Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
F ". 7.0
I31:3!IILL'S OFFICE 21
CENITIAL DIVISION
2015 APR I
PM 3: 37 I
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
18
VS.
19
Defendants.
20
1. PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE
2. BREACH OF CONTRACT
3. HED
4. FRAUD
S. CONVERSION
6. SLANDER OF TITLE
7. NEGLIGENT HIRING
TRAINING & SUPERVISION
21
22 Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY & ANDRE HARDY allege against Defendants, and all of them,
23 as follows:
24
AwiEgA.m[oNs
GENERAL
.
25
26
27
1.
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, is and was an individual residing in the City of San
Diego, County of San Diego, State of California.
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
1 2.
Plaintiff, ANDRE HARDY, is and was an individual residing in the City of San
3 3.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., is, and at all times herein mentioned was, engaged
in the licensed practice of law and practicing law in the County of San Diego, State
6
7 4.
of California.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant,
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., is, and at all times herein mentioned was, engaged
in the licensed practice of law and practicing law in the County of San Diego, State
10
of California.
11
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant,
12
13
SPARBER, ANNEN], is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a professional law
14
corporation, whose principle place of business is in the County of San Diego, State
15
of California.
16
Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names or capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1
17
through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names.
18
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities when the
same has been ascertained.
19
20
responsible for the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged in this
21
complaint.
22
23
8.
24
25
26 %
At all times relevant to this action, each of the Defendants was the alter ego, partner,
agent, servant, or employee and under the control of each of the remaining
Defendants, and as such, was acting within the purpose, course and scope of the
employment, agency, authority and control.
27 \\\
28 \\\
2.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
II
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Professional Negligence Against All Defendants
2
3
4 9.
10.
7
8
The tortious acts complained of in this Complaint all occurred within the County
11.
Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
9
10
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, were attorneys at law,
11
licensed in California, and each of them owed a duty to Plaintiffs to act reasonably,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY, consulted with defendants and
each of them, for the purpose of legal advice concerning the need to defend against a
spurious law suit arising from their recent purchase of a home. Commencing in or
about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action, Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER,
ANNEN, and each of them, undertook to do all things necessary and proper to
discharge their responsibility to Plaintiffs as their attorneys and agreed to undertake
responsibility to provide proper legal guidance regarding the methodology for
obtaining a proper and affordable legal defense.
13. Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently failed to act
reasonably and within the appropriate standard of care and thereby breached their
duty to Plaintiffs by performing numerous negligent acts, in that, among other things,
3.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et el.
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY that they would represent them,
for a fee, pursuant to their retainer agreement, when they knew, that the claim for
which Plaintiffs were seeking legal assistance involved their newly purchased home
7 14. Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
8
SPARBER, ANNEN knew, from even a cursory review of the complaint that
10
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY had been named as Defendants in
11
a lawsuit related to personal property left by the prior owner at the home Plaintiffs
12
had just purchased. Any reasonably knowledgeable attorney would know, or should
13
know, that said claim would be covered by their homeowners policy. Agreeing to
14
15
was negligent as the homeowners policy would never cover this firm's charges.
16
17
insurance policy was available to pay for her defense. Defendants breached this duty
18
when they ignored the existence of the policy. Hence there was no reason for
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiffs to retain Defendants for any purpose. Since the claim would have been
covered by JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowner's policy,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently failed to
advise Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY to contact their
homeowners policy for free legal representation, but instead entered into a wrongful
retainer agreement to represent her for a fee they had no right to receive. Defendants,
and each of them, billed over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for legal
fees which were wrongfully incurred. Defendants have wrongfully collected over
28
4,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, eta).
two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000.000) of this exorbitant bill.'
2 15. Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY are laypersons, unfamiliar with
3
the law and were permissibly ignorant of the fact of damage or actual harm giving
sued JOANN HARDY for collection on the remaining claimed forty-one thousand,
balance from their wrongful billing on November 27, 2013. Upon being sued,
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY sought legal advice and learned, for the first time, that
10
Defendants had no business representing her in the first place, as her homeowners
11
insurance would have provided her free legal representation. Hence, any and all
12
13
Defendants' wrongdoing after JOANN HARDY filed her initial complaint filed
herein.
14
15 16. Upon learning of above wrongdoing, Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, reported
16
Defendants to the State Bar of California, which entity is seperately pursuing and
17
independent action against Defendant, ANNEN. Upon action by the State Bar of
18
19
ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each
of the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained severe and personal injuries
and have suffered and will continue to suffer great physical pain and injuries, all to
their non-economic or general damages.
