2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported Litigation

Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/jz123456
10--01
10 01--02 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-
(2:08-cv-
cv-01550), US District Court, Los Angeles
Minutes, orders, Report & Recommendation, and Judgment in as served on Plaintiff
by mail.
Contents
March 21, 2008 Minutes by Judge Phillips, denying TRO----p2
August 5, 2008 Minutes by Judge Phillips denying request for

statement on the record regarding conflicts, if any. ---p84
March 18, 2009 Order by Judge Phillips denying disqualification for a

cause of Magistrate Woehrle. ----p91
April 3, 2009 Magistrate Woehrle's Report & Recommendation----p101
April 24, 2009 Order by Judge PHillips Adopting R & R----p132
April 24, 2009 Judgment by Judge Phillips----p138

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Docurnen~/4 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 3
PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTHICT OOURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALI FO,RNIA
CIVIL MINUTES--_-- C~ENERAL
Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN) Date: March 21, 2008
Title: JOSEPH ZERNIK -v- JACQUELINE CON~OR, et al.

=============================:=====:=======~========== ============
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard None Present
Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNgyS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:
None None
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING bRDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE (IN CHAMBERiS)
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to
Show Cause on March 6, 2007 ("Application"). Defendant Pasternak filed an
Opposition COpp'n") March 17, 2008. The other [)efe~ldants did not respond to the
Application. Plaintiff seeks an order ('1) restrainin~~ Defendant Friedman from
procel~ding vlfith a March '7, 2008 hearing on a lVIotion to; Show Cause against
Plaintiff in California Superior Court; (2) restraining D~fendant Friedman from
ordering Plaintiff to pay sanctions; (3) restraining Def~ndants Friedman and
Pasternak from further expenditures of proceeds of the $ale of Plaintiff's house held
MIINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _md_ _

CIVIL ..- GEN Page 1
31 2 IIf1 J J~
,50-' 1/2C
.----
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 14 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 3
CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN)
JOSEPH ZERNIK v JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of March 21,2008
by Pasternak as a receiver; (4) ordering Defendants Friedman and Pasternak to

relBase to Plaintiff all proceeds of the salB of Plaintiff's house held by Pasternak as a
receiver; (5) ordering Defendant Friedman to show calise why he should not
immediately release a statement detailin~l his relationship with Defendant Samuels;
(6) ordering Defendants Friedman ane! Samuels to show cause why all Defendant
Connor's actions in Samaan v. Zernik should not be vC3cated; and (7) ordering
Defendants Friedman and Rosenberg, to show cause why Samaan v. Zernik should
not be ruled a mistrial and transferred to U.S. District Gourt.
~)arnaatn v. Zeroik involves a property dispute wherein plaintiff Samaan

("Samaan"), the buyer, sought to enforce a purchase agreement with defendant
Zernik for Zernik to sell certain real property to Samaan. On August 9, 2007, the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles awarded summary
judgment in favor of Samaan and against Zernik, granting specific performance, i.e.,
the sale of the real property in dispute, to Samaan. (See Opp'n at 2.) On November
9, :Z007, the Superior Court appointed [)E~fendant Pasternak as Receiver and
ordered him to take possession, custody and control o'f the real property in dispute
and to sell the property to Samaan pursuant to the award of summary judgment.
(See. ~t at 2·-3.)
On February 15, 2008, the Superior Court sanctioned Plaintiff in the amount of
$16,170 for violations of a protective order and ordering Defendant Pasternak to pay
the sanctions from the receiver's funds if Plaintiff failed t9 pay. (See id. at 3 n.2.) On
March 7, 2008, the Superior Court found Plaintiff in contempt of court and ordered
him to pay a fine of $7,500.
II. DISCUSSION
In seeking a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff meets its burden by
demonstrating either: (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the
possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the
balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408
F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005); see...also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Having reviewed
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _md_ _

CIVIL ..- GEN Page 2
~~
D00-~1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CY08-1550··YAP(CW) Date March 31, 2008

Title Zernik v. Connor, et al.
Present: The Honorable Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

....::::._----=-----------
DOlma .,Y. Thomas nla nla
--------
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter I Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Pres(:nt for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
n/a nla
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
Plaintiff's complaint was filed on March 5, 2008, with payment of

the filing fee, and plaint.iff was issued a Summons. Plaintiff is
responsible for complying with the requirements of Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the procedures for
service of a summons and complaint on different. categories of
defendants. A copy of Fed. R. eiv. P. Rule 4 is attached and
plaintiff is advised to study it carefully.
Rule 4 usually requires service of a sununons and complaint on

each named defendant within 120 days after the filing of a complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If plaintiff fails to file proof of service
with court showing timely service of process on defendants, or fails
to submit a declaration showing 900d cause for failure to timely serve
defendants, the case may be dismissed as to any defendant not served.
cc: All Counsel
Joseph Zernik
2415 Saint George Street
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Attachments:
Fed. R. eiv. P. Rule 4
Proof of Service Summons a.nd Complaint (CV-l)
Notice of J~alNsuit: and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons (CV-39)
Waiver of Service of Surrunons (CV-I08)
CY-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES· GIENERAL

31 ~ )\(j~, ,,(3
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4
1. United States Code Annotated Currentness
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for t4e United States District C<;>urts (Refs & Annos)
Title II. Commencing an Action; Service of Process, Pleadings, Motions, and Orders
Rule 4. Summons
(a) Contents; Amendments.
(Jl) Contents. A summons must:
(A) name the court and the parties;
(JB) be directed to the defendant;
(fC) state the name and address of the plaintiffs attoffi(:y or--ifunrepresented--ofthe plaintiff;
(D) state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend;
(E) notify the defendant that a failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment
against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint;
(F) be signed by the c:lerk; and
(G) bear the court's seal.
(2) Amendments. The court may permit a summons to be amended.
(b) Issuance. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk
for signature and seal. Ifthe summons is PJrOp~~rly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and issue
it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant A summons--or a: copy of a summons that is
addressed to multiple defendants--must be issued for each defendant to be served.
(c) Service.
1(1) In GeneraL A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is
responsible for having the summons and complaint served with.in the time allowed by Rule 4(m)
I
and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.
(2.) By JVhom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and
. I
compI amt.
(3) By a Marshal or Someone Specia~ly Appob-lted. At the plain~iffs request, the court may
order that service be made by a Unite~ States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially
appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C-i12.15 or as' a seaman under 28 U.S.C; § 1916.
(d) Waiving Service.
(Jl) Requesting a Waive,~ An individu,al, corporation, or association that is subject to service

under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to
.
avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the sununons.
,
The plaintiff may notify such a defend;ant that an action has been conunenced and request that
the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request must:
(A) be in writing and be addressed:
(il) to the individual d(~fendant; or
(Iii) for a defendant subject to service l,Ulder Rule 4(h), to an officer, a managing or general agent,
or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to recei~e service of process;
(B) name the court where the complaint was filed;
(C) be accompanied by a copy of the pomplaint, two copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid
means for returning the form;
(D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, ofthe consequences of waiving and
not waiving service;
(E) state the date wh(m the request is sent;
(F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent--or at least
60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States--to return the
waiver; and
(G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.

(2) Failure to Waive. If a defendant lo~ated within the United St~tes fails, without good cause,
to sign and retum a waiver requested by a plaintifflocated within the United States, the court
must impose on the defendant: ,
I
(A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and
(H) the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, of any motion required to collect those
service expenses.
(3) Time to Answer After a Waiver. A defendant who, before being s~rved with process, timely
n:tums a waiver need not serve an ans}Ver to the complaint until ?O d<;lYs after the request was
sent--or until 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any ju~icial district of the United States.
(4) Results ofFiling tl Waiver. When the plaintiff files a waiver, pr00f of service is not required
and thesl~ rules apply as if a summons and complaint had been sElrved at the time of filing the waiver.
(5) Jurisdiction and Venue Not Waivfd. Waiving senrice of a summons does not waive any
objection to personal jurisdiction or to venue.
(4~)
Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District: of the United States. Unless federal law
provides. otherwise, an individual-··other
I
than a minor, an incom}i)etent person, or a person whose
waiver has been fi1ed-·-may be served ~n ajudic:ial district oftb.e United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a s\lmmons in an action brought in courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
(:2) doing any of the fc)llowing:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;
(8) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of
I
suitable age and discretion who resid¢s there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service
of procE:SS.
(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an
individual--other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a persbn whose waiver has been filed-
may be served at a place not within aby judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any intemationally agreed means of sen/ice that is reasonably calculated to give notice,
such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Serviee Abroad of Judicial and
Extrajudicial Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does
not specify other means, by a method t,hat is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for servil;;e in that country in an action in its courts
of general jurisdiction;
(H) as the foreign authority directs in response to a lettler rogatoryI or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:
(i) delivering a copy of the summons and ofthe complaint to the individual personally; or
(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a
signed receipt; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agrl:::ement, as the court orders.
(g) Serving a Minor Olr an Incompetent PersolJi. A minor or an incompetent person in a

judicial district of the United States must be served by following state law for serving a
summons or like process on such a defendant in lUi action brought in the courts of general
jurisdiction of the state where service is made. A minor or an incompetent person who is not
within any judicial district of the United States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule
4(t)(2)(A), (t)(2)(B), or (t)(3).
(b) Serving a CorpOlration, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides

otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic o~ foreign corporation, or a
partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to, suit under a common name,
must be served:
(1) in ajudicial district of the United ~tates:
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) fcJr serving an individual; or
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint toI an officer, a managing or
general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process and--ifthe agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires--by also mailing
a copy of each to the defendant; or
(2,) at a place not within any judicial district of the United State~, in any manner prescribed by
Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (t)(2)(C)(i).
(i) Serving the United States and Its Agcmcies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees.
(1) United Statl?s. To serve the United States, a party must:

I
(A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the: compLaint to the United States attorney for the
district where the action is brought--or, to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee
whom the United Statl;:s attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk--or
(ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United
States at1torney's office;
(n) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United
States at Washington, D.C.; and
(e) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States, send a
copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or officer.
(2) Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued lin an Official Capacity. To serve a United
States agency or corporation, or a United States officer or employee sued only in an official
capacity, a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the
complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee.
(3) Officer or Employee Sued Individually. To serve a United States officer or employee sued in
an individual capacity for an act or OII;lission occurring in connection with duties performed on
the United States' behalf (whether or not the officer or employee, is also sued in an official
capacity), a party must serve the United States and also serve th~ officer or employee under Rule
4(e), (f), or (g). '
(4) Extending Time. The court must allow a party a reasonable time to cure its failure to:
(A) serve a person required to be served under Rule 4(i)(2), if the party has served either the
United States attorney or the Attorney General of the United States; or
(B) serve the United States under Rul~ 4(i)(3), if the party has served the United States officer or
employee.
(j) Serving a }i'oreign, State, or Local Government.
(1) Foreign State. A foreign state or its political subdivision, ag;ency, or instrumentality must be
served in accordance with 28 U.S.c. § 16Q8.
(2) State or Local Government A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created
governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or
(U) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or
like process on such a defendant.
(k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service.
(ll) In GeneraL Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction
over a defendant:
(A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the
district court is located;
Oil) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or lQ. and is served within a judicial district of the
United States and not more than 100 miles from when: the summons was issued; or
(C) when authorized by a federal statUte.
(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law,
serving a summons or filing a waiver of servilce establishes pers<mal jurisdiction over a
defendant if:
(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and
(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.
(I) Proving Service.
(1) Affidavit Required. Unless servic~ is waived, proof of service must be made to the court.
Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal., proof must be by the server's affidavit.
(2) Service Outside the United States. Service not within any j~dicial district of the United
States must be proved as follows:
(A) if made under Rule 4(£)(1), as provided in the applicable treaty or convention; or
(B) if made under Rule 4(£)(2) or (£)(3), by a n;:ceipt signed by the addressee, or by other
evidence satisfying the court that the SUIIill10ns and complaint were delivered to the addressee.
(3) Validity ofService; Amending Pr~of. FaiJIure to prove service does not affect the validity of
se:rvice. The court may pennit proof of service to be amended.
(1111) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not servled within 120 days after the complaint is
filed, the court-··on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.
But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the faiJ!ure, the court rhust extend the time for service
for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country
under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).
(11) Asse'rting Jurisdidion over Property or Assets.
(ll) Federal Law. The court may assert jurisdi.ction over property if authorized by a federal
statute. Notice to claimants of the property must be given as pro~ided in the statute or by serving
a summons under this rule.
(2) State Law. On a showing that personal

I
jurisdiction over a defendant
,
cannot be obtained in
the district where the action is brought by reasonable efforts to serve a summons under this rule,
the court may assert jurisdiction over the defendant's assets foundI in the district. Jurisdiction is
acquired by seizing the assets under the circumstances and in the, manner provided by state law
in that district.
CREDIT(S)
(Amended January 21, 1963, effective July 1, 1963; February 28> 1966, effective July 1, 1966;
Apri129, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended by ]pub.L. 97-462, § 2, January 12,1983,96
Stat. 2527, effective 45 days after January 12, 1983; amended M1arch 2, 1987, effective August
1, 1987; April 22, 1993, effective December 1, 1993; Apri117, 2000, effective December 1,
2000; April30 l 2007, effective December 1, 2007.)
--- - - - UNITED STATES"I.ISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT 01;' CALtFORNIA
- --- --....- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CASE NUM8ER:
CV08-1550-VAP(CW)
Plaintiff(s)
v.
PROOF OF SERVICE
SUM.l\10NS AND COMPLAINT
(Use separat~ proof of service for each person/party served)
qefendant(s)
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action and I served copies of the (specify documents):
a. 0 summons 0 complaint 0 alias summons 0 first amended complaint
o second amended complaint
o third amended complaint
[] other (specifY):
2. Person served:
a. 0 Defendant (name):
b. [] Other (specify name and title or relationship to the party/business named):
c. 0 Address where papers were served:

3. Manner of Service in compliance with (the appropriate box must be checked):
a. [J Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
b. 0 California Code of Civil Procedure
4. I served the person named ill Item 2:

a. 0 By Persomtl servic:e. By personally delivering copies. If the person is a ~inor, by leaving copies with a parent, guardian,
conservator or similar fiduciary and to tne minor if at least twelve (12) I)'ears of age.
1. [] Papers were served on (date): _ _ at.(time): _ _~ _
b. [J By Substituted service. By leaving copies:

1. [] (homE~) at the dwelling house, usual place of abode, or usual place ofb>usiness ofthe person served in the presence of a
competent member of the household, at least 18 years of age, who w~s informed of the general nature of the papers.
2. [] (business) or a person apparently in charge ofthe office ofpJace of business, at least 18 years of age, who was informed
of the general nature of the papers.
3. [] Papers were served on (date): at (ti~e):

------
4. [] by m~liling (by first-class mail, posrage prepaid) copies to the person served in Item 2(b) at the place where the copies
were left in Item 2(c).
5. [] papers were mailed on (date): _
6. [] due diligence. I made at least three (3) attempts to personally serve the defendant.
PROOF OF SERVICE - SU~MOl'iS AND Cbl\olPLAINT

CV-l (04/01) PAGE I
c. D Mail and aeknowledgment of service. By mailing (by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) copies to the person
served, with two (2) copies of the form of Waiver of Service ofSumm<}ns and Complaint and a return envelope, postage
prepaid addressed to the sender. (Attach completed Waiver of Service of Summons and Complaint).
d. 0 SeJvice on domestic corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership), or public entity. (F.R.Civ.P.
4(h» (C.C.Jf». 416.10) By delivering, during usual business hours, a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and, ifthe
agt:nt is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires, by also mailing, by ftrst-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy to
the defendant. '
e. 0 Sulbstituted service on domestic corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership), or public entity.
(C.C.P. 415.20 olllly) By leaving during usual office hours, a copy of the summons and complaint in the office of the person
served with the person who apparently was in charge and thert:after by mailing (byfirst-class mail, postage prepaid) copies
to the persons at the place where the copies were left in full compliance with C.C.P. 415.20. Substitute service upon the
California Secretary of State requires a court order. (Attach:1 copy of the order to this Proof of Service).
f. 0 Selrvice on a foreiglll corporation. In any manner prescribed for individuals by FRCP 4(f).
g. 0 Certified or regish~red mail service. By mailing to an address outside California (by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
requiring a return receipt) copies to the person served. (Attach signed teturn receipt or other evidence of actual receipt
by the person served).
h. 0 Other (specify code section and type of service):
5. Service upon the United States, and Its Agencies, Corl~ora'tions or Officers.
a. [] by delivering a copy ofthe summons and complaint to the clerical employee designated by the U.S. Attorney authorized to
accept service, pursuant to the procedures for the Office ofthe U.S. Attorney for acceptance of service, or by sending a copy
of the summons and complaint by registered or celtified mail address.ed to the civil process clerk at the U.S. Attorneys
Office.
Name of person served:
Title of person served:
Date and time of service: (date): _ ___ at (time): _
b. D By sending a copy ofthe summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States
at Washington, D.C. (Attach signed return receipt Oli other' evidence or'actual receipt by the person served).
c. [J By sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the officer, agency or corporation
(Attach signed retlllrn receipt or other evidence of actuallreceipt by the person served).
6. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
7. Person serving (name, address and telephone number):
I
a. Fee for service: $
b. 0 Npt a registered California process server
c. 0 Exempt from registration under B&P 22350(b)
d. 0 Registered California process server
8. [J I am a California sherifl~ marshal, or constable and I certifY that the foregoing is true and correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing i~ true and correct.
Date:
(Signature)
PROOF OF SERVICE - SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

CY-l (04/01) PAGE 2
;
------------, UNITED STATES DISTRICT CmURT
,---_.---- - - - -CENTRAL
--
DISTRICT Qlf CALIFORNIA
-....,._.-.,------------- CASE NUMBER:
CV-08-1550-VAP(CW)
Plaintiff(s) ~--
v.
NOTICE QF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST
FOR WAIVJ1:R OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
I:?efendant(s)
This is to notify you that a lawsuit has been commenced against you (or the entity on whose behalf you are
addressed). A copy of the complaint is attached to this notice. It has been filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California, lil Western Division 0 Southe:rn Divi~iol1 D Eastern Division, and has been
assigned case number: cv _~~-1550-VAP(CW)
This is not a fOffilal summons or notification from the Court, but rather my request, pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d), that you sign and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of
serving you with ajudicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint. The cost of service will be avoided if
I receive a signed copy of the waiver within _' days after the date d~signated below as the date on which
this Notice and Request is sent. Enclosed is a self-addn~ssed, stamped envelbpe (or other means of cost-free return)
for your use. An extra copy of the waiver is also attached for your records.:
If you comply with this request and return the signed waiver, it will be filed with the Court and no summons
will be served on you. The action will then proceed as if you had been served on the date the waiver is filed, except
that you will not be obligated to answer the complaint before 60 days from the date designated below as the date on
which this notice is sent (or before 90 days from that date if your address is not in any judicial district of the United
States).
If you do not return the signed waiver within the time indicated, I will
I
take appropriate steps to effect formal
service in a manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will then, to the extent authorized by
those Rules, ask the Court to require you (or the party on whose behalf you are addressed) to pay the full costs of
such service. In that connection, please read the statement conceming the duty of parties to waive the service
of th(~ sum mons, which is set forth at the foot of the waiver form.
I (We) affinn that this request is being sent to you on behalf of the plaintiff, this day of
- - - - - - - - - - - , 2 -----
008
Signature of Plaintiff
(or counsel represeming Plaintiff)
- - - - - - - Noi'ICE O:FI~AWSUITAND REQUEST FOR WAIVER dF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

CV-39 (08/95)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CASE NUJ\1BER
CV 08-1 550-VAP(CW)
PLAINTI!FF(S)
v.
WAIVER OF SERVICE OF
SUMMONS
DEFENDANT(S).
To:
(Name of Plaintilf's Attorney or Unrepresented Plaintiff)
I hereby acknowledge receipt of your request that.! waive service of a summons in the above-entitled action. I have also received a
copy of the complaint in the action, two copies of this waiver fonn, and a means by Which I can return the signed waiver to you without
cost to me.
I agree to save the cost of service of a summons and an additional copy of the complaint in this lawsuit by not requiring that r (or the
entity on whose behalf I am acting) be served with judicial process in the manner provided by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. '
I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the jurisdiction or venue of the
court except for objections based on a defect in the summons or in the service of the Summons.
I understand that judgment may be entered against me (or the party on whose behalf I am acting) if an answer or motion under Rule
12 is not served within 60 days after* , or within 90 days after that date if the request was sent
outside the United States.
I
*Date Notice ofLawsuit and Request for Waiver ofService Summons is sent.
Date Signed by Receiving Party Signature
Name Telephone Number and Fax Number
---------_._-
Street Address Relationship to Entity on Whose Behalf! am Acting
Ci~_State, ZieQde ============= Na'!.'e ofParty' Waiving Service

Duty to Avoid rJnllecessary Costs of S,~rvice of Summons
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires cenain parties to oooperate in saving unnecessary'costs of service of the summons and complaint. A defendant
located in the United States who, after being notified of an action and asked by a plaintiff located in the United States to waive service of a summons, fails to do so will
be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for its failure to sign and return the waiver.
It is not good cause for a failure to waive service that a party believes that the complaint is unfounded, or that the action has been brought in an improper place or
in a court that lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or ovt~r its person or property. A party who waives service of the summons retains all defenses and
objections (except any relating to the summons or to the service of the summons), and may later object to the'jurisdiction of the court or to the place where the action has
been brought.
A defendant who waives service must within the time specified on the waiver form s(~rve on the plaintiffs attorney (or unrepresented plaintiff) a response to the
complafnt and must also file a signed copy of the response with the court. If the answer or motion is not serv:ed within this time, a default judgment may be taken against
that defendant. By waiving service, a defendant is allowed more time to answer than if the summons had been actually served when the request for waiver of summons
was received.
CY-I08 (06/98) WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

o ~~
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 33
Dat.e Transmit.ttfd: 4/18/2008 10:26:18 PM
!>~
Joseph Zernik
Los Anqe1es, CA 90027
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is 11erEwy cert.ified that tj/1;i~; document was served by first

c~ass mail. postage prepaid or by .f~(: or er-ma.i~ de~ivery to
COunSE!~ (or pcirti,es) at their .'t'~3~;]~)ective address or fax
numbel::' or e-ma.i~ address of rl9cord.
-t133
UNITED STAllES J[)][STRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRJ[CT OF CALIFORNIA
MandatoI)' Civil and Criminal E..Filing
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-08, all civil anq criminal cases are designated for electronic filing
with reasonable exceptions as outlined in General Order 07-08 Sections III (B), V (B)
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service ofcourt documents via fax. Attorneys who are
not registered to participate in the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing
(CM/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Service. Attorneys who do not
consent to se:rvice and receipt of filed documents by eleetronic means will receive
service via U.S. Postal Service.
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CMJECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMlECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the CM/ECF website available from the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTER
DISTRICT COURT EXEcutIVE
AND CLERK OF' COURT
MTME-Version: 1. C
2rOl!l: ca cd_ecfmilij@JCBr:d.tlSC::lllrts.gov
To;ectnefPcacd . L:sccurts. ;fOV
Bee: nef&cac(:.circ9.den,
JO-'t'lph Zernik:?H5 saint George S::reetL':l.!l Angeln'Cl\ 90027US
Me,~sage-]d,
subJect :Acti vi t:y inCase 2: OB-c:v-OISSO-VAP-O't' JOlleph Zernik v J~cqLJeline Connor
el aJ ~inute5 of 1n Cnamb:!rs Order IDirectl ve - no proceeding he~d
Content-Type: tey,t!htrnl ........ I:lOTE TO PUel~TC ACCE:S5 USE,RS"''''''' You may vielo' the filed
document.s once "'ithout cha:-:ge, To avoid later charges, download ~ copy of ea(;h d
oCll:llenl du!"ing this fi.::st ·!iQIot!ng.
UNITE:O STATE:S r'ISTRICT COlIHT, r:E:NTRAL DISTRICT OF
CA!,IE"ORNIII.
NoticQ of Electronic F'iling
The- foll{)",ing transaction ....as entered on 4/18/2008 at 10:16 AM E'DT and filecl.
on 4/18/2008
Case tlarne:
Joseph Z-ernik v Jacqueline Connor et a.l
Case Number:2:C6-cv-lSSO
f'i1er:
Docurnen t Number:
33
Docket Te;.; t :
MINUTES OF IN CHJlJ1BE.RS ORD£R held before JUdge Carla Woehrle: re: Amendment
(MoUon related) 115), f'inal ,~OTIDN to Dism.1ss Case and E'roposed Ordec 113),
MOnDtl to Disllli~s C.ue[19), MOTTON to Dismiss Case[23), MOTION t.o, Dismiss
Complaint. Joind~J:(16). All of these. noticed hearings are ORDERED
OfT CALENDAR. ·That 5s, there "dll be no proceedings in court on any of these
dates PLaintiff may serve and file Ins 0pposltion, or notice of non-opposition
to the motions tc dismiss on or ~fore May 9, 2008 Defendant&'039;s reply

if .any. ::ha11 bo3 served and filed on DC before Hay 23, 2008. The Hlotions
will then Ix, ta.'ten undlitJ: SUbllissio:l and a decision will issue as soon as
posslble The following Are m.::neo AS MOOT: plaintitt&t039;s motion for
continuance [301, and ex parr::e request to continue ..... SEE ORDER f'OR f'URTHER
DE:.T.I'.ILS·" (dt)
2:03-cv-lS50 Hotice hAS ~en elecrconicdlly mailed to:
John W Patton J""p@paslaw.co:n
MichOlQI L Wachtell mwachtell@buchaltec
Sac'lh L Overton soverton@c:m:l:a-la..... ::orn
2;Oll-cv-1SS0 HoUce has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Josepn Zernik
241~ Salnt GeortJl:'! Street
Los l..ngeles CA S0027
US
UNITED STACO=-:S DISTR1CT COURT

(JaseN6:( CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) P*t~:: April 18, 2008
-----
.:• • ¥itl~ • • • ·••• • • ·•• •••• • zem~~:n-o-._r-,~e_t-~·=-._ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_
;.",
Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

.··c•.
Donna Y. Thomas n/a n/a

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
nla n/a
The court has received five motions to dismiss, by docket no.:
(13) by defendant Pasternak, no. 13, filed March 24, 2008, noticed for
hearing on A:?ril 28, 2008;
(15) amended by defendant Pasternak, no. 15, fi~ed March 25, 2008,
noticed for ~earing on ~pril 29, 2008;
(16) by defendant Mara Escrow Company, docket no. 16, filed March 27,
2008, noticed for hearid g on April 28, 2008, joining no. 13;
(19) by defendants Connor, Good~an, Segal, Hart~Cole, Collins,
Friedman, Rosenberg, O'~rien, Witts, and Jpime, docket no. 19,
filed March 28, 2008, n6ticed for hearing on May 6, 2008; and
(23) by defendant ADR Servic~s, docket no. 23, ~iled March 28, 2008,
noticed for hearing on ~ay 6, 2008.
The court ORDERS as follows:
1. All of these noticed hearings are ORDERED OFF CALENDAR.

That is, there will be no prqceedings in court ~n any of these dates.
2. Plaintiff may serve and file his opposition, or notice of

non-opposition, to the above motions to dismiss on or before May 9,
2008. He may file separate documents, or a single document, but must
make clear which he is doing. Defendants' replies,
I
if any, shall be
served and filed on or before May 23, 2008. The motions will then be
taken under submission and a decision will issue as soon as possible.
3. In light of the above,

.
the following are
I
DENIED AS MOOT:
plaintiff's motion for continuance (docket no. 80, filed April 2,
2008); and hls ex parte request to continue (filed April 17, 2008).
cc: Plaintiff and All Counsel
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

:=;~
l1~


CIVIL MINUTES - GENE~L
Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) Date April 18, 2008
Present: The Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

Honorable
Donna Y. Thomas n/a nla

------------
Deputy Clerk COUl1 Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintifls: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
n/a nla

The court has received five motions to dismiss, by docket no.:
(13) by defendant Pasternak, no. 13, filed March 24, 2008, noticed for
hearing on April 28, 20013;
(15) amended by defendant Pasterna.k, no. 15, filed March 25, 2008,
noticed for hearing on April 29, 2008;
(16) by defendant Mara Escrow Company, docket no. 16, filed March 27,
2008, noticed for hearin~J on April 28, 2008, joining no. 13;
(19) by defendants Connor, Goodman, Se~Jal, !iart-Cole, Collins,
Friedman, Rosenberg, O'Brien, Witts, and Jaime, docket no. 19,
filed March 28, 2008, noticed for hearing on May 6, 2008; and
(23) by defendant ADR Services, docket no. 23, filed March 28, 2008,
noticed fOJ~ hearing on May 6, 200B.
1. All of these noticed hearings are ORDERED OFF CALENDAR.

That is, there will be no proceedings in court on any of these dates.
2. Plaintiff may serve and file his opposition, or notice of

non-opposition, to the above motions to dis~iss on or before May 9,
2008. He may file separate documents, or a single document, but must
make clear which he is doing. Defendants' replies, if any, shall be
served and filed on or before May 23, 2008. The motions will then be
taken under submission and a decision will issue as soon as possible.
3. In li~Jht of the above, t:he following are DENIED AS MOOT:

plaintiff's motion for continua.nce (docket no. 30, filed April 2,
2008); and his ex parte request to continue (filed April 17, 2008).
('1/-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINIUTES - GENERAL

,," I of I t±-53
1tl,~3=t- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

===:==:
Present: The Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge
Honorable
Donna Y. Thomas n/a nla
nla nJa
A.s not:ed in the previous minute order dated April 18, 2008) ~also
s.everal motions to dismiss have been filed by various defendants or
groups of defendants. The court has taken bff calendar all in-court
hearings on those motions, and has set a schedule for plaintiff's
opposition and defendants' replies. The court asks all parties to
refrain from filing any documents, not related. to the motions to
dismiss, until 1:hose motions have been fully briefed and the court has
been able t.o review them and rule on them. Tne court assures the
parties that it will do so as Boon as is reasonably possible.
The 2.g~ se plaintiff has asked to be given access to the court' s

electronic filing system and to be approved t<:;> receive service by e
mail. The court's newly implementEld electronic filing system is
governed (a.t present) by two General Orders of this Court (No. 08-02
and 08-03). [All "General Orders" can be obtained from the court's
website (www.cacd.uscourts.gov).J These General Orders provide that,
at present, elect:ronic filing and elect:ronic service
I
are available
only to attorneys (who are registered in and participating in the
program). This program is not cu:rrently aVa!ilable to 2ro se
litigants, and this chambers has no power to make it available to 2ro
§.~ litigants.
Documents t:hat have been electronically filed, by either an

attorney or the court, should be available on PACER and CM/ECF once
they have been filed and docketed. Parties who wish to know whether
the court has issued an order are adviBedto check PACER or CM/ECF
rather than contacting the deputy clerk.
Unfortunately, any documents that must be manually filed will

take longer to be processed, because a court employee must manually
scan each such document, before it: can be docketed. However, manually
I
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page J of 2
CIVIL MINUTES - (;ENERAL

Title Zemik v. Connor, et al.
filed documents are legally "filed" as of the filing date stamped on

the pa.per document: (regardless of when the document is docketed), and
each such document: will be scanned, docketed, and made available on
PACER and CM/ECF as soon as possiblE~, ':riven the limited availability
of court. employees. All parties are advised t::hat any filing
(electronic or manual) of documents that do neDt need to be filed will
slow the process, and that unnecessary manual filing will further slow
t~he process.
In any event, this court will review and give due consideration
to all properly filed docuIl).ents, whether they are filed electronically
or manually, and will ensu:r:e that pro jse litigants are not prejudiced
by the fact that, at present, they cannot participate in electronic
filing.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 201'2

o ~T Date Transmittcu: 4/18/2008 9:32:29 PM
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 37
:
Joseph Zernik
Los A::lgeles, CA 90027
US
Numbe.r of Pages: 2
It is her1eby certi.fied that this document;: was served by first

c~ass mai.l postagre prepaiq or bY' fax or e-'mai~ de~ivery t:o
counse~ (or parti,es) at theiz' I'espective address or fax
numbe.r or e-mai~ 0,£ z'ecord .
... address
"'"
~ )Isfu6 +b ~t
UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OjF CALIFORNIA
MandatQry Civil and ~ri[llinal E- Filing
In accordance with Federal Rules QfCivil PrQcedure 5(d)(3), LQcal Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-08, all civil and criminal cas(~s are designated fQr electronic filing
and VII.
not registered to participate in the Case Management 'ilnd Electronic Case Filing
(CMJECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Se~ice. Attorneys who do not
consent to service and receipt of filed documents by electronic means will receive
Attomeys are encouraged to register in the CMIECF s;ystem as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the eM/ECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the CMlECF website available from the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERlU R. CARTER
DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE
AND CL]~:JRJ[( OF 4COURT
~,

t~~¢i~*,·i··; CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) O:RM~! April 18, 2008
·'JJi:~~!:.:!:·i.:.:i:·· Zernil< v. Connor, et al.
._--
eh~~':f1ik Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge
8Mbm',:
. .>:.:.:.:;:.;
.
.;.. :.;:=:.:::::::•..
Donna Y. Thomas nla n/a

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs.: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
n/a nla
As noted in the previous mi~ute order (also dated April 18, 2008)
several motions to dismiss have been filed by various defendants or
groups of defendants. The court has taken off calendar all in-court
hearings on those motions, and has set a schedule for plaintiff's
opposition and de~endants' replies. The court asks all parties to
refrain from filing any documents, not related to the motions to
dismiss, until those motions have been fully b~iefed and the court has
been able to review them and rule on them. Th~ court assures the
parties that it will do so as soon as is reasonably possible.
The pro ~ plaintiff has asked to be given access to the court's

electronic filing system and to be approved to receive service by e
mail. The court's newly implemented electronic filing system is
governed (at present) by two, General Orders of thi s Court (No. 08-02
and 08-03). [All "General Orders" can be obtained from the court's
website (www.cacd.uscourts.gov).J These General Orders provide that,
at present, electronic filing and electronic service are available
only to attorneys (who are registered in and p~rticipating in the
program). This program is not currently availCible to pro se
litigants, and this chambers has no power to make it available to pro
se litil~ants.
Documents that have been electronically filed, by either an

attorney or the court, should be available on PACER and CM!ECF once
they have been filed and docketed. Parties who wish to know whether
the court has issued an order are advised to check PACER or CM!ECF
rather than contacting the deputy clerk.
Un~ortunately, any documents that must be manually filed will

take longer to be processed, because a court employee must manually
scan each such document, before it can be docketed. However, manually
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
CIVIL MINUTES .. GENERAL

...... -.. : ..
:¢~s~NQ; < CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)

';:::::::::::::::::::;::;:::::::':;: :::;":>:: ._---_ @~~~!
:-:. -: :_-=-------
April 18, 2008
:11tl~.:) Zemik v. Connor, et al.
filed documents are legally "filed" as of th~ f]_ling date stamped on

the paper document (regardless of when the dochment is docketed), and
each SLch document will be scanned, docketed, and made available on
PACER and CM/ECF as soon as possible, given th~ limited availability
of court employees. All parties are advised that any filing
(electronic or manual) of documents that do not need to be filed will
slow the process, and that unnecessary manual filing will further slow
the precess.
In any event, this COULt will review and give due consideration
to all properly filed documents, whether they are filed electronically
or manually, and will ensure that ,Qro .§.:~ Ii tig?-nts are not prejudiced
by the fact that, at present, they cannot participate in electronic
filing.
CY-90 (06/04) CIVlL MINUTES - GENE~RAC Page 2 of 2

Date Transmit~: 4/24/2008 9:46:35 PM
2'08-CV-155~
Joseph Zernik
Los A~ge1es, CA 90027
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is hereby certified that this document was served by first

c~ass mai.l posta~re prepaid 01:: b'¥ fax or e-mai~ de~ivery to
counse~ (or partj.es) at their z'espective address or fax
number or e-mai~ address of record.
L1 LI '11 rJ-t-L../~
,........--.-- ,
UNITED STATES )[)ISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT O:F CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and CriminalE-Filing
General Order 07-08, all civil and criminal cases are des:ignated for electronic filing
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service ofcourt document~ via fax. Attorneys who are
not registered to participate in the Ca.se J\1anagemeIlt and Electronic Case Filing
(CM/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. ]~ostal Setvice. Attorneys who do not
consent to service and receipt of filed do(;uments by electronic means will receive
Attomeys are encouraged to register in the CMJECF system as soon as possible. If

the CJWECF website available from the COUlt's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERlU It CARTER
AND CL]~JRJK OF COURT
MUlE-Version: 1 C
F'rl)m: ca cd_ecfrn<lll@c.acd.Ll.'lC::>lIrts go\,/
To: e.Cr'.nE"~@ c=. cd l:"SCOl.lr<::s. gOY
Bee; r~[f?:::3cCl.circ9.dcn,
Jo.. ,eph Zer.'liJ:~·US Saint. G=orge S-::ree':Lo:5 Angeles CA 90027US
M&:lSage-Id:
SllbJect:Activity 1.n Case 2:0R~cv-01551)-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v JacqueUne Connor
el: al l'jjnutes ot In Charnbe!"s Orde.r/D;Lrective - no proceeding held

Content-Type: text/h:..ml· .... 1WTE TO f'UBI,IC ACCESS USERS·· .. You may view the filed
do\:ument3 once without cha,:-ge. To <'Jvo:,d later charge.!, download a copy of each d
ocumenl dudng t.hL"l first '1ie""ing
trNJTED STATICS CrSTRICT COIJHT, CENTRA.L DISTRICT OF'
CAl,If'ORNIA
Notice of Electnmic filing
ThEJ following transaction ~Ias ent.ered on 4/24/2008 at 11:13 N"l POT .. nd filed
on 4/23/2000
Case llame:
Joseph Z~rn]k v. Jacquelim: ::onnor et .11
C.1l.!e l-lumber:2:C8-cv-1550
F"iler:
Docu:nen t Number:
"
Docket Tex:.:
MINUTES OF' lN CHAMBE'.RS ORDE.R held befcre JUdge Carla Woehrle nNGI~G AS
MOOT EX PARTE AE'E'LlCATION to ContiIlue hear~ngs on rnot.ions to dismiss complaint,
alternatively t~ consolidate h"'l'ings en the motion., to May 6, 2008 (35) _ (dt)
2:0B-cv-1550 Notice has been elect.ronically mailed to:
John W Pattofl )wp@pa.:llaw.c.on\
Michael L Wacht·~ll mwach;:ell:!loochalter.cOCl
SaJ:":lh L OVel"toll soverton@arod.a-law.com
2:0B-cv-)S50 Notice has been delivered. by F'irst Class U S. Mail or by

fax to:
J03'~ph ZernH:
2415 Saint GeorlJe St.reEt
Los A.nge]es CA !J0027
US
- '" .
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL .........•....•.
.'.' , -.- .
g~i~eNQV? CV 08-1550- VAP(CW) ,----,'.', :Pi#~U: April 23, 2008
.. ;.:." :_..::....-_----
:a;i~i~i::: Zemik v. Connor, et aI.
.... - : . ,

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter I R&cqrder Tape No.
n/a nla
Plaintiff's ex parte application to contioue hearings (docket no.

35, filed April 17, 2008) is MOOT in light of ~he two minute orders
filed April 18, :2008 (docket nos. 33 and 37).
CV-90 (06/04) CIVlL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of I

,--'
-Jl9
Case 2:08-c'I-01550-VAP-CW DocUlment 5'7 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 1 of 2


Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) Date
MAY 15 m
I
-
Present: The Carla Woehrle, Unit,;xj States Magistrate Judge
Honorable
!t1
Donna Y. Thomas n/a • n/a

-----
Deputy Clerk COlLlrt Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorne:ys Present for Plail1tiffs: Attom~ys Present for Defendants:
n/a n/a

AB noted in prior orders, several motions; to dismiss have been
filed by various defendants or groups of def~ndants. The court set a
deadlirle of May 9, 2008, for plaintiff's opposition to the motions,
and plclintif'f has filed a number of documents which the court will
considHr, aE: appropriate, in deciding the motions to dismiss. The
court also Elet a deadline of May 23, 2008, for, defendants' replies to
plaintiff's opposition. The court will then t'ake the mot.ions under
submission, and will attempt to resolve them as soon..-s possible. The
parties are assured that the court: int.ends Ca) tQ-'1tesolve the pending
motions as Eloon as possible, and (b). in doin:g _..0;;- to take into account
all document.s filed by the partien tha.t prop.erly relate to the pending
motions. Any attempt, at this time, t.o file' further documents not
necessary to the court's resolution of the pending motions, can only
resul t in delaying the prosecution of t.his act:ion. In order to
facilitate t~he expeditious resolution of· the motions to dismiss, and
allow this matter to move forward,. the cour.t now ORDERS as follows:
!
1. Plaintiff is ORDERED not to fll~,any;thing further until a
report and recommendation or other order has been issued on the
motions to dismiss.
2. Defendants are ORDE:RED to file only their replies to

plaintiff's opposition, and, otherwise, not t~ file anything further
until a. report and recommendaltion or other order has been issued on
the mot. ions to dismiss.
3. Plaintiff's ex parte request~ that the assigned judges file

statements on the record pUXElUaI1lt to CalifoJ3I1~a Code of Judicial
Ethics (docket no. 50, filed May 6, 2(08) is DENIED. This is a
federal court, governed by fedel'al rules and statutes. Plaintiff is
a.ssured that the judges of this court abide by all applicable laws and
rules governing disqualification of judges, including
I
28 U.S.C. § 455.
I
('V-90 (06104) CIVllL MINUTES - GENERAL Page I of2
) )1 SI ~g 11-51
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5'7 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 2 of 2

CENTRAL
, DISTRlCT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 08-15S0-VAP(CW) Date MAY 15 2008 '
Title Zemik v. Connor, et al:
4. Plaintiff's ex parte request to set a date for a hearing on

an order to show cause re: contempt (docket no. 55, filed May 8, 2008)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Insofar as this motion raises issues
r'elevant to the motions to dismiss, the court will consider it in
reviewing those motions.
5. Plaintiff's ex parte request. for evidentiary rulings re:

d.ocket no. 20 (docket no., 56, filed MalY 8, 200!8) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Insofar as this document raises issues relevant to the
motions to di.smiss, the cbourt will review it i,n deciding the motions.
6. All matters other than the pending motions to dismiss are

S,]~AYED until those motions can be resolved.
("'1-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GEN£RAL Page 2 of2

~L'r -J550~)
Date Transmitteu. 5/15/2008 10:19:40 PM
I)U C7
~ D~';u7
2,08-cv.
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 2
It is herleby cert:ified that tb,is documentI was served by first

c~ass mai.I postagrE~ prepaid oz' by .fa" or e-'mai~ de~ivery to
counsle~ (or parties) at their respective address or fax
numbe.r or e-mai~ address of reco.rd.

UNITED STATJ8:S DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTlRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and Criminal ETFiling
General Order 07-08, all civil and criminal cases are designated for electronic filing
I
and VII.
(Cl\1/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal S¢ryice. Attorneys who do not
consent to s(:rvice and receipt of filed documents by electronic means will receive

you have any questions, please contact the CM/ECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the C.r..r1JECF website available from the Court's websitb at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTER
AND CL~:RlC OF COURT
MIME-W~rsion: 1. 0
F.rorn: r.c.cd_Qcfmaill!cacd .L:sc;oorr..,. gov
To: ecEne!€ c acd. USI:Our'tS. gOv
Bee: !l€f~e~cci .c:.rc9 .den ,
Joseph ZernH.241!. Sa,in.: Georgo S:-reetLos ,l.,nqeles CA 90021US
I>lQ$$3qe-ld:
5ubJa::t:,l.cl.ivity tn Case 2:0B-cv-01S50-VP-P-C"" Joseph Zernik v .1acqueJine Connor
at ai M1TIutes of In Chambers Order/Dl.rective - no proceeding held

Content-Type: tex1./htm1 ...... ,.NOTE. TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS""" You may view the filed
docum.!':nts once .... iU'out charge To avoid la .. er charges. download a copy of each d
ocunent during th;,s first viewing.
(mr:~::D STATES OIS:'RJCT COURT, C::NTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALl FORN1A
Notic'~ of. Electroll1c Filing
The followlng trallsaction was entered Oft 5/15/2008 at 9;49 AM por an:! filed
on S/.l5/:20G13
Case flame:
JOSeph Zarr-H: v ,Jacqueline Connor et al
Ca3e ~'lumber;:2; 08-c;v-1550
Filer:
Decum'illt Nuraber:
51
Dod:<:-t. I,H;t:
MINUTES OF 1M CI".Af1BS,RS ORDER he! d before Judge Carla Woehrle Plaintiff

is ORDERED not to file anything further until a report and reconrnendation
or other order ha:I been issued on t he mot ions to disnliss. Defendants are
ORDERto to file only their replies to plaintiff~'039;s opposition. O::'NYING
REQUEST fOl' Hearing Order to SJlO .... Cause Re: Contempt (55). D::NY1NG K£QUEST
for Ruling E:vldenl:iary Ruling on DocJ:et 120 filed by DefendantsI56], and
DEUYIUG REQUEST for Order tor The Honorable JUdges Carla W~hrle and Virginia
Philllps to file .statements on tne record. regarding re1ationship.s. if any.
with p .. rties list,~d on plaintif~s ce=tificate of parties ISO] All matter,;;
other th.n the pending motions to dismiss ar" STAYED u.ntil those motions
can be resolved uS::E ORDER f'OR FURTHER DETAILS"" (dt)
2: OB-cv-l5~0 Noti':e has been el~C'=-renically mailed to:
John w P.H ton ]wp@pa.sla'W.com
I'licllael L liaclltel,l m"'acht~112buchalter
Sarab L Overton soverton@crncia-l ...... com
2:08-cv-1550 N'oti';;:e hCls 008n delivered ty rl1'st Class U S. Moiil or by

fax to:
Josepb Zern1k
21115 saint Geor;e Street
Los Angeles CA 90)21
US
UNITED STAYES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. CY 08-1550-YAP(CW) Date
MAY 15 lOO!
-----.
Title Z~mik v. Connor, et al.
Present: 'The Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

Honorable

n/a n/a
ProceediJllgs: (In Chambers)

As noted in prior orders, several motions, to dismiss have been
filed by va.rious defendants or groups of defendants_ The court set a
deadline of May 9, 200B, for plaint.iff's opppsition to the motions,
and plaintiff has filed a number of documents which the court will
consider, as appropriate, in deciding t:he motions to dismiss. The
court also set a deadline of May 23, 2008, for defendants' replies to
plaintiff's opposition. The court will then take the motions under
submission, and will attempt to resolvE~ themJ as soon as possible. The
parties are assured that the court i.ntends (a) to resolve the pending
motions as soon as possible, and (b) in doing so, to take into account
all documents filed by the parties that properly relate to the pending
motions. ,Any at,tempt, at this timE!, to file further documents not
necessary to the court's resolution of the p.ending motions, can only
result in delaying the prosecution of this a,ction. In order to
facilitate the expeditious resolution of the motions to dismiss, and
allow this matter to move forward, the court now ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaint.iff is ORDERED not t:o file a,nything further until a

report and recommendation or 01ther order has been issued on the
motions to dismiss.
2. Defendants are O~DER:e:D to file only their replies to

plaintiff's opposition, and, otherwise, not to file anything further
until a report and recorrunendation or other order has been issued on
t:he motions to dismiss.
3. Plaintiff1s ex parte request that the assigned judges file

statements: on the record pursuant. to California Code of Judicial
Ethics (docket no. 50, fil~d May 6, 200B) is DENIED. This is a
federal court, governed by federal rules and. f;3tatutes. Plaintiff is
assured that the judsres of this court abide by all applicable laws and
rules governing disqualification of judges, including 28 U.S.C. § 455.
('V-90 (06104) elVI L MINUTES· GEN":RAL Page I ()f~

Case No. CV 08-1 550-VAP(CW) Date MAY 15 2008 "
~. Plaintiff's ex parte request to set. a date for a hearing on

an order to show cause re: contempt~ (docket no. 55, filed May 8, 2008)
is DEI~IED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In.sofar as this motion raises issues
relevant to the motions to dismiss, the court. will consider it in
reviewing those motions .
.5. Plaintiff's ex parte request for evidentiary rulings re:

docket no. 20 (docket no. 56, fih:!d May 8, 2008) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Insofar as this docuIlll~nt raises issues relevant to the
motions to dismiss, the court will review it in deciding the motions.
6.
All matters other than the pending motions to dismiss are
STAYED until those motions can be resolved.
ev-'!u (06/04) CIVllu MINUTES - GIENERAL Page 2 of2

Date Transrnit~:
~ C!f31Vr
6/9/2008 9:59:34 AM
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 63
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, CA
US
90027
j6'3
Number of Pages: 2
It is herE!by cert:i.fied that t.h;i.s document was served by first

c~ass mail. postag4e prepaid or by i~aJC or e-mai~ de~ivery to
counsE!.l (or pclrtiles) at their xf:!sJ,)ective address or fax
numbel: or e-mcli~ .address of reccn:'d. I I
Giq \ft jJ &3
, .) ,,,
"-.-.
/.
CIVlL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) June 6, 2008
Zemik v. Connor, et al.

