Motion To Set asideMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 18, 2018AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED RHEMA LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation Superior Court of California, John D. Tran, Esq. SBN 231761 County of Orange Rosalind T. Ong, Esq. SBN 234326 qn 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600 ls Hoe A Irvine, California 92614 Clerk of the Superior Court Telephone: (949) 852-4430 ov Alan silva. Deputy Clerk Facsimile: (866) 929-3519 Email: rto@rhemalaw.com Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants, BLS NAIL RESORT, INC. [erroneously sued under the name "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc."], and LE NHI LAM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ANDY'S HOMEWORK, Case No. 30-2018-00967927-CU-BC-CJC Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable Geoffrey T. Glass in Department C31 V. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BLS NAIL RESORT, INC. a/k/a BLS NAIL SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT RESORT, LAGUNA HILLS, INC.; LE NHI AGAINST DEFENDANT BLS NAIL LAM, an individual; and Does 1 to 10 RESORT, INC. [C.C.P. § 473(d)], AND TO inclusive, QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS [C.C.P. § 418.10]; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Defendants. AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LE NHI LAM; DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. Filed Concurrently With: 1. Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Motion, etc.; 2. [Proposed] Order; and 3. Proof of Service Hearing Date: 11/05/2018 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Hearing Dept.: C31 Original Complaint Filed: January 18, 2018 -i- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 5, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon after that as the matter can be heard, in Department C31 of the above-entitled Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Specially Appearing Defendants BLS NAIL RESORT, INC., a California corporation [erroneously sued under the name "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc."] (hereinafter, "BLS NAIL RESORT") and LE NHI LAM, an individual (hereinafter "LAM") [collectively, referred to as "Specially Appearing Defendants"], will make a special appearance to move the Court to set aside the clerk's entry of] default that was entered against BLS NAIL RESORT on August 27, 2018 by Plaintiff ANDY'S HOMEWORK ("PLAINTIFF"), under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). In addition, Specially Appearing Defendants will move the Court for an order quashing the service of Summons upon them due to lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1). This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), on the ground that the clerk's entry of default is void because it was obtained as a result of PLAINTIFF's improper and fraudulent service of summons upon BLS NAIL RESORT, and therefore, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over said specially appearing defendant. As more fully set forth in the attached declarations and the exhibits attached thereto, proper service was never effectuated on BLS NAIL RESORT because no person, authorized to accept service on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT was ever personally served at the address listed on the proof of service, which is BLS NAIL RESORT's principal place of business. In fact, the proof of service is also defective on its face because it fails to name the person who was allegedly served on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. Since there is substantial evidence showing PLAINTIFF's process server fraudulently falsified his declaration regarding service and the proof of service itself is defective on its face, the default is void and must be set aside. Furthermore, this Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1), for an order quashing service of summons upon Specially Appearing Defendants on grounds that service on said defendants were never effectuated, and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over said defendants. In addition, LAM is named as a party defendant in the summons and the caption -ii- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the complaint, but she is not named as an party defendant in the actual complaint itself. Since she is not a party to the action, the summons is therefore, defective, invalid, and lacks any legal effect. Based on these reasons, the Court should quash service of summons on Specially Appearing Defendants BLS NAIL RESORT and LAM. The Motions shall be based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the attached Declarations of Le Nhi Lam and Rosalind T. Ong, Esq., and the exhibits attached thereto, the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith, the files and records of this case, and on such other and further oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. DATED: October 8, 2018 RHEMA LAW GROUP, PC BY: J ond D. Tran (/ Rosalind T. Ong Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants, BLS NAIL RESORT, INC. (erroneously named and sued as "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc.) and LE THI LAM -11i- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS 7 (£5 #47 AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES coi seceetesteesee eee saee se neeeese ee seaeseeee vi MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......coooiiiiiiiiiteenene cece cece 1 LL. STATEMENT OF FACTS .... oot sects sree eevee nee 1 A. Background Facts Regarding The Underlying Dispute........c.cccooveeeieeniinnieniccneennen. 1 B. Plaintiff Initiates This Action Against BLS Nail Resort And Lam, But Fails To Name Lam As A Party Defendant In Its Complaint ...........ccccccoeveennenen. 2 C. Specially Appearing Defendants First Learn Of This Action In End Of April 2018, But Were Never Properly Served With The Summons And Complaitit In This ACOH cm mn samme 3 D. Plaintiff Files A Proof Of Service Claiming Lam Was Personally Served On April 20, 2018, When Lam was Never Properly Served ..........cccceuueeeeee. 4 E. Counsel For Specially Appearing Defendants Attempts To Contact Plaintiff's Counsel Regarding The Service Issues, With No Success.......c..ccocueeneeee. 5 F. Plaintiff Files Two Proofs Of Service On August 15 and 27, Claiming It Personally Served "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." And "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." At The Same Time It Purportedly Served Lam .........coccooiiiiiiiiiiiniiniincececeene ce 6 G. BLS Nail Resort Learns About The Default On September 21, 2018 And Then Files This Motion Within A Reasonable Time...........cccccceevieenenee. 7 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT .....coitiiiie ects certs eect eserves esas sree senses 8 A. The Default Should Be Set Aside Because BLS Nail Resort Was Never Properly Served With Summons And Complaint...........ccoceevieeieinieennennnenn 8 1. There Was No Actual Personal Service Made on a Person on Behalf of BLS Nail RESOIt .......cocueeiiiiiiinieeieceeerec c ce cece 9 2. Plaintiff's Proofs of Service Are Incomplete, Defective on Their Face, and Therefore, Invalid ..........ccoooviviviiiimiiiiiiiiieiiiiiiieee ee 10 3. BLS Nail Resort Was Never Provided Proper Notice of the DEfaULL concer 11 4. The Law Favors Disposing of Cases on Their Merits.........cccccvveenveeneennee. 12 B. The Court Should Quash Service Of Summons On Specially Appearing Defendants Because Said Defendants Were Never Properly Served ......coei oii eee eee 12 -iv- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Plaintiff's Proofs of Service Contained False Declarations Because Defendants Were Never Served ......ooooovvvveveeiieiieiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeevennnnn 2. The Summons Is Defective Because Lam Is Not a Named Party Defendant In The Complaint...........cccoovevieeieiniinnieniecececeee e II. CONCLUSION Loita eases ea -V- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Machine Com SRL v. Sup. Ct. (2010) 112 Cal.App.4th 414 ...oocvviriiiiiie cee 12 Au-Yang v. Barton (1999) 21 Cal.dth O58... eects eset eee essere ee eaaae eee 8 Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal. App.4th 1426.......ccoviiiniiriiiiiiiniececeeen. 9,10 Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227 .....uueieieeiieee cetera sees eee essere eee vae aes 8 Fasuyiv. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App.4th 681 .......cooviiiiiiiiiiiiieececeeee 8,11 Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal. APP.3d 1457 ..couiiiieieiieeieeeeect ee 13, 14 Kline v. Beauchamp et al. (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d. 340, 342 .....coeiiiiiiiiiiiienieeereeeieene 13, 14, 15 Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.APP.Ath 1154 o.oo eee eee 13, 14 Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cap. App.4th 558... eee eee eee 9,10 Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1434. coerce 9 Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal. App.4th 1145... .c.uoiiiiiiiiieeeeee eee 12,13 Rutterberg v. Rutterberg (1997) 53 Cal. App.4th 801 ......ccoviiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeecee cec ee 13, 14 Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 2B cmc csmas osm mmm cn ecm soma sms ss 5 1 SS GO 5 FR OFS 4 RR REA AS 13 Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App.4th 403........cooiiiiiiiiiieee ee 13, 14 Statutes Code Civil Procedure, §§ 413.10, © SEQ. «ueeouteeeriieeiiieeitie cit s etter ees ee s be ee sib ee sabe es sbae es saa eens 8 Code Civil Procedure, § 416.10 .......ueeeeeeeeieieeeeieiieieieieintsetsesvsvaesrsesraessasssssasssssassssssssessasasseasnsnennes 9,10 Code Civil Procedure, § 416.10, SUDA. (8) ...uvvieieiiiiiiiiiieieee cece ect eee eects e ee errre area eee eens 9 Code Civil Procedure, § 416.10, SUDA. (D) ...uvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieee ieee eee eects e eee evar ease ee eans 9 Code Civil Procedure, § 417.10, SUDA. (8) ...uvvieiiiieiieiiiiiieee cece eee ects er s 9,10 Code Civil Procedure, § 418.10, Subd. (Q)(1)...ccciiiiiiiiiiiieiie ieee eects 12,13 Code Civil Procedure, § 418.10, SUDA. (A) ..vvvvreiiiiiiiiiiiiieieee cece eee e eee eae 12 Code Civil Procedure, § 473, subd. (A) ...cocouvrieiiieeieeiieeeee eects eee sees errr ar eee ee eans 8 -Vi- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 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. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Background Facts Regarding The Underlying Dispute. Specially appearing defendant, Le Nhi Lam (hereinafter "LAM"), was and is the acting operations manager for the corporations, BLS Nail Resort, Inc. ("BLS NAIL RESORT") and BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. ("BLS LAGUNA HILLS"]. (See Declaration of Le Nhi Lam ["Lam Decl."], | 2, attached hereto.) BLS NAIL RESORT is a completely separate corporate entity than BLS NAIL LAGUNA HILLS. (Lam Decl., 2; see also true and correct copies of Articles of] Incorporation for BLS Nail Resort, Inc. filed on September 22, 2016, and Articles of Incorporation for BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. filed on May 22, 2017, obtained from California Secretary of State's website, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively.) BLS NAIL RESORT was involved in the original lease and buildout of the storefront located on 26532 Moulton Parkway in Laguna Hills, California (“Storefront”), and owns various rights in intellectual property, among other things, but does not provide any services to the public. (Lam Decl., 3.) BLS LAGUNA HILLS was established after the buildout of the Storefront and provides nail manicures and pedicures, and other cosmetology services to the public through the Storefront. (Lam Decl., 3.) Prior to the operation and grand opening of the Storefront, all rights, liabilities, inventory and assets of BLS NAIL RESORT were transferred to BLS LAGUNA HILLS, with the exception of the intellectual property rights, which were licensed to BLS LAGUNA HILLS. (Lam Decl., {4.) In or about April 2017, BLS NAIL RESORT worked with a man named Lawrence Loh to assist BLS NAIL RESORT in the buildout and construction of the Storefront. (Lam Decl., { 5.) During that time, Mr. Loh worked with a contractor named Andy Wong, who is believed to be the owner of the company, Plaintiff Andy’s Homework ("PLAINTIFF"). (Lam Decl., {5.) Based on information and belief, Mr. Loh worked with and for Mr. Wong to provide construction services on the Storefront and the signature on the alleged proposal contract attached to PLAINTIFF’s Complaint is Mr. Loh's signature. (Lam Decl., 5.) Mr. Loh is not and has never been an agent, owner, representative, or employee of BLS NAIL RESORT or BLS LAGUNA HILLS, and has -1- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 never been authorized to represent these companies in any way. (Lam Decl., 6.) In fact, Mr. Loh was only an acquaintance for both parties and may have worked for PLAINTIFF at some point, buf] he was never authorized to make decisions or to sign anything on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. (Lam Decl., 6.) Nevertheless, PLAINTIFF did perform some work on the Storefront located in Laguna Hills and BLS NAIL RESORT paid PLAINTIFF in cash installments for various work to be done. (Lam| Decl., 7.) However, PLAINTIFF's work was subpar, untimely, and PLAINTIFF failed to finish a large amount of construction on the Storefront, forcing BLS NAIL RESORT to have to hire another contractor to finalize the Storefront’s construction. (Lam Decl., { 7.) PLAINTIFF'S failure to complete the work caused BLS NAIL RESORT to incur major financial damage. (Lam Decl., {[7.) B. PLAINTIFF Initiates This Action Against BLS NAIL RESORT And LAM, But Fails To Name LAM As A Party Defendant In Its Complaint. On or around January 18, 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a complaint ("COMPLAINT") for breach of contract based on the purported underlying contract between PLAINTIFF and BLS NAIL RESORT. (See PLAINTIFF's Complaint filed on January 18, 2018, a true and correct copy of] which is attached as Exhibit "1" to the Request for Judicial Notice ["RIN"], filed concurrently herewith.) In the COMPLAINT, it is unclear whether PLAINTIFF is suing BLS NAIL RESORT, BLS LAGUNA HILLS, or both entities, because the COMPLAINT names the party defendant erroneously as "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." (See COMPLAINT filed by PLAINTIFF, Exh. "1" to RIN.) PLAINTIFF's COMPLAINT is on the standard Judicial Council form used for complaints based on a contract. (/bid.) Although LAM's name is in the title caption of the COMPLAINT as an individual defendant, PLAINTIFF completely fails to name LAM as an individual party defendant in the COMPLAINT itself. (See 1, on p. 1 of the COMPLAINT, Exh. "1" to RIN.) Only BLS NAIL, RESORT (sued under the erroneous name) is named as a defendant. (Ibid.) The COMPLAINT also fails to specify the amount of damages PLAINTIFF seeks from defendants. (/bid.) ' For the sake of this motion, BLS NAIL RESORT assumes it is the proper party being sued by PLAINTIFF since it was the party who provided payment for PLAINTIFF's partial work. 2- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On or about January 31, 2018, the Court issued a Summons ("SUMMONS") on the COMPLAINT, with LAM named as a individual defendant. (See SUMMONS filed by PLAINTIFF on January 31, 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "2" to RIN.) Based on the Court's docket, it does not appear that PLAINTIFF filed any amendment to the COMPLAINT or a "doe" amendment to add LAM as a party defendant to the COMPLAINT. (See printout of Court's online case docket for this action on September 21, 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "3" to RIN.) C. Specially Appearing Defendants First Learn Of The Action In End Of April 2018, But Were Never Properly Served With The Summons And Complaint In This Action. During the period from when the Summons was issued on January 31, 2018 until end of] April 2018, neither BLS NAIL RESORT nor LAM had any knowledge of the lawsuit. (Lam Decl., 8.) According to LAM, she was never personally served with any copy of the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT in this action or served with any documents relating to this action by a process server, either as an individual or on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. (Lam Decl., 9.) In addition, no employee at BLS NAIL RESORT's principal place of business located at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address, was ever served with a copy of the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT in this action. (Lam Decl., 9.) Around the end of April 2018, LAM first learned of the lawsuit against her and BLS NAIL RESORT when an attorney named Carl A. Lindstrom, Esq. located in San Jose, California, contacted LAM as a courtesy to let her know he had received a copy of a COMPLAINT and then emailed it to her. (Lam Decl., { 8.) Mr. Lindstrom never represented BLS NAIL RESORT or LAM as either party's attorney in any capacity whatsoever, nor was Mr. Lindstrom a person authorized to accept service on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT or LAM, and he is not listed as the agent for service of process for BLS NAIL RESORT or BLS LAGUNA HILLS with the Secretary of State. (Lam Decl., {8.) 1" 1 3 MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. PLAINTIFF Files A Proof Of Service Claiming LAM Was Personally Served On April 20, 2018, When LAM Was Never Properly Served. Thereafter, LAM asked attorney Rosalind T. Ong, Esq., to assist her with a potential action against her and BLS NAIL RESORT, which is the current action arising out of the COMPLAINT filed by PLAINTIFF. (See Declaration of Rosalind T. Ong, Esq. in Support of Motion to Quash, etc. ["Ong Decl."], 2, attached hereto.) On or about April 30, 2018, Ms. Ong checked the Court's case docket online and did not see any proof of service filed by PLAINTIFF. (Ong Decl., 2.) Ms. Ong attempted to contact opposing counsel hoping to resolve the matter to avoid further litigation, to discuss about the improper service on Mr. Lindstrom, the attorney who did not even represent the Specially Appearing Defendants, and the issues with the erroneous names in the COMPLAINT. (Ong Decl., 2.) On April 30, 2018, Ms. Ong telephoned PLAINTIFF's counsel, Peter Nisson, Esq., with the telephone number listed on PLAINTIFF's pleadings. (Ong Decl., 3.) When Ms. Ong was unable to reach a live person at Mr. Nisson's office, she intended to leave a voicemail but the mailbox stated it could not accept any voice messages at that time. (Ong Decl., 3.) That same day, Ms. Ong emailed Mr. Nisson using his e-mail address listed on PLAINTIFF's pleadings (peternisson @ gmail.com), but then received no response back from Mr. Nisson. (Ong Decl., {3.) In the meantime, LAM anticipated that she and BLS NAIL RESORT would be served at some point since BLS NAIL RESORT's Storefront was opened seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. everyday, and the corporation had an agent for service of process listed on California Secretary of State's website. (Lam Decl., 9.) Thus, it was impossible for BLS NAIL RESORT to avoid service, and LAM was in no way avoiding service herself. (Lam Decl., 10.) After almost two months passed since the Specially Appearing Defendants first learned of] the lawsuit, and to the parties’ knowledge, no attempted service was made upon the Specially Appearing Defendants, Ms. Ong checked the case docket on the Court's website online on June 20, 2018, and discovered PLAINTIFF had filed a proof of service on May 21, 2018 relating to purported service on LAM. (Ong Decl., 4; see Proof of Service of Summons filed by PLAINTIFF on May 21, 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "4" to RIN.) Ms. Ong was 4- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shocked to learn that in the Proof of Service was filed by PLAINTIFF, and that the process server alleges he personally served LAM as an individual on April 20, 2018 at the Storefront located at 26532 Moulton Parkway. (Ong Decl., { 5; see also Proof of Service, Exh. "4" to RIN.) According to LAM, she was never personally served at anytime or anywhere. (Lam Decl., {{ 8-9.) Moreover, Ms. Ong thought it was strange that the process server did not serve BLS NAIL RESORT at the same time since it was the same location and no other proof of service regarding BLS NAIL RESORT had been filed according to the Court's case docket online. (Ong Decl., 6.) Ms. Ong also believed PLAINTIFF did not serve BLS NAIL RESORT by any other means such as substituted service, because according to LAM, none of the employees at the Storefront or the agent] for service of process received any lawsuit papers. (Ong Decl., 6; Lam Decl., 9.) E. Counsel For Specially Appearing Defendants Attempts To Contact PLAINTIFF's Counsel Regarding The Service Issues, But With No Success. That same day Ms. Ong learned about the proof of service filed, Ms. Ong once again attempted to contact Mr. Nisson via telephone and against was unable to reach a live person or even leave a voicemail because of a message stating the mailbox was full. (Ong Decl., {7.) Later that day, Ms. Ong emailed Mr. Nisson and sent via certified U.S. mail a written correspondence to his office address listed on his pleadings as "1530 North Coast Highway, Unit B, Laguna Beach, CA 92651." (Ong Decl., | 7; see also correspondence dated June 20, 2018 from Ms. Ong to Mr. Nisson, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "C" to Ong Decl.) In Ms. Ong's June 20, 2018 letter, she explained BLS RESORT NAIL and BLS LAGUNA HILLS were separate entities, so PLAINTIFF needed to clarify in an amended complaint whether it was suing BLS RESORT NAIL only, or BLS LAGUNA HILLS, or both entities. (Ong Decl., { 8; see correspondence, Exh. "C" attached hereto.) Ms. Ong also indicated that LAM was never personally served, so the Proof of Service filed May 21, 2018 was defective since it based on a false statement of service. (Ong Decl., 9; see correspondence, Exh. "C" attached hereto.) Ms. Ong also stated that she would not bring a motion to quash and would accept service on behalf of the named defendants, if PLAINTIFF agreed to amend its COMPLAINT to clarify the named party defendants and allow defendants 35 days to respond to the amended complaint. (Ong Decl., q 10; see Exh. "C" -5- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attached hereto.) Although Ms. Ong's letter was sent via certified mail and e-mail, her office never received any response whatsoever from Mr. Nisson. (Ong Decl., { 11.) In fact, Ms. Ong's office received the unopened envelope containing her June 20 letter to Mr. Nisson returned and stamped "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As Addressed, Unable to Forward." (Ong Decl., 11; see also a true and correct copy of the unopened envelope returned from PLAINTIFF's counsel's address, attached as Exh. "D" to Ong Decl.) In the beginning of August 2018, Ms. Ong attempted once again to contact PLAINTIFF's attorney through telephone and email with no success. (Ong Decl., 12.) F. Plaintiff Files Two Proofs Of Service On August 15 and 27, Claiming It Personally Served "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." And "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." At The Same Time It Purportedly Served Lam. On or about August 15, 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a Proof of Service stating "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." had been purportedly served at the same 26532 Moulton Parkway address on the same April 20, 2018 date and time when LAM had been purportedly personally served. (See Proof of] Service of Summons filed on or about August 15, 2018 by PLAINTIFF, a true and copy of which is attached as Exhibit "5" to RIN.) This Proof of Service appears to be an exact replica of] PLAINTIFF's proof of service filed on May 21, 2018 regarding LAM's service. (See both Proofs of] Service filed by PLAINTIFFS on May 15 and August 15, 2018, attached as Exhs. "4" and "5", respectively, to RIN.) The August 15, 2018 Proof of Service states the party served was "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." but fails to state the name of the person who was served on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT, and the entity was served "as an individual defendant." (See | 3a, 3b, and 6a of Proof] of Service filed by PLAINTIFF on August 15, 2018, Exh. "5" to RIN.) On or about August 27, 2018, PLAINTIFF again filed another Proof of Service, stating it had served this time "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." at the same 26532 Moulton Parkway address, on the same April 20, 2018 date, and at the same exact time, as "LAM" and "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." were purported served as stated on PLAINTIFF's other proofs of service. (See Proof of Service filed on or about August 27, 2018 by PLAINTIFF, a true and -6- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 correct copy of which is attached as Exh. "6" to RIN.) The August 27, 2018 Proof of Service has the same errors as the August 15, 2018 Proof of Service in that it fails to name the exact person served on behalf of the corporate entity, but instead, it states the entity was served "as an individual defendant." (See Exhs. "5" and "6" to RIN.) The August 27, 2018 Proof of Service does not appear to be an amended proof of service for the August 15, 2018 Proof of Service. (See Exhs. "5" and "6" to RIN.) G. BLS NAIL RESORT Learns About The Default On September 21, 2018 And Then Files This Motion Within A Reasonable Time. On or about the same day PLAINTIFF filed its August 27, 2018 Proof of Service, it obtained an entry of default against BLS NAIL RESORT only, and not LAM. (See Request For Entry Of Default against BLS NAIL RESORT filed by PLAINTIFF on August 27, 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exh. "7" to RIN.) On or about September 21, 2018, Ms. Ong, counsel for Specially Appearing Defendants, learned that a clerk's entry of default had been entered against BLS NAIL RESORT, but not LAM, when she checked the case docket online. (Ong Decl., 13.) To Ms. Ong's knowledge, BLS NAIL RESORT had not been served yet with the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT, because according to LAM, no one at BLS NAIL RESORT's 26532 Moulton Parkway location received any documents relating to the lawsuit, nor did its agent for service of process. (Ong Decl., | 13; Lam Decl., 9.) Therefore, Ms. Ong had no reason to believe a default could be taken against BLS NAIL RESORT until it was served or at the very least attempted service was made. (Ong Decl., 13.) Furthermore, the Request For Entry Of Default indicates the declarant mailed a copy of said request on July 9, 2018 to BLS NAIL RESORT's 26532 Moulton Parkway location. (See Section 6b. of PLAINTIFF's Request For Entry Of Default, Exh. "7" to RIN.) However, BLS NAIL RESORT never received a copy of the Request For Entry Of Default, so it had no prior notice that PLAINTIFF intended to obtain a default against it, or that service had even been effectuated. (Lam Decl., 9.) Immediately upon learning of the default against it, the Specially Appearing Defendants bring forth this motion to set aside the entry of default taken against BLS NAIL RESORT on the -7- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 basis the default is void since the alleged service on said corporation was based on a false declaration of service. (Ong Decl., 14.) In addition, this motion is brought forth requesting an order quashing the service of summons upon both BLS NAIL RESORT and LAM because both were never properly served, and because PLAINTIFF's service of the summons on LAM is defective, invalid, and has no legal effect when she is not specifically named as a party defendant in the COMPLAINT. (Ong Decl., 14.) IL. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The Default Should Be Set Aside Because BLS NAIL RESORT Was Never Actually Served With The Summons And Complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subsection (d) states in pertinent part: The Court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).) Section 473 is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to see relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) In such situations, very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default. (Ibid.) Moreover, because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (/bid.) The policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits, and it looks with| disfavor upon a party, who, regardless of the merits of the case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary. (Au-Yang v. Barton (1999) 21 Cal.4th 958, 963.) The rules pertaining to defaults and default judgments must be precisely followed to ensure that a defaulting defendant is aware of plaintiff's claims. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 691.) Entry of default requires proper service of summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 413.10, et seq.) If a defendant is not validity served with a summons and complaint, the court lacks personal jurisdiction and a default judgment in such action is subject to being set aside as void. -8- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cap.App.4th 558, 563-564.) Effecting service on a corporation requires delivery of summons and complaint to some person on behalf of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10; see also Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1437.) It must appear that the person served is in fact aj person who may be served on behalf of the corporation. (/bid.) Service may be made upon the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or CFO, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process such as an agent for service of] process. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 416.10(a) & (b); see also Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal. App.4th 1434, 1443-1444 [no substantial compliance where plaintiff used none of] the methods prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure to serve defendant corporation].) If personal service was made within California to a corporation or entity, the process server's declaration on the proof of service must show the name and capacity of the person served on its behalf. (Code Civ. Proc., § 417.10(a).) 1. There Was No Actual Personal Service Made on A Natural Person on Behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. BLS NAIL RESORT is an established corporate entity incorporated within the State of] California, with its principal place of business in Laguna Hills, California, and has an agent for service of process listed on the California Secretary of State's website. (Lam Decl., { 3; see also Exhs. "A" and "B" to Lam Decl.) Its Storefront nail salon is open seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. (Lam Decl., 9.) Thus, the corporation cannot avoid service. In this case, service was never effectuated upon BLS NAIL RESORT because no service was made upon anyone authorized to accept service (i.e., president, general manager, agent for service of process, etc.). (Lam Decl., | 8-9.) PLAINTIFF's only vague attempt was upon Mr. Lindstrom, the attorney in San Jose, California, but he was not a person authorized to accept service on behalf of LAM or BLS NAIL RESORT. (Lam Decl., 7.) PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service, filed on August 15, 2018, and August 27, 2018, for service allegedly made on "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." and "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, 9. MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Laguna Hills, Inc.," respectively, the process server declares he served those entities at the same time he served LAM as an individual. (See PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service filed on August 15, 2018 and August 27, 2018, filed as Exhs. "4," "5," and "6," respectively, to RIN.) However, LAM never received any SUMMONS or COMPLAINT at BLS NAIL RESORT's principle place of] business at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address, and none of her employees ever informed her that they received any documents pertaining to any lawsuit. (Lam Decl., {8.) The statements made by PLAINTIFF's process server on all three Proofs of Service were in fact false. As such, the Proofs of Service filed by PLAINTIFF on May 21, 2018, August 15, 2018, and August 27, 2018, are invalid because they were based on false statements of service, and because neither LAM nor any other person was ever served with the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT at the at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address. Because service was never effectuated BLS NAIL RESORT, the Court has no personal jurisdiction over said corporation, and accordingly, the default taken against it is void and must be set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). (See Lee v. An, supra, 168 Cap.App.4th at 563-564.) 2. PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service Are Incomplete, Defective On Their Face, And Therefore Invalid. Additionally, PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service are invalid because they are defective on their face. In PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service filed on August 15, 2018, which appears to be an exact duplicate copy of PLAINTIFF's May 21, 2018 Proof of Service except with the change of the name of the person served in Section 3a., it states in Section 3a. the party served was "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." (See PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service filed April 20, 2018 and August 15, 2018, attached respectively as Exhs. "4" and "5" to RIN.) The problem here is that because BLS NAIL RESORT is a corporation, personal service must be made upon a person on behalf of the corporate entity, such as a general manager, authorized agent, etc., and the name of the person served on behalf of] the corporation must be stated so in the proof of service. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 416.10 and 417.10(a); Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc., supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at 1437.) However, in this case, the process server fails to check off section 3b. on the August 15, 2018 Proof of Service. to indicate whom the exact name of the person who was served on behalf of] -10- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BLS NAIL RESORT. (See Section 3b. of Exh. "5" of RIN.) The Proof of Service also indicates service was not completed in the manner of a substituted service since Section 5a. was not checked off. (See Section 5a. of Exh. "5" of RIN.) More problematic is the fact that in Section 6 of the August 15, 2018 Proof of Service, the process server checked off Section 6a. indicating that "The ‘Notice to the Person Served' (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. as an individual defendant." (See Section 6a. of Exh. "5" to RIN.) Again, BLS NAIL RESORT is not an individual defendant, but a corporate entity defendant and so Section 6d. should have been checked off to show the person who was supposedly served was served on behalf of the corporation. (See Section 6d. of Exh. "5" to RIN.) The same exact problem lies in PLAINTIFF's August 27, 2018 Proof of Service, wherein the process server states that he personally served "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." as "an individual defendant." (See Sections 3a. and 6a. of Exh. "6" to RJN.) The name of the exact person allegedly served with the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on behalf] of BLS NAIL RESORT, is missing in the Proof of Service. (See Section 3a. and 3b. of Exh. "6" to RIN.) The reason why the process server failed to state the name of the person(s) allegedly served on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT, is simply because he never served any person at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address. Instead, the process server falsified the declarations regarding service on the Proofs of Service stating that he served both "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." and "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." without indicating the name of the person he supposedly served. Without the name(s) of the person(s) served, the August 15 and August 27 Proofs of Service are incomplete, defective on their face, and are invalid. 3. BLS NAIL RESORT Was Never Provided Notice of the Default. Contrary to the declaration within the Request For Entry Of Default that a copy of it was mailed to BLS NAIL RESORT at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address, LAM never received any documents in the mail regarding such. (Lam Decl, {{ 8-9.) Without proper notice of] PLAINTIFF's intent to obtain a default against BLS NAIL RESORT, the default should be set aside. (See Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 691.) -11- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The Law Favors Disposing of Cases on Their Merits. Lastly, BLS NAIL RESORT files this motion to set aside default under Code Civil Procedure section 473(d) immediately upon learning the existence of the default, which was within six months. There is no prejudice to PLAINTIFF if default is set aside because PLAINTIFF has no obtained a default judgment. As argued above, service on the Specially Appearing Defendants was improper and never completed, depriving the Court of personal jurisdiction over said defendants. Without personal jurisdiction over BLS NAIL RESORT, the default is void and should be set aside. Furthermore, the Proofs of Service filed by PLAINTIFF were incomplete, defective, and invalid, and cannot be a basis for an entry of default against BLS NAIL RESORT. B. The Court Should Quash Service Of Summons On Specially Appearing Defendants Because It Has No Jurisdiction Over Said Defendants. If a party files a motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction before or simultaneously with an act that would otherwise constitute a general appearance, that party will not be deemed to have generally appeared in the action, but instead will be deemed to have specially appeared and not waived the party’s jurisdictional challenge. (Air Machine Com SRL v. Sup. Ct. (2010) 112 Cal.App.4th 414.) The Specially Appearing Defendants bring the instant motion to quash under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), which permits a specially appearing defendant to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. In addition, the motion to quash shall not be deemed a general appearance by said defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(d).) 1. PLAINTIFF's Proofs of Service Contained False Declarations Because Defendants Were Never Served. A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of] the following purposes... (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of] the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1) [emphasis added].) Service of] summons in conformance with the mode prescribed by statute is deemed jurisdictional, and, in absent of such service, no jurisdiction is acquired by the court in the particular action. (Renoir v. -12- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1150.) A party over whom the court lacks jurisdiction may bring a motion to quash service of] summons without subjecting it to the jurisdiction of the Court. (Kline v. Beauchamp et al. (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d. 340, 342; Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1).) The court's jurisdiction over a party commences from the time a summons is properly served on the party as provided in the Code of] Civil Procedure; a court may not obtain jurisdiction over a party by means of an improperly served summons. (Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1251.) When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service off process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons; it makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action; such knowledge does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons. (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466; Rutterberg v. Rutterberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) Although the Specially Appearing Defendants first had actual knowledge of this lawsuit in or around end of April 2018, they had no obligation to respond to the lawsuit until they were served. However, unbeknownst to them and their attorney, PLAINTIFF filed a Proof of Service later on May 21, 2018 claiming its process server had personally served LAM at the 26532 Moulton Parkway address on April 20, 2018. This Proof of Service is invalid because it was based on a false declaration of service. The same applies to the two other Proofs of Service filed by PLAINTIFF on August 15 and August 27, 2018, respectively, for "BLS Nail Resort, Inc." and "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc." which indicate these parties were allegedly served at the same time LAM was served also at the same 26532 Moulton Parkway address. No one employed at that location including LAM, was ever served with documents relating to this action. (Lam Decl., |] 8- 9.) These Proofs of Service filed by PLAINTIFF regarding its purported service on BLS NAIL RESORT were based on false declarations also. Additionally, the names of the persons served on behalf of the corporation, are omitted from the Proofs of Service because no one was ever served at -13- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that address. Regardless, both LAM and BLS NAIL RESORT was under no duty to respond to defectively served summons especially when the improper service was brought to the attention of] PLAINTIFF's counsel. (See Kappel v. Bartlett, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at 1466; Rutterberg v. Rutterberg, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 808.) The burden shifts to PLAINTIFF to prove that it properly served the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT on the Specially Appearing Defendants. (See Summers v. McClanahan, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at 413; see also Lebel v. Mai, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at 1163.) However, that would be problematic for PLAINTIFF to name the exact persons who were served on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT since no one was ever served. Because the SUMMONS was never properly served on the Specially Appearing Defendants, the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over said defendants, and the Court should order the service of summons quashed. 2. The Summons Is Defective Because LAM Is Not A Named Party Defendant In The COMPLAINT. A motion to quash is the proper pleading to test the validity of a service of summons and complaint upon an entity that is not by its true or fictitious name made a party to an action. (Kline v. Beauchamp et al. ["Kline"], supra, 29 Cal.App.2d at 342.) Service of summons upon a person or] entity not named as a party to an action is not valid. (Id. at at 342.) If a defendant is not named in the complaint under either a true or fictitious name, the summons is defective, invalid, and lacks any legal effect. (Ibid.) The proper procedure for attacking the validity of a summons which has been served upon a person who is not a party to an action is by a motion to quash the service thereof. (Ibid.) The law is settled that a person who is not named either by his true or fictitious name or as an unknown defendant is not a proper party to an action, and service of summons upon such person upon proper motion should be quashed. (/bid.) Although LAM is named as an individual defendant in the SUMMONS, she however, is not named as party defendant in the actual COMPLAINT itself. (See COMPLAINT filed by PLAINTIFF on January 18, 2018, attached as Exh. "1" to RIN.) Although the case title caption names LAM as a defendant, the actual COMPLAINT itself fails to name LAM as a party defendant -14- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under Paragraph 1 of the COMPLAINT. (COMPLAINT, Exh. "1" to RIN.) It appears from the court case docket online that no "Doe Amendment" was filed to the COMPLAINT, nor was there an amendment to the COMPLAINT filed or an amended complaint filed to include LAM as an individual defendant to the action. (Exh. "3" to RIN.) Since LAM is not named as a party to the action in the COMPLAINT, any alleged service of summons would be deemed invalid, and the SUMMONS is considered defective, invalid, and lacks any legal effect. (See Kline, supra, 29 Cal.App.2d at 342.) Hence, the defect in PLAINTIFF's failure to name LAM in the COMPLAINT is substantial and invalidates the SUMMONS, so that the Court lacks jurisdiction over LAM. Without jurisdiction, the Court should order the service of summons on LAM, as well as BLS NAIL RESORT, quashed. III. CONCLUSION Based on the above arguments, Specially Appearing Defendants BLS Nail Resort, Inc. (incorrectly sued and named as "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc.) and Le Nhi Lam, respectfully request the Court find the default take against BLS Nail Resort, Inc. by Plaintiff dba Andy's Homework, is void and order it set aside. In addition, said defendants request the Court order the purported service of the summons upon said defendants quashed, and for other orders the Court deems just. DATED: October 8, 2018 RHEMA LAW GROUP, PC [ John D. Tra Rosalind T{On Attorneys forSpecially Appearing Defendants, BLS NAIL RESORT, INC. (erroneously sued under the name "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc.) and LE NHI LAM -15- MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF LE NHI LAM I, Le Nhi Lam, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 years and am a specially appearing defendant in this action, and I submit this declaration in support of my motion to set aside default taken against BLS Nail Resort, Inc. and motion to quash the service of summons. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the truth| of the facts as stated herein 2. At all times relevant herein, I was and am the acting operations manager for the corporations, BLS Nail Resort, Inc. ("BLS NAIL RESORT"), and BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. ("BLS LAGUNA HILLS"). BLS NAIL RESORT is a completely separate corporate entity than BLS LAGUNA HILLS. 3. BLS NAIL RESORT was involved in the original lease and buildout of the storefront located on 26532 Moulton Parkway in Laguna Hills, California (“Storefront”), and owns various rights in intellectual property, among other things, but does not provide any services to the public. BLS LAGUNA HILLS was established after the buildout of the Storefront and provides nail manicures and pedicures, and other cosmetology services to the public through the Storefront. True and correct copies of printouts from the California Secretary of State's website showing Articles of Incorporation for BLS NAIL RESORT filed on September 22, 2016, and Articles of] Incorporation for BLS LAGUNA HILLS filed on May 22, 2017, are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively, and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Based on my knowledge, prior to the operation and grand opening of the Storefront, all rights, liabilities, inventory and assets of BLS NAIL RESORT were transferred to BLS LAGUNA HILLS, with the exception of the intellectual property rights, which were licensed to BLS LAGUNA HILLS. 5. Based on my knowledge and belief, in or about April 2017, BLS NAIL RESORT worked with a man named Lawrence Loh (“LOH”) to assist BLS NAIL RESORT in the buildout and construction of the Storefront. LOH worked with a contractor named Andy Wong, which believe is the owner of Andy’s Homework ("PLAINTIFF"), but LOH was never authorized as an -1- DECLARATION OF LE NHI LAM AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 agent or representative for BLS NAIL RESORT. To my knowledge he worked with and for Andy Wong to provide construction services on the Storefront and I believe the signature on the alleged proposal contract attached to PLAINTIFF’s Complaint (Exhibit A attached to and incorporated in PLAINTIFF'S Complaint) is LOH’s signature. 6. LOH is not and has never been an agent, owner, representative, or employee of BLS NAIL RESORT or BLS LAGUNA HILLS, and has never been authorized to represent the companies in any way. Based on my knowledge and belief, LOH was an acquaintance for both parties and may have worked for PLAINTIFF at some point. LOH was never authorized to make decisions or to sign anything on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. 7. PLAINTIFF did perform some work on the storefront located in Laguna Hills and] BLS NAIL RESORT paid PLAINTIFF in cash installments for various work to be done. However, PLAINTIFF's work was subpar, untimely, and PLAINTIFF failed to finish a large amount of] construction on the Storefront, forcing BLS NAIL RESORT to have to hire another contractor to finalize the Storefront’s construction. PLAINTIFF'S failure to complete the work caused BLS NAIL RESORT to incur major financial damage. 8. Up until end of April 2018, I had no actual knowledge of this action, nor did any corporate officer or agent for service of process for BLS NAIL RESORT inform me of this lawsuit. An attorney named Carl A Lindstrom located in San Jose California, let me know he received a copy of the Complaint and emailed me a copy; however, Mr. Lindstrom has never represented BLS NAIL RESORT or myself as our attorney in any capacity whatsoever, nor was Mr. Lindstrom a person authorized to accept service on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT or myself, and he is not listed| as the agent for service of process for BLS NAIL RESORT or BLS LAGUNA HILLS. Based on my belief and knowledge, Mr. Lindstrom was a friend of LOH’s and represented LOH in matters. 9. I was never personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint in this action or served with any documents relating to this action by a process server, either as an| individual or on behalf of BLS NAIL RESORT. Furthermore, based on my knowledge, no employee at BLS NAIL RESORT's principal place of business located at the address 26532 Moulton Parkway, Laguna Hills, California, was served with a copy of the summons or Complaint. 22- DECLARATION OF LE NHI LAM AN nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. After I first learned about this lawsuit, I was anticipating that someone working for PLAINTIFF would eventually serve BLS NAIL RESORT, either by serving me or an employee at] our nail salon located at the address 26532 Moulton Parkway since the salon is open seven days a week Monday through Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or possibly by way of serving BLS NAIL RESORT's agent for service of process. However, we never received any lawsuit papers from anyone at that location or BLS NAIL RESORT's agent for service of process. I also was working with my attorney, Ms. Rosalind Ong, to contact PLAINTIFF'S attorney directly on my behalf. 11. In no way did I ever attempt to evade personal service upon myself or on BLS NAIL RESORT. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this ____ day of October, 2018, at Laguna Hills, California. LE NHI LAM 8 DECLARATION OF LE NHI LAM 10. After I first learned about this lawsuit, T was anticipating that someone workiag 4 1 PLAINTIFF would eventually serve BLS NAIL RESORT, either by serving me or an employee at our nail salon located at the address 26532 Moulton Parkway since the salon is open seven days week Monday through Sunday from 9:00 am. to 7:00 p.m., or possibly by way of serving BL NAIL RESORT's agent for service of process. However, we never received any lawsuit pape from anyone at that loots or BLS NAIL RESORT's agent for service of process. I also wa 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. I, ROSALIND T. ONG, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. I submit this declaration in support of Specially Appearing Defendants, BLS Nail Resort, Inc. ("BLS NAIL RESORT") and Le Nhi Lam's ("LAM") motion to set aside default taken against BLS Nail Resort, Inc. and motion to quash the service of summons. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the truth of the facts as stated herein 2. In or about the end of April 2018, LAM asked me to assist her with a potential action against BLS NAIL RESORT and LAM, which is the current action arising out of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff (“Action”). I checked the Court's case docket on or about April 30, 2018 and did not see any proof of service filed by PLAINTIFF. I attempted to contact opposing counsel in hopes of either resolving the matter to avoid further litigation and to discuss the improper service on Mr. Lindstrom, the attorney who did not even represent the Specially Appearing Defendants, and issues with the erroneous names in the COMPLAINT. 3. On April 30, 2018, I telephoned PLAINTIFF's counsel, Peter Nisson, Esq., with the telephone number listed on PLAINTIFF's pleadings. When I was unable to reach a live person at Mr. Nisson's office, I intended to leave a voicemail but the mailbox stated it could not accept any voice messages at that time. It was unclear to me if the number was a working office number or non-working cell phone number. That same day, I emailed Mr. Nisson using his e-mail address listed on PLAINTIFF's pleadings (peternisson@gmail.com), but never received a response back from Mr. Nisson. 4. After almost two months passed since the Specially Appearing Defendants first learned of the lawsuit, to the parties' knowledge, no attempted service was made upon the Specially Appearing Defendants, I decided to check the case docket on the Court's website online on June 20, 2018, and discovered PLAINTIFF had filed a proof of service on May 21, 2018 relating to purported service on LAM. See the Proof of Service of Summons filed by PLAINTIFF on May 21, -1- DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "4" to the Request for Judicial Notice, filed concurrently herewith ("RIN"). 5. I was shocked to learn that the Proof of Service filed by PLAINTIFF, the process server alleges he personally served LAM as an individual on April 20, 2018 at the Storefront located at 26532 Moulton Parkway. See Proof of Service filed by PLAINTIFF on May 21, 2018, a true and copy of which is attached as Exh. "4" to RJN.) Based on my knowledge and information given to me, LAM was never personally served at anytime, anywhere. 