Nassar CasesMotion to Quash Service of SummonsCal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 18, 2018NO ® 9 N n RA W N = BN N N N N N O N N N m= e m m m ee e m e m ed ee d p d p m 0 N A A Ln BR W N = O VO N N N E W N Rk, DANIEL M. WHITE (SBN 68011) REBECCA D. LACK (SBN 190735) WHITE & AMUNDSON, APC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-0300 Telefax: (619) 239-0344 MARGARET M. HOLM (SBN 71252) CLYDE & CO US LLP 2020 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 567-7838 (direct) Telephone: (949) 852-8200 Telefax: (877) 546-3920 Co-counsel for Specially-Appearing Defendants, USA GYMNASTICS, ROBERT COLAROSSI, and KATHY SCANLAN E L E C T R O N I C A L L Y FI LE D Su pe ri or Co ur t of Ca li fo rn ia Co un ty of Or an ge 0 6 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 at 03 :5 9: 00 PI Cl er k of th e Su pe ri or Co ur t By Sa ra h Lo os e, De pu ty Cl er k SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.550) NASSAR CASES Included actions: Doe v. Nassar, et al. Lopez v. Nassar, et al. Doe, et al. v. USA Gymnastics, et al. Doe v. Doe 1, et al. Doe v. Nassar, et al. Doe v. Doe 1, et al. DATE: 1R2%x8 8/31/2018 s5L TIME: 10:00 A.M. DEPT.: CX105 MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4943 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT KATHY SCANLAN (SUED HEREIN AS DOE 3) TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN JANE AJ DOE V. DOE, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CASE NO. 30-2017-00899357; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF REBECCA D. LACK IN SUPPORT THEREOF SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NO. BC638724 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NO. BC644417 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NO. BC667053 OO 0 3 O&O Wn bs W N N O N N N N N NN N O N m = mm e m e m e m e m p m e e e m 0 0 ~ J O N Wn HA W N = O O DO N N n l s W N = O SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE NO. 30-2017-00899357 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE NO. 30-2017-00926883 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO NO. 34-2016-00200075 TO: ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: August 31 4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 2%, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Randall J. Sherman in Dept. CX105 of the Orange County Superior Court, located at Civil Complex Center, 751 W. Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California, specially- appearing defendant, KATHY SCANLAN, will and hereby does move to quash service of the First Amended Complaint as follows: This motion is based upon Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10, ef seq., on the grounds that as a resident of the State of Washington, and the lack of any relevant contact with the State of California, this Court has no basis upon which to assert jurisdiction over KATHY SCANLAN in this matter. This motion will be based upon this motion, the attached points and authorities, the attached Declaration of Rebecca D. Lack, and the Declaration of Kathy Scanlan, filed concurrently herewith, the pleadings and records on file herein and on any additional evidence, argument or authorities that may be presented at the hearing on this motion. DATED this 11" day of June, 2018. WHITE & O By REBECCA D. LACK Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant, KATHY SCANLAN, DOE 3 /]/ //] [1] MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 2 p t N O N N N O N N N N N m= e m ee e e ee e d e s ee R R R B S 2 8 086 ©o 3 a a » © 0 —~ o \ O o o | AN wn SB Ww [\S ] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES We INTRODUCTION Plaintiff JANE AJ DOE (plaintiff) filed her original complaint on January 24, 2017 as against 11 DOE Defendants, including Ms. Scanlan designated as DOE 3. According to plaintiff's allegations, Ms. Scanlan is named as DOE 3 based on her position as a former President of DOE 2- USA Gymnastics (“USAG™). On June 19, 2017, the plaintiff filed a FAC. On April 10, 2018, by stipulation, Ms. Scanlan was served through her counsel with a copy of the Summons and Complaint, as well as the FAC and all accompanying documents for this action. As a result of stipulation between counsel, Ms. Scanlan's response to the FAC is not due until June 11, 2018. (See attached Declaration of Rebecca D. Lack.) Plaintiff seeks to assert personal jurisdiction over Ms. Scanlan for the purpose of holding her liable for alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by a resident of the State of Michigan, Dr. Larry Nassar. (Doe 1, or Dr. Nassar.) Plaintiff alleges that the sexual abuse occurred at various national and international events from 1997 to 1999. (FAC § 2.) Importantly, plaintiff asserts that Ms. Scanlan is liable despite the fact that her term as President of USAG, a Texas non-profit headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, spanned the years of 1994 to 1998 only. During those years Ms. Scanlan was in California once a year for two or three days at a time and thereafter, between the latter part of 1998 forward, not at all. (Scanlan Dec. § 11.) In summary, a California plaintiff is suing an individual Washington domiciliary having virtually no contacts with California, a Texas non-profit corporation, and a Michigan doctor for sexual misconduct purportedly occurring at various locations in the United States and international locations. Moreover, it is alleged that the sexual misconduct continued to occur for approximately two years after Ms. Scanlan resigned the presidency of USAG, during which time she could not and did not have any control over the actions of USAG or any of its agents or employees. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Scanlan contends there are no grounds on which to assert either general or specific personal jurisdiction over her in this matter. Accordingly, Ms. Scanlan respectfully urges the Court to grant this motion and to dismiss plaintiff's FAC as to Ms. Scanlan. MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 3 OO 0 0 NJ O N wn hs WwW N e N O N N N N N m m e m e m e s e s e e e s 11. FACTS Plaintiff competed as an elite gymnast at national and international locations between 1997 and 1999. During this time she was selected to and competed as a member of the United States Women's Olympic Gymnastics Team, including the 1997 World Championships Team, a member of the Pan American Team, and a 1999 member of the World Championships Team. (FAC 2.) During the 1997 to 1999 time period, plaintiff claims she was exposed to and treated by defendant Dr. Larry Nassar (DOE I). Dr. Nassar was an osteopathic physician and trainer reportedly respected for his skill in treating injured gymnasts and keeping them on the field of play at competitions. Plaintiff] alleges he sexually abused her during treatment. (FAC 4 3 & 4.) Ms. Scanlan was a resident of the State of Indiana between 1997 and 1999. (Scanlan Dec. § 3.) During that time her contacts with the State of California were fleeting at best. Her employment with USAG ceased in 1998, and she had no authority over the women's gymnastics or medical programs thereafter. Particularly worthy of note, Ms. Scanlan has never owned real property in the State of California. (Scanlan Dec. § 6.) Nor has she owed or paid taxes in this state. (Scanlan Dec. § 7.) She has never derived income from a California source. (Scanlan Dec. | 8.) She holds no licenses issued by the State of] California nor is she subject to regulatory authority by the state. (Scanlan Dec. § 9.) Finally, Ms. Scanlan has never been involved in litigation in the State of California or otherwise been subjected to personal jurisdiction of the courts of this state. (Scanlan Dec. { 14 & 15.) III. AUTHORITY California Code of Civil Procedure §410.10 governs the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the courts of this state. Personal jurisdiction may be exercised on any basis “not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” As such, California courts may exercise persons] jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this state. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) The minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state must be such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (/d.) It is through this lens that the question of personal jurisdiction must be analyzed. MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 4 OO 0 NN O N Un BR W N — p m p m ed p b ee d = = 0 ~~ O&O wn ph W N = O 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 (Walden, supra, 134 S.Ct. 1115 at page 1121.) In speaking on the issue, the California Supreme Court It is well settled that personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) General jurisdiction requires contacts with the forum state so “continuous and systematic” that the person is “essentially at home” in the forum. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851.) In contrast, specific jurisdiction attaches only when “the defendant’s suit related conduct...create[s] a substantial connection with the forum State.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121.) A. THERE IS NO GENERAL JURISDICTION. For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home. (Goodyear Dunlop, supra, 131 S.Ct. 2846 at 2853-54.) Remaining mindful that “continuous and systematic” contacts are required for general jurisdiction to attach, it can be said without equivocation that no such jurisdiction can be exercised with regard to defendant Kathy Scanlan (DOE 3). As detailed above, she has no contacts with the State of California of any consequence. She does not (a) live in California; (b) work in California; (c) derive income from sources in California; (d) incur or pay taxes in California; i(e) own real property in California, or otherwise conduct herself in a manner suggesting she is “essentially at home.” B. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. Specific jurisdiction differs from general jurisdiction in that the defendant’s suit-related conduct is analyzed. The conduct must be such that it creates a substantial connection with the forum state. holds that specific jurisdiction may be exercised only if (a) the defendant has purposely availed himself] of forum benefits; (b) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (c) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434 at pages 445-447.) Here, plaintiff's own allegations are fatal to her claims against Ms. Scanlan. The plaintiff alleges that her abuse occurred between 1997 and 1999. She further alleges, albeit incorrectly, that Ms. Scanlan was a resident of the State of Washington then and presently (Complaint 9 13). For one of the years in question, 1999, Ms. Scanlan was not employed by USAG and had no right or opportunity to exercise any MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 5 OO 0 NN NN Wn A W N N O N N N N N = e e e m p m ed e d p d e d control over the conduct of USAG. Ms. Scanlan's contacts with California between 1997 and 1999 were sporadic, short lived, and did not involve the plaintiff. Moreover, there are no allegations that Ms. Scanlan’s allegedly tortious conduct occurred in California. Thus, under no circumstances can it be legitimately suggested that she in any way invoked "forum benefits" of this state. Finally, Ms. Scanlan urges this Court to find that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would do violence to the norms of "fair play and substantial justice." C. JURISDICTION CAN'T BE BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S RESIDENCE. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434 at page 449.) Moreover, she can’t be the only link between the defendant challenging jurisdiction and the forum. (Walden, supra, 134 S.Ct. 1115 at page 1122.) The proof must be robust. As held in Burdick v. Superior Court (2015)233 Cal. App.4th 8, 13, plaintiff must present evidence that “the defendant expressly aim[ed] ... his or her...conduct at the forum, rather than at a plaintiff who lives there.” The Burdick Court further “emphasize[d] the exercise of personal jurisdiction must be based upon forum-related acts that were personally committed by the nonresident defendant, not upon the plaintiff’s contacts with the forum or acts committed by codefendants or third parties.” (/d., emphasis added.) Further, the acts of an entity cannot be imputed to its employees. Rather, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that each defendant separately, discretely directed or participated in the contacts purportedly at issue. (Seagate Tech v. A.J. Kogyo Co. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 696, 702-704.) As noted in Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790, “[p]etitioners are correct that their contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer’s activities there. ... Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.” D. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY MADE. California Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 permits the filing of a motion to quash service on or before the last day of the time to plead. California decisional authority establishes that extensions of time to respond granted as a courtesy by counsel likewise extend the time to file such a motion. (Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286.) There, a 15-day extension of time was granted to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Rejecting the plaintiff’s claim that a section 418.10 motion MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 6 OO 0 NN O N wn kA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 was untimely, the Court stated, “Clearly, BMG’s motion to dismiss or stay the action under section 418.10 falls within the scope of the 15-day extension of time granted by Olinick to ‘answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.”” (Olinick, supra, at page 1295, emphasis in original.) As stated in the accompanying declaration of Rebecca D. Lack, an extension of time to respond to the complaint was granted by counsel for plaintiff on Monday, May 21, 2018. The revised date for Ms. Scanlan to respond was June 11, 2018. (Declaration of Rebecca D. Lack at 7 2-4.) IV. CONCLUSION Defendant, Kathy Scanlan, was not employed by USAG for the latter two of the years plaintiff] | claims she was abused by Larry Nassar (Doe 1). For the first year of plaintiff's alleged abuse, Ms. Scanlan was a resident of the State of Indiana with no contacts with the State of California that can be claimed to be of significance. It is not alleged that Ms. Scanlan's allegedly tortious or otherwise wrongful conduct occurred in the State of California. Based on the foregoing, the accompanying Declaration of Kathy Scanlan and the attached Declaration of Rebecca D. Lack, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the instant motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint as to Kathy Scanlan and to dismiss the case against her. DATED this 11th day of June, 2018. WHITE & ON REBECCA D. LACK Counsel for Specially-Appearing Defendant, KATHY SCANLAN DECLARATION OF COUNSEL I, Rebecca D. Lack, declare as follows: 1. [ am an attorney and of counsel to White & Amundson, APC, counsel for defendant, KATHY SCANLAN, (sued herein as DOE 3), specially appearing in the above-captioned matter. All ofthe statements below are made based on my personal knowledge and 1 could competently testify thereto if called as a witness herein. 2, On April 10, 2018, I received via hand-delivery the plaintiff's original Summons and Complaint, MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 7 OO 0 N N nn A W N = N O N N N N O N N N O N = m m e m em e m e m p m e d e m 0 J O N nn BRA W N = O ND N N N RE W N Oo and the First Amended Complaint, as well as all accompanying documents to the operative pleadings in this matter. On May 4, 2018, I sought an extension of time to and including June 11, 2018 to file and serve a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Kathy Scanlan. On May 10, 2018, I received an email from plaintiff's counsel that I was granted the requested extension. On May 21, 2018, I received the signed stipulation from plaintiff's counsel granting the requested extension on behalf of Kathy Scanlan. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Alex Cunny’s email thread with me dated May 4, 2018 and May 10, 2018 regarding the requested extension, confirming the extension. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the fully executed Stipulation to Extend Time For Kathy Scanlan To Respond To First Amended Complaint By Not More Than 30 Days I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 11" day of June, 2018 at San Diego, California. REBECCA D. LACK ) MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 8 EXHIBIT A Rebecca Lack From: Alex Cunny Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:24 AM To: Rebecca Lack; John Manly; Vince Finaldi Cc: Emily Kyte Subject: RE: Doe v. USAG - extension re Kathy Scanlan response in AJ Doe Yes, it’s fine. | reviewed last week. Please sign for me. Thanks Alex E. Cunny, Esq. Attorney MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave. Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 P (949) 252-9990 F (949) 252-9991 acunn acu y@manlystewart.com stewart.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY-WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ABOVE AND THE PRIVILEGES ARE NOT WAIVED BY VIRTUE OF THIS HAVING BEEN SENT BY E-MAIL. IF THE PERSON ACTUALLY RECEIVING THIS E-MAIL OR ANY OTHER READER OF THE E-MAIL IS NOT THE NAMED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE NAMED RECIPIENT, ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. From: Rebecca Lack Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:23 AM To: Alex Cunny ; John Manly ; Vince Finaldi Cc: Emily Kyte ; Rebecca Lack Subject: RE: Doe v. USAG - extension re Kathy Scanian response in AJ Doe Dear Counsel: Please see my email below from last week. I would greatly appreciate a response to it, as well as the signed stipulation re an extension of time for us to respond to the AJ Doe complaint on behalf of Kathy Scanlan. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. “2 White & Amundson Rebecca D. Lack ATTORNEY AT LAW 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, California 92101 Tel 6192390300 Fax 6192390344 rlack@whiteamundson.com Confidentiality: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to info@whiteamundson.com, or by telephone at (619) 239-0300 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. = Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Rebecca Lack Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:32 PM To: Alex Cunny ; John Manly ; Vince Finaldi Cc: Emily Kyte ; Rebecca Lack Subject: RE: Doe v. USAG - extension re Kathy Scanlan response in AJ Doe Thanks, Alex. I understand your thoughts as they relate to Judge Sherman, but we would appreciate receiving a signed copy of this. On another note, Marc Jacobs, counsel for AOGC, advised me he would like to review the confidential questionnaire submitted by LM Doe in this case. Does your office have any objection to my providing it to him? “2 White & Amundson Rebecca D. Lack ATTORNEY AT LAW 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, California 92101 Tel 6192390300 Fax 6192390344 rlack@whiteamundson.com Confidentiality: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to info@whiteamundson.com, or by telephone at (619) 239-0300 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. - Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Alex Cunny [mailto:acunny@manlystewart.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:27 PM To: Rebecca Lack ; John Manly ; Vince Finaldi Cc: Emily Kyte Subject: RE: Doe v. USAG - extension re Kathy Scanlan response in AJ Doe Rebecca, This looks fine and we are ok to sign. However, with the gating procedures by Judge Sherman, I'm not sure it is necessary. (We have a tentative schedule for filings of Motions to Quash, jurisdictional discovery, etc.) Nevertheless, we . will get you an executed copy asap. Alex E. Cunny, Esq. Attorney MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave. Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 P (949) 252-9990 F (949) 252-9991 acunny@manlystewart.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY-WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ABOVE AND THE PRIVILEGES ARE NOT WAIVED BY VIRTUE OF THIS HAVING BEEN SENT BY E-MAIL. IF THE PERSON ACTUALLY RECEIVING THIS E-MAIL OR ANY OTHER READER OF THE E-MAIL IS NOT THE NAMED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE NAMED RECIPIENT, ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. From: Rebecca Lack Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:18 PM To: John Manly ; Vince Finaldi ; Alex Cunny Cc: Emily Kyte ; Rebecca Lack Subject: Doe v. USAG - extension re Kathy Scanlan response in AJ Doe Dear Counsel: It’s my understanding that an agreement was reached at the mediation in New York regarding extending the time for recently served defendants to respond to the AJ Doe Complaint. In accordance with that agreement, attached please find a proposed Stipulation extending Kathy Scanlan’s time to respond to that complaint for a period of 30 days. Please email me back to let us know you are in agreement with the attached stipulation at your earliest convenience, so we may proceed with filing it with the Court as soon as possible. Also, if it meets with your approval, please sign the second page of it and I'll then sign it and send you a fully executed copy. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation on this issue. “2 White & Amundson Rebecca D. Lack ATTORNEY AT LAW 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, California 92101 Tel 6192390300 Fax 6192390344 rlack@whiteamundson.com Confidentiality: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to info@whiteamundson.com, or by telephone at (619) 239-0300 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. = Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. EXHIBIT B OO © 3 O N wn H A W N = N N N N N N m m e m em e m p t p d e d p b p d pe DANIEL M. WHITE (SBN 68011) REBECCA D. LACK (SBN 190735) WHITE & AMUNDSON, APC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-0300 Telefax: (619) 239-0344 MARGARET M. HOLM (SBN 71252) SEDGWICK, LLP 2020 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 567-7838 (direct) Telephone: (949) 852-8200 Telefax: (877) 546-3920 Co-counsel for Specially-Appearing Defendants, USA GYMNASTICS, ROBERT COLAROSSI, and KATHY SCANLAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE JANE AJ DOE, Case No. 30-2017-00899357 Plaintiff, STIULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT KATHY SCANLAN TO Vs. RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DOE 1, an individual, ef al., DAYS Defendants. / On January 24, 2017, plaintiff JANE AJ DOE filed a Complaint in the Orange County Superior Court of the State of California, naming several individual and entity defendants as DOES. On or about June 19, 2017, JANE AJ DOE filed a First Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2018, JANE AJ DOE substituted the true name of defendant, KATHY SCANLAN, for DOE 3 and caused the operative pleadings and accompanying documents to be served on her, making her responsive due date on or before May 10, 2018. Plaintiff agreed that KATHY SCANLAN need not respond to plaintiff's Complaint on such date. The parties have agreed and stipulated that KATHY SCANLAN’s time to file responsive pleadings shall be extended by 30 days, or until June 11, 2018 (a Monday). STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME 1 OO 0 3 OO Wn HAH W N = N N N N N N me e m e m mt p d p d p b p d p k p d The parties agree that the entry into this Stipulation by KATHY SCANLAN shall not constitute a waiver of any jurisdictional defenses that may be available to her, a waiver of any affirmative defenses, or a waiver of any other statutory or common law defenses that may be available to KATHY SCANLAN. KATHY SCANLAN expressly reserves her right to raise any such defenses in response to the pleadings filed against her in this action. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO, through their undersigned counsel, that KATHY SCANLAN shall have to and including June 11, 2018 within which to file her responsive pleading in this action. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the entry into this stipulation by KATHY SCANLAN shall not constitute a waiver of any defenses except for insufficiency of process or insufficiency of service of process. For the avoidance of doubt, KATHY SCANLAN expressly preserves and does not waive any other defenses, including, but not limited to, the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or improper venue. KATHY SCANLAN expressly reserves her rights to raise any such defenses in response to the operative pleading. DATED this 4" day of May, 2018. REBECCA D. LACK Counsel for Specially-Appearing Defendants, USA G STICS, ROBERT COLAROSSI, and KA SCANLAN DATED this 21st day of May, 2018. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI By A boy (7 Crna, ALEX E. CUNNY Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE AJ DOE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME 2 OO 0 NN NY Un A W N ND N N = = em e m ee e e e e F I B E R B U Y U R N V E E L S = 3 5 3 6 " S 0 8 = 5 Nassar Cases JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4943 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140, San Diego, California 92101. I am readily familiar with the business practices of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; I am over the age of eighteen and I am not a party to this action. on the interested parties in this action: x MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 9 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Emily Kyte, declare as follows: I am employed with the law firm of WHITE & AMUNDSON, On June 11, 2018, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT KATHY SCANLAN (SUED HEREIN AS DOE 3) TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN JANE AJDOEYV. DOE, ETAL. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CASE NO. 30-2017-00899357; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF REBECCA D. LACK IN SUPPORT THEREOF (BY MAIL) C.C.P. § 1013(a)(1) & (3) I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Diego, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. Iam "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if] postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY EMAIL) C.C.P. § 1010.6(1)(6); At the time of the electronic service, I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal proceeding. I transmitted the above-referenced documents by electronic mail, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2060. The electronic service I used complied with Rule 2050 and no error was reported by the electronic mail provider. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) C.C.P. § 1011; I delivered such envelope by and to the offices of the addressee. (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) C.C.P. § 1013(c); I am readily familiar with the practice of this firm for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing by overnight mail. Pursuant to this practice, correspondence would be deposited in the overnight mail location located at 550 West "C" Street, San Diego, CA 92101 in the ordinary course of business on the date of this declaration. © 0 ~~ A nn A W N N N N N N N mm ee e m e m p e p d pe pe d pe O (BY FACSIMILE) At the time of transmission, I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal proceeding. Pursuant to our agreement with at .m. on this date, I transmitted the above-referenced documents by facsimile machine, on , 20 , at .m. from facsimile machine telephone number (619) 239-0344 to , at facsimile machine telephone number , in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2002-2009 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. A transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, and a copy of the transmission report is attached to the Proof of Service. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed this 11™ day of June, 2018 at San Diego, California. Emily Kyte MOTION TO QUASH /SCANLAN 10 Nassar Cases JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4943 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Emily Kyte, declare as follows: 1. I am employed with the law firm of WHITE & AMUNDSON, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1140, San Diego, California 92101. I am readily familiar with the business practices of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; I am over the age of eighteen and I am not a party to this action. 2. On June 11, 2018, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT KATHY SCANLAN (SUED HEREIN AS DOE 3) TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FORLACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN JANE AJ DOE V. DOE, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OR ORANGE, CASE NO 30-2017-00899357; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF REBECCA D. LACK IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action: 0 (BY MAIL) C.C.P. § 1013(a)(1) & (3) I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Diego, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Xi (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) ; I caused the documents to be sent to the persons via ONE LEGAL. O (BY EMAIL) C.C.P. § 1010.6(1)(6); At the time of the electronic service, I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal proceeding. I transmitted the above-referenced documents by electronic mail, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2060. The electronic service [ used complied with Rule 2050 and no error was reported by the electronic mail provider. 0 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) C.C.P. § 1011; I delivered such envelope by and to the offices of the addressee. 0 (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) C.C.P. § 1013(c); I am readily familiar with the practice of this firm for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing by overnight mail. Pursuant to this practice, correspondence would be deposited in the overnight mail location located at 550 West "C" Street, San Diego, CA 92101 in the ordinary course of business on the date of this declaration. 10 11 14 15 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27)] 28 © 0 N o 12 13] 17 19 0 (BY FACSIMILE) At the time of transmission, I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal proceeding. Pursuant to our agreement with at .m. on this date, I transmitted the above-referenced documents by facsimile machine, on ,20 at .m. from facsimile machine telephone number (619) 239-0344 to , at facsimile machine telephone number , in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2002-2009 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. A transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, and a copy of the transmission report is attached to the Proof of Service. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed this 11 day of June, 2018 at San Diego, California. ernadette J. Go S NO 0 N d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Nassar Cases JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4943 SERVICE LIST Superior Court of California, County of Orange Civil Complex Center - JCCP 4943 751 W. Santa Ana Boulevard - Dept. CX105 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Chair, Judicial Council of California Attn: Appellate Court Services (Civil Case Coordination) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5" Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 John C. Manly, Esq. Vince W. Finaldi, Esq. Alex E. Cunny, Esq. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 Email: jmanly@manlystewart.com vfinaldi@manlystewart.com Margaret M. Holm, Esq. Melissa, Leos, Esc CLYDE & COUS LLP 2020 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614-8234 Tel: (949) 852.8200 Fax: (877) 546-3920 Email: margaret.holm@sedgwicklaw.com ryan.ortuno@sedgwicklaw.com Edith R. Matthai, Esq. ROBIE & MATTHAI 500 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 706-8000 Fax: (213) 706-9913 Email: ematthai@romalaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE AJ DOE Co-Counsel for Specially Appearing Defendants, USA GYMNASTICS, ROBERT COLAROSSI and KATHY SCANLAN Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant, STEPHEN PENNY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Christopher Hyland, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN O’CONNELL & ASSOCIATES 13051 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91710 Tel: (909) 236 - 7009 Fax: (909) 696 - 2932 Email: lalaw500@gmail.com David Eisen, Esq. Gregory K. Lee, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 443 - 5100 Fax: (213) 443 - 5101 Email: david.eisenf@wilsonelser.com Justin C. Pfeiffer, Esq. Berg & Androphy 3704 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002-9550 Tel: (713) 529-5622 Fax: (713) 529-3785 Email: jpfeiffer@bafirm.com Scott Lee Shabel, Esq. Law Office of Scott Lee Shabel 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90064-10309 Tel: (310) 447 - 3277 Fax: (310) 447 - 3288 Email: shabel@labusinesslawyer.com Attorneys for Defendant, SCATS Attorneys for Defendant, DON PETERS Attorneys for Defendants, BELA KAROLYI, MARTHA KAROLYI and KAROLYI CAMPS, LLC Attorneys for Defendant, DON PETERS
