LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 69

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc. Motion set for hearing on 8/18/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge Gary A. Feess. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law, # 2 Declaration of Travis Gigi, # 3 Declaration of Dorian Quispe, # 4 Declaration of Aaron Allan, # 5 Appendix of Exhibits, # 6 Proposed Order)(Heather, Fred)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668
[e-mail]
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
[e-mail]
AARON P. ALLAN - State Bar No. 144406
[e-mail]
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
[L.R. 56-1]
Date:
August 18, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740
[Notice of Motion and Motion;
Declarations of Aaron P. Allan, Dorian
Quispe, Travis Giggy; Appendix of
Exhibits; (Proposed) Order filed
concurrently herewith]

24

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012
25
26
27
28
1
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
891644

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule

1
2

56-1 of this Court, Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby submits the

3

following proposed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law in

4

support of its motion for summary judgment:

5

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

6

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

7
8

1.

Legalspring.com is a website that

9

was formerly owned, operated and

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
Declaration of Travis Giggy (“Giggy
Decl.”) ¶ 3.

10

moderated by Travis Giggy.

11

2.

12

LegalZoom.

13

3.

14

March 1, 2013, the Legalspring.com

15

website is now owned by Inenvi, Inc.

16

4.

17

“opinion” about various online providers

Decl.), ¶ 2, Ex. C (Exhibit 15 to Rocket

18

as well as the posting of third party

Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

19

customer reviews, and this content is

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17) and ¶ 3, Ex.

20

selected and published exclusively by

D (customer reviews of LegalZoom from

21

Legalspring.com.

Legalspring.com); Declaration of Dorian

Mr. Giggy is a former employee of

Based on a sale which took place

Legalspring.com includes an

Giggy Decl. ¶ 2.

Giggy Decl. ¶ 3.

Declaration of Aaron P. Allan (“Allan

22

Quispe (“Quispe Decl.”) ¶ 4; Giggy Decl.

23

¶¶ 5-6, Ex. A (various Legalspring.com

24

webpages).

25

5.

26

the reviews on Legalspring.com, and has

27

no responsibility for the reviews which

28

are actually posted.

LegalZoom has not authored any of Quispe Decl. ¶ 4.

2
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

1
2

6.

The current relationship between

3

Legalspring.com and LegalZoom is that

4

of affiliate and client.

5

7.

6

LegalZoom’s web site as a result of

7

having first visited Legalspring.com,

8

LegalZoom has provided compensation to

9

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

Legalspring.com.

To the extent that consumers visit

10

8.

11

for any products sold by LegalZoom as a

13

result of a consumer first visiting

14

Legalspring.com., that relationship

15

terminated as of March 2013.

16

9.

17

Legalspring.com is expressed as matters

18

of opinion – not facts.

19

10.

20

Legalspring.com, e.g., that the reviewer

21

and his family members have used

22

LegalZoom, and that the site moderator

23

has been running the review site for many

24

years, are not being challenged by Rocket

25

Lawyer as being either false or

26

misleading.

27

11.

28

Legalspring.com for which LegalZoom

Quispe Decl. ¶ 5; Giggy Decl. ¶ 8.

received compensation from LegalZoom

12

Quispe Decl. ¶ 3.

While Mr. Giggy, at one time,

All of the content at

Statements of fact provided by

The only content on

Quispe Decl. ¶ 6; Giggy Decl. ¶ 8.

Allan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

Rocket Lawyer’s Answer and Amended
Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

Quispe Decl. ¶ 8; Giggy Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.

3
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

1
2

provided any authorship is the disclaimer

3

which appears at the bottom of the first

4

web page which states: “The moderator

5

of this Site has affiliate relationships with

6

third party sites reviewed on this Site.”

7

12.

8

Legalspring.com suggesting that

9

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

Legalspring.com has no relationship with

There is no language at

10

the online providers being reviewed.

11

13.

12

market research or consumer surveys to

13

establish that consumers are being misled

14

by Legalspring.com into believing that

15

“all” online providers are being reviewed

16

by a “neutral” reviewer.

17

14.

18

Legalspring.com that the reviews being

19

provided are either objective or “neutral,”

20

as alleged by Rocket Lawyer.

21

15.

22

merely provides “opinions” and

23

“reviews” by the site moderator and by

24

actual customers.

25

16.

26

LegalZoom at Legalspring.com are very

27

positive, several of them are not.

28

17.

Allan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

891644

Rocket Lawyer has produced no

There is no representation made at

The Legalspring.com website

While many of the reviews of

Rocket Lawyer has made no

Allan Decl., ¶ 5.

Allan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

Allan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C and ¶ 3, Ex. D; ;
Giggy Decl. ¶ 5 and ¶ 6, Ex. A.

Giggy Decl. ¶ 7; Allan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. D.

Rocket Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

4
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

1
2

allegation, and has no evidence, that any

3

of these posted customer reviews are not

4

genuine.

5

18.

6

Legalspring.com which suggests that “all”

7

online providers are being reviewed; to

8

the contrary, the website states “only the

9

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

best online legal service providers are

There is no statement at

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

Allan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

10

reviewed.”

11

19.

12

advertisements which do not mention its

13

competitors, but that does not make the

14

advertisements either false or misleading.

15

20.

16

for its third affirmative defense of unclean Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

17

hands: (1) that LegalZoom bids on

18

keywords to place its own advertisements

19

in searches for Rocket Lawyer; (2) that

20

LegalZoom uses the word “free” in a

21

manner similar to how Rocket Lawyer

22

uses the term in its advertisements; and

23

(3) that LegalZoom uses Legalspring.com

24

to falsely advertise.

Rocket Lawyer has its own

Rocket Lawyer alleges three bases

Allan Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. E.

Rocket Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

25
26
27
28
5
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
891644

1

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2
3

Summary Judgment

4

1.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a party may move for

5

summary judgment on some or all of the claims or defenses presented in an action.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(1).

7

2.

Partial summary judgment is appropriate to “narrow the issues in a case,

8

advance the progress of the litigation, and provide the parties with some guidance as

9

to how they proceed with the case.” United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 327 F.

10

Supp. 2d 13, 17 (D.D.C. 2004); see also Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F. 2d 765,

11

768-69 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Moore's Federal Practice, stating: “partial summary

12

judgment... was intended to avoid a useless trial of facts and issues over which there

13

was really never any controversy”).

14

3.

The disposition of liability issues on summary judgment furthers both the

15

goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by securing “the just, speedy and

16

inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

17

327 (1986).

18

False Advertising Under the Lanham Act

19

4.

“The purpose of the [Lanham] Act is to insure truthfulness in advertising

20

and to eliminate misrepresentations with reference to the inherent quality or

21

characteristics of another’s product.” Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.,

22

690 F.2d 312, 318 (2d Cir. 1982).

23

5.

To establish a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff

24

must show: (1) false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement

25

about its own or another’s product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the

26

tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is

27

material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant

28

caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been
6
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

1

or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct diversion of

2

sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of the goodwill associated with its

3

products. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.

4

1997).

5

LegalZoom Is Not Liable for False Advertising Because the

6

Legalspring.com Web Page Provides Opinions and Puffery Rather Than

7

Actionable Misstatements of Fact

8

6.

9

An advertisement that is mere “puffery” is not actionable under the

Lanham Act because it is not a “false statement of fact.” Cook, Perkiss and Liehe,

10

Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 244-246 (9th Cir.

11

1990); Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.2d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997).

12

“[P]roduct superiority claims that are vague or highly subjective often amount to

13

nonactionable puffery.” Southland Sod, 108 F.3d at 1145. In contrast,

14

“misdescriptions of specific or absolute characteristics of a product are actionable.”

15

Id.

16

7.

In its counterclaim, Rocket Lawyer states “Legalspring.com advertises

17

for LegalZoom and states that it is the best legal services website…” But the

18

Legalspring.com website contains no specific facts or allegations which could be

19

interpreted by any reasonable juror as a false description of products or services that

20

could operate to mislead consumers. It merely states that LegalZoom is the number

21

one online legal choice. This is plainly (and expressly) a statement of opinion, not

22

fact, and is therefore not actionable false advertising. See Cook, Periss and Liehe,

23

911 F.2d at 246 (quoting Metro Mobile Cts, Inc. v. Newvector Communications, Inc.,

24

643 F.Supp. 1289 (D.Ariz. 1986)) (“‘Puffing’ has been described by most courts as

25

involving outrageous generalized statements, not making specific claims, that are so

26

exaggerated as to preclude reliance by consumers.”).

27

LegalZoom Is Not Liable for False Advertising Because It Does Not

28

Author or Control the Content Provided by Legalspring.com
7
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

1

8.

Rocket Lawyer alleges that Legalspring.com’s actions are attributable to

2

LegalZoom because Legalspring.com is LegalZoom’s alleged “agent,” as the site was

3

originally developed by Travis Giggy, a former employee of LegalZoom.

4

Legalspring.com also receives compensation from LegalZoom for clicks on links to

5

LegalZoom’s website and receives commission from LegalZoom for any products

6

sold as a result of such clicks. These allegations, even if true, provide no support for

7

a false advertising claim.

8
9

9.

All of the statements made at Legalspring.com are made by the web page

moderator, and there is no evidence that such statements were either authored or

10

controlled by LegalZoom. The fact that LegalZoom benefits from the advertisement

11

and/or pays a commission to Legalspring.com for business which is generated by the

12

advertisement does not create or support false advertising liability for LegalZoom.

13

See Dominick v. Collectors Universe Inc., 2012 WL 6618616 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18,

14

2012) (defendant not liable for alleged false statements attributable to corporations

15

owned by the defendant); see Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., 2010 WL

16

2079694, *8 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2010) aff'd, 447 F. App'x 814 (9th Cir. 2011)

17

(supplier that benefited from distributor’s advertisement of product but did not control

18

the manner of advertisement was not vicariously liable for distributor’s false

19

advertisement).

20

LegalZoom Is Not Liable For False Advertising Because The Alleged

21

Deception of Consumers by Legalspring.com Does Not Impact Rocket

22

Lawyer

23

10.

Rocket Lawyer lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim unless

24

it can demonstrate that its interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the

25

law invoked”, and the injuries must be “proximately caused by violations of the

26

statute.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377,

27

1388-90 (2014). To show proximate cause, Rocket Lawyer “must show economic or

28

reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s
8
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

1

advertising; and that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold

2

trade from the plaintiff.” Id. at 1391.

3

11.

While Rocket Lawyer alleges deception of consumers by

4

Legalspring.com that it was providing “neutral” reviews of “all” online providers, the

5

uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Legalspring.com made no such

6

representations, and that no such deception was possible. In addition, even assuming

7

such deception occurred, Rocket Lawyer has produced no evidence that Rocket

8

Lawyer has in any way been harmed by such a deception. Rocket Lawyer has

9

produced no evidence, including but not limited to market research or consumer

10

surveys, that would demonstrate such confusion, or that consumers were less likely to

11

pursue Rocket Lawyer’s services as a result of having viewed Legalspring.com.

12

Based on the lack of such evidence, Rocket Lawyer is unable to prevail upon this

13

claim. Willam H. Morris Co. v. Group W. Inc., 66 F.3d 255, 258 (9th Cir. 1995).

14

LegalZoom Is Not Liable Under the California Unfair Competition Laws,

15

Business and Profession Code Section 17200 and 17500

16

12.

Rocket Lawyer’s counterclaim counts V and VI against LegalZoom are

17

based on the same false advertising grounds concerning Legalspring.com that are

18

alleged with respect to its Lanham Act claim in count IV. See Counterclaim, ECF

19

No. 17 at pp. 18-20. Accordingly, these claims are entirely derivative of the Lanham

20

Act counterclaim, and are “substantially congruent” to such claims. Cleary v. News

21

Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1994). Because the uncontroverted facts

22

compel a finding that Rocket Lawyer’s Lanham Act claim based on Legalspring.com

23

must fail, that same result should be obtained with respect to Rocket Lawyer’s state

24

statutory and common law claims which are brought based on the same factual and

25

legal theory.

26
27

No Evidence Supports Rocket Lawyer’s Affirmative Defense for Unclean
Hands

28
9
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
891644

1

13.

To establish an unclean hands defense, Rocket Lawyer must establish the

2

following two elements: (1) that LegalZoom’s conduct is inequitable; and (2) that

3

LegalZoom’s conduct relates to the subject matter of LegalZoom’s claims against

4

Rocket Lawyer. Emco, Inc. v. Obst, 2004 WL 1737355 at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 7,

5

2004) (citing Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837, 847 (9th Cir.

6

1987)). With respect to the second element, LegalZoom’s bad faith must relate

7

directly to its use or acquisition of the right in suit. Pom Wonderful, LLC v. Welch

8

Foods, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1110 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010). Thus conduct

9

that is factually similar, or involves the same type of legal claims, is not the standard

10

for unclean hands. See Specialty Minerals v. Pluess-Staufer AG, 395 F. Supp. 2d 109,

11

112-13 (S.D. N.Y.) (rejecting unclean hands defense because “factually similar

12

misconduct alone is [not] sufficient to create the necessary link”).

13

14.

Here, Rocket Lawyer alleges three types of misconduct to support an

14

unclean hands defense: (1) bidding on keywords to place advertisements in searches

15

for Rocket Lawyer; (2) using the term “free” in advertisements; and (3) misleading

16

consumers through advertisements on Legalspring.com. Answer, ECF No. 17 at 7.

17

But these allegations, while allegedly describing “factually similar” misconduct, fail

18

to set forth sufficient facts which, if true, would demonstrate that LegalZoom engaged

19

in misconduct which directly relates to the same rights that LegalZoom is asserting

20

against Rocket Lawyer.

21

15.

First, bidding on keywords to place advertisements is not separately

22

alleged as a violation of the false advertising or unfair competition laws by

23

LegalZoom, and therefore Rocket Lawyer’s first ground for unclean hands does not

24

directly relate to any claim at issue so as to meet the requirements of Pom Wonderful,

25

LLC v. Welch Foods, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d at 1110.

26

16.

Second, Rocket Lawyer alleges that LegalZoom uses the word “free” in

27

a manner “similar” to that complained of, but there is no evidence supporting such an

28

allegation. LegalZoom’s alleged use of the term “Free” is markedly different from
10
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

1

the allegations made by LegalZoom against Rocket Lawyer. To prove unclean hands,

2

RocketLawyer must demonstrate that LegalZoom misleads customers into believing

3

they may obtain free incorporation, free legal review or a free trial of a LegalZoom

4

plan, when in fact such services require a financial commitment from the customer.

5

The phrase “Free to Get Started,” alleged by Rocket Lawyer, does not in any way

6

represent that a customer can complete an incorporation, obtain legal review or try out

7

a comprehensive legal plan with no financial commitment.

8

17.

Third, as established above, there is nothing about the relationship

9

between LegalZoom and Legalspring.com which is either inequitable or actionable as

10

false advertising. In addition, LegalZoom’s alleged affiliation with Legalspring.com

11

is irrelevant to RocketLawyer’s unclean hands defense because it does not relate to

12

any of LegalZoom’s claims in this litigation – LegalZoom has not alleged in its

13

complaint that RocketLawyer has an improper relationship with a review website.

14

See Pom Wonderful, 737 F. Supp. 2d at 1110-1111 (defendant’s unclean hands claims

15

regarding plaintiff’s misleading advertising of juice processing not sufficiently related

16

to plaintiff’s claims regarding defendant’s misleading advertising of content of its

17

juice blend).

18

18.

Fourth, RocketLawyer has failed to establish that LegalZoom’s

19

inequitable conduct was egregious. “We have stated that only a showing of

20

wrongfulness, willfulness, bad faith, or gross negligence, proved by clear and

21

convincing evidence, will establish sufficient culpability for invocation of the

22

doctrine of unclean hands.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Int'l Rectifier Corp., 685 F.2d 357, 359

23

(9th Cir. 1982). The extent of actual harm caused by the conduct in question is a

24

highly relevant consideration in analyzing the defense, and where such evidence is

25

lacking, the defense is properly rejected. See Republic Molding Corp. v. B. W. Photo

26

Utilities, 319 F.2d 347, 349-350 (9th Cir. 1963); accord Citizens Financial Group,

27

Inc. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110, 129 (3rd Cir. 2004). But here,

28

Rocket Lawyer has produced no evidence whatsoever, e.g. market research, consumer
11
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

891644

1

surveys or other evidence, that any consumer was injured by LegalZoom’s alleged

2

bidding on keywords, its use of the term “free,” or its alleged affiliation with the

3

Legalspring.com website. Absent such evidence, Rocket Lawyer’s unclean hands

4

defense must fail.

5
6
7
8
9

DATED: July 14, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

10
11
12
13
14

By:
/s/ Fred Heather
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ISO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
891644

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
4

age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
5

Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
6

On September 4, 2013, I electronically filed the following document(s) using
7

the CM/ECF system.
8

10

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM,
INC. [L.R. 56-1]

11

Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the

9

12
13

CM/ECF system.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at

14

whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the

15

above is true and correct.

16

Executed on July 14, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.

17
18

/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
891644