1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LIMITED JURISDICTION

ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST Plaintiff, v.

MOHAMMED S, ABRAHIM, SAMIRA M. ABRAHIM; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 12UD01426 (Unlawful Detainer) NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED S. ABRAHIM Filed concurrently with Request for Judicial Notice; [Proposed] Order; and Proof of Service Hearing Date: Time: Dept.: UD Complaint Filed: 02/15/2012 Related Case: 34-2010-00072095

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on __________________________ or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 88 of the above-referenced Court, located at 301 Bicentennial Circle, Sacramento California 95826, Defendants

will, and hereby do, demur to Plaintiff ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004

FAMILY TRUST Unlawful Detainer Complaint on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST does not

have the legal capacity to sue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(b).

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

2012 By ______________________________________ Mohammed Abdrahim 2 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . files. and is based upon this Notice. DATED: February 18. “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430. and pleadings in this action.10(b) and 430.10(e).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. and such further evidence and argument the Court may consider at hearing. declaration of Mohammed Abrahim -in support thereof. the attached memorandum of points and authorities. Respectfully submitted.10(e). the concurrently-filed request for judicial notice of Defendants’ Complaint court file. the records. Since Plaintiff lacks standing to commence an unlawful detainer action against Defendants as it fails the “real party in interest” requirement. This Demurrer is made pursuant to the provisions of Code Civil Procedure §§ 430.

...... ii 1 1 3 ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………........... II.......... 4 4 7 7 9 [PROPOSED] ORDER– Filed Separately REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER – Filed Separately PROOF OF SERVICE –Filed Separately i TABLE OF CONTENT ......1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………......... III...10(e)………………………………………………………........ DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR JUDICIALLY-NOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT........ THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.......... THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430....... DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABRAHIM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT...... 4 I........…......................... CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………............……………………................................ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………………………................... SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………….10(b)…...................

4th 1599 County of Fresno v. 1998) 66 Cal. Inc.App.5 Code of Civil Procedure § 430. v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal. (1953) 40 Cal. Bowron.30 Code of Civil Procedure § 430. Shelton (App. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.10(e) Code of Civil Procedure § 430.App.4th 996 Parker v.App.10(b) Code of Civil Procedure § 430. 5 Dist.3d 311 Color-Vue.70 Evidence Code § 452 Evidence Code § 453 Blank v.2d 344 Washington Mutual Bank v.4th 662 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASES: CALIFORNIA STATUTES: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Civil Code § 2924 Civil Code § 2932.

and in support thereof.70. as borrowers. Concurrently with this Demurrer. as alleged by Plaintiff.30 and 430. as trustors. canceling the Trustee’s Deed. for the financing of Defendants’ loan for the purchase of their Home. Plaintiff’s Complaint. “pursuant to the foreclosure and sale of the [Property]. Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in Sacramento Superior Court. Sacramento. 2005 Defendants entered into a written agreement with Washington Mutual Bank. On February 22. made. CA 95864 (the “Property” or “Home”) to a Trustee by a Deed of Trust executed and recorded in the Sacramento County Recorder’s Office on July 26. Thereafter. executed. 2005 (“Deed of Trust”) to secure payment of said trustors’ Promissory Note.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff’s Complaint provides that Defendants. while alleging. ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST. See. Defendants for valuable consideration. 2011. inter alia. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶4(B). ¶4(A). On February 9. attached to the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A). Case No. Plaintiff caused to be served a written 3/90-Day Notice stating that Plaintiff had purchased the Property and demanded that all persons vacate the premises. and 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . naming California Reconveyance and CHASE as one of the defendants (“Defendants’ Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint” or “Defendants’ Complaint” or “Defendants’ First Complaint”). Defendants’ Complaint includes claims for setting aside the Trustee Sale. and declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants request this Court to take judicial notice of Defendants’ Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453 and Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430. 34-2010-00072095. Unlimited Jurisdiction. the Trustee of said Deed of Trust sold and conveyed title to the Property to Plaintiff. under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and in compliance with Civil Code § 2924”. conveyed the subject property at 3412 May Fair drive. Quiet title. the following: 1) On or about July 26. 2012.

the Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded only later.000. CRC conducted a Trustee Sale of the Property. 2010. Defendants allege. under the power of sale contained in the aforementioned Deed of Trust. 3) On or about January 10. Defendants CRC caused to be recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell on Defendants’ Property. Defendants received a Notice of Trustee Sale from CRC stating that a Trustee Sale of the Property is set to take place on July 8. (“MERS”) as beneficiary. a written promissory note in the total amount of $264. the Property. Although executed in Jan 2010. California. no such indication is to be found in the Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of Sacramento County. Inc. inter alia. 7) In their Wrongful Foreclosure Action. The Property was purportedly sold to Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust. The Deed of Trust was recorded on September 19. as trustors. 2) To secure payment of the principle sum and interest as provided in the Note and as part of the same transaction. executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 delivered to Washington Mutual Bank. conveyed to California Reconvenyance. 2006. 2012. 2010. 5) On or about June 18. 2010. by the terms of which Plaintiffs. Although CRC claimed to be “either the duly appointed Trustee. violations of California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing. Defendants. the substitute Trustee or acting as agent for Beneficiary under [the Deed of Trust]”. 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . delivering. allegedly or presumably..00. as trustee. 2010. 2006 (the “Deed of Trust”). MERS assigned all beneficial interests under the Deed of Trust to California Reconvenyance Company (“CRC”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Assignment of Deed of Trust”). 6) On January 11. and recording Trustee’s Deed on the Property. a Deed of Trust dated September 14. 2010. as set forth below. 2012. 4) On or about Jan 12. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale of the Property was recorded on January 26. on August 26. as trustors.

On or about February 15. ARGUMENT I DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR JUDICIALLYNOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT CCP § 430. it appears on the face of the UD Complaint and Defendants’ Complaint.10(b) and 430. concurrently with Plaintiffs’ filing of their Complaint or immediately thereafter. 2012. Therefore. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In their UD Complaint. and. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff. pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure1 §§ 430. filed this Unlawful Detainer action (“UD Complaint”) against Defendants. Plaintiff Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust lacks capacity and standing to sue.10 provides in pertinent part: 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . Defendants’ Demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend and Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed. that: Plaintiff Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust is not a real party in interest. 2012.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 11. Defendants were served with Plaintiff’s UD Complaint.10(e). Plaintiff explicitly held itself as an entity qualified to commence this Unlawful Detainer action against Defendants. which is judicially-noticeable by this Court. Title has not been perfected in Plaintiff since the title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil Code § 2924. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust. However. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶1. the purported purchaser of the Property in a Trustee Sale.

3d 311. or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice. by demurrer … as provided in Section 430. Under CCP § 430. had no authority and legal capacity to initiate a trustee sale as of January 26. 2009 Order.4th 996. or cause to be executed a Trustee Sale. the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading (emphasis added). concurrently with or immediately after Defendants filed their Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint naming CRC as defendant.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object. See. 1008-1009. execute. County of Fresno v. Defendants may base their Demurrer on the judicially-noticed Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint court file. MERS. FDIC. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. Concurrently with their Demurrer.App. or answer appears on the face thereof. II THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430. MERS became an “inactive institution” and no longer in existence on January 26.30(a) states: When any ground for objection to a complaint.10(b) Plaintiff Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust filed this UD Complaint on or about Feb 15. 2012.30. to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: … (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue” (emphasis added). cross-complaint. Blank v. CCP § 430. Defendants are filing a Request for Judicial Notice of said Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453. Defendants’ Complaint alleges the following: CRC had no legal capacity to commence. 2012. 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . The only one who had such authority was the receiver. As a result of the Office of Thrift Supervision’s March 19. A demurrer may challenge the legal sufficiency of an opponent's pleading based on defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack and/or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.30. In turn. which appointed the FDIC as the receiver for MERS. a defunct corporation. 5 Dist. 1998) 66 Cal. Shelton (App. 2012. 318. as modified.

its purported agents. the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale delivered to Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust is invalid and void. i. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust cannot be said to qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice since CRC serves as a Servicer of CHASE. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust is still subject to any deficiencies in the underlying Trustee Sale because Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust is not a bona fide purchaser. Deed of Trust and the defects on the on the face of the documents recorded in the public records. as it was already the beneficial owner of the underlying obligation. did not exchange any consideration for the so called Trustee’s Deed.e. which may indicate that the transfer of the Property from CHASE to Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust was part of a well 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT . Further. a prerequisite thereto.5. Since the underlying sale was unlawful. CRC were unauthorized to do so as well. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust had constructive notice of the defects alleged by Defendants because the chain of title of the Property in the Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Mateo County. More specifically. Also.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Since MERS was unauthorized to conduct a trustee sale. did not pay fair consideration or for that matter did not pay any consideration. had. at all times. CRC was never dully appointed as a substitute Trustee and nonetheless acted as such. was not a bona fide purchaser. notice both actual and constructive of defects in the underlying Note. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust did not acquire any interest in the property through a sale. before the Assignment of Deed of Trust was “duly acknowledged and recorded” (Civil Code §2932.5). as required by Civil Code § 2932. California clearly shows that a Notice of Default was recorded before Power of Sale ever vested in CRC. CRC issued an unauthorized Notice of Default and Election to Sell as CRC did so before the Assignment of Deed was duly acknowledged and recorded. whatever that might be and as such. Further. CRC thus failed to comply with or misrepresented their compliance with the requirements under Civil Code § 2924 as they were not authorized to conduct a Trustee Sale and unlawfully issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell.

Accordingly. 669 [citing Color-Vue. Plaintiff’s lack of legal standing is pertinent to the question whether Plaintiff’s UD Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. title has not been perfected in Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not a real party in interest.. which are judicially-noticeable. Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot stand and must be dismissed. it appears title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil Code § 2924. Bowron. See Parker v. Inc. (1953) 40 Cal. CRC. III THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT ALSO FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10 provides in pertinent part: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object.App. which is the right to relief in court (see Color-Vue.10(b). 1604]. v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 calculated scheme between CRC and Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust to sanitize the Note. v. Thus. Abrams. which is the right to come into court. There is a difference between the capacity to sue.g. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal. In light of the foregoing in Defendants’ Complaint and attachments thereto. e.4th 1599. Inc. see infra. in the instant case Plaintiff Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust also lacks the capacity to sue as Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust is subject to any deficiencies in the underlying Trustee Sale and its alleged-predecessor in interest. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT .10(e) CCP § 430. and the standing to sue. by demurrer … to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: … (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” (emphasis added). Washington Mutual Bank v.2d 344. id). Therefore. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal. A general demurrer should be sustained if a party is not the proper party to bring suit.App. Plaintiff falls squarely within the objectionable grounds stated in CCP § 430. See.. 350-351. A plaintiff lacks standing to sue if it not is a real party in interest.4th 662. which similarly lacks such legal capacity.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT Dated: February 18.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Here. the Court cannot move forward with the merits of the case and Defendants’ Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend. Therefore. the pleading does not meet the cause of action requirement because plaintiff lacks standing to sue. supra). This is also why Plaintiff’s ability to state a claim is stymied. as Plaintiff is not a real party in interest (see. Defendants respectfully request that this Court sustain Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend. 18 19 Respectfully submitted. 2012 . // // // // // // // // // CONCLUSION FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS.

delivering. filed an Unlawful Detainer action against Plaintiffs in Sacramento Superior Court. Limited Jurisdiction. Unlimited Jurisdiction. inter alia. 2012 at Sacramento. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABRAHIM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT I. on February 22. 2011 alleging. ______________________ Declarant PROPOSED ORDER . California. and recording Trustee’s Deed on Defendants’ Property. hereby declare the following: I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called as a witness. 2. I could and would testify competently to these matters under oath.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2012. 3. Elaine and Stephen Weeks 2004 Family Trust. Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in Sacramento Superior Court. Executed on February 19. On February 16. Mohammed Abrahim. violations of California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing. the purchaser of the Property in the Trustee Sale.

MOHAMMED S. Defendants. ABRAHIM. ABRAHIM. v. SAMIRA M. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ DATE: _________________________ __________________________________ Judge of the Superior Court PROPOSED ORDER . and DOES 1 through 10. inclusive.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LIMITED JURISDICTION ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST Plaintiff.: 12UD01426 [PROPOSED] ORDER Date: Time: Dept: Complaint Filed: 02/15/2012 Related Case: 34-2010-00072095(Unlimited) TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendants Demurrer to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is hereby sustained without leave to amend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOSED ORDER .

: 12UD01426 (Unlawful Detainer) PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER. and DOES 1 through 10. ABRAHIM.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LIMITED JURISDICTION ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST Plaintiff. Dept. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT. ABRAHIM. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF. AND EXHIBIT A Hearing Date: Time:. inclusive. [PROPOSED] ORDER. v. MOHAMMED S. Defendants.: UD Complaint Filed: 2/15/2012 Related Case: 34-2010-00072096 . SAMIRA M. DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABRAHIM . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.

My business address is 9091 Devon Crest. California. I am aware that on motion of the party served. Under that practice. 1013a. Sacramento. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. AND EXHIBIT A on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO I am employed in the County of Sacramento. I served the following document described as DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER. this document will be deposited with the U. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Sacramento. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT. Elk Grove. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. CA 95624 On Feb 20. Executed on Feb 19. [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee on the attached Service List.) [ ] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Sacramento. Sacramento California. 2015. DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABRAHIM .5 C. I caused the machine to print a record of the transaction. service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. State of California. [ ] I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. California in the ordinary course of business. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF. (BY MAIL.C.P. 2012. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4). [PROPOSED] ORDER.S. [ ] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS ) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by xxxx FEDEX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. 2012. _______________________________ [ ] -5- .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [X] [X] [ ] PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

ELAINE AND STEPHEN WEEKS 2004 FAMILY TRUST SID M ROSENBERG & LINK AN ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 725 30TH STREET STE 107 SACRAMENTO.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Attorney(s) for Plaintiff. CA 95816 -6- .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful