declaration of christopher r leclerc in support of opposition to defeCal. Super. - 1st Dist.October 27, 2021 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. (SB# 233479) Oleg I. Albert, Esq. (SB# 251270) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 445-0900 Fax: (415) 445-9977 Email: chris@leclerclaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ERIC NANS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION] ERIC NANS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CGC-20-583864 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT [473(b)] Date: November 9, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 10/27/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 Declaration of Christopher R. LeClerc I, Christopher R. LeClerc, do declare the following: 1. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiff Eric Nans in the instant lawsuit. The following declaration is based upon my own personal knowledge, as I personally observed and heard the items discussed herein, and I could and would competently testify to the truth of the matters asserted herein if called to do so as a witness in this matter. 2. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Corporate - Statement of Information that I obtained from the California Secretary of State. 3. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a page of the website for The State Bar of California for John Scott Manzano, California Bar # 170546. 4. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of John Manzano’s profile which is located on the Kosnett Law Firm’s website. 5. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Attorney Profiles page which is located on the Kosnett Law Firm’s website. 6. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter that I wrote to John Manzano in connection with the second service of process of the original complaint that I caused to be effectuated. Included in this exhibit is also a copy of the proof of service from the process server indicating that letter was delivered to VTS via its agent for service, the Kosnett Law Firm, on September 24, 2020. The letter was served with the summons, complaint, notice to plaintiff, notice of posting jury fees, statement of damages, and an order continuing the case management conference. 7. On or about October 1, 2020, Oleg Albert (my law partner) and I had a conversation with counsel from Kosnett Law related to this action. My recollection is that Dan Yakobian and James Kosnett were on the call, we agreed to provide them with copies of the proofs of service (which we later did), and that VTS would be filing answers in both lawsuits. 8. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email conversation involving myself, my law partner Oleg Albert, James Kosnett and Dan Yakobian that transpired between October 13, 2020, and November 12, 2020. 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 9. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a notification that I received from Nationwide Legal indicating that VTS filed an answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in the “Second Lawsuit” (San Francisco Co. Sup. Ct., Case No. CGC-20-584187). 10. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts to an email conversation between myself, my law partner Oleg Albert, James Kosnett, and Dan Yakobian that transpired between January 13, 2021 and January 15, 2021. 11. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the Request for Entry of Default that I caused to be filed on March 2, 2021 and which correctly indicates that a copy of the default package was mailed to VTS on March 2, 2021. 12. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an email conversation between myself, my law partner Oleg Albert, Louis Kosnett, James Kosnett, and Dan Yakobian that transpired between June 18, 2021 and September 2, 2021. 13. On or about July 29, 2021, I had a call with Louis Kosnett related to my settlement overtures. I told Louis Kosnett that I thought the case could resolve in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. I told him that this was not a demand, but rather just a range that I thought the case could resolve in. I told him to speak with his client and if he thought that a resolution in this range could happen, to let me know and I would go to my client and get a demand from him. I am not sure that Louis Kosnett understood me, as he returned to me with an offer instead, which I believe led to some of the confusion in Exhibit J. 14. I graduated from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (formerly Boalt Hall) in 2004 and was sworn in later that year. I have practiced law continuously for the intervening almost seventeen years. I started my practice with Heller Ehrman. I have practiced employment law almost exclusively for approximately sixteen years, most of that time for my own firm, which I founded with my brother and law partner Mark Le Clerc in 2009. I have tried several cases to jury verdict and arbitration award. I have received numerous industry recognitions for my work. 3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 15. The regular hourly rate that my firm charges and receives from clients that choose to retain my services on an hourly basis is $650 per hour. 16. I spent the following time engaged in the following activities which would not have been expended but for Defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint. Task Hours Fees Costs Tracking status, checking register of actions, and communicating with Kosnett Law re default status 1.2 $780 Researching Defaults and Default Judgments, preparing, filing, and serving the Request for Entry of Default 7.8 $5,070 $53.75 Reviewing Court’s local rules and website of default division 1.5 $975 Calling default division with questions .2 $130 Responding to Court’s Orders to Show Cause, and filing the same. 2.2 $1,430 $53.75 Drafting documents in preparation for Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment. 5.6 $3,640 Conducting legal research, reviewing history of communications, and drafting opposition and supporting documents to the Instant Application 17.6 $11,440 TOTAL: 35.4 $23,465 $107.50 17. The cost items identified above were paid to First Legal file and provide the court with courtesy copies. These costs would ordinarily be a reimbursed cost under my fee agreement with my client. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 27, 2021. Christopher R. LeClerc INDEX OF EXHIBITS TITLE EXHIBIT CONSECUTIVE PAGINATION Corporate Statement of Information (VTS) A 001 State Bar of California Website (Mr. Manzano) B 004 Kosnett Law Firm - Profile Mr. Manzano C 006 Kosnett Law Firm - Attorney Profiles D 013 Letter to John Manzano dated September 14, 2020 E 020 Emails between counsel F 024 eService Delivery Notification G 031 Emails between counsel H 033 Request for Entry of Default (filed March 2, 2021) I 036 Emails between counsel J 056 EXHIBIT A LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 001 California Secretary of State Electronic Filing Corporation - Statement of Information Entity Name: Entity (File) Number: File Date: Entity Type: Jurisdiction: Detailed Filing Information Entity Name: Business Addresses: Street Address of Principal Office in California: Mailing Address: Street Address of Principal Executive Office: Officers: Chief Executive Officer: b. Secretary: Use bizfile.sos.ca.gov for online filings, searches, business records, and resources. VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC., WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VTS SERVICES C2931379 05/18/2020 NEVADA GF68307 VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC., WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VTS SERVICES 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America john manzano 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America john manzano 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 002 California Secretary of State Electronic Filing Director: Number of Vacancies on the Board of Directors: Service of Process: Type of Business: Electronic Signature: Use bizfile.sos.ca.gov for online filings, searches, business records, and resources. john manzanbo 5042 wilshire blvd, ste 575 los angeles, California 90036 United States of America Not Applicable Not Applicable KOSNETT LAW CORPORATION (C4133304) Consulting John Manzano LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 003 EXHIBIT B LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 004 10/8/21, 10:13 AM John Scott Manzano # 170546 - Attorney Licensee Search https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/170546 1/1 John Scott Manzano #170546 License Status: Active Address: TACSIS Legal, 3424 W Carson St, Ste 500, Torrance, CA 90503-5723 Phone: 424-234-5200 | Fax: Not Available Email: legalservice@mammothattorney.com | Website: Not Available All changes of license status due to nondisciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 5/31/2007 Active 9/18/2006 Not eligible to practice law in CA Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance 9/4/2003 Active 9/4/2002 Not eligible to practice law in CA Suspended, failed to pay fees 9/1/2001 Not eligible to practice law in CA Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance 6/6/1994 Admitted to the State Bar of California Additional Information: About the disciplinary system More about This Attorney Copyright © 2021 The State Bar of California LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 005 EXHIBIT C LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 006 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 1/6 Call For Free Consultation 877-959-2937 a LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 007 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 2/6 John Manzano Locations: 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 3699 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1290 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Position: Senior Attorney Primary Areas of Practice: Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, in addition to, Debt relief 1390 Market Street Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 19800 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612 LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 008 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 3/6 2001 Addison St. Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: 877-959-2937 Overview John Manzano knew from a very young age that he would become a lawyer. He was raised in his father’s law ofce, who was the City Attorney of Glendale, CA. John spent his childhood in La Crescenta, CA and graduated from Crescenta Valley High School in 1984. While attending school, John was an active member of the Boy Scouts, where he achieved the highest rank of Eagle Scout. After graduating from high school, John enrolled at California State University Northridge (CSUN); he graduated in 1991 with an Advanced Business Degree in Administration and Finance. John graduated CSUN as a member of the Dean’s Honor List for his achievements in academics. John then attended Southwestern Law School, and graduated in 1994. His achievements at Southwestern included graduating in the top 10% of his class, and being a member of the Dean’s Honor List. After graduating, John passed the California Bar Exam on his rst attempt. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 009 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 4/6 Immediately after passing the Bar exam, John entered the eld of Bankruptcy Law and practiced in the City of Los Angeles. In his very rst case, he handled an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to the 9 Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. John won this important case and restored a multi- million-dollar real estate holding that had been seized by the Bankruptcy Trustee. John would go on to act as the Managing Partner at his father’s rm: F. R. Manzano and Associates. John eventually moved to Mammoth Lakes, CA and established his own law rm, Minaret Legal Services in 2008. He practiced law as the only Bankruptcy Attorney in the Eastern Sierra for nearly 10 years. John has since moved back to Los Angeles, and is now teaming up with Kosnett and his legal team to assist the people of Los Angeles with their bankruptcy needs. John is admitted to practice law in all courts of California, the North and Central Districts of the Federal Courts of California (including the Bankruptcy Court), and in the 9 Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. In his free time, John enjoys shing and spending time with his wife, their two children, and his Labrador Retrievers. John is also a private pilot and a certied dive master. th th LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 010 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 5/6 Mr. Manzano’s areas of Practice include, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 and Chapter 7, in addition to, Debt relief. Follow John on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. Education: California State University Northridge (CSUN) Dean’s Honor List, 1991 Southwestern Law School Dean’s Honor List, 1994 Admissions State Bar of California Los Angeles County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service Beverly Hills Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service Professional Associations/Memberships American Bankruptcy Institute NACBA member Los Angeles Bankruptcy Form LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 011 10/8/21, 10:16 AM John Manzano, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Attorney | Kosnett Law Firm https://kosnettlawfirm.com/attorney-profile/john-manzano-los-angeles-bankruptcy-attorney/ 6/6 © Copyright 2020 | Best California Lawyers | All right reserved. With headquarters in Los Angeles, and 8 ofces throughout the State of California, Kosnett Law Firm serves clients nationwide, with an emphasis on the Southern California counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, San Luis Obispo, and the Northern California counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Solano, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Napa, Marin, Yolo, and Sonoma. aaa LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 012 EXHIBIT D LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 013 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 1/6 James Victor Kosnett Call For Free Consultation 877-959-2937 a LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 014 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 2/6 Attorney James Victor Kosnett has represented students, their families, and licensed professionals throughout Central and Southern California since 1976. Mr. Kosnett graduated from Yale University and UCLA School of Law.. View Prole John Manzano Mr. Manzano’s areas of Practice include, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 and Chapter 7, in addition to, Debt relief. View Prole LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 015 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 3/6 Louis V Kosnett Attorney Louis V. Kosnett has represented students and individuals throughout Central and Southern California in Education and Criminal cases. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 016 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 4/6 View Prole John Alexander Mr. Alexander’s practice includes advising clients on general corporate and litigation matters, on the formation, structuring, and ongoing management of private and registered funds, and regulatory and compliance-related matters. View Prole Dan Yakobian (Of Counsel) Dan Yakobian has wide-ranging experience in civil litigation and administrative hearings, with a focus on employment law and housing rights cases. Dan has represented employees against their LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 017 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 5/6 employers in individual and class action wage and hour cases, Labor Commissioner hearings, as well as wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment. View Prole With headquarters in Los Angeles, and 8 ofces throughout the State of California, Kosnett Law Firm serves clients nationwide, with an emphasis on the Southern California counties of Los Angeles, LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 018 10/8/21, 1:03 PM Attorney Profile | Best California Education Lawyer https://educationlawyer.org/attorney-profile/ 6/6 © Copyright 2021 | Best California Lawyers | All right reserved. p g , Orange, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, San Luis Obispo, and the Northern California counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Solano, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Napa, Marin, Yolo, and Sonoma. Kosnett Law Firms serves clients in the cities of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Santa Ana, Fresno, Stockton, Irvine, Chula Vista, Femont, San Bernardino, Santa Clarita, Modesto, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Berkley, Santa Monica Lawyer, and Long Beach aaa LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 019 EXHIBIT E LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 020 Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP L A W Y E R S MARK C. LE CLERC CHRISTOPHER R. LE CLERC OLEG I. ALBERT 155 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1004 ∙ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 ∙ P: 415 445 0900 ∙ F: 415 445 9977 September 14, 2020 Via Hand Delivery John Manzano, CEO, CFO, Secretary VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. c/o Kosnett Law Corporation (Agent for Service) 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 re Eric Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc. San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-20-583864 Mr. Manzano, I AM NOTIFYING YOU THAT VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. IS IN DEFAULT IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED LAWSUIT. Video Tech Services, Inc. was served the summons and complaint in this matter on June 26, 2020. On the same date, copies of each of the summons and complaint were mailed. As service was effectuated by substitute service, service was deemed effectuated on July 6, 2020. Video Tech Services, Inc. had 30 days from that date to respond (August 5, 2020). It has not. Mr. Manzano, since you are an attorney, I know that you are aware of the dire consequences of Video Tech Service, Inc.’s decision to not file a responsive pleading in this lawsuit. To ensure that any default judgment entered against Video Tech Solutions, Inc. is not set aside in the future, I am providing you with this additional courtesy opportunity to respond to the summons and complaint. If Video Tech Services, Inc. has not filed a responsive pleading within 30 days of the delivery of these documents upon your agent for service, we will proceed with default proceedings against your entity and seek enforcement of the judgment against that entity, as well as any of its alter egos, including you. I look forward to your immediate attention to this matter. Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Eric Nans LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 021 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC, ESQ. (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. I served copies of the SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF; NOTICE OF POSTING OF NON-REFUNDABLE JURY FEE DEPOSIT; STATEMENT OF DAMAGES; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 3. a. Party served: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. b. Person served: Santiago , Asian American , Male , Age: 40’s , Hair: Black , Eyes: Brown , Height: 5'7" , Weight: 170 , Description: Office service manager. 4. Address where the party was served: 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 500, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 5. I served the party: b. by substituted service. On: Thu, Sep 24 2020 at: 11:35 AM I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of: Santiago , Asian American , Male , Age: 40’s , Hair: Black , Eyes: Brown , Height: 5'7" , Weight: 170 , Description: Office service manager. . (1) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) (Declaration of Mailing) is attached. (5) (Declaration of Diligence) attached stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. as an individual defendant. b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): c. as occupant. d. On behalf of (specify): VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown) 416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor) 416.30 (joint stock company/association) 416.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized person) 416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant) other: Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 4870589 (7746305) Page 1 of 2 X X X X LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 022 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC, ESQ. (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 Recoverable cost Per CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B) 7. Person who served papers a. Name: Manuel Romero, Jr. b. Address: FIRST LEGAL 1202 Howard Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 c. Telephone number: (415) 626-3111 d. The fee for service was: $159.50 e. I am: (1) not a registered California process server. (2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) a registered California process server: (i) owner employee independent contractor (ii) Registration No: 2020059181 (iii) County: Los Angeles County 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 09/25/2020 (Date) Manuel Romero, Jr. Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 4870589 (7746305) Page 2 of 2 X X LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 023 EXHIBIT F LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 024 1 Christopher LeClerc From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:16 PM To: 'Dan Yakobian'; Oleg Albert; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Thank you Dan. We will proceed with taking your client’s default. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Dan Yakobian Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:10 PM To: Christopher LeClerc ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. I am not aware if they are being represented by another attorney. Best regards, DY Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. Of Counsel ****PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 025 2 named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:07 PM To: Dan Yakobian ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Thanks Dan. Are you aware of whether they have other representation? Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Dan Yakobian Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:25 AM To: Christopher LeClerc ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Hi Christopher: We will not be representing Video Tech Services in the FEHA action (case no. CGC‐20‐583864). Best regards, DY Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. Of Counsel ****PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 026 3 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:05 PM To: Dan Yakobian ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Dan: It has been some time and I am writing to state that we will be taking a default on Friday unless I receive a responsive pleading before then. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Dan Yakobian Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:04 AM To: Christopher LeClerc ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Hi Christopher: Apologies for the delay in responding. I am waiting to hear from my client, and will have an answer for you within a few days. Best regards, LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 027 4 DY Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. Of Counsel ****PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:08 PM To: Dan Yakobian ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Gentlemen: Your client is in default in the 864 case. Will you be filing an answer? I received an OSC, so I will need to take a default if your client does not. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Dan Yakobian Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:50 PM To: Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Cc: Christopher LeClerc Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 028 5 Hi Oleg: I don’t believe that there is an arbitration agreement for Mr. Nans. We will be filing an Answer in this matter shortly. Best regards, DY Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. Of Counsel ****PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. From: Oleg Albert Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:45 PM To: James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian Cc: Christopher LeClerc Subject: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Counsel, As discussed, attached are two filed proofs of service of summons. Further, I am attaching a case management order continuing the case management conference in the matter to either obtain answers or enter default against defendants. Additionally, when we spoke you represented that Mr. Nans may have signed some sort of an arbitration agreement. We have not seen it. Please forward a copy for our review. Thank you, Oleg I. Albert, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 029 6 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.446.9799 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney- client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. The information contained in this message and any file transmitted with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 030 EXHIBIT G LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 031 From: donotreply@nationwidelegal.mail.legalconnect.com To: Christopher LeClerc Subject: eService Notice for ERIC NANS VS. VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. DBA VTS SERVICES, ET AL; CGC-20-584187 Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:38:11 PM eService Delivery Notification This electronic message is to notify you pursuant to C.C.P. 1010(6) and CA Rules of Court 2.251 on behalf of Kosnett Law Firm The following document(s) are being served: Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages To retrieve documents, please click this link: eService Notification. Should you have any questions, please contact Customer Support at 1-844-933-3453, email efile@nationwidelegal.com or for more information visit http://www.nationwidelegal.com Thank you for using Nationwide Legal. Order(s): 3973942-02 Billing Code: VTS This automated message is being sent by Nationwide Legal It is intended exclusively for the individuals and/or entities to which it is addressed. This communication including any links or attachments, may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate any part of this message, or any part of any links or attachments thereto. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of the message and attachments from your records. © 2020 Nationwide Legal All Rights Reserved. 1609 James M Wood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Contact Us LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 032 EXHIBIT H LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 033 1 Christopher LeClerc From: Dan Yakobian Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:42 PM To: Christopher LeClerc; Oleg Albert; James Kosnett Cc: Admin Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Hi Chris: We are not representing VTS in this action, and I do not have information about another counsel. Best regards, DY Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. Of Counsel ****PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:31 PM To: Dan Yakobian ; Oleg Albert ; James Kosnett Cc: Admin Subject: RE: Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. Dan: Can you confirm whether your client will be filing a responsive pleading to the amended complaint/summons in the 864 case (FAC attached)? Thanks, LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 034 2 Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. Redacted LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 035 EXHIBIT I LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 036 TO THE CLERK: On the complaint or cross-complaint filed (Testimony required. Apply to the clerk for a hearing date, unless the court will enter a judgment on an affidavit under Code Civ. Proc., § 585(d).) (1) (2) (3) for restitution of the premises only and issue a writ of execution on the judgment. Code of Civil Procedure section 1174(c) does not apply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1169.) Include in the judgment all tenants, subtenants, named claimants, and other occupants of the premises. The Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession was served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.46. under Code of Civil Procedure section 585(a). (Complete the declaration under Code Civ. Proc., § 585.5 on the reverse (item 5).) by (name): Enter default of defendant (names): I request a court judgment under Code of Civil Procedure sections 585(b), 585(c), 989, etc., against defendant (names): Enter clerk’s judgment for default previously entered on (date): BalanceAmount Credits acknowledged c. d. e. a. b. on (date): Judgment to be entered. Demand of complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of damages* Special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs (see reverse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attorney fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . per day beginning (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) (1) Default entered as requested on (2) FOR COURT USE ONLY Clerk, by , Deputy Page 1 of 2 Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 585-587, 1169 www.courts.ca.gov Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2020] REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Application to Enter Default) 1. 2. a. b. c. d. e. f . (* Personal injury or wrongful death actions; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.) g. 3. Default NOT entered as requested $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Daily damages were demanded in complaint at the rate of: $ (date): (Check if filed in an unlawful detainer case.) Legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant information is on the reverse (complete item 4). (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BRANCH NAME: CITY AND ZIP CODE: STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: Plaintiff/Petitioner: Defendant/Respondent: FOR COURT USE ONLY CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR (Application) Entry of Default Clerk's Judgment Court Judgment CIV-100 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE: ZIP CODE:CITY: STREET ADDRESS: FIRM NAME: NAME: STATE BAR NO: TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO.: E-MAIL ADDRESS: ATTORNEY FOR (name): Not for use in actions under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788.50 et seq.) (see CIV-105) (2) (1) (date): (state reason): Date: Eric Nans Video Tech Services, Inc. December 11, 2020 Christopher R. LeClerc San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94102 400 McAllister St. Eric Nans, et al. U.S. Tech Solutions, Inc., et al. CGC-20-583864 CA 94104San Francisco 155 Montgomery St., Ste. 1004 Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP Christopher R. LeClerc 233479 415.445.0900 415.445.9977 chris@leclerclaw.com Plaintiff Eric Nans March 2, 2021 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 03/02/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: RAYMOND WONG Deputy Clerk DEFAULT ENTER D AS REQUESTED RAYMOND WONG 03/02/2021 LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 037 not mailed to the following defendants, whose addresses are unknown to plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney Legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6400 et seq.). A legal document assistant or on a contract or installment sale for goods or services subject to Civ. Code, § 1801 et seq. (Unruh Act). on an obligation for goods, services, loans, or extensions of credit subject to Code Civ. Proc., § 395(b). 6. Declaration of mailing (Code Civ. Proc., § 587). A copy of this Request for Entry of Default was I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing items 4, 5, and 6 are true and correct. (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Memorandum of costs (required if money judgment requested). Costs and disbursements are as follows (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5): Clerk's filing fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process server's fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other (specify): TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Application to Enter Default) CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2020] Page 2 of 2 4. 5. a. b. on a conditional sales contract subject to Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq. (Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act). c. a. b. 7. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 8. Assistant's name: Street address, city, and zip code: Telephone no.: County of registration: Registration no.: Expires on (date): Declaration under Code Civ. Proc., § 585.5 (for entry of default under Code Civ. Proc., § 585(a)). This action is is not is not is notis is (names): mailed first-class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope addressed to each defendant's attorney of record or, if none, to each defendant's last known address as follows: Mailed on (date): To (specify names and addresses shown on the envelopes): $ $ $ $ $ Costs and disbursements are waived. a. b. (1) (2) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) c. d. e. f. CASE NUMBER:Plaintiff/Petitioner: Defendant/Respondent: CIV-100 Declaration of nonmilitary status (required for a judgment). No defendant named in item 1c of the application is in the military service as that term is defined by either the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 3911(2), or California Military and Veterans Code sections 400 and 402(f). unlawful detainer assistant or compensation give advice or assistance with this form. If declarant has received any help or advice for pay from a legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant, state: March 2, 2021 Christopher R. LeClerc March 2, 2021 Video Tech Services, Inc., 5042 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 575, Los Angeles, CA 90036 November 17, 2020 Christopher R. LeClerc CGC-20-583864 Eric Nans Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 038 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER E. LECLERC (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. I served copies of the SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3. a. Party served: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. b. Person served: Santiago Almeda, Employee. 4. Address where the party was served: 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 500, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 5. I served the party: b. by substituted service. On: Thu, Dec 17 2020 at: 12:07 PM I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of: Santiago Almeda, Employee. (1) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) (Declaration of Mailing) is attached. (5) (Declaration of Diligence) attached stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. as an individual defendant. b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): c. as occupant. d. On behalf of (specify): VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown) 416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor) 416.30 (joint stock company/association) 416.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized person) 416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant) other: Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 5174119 (7768704) Page 1 of 2 X X X X ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 02/11/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 039 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER E. LECLERC (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 Recoverable cost Per CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B) 7. Person who served papers a. Name: Javier Sanchez b. Address: FIRST LEGAL 1202 Howard Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 c. Telephone number: (415) 626-3111 d. The fee for service was: $155.33 e. I am: (1) not a registered California process server. (2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) a registered California process server: (i) owner employee independent contractor (ii) Registration No: 2014115318, Los Angeles (iii) County: Los Angeles 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 12/17/2020 (Date) Javier Sanchez Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 5174119 (7768704) Page 2 of 2 X X LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 040 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER E. LECLERC (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE By Mail Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred. 2. I served copies of the SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3. By placing a true copy of each document in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope by First Class mail with postage prepaid as follows: a. Date of Mailing: Thu, Dec 17, 2020 b. Place of Mailing: SAN FRANCISCO, CA c. Addressed as follows: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 4. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence as deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on Thu, Dec 17, 2020 in the ordinary course of business. Recoverable cost Per CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B) 5. Person Serving: a. Juan Cruz d. The Fee for Service was: $155.33 b. FIRST LEGAL 1202 Howard Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 e. I am: Not a Registered California Process Server c. (415) 626-3111 6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 12/17/2020 (Date) Juan Cruz Judicial Council Form Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 5174119 (7768704) LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 041 Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. (SB# 233479) Oleg I. Albert, Esq. (SB# 251270) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 445-0900 Fax: (415) 445-9977 Email: chris@leclerclaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ERIC NANS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION] ERIC NANS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CGC-20-583864 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: 1. Wrongful Actual/Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 2. Actual/Perceived Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA; 4. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA JURY TRIAL DEMAND ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 12/11/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: BOWMAN LIU Deputy Clerk Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 042 - 1 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 Plaintiff alleges: PARTIES PLAINTIFF 1. Plaintiff ERIC NANS, (“Plaintiff” or “Nans”) is an adult male formerly misclassified by Defendant VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. as an independent contractor. At all times relevant to this complaint, Nans was, in fact, an employee of Defendant VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”). DEFENDANTS 2. Defendant VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. (“VTS”) is a Nevada corporation that is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. VTS is an employer within the meaning of the FEHA, and until his unlawful termination. 3. The true names and capacities of defendants sued in the Complaint under the fictitious name of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such unlawful conduct. 4. Hereinafter, VTS and DOES 1 through 50 are collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 5. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of any corporate or other business defendant, such allegations shall mean that such defendant did the acts alleged in the complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. Additionally, whenever reference is made to any act of any natural person employed by any corporate or other business entity Defendant, such allegations shall mean that such person did the acts alleged in the complaint while acting within the scope of their actual or ostensible authority. Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 043 - 2 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each defendant acted as an agent, representative, employer and/or employee of each of the other defendants and acted within the course and scope of said agency or representation or employment with respect to the causes of action in this complaint. JURISDICTION & VENUE 7. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to and under the FEHA and other common and statutory laws. 8. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and/or omissions and events set forth in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in the County of San Francisco, located in California. 9. State policy favors jurisdiction and venue in San Francisco County, California because the State of California has a policy of protecting California residents and ensuring the applicability of California labor laws. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that most of the witnesses and evidence relevant to this case are located in San Francisco County in California. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relative costs and burdens to the parties herein favor the filing of this lawsuit in this Court. Defendant suffers no burden or hardship by having to defend this case in this Court. However, Plaintiff would suffer severe and undue burden and hardship if he was required to file in an alternative forum, if any such forum exists. Such burden and hardship on Plaintiff includes, but is not limited to prohibitive monetary expenses for travel, obtaining counsel in a different venue and/or jurisdiction, increased expenses to investigate and obtain evidence and depose and interview witnesses. 12. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 13. Plaintiff has discharged all necessary administrative remedies and this matter is ripe for adjudication before this Court. Plaintiff timely filed his Complaint of Discrimination with Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 044 - 3 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and has received his Right to Sue from the DFEH. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 14. Defendant VTS holds itself out as “proud to be the nation’s premier audio visual tech staffing provider for Corporate Events, Conventions, Exhibits, and more.” VTS states that it “provides reliable, highly skilled and professional audio visual experts its clientele [sic]. After contracting VTS, you will rest easy knowing that the production end of your event will be handled by the best AV crews in the business. Our non-union workforce understands the high demands of the production business. Each of our team members have strong work ethics to ensure we make your event or trade show excellent.” “All of our team members are fully trained and seasoned Audio Visual professionals. You can count on VTS for having the best AV Tech Staffing in the industry. At Video Tech Services, our meticulous attention to detail shows in the outcome of each project. We do it right the first time and every time.” 15. Plaintiff, like most, if not all, of his colleagues was misclassified by Defendant VTS as an independent contractor. He was, in fact, an employee. He was contacted repeatedly over the years and dispatched by VTS to work on its contracted for services. 16. During one such assignment in November 2019, Plaintiff was in the course of performing lighting work (and purportedly contracted to only perform lighting work) when Plaintiff’s supervisor told Plaintiff to lift and work on staging. Plaintiff stated that he could not due to a hernia that he had had surgery on earlier in the year. Plaintiff’s supervisor became upset and raised her voice with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s supervisor ridiculed him regarding his disability and shared personal information regarding his disability with other VTS employees. She sent Plaintiff home from his shift as punishment for his declining to work on staging. 17. Plaintiff did not need to lift 50 pounds to fulfill his job duties and responsibilities as a lighting technician. Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 045 - 4 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 18. Thereafter, Plaintiff was told that he could not return to work for VTS until he provided them with a note from his doctor indicating that he could lift in excess of 50 pounds. As Plaintiff did not feel that he could safely lift such weight, he did not provide such a note and his employment was actually or constructively terminated as a result of this. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Actual/Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against Defendants VTS and DOES 1-50 19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference herein each paragraph contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 20. California has fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies against harassing, discriminating and retaliating against an employee based on disability. These policies were in effect at all relevant times hereto. 21. Plaintiff was employed by VTS and Does 1-50. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that one or more of the motivating reasons for VTS’s and Does 1-50’s adverse employment actions (including but not limited to Plaintiff’s termination) taken against him was, without limitation: Plaintiff has an actual or perceived disability, and Defendant perceived him as needing a reasonable accommodation for his actual or perceived disability. 23. Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, including without limitation: discriminating against Plaintiff in violation of the FEHA. VTS and Does 1-50 either terminated Plaintiff, or intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions. These working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have no reasonable alternative except to resign. 24. Defendants’ adverse actions against Plaintiff caused him economic and noneconomic harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress and discomfort. Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 046 - 5 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 25. Defendants committed and/or ratified the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover and herein prays for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Actual/Perceived Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA Against Defendants VTS and DOES 1-50 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27. The FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of actual or perceived disability. 28. Defendants VTS and DOES 1-50 discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of an actual or perceived physical disability as alleged herein, including without limitation, by materially altering the terms and conditions of his employment, by denying him reasonable accommodation for his disability, by refusing to permit him to work without a medical certification from a physician, and by terminating his employment or forcing him to quit. 29. Defendants’ adverse actions against Plaintiff caused him economic and noneconomic harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress and discomfort. 30. Defendants committed and/or ratified the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 047 - 6 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 rights and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover and herein prays for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the FEHA Against Defendants VTS and DOES 1-50 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 32. The FEHA requires an employer provide reasonable accommodations to employees for conditions related to known physical and mental disabilities. 33. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant VTS. VTS was aware of and regarded Plaintiff as having a disability. 34. Defendant perceived Plaintiff as needing a reasonable accommodation, and to the extent necessary, reasonable accommodations were available; however, Defendant VTS failed to provide those accommodations. 35. Defendant VTS’s failure to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff caused him economic and noneconomic harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort. 36. Defendants committed and/or ratified the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover and herein prays for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below. Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 048 - 7 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process Against Defendants VTS and DOES 1-50 37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 38. Defendant VTS perceived Plaintiff as needing an accommodation and being disabled. 39. Plaintiff was willing to participate in good faith in an interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation was necessary and/or could be made to permit him to continue working. 40. Defendant VTS did not engage in the interactive process in good faith, instead it sent him home and required a medical certification. 41. Defendant VTS’s failure to engage in the good faith interactive process caused Plaintiff economic and noneconomic harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand: a) That process be issued and served as provided by law, requiring Defendants, and each of them, to appear and answer or face judgment; b) For compensatory damages for past emotional distress in the amount of $500,000 and future emotional distress damages in the amount of $100,000; c) For past lost economic damages to compensate him for wages and other benefits Plaintiff would have been afforded but-for Defendant VTS’s unlawful conduct in the amount of $30,000; d) For a declaration that the Defendants did commit the wrongs alleged herein; Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 049 - 8 - Nans v. Video Tech Services, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Co. Sup. Crt., Case No. CGC-20-583864) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 e) For an injunction prohibiting Defendants from further commission of the wrongs identified herein; f) For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish, penalize and/or deter VTS from further engaging in the conduct described herein, and to deter others from engaging in the same or similar acts, in the amount of $1,500,000; g) For costs and expenses of this litigation; h) For reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Govt. Code section 12965 or where otherwise may be appropriate; i) For pre and post-judgment interest on all damages and other relief awarded herein from all entities against whom such relief may be properly awarded, in the amount of $5,000; and, j) For all such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: December 11, 2020 Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP By: Christopher R. LeClerc, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff ERIC NANS PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY Dated: December 11, 2020 Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP By: Christopher R. LeClerc, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff ERIC NANS Le lerc decl., Exhibits Page - 050 - DO NOT FILE WITH THE COURT- -UNLESS YOU ARE APPLYING FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 585 - seeks damages in the above-entitled action, as follows: AMOUNT 1. General damages a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 2. Special damages Medical expenses (to date) ..............................................................................................................a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 3. (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) (Proof of service on reverse) Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CIV-050 [Rev. January 1, 2007] STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 425.11, 425.115 www.courts.ca.gov Page 1 of 2 CIV-050 To (name of one defendant only): Plaintiff (name of one plaintiff only): Pain, suffering, and inconvenience ................................................................................................. $ Emotional distress. ........................................................................................................................... $ Loss of consortium ........................................................................................................................... $ Loss of society and companionship (wrongful death actions only) .................................................. $ Other (specify) $ Other (specify) $ Continued on Attachment 1.g. $ Future medical expenses (present value) ........................................................................................ $ Loss of earnings (to date) ................................................................................................................ $ Loss of future earning capacity (present value) ............................................................................... $ Property damage ............................................................................................................................. $ Funeral expenses (wrongful death actions only) ............................................................................. $ Future contributions (present value) (wrongful death actions only) ................................................. $ Value of personal service, advice, or training (wrongful death actions only) ................................... $ Other (specify) $ Other (specify) $ Continued on Attachment 2.k. Punitive damages: Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive damages in the amount of (specify).. when pursuing a judgment in the suit filed against you. $ Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BRANCH NAME: CITY AND ZIP CODE: STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: FOR COURT USE ONLY CASE NUMBER:STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address): TELEPHONE NO.: ATTORNEY FOR (name): Video Tech Services, Inc. Eric Nans 500,000.00 30,000.00 1,500,000.00 September 11, 2020 Christopher R. LeClerc San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94102 400 McAllister St. Eric Nans Video Tech Services, Inc. CGC-20-583864 Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. (SB# 233479) Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery St., Ste. 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.445.0900 Plaintiff Eric Nans LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 051 PROOF OF SERVICE (After having the other party served as described below, with any of the documents identified in item 1, have the person who served the documents complete this Proof of Service. Plaintiff cannot serve these papers.) I served the a. b. by serving d. e. Manner of service (check proper box): a. b. c. d. e. f. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. a. b. c. d. e. (For California sheriff, marshal, or constable use only) I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) CIV-050 [Rev. January 1, 2007] Page 2 of 2PROOF OF SERVICE (Statement of Damages) Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.11, 425.115 Person serving: Statement of Damages Other (specify): on (name): defendant other (name and title or relationship to person served): by delivery at home at business date: time: address: by mailing date: place: Personal service. By personally delivering copies. (CCP § 415.10) Substituted service on corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership), or public entity. By leaving, during usual office hours, copies in the office of the person served with the person who apparently was in charge and thereafter mailing (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP § 415.20(a)) Substituted service on natural person, minor, conservatee, or candidate. By leaving copies at the dwelling house, usual place of abode, or usual place of business of the person served in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the office or place of business, at least 18 years of age, who was informed of the general nature of the papers, and thereafter mailing (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP § 415.20(b)) (Attach separate declaration or affidavit stating acts relied on to establish reasonable diligence in first attempting personal service.) Mail and acknowledgment service. By mailing (by first- class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served, together with two copies of the form of notice and acknowledgment and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. (CCP § 415.30) (Attach completed acknowledgment of receipt.) Certified or registered mail service. By mailing to an address outside California (by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt) copies to the person served. (CCP § 415.40) (Attach signed return receipt or other evidence of actual delivery to the person served.) Other (specify code section): additional page is attached. Fee for service: $ California sheriff, marshal, or constable Registered California process server Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server Not a registered California process server Exempt from registration under Bus. & Prof. Code § 22350(b) Name, address and telephone number and, if applicable, county of registration and number: Date: Date: CIV-050 CASE NUMBER:PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: 1. 2. c. (1) (2) (3) (2) (1) 3. 4. 5. f. CGC-20-583864 Eric Nans Video Tech Services, Inc. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 052 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC, ESQ. (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. I served copies of the SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF; NOTICE OF POSTING OF NON-REFUNDABLE JURY FEE DEPOSIT; STATEMENT OF DAMAGES; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 3. a. Party served: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. b. Person served: Santiago , Asian American , Male , Age: 40’s , Hair: Black , Eyes: Brown , Height: 5'7" , Weight: 170 , Description: Office service manager. 4. Address where the party was served: 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 500, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 5. I served the party: b. by substituted service. On: Thu, Sep 24 2020 at: 11:35 AM I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of: Santiago , Asian American , Male , Age: 40’s , Hair: Black , Eyes: Brown , Height: 5'7" , Weight: 170 , Description: Office service manager. . (1) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) (Declaration of Mailing) is attached. (5) (Declaration of Diligence) attached stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. as an individual defendant. b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): c. as occupant. d. On behalf of (specify): VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown) 416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor) 416.30 (joint stock company/association) 416.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized person) 416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant) other: Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 4870589 (7746305) Page 1 of 2 X X X X LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 053 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC, ESQ. (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 Recoverable cost Per CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B) 7. Person who served papers a. Name: Manuel Romero, Jr. b. Address: FIRST LEGAL 1202 Howard Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 c. Telephone number: (415) 626-3111 d. The fee for service was: $159.50 e. I am: (1) not a registered California process server. (2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) a registered California process server: (i) owner employee independent contractor (ii) Registration No: 2020059181 (iii) County: Los Angeles County 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 09/25/2020 (Date) Manuel Romero, Jr. Judicial Council Form POS-010 Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS 4870589 (7746305) Page 2 of 2 X X LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 054 Attorney or Party without Attorney: CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC, ESQ. (#SBN 233479) LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 1004 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94104 Telephone No: 415-445-0900 Attorney For: Plaintiff Ref. No. or File No.: For Court Use Only Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff: ERIC NANS, an individual Defendant: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE By Mail Hearing Date: Time: Dept/Div: Case Number: CGC-20-583864 1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred. 2. I served copies of the SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF; NOTICE OF POSTING OF NON-REFUNDABLE JURY FEE DEPOSIT; STATEMENT OF DAMAGES; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 3. By placing a true copy of each document in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope by First Class mail with postage prepaid as follows: a. Date of Mailing: Thu, Sep 24, 2020 b. Place of Mailing: SAN FRANCISCO, CA c. Addressed as follows: VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. - KOSNETT LAW CORP., AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 4. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence as deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on Thu, Sep 24, 2020 in the ordinary course of business. Recoverable cost Per CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B) 5. Person Serving: a. Juan Cruz d. The Fee for Service was: $ 159.50 b. FIRST LEGAL 1202 Howard Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 e. I am: Not a Registered California Process Server c. (415) 626-3111 6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 09/25/2020 (Date) Juan Cruz Judicial Council Form Rule 2.150.(a)&(b) Rev January 1, 2007 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 4870589 (7746305) LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 055 EXHIBIT J LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 056 From: Louis Kosnett To: Christopher LeClerc Cc: Oleg Albert Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Date: Thursday, September 2, 2021 2:18:44 PM Attachments: 473b.pdf Hi Chris: We filed a 473b motion in this matter, as this was the last day to do so. I don’t think we’ve reached the end of the road necessarily, although I don’t believe VTS can meet your $65,000 demand. I still believe we can work something out for a global resolution. Attached is a service copy of the 473b motion filed today. I also just noticed the motion contains a typo. The “second case” referred to should be Case No. CGC20584187 (as you’re aware). Best, Louis ___________________________ Louis V. Kosnett, Esq. KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. On Sep 2, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Christopher LeClerc wrote: LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 057 Louis: Can you confirm if we’ve reached the end of the road here, so I can move forward with the default. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 11:18 AM To: Louis Kosnett Cc: Oleg Albert Subject: RE: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Louis: I haven’t heard back that you were available for a call, so I wanted to clarify that while we had previously discussed a resolution in the range of 50-75k, it was my personal end of day range, not yours nor my client’s. I initially reached out simply to discuss the possibility that we could resolve the case and what that may look like. At the numbers that your client is offering, my client would essentially receive nothing after fees and costs. I would not recommend that he accept such a settlement. I have a counter of $65,000. Let me know if you would like to discuss. Best, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 058 may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Louis Kosnett Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:33 AM To: Christopher LeClerc Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Hi Chris: Thanks for your email, and for your patience with my response. Unfortunately, your demand is one that my client can’t afford. As we discussed, VTS has no assets. Moreover, they are facing a litany of lawsuits from creditors resulting from their insolvency (see for example, LASC No. 21STCV27870, Comerica v. VTS). Also, I was surprised to see it, given that I thought we had discussed a possible $50,000 demand. Despite this, there is some interest in avoiding a judgment in these matters if practical. For that reason, Defendants are agreeable to a counter of $12,500 for global resolution of both cases (and subject to the court’s approval as to the PAGA action). Please let me know if this will be sufficient to resolve these matters. Thanks, Louis ________________________________ Louis V. Kosnett, Esq. KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 059 prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. On Aug 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Christopher LeClerc wrote: Louis: Thank you for the call this past week, and your client’s offer of $10,000. In response to your client’s offer, I have a demand of $75,000 for the dismissal of both of Mr. Nans’ actions (provided that the Court permit Mr. Nans to dismiss his PAGA allegations). Please let me know your client’s position at your earliest convenience. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Louis Kosnett Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:50 AM To: Christopher LeClerc Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production My cell - 424-272-1651 Get Outlook for Android From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:26:13 AM LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 060 To: Louis Kosnett Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Let me dial, what’s the best number to reach you at? Chris Sent from my iPad On Jul 29, 2021, at 6:56 AM, Louis Kosnett wrote: Hi Chris, I will call you around 930 if that's ok. Sorry, been scrambling, about to leave town Get Outlook for Android From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 6:55:18 AM To: Louis Kosnett Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Louis, I am interpreting your silence as your client’s response. Regards, Chris Sent from my iPad On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:42 AM, Christopher LeClerc wrote: Louis: I’m available until about 2 p.m. if you’d like to talk. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 061 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. The information contained in this message and any file transmitted with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Louis Kosnett Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:24 AM To: Oleg Albert ; Christopher LeClerc Cc: James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Yes it is agreeable, sorry I was not able to call you back on Friday, tomorrow is better for me to talk. Get Outlook for Android From: Christopher LeClerc Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:22:24 AM To: Oleg Albert ; Louis Kosnett Cc: James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 062 Subject: RE: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Louis: Please confirm if this extension is agreeable. Please also let me know if you have time to connect today. Regards, Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.445.9996 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Oleg Albert Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 2:47 PM To: Louis Kosnett Cc: James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian ; Christopher LeClerc Subject: RE: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Counsel, My understanding is that you spoke with my partner Chris on the subject of possibly resolving our clients claims against your clients. It is my understanding, that Chris is still waiting to hear from you. With that said, and to save on attorneys fees, we request a 3 LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 063 weeks’ extension to move to compel further responses and documents found in Defendants’ supplemental responses served on 6/18/2021. Presently the deadline is 8/2/21. With the extension, the deadline will be 8/23/21. If you agree, please confirm by replying to this email. Thank you, Oleg I. Albert, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.446.9799 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. The information contained in this message and any file transmitted with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99- 413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Louis Kosnett Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 6:55 PM To: Oleg Albert Cc: James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian ; Christopher LeClerc Subject: Re: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Importance: High LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 064 Dear Mr. Albert: We agree to your proposed extension. In addition, attached please find PDF files containing signed discovery responses (the signatures on the PDFs attached to the last email were inadvertently omitted), and Verifications for all responses. We appreciate your patience. Thank you, Louis ________________________________ Louis V. Kosnett, Esq. KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee na med above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 065 On Jun 18, 2021, at 4:12 PM, Oleg Albert wrote: Good afternoon, Since it’s close to the end of the day, and we don’t have responses yet, I propose you continue our deadline to file a motion to compel to next Friday (6/25/2021) so that we can review your client’s responses -however late they are served today-and the document production served today. Otherwise, the deadline being Monday, we have no choice but to prepare and file the motion since we will not have sufficient time to review your supplemental responses and 1700 page production. Please confirm by replying to this email that you agree to the extension. Thank you, Oleg I. Albert, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.446.9799 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 066 against disclosure or unauthorized use. The information contained in this message and any file transmitted with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Oleg Albert Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 3:27 PM To: Louis Kosnett ; James Kosnett ; Dan Yakobian Cc: Christopher LeClerc ; Admin Subject: RE: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Received. What time today should we expect the email production of supplemental responses? Also, please advise whether the document production earlier today is the entire production and no additional documents will be produced? Thank you, Oleg I. Albert, Esq. Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 067 155 Montgomery Str., Suite 1004 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.0900 Dir: 415.446.9799 Fax: 415.445.9977 Notice: The message and any file transmitted with it contain confidential information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, or otherwise protected against disclosure or unauthorized use. The information contained in this message and any file transmitted with it is transmitted in this form based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message and any attachments. From: Admin Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 1:14 PM To: Oleg Albert ; Christopher LeClerc Cc: Dan Yakobian ; James Kosnett ; Louis Kosnett Subject: VTS adv Nans - VTS Document Production Mr. Albert LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 068 Please review enclosed attachment, VTS Document Production. In addition, please note that signed Discovery will be send by Louis Kosnett later today. Also, we are working on obtaining signed verifications. Kindly acknowledge receipt of email and attachment. Sincerely Santiago A ***PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS**** KOSNETT LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 Phone: (310) 445-5900 Fax: (424) 238-2257 http://www.educationlawyer.org This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the Kosnett Law Firm that is confidential and privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please (1) immediately notify me by reply email, (2) do not review, copy, save, forward, or print this email or any of its LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 069 attachments, and (3) immediately delete and destroy this email, its attachments and all copies thereof. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. LeClerc decl., Exhibits Page - 070 i PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L e C l e r c & L e C l e r c L L P 15 5 M on tg om er y St re et , S ui te 1 00 4 ♦ S an F ra nc isc o, C A 9 41 04 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Christopher R. LeClerc, declare that I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94104. On October 27, 2021, I served the following document(s): • DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT on the parties listed below as follows: James Kosnett Louis Kosnett Dan Yakobian Kosnett Law Firm 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 By email: pursuant to C.C.P. § 1010.6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 27, 2021. _________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER R. LECLERC X
