suw-00 ‘SUMMONS ‘ol Pana oso be CORTE cenasron nen None To DEFENDANT A BLAKE. ny nie “Susie (IS ressegtes ata ee AE ‘an individual, ; KEVIN CHINNOCK, an, individual, DOES You ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ALTIS RYAN PEOPLES Ota (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): — TEE eon TT RR AT A OS TT ET RS RTE TE "yuna 30 CALENOAR OAYS ata hi sree an eg paper ae seed on you's ea wen espns ti cu ah have 9 py ‘Sih nym scout ae bay can oer or apoes You ana hese cut rang mae moan ae ears Se ‘rine Sree Cart cour govt Yo ney yo re course nae you ou ce po erg eek ‘Becaut etree waver you got eau esance ot youmay ow he cae by a On aur wages Money. BRIBE ‘ye oer wnat ming en cou "ray cw ager aumay wot oca an atomey ght any Hyucs nattow an atorey yumay wate eal en steney ‘norssance yas cart stor on aay your on ee tee apsrcs hom angen cee yam You con Bea {See ronpot pepe tine Cana Lega Seca es ss om sanhopetioms ome ala Casts Onve Set nop Ceer (oS cary meet or ator mare 000001 morein Gu cae Tesora er rt bp tre cut Semaee ‘Bis hon conde esc th 0 0 en od Gn cats sen Lain macs Tare 30 AS DE CALENOARIO cesput Ge etegue eta ta popes aga aera uns spent po ern en ele comes hoarse spon on copa oman Une cais owe tamoas elatanoos potpen Sapa por acts hares see Srna ntt't ee peers noc Expea s on aa at ca ane Sthnce cease candor aco gu ean co 570 pond pope’ ice Speannobn psec oe Ce ‘Ree un mare de xan opgo cece po presen) spe 8 ups poche’ css or ncamimncoe ® Fret gtr 5 st, anaro bores sma ovranct Feeney Conese faa ns Conese Cafe ser» pose o afoot ‘Slpo ce stoaaes cots AUSO Poriy eae fee areca aacama at uote os os tes por mpage te ‘Sar mespractn 8700003 mas ar mots Madar curio sna onan Seay onan es Se Sean Tene ue [nani graven Ge co res crn ate pd Gatco case The rame andaaaens of he cout rr (Einomorey arecon dla cores) Te TT 06 Suostor Cour of Caifrin, Coun of Los Anecles ifo 275 Magnolia ach, California 90802 aOR SG ESTA SON et sats store of ane win on aan AL. TIS PEQPL (Einomorelacreccin yt numer de foto do abopec Gel demandara © de demande dos tots coegaes 451 W. 10TH STREET UNIT B & LONG BEACH, CA, 900813 (foo _WAR26 WB Sherri vote) el ari a a Pd Savi Suns fs POET {Pantrctu oo oop de oop can an a aara Pitt Ser of saan POS 10) NOTICE TO THe PERSON SERVED. You we sured = MET santa xeon, 2 ER] entre pean eed une etious name tone 3 (1 onpenat ot pei under: I. CoP 41610 exrperaton) [cor 1860 minor i cov ate 20\etunct cooraton) 5] 66h 41670 conservatee) VY i cc0 16.40 assosaton or parershio) [=] CCP 416 90 (authorized person) omer pei 4 by personal dtnery on (20) oe eS ‘SUMMONS awe1 || ALTIS RYAN PEOPLES “epgar™ 451 W 10! STREET #8 fe LONG BEACH. CA. 90813 S62 200-3306, » | BERINTTEF'TN prio per rar 26 LUI8 ‘ ™ oo a case MANAGEME : ys 23 18 3 rn Turt ofthe State of California woe For the County of Los Angeles 1 706 ALTIS RYAN PEOPLES ) Case No. NCo6170 12 ) i Pain } COMPLAINT FOR: } “ ws } 1. BREACH OF ConTRACT ee a , 1s |] KevIN CHINNOCK., an individual: NICOLE } 2,BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD |] M:€00DS, individual, ALEXIS BLAKE, } SHReeACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET Inividual, ADAN BLAKE, indivi; ENJOYMENT OF THE PREMISE a7 || DOES 1-20 ) 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS " Defendants ), S. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF . } EMOTIONAL DISTRESS . ) 6 NEGLIGENCE x } UNLIMITED CIVIL, DEMAND OVER 5 825,000 } DEMAND FOR JURY TRAIL } 2 Painiff Altis Ryan Peoples real partyin interest, hereafter (*Plantift Peoples", for his ‘Complaint against Kevin Chinnock; Nicole Woods (hereafter “Defendants Tenants”; unless 27 |lotherwise indicated, and for his Complaint against Adan Blake and Alexis Blake, (hereatter 28 || Defendants Landlord”) unless otherwise indicated, alleges as follow:JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS. 1, That Plaintiff is and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the S ate of California, County of Los Angeles ‘The Defendant Kevin Chinnock is, and at all times relevant a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 3. The Defendant Nicole M. Woods i, and a ll times relevant hereto were. a resident ofthe State of California, County of Los Angeles. }4. The Defendant Adan Blake, is, and at all times relevant hereto were, @ resident of the California, County of Los Angeles 5. The Defendant Alexis Blake is, and at all mes relevant hersto were, a resident of the S California, County of Los Angeles 5. Venue properly sin this Court given that all of the partes reside in the State of California PARTIES 6. Plaintiff is an adult, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, resident of Los Angeles County, California, 7. That Defendant Kevin Chinnock is, and at al times relevant hereto was a Tenant in 451 W. 10th Street, Unit A. Long Beach, California 90813, 8, That Defendant Nicole Woods is, and at all times relevant hereto was a Tenant in 451 W. 10th Street, Unit A. Long Beach, California 90813. 9, The Defendant Adan Blake is and at all times relevant hereto were an Owner, Person and of ‘Agent authorized to rent to the plaintiff the premises located at 451 W. 10" Street, Unit B. Long Beach, California 90813. 10. The Defendant Alexis Blake is, and at all times relevant hereto were an Owner, Person and ot ‘Agent authorized torent to the plaintiff the premises located at 451 W. 10th Street, Unit B. Long Beach, California 90813.10. The Defendant Adan Blake and Alexis Blake is, and at all times relevant hereto were an JOvner, Person and or Agent authorized to rent to Elena Caudilo the premises located at 481 W 10h Sueet, Unt B. Long Beach, California 90813, 11. The Defendant Adan Blake and Alexis Blake is, anda all imes relevant hereto was an Owner, 5 |[erson and oF Agen authorized to rent to the Defendant Kevin Chinnock the premises located at © [4st w. tom street, Unit A. Long Beach, California 90813, 12, The Defendant Adan Blake and Alexis Blake is, and at all times relevant hereto was an Owner ® | Person and or Agent authorized to rent tothe Defendant Nicole Wood Bouie the premises located 9 av 451 W. 10th Stet, Unit A. Long Beach, California 99813. 1 ‘STATEMENT OF FACTS. 2 ||13. On November 27, 2017 Plaintiff and Defendant Landlord, entered in to a one year Lease ‘Agreement fora one bedroom apartment unit, located at 451 W. 10! Stree, Unit B, Long Beach, 14 || California, County of Los Angeles 14, That Defendant Alexis Blake informed plaintiff that, the 451 W. 10th Street property used to 6 |} be family two stories resident, but had been converted into multi-units, which consists of there have an 17 [now being three units consisting of A. B, and C. The 451 W. 10th Street property easement that is utilized by all tenants to disposal of their trash and to have aecess to the meter and uses boxes, 15, PlaintfT believed that when the property had been convert into mult-units, that the Defendant 21 || Landlords had taken all precaution to assure that any tenants renting and of leasing units A.B, oF 22 || C. would have quit enjoyment to the property without interfering with or have their quit enjoyment 2s |}to the proper erfered with by other tenants this included using material that would reduce normal movement of sound transferable to the other units, such as the simple walking around in the units and using water and cooking 26 |] 16. That prior to entering into this one year Lease Agreement with Defendants Landlord the 2» | plainer and his fiancées Elena Caudillo supplied Defendant Landlord with all docume requested of them to process their application. Defendant Landlord after siving the documents26 along with the application, conducted the unseal background checks to insure that plaimttY Peoples and Elena Cauuilo were suitable tenants; this included checking for any prior evictions and also contacting PlaindiT Peoples and Elena Caudillo prior landlond which they for apneoximately 9 17, That Defendant Landlord when going over the paperwork, informed the plain Peoples and Elena Caudill that residence was very quit neighborhood, this suited plaintiff Peoples and Elena Caudill, which they expressed to Defendants Landlord 18, Defendants Landlord also informed Plaintiff Peoples that Defendants Kevin Chinnock and Nicole M Woods, was in Unit A, which i situated right helow unit B the unit that Plaintiff Peoples was leasing, were a couple, Plaintiff Peoples and Elena Caudillo was informed thatthe Defendant Tenants in Unit A had lived in the Unit B, that was now leased to plaintiff Peoples and Elena Caudillo and that Defendant Tenants had just moved in the unit befow us approximately five ¥s months pio. 19, On December 1. 2017, Plaintiff obtains the keys and began to move their personal property into unit B. 20. That plaints after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, they believed that would have use of basie services such as assess to the backyard, and be able to play their Television and or music, within normal volume range, without interference fiom the lefendantin nit 21. Plants after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, believed that they would be free to move from room-to-room in unit B, without inter defendant Tenants in unit A. 22. Plants after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord. believed that they would be free to have family, grandchildren, and friends visi, without interference from tne defendant Tenants in unit A. }23. That once the plaintiff had moved into the premises, there was problems immediately with the defendant Tenants in unit A, within days of moving into Unit B, Defendant Chinnock began to2 approach plaintiff and oF his finance even coming up stair to plaints front door or and bewan to declare that we are making too much nose and that we need tobe quiet. 