Declaration Declaration of Min K Kang Regarding Meet And Confer Efforts On DemurrerDemurrerCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 15, 2017Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/05/2018 04:14 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by B. Gonzalez,Deputy Clerk 11 Randolph S. Hicks, Esq. - SBN 83627 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH 2 || A Professional Corporation, Lawyers 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 3] Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Tel: 650.592.5400 4 It Fax: 650.592.5027 wh Min K. Kang, Esq. - SBN 246904 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers -520 Broadway, Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 94401 Tel: 310.981.4920 8 | Fax: 650.592.5027 ~~ N 9 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant/Cross-Complainant Progressive West Insurance Company, 10 || sued herein as DOE 1 1 oH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 141 JASON THOMAS, Case No. BC650910 13 Plaintiff, 161 os. DECLARATION OF MIN K. KANG . REGARDING MEET AND CONFER STAN MOUNT INSURANCE AGENCY, | EFFORTS ON DEMURRER 1g STAN MOUNT, and DOLS 1 - 20, 19 Defendants. 201 PROGRESSIVE WEST INSURANCE 51 | COMPANY, 2 Cross-Complainant, 23 VS. 54 | STAN MOUNT INSURANCE AGENCY, and ROE 1 through 50, 25 Cross-Defendants. 26 27 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of 28 California, and am an attorney at Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, attorneys of record for 1 Declaration of Min K. Kang re Meet and Confer Efforts on Demurrer . Case No: BC650910 543643 'Defendant/ Cross-Complainant, Progressive West Insurance Company, sued herein as DOE 1 (hereinafter “Progressive”). I make this declaration from my own personal knowledge, and if called to do so, can and would testify to each fact set forth herein. 2, Despite good faith attempts to meet and confer on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this matter, I was unable to complete the process at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading to the FAC is due. 5 The heating for plaintiff Jason Thomas’ (hereinafter “plaintiff”’) Motion For Leave “Ta File A First Amended Complaint took place on November 0, 2018. The Court granted plaintiff's motion, and plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed and deemed served that day. Accordingly, Progressives responsive pleading is due to be filed by December 6, 2018. 4. A mediation in this matter took place on Friday, November 16, 2018. Unfortunately, the mediation did not result in the resolution of this case. 5. On the next business day of Monday, November 19, 2018, I attempted to contact plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Peter diDonato, Esq., to meet and confer on issues to be addressed in Progressive’s anticipated demurrer. Mr. diDonato was unavailable that day, and did not return my call the following day. 6. Between the evening of November 20 and November 29, 2018, I was out of the country and unreachable by telephone or email. iF On the morning of November 30, 2018, Mr. diDonato called and left me a message to discuss this case. As it was my first day back in the office after vacation, I was not able to call Mr. diDonato back until late afternoon that day. While we discussed the status of the case, discovery issues and the parties’ respective positions in the case globally, we were unable to discuss the details of Progressive’s anticipated demurrer. Mr. diDonato also advised that he ‘would be out of the office and unavailable for a substantive discussion regarding the demurrer during the following two business days. Accordingly, both counsel agreed and arranged to discuss matters regarding the demurrer on the morning of December 7, 2018. Mr. diDonato also noted that he would not oppose my filing this declaration, given that we would not have the 2 Declaration of Min K. Kang re Meet and Confer Efforts on Demurrer Case No: BC650910 543643 «we 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i will be able to complete the process in the near future and potentially resolve Progressive’s | opportunity for a meaningful meet and confer regarding the grounds for Progressive’s demurrer until after its responsive pleading is due. 8. Although the parties were unable to adequately meet and confer at least five days before Progressive’s responsive pleading to the Complaint is due, I am hopeful that the parties objections to the FAC. 92 Based upon the foregoing, an automatic 30-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading is warranted here pursuant to Cal. Civ. Pro. § 430.41(a)(2). Progressive shall not be subject to default during the 30-day period of extension, which would apply through January 7, 2019. - I declare under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of December 2018, at Los Angeles, California. 17 18 19 20 21 B o NY [3 % += (F S No rN hn 27 28 3 Declaration of Min K. Kane re Meet Case No: BC650910 o te Meet and Confer Efforts on Demurrer 543643 J D e N N PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300, Redwood City, California 94065. My electronic mail address is Eva@chdlawyers.com. I am readily familiar with my employet’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. On December 5, 2018, 1 served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. DECLARATION OF MIN KANG REGARDING MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS ON DEMURRER XX United States Mail: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid on the above date placed for collection and mailing at my place of business to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Redwood City, California on this same date in the ordinary course of business. Overnight Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled packaging for overnight delivery, with Federal Express, with all charges to be paid by my employer on the above date for collection at i) place of business to be deposited in a facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier, or delivered to a courtier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein, ot if upon attorney, by leaving the labeled envelopes with a receptionist or other person having charge of the attorney’s office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the Jey or attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said party ot attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of Pog The transmission was reported as complete and without etror, and a record of the transmission was propertly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. ~ N N ND 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed a document with the court; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendor. The printed form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available for inspection at the request of the court or any party to the action or proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Court Rule 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of service in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employet’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Attorneys for Plaintiff Defendant Stan Mount and Stan Mount Ins. Agency Peter R. diDonato, Esq. diDonato Law Center Stan Mount 28494 Westinghouse Place, Suite 305 28100 Bouquet Canyon Road, Suite 204 Valencia CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Telephone: (661) 255-7500 Telephone: (661) 263-8435 Fax: (661) 255-7557 peter@didonatolegal.com I certify (or 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 December 5, 2018. Gall ro Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles Central District County Action No: B{650970 Case Name: Thomas v. Stan Mount Insurance Agency, et al.
