A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O 0 9 O A W n b h W N - = e d pe d pe d p d A N n h B R A W N = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 D O N o N N N N D N D - - _ A N W n ES N W w N o - _ o S \ O o o ~ N o ~ aX €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ATTICUS N. WEGMAN,ESQ. (SBN 273496) AITKEN4AITKEN 4+ COHN 3 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 800 P.0. BOX 2555 SANTA ANA, CA 92707-2555 (714) 434-1424/(714) 434-3600 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiff SARAH DIME SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE CASE NO: CGC 16-550050 2017-10-23 9:30 AM MASTER CALENDAR JURY CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 206 SARAH DIME, an individual; Plaintiff, VS. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANTS COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER MARK GREENBERG, an individual; SF GREEN CAB, a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive Defendants. Complaint Filed: 1/25/16 N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N N N a N a N N a a N S a N N TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSELFROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTOEVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 S S O O 0 N N N N L K B R A W N f d p d p e d p d p e d e d e d A N n n B R A W N = 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 N N N N N N N - _ = A N W n ~ ~ W w N D = O O N o ~ 20 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Sarah Dime will move the Court for issuance of the following order relating to Motion in Limine No. 8: An order precluding Defendants’ counsel from introducing Defendant Marc Greenberg’s deposition testimony into evidence. An order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses ofthe court's exclusionary order on this motion; and An order requiring the attorney for Defendant, prior to making any references, comments, or assertions concerning such matters,to approach the bench and make an offer of proofto the court so that the court, prior to any presentation of the above-referenced evidence to the jury, can make a preliminary determination ofthe relevancy and admissibility thereof. This motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Atticus N. Wegman, the complete file maintained by the Court in this action, and all such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing on this motion. Dated: October 18, 2017 AITKEN +AITKEN 4+ COHN "ATTICUS N. WEG SQ. Attorneys for Plainti RAH DIME 2 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O o 0 0 9 O A W n A W N = - = = e e a A A L n A W N R k O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 I I C S S S A N W n A L W D D = , O O © N o = 20 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s filed this lawsuit on January 25, 2016 naming Defendant Marc Greenberg and Defendant SF Green Cab, only. For nearly the past two years the parties have engaged in comprehensive legal discovery which has included depositions of parties, written discovery, subpoenas, expert depositions, and pre-trial exchange of documents, among other things. During the course of this litigation, at no time did Plaintiff have any reason to believe that Defendant Marc Greenberg would not attend trial pursuant to a properly served Notice to Appear, which has| the same effect as a subpoena. In fact, during the course ofthis litigation, the trial has been continued two (2) separate times and neither time was the basis for continuance related to Defendant Marc Greenberg's inability to personally appearat trial. Now, approximately 10 days before trial, defense counsel for Marc Greenberg has indicated, in a very suspicious way, that his client and also the main wrongdoerin this motor vehicle collision, will not be attending trial. Defense counsel for Marc Greenberg has indicated different and ambiguous reasons why his client will not be attending trial: “1. Defendant Marc Greenberg objects to this Notice on the ground that Defendant Marc Greenberg is currently a non-resident of California and/or is unavailable and presently resides over 150 miles from the court, and that requiring Defendant Marc Greenberg to appear at trial in this matter would impose undue hardship on him. 2. Defendant Marc Greenberg further objects to this Notice of the ground that Defendant Marc Greenberg unavailable pursuant to Cal. Evi. Code § 240(a)(4)-(5).” See Defendant's Amended Objection to Notice to Appear attached as Exhibit A. If this were the end ofthe analysis, Plaintiff would not be bringing the instant motion and thustrial would proceed without any testimony from Defendant Marc Greenberg. However, Defense counsel for Marc Greenberg has stated that he would still like to use his client’s 3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O 0 9 O N w n b h W O N - = e d pe d e d A A n n B R A W N = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 N o N o [\ ) N o N o N o N o - _ - - a N w i H S W w N o - < O o o o J \ ] 3 0 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER videotaped deposition in lieu of his client’s live attendance at trial. As the Court will see below, such a procedure is improper and must not be allowed. II. THE PROPONENT OF USING A DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF LIVE TESTIMONY] BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS USE AT TRIAL IS PROPER The proponent of using a deposition in lieu of live testimony bears the burden in proving specific procedural steps have been taken priorto its use at trial. See Monroy v. City ofLos Angeles (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 248, 262. Of course, this makes sense and is especially so,as is the case here, where the proponent of using deposition in lieu of live testimony is the party himself. If the law were otherwise,parties to lawsuits (and witnesses) would simply avoid trial and play their depositions instead of allowing a full direct and cross-examination. Allowing a party to swap their deposition forlive testimony would eliminate the parties’ ability to effectively examine witnesses. To use a videotaped deposition of a party at trial in lieu of the live testimony, a party must prove at least one ofthree things: 1. witness is unavailable, 2. witness resides more than 150 miles from place oftrial, or 3. exceptional circumstance. See Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620. Defense counsel has not only failed to meet any of these requirements, but admits that he cannot meet any of these requirements. A. Defense Counsel Has Not Offered Proof to Support its Objection That Defendant Marc Greenberg Is a “Non-resident of California And/or Is Unavailable and Presently Resides over 150 Miles from the Court” By the very nature of Defense counsel’s objection,it is clear that Defense counsel is unsure where his client is located, i.e. in San Francisco, California, outside California, or somewhere else. Not knowing where yourclientis for trial, especially when they are the main party defendant, is not sufficient foundation to play their deposition testimony at the time oftrial. This is no different than if the main party was representing themselves in pro per. Defense counsel’s first objection appears to claim two (2) reasons why his client’s videotaped deposition should be used in lieu ofhis trial testimony: unavailability and residing 4 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSELFROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTOEVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O o 0 N N O N n n p A W N - _ = e m e m e d e d A N n n B A W N = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 B D N D N o N o N o N o N D - - _ - A N W n E N w o N o - S o o o 2 N o ~ 20 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 150 miles from the courthouse. In regards to unavailability, Defense counsel has specified that his client is unavailable pursuant to Evidence Code section 240(a)(4)-(5). Evidence Code section 240(a) and (b) states: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), “unavailable as a witness” means that the declarant is any of the following: 4) Absent from the hearing and the court is unable to compel his or her attendance byits process. (5) Absent from the hearing and the proponent of his or her statement has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his or her attendance by the court’s process. (b) A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if the exemption, preclusion, disqualification, death, inability, or absence of the declarant was brought about by the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of his or her statement for the purpose of preventing the declarant from attending or testifying Before the Court is not an instance whereby the parties are unable to locate a witness, but rather an instance whereby a named defendant, in fact, the main wrongdoer for which Plaintiff is seeking damages for a permanently injured spine, does not want to testify in trial. According to Evidence Code section 240(b) above, a party or witness cannot reap the benefits of using their deposition in lieu of live testimony if it is they who brought about their own unavailability. Here, that is exactly the case. Defense counsel admitted to Plaintiff’s counsel that he has had very little communication with Defendant Marc Greenberg and believes only that he is located “somewhere near the California-Oregon border,” is “no longer employed by SF Green Cab” (the other defendant in this case for whom Defendant Marc Greenberg was acting as an agent at the time of this instance), that his communication with Defendant Marc Greenberg is “cryptic,” and that Defendant Marc Greenberg might be performing “seasonal work” somewhere. Plaintiff’s counsel has asked for additional details so Plaintiff can perform her own investigation into the whereabouts of Defendant Marc Greenberg. Unfortunately, Plaintiff has not been provided with 5 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N +4 A I T K E N ¢ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O © N O O O n n p A W N - = e m d e a A A D n B R A W N = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A AN A, C A 92 70 7 R O N ON N N N ND m m aA L R W O N RA S& S © ® = N o A 20 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER any other information. See Declaration ofAtticus N. Wegman. As such, pursuant to Evidence Code section 240(b), Defendant must establish that Defendant Marc Greenberg is unavailable to allow the playing of his deposition at the time oftrial. Assuming, however, the Court disagrees, defense counsel has not meet the standard imposed by Evidence Code sections 240(a)(4)-(5). Defense counsel has not provided any personal knowledge or independent witness as evidence to support a Court’s finding thateither Evidence Code sections 240(a)(4)-(5) have been met. Proof can only be shown by stipulation by the parties or by testimony of a witness with personal knowledge. California Trial Practice: Civil Procedure During Trial 3d e Cal CEB. See also Janich Bros., Inc. v. American Distilling Co. (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 14, 1977), 1978-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1826, 570 F.2d 848, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5646, cert. denied, (U.S. Oct. 2, 1978), 439 U.S. 829, 99 S. Ct. 103, 58 L. Ed. 2d 122, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 2671 (where there was no evidence that a declarant was unavailable, other than conclusory allegations by counsel that the declarant was outside the jurisdiction of the court, there was an inadequate showing of diligence to procure the presence of the declarant at trial.) Further, the above applies also to whether a witness resides more than 150 miles from the place oftrial. To date, there has been no showing by competent evidence that Defendant Marc Greenberg does in fact “reside” more than 150 miles from the place of trial. Plaintiff and the Court can certainly speculate the he is avoiding trial, hiding out, on vacation, or some other inexcusable reason why he is not attending trial. Proof can only be shown by stipulation by the parties or by testimony of a witness with a personal knowledge, which has not been provided in this case. California Trial Practice: Civil Procedure During Trial 3d e Cal CEB. To make matters worse, Defendant Marc Greenberg’s driver's license, his deposition testimony, and Plaintiff’s investigation indicate that his permanent residence is still in San Francisco, CA. See Exhibit B." 6 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSELFROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTOEVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N ¢ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O © © 3 O O W n B r W N = - _ e t e d e d e d e d A N n n B A WL W N D = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 [\ S) N D N o N o N N N D - - - A N W n EE N W w N o - _ o S \ O o o ~ N o J NO £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER B. Defense Counsel Has Not Provided Provide Proof That Defendant Marc Greenberg Would Suffer Great Hardship to Attend Trial in Person Defense counselstates that asking Defendant Marc Greenberg to attend his own trial in the same county where all competent evidence indicates he resides would impose great hardship. Again,there is simply no proof of “great hardship” of this that has been presented by defense. No Court to date has allowed the playing of a party’s deposition in lieu of live testimony on such a showing. The plain language of the Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620 imposes a very high standard, which certainly has not been met here. Exceptional circumstances exist that make it desirable to allow the use of any deposition in the interests ofjustice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(c)(3) (emphasis added). What is desirable is for Plaintiff to be able to impeach Defendant Marc Greenberg during trial. Defendant Marc Greenberg’s videotaped deposition was not taken at all with an eye towards playing his deposition testimony at trial. At the time of his deposition, he testified under oath to be living in San Francisco. As such, his deposition was taken in a very broad manner and he was allowed to answer questions that Plaintiff’s counsel would never asked if it was known that he would not be appearing in person at trial. Plaintiff’s counsel took that deposition to ensure he uncovered all information allowed by law regardless of how unfavorable it was to Plaintiff. Defendant Marc Greenberg’s deposition was taken with anticipation of impeaching his answers when he appeared at trial. Many of the questions and answers during the deposition are entirely objectionable and inadmissible. For instance, Defendant Marc Greenberg opined during this deposition that he searched Google for the standard that bicyclists should adhere to when operating a bicycle. The jury cannot hear this testimony. He is not an expert, he has not rode a bicycle in 30 years, and he could not even point to what "code" he read when he searched the internet. 7 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 Z = <3 18 ” 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BPRNTEDON RECYCLED PAPER Allowing the use ofhis deposition attrial would be very prejudicial to Plaintiff in that she} will be unable to impeach the Defendant as planned, among other things. The questions asked during his deposition were softballs that Defendant Marc Greenberg hit out of the park. He was allowed to do that so when he was impeached as an adverse witness per Evidence Code section 776, it would have a strong impression on the jury. Most trial strategists would agree that this is a common goal when taking depositions. Good discovery techniques also usually require that counsel] elicit information unfavorable to a client. California Trial Practice: Civil Procedure During Trial 3d e Cal CEB. Legislative intent that discovery statutes be liberally construed (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 391), would be frustrated if an attorney were prohibited from pursuing discovery questions on inadmissible matters at a deposition out of fear that the answers would be admitted against the client at trial. Id. GC. Monroy v. City ofLos Angeles (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 248 In Monroy v. City ofLos Angeles, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s exclusion of an independent witnesses’ deposition testimony in lieu oftrial testimony. As this Court will see, the instant case does not meet the standard espoused in Monroy and quite frankly is starkly opposite in terms of facts and circumstances. In Monroy, the trial court denied a request to offer deposition testimony in lieu oflive testimony of an independent witness. The Court of Appeal reversed. Monroy was a personal injury action brought against the Los Angeles Police Department. During the course oflegal discovery, a deposition of an independent witness named Juan De Los Santos, who observed key parts of the accident sequence that were favorable to plaintiffs was taken after a subpeona was served. Atthe time oftrial, Juan De Los Santos could not be procured and plaintiffs moved to introduce his deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request. On appeal, the court reversed noting that several pieces of evidence were known to the court that established Juan De Los Santos resided more than 150 miles from the place oftrial. The Monroy court noted as follows: 8 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER A I T K E N 4+ A I T K E N 4 C O H N 1 “Every fact before the trial court showed that De Los Santos resided 150 miles from the courthouse. In his deposition testimony, De Los Santos 2 testified under oath that he did not have legal residency. He also testified 3 that he was in the process of obtaining a divorce and he was going to Mexico to open a restaurant. . .[Plaintiff’s private investigator] testified 4 that [Gutierrez, the witness’ wife] Gutierrez told him that De Los Santos was no longer residing with her in the United States. [Plaintiff’s private 5 investigator] learned from Gutierrez, that De Los Santos was in Puebla, Mexico. 6 After thetrial court denied plaintiffs’ first motion to submit De Los 1 Santos's deposition testimony, plaintiffs’ counsel contacted De Los Santos in Puebla, Mexico. At the end ofthe trial, plaintiffs made a second motion 8 requesting that De Los Santos’ deposition testimony be read to the jury. At this time, Gutierrez testified she was no longer married to De Los Santos. 9 She furthertestified that, while De Los Santos had been in the United 10 States in September 2006, he had informed her that he was going back to Mexico. When Gutierrez first contacted De Los Santos by telephone after 11 the September 2006 visit, she reached him through a United States cellular telephone number. Thereafter, however, Gutierrez called a Mexican 12 cellular telephone number. Further, De Los Santos informed Gutierrez that - 13 he hadbeen in an automobile accident, was unable to travel, and was = living in Puebla, Mexico, with his mother. Lastly, Gutierrez testified that Es 2 14 De Los Santos was a Mexican citizen without a visa. This was consistent a 8 = with De Los Santos’ deposition testimony that he did not have legal g $3 8 15 residency. Hag Thus, all information before the trial court was consistent and led to & Z 3 3 16 one conclusion-De Los Santos resided in Puebla, Mexico, more than 150 EB = = 3 17 miles from the courthouse. There were no facts to suggest that the 23 information before the trial court was unreliable. Thus, there was no 3 18 reason for the trial court to reject this evidence, much of which described = De Los Santos's family history and all of which was uncontradicted.” Id. 19 at 264. 20 Here, there is no evidence that Defendant Marc Greenberg was not a legal US resident or 2 was planning to leave the USA or even San Francisco for that matter at any time. There is no = evidence that he was planning to relocate and thus reside “somewhere near the Oregon and 23 California border” before the Court. Further, relocating somewhere temporarily is not the same 24 as relocating somewhere to take domicile and reside, which Defense counsel has similarly also = failed to prove. 26 27 0 9 PRINTEDprez PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER f d 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 Zz = : °F ) : 14 ges “3 18 ” 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BPRNTEDON RECYCLED PAPER Unlike Monroy, Defendant Marc Greenberg is not an independent witness but rather a main party that has participated in this litigation up until conveniently about week before trial. Most importantly, there is no evidence that Defendant Marc Greenberg resides anywhere other than in San Francisco. There has been no showing of unavailability, residency more than 150 miles from the place oftrial, or exceptional circumstances that would allow the playing of his videotaped deposition at the time of trial. As such, Plaintiff Request that Defendant Marc Greenberg’s deposition testimony be precluded from introduction in evidence. III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion. Dated: October 18, 2017 AITKEN 4+ AITKEN 4COHN By: a»Me, ATTICUS N. WEG | ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff SARAH DIME 10 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSELFROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTOEVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER p d 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 13 = 32438 GEE 17 E33 F <3 18 ’ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 € PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and] not a party to the within action; my business address is 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800, Santa Ana, California, 92707. On October 18, 2017 I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING DEFENDANT MARC GREENBERG’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE; DECLARATION OF ATTICUS N. WEGMAN; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the parties herein in this action by placing ( ) the original (x) a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated on the attached service list. () BYMAIL () Asfollows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date orpostage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an atfidavit. (X ) By Personal Service: I caused the above-referenced the document(s) to be delivered by hand to the attached addressees. ( ) By Overnight Courier: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the above address(es). ( ) By Facsimile Machine: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named persons at the following telephone number(s) see attached Proof of Service list. () By Email Transmission: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the personslisted in the attached Proof of Service lists. Executed on October 18, 2017 at Santa Ana, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. * 1 PROOF OF SERVICE A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 N O 0 0 N N O N n n BR A W N - _ = e d e d pe d e d A A L n B R A W N = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 N D N N N N N N N - - _ = A N W n A W N = O O c o N o 0 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER DIME v. GREENBERG,et al. SERVICE LIST Joseph M, Breall, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant SF GREEN Christina Q. Nguyen, Esq. CAB BREALL & BREALL, LLP 3625 California Street San Francisco, CA 94118 (415) 345-0545 415) 345-0538-fax 2 PROOF OF SERVICE