•
n/a I nla
1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint . ("FAC R ) was filed on May

27, 2008, as docket no. 62, and has replaced bhe original Complaint
(docket no. 1, filed March 5, ·2008). In ligpt of the filing of the
FAC, the following motions are denied, without prejudice, as moot:
(a) motion to dismiss, doc:ket no. 13, filed March 24, 2008.
(b) motion to dismiss, docket no. 16, filed March 27, 2008.
(c) motion to dismiss, docket no. 19, filed March 28, 2008.
(d) motion to dismiss, docket no. 23, filed March 28, 2008.
(e) request for leave to file FAC, docket no. 58, filed May 9, 2008.
(f) ·request for reconsideration, docket no. 61, filed May 27, 2008.
2.. Defendants who have already appeared shall serve and file an
answer or other response to the FAC on or before June 26, 2008. I:E
defendants move to dismiss the FAC they may incorporate· by reference,
a.s appropriate, the previously filed motions t.o dismiss.
3. Once defenclants have responded to the FAC, the court will

issue further orders, including setting any deadlines for responsive
pleadings by plaintiff or replies by defendants.
4. The court is making every effort to ensure that all filed

documents are docketed, an~ that documents filed by hard copy are
scanned and linked to the docket. This process -- especially the
scanning of large numbers .of lengthy paper d.ocuments -- takes
considerable staff time. Because of the limits on the availability of
court staff to·do this work, it is sometimes necessary for paper
docmnents to be scanned or docketed. after t~e date on which they were
filed. Plaintiff is assured that any such delay will not affect the
lega:l status of such documents, or the date on which they are legally
cons1trued as having been filed.
CV-90 (06lQ4) CIVIL MlNUIES • GENERAL Page 1 of2
~\b\\)~
, ',<
,}
"
'-
UNITED STATES D][STRICT tOURT . .

(,'V 08-1SSD-VAP(CW) June 6, 2008
Zernik v. Connor, et aL
s. If any party believes tha.t a filed document is missing from

thE~record, the party is al:lked to first; wait a reasonable time to
allow the court to catch up wit:h l:he dm~keting process,. and then to
file a notice attaching a copy of the .face page.of the missing
Qocument and making clear when the doct~ent was filed.
6. Mu.ltiple documents filed toge!ther on the same day may appear

under the same docket number as a1l:tachments. So long as the text of
the a·ttachments can be accessed elec·tronically from the docket, this
is no:t a problem: the documents in question are in the record, are
accessible electronically, and will be given all due consideration by
the court.
7. The court has located se'ITeral filed documents which do not

appear to have been scanned. They will be scanned and docketed as
soon ,a.s staff is available to do so.
B. Plaintiff's ex parte a.pplical:ion to seal document (docket;

no. 49, file<;i. May 8, 2008) is ])ENIED. The docwnents in question do
no·t require fili.ng under seal, and will be returned to plaintiff in
the mail under separate cover.
9. Plaint;iff is reminded th;;lt he must comply with requirements

of Fed. R. civ. P. Rule 4 as to service of summons and complaint. On
or before June 26, 2008, p~aintiff shall file any proofs of service as
to ~efendants ~mo have been served but have not yet appeared.
cc: Plainti.ff and All Counsel
CV·90 ({)6104) CIVIl. MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of2

Date Transrni tt);d: 6/20/2008 2:31:23 PM
.J
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 70
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, CA
US
90027
J!:tD
Number of Pages: 1
It is herE!by cert.ified that tb.:is document was served by first

cl.ass maiI postag,e prepaid or bY' f~" or e-mail.de1.ivery to
COunSE~l. (or pcirti,es) at their .rl9spective address or fax
numbeJ: or e-mcii.1. ,address of reco.:lrd. I
cr 2v\ of J1f)
CENTRAL DISTIUCT OF CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and Criminal E-Filing
and VII.
(CMJECF) system will receive seJfVice via U.S. Postal Service. Attorneys who do not

SHERRI R. CARTER
AND CLERK OF COURT
MlME-Versi on ~ 1.0
E' .com: ca cd_E:c:t:TY il~c:acd. u.scnu~t .... gav
To: ec!ne(@cacd.u.scourts.gov
Bee: :r.d.icarlU@crnd,a-law. C~.Jm , ue( ~t:i1::d. ::1 reS. den "--'3p@pa~la",.com, mwachtell@b:..l
cha':t~.r. com, SOVtlr'ton@C'ltlCia-]aw.co;n, crd-phi] lip!l€ l cacd .1lscOUrt!l.gov, crd.J)h1J lip
s@eacd.uscourts . q<:v _SUIT.ry, tilla_na.gh~nl_t'.<:1 :1l!1cacd. uscourts . gov_sumry, crd_woQhr lQ@
cacd. USCOI.l :-t s .<]ov, crd_\oIoehr-l e@r::ac<i. 11:'lf:f)l) ~ ts . gov_sumry,
JO.''ieph l.ernH.2'l1~J saint. Georg~ S:reetLos l"-llgeles CA 90027u5
Messaqe-Id;
SUbJect :Activity .. n Case 2:0S-cv-OlS50-W,P"CW Joseph Zernik v, Jacqueline Conno.c
et <1.1 Minutes of In Chambers Ord9r/Dire':tive - no proc~din9 held

Cont0311t-Type: text Ihtml "'U'NOTE. TO PlIRLlC ACCESS USERS ... • Judicial Conference of
the United States policy permi.ts a:t:orne:fs of record and parties in a case (incl
udillq p.ro se 11tiqaJlls) to ~·I:H.:~iv~ VJI~ f.{·e~ electronic copy of all documents ! j }
ed eJectror.icaIJy, if receipt is t'equire<i by law or airected by the filer PACER
aCCQ:ts fQQS .o:ppl)' to all otn!<-r users 'ro avold later Charges, download 01 copy
of each dOnlm«r,t during t:his first vle ....i:lg However, if the referenc;:ed docl.lIDent
is a transcript, t.he free copy and 30 pal~e limit do not apply.'
tTlHT£I) STATES DIS:'RICT COURT, CSNTRA1 DBTIUCT Of
Cl'..LIF'(lRNllA.
Notic.. of E:lectrollic Filing
The folJowinq tra;Jsaction was entered on 6/20/"008 at 2:22 PM ~Ol and fi]ed
on 6/6;2008
Case L'latflo:
Joseph Zernik v _JacqLJel inc Connor et al
Case rlumbQr: 2:D8-cv-1550
filer:
Docum-ent NUllIbor:
<a nr.af-nt tps ~ I leef, cacd.. u.'$courr. s. gov/docl I 031 0611 SB2'1·?rr.agic_num-MA/fIC'de"_se~u
,,,
m=28 4 ~caseid.4C'99.l8
Doctet Text:
M:tTGT£S or IN CIW~BE:RS ORDER hi&ld before M.i!gistrate Judge Carla Woehr}Q:

Two m:>tlol1.s to di:miss tne Fir.st Am€lnded Complaint were filed on June .19,
2008, by defendant ADR Services, Inc., and by de(endar,ts Conner, at al
Botn 'J'lOtions were noticed for hearing on July 22, 2C08. (dt)
2:08-ev-1550 Noti':e has been electronically mailed to:
John ".,T Patton jwp@paslaw.com
NichaeJ L \~<tc:htell mwachtell~bucniilltel: Coni
Sarah L Overton !loverton@Ollda-law,com
Kathryn E: DiCar]o );dicarlo@:."1Tlda-l.w.com
2:08-cv-lSSO Noti,:," has bean dQIlVered cy F'irst Class U $, Mail or by

fax to'
Jos~ph Zel:ni):
241 S Sa int G~org... Street
Los Angeles CA 90':>2'1
US
UNITED STA TI~S DISTRICT COURT

[~~~#:~AY CV 08-1550-VA,_P_(..:. . C_W).. . .;. . _ ---'-_""";"'__ p*~~H June 6, 2008
.:TIH~::::::. Zernik Y. Connor, et al.
-------_._---;,---;---_.:....-_-----
;if~~1~1l;1!:j;i!ii!; Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

----------------------------
------_..:......
n/a n/a
Two motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint were filed on

June 19, 2008, by defendant ADR Services, Inc. (no. 69), and by
defendants Connor et al. (docket no. 68). Both motions were noticed
for hearing on July 22, 2008,
1. The noticed hearing is hereby ORDERED OFF-CALENDAR.
2. Plaintiff's opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to the

motions must be served and filed on or before July 8, 2008. Plaintiff
may respond to the two motions separately, in two documents, or
together, in a single document, but must make clear which he is doing.
3. Defendants' reply or replies to plaintiff's response or

responses must be served and filed on or before July 15, 2008.
4. The parties are ordered not to re-file or re-lodge any

documents already submitted. Instead, parties may refer in their
briefs to any documents previously filed or lodged, identifying them
by date filed or lodged and docket number if pvailable.
5. Once the motions have been fully briefed, the court will
review the briefs and decide whether to hold a hearing, or to take the
motions under submission without oral argument. In any event, the
court will notify the partie$ by mail of all further proceedings.
cc: Pro Se Plaintiff and All Counsel
CY·90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Date Transmi ttt(d: 6/30/2008 9:12:25 AM
tit
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 72
Joseph Zerrik
Los Angeles, CA
US
90027
Number of Pages: 2
It is herE!by cert.ified that th~is document was served by f.irst

c~ass maiJ~ postag1e prepaid or bJr £a.J'C or e-mai~ de~ivery to
counsE!.1 (or pcirtiles) at their ~r:~~spective address or fax
numbel:" or e-mcii~ ,address of record.
CENTRAL nISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MandatoryCivil and Criminal E-Filing
General Order 07-08, all civil anq criminal cases are designated for electronic filing
and VII.
(Cl\.1/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Service. Attorneys who do not

you have any questions, please cqntact the CM/ECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the CMlECF website available from the COUlrt'S website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTER
AND CLERK OF COURT
MIME-....ersion: 1. C'
From: Cit r:rl_l'·cErn.. i H1r'..ac::r! .llsCOlJrt.1.qov
To:ecfnoef~nl.l:d.L:SC:OlJ!'"t,!:. gov .f
Bce; :~dicaI lO@;:i1,Ga-15w.l.:cm I nc(!ca cd. ci.n:9 . d~n"'-"jwp@pasla ..... com, m·...achtell@bu
chai tee. CO:ll, ~O'J('.rton?c~::I.a-l aw. com, crr:l...l}hill ip~@cacd. U3court.3. go", crd...,phi llip
s@cacd.u3courts . gov_3urnry, t jna••na:Jhshineh@c:.lcd.uscourts .qov_sumry, crd_....oehr le(t
cacd .llscnUrts .gov, crd_woehr)elkac:d. U!lcou::-t., .gov_surnry,
Joseph Zernik2111S Saint George StreetLn,; /\ngeles ell, 90027US
Messaqe'-Id:
Subject :.Activity in Cil3e 2:08-c:v-01SSO-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jilc:~eline Connor.
~t a) USC" Order
Content-1·ype: tex[ Ihtml" ui'WT~ TO PUBLIC ACCE.5S USERS""""'''' Judicial Conf~re:"lc.:e of
the United States policy perm.it~ a:.torneys of record and parties in ,a ca3e Ilncl
udlng pro sa litigants) lo L"€:!;:tl.1V<d one L.;€:!c electronic copy of all docwn~:lts fl1
ed el~ctronlc8.1ly, j ( receipt. is .required by la.w or directed by the filer. Pi\CE:R
.aCCili:;S fees apply (0 all other users. To .avoid later charges, download a. copy
of each docunI@nt cluring this first vie ....ing BO .... QvQr, if the .re.feren~ed document
is a t.ran:5crlpt, t.he tree copy a.nd 30 paqe I1mit do not apply.'
UNIT~D STATES DISTRICT COURT, C2.NTML DI:3TRICT Olf
CALlf'OR1HIl.
Notice of E.lectronic Filing
The following tranS3ction was untere--j 0:) 6/30/2008 at. 9:02 AM PO'!" and filed
on 6/25/2008
Ca.se Name:
Joseph Zerni k v. _Jacquel ine Connor et al
Case t1umber:2:0B-c:"-1550
Filer:
Document Number;
<a hr~f=https: Ilec( .cacd..uscourts. gov/doCl I03106l l>l 767'?rr.agicJlum-MAG]C&de~s~nu

m_289~caseid"''1C9918 '
'72
Docket Te.xt:
ORDl::R fron 9th CC,\ filed, CCA • 08-72'114 Petitioner has not demonstrated
that thls celse wa;:-rants tne intervem:ion of this court by means of thl': extraordJ
nary
remedy of l1landamu;> Accordingly, the emergenC}' petition for writ of mandamus
i.s denied. (cbr)
2:0B-cv-1550 Noti':& has ooen eleetronically mailed tc:
John W Patton jwp@paslaw.e:>m
Michael L liachtell m\ofachtel1~buch-'llter.con
Sarah L Ov@rtol' 30vertonec.1\da-law.com
Kathryn E lliCiirlo kcl.icarb@r:rnda-ldw com
l
2 :OB-cv-15S0 Notice has baen delivered by F'irst Class U SMail or by
(-'IXto:
Jo.seph Zernik
2415 5<llnt George Street
Los Ange1e.s CA 90027
US
..
•
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2008
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT u.s. COURT OF APPEALS
I
In re: JOSEPH ZERNIK; No. 08-72714
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW

Central District of California,
JOSEPH ZERNIK, Los Angeles
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
JACQUELINE O'CONNOR; et a1;
Real Parties in Int~rest.
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMllTH, Circuit judges.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of
this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v.
United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
ec/MOATT
No motions for reconsid¢ration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained.
eclMOATT
Date Trarlsrni~d: 7/2/2008 4:37:05 PM
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 77 fLtu~ T I () OJ
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, CA
OS
90027
-;;;:r
Number of Fages: 1
It i.s here!bY' cert~i.fied that this docum~~nt was served by' first
c~ass .mai~l. posta.g~~ prepaid or by f~,c or le-mai~ de~iverY' to
COUI1SE~~ (CI~C .pGlrti~~s) at their respective '!1ddress or fax
numhe.z~ 02~ e-mclil. c!ddress of record.
l-1~ ID1 idotl
"-?
UNITED STATES DISTIUICT <tOURT
CENTRAL DISTl[UCT OF CALIkORNIA
Miilldatory Civil and Criluinal E,Filing
$(
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Proced'llre d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-0E, all civil and criminal'cases are designated for electronic filing
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service ofcourt documents yia fax. Attorneys who are
not registered to participate in the Case N[anagement and Electronic Case Filing
(CM/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal SJ~ice. Attorneys who do not
consent to se:rvice and n~ceipt of fikd documents by electronic means will receive
Attomeys are encouraged to register in the CMlECf s)fstem as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CM/ECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 Of
the C~UECF website available from the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
I
SHERRI R. CARTER
DISTRICT COURT EXECU1'IYE
AND CLERK OF COURt
M!M£-Ver.'lion:J. Q
Fro:fl: cacd_ecfru i lli'c:acd _uscaurts. gov
To: ec~net'cacd . lJ3Court.s. go'll
Bee; k.diearJo@(;lud;t-l"w,com ,neC@t:dcC..drc9.d(:il-,oo"]wp@pa..5lal,ol.cum, m..,achtel1@bu
chal t er-. COU, 2overton@t:nda-la ..... com, Jenna .f:lOldaw3ky@bryancave .corr., crd....Phi 11 i
ps@c.cd.us(:"()Urts.qov, crd...Phillips@c.acd.u-scourtoS.gov_surnry,t. ina_naghshineh@cacd.u
scourts . gov_sumry, Crd_'oK>E!hr.la~c.;ll;:d.usc:;.urts ,gO'll, crd_""O€ h r le@cacd.uscourts . go\'_
sumry,
Josep_l Zernik24l~i saint' George StreetLos Angeles CA 9002"')US
Me:l:lage-Id:
Sub)ect:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Jo.:>epll Zarnik v. Jacqueline Connor
et a1 I'bnl1tes of 1n Chambers Order!Dire:::ti'Je - no proceeding held

Contellt-Type; te~;t:/htmln"'NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS·.,· ... Judicial Conference of
the United States policy pe.rrnits atto~neys of record and parties in a case (incl
'Jding pro se liti'lants) to receive one l.cee electronic copy of all documents fil
ed el09ctronic.ally. if receipt is requir&.i by law or directed by the filer. P.'I.CE.R
aCC9':::,s fal's Olpply to ,aJl other users To .avoid l.atec charges, downlo.1d a. cvpy
or ea<::h do(;umer,t duc.lng this firs: view1:ng However, if the re!erenced docum~nt
is a 'tcans(;ript, the free copy dnd 30 pao;e liOlit do not apply.'
lJNITE.O STATES DISTRICT C0UR1, C~NTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIfORNIA
Notic~ of Electronic:: ~iling
Thv following transa.ction ....as er:ter~d on 7/2/2008 at ":36 PM PDT and filed
on 7I2I200S
Case )lame:
Jo.sep~ 'Zerrlik v J,il.cqueline Connor e;:: al
Case Number: 2; 08-cv-15S0
F'iler:
Document Nll:llber:
<.:. href-ht tps: / leet.. cacd.. us Courts. go'll !docl/03106181598?ffiilgic_llum-:-1.AGIC&de__seq_nu

m-30 6'ca se id=<iO~918
,77
Docket lex,.:
MII-mnS OF IN CfiA!1BE:R.S ORDER held before MagIstrate Judge Carla Woe.hrle:Two

motions to d.1srniss the F'1rst Amended ComplaJnt filed on 6/19/08 A third
motion to disndss tile fir~t Amended Complaint was filed on 6/30/08 and noticed
for heilring on Auqu,'t 18, 2008 The noticed hearjng i:'l hereby ORDEREU OFF-CALEN
DAR.
PlaJntlll&6039;s ol:pOsition, or nO':ice of non-opposition, to this third
mOtIon sn.;: 1 teo .sarved and filed 0;1 or before 1/23/08 ..... SEE ORDER FOA. FURTHER
UtTAILS.... Idt)
2:08-cv-15S0 Noti<:e has been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton )wp@p43Iaw_com
l':1chae,1 L Wachtell rnwachte]H~buchalt.er,com
Saran L Overton soverton@crn:la-lav.com
Jenna Mol t!.aw.:>ky )eJlna. molda·.."s:<.y@bl:yancav9 . com
Ka'tnryn E DiCarlo lI:d.icarlo@cmda-law.com
2:08-cv-1550 lfoti.:e has been delivered by rir.st Class U S. Mail or by

fax to;
Jo.sepn Zernik
ZIll5 Sa1nt George Street
Los ',ngele~ CA 90021
US
:.
UNITED STATE,S DISTR1CT COURT


................
CV 0.8-1550-VAP(CW) ,___ :J?i#w: July 2, 2008

:·J-'iti~::··::L Zernik Y. Connor, et aL
" ::;.;.;.;.: ; .
;.;.1~~~~1~~~.· •
Carla Woehrle, United States Magi~;trate Judge
1.:·1.·····

--,-------------- ---------'-_._-,...------
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter I Recbrder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attor:tJ.e~s Present for Defendants:
u/a n/a
Proceed lugs: (J[n Chambers)
Two motions '~o dismiss the First Amended Complaint were

previously filed on June 19, 2008, by defenda6t ADR Services, Inc.
(docket no. 69), and by defendants Connor 2t 'ill. (docket no. 68),
respectively. A briefing schedule on those m~tions was set in a
mirute order (docket no. 70, filed June 6, 20~8).
A third motion to dismiss the First Amen~ed Complaint (docket no.

73) was filed by defendants Cou~trywide Home 10~ns, Inc., et al. (lithe
Countrywide defendants"), on June 30, 2008, a~d noticed for hearing on
August 18, 2008.
1. The noticed hearing is hereby JRDERED OFF-CALENDAR.
2. Plaintiff's opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to this

third motion shall be served and filed on or ~efore July 23, 2008.
3. Any Reply by the Countrywide defend.nts shall be served and

filed or or before July 31, 2008.
4. Once the motion has have been fully btiefed, the court will
decide whether to hold a hearing or take the motion under submission
without oral argument. In any event, the coutt will notify the
parties by mail of all further proceedings.
CY-90 (06104) CIVIL MINUTES· GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Date rranpmit~: 7/11/2008 7:14:32 AM
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 80
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is he.z~e!by cert~i..fied that t:l1is doc:ulnen.t was served by first

c~ass mai.l postag'~~ prepaid OJ': by fax or ie-mai~ de~ivery to
COunSE'~ (ox patrti~~s) at theiJ': rE!Spec:t.ive address or fax
numbe.z:' o.z~ e-mati~ ciddress of J':E~co.z~d.
::rl\\ 1~ ~~o
UNITED STAlrl[S J1)][SnUCT COURT
CENTRAL DISTllUCT OF CAlJIFORNIA
M~ndatory Civil and Crirrlinal E,Filing
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ~(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07··08, all civil and crimiltlal,cases are designated for electronic filing
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer servic(~ ofcourt documents via fax. Attorneys who are
(CM/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Servke. Attorneys who do not
consent to se~rvice and receipt of filed documents by electronic means will receive
Attorn!eys are encouraged to register in the CMlECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CM/ECF Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the C~'l/ECF website available from the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTER
AND CLE.RK OF COURT
MIME-V@rsion:l.v
from: cacd_Gcflna)) 1r-acd. uscour t s. gOY
To: eCfM!f~c.;.cc..:':S:;Cllrts. gOY
Bee: d)p~pc.5)a.... c'Jf1'., kdicarlo@cIf.da-la\~.com I inP..-<!acd.c.1rc9.dcn, jotp@pa.slaw.c
OUl, 'JIwclchi.e 1 l@bu.:halter.com, 30V<e rtoJ1@cmda-la ..... com, ]enna .moldawsky@brY<5nc<5ve
COll'l, crd-phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, crd...phill ips@cacd.uscourts.gov_sumry, ti na_
naQhshineh@cacd. u:~<:()urts .gov_."lumry, crd_",oehrle@cacd.lJscourts.gov.crd_woehrle@c
acd. L.1scourts .gov_.'iurnry,
Jo.sepn ZeJ:nik241~) saint George StreetLos Angeles CJ\ 90021US
Message-ld:
Subje::t :Acti vity in C.i.se 2: 08-cv-01550--VA.P-CW Joseph Z",::nik v. Jacqueline Connor
et al Minutes of In Chambers Crder/Directive - no procQQding held
Content-Type: text/html ...... NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS"~" Judicial Conference of
the United State" policy penults attorneys of record and parties in a case (ind
uding pro se litiqant~l to receive one free electronic copy of all documents fil
ed electronic.;p,]ly, if receipt. is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER
access fees apply t.o all other users To avoid latQr charges. dOlo'Tlload a copy
or each docurner.t during this first vie~ling However, if the referenced document
is a trans(:rlpt, the free copy and 30 page lilnit do not apply.'
UNITE:J SlATE:S DISJRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT Of
CALIE'ORNIA
Notic"! of t:lectronic Filing
The follow:wg tra.nsaction ....as entered on 7/10/2008 at 9:26 AM PDT a.nd filed
on 1/~12008
Case NoltDe;
J03cph 'Zernik v ,Jacqueline Con:"lor et 01
Case IJunber:2:08-.:v-1550
Fil-er:
Document lVurnber:
<a href-https: //ecf .cacd. uscclJrt s. gov/docl/03l 06223489?n.aqic_nurn=MAGIC/i,de_seq_nu

m_313&c:a~e:ld=<1C9918
,eo
Dock et Text:
HIlIUES OF IN Cl-:AloJBERS ORD::R held before Magistrate Judge carla Woehrle:

Parties are rElTinded that this "ction \~as referred to a magistrate ludge
for all prelimina.cy mat.t.ers, and that ltlOtion.s on .such tM.tters .should be noticed
before the rn.;.gi.3t.cdce Judge The noticed hering i.s hereby ORDERED OFE'-eALEND.\R.
PlaintiffC.*039; 5 opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to this third
Dlotlon sha.Ll be 5'3rved and filed on or tefore July 31, 2008, and any Reply
by defendant fast'3rnak shall be served and filed on or before August I, 2008
Once the motior h.J.3 been fully oriefed, the court will decide .... hether to
hold a hoar.ing or take the m::-tion under -,ubUli""ion without oral argument
~ • SEE ORDER fOF f'JRTHER DETAI LS·" I dt l
2:0S-cv-l5SQ t<~·ti:e has been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton ]wp@paslaw.com
David J Pa:~te.Irak. dJP@paslaw.com
Michael L Wacr.tell mW.i.chtQll@buchalter
Sarah L DVQrtor soverton~cmdil-la"",corn
Jerm4 Moldaw.s}; y j~nna _rn;:>ldaw~k. y@b;:-yanc.1ve.com
Kathryn E lJic~'lo kdicarlo@CTI'Ida-la.... com
2:08-cv-1550 I\"c,ticQ hOlS been delivered c·y first Class U S Mail or by

fax to:
,Toseph Zern 1It

2<115 Saint Gec,.t·Qe Street
Los Angele;, Cli. 90021
US
UNITED STATES DISTR1CT CPURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIRORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENJ:RAL
.......•
cv 08-1550-VAP(CW)
--------- --_
.:;p~~~:::
:.. :.. ".:- :- .
July 9, 2008
riti6i: Zernik v. ~::nnor, et aL
--------
--------,
Carla Woehrle, United States Magi~:trate Judge
Donna Y. Thomas nla nla

Deputy Clerk Court Repo;;~_;_~/-R-ec....,.6-r-d-er'---- Tape No.

nla nla
Proceedlings: (In Chambers)

Two motions to dismiss the First Amended Icomplaint (JJFAC") were
filed on June 19, 2008, by defendant ADR Serv~ces (docket no. 69) and
defenda.nts Connor et al. (dockel:. no. 68). A *riefing schedule on
those motions was set in a minute order (dock~t no. 70) filed June 6,
2008. A third motion to dismiss the FAC w~s tiled by the Countrywide
defenda.nts (docket no. 73) on June 30, 2003. A briefing schedule on
that motion was also set by minute order (doc~et no. 77) filed July 2,
20C8. A fourth motion to dismisf3 the FACtJas filed by defendant
Pasternak on July 7, 2008 (as docket no. 73), and noticed for hearing
on August 19, 20013, before Judge Phillips.
The court ORDERS as follows:.
1. Parties are reminded that this acti~n was referred to a

magistrate judge for all preliminary matters, and that motions on such
matters should be noticed before the magis~ratre judge.
2" The noticed hearing is hereby OR~)ERED OFF-CALENDAR.
3. Plaintiff's opposition, or notice off non-opposition, to this

third motion shall be served and filed on or ~efore July 31, 2008, and
any Reply by defendant Pasternak shall be served and filed on or
before August. 7, 2008.
4. Once the motion has have been fully briefed, the court will
decide whether to hold a hearing or take the ~otion under submission
without oral argument. In any event, the cou~t will notify the
parties of all further proceedings.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVJL MINUTES .. GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Date rransmi t::"t:""e"'d: 7/16/2008 1:32:33 PM
2, 08--cv-1550 6)
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, CA
US
90027
-Jl11
Number of Pages: 1
It is here!.by cert~i.fied tha.t t:l1is dOCU1nelJit was served by fi.rst

c~ass mai.l. po,s:tag'~~ prepaid OJ:" by £~i~ tOr e-mai~ de~ivery to
COur.1SE!~ (or pclrti~~s) a t their respect.i vJ address or fax
numbez~ or e-m:li~ a.ddress of rE~co.r.d.
yvnt~ ~~Er 1-1 'b1~1tt)
UNITED STAT]~S DISTIUCT COURT
CENTRAL DISrnRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and CriIl:linal E;Filing
In accordanc:e with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07··08, all civil and criminal cases are designated for electronic filing
with reasonableextCeptions as outlined in General Ordet07-08 Sections III (B), V (B)
and vn.
(Cl\1JECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal S~rvice. Attorneys who do not
consent to service and receipt of filed documents by e~ectronic means will receive
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CMJECF sfstem as soon as possible. If

the C~1/ECF website available from the Court's wt:bsite at :www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SElERRI R. 4CAJlT]~R

I
AND CLERK OF COURT

MlME-""Qr,sicm: 1. C
From: ';::01 cd_ecfmil j l!f cacd. USCOllr't s. gov
To: ecfnef@c.acd.":SI:ourts.QOv
Bee: dJP@pE.sle...·.cum , kdi~arlo@:::::tId..a-l.:l .... -:o:n ~(:acd.circ9.dcn, J~[l;pit:Jlaw.c
om, m.... achtelll?bochalt.er . com, ~overtor.@:::nda-law. cont, jenna. .moldawsky@bryancav,?:
com, erd...,phillips@cacd.:;.scourts.gov, crti-ph!.llips@cacd.l.lscourts.gov_sUJTIry,tina_
naghshi neh@cacd.u:lcourt.s .gov_sunry, crd._woehr le@cacrl.llscourts.gov,crd_woehrle@c
acd. uscourts .gOV_!lumry,
JO:Jeph Zernik2·'l1!, saint George 5treetLo,s Angele:J C" 9002,US
Me:Jsage-Jd:
SubJect :Activity .\71 C.=:ase 2:0B-cv-OI550-V,~P-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor
et al 'Noti ce of llocument Discrepancies ,HId Order - RQjecti71g
Content-Type: teKI./html ...... NOre TO PUBLIC ACCESS USeRS· .... Judicial Conference o!
the Onitec. State:> policy permi\::J attornels of record and parties in a. ca.se (incl
udin9 pro se liti~lant:J) to receive one force electronic copy of all docUJTIellts !il
ed eh~ctronic... lly, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACeR
access feEls apply to all other user!!. 'fo avoid later charqos, downlo.ad ... copy
o! e.ach document durinQ 'this first vie1d:,q. However, if. the rQferenced doewn",nt
is a transcript, 1:1102 fL'ee copy and 30 pal~e limit do noL apply.'
l]'NlTeD STATE.S OIS~lRICT COLTRT, C::;NTRAL lJl$TRlCT or
CALIFORNIA
'Notic~ of E'.lectroJlic Filing
The fo])o".,ing transaction ","as entered O:rl 7/16/2008 at 1:30 ?M PDT and fi.\Qd
on 7/.. 6/2009
Case Name:
Josepb Zerrd k v .JacquQI ine Connor et a.l
Case Numbel':2:CB-cv-lS50
Filer:Jo.1;eph Zern.lk
DocUfI'I':lnt NUIllber:
<a hr~f.ht tps: //ee!. c;1.OO .uscourts .gov/dOCI/03l 06256834?maglc"pWT1"MAGIC&de__ ~eLnu

m;315 ~case.ld-4C-991B
>81
Docket Text;
IWT!C£' OF DISCRep,\NCY AND ORDE:R: by f~agi.5trate Judqe Carla. Woehrle, ORDERING

Request for Jlldlc:tal Notice suJ:rnitted by Plaint.i!f Joseph Zernik received
on 7n4/0a is not to be filed b..1t instea:i reject:ed. Denial based on: Ma-:e.dals
pre3e:nted ,are not proper SUbject for Judicial notice see Federal Rules
of J::vidence 201 (dt)
2:0B-cv-15!iO Notice has been electronically mailed to:
John i~ Pat ton )wp@paslaw. com
David J Pa:'lternak dJp@pasla ..... cOlr.
Michael L \l'achtell mwachtell@buchdlter.com
Sarah L Ovcrtcn soverton@cmda-law.com
Jenna Molda ""sky Jenna. maIda ...-~ity~b.l:yancave.com
Kathryn £ DiCarlo I::dicarIo@crTl(id.-l",w.com
2:08-cv-J550 Netice has ~Qn delivered by F~rst Class U S Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph ZernH
2415 saint GecLge etreet
Los Anqeles C,J.. 90')21
US
"
UNITED STATES DISTIUCt COURT
CENTRAJL DISllRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF DOCULVIENT DISCREPANCIES
To: 0 U . S. District Judge I ~ U.s. Magistrate Judge. Carl~ WOt;hrll:..: _
From: D~ml1la Y. Thomas , Deputy Clerk Date Received: July 14, 2008
Case No,: CV O~-1550:VAP(CW) Case Title: Z~!!1:ick v. Cop.nor, et al.
.----'-~------------
Docwnent Entitled: Reque'st for Judicial Notice
Upon the submission of the, attached docwnent(s), it was noted that the following discrepancies exist:
o Local Rule 11-3"1 Document not legible

o Local Rule 11-3.8 Ladang name, address, phoille and facsimile n~ers
o Local Rule 11-4.1 ,No copy provided for judge
o Local Rule 19-1 ComplaintlPetition includl~s more than ten (l0) Does or fictitiously named parties
o Local Rule 15-1 Proposed amended pleading not under selPamte cover
o Local Rule 11-6 M(~morandUlllJbrief exceeds 25 pages
D Local Rule 11-8 M(~morandutn/brief exceeding 10 pages shall contain table of contents
D Local Rule 7.1-] No Certification of Interested Parties and/or no copies
D Local Rule 6.1 Written notice of motion lacking or timeline:;s of notice incorrect
o Local Rule 56-1 Staltement of uncontrovew...d facts and/or propo sed judgment lacking
o Local Rule 56-2 Stllitement of genuine issw~s of material filet :tacking
o Local Rule 7-19..1 Notice to other parties of f:X parte applic<l.tionlacIcing
o .Local Rule 16-6 Pretrial conference order not signed by all counsel
o :FRCvlF' Rule Sed) No proof of service attached to documenl:(s)
181 Other: Materials presented are not proper subject for judicial notice. See Federal Rules of Evidence 201.
Norte: Please rder tl() tbe court's Internet website at WlNw.cal:d.usCOllrtS.gOV for local rules and applicable forms.
==---zacI:I=::=
ORDER O:F mE JUDGEIMAGISTRAT~JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERbl:):
o The document is to be fIled and processed. The filing date is ORDE:RED to be the date the document was stamped
"received but Dot filed" with the Clerk. Counsel* is advised that any fw:therfailure to comply with the Local Rules may
lead Qo penalties pursuant to Local Rule 83-7.
Date u.s. Disltriclt JUdie I u.s. Magistrate Judge

KI The document is NOT to be filed, but instead REJECTED, :and is ORDERED returned to *counsel. *ColllDsel shall
imn1{~diately notify, in writing, all parties previously served with the attached documents that said documents have not
been filed with the Court.
= ===IiIhIIE.
==~._----.__
Date
2!l1l8=t~~
---'__ ~-'Il-llli.~----
l_~ __ _
U.S. Disltrict Judge I U.S. Magistrate Judge
*The tenn "counsel" ILS used herein also includes any pro se party, See l.Qcal Rule 1-3.
CV-l04A (12/03) NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DIS:CRE:PANdES

-./
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 81 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF' CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES
To: 0 U.S, District Judge / ~ U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla Wor::hrll:..~_ ......... . _
From: _!)onna Y. Thomas •Deputy C14~rk Date Received: July 14.2008

Case No.: CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) Case Title: .Zern!ick _v';...C:..0:.ljU1=.:.o~r,...:.e.:..t a...:.I_. _
Docwne:nt Entitled: Request for Ju~licial Not.ice
Upon the submission of the attached document(s), it was noted that the following discrepancies exist:
[] Local Rule 11-3.1 Document not legible

o Local Rule 11-3.8 Lacking name. address. phone and facsimile numbers
[] Local Rule 11-4.1 No copy provided for judge
[] Local. Rule 19-1 ComplaintlPetition includes more than Wn (:I 0) Does or fictitiously named parties
[] Local Rule 15-1 Proposed amended pleading not under s~:par,ilte co~er
[] Local Rule 11-6 Memorandum/brief exceeds 25 pages
[] Local Rule 11-8 Memorandtun/brief exceedimg 10 pages shall contain,table of contents
[] Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties and/or no copies
o Local Rule 6.1 Written notice of motion lacking or timelliness of *otice incorrect
o Local Rule 56-I Statement of uncontroverted facts and/oJ' propose4 judgment lacking
[] Local Rule 56-2 Statement of genuine issues of material fact lackirlg
[] Loca.1. Rule 7-19.1 Notice to other parties of ex parte appliciltion lactcing
[] Local Rule 16-6 Pretrial conference order not signed by all counsel
[] FRCvP Rule 5(d) No proof of service attached to document(s)
~ Other: .Materials presented are n~t proper subject for judicial ~oti(:e. SeF Federal Rules of Evidence 201.
NOlte: Please refer to the couJ1:'s Internet website at www.ca.l:d.uscourfs.gov for local rules and applicable forms.
==-=-~ :~
OllIDER OF THE JUDGEfMAGlSTRATE JUDGE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
[J Tht: document is to I)le filed and! processed. 11le filing date is ORDERED to be the date the document was stamped
"received but not filed" with the Clerk. Counsel* is advised tInat 31ny further failure to comply with the Local Rules may
lead to penalties pursuant to Local Rule 83-7.
I
Dalt: U.S. District Judge I U.S. Magistrate Judge
SJ The document is NOT to be filed, but instead REJECTED, and is O~DERED returned to "'counsel. "'Counsel shall
inunediately notify, in writing. all parties previously served with the attached documents that said documents have not
been filed with the Court.
-I-'~h ~
----=1ill~g§7008 __ ~ ~ ~

Date U.S. Di1,trictJudge IU.S. Magistrate Judge
*The term "counsel" as used herein also includes any pro se party. See Local Rule 1-3.
CV·!04A (12/03) NOTICE OF DOCUMENT D11~CRi~PANclES

Date TransmlLt~: 7/17/2008 9:18:40 AM
2: 08--cv-155
,Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is he1:'eby cert.i£ied that this docu:rnent was served by £.irst

c~ass mail. postagle pre,paid or by £a:.1c or e-mai~ de~ivery to
counSE!~ (o;£:" parties) at their respect.ive address or fax

number 01:' e-mai~ address of rlecord.
1\ \1' oZ ~<64
r
.
•
UNITED STATl~S J1)ISTIUCT COURT
CENTRAL DISTIRJ[CT OF CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and Criminal E+Filing
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure $(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-08, all civil and criiminal cases are designated for electronic filing
with reasonable eXt~eptions as outlined in General Ordet07-08 Sections III (B), V (B)
and VII.
not n~gistered to participate in the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing
(CM/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Service. Attorneys who do not
cons{~nt to s{~rvice and receipt of fil(~d documents by electronic means will receive
Attorneys an:,~ encouraged to register in the CMlECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMfEC1F Help Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the Cl\r1JECF website available from the Court's wt~bsite at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTER
DISTRICT COURT EXECUtIVE
AND CLI!:RK OF COURT
MIME-Version :1. 0
Prom: cacd_ec fm'" i l ~c.acd. U$courts. gov
To: ecfnet'Pcc. cc,_ llS:::C:.lxt.s. gOY
Bee: dJP@pdS1......J.c~:I· , 1.dica.du@:;mdd.-la'oLL:cr.t. .~cd.circ9.dcn, )wptlpaslaw.c
e
om, lilwachtell bu:::hal ter . COI1l, soverton@cmda··law.com, Jenna .moldawsky~bryan:::aYe
com, c:rdJhj} li·?s@cacd.uscourts.gov,crd...,ph:.llips@cacd .uscourts . gov_SWl'lt"Y , tind_
naghshj neh@cac-c: _uscourts . gOY •• sumry, crd_woehrleC!cacd .uscourts. gav, crd_woehrle@c
acd, uscourts .gcv_swnry,
Joseph Zernik2~15 saint ~orge StreetLos 1.ngeles CA 90027US
Message-ld:
SubJect:xcUvity in Case 2:08-cv-OISSO-VAP-C'rl Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor
et al Minutes of ]n Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
Content-Type: t.ey.::/ht.ml"'""NOTE TO PUBL]C ACCESS USERS....... Judicial Conference or
the Uniled States policy peL""lT.lt3 i1lt.orneys of record and parties in a case (incl
uding pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all docume:\ts fil
oed electrollically. if receipt is required. by law or directw by the filer. PACER
access fees Clppl:t to 01.11 other USQrs To iavoid later charges, downloOid .i. copy
or each do:::ument ,jurlnli.! t.his first viewing ROlo'ever, it the referenced document
is a transcript, c.lle free copy and 30 page limit do not. apply'
trNITED STATES CJSTRICT COURT, C::}'"'TRkL DISTR]CT or
CALIFORNIA
Notice of I'lectronic Filirlg
ThQ following transGiction WAS "ntered on 7/17/2008 At 9:17 It"" PDT and filed
on ; /l ; 12008
Case Name:
Joseph Zernik" ,Jacqueline Connor et al
Cas~ Numbel::2:C8-::v-1SSO
Filer:
Document NUlllbF.-r:
<a hre===https: Ileet . cacd . uscourt s. gov/dcCl/031 0626290C7magic_nwn=:-lAGIC&-de_seCLnu
m_32Hcaseid"'~C9918
,84
Docket: Text.:
MINUTES OF IN C:HA"~ElERS ORDER held before MaglStrate Judge Garla Woehrle:
DENYING EX PAF.TE APPLICATION tor Order tor to compel LA Superior Court (82). '''SEE:
ORDER E'OR ruRTbER DETAILS.... I dt)
2: 08-cv-1550 NotiCE; has been electroni eA.lly mailed to:
John W Pat-;:on JWP@pa~law. com
David J Pasten,ak dJP@pasla1ol.com
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter
Sarah L Ov03rton sovertonecmda-la'..... CCofll
Jenna Molda \tI.!:]r_y ]enna . mcl1daws):: y@br:fancave.com
Kathryn Eo DiC.=-L 10 kdical'logcmda-lcp.'. com
2:0B-cv-15S0 Nc,tice has been delivered by ~'ir.st Cla.s3 U S. Mail or by

fax to:
Jo.seph Zernik
24.15 Saint Geon;e StrQQt
Los Angele.5 O. 90027
US
~
UNITED STATES DISTfUCT GOURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFQRNIA
CIVIL MI:NUTES .. GENERAL

..... ..
,., ' , ' , ' .
C~~~N8L CV 08-155~)-VAP(CW) _---:.._ ukt(¢ < July 17,2008

Zernik v. Connor, et al.
============:========:
Donna Y. Thomas n/a nJa

Deputy Clerk
-- --.......-._----.;
Cow1 Reporter / Reto~der Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attolineys Present for Defendants:
n/a nJa
Plaintiff S ex parte application for order. to compel Los Angeles

T
Superior Court (docket no. 82, filed July 14, 2008) is DENIED. The
court will consider this document, if appropri~te, in reviewing
Plainti~f's opposition to the pending motions to dismiss.
-CV-·-9-0(-06704.)---------·----·---C:IVIL MINUTES - GENERA. I:... Page 1 of 1
;"
Date Tranisrnit~d: 7/18/2008 11:59:07 AM
2, 08~~CV-150
,Joseph Zernik
~os Angeles, CA 90027
US
Number of Pages: 1
I t is he.r.lwy certified that this docl:cmeltlt was served by first

c~ass ma..i 1 po,stag'e prepaid ox' by fax or l e-mai~ de~ivery to
counse~ (or parties) at their respectiv$ address or fax
numbe.r O.J~ e-mai~ address of record.
=+ I\~ I02 :l1§b
UN][TED STATES DISTlUCT COURT
Mandatory Civil and Criminal EtFiling
General Order 07 -08, all civil and criminal cases are d~signated for electronic filing
with reasonable exceptions as outlint~d in General Orderl07-08 Sections III (B), V (B)
an d '11["[
.,.
not registered to participate in the Case Mana:gemen~ ard Electronic Case Filing
(CMJECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Seryice. Attorneys who do not
consent to s4~rvice and receipt of filed documents by ~hectronic means will receive
servic!e via U.S. Postal Service.
Attomcys are encouraged to register in the CMJECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMlECF Help' Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
th~; C~v1/ECF website available from the Court's w!ebsite at www.cacd.uscourts.go~.
SHERRI R. CAllTER
I>ISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE
I
AND CLERK OF COURT
MIME-Version ... 0
FIOlTo; ca cd_ecfrlCl j 1@car.d.u3cOl:rts.gov
Jo: ecfnet'@caed.U3courts.gov
Bcc; djp@pasla\ol.co{l'l , kd.icarlo@crr.da-la ..... com , ''-'.lcd.circ9.dcn, j·"'.O@pa.sla ...' .c
om, mwachte 11@wC::1al1:.er C;.)t11, sovertofL~cmda-law. com. Jenna .rnoldaIJsky@bryancave
com, crd...ptl1.l1 ipsl2'c.a.r;d .uscourts .gov, c:xd--phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov_sumry,tinCl_
naghshi neh@c;ar:d.\,lscouzets . gov_sumry. (,,;l"d_woehr le@r.acd . usr.ourt:!l. gov. crcl-woehrle@c
acd. uscOUrCS . <;lOv_su!Tlry,
Joseph Z(unH:241S 5ainl George Streetl.os Angele3 CA 90027U5
Message-Td;
SUbject :ActivJty in Case 2:08-cv-OISSO-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. JAcqueline Connor
et aJ MinutN; of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
content-Type: tey.t/htmP·~"N(JJE: TO PUBL1C ACCESS USERS··· Judicial Confenmc:e of
the Uniceu St':.tes policy pennit3 attorr.ey3 of record and parties in a case (iJ1CI
uding pro se Jitig",nt::l) to J:'eceive- on~ free electronic copy of all documents fi)
ed electronic.:.lly, if: rec"ipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER
access fees ...pply to all ot.her users To avoid later charges. download a c::>py
of each dOCUlllE,nt during thi~; first vievlng However, if the reterenced document
is a transcript, the frel.! ce'py and 30 :page limit do !lot apply.'
tTNITE:.D STATES DISTRICT COUR1', CENTRAL InSTRIC1" OE'
CALIfORNIA
Notice of Electronic filJ.ng
The follo .... in'.l transaction WClS entered on 7/18/2008 dt 11 ;46 AM PDT and ~iJ.ed
on 7/17/2008
Case Name:
Joseph Zernil: v. JacquE:line Connor et II]
Case Nu~r:?':'08-cv-)550
filer:
Document }lU!T,I)ll!r:
<a tre!-ht tps .//ect .cacd .uscouet.!! .gov/doCl/031062i2377?maglc_n~:>U'.GIC"de_!leq_nu

m",,3Z8&ca3'eid .. ,I099:i. 8
,86
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CI-;AMBERS ORO~H held bet'ore Magistrate Judge carla WOehrle:

DEUYING EX PAHJE APPLICATION for OrderfS5) [dtl
2:08-cv-1550 Hotice ha3 bee=n electronically mailed to:
John W Patto::! jwp@pasla .... co:n
David J Past'!lrnak djp@pasla ..... coUl
Mlctlile] L WaclTtl:~ll mwacl1tell@hucha.lter.coB
5arllh L Overton soverton@crnd.",-)a ..... ':om
Jenna MaIda·.sky jenna .moldawskyQbrydncave. com
Kathryn E Di·:.ulo kdicarIo~cmda-ldw.com
2:0U-cv-1550 t."otice has bean delivered. by Fir3t C!a"3 U S. Mail or by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
2-115 saint Ge:nge Streect
Los AJ'IgwIciI$ ::::A 90021
US
UNITED STAI1~S DISTR1CT CPURT
CIVIL MINUTES .. GEN1~RAL

CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) , . ~f~~ July 17, 2008
::jjtI~3· Ln. Zernik v. Connor, et al.

; _ _ :=========================
Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrat~ Judge
-_._---------------
Donna Y. Thomas II/a nla
---!-----
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter I Re¢order Tape No.
nla nJa
Plaintiff's ex parte application (docket qo. 85, filed July 16,

2008) is DENIED.
cc: Pro Se Plai~tiff and All Counsel
CV-90 (06/04) CIVlL MINUTES - GENEF:AL Page 1 of 1

Date Transmitte 7/31/2008 9:54:44 AM
\.
2:08-cv-l~50 Doc: 93
Joseph Zernik
US
Numbe:[ of Pages: 2
It is b.e~cewy certified that this docum.ent was served by first

class ma~il. postaGre prepaid QiZ~ by fax or ~-'mail delivery to
counsel (or parties) at thei.z~ respective address or fax
number o~c e-ma.i.l address of z:ecord.
\.
UNITED STATES DISTRI[CT ICOURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT Ol~' CAL[FORNIA
Mandatory Civil and Criminal E-FilingI
and VII.
not registered to participate in the Case Managt:medt and Electronic Case Filing
(CNUECF) system will receive service via U.S. lPostal Service. Attorneys who do not
conse:nt to service and receipt of filed documents by electronic means will receive
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CM[JECF ~ystem as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMlECF Hplp Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
SHERRI R. CAl~TER
][)ISTmCT COURT EXECqrIVE
AND CLERK OF COURT
MIME.-Ver:dor :1.0
from: cacd_ecfmaiJ ~ cacd. usccurts. go....
To: ~cfne::~ cJ.cd. lJ.!; courts. QOV
Bee: dJP(~'pa~li;;,w.~<.llll , kuica.z:l~.(!t:m:iiL-law.col'l\ , llef@'~irc9.dcn, J ... p~paslaw.c
om, mwa.;htE-] J ~m;:::hal ter. c:::m, 30verton@cmda-law.com, jenna .moldaw3k.yElbryancave
com, crd-pt"dllips@coiIcd.usc:)urts .gO"", crd...,phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov_sumry, tina_
nagll.Shi nt'lh@ciicd..t: ... courts . gcv_sumry, crd_....oehr le@cacd.uscourt3.gov,crd_',",oehrle@c
acd. uscourts .gOIl_Sumry,
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George Street Los Angeles C1l. 90027U5
Message-Id:
Suo]ect :J,cti vity in CaSQ 2: 08-cv-015~0-VAP-c-w Joseph Zernik v. Jaccr..leli;1Q Connor
et a1 M':'nutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - :')0 proceerling held
Content--:-ype: t,~xt/htmJ"'''·NOTE: TO PUDLIC ACCESS USERS....... Judicial Conference of
the Unitt~d Stdt~.:;; policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a c."1Se (incl
udlng pro se 11':193nts) to receIve one free electronic copy of all documents fil
ed oelectl'onical.ly, if receipt is required by law or directed by the Eiler. PACER
access fees .;l.pply to all other '.1sers 70 avold late::: charges, download a copy
of. ~ach docur::efi"t. during this first' viewing However, if the referenced document
lS a tra;lscript, t.he Eree copy and, 30 page HCllit do not apply.'
UNITED S:-';TE~ DISTRICT COl.ore, CE:NTRJIL OrSTR1CT Of'
CAL!f'ORtl!A
Not1ce of Electronic f'i 1 ing
The followi:1g transaction was tmtered on 7/31/2008 at 9:57 AM PDT and filed
0:1 1/30/2008
Cas-a Name:
Joseph Zer:1ik v. Jacq'Jcline Connor et a1
Casoe Number: 2: Q3-cv-lSSO
f'ilo1lr:
Document NUlTlber:
<a O1ref=ht tps: //e~f. ~acd. uscourt s .gov/ doc;l/ 031 063 43984?lT:.aglc_nUm""MAGIC&de_seq_nu
m_346&ca:;cid='103918
,93
Doc:}::et Te7.t:
MIlf"JTES OE' IN CHAMe£RS ORDER held be:::ore Magistrate Judge Carla woehrle RE:
New case management and procedures ~7SEe: ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.... (dt)
2:03-cv-l550 NO':ice ha, been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton JWP~asla"".com
Dav~d J Pastern,lk dJP@paslaw.com
Miclu.el 1. WachtEill mwachtell@ouchalter.
Sarah L Overt.on soverton@cmda-la..r.com
Jen~~a Moldawsr..x Jenna. moldawsky@bryancavl;! . com
KaLllryn E: OiCar.lo kdicar1o~cmda-'law.com
2:03-cv-1550 Notice has been deli ....ered by First Class U s. Hail or by

fax to:
Jos~ph Zernik.
21\15 Saint Georqe Street
Los Angeles C~ 90021
US
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~OURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALlFORNIA
CIVIL MI.t\T(JTES - GENERAL

EDCV 08-1009 R (CW) ;;p~~~:' July 30, 2008
Arthur Ray Deere v. Larry Small
===== -==,==,======:
.........
Donna Y. Thomas n/(lJ. n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / R{}corder Tape No.

n/a nla
This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.

Petitloner is advised of the following requitements for preparing and
submitting documents in this case:
1. Documents sent to the court in ~his case should be addressed I
to: "Clerk, U.S. District Court, 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA
90012."
2. Each document must include the titre and case number

(including initials identifying judges). Do~uments should have at
least a one-inch margin at the top of each page, and should be printed
or handwritten clearly, on one side of the p~per only.
3. Petitioner must mail the court the original and one copy of
each document. Photocopies, printed copies, or clear handwritten
copies are acceptable. The original and cop~ should be mailed in one
envelope to make clear that they are not Gep~rate filings.
4. Petitioner should keep a copy of aqy document sent to the
court.
5. After the court has ordered the res~ondent to answer the

petition, whenever petitioner sends a new document to the court he
must ";serve" it on respondent by mailinq a copy to respondent's
attorney at the address given on court orders or respondent's filings.
Petitioner must also attach to the document sent to the court a "proof
of service" stating that a copy was mailed to respondent's attorney
and when it was mailed.
6. At the top of the first page of any d6cument sent to the

court petitioner must give his or her name and. mailing address,
--------
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page. 1 of 2
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERk

'0~§b~16) EDCV 08-1009 R (CW) ·Dii~::. July 30, 2008
i:fr,m~:l) •. Arthur Ray Deere v. Larry Small

including any prisoner number or other identification number and any
other information needed for mail to be deli.e~ed. The court will
assume that the address is correct and will ~o use it until informed
otherwise. It is petitioner's responsibiliti to notify the court (and
respondent's attorney) of any change of addr.ss and the effective date
of the change. If petitioner fails to keep the court informed of a
correct mailing address, this case may be dig;missed under Local Rule
41-6, which states as follows:
lilf mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se ptaintiff's address of

recorti is returned undelivered by the Postal S~rvice, and if, within
fifteen (15) days of the service date, such ~laintiff fails to notify,
in writing, the Court and opposing parties ol his current address, the
Court may dismiss the action with or with~ut prejudice for want of
prosecution."
Following these requirements and all co~rt rules will help

prevent unnecessary delays in this case.
cc: Arthur Ray Deere

F-94040
Calipatria State Prison
PO Box 5005
Calipatria, CA 92233

Date Tran~mitte 7/31/2008 10:11:25 AM
2:08-cv-1550 Doc: 94
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is h.exE'by certified that this docume~t was served by first

c~ass ma~i..1. postagre prE!paid oz' by fax or e-ma.i~ de~ivery to
counse~ (or parties) at their respect.;iv~ address or fax
numbe.r 0.J~ e-ma.i~ address of z'ecord.

UNITED STAlrES DISTRilCT COURT
CENTRAL DISlrRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mandatory Civil and Crirnjnal E-Filing

,
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure! 5(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service ofcourt documepts via fax. Attorneys who are
not registered to participate in the Case Managt:meIit and Electronic Case Filing
(Crvl/ECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal Service. Attorneys who do not
senrice via U.S. Postal Service.
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CM[JECF ~ystem as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMJECF HClp
I
Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the CMlECF website available from 1the Court's websi:te at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERlU R. CARTER
DISTRlCT COURT EXlI~cU1TIVE
AND CLERK OF COURT
MlME·-Version: 1. 0
From . eaed_eef:.... ~ i l@cacd usr.'lu:::ts. gov
To:ecfnefecacd, u!:ccurt.s.g::N
Bee; dJP@pasl<i'~.(:oll , ~dl(;aL-.Lo@;';Hlda-law co.':! , ne[@'"""-r.clrc9.dcn , ed_courtdocs@
cacd,u.scourt3.:;o\o , sa_courtdoes~cacd.u:,courts.qov, r""p@pa.:slaw.eo:n, mwachtell
@bucbalter.eon,. sovQrt.on@crr.:.ia-la"",com, Janna .rnoldawsky@bryancaV"Q.com, crd-phi
11 ips@cacd . uscou::t:'l. gov, cr::i-ilhi II ipslkac:d, uscourts ,gov_sumry, t.i na_naghshineh@cac
d .>.lscourts .Qo" ••sumry. crcCw:lehrlcE!cacd. uscourts. gov, crcL....oehrle@cacd.uscourt.s.g
ov_swnry,
Joseph Zernil:241S Saint GeOl:g~ StreetLc>,:j Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
SubJl;,ct :J..ctivlty in Case 2:0fl-cv-OI550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jar.queline Connor
et. 03.1 Notice of cJ.erical E.rL·or (G-11)

Conttent-Type: ten/ntrnl· .. ·N'OTE TO PUBLIC' ACCE:SS USE:RS~~~ Judicial Conferenct of
the l'nited 5ta,:es foljcy perrnit3 attorn~ys of record and partie" in a ease (incl
udine< pro se .. ':tig.mts) to r"cQive one free electronic copy of rill documents fil
ed eJectroniC"<I:.ly, if receipt is rQquin·d by law or directed by the filer. f'ACER
access fees <lllply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy
of each docurnulit dl.lring this first viewing However, if the referenced dOCllnLent
is a transcript, the frec8 copy and 30 pa.ge lil~it do not apply.'
tmITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIE'ORNI.ll,
Notlce of Elel:t:ron5.c Filing
The follOWing l:ransaction ....a.~: entered c,n 7/31/2008 at 10:12 AM PDT and filEd
on 7/31/200a
Case tlame:
Joseph ZerniJ:.. v Jacqueline Connor et al
Case Numt::;:.er:2 OB-cv-1550
Fihu:
Document HUltI~J-:
<a href-ht tps:,' lee f . cacd. uscourt s. gov/d,>cl/031 063.o1.IJ 1 51 '?rnagic_num=MAGIC&de_st:q_nu

m:34 !3&caseid·'1099l8
,94
Docket Te)(1::
IWTIC;E OF CLElnCAL ERROR: Duo to cledc.. l error Re: Minutes of In ChamDeJ."s

Ordel/Oirectiv(J - no proceeding held(93} DocU1llent Idstakenly scanned and
doek~ted to t.ll:c.s case docket Please disregard <~93) (dt)
2:09-cv-1550 Uotice has ooen elec":ronic::~.lly ma1.1ed to~
John W Patton Jwp@po3.sla .... "com
David J E'a3teTJla}:: dJP@poLsla.,'.cern
Mieh.l.~l L "Wachtel 1 rnwacht:ell@buchalt,er.com
Sarah L Overt.(})1 sovertonQCJTIc:!a-la,",. (-:e,m
Jenna Mol da w:d;y Jenna .molda .... s,.:y@bryancave.com
KathI yn E Oi elll: Ie kdicOlI·]o@::mdil-la..,.com
2:0B--cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class U S. M.ail or by

fax to: :
Joseph Ze=nj l:.

2415 $..:lint Geol·ge St.reet
Los }..ngeles CII 90027
US
- l
UNITED ST ATES DISTR:ICT COURT
.~_-
,------------ -r -~--------------
JOSEPH ZERNIK, CASE NUMBER ,
, CV 08-01550 YAP (CW)
PLA1NTlFF(S),
y,
JACQUELINE CONNER, et al.

NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR
DEFENDANT(S),
TO: U. S. District .Iudge(s)

U. S. Magistrate Judge(s)
Counsel of Record
You are hereby notified that due to a clerical error 0 documents associated with the filing ofthe new action ~ the following
scanned document M docket entry have/has been corrected as indicated helow.
Title of Scanned Document: ..Minutes ofrn Chambers Or~cr ------1-------------------

Filed Dale: _~~y 30, 2008 Document Number: 93
D Inc;olT·ect case number _ . _ was assigned to this 0 action 0 document.

o Case number has been corrected. The correct case number is
o Incorrect judge's initials were indicated on this 0 action D document The torrect judge's initials are _
o Incorr,ect magistrate judge's initials were indicated on this 0 action [] document. The correct magistrate judge's initials
arc __
o Case has been reassigned from 0 Judge 0 Magistrate Judge ! to
[] Judge D Magistrate Judge . _ The initials of the new judge(s) are _
o Case was assigned to 0 Western 0 Southern 0 Eastern division. Pursu~nt io General Order 0 349.0 98-3 D 02-06,
the ease has been reassigned to the 0 Western [J Southern 0 Eastern di~ision. The former case numher _
h~ls been reassigned to n(~w case number _
D Subsequent documents must be filed at the 0 Western 0 Southern [) Ea!>1ern division. Failure to file at the proper location
will result in your documents being returned to you.
D Case title is corrected from __ to ~ _
D Document has been re-numbered as document number _
o Incorre<:l D Filed Date [J Date of Document 0 ENTERED Date 0 DArt ENTERED ON CM/ICMS was stamped on
documl~nt. The correct elate is
---
o Document is missing pag1e number(s): _
o To ensure proper rouling of documents. all document., filed with thl~ court mJst reflect the following case number and judge's
initi:lIs:
51 Other: Document mistakenly scanned and docketed to this case docket. Please disregard.
-----------€bEf~-:&-9J5:rn-1C-:r--tGl::JR-Tl'----------
Date ~L} I, 2008 By: _. D. Thomas

Deputy Clerk
cc: IlIIake Supen'isor / Deputy In CI,arKe
U-l1 (06/05) NOTICE OF CLERICAL E~.tROH

Date Transmitte~. 8/4/2008 9:39:57 AM
2:08-CV-1550~
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is he:z:~:wy I,=ertified that this doctlme~t was served by first

cl.a.ss ma.i~l. po,stag'e prepaid o.r by fax or e,-mail. del.ivery to
counsc~l. (or piarties) at thei.r respect:ive address or fax
numbe~r- 0:1: e-m3.il adm"ess of .record .
..
UNITED S'fATES DISTIUCT COURT
CENTRAL DIS1[']UCT OF CALIfORNIA
Mandatory Civill and Criminal E"iFiling

i
In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure $(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-08, all civil and criminal cases: are designated for electronic filing
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service ofcourt documents -Via fax.. Attorneys who are
(CMJECF) system will receive service via U.S. Postal S~rvice. Attorneys who do not
conSif~nt to s~~rvice and receipt of filed documents by electronic means will receive
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CMlECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any quest.ions, please contact. the CMlECF He1p Desk at (213) 894-0242 or
the CM/ECF website available from the Court's wt::bsit~ at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERRI R. CARTI~R
DISTRICT COURT EXECUtIVE
AND CLERK OF COURt
MIME-Version: 1. 0
F'~orn :caccCecftnai l@c<lC:d.u.sr:out:'ts.gov
To=ecfnef@c'i::d.L:3courtS.gcN
Bee: djp@pa.s,la ..... c.:om , kdic.:iirlo@(;'mda-law.com , nef@c~circ9.dcn, j"'.?@p.ulalo'.c
om, mwach t"d1l.' bucha1 ter. corn, 50verton@cmda-law.com, Jel1118.mold.aw3ky'?bryancave
com, c.rd_phiJ 1 ips@cal:'d..l,l:lcourts.gov, crd...,ph';'ll ips@cacd.uscourt.s . gov_s·..tmry, t ina_
naghshineh@c"cc..uscourts . gov_.sumry, rrd_woehr leBcacd. USCOiJrtS. gov, c['d._woehrl e@c
aed. uscourt:3 .gov_sumry,
Joseph Zennk24J.S saint George StreetLos Angeles CA 90027U5
Me.s3age-Id:
SubJect :Act;;,·dt}· in CaSQ 2:06-cv-OlSSO-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. JacquelIne Connor
et .1.J. Minut l!S of In Chambers Orrier/Di.r-ective - no proceeding held
Content.-Type: te>:t/html"""NOT£ TO PUB1,le ACCr.SS \.:SERS...... Judicial Conference of
the Unil'!:ld States policy pE!rmit.5 attol·neys of r..:cord and parties in a t:as€ ' (inc1
uding pro s~· litigants) to reC€ i ve onE· free e16ctronic copy of all documents fil
ed electronic... lly, if receipt is required by 1.'1.\01 or d.1rected by the filer. PACER
access fee~ .;.pply t.o all at.her users To avoid l~ter ch...rges, downlond .. copy
of each document during this ti!"st. viE, ... ing. However, if the referenced document
is a transc.l ipt, :.he free t:opy and 30 page limi\. do ,",ot apply.'
UNlT£.D STATE~~ DISTRICT COUi=:T, ::ENTRAL DISTRICT Of
Cl'..LlfORtlJ.1\
Uot i ee ot Elt,etrcn ie £'il ing
The followincr transaction ~'as entQred on B/4/200B at 9:36 AM PDT and f.ile,d
on 713l/200r'
Case tlam~:
Joseph Zerni}c v Jacquelin~ Connor tHo OIl
Case Number::: :08-cv-lSSO
Filer:
Document NWllber:
<a href=ht tp! : I lee f . cacd. useourt s. gov Ido:::1/031 063 ~86137rr.agic_num=!".1AGrC&-de_
s eCl-nu
".
m-35 <l&ca:,H,lid .. ~ C99l8
Docket Tey.t:
MI1WTE.S OF I~ C~BER5 ORDER held before MagIstrate JUdge Cd.rla Woehrle:

GRANTlNG EX FARTE APPLJCATlON for Cnntinuance/Consolid<l.tion!90]. Plaintiff
is GRANn~D an e;xtension of time, until August 15, 2008, in which to serve
and file oppcsition to these f.our mot:ions to d.isrni33 .... SE.E. ORDER f'OR E'tmTH£R
DETAILS" ~ Idt l
2:09-cv-lS50 No=ice has been ele::tronically mailed to:
John W Patton ]wp@pcJslaw.com
David J Pasternak d]~pa3l........ com
Michael I, W<>.chtell mWOilchtell@buch2.1te:r.colli
S,uah L Overton soverton@andd-law.com
Jenna Mol dQ .... 3ky ]enna. moldaw;,ky«lbryancave
Kathryn e: DiCiO.rlo kdicarlo@cmda-l3.w.com
2:0B-cv-}5~0 Notice has been delivered by E'irst Class U S Mail or by

(ax t.o:
Jos(tph Zerni:':
2';1~ Saint G-a,nge Street
Los Angele;, CA 90027
U5
'----,
UNITED STAlES DISTRICT <j:OURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIfORNIA
¢~~¢;~9':: CV 08-1550-VAP,...;.(C_W--.,;,..) .
'-----r----:-
:m#~w.:. July 31, 2008
::TIti~·
.:..::•...:.-:-» .....
:.. Zemik v. Connor, et al.
-----
------- : ==:==F=:==========
Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrarle Judge
Donna Y. Thomas nJa n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
!
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attqrneys Present for Defendants:
n/a n/a
Plaintiff's ex parte request for continuance/consolidation

I ,
(docket no. 90, filed July 23, 2008) is G:~lED AS FOLLOWS.
I .
Eotions to dismiss the Finlt Amended Co~plaint ("FAC") have been
filed by defendants Connor et al. (docket noJ ~8), defendant ADR
Services (docket no. 69), the Countrywide deie~dants (docket no. 73),
and defendant Pasternak (docket no. 78).
Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of ti~e, until August 15, 2008,

in WhlCh to serve and file opposition to ~he~e four motions to
dismiss. Plaintiff may file either a single opposition to all four
motions, or separate oppositions to each mot~o0, but, in any event, he
shall make clear what he is doing, and shall Iclearly identify the
mctions to dismiss by docket number.
Defendants may serve and file a reply o~ replies to Plaintiff's

opposition or oppositions within fourteen (14) days of service.
The court notes that Plaintiff requested the disqualification of

the magistrate judge in a document received july 22, 2008. That
request has been referred to the district ju4g~ assigned to this case.
[~ee Local Rule 72-5 (C.D. Cal.).] Plaini~if:t; is advised that the
magistrate judge will not be able to rule on any substantive motions
until Plaintiff's request has been decided. [rd. ]
CV-90 (06/04) .CIVIL MINUTES - GENER;\.L Page 1 of 1

00
Date Tr~nsmitte~. 8/5/2008 12:28:34 PM
2,08-CV- 155
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 4
It is he;t",eby certified that this docume~t was served by i:irst

class llltail posta~re prepaid or by fax or e-llltail deli very to
counse~ (or parties) at thei.r respecl!:ive address or fax
numbe,r Oj~ e-mai~ address of I:ecord.
UNITED STAI'ES DISTR][CT COURT
CENTRAL DISllRICT OJF €:ALlFORNIA.
Mandatory Civil and Criminal E-Filing
In aLecordance with Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureI5(d)(3), 40cal Rule 5-4, and
General Order 07-08, all civil and criminal cases are d,bsignated ~or electronic filing
and VII.
The Court will no longer offer service: ofcourt documents via fax: Attorneys who are
not registered to participate in the Case Managemerlt and Elehronic Case Filing
(C~/[JECF) system will receive service via U.S. JP'ostal Service. Attorneys
I
who do not
servic;e via U.S. Postal Service.
Attorneys are encouraged to register in the CM/ECF system as soon as possible. If

you have any questions, please contact the CMlECF H~lp Desk a~ (213) 894-0242 or
the CMlECF website available from the Court's website at wWwl.cacd.uscourts.gov.
SHERIn R. CARTER
DJ[STRICT COURT EXlCCUTIVE
AND CLERK OF COURT
MINE-Versioll :l.D
From: cacd_e':'~mai l@cacc!.usc:lUrt.o;.gClv
To: ec:t:ne~@c;! ::d.l.!!'ccu:::ts. QOlO
8t:(:: djp@pa:l.".a"".::un, , kdicilrl~:~cmd..iI-I';lw.com , ne:t:@e-Lcirc9.dcn, jwp@p.ilsla~.c
ODt, rn"'achte .. l@b:lchalte.'.ce':TI, sovertol1@cmda-Ia ..... com, jenna .mold.a1o'3ky~brrancave
com, crd_llllillip s@cacd. LJ~:cO\lrt s. gov, crd-phillipse.cacd.. uscourts. gO'l_sumrr, ti na_
nOl.ghshinwh@C:.ICd.uscourts .ge,v_sllmry. crd_.... o~hr le@co.cd.uscourts.gov,cr-d_',Wf,h:::lQ@c
acd.llscollrts gov.. surnry,
Joseph 'Zern;,k2415 saint Gf,orge StreetLos Angeles CA 9002?us
Meuage-Id:
Subject:Act~\lity in Ca.se 2: 08-cv-Ol5SC-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Ja.cqueline Connor
et al MinuU,s of In ChambE,rs Order/Directive - no proceeding held
Content-'Jypf": te>;t/htm} K K"~.lOH: TO PUBL.IC ACCESS USERS""" Judicial ConfereZ".ce or
the United St.ates pollcy pe,rmits attolneys of record and parties in a case (incl
uding pro Sf· litigant,:,) to recE:ive one free electronic copy of all doc'..une~t3 fil
ed electr.onic:ally, if rocejpt. is requi::-ed by la ... or directed by the flIer. Pl\.CER
.access eee~ Apply to alJ oth1ilr us~r.'9 To avoid later charges, dOw;",load a copy
of. each document during thjs first. viewing HOlolever, if the referenced document
15 a transcdpt, the free copy and 30 page limil:: do not apply.·
UNITED STATE:~, DISTRICT COUF:T, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CA.LIfOR~IIA
Uotice of EJfi,ctronic Filin:;:
The fo11owir.9 transaction Io,'as ~l1tered on 8/5/2008 at 12:18 PM PDT and filed
on 8/4/2008
Case Name:
Jos~ph 2erniJ:. v J<lcquelin~ Conno::- et al
Case Number:Z:Oa~cv~15S0
Filer:
Document NUl'Ilter:
<a hre!=https: I!e:cf. cacd. m court s. gov!doc 11 031 063 ?1290?rnagic_nurTFMAGIC"de_seq_nll

m__ 3S9&.ca;;eic_,.;099-18
,97
Doc);,et TeKt:
MINOIES Of H' CfiJI.MBERS ORDE-R held oefore Judge Vlrginja A. Phillips DEN'~nIG
plai:ntif.f.~~O ':·9; s EX PARTE: .D_P?LICATION for Reconsideration re Mi nutes of In
Chamber S Orc.e,r!Directive - no proceeding held 114) [91), ar:d DENYING p1ainti ffU03
9;s
REQOESI for C'rd~r for The Honora.ble Judge Virgini.il A Phillip:iI to filE' oi.
Statement on th·,. Recoral92) lmego)
2:08-cv-JSSO NotiCE! has been electronically md.lled to:
John W Pat tCT Jw;>@paslalol.com
David J Pastern,~k dJp@pasla .... com
Michael J> Wa('ht·~ll m...achtell@buchaJter.
Sarah L Ov~rt:on SO"Qrt:cn@c:rnda"':la~.coD1
Jenna Molda ....sk y jenna. rnolda ....sky@bryanc.ve . com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo~cmd.a-law.com
2:0B-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by first Class U 5. Mail or by

fax to: ;
Jos-eph ;;:erniK
2415 Sablt George Street
Lo,:, Angele,:, CA 9002?
US
SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~OURT
CENTRAL. DISTRICT OF CALllFoRNIA
I
CIVil MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN) Date: August 4, 2008
Title: JOSEPH ZERN!K -v- JACQUELINE, CONNOR; et al.

=========================================~============ ===========
PRESIEI'JT: HONORAI3LE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard None Present
Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORr'H=YS F)RESENT FOR ATTORNl=YS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:
None None
PROCEf:DINGS: MINUTE ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF'S "EX PARTE

REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDiERATION" AND (2)
PLAINTIFF'S "f~EQUEST I=OR THE HONORABLE JUDGE
VIRGINIA A[.] PHILLIPS TO FILE A STATEMENT ON THE
RECORD" (I~l CHAMBERS)
Plaintiff Joseph Zemik filed the following documents on July 28,2008: (1) "Ex
Parte f~equests for Reconsideration of Hon[.] Judge Ph i'llips' March 21, 2008 Rulings
and Orders Denying Plaintiffs TRO and OSC a9a;nst Judge Friedman, and Request
to Instate Such TRO and OSC in Case the Hon[.] ,Judge Phillips Rules to Reverse
Her March 21, 2008 Rulings or Orders" ("Ex PartE!' Request"); and (2) "Request for
the Honorable .Judge Virginia A[.] Phillips to File a Statement
I
on the Record
Pursuant to CGJE Canon 3(E)(2)" ("Request for Statem~nt"). The matters are
appropriate for resolution without hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENI ES both F\equests.
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of De~uty Clerk _cis for md _

CIVIL -- (~EN Page 1
A. Ex Parte Request
With respect to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Request for reconsideration of the Court's
March 2'1,. 2008, Order (Docket No. 14), Plaintiff has not complied with the notice
requirements for ex parte applications set forth in the ~ocal Rules and this Court's
Standin!j Order. The Local Rules provide:
It shall be- the duty of the [party] so applying (a) to make a good faith
effort to advisE~ counsel for all other parties, if kn<Dwn, of the date, time
and substance of the proposed ex parte application and (b) to advise
thE~ Court in writing o'f efforts to contact other couhsel and whether any
other counsel, after such advice, opposes the application or has
requested to be: present when the application is presented to the Court.
Local Rule 7-19:1. The Local Rules also require the moving party to provide "the
name, address and telephone number of counsel for the opposing party." Local
FiulB 7-19. In addition, this Court's Standing Order, available on the Court's website,
requires the followin~J:
The moving party shall serve the opposing party by facsimile

transmission and shall notify the opposition that opposing papers must
be filed not later than twenty-four hours following such facsimile
service. The moving party's declaration in support of an ex parte
application shall show compliance with LocallRule 7-19 and this
Order, failing which the application shall be DENIED.
(Standing Order ~ 9,)
Herl~, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a declaration showing his
compliance with Local Rule 7-19 and the Court's Standin~1 Order. Furthermore, the
document entitled "Proof of Service by Email" and att~ched to Plaintiff's Ex Parte
Request does not constitute proper notice to DE~'fendants. The document appears
to inclLJd~ the text of an en:ail to Defenda~ts' counsel;1 the text of the email state~
that the I=x Parte Request IS attached. It IS not apparent from the "Proof of Senllce
by Email" that the Ex Parte Request was in fact attached to the email, or that such
an emaill was in fact sent. In any event, the Local Rul~s require a proof of service
to be made "by declaration of the person accomplishing the service" and to include:
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _cis for md

CIVIL -- GEN Page 2
(a) The day and manner of service;
(b) E:ach person andlor entity served;
(c) The title of each document sE~rved; and
(d) The method of service employed....
Local Rul19 5-3.1. The "Proof of Service by E:rnail'" sul:Dmitted by Plaintiff does not
constitulte a proper declaration. See 28 U.S.C. §174li). Moreover, service by
electronic mail is only permitted if the recipient Ilas consented in writing, Fed. R.
Civ. P. Ej(b)(2), or if the document is electronically filed pursuant to General Order
08-02. ~;;e~ Local Rule 5-3.:3. Accordingly, the Court DENI ES the Ex Parte
Request
~:ven if the Court were to consider the merits of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Request,
Plaintiff has failed to provide any ground for reconsid~ration of the Court's March
21, 2008, Order. To the extent an argument rnay be qiscerned in the Ex Parte
Requesjt, F)laintiff apparently asserts that "[g]ranting the TRO and the OSC may
send the signal to other parties that it is time to bring this to an end." (Ex Parte
RequesJl at 3:19-20.) Nothing stated in the Ex Parte Aequest meets the standard
set forth in the Local Rules for a motion for reconsideiation. See Local Rule 7-18.
B. fiE~quest for Statement

The Request for Statement asks the Court to file a statement concerning
whether or not it should disqualify itself from this proc~eding. (Request for
StatemE!nt at 2.)
The "Proof of Service by Mail" attached to Plain~iff's Request for Statement

suffers from the same deficiencies noted above with respect to the Ex Parte
Request.. The Court therefore DENIES the F{equE~st f0r Statement on this ground.
Even if the Court were to consider the merits of Flaintiff's Request for
Stateme'in't, Plaintiff has not provided any basis [n 'fact lor law for the granting of his
Request:.. Absent a motion for the Court to recuse itself, under the standards set
forth in ~~8 U.S.C. sections 144 or 455, the Court bears no independent obligation to
affirm its impartiality. See First Interstate Bank gf Ariz.., 'N.A. v. Murphy, Weir &
Butler, 210 F,,3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[J]ud~~es ..! • are presumed to be
III
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _cis for md

CIVIL -- GEN Page 3
CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN)
JOSE::PH ZEF1r\lIK v. ,IACQUE::L1NE CONNOR; et al.
MINUTE OHDER of August 4,2008
impartial and to discharge their ethical duties faithfullYj so as to avoid the

appearance of im propriety. ").
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Ex Parte F1equest and Request for
Statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MINUTE:S FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _cis for md

CIVIL -- <3EN Page 4
Date Tran;:>mittb 3/18/2009 8:30:13 AM
2,OB-CV-155(::~~
,Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 6
It is hex'eby certified that this documez1.t was served by first

c~ass maj.l postag,e lorepaid o.r by .fa.:.'C or e-mai~ de~ivery to
COunSE:!~ (or pcirti,es) at thei.r respectivJ address or fax
numbeJ::' O.l~~ e-mail address of .record.
MIM~-Verslon:l.U
From:cacd_ecfmail@c........ d.uscourts.gov
To:ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Bcc: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@~ry~~cave.com , kdicar
lo@cmda-Iaw.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn, jf~@paslaw.com, mwa
chtell~lbuchal ter. corn, soverton@cmda--Iaw. co'm, crd_phillips@
cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_phillips@cacd.us::::outt'S.gov_sumry,
I
crd
_woeh:c:'le@cacd. uscourts. gov, crd_woehrle 8cacd. uscourts. gov_sum
ry,
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George Street Los Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
Subject :Activi,ty in Case 2: 08-cv-01550-VAV-CW Joseph Zernik
v. Jacqueline Connor et al Order
Content-Type: text/html***NOTE TO PUBLIC ~SCESS USERS*** Jud
icial Conference of the United States pol~cy permits attorne
ys of record and parties in a case (inclubing pro se litigan
ts) to receive one free electronic copy o~ all documents fil
ed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed
by the filer. PACER access fees apply to ~ll other users.
To avoid later charges, download a copy o~ each document dur
ing this first viewing. However, if the r~ferenced document
is a transcript, the free copy and 30 pag~ limit do not appl
y. '
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CJl,LIFOENIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 3/18/2009 at 8:25

AM PDT and filed
on 3/17/2009
Case Name:
Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al
Case Number:2:08-cv-1550
Filer:
Document Number:
<a href=https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/do~1/03107677615?magic
7 4&
_num=='MAGIC~£de_seq_num=3 caseid=4 0 9 918
>lUL
Docket Text:
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY THE HON

. CARLA WOEHRLE
by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Statement[89]. Plaintiff
has failed to
show grounds for disqualification. Accordingly, the Court DE
NIES the Motion
to Di~;qualify. (See document for speci fics) (mrgo)
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com
David J Pasternak djp@paslaw.com
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@bucha~ter"com
Sarah ;~ Overton soverton@cmda-Iaw.com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@brY'ancave.com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-Iaw.c6m
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S.
Mail or by
fax to:
JOSeph Z,ernlk
2415 Saint George S,eet
Los Angeles CA 90027
US
1
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
]0
1111 ~rOSEPH ZERNIK, Case NO. CV 08-01550-VAP (CW)

12 Plaintiff, ORDE:R OENYING PLAINTIFF I S
REQUES~ TO DISQUALIFY THE HON.
13 v. CARLA WOEHRLE
1411 J·ACQUELINE CONNOR, et [Req~est filed July 22, 2008]
a.l. ,
15
Defendants
16
17
1811 On July 22, 2008, Plaintiff Joseph Zernik filed a
1911 document entitled "Plaintiff's Ve~ified Statement of
2011 Disqualification of Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle .... "
2111 Although Plaintiff cites no authority for the relief
2211 sought, the court construes this document as a Motion to
23U disqualify Judge Woehrle pursuant t6 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
2411 ("Motion"). Insofar as it seeks disqualification of the
2511 Honorable Carla Woehrle, this Motion has been referred to
2611 this Court for determination pursuant to General Order
2711 224. The Motion is appropriate for resolution without

28
111 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7:3; Local Rule 7-15. For
2~ the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
3
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD

5~ A district or magistrate judge may be disqualified
6~ under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) in any prbceeding in which his
711 or her impartiality might rea~)Qnahly be questioned. 28
811 U.S.C. § 455 (2005). The test for disqualification 1S
911 "whether a reasonable person with iknowledge of all the

1011 facts would conclude that the judg~'s impartiality might
1111 reasonably be questioned." Ul]i.ted. States v. Wilkerson,
1211 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2(00). See also U.S. v.
13l1lig,.;cnandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9t'h Cir. 1997); U.S. v.
1411 $tudley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). To succeed
1511 in showing grounds for disqualification under § 455(a),
16~ the moving party must demonstrate that a judge's bias or
1711 prejudice against a party is '.:::he r'esul t of an
1811 extrajudicial source. Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct.
j
1911 1147, 1157 (1994). A prior judicial ruling is not a

2011 valid basis for a claim of bias or partiality. Litek.Y.,
2111114 S.Ct. at. 1157.
22
23 II. DISCUSS]ON
2411 Plaintiff has not filed a separate motion to
2511 disqualify or recuse Judge Woehrl~; instead, he filed a
2611 "Staternent~ of Disqualification" a1leging the following
2711 bases for Judge Woehrle's recusal in this case:
28
2
111 -A minute order issued l'1ay 15, 2008, particularly
211 the provision therein ordering Plaintiff to refrain
311 from filing any further documents pending issuance of
411 a Report & Recommendation by t,he Magistrate Judge on
5 the Motions to Dismiss;
6
7 -A minute order issued June 6, 2008 denying as moot

811 Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the May 5,
9 2008 order (Motion at 2);
10
11 -The notation "Received but ndt Filed" placed on

12~ documents he submitted for filing after issuance of
13 II the Hay 15 Order, in compliande with that order
14 (Id.);
15
16 -"Ongoing dishonest and bias in docketing," l.e.,
1711 "Hiding significant papers under unrelated tags in
1811 Pacer, inventing rules for doaketing in Pacer that
1911 are contrary to any commonsense and rules of
20 II docket.ing . . . ." (Id. at 2}; and
21
2211 -A Notice of Discrepancy and Order by Magistrate
2311 Judge Woehrle, Ordering Plaintiff's Request for
24n Judicial Notice submitted on July 14, 2008 rejected
2511 on the basis that the materials presented are not a
2611 proper subject for judicial notice pursuant to
2711 Federal Rule of Evidence 2 () 1. (Id . at 3.)
28
3
111 Plaintiff's Motion is based solely on complaints
211 about prior rulings by Judge Woehrle. "Judicial rulings
311 alone almost never constitute a va~id basis for a bias or
411 partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U. S. at 548, citing
511~rinnell, 384 U.S. at 583. They do not do so here.
6
711 Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to show facts which

811 would lead a reasonable person with knowledge of all the
911 facts to conclude that the magistrate judge's
10 II impartiality might reasonably be questioned in this case.
1111 In analyzing § 455 (a) disqualification motions, courts of
1211 the Ninth Circuit employ an objective test: n I whether a
1311 reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would
1411 conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably
15" be questioned. In Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d
16 II. 14 8 8 , 1 5 0 2 ( 9 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 7 ) (quoting United States v.
17llS1elson, 718 F. 2d 315, 321 ( 9 th Cir. 1983)). "Section
1811 455(a) asks whether a reasonable person perceives a
1911 significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on
2011 a basis other than the merits." Olemens v. U.S. Dist.
21I1S~:t:. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal." 428 F.3d 1175,1178 (9th
22 II eir. 2: 0 0 5) (internal quotation marks omit ted) . This
2311 I~reasonable person" is a "well-informed, thoughtful
2411 observer," not a "hypersensitive dr unduly suspicious
2511 person." rd.
26
2711 Plaintiff's complaints regarding the May 15, 2008,
2811 and June 6, 2008 minute orders, do not meet the standard
4
111 described above. The former order does not, contrary to
211 Plaintiff's assertion, amount to a "gag order" affronting
311 his First Amendment rights; rather, the provision to
411 which Plaintiff objects is an effort by the Court to
511 control its docket by limiting the submission of new
611 documents until the resolution of pending motions to
711 dismiss the action. Similarly, nothing in the June 6

811 order would give a reasonable person a basis to perceive
911 a significant risk that the judge would resolve the case
1011 on a basis other than the merits.
11
12~ The Court has reviewed all grounds cited by Plaintiff

13" in support of his Motion, and finds that Plaintiff's
1411 other stated bases for disqualification lack merit as
1511 well, i.e., none of them support the notion that a
16" reasonable person might question JUdge Woehrle's
17 II impartiality in this case. For example, he alleges
18" "dishonesty and bias in docketing," but offers no facts
1911 to support this. Plaintiff's arguments are nothing more
20" than speculation, which does not require
2111 disqua.lification. See Yagman_v:. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d
2211622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993).
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1" III. CONCLUSION
211 Plaintiff has failed to show grounds for
3" disqualification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
4" Motion to Disqualify.
5
y:' ,. 11 t(H ·f~ ~
6 ~~" ~., ~ t\<-\,·"',\.~;Yt
Dated: March 17, 2009
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
:.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Date 'I'ransmitte 4/3/2009 9:36:15 AM
2:08--cv-l~'50 Doc: 103 /

//
,Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
I t is he.J:'EU>y cert.ified that tihis document was served by f.irst

c~ass mai.J~ pos tag1e prepaid ox by .f~1C or e-mai~ de~ivery to
COW1SE~~ (".r pcirt.i1es) at tl1eLc .respective ~ddress or fax
numbel:' O.J~' e-mcii~ ,address of xlecord.
M1MB-Verslon:l.U
From:cacd_ecfmail@c,-"d.uscourts.gov
Bcc: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com , kdicar
lo@cmda-law.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn, j~p@paslaw.com, mwa
chtell@buchalter.com, soverton@cmda-law.com, crd_phillips@
cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov_sumry, crd
_vwehrle@cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_woehrle3cacd.uscourts.gov_sum
ry,
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George Street Los Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik
v. Jacqueline Connor et al Notice of Report and Recommendati
on
Content-Type: text/html***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Jud
icial Conference of the United States policy permits attorne
ys of record and parties in a case (inclu~~ng pro se litigan
ts) to receive one free electronic copy oE all documents fil
by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users.
To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document dur
ing this first viewing. However, if the r~ferenced document
is a transcript, the free copy and 30 pag~ limit do not appl
y. '
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing I
The following transaction was entered on! 4/3/2009 at 9:35 A

M PDT and filed
on 3/31/2009
Case Name:
Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et~ al
Filer:
Document Number:
<a href=https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/docl/03107784103?magic
_num=j\.llI.G1C&de_seq_num=j I 1& caseld=1d U~::U Cl
>103
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Jud

ge Caria Woehrle.
Objections to R&R due by 4/16/2009 (Attachments: # (1) R&R)
(dt)
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalte~.com
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivere~ by First Class U. S.

Mail or by
fax to:
Joseph Zernik
SO
17nn~ V~ saTa6uv so~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJRT
.
JOSEPH ZERNIK, CASE NUMBER:
PETITIONER, CV 08-01550 (CW)

v. --_._--,...---------------
JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al., NOTICE OF FILING OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
RESPONDENTS. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO: All Parties/Counsel of Record

Plaintiffs: Joseph Zernik Defendant: Kathryn E. DiCarlo
2415 Saint George Street Cummings McClorey Davis, et al.
Los Angeles, CA 90027 3801 University Ave, Suite 560
Riverside, CA 92501
You are hereby notified that pursuant to the Local Rules GOVierning Duties of Magistrate Judges, the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation has been filed on March 31, 2009 a copy of which is attached.
Any party having objections to the report and reconnnendation sHall, not later than Apr il16. 2009 file and
serve a written statement of objections with points and authorities in support thereof before the Honorable
CARLA M. WOEHRLE, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Failure to so object within the time limit specified shall be deemed a consent to any proposed findings of
fact. Upon receipt of objections, or upon lapse of the time for filing objections, the case will be submitted to the
District Judge for disposition. Following entry of judgment and/or order, all motions or other matters in the case
will be considered and determined by the District Judge.
The report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge is not a final appealable order. A notice of appeal
pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until the judgment and/or order by the
District Judge has been entered.
CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: March 31,2009
By Donna Thomas, Deputy Clerk
M-5lA ( llIOl) NOTICE OF FILING OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

1
5
6
9 CENTRZ\L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 II JOSEPH ZERNIK, No. CV Q8~1550-VAP(CW)
13 II Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 v.
15 II JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18 This Report and Recommendation is :3ubmitted to the Honorable
19 II Virginia A. Ph~llips, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28

20 lIu.s.c. § 636 and General Order 194 of the United States District Court
21 II for the Central District of California. AS discussed below, this
22 "action should be dismissed in its entirety.

23 II BACKGRUJND
24 The pro se plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, filed his initial complaint
25 "in this action on March 5, 2008, with payment of the filing fee.
26 II [Docket no. 1.] His first amended co~plaint' (UFAC") was filed on May
2711 27, 2C08. [Docket no. 62.] As noted in a minute order filed June 6,
28 "2008, the FAC superseded the original complaint. [Docket no. 63.]
1
1 Plaintiff Zernik's claims arise out of a civil action in
2 "California Superior Court, Los Angeles Cou~ty, Samaan v. Zernik, Case

3 "No. SC087400, in which he is a defendant. [FAC pas sim. ] Samaan v.
4 " Zernik is a case concerning real property, and there appear to be

5 " ongoir.g proceedings in the case. 1 All presen!t defendants are
6 " allegedly connected in some way to Samaan v. Zernik. [FAC passim.]
7 The FAC lists nineteen defendants, si~teen of whom have appeared

8 " in this action, in five groups: (1) ten "Superior Court Defendants,"
9 "all named in both individual and official Gapacities, including seven
1 0 II Superior Court Judges, Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal,
11 II Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia Collins, Terry Friedman, and Gerald
2 "Rosenberg, and three other Superior Court officials, Court Manager

13 " Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk, Viviane Jaime; and Retired Judge and
14 " court-appointed discovery referee Gregory O'~rien; (2) "Defendant
15 "ADR," namely ADR Services, Inc.; (3) the three "Countrywide
16 " Defendant~," Countywide Home Loans, I::1c., ctnd Countrywide Officers
17 "Angelo Ivjozilo, and Sandor Samuels; (4 ) "Defendant Pasternak," the
18 " court-appointed received, Dav~d Pasternak; and (5) "Defendant Mara
19 " Escrow," t.he Mara Escrow Company. 2 [FAC at 4-6.]
20
21 1 The ma9istrate judge has searched the website for online

services for the Los Angeles Superior Court (www.lasuperiorcourt.org)
22
under Case No. SC087400, and found, for example a hearing scheduled
23 for April 3, 2009. The magistrate judge a~so searched the website for
the California Appellate Courts (appellateaases.courtinfo.ca.gov), and
24 found nine cases in the Court of Appeal, S~cond District, related to
Superlor Court Case No. SC087400, but no related cases in the
25
California Sup:ceme Court. Ui.ee also FAP at 72-73.]
26
2 The FAC also lists three other defendants: two attorneys who
27 previously represented Plaintiff Zernik in Samaan v. Zernik, Thomas
Browr. and Zachary Schorr, and Lilit Vardanian, an employee of Mr.
28
(continued ... )
2
1 II In the FA<C, Plaintiff asserts claims, primarily under 42 U. S. C.
2 "§ 1933, that t~e Defendants, in relation to Samaan v. Zernik and the
3 II underlying disl'ute concerning real property" have committed numerous

4 II violations of tlaintiff's federal constitutional rights, and have
5 II subjected him to numerous instances of fraud and abuse. [FAC passim.]
6 II Plaintiff seek~ monetary damages and ~njunctive and declaratory
7 II relief. [FAC flt 75-76.] Specifically, Plaintiff seeks equitable
8 "relief in the form of orders vacating a1l j;udlcial acts in Samaan v.
9 II Zerr~ik startintr from July 12, 2007; enjoining any further judicial
10 acts in Samaanl v. Zernik; staying any furthe~ expenditure of funds
11 held by Defendrlnt Pasternak as Receiver in s~maan v. Zernik; and in
12 some unspecifi~d manner taking over and reforming the Case Management
13 "Systems of the Los Angeles Superior Court. [Id. ]
14 II The Superior Court Defendants moved to dlsmiss the FAC in a
15 II motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket no. 68]; Defendant ADR also moved
16 II to dismiss in a motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket no. 69]; the
17 "Countrywide Defendants moved to dismiss in a motion filed June 30,
18" 2008 [docket no. 73]; and De~endant Pasternak moved to dismiss in a
19 "moL_on filed July 7, 2008 [docket no. 78].3; Plaintiff filed a
20 "memorandum opposing the motions to dismiss on July 14, 2008. [Docket
21
22 2
( ... continued)
23 Schorr. [FAC at 6.] Plaintiff did not na~e these defendants in the
oriqinal complaint [docket no. 1], and they have not appeared in this
24 action. [See docket, Case No. CV OB-1550-VAP(CW).]
25
3Defendant Mara Escrow does not appear to have filed a response
26 to che FAC. However, Mara Escrow did file a joinder in Defendant
Pascernak's prior motion to dismiss the original complaint, in which
27 Mar~ stated that its only role in regard t6 the underlying state
action was to serve as an agent of the receiver, Defendant Pasternak.
28
[Docket no. 16, filed March 27, 2008.]
3
111 no. 83.J The lountrYWide Defendants filed a reply on July 31, 2008.
2 II [Docket no. 951.]

3 II Plaintiff: sought to disqualify the as~igned magistrate judge in a
4 II statement fileH J"uly 22, 2008. [Docket no. 89.] Plaintiff's request
5 II was denied by the assigned district judge in an order filed March 17,
6 II 2009. [Docketl no. 102.J Accordingly, the motions to dismiss have now
7 been taken undfr submission and are ready for decision. 4
8 STi\NDARDS FOR REVIEWING THE MOlIONS TO DISMISS
9 Defendant~ have moved to dismiss PLaintiff's claims for lack of
10 SUbject-matterl jurisdiction, for failure td state a claim on which
11 relief may be rranted, for lack of Ar~icle III standing, as barred

12 under the Eleventh Amendment and judicial and quasi-judicial immunity,
13 II and on abstent~on grounds. [Docket nos. 68, 69, 73, and 78.]
14 A challen~e to the court's subject matter jurisdiction can be
15 II raised at any ~~ime, including sua .§J2Qnt,~ by the court. Emrich v._
16 II Tou(~he Ross & r~o., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988). A
17 II complaint may ~e dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
18 II under Fed. R. ICiv. P. 12(b) (1). Neitz;ke v~ Williams, 490 u.s. 319,
1911327 D .. 6, 109 si. Ct. 1827 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (patently
20 II ins~.b"tantial Icomplaint may be dismissed und~r Rule 12 (b) (1) for lack
21 II of subject~ matl'::.er jurisdiction) . liWhenevet it appears by suggestion
22 II of the partie~ or otherwise that the court l~cks jurisdiction of the
23 II subject matteri, the court sh~Ll dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P.
24 II 12 (h) (3) (emPhJsis added).
25
26
----~~r prtsent purposes it is not necessary to refer to all of
27 the 102 docum~nts now docketed as filed in this action. In reviewing
the motions t~ dismiss, the magistrate jud~e has reviewed the record
28
as appropriat~ and necessary for deciding ~he pending motions.
4
1 1\ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R.
2" Civ. P. Rule 12(b) (6), tests the legal Buffidiency of a claim for
3 "relief. N~varto
I v. Block, 250 ?3d 729, 73Q (9th Cir. 2001). Such a
4 "motion must be considered in light of the litieral pleading standard of
5 "Fed. R. Civ. PI 8(a) (2), which requires only U a short and plain
6 "statement of tll:.e claim showing that the pleaqer is entitled to
7" relief." £:ric~son v Pardus, __ U.S. __ , 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
8 "1. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). USpecific facts are not necessary; the
9 " statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the
10 " claim is and tll:te grounds upon which it rests." Id. (quotation marks
11 " and citations tmitted). Moreover, in considering the sufficiency of a
12 II pleading, the fourt must liberally construe: a NQ se complaint, which
13 "Uhowever inartf:ully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
14 "than formal plE~adings drafted by lawyers." rd. (quoting Estelle v.
15 "Ga~le, 429 U.~;. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50: L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)).
16 " On the other hand, dismissal should ba qrdered if a plaintiff
17 " fails to make ~llegations which uare enough to raise a right to relief
18 " above the speculative level" and are suffidient to show u a plausible
19 "entitlement" to recovery under a viable legal theory. Bell Atlantic
20 ~~~Qmblv, 55fl U.S. __ ,127 S. Ct. 19'55,1965,1967,167 L. Ed. 2d
21 929 (2007). While the court Umust accept as true all of the factual
22" allegations contained in the complaint,~ E~ickson, 127 S. Ct. at 2200
23 II (citing Bell Atlantic, 127 S, Ct. at 1965), it need not credit mere
24 "labels, conclu~,ions, or uformulaic recitatioI'l of the elements of a
25" cause of actioh." Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (citing Papasan
26 "v. Allain, 4781 U.S. 265, 286" 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209
27" (1986)). ~ee also Cholla Reaqy Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973
2811 (9th Cir. 2004,) (JJ[T]he court is not required to accept legal
5
1 conclusions calt in the form of factual al~egations if those
2 "conclusions ca~no~ reasonably be drawn froM the facts alleged. Nor is
3 "the court required to accept as true alleg~tions that are merely
4 "conclusory, unj'larranted deduct.ions of fact,1 or unreasonable
5 II inferences." (quotation marks and citat:Lon~ omitted)) .
6 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on

7 "either the lack of a cognizable legal theo~y or the absence of factual
8 " support for a cognizable legal theory. Ba~istreri v. Pacifica Police
9 II DepJ~t, 901 F.2~i 696, 699 (9th Cir. 19901 (c~tqtion omitted). A
10 " complaint may ~lso be dismissed for failurJ to state a claim if it

11 II discloses somel fact or complet~e defense th~t will necessarily defeat
12" the claim. Franklin v. MurpbJ~, 745 F.2d 1421, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984)
13" C~itin.2 211. Moore's Federal Practice 'II 12.08)·

14 " :::f the court finds that a complaint snould be dismissed for
15 " failure to sta~e a claim, the court may di~miss with or without leave
16 "to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-30. Leqve to amend should be
17 "granted if it appears possible that defectJ in the complaint could be
18 corrected, especially if the plaintiff is lro se. Id. at 1130-31; see
19 alsQ. ~ato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 106 (9th Cir. 1995).
20 II However, if, alfter careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint
21 cannot be cureid by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to

5
22 amend" Cato, 7C F.3d at 1107--11. I
23 EQUITABLE RELIEF AN1;4STENTION

24 All of Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
25 in which he seeks to vacate prior judicial actions or prevent future
26
27 5 The standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) motions
are here applied, as appropriate, to revieo/ing the other grounds for
28
dismissal raised by Defendants.
6
1 II judicial actions in Samaan v. Zernik, No. SiCQ87400 and related cases
2 II in the state courts should be dismissed on abstention grounds under
3 II Younqer v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 7i 46, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669
4 II (1971). Under the principle of comity, a ~ederal court generally may
5 II no': interfere with an ongoing state jud~ciC\l proceeding. See Younger,
6 II 401 U.S. at 45--46 (absent extraordinary circymstances federal court
7 II should not intE!rfere with pending state criminal proceeding); see also
8 II Ank~nbarndt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689,. 70S, P2 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L.
9 II Ed. 2d 468 (1992) (JJYounger abstention" also applied to pending state
10 II civil proceedings when important stat(;o intElrests involved); Middlesex
11 COUIl.tY. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar.Ass/n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102
i
12 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2 d 116 (1982) (:3 arne) .1
13 ,Younger abstention is required if state proceedings (1) are
14 II ongoing, (2) implicate important state intEir~sts/ and (3) provide an
15 II adequate opportunity to litigate the federal claims. Middlesex County
16 II Eth~cs Comm., 457 U.S. at 432; Columbia Basin Apartment Ass/n v. City
17110f Pasco, 268 F'.3d 791,799-801 (9th Cir. 4001). If these three
18 II Youn~ requirements are satisfied, federa~ <yourt abstention is
19 II required, absent extraordinary circumstanc~s such as bad faith,
20 II harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. Mlddlesex
2111 CoulJl.Y Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 435, 437; Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54.
22 All three Younger factors are satisfi,d in Plaintiff's case. It
23 II is c::r.disputed t.hat Samaan v .. Zernik is, andl was when the present
24 II acti on waE; filed, an ongoing state jUdiciai proceeding. See Green v.
25 II City__of Tucson, 217 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th C.tr. 2000) (state proceedings
26 II JJongoing" if pending when federal action filed) . It is beyond dispute
27 II that the prese~t action implicates important interests of the State of
28 II Californiei in '2nforcing the judgments of its superior courts. See
7
1 II.PenD"zoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13-14, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95
2 II L. E.d. 2d 1 (1987) (Younger. abstention propelr based on important state
3 II interest in enforcing state court orders aI1jd judgments including
4 II orders forcing persons to transfer property,). Finally, Plaintiff has

5 II had ample opportunity to raise his federal claims to the s~perior
6 II court in Samaan v. Zernik and in the state appellate courts. See

7 II Hirs.ch v. Justices of Supreme Court of ~alif., 67 F. 3d 708, 713 (1995)
8 II (judicial review inadequate under YOUllill~ qnly when state procedural
9 II law bars presentation of federal claims) 6
10 II If the Younger factors are met, ~edSral court abstention is

12 II harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. Middlesex
13 II CouQ.h.Y. Etl:ics Comm., 457 U. S. at 435, 437. Such exceptions are
14 II available U[o]nly in the most unusual circumstances " Drurv v.
15 II Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Perez v. Ledesma,
16 II 401 U.S. 82, 85, 91 S. Ct. 674, 27 1. Ed. 1d 701 (1971); Baffert v.
1 7 II Calif . Horse Racing Board, 332 F. 3d 613, 6~1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden
18 II ~ontana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980~. Here, there is no
19 II questlon of a patently unconstitutional st$te statute. Furthermore,

20 II although Plaintiff alleges bad faith and harassment against himself in
21 II Sam~an v. Zernik, as the basis for these atl~gations he relies on the

22 "very court orders he seeks to vacate, and ~laintiff's disagreement
23 II with jUdicial decisions does not reasonablt ~upport an inference that
24 II those decisions were taken in bad faitr., even if they were in error.
25 II The main purpose of the present actio~ is precisely to interfere

26 II with an ongoing state jUdicial proceeding, and this court should
27
6 Petitioner's failure to prevail on a claim does not mean that
28
he has not had ample opportunity to litigaj::.e it.
8
1 "abstain from so doing, and dismiss all of P~aintiff's claims for
7
2 "equitable relief under Younger..
3 D.AMAGES CLAIMS, THE ELEVENTH A1''lENDMENT, AND IMMUNITY

4 Plaintiff names all the Superior Court Oefendants in both
5" official and individual capacities. CalifQrnia Superior Courts are
6 " state agencies, and a suit against the Superior Court is a suit
7 " against the state and is barred by the Elevierjth Amendment. Greater
8 II Los _Anaeles Council on Deafnes s v. Zolin, 8'12 F. 2d 1103, 111 0 (9th
9 II Cir. 1987). The Superior Court Defendants and Defendant Pasterna.k are
10 "all officers of the Superior Court. State officers named in their
11 "official capacities are not upersonsu subj~ct to suit under 42 U.S.C.
12 "§ 1983, and are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits for
13 II damages in federal court. S~,~, Hafer, 502 U. S. at 25; Will v.
14 II Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105
15 "L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989); Pennhurst State School & Hasp. v. Halderman, 465
16 II U.S. 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984).
17 Furthermore, all of the judges named ~s defendants in their
18 II individual capacities are being sued for aats allegedly performed in

19 II their judicial capacities, but judges are qbsolutely immune, under the
20 II doctrine of judicial immunity, from suits :for money damages for acts
21 II performed in their judicial capacities. A~tbine

i
v. Byers & Anderson,
2211 In~~., 508 U.S. 429, 435 & n.l0, 113 S. Ct. 2167, 124 L. Ed. 2d 391
23 II (1993); t-1ireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, l:!-2 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d
24 II 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman., 4]5 U.S. 349, 357-60, 98 S.
25
26
7 In so abstaining this court would not take any position on the
27 merits of Plaintiff's particular claims, b~t would only decide that
those claims should first be litigated by bompleting the ongoing
28
proceedings in the superior court and the ~t~te appellate courts.
9
111Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978); AslJeJ::nal1l v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
2111075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc).8 Absolute judicial immunity also bars
3 II suit against the court-appointed receiver, Defendant Pasternak, in his

4 II individual capacity. See New Alaska Develdpment Corp. v. Guetschow,
5 II 869 F.2d 1298, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1989). Similarly, the court cler
6 II and court administrator, Defendants Jai:rte aind Witts, are absolutely
7 II immune from suit in their individual capaci,ties under the doctrine of
811 qUOlsi--judicial immunity. See Curry v. Castro, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th
9 II Cir. 2002j; Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 124Q, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996).9
10 II FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIt-t....!JNDER 42, U. S. C. § 1983

11 II To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff
12 II must plead that a defendant, acting under Golor of state law, deprived
13 II the plaintiff of a right secured by the federal constitution or laws.
14 II See, ~, Ortez v. Washington County, 88 R.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir.
15 II 1996). The plaintiff must set forth factual allegations with

16 II sufficient particularity to g~ve a defendant ilfair notice of the type
17 II of claim being pursued." Id. Plaintiff h~s not stated a claim, under
18 II § 1983, against Defendant ADR, the three Countrywide Defendants, the

19 II Mara Escrow Defendants, or the three propo$ed defendants Brown,
20 II Schorr, and Vardanian, who are all either ~rivate individuals or
21 Ii private companies. Generally, private parties are not acting under
22
23
8 Judicial immunity bars suit even if a judge is accused of
24 acting in bad faith, maliciously, corr~ptlt, erroneously, or in excess
of jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-13. Judicial immunity is
25
not overcome by allegations of conspiracy. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d
26 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1997;; Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078.
27 9 Thus, the Eleventh Amendment and i~unity doctrines would bar

all damages claims against the Superior Co~rt Defendants, and
28
Defendant Pasternak.
10
111 color of state law. See Price v. HawaiL 9139 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th
2 II Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not shown how these Defendants were acting
3 II under color of state law in this case ,10

4 II Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's claims in the FAC appear to be
5 II subject to dismissal under Younger abstention, the Eleventh Amendment,
6 II judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and :Bailure to state a
7 II cognizable claim,11 There does not appear to be any way in which
8 II Plaintiff could further amend his complainb, consistently with his
9 II present allegations, to state a cognizable claim not subject to the
10 II defects discussed above. 12 Accordingly, the FAC should be dismissed
11 II without further leave to amend.

12 II RE.COMMENDlI,TIONS
13 II For the reasons stated above, the magjistrate judge recommends
14 II that the court issue an order: (1) accepting this Report and
15 II RecoITLmendat ion; (2) granting Defendant s' fcJ>ur pending motions to

16 II dismiss (docket no. 68, filed June 19, 200a; docket no. 69, filed Jule
17
18 10 This disposes of damages claims un~er § 1983 against the
19 remaining defendants. This court should a1so dismiss as to any state
law claims Plaintiff may seek to bring against the Countrywide
20 Defendants. See United Mine Horkers v. GiJbbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86
S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966) (normally state law claims over
21 which court has supplemental jurisdiction .hould be dismissed if all
22 federal claims dismissed before trial); Acti v. Varian Associate~
Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997); l8 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3).
_ _ _._ I
23 There is no evident reason not to dismiss Wl~intiff's state law claims

in this case.
24
11 Because these grounds for dismissa~ are dispositive as to all
25
Defendants, the court need not reach Defen~ants' further contentions
26 that claims against specific Defendants art subject to dismissal for
lack of standing and for further failures to state a claim.
27
12 If Plaintiff can, somehow, show that amendment would not be
28
futile, he may do so in objections to this Report and Recommendation.
11
11119, 2008; docket no. 73, filed June 30, 20018; and docket no. 78, filed
2 II July 7, 2008); (3) dismissing the First Ame,nded Complaint (docket no.
3 II 62) without further leave to amend; and (4) dismissing this action in
4 II its entirety, with prejudice as to Plaintiffis damages claims under
5 II federal law and without prejudice as to Pl~intiff's damages claims
6 II under state law and his claims for equitable relief.
8 II DATED: March 31, 2009
10 .-i.J?L
dARLA M. WOEHRLE
11 United ~t~tes Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Date TraIismitt",-. 4/3/2009 9:46:55 AM
" -~
2: 08-cv-155'b Doc: 1 0 4 /
-'
Joseph Zernik
OS
Number of Pages: 12
It is he,l:,eby certi£ied that this documeZ:1t was served by £'irst

class ma.i.l po,stag'e prE!paid OI' by :rax or e-mail delivery to
counsel (or parties) at their respeci::ivt!fi! address or £ax
numbe.r O.J:' e-mail addrE!ss o£ I'ecord.
MIM~-VerSlon:l.U
From:cacd_ecfmail@c--,d.uscour-ts.gov
Bcc: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@brybnca e.com , kdicar
I
lo@cmda-Iaw.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn, j~p@p slaw.com, mwa
I
chtell@buchalter.com, soverton@cmda-Iaw.~om, crd_phillips@
cacd. -~lscourts.gov, crd_phillips@cacd. uscourts. ov_sumry, crd
_woehrle@cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_woehrle@ca{::d.w courts.gov_sum
ry, I
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George StreetLos Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
Subject :Activity in Case 2: 08-cv-01550-VA.P~CWI Joseph Zernik
v. Jacqueline Connor et al Report and Recbmmehdation (Issued
)
Cont.ent-Type: text/html***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCElss USERS*** Jud
icial Conference of the United States poli~y bermits attorne
ys of record and parties in a case (includin pro se litigan
ts) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents fil
by the filer. PACER access fees apply tol iiI other users.
To avoid later charges, download a copy o:£'e ch document dur
ing this first viewing. However, if the refe lenced document
is a transcript, the free copy and 30 pag~ l~mit do not appl
y .. '
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DIS!TRIOT OF
CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered orl 4/3/2009 at 9:41 A

M PDT and filed
on 3/31/2009
Case Name:
Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor E~t al
Filer:
Document Number:
<a href=https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/do¢1/03107784146?magic
_num=rvlAC:ilC&Cie_seq_num=j /'3 &caselCi=4 U '3 ~j 1 t)
>104
Docket. Text:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by IvTagistrate Judge Carla W

oehrle. GRANTING
MOTION to Dismiss Case for plaintiff's first amended co
mplaint[69J,
MOTION to Dismiss Case[73J, MOTION to Dis~iss Case for plain
tiff's
first amended complaint[68J, and MOTION tb Dismiss Case as F
rivolous
First l\mended Complaint [78J Objections. to R&R due by 4/16/20
09 (dt)
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronicalily mailed to:
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com
Sara~ L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com
Jenna, Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S.

Mall or ny
fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~OURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 II JOSEPI-J ZEF.NIK, No. CV Q8-1SS0-VAP(CW)
13 II Plaintiff, REPORT ~D RECOMMENDAT ION OF

UNITE~D STATES l'1AGISTRATE JUDGE
14 v.
15 II JACQUELINE: CONNOR, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18 II This Report and Recommendation is subrhi tted to the Honorable
19 "Virginia A. Phlllips, United States Distri~t Judge, pursuant to 28
20 UU.S.C. § 636 a~d General Order 194 of the Wnited
, ' States District Court
21 II for the Central District of California. As discussed below, this

22 II action should be dismissed in its entirety~
23 II BACKGROUT\112
24 The pro se plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, liled his initial complaint
25 II in this action on March 5, 2008, with paymfnt of the filing fee.
26 II [Docket no. 1.] His first amended complaiht (UFAC") was filed on May
271127,2008. [Docket no. 62.] As noted in a minute order filed June 6,
28 II 200tl, the FAC superseded the original compiLaint. [Docket no. 63.J
1
1 Plaintiff Zernik's claims arise out of a civil action in
2 "California Superior Court, Los Angeles Couqt~, Samaan v. Zernik, Case
3 "No. SC087400, in which he is a defendant. [FAC pas sim. ] Samaan v.

4 "ZernjJ~. is a caf;e concerning real property, and tbere appear to be
1
5 "ongoing proceedings in the case. All present defendants are
6 " allegedly connected in some way to SarlJaan Vi. Zernik. [FAC passim.]
7 The FAC li.sts nineteen defendants, si~teen of whom have appeared
8 n in t:his action, in five groups: (1) ten "Superior Court Defendants,"

9 "all named in both individual and official dapacities, including seven
10 II Superior Court Judges, Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal,
11 " Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia Collins, Terry F~iedman, and Gerald

12 "Rosenberg, and three other Superior Court Qfficials, Court Manager
13 "Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk, Viviane Jai~e~ and Retired Judge and
14 "court-appointed discovery referee Gregory 0 'Brien; (2) "Defendant:
15 " ADR,." namely ADR Services, Inc.; (3) the three 'JCountrywide
16" Defendants," Countywide Home Loans, Inc., and Countrywide Officers
17 "Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels; (4) JJDefer.dant Pasternak," the
18 " court-appointed received, David Pasternak; and (5) JJDefendant Mara

19 n Esc:~ow," t:he .Mara Escrow Company. 2 [FAC at! 4-6.]
20
21 The magistrate judge has searched ~he website for online
22 services for t~e Los Angeles Superior Court (www.lasuperiorcourt.org)
under Case No. SC087400, and found, for ex.mple a hearing scheduled
23 for April 3, 2009. The magis~rate judge a~so searched the website for
the California Appellate Courts (appellate~ases.courtinfo.ca.gov),and
24 found nine cases in the Court of Appeal, Second District, related to
25 Superior Court Case No. SC087400, but no rel~ted cases in the
California Supreme Court. [,'iee also FAP at 72-73.]
26
2 The f'AC also lists three other defEinctants: two attorneys who
27 previously represented Plaintiff Zernik in Samaan v. Zernik, Thomas
Brown and Zachary Schorr, and Lilit Vardan.)i.an, an employee of Mr.
28
(continued ... )
2
1 In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts claims, ~rimarily under 42 U.S.C.
2 "§ 1983, that the Defendants, in relatio~ tq Samaan v. Zernik and the
3 " underlying dispute concerning real property, have committed numerous
4 "violations of Plaintiff's federal const:"tutional rights, and have
5 " subj ected him to numerous instances of fraud and abuse. [FAC passim.]
6 "Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunotive and declaratory
7 II relief. [FAC at 75-76.] Specifically, Plaintiff seeks equitable

8 "relief in the form of orders vacating all ju~icial acts in Samaan v.
9 " Zerrlik starting from July 12/, 2007; enjoining any further judicial
10 "acts in Samaan v. Zernik; staying any further expenditure of funds

11 "held by Defendant Pasternak as Receiver in Samaan v. Zernik; and in
12 " some unspecified manner taking over a~d refforming the Case Management
13 "Systems of the Los Angeles Superior Court. [lQ.....]
14 " The Superior Court Defendants moved tel> dismiss the FAC in a
15 "motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket no. 68]: Defendant ADR also moved
16 "to dismiss in a motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket no. 69]; the
17 II Countrywide Defendants moved to dismiss in a motion filed June 30,
18" 2006 [docket no. 73]; and Defendant Paster6ak moved to dismiss in a
19 " mati on filed July 7, 2008 [docket no. 78].3 Plaintiff filed a
20 II memorandum opposing the motions to dismiss on July 14, 2008. [Docket
21
22
( ... continued)
23 Schorr. [FAC at 6.] Plaintiff did not name these defendants in the
original complaint [docket no. 1], and they nave not appeared in this
24 action. [See docket, Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW).]
25
3 Defendant Mara Escrow does not app~ar to have filed a response
26 to the FAC. However, Mara Escrow did file ~ joinder in Defendant
Pasternak's prior motion to dismiss the original complaint, in which
27 Mara stated that its only role in regard tb the underlying state
action was to serve as an agent of the receiver, Defendant Pasternak.
28
[Docket no. 16, filed March 27, 2008.]
,
1 III no. 83.] The Countrywide Defendants file~ a reply on July 31, 2008.
2 III [Docket no. 95.]

3 II Plaintiff souqht to disqu.alify the aSisigned magistrate judge in a
4 II statement filed July 22, 2008. [Docket no. 89.] Plaintiff's request
5 II was denied by the assigned district ~udge in an order filed March 17,
6 II 2009. [Docket no. 102.] Accordingly, the motions to dismiss have now
4
7 been taken under submission and are ready for decision.
8 STANDARDS FOR REVIEWING THE MOIT'IONS TO DISMISS

I
9 Defendants have moved to dismiss

. Plaintiff's
I claims for lack of
10 subject-matter jurisdiction, for failure tt state a claim on which
11 rellef may be granted, for lack of Article III standing, as barred
12 under the Eleventh Amendment and judicial nd quasi-judicial immunity,
13 II and on abstention grounds. [Docket no~;. 6~, 69, 73, and 78.]
14 A challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction can be
15 raised at any time, includinq sua ~nt;g by the court. Emrich v.
16 Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1988). A
17 complaint may be dismissed for lack of sUbject matter jurisdiction
18 II under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l). NeitzK,e vl Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

1911327 n.6, =_09 S. Ct. 1827 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (patently
20 II insubstantial complaint may be dismissed uJjlder Rule 12 (b) (1) for lack
21 II of subject matter jurisdiction). uWhenevei it appears by sugqestion

22 II of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
23 II subject matter, the court §hall Q.ismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P.
24 II 12 (h) (3) (emphasis added) .
25
26
For present purposes it is not nece~sary to refer to all of
27 the 102 documents now docketed as filed in this action. In reviewing
the motions to dismiss, the magistrate judge has reviewed the record
28
as appropriate and necessary for deciding Bhe pending motions.
4
--'
1 II A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R.
2 II Ci v. P. Rule 12 (b) (6), tests the legal suf'ficiency of a claim for
3 II relief. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 132 (9th Cir. 2001). Such a
4 II motion must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standard of
5 II Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2), which nequires on~y u a short and plain
6 "statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
711 relief." Erickson v Pardus, __ U.S. _._, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
8 Ii L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). USpecific facts are not necessary; the
9 II stat:ement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the
10 /I claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id. (quotation marks
11 and citations omitted) . Moreover, in cons~dering the sufficiency of a
12 II pleading, the court must liberally construe a NQ se complaint, which
13 II uhowever inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
14 II than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. (guoting Estelle v.
15 II Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 28~), 5b L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)).
,
16 II On the other hand, dismissal should b~ ordered if a plaintiff
,
17 II fails to make allegations which ~are enoug~ to raise a right to relief
18 II above the speculative level" and are sufficient to show u a plausible

19 II entitlement" to recovery under a viable le~al theory. Bell Atlantic
20 II v. Twombl'iZ, 5.50 U.S. __ , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 1967, 167 1. Ed. 2d
21 11929 (2007). While the court umust accept $.s true all of the factual
22 II allegations contained in the complaint," EJtickson, 127 S. Ct. at 2200

I I
23 II (citi.D.9: Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct ~ at 1965) 1 it need not credit mere
24 II labels, conclusions, or uformulalc recitat~on of the elements of a
25 II cause of action." Bell Atlantici 127 S. Ctr. at 1965 (citing Papasan
26 II v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 10E? S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209
27 11 (1986)). See ~Llso Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.. v.! Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973
28 (9th eir. 2004) (U[T]he court is ~ot required to accept legal
5
1 II Penpzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, ~3-14, 107 S. ct. 1519, 95
2 II L. E~d. 2d 1 (1987) (Younger abstention prop~r based on important state
3 II interest in enforcing state court orders and, judgments including

4 II orders forcing persons to transfer property). Finally, Plaintiff has
5 II had ample opportunity to raise his federal c!laims to the superior
6 II court in ~3amaan v. Zernik and in the s-:::ate appellate courts. See

7 II Hin;ch v. Justices of Supreme Court oJ__ Calif., 67 F.3d 708,713 (1995)
8 II (judicial review inadequate under Younger /pnly when state procedural

9 II law bars presentation of federal claims) .6
10 II If the Jounger factors are met, fed$ral court abstention is

12 II harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. Middlesex
1311CouDty Ethics Corom., 457 U.S. at 435,437. Such exceptions are

14 II available ll[o]nly in the most unusual circ~mstances " Drury v.
15 II Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 19'72); see also Perez v. Ledesma,
16 II 401 U.S. El2, 85, 91 S. Ct. 674, 27 L. Ed. ld 701 (1971); Baffert v.
17 II Calif. Horse Racina Board, 332 F.3d 613, 6i1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden
1811L-l':lontanq, 626F.2d82, 84 (9thCir. 1980X. Here, there is no

19 IIquestlon of a patently unconstitutional st~te statute. Furthermore,
20 II although Plaintiff alleges bad faith and h~rassment against himself in
21 II Sam~an v. Zernik, as the basis for these a~legations he relies on the

22 livery court orders he seeks to vacate, and elaintiff's disagreement
23 II with judicial decisions does not reasonably ~upport an inference that
24 II those decisions were taken in bad faith, e~e~ if they were in error.
25 " The main purpose of the present action is precisely to interfere
26 with an ongoing state judicial proceeding, aod this court should

. I
27
6 Pe~itioner's failure to prevail on ~ claim does not mean that
28
he has not had ample opportunity to litigate it.
8
1 ru abscain from so doing, and dismiss all of ~laintiff's claims for
2 III equitable relief under Younqer. 7
3 III DAMAGES CLAIMS, THE ELEVENTH t\MENbMENT, AND IJv:MUNITY
4 II Plai~tiff names all the Superior Cour~ Defendants in both

5 II official and individual capacities. California Superior Courts are
6 II state age~'1cies, and a suit against the Super,ior Court is a suit

7 II against the state and is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Greater
8 II Los Anaeles Council on Deafness v. Zolin, S12 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th
9 II Cir. 1987). The Superior Court Defendants and Defendant Pasternak are
10 II all officers of the Superior Court. State qfficers named in their
11 II official capacities are not JJpersons" subjkc,t to suit under 42 U. S. C.
12 II § 19B3, and are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits for
13 II damages in federal court. Se~,~, .Bafer, 502 U. S. at 25; Will v.
14 II Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105
15 II L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
16 II U.S . 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 6,7 (1984).
17 Furthermore, all of the judges named ~s defendants in their
18 II individual capacities are being sued for act~ allegedly performed in

19 II their jud:-cial capacities, but judges are <$tbsolutely immune, under the
20 II doctTine of judicial immunity, from suLts for money damages for acts
21 II performed in their judicial capacities. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson,
2 2 II Inc"_, 5 0 8 U. S. 42 9, 435 & n. 1 0 , 113 S. Ct. 216 7, 12 4 L . Ed. 2d 3 91
2311 (1993); Bireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 1~2 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d
24 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkmal1, 4.35 U.S. 349, 357-60, 9~3 S.
25
26
In so abstaining this court would not take any position on the
27 merits of Plaintiff's particular claims, b~t would only decide that
those claims should first be litigated ny ¢o~pleting the ongoing
28
proceedings in the superior court and the ~t?te appellate courts.
9
1 "Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978); Ashelmanv. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
2 111075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc).8 Absolute ~u0-icial immunity also bars
3 " suit against the c?urt-appointed receiver, ~efendant Pasternak, in his

4 II individual capacity. See New Alaska D~vellopment Corp. v. Guetschow,
I
5111869 T.2d 1298, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1989). Similarly, the court clerk
6 " and court administrator, Defendants ,Jaime land Witts, are absolutely
7 " imrnune from s-cit in their individual capac,ities under the doctrine of
8 II quasi-judicial immunity. SE;':g Curry v .. Castro, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th
9" Cir. 2002); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 12410, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996).9
10 FAJLURE TO STATE. A CLAIM U~;oER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
11 To state a civil rights claim under 4~ U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff

12 "must plead that a defendant, acting under cqlor of state law, deprived
13 the plaintiff of a right secured by the fereral constitution or laws.
14 See,. .~SL..., Ortez v. TrJashington Count~:, 88 r .. 3d 804, 810 (9th Cir.

I
15 1996). The plaintiff must set forth factual allegations with
16 suf~icient particularity to give a defendah~ llfair notice of the type
17 of claim ::Jeing pursued." Id........ Plaintiff has not stated a claim, under
18 § 19 t33, against Defendant ADR, the tr.ree cbdntrYWide Defendants, the

19 Mara Escrow Defendants, or the three propo~ed defendants Brown,
20 "Schorr, and Vardanian, who are all either private individuals or

!
21 "private companies. Generally, private par~ies are not acting under

22
23
8 Jc:dicial immunity bars suit eVE\n i~ a judge is accused of
24 acting in bad faith, maliciously, corrut)tly, erroneously, or in excess
25 of =jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U. S. at ll-i3. Judicial immunity is
not overcome by allegations of conspiracy. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d
I
26 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1997); Ashelman, 793 ]f.2d at 1078.
27 9 Thus, the Eleventh Amendment and immunity doctrines would bar
, I
all damages claims against the Superior Co~rt Defendants, and

28
Defendant Pasternak.
10
111 color of state law. See Price v. Ha'1'la.;l-i, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th
2 IICir. 1991). Plaintiff has not shown how these Defendants were acting
3 II und.er color of' state law in this case .10
4 Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's clai~s in the FAC appear to be
5 II subject to dismissal under Ycunger abstent,ion, the Eleventh Amendment,
6 II judicial and c::uasi-judicial immunity, and ,failure to state a

7 II cognizable claim. 11 There does not appear t6 be any way in which
8 II Plaintiff could further amend his complaint,. consistently with his
9 Wpresent allegations, to state a cognizable claim not subject to the
10 III defects discussed above .12 Accordingly, th,e FAC should be dismissed
11 ~wlthout further leave to amend.

12 II F.ECOMMEND.i\T IONS
13 For ·the reasons stated above, the magd- strate judge recommends
14 II that the court issue an order: (1) acceptirg, this Report and
15 II Recommendation; (2) granting Defendants' fpur pending motions to
16 II dismiss (docket no. 68, filed June 19, 200~; docket no. 69, filed Jule
17
18 10 This disposes of damages claims un~~r § 1983 against the

19 remaining defendants. This court should aLs~ dismiss as to any state
law claims Plaintiff may seek to bring aga~n:st the Countrywide
20 Defendants. ,Q,ee United Mine Workers v~ Gibb's, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86
S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966) (normaiLly state law claims over
21 which court has supplemental jurisdiction ~h~uld be dismissed if all
22 federal claims dismissed before trial); Acti'v. Varian Associate~
2
Inc ~_, 11 4 F. 3d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 0 (9 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 7); 8 U. S . C. § 136 7 (c) (3) .
23 There is no evident reason not to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims
in this case.
24
25 11 Because these grounds for dismissal, Iare dispositive as to all

Defendants, the court need not reach Defen~arts' further contentions
26 tha~ claims against specific Defendants ar$ ~ubject to dismissal for
lack of standing and for further failures fro state a claim.
27
12 If Plaintiff can, somehow, show that amendment would not be
28
futile, he may do so in objections to this Report and Recommendation.
11
1 1119, 2008; docket no. 73, filed June 30, 2008; and docket no. 78, filed
2 II July 7, 2008); (3) dismissing the First: Amended Complaint (docket no.
3 II 62) without further leave to amend; and (4) dismissing this action in
4 II its entirety, with prejudice as to Plaintiff's damages claims under
5 II federal law and without prejudice as to Pl,aintiff' s damages claims
6 II under state law and his claims for equitable relief.
8 II D.P._TED: March 31, 2009
10 -l.EJ..---t-t-AR-L-A-M-.-W--O-=E""":"H=R-=L-=E-----
11 United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
9
'-.-/
Date Tr,nsmitted: 4/24/2009 4:18:27 PM
...-
•
2,08-cv-1550
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 2
It is hE~reby ce:r.~ti£ied that 1':bis document was served by first

cl.ass .mcsti..l Posta.~1e prepaid OJ:' by fal.J4: o~ e-mail. del.i very to
counse~ (or parties) at theiJ:' respE~ctiv'.e address or fax
number or e-mail. address of record.
M1M~-VerSlon:l.U
-0-/
From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd. uscourts. gov
.... To:ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Bee: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com , kdicar
lo@cmda-law.com , nef@caed.eirc9.den, ~wp@paslaw.eom, mwa
chtell@buchalter. com, sover:-.on@cmda.--law~com, erd_phillips@
caed.uscourts.qov,crd_phillips@eaed.useourts.gov_sumry, erd
__woetrle@cacd. uscourts. gov, crd_woehrle@cf-cd. uscourts. gov_sum
ry,
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George StreetLo$ Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
Subject :Activity in Case 2: 08-cv-01~550-vA.P-cw Joseph Zernik
v. Jacqueline Connor et al R&R Adopting *eport and Recommend
atior:s
Content-Type: text/html***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** The
re is no charge for viewing opinions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENT~\L DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered oili 4/24/2009 at 4:16

PM PDT and filed
on 4/24/2009
Case Name:
Case Numbe~:2:08-cv-1550
Filer:
Document Number:
<a href=https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doa1(03107917282?magic
_Durn=oMAG IC&de_seq_num=3 91 & caseid=4 0 9 918
>106
Docket Text~:
Ol-W.l:.:k. ACCKI:.JJ1NC~
agist.rate Judge
.k.KI:.J(
- .
I' AND .k.c;COMM.l:.:NJJAJ10N
'
ot U' l::ed. .states M
by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: IT IS ORD~RED: (1) that the R

eport and Recommendation
of tte United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) that
Defer.dants'
four pending motions to dismiss (docket ilia. [68], filed June
19, 2008; docket
no. [69], filed Jule 19, 2008; docket. no, [73], filed June 3
0, 2008; and
docket no. [78:, filed July 7, 2008) be granted; (3) that th
e First Amended
Compla.i.nt (docket no. [62], =iled May 27i, 2008) be dismissed
witl10ut further
leave to amend; and (4) that judgment be entered dismissing
this action in
its entirety, with prejudice as to Plain¢iff's damages
clai.ms under
federal law and without prejudice as to ~laintiff's dam I
ages claims under

state law and his claims for equitable r~lief. (pcl)
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalt~r.com
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.co~
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@br~ancave.com

2:08--cv-1550 Noticenas been delivered b~ First-/Class u. S.
i
Mail or by
fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
US
1
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ~IFORNIA
10
11
12 II JOSEPH ZERNIK, No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER A~CEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMME~DATION OF UNITED STATES
14 v. MA.GISTRATE JUDGE
15 II JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18 II Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 636 (b) (1) (C), the court has reviewed the
19 II entire record in this action, as well as the Report and Recommendation
20 II of the United States Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report
2111 and Recommendation have been received.
22 II TT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report anq:[ B-ecommendation of the

23 II United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) that Defendants' four
2411 pending motions to dismiss (docket no. 68, filed June 19, 2008; docket
25 11 no. 69, filed Jule 19, 2008; docket no. 73. filed June 30, 2008; and
26 docket no. 78, filed July 7, 2008) be granted; (3) that the First
27 Amended Complaint (docket no. 62, filed May ~7, 2008) be dismissed
I
28 without further leave to amend; and (4) that judgment be entered
1
11~ dismissing this action in its entirety! with prejudice as to
2" Plaintiff's damages claims under federal law and without prejudice as
3" to Plaintiff's damages claims under state law and his claims for
4" equi ::.able relief.

511 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the judgment herein be
6 II serve on the parties.
811 DATED: April 24, 2009
~. ~~ tt·.~
/'<>i> .,
,.'fj ~*
~ 1~~.tJ~AiV1
9 ,(~ 8>
10
VIRGINIA A. PHI11I
11 Un~ted States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
I
2,08-CV- 155 8 Date Tr~nsmitted: 4/24/2009 4:30:11 PM
Joseph Zernik
US
Number of Pages: 1
It is he~t"eby certified that this doctzme:ht was served by first

c~ass maLl postagre prepaid oz' by fax or e-mai~ de~ivery to
counse~ (or parti.es) at theiz· respect:iv~ address or fax

numbe.r Ojr e'-mai~ address of recoz:d.
M1M~~VerSlon:l.U
From: cacd_ecfmail@c~d.useourts. gov

To:eefnef@eaed.useourts.gov
Bec: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com , kdicar
I
lo@cmda-law.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn, flwp@paslaw.com, mwa

chtel1@buchalter. com, soverton@cmda--lawl com, crd_phillips@
cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_phillips@cacd"uscotrts.gov_sumry, crd
_woehrle@cacd.uscourts.gov,crd_woehrle@c<$-cd.uscourts.gov_sum
ry,
Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George StreetLo+ Angeles CA 90027US
Message-Id:
Subject :Ac-:ivity in Case 2: oe-cv-0155D-VA.P-CW Joseph Zernik
v. Jacqueline Connor et al cJudgment
Content-Type: text/html***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** The
re is no charge for viewing opinions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I CENTRJ\.L DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered o~ 4/24/2009 at 4:23

PM PDT and filed
on 4/24/2009
Case Name:
Filer:
Wl\.RNI:'-JG: CASE CLOSED on 04/24/2009
Document Number:
<a href=https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/dodl{03107917387?magic
_num=r1A.GIC&de_seq_num=39 4&caseid=4 09918
>107
Docket Text:
JUDGI\1l:.~NTJuclge V' glnla A. Phl11.lPS: 1'1' 10
by 'JUOG.t.;O that
this action is
dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs damages claims und
er federal lalrJ
and without prejudice as to his state law damages claims and
his claims for
equitable relief. (MD JS-6 f Case Terminated). (pcl)
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronicail y mailed to:
John W Patt.on jwp@paslaw. com
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalt~r.com
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.co~
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawskY@br~ancave.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered b~ ~irst Class U. S.

Mail or by
fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
--J
2
3
8 UNITED STATES DIS~;RICf COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT 0:8" CALIFORNIA

I
10
11
I
12 II JOSEPH ZEHNIK, ) No. CV ~8-1550-VA2(CW)
)
1311 Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT
)
14 II v. )
)
1511 JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al., )
)
16 II Defendants. )
-)
17
1811 IT IS ADJUDGED that this action i~; di~missed with prejudice as to
1911 Plaintiff's damages claims under federal law and without prejudice as
2011 to his state law damages claims and his cl~ims for equitable relief.
21
2211 DATED: Apr il 2.1.c. 2009

23
24 ~ tt~ . "'1
~.
.. ....'
t
_~
IRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
25 Unite~ States District Jud~e
26 I
27
28

2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported Litigation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported Litigation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

March 21, 2008 Minutes by Judge Phillips, denying TRO----p2

August 5, 2008 Minutes by Judge Phillips denying request for

March 18, 2009 Order by Judge Phillips denying disqualification for a

April 3, 2009 Magistrate Woehrle's Report & Recommendation----p101

April 24, 2009 Order by Judge PHillips Adopting R & R----p132

April 24, 2009 Judgment by Judge Phillips----p138

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALI FO,RNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--_-- C~ENERAL

Case No. CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN) Date: March 21, 2008

Title: JOSEPH ZERNIK -v- JACQUELINE CON~OR, et al.

Marva Dillard None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNgyS PRESENT FOR

MIINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _md_ _

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 14 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 3

JOSEPH ZERNIK v JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al.

MINUTE ORDER of March 21,2008

by Pasternak as a receiver; (4) ordering Defendants Friedman and Pasternak to

~)arnaatn v. Zeroik involves a property dispute wherein plaintiff Samaan

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _md_ _

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CY08-1550··YAP(CW) Date March 31, 2008

Present: The Honorable Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff's complaint was filed on March 5, 2008, with payment of

Rule 4 usually requires service of a sununons and complaint on

cc: All Counsel

2415 Saint George Street

Los Angeles, CA 90027

Fed. R. eiv. P. Rule 4

Proof of Service Summons a.nd Complaint (CV-l)

Notice of J~alNsuit: and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons (CV-39)

Waiver of Service of Surrunons (CV-I08)

CY-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES· GIENERAL

1. United States Code Annotated Currentness

(a) Contents; Amendments.

(Jl) Contents. A summons must:

(A) name the court and the parties;

(JB) be directed to the defendant;

(F) be signed by the c:lerk; and

(G) bear the court's seal.

(2) Amendments. The court may permit a summons to be amended.

(d) Waiving Service.

(Jl) Requesting a Waive,~ An individu,al, corporation, or association that is subject to service

(A) be in writing and be addressed:

(il) to the individual d(~fendant; or

(B) name the court where the complaint was filed;

(E) state the date wh(m the request is sent;

(G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.

(:2) doing any of the fc)llowing:

suitable age and discretion who resid¢s there; or

(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:

(g) Serving a Minor Olr an Incompetent PersolJi. A minor or an incompetent person in a

(b) Serving a CorpOlration, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides

(1) in ajudicial district of the United ~tates:

(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) fcJr serving an individual; or

(1) United Statl?s. To serve the United States, a party must:

(j) Serving a }i'oreign, State, or Local Government.

(k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service.

(C) when authorized by a federal statUte.

serving a summons or filing a waiver of servilce establishes pers<mal jurisdiction over a

-....,._.-.,------------- CASE NUMBER: