Jeffery Owensby, Esq. (SBN 105229) Kevin P. Cleveland, Esq. (SBN 265902) REDIGER, McHUGH & OWENSBY, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1240 Sacramento, California 95814 Pelephone: (916) 442-0033 Facsimile. (916) 498-1246 Attorneys for Respondent- Appellant, EDWARD MISLEH BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD SAN JOSE OFFICE OF APPEALS DANIEL T. WATTS, AB Case Nos, AO-349509/A0-349510 Claimant, REPLY TO CLAIMANT'S | TO EMPLOYER'S vs SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD MISLEH, Claimant's Social Security No.: 564-73-3468 Appellant: The Law Office of Edward Misleh Respondent-Appellant | Acct, No. 025-7821 In response to Claimant's objections to. the supplemental brief submitted by Respondent/Appellant, Respondent/Appellant attaches the Acknowledgement letter sent by the CUIAB, on March 24, 2014. (See Exhibit 1.) The letter clearly states that the parties are allowed to submit ‘written argument about the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge on or before April 7, 2014. There is no restriction stated in the Acknowledgement Letter that only Claimant is allowed to submit such additional written argument, Respondent/Appellant postmarked its supplemental written brief containing written argument ahout the decision issued by the ALI on April 7, 2014. Thus, the document 2 re y rm was timely postmarked as required by the attached Acknowledgment Letter. As such, Claimant's objection is legally unjustified and should be overruled. <1- RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO CLAIMANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFPROOF OF SERVICE IF you mail or fax any leters/documments to the Appeals Board, you must also serve a copy of the leitersidocuments on the opposing party. Compete the form below and attach tothe leters or documents you mail or fax to the Appeals Board. This will expedite the processing of your appeal. 24a /ARO- FNID 10 AB CASE NO: AQ. O14 or SSA NO. on fy ih 2614 DeSun Freeh served 2 copy of, (Dare) Paint your namey i Ao a ; Becouatarts Koala 42 laiwiate (identity doguments ~ ¢.9., letter, addtional evidence, writen argument) Wore) Loans on ‘(ame of Opposing Party being served) INDICATE MANNER IN WHICH OPPOSING PARTY IS BEING SERVED: L/__By mail addressed as follows: jan (atts ‘amo of Opposing Party) SYG ip sbrilge Dr (ieetorP. 0. Boxy Je 7 DRS (ify, State, Zip Code) Faxed or e-malled to: (Name of Opposing Party) (Fax No. or e-mail address) By Personal Delivery: (Name of Opposing Party) (Proof of Service ~ 3/21/14)¥18S6 V9 ‘oquaureJoRs O27 Aiins [EW Joudey ggg Aqstiomg »3 YBNHOW s981pay 91856 ¥9 ‘cruaweres Iie yS Taaa wens aye z/t ore ‘sa ‘sneqtjoruegEXHIBIT 2A0-349510 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We are enclosing a CD and exhibits. ‘The request for oral argument has been denied. Written argument has been granted. The office of appeals sent 2 copy of t record to the employer representative on March 3, 2014.=~ 155 CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD —— EEGs In the Matter of AB Case No. A0-349510 DANIEL T WATTS 540 WEYBRIDGE DR ALJ Decision No. 109996 SAN JOSE CA 95125 Anpolant: EMPLOYER LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD MISLEH CHO-BYB: 0490-11013 Glo REDIGER, MCHUGH & OWENSBY, LLP ACCT NO.: 025-7821 955 CAPITOL MALL STE 1240 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 Date Mailed: March 24, 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER ‘The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board has received an appeal from the Board Appellant listed above Tequesting a review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision in the case shown above. if there is another parly in te case listed above, the Appesls Board is sending a copy of the appeal to that party for its records [The party thai fied the board appeal (board appellant) has asked for a copy of the record. All parties in the case are being sent a copy of the record. It is not necessary for you to do anything further for the Appeals Board to review the case and issue a decision. Ancther hearing will not be hela. A decision will be based on the aucio recording and exhibits admitted at the hearing. Ifthe board appeal was not filed on time, the Appeals Board will inform you in its dacision on whether good cause is found for the delay, ON OR BEFORE April 07, 2014, you may: (1) Present written argument aout the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (2) Ifthe board appea! was fies untimely present written argument ar dacuments on whether good cause exists for the delay. A Py of the dacuments forthe untimely appeal issues enciosed for he party that ald not fie he board appeal in tne case (2) Request to prosent new or acional evidence. Ifyou request ta present such evidence, you must aach each lem of new or adctional evidence, explain why twas nel given fo the Administalive Law Judge atthe Nearing, and why fis importa To the case, Let us know if you change your mailing address. If you submit documents, write the AO Case Number listed above on all the documents. If there is another party listed above, send a copy of all the documents to that party and fll out the Proof of Service form, Mail, fax or deliver all the documents and tne completed Proof of Service form to: CUIAB PHONE: (976) 263-6803 P 0 Box 944275 FAX: (916) 263-6837 SACRAMENTO CA 94244.2750 ALL DOCUMENTS MUST BE POSTMARKED, FAXED OR RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE APRIL 07, 2014 Please see important information attached REDIGER, MCHUGH & OWENSBY, LLP 555 CAPITOL MALL STE 1240 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814A0-349509 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We are enciosing 2 CD and exhibits ‘The request for oral argument has been denied. Written argument has been granted. The office of appeals sent a copy oft record 10 the employer representative on March 3, 2074,CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD In the Matter of AB Case No.: AO-349509 DANIEL TWATTS 540 WEYBRIDGE DR. ALJ Decision No.: 5108935 SAN JOSE CA 95123 Appellant: EMPLOYER LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD MISLEH CHO-BYB: 0490-11013 clo REDIGER, MCHUGH & OWENSBY,LLP ACCT NO:: 025-7821 555 CAPITOL MALL STE 1240 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 Date Mailed: March 24, 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board has received an appeal from the Board Appeliant listed above requesting a review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision in the case shown above. If there is another partyin the ‘case listed above, the Appeals Board is sending @ copy of the appeal to that party for its records. ‘The party that fied the board appeal (board appellant) has asked for a copy of the record. All parties in the case are being sent a copy of the recors. Itis not necessary for you to do anything further for the Appeals Board to review the case and issue 2 dec’sion. Another hearing will not be held. A decision will be based on the audio recording and exhibits admitted at the hearing. It the board appeal was not filec on time, the Appeals Board will inform you in its decision on whether good cause is found for the delay, (ON OR BEFORE April 07, 2014, you may: (1) Present writen arguinent about the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. (2) tthe board appeal was fled untimely, present writen argument or documents on whether good cause exists for the delay, A ‘copy of the dacuments forthe untimely appea! Issue is enclosed forthe party thal id no! fie te board appeal inthe case (8) Request to present new or addtional evidence. If you recuest to present such evidence, you must attach each item of new oF gaditonal evidence, explain wry i was not given th Administrative Law Judge a th Rearing, are whys importa o Let us know if you change your mailing address. If you submit documents, write the AO Case Number listed above on all the documents. If there is another party listed above, send a copy of all the documents to that party and fil out the Proof of Service form. Mail, fax or deliver ail he documents and the completed Proof of Service form to: culas PHONE: (916) 263-6803 P 0 Box 944275 FAX: (916) 263-6837 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2750 ALL DOCUMENTS MUST BE POSTMARKED, FAXED OR RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE APRIL 07, 2014 Please soe important information attached REDIGER, MCHUGH & OWENSBY LLP 555 CAPITOL MALL STE 1240 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814EXHIBIT 1Claimant states in his "Response to Employer's Untimely Supplemental Brief/Objections to Employer's Untimely Supplemental Brief and Evidence” that he did not receive Respondent's brief until April 9, 2014, Though Claimant curiously does not date or sign his objection, the document was post- marked April 10, 2014. (See Exhibit 2.) This is three (3) days after the cutoff to submit additional briefing. As such, Claimant's new and additional arguments should not be considered by the CUIAB as| they are untimely. DATED: April 11, 2014. REDIGER, MCHUGH & OWENSBY, LLP ‘Atomeys for Respondent-Appellant, EDWARD MISLEH. RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO CLAIMANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOVER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFJeffery Owensby, Esq. (SBN 105229) Kevin P. Cleveland, Esq. (SBN 265902) REDIGER, McHUGH & OWENSBY, LLP 535 Capitol Mall, Suite 1240 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-0033 Facsimile: (916) 498-1246 Attorneys for Respondent-Appellant, EDWARD MISLEH BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD. SAN JOSE OFFICE OF APPEALS. DANIEL T. WATTS, Claimant, vs. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD MISLEH. AB Case Nos. AQ-349509/A0-349510 RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO CLAIMANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYER" SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Claimant's Social Security No.: 564-73-3468 The Law Office of Edward Misleh Acet, No, 025-7821 Respondent-Appellant. a to Claimant's Appellant In response objections 10 the supplemental brief submitted by Respondent/Appellant, Respondent/Appellant attaches the Acknowledgement letter sent by the CULAB| on March 24, 2014, (See Exhibit 1.) The letter clearly states that the parties are allowed to submit written argument about the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge on or before April 7, 2014. There is no restriction stated in the Acknowledgement Letter that only Claimant is allowed to submit such additional written argument, Respondent/Appellant postmarked its supplemental written brief containing written argument about the decision issued by the ALJ on April 7, 2014. Thus, the document was timely postmarked as required by the attached Acknowledgment Letter. As such, Claimant's objection is legally unjustified and should be overruled. -1- RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO CLAIMANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOVER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF