03/24/2016 THU 15:Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 001/093 ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ, State Bar No. 58173 KLASS, HELMAN S: ROSS 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 9143 6?2424 Telephone: (818) 733-7007 Facsimile: (318) 990-2399 Attorneys for Plaintiff NEXUS SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown entity, and DOES 1 to 15, inclusive, NEXUS SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Case No; BC600636 Corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTION TO Plaintiff, STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE vs. 3 SECTION 425.16 Date: 477716 Time: 8:30 am. Defendants. Dept: 55 Plaintiff Nexus Services, Inc., hereby submits its Opposition to Defendants? Special Motion to Strike: I. JCTIDN This case arises as a result of the actions of defendant who, in both his individual capacity and as a representative of Casa de la Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles, has conunenced a campaign of deceptive, untrue, fraudulent and deceitful publications and has made statements, both directly and indirectly, to plaintiff?s clients that are designed and intended to damage, harm., and destroy plaintiffs relationship with its clients. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE EERVIGEB w. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 15:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 002/093 Despite his claims to the contrary, and as outlined more fully in the attached Declaration of Marciela Arroyo Viveros, Defendant has taken it upon himself to advise plaintiff's clients that they do not have to comply with the requirements of' their contracts with plaintiff. As a corporate guarantor of bail bonds issued by recognizedfauthorized sureties in the State of California, Plaintiff contracts with bailees to guarantee the obligation to bonding companies who issue inunigration bonds. Under the guarantor agreement with the bonding companies, plaintiff promises to guarantee and indemnify the bonding company for any bail it must pay to the United States of America if any individual client, whose bail has been guaranteed by plaintiff, fails to appear in court when required. Plaintiff?s clients are individuals who are incarcerated and facing deportation proceedings. In order to reduce the risk that plaintiff?s client will fail to appear when required. by the U.S. Immigration Court, plaintiff requires, as a provision of its contracts with its clients, that the client agree to, and wear, a GPS monitor/ankle bracelet so that both the plaintiff and the U.S. Immigration Court may know where the person admitted to bail is at any time to prevent "bail skips" and insure their attendance in future court proceedings. These types of ankle monitors are commonplace in the industry and are often a requirement for release from custody in both state and federal courts. The requirement of an ankle bracelet is long standing Within the state and federal courts. II. FACTUAL ALLEGAI 5 Defendant Vasquez, who is neither an attorney nor a Certified Immigration Consultant, but claims to be a journalist, acts as the "President" of Defendant Casa de la Culture de Guatemala, a business entity advising and charging its clients on immigration issues in Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 22441, et seq. While Defendant Vasquez has no experience in the posting of bonds for incarcerated immigrants, and has no understanding of the system of bail permitted under either state or federal law, Defendant has taken it upon himself to focus upon plaintiffs business and engage in a OPPOSITIGN TO TO STRIKE ?mammnmunnleun-wob u?iooWE?U? SERVICEB vs.- 03/24/2016 THU 15:59 hulkFAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 003/093 campaign of deceptive, untrue, fraudulent and deceitful publications focused upon and made directly to plaintiff?s clients. These publications are specifically designed by defendants and intended to damage, harm, and destroy plaintiffs relationship with its clients. The Court is respectfully directed to the Declaration of Marciela Arroyo Viveros. Defendant advised, consulted and instructed Ms. Viveros, one of plaintiff clients, to cease paying for the HPS monitorfankle bracelet she had agreed to wear pursuant to the contract between plaintiff and Ms. Viveros; and instructed other clients of plaintiff to remove and/or step charging the GPS monitorfanlde bracelet with the intent to thereby prevent both plaintiff and the U.S. Immigration Court from knowing the whereabouts of the arrestee. In September 2015, defendant Vasquez ran a "Facebook" publication alleging that plaintiff engaged in "slavery" by having its clients wear a GPS monitor/ankle bracelet]. Concededly, there is a ?ne line between the expression of an opinion and an inducement to breach a contract; however, in this instance Mr. Vasquez has most clearly crossed that line. He has not only induced speci?c breaches or plaintiff?s contracts, but he has also attempted to, and has, interfered with plaintiff's economic advantage and, but his own admission, done so intentionally. Mr. Vasquez, by and through his business Casa de la Culture de Guatemala de Los Angeles, has solicited and procured some of plaintiffs clients to breach their contracts with plaintiff. [See Declaration of Marciela Arroyo Viveros]. These clients subsequently stopped the payments for the GPS monitorfanlcle bracelets, and/or removed, andXor stopped charging said GPS monitorsiankle bracelets. Marciela Arroyo Viveros stopped charging her GPS bracelet based upon the express inducements by Mr. Vasquez. (See attached Declaration of Marcila Arroyo Viveros) As a result of this campaign by defendants, several of plaintiff?s clients have breached their contracts with plaintiff and defendant's actions have interfered with plaintiff's prospective 'Defendant seeks to reiterate this idea throughout his motion by referring to the ankle monitor as an ankle ?shackle.? OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE ?uneartmuameam men . VAEQUEEproapecHohahrikal?.wpd 03/24/2016 THU 17:00 ~4an Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 004/093 economic advantage. CONDUCT EBQTECTED SPEECH Defendants? argument boils down to contending that the vehicles used to engage in the tortuous conduct is ?pubic speech? andfor ?public fortun? and therefore the message he delivered cannot subject him to tort liability. While defendant cites cases which generally support the concept that defamation may not be actionable where it is part of ?public commen The defendant cites no cases in which the gravatnen of the case is tortuous inducement to breach a contract. In ComputerXpress, Inc. vs. Jackson_(2001) 93 Cal. App. 993, the court evaluated the difference between the types of claims and causes of action protected under motions (California Code ofCiviZ Procedure 425.16) and those that are not protected, even when the vehicle used to convey that speech is a ?public forum?. The court concluded that a cause of action for inducement to breach a contract survives an Motion, even where other causes of action may not. ?ComputerXpress?s ?fth cause of action, for interference with contractual relations, alleged that in February. 2000 ComputerXpress entered into a contract to sell computers to Cal Tech Solutions and that defendants then contacted Cal Tech and disparagcd Computer Xpress and its of?cers and directors, causing Cal Tech to cancel the contract.? While the court did grant the defendant?s motion as to several other causes of action, it denied the motion as to the interference with contractual relations cause of action, stating, in relevant part, as follows: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE elm-\nnh EIETWIGBE VI. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 17:00 cameo tD-DZI-quFax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 005/093 ?The phrase ?arising from? in section 425.16, subdivision has been interpreted to mean that ?the act underlying the plaintiffs cause? or ?the act which forms the basis for the plaintiff's cause of action? must have been an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. (Br-nan v. Chronicle Publishing Co, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1043, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 53; Bowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1417, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174.) Even assuming, though the complaint did not so allege, that defendants' disparaging statements to Cal Tech Solutions were made pursuant to the conspiracy alleged in the eighth and ninth causes of action, it does not follow that the speech and petition activity alleged elsewhere in the complaint was part of ?the act underlying? or ?the act which forms the basis for? the fifth cause of action. That cause of action did not attempt to rely on the speech or petition activity as a basis for claiming interference. Rather, it simply alleged a direct contact between defendants and Cal Tech. There was no indication that any public activity, such as the SEC complaint or Internet statements, formed any part of the claim, nor that the alleged disparaging staternents related in any way to any public issue or of?cial proceeding.? Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1001 [113 Ca1.Rptr.2d 625, 634] Similarly, the statements made by the defendants that it was ?inunoral? for plaintiff?s clients to wear "shackles" may qualify as expressions of opinion but when the defendants urge the individuals with whom plaintiff has contractual relationships, which expose plaintiff to substantial economic loss if plaintiffs clients do not show up to court, then the inducements to OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE \\mw:ll:nvmn\lnultum\nah eerie-wens saavrcaa w. sarm 03/24/2016 THU 17:00 Ibme Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 006/093 cut off the GPS bracelets, stop charging the bracelets, and stop paying the fees for those bracelets do not constitute an expression of free speech, but are clearly inducements to breach a contract. Simply put, words do matter. Defendants cannot avoid responsibility for their interference with the contractual relationships between plaintiff and plaintiff?s clients when the defendants speci?cally focus upon plaintist business, specifically focus upon the clients of that business and urge those clients to violate their existing contractual obligations. By his own admissions, he knew that the ankle bracelet (which he repeatedly refers to as a ??shackle?) was part of the contract between plaintiff and its clients. Mr. Vasquez claims that he did not have the ?inten to induce the breaches of contract or to interfere with the plaintiff?s contractual relationships, yet he speci?cally focused his comments and ?opinions? on the plaintiff?s business, and urged plaintiff?s clients to violate their contractual obligations. lV. ELALNTIFF CAN A EEQEABILITY OF PREVAILINQ ON THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED BY TI MOTION BECAUSE OF ACTION IS BOTH LEGALLY ?ll EELQLE NT AND SUPPORTED BX A EMMA FACIE SHOWING OF FACTS TO SUPPORT A FAVQEABLE JUDGMENT Should the court determine that the defendant has made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's complaint arises from constitutionally protected speech, then the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish, with admissible evidence, a. ?probability? of prevailing on the claims challenged by the motion. (See Civ. Proc. Code Robertson Rodriguez, 36 Cal. App. 4th 347, 355, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 464 (2d Dist. 1995).) Under this second prong, plaintiff must show that it has ?stated and substantiated a legally suf?cient claim? (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope if: Opportunity, 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1123, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 471, 969 P.2d 564 (1999), quoting Rosenthol v. Great Western Fin. Securities OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO usuvrcsa u. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 17:Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 007/093 Corp, 14 Cal. 4th 394, 412, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061 (1996), demonstrating that the complaint is both legally suf?cient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.? (Wilson v. Parker, Covert cf: Chtdester, 28 Cal. 401 811, 821, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 19, 50 P.3d 733, 167 Ed. Law Rep. 934 (2002) quoting Motson v. Dvorak, 40 Cal. App. 4th 539, 443, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 380 (3d Dist. 1995); see also Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 401 311, 820, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115 (2011).) Because of the early stage at which the motion is brought and heard, the plaintiff enjoys ?a degree of leeway in establishing a probability of prevailing on its claims." (Integrated Healthcore Holdings, Inc. v. Fttagtbbons, 14-0 Cal. App. 4th 515, 530, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 (4th Dist. 2006), quoting Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 4th 309, 323, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 446 (2d Dist. 1994).) ?If the plaintiff ?can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless? and will not be stricken; ?once a plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the plaintiff has established that its cause of action has some merit and the entire cause of action stands.? (Gusts West Realty LLC v. Goldman, supra, 51 Cal. 4th at 820 [quoting Mann v. Quality 01:51 Time Service, Inc. 120 Cal. App. 4th 90, 106, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 215 (4th Dist. 2004)] (emphasis in original); Bently Reserve LP. Populioltos, 213 Cal. App. 4th 418, 426, 435 n.3, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423 (1st Dist. 2013) a cause of action states multiple grounds for relief, ?the plaintiff may satisfy its obligation in the second prong by simply showing a probability of prevailing on any? one of those A. Defendants? ?sts anssituted a Business Act and 591s Were Unlawful, Unfgin, smug: Fraudulent. 1. Essendant?s Acts Do Constituts Despite the statute?s use of the term ?business,? Business and Professions Code 17200 is suf?ciently broad to reach the activities of even nonprofit organizations and whether particular conduct is a ?business practice? within Business and Professions Code l7200's meaning is a OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE HI. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 17:Fax 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR 008/093 question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case. [Isuzu Motors, Ltd. v. Consamers Union of Inc. (CD CA 1998) 12 .Supp.2d 1035, 1048] In addition, it has been held that a business ?practice? can violate Business and Professions Code 17200 even though it does not affect more than a single ?victim.? [See Allied Grape Growers v. Bronco Wine Co. (1933) 203 432, 453, 249 CR 372, 834] Here, defendant contends that he was not engaged in any business activity at the time he was making the statements at issue. However, many of these statements were made to plaintiff?s clients when they went to meet with Mr. Vasquez at his business organization, Casa de Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles, which, by defendant?s own admission, is an organization that provides services to the community. [See Declaration of Vasquez, para. Defendant focuses his attention in his brief on the statements he made on his Faceboolc page and in his news articles, but he also used his position at Casa de Cultura de Guatemala in Los Angeles to approach and counsel plaintiff?s clients not to comply with the terms of their contract with plaintiff. [See Declaration of Viveros, para. 4] Therefore, defendant?s acts constituted business acts since they were made at his business and in his capacity as an advisor to the clients that came to his business for advice and assistance with their immigration issues. B. Intended to Disrupt Illaiu?f?s with Its Clients and That is Shown De Defendant argues that plaintiff cannot prevail in its second (inducement to breach contract), third (intentional interference with contractual relations) and fourth (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage) causes of action because plaintiff fails to satisfy the intent requirement. Culpable intent may be inferred from conduct that is ?substantially certain" to interfere with the contract in question. [Integrated Heelihcere Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons (2006) 140 CA4th 515, 533, 44 517, 530-531] In addition, Defendant need not have the speci?c intent to disrupt plaintiff's expectations; it enough that defendant knows its acts are substantially certain to cause interference. [Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 04th 1134, 1153, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE SERVICES VII. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 17:Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 009/093 131 29, 44-45, San Jose Coast, Inc. v. 3.3.10.0, Inc. (2007) 155 CA4th 1528, 1544-1545, 67 54, 63]. An action may lie where the interference was incidental to the actor's primary purpose but known by it to be a necessary consequence of its action. [QueIimm-ie Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. C0. (1998) 19 C4th 26, 56, 77 709, 727] Here, defendant claims that his intention was not to harm plaintiff, but instead to ?shed mere ligh on the matter so that members of his community could make an ?informed decision if they chose to deal with Nexus.? [Declaration of Vasquez, para. 45] Mr. Vasquez?s vehicle to notify the members of the community was by writing disparaging Facebook posts, submitting articles critical to plaintiff?s business for publication, and providing information to local Spanish language television stations, but, most importantly, it was also by personally advising, urging, and encouraging Nexus? clients who came to consult with him at Casa de La Cultura dc Guatemala en Los Angeles that they should breach their contract with Nexus by, for instance, not paying the service fee and advising them to stop charging the GPS bracelet. [See Declaration of Marciela Arroyo Viveros, para. 4-5] Advising plaintiff clients not to charge their GPS devices and to cease paying their fee would be conduct that is ?substantially certain? to interfere with the contract in question. In addition, defendant himself describes himself as a ?well-known ?gure in the local Guatemalan community.? [Declaration of Vasquez, para. 5] As such, he must know (and most likely he banks on the fact and uses that in?uence intentionally) that a necessary consequence of his action of speaking out against Nexus would be to disrupt its relationship with its clients. Therefore, it is clear that defendant?s intention in making the publications and statements outlined herein was to induce plaintiff clients to breach their contract with plaintiff and, even if it was not his primary purpose (although plaintiff believes it was), it was known by him to be a necessary consequence of his actions. C. Did. In Fact. Cause Plaintiff?s giants t9 Breach Their Contracts, the Damages Suffered by Plaintiff, Defendant ?n'ther argues that plaintiff cannot prevail in its second (inducement to breach To Horton??e si?ras \\mwannvan\lnu1uom\loh BEENIE-EB VII. BRYAN 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 010/093 contract), third (intentional interference with contractual relations) and fourth (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage) causes of action because plaintiff fails to satisfy the causation requirement. To prove the causation element, plaintiff must show that, but for defendant's interference, the contract would have been performed. [Quelimrme Co. v. Stewart Title Guor. Co. (1993) 19 C4th 26, 55, 77 709, 726] As outlined more fully in the Declaration of Marciela Arroyo Viveros, the statements made by defendant Byron Vasquez did, in fact, cause Nexus clients to breach their contracts with Nexus. Based upon the representations of Mr. Vasquez, Ms. Viveros breached her contract with Nexus by stopping the charging of her ankle bracelet. [Declaration of Viveros, para. 6] It was as a direct result of defendant?s actions that Ms. Viveros, a Nexus client, breached her contract with Nexus, thereby proving that but for the but for the defendant?s interference, the contract would have been performed. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has established that defendant?s conduct does not arise to the level of protected conduct or speech. In addition, Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case with adequate legal suf?ciency to overcome the motion. The court should deny the motion in its entirety. Dated: March 24, 2016 KLASS, I-IELMAN dc ROSS hi7 i? . ROBERT M. ROSS, Attorney for Plaintiff -10- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE Vi. BREAK 03/24/2016 THU 17:Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 011/093 PROOF OF SERVICE TATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 13 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145, Encino, California 91436. On March 24, 2016, I served the foregoing document, described as: OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 By placing the original true copie(s) thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as follows: R. Michael Ghilezan, Esq. The Ghilezan Law Firm 1301 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-907-5708 Fax: 310-388-0315 Email: michael@ghilezanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de law Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles BY US. MAIL: 1 caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Encino, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am familiar with this ?rm?s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in this af?davit. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By delivering the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) or package(s) designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed as shown above, to a facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, who received these documents at 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California 9143 6. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee. BY FACSIMILE: By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing d.ocument(s) via facsimile transmission from this Firm?s sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is 813- 990-23 99, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone nurnber(s) set forth above or on the attached service list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid. date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this irm?s sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A true copy of each transmission report is attached to the of?ce copy of this proof of service and will be provided upon request. 03/24/2016 THU 17:03 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 012/093 1 Service by facsimile transmission was made pursuant to agreement of the parties, con?rmed in writing, or as a courtesy to the parties. 2 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed 3 above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list from the e-mail address @khrlaw.com at approximately . To my knowledge, 4 the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 5 State: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Federal: I declare that I am employed in the of?ce of a member of the bar of this 7 Court, at whose direction the service was made. 8 EXECUTED on March 24, 2016, at Encino, California. 10 Jeanne Sarmiento 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 013/093 ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ., State Bar No. 58173 KLASS, HELMAN ROSS 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 91436-2424 Telephone: (318) 783-7007 Facsimile: (313) 990-2399 Attorneys for Plaintiff NEXUS SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NEXUS SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Case No.: BC600686 Corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. ROSS IN I SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION Plaintiff, TO SPECIAL MOTION TO I STRIKE vs. BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown entity, and DOES 1 to Date: 4f7f16 15, inclusive, Time: 3:30 am. Dept: 55 Defendants. DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. ROSS 1, Robert M. Ross, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in all of the Courts in the State of California and in the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern District of California. I know the following facts to be true of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I would and could competently testify thereto. 2. On December 21, 2015, on behalf of Cesar Godoy, I ?led a Summons and Complaint against Byron Vasquez individually and doing business as Casa de La Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles. A true and correct copy of the and Complaint in that matter, ?led in the Los Angeles Superior Court as Case No. BC604916, is attached hereto as -1- DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. ROSS \\I?wsn?v??\lluitm?\nuh EIHIWIEHE Vi. 03/24/2016 THU 17:04 Ila-Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 014/093 Exhibit and incorporated hereat by this reference. Mr. Godoy is also one of the individuals alleged in the within complaint to have been induced to breach their contract with Nexus by Defendant Vasquez. 3. On March 10. 2016, Byron Vasquez served Responses to discovery in the Godoy vs. Vasquez matter. A true and corrth copy of Defendant Vasquez?s Responses to Plaintiff?s First Set of Requests for Admissions is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated hereat by this reference. In addition, a true and correct copy of Defendant Vasquez's Responses to Plaintiff First Set of Form Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated hereat by this reference. Part and parcel of these responses are Mr. Vasquez's Verifications. 4. In his Declaration in Support of the within Special Motion to Strike, Defendant Byron Vasquez contends that he has never met Mr. Godoy and that he has never talked to him, either at the Casa of?ces or anywhere else. [Declaration of Vasquez, para. 39] However, Mr. Godoy was provided with receipts when he met with Mr. Vasquez, in June and July 2015. A true and correct copy of those receipts is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated hereat by this reference. 5. The signatures on the receipts appear to be the same as the signature on Mr. Vasquez?s Verifications attached to the discovery responses. 6. Mr. Vasquez not only induced breaches of contracts, but he is also not certified under California Business and Pro?ssz'ons Code section 22441 to represent individuals in the Board of Immigration Appeals. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of March, 2016,. at Encino, California. OB M. ROSS, arant DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. ROSS mung-Wan: w. 03/24/2016 THU 17:04 FAX 818 990 239} Law Offices of KHR 015/093 SUM 1? i (soLFea?nqgiuggougg agent's) (CITACIDN JUDICIAL) - notice To DEFENDANT: (Awso AL cg?fg?'?f?gfg; BYRON VASQUEZ, individually and doing business as, CASA DE LA superior court o1 California CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown Gountv 0* Lat ?Pass entit and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive 1 YOU ARE same suso BY DEC 21 2:0 5 (Lo Esra EL DEMANDANTE): a Bum/mm Sherri Pi. Barter, men it CESAR GODDY By: Mail LaraJ?iaptliy NDTICEI You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the Information below. You have so CALENDAR care after this summons and legal papers are served on you is ills a written Marianas at this mutt and have a may sewed on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form if you want the courtto hear your case. There may be a court fonn that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more Information at the California Courts Onilne Self-Help Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay fee. ask the court clerk for a fee waiver ferrn. tfyau do not file your response on time. you may lose the case by default. and your wages. nichey. end property may be taken Without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney light away. If you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an sttomey referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal eervlcee program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (wwaawheipceiifominsrp). the Gailtomla Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The couri?a lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. midst}: Lo hen demendsdo. Si no responds denim do so dies. in code pueds decidir en su contra sin escucher su version. Lee is a continuscien. Tiono 30 DIAS DE dospues de que is entreguen eats citacion papeias iegaiaa pars presenter uns rsspuests per eaerito en esta aorta hacor one so entreguo una sepia oi demondonte. Uns carts uns iisnisds tsiefonics no to protegen. Eu reapuesta per Beanie Hana qua aster on formats isgsi censure oi doses qua precessn at: case an ia code. Es posibia qua boys on iorrnuiarie qus ustsd pueds User para su respuesta. Puodo onconi?rsir sates formuisrt?os do is some rns'is infermscidn an at Centre de Ayuds cie ias Cortes de (luww.sucorta.cs.gev). an is bisiictecs da ioyos do our considers a on is certs qua is quads mas carca. Si no puede pager is cunts o'e presentscidn. pida si secretario do is sorta qua to do up r?onriuisrio do extension do page do ouotss. Si no presents su respuests tiempe, puade parder of case par inoumpiimianto yis aorta is padre quitsr su sueido. dinaro pianos sin mas sdvertsnoia. - Hoy citrus requisites regains. Es recomondopie qua iisms un sbegsde inmedietsmente. Si no conoce a tin abogado, puada un servioie de remisron abogados. Si no pusde pegsre un seconds. as posiaie qua cumpia con ice requisites pare abtener sen/ides tensile-s gratuities de un programs do sondcies regains sin tines do More. Puede estes grust sin ?nes de iucrc en ai ditto web de California Serviced. (ya-imJawholpcolifornlaorg), on at Centre de Ayuds de Cortes de Caiiromia. en contacts can is corte at coiegio de aeogsdos locales. Poi-ray. is ports tiene derecho racismsr las cuotas ios scares exantos per importer up gravernen sabre cupiquror recuporocion vsier recibido medionio uri ocuordo uno concesidn ds arbitrst en un case do derecho civii. Tiene qua paper at gievamen do is certs antes ds qua is certs pueds desecner at ease. The name and address of the court ls: sass mousse: 5 non-tore ydireccidn do is code as): LOS ANGELES d? ?"30 6 0 4? 1' SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 111 N. HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 The name, address. and telephone number of plaintiff?s attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (E nombro, is direocion at ndmero de tei?fono dai abogsdo dei dei que no riena soogado. as): ROBERT . ROSS ESQ . KLASS HLEMAN 16133 Ventura Blvd. #1145 Enoino CA 9143 1 DATE: assent a. GAMER ClarkDeputy (Fen/is) I (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons. use iffroof of Service of Summons {fonn is (Para pruops do entregs do sets citation use at fennuisn'o Proof of Service of Summons. NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. El aa an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): 0 i 4? 730?. 3_ ?t on behalfof (specify): under: 416.10 (corporation) El cos 41sec (minor) I:l COP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CUP 416.70 (conservatee) COP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specinr): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 cf 1 Farm Ado ted fer Mandatory Um of canyon-.13 Code of Chill Pmc?aum? 4.32 sum-1pc (Rev. Juiy?l.2l109] - 1 Of 12 03/24/2016 THU 17:05 FAX 2399 Law Offices of KHR mummia-LomHomooqunicacumI-ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ, State Bar No. 53173 KLASS, HELMAN 3: ROSS 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 91436-2424 Telephone: 783-7007 Facsimile: 818 990-2399 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cesar Godoy 016/093 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CESAR GODDY, Plaintiff; VS. BYRON individually and doing business as CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN Los ANGELEs, an unknOWn entity, and room 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. scentti? Case No. COMPLAINT FOR (1) MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 22440,,et seq,; (3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Comes now Plaintiff Cesar Godoy. who alleges against the defendants, as follows: JURISDICIIQE ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff Cesar Godoy. (hereinafter ?Godoy?) is a resident of the State of California and residing in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff Godoy is not a US. Citizen but is in the process of securing law?tl U.S. residency and citizenship through the lawful - processes afforded under the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act. 2. Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ (hereina?er is a resident of the Count}r of Los Angeles, State of California and, upon information and belief, is the owner and operator of a business known as CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN L03 COMPLAINT mall: a Exhibit 2 Of 1 03/24/2016 THU 17:05 FAX 818f9910 2399 Law Offices of KHR 017/093 t) ANGELES (hereinafter Plaintiff is fin'ther informed and believes and thereon alleges 2 that CASA is a fictitious entity and is an alter ego of defendant VASQUEZ. All references 3 herein to are intended to include unless otherwise indicated. 4 3. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that a unity of 5 interest and ownership exists between VASQUEZ and CASA such that the separate personalities 6 of the business entity CASA and its owner/operator VASQUEZ does not in reality exist. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that it would be inequitable if the acts sued upon herein are 3 treatedas those of the business entity alone and not the acts of VASQUEZ. 9 4. Plaintiff is not certain of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein 1 0 as Does 1 through 15 and will ask leave of court to amend the complaint to set forth their true 11 names and capacities when ascertained. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants 1 4 have and continue to act in consort with their co-defendants and that defendants Does 1 through 1 5 5 acting with or through DOES 6 through 10, did knowingly conspire with, aid and abet the acts 1 6 of defendants VASQUEZ and CASA, with the intent to assist said defendants in carrying out the 17 plan, scheme and design hereinafter alleged and that in doing so, Does 1 through 10 are co- 1 conspirators with defendants VASQUEZ and CASA in the conduct sued upon herein and are 1 9 therefor jointly and severally liable for all damages arising therefrom. 2 0 6. Plaintiff is uncertain of the exact acts or omissions rendering defendants sued 2 1 herein as Does 1 through 10, liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this 2 2 complaint to set forth the exact nature of the acts or omissions and the harm caused to Plaintiff 2 3 thereby when ascertained. 2 4 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant VASQUEZ, 2 5 individually and through his alter ego, CASA, as aided and abetted by defendants Doe I through 2 5 10, have and continue to engage in the Unauthorized and illegal practice of acting as an 2 7 Immigration Consultant and/or in practicing law without a license all as forbidden by California 2 8 Business and Professions Code 22440 et seq. and Business and Professions Code 6126. -2- COMPLAINT Otrtoi?itt?n??heomplunb Drills Flinn-Ind 3of1! 03/24/2016 THU 17:05 FAX 818r990 23519 Law Offices of KHR 018/093 8. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, by reason of the violations of said 2 Business and Professions sections, defendants and each of them are engaging in unlawful, unfair, 3 untrue and deceptive business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 17200. 9. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, is outrageous, fraudulent, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted oppressiver in that his conduct was despicable and subjected plaintiff to the potential of cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff?s rights; that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, mos-omens:- and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted fraudulently in that he represented himself, at all times, 1 as an experienced Immigration Consultant and knew, but failed to disclose that he was not a 1 1 licensed Immigration Consultant under California Business and Professions Code 22440, a 2 seq.; and that defendant Vasqnes acted maliciously in that his conduct was both willful and in 3 conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiff. 14 GENE 15 1 6 10. Plaintiff is a Guatemalan national, who has come to the United States seeking 1 7 asylum. Plaintiff has duly submitted appropriate documentation to commence the asylum 1 8 process. 1 9 11. In or about June, 2015, defendant Vazquez, working by, through and under the 2 0 business entity defendant Casa De La Cultura De Guatemala En Los Angeles, orally represented 2 1 to plaintiff Godoy that: 2 2 a. Byron Vazquez is experienced in the handling of immigration matters and, 2 3 for a fee, would assist plaintiff in the preparation and ?ling of papers 2 4 necessary to secure an asylum visa for plaintiff. Said representations are 3 5 and were, when made, a violation of California Business and Professions 2 5 Code 22440, et seq.; 27 b. Byron Vazquez would, for a fee, perform services on behalf of plaintiff 28 -3- coMBLArnr anti: 2 -4 'er 1 03/24/2016 THU 17:06 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices 019/093 including but not limited to the following: (I) Completing a form provided by a federal or state agency but but did not advise plaintiff as to his answers on those forms; (2) Translating a person's answers to questions posed in those forms; (3) Securing for plaintiff supporting documents, such as a birth certi?cate, which may be necessary to complete those forms; and (4) Submitting completed forms on plaintiff behalf and at plaintiff request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each all and every act for which defendant Vazquez offered his services requires either a license to practice law or a registBI'ed Immigration Consultant pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22441 13. Plaintiff, in full reliance upon the representations of defendant Vasquez, and without knowledge that Vasquez was not a duly quali?ed Immigration Consultant, and in reliance upon the rcpresentaticns of defendant Vasquez that said defendant was, in fact, experienced in the handling of immigration matters and was both authorized and lawfully entitled to perform the services for plaintiff, paid over to Vasquez the total sum of 700.00 as and for the services offered by Vasquez. 14. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, nor was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein andfor the performance of the Services by defendant Vasquez, a duly registered and lawful Immigration Consultant. 15. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, not was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein and/or the performance of the services by defendant Vasquez, an attorney at law, duly licensed by the State of California. -4- COMPLAINT Drill 1 Milli.de Exhibit A 5 of 12 03/24/2016 THU 17:06 FAX 818 9530 2399 Law Offices of KHR 020/093 if 1 16. Plaintiff is ?nther informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, nor 2 was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein and/or the performance of the 3 Services by defendant Vasquez, authorized by federal law to represent persons before the Board 4 of Immigration Appeals or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to engage in 5 the business or act in the capacity of an consultant within the State of California. 6 17. At the time of the engagement of defendant Vasquez? services, in violation of 7 California Business and Professions Code 22442 defendant Vasquez failed to provide a 3 written Contract which set forth the following: 9 a; An itemized list with an explanation of the purpose and process of 1 1 each Service to be performed; 12 h. The cost of each itemized service to be performed; 13 c. A statement that Byron Vazquez is not an attorney and may not perform 14 the legal services that an attorney performs; 15 d. A list the documents to he prepared by the immigration consultant;r with an 1 6 . explanation of the purpose and process of each document, and the cost for 1 7 preparing each documentstatement of the purpose for which the immigration consultant has been 2 hired and the actions to be taken by the immigration consultant regarding 2 1 each document, including the agency and of?ce where each document will 2 2 be filed and the approximate processing times according to current 2 3 published agency guidelines; 2 4 f. A provision that informed plaintiff that he may report complaints relating 2 5 to immigration consultants to the Executive Of?ce for Immigration 2 6 Review of the United States Department of Justicestating complaints concerning the turauthorrzed practice 2 conrnarsr Of?ldl?umm?f\?dm1llnt Death 2 [lull-wild 6 of 11 03/24/2016 THU 17:07 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 021/093 i 1 of law may be reported to the State Bar of California, including the 2 toll-free telephone numbers and Internet Web sites of those entities; 3 h. A statement that defendant Vasquez is not bonded as required by 4 California law. 5 18. Defendant Vasquez, at the time of payment of the fees demanded by him, failed to 6 provide a statement of account every two months as required under California Business and 7 Professions Code 22442.1 . 8 9 19. At the tune of the engagement of the services of defendant Byron Vasquez by 1 plaintiff Cesar Godoy, defendant Vasquez violated California Business and Professions Code 1 22442.2 by failing to conspicuously display any notice in English and Spanish which 1 2 contained the following information: 1 3 l. The ?ill name, address, and evidence of compliance with any applicable bonding 1 4 requirement including the bond number; 1 5 2. A statement that the immigration consultant is not an attorney. 1 6 3. The services that the immigration consultant provides and the current and total fee 1 7 I for each service. 1 4. The name of each immigration consultant employed at each location. 1 9 2 20. At the time of the engagement of the services of defendant Byron Vasquez by 2 1 plaintiff Cesar Godoy, defendant Vasquez violated California Business and Professions Code 2 2 22442.2 by failing to provide plaintiff Godoy with a written disclosure in Spanish setting 2 3 forth: 2 a The immigration consultant?s name, address, and telephone number. 2 5 (22) The immigration consultant's agent for service of process. 2 6 (3) The legal name of the employee who consulted with the client, 2 7 2 if different from the immigration consultant. 8 COMPLAINT 2 mmh?p? 13k 7Df11 03/24/2016 THU 17:07 FAX 2399 Law Offices of KHR bwaI022/093 (4) Evidence of compliance with applicable bonding requirements, including the bond number. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Vasquez did, in violation California Business and Professions Code 22442.3 and with the speci?c intent to deceive plaintiff, implied both directly and indirectly that he is and at the times herein stated, was an Consultant. 22. Plaintiff Godoy is ?rrther informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Vasquez did not maintain any trust account as required pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22442.5 23. Plaintiff Godoy ?trther alleges that defendant, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443. Vasquez did not provide a copy of each document ?led by Vasquez for or on behalf of plaintiff and further, that Vasquez, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443 (1) did not return to plaintiff all original documents provided by plaintiff to defendant, to wit, death certificates and newspaper clippings in support of his claim for asylum. 24. Plaintiff Godoy is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443.1 (1) Vasquez did not secure and ?le with the California Secretary of State a bond in the sum or any other surn whatsoever prior to, or at any time during which Vasquez represented Godoy or prepared and/or submitted an;r documents on plaintiff?s behalf. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AN DOES 1 THROUGH 10) 25. Plaintiff incorporates hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof as though set forth in full hereat again. 26. Plaintiff delivered to defendant Vasquez, at said defendant's direct request. the -7- CCIMFLAINT Exhibit A 8 of 12 Drill: 1 03/24/2016 THU 17:07 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 023/093 1' 1 sum of seven hundred dollars 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant is not lanully entitled to said sums, or any sums whatsoever, for the performance of services requiring sawmill?l either a license to practice law or as an Immigration Consultant in accordance with Califomia 5 Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq. 6 28. Plaintiff has demanded return of his money anti defendant has failed and refused 7 and continues to fail and refuse to return said funds. 29. As a direct result of defendants unlawful retention of said ?uids, plaintiff has been 1 0 damaged in the stun of $700.00 plus interest thereon from June 30, 2015 at the lawful rate of 1 10% per annum. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 13 FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 22440, et seq. 1 4 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AND noes 1 THROUGH 10) 30. Plaintiff incorporates hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set 1 7 forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof as though set forth again hereat in full. 1 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the services for which 1 9 defendant Vazquez charged fees may only he performed by a licensed attorney or a duly 2 0 registered Immigration Consultant. Plaintiff is fLu'ther informed and believes that neither 2 1 defendant Vasquez nor defendants CASA or Does 1 through 10 are either licensed attomeys or 2 2 registered Immigration Consultants as that term is used in California Business and Professions 33 Code 22440, et seq. 2 4 32. Plaintiff Godoy is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant 2 5 Vasquez failed to comply with the following sections of the California Business and Professions 2 5 Code: 22440, which requires that a person charging money for the services performed shall be 2 7 a registered Immigration Consultant; 22442 which requires a written contract between the client 28 COMPLAINT 9of1 sense 3 mumps 1 03/24/2016 THU 17:08 FAX 818(990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 024/093 {l and an Immigration Consultant; 22442.2 which requires a conspicuously displayed sign identifying the bonding company who has issued a bond for the Immigration Consultant; 22443.1 which requires the posting of a $100,000.00 bond prior to performing any services as an earnest?t Immigration Consultant; 22443.3 which requires that a bond he posted before anyone may [.11 disseminate (by any means) any statement indicating, directly or by implication, that the person 6 acts as an Immigration Consultant. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Vasquez 7 violated other sections of the California Business and Professions Code the speci?cs of which are 8 not yet presently known to plaintiff who will ash leave of court to amend this complaint to set 9 forth same when ascertained or according to proof at time of trial. 10 33. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code a 22446.5, plaintiff is 1 1 entitled'to damages for each violation and that said stun be trebled or at the rate of $1,000.00 per 1 2 violation, whichever is greater. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained damages which are not yet 1 3 fully ascertained and plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this complaint when same are 1 4 ascertained or according to proof at time of trial. 15 34. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22445, and in addition to 1 6 any other damages, plaintiff is entitled to damages up to but exceeding $100,000 for defendants 7 violations of the above identified Business and Professions Code sections. 1 1 9 35. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees for which plaintiff 2 seeks payment from defendants Vasquez, CASA and Does '1 through 10 inclusive pursuant to 2 1 California Business and Professions Code 22446.5 according to proof. 2 2 36. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, is outrageous, fraudulent, 2 3 oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff ?nther alleges that defendant Vasquez acting by and through 2 4 defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted Oppressively in that his conduct was 2 5 despicable and subjected plaintiff to the potential of cruel and unjust hardship in conscious 2 5 disregard of plaintiff?s rights; that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, 2 7 and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted fraudulently in that he represented himself, at all times, 2 a as an experienced Immigration Consultant and knew, but failed to disclose that he was not a -9- COMPLAINT \xmuasavsttuaniem-wns arrin.\eeaur\tnnsi.ine unit; a MR.-de Exhibit 10 of 12 03/24/2016 THU 17:08 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR .acoroH 025/093 .1 licensed Consultant under California Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq.; and that defendant Vasques acted malicioust in that his conduct was both willful and in conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiff warranting punitive damages according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION I FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, et seq. (AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15) 37. Plaintiff incorporates hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 hereof as though set forth in full hereat again. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the actions of defendant Vasquez, CASA and Does 1 through 10 inclusive violate California Business and Professions Code 17200 in that they are inherently deceptive and constitute unfair business practices by of the law and by taking advantage of the ignorance of aliens facing potential deportation 39. Plaintiffis ?n'ther informed and believes that the conduct of defendant Vasquez, as herein above alleged, constitutes a fraudulent business practice warranting the imposition of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction all as provided. for under California Business and Professions Code 17203. WHEREFORE Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows: 1. For damages for violations of Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq. according to proof; 2. For a determination that defendant Vasquez is the alter ego of defendant Casa; 3. For punitive damages; 4. For injunctive relief to prevent defendants from continued violations of California Business and Professions Code 17203 and 22440, et seq.; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; -10- coasLarnr Exhibit 2' 11 of 12 3 Mill.? 03/24/2016 THU 17:09 FAX $181,990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 026/093 1 6. For attorneys fees as provided for under Business and Professions Code 22446.5 2 or any other applicable code section; and 3 7. For such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: December 17, 2015 M. ROSS I Attorney for Plaintiff Cesar Godoy-11- COMPLAINT antennas-unempluns ans: 2 RH?.de Exhibit 1! 12 of 1: 03/24/2016 THU 17:Michael Ghilezan, Es THE GHILEZAN LAW FAX 818 990 2399 Law ef KHR 2016 . SEN 232340) IilM 1301 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 907-5708 Fax: (310) 338-0315 e-mail: miehaei@ghile2anlaw.eon1 Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de la Cultura de Guatemala COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY DE LOS ANGELES-CENTRAL DISTRICT CESAR Case Nat: BC 604916 plaintiff DEFENDANT TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown entity, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff CESAR GODOY RESPONDIN PARTY: Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ SET NUMBER: One Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ provides the following responses to the First Set of Requests for Admissions propounded by Plaintiff CESAR PRELIMINARY STATEMENT DEF. BYRON T0 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET DNE 027/093 E3: hibit 1 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR The responses to the Requests for Admissions are provided solely for the purposes of and in relation to this action. Each answer is subject to all appropriate objections, including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any statements contained herein or as follows hereafter, or any statement contained herein or as follows hereafter made by a witness present at the time and then testifying in Court. All such objections and the grounds therefore are reserved herein and may be interposed at the time of trial as they may pertain to each, every and all of the answers or the failure to answer and/or otherwise respond to the Requests for Admission propounded herein. Responding Party objects to each request for admission-to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney~client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. To the extent that supplying the information requested would result in waiving any privilege or objection based on the attorney-client privilege and/or the Work product doctrine, Responding Party does not waive the applicable privilege or doctrine. To the extent Responding Party provides any information falling within the attomey-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine and it is subsequently held that it waived the applicable privilegeldoctrine, Reaponding Party waives the applicable privilegefdoctrine only to the extent the information is provided. Responding Party has not yet completed investigation of the facts relating to this action, has not as of this date and time completed discovery, and has not yet completed preparations for trial. Consequently, the following responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party's rights to produce at the time of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of any matet'ial facts, and further, to; produce any and all further andfor additional evidence, whenever discoVered, relating to the proof of facts subsequently discovered and determined to be material. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that these the Requests for Admission seek proprietary and con?dential information and seek to invade the personal privacy rights of Responding Party. Responding Party also obj ects to these Requests for Admission to the extent that they request information already within the possession of the Propounding Party. DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 028/093 03/24/2016 THU 17:GENERAL OBJECTIONS l. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's Requests to the extent any request calls for the disclosure of information that is subject to the attorneyfclient privilege, other priVilege, or the work product doctrine, or which call for a response that would require disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of its attorneys and/or other representatives concerning this or any other litigation. 2. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's Requests to the extent they purport to impose on Responding Party undue burden and expense or require Responding Party to provide information that is not within its possession, custody or control, that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 3. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's requests to the extent they seek or purport to impose on Responding Party discovery obligations beyond what is required or contemplated by the California Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Responding Party objects to each and every Request to the extent that it seeks the cumulative or duplicatiVe information on the grounds that each such request is unduly burdensome, vexatious, and oppressive. 5. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's Requests to the extent any Request seeks disclosure of information where such disclosure would Violate any constitutional, statutory, or common law right of privacy of California, or any other state or the United States, or any con?dential agreement between Responding Party and any entity or person. RESPONSES TO FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he is not a Certi?ed Immigration Consultant in the State of California as that term is used in California Business and Professions Code 22440. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 31%} FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR [moss/093 111311: 3 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguoUs, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded and/or it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Notwithstanding the objections, and without waiving them, Responding party answers as follows: admits. REQUEST OR ADMISSION NO. 2: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he engaged in acts as an immigration consultant as that term is de?ned in California Business and Professions Code 22441. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request can the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded andfor it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion by comparing the acts he allegedly engaged in, with the acts contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Based on the foregoing, Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he received funds in the sum of $500.00 from Plaintiff Cesar chcy on June 12, 2015. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $500.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on June 12, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE ibit 4 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that the funds received from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on June 12, 2015 were for the performance of services in connection with an ?immigration matter? as that term is de?ned under California Business and Professions Code 2244l(b). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is urrintelligible as worded and/or it requires responding party to formulate a. legal conclusion by comparing the serVices he allegedly provided, with the services contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Additionally, Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $500.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on June 12, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he received funds in the sum of $200.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 28, 2015. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $200.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 28, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that the funds receiVed from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 28, 2015 were for the performance of services in connection with an ?immigration matter? as that term is de?ned under California Business and Professions Code 2244103). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded andfor it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion by comparing the schices he allegedly DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR [most/093 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR provided, with the services contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Additionally, Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $200.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 28, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit not deny the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he is not authorized to practice law in State of California. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he is not authorized to practice law in State of California. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he is not authorized by federal law to represent persons before the Board of Immigration Appeals. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded because Responding party does not understand What ?federal law? propounding party is referring to. Furthermore, the request requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion which Responding party is not able to do, as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Notwithstanding the objections, and without waiving them, Responding party answers as follows: admits. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Defendant Byron Vasquez admits that he is not authorized to represent any immigrant by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. RESPONSE TO QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased. and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 032/093 ?hibit 6 of 3 03/24/2016 THU 17:11 see: 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 033/093 1 objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded because it is 2 grammatically unsound: Responding party does not understand what "not authorized to represent a any immigrant by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services? means. Furthennore, 4 the request requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion which Responding party is not able to do, as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Because Responding Party cannot understand this request, Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Dated: March 10, 2016 THE GHIL AN LAW FIRM 10 ff.- 1 1 R. Michdel?Ghil?za'h: Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Cass 12 de la Cultura de Guatemala DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE . . Esplalblt 7of9 03/24/2016 THU 17:12 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offiooa of KHR YE lF'Q?m? .. l, BYRON VASQUEZ, am a Defendant in the above-captioned ease. I have read the First Set of lieqaests for Admissions propounded by Plaintit?t?CESAR GODOY, and my Responses to these requests. am familiar with the content of both. Based on my Knowledge the responses to these requests are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of foregoing responses are true. Executed at Los Angeles. California. Byrkasquee DEF. BYRON TD REQUESTS FOR ONE El Exhibit of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:12 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am employed by The Ghilezan Law Firm. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1301 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On March 10, 2016 I served on the interested parties the following documents: DEFENDANT RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS I effectuated the service by placing a copy of these documents with the United States Postal Service, with postage fully pre-paid, to be delivered to the following addressee: Klass, Holman at Ross 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 114-5 Encino, CA 91436 Attn: Robert M. Ross, Esq. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and Attorneys for Plaintiff This declaration was executed on the date of March 10, 2016 at Los Angeles, CA. PROOF OF SERVICE If?. Michael??hilezan E. 9 Of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:Michael Ghilezan, Es . g?N 232340) THE GHILEZAN LAW I 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 9076703 Fax: (310) ass-0315 e-rnail: mishael@ghilezanlaw.eom FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR MARI 4 2016 Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de la Cultara de Guatemala SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESACENTRAL DISTRICT CESAR GODOY, Plaintiff, v. BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown] entity, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusivs, Defendants PROPDUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff CESAR GODOY Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER: One Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ provides the following responses to the First Set of Form Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff CESAR GODOY. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Case NIL: BC 604916 DEFENDANT RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES 036/093 11bit 1 Of 9 03/24/2015 THU 17:12 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 037/093 1 The responses to the Form Interrogatories are provided solely for the purposes of and in 2 relation to this action. Each answer is subject to all appropriate objections, including, but not 3 limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and 4 admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any statements contained herein or as 5 follows hereafter, or any statement contained herein or as follows hereafter made by a witness a present at the time and then testifying in Court. All such objections and the grounds therefore are 7 reserved herein and may be interposed at the time of trial as they may pertain to each, every and a all of the answers or the failure to answer andf or otherwise respond to the interrogatories a propounded herein. 10 Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information 11 protected by the attorney-client privilege andfor the work product doctrine. To the extent that 13 Supplying the information requested would result in waiving any privilege or objection based on 13 the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, Responding Party does not waive 14 the applicable privilege or doctrine. To the extent Responding Party provides any information 15 falling Within the attorney-client privilege the work product doctrine and it is 16 subsequently held that it waived the applicable privilege/doctrine, Responding Party waives the applicable privilege/doctrine only to the extent the information is provided. 13 Responding Party has not yet completed investigation of the facts relating to this action, 19 has not as of this date and time completed discovery, and has not yet completed preparations for 20 trial. Consequently, the following responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party's 31 lights to produce at the time of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of 22 any material facts, and further, to; produce any and all further andfor additional evidence, 2 3 whenever discovered, relating to the proof of facts subsequently discovered and determined to be material. 25 Responding Party further objects on the grounds that these interrogatories seek 2 6 proprietary and confidential information and seek to invade the personal privacy rights of the 37 parties. Responding Party also objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they request 23 information already within the possession of the propounding party. DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATDRIES, SET ONE Eglhiblt 2of9 03/24/2016 THU 17FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR l. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's Requests to the extent any request calls for the disclosure of information that is subject to the attorneyfclient privilege, other privilege, or the work product doctrine, or which call for a response that would require disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of its attorneys andfor other representatives concerning this or any other litigation. 2. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's intet?rcgatories to the extent they purport to impose on Responding Party undue burden and expense or require Responding Party to provide information that is not Within its possession, custody or control, that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 3. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's requests to the extent they seek or purport to impose on Responding Party discovery obligations beyond what is required or contemplated by the California Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Responding Party objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the cumulative or duplicative information on the grounds that each such request is unduly burdensome, vexatious, and oppressive. 5. Responding Party objects to Propounding Party's interrogatories to the extent any interrogatory seeks disclosure of information Where such disclosure would violate any constitutional, statutory, or common law right of privacy of California, or any other state or the United States, Or any con?dential agreement between Responding Party and any entity or person. RESPONSES TO RE UESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: Request for Admission no. 1: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded and/or it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 3'3 038/093 hibit 3 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17Ghilezan Law Firm. Byron Vasquez, contact information on ?le with The Ghilezan Law Firm. No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 2: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded and/or it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion by comparing the acts he allegedly engaged in, with the acts contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Based on the foregoing, Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Byron Vasquez, contact information on ?le with The Ghilezan Law Firm. No responsive documents under Responding party's control. Request for Admission no. 3: Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $500.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on June 12, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Byron Vasquez, contact information on tile with The No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 4: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded andfor it requires responding party to fonnulate a legal conclusion by comparing the services he allegedly provided, with the services contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Additionally, Responding DEF. RESPONSES 0 DEM INTERRDGATORIES. SET ONE Ei? FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR moss/093 hibit 4 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:party does not remember whether or not he received $500.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on June 12, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. I Byron Vasquez, contact information on ?le with The Ghilezan Law Firm. No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 5: Responding party does not remember whether or not he received $200.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 23, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Byron Vasquez, contact information on ?le with The Ghilezan Law inn. No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 5: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded and/or it requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion by comparing the services he allegedly provided, with the services contemplated in the statute, which Responding party is not able to do as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Additionally, Responding party does not remember Whether or not he received $200.00 from Plaintiff Cesar Godoy on July 28, 2015, therefore Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Byron Vasquez, contact information on ?le with The Ghilezan Law Firm. No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 3: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATDRIES, SET ONE Eli-l FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 11bit 5 of 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR worded because Responding party does not understand what ?federal law? propouuding party is referring to. Furthermore, the request requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion which Responding party is not able to do, as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Byron Vasquez, contact information on file with The Ghilezan Law Firm. No responsive documents under Responding party?s control. Request for Admission no. 9: Objection. Vague, overbroad, ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible as phrased, and it requires a legal conclusion. Further objection: the request calls for speculation. Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible as worded because it is grammatically unsound: Responding party does not understand what ?not authorized to represent any immigrant by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services? means. Furthermore, the request requires responding party to formulate a legal conclusion which Responding party is not able to do, as Responding party is not a licensed attorney. Because Responding Party cannot understand this request, Responding party can neither admit nor deny the request. Byron Vasquez, contact information on file with The Ghilezan Law Firm. Letter of Accreditation from the Board of Immigration Appeals to the Casa de la Cultura de Guatemala en Les Angeies, document on tile with the Ghilezan Law Firm, who will make it available upon request. KM MI MK DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO FORM INTERRDGATDRIES, SET ONE 3?3 nibit 60f? 03/24/2016 THU 17:14 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea of KHR Dated: March 10, 2016 4 R. W1 (311262513: Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de la Cultura ale Guatamala DEF. BYRON VASOUEZ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Eglibit 7 Df 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:15 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 043/093 2 I, BYRON VASQUEZ, am a Defendant in the above-captioned ease. I have read the First 3 Set of" Form lnterrogatoriEs p1?0pounded by Plaintiff CESAR GDDOY, and my Responses to those requests. I am familiar with the content of both. Based on my Knowledge the responses to these requests are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Calit?or a lirregoing responses are true. Executed at Los Angeles, California. Dated: March ID, 2016 Byron sques 26 28 DEF. BYRON RESPONSES TO SET ONE Exhibit Sofa 03/24/2015 Tau 17:15 FAX 313 990 2399 Law Officee of KHR 044/093 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am employed by The Ghilezan Law Firm. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1301 Century 4 Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90067. 5 On March 10, 2016 I served on the interested parties the following documents: 6 DEFENDANT RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF FORM 7 INTERROGATORIES I effectuated the service by placing a copy of these documents with the United States Postal Service, with postage fully pre-paid, to be delivered to the following addressee: 9 Klass, Holman do Ross Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1145 Encino, CA 91436 Attu: Robert M. Ross, Esq. 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 14 15 This declaration was executed on the date of March 10, 2016 at Los AngelesEye-hi Fiji Paoos os snavrcs gf 9 03/24/2016 THU 17:15 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea 3f KHR 045/093 11,111. f. . . . I. wry: Inn. I 1 k? ?li't - . +5 1'10351" 1'1" i?-f ?ky.01 H6 31.- 31 111111 111 No. 991131 I RECEIVED FROM kg JEO Fog-M FIENT . -w ACCOUNT - CH PAYMENT 0 FFICIM MON QFID DUE 13y .d 13-2701 - T-4BEDW4BBDE Exhibit 1 Cf 1 03/24/2016 THU 17:16 FAX 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR 046/093 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 TATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. 3 OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 ears and not a. party to the within action. My business address is 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 5 1145, Encino, California 91436. 6 On March 24, 2016, I served the foregoing document, described as: 7 DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. ROSS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE 3 By placing the original true copie(s) thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), 9 addressed as follows: 10 R. Michael Ghilezan, Esq. The Ghilezan Law Firm 11 1301 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 12 Tel: 310-907-5703 Fax: 310-333-0315 13 Email: michael@ghilezanlaw.co1n 14 Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de law Cultura de Guatemala on Los Angeles 15 BY US MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Encino, California. 16 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I7 I am familiar with this firm?s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the 18 ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day 19 after date of deposit for mailing in this af?davit. 20 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By delivering the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) or pacltage(s) designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid 21 or provided for, addressed as shown above, to a facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or to an authorized cottrier or driver authorized by the express 22 service carrier to receive documents, who received these documents at 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California 91436. 23 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee. 24 BY FACSIMILE: By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing document(s) via facsimile 25 transmission from this Firm's sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is 813~ 990-23 99, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth 26 above or on the attached service list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm's sending 27 facsimile machine for each interested party served. A true copy of each transmission report is attached to the of?ce copy of this proof of service and will be provided upon 23 request. 03/24/2016 THU 17:16 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 047/093 1 Service by facsimile transmission was made pursuant to agreement of the parties, con?rmed in writing, or as a courtesy to the parties. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed 3 above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list from the e-mail address @khrlaw.com at approximately . To my knowledge, 4 the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 5 State: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Federal: I declare that I am employed in the of?ce of a member of the bar of this 7 Court, at whose direction the service was made. 8 EXECUTED on March 24, 2016, at Encino, California. 10 Jeanne Sarmiento 03/24/2016 THU 17:FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 048/093 ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ., State Bar No. 58173 KLASS, HELMAN its ROSS 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 91436-2424 Telephone: (818) 78 8-7007 Facsimile: (818) 9902399 Attorneys for Plaintiff NEXUS SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NEXUS SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Case No.: EC600636 Corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California DECLARATION OF MARCIELA ARROYO VIVEROS IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE vs. COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, OASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS unknown entity, and DOES 1 to 15, inclusive, Date: 4f7/16 Time: 3:30 am. Dept: 55 Defendants. Plaintiff hereby submits the attached Declaration of Mareiela Arroyo Viveros in Support of Plaintiff?s Opposition to Defendants? Special Motion to Strike: -1- DECLARATION OF MARCIELA ARROYO orticnweuus scavroas vs. Harm .wpa 03/24/2016 THU 17:17 cameFAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 049/093 DECLARATION OF MARCIELA ARROYO VIVEROS I, Marciela Arroyo Viveros declare as follows: 1. I am not a party to this lawsuit. I am a client of plaintiff Nexus Services Inc. I know the following to be true of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I would and could competently testify thereto. I 2. I became a client of Nexus Services, Inc. on June 22, 2015. Attached hereto as Exhibit hereof is a true copy of my contract with Nexus Services, Inc. 3. Under the terms of our contract Nexus Services is the guarantor of my bail on an immigration bond. One of the specific provisions of the contract is that I wear a GPS monitoerracelet so that Nexus Services can, at all times, know where I am. Without Nexus Services guaranteeing my bond, I would not have been able to provide the bonding company with adequate security for the posting of the bond and I would have remained in custody pending an immigration hearing which could easily have taken months. I am now free on bond as a result of the bond being issued because of Nexus Services guarantee. 4. In or about September of 2015 defendant Byron Vasquez, who does business under the name Casa De La Culture De Guatemala De Los Angeles, approached me and urged that I breach my contract with Nexus Services, Inc. by not charging the GPS bracelet. 5. Mr. Vasquez represented to me that I should not charge the GPS bracelet and not to pay the payment of $420 per month, and to have any bills sent to Casa De La Cultura De Guatemala de Los Angeles. 6. In reliance upon those representations, and based entirely upon the inducements made to me by Mr. Vasquez, I breached my contract with Nexus Services and stopped charging the bracelet. 03/24/2016 THU 17:Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 050/093 7. I was in breach of my contract with Nexus Services for approximately 4 weeks. 8. As a result of that breach, I was informed that Nexus could, and would, withdraw its guarantee of my bail bond and that I would be immediately subject to re?incarceration pending the hearing on my immigration case. In order to avoid that possibility, I recharged the bracelet and I am now in compliance with my contract. 9. I am aware of others to whom Mr. Vasquez made these same representations and who have breached their contracts with Nexus as I did. I was personally present when Byron Vasquez told, aqueline Elanco-Gonzales and Ne? Flores to also not charge or pay for the bracelet. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 'State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, executed on this 12 day of Febr ary, 2016 at Encino, California. add-I- Marcieia Wmvems 03/24/2015 THU 17:17 FAX 212 220 2322 Law Offices of mm 051/093 DECLARACION DE MARCIELA ARROYO VIVEROS Yo, Marciela Arroyo Viveros declan lo siguiente: 1. Yo no soy parte de esta demands. Yo soy clients del demandante Nexus Services Inc. Yo declares lo siguiente al ser verdad por conocimiento propio al ser llamada como testigo podre testificar compententemente a lo siguiente. 2. Yo me converti en un cliente mas de Nexus Services, Inc. e1 22 de Junie del 2015. Adjunto a esta declaracion come Exposicion esta una copia verdadera de mi contrato con Nexus Services, Inc. 3. Bajo los terminos de mi contrato, Lexus Nexus es el garante de mi ?anza en un enlace de inmigracion. Una de 1212 provisiones especi?cas del contrato indica que yo use on monitorfbrasalete de SPG para que Nexus Services pueda, a todo tiempo a todo momento, poder ubicarme. Si Nexus Services no hubiera garantado mi enlace, yo no hubiera podido proveer a la cornpania a?anzadora con la seguridad adecuada para la contabilidad dc bonos hubiera permanecido en la custodia de los agentes de inmigracion esperando una audiencia migratoria nor lo cual facilmente podria haber durado meses en obtener dicha audiencia. En este momento me ecuentro libre bajo bono por lo cual fue guarantisado por Nexus Sevices. 4. Aproximadamente en el mes cle Septiembre del 2015, el demandado Byron Vasquez, el cual conduce servicios de negocio bajo el nombre de Casa De La Cultura De Guatemala de Los Angeles, as aserco a mi me insto a1 sugerir que rompiera mi contrato con Nexu?s Services, Inc. al indicar que no cargara las baterias de mi monitor/brasalete de SPG. 5. El Senor Vasquez me indico que no cargara mi monitorfbrasalete de SPG que no hiciera mi pago mensual de $420 al igual que todas mis facturas cle tal monto se las enviara a Casa De La Cultura De Guatemala de Los Angeles. 03/24/2016 THU 17:18 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 052/093 6. A1 depender de las indicaciones presentadas, basado totalmente en los incentivos propuestos haeia mi persona por el Senor Vasquez. yo rompi mi eontrato eon Nexus Services a1 no serguir eargando las baterias de mi monitor/brasalete de SPG. 7. Yo estuve en ineumplimieuto de mi eontrato eon Nexus Services por aproximadamente 4 semanas. 8. Como resultado de tal ineumplimiento, fui infonnada que Nexus podria ineluso iba a retirar all guarantia por mi fianza por lo tal yo seria suj eta a reeneareelaeion immediate en espera de una audeneia migratioria. Para. poder evitar 1a posibilidad de lo tal, volvi a eargar las baterias de mi monitor/brasalete de SPG por lo oual me dejo sigo estando en oonformidad con mi eontrato eon Nexus Services. 9. Estoy enterada al tanto de otras personas por las eual e1 Senor Vasquez tambien les habia representado las mismas sugereneias que se me habian presentado portal tambien han ineumplido eon sus oontratos eon Nexus a1 igual que yo lo habia heeho. Yo estaba personalmente presente euando Byson Vaquez le dijo a aqueline Blaneo-Gonzales a Ne? Flores que no eargaran sus monitoresfbrasaletes que no hieieran 5115 pages mensuales portal monitor/brasalete. Yo declare bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del Estado de Cal?ornia que lo dieho es en verdad eierto col-recto. Exeeutaclo e1 12 de Febrero del 2016 en Eneino. Cal?omia (ll-?Hf Mareiela Arroyo Viveros 03/24/2016 THU 17:18 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea of KHR mm 053/093 31.3-5258-2583 2 2 hr NEXUE UFFENDER ID NUMBER: {3598523 {DIE-fender Nanje: Mnmcemmau'm means Offender dress: mu HELINM. AVE. BELL GARDENE. GA. wank Qf'fender Phone Number: I *?mwm Charge(s): 1) nl-Mm'AL mac?uumas 22:21? a} mums} JUNE 24.2015 muw'l?m' an amm- ?mm {1331:2131 EW 22mmqu CENTER AMOUNTQP Bow:51cmh ?f$w cmmonn mam" acquaint: Immigratiun Statusu Citizen ICitreen Card wvi?sa Undocumented YES v? NC PENDING Ca-Eignler (Sponsor) Enforma than Co-??gher Nama- . Mam-Cwm?? i 5803 EL SELINMAVE. BELL annulus. Gm 802014028 Cb-ziligner Phaan'e Number: 33.33 QM .1305?? DO 0 ?36 Ext-1:212 A 10f 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:13 uu:.n.ul hill-A." Ill-Ill- FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea of KHR I Jh??a I: ?Mill-l I RISK ASSESSMENT 054/093 In luluth uuhn 1" .b I I BYNEXUS len RUMENT D?ander Name: Tim:th Annm'n manna Ensign? Name: "Elam Dl'flnder Address: 5903 El. AVE. BELL CD$lgn?r Phunc' Numbem? I O?nndar Phone Number: I ICusiEner Empluyed? {an ale] 1. HGME PLAN 2. WORK PLAN Hon-nelens zo Emploved FT 0 Live w/ Parish-ts 3 Employed PT Um: w/ Famlly a Unemployed 5 len w/ Friend: Student Cl Rent Their i-lnrne Homelrlnuar 1 Own Thelr Home Military/other 1 a. AGE 4. (write 19 or Vaunlzel- 1 Own: Phlan - 20 - '19 Years I 9" A. 2 Uses Anather Ph hr" an Vents at Above Cl Nu 5 E. CHARE 6. MENTAL ABUSE TREATMENT Vlnlent Offense 3 Mental Health 1 Drug Offense 1 Drug ll. Fraud 5 Both 4 Prapeny nl? Misd. Off 0 Neither Cl 52): Dl?fnnm 7 Chill ?11 7. RECORD 3. ls CURRENT DFEEIESE A PRESU CHARGE Felulw 2 YES 22 Falany 2+ 4 No Misdemeanor 1 Misdemlaannr 2+ 2 am 4 1mm. POINTS: Both 2+ 5 pom-rs FTA 5 (Attach unplanatlnn to Na rep-art) PTA all. 10 FDINTS FOR CONSIDERMIOM: 3? (Combine total points a 1d points 4-f- In rnlileatiun) D-B Palms - Autumn: Approval 16-21 Points - High Risk, Elle: Di.- Approval 9-15 Paint: - . 22+ l-?ulru. - GPS HEQU. El FOR APPROVAL Cnhditilpnal EXHIBIT A u. iJiL 055/093 mutual-nu lulu-ma FAX 818 990 2399 Law foicee Df KHR 03/24/2016 THU 17:19 net?.- -.--HI-I.- .un? - - . - CLIENT INFORMATION SHEET (REQUIRED) DETAINER CLIENTS I NED-I5 has accepted ?Ram into Dur Defendant DivereiDn we have agreed tD Deck the defendant DurSuent tn the be rId set In the DeSe, whleh currently IS In the EDIE IMMIGRATICIN can?, Ill In 1' PLEASE INITIAL THE FDLLUWING STATEMENTS, INDICATING THAT UNDERSTAND EACH OF THEM: I UNDERSTAND THAT LIDRE RY NEXUS IS NOT D. IN ANY WA WHATSOEVER. WITH ICE, THE US GOVERNMENTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AG I UNDERSTAND LIBRE ET NEXUS IS A FEW. ORGANIIMTIDN PROVIDING DEFENDANT MONITDRING AND DIVERSICIN PROGRAMS. 32 I UNDERSTAND THAT LISRE EIY NEEDS HAS AGREED TD ASSIST ME IN 9OSTING DDND FOR THE DETAINEE LISTED ADDUE, I UNDERSTAND THATI WILL DE CHARGED DR THE AMDUNT FEE. FDR THE DPS BRACELET. THAT LISRS NSSUS WILL PGST THE BONES AND WILL PAY THE SAIL PREMIUM To A LICENSED SAIL EDND CDMPANV DEDUCTINS APPLICABLE FE ES, INCLUDING CDLIATERAL FEES. I UNDERSTAND THAT NEEDS DDES NDT MARS RELEASE DECISIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT NEEDS A SRDUIDSS MDNITDRINS THRDUSH ADIUDIDATIDN OF THE STARS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. IDS RELEASE DSCISIDNS ARE MADE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT DF NERIIS INT-ARE DECISIDNs. 3 I UNDERSTAND THAT LIERE HY NEIIUS IS A RELIDIDUS DRSANIEATIDII. AND I FURTHER J: THAT MINISTRY SERVICES VJILL BE OFFERED TO THE EFENDANT. I ALSD UNDERSTAND THAT LIHRE NERUS DUES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY CLIENTS ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION DR CREED, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE DEFENEANTS TO ACCEPT MINISTRY SERVICES. THOUGH THEY ARE AVAILABLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REIND- ASSESSED A SEE DP AND FEE WILL SE SI WAIVED URDN RELEASE DP THE DSSENDANT. THE SALANCE SEIND IEDITSD TD FIRST LEASE FEE AND ACTIVATIDN FEE OF THE EIPE EQUIPMENT. THE DEFENDANT HAS ND SDN D, I UNDERSTAND THAT LIDRE BY NEEDS WILL MARE THEIR SEPDRTIS) AND FINDINGS AVAILABLE FDR PRESENTATIDN AT AN IMMISRATIDN EDLD HEARIND THAT MAT BE SCHEDULED BY THE NEXUS PROGRAMS AGREES TD PROVIDE CDLLATERAL FDR THE IMMIDRATIDN SDND. IN THE MMDUNT CIF I UNDERSTAND THE ADDVS STATSM ENTS AND CERTIFY THAT I AM WILLIND TD FDR INSURINS THE DESENDANT TD ALL SCHEDULED CDUIIT DATES. DC "It I CD-SIISNER NUMBER SISNATURII AND DATE ANY QUESTIDNS AISDDT SHALL ELIE TD MEI-CUE PROGRAMS. TDD NAT DART. TRENDS RT: EKHIBIT A 3 DE 22 moss/093 03/24/2015 THU 17:19 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Df KHR u?..ou in: hUmu u. urv A In 4 IHII. I. ffx?lu?i'ulIMIEIALEs LAs DECLARAEIDNES, INDICANDU DDE DADA UND DE ELLDE: YD ENTIELL-DD QDE EEDEEAMAE ND ESTA AFILIADD, DE MAM-IRA. - cow ICE, EL GDBIERNO EE.LILI., EL ESTADD DE CUALQUIER DTEA AGENDA ENTIENDD NEEDS DRDEAAMAE E5 DA: A DAEANELAELDN PRIVADA PAEETAEIDN DE MDMITDDED DEDEEAMAE DE YD EMTIENDD CLUE NEKUS PRDGEAMAE AEIETIR ME EN EL: NUS DE DEEDLAEAMIEAITD PARA EL DETENIDD ENUMEAADDE ANTEDIDEMENTE. ENTIENDD DJ. EL 20% DD. IM PDETE DE LA EIANEA DNA CLIDTA DEL PEDDMMA PARA LA PU DPS. ENTIENDD CLUE FROG AAMAE Nexus LDE EDNDE LA PRIMA FLAME-A A UNALICENCIA EDMDANIA DE FIANEAE DEEPUEE DE DEDUCIR LAs TARIEAE. INCLUYENDD HDNDEAEIDE DE DE [3 in 1:1] YD ENTIENDQ QUE NEICUS TOMAR DECISIDNEE DE ENTIENDO QUE NEXUS MON-ITDHEO MEDIANTE DE UL CAUSA CONTRA EL . DEMANDADD. DE VERTIDD DE LEE 5E HACEN TQTALME LTE INDEPENDIENTE DE LAS DECISIONES DE EMT EADA NEXUS. ?i . YD EMTIEMDD ELLE DEDEFLAMAE NEXUS Es UNA RE .IDIDEA, ENTIEMDD DUE EL MINISTERID SFRVICIOS 5E DADA EL AEDEADD. TAMEIEN ENTIENDD QUE NEXUS PRUGHAMAS ND LDE ELIENTEE SDBRE LA DALI: DE LA HELIEIDN DEEDD. ND REQUIEHE AGUSADDS DE ACEPTAH EL MINISTERID DE LDS SEE. ACIDS, ELLDE ESTAILI DISPDNIBLES. j, ?r YO CLUE PAED LIN TARIFA DE 5 770.00,? CLUE CAEGD NC 5E APLICARA EN EASE: DE RA DE LA PARTE DEMANDADA, EL SALDD SE ADEEDITA A LL cuom DE ERIMEEDE MESES DE ARDEN DAMIENTD DE LA ELIDTA DE EQUIPDS GPS. 5: EL. DEMANDADD TIENE NINEDN vfmcum. ENTIENDD CLUE NEJCUS 5U INEDAME (E) REEDLTADDE PARA 5U DILESENTAEIDM EN LIMA DE EILIE PLIEDAI-I 55R PRDEEAMADA FOR DE . ACUSADUL NEXUS DADDELAMAE ADDEILDA PADAR LA DARAMTIA DE IMMLEDAEIDN DE EDNDE DEL DEMANDADD, FDA LA DE LAB DECLARACIDNES ANTERIDRES CERTIFIED QUE A SER RESPONSABI. 5 DE GARANTIKAR UL INFORM E5 DFMANDADA A TDDAS LAS Fl CHAS DE PIE-TA PREVISTA. .3 can MS. I EL ELLE EEHA EXHIBIT A 4 0f 22 057/093 wuvuu: lulu-al- 03/24/2016 THU 17:20 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea of KHR 1-r- 1-w- Il-L-uun-Hrunlu can. 2- 0'3 -- LIBRE NEXUS RESPONDENT Name (Firm Middle. and Last}: malt-.5: A mama Ruran Photo (Front): PthU (Slate): Add mas [Etna Et, City. State, and 23p): 5903 EL :saLmnA ma. BELL GARDEN 5. GA. 90201-11323 chm-3mg); FROGEEDINGH Jurisdic?nn/Coum Ems: Bail Bondsman: ?are uf air-ch; mmnaan Social Security or Alien Number: zoamsaa Work ?an: CIWcurlv: Full Time I'qurk Part Tin-Ila Emplay?en MA Address-z Employer Phnne Number: Education Plan' ESchaal Full Tin-m El Schoal Pun?me Education Plan Info; l1"? Prawn-I: Mama Rap. Signatum: mums . I) II nfentlint Slgnawui. I 39.31599; Damoamms EXHIBIT 03/24/2016 THU 17:20 FAX 818 990 2399 Low of KHR 053/093 d-lrd-v-I-IJ an Inn. 'I?vluvvuvu 'H'Ulullu BY NEXUS LIE-PIE. B?i" NEXUS RESPONDENT CONTIMCT CONDITIONS OF Cunni'rintts Or HAIL (Court Ordered): commons OF BAIL (I?np?md by Boil Bondsman, in oonjunuloii with Project New: piirtioipotion): EGPS MONITORING - DetaiIs: Details: ?lm: AIoohoI as R-Equlrod -- notions: FAVOR o5 omit FERNANDO an AI. 540- inf Program Participation (Imposed by Nexus for mnolnuoll Program In or Book Employment PaI'rrionts to Bon domain, a: i-oquirod lav contract with IBMoIt-ii Program PanIoip-ant Fan Pavmon'ta of 5 $420.00 {Per Month 'If in digont. proof must be UMentoI Hoaith Trootrnont Plan PrIvato Provider I: CSEI Plan 115?ch mm?mms mm, Mow. PAYMENT DUE. AS 1.0th as GPS Dawn: to LEASED. EICITH ER CONDITIONS (LIST): GPS DEVICE. REQUIRED UNTIL CASE IS GR IS PAID. ASSIGNED CASE MANAGER: WIMGEJ ARROW '05 (print name), acknowledge of this and accent the Conditions as ilorod, in full, on this doournont. I unoormnd that failui to moot program condltions mw result in oroigrarn participation rovouotlon, and that my hood mm loo revokoo ond I may ba- toi?nohdod to the custody ol the Jurisdiction whoroio i face charges In tho ohovo om. I promise to moot tho torrns and condition: of my hood and oartIcI in the Walnut Nexus program. Pruitt-I11 NEXUS Rap. Signature: . I -. Daft-tritium Si?'naturo- EXHIBIT A. 5 Of 22 03/24/2015 me 17:20 FAX 818 990 2399 Lew ef 059/093 uur hvrlull lei-lull] let-l run. ?Jul-1?? are :t-a-z-ee??ieti i it ev Let-tee AGREEMENT "Leaner," ?Agreemnnl? er ?Lettee Agreement?) deted w" eed ieetweer LII: re by Net: In line. (hereine?er referred ea: :15 end ARR 93:0 ?Wm (hereinafter referred to net ?Lusm?l?h i?Ih?a rue?m H?n Interest in individuals who are either required In he er heve agreed up be ?aka-e? emu-ante menherlng equipment. - h. er. tedividuet whe ie required te he er hee to be treelted by menitetlee equipment. - Lesser desire! te ?te Lettee eertein equipment ee described tn the DEECF 'Ihhle below (hereinn?er Lessee desires to leerte the hferernenlienetl Equipment ?'etn Letter. Lessee end ieseerhnve netted he the tee-at et'teit teete Agreement. I- in ef the ee'teneete net! prehtitet eentatned herein and ether need and vetuehle teneldemtlene. *Ite end euh'tetencv efwhteh tt Iterehtr helmewledmd. the pettiee altree he thiiewet l. PRIMARY TERMS I'm EVENT mm?? (the Fig-twinned) kcm?tt?thh?t'het?'?" ALL 11-1.? APPLY) (CHECK men FILL OUT ALL THAT APPLY) melting DeViQe devieett) . Ferment: at 5 per tidy te eeuttl titty: per reentlt Chum? mm my ?or minimum ei?30 date end untit the Equletneet it returned to Letter. Steerit Depot i Option! M. NSF-11W i? SIGNING GF THIS interettee .50 cent: the dey veth a dedeetihle the event at ??lm 15mm350-0? shipping; UPS {5511 put. Hewitt:- Nem. Other: Aetluenen Fee 300.00 '1 dime! Semi?) . er en ?mm-mm" mum? mm ?ll' en eehlhh endter eedend .tm ht ettethad In Agreement which eeumee mt menetue eel ween. llil n-tlt Ilene-entree ?Miler litteribee the Equipment er theere?e neymente. it shall he lneerpermed and a [err el'thht Terrell." WEE 1. TERM: Lenten agrees ee leaee there Letter end Lester esters he lent: to the Equieme 1t in the Primery Terms whieh agrees shall he need eeneietent Willi tht'e Lettee'e egreement with A out)! for the use thtreel?. end they mite. lewe. resele?ene. et .ttetutee eet teeth by Agency er binding upee hit-liter reiettenehin wit Agency The term et? thie Agreement is etther weekly. blunt-titty. er mentth tet net the]: in the Primary Tenne eheve (hereet?ler the "heme Term"). end is manning term es tee; tut the rerettitht 5n the posse-mien of Lettee. A 2'1 USE UF EDFTWAREI 0F PROPRIETARY INFO M. result af' entertng ulna Lease with MSW. end in erder re facilitate Agreth meniteritte: ef Lessee. Lesser te prevlde Agenty teesennble meet: to the setlwere designed =e htnetlen with the. Equipment identi?ed ebeve (the ?atware") The Se?were they eftreeitieg. er ether program: related re the ?tnetlenniity et? the Equipment. Leerer Farther agrees. that ehell Ageney training. her he reereaeetetivee who shell he rec-altering Lessee an that they met: erepedy Lee: the Software. heater that! also erevlde eueremer service to twenty en fleet-thee}r he were eerttitwine: meniterine; end re updhle Agency en any ehengee er updates to the Se?'were that eheli e?'eet Agenevtt use thereof. Agency eeltnewietlgee that Ageney?e he the Sa?wum ehatl manually ee lie-titted Internet teens: and the? he ee?were shell Ilva he delivered to Ageney. unlette in eele dime-?e eueh del tent at intrtellntien shall be required to prewde Atteney the tenets required hereunder Agents! theil beer all respeneihilittr the [welding its ewe peter hardware end ee?waremeetiee minimum requirements: tier te the Sea-Were. Agency eeletewiedges the: the Sehwate my teeth: et' proprietary Infe?tl?u?n 111'? the and Ml?lii'? 51' Cities: Guard. TreekerPel. et- at he entitle: er peteene. and that in enter to ?lm" purposes 61' thte lease, may tumult! Agency with eertein proprietary them the Equipment Arte? etpressly entree; a) the: the Eet?lwete shell he need by the Atteney enly fer the perpere el'treeltiee and me titertn ef'tha Lessee hereint?) that enly eutltet?lteed_ by the Attentry te with purpose the? be 51th to the E??wtl?e. end e) that the Attehey .tlteli treet :lt eeniideneai and net hey at? the premium: inihnnatlen minted tn the Se?were in any manner mtheet etier ?M'mill'l autherltetien eti the holders. {theeney it I'ltqun'tittl by appheaele law at reguie?en by legal ereaeet te dimes: ent' PHI-?Wiener! Init'mi?ii??t Aether ?erce: the: It shall previde Lesser with erempt netiee et? te enable te preteetlve enter or ether eepreenete 1'1 Shel-rid ?it! A?m?m?m b= "Immat?d [hr teeten eta-met! the", at the reqth ei' Ll'lldr. either Neel-Ia Pmu?lne lne - HIPS been Agreement Lee-n eh I Arum, nhien' Let: mm A 7of 03/24/2016 THU 17:21 HUI .-. --.. I - art I. - FAX 818 990 2399 Law of KHR JLIJ .I. 060/093 nubil- II. LI. may? (lullny Dr Prater?)? thiin to Lessor all documents containing Fropnetery information. meld-ling. ell eoptett. reproduction. summaries. Itl?tliy?ti nt? entroele thereof. in the nose-eastern nl? Animate. and comfy to Lessor :ha; use? has dune so, 3. DF By rennin: below. the etgner ei' li'titi Letter: lbt' Agency eerti?ee hot heiohe hoe ell proper to bind the hereto. pursuant to its Autetet. Bylaws. statutory or other eh orter. ordinances. lawn. or my ulher ruler mlJ-Vornt'ng melt authority. 4. DEFAULT (Iltn'lihiAL PROCESS: The parties hereto that the t'rtteiting. and monitoring which it: hereunder by the Aster-toy may be undertaken in conjunction with eriminet preterm. unit-tot: Mite-art, or that Lessee hurt voluntarin undertaken to lltle the Equipment. in ortler to nettl?r tt erirI'IIntrl oonvtotton or plea agreement. or In twnid mm'eere?ort by Agency. Agony and Lessee agree. however. that Lesser-fat dei?eult under thin Letter shell be deemed independent of any otimltto?. matter or proeedure required under Ageney rules or the lows ruler-In?ow of tho within whielt it new. ?1 other tit-lords, wi'J't the ?reception of any notice HI forth herein. no clue whether oritrtirtel. owil. er oliwnvipe, he mluifttd heme rnny omen: its right: her?I-I?dm' l?ll?l?d to (?11 payment. (in I'tteltll'wory er report-interior: of the Equipment ion: Leeann Anettey. or enforcement. e5 any Other Loose Lesser agree: that r. cfi?etiog redellvery or repossession ei? the Equipment ??en termite. it shell eoerdinete with Ageney With other low entoreemertt whenever poneihle. hot it shall have an duty to do so where in [In own dieerett'ort it deems melt or impmetteet. Lrn?s?l?i Agency: he? ea: Lj?grgdi?fnig?m? -.. Add 1:55: Meyermemeteem?w e-lert-itonettrn. VA area: 95mm? Telephone: 'i'eleettene: - I I I d?I-u? H. n. Libre by Net-tits the. By: ?t?tle: Authorized Agent Title. em: art-Mme Hull a lit mm mm. The Corr-limiter named below her-thy miller-nth Leonor. winner limitation. to ohm-nt- the oreriit eerd iitted the all ehnr tee. mute. and feet their the foregoing Lethe. It?! or LrIIlvtr llill't'? tItIIl nritneirtrden: tut rind fee: tthett rte een-rel'untitt hie. Mt prorated the 1" month. end rtre tterprornted "im??ro ?nd Wnlt'rr lIlr-fhrr In the elm-me rttue hummer-r through limiter- credit (tar-d Camp: by. Related?: churn? "in elmo nu ma 2.5m Ill el ell kue?edihz Mill?! Jl?l?ly by Nenutt lne- Wl'llilli; harme- teen-ding month. In the Well! theI lancer new: em be Emilio-It one-mett- ?we! note he ?eeiwtl by Ill! 25'? loe ?1th ter- mt. meme. ASE PRINT ALL INFORMATIQN CLEARLY Art-"D BELOW.) 'l?j'pe {rein-cit one): DVioer? Bit-ii? 1' BMW: J'UArrtEtt Gard Humbert Exp. Ditte Cardholder Name and Adele-mm (where hill ir. Chi-eit- .H'Cer-e'heiderlr Miler; name and address mm er: Merri- it above Nome' t: Address 2: City. State. Zip: IW?th-I-I--ll -- Cardholder Sign: Lem ,hut eetnene- vi'?re II I I I Seetlr'il'y Cede (ueuully leott'iod on line}: of earth! We ere committed to rntunte'irt rigour privacy as the Cardholder. In the epnee below. pleoee r. (4) digit number et? your eheosihg. number shall he printed in the on your bill for oneh to tree Agreement. Plettee write rtewn and keep in The number you oheetrr below is {he your own titture 1e renee. ?t'ottr tronseolion iD number; Lmee'e Alt-ire. (if not the Corettelrterjt _m lulu-II- ME i" @312 A 301322 Inn-Hi" Mills-?lial?: 03/24/2016 THU 17:21 Unwanteoac c:oo rm nee r? Agree otent Atl tlentlurm [glen Device-t, mid damage; De?nition.- RetiAJet-t Which hes sustained damage to the eating at the map that itc? FAX 818 990 2399 Law of KHR 0000/0022 0001000:gnu-M, Libra by Home Inc. tequitotl payment in advance for each month and all billing is one Bl clay battle with a pro-ration for the l? month. not for succeeding months. and a pro-ration credit for ?nal month. Pa menu: will be automatiettll charged on the 20?? tiny calendar month from the date of the initial activation date. Cashier teclt must be ?inch: by the 25'? oflhe month for-tho proceeding month. :l?lthihlti Front-amt- reqottett that Agency call Home Programs In). to aetwcte onto deactivate all ectoeo. . The terms and conditions set forth in the Lotta: agreement are tn tin! force and e?eet 't'ot- all devices ordered. leased. or in the poaseccicc of Lotte-e that have been ptouideel by the Lesser. Locate attreet anti that thin lease agreement will cover any and all TracketP. t1. tlettieett ordered (leased) from Letter regardless ei?tlte quantities. date el'urder (lease). length oi?leaae terms. at times due Latent by Lesa?eet. Further. Letoee by ordering any device from Leaeot give: their ntqn'wneel tutti nt- pemtlenion to Lower 10 tmrnedtately cheese to the account all funds cloo per the termn of title inane for all tie-vices tn the oi" the Lessee and Device and replacement coat that at: ttet ibrth herein. ability to function properly or not at all. Any RnliAlnrt that how: ?uolninocl damage which their Any a Client llteyetly rent oven the tent. discards it. Any time a Client lecoe or has them stolen. utility to function properly or not at all The following are the no Device and replacement part en: then onto Security bepoeit Options: .- NC (Replacement nottl fee 5:50.00) Bracelet Devtce (Replacement east the 02,950.00 Security Dopotlit Options: For Bracelet Dovieet WIT-5.4 Option A: $3950.01] depotth not device. the replacement cost ofthe Ben telet Device Opttott E: insurance IQ .50 count per day tetth a deductible in the event (ii) 550.00 hah?aLtd i Feta; be 0.0. management: hut-Jet. Feet: for newleeti 0nd Violations at GEE u? .m?mregn?i Recovery ofany equipment requltinz tt physical recpontto: $100.00 plus mileage Wm? Court ltppearattoe caused as a result ofany nan-compliance: $75.00 per Ito tr plus mileage Report Dcettntentattan other normal daily reports resulting li-otn any non-oomphanoe tsauet 550.00 per r0p0nt By this lease agreement the ogre-at; to pay the above listed Peett. services. and at ty violation i?eett upon nottficatton by Lessor. My failure to do no brenoit oli'eontraet and will be reported to you uhleer Lute Moment-chm fl . 533%? eit'i'ntm l- 9 0f 22 Monitoring conditional by the client or offender: Etc?installation $50.00 Any non-compliance requiring: action by staff: 5150.00 Atty non-compliance ranching: a rosphnato by motif: $100.00 plus In?onmt If:oectinn all? the client or defendant in required it?attatnntintt to fleojurinetlt tlott or (303 Tracking: $35.00 Pet- hom- tte mileage Disabling, damaging. or removing oftl-to etmp which require: a physical rt option: by NEXUS SERVICES. Staff 5l00.00 mileage Non-compliance ol'ttn lneluttion Zone: $50.00 Hort-Compliance of'on Ettcittc?ion Zone. 375.00 act/093 03/24/2016 THU 17:22 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR DUELHIGULD i? ssaulcs 'ao 052/093 uruuzz aaxauumrmuua Ill!" 1. al.1- 1-) net-vessesoe PAYMENT SCHEDULE GPS LEASE MARICELA (Defendant?s Home} -- Libre by Nexus will provide collateral 'For your immigratlor bond, allowing your bond to be posted and your release from imrnigratlon custody. Your bond will be posted through Libre by Nexus will sign as ofyour bond, and pay collateral. You are required to wear a GPS tracking device until one of the followll?lg occurs: 1. Your case before the Immigration Court is complete. a. You remit collateral in the amount of replace collaterai pledged by Nexus Programs. ?r?ou are required to make payments forthe lease of the equlpment and for the CPS monitoring service. The amount of the lease payments are $525.92. These payments are due on the ?oieashmontli, for as long as you wear the GPS bracelet. Your payment schedule is as follows: Your first payment is due on the 1st clay all. Your second payment is clue on the 1st day eon EKHIBIT A 10 of 22 03/24/2015 THU 17:22 FAX 313 990 2399 Law Offioee of 053/093 UUFLHJEULD 031M) ed- in .- 55HL.CE int l?lUULlr?Uu?? :3 ?xx? Your third payment is due on the 1st day of__ 31 2o ?2 . And en the ?rm: of each month thereefter, until such time d: the case is completed or the bond has been fully collateralized by the respondent. it is in your best interest to pay full collateral and have your GPS bracelet removed. The full collateral will be refunded to you at the completion of your case, and you will no longer have to wear the GPS braCElE':- It is your choice to collateralize your bond or wear the CPS bracelet during your case. meow: eweeoe l, m_ understand the terms anc? conditions explained above, and in the lere by Nexus Res pendent Contract and Libre by Nexus GFS Lease Agreement. ,a Signature Vworoa Printed Name ?eece Libre qus Agent Signature lie :e EXHIBIT A 11 of 22 4 03/24/2015 THU 17:22 sex 313 990 2399 Law Offices of ass '35 ??93 . . .. . middleman: Eli-H: ibi?hUMl?UIH?b t-t-t seiu'ce .uCi BY MONITORING STATEMENTS MAFIICEELA ARROYO RIVERDS I II Hunt? (Respondent?s Home) DI STATEMENT AND AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF GPS TRACKING DEVICEISYSTEM PLEASE READ THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AN AGREEMENT IN ITS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE TRACKING SYSTEM, AND NEXUS MILITY TO TRACK YOU PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT. This Disclosure St ternent and Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on the day of solid, between simmer-ARROW (hereinafter "Respondent", and Nexus Services and its successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively. ?Nexus Services" or "Name Programs?) pursuant to a bond by Nexus Services inc. PLEASE READ AND SIGN EACH STATEMENT BELOW TD-AEKNOWLEDGE THAT YDU HAVE READ, AND ACCEPTED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS. 1. Respondent understands and consents to the installation of the device in order to secure future appearance in the immigration cou 't or before immigration officials. Respondent further acknowledges that Respondent may be aisle to post their immigration bond directly through immigration by paying the full face value of the bond, or from another source that may not require EXHIBIT A 12 Of 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:23 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR I'll upon: I .- i i 'r ?il'i- I'i" . - . .- 055/093 Aasohumrusnne l5 Insgaglation of the System but are choosing to participate In the Nexus proeram an ave your bond collateralized through Nexus. with th a System lnstalleii. 2. Respondent understands and entrees i that is capable of tracking and locating titlea Elsi away keeping a complete record of the Respondent's speed. clli ectinn movement location and times of each item recorded. Respondent further udderstands a?n agrees that Nexus Programs may use the System in any way its capabilities 0 allow which may include, but are not limited to: a. identifying the places and times where the Respondent is located before the rpspodnden: appears for their final immigration court date and the case is ose or efore tl'l ?rst; espondent collateraliees their bond whichever comes b. Tracking and locating the e5pondent at an time or Program?s discretion; a a I times at News c. Keeping a racord?cif the movement andIor location of ti" Respondent on various dates and times or at all times at Nexus Program 's discretion; Having the System atltomatlcally alert Nexus Programs of the Respondent?s ocation if the Respondent leaves a pro-defined geographic area established by Nexus Programs, the court, or any immigration official; provided by the System to protect Nexus Program 's a as esponclent appearing before the lmrni Immigration of?cial; gr mu?: m. T. Rroviding information regarding the past or present movement and/or I: 3:13;; the Respondent at any time or at all times to thircl parties assisting rams in protecting its interests or as ot applicable law. harwlse permitted under a. Respondent agrees that News Programs is not responsible for em incidental or consequential damages relating to or arising From the use of the System in any manner described in this Agreement. Flgpondent understands and agrees that the System ca be used to track at times, whether on public or private aroperty, and that by - msta .ation and use of the System, Res pendent wives an claim to confidentiality or a right to privacy as it relates to the operation arid EXHIBIT A 13 Df 22 066/093 Df KHR Fax 818 990 2399 aw 1mnqquooz2 03/24/2016 THU 17:23 perturassa s:au re res eastsauaus 'in. l. stance INC - Item-assent i It use of the System, except as otherwise provided under applicable law. Respondent acknowledges that any information collected by Ne): us Programs from the System is subject to Nexus Program's privacy po icies, which have been or will be disclosed to Respondent upon Responden E?s written request. 6. Respondent understands and agrees that the System does not belong to Respondent and that the System belongs to Nexus Progra ms. Respondent asserts that the respondent is renting the device, that the respondent wishes to be tracked by the device, and that the respondent ariinnatlvely asserts their willingness to be tracked pursuant to this agreement. 7. Respondent understands and agrees that if Respondent tempers with, alters, disconnects or removes the System Respondent well be liable to Nexus Programs for the cost or repairing or replacing the System, in addition to Dealer/Assignee's other remedies, including potential civil or criminal prosecution for tampering with or destroying property. a. AeaIteArIoe. IN THIs AnarreATIoN CLAusa, rerens To THE neseoNoeer. EITHER nexus eeoanII/Is on sessoNpItNT MAY cHooss To HAVE ANY DISPUTE THEM DECIDED av Aeerm AN IN re on on at JURY TRIAL. lF A DISPUTE Is AeeIreATeo, 'rou WILL dive on vooe To PARTICIPATE As A cases see RESENTATNE on CLASS MEMBER oN ANY cLAss CLAIM rou MAY HAVE AGAINST Nexus PeoceAms, RIGHT 'ro cIAss on ANY DF AsaITnATIons. DISCOVERY To APPEAL IN AnarrnATIoN ARE GENERALLY Moat: THAN IN A LAWSUIT, an RIGHTS THAT BUYER onLo HAVE MAY Not as AVAILABLE IN ARBITRATION. Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this Paragraph/Clause, and the or the claim or dispute), between Respondent and exUs Programs or its/their employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arise out of or relate to this Agreement or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this Agreement) shall, at the election of Reapondent or Mei-cos, be resolved by neutral, binding, arbitration and not by a court action. Any claim or dispute Is to be arbitrated by a single EXHIBIT A 14 Df 22 oar/093 ffi of KHR 03/24/2016 THU 17:24 Fax 818 990 2399 Law 0 can moon/W? 5:37 PM FAX IEETBEBHDE KEYSCDEEUTERS teat-:EE ?s lid-Cud-E-Eriod? ?Gr .1 arbitrator on an Individual basis and not as a class action. iiespondent expressly waives any right Respondent may have to arbitrate a class action. Respondent may choose any one of the following arbitration organizations and its applicable rules: the American Arbitration Association, 335 Madison Ave, Floor us, New York, or JAMS, teen Main St., Ste. 3oo, Irvine, CA 92614 (mowJamsadmom). Respondent may get a copy of the rules of these organisations by contacting the arbitration organization or visiting; its website. Arbitrators shall be attorneys or retired judges and shall be selected pursuant to the applicable miss The arbitrator shall apply governing substantive law in making an award. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted in the federal district in which Respondent entered into the Contract, resided when the Contract was entered into or carrently resides. Nexus will pay Respondent?s administration, service or case management fee ant Respondent?s arbitrator or hearing fee all up to a maximum of $1,500. Nexus will also pay any additional amounts imposed by the arbitration organisation that the arbitrator determines that Nexus must pay in order to assure that this Arbitration Clause is enforceabie. Each party shall be responsible for its own attorney, expert and other fees, unless awarded by the arbitrator under applicable law. The arbitratoris award shall be final and binding on all parties, except that the losing party may rec uest a new arbitration under the rules of the arbitration organization by a three-arbitnator panel. Any arbitration underthis arbitration clause shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 51 et. seq.) and not by an; state law con coming; arbitratio n. Respondent and Nexus retain any rights to seifahelp remedies, such as repossession. Respondent and Nexus retain the right to seek remedies in court for disputes or claims within that court?s jurisdiction, unless such action is transferred, removed or appealed to a different court. Ne ther Respondent nor Nexus waive the right to arbitrate by using selfwhelp remedies or filing suit. Any court having iurisdiction may enter iudgment on the arblti ator?s award. This arbitration clause shall survive any termination, payoff or transfer of this Agreement. if any part of this arbitration clause, other than waivers of class action rights, is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason, the EXHIBIT A 15 0f 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:24 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR upraurzuso Iii-Ill FAA, I I n'E' I: ll: I 053/093 fie rl'l I: I 11 remainder shall remain enforceable. This Agreement shall be governed by the bags of the United States of America and specifically, the Commonwealth of i rue. 9. Respondent acknowledges that they have read and unriers tcroci this Agreement and that they have had an opportunity to ask any questions they may have about Agreement and the System and have had all of their questions fully and completely answered. to. in the event that a dispute arises concerning this Agreement which dispute is not Arbitrated as prowded in Paragraph 13 above, all pa ties hereto their successors and assigns including but not limited to the Fit-s ond . em. an . waive all Attorneys Fees and Cow-t Costs. NEWS This Agreement is five (5) pages in length and requires the full signature of the respondent. Do not sign this Agreement without reading all five (5) pages. Respondent is entitled to and will receIVe an executed copy of this egreernent. By below, Reapondent acknowledges receipt of a to of Agreement. Please save a copy of this Agreement. Accepted: MARI 2x I ermmnerenwamu Tm understand the tenns and conditions 13 alned above, and In the Nexus Programs Offender Co tract and Nexus Programs GPS Lease Agreement. I EE Eiture 'f - Date .15 Vases- lilarigab Printed Name' Nexus Programs Agent Signature Eta EXHIBIT A 16 Elf 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:25 Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offioee of KHR 059/093 were." cue-r- Ill-all I'm. Ab?ahumrugnng ?uni-Huuzz - .- -- -. ?ll? L. hi-Mr'L-t, a r' IE CONTRACT FOR IMMtuenrtoN aono elect! Rt'rtzn'rmn nNo INDEMNIW AGREEMENT You are assuming meow: READ The undemlgned. mm'it?mmw hereinafter referred to as "Respondent", and ?mm? ?HMD?Wy?mfa?p?? hereinafter referred to as ?indemmtor?, in consideration oi Waging, hereinafter rate 'red to as Securllzer. worlan with hereinafter referred to as hell mmpany, haying caused to be executed on behalf of the Respondent an Immigration bond with the Department of Homeland regarding H5 v. manic-nun nwenoe follows: .dna?l nun?n. (respondent), I'tEl??bY agree. as 1. PREMIUM: Lier hereby agrees to pay the premium for tl? aforesaid immigration on bond to in order to execute the immigration bond and secure the release a? the respondent directly from Fees collected by Securitizer from Ind! mnltor. ii. FULL The Respondent and Indemniacr will be respons bio for 10% of the bond amount for recovery fees in the event of a bond breath and will at all times indemnify and save secumrizar and surety (bail company) harmless from and against event claim, demand, nobility, leesr damage, cost. charge: attorney fees, expense, euit, order, judgment, and adjudication whatsoever incurred hereafter by sacurltiter or surety (ball company) in consequence of its causing to be executed the immigration bail bond mentioned herein, and will on demand place eecuru'izer or surety (bail company) In funds to meet ouch obligations before It shall be required to make payment thereof. 3? anti/or Surety (bail company) shall have the right to pay or compromise any claim, charge or expense incurred by it by reason of ita causing to be executed the bail bond mentioned herein, and evidence of such payment tel-rail he prime racie evidence of the property thereof, and the Respondent and Indemnltor'e liability therefore to: 4. OBLIGATIONS OF- DEFENDANT: The Respondent agrees to remain wlthin the jurisdiction of the court mentioned herein, to appear before said Court at uch timea as may be required by the count or Securitiaer or Surety and further agrees to keep Securitiaer advised of his or her residence address and place of employment and immediatey notify Seourltizer of any change thereof. Respondent's failure to appear in court as herein reomred or to notify Scarritiaer of change of address or place of employment or issuance of a warrant for [incarnnitor initials (Respondentlnitiaia tl?li Libra by Nexus. D1014 -- Ray 9/14 EIHI HIT A 17 of 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:25 see 818 see 2399 Lee offices of see 070/093 pens-reuse are: nu ma. aatauutirutnua stature-H:retracted statics nil: messes-?es is- Respondent?s arrest on criminal charges by any Court subsecuent to date of this agreement shall be considered a breach of this agreement and the conditions of he bond, entitling Securitizer or Surety to surrender the Defendant to the custody of the Court without return of payment of premium or any part thereof. Securitlter or surety shall be entitled to reimbursement frem Defendant anti/or Indemnitor for all expenses intern-ed in iocating and retul'ning Respondent to custody. 5. OTHER All of the terms and conditions of this agreement shall stand for the protection of any cost-rely,r any reinsuring company, or any other surety procured by Lumpy simian Oi? sweetener. whether Atolhaii?ands does or does not execute or retain any portion of any such obligation. s. COVERAGE: This agreement shall cover not only the immigration be band above recited but Emir ether suretyship in lieu thereof, and all alterations. modifications, and renewals and extensions til" said bond or other suretyship. 7. COLLATEFIAL SECU RITT: The indemnitor andfor Respondent has pledged With imp! Menus Inc;l the following described collateral to protect it against any a nd all damagesf loss, costs.r charges. counsel fees and eirpenses of whatever kind or nature, Including premium charges which it shall or may at any time sustain or inter by reason oi causing to be executed said immigration bond at the reouest of or on behalf of the undersigned. II II .. a. SALE till" Cm i Full power and authority is hereby given the Securitirer or surety (bail company) to apply the collateral described herein andy'or such substitt te or additional collateral as may be hereafter pledged by the indemnitor for the payer ent of any and all damages; costs. lost cause charge and the expenses of any itind or nature. including premium charges. which surety may sustain or incur by reason of having execul ed said immigration bond, and to sell said collateral at its discretion at public or private sai a. on giving the indemnitor ten (10} days notice by certified mail, addressed to the ind amnltor ans/or Respondent at their last known address. 9. The Undersigned hereby gives Securitiaer andfor Surety {bail company) permission to obtain credit Information for the purposes of obtaining, collecting or locating Respondent for Bail Bond. 10. indemnitor agrees to insure that respondent does not become a priic charge, and Indemnltorrltespondent understand and agree that at no time during the period on this bond may the respondent obtain public assistance or otherwise violate any condition imposed by the EDIE. Immigration Judge or the Department ofihorneiand Security. 11. This band, tiniesa othemise revoked. is in effect until such time at judgment is rendered in this case and the bond is Mi? by the Department of Homeland Security. 12. Securitlzer provides security and collateral for immigration bonds upon respondent being monitored in securitizer's program. Respondent and Indemnitor understand that GPS (indemnltor Initials a i [i-ie spondent initials .931. Libra lay News. 612014 Rev s/1 EXHIBIT A 13 Df 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:25 2112818 990 2399 Law Offices of sea 071/093 nous/21115 one PM was BER-CE . :aao-sesnaase is: 11 monitodng as a condition of this security, in order to insure the appea ante of the Flpondent at required court dates; may he required pursuant: to this rules of the program. Indomnltor and Respondent understand that this monitoring is not necessary if the respondent pays oollaterai for their Immigration bond, and that respondent retains the ability to (as said collateral at anv tinie. Respondent and Indemnitor understand that payment of collateral and removal of the monitoring condition should he the goal of the respondent in order to avoid prolonged rental fees. Indemnitor and respondent understand that collateral pair: toward this bond will be held by surety {hail company) and will be returned to the indemnitor, 'espondent, or their assigned agent at such time as the immigration hand is cancelled by the Department of Homeland Security. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES WHOSE ARE SUBSCRIE ED TO THIS AGREEMENT EXECUTE HEREWIT EACH I HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND KNEW CONTENTS THERE: AND DO SET MY HAND 6 DAY 15* 201,53 Defendant and Indemnitor slgnatures ed below WITNESS (it) 1 .. DEFENDANT no migrate INDEMNITGR (it) ?Wan-3.5 INDEMNUOR (X) .-. (X) Executed at (location). 3 (state), on li'li'tlliil?- :Respondent J- Libre by Nexus. M1014 - Rev 8/14 EXHIBIT A 19 Df 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:26 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Officea Inf KHR 072/093 In.? Juli! GUI-U Hutu-I.? Ian-fuller! JMPH-[hill PROMISSO RY NOTE DEMAND alter date er value received I I We promise tn was' to thi- order of Liars by Name. N2. 13?? I .. .. DOLLARS (torai amount of immigration bend securitised) with Interest at 20% (percer t) per annum after date until paid. This ndte is given for the surpass of securing Libra by Nexus, INC. ag sinst a cantingent liability by reaann ai? the said (lndernniter) arranging, direcutlng, continuing eausing to be executed er centinu ad, upnn the nastiest of the ur-dersigned. securitiaatian ai' a bend or undertaking on behalf ei? 'M?R'cmmam? ?Wm . .. (Respondent) and the srpese at securing Libra by Nexus. INC. against any and all lessesr expenses. and damages by reasen ai? the seeuritizatian of any band or undertaking in cantinuatian of, er in subtitimtion for. the said bend nr undertaking by Ariel Bail Bands. wrrness (X) . ornament 7K. INDEMNJTOR (K nah?n am.- -.- I --.- INDEMNITOR (X) In, (Respondent initials Liars by News. a ?014 - Rm she EKHI HIT A 20 as 22 03/24/2016 THU 17:26 Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR IILJH FHA. muuatruuzz - (BPS ADDENDUM i understand that monitoring by a GPS device Is a condition of the secuntltation program. A l. I understand that the resrtlondent will he responsible for a rental payment for the sea device. in the matron! of Mom. on understand that the respondent may pay the collateral for the immigration bond and have the GPS device removed. A I understand that [Jays-tent of of the unilateral will be suFf cient to remove the bracelet, hot that the respondent will he required to pay the remaining 20% over a speci?ed period of time. EMUJ I understand that any alteration, damage, or destruction of tht- GPS device or hand - WILL RESULT in felony criminal prosecution against the respondent. I understand that i Ihre Nexus Will accept shoot: and credit card payments From the a indemnltor or the respondent. I understand that dishonored checks or disputed ?tr-edit card charges may result in additional fees being assessed against me. I understand that dishonored mocks and disputed credit card transactions constitute fraud against Nexus, and that such activiw may result in criminal ore-scoution for fraud. A {?gk i understand that information proWded to Libra by Nexus is like wise provided to the licensed surety who posts the bond In the respondent's case. i understand that moulding false Information in our Nexus application constitutes fraud against Nexus, and may result In criminal prosecution. IN WHEREOF. WHOSE ARE SUBSCRIBED THIE AGREEMENT EXECUTED FEREWITH FACH I HAVE AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THERECIF AND DO SET MY HAND This oar 2m: WITNESS (.u-uu?d I I - In r. all- moahurroai. I . - ilndernnitnr' initials MJ (Respondent: Initials ?34m Ultra by Nexus. ?2014 Rev em EXHIBIT A 21 Df 22 9/ -v 03/24/2016 THU 17: 27 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offload 00/19/201: new nu ma tuo?roowuo mwnwu? . I ?kl - moose-tees l? 21.3 1.1 "in! "all'll'i- n? In" 't [dc-w I. I I I tine Time Credit Card Payment Authorization Form Sign ond turnpieto this form to authorize Libre by Nexus to make a one time debit to your credit card iletori below. - - im- the amount indicated I in to form you glut us permission to debit your account E: indicated date. Vou agree that this charge is valid 3 1d assort thia?i: 9:11.11 gill-ii by not contest this charge. You understand that conteetmg this would to fraud age as . Nexus. inc. Please oompiote the information baiowt authorize Libra by News to charge my omdit card (lull nilmu?l 1_ I . Th": to men: it for account indicated below ?nmsgirl_ DMJ F?itooiaLfret. mm It; g'qggri?i oi dood?eomttr) siting Addramqg ?32 5 50929 r? . Slate, zi?gxggat??bllm. MasterCard AME): CI Disower . 3- 213132. Cardholder Name Account Number (33-30 6? Expiration Date ewe {3 digit number on book of Wilt-31MB, 4 digits on front of AMEX) .. .. . stemmueei?. DATE lilntd i ouihoritt lha a named oualnala lo lha malt card indicated In lhis uuthonnlionia rdinu lo .hn lam}: I do! Mo d??c?bi? litwu. luriho moumluuicai dataua on ant oar am?; credit card and that I villi not dentin the payment ii'l my audit card eompany: to ions to the irantootien oormpondt to tho ion-n: uidloaiad in Ihln ton?. - EXHIBIT A 22 0f 22 03/24/2016 THU 17ans 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR 075/093 PROOF OF SERVICE TATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. OUNTY or Los ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 13 ears and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145, Encino, California 91436. On March 24, 2016, I served the foregoing document, described as: DECLARATION OF MARCIELA ARROYO VIVEROS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 By placing the original true copie(s) thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as follows: R. Michael Ghilezan, Esq. The Ghilezan Law Firm 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-907-5708 Fax: 3 113-338-0315 Email: michael@ghilezanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez and Casa de law Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles BY U.S. MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Encino, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am familiar with this firm?s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in this af?davit. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By delivering the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) or package(s) designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed as shown above, to a facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive doctunents, who received these documents at 16133 Venmra Boulevard, Encino, California 91436. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee. BY FACSIMILE: By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing document(s) via facsimile transmission from this Firm?s sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is 818- 990-23 99, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth above or on the attached service list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this Finn?s sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A true mm of each transmission report is attached to the of?ce copy of this proof of service and will be provided upon 03/24/2016 THU 17Fax 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR 076/093 request. Service by facsimile transmission was made pursuant to agreement of the parties, confirmed in writing, or as a courtesy to the parties. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list from the e-mail address @khrlaw.com at approximately . To my knowledge, the transmission was reported as complete and without error. State: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Federal: I declare that I am employed in the of?ce of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. EXECUTED on March 24, 2016, at Encino, California. Jeanne Sarmiento 03/24/2016 THU 17:23 mL?-FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ, State Bar No. 58173 KLASS, HELMAN d: ROSS 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 91436-2424 Telephone: 818; 788-7007 Facsimile: 318 990-2399 Attorne for Plaintiff NEXU SERVICES, INC. 077/093 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NEXUS SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Co oration duly authorized to do business in the tate of California Plaintiff, VS. BYRON VASQUEZ, an individual, CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS ANGELES, an unknown entity, and DOES 1 to 15, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: BC600636 REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff?s Opposition to Defendants? Special Motion to Strike] Date: 417/16 Time: 3:30 am. Dept: 55 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff Nexus Services, Inc., hereby requests that this Court take judicial notice of the following materials, pursuant to Evid. Code 451 and 452 for consideration in conjunction with Defendants? Special Motion to Strike: A. California Evidence Code Section 1417. B. The Complaint in the matter of Goday vs. Vasquez, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC604916. -1- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Ollie-?IUD! SERVICES Ul. 03/24/2016 THU 17:28 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offioee of KHR 078/093 Pursuant to Ca]. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306013), the parties are hereby provided with true and correct copies of the matters of which judicial notice is requested, as such materials are attached hereto, respectively, as Exhibits and Dated: March 24, 2016 KLASS, HELMAN 3.: ROSS mun RD M. Attorney for Plain 7 Nexus Services, Inc-2- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE \\M?nn??\1nu1tamu\nnh Ollie-\Hljil? UI. BRYAN VABDUEB?h?anudNo-tmpd 03/24/2016 THU 17:28 Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 1417. Comparison of handwriting by trler of foot, CA EVID 1417 079 West's Annotated California Codes Evidence Code (Refs 8: Annos) Division 11. Writings (Refs 8: Annos) Chapter 1. Authentication and Proof of Writings Article 2. Means of Authenticating and Proving Writings (Refs 8: dance) .West?s Ann.Cal.Evid.Code 1417 1417. Comparison of handwriting by trier of fact CurrentneSs The genuineness of handwriting, or the lac]: thereof, may,r be proved by a comparison made by the trier of fact with handwriting which the court ?nds was admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or otherwise proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court. Credits (Stats.1965, c.1299, 2, operative Jan. 1, 1967.) Editors' Notes LAW REVISION COMMISSION COMMENTS Section 1417 is based on that portion of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1944 that permits the trier effect to Compare questioned handwriting with handwriting the court has found to be genuine. [7 CaLLReonmm. Reports 1 (1965)]. Notes of Decisions (41) West's Ann. Cal. Evid. Code 1417, CA EVID 1417 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 2 of 2016 RegSess. and Ch. 1 of 2015-2016 2nd Ea?ess. End of (is em a Thomson Reuters. No claim to original (iovmiunent Works. WESTLAW re 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original US. Government Works. /093 24 2 1 TH 1 os/M/ 5 1 29 Fax 313 990 2399 Law Offices of sun $039393 .. 7'3 (CITACION JUDICIAL) - NOTICE To DEFENDANT: - (Awso AL DEMANDADD): ngrg?y?afggv BYRON VASQUEZ, individually and. doing business as, CASA DE LA Su arl?r Calii?mla CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN Los ANGELES, an unknown Dun? 0* L09 ism-tit and DOES ?i 10 .1. YOU ARE heme SLIED av 1m: us DEC 21 2:0 (LO sent EL DEMANDANTE): .i it. or or, seen 11: CESAR GODOY By: .luiil Lars. 00pm You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form it you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts online Self-Help Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ?ling fee, salt the court clerk for a fee waiver form. if you do not iile your response on time. you may lose the case by default. and your wages, money. and property may be tslten without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may went to cell an attorney right away. if you do not know an attorney, you may went to cell an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorneyI you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site the California Courts Onllne Self-Help Center gov/eeimeip), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. E: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo nan demandado. Si no responds dentro de 30 dies. is code puade decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lee is initirmecidn a continuedon. Tiene 30 DIAS DE despues de que is enirepuen sets citecicn ypepeies legato-s para presenter one mepuesie per eserito on sets aorta honor due as anti-aqua one mole of demandente. Una carter or one [remade reiefonioe no io protegen. Su respuesta per ason?to tiene que ester on ram-into legal oorreoto at doses qua eu ceso en is code. Es posibie qua hays un forrmiieri'o due tiered puede user pare su reepuesta. Puede estos formuian'os tie is code mas inf?rmi??i?? 6'0 Eli can?? 9'5 Alli-1'19 ?55 GENES ?9 C?iimmi? 9" i9 bibiioteca de [eyes do an oondeo?o on is code one is quads mas some. Si no puede pagaria chore de preseniacicn, pic's Bi SEE-?raf?e 0'6 1'5 Gaffe qua is do an fonnuierio do exencidn de page do ouotas. Si no presents as raspuaata a demon, puede perder at ease per incumpiimianto la aorta is padre guitar on sueido. diners Diaries sin mas edireitencia. He oircs requisites isosies. Es racomandebie one iieme on inmac'iatamenie. Si no conoce an absence, puede iiamar a un servicio de remision abogados. Si no puede paper a un scenario, as pcsibie qua cumpia con ios requisites pane coroner ssrvicics iegsies gratuitos de on programs do senricies iegeiee sin ?nes de iucro. Puede encontiar estos pnipcs sin fines de iucro en ei web de Lepai Sawicee, en 0! Centre de A yuda de ias Cortes de Ceiifornia, 0 poniandcae en contacto can is certs of cciegic do ebogedos locales. icy, is certs iiene dereciio a recisrnar ias cuctas ice cosios exentos porirnponer tin gravamen sabre cueiquier recuperacicn rie $10,000 15 mas vsior recibide mediocre un ecuerdo a una canoe-351511 d6 crbitraia 90 69-90 0'9 DML T1606 true pager ei grist/amen tie is carts antes do one is conte puede desecnar ei ceso. Th and address of the court i ones nausea; (El?ngiib?e direccion sis is sorts sag: LOS ANGELES 6 0 4a a 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 111 N. HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 The narneI address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorneyI or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (El nombre, ia diieccion a] namero de teidfono dei abogedo dai demandanta, 0011' demendente que no tiene abogado, es): ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ. KLASS, HLEMAN ERDSS 16133 Venture Blvd. 1145 on DATE: #enenriin. m: 0' (B1B) 783 7007 ,Dcputy (Pasha) (Secretarial . (Adi?unto) For proof of sen-rice of this sumnions, use [front of Service of Summons (form it? (Pare pruebe ole entrega de esta citation use at formuiario Proof of Service of SummonsI NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. I: as an individual defendant. 2. l: as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specifybehalf of (speci?r): under: i:i GDP 416.10 (corporation) CUP 410.60 (minor) :1 CUP 416.20 (defunct corporation) GGP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 410.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized percon) other (specify): 4. i:i by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 011 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Inf-Ell II Jumnl?' came" ?canmmla rocsdure ?1112.20Ir 405 - . . . I I [Hsv.iuly1. aerial Fig. 03/24/2016 THU 12:29 FAX 818 3.90 2399 Law Offices ROBERT M. ROSS, ESQ, State Bar No. 58173 KLASS, HELMAN 3: R035 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145 Encino, California 914362424 Telephone: 818) 733-7007 Facsnnile: 818) 990-2399 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cesar Godoy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LDS ANGELES CESAR GODOY, Plaintiff, VS. BYRON VASQUEZ, individually and doing business as CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN LOS AN GELES, an unknown entity, and DOES to 10, inclusive, Defendants. Comes now Plaintiff Cesar Godoy. who alleges against the defendants, as follows: JURISDICTION ALLEQAIIQES 1. Plaintiff Cesar Godoy. (hereinafter ?Cicdoy?) is a resident of the State of California and residing in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff Godoy is not a U.S. Citizen but is in the process of securing lawful U.S. residency.r and citizenship through the lawful - processes afforded wider the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act. 2. Defendant BYRON VASQUEZ (hereinafter is a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California and, upon information and belief, is the owner and operator of a business known as CASA DE LA CULTURA DE GUATEMALA EN L03 -1- 081/093 Cl ?1 MED Case No. COMPLAINT FOR (1) MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 22440,.a sat-1,; (3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIQNS CODE 17200 AND FOR INJUNCTIVE EELIEE COMPLAINT Bull: 2 Run. and 03/24/2016 THU 17:30 FAX 818 ?90 2399 Law Offices of KHR 082/093 r" ANGELES (hereinafter Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges 2 CASA is a ?ctitious entity and is an alter ego of defendant VASQUBZ. All references 3 herein to are intended to include unless otherwise indicated. 4 3. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that a unity of 5 interest and ownership exists between VASQUEZ and CASA such that the separate personalities 6 of the business entity CASA and its comer/operator VASQUEZ does not in reality exist. Plaintiff 7 is ?n?ther informed and believes that it would be inequitable if the acts sued upon herein are 3 treated as those of the business entity alone and not the acts of VASQUEZ. 9 4. Plaintiff is not certain of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein 1 as Does 1 through 15 and will ask leave of court to amend the complaint to set forth their true 1 1 names and capacities when ascertained. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants 1 4 have and continue to act in consort with their co-defendants and that defendants Does 1 through 1 5 5 acting with or through DOES 6 through 10, did knowingly conspire with, aid and abet the acts 1 6 of defendants VASQUEZ and CASA, with the intent to assist said defendants in carrying out the 1 7 plan, scheme and design hereinafter alleged and that in doing so, Does 1 through 10 are con 1 a conspirators with defendants VASQUEZ and CASA in the conduct sued upon herein and are 9 therefor jointly and severally liable for all damages arising therefrom. 2 6. Plaintiff is uncertain of the exact acts or omissions rendering defendants sued 2 1 herein as Does 1 through 10, liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this 2 2 complaint to set forth the exact nature of the acts or omissions and the harm caused to Plaintiff 2 3 thereby when ascertained. 2 4 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant VASQUEZ, 2 5 individually and through his alter ego, CASA, as aided and abetted by defendants Doe I through 2 5 10, have and continue to engage in the unauthorized and illegal practice of acting as an 2 7 Immigration Consultant and/or in practicing law without a license all as forbidden by Califoniia 5 I Business and Professions Code 22440 et seq. and Business and Professions Code 6126. -3- COMPLAINT Butt. MP..de 03/24/2016 THU 17:30 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR quwaM Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, by reason of the violations of said Business and Professions sections, defendants and each of them are engaging in unlawful, unfair, untrue and deceptive business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 17200. 9. The conduct of the defendants, and each of thorn, is outrageous, fraudulent, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted oppressiver in that his conduct was despicable and subjected plaintiff to the potential of cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff?s rights; that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted fraudulently in that he represented himself, at all times, as an experienced Immigration Consultant and knew, but failed to disclose that he was not a licensed Immigration Consultant under California Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq; and that defendant Vasques acted maliciously in that his conduct was both willful and in conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiff. GENERAL 10. Plaintiff is a Guatemalan national, who has come to the United States seeking asylum. Plaintiff has duly submitted appropriate documentation to commence the asylum PIOGBSS. 1 1. In or about June, 2015, defendant Vazquez, working by, through and under the business entity defendant Casa De La Culture De Guaternala En Los Angeles, orally represented to plaintiff Godoy that: a. Byron Vazquez is experienced in the handling of immigration matters and, for a fee, would assist plaintiff in the preparation and ?ling of papers necessary to secure an asylum visa for plaintiff. Said representations are and were, when made, a violation of California Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq; b. Byron Vazquez would, for a fee, perform services on behalf of plaintiff COMPLAINT Dull: 03/24/2016 THU 17:31 FAX 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR miter-c314- ?d?tUf?i including but not limited to the following: (1) Completing a form provided by a. federal or state agency but but did not advise plaintiff as to his answers on those forms; (2) Translating a person's answers to questions posed in those forms; (3) Securing for plaintiff supporting documents, such as a birth certi?cate, which may be necessary to complete those forms; and (4) Submitting completed forms on plaintiff?s behalf and at plaintiff?s request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each all and every act for which defendant Vazquez offered his services requires either a license to practice law or a registered Immigration Consultant pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22441 13. Plaintiff, in ?ill reliance upon the representations of defendant Vasquez, and without knowledge that Vasquez was not a duly quali?ed Immigration Consultant, and in reliance upon the representations of defendant Vasquez that said defendant was, in fact, experienced in the handling of immigration matters and was both authorized and entitled to perform the services for plaintiff, paid over to Vasquez the total sum of$ 700.00 as and for the services offered by Vasquez. 14. Plaintiff is ?it-thei- informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, not was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein andfor the performance of the services by defendant Vasquez, a duly registered and lawful Immigration Consultant. 15. Plaintiff is ftu'ther informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, nor was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein and/or the performance of the services by defendant Vasquez, an attorney at law, duly licensed by the State of California. -4- COMPLAINT Deal: 1 Inn..de 03/24/2016 THU 17:31 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 085/093 16. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that defendant Vasquez is not now, nor 2 was he, at the time of the payment of fees referred to herein and/or the performance of the 3 services by defendant Vasquez, authorized by federal law to represent persons before the Board 4 of Immigration Appeals or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to engage in 5 the business or act in the capacity of an immigration consultant within the State of California. 6 17. At the time of the engagement of defendant Vasquez? services, in violation of 7 California Business and Professions Code 22442 defendant Vasquez failed to provide a a written contract which set forth the following: 9 a. An itemized list with an explanation of the purpose and process of 1 1 each service to be performed; 12 b. The cost of each itemized service to he performed; 1 3 c. A statement that Byron Vazquez is not an attorney and may not perform 1 4 the legal services that an attorney performs; 1 5 d. A list the documents to be prepared by the immigration consultant, with an 1 6 explanation of the purpose and process of each document, and the cost for 1 7 preparing each document; 1 1 9 e. A statement of the purpose for which the immigration consultant has been 2 0 hired and the actions to be taken by the immigration consultant regarding 2 1 each document, including the agency and of?ce where each document will 2 2 be ?led and the approximate processing times according to current 2 3 published agency guidelines; 2 4 f. A provision that informed plaintiff that he may report complaints relating 2 5 to immigration consultants to the Executive Of?ce for Immigration 2 5 Review of the United States Department of Justiceprov1slon stating that complaints concerning the unauthorized practice 2 El -5- COMPLAINT 2 ?.md 03/24/2016 THU 17:31 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 085/093 a" 1 of law may be reported to the State Bar of California, including the 2 toll-free telephone numbers and Internet Web sites of those entities; 3 A statement that defendant Vasquez is not bonded as required by 4 California law. 5 18. Defendant Vasquez, at the time of payment of the fees demanded by him, failed to 6 provide a statement of account every two months as required under California Business and 7 Professions Code 22442.1 . 9 19. At the time of the engagement of the services of defendant Byron Vasquez by plaintiff Cesar Godoy, defendant Vasquez violated California Business and Professions Code 1 1 22442.2 by failing to conspicuously display any notice in English and Spanish which 12 contained the following information: 1 3 1. The full name, address, and evidence of compliance with any applicable bonding 1 4 requirement including the bond number; 1 5 2. A statement that the immigration consultant is not an attorney. 1 6 3. The services that the immigration consultant provides and the current and total fee 1 7 I for each service. 1 El 4. The name of each immigration consultant employed at each locationthe time of the engagement of the services of defendant Byron Vasquez by 2 plaintiff Cesar Godoy, defendant Vasquez violated California Business and Professions Code 2 2 22442.2 by failing to provide plaintiff Godoy with a written disclosure in Spanish setting 2 3 forth: 2 4 The immigration consultant's name, address, and telephone number. 2 5 (2) The immigration consultant's agent for service of process. 2 6 (3) The legal name of the employee who consulted with the client, 2 7 if different from the immigration consultant. 2 8 . .. 5- COMPLAINT Broil: 2 MFA-hurt! 03/24/2016 THU 17:32 FAX 818 990 2399 Law offices (4) Evidence of compliance with applicable bonding requirements, including the bond number. 21. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Vasquez did, in violation California Business and Professions Code 22442.3 and with the specific intent to deceive plaintiff, implied both directly and indirectly that he is and at the times herein stated, was an Immigration Consultant. 22. Plaintiff Godoy is ?irther informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Vasquez did not maintain any trust account as required pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22442.5 23. Plaintiff Godoy further alleges that defendant, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443. Vasquez did not provide a copy of each document ?led by Vasquez for or on behalf of plaintiff and further, that Vasquez, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443 (I) did not return to plaintiff all original documents provided by plaintiff to defendant, to wit, death certificates and newspaper clippings in support of his claim for asylum. 24. Plaintiff Godoy is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 22443.1 (1) Vasquez did not secure and ?le with the California Secretary of State a bond in the sum of $100,000.00 or any other sum whatsoever prior to, or at any time during which Vasquez represented Godoy or prepared and/or submitted any documents on plaintist behalf. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10) 25. Plaintiff incorporams hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof as though set forth in ?rll hereat again. 26. Plaintiff delivered to defendant Vasquez, at said defendant?s direct request, the -7- COMPLAINT ?WHEVEMInwihmw-oh Del-Eh 1 MR-upd 03/24/2016 THU 17:32 Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR sum of seven hundred dollars 27. lawfully entitled to said sums, or any sums whatsoever, for the performance of services requiring either a license to practice law or as an Immigration Consultant in accordance with California Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant is not Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq. 23. Plaintiff has demanded return of his money and defendant has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to return said funds. 29. damaged in the sum of $700.00 plus interest thereon from June 30, 2015 at the law?Jl rate of 10% per annum. As a direct result of defendants unlawful retention of said funds, plaintiff has been SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE ?22440, et seq. (AGAINST DEF ENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10) 30. Plaintiff incorporates hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof as though set forth again hereat in full. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the services for which defendant Vazquez charged fees may only be performed by a licensed attorney or a duly registered Immigration Consultant. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that neither defendant Vasquez nor defendants CASA or Does 1 through 10 are either licensed attorneys or registered Immigration Consultants as that tor-in is used in California Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq. 32. Vasquez failed to comply with the following sections of the California Business and Professions Code: 22440, which requires that a person charging money for the services performed shall be a registered Immigration Consultant; 22442 which requires a written contract between the client Plaintiff Godoy is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant -32 DEIE: 2 Mmupd counLAEuT 088/093 03/24/2016 THU 17:ans 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 089/093 and an Immigration Consultant; 22442.2 which requires a conspicuously displayed sign identifying the bonding company who has issued a bond for the Immigration Consultant; 22443.] which requires the posting of a $100,000.00 bond prior to performing any services as an Immigration Consultant; 22443 .3 which requires that a. bond be posted before anyone may disseminate (by any means) any statement indicating, directly or by implication, that the person acts as an Immigration Consultant. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Vasquez violated other sections of the California Business and Professions Code the specifics of which are not yet presently known to plaintiff who will leave of court to amend this complaint to set forth same when ascertained or according to proof at time of trial. 33. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22446.5, plaintiff is entitled to damages for each violation and that said sum be trebled or at the rate of $1,000.00 per violation, whichever is greater. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained damages which are not yet fully ascertained and plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this complaint when same are ascertained or according to proof at time of trial. 34. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22445, and in addition to any other damages, plaintiff is entitled to damages up to but exceeding $100,000 for defendants violations of the above identi?ed Business and Professions Code sections. 35. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees for which plaintiff seeks payment from defendants Vasquez, CASA and Does?l through 10 inclusive pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 22446.5 according to proof. 36. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, is outrageous, fraudulent, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff fin'ther alleges that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted oppressiver in that his conduct was despicable and subjected plaintiff to the potential of cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff?s rights; that defendant Vasquez acting by and through defendant CASA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted fraudulently in that he represented himself, at all times, as an experienced Immigration Consultant and knew, but failed to disclose that he was not a COMPLAINT Deal: 2 03/24/2010 THU 17: 33 ans 818 330 2333 Law Offiooa of run 030/033 . ?it pl! a) A licensed Immigration Consultant under California Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq.; and that defendant Vasques acted maliciously in that his conduct was both willful and in conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiff warranting punitive damages according to proof. booms?- THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, et seq. (AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, CASA AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15) a 37. Plaintiff incorporates hereat by this reference each all and every allegation set 9 forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 hereof as though set forth in full hereat again. 1 33; Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the actions of defendant 1 1 Vasquez, CASA and Does 1 through 10 inclusive violate California Business and Professions 1'2 Code 17200 in that they are inherently deceptive and constitute unfair business practices by 3 circumvention of the law and by taking advantage of the ignorance of aliens facing potential 1 4 deportation.- 1 5 39. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that the conduct of defendant Vasquez, 1 6 as herein above alleged, constitutes a fraudulent business practice warranting the imposition of a 1 7 Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction all as provided for under California Business and Professions Code 17203. 2 WHEBEFORE Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows: 2 1 1. For damages for violations of Business and Professions Code 22440, et seq. 2 2 according to proof; 2 3 2. For a determination that defendant Vasquez is the alter ego of defendant Casa; 2 4 3. For punitive damages; 4. For injunctive relief to prevent defendants from continued violations of California 2 7 Business and Professions Code 17203 and 22440, et seq.; 2 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; -10? COMPLAINT ?!!1al\mDDY\Eampln1nt Draft 2 03/24/2016 THU 17:33 FAX 818 990 2399 Law Offices of ass 091/093 (?33 rm: 1 6. For attorneys fees as provided for under Business and Professions Code 22446.5 or any other applicable code section; and LUM For such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. lb Dated: December 17, 2015 KLASS, HELMAN 3.: ROSS RossiRT M. ROSS I Attorney for Plaintiff Cesar GodoyCOMPLAFI ?neness-snowman: Butt '3 03/24/2016 THU 17:34 FAX 818 990 2399 Law offices of KHR 092/093 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 TATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. 3 OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 ears and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 5 1145, Encino, California 91436. 6 On March 24, 2016, 1 served the foregoing document, described as: 7 REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE 3 By placing the original true copie(s) thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as follows: 9 R. Michael Ghilezan, Esq. 10 The Ghilezan Law Firm 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 11 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-907-5708 12 Fax: 310-388?0315 Email: michael@ghilezanlaw.com 13 Attorneys for Defendants Byron Vasquez 14 and Casa de law Cultura de Guatemala en Los Angeles 15 BY U.S. MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Encino, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon ?illy prepaid. 16 I am familiar with this ?rm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 17 mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of party served, service is 18 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. 19 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By delivering the document(s) listed above in a sealed 20 envelope(s) or package(s) designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed as shown above, to a facility regularly maintained by the 21 express service carrier or to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, who received these documents at 16133 Ventura 22 Boulevard, Encinc, California 914-36. 23 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee. 24 BY FACSIMILE: By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing doctunent(s) via facsimile transmission from this Finn?s sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is 818- 25 990-2399, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth above or on the attached service list. Said transmission(s) were completed. on the 26 aforesaid date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm?s sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A true copy of each transmission 27 report is attached to the of?ce copy of this proof of service and will be provided upon request. 28 03/24/2016 THU 17:34 Fax 818 990 2399 Law Offices of KHR 093/093 1 Service by facsimile transmission was made pursuant to agreement of the parties, con?rmed in writing, or as a courtesy to the parties. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed 3 above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list from the e-mail address @khrlaw.com at approximately . To my knowledge, 4 the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 5 ?ag: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Federal: I declare that I am employed in the office of a. member of the bar of this 7 Court, at whose direction the service was made. 8 EXECUTED on March 24, 2016, at Encino, Califomia. 10 Jeanne Sarmiento