Request For Judicial Notice - The Law Office of Ryan James Smythe

1 Ryan James Smythe (SBN #310247)
Law Office of Ryan James Smythe

2 PO Box 3970
San Diego, Ca, 92163
3
Telephone: (949) 310-3298
4 Email:Ryan@Smythelaw.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

Bernardo Magana and Yesenia Gonzales
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF ORANGE – CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
9
10 BERNARDO MAGANA, Case No. 30-2018-00964428-CU-PO-CJC

11 & YESENIA GONZALES, Assigned To Honorable Charles Margines
Department C20
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 STERLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR
15 INC., a California corporation; PRISON JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
MUTINY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
16 business entity of unknown form;
CAPITALVEST, INC., a California
17 corporation; BART C. RAINONE,
Individually and doing business as PRISON Action Filed: January 2, 2018
18 MUTINY; BENITA RAINONE-JONES, Trial Date: November 4, 2019
19 individually, and doing business as PRISON
MUTINY; BRANDON RAINONE, an Date: st
20 individually and doing business as PRISON e: . .
MUTINY;; and DOES 1-25, inclusive at : De a t ent
21 e e at
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Request For Judicial Notice
1
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
1
2 Plaintiffs Bernardo Magana and Yesenia Gonzales ("Plaintiffs"), under the provisions
3 of Evidence Code Sections 452(d) and 453, requests that the court take judicial notice of the
4 following documents::
5
1. The Record of Action for this matter Case No. 30-2018-00964428-CU-PO-CJC
6
filed in the Orange County Superior Court and identified . A true and correct copy of this
7
document is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8
10 2. The Cross Complaint filed by Robert M, Dickson on behalf of Sterling Property
11 Management, Inc., dated April 23, 2019 For 1) Equitable Indemnity and 2) Declaratory Relief
12 Case #30-2019-01042858-CU-PO-CJC.A true and correct copy of which attached as Exhibit B.
13
3. Proof of Electronic Service
14
June 6, 2019 in response to Sterling Property Management, Inc. and each purported
15
cause of action thereof, on file herein , and by virtue of the provisions of California Code of
16
17 Civil Procedure Section 431.30, and the Answer to all of the allegations thereof, This Cross-
18 Defendant denies each and all of them. Case
19 #30-2019-01042858-CU-PO-CJC.A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto

20 as Exhibit C.
21
Evidence Code Section 452(d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of "[r] records
22
of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the Unit Evidence Code section
23
452( d) provides that judicial notice may be taken of "[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or
24
25 (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States." Evidence
26 Codesection 453 provides that "[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified
27 in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) [g]ives each adverse party sufficient notice of the
28
request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to
Plaintiffs Request 2For Judicial Notice

prepare to meet the request; and (b) [furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it
1
2 to take judicial notice of the matter." The operative complaint initially filed by Dongbu
3 Insurance Co., LTD. (US) and Cross Complaint filed by Robert M Dickson on behalf of
4 Sterling Property Management, Inc., and subsequent Answer filed in response by Dongbu
5
Insurance Co., are all records of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, and
6
therefore judicially noticeable under California Evidence Code § 452(d).
7
The Complaint, Cross Complaint and Answer are all relevant to this action in
8
supporting Plaintiffs s s ss s s
9
10 s ss s s ss s s
11 s Plaintiffs Bernardo Magana and Yesenia Gonzales, in support of their

12 Motion To Consolidate Cases, hereby respectfully request this Court take notice of the
13
following documents pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections §452 and §453.
14
15
Dated: July , 2019
16
17
18
19
20 The Law Office of Ryan James Smythe
21
22
23
_____________________________
24
Ryan James Smythe, Esq
25
Attorney for Plaintiffs
26
27
28
3
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
EXHIBIT
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

7
1 PETER A. LYNCH (SBN 123603)
COZEN O'CONNOR
2 501 West Broadway, Suite 1610
San Diego, CA 92101
3 Telephone: 619.234.1700
Facsimile: 619.234.7831
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5 DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH)
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10
11 DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. Case No.:

BRANCH),
12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
RICHARD HARRIS DBA VIKING 2000
15 PLUMBING; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
17
18
COMES NOW Plaintiff, DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH) (“Plaintiff”)
19
alleges upon information and belief, and subject to additional investigation and discovery as follows:
20
1. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein, was authorized to do business in the
21
state of California. Plaintiff brings this action as subrogee under a policy of property insurance issued
22
to Prison Mutiny General Partners (“Insured”).
23
2. The Insured operates the Avalon Apartments at 14382 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin,
24
California (“Subject Property”).
25
3. Defendant RICHARD HARRIS dba VIKING 2000 PLUMBING, is, and at all times
26
herein, was authorized to do business under the laws of the State of California performing
27
plumbing related work.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

LEGAL\39213632\1 16097.0001.000/433296.000
1 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued as DOES one
2 through 100 inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
3 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
4 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned
5 herein, each of the Defendants were the supervisors, agents, representatives, alter ego’s and/or
6 employees of the remaining Defendants and were at all times acting within the purpose and scope of
7 such capacities.
8 6. This is the proper court because the case arises from injuries to property, contents and
9 remediation expenses at the Subject Property. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum
10 jurisdiction of this court.
11 7. On or about January 16, 2017, while Defendants were working at the Subject Property
12 a fire happened. Defendants’ negligent actions/conduct actively created and/or increased the risk of
13 fire, caused the fire by using a torch while sweating pipes/igniting nearby combustibles.
14 8. Defendants, and each of them breached their duties of care to Plaintiff by
15 causing/concurrently causing the fire at the Subject Property.
16 9. As a direct result of the fire, the Subject Property was substantially damaged.
17 10. As a direct and concurrent legal consequence of said acts and omissions by
18 Defendants, the resulting fire damage legally caused a covered loss under Plaintiff’s policy with the
19 Insured.
20 11. An insurance claim was submitted to Plaintiff for fire and related damages.
21 Consequently, Plaintiff was obligated to pay, and did pay its Insured in excess of the jurisdictional
22 minimum of this court, under the insurance policy applicable, amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff
23 is therefore subrogated to the insured’s rights to the extent of its payment and pursues Defendants
24 pursuant to its equitable/legal right to do so. Plaintiff is pursuing its insured’s deductible as part of
25 the damages claimed pursuant to a written assignment of the $10,000 deductible.
26 12. Plaintiff has filed this action to recover losses from the Defendants.
27
28 ///
2
LEGAL\39213632\1 16097.0001.000/433296.000
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Negligence Against Defendant RICHARD HARRIS dba
3 VIKING 2000 PLUMBING and DOES 1 to 100)
4 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of this
5 complaint.
6 14. On or about January 16, 2017, Defendants were working at the Subject Property.
7 Defendants caused the fire by using a torch while sweating pipes igniting nearby combustibles.
8 Defendant’s activities caused/unreasonably spread the fire damage at the Subject Property, contents
9 and other related damages and remediation.
10 15. As a concurrent result of the negligence of Defendant, the fire loss damaged the
11 Subject Property caused resultant damage to the property, its contents, business interruption,
12 according to proof in excess jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
13 16. Pursuant to its policy of insurance with Plaintiff’s Insured, Plaintiff is legally and
14 equitably subrogated to the rights of its insured in full amount of its damages it paid, an amount to
15 be proven at trial and seeks to recover those damages from defendants.
16 PRAYER
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
18 follows:
19 1. For the amount of compensatory damages amount to be proven at trial in excess of
20 the jurisdictional minimum of this Court;
21 2. For prejudgment and post judgment interest and costs;
22 3. Further damages against Defendants, if any; and
23 4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and share.
24 DATED: January 7, 2019 COZEN O’CONNOR

25
By:
26 PETER A. LYNCH
27 DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S.
BRANCH)
28
3
LEGAL\39213632\1 16097.0001.000/433296.000
EXHIBIT B

7
04/23/2019
By Isia Vazquez, Deputy Clerk

EXHIBIT

15
PETER A. LYNCH (SBN 123603)
COZEN O'CONNOR
501 West Broadway, Suite 1610
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.234.1700
Facsimile: 619.234.7831
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant

DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. Case No.: 30-2019-01042858-CU-PO-CJC

BRANCH),
DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD.
Plaintiff, (U.S. BRANCH)’S ANSWER TO
STERLING PROPERTY
v. MANAGEMENT, INC.’S CROSS-
COMPLAINT
RICHARD HARRIS DBA VIKING 2000
PLUMBING; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
STERLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
Cross-Complainant,
v.
DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S.

BRANCH); RICHARD HARRIS DBA VIKING
2000 PLUMBING; and ROES 1 TO 20, inclusive,
Cross-Defendant.
COMES NOW Cross-Defendant, DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH)
("Cross-Defendant"), in Answer to the unverified Cross-Complaint by Cross-Complainant
STERLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. ("Cross-Complainant"), and each purported
cause of action thereof, on file herein, and by virtue of the provisions of California Code of Civil

16
Procedure section 431.30, and now files its general denial to said unverified Cross-Complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, and in Answer to all of the allegations thereof, this Cross-Defendant
denies each and all of them.
Cross-Defendant further specifically denies that Cross-Complainant has been injured or
damaged as a result of any act or omission on the part of this Answering Cross-Defendant.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said Cross-Complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this
Answering Cross-Defendant.
2. AS A SECOND. SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant was itself
careless, negligent and responsible in and about the matters alleged in the Cross-Complaint, and
that said carelessness, negligence and responsibility on Cross-Complainant's own part proximately
contributed to or caused the happening of the loss and damages complained of, if any there were,
and that Cross-Complainant's contributory negligence shall reduce any and all damages sustained
by Cross-Complainant.
3. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said damages sustained by
Cross-Complainant were either fully or in part the fault of others, whether that fault by the
proximate-result of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract, or any other
type of fault caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this answering Cross-
Defendant, and that said negligence or fault comparatively reduces the percentage of fault or
negligence, if any, by this answering Cross-Defendant.

17
4. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that said
Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the statute of limitations stated in
Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with Section 335,
and continuing through Section 349.4 and, more particularly, but not limited to, Sections 337,
337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340 and 343.
5. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said Cross-Complaint contains
a defect in the parties whereby certain Cross-Complainants lack capacity to sue for those claims set
forth therein.
6. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said Cross-Complaint arises
from a misjoinder of named parties whereby certain Cross-Complainants lack capacity to sue for
those claims set forth therein. Such misjoinder will result in prejudice to Cross-Defendant.
7. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that certain Cross-Complainants are
not the real parties in interest, and lack standing to bring the claims set forth therein.
8. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant has failed
to comply with California Civil Code Sections 910 et seq. and Cross-Complainant' claims are
barred accordingly.

18
9. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the claims set forth in the
Cross-Complaint are barred by the principals of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
10. AS AN TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that an accord and satisfaction has
occurred in that Cross-Defendant paid specific sums or other consideration in settlement and
payment, which was accepted in full and final satisfaction of any and all liability, known or
unknown, at the time that Cross-Complainant accepted those payments.
11. AS A ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant voluntarily
and knowingly entered into and engaged in the conduct alleged in said Cross-Complaint and
voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said conduct at the time and place
mentioned in the Cross-Complaint.
12. AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant is estopped
from bringing this action because it previously elected another remedy and cannot maintain the
present action, including, but not limited to, failing to join previous lawsuits of which Cross-
Complainant had actual or constructive notice.
13. AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant failed to
exercise ordinary care to mitigate Cross-Complainant's claimed damages.

19
14. AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant failed to
give timely notice of any alleged breach of warranty.
15. AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that anything received by Cross-
Complainant fully conformed to any alleged warranties or representations made by Cross-
Defendant.
16. AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that any statements made by this
answering Cross-Defendant was merely affirmations of the value and/or statements solely
purporting to be Cross-Defendant's opinions or commendations.
17. AS AN SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the provisions of the "Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986" (commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil Code Sections 1430, 1431,
1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432) are applicable to this action to the extent that
Cross-Complainant' injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the
carelessness, negligence or fault of persons or entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant.
18. AS A EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each
cause of action thereof is barred by the following provisions of the California Commercial Code
sections 1201(25)(c); 2601, 2513(1), (3); 2510(1); 2605(l)(a), (b); 2602(1), (2)(a), (b); 2607,
2715(2)(a) and 2719(3).

20
19. AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant and/or
persons, firms, corporation or entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant, misused, abused,
failed to use said product or materials for the purpose for which said product or materials were
intended, modified and/or altered the product and/or materials causing the alleged damages and
therefore barring recovery.
20. AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant has
unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the prejudice of this Cross-Defendant and this action
is therefore barred by reason of the doctrine of laches.
21. AS A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that should Cross-Complainant
recover from this answering Cross-Defendant, this Cross-Defendant is entitled to indemnification,
either in whole or in part, from all persons or entities whose negligence, responsibility or fault
proximately caused or contributed to Cross-Complainant's damages, if any.
22. AS A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
THE UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE
OF ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant had
directed, ordered, approved and ratified Cross-Defendant's conduct and Cross-Complainant is barred
from asserting any claim based thereon.
23. AS A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that prior to the commencement of
this action, this answering Cross-Defendant duly performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and

21
obligations it may have owed arising out of any and all agreements, presentations or contracts made
with Cross-Complainant and that this action is therefore barred by reason of California Civil Code
section 1473.
24. AS A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
OF ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint is
barred by reason of waiver, estoppel, release, acquiescence, and accord and satisfaction.
25. AS A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each
and every cause of action thereof is barred as to this answering Cross-Defendant by reason of
California Civil Code sections 1473 through 1476 and 1624 and each and every subsection thereof.
26. AS A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant has failed to
meet and perform all necessary covenants, conditions and promises required of Cross-Complainant
to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the alleged contract.
27. AS A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
OF ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant, either
intentionally or negligently, failed to preserve the primary evidence relevant to this litigation, thus
failing to afford this answering Cross-Defendant an opportunity to inspect such evidence, thereby
severely prejudicing Cross-Defendant. Cross-Complainant is therefore barred from introducing
secondary or lesser evidence, and any recovery should be diminished accordingly.
28. AS A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

22
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that at all relevant times Cross-
Defendant conformed its workmanship to the applicable standard of care.
29. AS A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant has not and
is not conferred standing to prosecute the claims herein.
30. AS A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
ACTION THEREOF, this Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainant is barred
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of the California
Supreme Court's decision in Aas v. Superior Court.
31. AS A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of Section V
Maintenance, Repairs and Operations in Sterling Property Management, Inc. Management
Agreement.
32. AS A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of Section VII Insurance
in Sterling Property Management, Inc. Management Agreement.
33. AS A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of Section XIV

23
Additional Duties and Rights of Sterling Property Management in Sterling Property Management,
Inc. Management Agreement.
34. AS A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of Section XXIX
Arbitration in Sterling Property Management, Inc. Management Agreement.
35. AS A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
from recovering damages against this answering Cross-Defendant by virtue of Section XXX
Attorney’s Fees in Sterling Property Management, Inc. Management Agreement.
WHEREFORE Cross-Defendant prays that:
1. Cross-Complainant take nothing by way of their Cross-Complaint;
2. This answering Cross-Defendant be awarded its costs of suit incurred herein;
3. That judgment be entered for this answering Cross-Defendant; and for such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: June 4, 2019 COZEN O’CONNOR
By:
PETER A. LYNCH
DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S.
BRANCH)

24
Dongbu Insurance Co., LTD. (U.S. Branch) v. Richard Harris dba Viking 2000 Plumbing, et al.;
Orange County Superior Case No. 30-2019-01042858
PROOF OF SERVICE
At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address
is 501 West Broadway, Suite 1610, San Diego, California 92101. On the date indicated below, I
served the following document(s):
DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH)’S ANSWER TO STERLING

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
I served the documents on the persons listed on the attached Service List. The documents were
served by the following means:
By Personal Service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses
listed on the attached Service List. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to
the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly
labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the
office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s
residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning
and six in the evening.
By United States Mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the persons at the addresses on the attached Service List and placed the envelope for collection
and mailing, 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. I am a resident
or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the
mail at San Diego, California.
By Overnight Delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed on the attached Service List. 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.
By Messenger Service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package
addressed to the persons at the addresses listed on the attached Service List and providing them to a
professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this
Proof of Service.)
By Fax Transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed on the attached Service
List. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax
transmission, which I printed out, is attached to the original Proof of Service.
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 on the attached Service List. I did not receive, within a
reasonable time after the transmission, and 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 at San Diego, California on June 4, 2019.
________________________________________
Nelia Ferreira

25
Dongbu Insurance Co., LTD. (U.S. Branch) v. Richard Harris dba Viking 2000 Plumbing, et al.;
Orange County Superior Case No. 30-2019-01042858
SERVICE LIST
COUNSEL OF RECORD TELEPHONE/ PARTY

FAX NOS.
Mark A. Nialis, Esq. Tel: 714-634-8001 Attorney for
NIALIS LAW GROUPT, Fax: 714-634-3869 Defendant/Cross-
APLC Email: mnialis@nialislaw.com Complainant
500 North State College Blvd., RICHARD HARRIS
Ste. 1200 dba VIKING 2000
Orange, CA 92868 PLUMBING
Robert M. Dickson, Esq. Tel: 714-619-7076 Attorney for Cross-
Dickson & Dickson Fax: 714-444-3901 Defendant
3151 Airway Avenue, Building Email: STERLING
S bdickson@dicksonanddickson.com PROPERTY
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 MANAGEMENT, INC.
Justin P. Dixon, Esq. Tel: 562-946-3737 Attorney for Cross-

Dixon & Daley, LLP Fax: 562-946-3779 Defendant
10330 Pioneer Blvd., Suite 210 Email: justin@dixondaleylaw.com MICHAEL VINCENT
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 CALLAHAN and
MISSION DRAIN
PROS
Ryan J. Smyth, Esq. Tel: 949.310.3298 Attorney for Plaintiff
THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN Fax: 619.375.3161 BERNARDO
JAMES SMYTHE Email: ryan@smithelaw.com MAGANA and
P.O. Box 3970 YESENIA GONZALES
San Diego, CA 92163 (Attorney in Related
Case)
Edward Seo, Esq. Attorney in Related
Timothy Windham, Esq. Case
Joseph Yoon, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
LEGAL\40152709\1

26
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

3 I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. My electronic
4
service address is Ryan@Smythelaw.com. My business address is PO Box 3970, San Diego, CA
5 92163.
6 On, July , 2019 Served PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

on the following persons at the following addresses:
7
8 Edward Seo & Craig Dunkin Robert Dickson

joseph.yoon@lewisbrisbois.com Bdickson@dicksonanddickson.com
9 Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP S
s S S s s
10 s s T: (714) 619-7076
T: (213) 250-1800 F: (714) 546-7457
11 F: (213) 250-7800 Attorneys for Defendants,
12 Attorneys for Defendants, CAPITALVEST, INC.,
STERLING PROPERTY STERLING PROPERTY
13 MANAGEMENT, INC., & PRISON MANAGEMENT, & PRISON
MUTINY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP MUTINY GENERAL
14 PARTNRESHIP
15 BY EMAIL: By E-Mail or Electronic Transmission. Based on a court order or an
16 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 on the attached
17 Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, and
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
18
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing to be hand delivered, a true copy thereof to
19
the person addressed below
20
21 BY FACSIMILE: by telecopying a true copy thereof to the party at the facsimile

number as set forth above.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23
foregoing is true and correct.
24
Executed on July , 2019 at , San Diego, California.
25
26
_____________________________
27
Ryan Smythe
28
1
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Request For Judicial Notice - The Law Office of Ryan James Smythe

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Request For Judicial Notice - The Law Office of Ryan James Smythe

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 Ryan James Smythe (SBN #310247)

Law Office of Ryan James Smythe

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

10 BERNARDO MAGANA, Case No. 30-2018-00964428-CU-PO-CJC

10 2. The Cross Complaint filed by Robert M, Dickson on behalf of Sterling Property

18 Defendant denies each and all of them. Case

19 #30-2019-01042858-CU-PO-CJC.A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto

Plaintiffs Request 2For Judicial Notice

11 s Plaintiffs Bernardo Magana and Yesenia Gonzales, in support of their

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

11 DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 jurisdiction of this court.

14 8. Defendants, and each of them breached their duties of care to Plaintiff by

15 causing/concurrently causing the fire at the Subject Property.

25 the damages claimed pursuant to a written assignment of the $10,000 deductible.

2 (Negligence Against Defendant RICHARD HARRIS dba

3 VIKING 2000 PLUMBING and DOES 1 to 100)

4 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of this

9 and other related damages and remediation.

12 according to proof in excess jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

15 be proven at trial and seeks to recover those damages from defendants.

19 1. For the amount of compensatory damages amount to be proven at trial in excess of

20 the jurisdictional minimum of this Court;

21 2. For prejudgment and post judgment interest and costs;

22 3. Further damages against Defendants, if any; and

24 DATED: January 7, 2019 COZEN O’CONNOR

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

By Isia Vazquez, Deputy Clerk

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. Case No.: 30-2019-01042858-CU-PO-CJC

STERLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S.

COMES NOW Cross-Defendant, DONGBU INSURANCE CO., LTD. (U.S. BRANCH)

("Cross-Defendant"), in Answer to the unverified Cross-Complaint by Cross-Complainant

STERLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. ("Cross-Complainant"), and each purported

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

denies each and all of them.

Cross-Defendant further specifically denies that Cross-Complainant has been injured or

1. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

2. AS A SECOND. SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

3. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

negligence, if any, by this answering Cross-Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340 and 343.

5. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

6. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

7. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

8. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE

UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLOLIDATE CASES