1 Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS

1

Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 [email protected] Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVEROS JR.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

))))))))))))) ))

Case No.: 9000219 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS Dept.: 21 Judge: Hon. John R. Mayne Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 Trial Date: July 20, 2021

TO THE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) hereby submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Tax Costs.

Dated: October 14, 2021

THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America

mailto:[email protected]

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2021, the jury in this matter returned a unanimous verdict in favor of

Defendant HMA. (Declaration of Soheyl Tahsildoost (“Tahsildoost Decl.”) ¶2.) Subsequently, a

proposed Judgment was signed by this Honorable Court on August 17, 2021 in favor of

Defendant and against Plaintiffs. (Id.) On September 9, 2021, HMA filed and served its

Memorandum of Costs seeking $42,379.84 in costs based on the costs incurred in taking the

matter through trial and defense verdict and the fact that Plaintiffs failed to obtain a more

favorable judgment than HMA’s California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer dated

March 1, 2017. (Id.) On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a motion to tax Defendant’s

costs wherein Plaintiffs seek to tax between $25,500.59 in Defendant’s costs. (Tahsildoost Decl.

¶3.) In so doing, Plaintiffs do not contest that HMA is owed at least $16,879.25 in costs and that

Plaintiffs failed to obtain a more favorable judgment than HMA’s 998 offer dated March 1,

2017. (Id.; Exhibit A to Tahsildoost Decl., HMA’s March 1, 2017 998 Offer.)

II. ARGUMENT

Our Legislature has provided that “a prevailing party is entitled . . . to recover [its] costs”

as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. (§ 1032, subd. (b).) Section 1033.5 itself

sets forth three categories of costs: (1) explicitly “allowed” costs that the prevailing party is

entitled to recover as long as they were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation”

and “reasonable in amount” (§ 1033.5, subds. (a) & (c)(1)-(3)); (2) explicitly dis-“allowed” costs

that are not ever recoverable (§ 1033.5, subd. (b)); and (3) costs “not mentioned” in section

1033.5 that may, “in the court's discretion,” be recovered (§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(4)).

If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party

seeking to tax costs to so show that they are not reasonable or necessary. (Nelson v. Anderson

(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Items on a verified cost memorandum that appear to be proper

charges are prima facie evidence of necessity. (Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co.

(1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 699.) In sum, it is not Defendant’s burden to substantiate costs that

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3

are properly recoverable on their face; Plaintiffs must specifically challenge cost items that

appear improper.

Plaintiffs’ motion to tax is also in violation of California Rules of Court 3.1700 (b)(2).

That section states that “[u]nless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to

strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same

order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why

the item is objectionable”. Plaintiffs fail to follow this rule and instead seemingly jump around

the memorandum of costs, not stating which item numbers are being objected to – making it

difficult for Defendant and the Court to figure out exactly what is being contested. For this

independent reason, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied outright.

A. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED UNDISPUTED COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF

$16,879.25

Plaintiffs have not disputed in any way $16,879.25 that HMA seeks through its

Memorandum of Costs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have admitted and conceded that HMA is entitled

to at least this amount of costs and waived any arguments as to why these costs should not be

awarded. Consequently, these costs must be awarded to HMA outright.

B. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF THE MOTION AND FILING FEES

SOUGHT IN ITEM 1.

Plaintiffs argue that HMA should not be compensated for the costs associated with the

filing of an ex parte application to continue the August 6, 2019 trial in this matter because the ex

parte was “not reasonably necessary for the litigation”. Plaintiffs’ argument is that the ex parte

was filed solely for “self-serving” and “convenient” needs of the Defendant. This is false. The

reason for the ex parte application was because Defendant began another trial (Jeffrey Ferguson

and Sharyl Ferguson v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-

2018-00985947-CU-BC-CJC) the day before the trial in this matter was scheduled to begin.

(Tahsildoost Decl. ¶4.) However, in the same ex parte it was noted that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was

also in trial until at least August 9, 2019 (Valenton v. FCA US LLC) and would be starting a

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


4

Federal trial where no continuances would be allowed on August 13, 2019 (Ortega v. BMW

N.A.). (Id.; Exhibit B to Tahsildoost Decl., Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial.) Therefore,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel would not have been able to attend trial in this matter. HMA brought the ex

parte, but both sides needed the date continued because of these circumstances. (Id.) Therefore,

the ex parte benefited both parties equally and was necessary for both sides, despite Plaintiffs’

best efforts to now try to cloud the issue. The costs incurred were reasonably necessary to the

conduct of the litigation and were certainly reasonable in amount.

Plaintiffs also challenge $1,277.25 in filing service fees. It is not clear where Plaintiffs

are getting this number or what exactly they are challenging. However, HMA diligently laid out

each and every cost (including what the cost was for and when it was incurred) in its

memorandum of costs. HMA filed all documents that it could possibly file electronically to save

on costs and only used services such as ACE to deliver documents to the Court when the Court

requested them or needed them expediently (i.e. trial documents, supplemental briefing, etc.).

(Tahsildoost Decl. ¶5.) Again, all costs incurred for filing were extraordinarily reasonable and

certainly necessary. Therefore, HMA requests that the filing fees sought be allowed in full.

C. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF THE DEPOSITION COSTS

INCURRED PER ITEM 4

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a)(3)(A) states that the following are

allowable costs:

“Taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an

original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions

taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.”

Moreover, travel costs to attend depositions are allowed per California Code of Civil

Procedure § 1033.5(a)(3)(C).

Plaintiffs first argue that the $277.75 cost to travel dealership depositions must be taxed

because “$277.75 for a rental car is egregious”. Even though $277.75 is not a high price for a

rental car over the span of two days, Plaintiffs’ counsel purposefully ignores the fact that the

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


5

memorandum of costs makes it clear that the $277.75 was for the rental car and gas. Moreover,

Defense Counsel, just like Plaintiffs’ Counsel is located in Los Angeles. (Tahsildoost Decl. ¶6.)

Plaintiffs’ along with the dealers to which the vehicle was taken in this matter are all in or around

Stanislaus. (Id.) Instead of booking a roundtrip flight that would have cost at least double the

price (and as was done by Plaintiffs to attend the same depositions), HMA’s counsel rented a car

and paid for gas and travelled by car from Los Angeles to Stanislaus. (Id.) For Plaintiffs’ to

now argue that this cost was “egregious” is ludicrous.

Next, Plaintiffs vaguely take issue with all of the deposition costs because receipts were

not included and Plaintiffs seem to imply some nefarious scheme by HMA to inflate their

deposition costs. This is an ongoing theme in Plaintiffs’ motion where vague allegations and

conclusions are brought up in a hail mary attempt to tax costs without any real basis for doing so.

The cost memorandum here was signed by Defendant’s attorney, Soheyl Tahsildoost, with all of

the obligations imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Thus, the document itself is

prima facie evidence that gives rise to a presumption of necessity of the costs noted in the

memorandum. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)

Moreover, it should be noted that Plaintiffs’ noticed the majority of depositions in this

matter. (Tahsildoost Decl. ¶7.) HMA deposed the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs expert. (Id.)

Plaintiffs chose to depose HMA’s person most knowledgeable, HMA’s expert, and a number of

dealership personnel. (Id.) Plaintiffs brought these costs on themselves. Further, the Code

states very clearly that deposition costs are recoverable, including “an original and one copy of

those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs

are allowed” (emphasis added). HMA is not seeking any costs for anything extra other than

what the Code provides as no rush costs were incurred for the depositions and no extra copies

besides the ones allowed by the Code were requested by HMA. Despite not having to do so,

HMA attaches the deposition costs as an Exhibit C to the Declaration of Counsel. Therefore, the

costs that HMA claims for these depositions (the majority of which Plaintiffs’ themselves

noticed) is proper.

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

D. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF THE TOW AND TRAVEL COSTS

REQUESTED TO ATTEND THE VEHICLE INSPECTION AND HEARINGS

AND TRIAL IN THIS MATTER

In what is possibly the height of hypocrisy, Plaintiffs argue that travel costs should not be

recoverable because HMA should have retained counsel in Stanislaus and because travel costs

are not explicitly allowed under CCP § 1033.5. However, Plaintiffs Counsel is also not based

out of Stanislaus and yet Plaintiffs retained them as Counsel. HMA should and does have the

right to have Counsel of its choice and Plaintiffs provides absolutely no support for the argument

that travel costs should be categorically rejected simply because Defense Counsel is not from the

same county as where the case is venued. This Court has considerable discretion per CCP §

1033.5, subd. (c)(4) to award any costs not explicitly prohibited (and none of the costs sought are

explicitly prohibited) and Plaintiffs do not argue that they are. Moreover, as the attached Exhibit

D shows, Plaintiffs Counsel have no problem requesting travel costs (including for luxurious

accommodations and flights) when they are the ones filing a Memorandum of Costs.

Here, it should be noted HMA is simply seeking the costs actually incurred and has

described each cost in detail in the memorandum of costs. Plaintiffs do not and cannot argue that

Defendant did not attend any of the hearings for which travel costs are sought. Plaintiffs fail to

meet their burden to deem any travel costs unreasonable or unnecessary or not actually incurred.

HMA only attended the hearings it was required to attend in person (for example: Mandatory

Settlement Conferences, Depositions, Trial, ex partes). (Tahsildoost Decl. ¶8.) In the midst of

the pandemic, HMA attended hearings remotely (except for Trial) and even requested that the

final MSC be held remotely so as not have more fees incurred. (Id.) Given the sheer number of

receipts and personal information in the travel cost receipts, HMA is willing to provide any

receipts that the Court is interested in seeing in camera for review if the Court deems it

necessary. (Tahsildoost Decl. ¶9.)

With respect to the small towing costs related to the vehicle inspection; Defendant was

told that the vehicle could only be inspected if it was towed to the dealership. (Tahsildoost Decl.

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


7

¶10.) So, because a vehicle inspection is one of the most important discovery tools in a Song-

Beverly action, Defendant had to tow the vehicle to get it inspected and then tow it back to

Plaintiffs home. (Id.) Again, these are costs that Plaintiffs brought upon themselves and were

certainly reasonable and necessary to the defense of this action. The tow receipt is attached to

Counsel’s declaration as Exhibit E.

In sum, HMA’s tow and travel costs should not be taxed.

E. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED SERVICE OF PROCESS COSTS PER ITEM 5

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a)(4)(B) allows for costs in the “amount

actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means

employed in locating the person to be served, unless those charges are successfully challenged

by a party to the action.” Plaintiffs motion to tax asks why Plaintiffs should be expected to pay

the service of process costs since there were a number of failed attempts at service. The statute

is clear that costs are allowed for amounts actually incurred in effectuating service. It is true

that Defendant had to try a number of times to serve some entities because a number of

businesses wanted particular addresses served before they would produce records or had shut

down entirely (Lovelady Body and Paint) and required additional investigation and efforts.

(Tahsildoost Decl. ¶11.)

HMA only served and attempted to serve the facilities where Plaintiffs said they took the

vehicle for service and the insurance companies that would know about Plaintiffs prior motor

vehicle collisions. (Id.) HMA needs to obtain such records to properly investigate the case and

put on a thorough and proper defense. (Id.) Lemon law cases are largely predicated on service

records, whether those are from an authorized dealership, or a third-party facility and accident

records that could determine whether or not there was in fact a warrantable defect. (Id.) Here,

Plaintiffs’ accident records and third-party service records played a crucial role in trial. (Id.) In

fact, Defendant’s biggest defense was that the vehicle had sustained significant damages,

numerous times and any issues with the vehicle was because of those incidents – not because of

a warrantable defect. (Id.) The records were crucial and the trial outcome speaks for itself.

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


8

Therefore it was both reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation to issue

subpoenas and obtain records from CSAA Insurance, Lovelady Body and Paint, Car Audio

Outlaws, Sunset Auto, and AAA. Anything else would frankly be malpractice. Again, these are

all places or insurance companies that Plaintiffs testified about using during their ownership of

the vehicle and in relation to the vehicle. HMA hereby attaches as Exhibit F, receipts related to

the service of process costs claimed.

F. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF THE COSTS INCURRED FOR

MODELS, ENLARGEMENTS, AND PHOTOCOPIES OF EXHIBITS

Plaintiffs argue, without any rational support, that HMA should not recover its costs for

exhibit photocopies and enlargement that were used during trial, dismissively calling these costs

“printing costs”. Plaintiffs’ arguments and misclassifications are simply wrong. Plaintiffs admit

that boards were used at trial, but seem to ignore the fact that exhibit notebooks were also used

throughout the length of the trial (which spanned several weeks). (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶12.)

Both the enlargement and exhibit notebooks undoubtedly were reasonably helpful to the jury and

the Court (and even the parties). Plaintiffs have not raised any argument to the contrary.

As Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel are well aware, this case did proceed through trial

and lasted several weeks. (Id.) During the trial, exhibits including service records, sales

documents, owner handbooks and manuals, expert files, graphs, photos, technical service

bulletins, etc., were used by both sides. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant had a number of

enlargements made that were used during the trial to explain various issues regarding the vehicle

to the jury. (Id.) These are perhaps the most critical parts of the trial as they provide the jury

with a visual explanation of the complaints that Plaintiffs allege they had with the vehicle and a

timeline of events. (Id.) In fact, the very strong Defense result can, at least in part, be said to be

the result of the exhibits and enlargements used in trial. (Id.)

Plaintiffs cannot credibly argue that preparing exhibit notebooks and enlargements for the

jury for trial is unnecessary to the conduct of litigation. In fact, these notebooks and

enlargements are the main items that assists counsel, witnesses, as well as the Court during the

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


9

presentation of a case. Here, the exhibit notebooks and blowups were reasonable and necessary

and aided the jury throughout the trial in eventually reaching a verdict. HMA further submits

proof of the contested enlargement and exhibit copy fees to further substantiate the amounts

incurred. (Exhibit G to Tahsildoost Declaration, Exhibit Receipts.)

Therefore, HMA requests the full $2,344.74 be awarded.

G. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF IT’S COURTCALL APPEARANCE

FEES

In one breath Plaintiffs are arguing that Defendants should not recover travel costs to

attend various hearings (where in person attendance was required, at least prior to the pandemic)

and in the very next breath, Plaintiffs are arguing that remote appearance costs incurred through

CourtCall should also not be recovered. Defendant appeared via CourtCall for such hearings as a

Case Management Conferences, Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial (which

was trailed a number of times as this Court was attempting to find an available day for all parties

to proceed with trial), and a Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶13.)

These were all hearings that were vital to the litigation and attending them via CourtCall was

reasonable. (Id.)

It is true that CourtCall is not specifically allowed under Civil Code 1033.5, but it is also

not specifically disallowed. Defendant’s CourtCall appearances were reasonable and were

necessary (and saved significant time and money). Plaintiffs’ citations to the Davis and Ladas

cases here are purposefully deceiving. Those cases in fact make it abundantly clear that CCP

1033.5 codifies that costs are in fact recoverable by the prevailing party and that the Court has

considerable discretion per CCP § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4) to award any costs not explicitly

prohibited. Again, the CourtCall appearance costs were reasonable, were necessary, are not

prohibited from recovery and the Court should use its discretion to allow these costs to be

recovered.

H. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF IT’S MESSENGER FEES

Plaintiffs have not shown how HMA’s messenger fees for items that have to be delivered

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


10

directly to the Court, are unreasonable, unnecessary, or duplicative. HMA used a messenger

service to deliver documents that the Court requested courtesy copies of, or needed to be

delivered (i.e. trial documents). (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶14.) Under these circumstances,

these costs being incurred is necessary and reasonable. Particularly galling is Plaintiffs’ attempt

to frame $1,018.22 in fees incurred to pickup and deliver trial documents as “egregious”.

(Exhibit H to Tahsildoost Decl.) Plaintiffs’ Counsel in fact agreed to HMA’s delivery of the

joint trial documents to the Court. (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶14.) To now claim the cost is

egregious is a prime example of duplicitous arguments.

I. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED IT’S TRIAL WITNESS NOTEBOOK COST

The trial witness notebook is not an overhead cost and was obtained specifically for this

case. (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶15.) It is not being reused for another case and there is

absolutely no valid basis to tax this cost. (Id.) Again, Plaintiffs are making a mockery of the

case law by mis-citing Davis and Ladas for propositions that those cases do not actually stand

for. Defendant would request that this cost be allowed in full per CCP § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).

J. HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF IT’S COURT REPORTER FEES

Section 1033.5 provides for “[c]ourt reporter fees as established by statute.” (§ 1033.5,

subd. (a)(11); Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858.)

Plaintiffs assert that the court reporter fees are unjustified without evidence and argue

that the reporter costs were split with Plaintiffs, so there is no way to know whether the amount

requested is accurate. Plaintiffs argument is confusing since by their own admission, Court

Reporter fees were split between Plaintiffs and Defendant. So, Plaintiffs are well aware that (1)

HMA was paying half of the Court Reporter costs, and (2) what those costs are. Additionally,

HMA hereby submits proof of the court reporter fees to further substantiate the amounts incurred

and reiterates its request that $3,349.33 in court reporter fees be granted (which is actually less

than the total that was spent by Defendant on the Court Reporter. (Exhibit I to Tahsildoost Decl.,

Court Reporter Invoices.) These costs have been undeniably incurred as a necessity in litigating

this action and the rates are set by the court reporter. The transcripts proved invaluable during

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


11

the trial and were used again and again to both assist Counsel and the Court as well as to address

and brief issues that came up during the trial, such as the filing and submission of motions for

mistrial. (Tahsildoost Declaration, ¶16.) HMA requests that the court reporter fees be granted.

HMA SHOULD BE AWARDED ALL OF IT’S OTHER FEES

HMA lists an explanation as to each and every cost in the memorandum of costs

attachment and these costs are additionally recoverable per the discretion of the Court found in

section 1033.5 where it states that additional costs may, “in the court's discretion,” be recovered

(§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(4)). With that in mind HMA seeks costs associated with Onelegal filings,

ACE service fees for delivery/filing papers, Court Reporter costs, CourtCall costs, travel costs to

attend in person hearings as required by the Court, travel costs for a vehicle inspection, and

travel costs for Defense Counsel and HMA’s representative to attend trial in this matter. Again,

these were costs that were necessary and reasonable as further discussed above.

HMA respectfully requests that costs found in Items 14/16, be granted in full.

K. THE COURT SHOULD USE IT’S CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION TO AWARD

ALL COSTS SOUGHT

This Court has considerable discretion to award all costs “not mentioned” in section

1033.5. With that in mind, if any of the above costs are determined to be not specifically set out

or mentioned in section 1033.5, HMA would hereby request that the costs be awarded using the

Court’s discretion given that all of the costs outlined above have been reasonably incurred by

HMA and have been necessary to HMA in the litigation of this action.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant Hyundai Motor America respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’

Motion to Tax Defendant’s costs in full and award HMA a total of $42,379.84.

Dated: October 14, 2021 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


12

DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

I, Soheyl Tahsildoost, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Theta Law Firm, LLP, attorneys of record for

Defendant Hyundai Motor America. If called as a witness, I could and would competently

testify under oath to the following facts of which I have personal knowledge.

2. On August 6, 2021, the jury in this matter returned a unanimous verdict in favor

of Defendant HMA. Subsequently, a proposed Judgment was signed by this Honorable Court on

August 17, 2021 in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs. On September 9, 2021, HMA filed

and served its Memorandum of Costs seeking $42,379.84 in costs based on the costs incurred in

taking the matter through trial and defense verdict and the fact that Plaintiffs failed to obtain a

more favorable judgment than HMA’s California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer

dated March 1, 2017.

3. On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a motion to tax Defendant’s costs

wherein Plaintiffs seek to tax between $25,500.59 in Defendant’s costs. In so doing, Plaintiffs

do not contest that HMA is owed at least $16,879.25 in costs and that Plaintiffs failed to obtain a

more favorable judgment than HMA’s 998 offer dated March 1, 2017.

4. The reason for bringing the ex parte application to continue trial in August 2019

was because Defendant began another trial (Jeffrey Ferguson and Sharyl Ferguson v. Hyundai

Motor America, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00985947-CU-BC-CJC) the

day before the trial in this matter was scheduled to begin. However, in the same ex parte it was

noted that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was also in trial until at least August 9, 2019 (Valenton v. FCA US

LLC) and would be starting a Federal trial where no continuances would be allowed on August

13, 2019 (Ortega v. BMW N.A.). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Counsel would not have been able to

attend trial in this matter. HMA brought the ex parte, but both sides needed the date continued

because of these circumstances.

5. HMA filed all documents that it could possibly file electronically to save on costs

and only used services such as ACE to deliver documents to the Court when the Court requested

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


13

them or needed them expediently (i.e. trial documents, supplemental briefing, etc.).

6. My office, just like Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s office is located in Los Angeles.

Plaintiffs’ along with the dealers to which the vehicle was taken in this matter are all in or around

Stanislaus. Instead of booking a roundtrip flight that would have cost at least double the price

(and as was done by Plaintiffs to attend the same depositions), my office on behalf of HMA

rented a car and paid for gas and travelled by car from Los Angeles to Stanislaus.

7. Plaintiffs’ noticed the majority of depositions in this matter. HMA deposed the

Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs expert. Plaintiffs chose to depose HMA’s person most knowledgeable,

HMA’s expert, and a number of dealership personnel.

8. HMA only attended the hearings it was required to attend in person (for example:

Mandatory Settlement Conferences, Depositions, Trial, ex partes). In the midst of the pandemic,

HMA attended hearings remotely (except for Trial) and even requested that the final MSC be

held remotely so as not have more fees incurred.

9. Given the sheer number of receipts and personal information in the travel cost

receipts, HMA is willing to provide any receipts that the Court is interested in seeing in camera

for review if the Court deems it necessary. However, Defense Counsel attests once again that all

travel costs sought, were in fact incurred.

10. With respect to the small towing costs related to the vehicle inspection; my office

was told that the vehicle could only be inspected if it was towed to the dealership. So, because a

vehicle inspection is one of the most important discovery tools in a Song-Beverly action, we had

to tow the vehicle to get it inspected and then tow it back to Plaintiffs’ home.

11. It is true that Defendant had to try a number of times to serve some entities

because a number of businesses wanted particular addresses served before they would produce

records or had shut down entirely (Lovelady Body and Paint) and required additional

investigation and efforts. HMA only served and attempted to serve the facilities where Plaintiffs

said they took the vehicle for service and the insurance companies that would know about

Plaintiffs prior motor vehicle collisions. HMA needs to obtain such records to properly

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


14

investigate the case and put on a thorough and proper defense. Lemon law cases are largely

predicated on service records, whether those are from an authorized dealership, or a third-party

facility and accident records that could determine whether or not there was in fact a warrantable

defect. Here, Plaintiffs’ accident records and third-party service records played a crucial role in

trial. In fact, Defendant’s biggest defense was that the vehicle had sustained significant

damages, numerous times and any issues with the vehicle was because of those incidents – not

because of a warrantable defect.

