LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Filing
154
REPLY MOTION to Supplement Factual Record in Opposition to Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated's Motion for Summary Judgment 143 filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Fred D. Heather)(Heather, Fred)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668
pglaser@glaserweil.com
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
fheather@glaserweil.com
AARON P. ALLAN - State Bar No. 144406
aallan@glaserweil.com
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3000
Facsimile: (310) 556-2920
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
16
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
17
18
19
20
21
Defendant.
CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
REDACTED REPLY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
FACTUAL RECORD
Date:
October 27, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740
Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REDACTED REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL
RECORD
946449
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
Page
3
I.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
4
II.
5
THE
SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE COMPETING EXPERT
REPORTS AS PART OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RECORD ......... 2
6
A.
The Subject Documents Are Plainly Material to the Issues Being
Considered on Summary Judgment. ..................................................... 2
B.
The
C.
The Relative Size and Number of Participants in the
Did Not Provide a Basis For Rocket Lawyer to Conceal
Them. .................................................................................................... 5
D.
The
Are Not Refuted by the “
” Which
Rocket Lawyer Provides With its Opposition. ..................................... 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
III.
13
14
15
are Not Hearsay. .................................................. 3
ROCKET LAWYER’S ARGUMENT THAT LEGALZOOM
UNFAIRLY DELAYED IN BRINGING THIS MOTION IS WITHOUT
MERIT AND HAS ALREADY BEEN LARGELY REJECTED BY
THE COURT ................................................................................................... 7
A.
The Court’s October 1, 2014, Order Confirmed that LegalZoom
Acted Reasonably Promptly In Seeking Relief. ................................... 7
17
B.
LegalZoom Did Not Delay In Taking Depositions .............................. 8
18
C.
Allegations of LegalZoom’s Discovery Misconduct are Irrelevant. .... 9
19
D.
Rocket Lawyer Should be Compelled to Produce the Subject
. ...................................................................... 10
16
20
IV.
CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED REMEDY ......................................... 10
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
REDACTED REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL
RECORD
946449
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
Page
FEDERAL CASES
4
5
6
7
8
9
Block v. City of Los Angeles,
253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001)....................................................................... 4
Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank,
867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 8
Stucky v. Dep’t of Educ.,
337 F. App’x 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 8
10
William H. Morris Co. v. Grp. W, Inc.,
66 F.3d 255, 258 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 3, 4, 6
11
FEDERAL STATUTES
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 801(d)(D) .............................................................................................. 3
13
Fed. R. Evid. 602 ........................................................................................................... 5
14
Fed. R. Evid. 612 ........................................................................................................... 5
15
Fed. R. Evid. 803(5) ...................................................................................................... 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
2
To quote Shakespeare, Rocket Lawyer “doth protest too much.”
3
While arguing vehemently that the subject
, and related emails which it concealed from the Court are “not
4
5
material” and do not create any triable issue of fact, Rocket Lawyer persists in
6
seeking to keep those documents from being considered fully and fairly as part of the
7
summary judgment record. Why? If the documents are so immaterial, what does
8
Rocket Lawyer have to fear? The reason became clear during depositions of Rocket
9
Lawyer witnesses that were taken just a few days before the filing of this reply brief.
10
The materiality of these documents was ratified by the testimony of Rocket Lawyer’s
11
CEO and founder, totally impeaching Rocket Lawyer’s efforts to marginalize them.
12
Moreover these hidden documents were just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to
13
other internal Rocket Lawyer
14
discovery, LegalZoom has now learned in depositions that there were also
that Rocket Lawyer viewed and considered along with
15
16
which were not produced in
. Declaration of Fred Heather (“Heather Decl.”), Exh. A. These documents
17
concealed by Rocket Lawyer, which even now Rocket Lawyer is refusing to produce,
18
have the potential to provide dramatic evidence of Rocket Lawyer’s knowing and
19
intentional deception of consumers (by deciding to continue to run its “free”
20
advertisements after being confronted with such
21
).
As the Court recently recognized in granting LegalZoom’s ex parte application
22
to hear this motion together with the cross motions for summary judgment, there has
23
been no unfair delay by LegalZoom in pursuing this motion. Nor will Rocket Lawyer
24
be prejudiced in any way by the Court’s consideration of these documents, which
25
were requested in discovery over a year ago. Rocket Lawyer’s decision to bury some
26
of these
27
of the summary judgment motions, and to withhold others altogether, should not be
28
rewarded. Rocket Lawyer should be forced to make its materiality and other
in a last minute “document dump” made in connection with the filing
1
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
arguments about these documents in addressing the summary judgment record, and
2
not in a baseless effort to continue its sanctionable attempt to conceal them.
Rocket Lawyer’s opposition, which is replete with irrelevant complaints about
3
4
LegalZoom’s discovery conduct which are not properly before the Court, is simply
5
the fruit of the poisonous tree that began with Rocket Lawyer’s initial attempt to hide
6
these dramatic documents, and which continues with Rocket Lawyer’s baseless effort
7
to prevent the Court from considering them. Rocket Lawyer’s attempt to tilt the
8
playing field by keeping these documents out of the record should be rejected.
9
II.
THE
SHOULD BE
10
CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE COMPETING EXPERT REPORTS
11
AS PART OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RECORD
12
A.
The Subject Documents Are Plainly Material to the Issues Being
Considered on Summary Judgment.
13
14
These
15
16
Given that the principal issue being
17
18
addressed in connection with Rocket Lawyer’s motion for summary judgment, and
19
which is disputed by the competing experts, is whether consumers were deceived by
20
Rocket Lawyer’s free advertisements, it is hard to imagine evidence which is more
21
probative of that issue.
22
23
Moreover, in recent depositions of Rocket Lawyer personnel, the materiality of
this evidence was dramatically confirmed. Rocket Lawyer’s CEO Charles Moore,
24
testified to the following in connection with these
25
:
26
27
28
2
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In addition, Rocket Lawyer’s former vice president, Alisa Weiner,
, testified
8
. Heather Decl.
9
10
Exh. B, Weiner Depo. at 71:21-22. The fact that Rocket Lawyer had these
11
conclusions in hand, and yet continued to run its “free” advertisements is incredibly
12
probative of an intent to deceive consumers. William H. Morris Co. v. Grp. W, Inc.,
13
66 F.3d 255, 258 (9th Cir. 1995) (“If Omicron intentionally misled consumers, we
14
would presume consumers were in fact deceived and Omicron would have the burden
15
of demonstrating otherwise.”).
The
are Not Hearsay.
16
B.
17
Rocket Lawyer protests that the
are inadmissible hearsay
18
because they are statements of a consultant summarizing statements of a handful of
19
consumers. Opp. at 9:4-5. Rocket Lawyer’s objection is without merit.
First, because
20
were commissioned by Rocket Lawyer
21
and performed by its agent, the statements made are party admissions and are
22
therefore excepted from the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 801(d)(D) (“a statement by
23
the party’s agent or servant about a matter within the scope of agency or employment,
24
made during the existence of the relationship”).
Second, all of the
25
26
, including
, are no more hearsay than
the paid expert study upon which Rocket Lawyer places its reliance.1
27
28
1
In opposing Rocket Lawyer’s motion for summary judgment, LegalZoom argued
that Dr. Wind’s expert report, upon which Rocket Lawyer relied, was hearsay because
3
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
Third, the
1
are not offered to prove the truth of any matter asserted. It
2
does not matter whether each of the individual
was actually
3
deceived, or whether each actually felt deceived, about the Rocket Lawyer “free”
4
advertisements. It is the participants’ perception of the advertisements which matters,
5
and the evidence is offered to show that the advertisements have at least a tendency to
6
mislead or deceive. Moreover, these
7
significant purpose separate and apart from a demonstration that the advertisements
8
were actually deceptive or misleading: the fact that Rocket Lawyer was informed by
may be offered for another
and yet
9
10
Rocket Lawyer continued to run the advertisements after being armed with that
11
knowledge, goes to the issue of whether Rocket Lawyer had an intent to deceive,
12
which creates a presumption of actual deception under the Lanham Act. William H.
