Free Amended Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 1 of 14

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

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP GREGORY F. HURLEY (SBN 126791) MICHAEL DRURY (SBN 177993) 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company DBA Food 4 Less #780 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA A.J. Oliver, Plaintiff, vs. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY dba FOOD 4 LESS #780; CYPRESS CREEK CO., LP dba PTC INVESTMENTS COMPANY, Defendants. DEFENDANT RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY'S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CASE NO. 07 CV 2301 JLS POR

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 2 of 14

1

COMES NOW, Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, DBA FOOD 4

2 LESS # 780 ("Defendant"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and hereby files this 3 Amended Answer to the Complaint on file herein and alleges as follows: 4 5

I. SUMMARY 1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient

6 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and on 7 that basis denies each and every allegation in this paragraph. 8

2.

In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the allegations purport to

9 summarize the Complaint to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 10 deemed required, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 11 belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and on that basis denies each and every 12 allegation in this paragraph. 13 14

II. JURISDICTION 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

15 original jurisdiction in this Court would appear to be appropriate for the alleged 16 violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. 17

4. 5.

In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant states that In response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

18 supplemental jurisdiction in this Court may be appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 19

20 plaintiff's allegations/claims appear to be authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 21 2202. 22 23

III. VENUE 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that IV. PARTIES 7. Responding to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Food 4 Less admits that it

24 venue in this Court would appear to be proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). 25 26

27 operates a store located at 660 Palomar Street in Chula Vista California. 28 AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 3 of 14

1

8.

Responding to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Food 4 Less lacks the

2 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 3 that basis denies all the allegations in this paragraph. 4 5

V. FACTS 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Responding to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that the Responding to Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint Defendant denies all the

6 store is a retail establishment and that it is open to the public. 7

8 allegations therein. 9

10 allegations therein. 11

12 allegations therein. 13

14 allegations therein. 15

16 allegations therein. 17

18 allegations therein and further states that the store is currently in the process of being 19 remodeled. 20 21

VI. FIRST CLAIM 16. 17. Responding to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the Americans With

22 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Answer as set forth above. 23

24 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 25 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 26

18.

Responding to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the

27 allegations therein. 28 AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 2 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 4 of 14

1

19.

Responding to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the Americans With

2 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 3 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 4

20.

Responding to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Americans With

5 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 6 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 7

21. 22. 23.

Responding to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

8 allegations therein. 9

10 allegations therein. 11

12 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 13 that basis denies the allegations. 14

24.

Responding to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, the Americans With

15 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 16 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 17

25. 26.

Responding to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

18 allegations alleged therein. 19

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies the allegations. 22

27.

Responding to Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, the Americans With

23 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 24 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 25

28. 29.

Responding to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the Americans With
3

26 allegations therein. 27 28 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 5 of 14

1 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 2

30. 31.

Responding to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

3 allegations therein. 4

5 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 6 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 7

32.

Responding to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

8 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 9 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 10 11 12

VII. SECOND CLAIM Disabled Persons Act 33. 34. Responding to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

13 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Answer as set forth above. 14

15 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 16 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 17

35.

Responding to Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

18 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 19 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 20

36.

Responding to Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

21 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 22 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 23

37. 38.

Responding to Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

24 allegations therein. 25

26 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 27 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 28 AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 4 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 6 of 14

1

39.

Responding to Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

2 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 3 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 4 5 6

VIII. THIRD CLAIM Unruh Civil Rights Act 40. 41. Responding to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

7 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Answer as set forth above. 8

9 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 10 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 11

42.

Responding to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

12 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 13 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 14

43.

Responding to Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

15 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 16 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 17

44. 45. 46. 47.

Responding to Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all the Responding to Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

18 allegations therein. 19

20 allegations therein. 21

22 allegations therein. 23

24 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 25 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 26 27 28

IX. FOURTH CLAIM Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities 48. Responding to Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and
5 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 7 of 14

1 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Answer as set forth above. 2

49.

Responding to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

3 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 4 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 5 these sections. 6

50.

Responding to Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

7 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 8 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 9 these sections. 10

51.

Responding to Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

11 the subject store is a "public accommodation," but denies all remaining allegations 12 contained in this paragraph. 13

52.

Responding to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

14 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that he is entitled to any such relief and denies 15 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 16 17

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For a further answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and by way of affirmative defenses, FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

18 Defendant alleges as follows: 19 20

21 therein, it is alleged that the Complaint and said causes of action fail to state a claim upon 22 which relief may be granted. 23 24

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

25 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff failed, subsequent to the occurrence described 26 in the Complaint, to properly mitigate his damages, if any, and thereby is precluded from 27 recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of 28 due care on his part. AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 6 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 8 of 14

1 2

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Third Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

3 therein, it is alleged that plaintiff voluntarily and with full knowledge of the matters 4 referred to in the Complaint assumed any and all of the risk, hazards, and perils of the 5 circumstances referred to in the Complaint and, therefore, assumed the risk of any 6 injuries or damages sustained by said plaintiff, if any at all. 7 8

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

9 therein, it is alleged that this incident(s) was caused by the negligence and/or fault of 10 other persons, corporations, and entities, whether named or not named in the Complaint, 11 and that Defendant's liability, if any, should be reduced accordingly. 12 13

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

14 therein, it is alleged that said Complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations; including 15 but not limited to, §§ 335.1, 337.1, 338, 339, 340, and 343 of the California Code of Civil 16 Procedure. 17 18

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

19 therein, it is alleged that if any injuries or damages were sustained by plaintiff, those 20 injuries and damages were proximately caused and contributed to by plaintiff himself. 21 Any recovery to which plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount 22 proportionate to the amount by which plaintiff's fault contributed to the damages plaintiff 23 alleges he sustained. 24 25

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

26 alleged therein, it is alleged that in the event Defendant prevails in this action, Defendant 27 shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of this matter under 28 the provisions of the ADA and California Civil Code Sections 51, 52 and 54. AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 7 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 9 of 14

1 2

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

3 alleged therein, it is alleged that Defendant's conduct was privileged because it was 4 undertaken pursuant to the terms of the applicable laws, regulations, orders, and 5 approvals relating to building construction and/or fire safety and public safety. 6 7

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Ninth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that plaintiff's Complaint and each

8 cause of action alleged therein, is barred by reason of the issuance by local building 9 authorities of appropriate building permits and Certificates of Occupancy for said 10 facilities. 11 12

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Tenth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that any and all injuries or damages,

13 if any, suffered by plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, by other persons or entities 14 for whose acts or omissions Defendant has no responsibility. 15 16

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eleventh Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that the Complaint and each

17 cause of action alleged therein, is barred by reason of Defendant's good faith reliance 18 upon the advice of architects with respect to said facilities. 19 20

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twelfth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that the Complaint and each cause

21 of action alleged therein is barred because the relief demanded in plaintiff's complaint 22 would, if granted result in a fundamental alteration of Defendant's services. 23 24

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

25 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 26 of their failure to name indispensable parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 19. 27 28

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 8 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 10 of 14

1 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 2 equitable doctrine of waiver. 3 4

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

5 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 6 doctrine of equitable estoppel. 7 8

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Sixteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

9 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 10 doctrine of judicial estoppel. 11 12

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Seventeenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

13 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 14 doctrine of laches. 15 16

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

17 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 18 Defendant was justified in acting as it did, in that Defendant acted in good faith and in 19 the lawful exercise of their legitimate rights in connection with all matters alleged in the 20 Complaint. 21 22

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

23 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 24 the laws that plaintiff seeks to enforce are unconstitutionally vague and/or 25 unconstitutionally overbroad 26 27

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twentieth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
9

28 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 11 of 14

1 Defendant relied in good faith on the law as it existed at the time of the construction of 2 the facilities at issue. 3 4

TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

5 alleged therein, it is alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the 6 doctrine of unclean hands. 7 8

TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

9 action, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law because plaintiff 10 lacks standing to seek the relief he requests. 11 12

TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a further, separate and distinct Twenty Third Affirmative Defense to the

13 Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the features 14 identified in the Complaint substantially comply with the applicable law and are within 15 "dimensional tolerances." 16 17

TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

18 action alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law 19 because plaintiff failed to provide any notice to Defendant regarding the alleged 20 accessibility issues prior to filing this lawsuit. 21 22

TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

23 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiffs' claims for damages under the Unruh Act are 24 barred as a matter of law because plaintiff cannot meet his burden of establishing 25 intentional conduct on the part of Defendant. 26 27

TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
10

28 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 12 of 14

1 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 2 the removal of alleged architectural barriers was not readily achievable. 3 4

TWENTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

5 action alleged therein, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert 6 additional affirmative defenses as such additional defenses are discovered during the 7 course of this case. 8 9

TWENTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

10 action alleged therein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3), Defendant is not required to 11 permit Plaintiff to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 12 advantages and/or accommodations where Plaintiff poses a direct threat to the health and 13 safety of Plaintiff and others. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: January 15, 2008 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: 1. 2. 3. 4. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint; That Defendant recover its cost of suit, including attorneys' fees; and, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By /s/ Michael Drury Gregory F. Hurley Michael Drury Attorneys for Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, DBA Food 4 Less # 780

11

Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 13 of 14

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury.

DATED: January 15, 2008

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By /s/ Michael Drury Gregory F. Hurley Michael Drury Attorneys for Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, DBA Food 4 Less # 780

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008

12

Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR

Case 3:07-cv-02301-JLS-POR

Document 5

Filed 01/15/2008

Page 14 of 14

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

I am employed in the aforesaid county, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3161 Michelson Drive, 4 Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92612.
3 5

On the below date, I served: DEFENDANT RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY'S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties in 6 this action by placing the true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, postage 7 prepaid, addressed as follows:
8 Lynn Hubbard, III 10 Chico, CA 95926 9 12 Williamsburg Lane

Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard

Telephone: (530) 895-3252 11 Fax: (530) 894-8244
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR /s/ Michael Drury Signature

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA CM/ECF SYSTEM) In accordance with the electronic filing procedures of this Court, service has been effected on the aforesaid party(s) above, whose counsel of record is a registered participant of CM/ECF, via electronic service through the CM/ECF system. (FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am employed at the office of a member of the bar of this Court and at whose direction the service was made. Executed on January 14, 2008, at Irvine, California.

OC 286,212,376v1 1/15/2008