Reply Plaintiffs Reply In Support Motion To Tax Costs Declaration of Aaron Lavine

Reply

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.July 12, 2017

Electronically FILED b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP Boris Treyzon, Esq. (SBN 188893) Douglas A. Rochen, Esq. (SBN 217231) Aaron Lavine, Esq. (SBN 260277) 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 935 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone (310) 407-7888 Facsimile (310) 407-7915 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MALVIS CRISTAL SANCHEZ and JULIO MIRANDA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MALVIS CRISTAL SANCHEZ, an individual; | Assigned to Hon. Bobbi Tillmon, Dept. O JULIO MIRANDA, an individual; Case No.: BC668351 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS; VS. DECLARATION OF AARON LAVINE NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, | Date: February 15, 2019 inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: O Defendants TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiffs’ submit the follow Reply in support of their Motion to Tax Costs. I. INTRODUCTION Dismissal was entered in favor of the Nutribullet defendants in this matter not because the Defendants prevailed on the merits but because, as a matter of discretion, the Court determined there was a more convenient venue for this lawsuit and granted a motion for forum non conveniens. Defendants are not prevailing parties under the law and therefore are not - PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/07/2019 06:31 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Duran,Deputy Cler H - 3 S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 entitled to costs. There was no determination that Plaintiffs’ claims do not have merit. There was not a determination that the venue selected by Plaintiffs was statutorily inappropriate. The only determination made by the Court was that there is a different forum that would be more convenient for Defendants. To punish Plaintiffs with a cost bill, when they made no statutory error in their selection of forum, and when the only reason for the dismissal was for the convenience of Defendants, would be patently unfair. The California Supreme Court has held that defendants who succeed on a motion for forum non conveniens are not prevailing parties. See DipSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968. It further held that all relevant factors, such as the pendency of litigation in another forum, must be considered in determining the prevailing party. See Sears v. Baccaglio (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 1136, 1156. While Defendant is correct that Code of Civil Procedure, section 1032 requires costs be awarded to a defendant whose case was dismissed, the statutory language defining prevailing party under section 1032 does not end there. Section 1032 continues, providing discretion for the Court, “[i]f any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not . . . .” Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. The relief afforded Defendants here is not so much a dismissal as it is trading one forum for another. Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, should not award costs to Defendant because Defendants are not prevailing parties. In the unlikely event Defendants ultimately prevail in the lawsuit in federal court, they can avail themselves of the opportunity to recover costs at that juncture. In the alternative, if the Court determines Defendants are prevailing parties, their requests for costs must be significantly reduced as most of the costs incurred were unreasonable and unnecessary. i Di PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS NS } Oo © 9 O N wn A Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. LEGAL STANDARD a. The Court has discretion in determining a prevailing party under CCP § 1032 As noted, section 1032 provides discretion for the Court, stating in certain circumstances, “the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not . . . .” Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. The Court is free to consider matters outside the specific lawsuit which was before the Court in the “prevailing party” determination. “[W]here there is evidence of other success . . . whether by settlement or through a collateral action, the court is entitled to take such recovery into account when calculating which side prevailed.” Sears v. Baccaglio (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 1136, 1156. The Court “remains free to consider all factors which may reasonably be considered to indicate success in litigation, for purposes of statute governing determination of prevailing party for award of costs.” Id. The Supreme Court specifically held, “[t]he result would not be different under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032,” adopting this standard not just for section 1717 cases, but for cost awards under section 1032 as well. See id. at 1155. Similarly, in DipSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968, the California Supreme Court reasoned, with regard to breach of contract litigation, that when a California case was dismissed for forum non conveniens, but litigation was ongoing in another state, “fees should not yet be awarded because the dismissal did not end the contractual litigation but merely moved it to another forum.” DisputeSuite.com, LLC, 2 Cal.5th at 979. The Dipsuite.com court continued that lower courts were in error “to the extent they state the prevailing party determination under section 1717 must be made without regard to the contract litigation's continuation in another forum.” /d. Importantly, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1717, as with section 1032, the award of fees is statutorily mandated for prevailing parties; however, the court determined that a dismissal for forum non conveniens did not create a “prevailing party” under the statute. 111 Fis PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5; 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. Only reasonable costs are recoverable by a prevailing party Only reasonable costs are recoverable by a prevailing party. Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2)-(3). If a party seeking to tax costs establishes costs were not reasonable or necessary, those costs are not recoverable. See Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court. Id. III. ARGUMENT a. The Court should deny costs to Defendants because Defendants are not prevailing parties under CCP § 1032 Defendants should not be considered prevailing parties under Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. The parties to this litigation are involved in a “collateral action” which must be considered by the Court in determining whether Defendants are prevailing parties. See Sears, 60 Cal.App.4th at 1156. While the success of that litigation is yet undetermined, the pendency of that litigation must be considered by the Court. See id. That forum will ultimately be the venue in which the prevailing party should seek costs. The Sears court was clear its ruling also applied to costs bills sought under section 1032. See id. Here, there was no disposition on the merits. There was not even a disposition that Plaintiffs chose a statutorily incorrect forum. The Court simply determined there was a more convenient forum for Defendants. Plaintiffs must not be punished with a cost bill when there is no determination they did anything other than exercise their statutory right to file a lawsuit in a court of their choosing. The lawsuit was shifted to federal court, because the Court determined the instant venue was inconvenient for Defendants. An award of costs should not follow that determination. These factors are all properly considered by the Court in determining whether or not Defendants are prevailing parties under section 1032. See id. They are not. Defendants did -4- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS Oo 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 47 28 not prevail. They moved the venue. In an analogous situation determining the propriety of awarding statutorily mandated attorneys’ fees under section 1717 in a contract dispute, the California Supreme Court held that a party who was dismissed as a result of bringing a successful forum non conveniens motion was not a prevailing party justifying a statutory award of fees. See DisputeSuite.com, LLC, 2 Cal.5th at 979. As with Sears, this holding should logically apply to section 1032 cases in addition to section 1717 cases as both deal with statutorily mandated awards for prevailing parties. Dipsuite makes clear that a party the files a successful forum non conveniens motion is not a prevailing party under the law. Accordingly, Defendants must not be awarded fees simply for successfully moving the case to a more convenient venue, where the case is still pending. b. If Defendants are prevailing parties, unreasonable costs must be stricken from their Memorandum of Costs and not be awarded Nearly all of the costs incurred by Defendants were unnecessary. All Defendants are related entities which work together in a joint enterprise to, in layman’s terms, sell Nutribullet blenders and related products. There are dozens of lawsuits currently pending between plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter, all against some combination of the Defendants herein. Early in the omnibus litigation process, then counsel for Defendants, who has since been replaced by current defense counsel, represented that Nutribullet, LLC was the only necessary