26
27
'The Plaintiff in the underlying action was a misguided 92 year old man who brought suit
on very specious ground resulting in a settlement payment to HARDY to settle her emotional
28 distress and abuse of process claims.
5.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
18.
ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each
of the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur legal
19.
The damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the negligence and conduct of the
Ill
10
11
20.
12
13
21.
14
15
16
17
filing, and defending a claim in which Plaintiffs had been named in a lawsuit related
18
to personal property left by the prior owner at the home JOANN HARDY and
19
20
21
22
23
22.
Failing to advise them that their homeowners policy would provide them free
legal representations;
b).
Failing to tender the claim to Plaintiffs ' homeowners insurance for legal
24
25
26
27
28
representations;
c).
Wrongfully billing them for legal fees, when no legal fees should have been
incurred by Plaintiffs;
6.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY V. ANNEN, et al.
d).
2
3
Charging the Plaintiffs an improper fee and bogus expenses after improperly
inducing them to hire Defendants.
4
5
Failing to advise Plaintiffs that they were incurring fees which would be
f).
dollars and forty-four cents ($41,592.44) of fees, after having collected over
10
g).
11
for collection on attorneys fees which should never have been billed in the
12
first place.
13
h).
14
15
16
i).
17
18
19
j).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
IV
2
3
4 24. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of this Complaint, by reference, as
5
10
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, knew that JOANN HARDY's and
11
ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners insurance would cover any claims against them for
12
free, but did not disclose the same to JOANN HARDY or ANDRE HARDY, instead
13
bilking them out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys fees which should
17
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY into signing their retainer agreement, and
18
fraudulently billing them for legal fees which unjustly enriched them at
19
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S expense, then recorded a deed of trust
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
against their real property, when they had no legal valid interest in their property,
refusing to release it until three years later, on May, 27, 2010. Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPAltBER,
ANNEN, then filed another fraudulent deed of trust on a different piece of
real property of Plaintiffs on May 20, 2010. Said liens were unfounded claims of
interest on their properties. Said liens filed by Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN,
ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, were unprivileged
and malicious.
27. The misconduct of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.
8.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY V. ANNEN, et al.
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants
was intentional, willful, wanton, oppressive, and malicious and should not be
damages.
4
5
28.
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were hurt and injured in their health,
strength, and activity sustaining severe mental distress and anxiety to their persons,
causing JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY great mental, physical and nervous
pain and suffering. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were traumatized by
10
11
12
ignorance of the law, cheating them out of money, then aggressively pursuing
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30.
21
22
31.
23
24
place, Defendants knew that JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners
25
insurance would cover, for free, the claim in which they had
26
been named as a Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, knew that JOANN
27
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY did not need to incur ANY out of pocket attorneys
28
fees, as the claim needed to be tendered to their homeowners insurance for handling
9.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
Broker, as well as an Attorney, who knew that the claim should be tendered to
homeowners insurance. Further, Defendants, and each of them, had been named in
4
5
numerous lawsuits themselves, as had vast knowledge and experience that claims
must be tendered to available insurance. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,
concealing said fact, and never tendered the claim to their homeowners insurance, as
10
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, never told JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY
11
that they did not need to pay them for attorneys fees, and instead, whipped out their
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
retainer agreement for Plaintiffs to sign, thus, fraudulently inducing them to incur
exorbitant legal fees in order to unjustly enrich themselves at Plaitiffs' expense.
32. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY justifiably relied on Defendants',
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ.,
and SPARSER, ANNEN legal advice that they needed to retain their firm to
represent them, and that they were required to incur substantial legal fees at
Defendants' hands. Clearly JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY relied upon
Defendants' fraud, as no rational person would agree to pay any attorney out of their
own pocket, had they been advised that their homeowners insurance would provide
them free legal representation.
33. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were NEVER informed by Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARSER,
ANNEN that they could have and should have turned the underlying claim over to
their homeowners insurance. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL
W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, fraudulently concealed said facts
from Plaintiffs, so as to enrich themselves, at Plaintiffs' expense.
27 34. Consistently, from 2004 until November 27, 2013, when Defendants actually sued
28
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY for collection on the balance of their fraudulent billing,
10.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
HARDY needed to retain them for their services, needed to pay them for their
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
unnecessary billing, and that they had a right to collect from them the money they
claimed they were owed, despite that fact that their own fraudulent and/or negligent
misrepresentations were the start of all of their fraudulent bills, ab initio. These
misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment were intentional and outrageous, in
that JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY should never have been given
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
SPARSER, ANNEN, retainer agreement, as they knew JOANN HARDY and
ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners insurance policy would provide free legal
representation. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, knew that their billing was fraudulent, and knew
that they had no right to lien Plaintiffs' properties or sue JOANN HARDY for
collection on attorneys fees which were fraudulently billed. After being served with
the Defendants collection action filed on November 27, 2013, JOANN HARDY was
advised that Defendants should never have billed her ANY fees, as the claim should
have been tendered to their homeowners insurance. JOANN HARDY then reported
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., and SPARSER, ANNEN, to the
California Bar. Immediately upon receiving notice of investigation of the State Bar,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, quickly filed a
dismissal of their fraudulent collection action, and attempted to coerce JOANN
HARDY into dismissing her State Bar action (which is a further violation of ethical
rules.)
35. As a result of Defendants', RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,
25
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, non disclosure and fraudulent concealment of the
26
fact that Plaintiffs' homeowners insurance would cover the claim for which they
27
were seeking legal advice, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY unnecessarily
28
incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys fees which should never have
11.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
financial distress and anxiety and worry about their home and welfare.
36.
SPARBER, ANNEN, non disclosure of the material facts known to them, that
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners policy would cover the
claim for which they sought their legal advice, and their affirmative fraudulent
10
exorbitant attorney fees, and aggressive collection tactics on their fraudulent billing
11
was done with conscious disregard and willful oppression of the rights and welfare
12
ofJOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY and such non disclosure of the material
13
facts known to them, and affirmative misrepresentations constituted fraud upon the
14
15
have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but not less than the
16
17
37.
18
concealment of material facts known to Defendants, with the intention on the part of
19
20
causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust
21
22
23
VI
24
25
26
38.
27
28
\\\
12.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
I
39.
to them as settlement in the case of WILLIAM LOU et. al. v. JOANN JAFFE et.
4
5
Plaintiffs are and at all times relevant herein were, the owners of $250,000 awarded
40.
settlement draft, but failed and refused to deliver the funds to Plaintiffs. Defendants
9
10
41.
11
conduct was a substantial factor in casing these damages. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are
12
entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property and will seek its
13
14
15
16
17
18
converted goods.
43.
19
20
VII
21
22
23
44.
24
25
26
45.
27
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY into signing their retainer agreement, and
28
fraudulently billing them for legal fees which unjustly enriched them at JOANN
13.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S expense, then recorded a deed of trust against
their real property, when they had no legal valid interest in their property, refusing to
release it until three years later, on May, 27, 2010. Defendants, RICHARD J.
Plaintiffs on May 20, 2010. Said liens were unfounded claims of interest on their
9
10
46.
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, unlawful claim on JOANN HARDY and ANDRE
11
12
13
mortgages, or other real property interests, including, but not limited to, costs of
14
15
clearing title.
47.
16
17
damage.
18
VII
19
20
21
22
48.
23
24
49.
25
26
27
28
jobs.
50. SPARBER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GAl3RIEL, and each of the remaining
3
Defendants, breached that duty of care by failing to hire only qualified employees,
servants, agents, partners and/or associates; failing to properly train those employees,
servants, agents, partners and/or associates; and failing to supervise those employees,
injuries which were inflicted upon Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE
HARDY, and which were caused by Defendants' negligence.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.
15
2.
16
17
3.
18
4.
19
5.
20
21
22
1.
23
2.
24
25
3.
26
4.
27
5.
28
\\\
15.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et at
1.
2.
according to proof;
3.
4.
5.
6.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
18
19
20
21
2.
3.
22
23
4.
For compensation for the time and money expended in pursuit of the property;
24
5.
For the imposition of a constructive trust on the converted money and their
25
26
6.
27
7.
28
8.
9.
10.
For such other and further relief that is proper and just.
3
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
5
6
1.
2.
7
8
9
10
11
3.
4.
5.
6.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2.
3.
4.
5.
19
20
21
22
2.
For such other and further relief as this Court might deem just.
23
24
i. ITHO
25
26
sanra C. ihorson, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
JOA101 HARDY & ANDRE HARDY
27
28
17.