6. Moreover, I thought it was strange that the process server did not serve BLS NAIL RESORT at the same time since it was the same location and no other proof of service regarding BLS NAIL RESORT had been filed according to the Court's case docket online. I also believed PLAINTIFF did not serve BLS NAIL RESORT by any other means such as substituted service, because according to LAM, none of the employees at the Storefront or the agent for service of] process received any lawsuit papers. 7. That same day I learned about the proof of service filed, I once again attempted to contact Mr. Nisson via telephone and again, was unable to reach a live person or to even leave a voicemail because of a message that stated the voicemail box was full. Later that day, I emailed Mr. Nisson and sent him via U.S.P.S. Certified mail a written correspondence to his office address listed on his pleadings as "1530 North Coast Highway, Unit B, Laguna Beach, CA 92651." See my correspondence dated June 20, 2018 to Mr. Nisson, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 8. In my June 20, 2018 letter, I explained BLS RESORT NAIL and BLS LAGUNA HILLS were separate entities, so PLAINTIFF needed to clarify in an amended complaint whether it was suing BLS RESORT NAIL only, or BLS LAGUNA HILLS, or both entities. See my correspondence to Mr. Nisson, attached hereto as Exh. "C." 9. I also indicated that LAM was never personally served, so the Proof of Service filed May 21, 2018 was defective since it based on a false statement of service. See my correspondence to Mr. Nisson, attached hereto as Exh. "C." 2. DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. TI also stated that I would agree not to bring a motion to quash and would accept service on behalf of the named defendants, if PLAINTIFF agreed to amend its COMPLAINT to clarify the named party defendants and allow defendants 35 days to respond to the amended complaint. See my correspondence to Mr. Nisson, attached hereto as Exh. "C." 11. Although my letter was sent via certified mail and e-mail, my office never received any response whatsoever from Mr. Nisson. In fact, my office received the unopened envelope containing my June 20 letter to Mr. Nisson returned and stamped "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As Addressed, Unable to Forward." See a true and correct copy of the unopened envelope returned from PLAINTIFF's counsel's address, attached hereto as Exh. "D." 12. In the beginning of August 2018, I made another attempt to contact PLAINTIFF's attorney through telephone and email with no success. 13. On or about September 21, 2018, I learned that a clerk's entry of default had been entered against BLS NAIL RESORT, not LAM, when I checked the case docket online. To my knowledge, BLS NAIL RESORT had not been served yet with the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT, because according to LAM, no one at BLS NAIL RESORT's 26532 Moulton Parkway location received any documents relating to the lawsuit, nor did its agent for service of process. Therefore, I had no reason to believe a default could be taken against BLS NAIL RESORT until it was served or at the very least attempted service was made. 14. Immediately upon learning of the default against BLS NAIL RESORT, I brought forth this motion to set aside the entry of default taken against BLS NAIL RESORT based on the fact that the default is void since the alleged service on said corporation was based on a false declaration of service. In addition, this motion is brought forth requesting an order quashing the service of summons upon both BLS NAIL RESORT and LAM because both were never properly served, and because PLAINTIFF's service of the summons on LAM is defective, invalid, and has no legal effect when she is not specifically named as a party defendant in the COMPLAINT. Il Il {dd a. DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 8th day of October, 2018, at Laguna Hills, California. ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. 4- DECLARATION OF ROSALIND T. ONG, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" 3948054 Corporate Name (List the proposed corporate name. Go to www.s0s.ca.govibusiness/be/name-availabllity.htm for general corporate name requirements and restrictions.) @ The name of the corporation Is BLS NAIL RESORT, INC, Corporate Purpose @ The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California Corporations Code. Service of Process (List a California resident or a California registered corporate agent that agrées to be your-initial agent to accept service of process in case your corporation is sued. You may list any adult who lives in California. You may not list your own corporation as the agent. Do not list an address if the agent is a California registered corporate agent as the address for sarvice of process is already on file.) ® , TOAN THI NGUYEN Agent's Name bn. 8961 PINEHURST CIR. WESTMINSTER cA 92683 Agent's Sireet Address (if agent Is not a corporation) - Do not ist a P.O, Box ~~ City (no abbreviations) State Zip Corporate Addresses @ , 8961 PINEHURST CIR. WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 Initial Street Address of Corporation - Do not fist a 2.0. Box City (no abbreviations) State Zip b 8961 PINEHURST CIR, WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 Initial Malling Address of Corporation, if different from 4a City {na abbreviations) State: Zip Shares (List the number of shares the corporation is authorized to issue. Note: Before shares of stock are sold or issued, the corporation must comply with the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 administered by the California Department of Business Oversight, Far more Information, go to www.dho.ca.gov or call the California Department of Business Oversight at (866) 275-2677.) ® This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock. The total number of shares which this corporation Is authorized to issue is 1000000 This form must be signed by each Incorporator, If you need more space, attach extra pages that are 1-sided and on standard letter- sized paper (8 1/2 x 11"). All attachments are made part of these articles of incorporation, ) - pd TOAN THI NGUYEN Articles of Incorporation of a ARTS-GS , 2 General Stock Corporation To form a general stock corporation in California, you can fill out this NT form or prepare your own document, and submit for filing along with: FILED 0’ ad ~ A $100 filing fee. ‘ Secretary of State ~ A separate, non-refundable $15 service fee also must be included, State of California if you drop off the completed form or document. ‘Important! Corporations in California may have to pay a minimum $800 Y SEP 22 2016 yearly tax to the California Franchise Tax Board. For more information, go to https:/fwww.fth.ca.gov. \ Note: Before submitting the completed form, you should consult with a private attorney for advice about your specific business needs. This Space For Office Usa Only For questions about this form, go to www.s0s.ca.gov/business/be/ffiling-tips.htm. jl Incorporator - Sign here : Print your name here Make check/money order payable to; Secretary of State By Mail Drop-Off Upon filing, we will return one (1) uncertified copy of your filed Secretary of State Secretary of State document for free, and will certify the copy upon requast and Business Entities, P.O. Box 944260 1500 11th Street, 3rd Floor payment of a $5 certification fee. Sacraments, CA 84244-2600 Sacramento, CA 85814 Corporations Coda §§ 200-202 ef seq, Revenue and Taxalion Code § 23153 2014 Callfornla Secretary of State ARTS-GS (REV 03/2014) www.508, ca. gavibusiness/be 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "B" EXHIBIT "B" Secretary of State ARTS-GS Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation IMPORTANT - Read Instructions before completing this form. Filing Fee -- $100.00 Copy Fees - First page $1.00; each attachment page $0.50; Certification Fee - $5.00 Note: Corporations may have to pay minimum $800 tax to the California Franchise Tax Board each year. For more information, go to https:/iwww.fth.ca.gov. 4,0290LL rep Secretary of State State of Califomia TUMAY 22 207 This Space For Office Use Only 1. Corporate Name (Go to www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/name-availability for general corporate name requirements and restrictions.) The name of the corporation is BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. 2. Business Addresses (Enter the complete business addresses.) a. Initial Street Address of Corporation - Do not list a P.O. Box City (no abbreviations} State Zip Code 8961 Pinehurst Ave. Westminster CA | 92683 b. Initial Mailing Address of Corporation, if different than item 2a City (no abbreviations) State | Zip Code 3. Service of Process (Must provide either Individual OR Corporation.) INDIVIDUAL - Complete Items 3a and 3b only. Must include agent's full name and California street address. a. California Agent's First Name (if agent is not a corporation) Middle Name Last Name Suffix Chad Hoang b. Street Address (if agent is not a corporation) - Do not enter a P.O. Box City (no abbreviations) State Zip Code 12034 Phoenix Dr., Cerritos CA | 90703 CORPORATION - Complete Item 3c. Only include the name of the registered agent Corporation. c. California Registered Corporate Agent's Name (if agent is a corporation) - De not complete Item 2a or 3b ( 4. Shares (Enter the number of shares the corporation is authorized to issue. Do not leave blank or enter zero (0).) This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock. 1,000,000 The total number of shares which this corporation is authorized to issue is 5. Purpose Statement (Do not alter the Purpose Statement.) The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California Corporations Code. 6. Read and Sign-Below (This form must be signed by each incorporator. See instructions for signature requirements.) [ Palit, ~- Signatlre ZZ ARTS-GS (REV 04/2017) Toan Nguyen Type or Print Name 2017 Califomia Secretary of State www.S0s.ca.gov/business/be 402904 Beauty Lounge Spa Nail Resort, Inc. WESTMINSTER, CA 52683 May 17, 2017 Susan Lee-Wong Corporation Documents Examiner Business Programs/Entities 1500 11" Street, Room 390 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Consent Use of the Name: BLS NAIL RESORT LAGUNA HILLS, INC. Dear Susan Lee-Wong, I, Toan Nguyen, chief executive officer of BLS Nail Resort, Inc. hereby consent to the use of the name BLS NAIL RESORT LAGUNA HILLS, INC. as instructed by your letter dated April 5, 2017 (copy enclosed) it should be noted that | would like to incorporate another California company name as BLS NAIL RESORT LAGUNA HILLS, INC. as a new and separate legal entity from BLS Nail Resort, Inc. Both companies will be managed by our executive committee to be disclosed on the Statement of Information filed annually with the State of California. | thank you for your thorough examination of the article of incorporation and hope that you will approve of our new business entity. if you have any questions or concerns, please contact Chad Hoang, CPA directly at (562) 402-7183. Sincerely, Toan Nguyen Chief Executive Officer BLS NAIL RESORT, INC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "C" EXHIBIT "D" RHEMA LAW GRoup Ha A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION June 20, 2018 SENT VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL and EMAIL Peter Nisson, Esq. NISSON & NISSON 1530 North Coast Highway, Unit B Laguna Beach, California 92651 RE: Andy's Homework v. BLS Nail Resort, Inc., et al. 0O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2018-00967927-CU-BC-CJC Improper Service of Summons & Complaint on Defendants Dear Mr. Nisson, Please be informed that our firm represents BLS Nail Resort, Inc. (incorrectly named in the summons and complaint as "BLS Nail Resort, Inc. a/k/a BLS Nail Resort, Laguna Hills, Inc." since BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. is a separate and distinct corporate entity) and Le Nhi Lam ("Defendants"), in the above-entitled case. On numerous occasions, I have attempted to reach you via telephone and email based on the contact information on your complaint, but with no success. Each time I telephoned your office, I was unable to reach a live person to speak with, and therefore I left voice messages for you to contact me to discuss issues relating to the complaint. Unfortunately, you have not responded to any of my voice messages or emails, leaving me with no other choice but to attempt to contact you through written correspondence via certified U.S. Mail. Nevertheless, it has come to my attention that your office attempted to serve my clients by way of mailing a copy of the summons and complaint in this matter along with a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt-Civil on or about February 9, 2018, to the office of Carl A. Lindstrom, Jr., Esq. located in San Jose, California. The problem here is that Mr. Lindstrom has never represented my clients in any capacity whatsoever, as their attorney, nor have my clients ever authorized him or his office to accept service on their behalf. Furthermore, Mr. Lindstrom is not even listed with the California Secretary of State, as the agent for service of process for either BLS Nail Resort, Inc. or BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc., which by the way is an entity that has not been properly named in your client's summons and complaint. Additionally, it has also come to my attention recently that your office filed a Proof of Service of Summons, stating that my client, Ms. Lam, was personally served at 26532 Moulton Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills, California by a non-registered California process server from your office address, on April 20, 2018. My client vehemently denies that your process server personally served her on this date, or that she was ever personally served at any other 1 Park Plaza Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 852-4430 f: (866) 929-3519 rto@rhemalaw.com RHEMA LAW GRoup Ha A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION address. In fact, none of the Defendants were ever properly served with the summons and complaint. Therefore, service on my clients was never effectuated or complete. Also upon learning there was a Case Management Conference held on May 21, 2018, 1 obtained a copy of the Minute Order which indicates you appeared at said hearing and represented to the court that the Defendants were served with the summons and complaint in the month of April 2018. This is not true - as I stated my clients were never properly served nor were they given notice of the lawsuit until recently. Your office also failed to provide proper notice of the upcoming CMC hearing on July 9, 2018, pursuant to the Court's orders. Since service upon my clients was improper and your Proof of Service of Summons is defective, I intend to specially appear in this matter to bring a motion to quash service of summons under C.C.P. § 418.10, and seek monetary damages against your client and firm for an abuse of process since your process server made a false declaration of service. Accordingly, I will also bring to the Court's attention that my clients were never properly served and that your statements to the Court were false, misleading, and most likely, sanctionable. However, in lieu of wasting the Court's time and the effort and expense of my clients, I am willing to forgo the motion to quash if you agree to the following terms: 1. You must amend your summons and complaint to clarify whether you are suing only the corporate entity BLS Nail Resort, Inc. without the "a/k/a BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc.," or if you are naming both entities, BLS Nail Resort, Inc. and BLS Nail Resort Laguna Hills, Inc. as separate named party defendants. The new summons and amended complaint must be filed no more than one week from the date of this letter. 2. My office will accept service of the summons and amended complaint on behalf of the named Defendants. 3. You will grant my clients thirty (35) days upon which to respond to the summons and amended complaint once my office serves you with the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt signed by my office. I hope that we may mutually resolve this issue without using the Court's intervention, and without wasting unnecessary resources and time. Please contact me directly if you wish to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Rosalind T. Ong, Esq. 1 Park Plaza Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 852-4430 f: (866) 929-3519 rto@rhemalaw.com Rosalind Ong From: Rosalind Ong Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:47 PM To: peternisson@gmail.com Subject: Case Number 3- -2018-00967927 - CU-BC-CJC Dear Mr. Nisson | have been retained by BLS Nail Resort, Inc. in above case matter. It seems service has not been adequately served on the named defendant since Mr. Lindstrom has never represented the corporation in any capacity and had never agreed to accept service on the defendant’s behalf However, | can agree to accept service on behalf of BLS Nail Resort. Please send any and all communications re this matter to my office address below. Also - | tried calling you on the number provided on the complaint but the cell phone provider stated that the mailbox was full and could not accept anymore messages. Please forward any other ways that | can adequately communicate with you. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Rosalind T. Ong, Esq. Managing Partner BN hema Law Group A Professional Corporation 1 Park Plaza, 6th Floor, Irvine CA 92614 Tel: 949-852-4430 Fax: 866-929-3519 | rto@rhemalaw.com www.rhemalaw.com *Privilege and Confidentiality Notice* The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-852-4430. Thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "D" EXHIBIT "D" he 2 © 0d ‘ d N O U D MV'T V I N I H Y {i340 sdsn 3 % | 4 1 0 \ | e y ; | [S076 BIUIO} [Ey [oBdg BUNTE] O G ¢ nun) ‘KemySrE 1580) YHON 0S 7 N O S S I N ® N O S S I N . ‘bsg ‘uossIN 1919d c= = PR an s e , 96 2000 1.18 98E} 000} L0S6 | £899/280% 1 : mn ® 0 0 S Z 9 0 s A rays = 6 1 9 6 ( w e odaun WOH 3 #1976 VJ dUlAl] A 0 fie t 009 93g ‘eze[d 1ed T i O v 1 S O d ‘SN . " END OF EXHIBITS END OF EXHIBITS
