ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 2409 West 66! Street Minneapolis, Minnesota $5423, Telephone: 612-861-3000 Fax: 612-861-3004 Lisa M, Elliott oFconm Patrick H, Elliott: Jon W. Blanchar Dawn L. Gagne "Also Admitedin Colorado ed South Dakota Writer's Direct Dial: 612-466-7191 + Alo Adnited in Wisconsin and Arizona E-Mail: rita@elliottlaw.net October 15, 2018 Deirdre E. Evavold 3015 30" St. Ct. S. St. Cloud, MN 56301 Re: David Rucki, et al., v. Deirdre E. Evavold, et. al. Court File No.: 19HA-CV-18-4286 Dear Ms, Evavold Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated October 12, 2018, enclosed herewith and served upon you the Amended Summons and Complaint in connection with the above matter. Thank you Paralegal RLA:abm Ene. ce: David Rucki All Interested Parties and Counsel of RecordSTATE OF MINNESOTA. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Personal Injury David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and Court File No.: 19-HA-CV-18-4286 Gianna Rucki, Plaintiffs, AMENDED SUMMONS vs. Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; Douglas Dablen, Destiny Church, Steve Quemomoen and Trish Quernomoen, Defendants. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: 1 YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against you is attached to this Amended Summons. Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this Jawsuit even though it may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this Summons. 2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail to the person who signed this Summons a written response called an ‘Answer within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons, You must send a copy of your Answer to the person who signed this Summons located at: Elliott Law Offices, P.A., 2409 West 66" Street, Minneapolis, MN 55423. 3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In your Answer, you must state whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the Amended Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Amended Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.4. _ YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN RESONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS SUMMONS. Ifyou do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the Amended Complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in the Amended Complaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you for the relief requested in the Amended Complaint. 5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can get legal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case. 6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to the Amended Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute. ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A. Lise M. Elliott (#201923) 2409 West 66" Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 (612) 466-7190 lisa@elliottlaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFES ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § $49.211, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. Dated: 19 2 fO=pS ste Lisa M. Elliott, #201923STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Personal Injury David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and Court File No.: 19-HA-CV-18-4286 Gianna Rucki, Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; Douglas Dablen, Destiny Church, Steve Quernomoen and Trish Quernomoen, Defendants. Plaintiffs David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki, for their Amended Complaint against Defendants Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve Quemomoen; and Trish Quemmomoen, state and allege as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff David V. Rucki (“Rucki") is an individual residing in the City of Lakeville, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. 2. Plaintiff Gianna Rucki (“Gianna”) is the daughter of David V. Rucki and Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki residing in the City of Lakeville, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.3, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki (“Samantha”) is the daughter of David V. Rucki and Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki residing in the City of Lakeville, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. 4, Defendant Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch (“White Horse Ranch” or the “Ranch”) is a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Herman, County of Grant, State of Minnesota. 5. Defendant Gina Schmit Dahlen (“Gina Dahlen”) is an individual who, upon information and belief, at all material times, resided in the City of Herman, County of Grant, State of Minnesota, and at all material times, was the President of White Horse Ranch. 6. Defendant Douglas Dahlen (“Douglas Dahlen”) is an individual who, upon information and belief, at all material times resided in the City of Herman, County of Grant, State of Minnesota, and at all material time was an employee or volunteer of White Horse Ranch. 7. Defendant Deirdre Elise Evavold (“Evavold”) is an individual who, upon information and belief, at all material times resided in the City of St. Cloud, County of Stearns, State of Minnesota. 8. Defendant Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki (“Grazzini-Rucki”) is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in the State of Florida. However, her last known address is in the City of St. Cloud, County of Stems, State of Minnesota. 