Pcp-Lilac Lp vs Jml Law A Professional Law Corporation

Opposition to Motion in Limine

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 10, 2017

J M L L A W A Pr of es si on al La w Co rp or at io n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d Hi ll s, C A 9 1 3 6 7 © 0 9 a W n B A W N = N N N N N N N N O N m m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m c o N N A N n n k A W I N D = O O N N N R E W I N D = O JML LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5855 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., SUITE 300 WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91367 Tel: (818) 610-8800 Fax: (818) 610-3030 NICHOLAS W. SARRIS, STATE BAR NO. 242011 nsarris@jmllaw.com JENNIFER A. LIPSKI, STATE BAR NO. 272443 jennifer@jmllaw.com Attorneys for Defendants JML LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, JOSEPH LOVRETOVICH, and DAVID TIBOR SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - NORTH COUNTY PCP-LILAC, LP, a California limited Case No. 37-2017-00037772-CU-BT-NC partnership, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF vs. PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2; AND DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS W. SARRIS JML LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, a California Trial Call: October 5, 2018 professional law corporation; JOSEPH Time: 8:30 a.m. LOVRETOVICH; DAVID TIBOR; Place: Dept. N-31 STEPHEN WIARD; FRANCISCO BARTOLO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Judge: Hon. Timothy Casserly Complaint Filed: October 10, 2017 Defendants. Trial Call: October 5, 2018 Defendants JML Law, A Professional Law Corporation, Joseph Lovretovich, and David Tibor (collectively referred to as the “JML Defendants”) hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiff PCP-Lilac, LP’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to preclude Defendants from calling Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel Rudderow, as a witness at trial. 1 1 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 C A 9 1 3 6 7 J M L L A W A Pr of es si on al La w Co rp or at io n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d H i l l s , © 0 9 a W n B A W N = N N N N N N N N O N m m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m c o N N A N n n k A W I N D = O O N N N R E W I N D = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff PCP-Lilac, LP argues that the JML Defendants should be precluded from calling Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel Rudderow, as a witness at trial because there is no basis for him to testify at trial. As discussed herein though, Mr. Rudderow’s testimony is necessary and relevant to several material issues at trial, including the emails exchanged with JML Defendants in the underlying action and Plaintiffs failure to mitigate damages. Additionally, his testimony is necessary and relevant on the issues of the reasonableness and necessity of the hours expended by his firm in the underlying action, the reason for his varying hourly rates in the underlying action, and for purposes of authenticating his law firm’s billing records, including each entry in those records for which it claims as damages in this case, attributable to the JML Defendants. II. MR. RUDDEROW’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY Daniel Rudderow was defense counsel of record for PCP-Lilac, LP in the underlying action, and is now prosecuting this malicious prosecution action against Defendants. He therefore has personal knowledge pertaining to his firm’s purported reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending PCP-Lilac in the underlying action (i.e., personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s actual compensatory damages). Not only will Mr. Rudderow’s testimony be necessary and relevant for the number of hours he and his firm purportedly incurred in defending the underlying action, but his testimony will also be necessary to explain why his billable hourly rate increased twice during the brief course of the underlying litigation. (Sarris Decl., 99 3-4, Exh. 1.) Within the half year that he was litigating the case on behalf ofhis client PCP-Lilac, Mr. Rudderow initially was charging his client $200 per hour (as of July 28, 2016), then $250 per hour (from August 17, 2016 through December 2, 2016), and finally $270 per hour (from January 20, 2017 to February 22, 2017). (1d.) Additionally, other entries in the billing records appear duplicative, such as Mr. Rudderow spending 1.5 hours to draft a simple notice of deposition of Bartolo with 14 document requests attached to it, and the next day another individualat his firm spending .7 hours preparing a notice of deposition of Bartolo. (Exh. 1 at p. “PCP000058”.) There is also another entry which appears wholly unrelated to the underlying action and therefore should not be 2 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 © 0 9 a W n B A W N = a e e a e e e T w n k A W N = O A Pr of es si on al L a w Co rp or at io n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d Hi ll s, C A 9 1 3 6 7 [N S] N o N o N o NS ) N o N o N o N o - _ - - _ - _ c o J a N W n ~ W w N o - _ O S N e c o J a N included within the damages requested by Plaintiff. (Exh. 1 at p. “PCP000059”(see 10/27/16 entry for .7 hours at $210/hr by Joel S. Poremba').) Moreover, Mr. Rudderow sent a couple emails in December 2016 in the underlying action in which he reiterated PCP-Lilac’s refusal to provide JML Defendants with anything to show that PCP-Lilac did not incurthe liabilities of the campgrounds upon its purchase of the property, in order to show that PCP-Lilac had no successorliability for the claims againstit. Both Mr. Rudderow and Mr. Coldren (PCP-Lilac’s personal counsel) refused to provide JML Defendants with anything that could corroborate their bald assertion that PCP-Lilac was not liable under a successorliability theory, despite Defendant Tibor repeatedly conveying that if he saw that there was no successor liability, he would promptly dismiss the action against PCP- Lilac. The initial communications between Mr. Tibor and Mr. Coldren took place in June 2016, over a month before PCP-Lilac incurred any damages.> When Mr. Rudderow and Mr. Tibor exchanged emails on December 1 and 2, 2016,3 PCP-Lilac’s damages were under $2,300. These emails, and Mr. Rudderow’s testimony regarding the emails, are necessary for JML Defendants to support their affirmative defense that PCP-Lilac failed to reasonably mitigate its damages. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, Mr. Rudderow’s testimonyis also necessary with regard to his December 1, 2016 and December 2, 2016 emails sent to JML Defendants in the underlying action, with regard to mitigation of damages issues, and with regard to the calculation, reasonableness and necessity ! The description for that 10/27/16 entry is: “Analyze Rudderow Decl iso App for Default Judgment and JUD- 100 form; research whether a “money judgment only” judicial council form exists re filing for default judgment against Stinson re client’s money judgment which is not possession only matter”. (Exh. 1, at p. PCP000059.) There was no default judgment in the underlying action. There was also no individual by the name of “Stinson”in the underlying action. This entry therefore appears mistakenly included on the attorney’s invoice for services in the underlying action, and that it should not be calculated for purposes of PCP-Lilac’s damages in defending the underlying action. 2 The only damages claimed by PCP-Lilac, LP are the “approximately $3,500” in attorneys’ fees and costs in defending the underlying action (which amount Defendants dispute), and punitive damages (which Defendants also dispute PCP-Lilac is entitled to against any Defendant). 3 Mr. Rudderow’s December 2, 2016 email to Mr. Tibor is the subject of Plaintiff PCP-Lilac’s Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants have opposed that in /imine motion on the grounds that the emails are admissible and relevant to Defendants’ affirmative defense that PCP-Lilac failed to mitigate its damages, as well as admissible and relevant to show Defendants’ actions were not malicious or for any improper purpose such as| to extract a settlement out of PCP-Lilac. 3 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 A Pr of es si on al L a w C o r p o r a t i o n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d Hi ll s, C A 9 1 3 6 7 © 0 9 a W n B A W N = N N N N N N N N O N m m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m c o N N A N n n k A W I N D = O O N N N R E W I N D = O of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the underlying action as those are the damages Plaintiff is claiming in this malicious prosecution action. DATED: October 3, 2018 JML LAW, A Professional Law Corporation By: /s/ Jennifer A. Lipski NICHOLAS W. SARRIS JENNIFER A. LIPSKI Attorneysfor Defendants JML LAw, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, JOSEPH LOVRETOVICH, AND DAVID TIBOR 4 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 C A 9 1 3 6 7 J M L L A W A Pr of es si on al La w Co rp or at io n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d H i l l s , © 0 9 a W n B A W N = N N N N N N N N O N m m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m c o N N A N n n k A W I N D = O O N N N R E W I N D = O DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS W. SARRIS I, Nicholas W. Sarris, hereby declare as follows: I. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, and I am a partner attorney at JML Law, A.P.L.C. I am lead trial counsel for Defendants JML Law, A Professional Law Corporation, Joseph Lovretovich, and David Tibor (collectively, “JML Defendants”) in the instant malicious prosecution action filed by Plaintiff PCP-Lilac, LP. In this capacity, I have access to and have reviewed the pleadings, discovery, documents, and emails in this matter and am familiar with their contents. I have also reviewed the Court’s online register of actions for this matter and am familiar with the proceedings and filings in this matter. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein as they are based upon my personal knowledge. 2. This declaration is submitted in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to preclude Defendants from calling Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel Rudderow, as a witness at trial. 3. Mr. Rudderow’s testimony is necessary at trial and relevant on the issues of amount ofattorneys’ fees and costs claimed as damages in this action, as he was the main attorney litigating the underlying action and the one who presumably attributed the various billable hourly rates to his time. Within the half year that he waslitigating the case on behalf of PCP-Lilac, according to the billing records, he was initially charging his client $200 per hour(as of July 28, 2016), then $250 per hour (from August 17, 2016 through December 2, 2016), and finally $270 per hour (from January 20, 2017 to February 22, 2017). Additionally, other entries within Rudderow Law Group’s billing records appear duplicative, while others appear completely unrelated and/or unnecessary. Mr. Rudderow would have personal knowledge as to these matters, particularly as to his own time and billable rate with regard to his work defending PCP-Lilac, LP in the underlying action. His testimony is therefore highly relevant and necessary. 11 11 11 11 5 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 A Pr of es si on al La w Co rp or at io n 5 8 5 5 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 3 0 0 W o o d l a n d Hi ll s, C A 9 1 3 6 7 © 0 9 a W n B A W N = N N N N N N N N O N m m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m c o N N A N n n k A W I N D = O O N N N R E W I N D = O 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Rudderow’s billing records pertaining to the attorneys’ fees and costs attributed to defense of the underlying action. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 3, 2018, in = NICHOLAS W. SARRIS, ESQ. Woodland Hills, California. By: 6 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 EXHIBIT 1 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 18500 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92612 PCP-Lilac LP C/O Thom Niederkofler RE: LILAC OAKS ADV. BARTOLO INVOICE NO.: 10368 BILLED THROUGH: 7/31/2016 $9.95 . ~ PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 07/28/16 RB PROOF OF SERVICE; FILE DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT, 0.72 90.00 SERVE AS REQUIRED; UPDATEFILE; CALENDAR FOLLOW UP. 07/28/16 DTR REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM 1.00 200.00 CLIENT; DRAFT GENERAL DENIAL TOTAL FEES 1.72 $290.00 COSTS DATE DESCRIPTION 7/28/2016 Filing Fees E filing fee for General Denial 9.95 TOTAL COSTS TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES $299.95 BALANCE DUE $299.95 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY NAME HOURS RATE AMOUNT 20000 $200.00 RENEE BESSETT 072 125.00 $90.00 PCP000056 PCP-Lilac LP C/O Thom Niederkofler PAGE 2 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000057 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 18500 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92612 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Street INVOICE NO.: 10410 Santa Ana, CA 92701 BILLED THROUGH: 8/31/2016 RE: LILAC OAKS ADV. BARTOLO PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 08/17/16 DTR REVIEW AND ANALYZE ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT 1.00 250.00 TAKI G 1.50 375.00 OF 0.70 87.50 PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE FOR SAME; UPDATE FILE, CALENDAR FOLLOW UP. 08/26/16 DTR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING ATTORNEY RE 0.30 75.00 PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION (VM) TOTAL FEES 3.50 $787.50 PREVIOUS BALANCE $299.95 BALANCE DUE $1,087.45 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY NAME HOURS RATE AMOUNT RUDDEROW 250.00 $700.00 RENEE BESSETT 0.70 125.00 $87.50 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000058 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 2601 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CA 92614 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Street INVOICE NO.: 10482 Santa Ana, CA 92701 BILLED THROUGH: 10/31/2016 RE: LILAC OAKS ADV. BARTOLO PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 09/02/16 DTR REVIEW OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION NOTICE, DRAFT NOTICE 0.30 75.00 OF TAKING DEPOSITION; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO CLIENT RE SAME 09/20/16 DTR CONFERENCE WITH COLDREN RE BACKGROUND; DRAFT 0.50 125.00 CORRESPONDENCE TO THM RE SAME 09/28/16 DTR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING ATTORNEY RE 0.30 75.00 PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION 09/28/16 DTR DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO CLIENT RE STATUS 0.30 75.00 10/19/16 DTR REVIEW PLAINTIFF'S CMC STATEMENT, PREPARE DEFENDANT'S 0.40 100.00 CMC STATEMENT TOTAL FEES 2.50 $697.00 COSTS DATE DESCRIPTION 9/30/2016 E Filing Fees Amended General denial, Notice of Errata 9.95 10/19/2016 Filing Fees E filing of CMC Statement 9.95 TOTAL COSTS $19.90 |! TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES $616.90 PCP000059 v o STAR MANAGEMENT PAGE 2 AMOUNT PREVIOUS BALANCE $1,087.45 10/12/2016 Payment - Thank You. Check No. 000 ($299.95) 10/20/2016 Payment - Thank You. Check No. 10410 ($787.50) BALANCE DUE $616.90 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY NAME HOURS RATE AMOUNT DANIEL T. RUDDEROW 1.80 250.00 $450.00 Poremba 0.70 210.00 $147.00 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000060 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 2601 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CA 92614 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Street INVOICE NO.: 10551 Santa Ana, CA 92701 BILLED THROUGH: 11/30/2016 RE: LILAC OAKS ADV. BARTOLO PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 11/04/16 DTR APPEAR AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; REQUESTED 0.70 175.00 COURT SET A DISMISSAL HEARING RE PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION 11/04/16 DTR DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO CLIENT RE CMC AND SETTING OF 0.30 75.00 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING 11/09/16 DTR REVIEW NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT 0.20 50.00 CONFERENCE AND OSC RE DISMISSAL HEARING TOTAL FEES 1.20 $300.00 COSTS DATE DESCRIPTION 11/3/2016 Service Fee Court Call Appearance for CMC Statement Hearing 116.00 11/22/2016 Filing Fees E filing Change of Address 9.95 TOTAL COSTS .$425.95 TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES $425.95 PREVIOUS BALANCE $616.90 BALANCE DUE $1,042.85 PCP000061 STAR MANAGEMENT NAME DANIEL T. RUDDEROW PAGE 2 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY HOURS RATE AMOUNT 1.20 250.00 $300.00 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000062 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 2601 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CA 92614 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Strest INVOICE NO.: 10608 Santa Ana, CA 92701 BILLED THROUGH: 12/31/2016 RE: LILAC OAKS ADV. BARTOLO PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 12/01/16 DTR REVIEW FILE; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO OPPOSING 0.50 125.00 ATTORNEY RE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM 12/02/16 DTR REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM OPPOSING ATTORNEY RE 0.40 100.00 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO OPPOSING ATTORNEY RE SAME TOTAL FEES 0.90 $225.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE $1,042.85 12/28/2016 Payment - Thank You ($1,042.85) BALANCE DUE $225.00 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY NAME HOURS RATE AMOUNT DANIEL T. RUDDEROW 0.90 250.00 $225.00 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000063 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 2601 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CA 92614 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Street INVOICE NO.: 10681 Santa Ana, CA 92701 BILLED THROUGH: 1/31/2017 RE: PCP-LILAC, LP adv. BARTOLO PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 01/2017 DTR PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 170 459.00 (HEARING CONTINUED ON COURT'S OWN MOTION) 01/2717 DTR PREPARE EOR AND ATTEND OSC RE DISMISSAL HEARING 0.50 135.00 01/3117 DTR RESEARCH ELEMENTS TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM; 0.60 162.00 DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER TOTAL FEES 2.80 $756.00 COSTS DATE DESCRIPTION 11712017 CourtCall [1/20/17 APPEARANCE] 86.00 112412017 CourtCall [1/27/17 APPEARANCE] 86.00 TOTAL COSTS TT TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES $928.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE $225.00 2/16/2017 Payment - Thank You. Check No. 1559 ($225.00) BALANCE DUE $928.00 ty PCP000064 r o w ? STAR MANAGEMENT NAME PAGE TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY HOURS RATE 270.00 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 2 AMOUNT PCP000065 RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 2601 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CA 92614 STAR MANAGEMENT 1400 East 4th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: PCP-LILAC, LP adv. BARTOLO INVOICE NO.: 10741 BILLED THROUGH: 2/28/2017 PROFESSIONAL FEES DATE INIT. DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 02/22/17 DTR REVIEW COURT'S SIGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DRAFT 0.30 81.00 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLIENT TO CLOSE FILE TOTAL FEES 0.30 $81.00 COSTS DATE DESCRIPTION 2/17/2017 FILING FEE FOR ELECTRONICALLY FILING PROPOSED ORDER 9.95 DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 2/24/2017 FILING FEE FOR ELECTRONICALLY FILING NOTICE OF ENTRY OF 9.95 ORDER 2/24/2017 FILING FEE FOR ELECTRONICALLY FILING NOTICE OF TRIAL, ETC. 9.85 TOTAL COSTS $29.85 TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES $110.85 PREVIOUS BALANCE $928.00 BALANCE DUE $1,038.85 TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY NAME HOURS RATE AMOUNT DANIEL T. RUDDEROW 0.30 270.00 $81.00 PCP000066 STAR MANAGEMENT PAGE 2 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: "RUDDEROW LAW GROUP" THANKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! EIN# 46-3733453 PCP000067 O O 0 N N & U n BK ” Ww W N N = - t p e d m d p d a m d p e w m B A W N = O A Pr of es si on al L a w Co rp or at io n 58 55 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 30 0 W o o d l a n d Hi ll s, C A 9 1 3 6 7 n N N N N N N N N N = = e m = 0 0 9 O N W n A L O N = O O W O 0 N N PROOF OF SERVICE CCP § 1013 (Revised 1/1/2011) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - NORTH COUNTY I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5855 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 300, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. On October 3, 2018, I servedthe foregoing document described as JML DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LILAC, LP’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM CALLING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, DANIEL RUDDEROW, AS A WITNESS; AND DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS W. SARRIS, on the interested parties in this action by placing the original true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Daniel T. Rudderow, Esq. Guy Chezrony, Esq. RUDDEROW LAW GROUP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email Addresses: dan@rudderowlaw.com, guy@rudderowlaw.com Attorneysfor: Plaintiff, PCP-Lilac, LP BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY. The above listed document was electronically transmitted to the email addresses of the] above addressees on the date listed below via e-service using One Legal. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of] California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 3, 2018 aydbi Ifoniter Lipsid 1 7 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PCP-LiLAC, LP’Ss MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2