Wylde vs Duong

Opposition Other

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.September 15, 2017

AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REJALI LAW FIRM, APC. ELECTRONICALLY FILED uperior Court of California, OMID REJALI, ESQ. County of San Diego State Bar No.: 297600 . i } 0548/2018 at 03:48:00 PI 8880 Rio San Diego Dr, Suite 800 Clerk of the Superior Court San Diego, CA, 92108 By Jessica Pascual, Deputy Clerk Telephone: (619) 887-4148 Fax: (619) 274-8222 E-mail: Omid @Rejalilawfirm.com SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION CASE NO.: 37-2017-00034487 SHAWN WYLDE, an individual, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO Plaintiff DEFENDANT BINH HUYNH’S MOTION ’ TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS V. Date: June 1, 2018 DONG DUONG, an individual, BINH Time: 8:30 am HUYNH, an individual, AUDREY HUYNH, an| Dept.: C-74 individual, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Judge: Hon. Ronald L. Styn NEITSIVE, Action Filed: September 15, 2017 Defendants. Plaintiff Shawn Wylde respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Defendant Binh Huynh’s Motion to Quash Service of Process (hereafter “Motion”). This opposition is based on this Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Plaintiff Shawn Wylde attached hereto, and on such oral or documentary evidence as may be presented on the merits of the Motion. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. TABLE OF CONTENTS II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES uioscososnssssssassssnsussussssssseessassasesssensassusssassnssens vsesssssesssessassssssnses i III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....ccuiiiiiinieninsneniesuensesnessesssessssssesssssssesssssssssasssssssssssessasssess 1 IV: STATEMENT OF LAW scuuussesseomosnssnessnssssssnssasssssss cossessssssssesssssusssassnssess sasasssssesssessassssssuses 2 Vi. ARGUMENT ...ouoiitiiiininnesienninsnisssssesssessnsssesssssssssasssssssssssassasssssssssssessasssassassssssssssssssassssss 3 A. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh.............cccevvvcuennueeneecnnen. 3 1. The Court has jurisdiction because Defendant Binh is a resident of California........... 4 ii. Even if Defendant Binh is a nonresident, the Court has general jurisdiction because Defendant Binh has sufficient contacts in California. .........cccceeeeeeeeeiiviiiiniiiieneeeeeenennn. 5 iii. Even if the Court finds Defendant Binh does not have sufficient contacts in California to establish general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction exists. .........c..cceeueeee. 6 B. Substitute service was proper under California law. ........cceicvveiicsnicisrrccsssrcsssnresnns 6 C. Hague Service Convention does not apply to service on Defendant Binh................... 8 i. Hague Service Convention does not apply where service can be effectuated within the United States, absent the need to serve judicial documents abroad. ..........ccccccocveeneeen 9 il. Requirements under Hague Service Convention do not bar service on Defendant Binh where his address could not be ascertained through reasonable diligence. ......... 9 IV. CONCLUSION ..ootitititinssssssssssmssssssssssssssssssssssssss ss s s ss s s s ssss s ssss e ssss ssss ss se s es ssssnsss 11 I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bonita Packing Ce. v. O'Sullivan, C.1D.Cal.1995, 165 FR: 610. cuss susssss sssassn ss ssnsnsnswsansn sosa s 6,7 California Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham, 156 Cal. Rptr.3d David B. v. Superior Court, (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1010, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 586 ................. 8,10, 11 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d TOO (U.S. 2011) iii eects ects erties teeta et ae eae a esata ae esas ee esssaessssaessseeessseaessseeessseeanes 3,4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Lebel v. Mai, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 148 Cal. Rptr.3d 892........ccevuieiiiniieieeienne 8,10, 11 Pavlovich v. Superior Court, (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 268 ........cccviieiiriiieeeeiieee eee sser 3,5 Stafford v. Mach; TS CALRPIF 20, BOD sus sass cvnssn so susnnss svmnnsmn o6.555756 55555 55.58 555559 $5555 5545 5455555 $4555.08 5455595 7 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 108 S. Ct. 2104, 100 L. Ed. 2d 722 CLR sms som ts 555,50 05035 5505545... BS E5555 95.08 SSB S82 3,8,9 Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434 .........ccccoovvevveeeecnnnennn. 4,5, 6 Statutes California Code of Civil Procedure §413.100C) ..uuririiiiiiiiiiiiieieee eee eects eee ee eserv s 8 California Code of Civil Procedure. § 410.10 ....coooviimieiieeiiieieiiiieeee e cts e ee verre ee e enes 3,4 United States Constitution Amendment 14..........c..ooiiiiiiiiiiiiie iiss eee eee eee eee 4 Exhibits Email Correspondence With Defendant Binh, Exhibit 2.........ccccoiiiiiiiiiiie 2 Indogroup Statement of Information, EXhibit 1..........cccccoiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiceceee e passim Proof of Service, EXRIDIt 3........ocoiiiiiii eet passim| Treaties Convention on the “Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents” in Civil or Commercial Matters, 14 Int’l. & Comp. L.Q. 564 (1965) .....cccevveeeiiiiiiiiieeieeeeieeiene passim| ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In early 2008, Defendant Audrey Hunyh (hereafter “Defendant Audrey”), daughter of Defendant Binh Huynh (hereafter “Defendant Binh”), fabricated a romantic relationship with Plaintiff. (Compl. 1.) Defendant Audrey misled Plaintiff into securing an investment into a purported start-up company, DK & Associates dba Indogroup United, Inc. (hereafter “Indogroup”), a California corporation. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant Audrey introduced Plaintiff to her father, Defendant Binh, and his business partner, Defendant Dong Duong. (/d.) Defendant Binh was the Chief Executive Officer of Indogroup. (/d. at 19.) Defendant Binh was designated as the Agent for service of process for Indogroup, listing his place of residence as 15926 Maidstone St., Fountain Valley, California 92708 (hereafter “Maidstone Residence”). (Indogroup Statement of Information, (hereafter “Exh. 17).) Defendant Binh falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that Indogroup was going to be a lucrative bio-technology company. (Compl. 10.) Defendant Binh alleged that a “very large German medical company” was interested in buying exclusive rights to their HIV diagnostic testing product. (/d.) Defendant Binh represented that Indogroup was growing and would be manufacturing a Polymerase Chain Reaction (hereafter “PCR”) test kits, (hereafter “DNA sequencers”) which detect the level of viral infection levels for HIV and Hepatitis B. (Id.) Defendant Binh claimed to have invested $5,000,000 into Indogroup. (/d. at { 16.) On February 1, 2011, Plaintiff was given a shareholder certificate indicating his ownership of] fifteen (15) shares of Indogroup. (/d. at q 20, Indogroup Shareholder Agreement (hereafter “Exh. 2”).) Defendant Binh sent several emails and relentlessly pressured Plaintiff to invest more by making further false claims to Plaintiff, promising him ownership in the company. (Compl. 21, Defendant Binh Emails (hereafter “Exh. 3”).) After Plaintiff made numerous payments, and Defendant Binh repeatedly made assurances Plaintiff’s investments would be repaid, Defendant Binh stated in an email to Plaintiff: We are working to pay back the money to you as fast as we can. But I want you to stop contacting [Defendant Duong]. From now on, if you wish to 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 communicate, it must be in writing to me [Defendant Binh]. I will contact you when we are able to pay you back. Binh. (Compl. 129.) Through phone calls with Plaintiff, Defendant Binh had represented that when Defendant Binh sold his property in Vietnan he would repay Plaintiff. (/d. at 30.) It became clear to Plaintiff that Defendant Binh had no intention of repaying Plaintiff, as promised. After sending his cryptic email, Defendant Binh demanded that Plaintiff stop contacting Defendant Duong. (Id. at 33.) As a result, Plaintiff was left with no other option but to file this complaint and seek relief. On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendants Dong Duong, Defendant Binh, and Defendant Audrey, Defendant Binh’s daughter, for relief under eight (8) causes of action. (See Id.) Plaintiff was defrauded into investing over $200,000.00 into a fraudulent business venture. (See Id.) Plaintiff properly served Defendant Binh at the Maidstone Residence. (Proof of Service (hereafter “Exh. 4”).) Defendant Binh resided in the Maidstone Residence from 2006 until he allegedly moved to Vietnam in 2011. (Declaration of Binh Huynh (hereafter “Binh Decl.”), ] 3.) Defendant Binh filed this Motion to Quash Service of Process (hereafter “Motion’) on April 19, 2018, one day before Defendant Binh’s response to the complaint was due, alleging service of process was invalid because it did not conform to the requirements of the Convention on the “Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents” in Civil or Commercial Matters (hereafter “Hague Service Convention”), but it does. (See Exh. 4, Motion.) Accordingly, the Court must deny Defendant Binh Hunyh’s Motion to Quash Service of Process. IV. STATEMENT OF LAW The Supreme Court has held that Hague Service Convention governs service of a summons abroad to regulate notice requirements on a noncitizen only where the forum state provides no guidance on requirements. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (hereafter “Volkswagen”), 486 U.S. 694, 108 S. Ct. 2104, 100 L. Ed. 2d 722 (1988). Defendant Binh argues, without case law or facts to support his argument, that the Service of Process violates 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Hague Service Convention, however, service in this case violates no law or treaty. California has valid personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh where service of summons was constitutionally valid. Defendant Binh not only resides in California, but conducted business in California as an agent of Indogroup, and further repeatedly committed fraud within the state of] California, giving rise to sufficient contacts with California for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. (See Compl.) Only documents which must be served abroad are subject to Hague Service Convention when the forum's law requires. Volkswagen, 486 U.S. 694. A court exerts its jurisdiction over a defendant through service of the summons - even when the defendant might challenge personal jurisdiction. C.C.P. § 410.10. Consequently, the Court must deny Defendant Binh’s Motion. V. ARGUMENT A. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." C.C.P. § 410.10. It is well established that a state may exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant who resides in the forum state. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (hereafter “Goodyear”), 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (U.S. 2011). This Court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident Defendant if Defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that exercising jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Pavlovich v. Superior Court (hereafter “Pavlovich”) (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 268. Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Id. at 268-269. A nonresident Defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (hereafter “Vons”) (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434. However, if the nonresident Defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, the Defendant may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum if 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or arises out of Defendant's contacts with the forum. Id. at 445. Here, Defendant Binh is a resident of California, residing at the Maidstone Residence. However, even if this Court finds Defendant Binh not a resident, the Court may exercise both general and specific jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. i. The Court has jurisdiction because Defendant Binh is a resident of California. It is well established that a state may exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant who resides in the forum state. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14, Goodyear, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (U.S. 2011). On January 24, 2018, the process server attempted to serve the summons and complaint at the Maidstone Residence when an Asian male, matching Defendant Binh’s description, answered the door. (Exh. 2.) This indicates Defendant Binh was present at the time of service. When the process server inquired whether Defendant Binh or his daughter, Defendant Audrey were home, a reasonable person would respond Defendant “Binh does not live here” or something to that effect. Instead, the unidentified male, whose canny description matched Defendant Binh’s description and physical characteristics including physical presence within the Maidstone Residence, stated “neither [Defendant Binh nor Defendant Audrey] are home,” demonstrating Defendant Binh regularly resides in the residence. (/d. at 4.) In addition, Defendant Binh admits to staying at the Maidstone Residence when visiting the United States. (See Binh Decl.) Further, because Defendant Binh admits to previously living at the Maidstone Residence with his daughter, Defendant Audrey, and Defendant Audrey continues to reside at the Maidstone Residence, this indicates that Defendant Binh likely continues to reside at the Maidstone Residence. (Binh Decl.) Moreover, Defendant Binh is listed as the Agent for Service of Process for Indogroup, a California corporation at the heart of the fraudulent acts in this case. (Exh. 1.) As agent for Service of Process, Defendant Binh lists his address as the Maidstone Residence. (Id.) 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant Binh further alleges he resides in Vietnam. (See Motion, Binh Decl.) However, on numerous occasions, Defendant Binh promised to repay Plaintiff after he sold his “apartment in Saigon” indicating Defendant Binh had no intention of residing at his alleged apartment in Vietnam. (Motion, 2:14-17.) In view of the facts of this case, the Court must find Defendant Binh is a resident. ii. Even if Defendant Binh is a nonresident, the Court has general jurisdiction because Defendant Binh has sufficient contacts in California. This Court has jurisdiction over a nonresident Defendant if Defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that exercising jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Pavlovich, 29 Cal. 4th 262. Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Id. at 268-269. A nonresident Defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are substantial continuous and systematic. Vons, 14 Cal. 4th 434, 445. Such a Defendant's contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction. Id. at 446. Here, Defendant Binh has substantial continuous and systematic contacts as to justify general jurisdiction. In this case, Defendant Binh was involved in a fraudulent business venture centered around a California corporation, Indogroup. (See Compl.) Through this California business venture, Defendant Binh made countless false and fraudulent statements to Plaintiff, a California resident, and fraudulently induced him to invest $213,000.00. (See Id.) Throughout this time, Defendant Binh continued to misrepresent himself as an investor and CEO of Indogroup, purposefully availing himself of the laws and benefits of California through his contacts with Indogroup, despite Defendant Binh’s allegations that he resides in Vietnam. (See Id.) 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 iii. Even if the Court finds Defendant Binh does not have sufficient contacts in California to establish general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction exists. If the nonresident Defendant’s contacts are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction exists if the Defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits, and the controversy relates to or arises from Defendant's contacts with the forum. Vons, 14 Cal. 4th at 445. The decision rests on the character of Defendant's activity in the forum. Id. at 448. Defendant Binh’s conduct in California clearly demonstrates a purposeful availment to the benefits of California. In this case, Defendant Binh is listed as the Agent for Service of Process for Indogroup, a California corporation at the heart of the fraudulent acts in this case, whose address is listed as the Maidstone Residence. (Exh. 1.) Further, Defendant Binh admittedly resided in California for many years at the Maidstone Residence. (Exh. 1, Binh Decl.) Through this California business venture, Defendant Binh made countless false and fraudulent statements to Plaintiff, a California resident, and fraudulently induced Plaintiff to invest over $213,000.00 into the company. (See Compl.) Throughout this time, Defendant Binh continued to misrepresent himself as an investor and CEO of Indogroup, purposefully availing himself of the benefits of a California corporation despite Defendant Binh’s allegations that he resided in Vietnam. (See Id.) Thus, Defendant Binh has sufficient contacts with California such that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. B. Substitute service was proper under California law. Under California law, all means other than personal delivery to defendant are considered “substituted service”; personal service must have been diligently attempted before substituted service may be performed, and ordinarily two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place should fully satisfy requirements of reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made. Bonita Packing Co. v. O'Sullivan (hereafter “Bonita”), C.D.Cal.1995, 165 F.R.D. 610. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 In the present case, Defendant Binh misleads the Court claiming to be a resident only of Vietnam. (Binh Decl., 2.) Even if Defendant Binh allegedly pays utilities for a residence in Vietnam, substitute service on Defendant Binh is valid. In Stafford v. Mach, the Court found service was proper where, after reasonable diligence, 1. substitute service was made on a co- occupant who answered the door, 2. a copy was mailed to the defendant at the same address, and 3. defendant did not deny receipt or actual notice. Stafford v. Mach (hereafter “Stafford”), 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 809. Cal. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (hereafter “Ham”), 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 893 (holding two or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as “reasonable diligence.”) The case at hand mirrors both Stafford and Ham where 1. the process server made seven (7) attempts to personally serve Defendant Binh at the Maidstone Residence between January 22, 2018, through February 6, 2018, 2. a copy was mailed to Defendant Binh at the Maidstone Residence on February 7, 2018, and 3. throughout Defendant Binh’s Motion and subsequent Declaration, Defendant Binh never denied receipt nor actual notice. (Exh. 4, Motion, Binh Decl.) Further, Defendant Binh admits to staying at the Maidstone Residence when visiting the United States, but does not deny being present during the attempted personal services between January 22, 2018, through February 6, 2018. (See Binh Decl.) In Bonita, the Court found substitute service was proper where summons was served upon a person whose relationship to the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party. Bonita, 165 F.R.D. 610. Here, Defendant Binh states his daughter, Defendant Audrey, resides at the Maidstone Residence. (Binh Decl., 4.) On January 24, 2018, the process server attempted to serve the summons and complaint at the Maidstone Residence when an Asian male, matching Defendant Binh’s description and physical characteristics, answered the door. (Exh. 4.) Thus, when the process server properly served the unknown male, a co-occupant of Defendant Audrey, Defendant Binh’s daughter, at the Maidstone Residence, and bolstered by the 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 fact that Defendant Binh admits to having lived with his daughter for several years throughout the duration of the fraudulent acts, this relationship is sufficient to ensure it is highly likely, if not inevitable, that Defendant Binh’s daughter would deliver process to Defendant Binh. Thus, substitute service was valid upon Defendant Binh, and the Court must deny Defendant Binh’s Motion. C. Hague Service Convention does not apply to service on Defendant Binh. Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, service is “[s]ubject to the provisions of the Convention on the ‘Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents’ in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention).” Code Civ. Proc. §413.10(c). As defined by Hague Service Convention, “service of process” refers to formal delivery of documents necessary to give defendant notice of pending action. Hague Service Convention, Art. 1 et seq., Volkswagen, 486 U.S. 694. However, according to Hague Service Convention’s own provisions, Hague Service Convention applies only to cases where service necessitates the transmission of judicial documents outside the United States. Hague Service Convention, art. 1, Volkswagen, 486 U.S. 694, Lebel v. Mai (hereafter “Lebel”) (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 892. Hague Service Convention does not apply in cases where service can be effectuated within the forum of California, nor where the defendant’s address is unknown. Hague Service Convention, art. 1; Lebel at 1161; see also David B. v. Superior Court (hereafter “David”) (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1010, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 586. In the case at hand, Defendant Binh was properly served within California through substitute service. Thus, Hague Service Convention does not apply because service was effectuated without the need to transmit documents abroad. Moreover, even if this Court finds Hague Service Convention applies to transmission in this case, the terms of Hague Service Convention specifically exclude cases in which the address is unknown. This case is excluded because, in light of the facts in this case, if Defendant Binh does not reside at the Maidstone Residence, 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant Binh’s address abroad must be ruled unknown where Defendant Binh’s whereabouts could not be ascertained through reasonable diligence. Defendant Binh’s Motion repeatedly misleads the Court claiming, “Plaintiff’s attempted substitute service on [Defendant Binh] at the Maidstone Residence in California did not comply with the Hague Service Convention because [Defendant Binh], at the time was residing in Viet Nam.” (Motion, 4:3-5.) Defendant Binh, however, fails to demonstrate any law or facts of this case which indicate any violation of