18, The tenants in unit A, was very blunt and elear that plaintiff are not to use the front a for any reasons they likewise informed plaintfT that he had no rights to the hack yard that we only rent upstairs 19, PlainttT Peoples and Mrs, Cauaillo although didh’t think this was right or fair took it and did for their not violate those area, however the defendant in unit A utilizes the whole entire property benefits without any regard to anyone person civil and constitutional ih. 20. That while plaintiff know that he or Mrs. Caudillo were not purposely doing anything to annoy the defendant tenants in unit A. they attempt to adjust how they walked and used the water because the defendant in unit A, contend this was making too much noise in unit A. This restricted the plaintiff in how they normal shower or even cooked meals. 21, Fach time that, the defendant would approached the plaintfs: plaints would not become argumentative and would try to make adjustments so that there would he no problems. 22. However, nothing plaintiff would do would prevent the defendant tenants in unit A, from approaching and demand that we quit some type of activity that we were not doing. for example od levels and or constantly slam they have made false allegations that we play music at am oo 23. On one occasion after Plaititt Peoples left the house around about 11:12am, a short time later lena Caudill called him and stated that Defendant Chinnock approached her and was sereaming in her face stating “did we tell you guys not to feed the eat and be quiet up there, sbe attempt to inform him that she was not feeding the cat and that he needed to stop screaming at her. Afr calling her a Tie, Defendant Chinnock walked off, Mrs. Caio immediately called Plaintt Peoples where he could hear the pane in her voice and could tll that she was very troubled and upset, She told Plant Peoples what had just ovurred 24. It was at this point that Plaintiff Peoples assemble letter wo the Defendant tenants in unit A. in the letter Plaintiff Peoples, i forming the defendant tenants that their behavior was becoming,hostile and harassing, Plain Peoples also inthe letter informed the defendant tenants that they were not approach the plaiSnttf and if they had any problems take the appropriate legal coarse 25. Afler the letter had been delivered tothe tenants in unit A, is when the del dant tenants in unit A, began to act in concert with one another to further volte plas" entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the propery, this includes a reasonable expectation of privacy: Pease. quiet. and solitude: Freedom from disturanees such as nuisances: restriction in movements the use of common areas, free from significant disturbance or interference by the landlord or other tenants and be able to play thei Television and music, within normal volume, range without interference from the defendant in unit 26, However, the tenants in unit A, has went as far 28 making false complaint tothe landlord and other complaints with the City OF Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services alleging that Plainif Peoples and Elena Caudillo have played “amplified music” and the defendant sin unit A, in that complaint has also alleged thatthe “amplified music” disturbed one or more persons. 27. Plaimift Peoples after receiving the complaint in the mail went and having made acquaintance vith his adjacent neighbors asked them have they heard any loud or amplified music, since Plant move int the premises 28. Each neighbor adjacent to the plaintiff stated that they have not heard oud any musie coming from unit B. The defendants have taken a cours of anduet to make false complaints and to have lint appear in the wrong light, with the Defendant landlords 29, That on March 23, 2018, Plainif's stepdaughter came to visit for the weekend, However. on ‘March 24, 2018, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, defendant Woods was outside in the easement ara. ‘when plaintiff and his stepdaughter exited his unit to go get the child something to eat, While ‘exiting the gate defendant Woods stated in plaints general direction that “you know no kid is supposed ton be on the property 30. That defendant Woods, has personally taken a unexplainable hate toward the plaintifand Mes, CCauditlo, and has a every turn attempt to have the living situation matter progress into something31, The conduct and actions of thse ofthe defendant tenants in unit A, has resulted in plant Peoples unable to move freely in the rental unit, kept on edge and argumentative because trying to keep eachother from making any noise. 32. Asa result ofthe conduct and ation by the defendant tenants in unit A, Plaintf Peoples who, had done well without having to take any psychotropic medication for several months, now has o sce his mental health physician for medication to coupe with these circumstances FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT (Os 1 Defendant Landlords) 33. Plains reer to, and incorporate by reference, the allegations of paragraphs | dough 32 of this complaint as though fly set forth herein. 34. On November 27, 2017 Plaintiff Peoples and Defendant Landlords, entered in to @ one year Lease Agreement fora one bedroom apartment unit, located at 451 W, 10th Stet, Unit B, Long Beach, Califora, County of Los Angeles at arate of $1200 per month, plus a $1,200 security deposit for total of $2,400. The tems wer to begin on December 1, 2017 35 On December 1, 2017, Plaintiffs began moving ito the Property. On Plant's first night i the property, Plaintif noticed that he could hear the defendant Woods and Chinnock in the Unit A ‘when walking in certain part of their unit, plain also hear defendant Woods and Chinnock using ‘ater, cooking, and showering 36, That plaintiffs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord they believed that would have use of basic services such as assess to the backyard, and be able to ply thei Televison and or music, within normal volume range, without interference fom the defendant inunit A.1 |]37. Defendant Landlord after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the Plant, filed to 2 |) afford plaintiff the right under the rental agreement such, as being free 1o move from room-to-room in unit B, without interference from the defenulant Tenants in unit A 38. Defendant Landlord after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the Plaintiff filed to afford plaimtifT the right under the rental agreement such, as being free to have family +> | grandchildren, and friends visit, without interference from the defendant Tenants in unit A, © |]39. That within days of moving into the premises, Defendant Landlord was notified there was problems immediately with the defendant Tenants in unit A, such as the constant approaching plaintfT and or his finance, about the moving around in nit B and Television being up. 40. That Defendant landlord knew or should have known that when the two store house was converted into several units, especially within units A and B, that proper construction material should have been used to minimized normal sound form travailing to nitro unit, }41. On March 24, 2107, after the incident with Defendant Woods, plaintiff again attempt to make contact with the defendant landlord by emailed, and explained that the defendant in unit A are continuing with the harassment by an attempt to control how we live in Unit B, and the latest statement by Defendant Woods as to plaintiff not having his stepdaughter or grandchildren visit. 42. That Defendant Landlord is in breach of the rental agreement, when failing to afford plant «|| aut title to enjoyment of the leased property, by not having the united properly converted in multi= SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 22 (Against Defendants Landlord) 43. Plaintiffs refer to, and incorporate by reference, the allegations of paragraphs | through 42 of ‘this complaint, as though fully set forh herein 25 ||44, On November 27, 2017 Plaintiff and Defendant Landlord, entered in 10 a one year Lease 26 | Agreement for a one bedroom apartment unit, located at 451 W. 10" Stret, Unit B, Long Beach, 29 || California, County of Los Angeles.}45. That Defendant Alexis Blake informed plaintiff that, the 451 W. 10th Street property used t0 be family two stories resident, but had been converted into multi-units, which consists of there now being three units consisting of A, B, and C. The 451 W. 10th Street property have an e access to the meter and easement that is milized by all tenants to disposal oftheir trash and to ha 5 |I uses boxes. © |}46. ‘That Plains Peoples did all oF substantially all of the signifieant things that the contract required him to do, such as make his monthly rental payments on time, no destroying the property © |Jordoing anything that would cause the property value to decease, nor 9 |] 47. That all conditions required for Defendant landlords’ performance had occurred. 10 1148. That Defendant Landlords” unfairly interfered with plaintiff's right to receive the benefits of 11 |] the contract when after being informed of the actions and conduct of Defendants Woods and 12 |] Chinnock in the constant approaching complaining at every tur how plaintiff was living in unit B, 15 |] playing the television, using the water at certain times and just simply’ moving from one room to ch 24, another. After plaintiff through emails attempt to again notly defendant Landlords on M: 15 |]2018 of the now abrasive actions being advanced by defendants Woods and Chinnock, this 16 [included it was now a problem for my stepdaughter and granddaughter visit the property 17 |] 49. ‘That plainitr Peoples was harmed by defendant Landlord's conduct, in that he has not being 26 |] afforded the provision of the contract to quiet enjoyment of the premises. 