Motion To Strike Not Initial Pleading Memorandum of Points And Authorities

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.April 9, 2015

Electronically "A OO 0 N N NN nn Rs W N B O m = m m ee d e t e d e m e e e d by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/26/2019 01:33 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Soto,Deputy ts Law Offices of Lee E. Burrows A Professional Corporation Lee E. Burrows, Esq. (State Bar No. 170448) Kristina Edrington, Esq. (State Bar No. 324619) 46 Corporate Park, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (949) 546-9948 Facsimile: (949) 546-9619 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, GABRIEL HAKIM, JR. as successor-in-interest for Gabriel Hakim, and JOYCE HAKIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC, ) Case No.: BC578353 ) Assigned to Hon. Judge Gregory Keosian Plaintiff, Dept.: 61 Vs. ) ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO GABRIEL HAKIM, JOYCE HAKIM, ) STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS- and DOES 1-10, ) DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Defendants. y AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. ) BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Hearing Date: April 16, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. ) Dept: 61 ) ) Reservation ID: 539984739354 GABRIEL HAKIM and JOYCE HAKIM, N a r ” “ a ” N t ” a t ge et ” Cross-Complainants; Vv. Complaint Filed: April 9, 2015 SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC, a Trial Date: November 6, 2018 California Limited Liability Company, GILBERT D. SETON, an individual, and ROES 1-50, Cross-Defendants. N e t N a r ” N e e a t ’ N s ? N a s e “ a r s a e “ s a t “ s e t “ g e t “ g s “e et 1 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION O O RX NN O N nn B W N e N O DN ) m m e m e m e d e t p e pe p e B Y E R B I Y J R E E S E S 3 a 5 S B = o TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 16, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 61 of the above-entitled court, located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants/Cross-Complainants, GABRIEL HAKIM, JR. as successor- in-interest for Gabriel Hakim (deceased), and JOYCE HAKIM (hereinafter “Defendants™) will move the Court for an order taxing costs, striking costs, and/or reducing the amounts claimed in Items 1, 4, 5, and 11 of Plaintiff/Cross-Respondent SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC's (hereinafter “Plaintiff””) Memorandum of Costs. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 and Rule of Court, Rule 3.1700(b), Defendants will and hereby do move to tax and/or strike Plaintiff’s claimed costs as follows: 1. Item 1 - Filing and Motion Fees of $2,402.31, as those fees are not itemized to determine how, when, or why such costs were incurred. There is no way to determine if such costs are reasonable in amount or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, §4.) Plaintiffs did not include the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), no bills or invoices are attached, and there is no declaration to justify, support, or substantiate such costs. As such all claimed costs in this category should be stricken. 2. Item 4 - Deposition Costs of $54,725.21, as those costs are not itemized to determine how, when, or why such costs were incurred. There is no way to determine if such costs are reasonable in amount or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. As such, these fees are not recoverable as a matter of law. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, 5.) Plaintiffs did not include the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), no bills or 2 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NO 0 N N A N Wn B R A W N MN O N N N m m e t e d e d e m e e e s e d e e e d . Item § - Service of Process costs of $631.40, as those fees are not itemized to determine . Item 11 - Court Reporter Fees as Established by Statute costs of $2,077.43, as those fees Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Lee E. Burrows, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such other and further, oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing of this matter. invoices are attached, and there is no declaration to justify, support, or substantiate such costs. As such all claimed costs in this category should be stricken. how, when, or why such costs were incurred. There is no way to determine if such costs are reasonable in amount or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 6.) Further, Plaintiffs did not include the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), no bills or invoices are attached, and there is no declaration to justify, support, or substantiate such costs. As such all claimed costs in this category should be stricken. are not itemized to determine how, when, or why such costs were incurred. There is no way to determine if such costs are reasonable in amount or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. In addition, no Court Reporter was required because no transcripts were ordered by the Court. As such, these fees are not recoverable as a matter of law. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, 7.) Further, Plaintiffs did not include the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), no bills or invoices are attached, and there is no declaration to justify, support, or substantiate such costs. As such all claimed costs in this category should be stricken. This Motion is and will be based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of 3 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION oO Oo c o ~ AN wn + w o ro - p k p d e k e d pe d p d p d pe 0 NN O N nn RAE W N DATED: March 26, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF LEE E. BURROWS, APC By: SEERA, eE. Burrows, Esq. Kristina Edrington, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, GABRIEL HAKIM, JR. as successor-in-interest for Gabriel Hakim and JOYCE HAKIM 4 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 0 0 N N O N wn hs W N N o N O N RN DN O N - es e m e m e m e m e d e e e e MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendants/Cross-Complainants, GABRIEL HAKIM, JR., as successor-in-interest for Gabriel Hakim (deceased), and JOYCE HAKIM (hereinafter “Defendants™) hereby move to strike or tax Plaintiff/Cross-Respondent SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Memorandum of Costs, wherein Plaintiff seeks recovery of $59,836.35 in costs. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 3.) As demonstrated in this Motion and its supporting papers, the costs claimed by Plaintiff are not recoverable under California Code of Civil Procedure and accompanying case law. Most significantly, Plaintiff has not provided any itemization or support by admissible evidence to substantiate the costs claimed in its Memorandum of Costs. Without proper support or justification, Defendants, and thus the Court, are unable to ascertain whether any of the costs claimed for filing and motion fees, deposition costs, service of process costs, and court reporter fees were reasonable in amount and/or reasonably and necessarily incurred in the conduct of this litigation. (See, Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(2) and (c)(3)). For those reasons as well as for those set forth below, Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs should be stricken in its entirety or taxed for each item claimed. II. ARGUMENT A. Defendants Are Entitled to Seek to Strike or Tax Costs, the Necessity and Reasonableness of Which Plaintiff Has the Burden of Establishing 5 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO RK N N N nt R W W N N nN N O N RN N N N m e e s e m e e e e e s e s e s ee BE 3 8 5 2 RB 8B 80 R R 8 9% ® 9 oa o n 2 ww 0 ~ ~ © According to California law, costs must be reasonable and necessary, not just beneficial and convenient to the litigation. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2); Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary in the case. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Ladas, supra, citing to Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal. App.3d 618, 624.) Costs that were "merely convenient or beneficial to [Plaintiff’s] preparation" are disallowed. (Id) Further, costs claimed by a prevailing party must be reasonable in amount. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(3).) Moreover, the mere filing of a motion to tax costs is a proper objection to an item. (See, Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins., (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699 (emphasis added).) Additionally, the court has discretion to disallow costs, even if those costs are recoverable as matter of right, when the costs are not shown to be reasonably necessary, and the court may reduce any cost to an amount that is “reasonable.” (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises, (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245.) Further, a Court may disallow costs when the propriety of the costs cannot be determined “from the face of the cost bill”. (See, Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4" 111, 132.) Here, Plaintiff has not provided any supporting detail, documentation, or evidence to justify the expenses sought by way of its Memorandum of Costs. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, 9 3). Rather, Plaintiff has merely filled out the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) form identifying the purported costs incurred without providing any detail or itemization of expenses 6 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 00 J AN Wn hs W N N O N N N N D = e m e m e e e e e t e d e d e e e d to substantiate the requested costs.! As such, neither the Court nor the Defendants can make an assessment as to whether these costs were reasonable in amount or reasonable and necessary to the litigation. (See, Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(2) and (c)(3).) Defendants have properly objected to these costs by virtue of the bringing of this Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, and thus the burden accordingly shifts to Plaintiff to justify whether the costs were reasonable in amount and/or reasonably and necessarily incurred in the litigation and not “merely beneficial” or otherwise precluded by statute. Consequently, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff, SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC, to justify the reasonableness of the amount of the costs, as well as to show whether they were reasonably and necessarily incurred in this instant matter before the Court. Otherwise, the costs described in the instant Memorandum of Costs should be stricken in their entirety and none of the claimed costs should be allowed. III. DISPUTED COSTS AND/OR COST AMOUNTS A. Filing and Motion Fees (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 1) Defendants object to this $2,402.31 cost as unsubstantiated and unjustified. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 4.) Without substantiation and justification as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants dispute this cost was reasonable or necessary. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 4.) Instead, Defendants contend that these costs are arbitrary, unnecessary, not authorized by law, excessive, and/or unreasonable under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. (See, Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises, (1992) 4 Cal. App.4th 238, 245 [“intent and ly Plaintiff filed a summary of the Memorandum of Costs, judicial form MC-010, however it did not provide the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), Judicial Council form MC-011, to identify and support the claimed costs. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 3.) 7 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 0 NN O N Ln B A W N e N O N RN RN N O N O N e m mm e m e e e e e m e m e m e e e e RF 3 B E Y R R O R I R E E TS J a & 2 © v0 ~ ~ o effect (of 1033.5(c)(2)) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”.]. B. Deposition Costs (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 4) Defendants object to the $54,725.21 in deposition costs Plaintiffs claim in the Memorandum of Costs. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, §5.) During the proceedings, Plaintiff took approximately six (6) depositions: Joyce Hakim and Gabriel Hakim, Jr. in Palm Beach, FL; Eric Albert in New York; Morley Goldberg and Dr. Garry Wasserman in New Jersey; and expert witness Kelly Allen in California for two (2) days. Each deposition was videotaped. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel attended two (2) depositions in New York of Richard Shill and David Walentas. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, 5.) Even with the videotaping and travel required, costs in excess of $54,000 is extreme, particularly where no supporting detail or documentation is provided. Without any itemization or documentation there is simply no way for Defendants or this Court to discern whether such costs were reasonable in amount or were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the instant litigation and Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of any such costs. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 5.) Without proper substantiation and justification, Defendants dispute these costs as arbitrary, unnecessary, not authorized by law, excessive, and/or unreasonable under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. C. Service of Process Costs (Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 5) Defendants object to this $631.40 cost as unsubstantiated and unjustified. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 6.) Without any detail or substantiation as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants cannot discern whether such costs were reasonable or necessary. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 6.) Thus, without proper substantiation and justification, 8 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 0 N N NN nn se W N N O N N N m e m m e e e m e m p m e e e m e s Defendants dispute these costs as arbitrary, unnecessary, not authorized by law, excessive, and/or unreasonable under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. D. Court Reporter Fees as Established by Statute (Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 11) Defendants object to this $2,077.43 in claimed costs for Court Reporter Fees as unsubstantiated and unjustified. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 7.) There was no court order for a court reporter at any of the court proceedings and there are no statutes providing for court reporter fees under the circumstances of this case. (See, Decl. of Lee E. Burrows, § 7.) Notably, costs for transcripts not ordered by the court are not recoverable. (Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc., 17 Cal.4th 436, 442.) Therefore, without proper substantiation and justification, Defendants dispute these costs as arbitrary, unnecessary, not authorized by law, excessive, and/or unreasonable under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. IV. CONCLUSION Defendants hereby object to Plaintiff SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC’s Memorandum of Costs in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to provide any detail, documentation or admissible evidence to support, justify, or substantiate its claim for such costs. Defendants have put at issue each of the costs claimed by Plaintiff SP INVESTMENT FUND I, LLC in its Memorandum of Costs and the burden of proof should now be shifted to Plaintiff to substantiate and justify its claimed costs. As Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of proof based upon the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs as presented, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs be stricken in its entirety or the costs taxed as requested herein. 9 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION DATED: March 26, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF LEE E. BURROWS, APC By: a hee E. Beftrows, Esq. Kristina Edrington, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, GABRIEL HAKIM, JR. as successor-in-interest for Gabriel Hakim, and JOYCE HAKIM 10 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 0 0 N O N U i B R A W N N O N N O N N O N N N m m e m e m e m e m e e ee e s N N G R O R R 8 38 ©» J a & 2 © pO -~ © DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. I, Lee E. Burrows, declare as follows: I I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of California and I am the principal of the Law Offices of Lee E. Burrows, APC, attorneys of record for Defendants, Gabriel Hakim, Jr. as successor-in-interest to Gabriel Hakim (deceased) and Joyce Hakim (hereinafter “Defendants”). The following facts are within my personal knowledge and if called as a witness 1 could and would competently testify thereto. On or about January 22, 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff SP Investment Fund I, LLC in the amount of $374,275.34, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Plaintiff served notice of entry of judgment on Defendants on or about March 1, 2019. On or about March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed and served its Memorandum of Costs at issue; thereby attempting to seek to recover its claimed costs in the amount of $59,836.35. No other documents were attached to the Memorandum of Costs to substantiate or justify those costs. Nor did Plaintiff file and serve Judicial Council form MC-011 (Worksheet) with its Memorandum of Costs to identify and support the claimed costs. Defendants object to Plaintiff's claim of $2,402.31 for Filing and Motion Fees (Item No. 1) because there is no itemization or description of the claimed fees or costs. Without any substantiation and justification as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants cannot ascertain whether such costs were reasonable in amount or whether these costs were reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff made numerous filings in this case, however, without some detail or itemization of such claimed costs, Defendants cannot 11 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OO 0 N N N Wn A s V N N N N N D = m e e t m d e m e e e e e e e d discern whether the costs are recoverable or whether they are some other type or form of costs which may not be recoverable under Section 1033.5. Defendants object to Plaintiff's claim of $54,725.21 for Deposition Costs (Item No. 4) because there is no itemization or description of the claimed costs. Without any substantiation and justification as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants cannot ascertain whether such costs were reasonable in amount or whether these costs were reasonable or necessary. Significantly, Plaintiff took approximately six (6) depositions: Joyce Hakim and Gabriel Hakim, Jr. in Palm Beach, FL; Eric Albert in New York; Morley Goldberg and Dr. Garry Wasserman in New Jersey; and expert witness Kelly Allen in California for two (2) days. Each deposition was videotaped. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel attended two (2) depositions in New York of Richard Shill and David Walentas. In reviewing the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, it is impossible to discern which of the costs are related to which depositions, and whether such costs are claimed for the transcripts, the videotaping of the depositions, or even as to travel expenses or some other form or type of expenses which may or may not be recoverable under Section 1033.5. . Defendants object to Plaintiff's claim of $631.40 for Service of Process Costs (Item No. 5) because there is no itemization or description of the claimed costs. Without any substantiation and justification as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants cannot ascertain whether such costs were reasonable in amount or whether these costs were reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff made numerous attempts at service of subpoenas for records and third-party depositions in this case, however, without some detail or itemization of such claimed costs, Defendants cannot discern whether the costs 12 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’ /CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION are recoverable or whether they are some other type or form of costs which may not be recoverable under Section 1033.5. Defendants object to Plaintiff's claim of $2,077.43 for Court Reporter Fees as Established by Statute (Item No. 11) because there is no itemization or description of the claimed fees or costs. Without any substantiation and justification as to how, when, and why these costs were incurred, Defendants cannot ascertain whether such costs were reasonable in amount or whether these costs were reasonable or necessary. There were numerous hearings where a court reporter was present and transcribing the proceedings, however, without some detail or itemization of such claimed costs, Defendants cannot discern whether the costs are recoverable or whether they are some other type or form of costs which may not be recoverable under Section 1033.5. Significantly, however, the Court never ordered the transcribing of any of the court proceedings held before it. Based upon the instant Motion, Defendants hereby object to Plaintiff's claimed costs and seek to have the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs stricken or the costs reduced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 and Rule of Court, Rule 3.1700. [ 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 March 26, 2019 in Irvine, California. a= Lee E. Burrows, Esq. 13 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation SP INVESTMENT FUND | LLC VS GABRIEL HAKIM ET AL Case Number: BC578353 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) Date Filed: 2015-04-09 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 61 Reservation Case Name: SPINVESTMENT FUND | LLC VS GABRIEL HAKIM ET AL Type: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) (Motion to Strike or Tax Costs) Filing Party: Gabriel Hakim (Defendant) Date/Time: 04/16/2019 9:00 AM Reservation ID: 539984739654 Fees Description Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) (name extension) Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: KXXX1427 i [ Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Case Number: BC578353 Status: RESERVED Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 61 Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-JGFRDBDXID7NSS4IN Fee 60.00 1.65 Type: Visa Authorization: 017684 ( Lo Co) 4 Print Receipt | «+ Reserve Another Hearing 2 View My Reservations Qty Amount 1 60.00 1 1.65 $61.65 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 SP Investment Fund 1, LLC, vs. Gabriel Hakim, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC57835 PROOF OF SERVICE [California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013A(3) and 2015.5] STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 46 Corporate Park, Suite 110, Irvine, CA 92606. On March 26, 2019 I served a true and correct copy of the document(s) described as: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX PLAINTIFFS’/CROSS- DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEE E. BURROWS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: Garrett L. Hanken, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Daniel Stone, Esq. SP Investment Fund I LLC GREENBERG GLUSKER 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 553-3610 Fax: (310) 553-0687 GHanken@GreenbergGlusker.com DStone@GreenbergGlusker.com By Mail X VIA MAIL - In accordance with the regular mail collection and processing with the regular mail collection and processing practices of this business office, with which I am familiar, by means of which mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service at Irvine, California, that same day in the ordinary course of business, I deposited such sealed envelope for collection and mailing on this same date following ordinary business practices. VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY - I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the addressee (as indicated above) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1011. VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the addressee via overnight delivery pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 § 1013(c). Said document was deposited at the box regularly maintained by said express service carrier located at Corporate Park, Irvine, California, on the date set forth above. Via ELECTRONIC MAIL (EMAIL) - I caused such document to be delivered to the office of the addressee via electronic mail (email) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure. Said document was transmitted from my e-mail address from the LAW OFFICES OF LEE E. BURROWS in Irvine, California, on the date set forth above at approximately 5:00 p.m. VIA FACSIMILE - I caused such document to be delivered to the office of the addressee via facsimile machine pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(e). Said document was transmitted from the LAW OFFICES OF LEE E. BURROWS in Irvine, California, on the date set forth above, and the original fax transaction report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 26, 2019 at Irvine, California. ee ___- yan Thomason, Declarant 2 PROOF OF SERVICE