Hague Service Convention. (See Motion.) Thus, Hague Service Convention was not violated by the method of service in the present case. i. Hague Service Convention does not apply where service can be effectuated within the United States, absent the need to serve judicial documents abroad. In Volkswagen, the Supreme Court analyzed the requirements imposed by Hague Service Convention, the Court reasoned: Legal sufficiency of a formal delivery of documents must be measured against some standard. The Convention does not prescribe a standard, so we almost necessarily must refer to the internal law of the forum state. If the internal law of the forum state defines the applicable method of serving process as requiring the transmittal of documents abroad, then the Hague Service Convention applies... The only transmittal to which the Convention applies is a transmittal abroad ... required as a necessary part of service.... The Due Process clause does not require an official transmittal of documents abroad every time there is service on a foreign national. Volkswagen, 486 U.S. 694. As discussed above, substitute service was valid in California, meaning there was not an absolute need to transmit the summons and complaint to Vietnam to obtain personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh through valid substitute service. (Exh. 2.) Because substitute service was valid, there was no need to transmit documents to Vietnam, rendering Hague Service Convention inapplicable in the present case. ii. Requirements under Hague Service Convention do not bar service on Defendant Binh where his address could not be ascertained through reasonable diligence. 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Despite reliance on Lebel, Defendant Binh seems to have missed the holding. Lebel, 210 Cal.App.4th at 1161. According to both Hague Service Convention and the Court in Lebel, “The Hague Service Convention does not apply where the address of the person to be served is not known.... A plaintiff is required to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain a defendant's whereabouts.” Hague Service Convention, art. 1; Lebel at 1161; see also David, at 1016, (holding reasonable diligence denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and an inquiry conducted in good faith). Here, attempted service relying on the address of the Maidstone Residence was reasonable and the Plaintiff used reasonable diligence to ascertain Defendant Binh’s address where: 1. During the fraudulent acts depicted in the complaint, Defendant Binh resided at the Maidstone Residence. (Binh Decl., { 3.) 2. Defendant is listed as the Agent for Service of Process for Indogroup, a California corporation at the heart of the fraudulent acts in this case, whose address is listed as the Maidstone Residence. (Exh. 1.) 3. The process server made seven (7) attempts to personally serve Defendant Binh at the Maidstone Residence between January 22, 2018, through February 6, 2018, and mailed a copy to Defendant Binh at the Maidstone Residence on February 7, 2018. Moreover, throughout Defendant Binh never denied receipt nor actual notice. (Exh. 4, Motion, Binh Decl.) 4. Defendant Binh admits to staying at the Maidstone Residence when visiting the United States, but does not deny being present during the attempted personal services between January 22, 2018, through February 6, 2018. (See Binh Decl.) 5. Defendant Binh states his daughter, Defendant Audrey, resides at the Maidstone Residence. (Binh Decl., 4.) 6. On January 24, 2018, the process server attempted to serve the summons and complaint at the Maidstone Residence when an Asian male, matching Defendant Binh’s description, 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 answered the door. (Exh. 4.) 7. When the process server inquired whether Defendant Binh or his daughter, Defendant Audrey, were home, the unidentified male matching Defendant Binh’s description stated “neither [Defendant Binh nor Defendant Audrey] are home” demonstrating Defendant Binh regularly resides in the Maidstone Residence. (Exh. 4.) In view of the circumstances of this case, the Court must find Defendant Binh resides at the Maidstone Residence. However, even if Defendant Binh did not reside at the Maidstone Residence, contrary to the facts in this case, Defendant Binh’s address must ineveitably be considered “unknown” for the purposes service in this case. Subsequently, the requirements of Hague Service Convention do not apply because the address of the person to be served, Defendant Binh, is not able to be ascertained through a reasonable diligent search, as conducted by Plaintiff. Contrary to Defendant Binh’s arguments, service in this case is expressly excluded by Hague Service Convention itself. Hague Service Convention, art. 1; Lebel at 1161; see also David, at 1016, of Hague Service Convention. VI. CONCLUSION Under California Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has valid personal jurisdiction over Defendant Binh. Moreover, Defendant Binh was properly served under California law, whether or not Hague Service Convention applies. Based on the severity of the allegations in this case, primarily fraud exceeding $200,000.00 in damage to Plaintiff, Defendant Binh’s Motion is clearly a hail-mary pass, attempting to skirt service of process to avoid the well-established method of justice, Defendant Bihn’s Motion fails. The substitute service in this case does not violate Defendant Binh’s due process rights, nor provisions of Hague Service Convention as it does not apply in this case. Thus, the Court must deny Defendant Binh’s Motion to Quash Service of Process. Respectfully submitted, 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (hl REJALI LAW FIRM OMID REJALI, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff SHAWN WYLDE Dated: 05/18/2018 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES EXHIBIT 1 State of California Secretary of State E-C19394 FILED STATEMENT OF INFORMATION In the office of the Secretary of (Domestic Stock and Agricultural Cooperative Corporations) State of the State of California FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00. If amendment, see instructions. Sep - 28 2010 IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM This Space For Filing Use Only 1. CORPORATE NAME (Please do not alter if name is preprinted.) C3247982 S INDOGROUP UNITED, INC. DUE DATE: COMPLETE ADDRESSES FOR THE FOLLOWING (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 2 and 3 cannot be P.O. Boxes.) 2. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 15926 MAIDSTONE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 3. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE 4. MAILING ADDRESS OF THE CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 2 CITY STATE ZIP CODE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS (The corporation must have these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.) 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE BINH THAI HUYNH 15926 MAIDSTONE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 6. SECRETARY/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE BINH THAI HUYNH 15926 MAIDSTONE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 7. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE BINH THAI HUYNH 15926 MAIDSTONE STRRET FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF ALL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING DIRECTORS WHO ARE ALSO OFFICERS (The corporation must have at least one director. Attach additional pages, if necessary.) 8. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE BINH THAI HUYNH 15926 MAIDSTONE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 9. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 11. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTIONS, IF ANY: AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 13 must be completed with a California street address (a P.O.Box address is not acceptable). If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 13 must be left blank.) 12. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BINH THAI HUYNH 13. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE 15926 MAIDSTONE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 TYPE OF BUSINESS 14. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION MARKETING 15. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 09/28/2010 DONG DUONG ACCOUNTANT DATE TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THE FORM TITLE SIGNATURE SI-200 C (REV 01/2008) APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE EXHIBIT 2 0 A Gmail - Fwd ospital R >>> Hi Binh, >> >>> | do stay up through the night when | have exciting and important i ) >>> work. | find | am more creative and have good Ideas during the r. >>> solitude of night hours. When | have to have a more structured >>> schedule | retum to normal work hours :). | am working day snd night >>> to implement new intent given by Dong during our last meeting in order >>> to present a very good brief to The ILI for our Monday meeting. it's >>> not really hard as | enjoy the work! >>> >>> On Saturday, May 28, 2011, Binh Huynh wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> You stay up too late Shawn. We have a kind of sleeping pill, ABIEN, which If you use, you feel >>>> very normal when you get in the moming. My whole family uses them. Audrey can get them for you, If you need them. We brought them with us here in Saigon... >>>> Thanks for your quick response Shaw, >>>> Binh S3>> S3>> S3>> >>>> Sent by iPad - Please excuse spelling errors, S3>> >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, Is for the sole use of the sender and the intended recipient/s. The e-mail contains privileged and confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >3>> >>> >>>> On May 28, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Shawn Joyce wrote: >>> >>>>> Hi Binh let me check what options are available at my bank and | will >>>>> respond ASAP S25>> >>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2011, Binh Huynh wrote: >>>>>> Hi Shawn, >>>>>> How do we start the process of making your brother an advisor to Indogroup ? Let me talk to Dong about this. Secondly, it will be wonderful for Indogroup if you can invest 30,000 soon. If you have the time, will you tell me so | will tell Dong. He has his 70,000 ready. | am trying to sell my apartment in Saigon but it is very difficult. This city is over- built, supply is more than demand. And Dong owns an office building in San Diego area. It is worth around 4M. He is trying to sell for 2M , but no body interested in the building ... >>>>>> please get back to me ASAP. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> Binh >>>>>> Sent by iPad - Please excuse spelling errors. S23>>> >>>>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the sender and the intended recipient/s. The e-mail contains privileged and confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. S335>> 2DO5>5>> >>>>>> On May 28, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Shawn Joyce wrote: 2O255>> >>>>>>> Hi Binh, | think | can manage that. I'l rearrange some things and >>>>>>> live frugal for awhile :). | could possibly get from someone else too >>>>>>> s0 | will look into that option D2225>> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2011, Binh Huynh wrote: SO5335>> DOO>3555> >>>>>>>> Sent by iPad - Please excuse spelling emors. >>>>>>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the sender and the intended recipient/s. The e-mail contains privileged and confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. hitps./imail