Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Sturgeon v LA County BC541213 judicial benefits

Sturgeon v LA County BC541213 judicial benefits

Sturgeon v LA County BC541213 judicial benefits

Page 1: Sturgeon v LA County BC541213 judicial benefits

Category:Lawsuit

Number of Pages:25

Date Created:February 11, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:March 20, 2015

Tags:Fourth Appellate District, Harold P. Sturgeon, Los Angeles County, Council, California


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

G051016 THE COURT APPEAL THE STATE CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
__________
Harold Sturgeon,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs.
County Los Angeles, al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
__________
Appeal from the Superior Court California, County Los Angeles
The Honorable Kirk Nakamura
Superior Court Case No. BC541213
__________
APPELLANT HAROLD STURGEON
OPENING BRIEF APPEAL
__________
Sterling Norris (State Bar No. 040993)
Paul Orfanedes (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108-2601
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Harold Sturgeon
G051016
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED
ENTITIES PERSONS
Pursuant Rule 8.208(e)(3) the California Rules Court,
behalf Respondent Harold Sturgeon, there are interested entities
persons under Rule 8.208(e)(l) (e)(2) list this certificate.
Dated: February 11,2015
TABLE CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED ENTITIES PERSONS ........................................................................................
TABLE CONTENTS ........................................................................
TABLE AUTHORITIES .................................................................. iii
STATEMENT THE CASE ................................................................
STATEMENT FACTS ......................................................................
ARGUMENT .........................................................................................
Standard Review ............................................................
II.
Plaintiff Complaint Alleges Facts More Than
Sufficient State Cause Action Against
The County for Violating Article VI, Section ..................
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
PURSUANT RULE 8.520(c) ...........................................................
ADDENDUM
PROOF SERVICE
TABLE AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adelman Associated Int Ins. Co., Cal.App.4th 352 (2001) ............................................................
Kugler Yocum, Cal.2d 371 (1968) ....................................................................
Sturgeon County Los Angeles,
191 Cal.App.4th 344 (2010) .......................................... 10,
Sturgeon County Los Angeles,
167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) ...................................... 10,
Constitutional Provisions
Cal. Const., art. VI, 16(c) ....................................................................
Cal. Const., art. VI, ................................................................. passim
Statutes, Rules, and Ordinances
Code Civ. 526a ..............................................................................
Gov Code 451(f) ..............................................................................
Gov Code 459 ..................................................................................
Gov Code 68220 ................................................................................
Gov Code 68220(a) ..........................................................................
Gov Code 68220(b).................................................................... 12,
Stats. 2009, ch. 1(c) .......................................................................
iii
STATEMENT THE CASE
This appeal puts squarely issue 2010 decision upholding,
interim measure, Los Angeles County payment supplemental judicial
benefits the then-sitting judges the Superior Court California,
County Los Angeles.
Longtime Los Angeles County resident and
taxpayer Harold Sturgeon challenges the County continued payment
these benefits the grounds that they violate Article VI, Section the
California Constitution. 2006 lawsuit, Sturgeon challenged the
County payment benefits the judges, contending that the benefits
violated Article VI, Section 19. When Division One panel agreed and
declared the benefits unconstitutional late 2008, the Legislature
hastily enacted interim measure February 2009 preserve the status
quo until permanent, uniform, statewide system judicial compensation
could enacted. 2010, the same Division One panel that previously
held the benefits unconstitutional found that the Legislature
temporary fix for then-sitting judges satisfied Article VI, Section 19,
least for the time being.
Six years have passed since the February 2009 legislation was
enacted. Judges have left the bench and new judges have been appointed
elected. All nearly all the judges who have remained the bench
have begun new, six-year terms. permanent, uniform, statewide system
has been adopted, but the benefits continue. Because the February 2009
legislation was interim measure, not permanent solution, and did not
prescribe the County payment supplemental judicial benefits
indefinitely, the continued payment the benefits violates Article VI,
Section 19. The Complaint more than adequately states taxpayer claim
challenging the benefits.
STATEMENT FACTS
Plaintiff Harold Sturgeon Sturgeon Plaintiff longtime
resident and taxpayer the County Los Angeles. Clerk Transcript 22, Plaintiff paid taxes the County Los Angeles,
including property taxes, the one-year period prior commencement
this action. Id.
Defendant County Los Angeles the County legal
subdivision the State California. 22, The County pays
the supplemental judicial benefits challenged Plaintiff this action.
Id. Defendants Gloria Molina, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Zev Yaroslavsky,
Don Knabe, and Michael Antonovich are members the Los Angeles
County Board Supervisors the Board Supervisors and authorized
and approved the County payment the challenged benefits. Id. pp.
22-24, 7-11.
Defendant William Fujikoa the County Chief
Executive Officer and responsible for implementing the lawful policy
decisions the Board Supervisors, including the decision pay the
challenged benefits. Id. 24, 12. Defendant John Naimo the
County Auditor-Controller and responsible for administering payment the challenged benefits. Id. 13. Defendant Gregg Iverson
Chief the Countywide Payroll Division the County AuditorController Department and directly responsible for payment the
challenged benefits. Id. pp. 24-25, 14. Defendants Molina, RidleyThomas, Yaroslavsky, Knabe, and Antonovich, and, information and
belief, Defendants Fujikoa, Naimo, and Iverson, have the authority
terminate payment the benefits. Id. pp. 22-25, 7-14. The individual
defendants are being sued their official capacities only.
The California Constitution vests the State judicial power the
judges the superior courts each the State counties, the Courts Appeal, and the Supreme Court. 25, 15. All judges are state
officers even though, the case most superior court judges, they
preside over cases single county and are subject election only one
county. Id. state officers, all California judges receive compensation
from the State the form salary and full complement benefits. Id. 25, 16. addition, some superior court judges receive
supplemental judicial benefits from the counties which they serve. Id. 17. Others receive supplemental judicial benefits from the courts
which they serve. Id. 2006, Plaintiff brought suit alleging that the County payment
supplemental judicial benefits the judges the Superior Court
violated the California Constitution and was otherwise unlawful.
26, 21. October 10, 2008, the Court Appeal agreed, finding that the
benefits violated Article VI, Section the California Constitution. Id. pp. 26-27, 22; see also Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 167
Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Sturgeon More specifically, the Court
Appeal found that the benefits were compensation within the meaning
the constitution, but had not been prescribed the Legislature,
required Article VI, Section 19. Id. The California Supreme Court
denied review December 23, 2008. Id. February 14, 2009, the
Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. (2009-10 Ex. Sess.) Senate Bill (included the Addendum) response the Court Appeal
ruling Sturgeon Id. 27, 23. public hearings were held the
bill. Id. The bill was inserted into the Budget Act 2008 the last
minute and passed the same day. Id. was signed Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger February 20, 2009. Id.
Enacted interim measure, Senate Bill purported
authorize the County payment supplemental judicial benefits for
purposes Article VI, Section until such time the Legislature could
adopt comprehensive response Sturgeon 27, 24. Section Senate Bill added section 68220 the Government Code, which
now provides:
(a)
Judges court whose judges received supplemental
judicial benefits provided the county court, both, July 2008, shall continue receive supplemental
benefits from the county court then paying the benefits
the same terms and conditions were effect that date.
(b) county may terminate its obligation provide
benefits under this section upon providing the Administrative
Director the Courts and the impacted judges with 180 days
written notice. The termination shall not effective
any judge during his her current term while that judge
continues serve judge that court or, the election
the county, when that judge leaves office. The county also
authorized elect provide benefits for all judges the
county. 28, 26; Gov Code 68220.
Section Senate Bill required that the Judicial Council
California Judicial Council analyze the inconsistencies statewide
benefits and report them the Legislature. 29, 28. The Judicial
Council subsequent study, completed 2009, found significant
discrepancies and inconsistencies exist throughout the state with regard
the payment supplemental judicial benefits. Id. 25, 18. The
study found that these discrepancies and inconsistences are the result
the individual history each court and county and [are] not based any
rational consistent statewide plan formula. Id. The Judicial Council
study also found that superior court judges California counties
receive supplemental judicial benefits all. Id. 26, 19. Nor
appellate court judges. Id.
The 2009 Judicial Council study also found that [j]udges some
courts receive benefits that cost little $102 per year per judge, while
judges the Superior Court Los Angeles County receive benefits
approximately $50,000. 26, 20. The result what the study
called hodgepodge, patchwork quilt varying judicial benefits and
compensation:
The variation supplemental benefits and their nonexistence many courts, including appellate courts, results
other significant compensation differences. way
example, the Legislature has specified uniform salary for all
superior court judges statewide and salary for justices the
Courts Appeals that higher [than] for judges the
superior courts. Yet the full value the supplemental
benefits included the overall compensation paid
judges, there are counties which superior court judges
receive more valuable compensation packages than justice the Court Appeals who serves the same county.
Id. remand, Plaintiff challenged whether Senate Bill
sufficiently prescribed the County payment supplemental judicial
benefits for purposes Article VI, Section 19. pp. 29-30, 29.
ruling the Court Appeal upheld Senate Bill 11, but only
temporary measure that preserved the status quo until permanent,
uniform, statewide system judicial compensation scheme could
enacted. Id.; see also Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.4th
344 (2010) Sturgeon
Although Senate Bill was only ever intended temporary
measure, the County has continued pay supplemental judicial benefits the judges the Superior Court, and both the dollar value these
benefits and the cost the benefits the County taxpayers have
increased. 30, and 31. 2013, the County paid
approximately $57,487 supplemental judicial benefits each the
approximately 429 judges the Superior Court. Id. pp. 30-31, 32.
This included approximately $33,970 cafeteria plan benefits,
approximately $15,600 retirement benefits, and $7,917 professional
development allowance. Id. These supplemental judicial benefits were addition the $181,292 salary and the full complement benefits paid each superior court judge the state. Id. 2013 alone, the cost
these benefits the County taxpayers was least approximately
$24,661,923. Id. April 2014, Plaintiff filed second suit against the County,
challenging its continuing payment supplemental judicial benefits
the absence the permanent, comprehensive judicial compensation
scheme plainly contemplated Sturgeon II. pp. 20-34. The Hon.
Kirk Nakauma, sitting designation judge the Superior Court,
County Los Angeles, sustained demurrer the complaint and entered
judgment against Sturgeon. Id. pp. 131-33 and 134-35. This timely
appeal followed. Id. pp. 143-44.
ARGUMENT
Standard Review. reviewing the sufficiency complaint against general
demurrer, courts are guided long-settled rules. Adelman Associated
Int Ins. Co., Cal.App.4th 352, 359 (2001). The complaint given
reasonable interpretation, reading whole and its parts their context.
Id.
All properly pled, material facts are treated admitted, but not
contentions, deductions conclusions fact law, and matters that may judicially noticed are considered. Id. When demurrer sustained,
reviewing court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient
constitute cause action. Id. Irrespective the labels attached the
pleader any alleged cause action, the reviewing court examines the
factual allegations the complaint determine whether they state cause action any available legal theory. Id. they do, then the trial court
order dismissal must reversed. Id. they not, then the order will affirmed. Id.
II.
Plaintiff Complaint Alleges Facts More Than Sufficient
State Cause Action Against The County for Violating
Article VI, Section 19. Sturgeon the Court Appeal found that Article VI, Section
imposes nondelegable duty the Legislature set judicial
compensation.
167 Cal.App.4th 653. satisfy this duty, the
Legislature must, minimum, make fundamental policy choice about
judicial compensation and establish standards safeguards ensure that
its policy choice implemented:
Importantly, even when legislative body bears
nondelegable duty, may nonetheless permit other bodies
take action based general principle established the
legislative body long the Legislature provides either
standards safeguards which assure that the Legislature
fundamental policy effectively carried out.
Id. The Court Appeal further declared: have said that the purpose the doctrine that legislative
power cannot delegated assure that truly
fundamental issues [will] resolved the Legislature and
that grant authority [is] accompanied safeguards
adequate protect its abuse. [Citations] This doctrine rests
upon the premise that the legislative body must itself
effectively resolve the truly fundamental issue. cannot
escape responsibility explicitly delegating that function
others failing establish effective mechanism
assure the proper implementation its policy decisions.
Id. (quoting Kugler Yocum, Cal.2d 371, 376-77 (1968)).
The Court Appeal subsequent decision upholding the County
payment supplemental judicial benefits cannot divorced from the
temporary, stop-gap nature Senate Bill 11. Sturgeon II, the Court Appeal described Senate Bill interim measure, awaiting
further legislative action. 191 Cal.App.4th 354. Both Senate Bill
and the Court Appeal recognized that judges relied the existence
these longstanding supplemental benefits, and, allowing then-sitting
judges continue receive the benefits for the balance their terms,
preserved the status quo ante Sturgeon and commenced process
which the Legislature looks adoption comprehensive judicial
compensation scheme.
Stats. 2009, ch. 1(c); Sturgeon II, 191
Cal.App.4th 354. such, the Legislature response Sturgeon
me[t] the requirements the Constitution for the time being and was
wholly sensible under the circumstances. Id.
Even more importantly, the Court Appeal expressly declared that
Senate Bill was not permanent response Plaintiff constitutional
challenge the County payment supplemental judicial benefits. Id. also expressly declared that expected the Legislature adopt
permanent, uniform, statewide system judicial compensation within
reasonable period time:
However, its face Senate Bill not permanent
response either the constitutional issues identified
Sturgeon the difficult problem adopting
compensation scheme that deals with varying economic
circumstances equitable and efficient manner. Thus,
would remiss discharging our duties did not state
that while the Legislature interim response Sturgeon
defeats the particular challenges asserted Sturgeon this
litigation, that interim remedy, not supplanted the more
comprehensive response Senate Bill plainly
contemplates, most likely will give rise further challenges taxpayers members the bench themselves.
noted the outset, the issue judicial compensation
state, not county, responsibility. are confident that the
Legislature within reasonable period time will act
adopt uniform statewide system judicial compensation.
Id. 355-56 (emphasis added). These findings and conclusions are not
mere dicta. They describe why the Court Appeal ruled the way did.
They are the very heart the Court Appeal decision. Senate Bill not and was never intended permanent, fundamental policy
choice that prescribed judicial compensation the manner required
Article VI, Section 19. never intended freeze place inherently
unequal compensation scheme which some judges received
additional $57,000 benefits and others receive nothing, not based
any rational consistent statewide plan formula, but because the
individual history each court and county. pp. 25-26, 18-19.
was only temporary fix.
Plaintiff agrees with the County one regard:
Nothing has
changed since the Sturgeon court issued these pronouncements. 71. permanent, uniform, statewide system judicial compensation
ever materialized. Article VI, Section plainly requires more than the
indefinite freezing place stop-gap measure. This especially the
case here because the stop-gap measure enacted the Legislature
preserves hodgepodge, patchwork quilt significantly varying
judicial compensation not based any rational consistent statewide
plan formula, but which the result the individual history each
court and county. pp. 25-26, 18-20. addition, since Senate Bill was enacted six years ago,
judges the Superior Court have left the bench and new judges have been
appointed elected.1 Senate Bill only prescribed benefits for judges
who were receiving them July 2008, and all nearly all the
judges who have been the bench since July 2008 have begun new sixyear terms. Cal. Const., art. VI, 16(c); Gov Code 68220(a). Senate
Bill ambiguous about whether benefits are prescribed for new
judges for judges who have begun new terms. certainly does not say
expressly that new judges are authorized receive supplemental judicial
benefits the same terms and conditions sitting judges that sitting
judges beginning new terms are authorized continue receive benefits.
While Senate Bill states expressly that the County may not
terminate judge benefits during his her current term, the reference judge current term only highlights the ambiguity. Gov Code
Sturgeon submits that, while this fact obvious, the Court can take
judicial notice deems judicial notice necessary. Evid. Code
451(f) and 459.
68220(b). anything, emphasizes that current terms were being treated
differently from future terms. Also ambiguous the final sentence
Senate Bill termination provision, which states, The county
authorized elect provide benefits for all judges the county. Id.
The Legislature did not specify whether this provision applied counties
where some, but not all, sitting judges were receiving benefits July
2008; sitting judges who were the bench the time the enactment
Senate Bill 11, but had not been the bench July 2008;
some other category sitting judges. plainly could not apply
individuals who were not sitting judges the time Senate Bill
enactment because, definition, they would not have been judges. this regard, the interim nature and ambiguous language Senate
Bill collides head with the requirement that the Legislation must
effectively resolve the truly fundamental issues satisfy Article VI,
Section 19. Sturgeon 167 Cal.App.4th 653. Senate Bill does
not resolve the fundamental issue whether benefits are prescribed for
new judges judges who have begun new terms since July 2008
because Senate Bill was only intended interim measure.
was never intended permanent solution. The County continued
payment the benefits violates Article VI, Section and
unconstitutional. Plaintiff complaint more than adequately states claim
under Section 526a the Code Civil Procedure.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has never taken issue with the amount compensation paid the judges the Superior Court. takes issue with how the judges
compensation determined how the County, which appears before the
Superior Court regularly, misreads forever authorizing
supplement judges pay nearly third without further action the
Legislature. Public confidence the integrity the courts the utmost
importance, and integral part that integrity how judges are paid.
Judicial compensation not only must substantial enough attract and
retain well-qualified judges, but also must established through
regular, orderly process that transparent and free from any appearance
influence impropriety.
Plaintiff original lawsuit started process reforming the
hodgepodge, patchwork quilt widely varying judicial compensation
identified the Judicial Council its 2009 study. That reform process
stalled years ago and, result, the temporary fix that was Senate Bill longer suffices satisfy Article VI, Section 19. Senate Bill
did not permanently prescribe the County payment supplemental
judicial benefits new judges judges who have begun new terms.
Judges compensation also must fair and equitable all judges across
the State, which plainly not the case result the Countys payments.
The Countys continued payment benefits six years after Senate Bill unlawful. The judgment the Superior Court should reversed and
the case should remanded for further proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 11,2015
5t~ ord
Sterling RNis (SBN 040993)
flU
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108-2601
Tel: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
-pa~!-l~~.
o~r::-fa=ne=-d---i-f,--~rrt~~~----
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20204
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Harold Sturgeon
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
Pursuant rule .204(c) the California Rules Court, hereby
certify that this brief contains 3,493 words, including footnotes. making
this certification, have relied the word count the computer program
used prepare the brief.
Dated: February 11,2015
Sterling
orrIS
ADDENDUM
Senate Bill No.
CHAPTER act add Sections 68220, 68221, and 68222 the Government Code,
relating judges.
[Approved Governor February 20, 2009. Filed with
Secretary State February 20, 2009.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature prescribe
compensation for judges courts record. Existing law authorizes county deem judges and court employees county employees for purposes
providing employment benefits. These provisions were held unconstitutional impermissible delegation the obligation the Legislature
prescribe the compensation judges courts record.
This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental judicial
benefits provided county court, both, July 2008, shall
continue receive supplemental benefits from the county court then
paying the benefits the same terms and conditions were effect
that date. The bill would authorize county terminate its obligation
provide benefits upon providing 180 days written notice the
Administrative Director the Courts and the impacted judges, but that
termination would not effective any judge during his her current
term while that judge continues serve judge that court or, the
election the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would
authorize the county elect provide benefits for alljudges that county.
The bill would require the Judicial Council report the Senate Committee Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee Budget, and
both the Senate and Assembly Committees Judiciary before
December 31,2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.
This bill would provide that governmental entity, officer employee governmental entity, shall incur any liability subject prosecution disciplinary action because benefits provided judge under the
official action governmental entity prior the effective date the bill the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
This bill would provide that nothing its provisions shall require the
Judicial Council increase funding court for the purpose paying
judicial benefits obligate the state the Judicial Council pay for
benefits previously provided the county, city and county, the court.
Ch.9
-2-
The people the State California enact follows:
SECTION The Legislature finds and declares all the following:
(a) the intent the Legislature address the decision ofthe Court Appeal Sturgeon County Los Angeles (2008) 167 Ca1.AppAth
630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges.
(b) These county-provided benefits were considered the Legislature enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act 1997, which
counties could receive reduction the countys maintenance effort
obligations counties elected provide benefits pursuant paragraph (l) subdivision (c) Section 77201 the Government Code for trial court
judges that county.
(c) Numerous counties and courts established local court supplemental
benefits retain qualified applicants for judicial office, and trial court
judges relied upon the existence ofthese longstanding supplemental benefits
provided the counties the court.
SEC. Section 68220 added the Government Code, read:
68220. (a) Judges court whose judges received supplemental judicial
benefits provided the county court, both, July 2008, shall
continue receive supplemental benefits from the county court then
paying the benefits the same terms and conditions were effect
that date.
(b) county may terminate its obligation provide benefits under this
section upon providing the Administrative Director the Courts and the
impacted judges with 180 days written notice. The termination shall not effective any judge during his her current term while that judge
continues serve judge that court or, the election the county,
when that judge leaves office. The county also authorized elect
provide benefits for all judges the county.
SEC. Section 68221 added the Government Code, read:
68221. clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies terms with regard judges and justices and ensure uniformity statewide, the following
shall apply for purposes Sections 68220 68222, inclusive:
(a) Benefits and benefit shall include federally regulated benefits, described Section 71627, and deferred compensation plan benefits,
such 401(k) and 457 plans, described Section 71628, and may also
include professional development allowances.
(b) Salary and compensation shall have the meaning set forth
Section 1241.
SEC. Section 68222 added the Government Code, read:
68222. Nothing this act shall require the Judicial Council increase
funding court for the purpose paying judicial benefits obligate the
state the Judicial Council pay for benefits previously provided the
county, city and county, the court.
SEC. Notwithstanding any other law, governmental entity,
officer employee governmental entity, shall incur any liability
subject prosecution disciplinary action because benefits provided
-3-
Ch.9 judge under the official action governmental entity prior the
effective date ofthis act the ground that those benefits were not authorized
under law.
SEC. The Judicial Council shall report the Senate Committee
Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee Budget, and both
the Senate and Assembly Committees Judiciary before December
31,2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.
SEC. The provisions this act are severable. any provision this
act its application held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions applications that can given effect without the invalid
provision application.
PROOF SERVICE employed the City Washington, District Columbia. over the age and not party the within action. business
address 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024. February 11, 2015, served the foregoing document described
as:
APPELLANT HAROLD STURGEONS
OPENING BRIEF APPEAL the parties this action placing true and correct copy thereof
sealed envelope addressed follows:
Counsel for Respondents Harold Sturgeon County
Los Angeles, al.
Elwood Lui
Erica Reilley
Charlotte Wasserstein
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, 90071-2300
The Hon. Kirk Nakamura
c/o Clerk the Court
Superior Court California, County Orange
700 Civil Center Drive West
Santa Ana, 92701 delivered said documents authorized courier driver
authorized receive documents, envelope package designated
the express service carrier with delivery fees paid provided for,
addressed the person whom served the next business day. declare under penalty perjury the laws the State
California that employed the office member the bar this
Court whose direction the service was made, that the foregoing true
and correct, and that this declaration was executed February 11,2015,
Washington, D.C.
David Rothstein