9, Defendant Destiny Church (“Church”) is a religious institution located in the City of Ashby, County of Grant, State of Minnesota. 10. Steve Quernomoen is, on information and belief, the pastor of Destiny Church in the City of Ashby, State of Minnesota and resides in the City of Elbow Lake, State of Minnesota.11. Trish Quernomoen is, on information and belief, the wife of the pastor of Destiny Church in the City of Ashby, State of Minnesota and resides in the City of Elbow Lake, County of Grant, State of Minnesota. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12, Because Plaintiffs reside in Dakota County and part of the cause of action arose there, the above-named court has jurisdiction over this matter and this matter is properly venued in Dakota County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 13. Plaintiff David Rucki and Defendant Grazzini-Rucki were formerly married and have five children, including Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha. They began contentious divorce proceedings in Dakota County District Court (“Family Court”) in 2011. 14. On October 3, 2012, the presiding judge in the divorce placed temporary physical and legal custody with the children’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt to allow time for a therapist to work with the family. During the process the parents were allowed contact with the children only at the direction of the therapist designated by the Court. 15. In February, 2013, the maternal aunt advised the court that she could no longer care for the children, and their care was placed fully with the paternal aunt. At that time, the therapist allowed Rucki to continue visitation, but recommended that Grazzini-Rucki not have unsupervised contact with the children until she completed a psychological evaluation. 16. On the evening of April 19, 2013, custody of the children was transferred to the paternal aunt, who was residing in the family home in Lakeville, Minnesota. The two daughters, Gianna and Samantha, left the residence shortly after arriving without any of their belongings andwithout shoes. The paternal aunt discovered a cell phone in one of the girls’ bags and it was believed that the girls likely had been picked up by their mother, Grazzini-Rutcki. 17. In fact, it was later learned that Grazzini-Rucki had indeed picked up the two daughters near their Lakeville home. She drove them to the St, Cloud/Sauk Center area, where Defendant Evavold arranged for Plaintiff Gianna and Samantha to be interviewed by a television reporter. Evavold thereafter sheltered Grazzini-Rucki at her home for a period of time. Evavold was present at the interview of Grazzini-Rucki and was aware that Grazzini-Rucki had taken Gianna and Samantha from their home and the custody of their paternal aunt in violation of an order of the court for the purpose of preventing their father, Plaintiff David Rucki, from having contact with them. 18. Defendant Evavold suggested to Grazzini-Rucki that Gianna and Samantha be taken to Defendant White Horse Ranch and left with Defendant Gina Dahlen, with whom she was acquainted. On or about April 21, 2013, Defendants Grazzini-Rucki and Evavold drove Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch, leaving them with Defendants Douglas Dahlen and Gina Dablen. Douglas Dahlen and Gina Dahlen were made aware that Gianna end Samantha were being secreted from their father, that he had a right to parenting time, and that court proceedings were pending conceming the custody of Gianna and Samantha. Thus, all of the Defendants knew Gianna and Samantha had been taken to and left at the White Horse Ranch in order to deprive Plaintiff Rucki of parenting time, but took no action at any time to inform authorities about their presence there. 19. On April 22, 2013, the patemal aunt received a certified letter from Grazzini-Rucki including, among other things, a document purportedly signed by Gianna and Samantha expressingtheir desire to be with their mother. The document was written on the computer of Evavold and provided no information about the whereabouts of Gianna and Samantha. 20. On or about August 26, 2013, the Family Court ordered Defendant Grazzini-Rueki and Plaintiff Rucki to provide the Family Court with any information they had on the whereabouts of Gianna and Samantha, Defendant Grazzini-Rucki was aware that Gianna and Samantha were at the White Horse Ranch, but did not disclose the information to the Court or Defendant Rucki. Defendant Evavold was in the courtroom when the court issued this order. 21. On or about November 25, 2014, the Family Court awarded sole physical and legal custody of the five minor children of Plaintiff Rucki and Defendant Grazzini-Rucki, including Gianna and Samantha, to Plaintiff Ruck, 22. During the over 2 ¥4 years that Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha Rucki were at the White Horse Ranch, Defendant Grazzini-Rucki did not visit them or talk to them, did not arrange for their continued education or medical or dental care, and called only five or six times to check on their welfare. She had not called at all to check on the welfare of Gianna and Samantha in approximately the last year they were at White Horse Ranch. 23. During the time that they were at White Horse Ranch, neither Defendants Gina Dahlen nor Douglas Dahlen reported to authorities that Gianna and Samantha were with them on the Ranch. While purporting to “home school” Gianna and Samantha, they failed register the home schooling with the state and failed to provide an appropriate and adequate education for them, causing them to fall behind their age cohorts in their education, 24. During the time they were at White Horse Ranch, Gianna and Samantha were taken by the Dahlens or otherwise went to Defendant Destiny Church in Ashby, Minnesota. The Pastor of Destiny Church, Defendant Steve Quemomoen and his wife, Defendant Trish Quernomoenbecame aware that Gianna and Samantha were being hidden from Plaintiff David Rucki in violation of a court order and failed to inform authorities about their presence. 25, Gianna and Samantha were recovered from the White Horse Ranch by law enforcement authorities on November 18, 2015, 26. For 944 days (two years, six months and 30 days), from April 19, 2013, until November 18, 2015, Plaintiff’ Rucki continued to search for, worry about, and miss the companionship of Gianna and Samantha, He incurred lost wages and incurred expenses for private investigative personnel in connection with the search for his daughters. He suffered severe emotional distress and worry regarding their absence and their welfare. 27. Althongh now reunited with their father, Gianna and Samantha continue to suffer ‘emotional distress from the ordeal, and have fallen behind in educational and social development during the time they were at the White Horse Ranch and away from their family, friends, school and community. 28. Defendant Evavold has frequently and consistently published false, defamatory and vile statements about David Rucki and the Rucki family, including for example, the following {) that David Rucki beat his ex-wife Sandra Rucki while she was pregnant and assaulted his unborn before the child took his first breath; (b) “David engaged in blatant and brazen mortgage fraud;” (c) Rucki was engaged in witness tampering; (d) in pushing the false story, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from the children who courageously spoke up to disclose physical and mental abuse they endured at the hands of a violent father; (e) David Rucki has conspired to raid a trust from Sandra’s father, Albert, to Sandra; (f) reported that Sandra [Grazzini-Rucki] said Rucki is a risk to the community, andclaims he abused their children and sexually abused another child; and (g) alleged others revealed evidence of mortgage fraud and RICO crimes by David Ruck 29, Defendant Evavold has published such false, defamatory and vile statements about David Rucki and the Rueki family despite numerous orders to cease and desist such publications including orders from several judges in Dakota County. In an order dated July 26, 2018, Judge Phillip Kanning called Defendant Evavold’s statements “most evil.” COUNT I: Loss of Services of Children (by Plaintiff Rucki against all Defendants) 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though fally set forth herein. 31. Plaintiff Rucki, as the father of Gianna and Samantha, has a legal right to their services, Between October3, 2012 and November 25, 2013, he was to have court ordered visitation with his children, and on November 25, 2013 he was awarded sole a legal and physical custody of all of his minor children, including Gianna and Samantha. 32. As the father of Gianna and Samantha with rights of visitation and sole legal and physical custody, Plaintiff Rucki had the rights to the service of his children Gianna and Samantha 33, The actions of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Rucki of the services of his children Gianna and Samantha between April 19, 2013 and November 18, 2015. 34. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Rucki is entitled to damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for loss of services of Gianna and Samantha, loss of income and benefits, his expenses in searching for his children, and his emotional harm in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000. Count Il: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though fally set forth herein. 36. The actions by Defendants were intentional, extreme, and outrageous 37. The aforesaid action by Defendants caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional and mental distress. 38. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs Rucki, Gianna and Samantha are entitled to damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000. Count IIL: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though fully set forth herein. 40. Defendants had a duty to refrain from depriving him of the services of his children and from interfering with parenting time and custody, and from falsely imprisoning Plaintifis ‘Samantha and Gianna. Al. Defendants breached these duties. 42. The actions by Defendants were negligent, extreme, and outrageous. 43. The aforementioned action caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, physical ‘harm, and loss of income and benefits. 44, By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages against all Defendants for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000. Count IV: False Imprisonment (By Plaintiffs Gianna Rucki and Samantha Rucki against all Defendants)45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though fully set forth herein, 46. Defendant Grazzini-Rucki was not legally justified in removing Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha from the home of their paternal aunt, and bringing them to St. Cloud/Sauk Center and to the White Horse Ranch. 47. Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home and from the care of their paternal Aunt and to go with Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud, Sauk Center and the White Horse Ranch based on the false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so. 48. Defendants Evavold aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by transporting Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch. All Defendants aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by failing to inform authorities that they had been taken there, 49, All Defendants, knowing that Plaintiff Gianna and Samantha were being secreted from their father in violation of his right to parenting time, aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini- Rucki by keeping Plaintiff Gianna and Samantha at the White Horse Ranch, and by failing to inform educational, social service and/or law enforcement authorities that they were there. 50, Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha would not have agreed to leave their home and the care of their patemal aunt and remain at White Horse Ranch if they had not been provided false information that their father was a threat to them. 51, Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were not aware that they confined in a rural area in Minnesota based on false statements about their father, were not enrolled in or permitted to attend school, were not provided medical or dental care, were deprived of the company, companionshipand communication with their siblings, their father, their friends, and other persons important to them, 52. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs Gianna Rucki and Samantha Rucki are entitled to damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for emotional distress and physical harm for false imprisonment in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000. Count V. Intentional Interference with Custodial Relationship (By Plaintiff Rucki against all Defendants) 53, Plaintiff Rucki realleges and incorporates by reference the previous allegations as though fully set forth herein. 54. Plaintiff Rucki seeks a good faith modification of the existing law concerning his claim of intentional interference with his custodial relationship with his daughters in light of the unusual and egregious matters alleged herein, 55. Defendants Evavold aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by transporting Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch. 56. All Defendants knew that Defendant Rucki had a legal right to parenting time and custody of Gianna and Samantha, and intentionally kept Gianna and Samantha hidden from him, preventing him from exercising his parenting and custodial rights. 57. As a result of the actions and inactions of all Defendants, Plaintiff Rucki was deprived of his parenting rights and custodial relationship with Gianna and Samantha. 58. Asaresult of the forgoing, Plaintiff Rucki incurred expenses in regard to his efforts to locate his daughters, and suffered lost wages and benefits, was deprived of the companionship of his daughters and suffered serious emotional distress. 59. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Rucki is entitled to damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for loss of income and benefits, expenses incurred in trying to 10locate his daughters, emotional distress and physical harm for intentional interference with his Custodial Relationship with Gianna and Samantha in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000. COUNT VI: Defamation and Defamation per se (by Plaintiff Rucki against Evayold) 58. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated into the following claim. 59. Defendant Evavold has knowingly, intentionally and maliciously made false and defamatory written and verbal statements concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki, the natural tendency of which is to hold them up to hatred, scorn, contempt, ridicule and disgrace in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive them of their friendly society. 60. By knowingly, intentionally and maliciously making and publishing false and defamatory statements concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki, including the false statements set forth herein, Evavold and the Red Herring Alert website intended to, and did defame David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki and their reputation and good standing in the community, and defamed David Rucki to his clients, potential clients, members of his community the general public and wrongfully interfered with his business relationships all to his detriment. 61. Defendant Evavold’s false and defamatory statements have been made both orally and in writing. 62. Defendant Evavold’s false and defamatory statements concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki were intended to bring them disrepute and to harm the Ruckis* personal and professional reputation in the community. 63. Defendant Evavold’s false and defamatory statements conceming David Rucki, ‘Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki are libelous, slanderous and defamatory on their face. i64, Defendant Evavold’s false and defamatory statements and representations are defamatory per se because they injure David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki’s reputation in the community and have subjected them to harassment, ridicule and shunning, 65. Asa direct result of Defendant Evavold’s publications of knowingly, intentionally ‘and maliciously false and defamatory statements, David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki’s reputations and good standings in the community has been harmed and has been embarrassed, humiliated and has suffered emotional distress. 