google. com/mail//0rui=28ik=36304b8 148 view=pl8q= shawn&qs=true8 sear ch=query8th= 15c7al26e100118d&simi= 15cTaef3dabSiB3d8simI=15c... 28 Exhibit 2 Page 8 00007 Scanned by CamScanner So N L >> >> Dong, >> >> Why do you get upset with me for asking questions? Any investor or bank would do the same thing. | have been so patient but you do not give me any credit for that. How about the $210k+ | loaned to you based on trust? | was never rich. It was all the money | had. | lost my credit, my car, and my life. >> >> On Friday, September 11, 2015, Shawn Joyce wrote: >>> >>> Dong, >>> >>> Oh so Tony Is just being dramatic? | don't tell him anything negative but he acts like a child. >>> >>> On Friday, September 11, 2015, Dong Duong wrote: >>>> >>>> Kha has completed the permits and licenses.Mr. Binh is working with the new group in VN, Mr. Binh is now in VN. Tony has his new group in VN to market the tests. >>>> Why don't you communicate with me rather than Tony. Do you understand that communicate with my contacts without my agreement is wrong doing, do you remember the confidential agreement signed by you at the beginning. | told you exactly what the status of the project is now. >>>> Dong >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Shawn Joyce wrote: >>>> >>>> Dong, >>>> >>>> Tony has informed me that Mr Kha could not perform in Vietnam. So what is really going on? Let's be honest here and find a solution shall we? >>>> >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>> On Friday, September 11, 2015, Shawn Joyce wrote: >>5>> >>>>> Hi Dong, >>>>> >>>>> But | thought Mr Binh does not like me? None of you talk to me anymore. | am alone in the business with no information >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, September 11, 2015, Dong Duong wrote: S>>>>> >>>>>> You always think bad about others, Audrey, Mr. Binh and myself are so nice to you, working so hard to help you, We will let you know . Why don't you call Mr. Binh to leam more about what | said >2>>>> >>5>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Shawn Joyce wrote: S>O>>> >>>>>> Dong, >>>55> >>>>>> The issue is the money | borowed you see, my family is upset with me. What do | do? >3>5>5>> >>>>>> On Friday, September 11, 2015, Shawn Joyce wrote: 2O52>>> >>>>>>> Hi Dong, 222>>>> >>>>>>> What loans take over a month though, | don't understand? All these delays and no results for 2+ years. | have been so patient. >S>O>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015, Dong Duong wrote: SO2255>> PRDREN Hello Shawn, We are concerned so much about what you wanted now, Binh will handle this matter , but he needs time to get the money to take over this business. The loan loonks fine so far. 00027 hitps://mail.google.com/mail Av0/?ui= 28ik=d363d4b8148view = pt&q= shawn&qs=truedsearch=query&th=15b5bf0bac186851&sim|= 15b5bd0fe62e05cadsimi= 15... 2/8 Exhibit 3 Page 9 Scanned by CamScanner EXHIBIT 3 Anorneir or Party without Attorneys OMID REJALL ESQ, Bar #97600 REJALL LAW FIRM 8880 RIO SANDIEGO DR, SUITE 800 BAN DIEGO, CA 92108 Telephone No: 619-887-4148 a Cir se: wr LT Click Legal Service 888-473-2071 02/07/2018 iy 1 Co VA =T Ts iy Ref. No. or Fila No: Aitorney for: Plaintiff engi ob ed ii Insert ame of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: ShH bil £60 Cl di 4 CA SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT i» or Plating: SHAWN WYLDE - Defendant: PONG DUONG, BINH HUYNH, AUDREY HUYNH i 3 PROOF OF SERVICE ) Hearing Date: Time: DeptiDiv: Case Numbers SUMMONS & COMPLAINT - 37-2017-00034487-CU-BC-CTL I. dt the time of service T'was at Teast 18 years of age and not a party io this action, 2. 1served copies of the SUMMONS (AND) COMPLAINT; CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET; NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT; - NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY TO FILE AND ASSIGNMENT TO IMAGING DEPARTMENT; ADR INFORMATION FORMS 3. a. Party served: BINH HUYNH, INDIVIDUALLY . * b. Person served: JOHN DOE, OCCUPANT VIETNAMESE MALE, 50'S, 5'6", 165LBS., GRAY PONYTAIL, BROWN EYES 4. Address where the party was served: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 3. ¥served the party: b.hy substituted service. On: Tue., Feb. 06, 2018 at: 8:20PM by leaving the copies with or in the presence of: JOHN DOE, OCCUPANT VIETNAMESE MALE, 50'S, 5'6%, 165LBS., GRAY PONYTAIL, BROWN EYES {2} (Home) Competent Member of the Household over 18. I informed him or Ker-of the general nature of the papers. {4) A declaration of mailing is attached. {5} attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served” (on the Summons) was compleled as follows: a. as an individual defendant 7. Person Who Served Papers: Ricoverablé Cost Per CCP 1033.5()(4)(B) a, MICHAEL MENDIBLES d. The Fee for Servicewas: $35.00 b. CLICK LEGAL SERVICE e. Iam: (3) registered California process server F209 PLAZA DE LA COSTA {i Owner CARLSBAD, CA 92009 it} Registration No. PSC 2213 ¢. (760) 652-9851 . fii) County: Orange {iv} Expiration Date: Sat, Oct, 20, 2018 8. 1declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correck Date: Wed, Feb, 67, 2018 NY ” 7. Hic indbies Rb TRY 8874148.71163 rue SE RETR 0S 1 S00 su ROSROF SERVICE Cr C HAE SMENDIBLES) = Click Legal Service 888-473-2571 02/07/2018 Attorney or Party without Aoriey: Co -OMID REJALL, ESQ., Bar #297600 REJALI LAW FIRM SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 Telephone No; 619-887-4148. Attorney for: Plaintiff 8880 RIO SAN DIEGO DR., SUITE 800 ro ied Pleiniifi: SHAWN WYLDE Insert name.af Cours, and Judicial Disirici und Branch Court: SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Defendans: DONG DUONG, BINH HUYNH, AUDREY HUYNH AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE Case Number; J 37-2017:00034487-CU- BC-CTL Hearing Date: Time: DeptiBiv: 1. 1, MICHAEL MENDIBLES, and any employee or independent contractors retained by CLICK LEGAL SERVICE areand were on the dates mentioned herein over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. Personal service was attempted on Defendant BINH HUYNH, INDIVIDUALLY as follows: 2. Doeuments: SUMMONS {AND) COMPLAINT; CIVIL.CASE COVER SHEET; NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT; NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY TO FILE AND ASSIGNMENT TO IMAGING DEPARTMENT; ADR INFORMATION FORMS. Day Date “Time | Location | Results Man 01/22/18 10:30am Home f Wed 01/24/18 1:00pm Home Tha OL2318 9:50am Home Mon 01/29/18 7:55am Home Page Number 1 i Dare: Wed, Feb, 07, 2018 1] ATTEMPTED GIVEN RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER AT THE DOOR. THEY HAVE A CAMERA DOORBELL. Attempt made by: MICHAEL MENDIBLES. Attempt at: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 52708. ATTEMPTED GIVEN RESIDENCE AND SPOKE TO AN ASIAN MALE, 30 YRS. OLD, HE STATED NEITHER DEFENDANT WERE HOME. Attempt made by: MICHAEL. MENDIBLES. Attempt at: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708. ATTEMPTED GIVEN RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER AT THE ‘DOOR. Attempt made by: MICHAEL, MENDIBLES. Aitémpt at; 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708. ATTEMPTED GIVEN RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER AT THE DOOR. Attempt made by: MICHAEL MENDIBLES. Attempt at: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708. . $874148,11163 AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE ~~ " Click Legal Service 888-473-2071 02/07/2018 ATiorney Or Party without AHOTHEy: OMIB REALL ESQ. Bar #297600 REJALITAW FIRM SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 Telephone No: 619-887-4148 8880 RIO SAN DIEGO DR., SUITE 800 Bi Court Use Only Ref. No or Fite No; Attorney for: Plaintiff fu phi Lniun ou ph Unsert name of Court, and Judicial District snd Branch Cott: GAM 20 COURTY, LF SANDIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff "SHAWN WYLDE Defendant: DONG DUONG, BINH HUYNH, AUDREY HUYNH AFFIDAVIT OF Hearing Date: Time: DepiiDiv: {Case Number: REASONABLE DILIGENCE 37-2017-00034487-CU-BC-CTL [Day Date Time | Location | Results ] ATTEMPTE D GIVEN RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO. ANSWER AT THE DOOR. Attempt made by: MICHAEL MENDIBLES. Attertipt at: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708, Thu 02/01/18 12:20pm Home | Tue 02/06/18 10:25am Home Tue 02/06/18 8:20pm Home Wed 02/0718 3. Person Executing a. MICHAEL MENDIBLES b. CLICK LEGAL SERVICE 7209 PLAZA DE LA COSTA CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ATTEMPTED GIVEN RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER AT THE DOOR. Attempt made by: MICHAEL MENDIBLES. Attempt.at: 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708. Substituted Service on: BINH HUYNH, INDIVIDUALLY Home - 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 by Serving: JOHN DOE, VIETNAMESE MALE, 50'S, 5'6", 165LBS., GRAY PONYTAIL, BROWN EYES Competent Member of the Household over 18. Served by: MICHAEL MENDIBLES Mailed copy of Documents to: BINH HUYNH, INDIVIDUALLY ©. (76D) 652-9851, FAX (888) 473-2971 Recoverable Costs Per CCP 13. 5()4)(B) d. The Fee for service was: $3500 e. fam? (3) registered California process server @@ Ovmer i fii} Registration No.: PSC 2213 {iit} County: Orange {iv} Expiration Date: Sat, Oct. 20, 2018 4. Ideplare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cali] ifornia that the foregoing i is true. and correct. Date; Wed, Feb, 07, 2018 Page Number 2 Michael Hendibies (Feh 7, 2018} (MICHAEL MENDIBLESY AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE BR74I48.11163 VIA FAX a Click Legal Service 888-473-2971 (02/0772018 - AUOTREY OF Party Withotl AOrney: OMID REJALL ESQ., Bar #297600 } 8880 RIO SAN DIEGO DR., SHITE 800 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 Telephone No: 619-887-4148 FAX No: - Ref. No or Fitz Not LU Attorney for: Plaintiff _ sci 3 i“ COURT [Ersert mimic of Cott, and Jidicial District and Branch Corl; tL : i V, CA | SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Sl co cou Praia: SHAWN WYLDE = 1Defermdant: DONG DUONG, BINH HUYNH, AUDREY HUYNH PROOF OF SERVICE Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Diy: Clase Number: By Mail 37-201 7-00034487-CU-BC-CT. L }. {am over the age of 18 and not a party to his action. Tam JT in the county where the mailing occurred. 2. Lserved copies of the SUMMONS (AND) COMPLAINT; CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET; NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT; NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY TO ¢FILE AND ASSIGNMENT TO IMAGING DEPARTMENT; ADR INFORMATION FORMS 3. By placing a true copy of each document in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope by First Class mail with postage prepaid as follows: a. Daie of Mailing: Wed, Feb. 07,2018 b. Place of Mailing: CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ¢. Addressed as follows: BINH HUYNH, INDIVIDUALLY 15926 MAIDSTONE ST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 4, [am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence as deposited with the US, Postal Service on Wed., Feb. 07, 2018 in the ordinary course of business. J. Person Serving: Recoverable Cost Per CCP 1033. 5()4KB) a DIANNE MARIE CONNELL d. The Fee for Service was: $35.00 b. CLICK LEGAL SERVICE e. Tam: (3) registered California prociss server 7209 PLAZA DE LA COSTA (i) Owner . CARLSBAD, CA 92009 {ij Registration No: 1948 ©. (760) 652-9851 ii) County: San Diego (ivy Expiration Date: ~~ Mon, Sep. 23, 2019 8 Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, Date: Wed, Feb. 07, 2018 Y 887414R 1 IES rat SE SE REE ROS S00 PROOE OE SERVICE