defendant. (See Declaration of Aaron Lavine “Lavine Decl.”, 3.) Plaintiffs attempted to secure an agreement that would obviate the need to include additional defendants. Plaintiffs were concerned that by not naming related entities, Nutribullet, LLC might be able to avoid producing relevant documents because those documents could technically be under the control of a related but distinct entity, or that Nutribullet, LLC might eventually point at an “empty chair” of a related but distinct entity which was not named. (Lavine Decl. 4 4.) Plaintiffs proposed various agreements which could potentially assuage their -5- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS A WwW OO 0 9 O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 235 26 27 28 reasonable concerns including tolling agreements, or a stipulation that discovery requests to one entity would be deemed a discovery request to all entities, but those entities would not need to be named as defendants in the litigation. (Lavine Decl. § 5.) While those negotiations proceeded to the point of drafting proposed stipulations, an agreement was never reached because Nutribullet, LLC, ultimately refused to agree to produce documents, or make available for deposition, from the related entities, claiming they could not secure documents or depositions from these entities. (Lavine Decl. 16.) Nutribullet made this claim despite all of these entities operating out of the same physical address. (Lavine Decl. § 7.) In Plaintiffs’ estimation, the refusal to enter into a tolling agreement or discovery stipulation which would have eliminated the need for most of the Defendant entities to be named was gamesmanship, obstreperous, and unreasonable. As such, all costs related to all Defendant entities other than Nutribullet, LLC, should not be awarded. Nutribullet, LLC, incurred a $435.00 filing fee and $280.00 in motion fees. All other costs are unreasonable, could have been avoided absent the unreasonable conduct of the related entity Defendants, and should not be awarded. IV. Conclusion Defendants are not prevailing parties under the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs should be granted in full. In the event the Court determines Defendants are prevailing parties, nearly all of their claimed costs are unreasonable, and should be denied by the Court. Dated: February 7, 2019 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP A vor Lui Boris Treyzon, Esq. Aaron Lavine, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: -6- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 0 ON Oa Ww» A W O N N N N N N N N N N = em DECLARATION OF AARON LAVINE I, Aaron Lavine, hereby declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of this state, and am employed by Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Tax Costs. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 3. There are dozens of lawsuits currently pending between plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter, all against some combination of the Defendants herein. Early in the omnibus litigation process, then counsel for Defendants, who has since been replaced by current defense counsel, represented that Nutribullet, LLC was the only necessary defendant. 4. Plaintiffs attempted to secure an agreement that would obviate the need to include additional defendants. Plaintiffs were concerned that by not naming related entities, Nutribullet, LLC might be able to avoid producing relevant documents because those documents could technically be under the control of a related but distinct entity, or that Nutribullet, LLC might eventually point at an “empty chair” of a related but distinct entity which was not named. 3: Plaintiffs proposed various agreements which could potentially assuage their reasonable concerns including tolling agreements, or a stipulation that discovery requests to one entity would be deemed a discovery request to all entities, but those entities would not need to be named as defendants in the litigation. 6. While those negotiations proceeded to the point of drafting proposed stipulations, an agreement was never reached because Nutribullet, LLC, ultimately refused to agree to produce documents, or make available for deposition, from the related entities, claiming they could not secure documents or depositions from these entities. 7. All Defendants operate out of the same physical address. /17 /11 ws PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS Oo XX 9 O N wn RA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. Nutribullet, LLC, incurred a $435.00 filing fee and $280.00 in motion fees. All other costs are unreasonable, could have been avoided absent the unreasonable conduct of the related entity Defendants, and should not be awarded. 9. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the A vor Li Aaron Lavine, Declarant foregoing is true and correct. -8- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS EXHIBIT 1 MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STAYE BAR NUMBER; MME David T. McCann FIRM NAME: YOKA & SMITH, LLP STREET ADDRESS. 445 South Figueroa cy Los Anasles STATE:CA ZIP CODE: 9007 1 TELEPHONE NO. (213) 427.2300 FAXNC.:(213) 427-2330 E-MAIL ADDRESS Ditmccann@vokasmith.com ATTORNEY FOR (namo) Nutribullet. LLC: el al. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STREET ADDRESS 1725 Malin Street # 102 MAILING ADDRE 88 CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Monica 90401 BRANCH NAME Santa Monica PLAINTIFF: Malvis Cristal Sanchez DEFENDANT: Nutribullett. LLC FOR COURT USE ONLY MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) CASE NUMBER: BC668351 The following costs are requested: 1. Filing and motion fees 2. Jury fees Jury [cod and lodging w Deposition cosls Service of process Attachment expenses Surety bond premiums Wilness fees wo ® N N > on a Coun-ordered lranscripls 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required) 11. Cour reporter fees as established by slajute 12, Models, enlargements, and pholocopies of exhibits 13. Interpreter fess 14. Fees for electronic filing or service 15. Fees for hosting electronic documents 16. Other TOTALS @?» B o D r n o e wn “nr nN n n n o » 5.500 TOTAL COSTS wn 5,500 1 am Ihe attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. Yo tha best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct and these cosis were necessarily incurred in this case. Dale: / /23| 1& David T. McCann, Esq. ey TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGMETURE OF DECLARANT) {Proof of service on reverse) Page tol 2 Form Apsreved for Govonal Uso MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) yi saat Caunot of Catlona MC010 [Rev September 1, 2017) MC-010 SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER: SAnchez v. Nutribuliett, LLC PROOF OF [J] MAILING [_] PERSONAL DELIVERY 1. Aline time of mailing or personal delivery, | was al least 18 years of age and not a party lo this legal action, 2. My residence or business address Is (specify): 3. I matled or personally delivered a copy of the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) as {oliows {complate either a or b): a. [J Mall. | am a resideni of or employed In the county where the mailing occurred, {1) enclosed a copy in an envelope AND {a) [J deposited the sealad envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. {b) [_] placed the envelapa for collection and mailing on the dale and al the place shown In items below following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence for malling. On the same day Lhat correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service In a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. (2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: (a) Names of person served: (b) Address on envelope: (c) Date of mailing: (d) Place of malling (city and state): b. [_] Personal delivery, | personally delivered & copy as follows: (1) Name of person served: (2) Address where delivered: (3) Date delivered: (4) Time delivered: | declare under penalty of perjury under ihe laws of the Stale of California that the foregoing Is true and correct. Date: p (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) {SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Pogo 20i2 NC-010 [Rev.Septamber 1, 2017] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear 1s pny EET EXHIBIT 1 1/24/2018 Rosorvation Printoul-BC868351+180124284052 THIS IS YOUR CRS RECEIPT INSTRUCTIONS Please prin this recalpt and attach If to the corresponding motlon/document as the last page, Indicate the Reservation ID on the motion/dooument face page (see example), The document will not ba accapled without this receipt pege and the Reservation ID, RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation 1D: 180124284052 Transaction Date: January 24, 2018 Case Number: 8C668361 Case Title: MALVIS CRISTAL SANCHEZ ET AL VS NUTRIBULLET LLC Party: NUTRIBULLET LLC (Defendant) Courthouse: Santa Monica Courthouse Department: Q Reservation Type: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike Date: 2/23/2018 Time: 08:30 am FEE INFORMATION (Fees are non-refundable) First Paper Fee: Party asserts (Irst paper was previously paid. Description Recelpt Fee Demurrer ; 1180124K 1425-1 $60.00 Motion lo Strike (not anti-SLAPP) 1180124K 1425.2 $60.00 Total Fees: $120.00 PAYMENT INFORMATION Name on Credit Card: Colette Magnetta Credit Card Number: JORXX XX JOOK-7382 A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING MOTION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE PAGE, https:/iwww.lacourt.org/mrs/ul/printeblerecelpl.aspx?ld=undefined 1 ~ - - - - - §/3172018 THIS IS YOUR CRS RECEIPT Reservation Prinlout-BC668351-180531318030 INSTRUCTIONS Please print this receipt and attach it lo the corresponding motion/document as the last page. (ndicate the Reservation ID on the motion/document face page (see example). The documeni will not be accepled withoul this receipt page and the Reservation ID. RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation ID: Transaction Date; Case Number: Case Title: Party: Courthouse: Department: Reservation Type: Reservation Type Description: Date: Time: 180531319030 May 31, 2018 BC668351 MALVIS CRISTAL SANCHEZ ET AL VS NUTRIBULLET LLC NUTRIBULLET LLC (DefendanVRespondant) Santa Monica Cowthouse 0 Other motion (not otherwise listed) Motion to Dismiss or Stay 7111/2018 08:30 am FEE INFORMATION (Fees are non-refundable) First Paper Fea: Party asseris first paper was previously paid. Description Foe Other motion (not otherwise listed) $60.00 Total Fees: Recelpt Number: 1180531K9583 $60.00 PAYMENT INFORMATION Name on Credit Card: Credit Card Number: Coleite Magnetia XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-7382 A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING MOTION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE hitps:/Awww.lacourt.org/mrstui/printablerecaipt.aspx7id=undefined MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE PAGE. in 1/24/2018 Reservalion Printoul-BC6688361-180124284072 THIS IS YOUR CRS RECEIPT INSTRUCTIONS Please print this receipt and atlach it fo the compsponding molion/document as the last page, Indicate the Resarvation 1D on the molion/document face DES ish exemple), The document will not be accepted without this receipt page and the Resorvation ID. RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation ID: 180124284072 Transaction Date: January 24, 2018 Case Number: BC668351 Casa Title: MALV!S CRISTAL SANCHEZ ET AL VS NUTRIBULLET LLC Party: . NUTRIBULLET LLC (Defendant) Courthouse: Santa Monica Courthouse Department: o Ressrvation Type: Motion for Forum Non Convenlens Date: 3/28/2018 Time: 08:30 am FEE INFORMATION (Fees are non-refundable) First Paper Fee: Party asserts firs! paper was previously paid. Description Fee Motion for Forum Non Conveniens $60.00 Total Fees: Recelpt Number: 1180124K1649 $60.00 PAYMENT INFORMATION Name on Credit Card: Colette Magnetta Credit Card Number: OOK XIO(XAXX-7382 A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING MOTION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE PAGE. hitps Awww lacourt.org/mrs/ulprintablerecelpl.aspx?id=undefined in 2/14/2018 THIS IS YOUR CRS RECEIPT Resarvation Printout-BC868351-180124284062 INSTRUCTIONS Please print this recelpt and atiach It to the comesponding the Reservation ID on the motion/document face page (see exampla). The document will noi be accepted without this receipt page and the Reservation ID. motion/document as tha last page. indicate RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation ID: Transaction Date: Case Number: Case Title: Party: Courthouse: Departmant: Reservation Type: Date: Time: 180124284052 February 14, 2018 BC668351 MALVIS CRISTAL SANCHEZ ET AL VS NUTRIBULLET LLC NUTRIBULLET LLC (Defendant) a Monica Courthouse Demurrer - with Motion to Strike 3/28/2018 08:30 am FEE INFORMATION (Fees are non-refundable) Description Recelpt Fes Reschedule Fee « Demurrer - with Motion to Strike 1180214K8343-1 $20.00 Reschedule Fee - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike 1180214K8343-2 $20.00 Total Fees: $40.00 PAYMENT INFORMATION Name on Credit Card: Credit Card Number: Coletie Magnetia OOK -XXXX-7362 A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING MOTION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE PAGE. hitps:/www_lacourl.orgimrs/ul/printablereceipl.aspx7id=undefined ii =) 5 fo Sil ER ; op 3 iy Wy EH wb yb . i iy ¢ : 1 : ing Ly VH IP PL E CO ST A CC OU NT iS 2 RRS § NE, find rE Mi X i o i e a i s iE. i 245 54 3 2 0 li - a 5 : { iy " Heh $3 Jil Ig i = i oR = «2 Sag : de Fa WY RS : RE ARE igi? . pins i < - 5 J « sed & VINEE Fiv e th ou sa nd t wo hu nd re d twe nty a nd N o r 0 9 £2 a h p e i -* EN 92 ANAC Raines NmORy EG 3. ~ 4 Br Rou | z a oe - : * ,- . . & Lo 5 R R : . “ e J L h . v - =: P 4 b y . m e r ee S H P R F E R ae L A T A - E E R Ae or RE ia a © 4 © o 9 ® o ° ° oe © o © O L 7 m 3 g 3 g 5 5 e e ’ 0 25 LA Iw 12 32 20 LR OE R: . B&B hemore perosiT = 42390036 F188 20 005 bigw “MR DATE UO NOT WRITE & = REBSAVED EntoRsEDsh 2 ® : Coen, ~ oS } x on oO ‘ TN To QQ ~~ a oO .N + Ceo 5 a9 vo Y e . a A ’ . - N { * ~ 3 oo - J ) To - ® edie sega ¥ - po I Tre go... Jv inqtyrs el MET WA yotvy ae pail gy 1figun Cp adaity Qin ORINES. Socuniy Faot ares: semaine ton seal Toes 19 or Sh ' “ . otal oe Re ” n% mut be tained, Fish A ws inl v B RAT LH {reigns ar ant 3 or /! Crag wn ERY aa vs Distal, Totti Tow Eh Ce Tascink JI. AER QO VR ot ey PIO Verde f 30 ha alin tana Sans git sda paehl #5 eof oo Hq" 1 vy, a i, » 3 ~~, cRBitenim wl IT are fi, Tlie fh ORTH PEACE ah SURE 1 (he * wen 2 “a Tiss 7 CTE Gre A BAR upaity nog SEN COROT. ~ NEE 0 SEN Te fugues. cor evgac chp ire eae, at web tinaCen oi rab duly anes Oana nasa Pr2eelns PH i | i | |. i ‘ N I lr i Cryer Ten Pano | {mack pon 0 pre Abbe NAL LN F $5 8RUSKI REG. CC) Dngingh EEE: i8 ELT CE 1 % FEDERAL RESERVE | L 0 - Oo c e N N RA W O N - NN N N N N N N N N m e © 3 d L RE U R = 3S 0 ® Q a a E O 0 C S FILE NO.: AIG.34577 PROOF OF SERVICE CCP 1013 Sanchez, Marlvis et al. v. NutriBullet, LLC et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC668351 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 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 445 South Figueroa Street, 38" Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 23, 2018, I served the foregoing document described ass MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) AND DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY A. BYRGE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF COSTS on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted below: Boris Treyzon Bradley P. Childers Derek S. Chaiken ACKER & WHIPPLE 811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 347-0240 F: (213) 623-1956 Aaron Lavine ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 935 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ) (310) 407-7888 Attorneys for Defendants - Attorney for Plaintiffs, Malvis Cristal Sanchez & Julio Miranda (BY MAIL) I am familiar with our firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration. ™ e d [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) Such envelope was delivered by hand to the addressees. [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) In addition to regular mail, I sent this document via facsimile, number(s) as listed on the attached service list on July 23, 2018. [ 1 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) [X] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed Fed Ex (Fed Ex), July 23, 2018, with such fees prepaid, deposited in a Fed Ex depository at Los Angeles, CA in the ordinary course of business. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Exe uted on, 23,2018, at Los Angeles, California. (Lish M. Guefreko SN https://www.fedex.com/shipping/html/en/PrintIFrame.html = 3 - IN ~ =| To =X A 46 5 -_- =~ = 5 -| ®q 278% =00 - = © L352 2 -_- © ES PB Zgmm gz _ Em, ot - m m2 =m a 0 en Bl © o=0 3 a Q = g TRE 8 ------ > © - FSS 8 ----r- ~ =| & I wn 8 - iE 28% w=20 oi nn == § >8c Sem = [3 - a EE: Sb2 eu = = we-=Z FE ga == = == S57 8 ge -_- gm == m g gn --- mE = = 1 © Ir = = kT £3 WE HTH01807220 te - 552.28532/DCA5 After printing this label: 1. Use the ‘Print’ button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-dellvery, misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim. Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental, consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented loss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide. i of ] 7/23/2018 3:26 PM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 728 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 935, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On February 7, 2019, I served the foregoing documents entitled: 1. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS; DECLARATION OF AARON LAVINE on all interested parties to this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Kenneth Chiate, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN Counsel for Defendants 865 S. Figueroa St., 10" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Walter Yoka, Esq. YOKA & SMITH Counsel for Defendants 445 S. Figueroa St., 38" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 ] BY MAIL: By placing a true and correct copy of the above-described document(s) in envelope(s), addressed as set forth above, with first class postage pre-paid for delivery to the above-named persons at the above-listed addresses and depositing such envelopes in a US mail collection box. x BY OVER NIGHT DELIVERY, VIA GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: I gave the document(s) to our overnight courier service for its daily pick-up for delivery to the offices of the addressee, addressed as set forth above. ] COURTESY COPY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted courtesy copies of said document(s) to the person(s) shown above by electronic mail to the email address shown above. Xx FEDERAL: declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. x STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. EXECUTED on February 7, 2019, in Los Angeles, California. Gina Esfandi Cy : 2 D0 TYPE OR PRINT NAME Vo 1 PROOF OF SERVICE