66. Defendant Evavold’s publication of knowingly, intentionally and maliciously false and defamatory statements has negatively affected and will continue to negatively affect David Rucki in his profession because they wrongfully impugn his honesty integrity and character. 67. Defendant Evavold is liable to David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki for defamation including libel, slander, in an amount to be determine by the trier of fact. COUNT VII. Defamation by Implication (Defendant Evavold) 68. All of the proceeding paragraphs are incorporated into the following claim. 69. In the alternative, if some of Defendant Evavold’s representations concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki are deemed to be technically true, Defendant Evavold’s Red Herring website, taken as a whole, including the false images, audio, etc., creates a false implication concerning David Rucki as a father and person, and false implications about his honesty, trustworthiness, performance and the circumstances surrounding his business relationships. 71. Defendant Evavold published her false statements or false implications about David Rucki by publishing the statements on social media, with full knowledge and intent to put such false statements and implications before the general public, Defendant Evavold’s false statements 12and/or false implications have been republished by Defendant Evavold and others and numerous social media sites through Twitter and Facebook. 72. Defendant Evavold’s false statements or false implications have harmed David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki’s reputations. 73. David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki have suffered, among other things, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental distress as a result of Defendant Evavold’s false and malicious implications about them. 74, Defendant Evavold’s false statements and/or false implications about David Rucki, also relate specifically to David Rucki’s trade and or business, and thus constitute defamation per se 76. Damages are presumed when there is defamation per se. 77. David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki are entitled to compensation for ‘the harm to their reputations, and for the embarrassment, humiliation, and mental distress they have suffered as a result of Defendant Evavold’s intentional, false, and malicious statements and implications wabout them. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Pleintiff Gianna Rucki request the following relief: 1, Judgment for David V. Rucki against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for loss of services of his children in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00. 2. Judgment for Plaintiif David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff Gianna Rucki, against all Defendants and cach of them, jointly and severally, for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00.3. Judgment for Plaintiff David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff Gianna Rucki against all Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00. 4. Judgment for Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff Gianna Rucki against all Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for false imprisonment in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00. 5. Judgment for David V. Rucki against Defendants, and cach of them, jointly and severally, for intentional interference with custodial relationship with his children in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00. 6. Judgment for David V. Rucki against Defendant Evavold for defamation, defamation by implication and defamation per se. Z Judgment for David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki against Defendant Evavold for defamation. Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements incurred hereis 9. Leave to amend the Complaint to assert a claim of punitive damages. 10. Such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable, 11, A trial by jury is demanded. 14ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P. A. A, Sy pb, Ny Dated: 9/5 / ¥ py ela a_i Lisa M. Elliott @201923) 2409 West 66" Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 (612) 466-7190 lisa@elliottlay ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A. Dated: jp ofp pyetd Mi fs Lisa M. Elliott, #201923 15AKFIDAVIT OF SERVICE David V. Rucki, et al., vs. Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, et. al. Court File No: 19HA-CV-18-4286 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ; : Rita L. Anderson, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that on the 28" day of September 2018, she served the following documents regarding the above matter: Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend Complaint Service was accomplished by posting a true and correct copy of the above document through U.S. Mail at: Deirdre Blise Evavold 3015 30th St. St. S. St. Cloud, MN 56301 Sandra Grazzini-Rucki 1822 30" Street South St. Cloud, MN 56301 and thereby perfecting service on all counsel of record by electronie service. declare under penalty of perjury that everything stated in this document is true and correct, Dateds_()-1S=/S