BMA ADVISORS, LLC Investment Advisory Contract 608 Silver Spur Road, Suite 100, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 This agreement describes the relationship between BMA Advisors, LLC (hereafter BMA) and 24 RULES AND REGULATIONS/SCPMG MESSAGE SCPMG Message: Keep your arms on your shoulders and keep your eyes on the stars for innovation and change for the future. ” -Sidney R Garfield, MDD, SCPMG is looking for an example for permanent professionals. A permanent physician demonstrates professionalism by working in a way that presents maximum ethics and responsibility, humanity and the best for the best interests of the patient, a constant desire for clinical excellence and collaboration with colleagues and other members of the health team. A permanent physician demonstrates the principles of partnership by applying good practice, keeping SCPMG initiatives informed, voting in partnership elections when they have the right to vote, and actively engaging in the success of SCPMG. A permanent physicist demonstrates the value of the Emperor of Southern California by demonstrating partnership, responsibility and flexibility, taking innovation, demonstrating integrity, contributing to our diverse work and achieving the best results in quality and service…. “Our Medical Group can finally achieve all the goals if we have the vision to plan them well and the patience to develop and develop them… Raymond Kay, MD, founder of SCPMG Approved February 1281.2 defines “a summary procedure” to resolve these petitions to force arbitration.  (Engalla v. Permanent Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)  At Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 (Rosenthal), this Supreme Court explained the necessary procedure: “[W]ee petition for forced mediation, accompanied by excellent evidence of a written agreement to settle the controversy, the court must determine for itself whether the agreement exists and whether a defence is formed against its execution, if it is enforced.

 As the existence of the agreement is a legal condition for the granting of the petition, the petitioner bears the weight of the evidence of its existence by an overweight of the evidence.  If the party that rejects the petition raises a defence on the application. this party bears the burden of providing evidence and proving by being overweight, all of which is necessary for the defence. The Supreme Court reiterated these engalla proceedings, see 15 Cal.4th on p. 972 and stated, “In this summary proceeding, the court is considered to be the unifier of the facts, which weighs all assurances, statements and other evidence written under oath, as well as oral evidence received at the discretion of the Tribunal, in order to reach a definitive conclusion.”  (Ibid., in reference to Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4. p. 413-414.) As mentioned above, the Ruiz court considered two statements that were submitted by the defendant`s director, Mary Main, that would have authenticated Ruiz`s electronic signature on an arbitration agreement.  (Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at 840-841.)  As described by the In Ruiz court in detail, Main stated in the first statement “in summary that Ruiz was the person who signed the 2011 agreement electronically. but it did not explain how it came to this conclusion. (Id. under p. 843.)  In other words, Main “never explained how the electronic signature or date and time printed next to Ruiz`s signature were included in the 2011 agreement.  In particular, Main did not explain how it found that the electronic signature on the 2011 agreement was Ruiz`s “act,” as required by Article 1633.9 of the Civil Code.  (id.

at 843-844.)  The court then explained why Main second explanation, offered to refute swearing-in that he did not remember the signing of the agreement, not the necessary authentication: “. Main stated in its response that the 2011 agreement was part of a form of employee recognition that will “be” presented to all Moss Bros.