Preview
1 Diane Aqui, SBN 217087
daqui@smithdollar.com
2 SMITH DOLLAR PC
Attorneys at Law
3 418 B Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, California 95401
4 Telephone: (707) 522-1100
Facsimile: (707) 522-1101
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, and TIJA BUCKALEW
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
8
9
MAYA CASTRO, an individual, CASE NO.: SCV-269513
10
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING,
11 v. INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III,
AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN
12 SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY
Corporation; THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER
13 III, an individual; TIJA BUCKALEW, an DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
individual and DOES 1-50
14 Date: October 13, 2023
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
15 Dept. 18
16 Judge: Hon. Christopher Honigsberg
17 Complaint Filed: October 15, 2021
Trial Date: October 13, 2023
18
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 Defendant, Spurgeon Painting, Inc., is a licensed painting contractor. Defendant Boyd
21 Meacham is the owner of the company, and Defendant Tija Buckalew is the office manager. On or
22 about September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended verified complaint asserting nine causes
23 of action for the following:
24 1. Breach of Contract (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
25 2. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Against Boyd Meacham and
26 Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
27 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew
28 -1-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
1 and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
2 4. Discrimination on the Basis of Race, National Origin and/or Ethnicity in Violation of
3 the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew and Spurgeon
4 Painting, Inc.);
5 5. Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination, Failure to Prevent Medical Condition
6 or Disability Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Government Code §§ 12990
7 et seq., 12926, 12940, & 12945, and the Public Policy of California as Expressed in Government
8 Code § 12920; (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
9 6. Failure to Accommodate a Medical Condition or Disability Leave and Failure to
10 Engage in an Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code §§ 12990 et seq., 12926, 1240, &
11 12945, and the Public Policy of California as Expressed in Government Code § 12920; (Against Boyd
12 Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
13 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (Against Boyd Meacham and
14 Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
15 8. Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et
16 seq. (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
17 9. Abuse of Process (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.);
18 II. FACTS
19 Plaintiff, Maya Castro, began working for Spurgeon Painting, Inc. in January of 2021. After
20 about 10 weeks of training, it became apparent that she was unable to perform the duties of her
21 position, including the job duties of sales and bidding projects; she was forgetful, unorganized, not
22 prepared and did not retain information. On April 9, 2021, she was terminated from her position for
23 those reasons.
24 Sometime in March of 2021, Defendant Ms. Buckalew noticed a mass on the Plaintiff’s neck
25 and advised her to get it checked out. On March 6, 2021, Ms. Castro went to the emergency room,
26 and was referred to a thyroid doctor whom she saw on March 17, 2021. During that visit, samples
27 were taken of her right thyroid. On March 23, 2021, samples were taken of her left thyroid. On
28 -2-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
1 March 31, 2023, she returned to the doctor and was told that the mass on her right thyroid was benign.
2 On April 8, 2021, she returned to the doctor for the results of her left thyroid test, which were
3 “nondiagnostic” (i.e., inconclusive”). At that time, she decided to have surgery to remove both the
4 right and left thyroid “regardless of the biopsy results”.
5 Ms. Castro ultimately had surgery on April 29, 2021, twenty days after she was terminated.
6 On or about June 8, 2021, it was determined that the left thyroid, which had been removed, was
7 cancerous.
8 Defendant seeks by way of this Motion in Limine No. 2 (“MIL No. 2”) to preclude any
9 evidence, including testimony or documents, of a potential cancer diagnosis or a “medical condition”.
10 III. ARGUMENT
11 1. A Motion In Limine is Appropriate to Exclude Evidence During Trial.
12 A motion in limine is a motion to exclude evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by
13 the moving party. People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188, disapproved on other grounds;
14 FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1168. The purpose is also to “avoid the
15 obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell’” when highly prejudicial evidence is offered and then
16 stricken at trial. Morris at 188; Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337-339;
17 Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 515, 530 (motion in limine used for its proper purpose
18 as a ruling in advance of an evidentiary objection that was bound to come up during trial).
19 There is no limitation on the subjects of motions in limine. The matter to be excluded can be
20 “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to
21 discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193
22 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.
23 2. Only Relevant Evidence Is Admissible.
24 “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evid. Code § 350. “Relevant
25 evidence” means “evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay
26 declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of
27 consequence to the determination of the action.” Evid. Code § 210.
28 -3-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
1 Although proffered evidence may have some relevance, “The court in its discretion may
2 exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its
3 admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue
4 prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Evid. Code § 352.
5 3. Evidence Relating To Potential Cancer Diagnosis or a “Medical Condition”.
6 Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is entitled: Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination,
7 Failure to Prevent Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination in
8 Violation of Government Code §§ 12990 et seq., 12926, 12940, & 12945, and the Public Policy of
9 California as Expressed in Government Code § 12920;
10 Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is uncertain as she combines “medical condition” and
11 disability” without specifying in her Second Amended Complaint exactly what she is referring to.
12 However, based on discovery, it is expected that Plaintiff will assert at trial that she had a
13 medical condition, i.e., cancer.
14 “Medical condition” means the following: (1) Any health impairment related to or
15 associated with a diagnosis of cancer or a record or history of cancer. See Cal Gov Code § 12926,
16 emphasis added.
17 Plaintiff was not diagnosed with cancer until almost a month after Defendants terminated
18 her. In fact, the test of Plaintiff’s right thyroid was “benign”, and the test for her left thyroid was
19 “undiagnostic”/inconclusive.
20 Pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff did not have a “medical condition” as she was not
21 diagnosed with cancer while she was employed at Spurgeon Painting, Inc. Nor did she have a
22 record or history of cancer.
23 Therefore, any evidence regarding a potential cancer diagnosis is not relevant and allowing
24 any evidence regarding any potential diagnosis of cancer, or a “medical condition” or discussion
25 thereof, would be confusing to the jury and misleading them as to the meaning of the statute.
26 ///
27 ///
28 -4-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Defendants respectfully request the Court grant this motion and bar Plaintiff, her witnesses,
3 and her counsel, from attempting to present evidence of, mentioning, or commenting, to the jury,
4 any evidence, including testimony or documents, of a potential cancer diagnosis or “medical
5 condition”.
6 Dated: October 5, 2023
SMITH DOLLAR PC
7
8
9 By
Diane Aqui
10 Attorneys for SPURGEON PAINTING, INC.,
THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, and TIJA
11 BUCKALEW
12
13
14
ORDER
15
Good cause appearing, the foregoing motion in limine is:
16
_______ GRANTED
17
_______ GRANTED AS MODIFIED
18
_______ DENIED
19
20
Date: ____________ _____________________________________
21 Superior Court Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -5-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
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 -6-
DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS
OR A MEDICAL CONDITION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 418 B Street, Fourth Floor,
3 Santa Rosa, CA 95401. On October 5, 2023, I served the DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON
PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN
4 LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER
DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION on the parties to this action by serving:
5
6
7 Mr. Mark Piesner
Arc Point Law PC
8 22287 Mulholland Highway, #198
Calabasas, CA 91301
9 mark@arcpointlaw.com
Attorney for Maya Castro
10
11 /X/ BY EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement
of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be
12 sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. No electronic message or other indication
that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
13
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
15
Dated: October 5, 2023
16
____________________________________________
17
Stephanie D. Abbott
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Diane Aqui, SBN 217087 daqui@smithdollar.com 2 SMITH DOLLAR PC Attorneys at Law 3 418 B Street, Fourth Floor Santa Rosa, California 95401 4 Telephone: (707) 522-1100 Facsimile: (707) 522-1101 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, and TIJA BUCKALEW 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA 8 9 MAYA CASTRO, an individual, CASE NO.: SCV-269513 10 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, 11 v. INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN 12 SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY Corporation; THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER 13 III, an individual; TIJA BUCKALEW, an DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION individual and DOES 1-50 14 Date: October 13, 2023 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. 15 Dept. 18 16 Judge: Hon. Christopher Honigsberg 17 Complaint Filed: October 15, 2021 Trial Date: October 13, 2023 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Defendant, Spurgeon Painting, Inc., is a licensed painting contractor. Defendant Boyd 21 Meacham is the owner of the company, and Defendant Tija Buckalew is the office manager. On or 22 about September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended verified complaint asserting nine causes 23 of action for the following: 24 1. Breach of Contract (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 25 2. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Against Boyd Meacham and 26 Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 27 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew 28 -1- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 1 and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 2 4. Discrimination on the Basis of Race, National Origin and/or Ethnicity in Violation of 3 the Fair Employment and Housing Act; (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew and Spurgeon 4 Painting, Inc.); 5 5. Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination, Failure to Prevent Medical Condition 6 or Disability Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Government Code §§ 12990 7 et seq., 12926, 12940, & 12945, and the Public Policy of California as Expressed in Government 8 Code § 12920; (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 9 6. Failure to Accommodate a Medical Condition or Disability Leave and Failure to 10 Engage in an Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code §§ 12990 et seq., 12926, 1240, & 11 12945, and the Public Policy of California as Expressed in Government Code § 12920; (Against Boyd 12 Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 13 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (Against Boyd Meacham and 14 Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 15 8. Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et 16 seq. (Against Boyd Meacham. Tija Buckalew and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 17 9. Abuse of Process (Against Boyd Meacham and Spurgeon Painting, Inc.); 18 II. FACTS 19 Plaintiff, Maya Castro, began working for Spurgeon Painting, Inc. in January of 2021. After 20 about 10 weeks of training, it became apparent that she was unable to perform the duties of her 21 position, including the job duties of sales and bidding projects; she was forgetful, unorganized, not 22 prepared and did not retain information. On April 9, 2021, she was terminated from her position for 23 those reasons. 24 Sometime in March of 2021, Defendant Ms. Buckalew noticed a mass on the Plaintiff’s neck 25 and advised her to get it checked out. On March 6, 2021, Ms. Castro went to the emergency room, 26 and was referred to a thyroid doctor whom she saw on March 17, 2021. During that visit, samples 27 were taken of her right thyroid. On March 23, 2021, samples were taken of her left thyroid. On 28 -2- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 1 March 31, 2023, she returned to the doctor and was told that the mass on her right thyroid was benign. 2 On April 8, 2021, she returned to the doctor for the results of her left thyroid test, which were 3 “nondiagnostic” (i.e., inconclusive”). At that time, she decided to have surgery to remove both the 4 right and left thyroid “regardless of the biopsy results”. 5 Ms. Castro ultimately had surgery on April 29, 2021, twenty days after she was terminated. 6 On or about June 8, 2021, it was determined that the left thyroid, which had been removed, was 7 cancerous. 8 Defendant seeks by way of this Motion in Limine No. 2 (“MIL No. 2”) to preclude any 9 evidence, including testimony or documents, of a potential cancer diagnosis or a “medical condition”. 10 III. ARGUMENT 11 1. A Motion In Limine is Appropriate to Exclude Evidence During Trial. 12 A motion in limine is a motion to exclude evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by 13 the moving party. People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188, disapproved on other grounds; 14 FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1168. The purpose is also to “avoid the 15 obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell’” when highly prejudicial evidence is offered and then 16 stricken at trial. Morris at 188; Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337-339; 17 Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 515, 530 (motion in limine used for its proper purpose 18 as a ruling in advance of an evidentiary objection that was bound to come up during trial). 19 There is no limitation on the subjects of motions in limine. The matter to be excluded can be 20 “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to 21 discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 22 Cal.App.3d 444, 451. 23 2. Only Relevant Evidence Is Admissible. 24 “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evid. Code § 350. “Relevant 25 evidence” means “evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay 26 declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of 27 consequence to the determination of the action.” Evid. Code § 210. 28 -3- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 1 Although proffered evidence may have some relevance, “The court in its discretion may 2 exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its 3 admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue 4 prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Evid. Code § 352. 5 3. Evidence Relating To Potential Cancer Diagnosis or a “Medical Condition”. 6 Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is entitled: Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination, 7 Failure to Prevent Medical Condition or Disability Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination in 8 Violation of Government Code §§ 12990 et seq., 12926, 12940, & 12945, and the Public Policy of 9 California as Expressed in Government Code § 12920; 10 Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is uncertain as she combines “medical condition” and 11 disability” without specifying in her Second Amended Complaint exactly what she is referring to. 12 However, based on discovery, it is expected that Plaintiff will assert at trial that she had a 13 medical condition, i.e., cancer. 14 “Medical condition” means the following: (1) Any health impairment related to or 15 associated with a diagnosis of cancer or a record or history of cancer. See Cal Gov Code § 12926, 16 emphasis added. 17 Plaintiff was not diagnosed with cancer until almost a month after Defendants terminated 18 her. In fact, the test of Plaintiff’s right thyroid was “benign”, and the test for her left thyroid was 19 “undiagnostic”/inconclusive. 20 Pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff did not have a “medical condition” as she was not 21 diagnosed with cancer while she was employed at Spurgeon Painting, Inc. Nor did she have a 22 record or history of cancer. 23 Therefore, any evidence regarding a potential cancer diagnosis is not relevant and allowing 24 any evidence regarding any potential diagnosis of cancer, or a “medical condition” or discussion 25 thereof, would be confusing to the jury and misleading them as to the meaning of the statute. 26 /// 27 /// 28 -4- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Defendants respectfully request the Court grant this motion and bar Plaintiff, her witnesses, 3 and her counsel, from attempting to present evidence of, mentioning, or commenting, to the jury, 4 any evidence, including testimony or documents, of a potential cancer diagnosis or “medical 5 condition”. 6 Dated: October 5, 2023 SMITH DOLLAR PC 7 8 9 By Diane Aqui 10 Attorneys for SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, and TIJA 11 BUCKALEW 12 13 14 ORDER 15 Good cause appearing, the foregoing motion in limine is: 16 _______ GRANTED 17 _______ GRANTED AS MODIFIED 18 _______ DENIED 19 20 Date: ____________ _____________________________________ 21 Superior Court Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 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 -6- DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 418 B Street, Fourth Floor, 3 Santa Rosa, CA 95401. On October 5, 2023, I served the DEFENDANTS’ SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM III, AND TIJA BUCKALEW’S MOTION IN 4 LIMINE NO. 2 OF 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL CANCER DIAGNOSIS OR A MEDICAL CONDITION on the parties to this action by serving: 5 6 7 Mr. Mark Piesner Arc Point Law PC 8 22287 Mulholland Highway, #198 Calabasas, CA 91301 9 mark@arcpointlaw.com Attorney for Maya Castro 10 11 /X/ BY EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be 12 sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 13 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 15 Dated: October 5, 2023 16 ____________________________________________ 17 Stephanie D. Abbott 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE