing, there is no actual or justifiable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.” Clifford S. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 747, 751. The Bankruptcy Code “defines property of the bankruptcy estate to include ‘all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” (citations). Danielson v. ITT Industrial Credit Co., (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 645, 655. “The scope of section 541 (of the Bankruptcy Code) is broad, and includes causes of action.” Id., citing Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., (9™ Cir.1986) 789 F.2d 705, 707. More specifically, “a Chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee.” Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank, (1997) 52 Cal.App.4™ 1075, 1081. Plaintiff filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on January 17, 2018 - Just a day after initiating the instant case.® At that time, all of Plaintiff's property, including this action, became property of Plaintiff's bankruptcy estate. As such, they remain property of his bankruptcy estate and Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute any of them. -7- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m c o N N B n R A W N Y D = O O N Y N R W N D = O 2. Each Cause of Action is Barred by Res Judicata. The purpose of res judicata is to promote judicial economy by preventing parties from re-litigating claims and issues that have already been decided. Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., (2002) 28 Cal4® 888, 896. It is well settled that where the causes of action and the parties are the same or in privity with one another, a prior judgment is a complete bar to any subsequent second action. Sutphin v. Speik (1940) 15 Cal.2d 195, 201; Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896. Furthermore, res judicata even bars those claims which should have been raised by the plaintiff in the previous action. In fact, even where a matter was not in fact expressly plead or otherwise urged, a judgment is conclusive on that matter where the matter was within the scope of the action, related to the subject-matter, and relevant to the issues, such that it could have been raised. Sutphin, supra, 15 Cal. 2d. at p. 202. The driving force behind this doctrine is that a party cannot by negligence, or design, withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions. Therefore, a prior judgmentis res judicata on matters which were raised or could have been raised, on matters litigated or litigable. Id. The crux of Plaintiff’s Complaint - whether Defendant breached a purported modification agreement between the parties - was the subject of Plaintiffs First Action. The First Action resulted in a final judgment being entered in favor of SPS.” Plaintiff may not relitigate these claims and/or issues again against SPS. Accordingly, the entire Complaint should be dismissed on res judicata grounds. 3. Each Cause of Action Fails Due to Plaintiff’s Refusal to Attach Copy of Agreement. Where a written instrument serves as the foundation for any Cause of Action, “...the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written instrument must be attached and incorporated by reference.” Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 459. ¥ See Petition for Bankruptcy, attached to RIN as Exhibit “G.” ? See Notice of Ruling, attached to RIN as Exhibit “F.” -8- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O Each one of Plaintiff’s claims arises from Defendant’s breach of a supposed modification agreement between the parties. Specifically, Plaintiff insists that, after his loan was modified, he “was made aware of the fact that he was being required to make a higher payment” than that to which the parties agreed.” And, yet, Plaintiff curiously refuses to attach a copy of the loan modification agreement in question. Nor does Plaintiff set forth its verbatim terms. It remains unclear whether Plaintiff’s failure to do either was intentional or whether it represents a purposeful attempt to avoid evidence which disproves his theory of liability. What is clear, however, is that his failure to attach the agreement on which each one of his claims is based or set forth its verbatim terms renders each such claim defective. As such, the entire Complaint should be dismissed. B. The First Cause of Action for Quiet Title Lacks Sufficient Facts. A quiet title action is maintained to establish or quiet title to or an interest in real property as between adverse claimants. C.C.P. §760.010 et seq. 1. Failure to Discharge Debt Owed. It has long been held that the only way for a mortgagor in possession to quiet histitle against the mortgagee is to pay it. Burns v. Hiatt, (1906) 149 Cal. 617, 621. To allow otherwise would go “against general equitable principles and adjudicated cases.” Thus, “the cloud upon [one’s] title persists until the debt is paid.” Aguilar v. Bocci, (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 475,477-478; See also Jozinovich v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 234895, N.D. Cal., 2010. There are no facts to suggest that Plaintiff has satisfied the underlying debt in this case.!! In the absence of such facts, Plaintiff’s claim for Quiet Title necessarilyfails. 2. No Facts to Suggest Title Should be Quieted in Plaintiffs’ Favor. A plaintiff pursuing an action to quiet title can prevail only upon the strength of his owntitle and not upon the weakness ofthe title of his adversaries. Cohn v. Klein, (1930) 209 Cal.421, 424; Patchett v. Webber, (1926) 198 Cal.440, 451. In this case, Plaintiff has 10 See Plaintiffs Complaint, {[7. "See Plaintiff's Complaint, in general. 9- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O presented no facts whatsoever to suggest that he is entitled to have title to the Property quieted in his name. Even if, as Plaintiff suggests, SPS breached a modification agreement between the parties, such does not warrant the delivery of free and clear title to Plaintiff. As such, this claim necessarily fails. 3. This Claim Rises and Falls with Plaintiff’s Other Causes of Action. Plaintiff’s claim for Quiet Title fails to allege facts upon which relief may be granted as against Defendant for all of the same reasons as do his other Causes of Action (as explained in greater detail, herein). C. The Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Foreclosure Lacks Sufficient Facts. Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for “Wrongful Foreclosure” should be dismissed for all of the reasons as their other defective claims (as discussed in greater detail herein). D. The Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Lacks Sufficient Facts. A Cause of Action for breach of contract requires a pleading of the following: (a) the contract; (b) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance; (c) Defendant’s breach; and (d) damage to Plaintiff. B.E. Witkin, California -Procedure, Vol. 4 Pleading §515, pg. 648 (WEST 5" Ed., 2008). 1. There Was No Valid Contract Between the Parties. Plaintiff argues that he “was a willing participant with the financial means by which to enter into a contract and/or modification” and that he “believed that he would be given a payment plan and/or re-structure the payment for the mortgage.”" But, such an allegationis tantamount to an admission that the parties never actually did enter into an agreement. Notwithstanding the above, “[w]here a contract is so uncertain and indefinite that the intention of the parties in material particulars cannot be ascertained, the contract is void and unenforceable.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 770. When it comes to the enforcement of a purported promise to modify a loan, the absence of essential loan modification terms such as the amount of the loan, the interest rate, etc. renders an alleged promise too clear and ambiguous to support promissory estoppel. Daniels v. Select -10- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1179. There is nothing here to suggest that the parties ever even discussed the new interest rate, monthly payment, principal balance, life of the loan, let alone reached an actual agreement to modify the terms of the subject loan.” In the absence of such facts, Plaintiff's claim for Breach of Contract necessarily fails. 2. There Has Been No Breach. Plaintiff suggests that “it is the defendants who have breached their agreement by failing and refusing to represent the interests of plaintiff...in obtaining a plan of payment.” Of course, there is nothing to suggest that Defendant ever agreed to undertake such a contractual obligation.” As such, there are no facts here to suggest that, if Defendant truly failed to represent Plaintiff’s interests, then said conduct constituted a breach of any contractual duty. Accordingly, this claim fails. E. The Fourth Cause of Action for “Void or Cancel Assignment of Deed of Trust” Lacks Sufficient Facts. 1. The Underlying Theory of this Claim is Without Merit. Plaintiff insists that the Deed of Trust and/ or the Assignment of Deed of Trust should be cancelled because “SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC was not registered in California and could not prepare or execute the Assignment of Deed of Trust.”'® The problem, of course, is that SPS did not sign the Deed of Trust or the Assignment of Deed of Trust.” Since the underlying theory on which this claim is without merit, so too is the individual claim. As such, it should be dismissed. 2. Plaintiff’s Mere Conclusions of a Void Assignment Insufficient to State Viable Claim. As touched on above, in order to survive an attack by demurrer, a Complaint must state more than just speculative legal conclusions. Rather, it must allege ultimate facts, not 12 See Plaintiffs Complaint, 30. "> See Plaintiff's Complaint, in general. 14 See Plaintiff's Complaint, 31. '* See Plaintiff's Complaint, in general. 16 See Plaintiffs Complaint, 36. '" See Deed of Trust and Assignment of Deed of Trust,attached to RIN a Exhibits “A” and “B”, respectively. -11- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O evidentiary facts or conclusions of law. Logan v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 116, 126. A plaintiff cannot avoid this duty by simply reciting unfounded “contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” Ashou v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., (2006) 138 Cal.App.4™ 748, 755. Plaintiff simply concludes, without any supporting facts whatsoever, that SPS was not registered to do business in California.’ But, in the absence of any actual facts, Plaintiff’s mere conclusion is not sufficient to support a viable Cause of Action. 3. This Claim is Time-Barred Anyway. A Cause of Action for cancellation is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Code of Civil Procedure §343. Here, Plaintiff’s loan was funded in 2006, more than ten years ago." The Assignment of Deed of Trust was signed in 2009.° Thus, Plaintiff’s opportunity to assert his rights expired long ago. As such, this claim should be dismissed as stale. 4. Failure to Allege Claim with Required Degree of Specificity. An action for cancellation cannot be pleaded generally. Rather, where a plaintiff seeks to cancel a specific instrument that clouds title (as Plaintiff does in this case by targeting the Deed of Trust, itself), she must specifically allege the facts demonstrating the invalidity of the instrument under attack. Wolfe v. Lipsy (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 633, 638. As stated above, Plaintiff’s attack on the validity of the Deed of Trust, the Substitution of Trustee, or the Assignment of Deed of Trust is bereft of any supporting facts, much less specific ones which support his conclusion. As such, this claim fails. In In In In In In '% See Plaintiff’s Complaint, in general. 19 See Deed of Trust, attached to RIN as Exhibit “A.” -12- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT O O 0 N N L n B A W D = N N N N N N N N N E E e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 N N O N L n k A W I N D = O 0 N N N N R W = O IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. And, given that Plaintiff has already enjoyed his day in Court, leave to amend in this action should be denied. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Dated: April 11, 2018 By: s/James J. Ramos, Esq. Gwen H. Ribar, Esq., James J. Ramos, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. *% See Assignment of Deed of Trust, attached to RIN as Exhibit “B.” -13- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT ~ ~ w o o O 0 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Barbara Espinoza, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1 am readily familiar with the practices of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. On April 11, 2018,I served the within NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF onall interested partiesin this action as follows: [X] by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Francisco Aguero 4932 E. Budlong Street Anaheim, CA 92807 Tel.: (657) 218-4947; Fax: (657) 900-2884 Plaintiff In Pro Per [X] (BY MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope(s) for collection to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices. [] (BY CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope(s) for collection to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. [] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused personal delivery by ATTORNEY SERVICE of said document(s) to the offices of the addressee(s) as set forth on the attached service list. [] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used, with telephone no. (949) 477-9200, complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to the original Proof of Service. [] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT- NEXT DAY DELIVERY) I placed true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a package designated by Federal Express Overnight with the delivery fees provided for. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 11, 2018, at Newport Beach, California. BE0 pendze Barbara Espinoza 1 PROOF OF SERVICE