12. Plaintiffs admit that boards were used at trial, but seem to ignore the fact that

exhibit notebooks were also used throughout the length of the trial (which spanned several

weeks). As Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel are well aware, this case did proceed through trial

and lasted several weeks. During the trial, exhibits including service records, sales documents,

owner handbooks and manuals, expert files, graphs, photos, technical service bulletins, etc., were

used by both sides. Additionally, Defendant had a number of enlargements made that were used

during the trial to explain various issues regarding the vehicle to the jury. These are perhaps the

most critical parts of the trial as they provide the jury with a visual explanation of the complaints

that Plaintiffs allege they had with the vehicle and a timeline of events. In fact, the very strong

Defense result can, at least in part, be said to be the result of the exhibits and enlargements used

in trial.

13. My office appeared via CourtCall for such hearings as a Case Management

Conferences, Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial (which was trailed a number

of times as this Court was attempting to find an available day for all parties to proceed with

trial), and a Mandatory Settlement Conference. These were all hearings that were vital to the

litigation and attending them via CourtCall was reasonable.

14. HMA used a messenger service to deliver documents that the Court requested

courtesy copies of, or needed to be delivered (i.e. trial documents). Plaintiffs’ Counsel in fact

agreed to HMA’s delivery of the joint trial documents to the Court.

15. The trial witness notebook is not an overhead cost and was obtained specifically

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


15

for this case. It is not being reused for another case and there is absolutely no valid basis to tax

this cost.

16. The court reporter transcripts proved invaluable during the trial and were used

again and again to both assist Counsel and the Court as well as to address and brief issues that

came up during the trial, such as the filing and submission of motions for mistrial.

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of HMA’s CCP 998 Offer

from March 1, 2017.

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the ex parte application

to continue the August 6, 2019 trial date.

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct copy of the invoices

incurred/paid for the depositions in this matter.

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a Memorandum of

Costs that Plaintiffs’ Counsel submitted in the matter of Anna King v. Hyundai Motor America,

Case No. SCV0038637, seeking over $12,000 in travel costs.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the invoice for the tow

of Plaintiffs vehicle for the vehicle inspection.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the invoices for service

of process effectuated in this case.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of the invoices for the

exhibits.

24. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy from JPL regarding the

delivery of joint trial materials in this matter.

25. Attached hereto as Exhibit I are true and correct copies of the amounts paid to the

Court Reporter via check and Venmo in this matter.

///

///

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


16

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 14, 2021 at Lawndale, California.

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

EXHIBIT A

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

M:\GALVAN-ONTIVEROS, MINERVA\PLEADINGS\CCP 998 - GALVAN-ONTIVEROS.DOCX

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S CCP 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE

1

Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America


COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVEROS JR.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)))))))))) ))) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 9000219 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S CCP 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE Dept: 21 Judge: Hon. William A. Mayhew Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 Trial Date: None

TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, defendant Hyundai Motor America

("HMA") hereby offers to settle this action on the following terms:

1. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(2), and subject to proof, HMA

will pay plaintiffs the past amounts which plaintiffs have paid for the 2011 Hyundai Elantra, VIN

5NPDH4AE8BH037296 (hereinafter "subject vehicle"), including any charges for transportation,

manufacturer-installed options, finance charges attributable to the purchase of the vehicle, and

collateral charges such as sales tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees, but

excluding non-manufacturer items installed by a dealer or plaintiff, such as gap contract premiums.

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2

In addition, if plaintiffs have an outstanding loan for the subject vehicle, HMA will pay the lender

directly the remaining amount necessary to pay-off the loan on the subject vehicle, repurchase the

subject vehicle and obtain clear title. The total amounts paid will be the amount to which plaintiffs

are legally entitled under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(2)(B), less a statutory mileage offset

calculated using 22,135 miles as the numerator for the calculation of the statutory mileage offset

under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(2)(C). Plaintiffs are invited to submit an itemization of the

amounts legally recoverable under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(2) to HMA at the time this offer

is accepted together with proof of same.

2. In addition, subject to proof, HMA will pay to plaintiffs any incidental and

consequential damages to which plaintiffs are legally entitled under Civil Code Sections

1793.2(d)(2)(B) and 1794(b), including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental

car costs actually incurred by plaintiff. Plaintiffs are invited to submit an itemization of all

incidental and consequential damages to HMA at the time this offer is accepted together with proof

of same.

3. If there is a dispute as to legal entitlement and/or the amounts recoverable in

paragraphs 1 and 2, above after submission of the itemization and proof of same, HMA will pay

the undisputed amounts to plaintiffs within 30 days of acceptance of this offer. At plaintiff’s

election, HMA will allow the Court to determine disputed amounts either by motion, bench trial,

expedited jury trial under Rule 3.1545 of the Rules of Court, or by reference under Code of Civil

Procedure Section 638(a), with plaintiffs choosing the dispute resolution process, and plaintiffs

bearing the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for legal entitlement and the

damages amount sought.

4. In lieu of plaintiffs providing the itemization requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,

or the parties undergoing the dispute resolution process identified in paragraph 3, HMA will pay

the total amount of $29,141.15 to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ lender, if any (if there is an outstanding

loan on the vehicle, the lender shall be paid the amount necessary to pay off the loan for the subject

vehicle from the total amount of $29,141.15, and the plaintiffs shall receive the entire remaining

amount), in return for plaintiffs surrendering the subject vehicle with clear title to HMA.

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3

5. It is an express condition of this Offer that, if accepted, HMA will perform its

obligations within 30 days of acceptance on a mutually agreeable date and location, with plaintiffs

returning the subject vehicle to a mutually agreeable authorized Hyundai dealership and on or

before that same date executing all required California Department of Motor Vehicle forms,

including but not limited to, DMV Form 262, necessary to transfer title of the subject vehicle to

HMA free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, and HMA providing plaintiffs and plaintiffs’

lender, if any, with the check or checks necessary to obtain clear title for the subject vehicle.

6. HMA will waive its costs in this action.

7. Plaintiffs will dismiss this entire action with prejudice.

8. HMA will pay plaintiffs’ attorney's fees, expenses and costs in the amount of

$5,000.00. Alternatively, should the $5,000.00 be refused, HMA will allow the Court to

determine, in a noticed motion filed pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) and/or by plaintiffs’

filing of a memorandum of costs, the attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses recoverable under Civil

Code Section 1794(d). There is no admission of liability by this offer. However, HMA will

stipulate that plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of any motion for attorney's fees,

expenses and costs and/or memorandum of costs.

9. This offer is inclusive of all damages, costs, attorney's fees, expenses, penalties,

pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other sums or amounts or claims that have

been asserted by plaintiffs in this action.

10. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998(b), this Offer can be accepted by

signing a statement that the Offer is accepted. A statement indicating acceptance of this Offer

which may be signed by counsel for plaintiffs is set forth below. If this Offer to Compromise is

not accepted and notice given by plaintiffs within the time provided by Section 998 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, then it shall be deemed withdrawn. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section

998(c), if this Offer is not accepted and plaintiffs fail to obtain a more favorable judgment,

plaintiffs shall not recover plaintiffs’ statutory costs, including attorney's fees from the date of this

Offer, and shall be required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the Offer. Further, the

Court, in its discretion, may require plaintiffs to pay defendant's costs from the date of the filing

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


4

of the Complaint and a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of defendant's outside expert

witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary

in either, or both, the preparation or trial of this case by defendant.

DATED: March 1, 2017 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America

Choose One

On behalf of plaintiff, I hereby accept the above Code of Civil Procedure

Section 998 Offer made by defendant pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3

above.

On behalf of plaintiff, I hereby accept the above Code of Civil Procedure

Section 998 Offer made by defendant pursuant to paragraph 4 above.

Choose one

For fees, costs and expenses, I hereby elect to accept $5,000.00.

For fees, costs and expenses, I hereby elect to file a motion and/or a

memorandum of costs.

DATED: , 2017 BY: MARK O’CONNOR STEVE MIKHOV AMY MORSE Attorneys for Plaintiffs Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros and Ismael Ontiveros Jr.

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


5

PROOF OF SERVICE (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(3) Revised 5-1-88)

I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and employed in the county where this mailing occurred. My business address is 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270, Lawndale, CA 90260. On March 1, 2017, I served the following documents described as DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S CCP 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE on interested parties in this action by placing original/true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Mark O’Connor Steve Mikhov Amy Morse O’Connor & Mikhov LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 552-2250 Phone (310) 552-7973 Fax

BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lawndale, California. The envelope was mailed with proper postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said mailing is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business and there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. 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 PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the individual(s) listed on the above service list.

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused to be electronically transmitted such document referenced above to the individual(s) listed on the above service list.

BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: I transmitted the facsimile to the individual(s) listed on the above service list at the facsimile number listed thereon. The telephone number on the facsimile machine I used is (424) 286-2244. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2.306, I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person at the above-address. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 1, 2017 at Lawndale, California.

Steven Correa

EXHIBIT B

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

M:\GALVAN-ONTIVEROS, MINERVA\MOTIONS\EXPA02 CONTINUE TRIAL.DOCX

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

1

Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) David Navasartian (Bar No. 315653) THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America


COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVEROS JR.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)))))))))) ))) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 9000219 DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Dept.: 21 Judge: Hon. Marie Sovey Silveira Date: August 6, 2019 Time: 8:15 a.m. Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 Trial Date: August 6, 2019

TO THE COURT, THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 6, 2019 at 8:15 a.m. in Department 21 of the

Stanislaus Superior Court, located at 801 10th Street, Modesto, CA 95354, Defendant Hyundai

Motor America (“HMA”) will apply to the Court ex parte for an order to continue the trial date

in this case.

This application is based on California Rules of Court 3.1332(c)(2 and 3) and

3.1332(d)(8). This application is made and good cause exists because on August 5, 2019,

Defendant began trial in a separate matter, Jeffrey Ferguson and Sharyl Ferguson v. Hyundai

Motor America, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00985947-CU-BC-CJC

(hereinafter “Ferguson”). As a result, HMA and HMA’s counsel will be engaged in the

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



2

Ferguson trial during the period that the trial in the instant matter is scheduled to begin.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that he is currently in a trial in San Bernardino in the

matter, Valenton v. FCA US LLC, which should be completed by approximately August 9, 2019.

Plaintiffs’ counsel further advised that he also starts a Federal trial in Ortega v. BMW N.A. on

August 13, 2019. The Court in that matter (Hon. R. Gary Klausner, presiding), according to

Plaintiffs’ counsel, has advised that no continuances will be allowed, whatsoever. A short three

month continuance of the trial date would not cause either Party to suffer any prejudice given the

circumstances. However, both Defendant and Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced by denial

of this ex parte application because their chosen counsel would not be able to participate and the

matters would not be properly litigated. Notice of this application has been given as required by

law.

This application is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and

authorities, the Declaration of Soheyl Tahsildoost, pleadings and records on file, and upon such

oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing.

Per California Rules of Court 3.1202(a), Defendant identifies Plaintiff’s counsel as

follows: Steve B. Mikhov, Esq. and Amy Morse, Esq. ([email protected]), Knight Law

Group, LLP, 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 552-2250;

and Sepehr Daghighian, Esq. and Kevin Jacobson, Esq. ([email protected]), Hackler,

Daghighian, Martino, and Novak, 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500, Los Angeles, CA

90067, (310) 887-1333.

Dated: August 5, 2019 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

Attorney for Defendant Hyundai Motor America

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FACTS.

This is a “Lemon Law” case brought by Plaintiffs Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros and Ismael

Ontiveros Jr. concerning Plaintiffs’ 2011 Hyundai Elantra (“Vehicle”), which Plaintiffs

purchased on March 22, 2011. (Tahsildoost Decl., para. 2.) Trial in this matter is currently

scheduled for August 6, 2019. However, at that time, HMA legal in-house representative and

HMA’s counsel for this matter will be engaged in trial in a separate matter, Jeffery Ferguson and

Sharyl Ferguson v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-

00985947-CU-BC-CJC, trial date of August 5, 2019. (Id. ¶ 3.)

The Ferguson case was previously set to begin trial on July 15, 2019. (Id.) However, due

to a motion that was pending and ongoing discovery disputes, against HMA’s objections, the

Court in the Ferguson matter continued the trial date to August 5, 2019. (Id.) Through

stipulation and ex parte application to be heard on July 18, 2019, the Ferguson Court was

notified of the conflict that the new trial date would cause with the matter before this Court. (Id.)

However, the Ferguson Court advanced the July 18, 2019 ex parte hearing date to July 17, 2019,

and made its ruling not to continue the trial based solely on the application papers. (Id.) HMA

then immediately, on July 19, 2019, filed another ex parte application set for hearing on July 23,

2019, imploring the Ferguson Court to continue the trial due to the conflict with this matter’s

trial date. (Id.) Instead, the Ferguson Court held that since its trial was set to begin on August 5,

2019 (one day ahead of this matter’s currently scheduled trial date), the Ferguson trial had

priority and HMA would have to apply to this Court to continue this trial. (Id.) HMA then

immediately communicated this issue to Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id.)

As it turned out, Plaintiffs’ counsel for this matter also has a trial conflict. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel notified HMA’s Counsel that he is currently engaged in a trial in San

Bernardino, in the matter Valenton v. FCA US LLC, which Plaintiffs’ counsel expects to be

completed by approximately August 9, 2019. (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel also stated that

he starts a Federal trial, Ortega v. BMW N.A., on August 13, 2019. (Id.) According to Plaintiffs’

Counsel, the Court in that matter (Hon. R. Gary Klausner, presiding) has advised that no

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



4

continuances will be allowed, whatsoever. (Id.) Based on all of these conflicts, Plaintiffs’

counsel and HMA’s counsel attempted to stipulate to trail or continue the trial date for this

matter. (Id.) However, due to Parties’ counsel’s limited availability and various conflicts, the

stipulation could not be finalized prior to the trial date in this matter. (Id.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated that their first availability for trial would be on August

26, 2019. (Id.) However, based on the Court’s scheduling in the Ferguson trial, which was only

provided today, HMA’s legal in-house representative and HMA’s trial counsel will be

unavailable during that period. (Id. ¶ 5.) As stated above, the first day of trial in Ferguson was

today. (Id.) The Court scheduled the rest of Ferguson’s trial dates to continue as follows:

August 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 26, and continue thereon until the trial is completed. (Id.) As such,

neither HMA nor its counsel will be finished with its current trial, or available for any other trial

until, at the very least, after August 27, 2019. (Id.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel also indicated availability during October, but HMA’s counsel is

scheduled to be out on Paternity leave between mid-September and early November. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Moreover, HMA’s counsel’s baby’s due date is currently predicted to be in the latter half of

September, but the baby’s doctor told HMA’s counsel not be more than one hour away from his

wife for up to three weeks before the predicted due date. (Id.) As a result, HMA’s counsel will

be unavailable for trial for almost all of September until the first week of November. (Id.) In the

interest of proceeding expeditiously to avoid prejudice to either party, and to advise the Court of

the current circumstances, HMA now brings this ex parte application.

HMA requests that the trial be continued in this matter given the above-described

circumstances. HMA requests that the currently scheduled trial date be continued to November

5, 2019 or November 12, 2019. In addition, any and all other applicable trial document

deadlines should run in accordance with the new trial date. Discovery is to remain closed.

2. AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF REQUESTED.

California Rules of Court Section 3.1332(c) states in pertinent part that “[t]he court may

grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (2) The unavailability of a party because of

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



5

death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of

death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”

Additionally, the Court may also consider “(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or

application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of

the continuance; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have

stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a

continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11)

any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

(California Rules of Court Section 3.1332 (d).)

Here, the situation both Parties’ counsel and HMA’s legal representative find themselves

in falls directly under Section 3.1332(c)(2) and Section 3.1332(c)(3), as well as Section

3.1332(d).

3. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT HMA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION.

Good cause exists to grant the instant ex parte application for several reasons.

A. HMA’s Counsel and In-House Representative are Currently Engaged in

Another Trial.

HMA’s defense in the instant case will be severely prejudiced if the application is not

granted because HMA’s trial counsel and HMA’s in-house representative will be engaged in

another trial at the time of this trial’s currently scheduled trial date. As discussed above, HMA’s

trial counsel and HMA’s in-house representative are unavoidably engaged in the Ferguson trial.

HMA made every effort to have that trial’s start date continued, but that Court refused, stating

that it had priority because the Ferguson trial was set to begin before this matter’s trial date. If

HMA was forced to somehow find new trial counsel at this late stage of litigation, there would

be no way for that counsel to possibly prepare for trial, learn all of the relevant facts, and review

all of the evidence relevant to this litigation. In designing the California Rules of Court, the

Judicial Council specifically recognized that a party’s trial counsel engagement in another trial is

a factor that should be considered when granting a continuance. (Section 3.1332(d)(8).) This

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

issue is the type of excusable circumstance that California Rules of Court Section 3.1332 (c)(3)

considers good cause to grant a continuance. Thus, proceeding with a trial date, given these

circumstances, would unfairly and improperly prevent HMA from mounting a complete defense.

Furthermore, HMA’s in-house representative is the Defendant representative for this

case. She knows all the relevant facts, has been a part of this litigation from the start, and as

HMA’s representative has the obligation and right to attend trial to defend HMA. HMA’s

unavailability is solely due do an unavoidable and excusable circumstance. This unavailability

falls directly under good cause for grounds to grant a continuance under California Rules of

Court 3.1332(c)(2).

B. Plaintiffs’ Counsel is Currently Engaged in Another Trial.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has explained to HMA’s counsel that Plaintiffs’ counsel is also

engaged in another trial during the time that that this matter is set for trial. Moreover, Plaintiffs’

counsel has a Federal trial set to begin just days after their current trial ends. The Court in that

matter (Hon. R. Gary Klausner, presiding) has advised that no continuances will be allowed.

Due to these conflicts, Plaintiffs’ counsel will not be available for trial until August 26, 2019.

Again, this is the exact type of excusable circumstance delineated in California Rules of Court

Section 3.1332(d)(8) and 3.1332(c)(3). Moreover, counsel for both parties have represented a

willingness to stipulate to continue the trial date due to their current engagement in other trials.

Thus, under Rule 3.1332(d)(9), this Court should consider that factor as well. Additionally,

while obvious, it should be noted that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s unavailability and HMA’s counsel’s

unavailability for this currently scheduled trial date will cause severe prejudice to both parties,

and it would therefore be in the best interests of justice to continue the trial date under Rules

3.1332(d)(5, 8, and 10).

C. Additional Grounds for Good Cause to Continue this Trial Date.

HMA is requesting a short three month continuance with discovery to remain closed.

While Plaintiff’s counsel stated that they should be available for trial during the week beginning

August 26, 2019, HMA’s in-house legal representative and HMA’s counsel will still be

unavailable due to the Ferguson trial. Moreover, as discussed above, HMA’s trial counsel is

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



7

expecting his first child in the latter half of September 2019. However, HMA’s counsel’s doctor

has told HMA’s counsel that he should not be more than one-hour away from his wife during the

three weeks prior to his baby’s predicted due date. Stanislaus County is an approximately 5.5

hour drive from HMA’s counsel’s home. Based on these facts, this Court should find good cause

to continue the trial under Rules 3.1332(2 and 3). HMA’s counsel’s baby’s birth is exactly the

type of excusable circumstance envisioned by the Judicial Counsel when drafting California Rule

of Court 3.1332(3). As a result of the foregoing facts, a three month continuance is necessary.

Additionally, despite its proximity to the start of trial, HMA brought this ex parte

application as soon as practicably possible. Once HMA’s counsel was notified of the Court’s

decision in Ferguson, it notified Plaintiff’s counsel in an attempt to find a quick and just

resolution. HMA then promptly brought this ex parte application to continue trial to dates that

could work for all parties. HMA could not have known Ferguson’s exact trial schedule until this

morning. Hearing this matter on an ex parte and exigent basis is necessary, because if the matter

is heard on regular notice, the motion to continue the trial would be heard well after the date of

the currently-scheduled date of trial. Proper notice of this ex parte application was given to

Plaintiffs’ counsel via facsimile transmission of a letter at 9:41 a.m. on August 5, 2019 and by

email transmission at 9:43 a.m. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Lastly, if HMA’s underlying motion is granted, Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced as it

will not prevent Plaintiffs from properly preparing for trial. In fact, based on Plaintiffs’

counsel’s current engagement in another trial, Plaintiffs will only benefit from the continuance as

they will have their selected trial counsel and have more time to prepare for trial. While neither

party would be prejudiced by this Court continuing this trial, both parties would face severe

prejudice if it is not continued. The only alternative means to address this issue would prejudice

Plaintiffs and Defendant and still would require delaying the trial, as it would require HMA and

Plaintiffs to find new trial counsel that are not familiar with the case. HMA is only requesting a

short continuance to a date that does not conflict with either parties’ trial schedule. HMA is able

to schedule trial for this matter on November 5, 2019 or November 12, 2019.

In light of the forgoing, in the interests of justice, Defendant has sought ex parte relief

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



8

from this Court to continue the trial date, thereby preserving Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s right to

have their selected trial counsel defend their rights, and to allow HMA’s trial counsel to provide

the effective defense HMA is entitled to. In addition, any and all other applicable trial document

deadlines should be rescheduled in accordance with the new trial date. Discovery is to remain

closed.

4. CONCLUSION.

For reasons described herein, denial of this ex parte application would result in prejudice

to Defendant and Plaintiffs. Given that all parties benefit from continuing this trial, and that this

ex parte application was brought as soon as reasonably possible, and for the other reasons

described herein, HMA respectfully request that ex parte relief be granted and that trial in this

matter be continued to on or around November 5, 2019 or November 12, 2019.

Dated: August 5, 2019 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

Attorney for Defendant Hyundai Motor America

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



9

DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST

I, Soheyl Tahsildoost, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Theta Law Firm, LLP, attorneys of record for

Defendant Hyundai Motor America. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

under oath to the following facts of which I have personal knowledge. In support of this

application, I state the following.

2. Based on my review of this case and its file, I am informed and believe that this is

a “Lemon Law” case brought by Plaintiffs Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros and Ismael Ontiveros Jr.

concerning Plaintiffs’ 2011 Hyundai Elantra, which Plaintiffs purchased on March 22, 2011.

3. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for August 6, 2019. However, at that

time, HMA legal in-house representative and HMA’s counsel for this matter will be engaged in

trial in a separate matter, Jeffery Ferguson and Sharyl Ferguson v. Hyundai Motor America,

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00985947-CU-BC-CJC, trial date of August 5,

2019. The Ferguson case was previously set to begin trial on July 15, 2019. However, due to a

motion that was pending and ongoing discovery disputes, against HMA’s objections, the Court

in the Ferguson matter continued the trial date to August 5, 2019. Through stipulation and ex

parte application to be heard on July 18, 2019, the Ferguson Court was notified of the conflict

that the new trial date would cause with the matter before this Court. However, the Ferguson

Court advanced the July 18, 2019 ex parte hearing date to July 17, 2019, and made its ruling not

to continue the trial based solely on the application papers. HMA then immediately, on July 19,

2019, filed another ex parte application set for hearing on July 23, 2019, imploring the Ferguson

Court to continue the trial due to the conflict with this matter’s trial date. Instead, the Ferguson

Court held that since its trial was set to begin on August 5, 2019 (one day ahead of this matter’s

currently scheduled trial date), the Ferguson trial had priority and HMA would have to apply to

this Court to continue this trial. HMA then immediately communicated this issue to Plaintiffs’

counsel.