13
Morris, 66 F.3d at 258.
Fourth, these documents can be used to impeach Rocket Lawyer witnesses
14
15
about the intent to deceive consumers and Rocket Lawyer’s knowledge of the
16
potential to deceive, which presents another fair and appropriate use for these
17
documents both on summary judgment and at trial.
Finally, in addition to the foregoing, courts do not focus on the admissibility of
18
19
the evidence’s form at the summary judgment stage, but instead focus on the
20
admissibility of its contents. Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th
21
Cir. 2001) (“To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to
22
produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party
23
satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.”). The contents of
24
the
25
ways.
can therefore be admitted into evidence at trial in a variety of
could testify to all relevant portions of their
26
27
28
the report was simply attached to an attorney declaration and was not a sworn
statement made by Dr. Wind under penalty of perjury. That objection is different
than the one now being made by Rocket Lawyer as to the survey respondents.
4
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
from their personal knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 602. If
2
forget about certain content within their reports, they may be able to
3
use their respective
4
reports fail to refresh their recollection,
5
able to read the reports into evidence as a recorded recollection under Fed. R. Evid.
6
803(5).
7
8
9
C.
to refresh their recollection. Fed. R. Evid. 612. If the
may still be
The Relative Size and Number of Participants in the
Did Not Provide a Basis For Rocket Lawyer to Conceal Them.
Rocket Lawyer argues that its
,
10
11
‘substantial portion’ of consumers have been deceived as required by the Court.”
12
Opp. at 9:13-16. For this reason, Rocket Lawyer argues that its survey, which it
13
claims relies upon 400 respondents, abides by the Court’s instructions and more fairly
14
demonstrates whether consumers were deceived by the advertisements. See ECF No.
15
129 at 1-2. Rocket Lawyer’s argument is self-defeating.
16
As LegalZoom pointed out in its opposition to Rocket Lawyer’s motion for
17
summary judgment, Dr. Wind’s survey eliminates from consideration the vast
18
majority of the original 400 respondents, and ultimately attempts to draw conclusions
19
based on the responses of 13 respondents in a test group as compared to 15
20
respondents in a control group. For that reason, there is nothing about the size of the
21
responses evaluated in
22
which suffers in comparison from the responses evaluated by Dr. Wind. But in
23
any event, this is exactly the type of argument that Rocket Lawyer could have made,
24
and should have made, as part of the briefing on summary judgment after full
25
disclosure of the
26
to LegalZoom and to the Court.
Moreover, as confirmed by recent depositions of Rocket Lawyer witnesses,
27
28
5
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
Heather Decl., Exh. A at 41, 45:3-9.
2
3
Id. LegalZoom should be permitted to
4
5
discover all remaining
6
Rocket Lawyer witnesses regarding the nature and results of these
7
documents further show that Rocket Lawyer continued to run its “free”
8
advertisements with the intent of deceiving consumers, then this should shift the
9
burden of proof on the issue of deception for purposes of LegalZoom’s false
10
11
12
13
, and further depose
. If these
advertising claim. William H. Morris Co., supra, 66 F.3d at 258.
D.
The
Are Not Refuted by the “
” Which Rocket
Lawyer Provides With its Opposition.
Rocket Lawyer argues that LegalZoom failed to produce the
and that such
14
15
undermine the findings of
16
either contradict or
about the advertisements being deceptive.
Rocket Lawyer is mistaken. For example,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
communicated by her to Rocket Lawyer, have independent significance, and can be
6
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
used as evidence supporting an intent to deceive regardless of whether some elements
2
of
fail to provide complete support for those conclusions.
Rocket Lawyer’s argument about the
3
also lacks appropriate evidentiary
4
support. Rocket Lawyer’s counsel, Michael T. Jones, states in a declaration that his
5
attached Exhibit 1 provides a “
beginning Bates
6
7
Number RLI0039820 and produced to LegalZoom on July 11, 2014,” but Rocket
8
Lawyer has failed to produce a declaration of
were taken as part of her
9
confirming that these
and/or confirming the interpretation of those
offered by Rocket Lawyer’s counsel. Mr. Jones also failed to provide any facts
10
11
in his declaration which substantiates his personal knowledge as to who is the author
12
of the
13
should have been made as part of the summary judgment record, and not as an
14
argument for withholding evidence from the Court.
or how they should be interpreted. This is yet again an argument that
LegalZoom never misrepresented the information contained within the internal
15
16
study, and merely offered direct quotes authored by
which were
17
communicated to Rocket Lawyer. LegalZoom did not offer the
18
because LegalZoom had no ability to determine who authored those
19
Jones’ declaration states that these
. While Mr.
completely void of authorship and cannot be viewed as
20
21
self-authenticating.
22
III.
ROCKET LAWYER’S ARGUMENT THAT LEGALZOOM UNFAIRLY
23
DELAYED IN BRINGING THIS MOTION IS WITHOUT MERIT AND
24
HAS ALREADY BEEN LARGELY REJECTED BY THE COURT
25
A.
26
27
28
The Court’s October 1, 2014, Order Confirmed that LegalZoom
Acted Reasonably Promptly In Seeking Relief.
Rocket Lawyer makes several arguments that LegalZoom waited too long
before bringing this motion, and that LegalZoom has no excuse for having failed to
7
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
move earlier to supplement the record. These arguments were largely mooted by the
2
Court’s recent ruling (ECF No. 131), which granted LegalZoom’s ex parte application
3
to move the hearing date on the competing summary judgment motions to October 27,
4
2014, to be heard along with this Rule 11 motion and LegalZoom’s motion to
5
supplement the record. In ECF No. 131, the Court ruled that “Legal Zoom has
6
provided an adequate explanation for the delay in making this application” and that
7
“the record suggests that Rocket Lawyer intentionally dragged its feet over a year in
8
producing documents long after the pertinent documents have been requested.” The
9
Court further recognized that “this essentially misled Legal Zoom regarding the
10
presence of useful information in Rocket Lawyer’s belated productions. It appears
11
that the late production contains information that is not just relevant and may have a
12
significant bearing on the Court’s resolution of the pending motions.” Rocket
13
Lawyer’s other “delay” arguments are equally unavailing and are addressed below.
LegalZoom Did Not Delay In Taking Depositions
14
B.
15
Rocket Lawyer argues that LegalZoom’s agreement to take certain depositions
16
after the original summary judgment hearing date shows that the proffered testimony
17
of Alisa Weiner should be excluded from the summary judgment record. Rocket
18
Lawyer cites to Stucky v. Dep’t of Educ., 337 F. App’x 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2009) and
19
Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) for the proposition
20
that LegalZoom should be precluded from using deposition testimony because
21
LegalZoom’s alleged lack of diligence in pursuing depositions earlier. Rocket
22
Lawyer’s argument is yet another attempt to shirk its responsibility to be completely
23
forthcoming in presenting its summary judgment arguments and evidence to the
24
Court.
25
Rocket Lawyer filed its motion for summary judgment on June 30, 2014,
26
without revealing the
which conflicted with Dr. Wind’s opinions.
27
Upon receiving that motion, and seeing that the arguments made in the motion were
28
centered around Dr. Wind’s survey, LegalZoom promptly took the deposition of Dr.
8
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
Wind on July 15, 2014, well before the discovery cut-off and with adequate time to
2
use the testimony in support of its opposition. If Rocket Lawyer had fairly disclosed
3
its
4
which was not buried in a 15,000 document “dump” made during the briefing on the
5
cross motions, then LegalZoom would obviously have sought earlier depositions to
6
examine several witnesses about those
, by a reference in its summary judgment motion or by a production
, and other Rocket Lawyer witnesses
7
8
including Ms. Weiner, all with an eye toward using that testimony in opposition to
9
Rocket Lawyer’s summary judgment motion. Instead, as a result of Rocket Lawyer’s
10
calculated attempt to conceal this probative and obviously harmful evidence,
11
LegalZoom was deprived of that ability. For Rocket Lawyer to now complain that
12
LegalZoom “agreed” that all depositions would be taken after the summary judgment
13
hearing, and that deposition testimony should not be available to oppose Rocket
14
Lawyer’s motion, is therefore simply outrageous. If LegalZoom had known about
15
these concealed documents, as it knew about Dr. Wind (who it timely deposed before
16
opposing the motion), depositions in addition to Dr. Wind’s deposition would have
17
been taken to address them.
Allegations of LegalZoom’s Discovery Misconduct are Irrelevant.
18
C.
19
Rocket Lawyer’s ad hominem attacks on LegalZoom’s trial counsel are
20
completely irrelevant to the issue at hand which is whether these
21
should be considered by the Court in connection with the pending motions for
22
summary judgment. Similarly lacking in relevance are Rocket Lawyer’s vague and
23
unsupported allegations of LegalZoom’s alleged wrongful conduct in discovery,
24
including allegations that LegalZoom delayed in its productions, produced a
25
“meager” amount of documents, and obstructed Rocket Lawyer’s ability to take
26
deposition testimony. If Rocket Lawyer had serious concerns about these issues, it
27
was incumbent upon Rocket Lawyer to first meet and confer and then, if necessary, to
28
bring a motion to compel. In light of the aggressiveness with which Rocket Lawyer
9
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
has litigated this action, its decision not to pursue such a motion should speak
2
volumes to the Court, and LegalZoom vehemently disagrees with the characterization
3
of its discovery conduct in Rocket Lawyer’s opposition and in the Declaration of
4
Michael T. Jones.
D.
5
Rocket Lawyer Should be Compelled to Produce the Subject
.
6
During the deposition of Pete Franco, Rocket Lawyer’s counsel
7
8
. Heather Decl., Exh. C, Franco Depo. at 127-28. Despite that
9
10
agreement, Rocket Lawyer’s counsel subsequently sent a letter taking the position
11
that Rocket Lawyer is refusing to produce those
12
documents productions. Id. at Exh. D. LegalZoom responded to that letter by
13
pointing out the failure of Rocket Lawyer to ever demand such documents prior to the
14
expiration of the discovery cut off. Id. at Exh. E. LegalZoom respectfully requests
15
that the Court compel Rocket Lawyer to adhere to
and refusing to supplement its
16
17
18
IV.
CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED REMEDY
Rocket Lawyer’s knowingly false statements made in support of its summary
19
judgment motion, that there is a pristine and undisputed record that its advertisements
20
are not deceptive, are contradicted by its
21
These documents are plainly material to the issue of whether Rocket Lawyer
22
knowingly acted to deceive consumers. As the Court recently recognized,
23
LegalZoom appropriately acted to meet and confer after being unfairly compromised
24
by Rocket Lawyer’s last minute document dump, so there was no unfair delay by
25
LegalZoom in bringing this motion. Accordingly, the motion to supplement should
26
be granted, and these documents should be considered by the Court and argued by the
27
parties as part of the record on summary judgment.
28
.
In addition, recent depositions have disclosed
10
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
2
) that Rocket Lawyer not only concealed from the summary judgment
3
record, but also withheld from discovery. Without the opportunity to view these
4
documents and present them to the jury, and without the opportunity to fully and
5
fairly address these additional documents in deposition discovery, LegalZoom would
6
be irreparably harmed and denied a fair trial. For that reason, LegalZoom respectfully
7
requests a further continuance of the summary judgment hearing date and the trial
8
date in order to permit the production of these
9
expert witness the opportunity to review the documents and supplement his opinion
, to permit its
10
and report, and to take appropriate discovery concerning those documents. While
11
LegalZoom loathes having to request a further delay in these proceedings, Rocket
12
Lawyer has forced the issue by concealing this highly probative evidence.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DATED: _October 13, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
By: /s/ Fred Heather
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD
946449
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
On October 13, 2014, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the
CM/ECF system.
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL
RECORD
11
12
13
14
Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
CM/ECF system.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
15
whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
16
above is true and correct.
17
Executed on October 13, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
946449
/s/ Fred D. Heather
Fred D. Heather
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?