3 ‘THRID CAUSE OF ACTION 0 BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE PREMISE’ (Against All and Each Defendants) 22 |] $0. Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates by reference. the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein SL. That plaintiffs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord on November 27, 2017, believed he would have reasonable expectation of privacy; but the defendant 2g |]in unit A continue to harasses and annoyed the plaintiff to the point that they could not live as a renter or leases under equal treatment ofthe law.52. That plains after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord believed that would have Peace, quiet, and solitude: 53. That plaintiffs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, * [[helieved that would have Freedom from disturbances such as loud noises, smoke, and other nuisances from the landlord or other tenants, but the tenants in unit A took up course of conduct that violated the very peace the law entitled the plaints to 54. That plaintiffs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, they believed that would have exclusive possession ofthe renal unit, subject tothe landlons right of access pursuant to the terms ofthe lease or renal agreements 0 |) 55. That pl ifs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, they 1 |[betived that would have the use of common areas, fice fom significant disturbance or 2 | imerference by the landlord or other tenants 56, That plaintiffs after they entered into the Lease Agreement with the defendant landlord, they 11 || etieved that would have use of basic services such as, and be able to pay ther Television and ‘musi, within normal low volume, without interference from the defendant in unit A, 7. That Plait has not been afforded quiet enjoyment ofthe premises. ” FORUTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, (Against All and Bach Defendants) 58, Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates by reference, the allegations of paragraphs | through 57 of 2 | this complaint, as though fly set forth herein 22 |] 59. Plait isinormed and believes and thereon alleges tha, at ll mes herein mentioned, each 25 [fof the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each ofthe remaining defendants and 24 |] was at al times acting within the purpose and seope of such agency and employment. }60. On November 27, 2017 Plain and Defendant Landlord, entered in to a one year Lease ‘2g || Aereement for a one bedroom apartment unit, located at 451 W. 10" Street, B, Long Beach, ., || California, County of Los Angeles.61. Defendant Landlords failed to assure that after the two story house had been converted in multi units, it would afford plaintiff with quiet enjoyment of the premises. 62. Defendant Landlords conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing PlaintfT to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, 5 |] 63. Asa proximate result of defendant's Landlords acts or omissions, plait? was denied the quiet enjoyment ofthe premises under the law J64. As a further proximate result of defendant failing to afford plaintiff his right to quiet ® |fenjoyment of the premises and the consequences proximately caused by it, as herein above © | ateged, plant suffered severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, 10 | and has been injured in mind and body. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Inflition of Emotional Distress against Defendant Woods) % 16s. Plaimitt refers to, and incorporates by reference, the allegations of paragraphs | through 64 of 2 |) this complaint, as though flly set forth herein 4 ]!66. On November 27, 2017 Plaintiff and Defendant Fenewis entered in to a one year Lease [Agreement for a one bedroom apartment unit, located at 451 W. 10!" Street, Unit B, Long Beach, California, County of Los Angeles. 167. On November 27, 2017 a neighbor-o-neighbor relationship was formed and created between 26 |] plaintand Defendant Woods, where a duty of cae existed © ||68. Defendant Woods knew, or should have known, that her failure to exercise due care in her action and conduct as to the rights of plaintiff right to quiet enjoyment of the premises would 21 |] cause plaintiff severe emotional distess. }69. Defendant Woods knew, or should have known aet or omission o aet constituting breach of » || uy that is afforded tothe plant, 70. As. proximate result of defendant's Woods actor omission, Plaintiff has not enjoyed the rental 25 || premises as prescribed by law. 26 ||71. As a further proximate result of defendant's Woods breach of covenant of quit enjoyment of 27 ||the premises and the consequences proximately caused by it, as herein above alleged, plaintiff 26 || suffered severe emotional distress and mental suffering.1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 NEGLIGENCE, (against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 20) 4 |]72. Plaintits allege and incorporate herein by reference, as though fully set forth herein, Paragraphs through 71 of this Complain. 73, Plants are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege thatthe Defendants and cach of «|| tnem, owed the Plants the duties of eae, as set forth above 74, Plants are informed and believe and, based thereon allege that the Defendants and each of nem, breach their duties of care that were owed to the Plaitiffs, as set forth above, 75, Pla S are informed and believe and, based there on, allege that as result of each Defendant's breach of thet respective duties of care, Plants have suffered, without imitation, physical, emotional, and financial harm, as set forth above. 76, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that each Defendants breach of their respective duties of care was a substantial factor asset forth above. in causing the Plintis harm 16 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants as follows: 1. For general damages for severe emotional distress and mental suffering inthe sum of '$ 39, 000.00; 2. Punitive damages in the sum of or according to proof 3. and For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.VERIFICATION 1. Altis Ryan Peoples have read the foregoing Complaint and know its contents. 1 {0 this action, and am authorized to make this veri jam the Plainti fon and make this verification for that reason. am informed and believe and on that ground allege thatthe matters stated inthe foregoing complaint are true | dectare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles California this <5" day, of March 2018 a 24. bal — Altis Ryan Peoples Plaintiff in Pro Per‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA aaa COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Pasa” ferry 275 Magnolia Ave Long Beach Ca 90802 FREE MAR 26 2018 5 hn cpt teri NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NC061706 ‘TO THE PLANTIFF(SYATTORNEY{S) FOR PLANTIFF(S) OF RECORD: ‘You a ordered to serve this notice of hearing onal pateslattornaye of record forth, and meet and confer wal Paaslatiomeys of recors about the matters to be cscussed no ltr than 30 daye bore th Case Management Conference, ‘Your Case Management Corforence has been scheduled a the courthouse adress shown above on = P23 [hmm an NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE SETTING OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE [DEFENDANT FROM FILING A RESPONSIVE PLEADING AS REGUIRED BY LAW. Pursuant to Califia Rules of Cour, rules 3.720-3.730, a completed Case Manegement Statement (Jusal Counc form # ‘Chi-110) mus be fle at least 15 calendar deys prior to tn Case Management Conference. The Care Management Stalament ‘maybe fled any by al parieslatiomays of record or ndvitualy by each patyatomey of record. You must be familar wih the (Cote and be fly proper to pariepate effectively ithe Case Management Conference, ‘Aline Case Management Conference, the Court may make prt ordersincuding te flowing, but nt lied to, an oder (establishing adscovery schedule, an order refering ts case fo Allematve Depute Resckon (ADR) an order recasting he ato. an order sating Subsequent conterence andthe til date; or other orders to achveve the goals othe Tal Cout Seay FResucton Act (Gov. Code, § 68600 et 0a) Not hereby gen hat you dont lee Cate Management Siatomer or apoear and eflcvely parce atthe Case Nanopore Coron the Coun may tnpooe eancions, parser fo (ASS Loc! Rule 937, Ose Sel Meceure ecto 175, 5752 815,589 500 and S05.410, Goverment Code scion 6208, ula) nd aon Rule ot cate ne eS WAR 2.6 2018 : . noe PATRICK T MADDEN, JuDaz > ae Sudeal Offcer ‘CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | the below named Executive OffceriClerk ofthe above-nited cour, do hereby carly that! am nota party to the cause ‘eter, and bat on this date I served the Notice of Case Management Conference upon each pry or counsel named below by deposting inthe Une States mal at the courthouse n__Calfemia, one copy ofthe agra ‘lea even a separate sealed envelope to each acdress as Shawn below wih he postage thereon fly prepaid Coy personaly ging the party notice upon fling of the complaint. SHERRI R. CARTER, ExecutvelOfioer Clerk WAR 26 2018 Dated: By Lact 12am O78) NOTICE OF (cat ues of Cour os 3 7203.730, ase Aspoved 1903 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE {ACLs es, chante Tee