Motion_to_strike_not_initial_pleadingMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 5, 2014Electronically Fes by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/25/2019 03:27 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Rios,Deputy Clerk O O 00 J O v nn Bs W N W W N N N D N N N N N N m e e s ee e m e m e a e t ee -_- OO OO 0 N N N nn Bs W N = O 0 N N N N R W NN -~ Oo David Lederer, Esq. (SBN: 160700) Casey Hultin, Esq. (SBN: 302904) LEDERER & NOJIMA, LLP 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 312-1860 Facsimile: (310) 477-3481 ECOG2938 Attorney for Defendants, TERRENCE PRICE, dba LEGENDARY MOTORCARS, RICK COLE, and RICK COLE AUCTIONS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT BRIAN BURNETT, Plaintiff, Vv. TERRANCE PRICE, dba LEGENDARY MOTORCARS, RICK COLE, RICK COLE AUCTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. EC062988 [Assigned to the Hon. William D. Stewart Dept. A] DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT’S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of Casey Hultin; [Proposed] Order] Date: 3/29/19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: A RESERVATION ID: 445631128459 Ee DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Defendant TERRENCE PRICE. dba LEGENDARY MOTORCARS moves this Court on March 29, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., or soon thereafter, in Department A of the Burbank Courthouse located at 300 E. Olive Ave., Burbank, CA 91502, for an order striking Plaintiff BRIAN BURNETT'S Memorandum of Costs in its entirety as it was served untimely, or in the alternative, for an order taxing the following costs: 1. Item I. Filing and motion fees; ro Item 2. Jury fees; [tem 4. Deposition costs: Item 5. Service of process; Item 11. Models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits; and S E CU S T Item 12. Court reporter fees. This Motion is made pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff failed to timely serve his Memorandum of Costs: (2) Plaintiff has failed to show that the costs were reasonable and necessary; and (3) Plaintiff] has failed to provide proof of his costs. This Motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Casey Hultin filed concurrently herewith, all pleadings and documents on file with the Court, and upon such further oral argument and evidence as may properly be presented at the time of hearing. DATED: February 22, 2019 LEDERER & NOJIMA LLP pro J Casey Hultin, Esq., Attorney for Defendants, TERRENCE PRICE, dba LEGENDARY MOTORCARS, RICK COLE, and RICK COLE AUCTIONS, INC. le L DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OO 00 NN O N Wn A W N WW O W N N N N NN ND ND ND N N m m m m e m e m e e e d be d ee e s -_ OO WO 0 d N nn R W N = OO Vw N N N R W ND = OO I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Brian Burnett’s (“Plaintiff”) Memorandum of Costs is untimely and should therefore be stricken. Plaintiff failed to serve his Memorandum of Costs within the mandated 180 days since the Court entered judgment in this matter. In fact, the only reason Plaintiff had 180 days to prepare his Memorandum of Costs is because he ignored the Court’s instruction made in August 2018 to give notice of entry of judgment. Plaintiff never gave notice and therefore defied the Court. Even with this self- imposed additional time, Plaintiff still could not manage to timely serve his Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff should not be rewarded or shown leniency for his continued disregard of the Court’s instructions and rules. As such, his entire Memorandum of Costs should be stricken. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs should be stricken because Plaintiff fails to substantiate any of his claimed costs with specific information or documentation such as receipts, invoices or bill statements. As a result, it is impossible for Defendant to determine the “reasonableness and necessity” of each claimed cost. The Court should grant this Motion and strike Plaintiff’s entire Memorandum of Costs, or in the alternative, tax Plaintiffs costs. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff brought nine separate causes of action against all named Defendants. On April 6, 2015, the Court dismissed four of the nine causes of action leaving only the claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; (3) accounting; (4) fraud; and (5) intentional interference with contractual relations. (Declaration of Casey Hultin (“Hultin Decl.”) § 3). Trial in this matter began on June 4, 2018 and concluded on June 25, 2018. (Hultin Decl. 94). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant Terrence Price (“Price”) only and awarded Plaintiff $100,000.00 in damages. (Hultin Decl. § 5 & Ex. A). Defendants Rick Cole (“Cole”) and Rick Cole Auctions, Inc. (“RCA”) prevailed against Plaintiff as the jury awarded $0 in damages against Cole and RCA. (/d.). On or around June 27, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel filed and served a Notice of Lodgment of the Proposed Judgment. (Hultin Decl. § 6 & Ex. B). The Court’s clerk extensively edited the Proposed Judgment and e-mailed a copy of the same to all parties on August 1, 2018. (Hultin Decl. § 7 & Ex. C). After all parties reviewed and approved the Proposed Judgment, the Court entered judgment on August l= DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS NO 00 ~~ O N Wn BR W N = LW WW N N N ND N N N N N e e e e m e m e e e e ee d -_ OO WO 0 N N nn B W N D = O DO N N N N E W ND = O 8, 2018. (Hultin Decl. § 8 & Ex. A). On that same date, a copy of the filed Judgment was e-mailed to all parties and Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of entry of judgment. However, Plaintiff defied the Court’s instruction and never filed or served a notice of entry of judgment. (Hultin Decl. 9 & Ex. D). After the Court entered judgment, all parties, including Plaintiff, began filing documents and motions related to post-judgment fees, costs, and expenses. In accordance with California law, Defendants Cole and RCA timely filed and served Memorandum of Costs on August 23, 2018. (Hultin Decl. § 10). Similarly, Defendant Price also timely filed and served a Motion for Attorney’s Fees on October 5, 2018 set to be heard on November 30, 2018. (/d.). In response to Defendants Cole and RCA’s Memorandum of Costs, Plaintiff filed two separate motions to tax set to be heard on November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018. (Hultin Decl. § 11). In order to accommodate the Court’s schedule, all three motions were rescheduled to be heard on January 4, 2019. On November 16, 2018, Defense counsel gave notice of the new hearing date. (Hultin Decl. § 12). On January 4, 2019, the hearing commenced. Defense counsel was present at the hearing. (Hultin Decl. § 13). However, Plaintiff’s counsel Rich Walton failed to appear alleging that he had a hearing at the same time at another courthouse and would be late despite having notice of the hearing since November 2018. (Hultin Decl. 9 14 & Ex. E). Plaintiff's other counsel Brian Kandel was nowhere to be found. (/d.). After a couple of hours, the Court decided to proceed with the hearing despite Mr. Walton’s absence and adopted the tentative ruling. Defense counsel filed and served a notice of ruling on February 1, 2019. (Hultin Decl. 915). Plaintiff's counsel served Defendant Price with a Memorandum of Costs on February 4, 2019, exactly 180 days after the Court entered judgment in this matter. (Hultin Decl. § 16 & Ex. F). Also, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs was served via snail-mail in an envelope stamped on February 5, 2019, which was not within the 180 days of the Court’s entry of judgment. (Hultin Decl. § 17). Plaintiff's counsel failed to personally serve Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs or even provide a courtesy copy via e-mail. (Hultin Decl. { 18). In fact, the Court website also has yet to indicate that Plaintiff filed his Memorandum of Costs at all. (Hultin Decl. § 19 & Ex. G). Plaintiff's Memorandum of Cost in the amount of $50,250.49 does not include any documents 2s DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OO 0 NN N n A W N LW W N N N N N N O N N N N m e e m e m ee E m me e d ee _- OO DO 0 N O N P R A W N = O V 0 N N N E W N - Oo such as receipts, invoices or account statements substantiating Plaintiff’s expenses or a verified statement of Plaintiff or his counsel “that to the best of his knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (Hultin Decl. § 20 & Ex. F). Plaintiff waited until the last possible day to prepare an unsupported Memorandum of Costs that they failed to timely serve (and possibly even file) within 180 days after entry of judgment. III. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IT WAS SERVED UNTIMELY. California Rules of Court 870(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: A prevailing party who claims costs shall serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment ... or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment ... , or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first (emphasis added). An untimely memorandum of costs is fatal to a prevailing party's right to recover costs. Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co., 223 Cal. App. 3d 924, 928-29 (1990)(citing prior codification of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700). Time provisions relating to filing of memorandum of costs, while not jurisdictional, are mandatory, and apply whether or not the judgment or order is appealable. Sanabria v. Embrey, 92 Cal. App. 4th 422, 425-26 (2001). The failure to file a cost bill within the prescribed time can be attacked by a motion to strike (see Davis Lumber Co. v. Hubbell, 137 Cal. App. 2d 148, 151 (1955) (involving cost bill not filed within time limits prescribed by former Code Civ. Proc. § 1033)), and the cost bill should be stricken if it is filed after that time (see Coast Electric Service, Inc. v. Jensen, 111 Cal. App. 124, 126 (1931)). If a party fails to file and serve within specified time his memorandum of costs, he is to be conclusively deemed to have waived the costs accruing in his favor. Id. Here, Plaintiff did not serve his Memorandum of Costs within 180 days after entry of judgment. Once again, he did not comply with the Court’s rules so his Memorandum of Costs should be stricken in its entirety. 3 DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OO 00 N N nn bh W N LW W W N N N ND N N N N N N ee m m e m e e e d pe d e d be d p m -_- OO NO 0 N N N E W N = DO V N N Y E W N = O This is especially true given that Plaintiff had 180 days to timely serve his Memorandum of Costs because he disregarded this Court’s clear instruction to give notice of entry of judgment back in August 2018. Had Plaintiff given notice as instructed, he would have had less time to file and serve his Memorandum of Costs. It is only because Plaintiff ignored the Court’s instruction that he was allowed 180 days to file and serve his Memorandum of Costs. Yet, Plaintiff could not manage to timely serve his Memorandum of Costs even with the additional time and two different attorneys working on his case. Plaintiff should not be rewarded for: (1) ignoring the Court’s instruction to give notice of entry of judgment; and (2) failing to timely serve Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs with the 180 days after entry of judgment. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs should be stricken. B. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IT IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTATION. Plaintiff fails to substantiate any of the alleged costs with any billing statements or receipts for costs allegedly incurred in this matter. Not only was Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs served untimely, it is unsubstantiated. Plaintiff should not be awarded costs for his complete failure to comply with California law. The right to recover costs is governed strictly by statute. Ladas v. Cal. State Auto Assn., 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774 (1993); Hogan v. Ingold, 38 Cal. 3d 802, 814 (1952). A court has no discretion to award costs that are not statutorily authorized. Although prevailing parties are entitled to reimbursement for certain costs incurred during litigation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5, the courts must strictly interpret and apply Section 1033.5 when determining if a request for reimbursement is valid. See Sequio Vacuum Sys. v. Stransky, 229 Cal. App. 2d 281, 289 (1964). Section 1033.5 mandates that the items that are allowable as costs must be “reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Code Civ. Proc. Section 1033.5(c)(2). In addition, Section 1033.5(c)(3) states that “[a]llowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.” Costs that are not reasonably related to defending against claims made in litigation are not recoverable. See Vons Cos., Inc. v. Lyle Parks, Jr., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 823, 832 (2009). When claimed cost items are objected to in a motion to strike or tax costs, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking costs. Melnyk v. Robledo, 64 Cal. App. 3d 618, 624 (1976). Plaintiff has the 4- DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT’S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OO 00 9 NN Un BR W N WwW W N N N N RN ND N N N BRN e e e m ee e m em ee e n em -_- OO DO 0 N N N B R L = O N O RX R W NN = O burden of proving that he is entitled to these costs. The objecting party is not required to submit specific evidence in order to rebut the prima facie case presented by the party claiming the costs. Rather, the “trial judge is entitled to take all of the circumstances [of the case] into account and is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit.” Hadley v. Krepel, 167 Cal. App. 3d 677, 683 (1985). If the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” Ladas, 19 Cal. App. 4th at 774. If the Court does not strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs in its entirety, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the costs claimed to have been incurred in the litigation were necessary, and if necessary, that the amounts claimed are reasonable in light of the purpose(s) they are claimed to have served. In several instances, such determinations cannot be made due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient detail as to the costs claimed. With regard to others, the Court may disallow them outright as unnecessary to the litigation. Defendant requests that the Court exercise its discretion and strike, or in the alternative tax, Plaintiff’s claimed costs as follows: 1. Item 1. Filing and motion fees Plaintiff’s request for filing and motion fees in the amount of $3,081.12 should be stricken as Plaintiff failed to provide documentation such as invoices, receipts or bill statements supporting this request. With no receipts or documentation, it is impossible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s request. 2: Item 2. Jury fees Plaintiffs request for jury fees in the amount of $5,258.99 should be stricken as Plaintiff failed to provide documentation such as invoices, receipts or bill statements supporting this request. With no receipts or documentation, it is impossible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff's request. 3. Item 4. Deposition Costs Plaintiff’s request for deposition fees in the amount of $14,822.22 should be stricken as Plaintiff failed to provide documentation such as invoices, receipts or bill statements supporting this request. With no receipts or documentation, it is impossible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of] Plaintiff’s request. -5- DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OO 00 NN O N Un Bh W N -- WW WwW N N N N N N D N O N N N m e mm e m e m e d e d ee t pe ed a -_ OO NO 0 N N N BR W N = OO 0 S E W N = O Moreover, the reasonableness of many of the deposition costs claimed by Plaintiff is facially dubious in light of the amounts for which recovery is claimed. For example, Plaintiff claims that the transcript of the deposition of Shelia Johnson cost $1,192.11; however Defendants paid $647.89 for the exact same transcript. (Hultin Decl. § 21 & Ex. H). Without documentation provided by Plaintiff, it would appear that this amount is inflated and inaccurate. In addition, Brian Burnett was deposed twice (once as a party and a second time as his own expert witness) so without documentation, Defendant cannot deduce if such deposition costs are reasonable and necessary. The same can be said for Defendant Terry Price who was also deposed 2 separate times. Plaintiff fails to differentiate between the costs and instead, lumps them into one amount for each person. Without documentation, Defendant cannot make a “reasonableness” determination. 4. Item 5S. Service of process Plaintiff's enormous request for deposition fees in the amount of $15,702.62 should be stricken as Plaintiff failed to provide documentation such as invoices, receipts or bill statements supporting this request. With no receipts or documentation, it is impossible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s request. Particularly, Plaintiff claims $2,622.46 in costs for “service of civil subpoena on Elliot Grossman” on 5/8/17, 5/15/17 and 7/18/17. (Hultin Decl. § 22 & Ex. F). Elliot Grossman was never deposed or called as a witness at trial. In fact, Elliot Grossman played no role in litigation. (/d.). The same argument applies to: (1) Plaintiff's alleged cost of $1,050.88 for service of process of Michael Postil on 5/30/17; (2) Plaintiff's alleged cost of $260.00 for service of process of Manuel Del Arroz on 3/30/17; and (3) Plaintiff's alleged cost of $287.45 for service of process costs of Bill Noon on 4/3/17. (Hultin Decl. § 23; See Exhibit F). All 3 individuals were also never deposed as witnesses and played no role in litigation. (/d.) In addition, Juan Villarreal was never deposed or called as a witness so it’s unclear as to why Plaintiff is claiming $167.80 in witness fees for Mr. Villarreal on 2/8/17. (Hultin Decl. § 24 & Ex. F). Therefore, these costs are not reasonable or necessary to litigation and should be stricken. 1 mn -6- DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS OC 00 NN O N nh bh W N LW WW N N N N ND N N N N N N = mm e m e m e t p t p d pe t pe - OO N O 0 N N N N B R L N = DO YW N N N R W N = D 5. Item 11. Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits Plaintiff seeks to recover $5,983.74 in costs for models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits; however, there is no description or supporting documentation so that Defendant can determine whether or not the exhibits were used at trial or reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. The cost of trial exhibits is allowable only if the exhibits were reasonably helpful to the trier of fact. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(12). It follows that costs for exhibits not used at trial are not allowable because they are not helpful to the trier of fact. Ladas, 19 Cal. App. 4th at 775. Exhibits not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation are not allowable Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2), (4); Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church, 23 Cal. App. 4th 361, 364 (1994). The cost of exhibits prepared at the sole instance of the party introducing them at trial is not a proper item of costs. Simms v. County of Los Angeles, 35 Cal. 2d 303, 319 (1950); Crabtree v. Houghton, 191 Cal. 33, 34 (1923); City of Downey v. Gonzales, 262 Cal. App. 2d 563, 570 (1968). Here, it is impossible to tell if Plaintiff’s exhibit costs in the amount of $5,983.74 are allowable without a description and supporting documentation for such charges. 6. Item 12c. Court Reporter Fees Plaintiff's request for court reporter fees in the amount of $5,173.00 should be stricken as Plaintiff failed to provide documentation such as invoices, receipts or bill statements supporting this request. Plaintiff also failed to specify what event coincides with each court reporter fee. With no specific information, receipts or documentation, it is impossible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff's request. IV. CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, Defendant Terrence Price respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion and order that Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs be stricken in its entirety or in the alternative, enter an order taxing the following costs: 1. Item 1. Filing and motion fees; 2. Item 2. Jury fees; 3. Item 4. Deposition costs; -7- DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS ro H W 4. Item 5. Service of process; Item 11. Models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits; and hn on [tem 12. Court reporter fees. DATED: February 22, 2019 LEDERER & NOJIMA LLP Casey Hultin, Esq., Attorney for Defendants, TERRENCE PRICE, dba LEGENDARY MOTORCARS, RICK COLE, and RICK COLE AUCTIONS, INC. =8%, DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE'S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS Court Reservation Receipt | Journal Technologies Court Portal Journal Technologies Court Portal Court Reservation Receipt Reservation Reservation ID: Status: 445631128459 RESERVED Reservation Type: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) (Plaintiff's Number of Motions: Memorandum of Costs) 1 Case Number: Case Title: EC062988 BRIAN BURNETT VS TERRANCE PRICE Filing Party: Location: Terrance Price (Defendant) Burbank Courthouse - Department A Date/Time: Confirmation Code: March 29th 2019, 8:30AM CR-TMPBVOVUDZ6VEBPSD Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) (name extension) 60.00 1 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65 TOTAL $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 Visa Account Number: Authorization: XXXX5368 08343G ¢< BacktoMain | M4 Print Page Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. business address is 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On February 22 2019, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT TERRENCE PRICE’S NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF BRIAN BURNETT’S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TAX COSTS on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy of each document thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: () X) () () () X) () PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My See Attachment 1: Service List BY MAIL. I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. BY OVERNIGHT COURIER. I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service (Federal Express), for delivery to the above addressee(s). BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused the above referenced document(s) to be hand delivered to the above-named person(s): BY FACSIMILE MACHINE. I caused the above referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named person(s) at the following telecopy number: BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. I caused the above referenced document(s) to be transmitted, to the above-named person(s) at the following e-mail address: brian sadriandkandel.com; bkandel taxtriallaw vers.coms rwalton a taxtriallawvers.com: Executed on February 22, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) I declare that [ am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. KIMBERLY vO \____ Attachment 1: Service List BRIAN M. KANDEL, ESQ. SADRI & KANDEL LLP 4633 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 115 Santa Clara, CA 95054 brian sadriandkandel.com: bkandel wiaxtriallawvers.com L. RICHARD WALTON, ESQ. WALTON & WALTON, LLP 4640 Admiralty Way, 5" Floor Marina del Rey, CA 90292 rwaltonie wxiriallawvers.com