4. Based on my review of this case, its file, and my communications with Plaintiffs’

counsel, I am informed and believe: Plaintiffs’ counsel for this matter also has a trial conflict.

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



10

Plaintiffs’ counsel notified HMA’s Counsel that he is currently engaged in a trial in San

Bernardino, in the matter Valenton v. FCA US LLC, which Plaintiffs’ counsel expects to be

completed by approximately August 9, 2019. Plaintiffs’ counsel also stated that he starts a

Federal trial, Ortega v. BMW N.A., on August 13, 2019. According to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the

Court in that matter (Hon. R. Gary Klausner, presiding) has advised that no continuances will be

allowed, whatsoever. Based on all of these conflicts, Plaintiffs’ counsel and HMA’s counsel

attempted to stipulate to trail or continue the trial date for this matter. However, due to Parties’

counsel’s limited availability and various conflicts, the stipulation could not be finalized prior to

the trial date in this matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated that their first availability for trial

would be on August 26, 2019

5. Based on my review of this case, its file, and my attendance at the Ferguson trial,

I am informed and believe: the Court’s scheduling in the Ferguson trial, which was only

provided today, HMA’s legal in-house representative and HMA’s trial counsel will be

unavailable during that period. As stated above, the first day of trial in Ferguson was today.

The Court scheduled the rest of Ferguson’s trial dates to continue as follows: August 12, 13, 19,

20, 21, 26, and continue thereon until the trial is completed. As such, neither HMA nor its

counsel will be finished with its current trial, or available for any other trial until, at the very

least, after August 27, 2019.

6. Based on my review of this case, its file, and my communications with Plaintiffs’

counsel, I am informed and believe: Plaintiffs’ counsel also indicated availability during

October, but HMA’s counsel is scheduled to be out on Paternity leave between mid-September

and early November. Moreover, HMA’s counsel’s baby’s due date is currently predicted to be in

the latter half of September, but the baby’s doctor told HMA’s counsel not be more than one

hour away from his wife for up to three weeks before the predicted due date. As a result, HMA’s

counsel will be unavailable for trial for almost all of September until the first week of November.

7. In accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1203(a), my office sent a letter via

facsimile transmission and email to Plaintiff’s counsel Amy Morse and Sepehr Daghighian at

approximately 9:41 a.m. and by email at 9:43 a.m. on August 5, 2019. In the letter, I notified

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



11

Plaintiff’s counsel that HMA would seek an ex parte order to continue the trial date and that said

ex parte hearing would take place on Thursday, August 6, 2019 at 8:15 a.m. in Department 21 of

the Stanislaus Superior Court, located at 801 10th Street, Modesto, CA 95354. As of the time of

execution of this declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel had not informed me whether they would appear

and/or oppose the ex parte application. A true and correct copy of the facsimile letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 5, 2019.

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, Declarant

EXHIBIT A

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



12


I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and employed in the county where this mailing occurred. My business address is 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270, Lawndale, CA 90260. On August 5, 2019, I served the following documents described as DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST on interested parties in this action by placing original/true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov Amy Morse Knight Law Group LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 552-2250 Phone (310) 552-7973 Fax

Sepehr Daghighian Kevin Jacobson Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 887-1333 (310) 887-1334

BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lawndale, California. The envelope

was mailed with proper postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said mailing is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business and there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. 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 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person at the above-address. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 5, 2019 at Lawndale, California.

Steven Correa

EXHIBIT C

COURT::; REPORTING 23312 Madero Rd. , Ste.B, Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Phone: (949) 829-9222 Fax: (949) 829-9223

Bill To SOHEYL TAHSLIDOOST, ESQ. THETA LAW FIRM 15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

Attorney Reporter Depo Date

Soheyl Tahslidoost, .. . GCh 7/3 1/2018

Invoice Date Invoice #

8/23/2018 18-12229-1

Case Caption Case Number

Ontiveros vs. Hyundai 900219

Description Amount

One Copy of the Transcript of Wayne Szabo 513 .60 Ontiveros vs. Hyundai

WE ACCEPT MASTERCARD VISA AMEX

MAKE CHECKS PAY ABLE TO:

ELITE COURT REPORTING 23312 Madero, Suite B

Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Tax ID o. 37-1474286

WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS!

NET 30 DAYS $513 .60

A service charge of 1.5% per month (18% annum) will be payable for any monies owing past the stated terms.

Invoice# Invoice Date Company/Last Name Line Item Date Line Item Description Original Quantity Line Item Net Total

CS3401452 Jul 6, 2018Veritext Corporate Services Jun 14, 2018

Ismael Ontiveros and Minerva Galvan‐Ontiveros Deposition Transcript 1.00 1699.30

CS3443377 Aug 23, 2018Veritext Corporate Services Aug 8, 2018 Thomas Lepper Deposition Transcript 1.00 1847.74

Network Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East • Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 9006 7 Phone (310) 557-3400 • (800) 788-2021 Fax (310) 557-3555 • networkdepo.com

Theta Law Firm Attention: Accounts Payable 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

I am an invoice. Take me to your accounts

payable department. Invoice No.

Invoice Date

A18080448

August 15, 2018 Invoice Due September 14, 2018 Invoice Total 357.05

Balance Due 357 .05

Make checks payable to Network Deposition Services, Inc. • Federal Tax ID No. 77-0591481 • A service fee of 1.5% per month may be

'--------------------------------~ added to any invoice over 30 days old.

Noticing firm The Altman Law Group

Noticed by Michael J. Morris-Nussbaum, Esq. NDS Client Deposition

D eposition of Brian Chadwick Case No. Job o. Matter No. Date

Caption Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros vs. Hyundai Motor America 900219 205507 8-2-2018

Description of Service Amount

Certified Copy of Transcript 304.40

Exhibits 52.65

NOS invoice version 3 2 Detach lower portion and return with your payment. Please do not staple check.

Payment From

Theta Law Firm Attention : Soheyl Tahsildoost, Esq. 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

Write notes or address changes below

Invoice No. A18080448

Invoice Date August15, 2018

Late After September 14, 2018

Total Due 357.05

Amount Enclosed

Mail Payment To

Network Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Network Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East • Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone (310) 557-3400 • (800) 788-2021 Fax (310) 557-3555 • networkdepo.com

Theta Law Firm Attention : Accounts Payable 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

I am an invoice. T ake me to your accounts

payable department. Invoice No. A18080428

Invoice Date August 14, 2018

Invoice Due September 13, 2018 Invoice Total 316.90

Balance Due 316.90

Make checks payable to Network Deposition Services, Inc. • Federal Tax ID o. 77-0591481 • A service fee of 1.5% per month may be

----------------------------------' added to any invoice over 30 days old.


Noticed by Michael J. Morris-Nussbaum, Esq . NDS Client Deposition D eposition of Nathanael Pine Case 0. Job No. Matter No. Date

Caption Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros vs. Hyundai Motor America 900219 205505 8-2-2018



Exhibits 16.90


Payment From



Invoice o. A18080428



Total Due 316.90

Amount Enclosed

Mail Payment To

Network Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East Su ite 150 Los Angeles, CA 90067

etwork Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East • Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 9006 7 Phone (310) 557-3400 • (800) 788-2021 Fax (310) 557-3555 • networkdepo.com

Theta Law Firm Attention: Accounts Payable 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260


payable department. Invoice No. A18080442


Invoice Due September 14, 2018

Invoice Total 327.95

Balance D ue 327 .95

l\Iake checks payable to etwork Deposition Services, Inc. • Federal Tax ID o. 77-0591481 • A service fee of 1.5% per month may be

'---------------------------------' added to any invoice over 30 days old.


Noticed by Michael J. Morris-Nussbaum, Esq. N DS Client Deposition Deposition of Alan Christian Case No. Job No. Matter No. Date

Caption Minerva Ga lvan-Ontiveros vs. Hyundai Motor America 900219 204820 8-2-2018



Exhibits 27.95


Payment From



Invoice o. A18080442



Total Due 327. 95

Amount Enclosed

Mail Payment To


etwork Deposition Services, Inc. 1800 Century Park East • Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 9006 7 Phone (310) 557-3400 • (800) 788-2021 Fax (310) 557-3555 • net:workdepo.com

Theta Law Firm Attention : Accounts Payable 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260


payable department. Invoice No.

Invoice Date

A18080445

August 15, 2018 Invoice Due September 14, 2018 Invoice Total 457.70

Balance Due 457.70

Make checks payable to etwork Deposition Services, Inc. • Federal Tax ID No. 77-0591481 • .·\ service fee of 1.5% per month may be

~-----------------------------~ added to any invoice over 30 days old.


Noticed by Michael J. Morris-Nussbaum, Esq. NOS Client Deposition Deposition of Jon Monestier Case No. Job o. r-.Iatter No. Date

Caption Minerva Galvan-Ontiveros vs. Hyunda i Motor America 900219 205506 8-2-2018



Exhibits 87.75

NOS invoice version 3 2

~ Detach lower portion and return with your payment. Please do nor staple check.

Payment From



Invoice No. A18080445



Total Due 457.70

Amount Enclosed

Mail Payment To


EXHIBIT D

MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY

Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) ,___Knight Law Group, LLP

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067

TELEPHONE NO. 310-552-2250 FAX NO.: 310-552-7973 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff: Anna P. King v. Hyundai Motor America INSERT NAME OF COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND BRANCH COURT, IF ANY:

Superior Court of California, County of Placer

PLAINTIFF: Anna P. King

DEFENDANT: Hyundai Motor America

CASE NUMBER: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) SCV0038637

The following costs are requested: TOTALS

1. Filing and motion fees , ..................... , , , . , .. , ... , .. , .... , , , ......... , , , , ....... , 1. $ 1555.oo

2. Jury fees ............................ , ............................................. . 2.$ It ,278.24

3. Jury food and lodging 3.$

4. Deposition costs .................................................................... . 4.$ 7,519.31

5. Service of process ................................................................... . 5. $ 1,711.99

6. Attachment expenses 6, $

7. Surety bond premiums 7.$

8. Witness fees .............................. , .... , ............................... , ... . 8. $ 16,414.69

9. Court-ordered transcripts 9.$ I 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court

determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required) ........................................ 1 o. $

11. Models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits .............................................. 11. $ ~j 8_5_0_.3_2 ___ __,

12. Court reporter fees as established by statute .............................................. 12. $ 18,083.68

13. Other ...................................................................... , ....... 13. $ 120,438.86

I TOTAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 46,852.09

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.

Date: November 21, 2019

. S_t('.V~ Mi~hp~ (~~N .2746.7~).

Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of Cal~omia MC.Q10 [Rev. July 1, 1999]

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

(Proof of service on reverse)

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

-= (SIGNATURE)

Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1032, 1033.5

SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:

King, Anna v. Hyundai Motor America SCV0038637

PROOF OF [ZJ MAILING CJ PERSONAL DELIVERY

1. At the time of mailing or personal delivery, I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. My residence or business address is (specify): I 0250 Constellation Blvd.

Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067

3. I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) as follows (complete either a orb): a. [ZJ Mail. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred.

(1) I enclosed a copy in an envelope AND (a) CJ deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. (b) [ZJ placed the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below following

our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.

(2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: (a) Name of person served: (b) Address on envelope:

(c) Date of mailing: (d) Place of mailing (city and state): Los Angeles, CA

b. D Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy as follows: (1) Name of person served: (2) Address where delivered:

(3) Date delivered: (4) Time delivered:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)

MC--010 (Rev. July 1, 1999] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) Page two

MC-011 SHORT TITLE: King, Anna v. Hyundai Motor America CASE NUMBER:

SCV0038637

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET)

1. Filing and motion fees Paper filed Filing fee

a. Complaint $ 435.00

b. Motion to Strike Def s Costs $ 60.00

c. Motion for Prejudgment Interest $ 60.00

d. $

e. $

f. $

g. D Information about additional filing and motion fees is contained in Attachment 1g.

TOTAL 1. $ 555.00 2. Jury fees

Date Fee & mileage

a. 2/2/2017 $ 150.00

b. 7/3/2019 $ 119.06 21.97

c. 7/8/2019 $ 119.06 21.97

d. 7/9/2019 $ 119.06 21.97

e. [l] Information about additional jury fees is contained in Attachment 2e.

TOTAL 2. $ 1,278.24

3. Juror food: $ and lodging: $ TOTAL 3. $

4. Deposition costs Name of Video-deponent Taking Transcribing Travel taping Subtotals

a. Anna King (12-28-17) $ $ 950.25 $ 588.10 $ $ 1,538.35

b. Heath Gsell (2-26-18) $ $ 438.99 $ $ $ 438.99

c. T. Lepper (5-31-19) $ $ 1,014.17 $ 16.20 $ $ 1,030.67

d. S. Zielomski {6-21-19} $ 96.50 $ 865.90 $ 120.34 $ $ 214.84

e. [l] Information about additional deposition costs is contained in Attachment 4e.

TOTAL 4. $7,519.31

(Continued on reverse) Page_l_ of _4_ Form Approved for Optional Use MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) Code of Civil Procedure,

Judicial Council of Cal~ornia §§ 1032, 1033.5 MC-011 [Rev. July 1, 1999]

SHORT TITLE: King, Anna v. Hyundai Motor America CASE NUMBER:

SCV0038637

5. Service of process Name of person Public Registered Other

served officer process Publication (specify)

a. Hyundai Motor America $ $ 37.95 $ $

b. Roseville's PMQ $ $ 130.00 $ $

c. Roseville's SA #3130 $ $ 130.00 $ $

d. [Z] Information about additional costs for service of process is contained in Attachment 5d.

TOTAL 5. $ 1,711.99

6. Attachment expenses (specify): 6. $

7. Surety bond premiums (itemize bonds and amounts): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. $ ....._ ____ ___,

8. a. Ordinary witness fees Name of witness Daily fee Mileage Total

(1) Brock Keck days at 41.36 $/day miles at ¢/mile .... $ 41.36

(2) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile .... $




(6) D Information about additional ordinary witness fees is contained in Attachment 8a(6).

SUBTOTAL Sa. $41.36

(Continued on next page) Page_2_ of _4_ MC.{)11 [Rev. July 1, 1999] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET)


- SCV0038637

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) (Continued)

B. b. Expert fees (per Code of Civil Procedure section 998) Name of witness ~

(1) Thomas Le22er { 1-18-18} 6.7 hours at $ varies /hr $ 1,208.77

(2) Thomas Le22er {5-31-19} 15.0 hours at $ varies /hr $ 1,219.60

(3) Thomas LeEEer {7-8-19} 17.6 hours at $ varies /hr $ 3,944.96

(4) hours at$ /hr $

(5) D Information about additional expert witness fees is contained in Attachment Bb(5).

SUBTOTAL Bb. $ 6,373.33 c. Court-ordered expert fees

Name of witness

(1) ~----------

( 2) ~----------

hours at $ /hr $ --- ---

hours at$ /hr $

(3) D Information about additional court-ordered expert witness fees is contained in Attachment Bc(3).

SUBTOTAL Be.I~_$ ____ ___.

TOTAL (Ba, Bb, & Be) B. $ 6,414.69

9. Court-ordered transcripts (specify): 9. $

10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required): ........................................ 10. $ .___ ____ ___.

11. Models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits (specify): 11. $ 850.32 Trial Binders

12. Court reporter fees (as established by statute)

a. (Name of reporter): Atkinson Baker (3-7-17) Fees: $ 250.00 ------b. (Name of reporter): Atkinson Baker ( 1-2-18) Fees: $ 275.00 ------

c. [ZJ Information about additional court reporter fees is contained in Attachment 12c.

TOTAL 12. $ 8,083.68

13. Other (specify): ........................................................................ 13. I $ 20,438.86

I TOTAL COSTS $ 46,852.09

(Additional information may be supplied on the reverse) Page_3_ of _4_ MC--011 [Rev. July 1. 1999] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET)


SCV0038637

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) (Continued)

1 2. Jury Fees Jury Fees/Mileage (7/10/19) .................................................................... $141.03

2 Jury Fees/Mileage (7/11/19) .................................................................... $141.03 Jury Fees/Mileage (7/12/19) .................................................................... $141.03

3 Jury Fees/Mileage (7/15/19) .................................................................... $141.03

4 Jury Fees/Mileage (7/16/19) .................................................................... $141.03

5 4. Deposition Costs Eric Sim (6-21-19): Transcript/Travel... ................................................. $1.082.74

6 Raymond Hughes (6-26-19): Transcript... .............................................. $2,345.82

7 5. Service of Process Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's SA #7533 ............. $130.00

8 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's SA #3158 ............. $130.00

9 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's SA #7491.. ........... $130.00 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp- Roseville Hyundai's Tech #3171.. ........ $130.00

10 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's Tech #7361.. ........ $130.00 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's Tech #3030 .......... $130.00

11 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp - Roseville Hyundai's Tech #7473 .......... $130.00 Rapid Legal Inv.: Depo Subp. - Roseville Hyundai's PMQ .................... $212.70

12 Rapid Legal Inv.: Trial Subp. - Roseville Hyundai's PMQ ..................... $171.34

13 Rapid Legal Inv.: Trial Subp. - Hope Werner Hyundai's PMQ .............. $120.00

14 12. Court Reporters Atkinson Baker Inv.: MS A/Ex Parte to Continue Trial (l-15-19) ........... $281.18

15 First Legal Inv.: Civil Trial Conference Hearing (6-21-19) .................... $550.00 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-1-19) ......................................................... $697.50

16 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-2-19) ......................................................... $697.50 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-3-19) ......................................................... $697.50

17 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-8-19) ......................................................... $697.50

18 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-9-19) ......................................................... $697.50 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-11-19) ....................................................... $697.50

19 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-12-19) ....................................................... $697.50 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-15-19) ....................................................... $697.50

20 Atkinson Baker Inv.: Trial (7-16-19) ....................................................... $697.50 First Legal Inv.: Ex Parte to Amend Judgment (9/13/19) ........................ $450.00

21

13. Other 22 Attorney Services and Messengers for Court Filings and Service ........... $1,929 .19

23 Overnight .................................................................................................. $151.82 Courtcalls ................................................................................................... $240.00

24 Trial Transcripts ......................................................................................... $5,272.75 Travel. ........................................................................................................ $12,129.76

25 Appearance Attorneys ................................................................................ $65.00 Copies .......................................................................................................... $496.55

26 Legal Research ............................................................................................ $14.95

27 Trial Supplies ............................................................................................... $138.84

Page_4_ot _4_ MC.011 IRev. July 1, 1999] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET)

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

PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure §I 0 l 3a)

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is I 0250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

I served the foregoing document described as:

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMAR

Said document was served on the interested parties in this action, by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Soheyl Tahsildoost, Esq. THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Counsel for Defendant, Hyundai Motor America (via Mail only)

Sepehr Daghighian, Esq. HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. l 0250 Constellation Blvd.,Suite2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Trial Counsel for Plaintiff, ANNAP. KING (via E-Mail only)

Julian G. Senior, Esq. SJLLAW,P.C. 841 Apollo Street, Suite 300 El Segundo, CA 90245 Counsel for Defendant, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA (via Mail only)

Bryan C. Altman, Esq. THE ALTMAN LAW GROUP I 0250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Trial Counsel for Plaintiff, ANNAP.KING (via E-mail only)

BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at a Postal Service collection box at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. The envelope was sealed and placed for collection that same day following ordinary business practices, addressed to the above-referenced attorney. BY E-MAIL 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 sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 21, 2019 at Los Angeles, C · o

U1

-1-PROOF OF SERVICE

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

INVOICE

INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT

Invoice No.

Invoice No.

Customer No.

Customer No.

Invc Date Total Due

Current Over 30 Days

Over 60 Days Over 90 Days

Period Ending Amount Due Pg

Date Ordr No. Svc Service Detail Charges Total

ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE,INC. 300895 12181 P.O.BOX 71036 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 11/21/19 1,779.52 TAX ID # 95-4557668 1,779.52 .00

.00 .00

THETA LAW FIRM, LLP ATTN:ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BILLING INQUIRIES CALL 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD,#270 (213) 623-3979 LAWNDALE, CA 90260

12181 300895 11/15/19 1,547.78 1

11/08/19 1790170 CRS Caller: MICHAEL AYZEN Ref No.: ONTIVEROS V HYUNDAI BASE : 200.50 200.50 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIORPDF CHAMBER'S COPY RUSH 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD 801 10TH STREET LAWNDALE MODESTO

9000219 DEDLISTOFJURYINST ONTIVEROS V HYUNDAI CACIHIGHLIGHT;COMBIN DEL CCJ BY NOON!! EDCACI;SPECINST;AMEN

11/08/19 1790171 PSD Caller: SOHEYL TAHSILDOO Ref No.: ONTIVEROS V HYUNDAI BASE : 200.50 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP KELLI LOVELADY-BERGSTROM, COR XA-ATTEMPT: 200.50 401.00PDF PROCESS PRIORITY 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD 3105 Tuxford Ln. LAWNDALE MODESTO

900219 1ST ADDRESS:ATTEMPTD ONTIVEROS V HYUNDAI 3012 IVORY CT TRIAL SUBPOENA MODESTO, CA 11-19-19 10:00AM **2 ADDRESSES**

Continued

1

Steven Correa

From: JPL Process Service <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:05 PMTo: [email protected]: SERVICE REQUEST BY Steven Correa

This is a copy of the message you have sent via the form.

What Type Of Service Would You Like Us To Perform?

Process Service

How Many Defendants Do You Need To Serve?

2

How Fast Do You Want It Done?

Standard Service (Starts Within 3‐5 Days)

Defendant's Name Lovelady's Body & Paint Shop Ayzen

Agent For Service Of Process

Kelli Berstrom

Defendant's Home Address 3012 Ivory Ct Modesto California 95355 United States

Defendant's Work Address auto United States

Defendant's Race Other

2nd Defendant's Name Glavan‐Ontiveros

Special Instructions Needs these subpoeanas served on Monday. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Your Name Steven Correa

Email [email protected]

Phone Number 424‐297‐3103

Firm/Agency Address 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., STE 270 Lawndale California 90260 United States

Firm/Agency Name Theta Law Firm, LLP

Court Stanislaus

Case Name Galvan‐Ontiveros v. HMA

Case Number 9000219

What Documents Are You Sending Us?

Other

2

Would You Like Us To File Your Proof Of Service?

No

Is This For Family Law Court?

No

Would You Like Us To Notarize Your Paperwork?

No

Upload Your Documents www.123formbuilder.com/upload_dld.php?fileid=efefea3baa31f594536cbebc9854805b

Upload Your Photos

Other Document Delivery Methods

I've Uploaded Them Above

Help Us Serve You Better By Letting Us Know Which Group Best Fits Your Description.

Paralegal/Attorney

How Did You Find Us? Google Search

Amount to be paid: USD 135

Payment Summary:

# Item Price Qty Total

1 How Many Defendants Do You Need To Serve? ‐ 2 $135.00 1 $135.00

TOTAL

$135.00

Referrer: www.jplps.com/order‐process‐services‐online/ Form Host: www.123formbuilder.com/js‐form‐username‐1780359.html?ref=http://www.jplps.com/order‐process‐services‐online/&_referrer_=http://www.jplps.com/&_embedType_=embed.js&_iframeID_=1530313264292_97210876546528

1

Mike Ayzen

From: JPL PROCESS SERVICE LLC <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:35 AMTo: [email protected]: Your receipt from JPL PROCESS SERVICE LLC

JPL PROCESS SERVICE LLC

Hi Michael,

Receipt for #N2445 11/27/2019

One-Time Payment $175.00

INVOICE NUMBER: 145111C

Subtotal $175.00

Tax $0.00

Total $175.00

Paid $175.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen

To help protect you r privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented auto matic downlo ad of this picture from the Internet.

Ending in 8071

2

Thank you,



14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S, WESTMINSTER, CA.

WESTMINSTER, CA 92683

[email protected]

(866) 754-0520

http://www.JPLPS.com

Terms of sale

If you would like to cancel or make a change to this payment, or if you believe any of the above information is

incorrect, please contact us using our listed address, email, or phone.

1

Mike Ayzen



Hi Michael,

Receipt for #N2444 11/27/2019


INVOICE NUMBER: 145111B

Subtotal $175.00

Tax $0.00

Total $175.00

Paid $175.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen


Ending in 8071

2

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520


Terms of sale



1

Mike Ayzen



Hi Michael,

Receipt for #N2442 11/27/2019


INVOICE NUMBER: 145300

Subtotal $175.00

Tax $0.00

Total $175.00

Paid $175.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen


Ending in 8071

2

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520


Terms of sale



1

Mike Ayzen



Hi Michael,

Receipt for #N2443 11/27/2019


INVOICE NUMBER: 145111A

Subtotal $175.00

Tax $0.00

Total $175.00

Paid $175.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen


Ending in 8071

2

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520


Terms of sale



" I

Bill To :

JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 Phone: (866) 754-0520 Fax: (866) 684-4815 [email protected]

THETA LAW FIRM , LLP

15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270

LAWNDALE, CA 90260

ACCOUNT NO: INVOICE DATE:

THETA August 30, 2018

File No:

Requestor: STEVEN CORREA

Servee: CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Case No: 9000219

INVOICE NO:

133917

Court : STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiff: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVER

Defendant: HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Document.:>: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (SUBP-010); NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJtCTION (~UBF·-025);

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RENDERED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

PROCES5 SERVICE - SAME DAY RATE 175.00

Description: Servee: CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, served @818 W 7th St Ste 930 Los SUB-TOTAL 175.00 Angeles , CA, 90017-3476 on 8/29/2018at1:20 PM

C0mpleted on 8/29/2018

TOTAL DUE $ 175.00

Thank you for choosing JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC ! For billing inquiries , please contact our Accounting Department at (866) 754-0520.

ACCOUNT NO: INVOICE DATE: INVOICE NO:

THETA August 30, 2018 133917

Remit ~ u : TOTAL DUE: $ 175.00

JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683

1. PLEASE INCLUDE INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT.

2. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC

Order#:133917/INVOICEP

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) FOR COURT USE ONLY

- SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST I SBN: 271294 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270 LAWNDALE. CA 90260

TELEPHONE NO (424) 297-31031 FAX NO (424) 286-2244 I E-MAIL AOORESS (Optional) · scorrea@thetafirm com

ATTORNEY FOR (Name)

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

STREET ADDRESS. 801 10TH STREET, 4TH FLOOR

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY AND ZIP CODE MODESTO, CA 95354 Hearing Date: 9/13/2018 Room:

BRANCH NAME MODESTO Hearing T ime: 10:00AM Dept:

PLAINTIFF: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVER CASE NUMBER

DEFENDANT: HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA 9000219

PROOF OF SERVICE Ref. No or File No

AT THE TIME OF SERVICE I WAS AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE AND NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION I SERVED COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (SUBP-010); NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (SUBP-025)

PARTY SERVED: CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE

PERSON SERVED: ALBERT DEMONTE - CT CORPORATION SYSTEM - AGENT FOR SERVICE

DATE & TIME OF DELIVERY: 8/29/2018 1:20 PM

ADDRESS, CITY, AND STATE: 818 W 7th St Ste 930 Los Angeles, CA 900173476

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Age: 25 Sex: Male

MANNER OF SERVICE: Personal Service - By personally delivering copies.

Fee for Service: $ 175.00 Registration No.: 7067

1~unty: LOS ANGELES JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC

1 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S ~ WESTMINSTER, CA 92683

(866) 754-0520

Weight: 175 Height: 5'11

Hair: BROWN

Skin: CAUCASIAN

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the The State of California that the foregoing information contained in the return of service and statement of service fees is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 30, 2018 .

Signature :_~ ______ ?-~~---~--' RYAfuNCASTER

PROOF OF SERVICE Order# 133917/General

PROCESS INVOICEREPRINT

14482 BEACH BLVD. STE X WESTMINSTER, CA 92683Phone: (866) 754-0520 Fax: (866) [email protected]

Thank you for choosing JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC!For billing inquiries, please contact our Accounting Department at (866) 754-0520.

TOTAL DUE:

Bill To:

STEVEN CORREATHETA LAW FIRM, LLP15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270LAWNDALE, CA 90260

Remit To:

JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC14482 BEACH BLVD. STE XWESTMINSTER, CA 92683



INVOICE DATE:

7/12/2021

INVOICE NO:

170996A-01

ACCOUNT NO:

THETA

ACCOUNT NO:

THETA

INVOICE DATE:

7/12/2021

INVOICE NO:

170996A-01

File No:Servee: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE

GROUP, a AAA INSURER

Case No: 9000219

Plaintiff: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS ET AL.Defendant: HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Documents: CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL OR HEARING (SUBP-001);


TOTAL DUE

Description: Was not served

Completed on 7/9/2021

Order#:170996A-01/INVOICEP4w

ONERATE - STANDARD RATE PRICING 99.00

$ 99.00

$ 99.00

From: JPL PROCESS SERVICE LLCTo: [email protected]: Your receipt from JPL PROCESS SERVICE LLCDate: Friday, January 3, 2020 12:30:38 PM


Hi Michael,

Receipt for #N2553 1/3/2020


INVOICE NUMBER: 145748-01

Subtotal $175.00

Tax $0.00

Total $175.00

Paid $175.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen

Ending in 8071

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520





Terms of sale



https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/www.JPLPS.com?p=eyJzIjoiQnlpX080VHVkTWd1SDBHTWl5cjB6WHJEc21BIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvd3d3LkpQTFBTLmNvbVwiLFwiaWRcIjpcIjM2YTQzYTExODNmNjQzM2U5ZjFkNzc3Zjk5NjNjMDAxXCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiZGYwMzU0MGI4OTNkZTkzOGY1ZmNkZWU3Y2E5NWNhMzQxNjQ5MzBkNFwiXX0ifQ

https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/payjplps.mypaysimple.com?p=eyJzIjoiM3JwbXd3ZDJFWkRTeHo5NGFGVV9ZeEZXNURZIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwczpcXFwvXFxcL3BheWpwbHBzLm15cGF5c2ltcGxlLmNvbVxcXC90ZXJtcy1hbmQtY29uZGl0aW9uc1wiLFwiaWRcIjpcIjM2YTQzYTExODNmNjQzM2U5ZjFkNzc3Zjk5NjNjMDAxXCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiYjE4ZWI0NGUzNzg2ZjI2NjA5NTcxZGViMzc4NDdiOWViYTE5MzMwZlwiXX0ifQ



Hi Michael,



INVOICE NUMBER: 145748B-01

Subtotal $150.00

Tax $0.00

Total $150.00

Paid $150.00

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen

Ending in 8071

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520





Terms of sale



https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/www.JPLPS.com?p=eyJzIjoiY2lPLVp0MXVsTTRCUmphR205QVlmY3FtWE9nIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvd3d3LkpQTFBTLmNvbVwiLFwiaWRcIjpcImY2MTE5OWQ0ZTJiMDRiOGU4ZGQxM2M3ZDBhNmI0Y2E2XCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiZGYwMzU0MGI4OTNkZTkzOGY1ZmNkZWU3Y2E5NWNhMzQxNjQ5MzBkNFwiXX0ifQ

https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/payjplps.mypaysimple.com?p=eyJzIjoiYkNpLUpHdmRHbEt5MldCOVdKSERMYUh2R3h3IiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwczpcXFwvXFxcL3BheWpwbHBzLm15cGF5c2ltcGxlLmNvbVxcXC90ZXJtcy1hbmQtY29uZGl0aW9uc1wiLFwiaWRcIjpcImY2MTE5OWQ0ZTJiMDRiOGU4ZGQxM2M3ZDBhNmI0Y2E2XCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiYjE4ZWI0NGUzNzg2ZjI2NjA5NTcxZGViMzc4NDdiOWViYTE5MzMwZlwiXX0ifQ



Hi Michael,



INVOICE NUMBER: FIN20191231

Subtotal $1.49

Tax $0.00

Total $1.49

Paid $1.49

Payment Method

Michael Ayzen

Ending in 8071

Thank you,





[email protected]

(866) 754-0520





Terms of sale



https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/www.JPLPS.com?p=eyJzIjoiY0hfd3JpNDRUdWZJSGI5dDRyVVVjMVhyVjdNIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvd3d3LkpQTFBTLmNvbVwiLFwiaWRcIjpcIjlkOWE5MDVlYzk0YjRmMTc4Njc1OWI1MTg1MDkwZDY2XCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiZGYwMzU0MGI4OTNkZTkzOGY1ZmNkZWU3Y2E5NWNhMzQxNjQ5MzBkNFwiXX0ifQ

https://mandrillapp.com/track/click/30330462/payjplps.mypaysimple.com?p=eyJzIjoiNGxtamN1YU5mdUM2eFUxa1Zqb2FJNU1rMHBvIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDMzMDQ2MixcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwczpcXFwvXFxcL3BheWpwbHBzLm15cGF5c2ltcGxlLmNvbVxcXC90ZXJtcy1hbmQtY29uZGl0aW9uc1wiLFwiaWRcIjpcIjlkOWE5MDVlYzk0YjRmMTc4Njc1OWI1MTg1MDkwZDY2XCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiYjE4ZWI0NGUzNzg2ZjI2NjA5NTcxZGViMzc4NDdiOWViYTE5MzMwZlwiXX0ifQ

Bill To:


THETA LAW FIRM, LLP


LAWNDALE, CA 90260


THETA November 14, 2019 145111A

File No: Requestor: STEVEN CORREA

Servee: NORMA ORTEGA, CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Case No: 900219

Court: STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiff: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS ET AL




ONERATE -SAME DAY PRICING 175.00

Description: Was not served SUB-TOTAL 175.00


TOTAL DUE $ 175.00

Thank you for choosing JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC! For billing inquiries, please contact our Accounting Department at (866) 754-0520.


THETA November 14, 2019 145111A

Remit To: TOTAL DUE: $ 175.00




Order#:145111A/INVOICEP

Attorney or Party without Attorney: FOR COURT USE ONLY

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, SBN: 271294 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270 I . .WNDALE, CA 90260 E-MAIL ADDRESS {Optional): [email protected]

TE 'HONE No.: ( 424) 297-3103 FAX No. {Optional): (424) 286-2244

At :ey for: I Ref No. or File No.:

Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court:

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT- MODESTO

Plaintiff. MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS ET AL


HEARING DATE: TIME: DEPT.: CASE NUMBER:

NON SERVICE 11/19/2019 REPORT 10:00 AM 21 900219

After due search, careful inquiry and diligent attempts at the following address( es), I have not been able to effect service of said process on: NORMA ORTEGA, CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Documents: CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL OR HEARING (SUBP-001 );

Date Time Results

11/8/2019 12:54 PM I WAS TOLD THESE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SERVED HERE. THEY MUST GO TO CT CORPORATION. 3055 Oak Rd Stop W290, Walnut Creek, CA 945972098

Fee for Service: $ 175 . 0 0 County: CONTRA COSTA

~ Registration No.: 901 JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC

A 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 (866) 754-0520

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 11 /14/2019.

NON SERVICE REPORT Order#: 145111A

Bill To:


THETA LAW FIRM, LLP


LAWNDALE, CA 90260


THETA November 12, 2019 145111 B

File No:


Servee: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Case No: 900219







Description: Was not served SUB-TOTAL 175.00


TOTAL DUE $175.00



THETA November 12, 2019 1451118





Order#: 145111 B/INVOICEP

AltoJJ1ey or Party without Attorney: FOR COURT USE ONLY

SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, SBN: 271294 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270 LAWNDALE, CA 90260 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): scorrea@thetafi rm .com

TELEPHONE No.: (424) 297-3103 FAX No. (Optional): (424) 286-2244

Attomeyfor: I Ref No. or File No.:

Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court:

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - MODESTO



HEARING DATE: TIME: DEPT.: CASE NUMBER:

NON SERVICE 11/19/2019 10:00 AM 21 900219 REPORT

After due search, careful inquiry and diligent attempts at the following address(es), I have not been able to effect service of said process on: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Documents: CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TR!AL OR HEARING (SUBP-001);

Date Time Results

11/8/2019 12:54 PM I WAS TOLD THESE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SERVED HERE. THEY MUST GO TO CT CORPORATION. 3055 Oak Rd Stop W290, Walnut Creek, CA 945972098

Fee for Service: $ 1 7 5 . 0 0 County: CONTRA COSTA Registration No.: 901 JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 (866) 754-0520

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 11/12/2019.

~----- ..

Sig~~ EDWIN LAMA

NON SERVICE REPORT / Order#: 1451118

·.~

Bill To:


THETA LAW FIRM, LLP


LAWNDALE, CA 90260



File No: Requestor: STEVEN CORREA

Servee: NORMA ORTEGA, CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Case No: 9000219


Plaintiff: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVER





Description: CANCELLED SUB-TOTAL 175.00


TOTAL DUE $ 175.00





JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BL VD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683



Order#:145300/INVOICEP

~TTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) FOR COURT USE ONLY SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST ISBN: 271294

· THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270 LAWNDALE, CA 90260

.TELEPHONE NO.: (424) 297-31031 FAX NO. (424) 286-22441 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR (Name): :


STREET ADDRESS: 801 10TH STREET, 4TH FLOOR

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: MODESTO, CA 95354 Hearing Date: 11/21/2019 Room:

BRANCH NAME: MODESTO Hearing Time: 10:00AM Dept:

PLAINTIFF: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS AND ISMAEL ONTIVER CASE NUMBER:


PROOF OF SERVICE Ref. No. or File No.:


CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL OR HEARING (SUBP-001)

PARTY SERVED: NORMA ORTEGA, CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

PERSON SERVED: DAISY SANCHEZ - CT CORPORATION SYSTEM - AGENT FOR SERVICE

DATE & TIME OF DELIVERY: 11/15/2019 12:40 PM


PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Age: 26 Sex: Female


Fee for Service:$ 175.00 Registration No.: 5681

1~--unty: LOS ANGELES I I JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC ~§ 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S

WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 (866) 754-0520


Hair: BLACK

Skin: HISPANIC

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the The State of California that the foregoing information contained in the return of service and statement of service fees is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 15, 2019.

Signature: __ ~_._ . .-<_·'"~---+,_f+-·i __ · ____ . __ ,. __ .,_-~_-· __ . __ _ ROB~DIAZ

PROOF OF SERVICE Order#: 145300/General

Bill To:


THETA LAW FIRM, LLP


LAWNDALE, CA 90260


THETA November 14, 2019 145111C

File No:


Servee: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

Case No: 900219







Description: Servee: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA SUB-TOTAL 175.00 INSURER, served@818 W 7th St Ste 930 Los Angeles, CA, 90017-3476 on 11/13/2019 at

11 :00 AM


TOTAL DUE $ 175.00



THETA November 14, 2019 145111C





Order#:145111C/INVOICEP

ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) FOR COURT USE ONLY

,_ SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST ISBN: 271294 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP

• 15901 HAWTHORNE BLVD STE 270 LAWNDALE, CA 90260

TELEPHONE NO.: (424) 297-31031 FAX NO. (424) 286-2244 I E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): [email protected]

ATIORNEY FOR (Name): :


STREET ADDRESS 801 1 OTH STREET, 4TH FLOOR

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: MODESTO, CA 95354 Hearing Date: 11/19/2019

BRANCH NAME MODESTO Hearing Time: 10:00 AM

PLAINTIFF: MINERVA GALVAN-ONTIVEROS ET AL CASE NUMBER:


PROOF OF SERVICE Ref. No. or File No ..


CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL OR HEARING (SUBP-001)

Room: Dept:

PARTY SERVED: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, A AAA INSURER

PERSON SERVED: ALBERT DEMIONTE - AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM -AGENT

DATE & TIME OF DELIVERY: 11/13/2019 11:00 AM


PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Age: 30 Sex: Male



Hair: BROWN

Skin: CAUCASIAN

21

Fee for Service:$ 175.00 Registration No.: 7067

unty: LOS ANGELES JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the The State of California that the foregoing information contained in the return of service and statement of service fees is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 14, 2019.

(866) 754-0520

Signature: ____ L,__""_iL_· ,+z_-_:2. ____ L_ .. -_-___ _ RYAN LANCASTER

PROOF OF SERVICE Order#: 145111 C/General

EXHIBIT G

United Litigation Discovery 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 785 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.444.1165

Accounts Payable Theta Law Firm, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

June 5, 2019

-~ ~-------- ---- -HCifu,

f~\ UNITED LITIGATION

DISCOVERY

Thank you for giving United Litigation Discovery the opportunity to serve you.

Attached is your monthly billing statement from LA United Litigation Discovery. For your convenience, we have attached courtesy copies of invoices in blue. If payment has recently been made, thank you and please feel free to contact us for an updated billing statement.

Regards,

United Litigation Discovery

Remit payment to: United Litigation Discovery 111 Sutter Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94104

06/06/19

Date Num

04/24/2019 1047

Total

United Litigation Discovery LA Theta Law Firm, LLP

Billing Statement

Name BILLING REFERENCE

Steven Correa Galvan-Ontiveros v. HMA

Aging Amount

13 1,119.98

1,119.98

Page 1

LA-ULD 111 Sutter St Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94104 (213) 444-1165 Tax ID: 81-4454421

Bill To

Steven Correa Theta Law Firm, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

B&W with Assembly Print B&W with Assembly Color Color Print

Number Tab Number Tab Electronic Label Electronic Label

5" Binder 5" Binder FTP Upload files to FTP

Pickup/Delivery Pickup/Delivery Discount Discount

Description: Label & Print x 4, insert tabs and into binders.

Sales Tax

~llffiifll, 4/24/2019 1047

Ship To

Steven Correa Theta Law Firm, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260

3,656 724 200

1,095 4 1 1

Total

0.12 0.75 0.40 0.02

35.50 10.00 50.00

-279.994

9.50%

438.72T 543.00T 80.00T 21.90

142.00T 10.00 50.00

-279.99

114.35

$1,119.98

LA-ULD

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Received From:

Steven Correa

Steven Correa

Theta Law Firm, LLP

15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270

Lawndale, CA 90260

Date Received 04/23/2021 Payment Amount $316.46

Payment Method Visa

Check/Ref. No.

Invoices Paid

Date Number Amount Applied

03/15/2021 3477 -$316.46

Payment Receipt

Page 1

LA-ULDLos Angeles, CA 90013

01/08/2020

Merchant No.: 5247719922562567

AID -

Total: $652.36

Visa

SALE

xxxxxxxxxxxx8071

Exp. Date: xx / xx

Entry Mode: Keyed

Name: Michale Ayzen

Auth. Code: 02812G

Trans. ID: PI0278053587

Terminal ID: -

QuickBooks Trans. No:

Thank you for your business

CUSTOMER COPY

Invoice

Date

12/31/2019

Invoice #

1835

Bill To

Steven CorreaTheta Law Firm, LLP15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270Lawndale, CA 90260

Ship To

Steven CorreaTheta Law Firm, LLP15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 270Lawndale, CA 90260

LA-ULD

Terms

1% 10 Net 30

Rep

JB

Ordered By

Steven Correa

Billing Reference

Galvan-Ontiveros v. HMA

Job#

LA-1912-0013

Ordered Date

12/4/2019

Tax ID: 81-4454421

Total

Signature:__________________________________________________ Date:_____________

220 Sansome St Suite 800San Francisco, CA 94104(213) 444-1165

Item Code Description Quantity Price Each Amount

B&W with Assem... Print B&W with Assembly 443 0.12 53.16TColor Color Print 2 0.75 1.50T

Custom Tab Custom Tab 43 0.65 27.95T3" Binder 3" Binder 1 20.00 20.00T

Pickup/Delivery Pickup/Delivery 540.00 540.00

Description: Print x 1 on 3-hole paper, insert into binderwith tabs, color for color.

Notebook needs to be delivered to:Stanislaus County Superior CourtDept: 21801 10th St, 6th FloorModesto, CA 95354City Towers Courthouse

Sales Tax 9.50% 9.75

$652.36

EXHIBIT H

EXHIBIT I

10/14/21, 9:17 PM Check Details - chase.com

https://secure05c.chase.com/web/auth/dashboard#/dashboard/overviewAccounts/overview/accountSummaryDetail;flyout=transactionImageDetails,de… 1/2

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC ©2021 JPMorgan Chase & Co. Equal Opportunity Lender

Total

$1,038.00Post dateAug 20, 2021

Check #2016

10/14/21, 9:21 PM Transaction details - chase.com

https://secure05c.chase.com/web/auth/dashboard#/dashboard/overviewAccounts/overview/accountSummaryDetail;flyout=transactionDetailsBlock,449… 1/2


PLAT BUS CHECKING (...9921)

Card

−$973.51Transaction dateJul 28, 2021

Posted dateJul 29, 2021

Venmo

(855) 812-4430

Description VENMO* Visa Direct NY 07/29

Also known as Venmo

Method Online, mail or phone

Card number (...8286)

Transaction details may be preliminary or incomplete and may not match the transaction as it appears on your periodicstatement, which is the official record of your account activity.





Card

−$215.38Transaction dateAug 1, 2021

Posted dateAug 2, 2021

Venmo

(855) 812-4430


Also known as Venmo








Card



Venmo

(855) 812-4430


Also known as Venmo








Card



Venmo

(855) 812-4430


Also known as Venmo




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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


17


I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and employed in the county where this mailing occurred. My business address is 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270, Lawndale, CA 90260. On October 14, 2021, I served the following documents described as DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS on interested parties in this action by placing original/true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov Amy Morse Knight Law Group, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., #2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 552-2250 Phone (310) 552-7973 Fax [email protected]

Chris Urner, Esq. The Altman Law Group 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] [email protected]

BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lawndale, California. The envelope

was mailed with proper postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said mailing is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business and there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. 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 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person at the above-address. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 14, 2021 at Lawndale, California. Steven Correa


