Você está na página 1de 50

",

D.E!J.ARAno~ Of SERVICE

Case No. SC092131

STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County ofI.m Angeles:

Alisha R. Cormier ltates: [am employed in the County oHm Anac1n. State of

4 I California. over the age of eighteen years and not a pIl1y to 1M within 1Ction. My buaineu Ilddn:u

is 648 Kenneth Hahn Ball of Administration. SOO Wesl Temple Slm', Los Angeles, California

51 90012-2713.
61 That on July 24, 2007, I served the attached
7I (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT &: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

81 upon Interested Party(ies) by placinLC the original • a true copy thereof enclo!Cd In a sealed
envelope addressed II as follows [J IS stated on the anached maIling list
9 n Gregor)' P. Sqa" Elq.

JO I 9100 Wlishirt Boulevard, Sulle 5O~E'lt

Beverly "lUI, CaUroml. 90212

lila (BY !\tAIL) by sealing and "Iacmg the envelopt for collection and maIling on the date and
12 at the place shown above followmg our ordinary bUSiness practICes I am rudlly fanulw
with this office's prachl'e of collection and pl'ocessang correspondence for malllnf' Under
13 that practice the com~pondence would be depoSited WIth the United States Posta Snvice
that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid.

14 0

15
1 (BY EXPRESS MAIL) by seahns and depciSltmg the: documtnt(s) hlted above in a post
office, mailbox, sub-post o1lice, substation, or ma.1 chute, or other like facIlity rqularty
maintained by the United States Postal Service: for receIpt of Exprns Mall or by seahna
16 and depositing the document(s) lD a box or other facIlity regularly maintaaned by an
express service carrier with delivery fees prc"aid or provided for

171° (BY FACSIMILE) I caused such document to be ddlvercd from the faclumJle machine It
telephone number on (datl:)___ ._ at . 1m. J p.m to the
18
facsimile machine at telephone number ---",e transmlltS10n was
19 reported as complete and without error, A copy ortlle tnnsmisslon repon was properly
issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and IS attached h~to
2011
0 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) 1delivered such envelope by hand to the offIces of the
I addressee.

:~ II a (STATE) I declare under penalty of perJury under the la"!t of the Siale 01 CalifornIa that
thl' foregOing is trut' and '~orrect.

23 110 (FEDERAL) I declare thai [ am employed In till' nlfl(CS of a member of thl~ l'Ourt at
2~ whose direction the !tCI"\'l(e was made

2~ Lxe~:uted on July ~4. 2()')7, al Los Angelc·s. ("J1J1url1la I


2h

Al,,,ha!{ ( .'mlll·r

T,~ or Print '0"1< ,,11h-duant I


1i)"dtkA~r/I//{ {~J ~ic.ahlrt
~!,-<!.l"r p.nonll Knht I" II ''''\!,rnl:tr "u,lr.. ,
Indud. rh. namt "Ith.· \1.·\\< IIl:rr , ..nit'

\; ,~

-- ----- ----l~-!-Il--'!"'\ ·,1' ,-', -_.-.~~-~-------_."._.__ . _ - - - - - - - - ­

344 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p344/679


".,.
. . "-" "-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED tbl.. Defendlnt County of LOI An""


Demurrer ..

:I
21 SUSTAINED without lave to amend. ~.lbillCtion ia DISMISSED wrm

PREJUDICE and,JUDGMENT ia - iD fa... of1ldadonl ':->' of !.Do AJlp "

5 DATED _J (O,IJ I ~_
n
WAMD fEES. COSTS AN~I mATM
~"~X'~.1
6I
'CIWQ JUT BE Ramm 'roM
7I MntI3IU).OS (J1lf RAUl ~
81 REC(MRv (f ttl BGM9n: .-
9

10
11
12

13

14
15
16

17

IX
!y

21)

21

_. I
,')

" I
. \1
,

345 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p345/679


, e e
.. ______ JUD-'''I
v
nClM€Y(lll"","",wmoJT"~'

_~_(JIll'

~~
Rober1 A. WeInbetg. EIq., SBN 1101~
"'"' Ln 0tIlc:eI d Robert A. Weinberg
18034 Ventura ~ 1S11
Encino. CA 91311
FILED
tal ANOIU!S C'OOIT SUPERIOI

..
11U!I"HCM ItO (818)7'05-3254 FlUltO ~ (I'lli~
E...... ADIlMIS~
AfTOIIN'V P'OIt _ _ PIIInIIr AUG 1'; lOO7
IUPIIICIIt COURT 011 ~ COUNTY 011 LOS ANQIUI.
mm AllCNII· '125 Meln &rMt ~

IIN..IC IilDDMII wt. 0IIlUft'


ClTVlHlll'aD santa Monica, CA eDiIOt
1IWOl ..... Wilt 0IIb1c:t santa MonIce ~

PLAINT1fT': Hakart Cofpomu Amertca, Inc., ....

0EfEN0ANT: ~. Inc. et" Call . . . . .

DBrCtertl
[Z]BrCoun
o
o
JUDGMENT
BrDIfaM
On"""an
8 0*."DIlI ...
M1IJrCewt TfIII SCOi2145

~"TNI
JUDGIetT
,. {Z] IYOEFAULT
a Defendant ... properly MrY8d will • OCIPY d tlelummonl 8nd ~nt

b Defendant failed to ...... the ~ 0 1 ' . - ' 8nd ew.nd tie actio"..., ..
lime aIIowecI by 1ft
c. QefendanI'I def8UII wu .,....,., by" dart upan .,..,.. ~ l
d. 0
CIertl'a JudgmMt (Code Qy Proc., '585(.:0 D**'" _ BUIld only on • oonIraCt 01' jUdgrnenI fA. COUIt d
thlI . . . tor the rece:MWY d money.
e [Z] Court.ludgrnanl (Code CN Proc.• '5e(b» The court oonaidafe~
(1) 0 p1aintift'l ..... 'lOlry and oe.~.
(2) [l] pIaW1tIf'/'I wntten dednIiDI. (Coda C1v. Prot.,' 585(d».

2. 0 ON STl'ULATION
a Plaintiff end defendwlllIgI1NId (1tipAated) ltat.;IIdgmant be..-.d "I thIa caM. The oour1 ~ . . ~

judgment and
b 0 the algned wntten Itipulation ... Ned in hi CMa.
c 0 the ItIpUatlon . . . stated in open 00UIt 0 the ItIpUIIIIon w• .-..d on . . I1ICXlftI

3·0 AFTER COURT TRIAL The /UfY ... waiYed. The Ol:JUlt c:onU*'ed \he 8\~
a. The C8H . . . tried on (dfIte and time).
before (name of judicial officer1,
b. Appearances by
o P1alntllY (name NCh)· CJ PIaintlIr. ettomey (name NCh)
(1 ) (1)

(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b

o Defendant (name each) [::J Defendant's attorney (name each)


(1 ) (1 )

(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b

c D Defendant did not appear at tnal Defendant was proper1y served with notice of tnal

d 0 A statement of declSlor (Code C,V Proc... § 632) 0 was not 0 was requested

..... '.11
r,)I"T1 ""'{'I"",,,,.,,,: I.W ':,(~,~. ')W
JUDGMENT C ,... '" ., ,_> .... PI')l';e4J," M~ 864 e
,h.id~:3 _J,;>,f ~ Car.tJl1~
1';[ ' f 'w"" d'~rl' .:·)..... 21

,.'\ W\\ d, '1~I>S5Id'N (om

346 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p346/679


, PlAINTIFF Hakart Corpomax Amenc8, Inc, et 81 .----------[(~;-;.---.;. SC092145 J
!DEFENDANT P,'_itlJ",-e..;.,_lnc---",_8_t81 . .____. •__ ... " ... _
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOllOWS BY; 0 TlfE COVAT !.:::J THE Cl£ftK
4 0 StipulaMd JtIdgrMnt. Judgll'lOOt is 8I'IIenld acc:on:ltng to !he stlPlJ/atlOl'l of the IJ8I1Mlll

5, PIl1tft. Judgmenl is
a [l] lor plaintiff (rwne NCh) cOlor C1OSS~"W"rn.nlf! HC~J
. Haka" Corpomu Amenca, I"C

and againSt Mfendant (IW'fIeS) and 108I1lS1 r:rou-OOf'ltldM' (rlMTIfI Hdll


PIaoe,Inc

o Continued on AnactvnenI sa. CI Conbnued on A~ !Ie


b. 0 lor defend8nt (neme Hdl) dOlor CfOII-dtIIeIIdlInt (rnIII'Ifl Hett)

6. Amount.
a. [Z) o.r.mnt named In llem sa above mull c 0 CI'ota-delelldenl named In Item !Ie 8tJo¥tt IYlUlIl pity
PlY paintIfr on Itle oompIIlnI. cn:.~onthe~

(1) [Z] D8mIIQeI S30,385.03 (') 0 r~ S


(2) 0 PrejudgrnenC S-o- (2) 0 f~ S
inlerest at the 'nterwl .. \tle
amuall1Ite of % IMU8ll1lteof %
(3) 0 Attorney fees S-o (3) 0 "nomeyfees S
(4) [lJ Costs S358.50 (4) 0 Coals S
(5) 0 Other (specify) 5-0- (5) 0 Other (sp«Jfy) S

(6) TOTAL S30,723,53 (6) TOTAL S

b 0 PIatntlft ~ recetve nochinO fmm defenclIlR d 0 f:fOII~ to!WCelYe ~ fmm


named in Item 5b I~ '*'*'
In IWII ~
o Defendant named In Item 5b to nlCCMlf
costs S
o ~ ~ II'lllem ~~NCO¥ef
lXlItI S
o and attorney fea S o II'ld Mtomey'" S

7 0 0lIlef (rpecify).'

Date AUG 13 l007 ~ 'A ' •• y.


",

Om D~.by , 0IiPU'Y

(SEAi.l C1.ERK'8 CERTIFICATE (Opt;onel}


I certify 1M! thilil • true <lOP)' of the origlNII judgment on fife In the 00\Jt't

Dale

C\et1(. by . _ - - _ . Deputy

,.. ....
JUO-HIO\*- _ , 1002!
JUDGMENT

347 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p347/679


,
Fl-820,
'r7 Wil~l ..,lIQHl(v , _ I N I _ I
J~ c (' .- ,
~"\

('
,
'011 CCUfT LeI OM. Y

. ,
r
JlJ

.cYRl'!i_'
~PERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
FILE))
tc lOS ,4,:-l(irJ fli SLl'rRlll\{ (1.( :RT
lJTM(El AOOAEISII I 7l .. - 1.\', " • f.- «(, ~, <"'" \ () .L
UAlMQ ACJ()fl(A

U1YMDrtI'~ . • 1 ~'" h • i\' '. ", ~ -\


\ < Rf-C€.\\/EO AUG 1 4 ZOOl
IlI'WIICHHMoIl JOHN" ':U,,;;'<h ',:;l.L:i~K

IWRAGI or
PiiltlUNERS
HUSBAND". Jes Christensen
~\}G \ 0\ 11lGl ~I
: DE M, rlEPVrY
"?- COU?:t
WIfE; Malle Delgado S\)i'::'\\\~\\i"I\\C'1
REQUEST FOR JUOGM£Nl'. RNo ~Gl :MiiMENl'il CAII-..a
·..:\102·\727

DISSOW11ON or MARRlAG!, AND NOTIC! or ENTRY 0' JUOGIIENT


,. The JOiIJI PtIIIkJn lot &.mrwy DWo*lIM at AMIriIQe (Ionn R.-8ClO) . . MIMI on (dille): CO r:- 9 1. 2007
2. No rIllIl» d ~ till bien lied Md!he . . . . hawa not bIcorne reeoncW ' L' 1
3. ' . . . . . . . ~ d dMeok..... d rnamagII be
•. 0 ...,., to be efI8dIye now.
b. 0 entered to be llftectI\Ie (nlft pro Ulc) . . d (<**,:
tor !he foIIowIlO reeaon:

, declarf ~ qena~ l6lder trIe!awl ~ ltIe State at ~ that ltIe b'egOinQ IS true and correct.
Da18: AUlJ I 1 LWI
..
. ~.\" ~. . ) i
~
\
",
,!

"
-
Jt:!i ehri sten.o;en r L, L \,..... I j l--· \_
,rVP( OR .....-r _ I 'SIGNA ~ OT HUIlIINCl Oft_£)

.. 0 Husband, 0 WIfe. wtlo ctd not request his 01 her own former I'IlUM be restofed when he Ot stoel9*lltle ,om
petition. now requestalhat it be restofed. The appli(;8nI'llormef name is:

08..:
'rvPf.OA _ _ 1
• (SIOIIA1\JIlE'~"1lRfY
,----,-----------
--..0 TO HAllE HIli Oft HER _ AEST~ot

,. . e.wt LIIo ~

JUDr. .", OF DIUOLUT1ON fJ' MAJUIAGE


5 THE COURT OROERS
• A~ cf dIUdutkln at m.arnaoe WIll be entered. and 1M parbelI are ~td to Irle status C'J unmamed pet'SOIlS,
b §~ The Jud\7T1en( at dlUc*JIIOn at marnage WIt be entered nunc pro Iln: .. 01 (dare):
c. WIfe'1 former name is restOl8d (~.

d, HuItllInd'I former name IS reAnd (6P«dY1:

~ comply WlItI MTy ac.1eement attac::tled 10 the peCIbOn, ~. 1.1 ~1

- - - -.- - ,,---- D
8. HIAband. IIld WIte.

- ,."
0 ....., tJ 1
I'lii'" /1'J'~
,. t _ ---
r~ ~- - - -

,./

.IXXIt: 01 nc 8Ul"lfIO'I ca.RT

~
NOT1Cf: ~ may ~ c..c:eI !tie ngr.tlI 01 • spouI(I Inter . . ~ apoJM" ..... 11lMf. . . ., ... beneftI pIar1, ~ of
~. !WI' Otl dMlt1 I'Jar* ¥COUtIl ltIINfw Otl . . . . , lf4Ihde ~ ~ ~I to Illy ll'~ owned II'l /Olf1Ilenrq, and .".,
othet .."..., INnlJ II daft nIX aulO1TV1ttc;a1y c.M'CeI lt1e nt,1l\& cJ a fC)OUM as ber*'aIIy of Thl octlIlf ~'. Ille nur.-.ee pdIcy y OIJ UlouId
re\'_ ItIeU INnenl. as well as if')' Ctd eNds. Olt>e< Cfedlt acGOtlOla, inIur8nc4I polIciei reoremert benetJl planl, and credit r~ 10
~f\W1e ~ ~ ~ tlf! ct-anged Of wt>e4tlet )"')IJ VlOuld UIQ Iffy octw adIOnI,

... _. -. - - ---._-"-
.__
. --_. - - -
_.'.
- - _._-----
,_ _ ,__ , ..
--
.
--
.
----- - - ----
. . _ _ _ _..... ~!!.J.

- '--y~""~.uw REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT Of DtSl;QLUTION :.....""'Z.c;=~ ..


W J:J
" ~;,.....:.;::,~~.~.:... OF UARRIAG&. AND Nonc& OF ENTRY OF JUDGUENT """
' ' ' ' _ _ 11. • • • • 00 , . •• _ _ , . _ . "' ••• 1•••' _ . ,

348 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p348/679


• •
,~NA ~.;,.,~: E. :,1 ~ :JA~~[.

~ .~NN;'. ~·:lt~: E' ,.; :.LI LA!\: l~; r~ F"L::


~4Cl CAPFI:L: PLV~

~AP V:~:h, ~~ ~JCtt

Bar No.:
..
:1 Attorr.eyts) for
E

f S'JPERIOR COURT CF CALIFORNIA, COUN':"t r_~ 1-.1. ~:n £<t

9
.l '-,

:~ F[ ~HE MARRIAGE OF: tJ'.:':. ~.)~ ~ '-;

: 3 DONI';" ~AP:~, G I LLI LAND \ ST1Pt·:" .. ~F~j ~t·~·;~t~.T

~4

Petit loner
• [C

dr"o
lE
PAUL ED~AFC GILLILAND
Respondent

:t<n THiS STIPULATEC JUDGEMENT 15 made and entered lr.~c, cr. ;"p,: :;. 4.'

:,
a~ Santa Marllca, california, by and betwt'en tt0NNA MAfiIE' ,;1:'L:;.',: ..

,ceferc{,j c( t'.erein as "PetltlOnf>c"l and PAUL f~'~'!\"~' ~;:: 1 ;:.K~.:

L.II \!eferrt'G to hereln as "Respon,1ent"l, both If'ferrp,j t' .'~~';" .~.!t- •. ~.

"Tr.e F.,!' ,,",5," ar.d 15 based ·"por. t~,e fol10 .... 1r.;;: fj"~ Io",;.!. ",f> ri't~. '!'.

"1 ...1 l E- t'" • t;- t c ... e ;

;., :-~.,. par:~es .... ere IT,arrlt-'') t) eact, rt.t.t'! .... ~"-<f": :& r t ." p ~ t
. ~4~r .:,: '>/II ~ :- e :.- en t 1 n u. 0 ~ s ~ / .. ~'.•_ ! 1

~ :-. c :.. 1 0 t.l E~ d ~ f f p r . . . :- ~ e 5 d r c .s e t t ': ,,' f~ f- • t ~ t t. ,'] ~ • : t- .:. . ~ ;

·~~t-?'J. .. aC~f- o.teakl "';. ~ 'Lt"lf ~,dr: 1~1-. 'j: . ; ; ~ ..


-.:.

: t ' ; :....;...: F : ' ~~<f:~ :


.:"'"\ -~-

~Illi t .J~1 .h

dl. ll"

349 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p349/679


~-~

{.d l'.//
t"VA.'\.f'~
STATE OF ( .-
COUNTY OF L C'. -~,
------ 55.

~~
appeared~iwI~7,
On "-+ (J..b I 2
), c
before me, ....... An <n-o. "'4 r
--_.=:.:..._- personally

'*- personally known to me o proved to me on the


basis of satisfactory
evidence

to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument


and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her
authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument
the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the persun acted,
executed the instrument.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

(SEAL)
1dt~M!Jtr'1foiAf~ - . -:-
,- C'~ . t~'

.....n-...,.
JIOTARY. CItftOI
~fiIF l.J7l~

350 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p350/679


J 'l. -t.:: "f" ...

( ,'1,11'1

MARITAL SETTlEMElfT AGREEMENT


2B The parties hereto enter into this Mamal Settlement Agreement (hereinafter
3 • "AGREEMENT") and make it effectrve as of thl! date of exetu1ion tet forth hereinafte'
4I This AGREEMENT ~ m:1de between potitioner STEVEN l SloeS (hereInafter
5 I "PETITIONER") and respondent KATAUN M. SlOCS (hereinafter "RESPONDENT1 in
6 I the County of Los Angeles, State of California and conSists of ten (10) pages total
7 I NOW THEREFORE. in consideratIOn ()f the foregoIng premises and the mutual
8 I agreements, covenants and provisions conta lned herein, said parties agree al fofJows
9I 1. STATISTICAL INFORMATION
10 (A; The parties wene married on Nt>vember 7, 1993 and separated on

11 September 26.2003
12 (B) The parties ha..~ no minor child

13 (C) Irreconcilable differences havfl arisen between the parties by reason of

:4 wh,ch the parties have lived S4~parate and apart because of thft

15 irremediable breakdown of thf! marriage and have agreed to live free from

16 any interference by the other party.

17 (0) The parties ac:knowledge tha't there is an actIon pendtng In the Superior

18 Court of the State of California. County of los Angeles. Case No SO 021


19 451 for a dissolution of the marriage k/t~ /c;L.$
20 (E) The partial intend this AGREEMENT shall.t>KfiIed'W1th the Court but

21 that all Ordor~ shall be enforced pursuant to the term:; of thl5

22 AGREEMENT only
", 2. PURPOSE ()F THE AGREEMENT
~4 II The purpose of thiS AGREEMENT is to make a flna! and complete settlement of
25 U the party's rights and oblt!Jations as set fl)rth herein
~6 II (A) The parties '~pectfically agree that their mat~!ag(: of 1110711993 be
27 II dissolved based on Irreconcilable differences under Family Code,

28 §2310(a)

I
\1
-
KMS n~~
MARIT.AI. SETTLEMENTAGREE.MENT·
\1 (j c.. I
II ~:::;>\l~
'I

351 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS


.. p351/679
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,h
28

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


Case No. BC351286
352 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p352/679
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”


Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous

07-09-07. Correspondence and Appointment Papers of Retired Judge


Gregory O’Brien, Purported Escrow Referee.

Enclosed is email correspondence on Sept 7, 2007, where I demanded to see the papers that formed the
foundation for Retired Judge O’Brien’s appointment.
A reasonable person reviewing the facts in this matter would conclude that Judge Connor in collusion with Att
Keshavarzi an Judge O’Brien were engaged in fraud against me, under the guise of executing a judgment of a
court of California.
But the court considered my objection to their fraud a reason for further retaliation, and the appointment of a
fraudulent “Receiver” instead.

353 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p353/679


Correspondence on Sept 7, 2007: Judge O’Brien Presents the Papers that He Considered the
Foundation of his Authority.

Subject: FW: Samaan v. Zernik


Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:46:21 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Samaan v. Zernik
thread-index: AcfxbCE90KeJHQz5TSyc7M2y0k21QQAPQNvQ
From: "Christie Woo" <Christie@adrservices.org>
To: "joseph zernik" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Moe Keshavarzi" <MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com>
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Pursuant to your request, please find attached Order.

Christie Woo
Case Manager

ADR Services, Inc.


1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 250
Los Angeles, California 90067-4303
Phone: (310) 201-0010
Fax: (310) 201-0016

This electronic message contains privileged or confidential information,


which is solely intended for the use of the addressee(s) listed as
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone at (310) 201-0010, and return the original
message to ADR Services Inc. at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 250, Los
Angeles, California 90067.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Zasloff [mailto:DZasloff@sheppardmullin.com] On Behalf Of
Moe Keshavarzi
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:29 AM
To: Christie Woo
Cc: Moe Keshavarzi
Subject: Samaan v. Zernik

<<Minute Order appointing referee.PDF>> De <<Order Granting Summary


Judgment.PDF>> ar Ms. Woo:

Per Mr. Keshavarzi's instructions, I am forwarding the Minute Order


appointing referee entered by the Court on August 30, 2007, and a
certified copy of the Order Granting Summary Judgment dated August 9,
2007.

David Zasloff
Secretary to Moe Keshavarzi
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
333 S. Hope Street, 48th Floor

354 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p354/679


Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 620-1780
(213) 620-1398 (fax)

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP


Please visit our website at www.sheppardmullin.com

355 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p355/679


356 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p356/679
357 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p357/679
358 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p358/679
359 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p359/679
360 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p360/679
361 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p361/679
362 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p362/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE 08/30/07
DEPT. WEI
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING HH,nH n,,'

B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL

ice is waived.

Page 1 of 1 DEPT. WEI

363 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p363/679


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 The Minute Order of September 10, 2007 is probably
unique in that there is no way to read it and not
16 reach the conclusion that Judge Connor was involved
17 in fraud. It is a stand alone evidence of fraud, where
usually there is a need for multiple records to establish
18
such claim.
19 Notice also that the Minute Order was noticed only on
Plaintiff Attorney.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,i
28

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


Case No. BC351286
364 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p364/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/10/07 DEYf. WEI


HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK
HONORABLE
09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
DEPT. 5 of 1 Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#13 MINUTES ENTERED
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
Counsel
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
VS Defendant
permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to ROBERT MUSS IG (X)

then be filed.
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;
party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
as follows: must serve on the offending party a motion for
follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
must serve on the offending party a motion for
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
as follows:
acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DEFENDANT (JOSEPH
avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
then be filed. CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to


ROBERT MUSS IG JOSEPH ZERNIK
permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
(X) Counsel (X)
VS
withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
Defendant
NIVIE SAMAAN
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe
ROBERT MUSSIG
harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
(X) Counsel
Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
CSR#5567 K. CALL CA B. VARGAS
MINUTES ENTERED
Reporter Deputy Sheriffll
#13
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
Page 1 of 5
JUDGE PRO TEM
DEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
COUNTY CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

365 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p365/679


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/10/ 07 DEPT. WEI


HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK
HONORABLE
09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
DEPT. 5 2 of Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#13 MINUTES ENTERED
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
Counsel
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410,
VS Defendant
runs from the filing date of the new and different
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
for sanctions unless there is some action the
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
motion. However, the correct principle to be
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
because the Court granted her summary judgment
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
because the Court granted her summary judgment
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
motion. However, the correct principle to be
court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
for sanctions unless there is some action the
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period
( X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
runs from the filing date of the new and different
Defendant VS
motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410, NIVIE SAMAAN
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
(X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel
motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
MINUTES ENTERED #13
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Page 2 of 5
JUDGE PRO TEMDEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
COUNTY CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

366 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p366/679


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/ 1 0/ 07 DEPT. WEI


HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK
HONORABLE09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
DEPT. 5 3 of Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#13 MINUTES ENTERED
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff I K. CALL CSR# 5567 Reporter
I
8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff
further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
Counsel
Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED. ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

sanctionable conduct.
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
NATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
independent evidence to establish how the motions
already considered and rejected the substantive
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
brought following judicial disposition of the
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
it was served five months after the alleged
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
offending documents were submitted to the Court in
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
offending documents were submitted to the Court in
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
it was served five months after the alleged
improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
brought following judicial disposition of the
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
already considered and rejected the substantive
independent evidence to establish how the motions
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
sanctionable conduct.
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED.
(X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
VS
The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
Defendant
NIVIE SAMAAN
Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until
ROBERT MUSSIG
further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
(X) Counsel
Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
MINUTES ENTERED #13
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Page 3 of 5
JUDGE PRO TEMDEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
COUNTY CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

WEI DEPT. 09/ 1 0/ 07 DATE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

367 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p367/679


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/10/07 DEPT. WEI


HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

COUNTY CLERK
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
09/10/07 WEI DEPT. 5 4 of Page
#13 MINUTES ENTERED
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK Department WE"H") (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
OFF THE RECORD:
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
calendar.
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
Judge presiding for all purposes.
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
Judge presiding for all purposes.
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
calendar.
The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
OFF THE RECORD: NAHIRE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
Department WE"H")
(X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
Defendant VS
NIVIE SAMAAN
ROBERT MUSSIG
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
(X) Counsel
PlaIntiff 8:30 amlSC087400
CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriff II CA B. VARGAS
MINUTES ENTERED
Reporter
#13
Page 4 of 5 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
COUNTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR JUDGE PRO TEM

DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

368 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p368/679


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/10/07 DEJYf. WEI


HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
09/11/07 DEPT. WEH
#13 MINUTES ENTERED
5 5 of Page
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
V. JAIME (X)
By:

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF


John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
J\'ATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
of the
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER


333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR

MOE KESHAVARZI

I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the


above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
thereon fully prepaid.
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by

original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope


served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of

for each, addressed as shown below with the postage


a party to the cause herein, and that this date I

thereon fully prepaid.


above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
MOE KESHAVARZI
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
of the
Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
l\'ATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

By:
(X)
V. JAIME
ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
Defendant
VS
NIVIE SAMAAN
(X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel
Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 5 of 5 DEPT. WEH 09/11/07
#13
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR JUDGE PRO TEM HONORABLE
COUNTY CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

WEI DEJYf. 09/ 1 0/ 07 DATE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

369 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p369/679


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,j
28

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


Case No. BC351286
370 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p370/679
ORDER APPOINTING PASTERNAK RECEIVER

FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED BY JUDGE JOHN SEGAL ON NOV 9,2007, PURPORTEDLY FOR


EXECUTION OF AN AUG 9, 2007 JUDGMENT BY COURT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION
437c by JUDGE JACQUEINE CONNOR.

THAT JUDGMENT IN AND OF ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING BY THE LOS


ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT. JUDGE CONNOR STATED REPEATEDLY IN OPEN COURT
AND IN WRITINGS THAT SHE ENTERED JUDGEMENNT ON AUG 9 2007.

BY JUNE 3, 2008, THE COURT IS REFUSING TO CERTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH


JUDGMENT, AND YOU MAY NOTICE THAT THE JUDGMENT IS MISSING FROM THIS
ORDER AS WELL.

THIS ORDER IS PRIME EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING IN THE LOS ANGELES


SUPERIOR COURT.IN THIS ORDER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY SECTION OF
THE CODE TO ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP, THERE IS
NO REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT THAT IS PURPORTED TO BE EXECUTED, AND THERE
IS NO REFERNECE TO THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT - THIS WAS
JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFERMCNE.

371 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p371/679


• •
....... '
,,~
~.-1 "-;
~--
,. , ,- « '
,.-~

J'l .~ '/_,
.f '} , ;-,_'
f 1 :'"
or'

;~\ 1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RJCHTER & HAMPTON LLP ~(j~


('>(14;
A Limjted
Limited Liabili!y
Liability Partnership
PartnershiP.. . <0, Ok
<O.s- 0,.~
Er-OfeSSlOIJal-Curpor-a110ns. __ -- ---- --------~-
2- Includmg El"-efeSSlOIJal-Corpor.a1IOns-...-
2· --~-----~- o~ ~~
o"r.~~
PHJLLlP
PHJLLIP A. DAVIS, Cal.
CaJ. Bar No.
No.1I 10430 ./. 'O'o/.{r, ..,~~
./.~4',/~'CI~, '5:.­
3 MOEKESHAVARZI,
MOE KESHAVARZI, Cal. BarNo.Bar No. 223759 o~"1
04,-/ 40;-
'u~'J;'~ e
41?p- 'U~"<Jl:'?e
333 South Hope ~tre~, ~
..~ ()~.~~
~.;~ O~
Street, 48th Floor
4 Los Angeles, Cahfom18
California 90071-]448
Telephone: 213-620-1780
90071-1448 ~k O~
",:"
~~ . 't~
~e "<q,
(J

~
O.,ll
q.q; rr
q,.:ct
~
5 FacsImile:
FacSlmiIe: 213-620-1398 .~
o~
0,
"'P, O.n..
q~pf'
0..
'
6 ~4
~4, -;..~
-".ql'e
for Pl
6 Attorneys JOT
J"
ainnOff Ni'llie Samaan
PlainriffNivie ~~:r ~l'M
.~h ~t>.r"4\
77

88

9 SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


]0
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DlSTRJCT
II NME SAMAAN, an individual;
11 Case No,
No. SC 087400
12
J2 Plaintiff, OM A. Segal
Houerable JJohn
Honorable
13 v.. ~oposedj
fFtoposedj Order Appointing David J.
RecelVer.
Pasternak as Recelver.
ZE~'JIK, an individual and
14 JOSEPH ZERJ"\1IK, and

DOES 1 through 10,


DOES] ] 0, inclusiv.e,

jncJusive,
]5
15

Defendants,
Defendants.
16
16

17

17

18
18

19
20
21
21 .
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- J­
W02.
\V02.WEST;lMMK
WEST; I MMK I <.40<14922!
<400492211. 1.1[ [PROPOSED]
(PROPOSED] ORDER .AJ'POINTING
.lj>POINTING RECEIVER
372 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p372/679
• •
I1 IT
IT IS
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
HEREBY ORDERED THAT David
David J. Pasternak
Pasternak ("Receiver")
("Receiver") shall
shall be
be

2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of


of the
the real
real property
property located
located

3 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally


legally described
described as:
as:

44

:r
La!
Lot 252 ofTrac! Ci!y of Beverly Hills,
of Tract 7710, in the CiD: Hills,

~I

County of Los Angeles,


AnKeles, State ofCa]ifomia,
of California, as per map
mal'

recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) (5) 94 and 95 ofmaps


of maps in in the
the

office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").


"PROPERTY").

7
1. Before perfonning his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 \Villi surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
9
sum of $ JO,OOO.OO, conditioned upon the faithful perfOlmance of the Receiver's dlJ.ties.
10
11 2. Within seven (7) days of his 'appointment, the
the Receiver
Receiver is
is to
to disclose
disclose
12 to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company
company he
he hires
hires to
to
13 assist in the management of the estate.

14
3. TIle
The Receiver shall have the power and the authority
authority (a)
(a) to
to exclude
exclude
15
15

Defendant and any agents~ attorneys, employees or repre~entatjves


repre$entatives thereof,
thereof, or
or anyone
anyone

16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession
possession of
ofthe
the Property;
Property; (c)
(c)
17
to use, operate, manage and control the Propeny;
Property; (d) to care for, manage,
manage, preselVe,
preserve, protect
protect
]8
18
such care~
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
management,
19
preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses
preseIVation, expenses for
for the
the PToperty;
Property;
20
20
(f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for,
for, manage,
manage, preserve,
preserve,

21
21

protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of
of the
the Property
Property between
between

22
22

defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan tt) and


("Samaan") and (g)
(g) pursuant
pursuant to
to

23
23

judgment for specific perfonnance dated August 9, 2007, in favor


favor Samaan,
Samaan, the
the Receiver
Receiver
24
24
shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property
Property to
to Samaan
Samaan through
through the
the
25
25
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow
Escrow Co.
Co. 433
433 North
North
26
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder),
"Escrowholder), for
for aa price
price of
of
27
$1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within
$1,718,000 within three
three business
business days
days
28
-2-
E:xhibft-'--page
&.hibft-'-page /4
W01·WEST:! MMK
MMK 1\400492211.1
1\400492211.1
-2­ [PROPOSED]
W01-WEST:l [PROPOSED] ORDER
ORDER APPoINTING
APPoINTING RECEIVER
RECEIVER
373 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p373/679
----, . .-----~-

1 after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign any

su'ch-docurnents--the Receiver-shaH -have the power to sign said documentations on behalf


'2 su·ch-documerlts--tne
·2

3 ofZemik.

4
4. The Receiyer s.hal] prepare and" serve mDnthly
Receiver sfJal1 monthly statements reflecting
5
the Receiver's fees and administrative expenses~
expenses, including fees and costs of agents,
6
accountants and anorneys
anomeys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
...7
j
Estate~ inCUIl'ed for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
inculTed
8
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
9
Estate funds, jf any, the amount of eal;h sl<ltement. Notwithstanding periodi·c
eal,;h sl<:ltement. periodi'c payment of
10
shan be submitted to the Court for its approval ano
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall ano
11
JJ
form' of either a properly noticed interim request
confinnation in the form· fOJ fees, stipulation of
12
Account and Report.
all parties, or Receiver's Final Accoum
13
]4
14 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,

Pastemak, A Law Corporation), and property


attomeys (including Appleton, Pastemak & Pasternak,
15 attorneys

admini~er the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
16 managers to administer

17 them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shal1
shalI come inlo the Receiver's
18 possession and shaH do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by

19 owners, property manages and operators of similar properties. and enterprises as such
properties,and
20 Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of

21 the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation ofllie


of the estate.

22
6. The Receiver "is
'is empowered to esttlblish bank accounts for the deposit
23
of monies and funds collected and received- in connection"
connection with the estate at federally
24
insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming .into
,into the possession of
25
pUJpose ,herein authorized shall
the Receiver and not expended for any purpose be held by the
shaJl he
26
Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
27
28
-'-'L-,,==:Ex~h~ib~tt J ~- ­
"..,,;;::';;;;:~p~a~~ge~/~~:;;;;;;-
exhibit. , Page
I ======,,--
I
I .,3-.,.
W02·WEST:1MMKJ\40049221 J.l
J W02·WEST:1MMKJ\400492211.l ., 3., [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOfNTING RECEIVER
374 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p374/679
e--"-'- - .-

e'

1 7. The
The Receiver
Receiver shan
shan be
be paid
paid his usual hourly
his usual hourly billable
billable rate, not to
rate, not to exceed'
exceed'
22;$4't-5;OG.·
!>4'7-5;OG. All costs incurred
int;urred by-the-R-eceiverafld-
by-the-R-eceiverafld his attorney-s intBe---performance
intBe--perfonnance of
of their
3 duties, including, but not limited to,
10, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds

44
8. . An~y
An:y aJJd
8JJd all expenses of the opcntion
operation of the Estate are the risk of the
5
Receivership,
Receivership, and flot
not the personal obligation of the Receiver.
6
77 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
88 1I $10,000.00
$] 0,000.00 bearing interest at
2t eight percent (8%) per aimum
arlnum for up to $50,000.00 to any
99 person Qr parties. All funds loaned te
person or tc the
t.he Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
10
10 Certificate(s)
Certificate-(s) shalJ priOf to all
shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior
11
11 other
other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.

]2 II
12
10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to
13
J3
this Court for further
this funher or other instructions or orders and for further powers nccessar)' to
]4
14
enable
enable the Receiver to perfonn
penonn the Receiver's duties properly.
]5
15
16
16 11. Upon close of escrow,'the
escrow,the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the

17 PropeI1y and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
sale of the Property
] 7 sale

18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental
18 attorney's incidental'to
to the

19
-19 decree of
decree specific perfonnance
of specific performance granted 10 Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses

20
20 incurred
incurred as described herein.
as described herein.·­

21
21
12.
12. The parties, and each of them, on receipt ofth1S
of this Order shall provide
22
22
the Receiver
the Re.cciver wlthtbe
with the tax the-PROPERTY.
tax identification numbers utilized by the PROPERTY. The
23
23
Receiver shan
Receiver also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
shall also
24
24
ofthe
of the receivership
receivershlp estate.
25
25
26
26 13.
13. The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 whether
27 V\'hether in
in the
the Receiver's
Receiver's jUdgment
judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to

28 any insurance
28 any insurance coverage,
coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the

-4-
-4­
=WO=2----;:·WES=T:-::l-;-;M-;-:M~K :-:-1\4004~-::;-;9':-;;c21;-;-1-;-1 --------==----"IP;:;-;R;;:--,O"'P=OSED]
Exhibit It. pa'
Pa
ORDER APPOINTING
I CtJ
Ca
APPOINTING RECEIVER
W02_WEST:IMMKI\4004912111 IPROPOSED] ORDER RECEI'\IER
375 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p375/679
- - - -".,. - . - e
jj

• •
1 policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficient
--2, -insurancc-eoverage-dees
---2" not-exist-, -the -Receiver-shall -immediately notify-the
-insurance-eoverageJoes not-exist, netify--the parties to this
sha1l have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficiellt all-risk and liability
3 lawsuit and sha1]

4 insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5j if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions

6 from the Court 'with shall be obtained ~nd


\\'ith regard to whether insurance shaH oe paid
Bnd how it 1s to be

7:i i
7 : for. If consistent with existing 1aw,
1a\:I,.', the Recei ver shall not be responsible for claims arising
lhe Receiver arislng
8 fr0!ll
fr0!I1 the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.

9
II
I' 14.
J 4. The Receiver shall
shan be authorized 'to PU):
authoJized 10 pay all legal obligations of the
10
10
PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.
11

11
12 15. Zernik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
and

iI " ..
concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
13 anyone acting in concen reasonably

] 4 necessary to enable the Recei\ier


Recei,"er to administer the receivership estate and to exercise

exercise

15 management and control over the PROPERIT,


15 PROPERTY, including but not limited to:

to:

16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys,
keys. books of accounts,
17 ", .
budgets~ real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
records, operating statements, budgets,
]8
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
]9
19
20 (b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to

21 Samaan.
22
23
24
25
26-
26
27
28
""'"""
WOZ' WEST: IMMi<-j \4004922 I J.I
WOZ·WEST:JMMK-jl400492Z1 J. J
~_c=c;nr;~Exh;;;:ib;;;it

-5- ~/~~~.~pa~ge~/~~
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
"'"
376 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p376/679
-----,.------- •
1 16. The parties and their respective agents) employees, representatives
2 -and anyone acting in -concert and· restrained-from engaging
with them-are hereby enjoined -and-restrained-from
-cuncertwith
3 in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
'control over the PROPERTY.
4 receivership estate and exercise management and 'Control

~
5
I!
Da1ed:

.
Novem~, 2007
Daled: Novem~~

().9<:"0/7>
(}.9<'O/}.
~ . . -.

~H~ .Seia!
~Ho;;s Seia! ..
88
v,...
v, "JUt>d~PERJOR
"J~-d~PERJOR
.
,
COURT
'~".~$'
.......
.I
~~.S" ••
••

. ~.~.

9
10
II
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28

r~922] 1.1
W02·WEST:IMMK r~92211.1
-6- Exhibff'
Exhibit I Page !I &
g
W02.WEST:IMMK APPOJ"t\'TING RECEIVER
(PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING
377 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p377/679
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Enclosed is the court reporter's transcript for the
14 November 9, 2007 hearing, at 4-day notice, for appointment
15 of a "Receiver". Such receiver was appointed with no
reference to any section of the code, with no reference
16
to the purchase contract, and with no reference to the
17 judgment.
When Dr Zernik received the motion paper he immediately
18
responded that it was fraud.
19 In fact, in retrospect it was not fraud at all.
20 Because Dr Zernik's case was the exception. Whereas
other victims of racketeering by the LA Superior Court
21 judges never figure out how it happened, Dr Zernik
22 figured out the fraud around mid December 2006, and the
abuse continued for a year before the racketeering judges
23 managed to threaten him with force to take his property.
24 During that year, neither police, nor FBI would come to
his assistance.
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,k
28

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


Case No. BC351286
378 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p378/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 50

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

4
5 NIVIE SAMAAN,
6 PLAINTIFF,

7 VS. NO. SC 087400


8 JOSEPH ZERNIK,
9 DEFENDANT.
10
11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

13

14 APPEARANCES:
15 FOR PLAIN~I~F SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
NIVIE SAMAAN: LLP
16 BY: MOS KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
17
18
FOR DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK
19 IN PROPRIA PERSONA

20
21
22
23
24
25
26 AD~IANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370
OFFICIAL REPORTER
27
28

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 571

379 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p379/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 25 of 50

1 CASE NUMBER: SC 087400

2 CASE NAME: NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH


ZERNIK
3

4 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

5 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

6 REPORTER: ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.


12370
7

8 TIME: 9:18 A.M.

9 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

10

11 THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK, SC087400.

12 MR. KESHAVARZI: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MOE

13 KESHAVARZI FOR PLAINTIFF, NIVIE SAMAAN, MOVING PARTY.

14 MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, JOSEPH ZERNIK IN

15 PRO PER.

16 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOUR OPPOSITION IS TWO DAYS

17 LATE. I JUST GOT IT. SO I'LL HAVE TO READ IT. I HAVEN'T HAD

18 A CHANCE TO READ IT. I GAVE YOU UNTIL WEDNESDAY; RIGHT?

19 MR. ZERNIK: NO--

20 THE COURT: YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU GAVE IT TO ME YESTERDAY,

21 SO IT'S ONE DAY LATE, BUT ANYWAY, I HAVEN'T READ IT, BUT I

22 WILL.

23 MR. ZERNIK: I DELIVERED BY FAX TO PLAINTIFF COUNSEL BY

24 2:00 P.M. YESTERDAY AS YOU ORDERED.

25 THE COURT: OKAY. I'M SAYING I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO

26 READ IT, BUT I WILL. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD EITHER ON

27 THE MOTION OR THE EX PARTE, MR. ZERNIK?

28 MR. ZERNIK: I SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH THE -- WHAT

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 572

380 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p380/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 26 of 50

1 BY LAW IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST PRECEDENCE, AND THAT IS

2 THE ISSUE OF THE SCHEDULING OF HEARING FOR NEW TRIAL. THE LAW

3 SAYS IT IS PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

4 THE COURT: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?


5 MR. ZERNIK: SO, YES, BASICALLY THE EX PARTE IS TO

6 ESTABLISH CALENDAR. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I --


7 THE COURT: HAVE YOU FILED YOUR -- THS MOTIONS?
8 MR. ZERNIK: IT IS AN EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
9 SHORTENED HEARING. WHAT I HAVE HERE IS AN EX PARTE

10 APPLICATION FOR SHORTENSD HEARING -- SHORTENED TIME FOR

11 HEARING ON THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH CALENDAR. BASICALLY, I'M

12 ASKING TO ESTABLISH WnEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT DONE BECAUSE

13 IT WAS FILED --

14 THE COURT: YOU CAN HAVE IT ANY TIME YOU WANT. JUST

15 RESERVE A DATE WITH THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT.

16 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MUS~ BE

17 HEARD AND RULED UPON WITHIN 60 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS

18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE --

1'9 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 ~AYS RUN?

20 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?

21 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS RUN?

22 MR. ZERNIK: THE 60 DAYS WILL RUN OUT -- JUST A SECOND.

23 IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I BELIEVE. JUST A SECOND.

24 THE COURT: JUST TELL ME WHAT DATE YOU WANT, AND I'LL

25 SET IT.

26 MR. ZERNIK: BUT THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS NOT FILED

27 YET OPPOSITION. THIS IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHERE WHICH I

28 FILED, B~T WITH THE CHANGES OF JUDGES, EVERY TIME IT WAS

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 573

381 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p381/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 27 of 50

1 SCHEDULED AND THEN CANCELED, SCHEDULED AND CANCELED.

2 THE COURT: TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT IT HEARD. THERE'S

3 FOUR OF THEM. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ~OTION FOR -- WHICH ONES

4 YOU WANT HEARD AND TELL ME WHEN.

5 MR. ZERNIK: I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM HEARD NEXT

6 WEEK.

7 THE COURT: THESE FOUR RIGHT HERE?

8 MR. ZERNIK: YES.

9 THE COuRT: OKAY.

10 MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A TRIAL STARTING ON

11 NOVEMBER 19TH, AND I AM PREPARING FOR TRIAL, PREPARING

12 WITNESSES THAT ARE FLYING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN. I HAVE TO

]3 PREPARE FOUR OPPOSITIONS. THE 60 DAYS HAS RUN, YOUR HONOR.

14 THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON AUGUST 9TH.

15 THE COURT: THEN YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE SHORT.

16 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS HE'S

17 FILED

18 THE COURT: HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THE CASE

19 WAS -- DEPRIVED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR HIS MOTIONS HEARD

7.0 BECAUSE THR CASE WAS BOUNCED AROUND FROM COURT TO COURT.

21 ~R. KESHAVARZI: THAT HAD NO EFFECT ON IT, YOUR HONOR.

22 HE FILED THE MOTION BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR -- BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR

23 RECUSED HERSELF. HE FILED

24 MR ZERNIK: UMM

25 THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

26 EXCEPT FOR THESE PARTICULAR MOTIONS, UNLIKE ALL

27 THE REST, FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE COURT HAS TO SET THOSE. IT'S

28 THE ONE OF THE FEW MOTIONS WHERE THE PARTIES DON'T SET IT. SO

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 574

382 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p382/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 28 of 50

1 I HAVE TO SET IT.

2 MR. KESHAVARZI: JUDGE CONNOR DID SET THE HEARING FOR

3 HIM, BUT THEN HE WITHDRAW THE MOTIONS, YOUR HONOR. AND

4 THERE'S ALSO THE ISSuE OF THE FACT THAT MR. ZERNIK HAS ALREADY

5 FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, AND THE FILING OF THS NOTICE OF

6 APPEAL STATES EVERYTHING NOT RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE

7 JUDGMENT.

8 THE COURT: SO YOU GOT ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

9 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, IF YOUR HONOR WANTS ME TO PUT

10 THOSE ON PAPER, I WILL, BUT IT'S

11 THE COURT: THE ONE AT LEAST FOR THE NEW TRIAL, I HAVE

12 TO SET, BUT THE LEGISLATURE SAYS I HAVE TO SET IT. SO THE

13 HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL -- I THINK IT'S

14 SECTION 661, ISN'T IT, THAT MAKES ME DO THIS? LET ME CHECK.

15 YES.
16 SO ~VHAT DATE h'OULD YOU LIKE.

17 MR. ZERNIK: MONDAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE --

18 THE COURT: MONDAY IS A COURT HOLIDAY.

19 MR. ZERNIK: TUESDAY.

20 THE COURT: TUESDAY. TUESDAY IS -- DOESN'T GIVE HIM

21 MUCH TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION.

22 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?

23 THE COURT: DOESN'T GIVE HIM MUCH TIME TO FILE AN

24 OPPOSITION.

25 MR. KESHAVARZI: I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR HONOR SET IT FOR

26 NEXT FRIDAY, IF POSSIBLE, SO I HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO --

27 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FRIDAY THE 9TH?

28 MR. ZERNIK: I'M CONCERNED -- DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 575

383 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p383/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 29 of 50

1 DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO COUNT TO START OF DAY, I WILL RUN

2 OUT OF 'THE 60 DAYS. THAT IS THE CONCERN.

3 THE COURT: YOU CAN PICK ANY DATE YOU WANT, BUT NOT

4 NOVEMBER 13TH. THAT'S THE NEXT COURT DAY.

5 MR. ZERNIK: SO 14TH.

6 THE COURT: DONE.

7 MR. ZERNIK: SO THAT IS WEDNESDAY?

8 THE COURT: YES. THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR


9 NEW TRIAL IS NOVEMBER 14, 2007, 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT O.
10 THE OTHER MOTIONS YOU CAN SET. YOU DON'T NEED ME FOR THOSE.

11 MR. ZERNIK: YES. I'M ASKING FOR A SHORTENED NOTICE.

12 THE ISSUE IS THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO RESPOND TO WHAT


13 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SAID BECAUSE IT WAS FACTUAL ERRORS. I
14 FILED INITIALLY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE WAS

15 SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW ON THE SYSTEM WHETHER

16 OR NOT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. SO WE FILED MOTION FOR


17 RECONSIDERATION.
18 ONCE JUDGE CONNOR ESTABLISHED AND IT ACTUALLY

19 WAS FILED ON AUGUST 9TH, WE WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR


20 RECONSIDERATION, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WITH THE MOTION FOR

21 NEW TRIAL. THAT WAS FILED FIRST GNDER JUDGE GOODMAN. JUDGE
22 GOODMAN FILED WITH HIM THE NOTICE OF INTEN7 TO FILE MOTION FOR

23 NEW TRIAL, AN~ THEN THE MOTION ITSELF, ALWAYS UNDER JUDGE

24 GOODMAN, BUT NOT UNDER JUDGE CONNOR, AS PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

25 SAID I STATE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

26 AND NUMBER TWO, THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS THE START

27 DATE OF THE COUNTING IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT MAY HAVE TO


28 ESTABLISH IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 576

384 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p384/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 30 of 50

1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, ET CETERA.

2 ON THE OTHER MOTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO

3 YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY WERE NOTICED SO LONG AGO, FOR EXAMPLE,

4 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PER 128.7 WAS NOTICED FIRST BEFORE

5 AUGUST. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A SURPRISE. IT'S A SURPRISE

6 NOW TO PLAINTIFF, IF THERE'S A HEARING. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.


7 SO I'M ASKING, SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY DELAYS, TO HAVE A

8 SHORTENED NOTICE OF -- SHORTENED NOTICE HEARING ON THOSE

9 ADDITIONAL THREE MOTIONS.

10 THE OTHER MOTION IS ALSO A MOTION WHICH IS LONG

11 OVERDUE AND THAT IS TO CORRECT ALL KIND OF FACTUAL ERRORS IN


12 THE COURT FILE LIKE DATES AND NAMES, ET CETERA, THAT ARE MIXED

13 UP. THAT'S A MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS. THIS IS CORRECTION OF

14 FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE FILE. THAT'S LONG OVERDUE. IT WAS I

15 THINK, THE NOTICED MOTION WAS FIRST FILED UNDER ALSO JUDGE

16 GOOD~AN. THE THIRD ONE IS OF THE THREE -- EXCEPT FOR THE

17 FIRST ONE, IS THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. ALSO WAS FILED

18 UNDER JUDGE GOODMAN, AND I FILED IT AND REFILED SEVERAL TIMES

19 EACH OF THESE.
20 THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR RECEIVER.

21 DO YOU WANT TO BE -- APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.

22 MR. ZERNIK: SO YOU DENIED SHORTENED NOTICE AND I

23 SHOULD HAVE REGULAR NOTICED HEARING FOR THE THREE ADDITIONAL

24 MOTIONS? BECAUSE

25 THE COURT: I HAVEN'T RULED YET.

26 THE WITNESS: OKAY.

27 THE COURT: IT'S UNDER SUBMISSION.

28 MK. KESHAVARZI: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 577

385 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p385/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 31 of 50

1 MR. ZERNIK'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR

2 HIM TO SERVE ME HIS MOTION, AND WHEN IS MY DEADLINE

3 THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE IT ALREADY.

4 MR. KESHAVARZI: I DON'T THINK

5 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOU DO.

6 THE COURT: IF HE CAN SEND ANOTHER ONE. YOU CAN SEND

7 HIM ANOTHER ONE.

8 MR. ZERNIK: NO, NO. THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS

9 SERVED ON YOU BY JUDGE GOODMAN.

10 THE COURT: YOU WERE ORDERED TO SERVE ANOTHER COpy ON

11 HIM --

12 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. I'LL SERVE IT TODAY.

13 THE COURT: -- BY THE END OF TODAY.

14 MR. KESHAVARZI: AND OUR OPPOSITION, YOUR HONOR, WILL

15 BE DUE ON TUESDAY?

16 THE COURT: YES.

17 OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

18 OF RECEIVER. I HAVEN'T READ MR. ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION, BUT I

19 WILL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO KNOW?

20 MR. ZERNIK: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOME

21 fACTUAL ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION. FIRST OF ALL, THE PREMISE

22 OF THAT APPLICATION IS THAT THERE WAS A REFUSAL ON MY PART TO

23 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO

24 SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT, IF ANYTHING, IT'S THE OPPOSITE.

25 ON THE BEGINNING OF THIS WEEK, I NOTICED THE

26 JUDGMENT. ALTHOUGH, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED BY THE

27 COURT TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT AND REFUSED TO DO SO EVEN AFTER I

28 REMINDED HIM. AND THE REMINDERS -- EVEN THE REMINDERS, I

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 578

386 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p386/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 32 of 50

1 ENCLOSED HERE IN EXHIBITS. SO OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, I


2 SEVERAL TIMES REMINDED HIM "YOU'RE ORDERED BY THE COURT TO

3 NOTICE THE JUDGMENT," AND HE REFUSED TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT.


4 LATER ON, THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE
5 OPPORTUNITIES WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE JUDGMENT AND
6 RELEVANT PAPERS. FOR EXAMPLE, PLAINTIFF SUPPLIED THE PROPOSED
7 REFEREE WITH THE PAPERS RELEVANT TO HIS FGTURE WORK. THE

8 JUDGMENT OBVIOUSLY IS CRITICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE REFEREE ON


9 EXECUTION. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SUBSTITUTED -- INSTEAD OF THE

10 JUDGMENT, HE FILED AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH


11 IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
12 SAME THING EVEN UNDER THIS COURT, WHEN

13 PLAINTIFF CAME HERE, I THINK IT WAS LAST WEEK, FOR A MOTION TO

14 COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR APPRAISAL, THE BASIS FOR THE COMPEL WAS
15 THE JUDGMENT. AND IN THE TEXT IT SAID THAT HE'S DOING THE
16 JUDGMENT, BUT IN THE EXHIBIT ITSELF WAS ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

17 JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, EVEN IN THE MOTION FOR APPOINTING OF

19 A ~~CEIVER IN THIS INSTANT MOTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, HOW


70 CAN THAT RECEIVER WORK IF HE NEVER IS NOTICED OF THE JUDGMENT?

21 SO INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL INSERTED ORDER

22 GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WH~CH IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY


23 DIFFERENT AND WILL NOT GIVE THE REFEREE ANY GUIDANCE ON WHAT

24 HE'S SUPPOSED TO NOTICE.


25 SIMILARLY, I CONSIDER THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT

26 EITHER THE REFEREE OR RECEIVER, ANYBODY WHO'S EXECUTING THE

27 THIS JUDGMENT, MUST HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM THE CONTRACT

28 BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT REFERENCES THE CONTRACT. AGAIN, IT DOES

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 579

387 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p387/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 33 of 50

1 NOT APPEAR IN THE MOTION THAT IT WAS PROPOSED BY ATTORNEY

2 KESHAVARZI.
3 SO HOW COULD A RECEIVER OR REFEREE, ANYBODY,

4 EXECUTE A JUDGMENT WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS NOT INCLUDED AND THE


5 CONTRACT IS NOT INCLUDED? WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
6 GOING TO BE OF? THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE OF
7 THE CONTRACT, AND THE CONTRACT IS SPECIFIED IN THE JUDGMJ<:NT.
8 NEITHER THE JUDGMENT NOR THE CONTRACT ARE INCL~DED IN THE

9 MOTION.

10 SO I CONSIDER IT COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE. BEYOND

11 THAT, IT SHOWS ALSO SOME -- I WOULD SAY, A PERSON REVIEWING


12 THE CASE AS A WHOLE WOULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT FACT THAT
13 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY DELETES THE CONTRACT AND THE

14 JUDGMENT FROM ANY RELEVANT DOCUMEN7 THAT IS SUPPOSED TO

15 INCLUDE THEM, IS REASONABLY GOING ~O LEAD ANYBODY REVIEWING


16 THE CASE TO THE CONCLUSION, COMBINED WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, MINUTE

17 ORDER OF AUGUST 21ST, AND SOME OTHER INSTANCES, IT WILL LEAD


18 ANY REVIEWER REVIEWING THIS CASE TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT

19 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS INTENTION TO EXECUTE SOMETHING WHICH

20 IS OTHER THAN THIS SPECIFIC CONTRACT AND THAT IS SOMETHING

21 OTHER THAN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOR

22 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC CONTRACT.


23 SO THAT'S WHY TODAY I AM GOING TO NOTICE THE

24 CONTRACT ITSELF AS WELL BECAUSE IT NEVER APPEARS IN THE MOTION


25 FOR RECEIVER THAT WAS FILED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL.
26 BEYOND THAT, THE CLAIMS THAT I REFUSED TO

27 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AGAIN, ARE BASED ON

28 FALSE STATEMENTS BECAUSE HOW COULD I REFUSE TO COOPERATE IF

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 580

388 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p388/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 34 of 50

10

1 THE REFEREE -- IF AT THE SAME TIME THE REFEREE FILED WITH ME

2 OR -- AND WITH ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, A NOTICE THAT HE TOOK

3 NO ACTION.
4 SO THOSE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY BY
5 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL OR SOME OTHER PEOPLE WORKING FOR

6 PLAINTIFF, BUT WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.


7 I WAS CONSTANTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE PROPOSED
8 REFEREE. THE PROPOSED REFEREE AND I HELD THE POSITION THAT
9 HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, NEVER FINALIZED.
10 THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED REFEREE, JUDGE, O'BRIEN SENT A NOTICE

11 TO ME AND A~SO TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT HE NEVER TOOK ANY

12 ACTION IN THIS CASE. YET PLAINTIFF SENT AN APPRAISSR ON MY


13 PROPERTY, STARTED TITLE ACTIO~. AND THOSE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED

14 BY ANYBODY. NOT BY REFEREE, NOT BY THE COURT, NOT BY ANYBODY.


15 SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE

16 JUOGMENT, WHEN, IN FACT, ~HAT I DID IS I CALLED THE PEOPLE WHO

17 SENT THOSE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THEM, "~mo AUTHORIZED YOU?" IT

18 TURN OUT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY A COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF

19 PLAINTIFF.
20 ONE TIME THE TITLE ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY

21 PHONE CALL, AND THE APPRAISAL WAS AUTHORIZED BY E-MAIL FROM


22 THE COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PLAINTIFF. THAT IS NOT THE

23 WAY JUDGMENT BY COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SXECUTED. THIS WAS

24 SOME KIND OF A FLY-BY-NIGHT EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT.

25 AGAIN, THE REFEREE HIMSELF SENT A NOTICE, WEICH

26 IS INCLUDE~ IN THE EXHIBIT, SAYING I TOOK NO ACTION IN THIS

27 CASE. SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE


28 EXECUTION IS ENTIRELY LACKING IN BASIS.

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 581

389 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p389/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 35 of 50

11

1 AT THE SAME TIME, I REQUESTED THAT THE

2 REFEREE'S APPOINTMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

3 THEN I DID IT IN THE SAME WAY, I CONSIDERED THE MOTION FOR

4 APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE, FOR

5 EXAMPLE, THE ?ROPOSED ORDER IS MISSING THE SECTION OF THE LAW

6 THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE RECEIVER.


7 HOW COULD IT BE THAT A PROPOSED ORDER OF TH~

8 COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER WOULD NOT EVEN SPECIFY WHAT'S THE

9 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION, WHAT'S THE JUDGEMENT TO BE

10 ENFORCED AS FAR AS THE SECTION OF THE CODE. NO SECTION OF

11 THE CODE IS MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSED ORDER.


12 FURTHERMORE, HOW CAN A RECEIVER OPERATE WITHOUT

13 A JUDGMENT? NO JUDGMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE ORDER. HOW CAN A

14 RECEIVER OPERA~E WITHOUT A CONTRACT? NO CONTRACT IS INCLUDED

15 IN TH2 ORDER.
16 SO THAT'S WHY THIS WEEK I NOTICED BOTH THE

17 JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT TO INDICATE THAT MY INTENTION IS TO

18 COOPERATE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE JUDGMENT AND

19 THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT. NOT SOME KIND OF DIFFUSED OR

20 ILL-DEFINED WISHES OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. IT HAS TO BE

21 ACCORDING TO WHAT THE COURT ORDERED.

22 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.

23 MR. ZERNIK: AND LAST ISSUE IS THAT IN CASE THE COURT

24 DECIDES THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME VALIDITY FOR THE ACTION

25 ON THE TITLE AND THE APPRAISAL, THEN I ASSuME -- I MEAN, THE

26 FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF OR SOME PEOPLE OPERATING ON HER BEHALF

27 INITIATED ACTION ON APPRAISAL AND TITLE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL

28 OF THE REFEREE. IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES THAT THAT WAS A

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 582

390 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p390/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 36 of 50

12

1 VALID ACTION, THEN I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLARIFY ITS

2 POSITION, BECAUSE THEN ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT ESCROW WAS

3 OP~NED AT SOME POINT. AND THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CALLS FOR

4 EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACT HAD A 45-DAY ESCROW.

S SO IF THE COURT DECIDES THERE WAS ANY VALIDITY TO THAT, THAT

6 MEANS ESCROW WAS OPENED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA

7 WHEN THAT IS. AND ESCROW HAS TO CLOSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

8 I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THAT IS.


9 SO IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES THER~ WAS ANY

10 VALIDITY TO THOSE ACTIONS, I REQUEST THAT THE COURT WILL

11 DETERMINE WHAT'S THE START DAY OF ESCROW AND THE END OF


12 ESCROW. SO I PROPOSE ORDER AT THE END, ONE, IN CASE THS COURT

13 DECIDES THAT THERE WAS NO VALIDITY TO DO THOSE TITLE AND

14 APPRAISAL ACTIONS. IN THAT CASE, I REQUEST WE GO BACK TO WHAT

15 JUDGE CONNOR ORDERED, AND THAT IS THAT THERE WILL BE A REFEREE

16 APPOINTED. BUT THE FINALIZING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE

17 REFEREE IS WHAT WAS MISSING LAST TIME. THIS TIME WE CAN DO IT

18 ALL THE WAY AND COMPLETE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE REFEREE WITH

19 THE JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT AND THE CORRECT ORDER FOR

20 APPOINTMENT, BECAUSE BY MISTAKE IT WAS ORDERED AS A REFEREE

21 FOR DISCOVERY, BUT IT WAS NOT WHAT JuDGE CONNOR INTENDED TO

22 DO. SHE INTENDED TO HAVE A REFEREE FOR ESCROW.

23 SO HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, AND

24 THAT'S WHY HE NEVER TOOK ACTION. SO I SUGGESTED THE MOST

25 REASONABLE DECISION FOR THE COURT AT THIS POINT IS JUST TO

26 VISIT BACK THAT ISSUE AND APPOINT A REFEREE AS REQUIRED BY

27 LAW.
28 ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE DECISION THAT THERE WAS

EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 583

391 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p391/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 37 of 50

13

1 NO VALIDITY TO THE TITLE APPRAISAL ACTION WITHOUT ANY ACTION

2 B't lYlE REFEREE, I RE'Q'0ES'r 'rHA'r 'rHE COUR'r - - AN'i) 'THIS IS 'THE

3 SECOND PROPOSED ORDER ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE COURT CLARIFIES


4 WHA'1' WAS THE DATE THAT THE ESCROW STARTED AND WHAT WAS THE
5 DATE ESCROW WILL CLOSE WITHIN THE 45-DAY THAT IS SPECIFIED IN

6 THE CONTRACT.

7 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.

8 MR. ZERNIK: NO, THE LAST --

9 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI.

10 MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU,

11 YOUR HONOR.
12 YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, MR. ZERNIK'S CLAIMS THAT

13 HE'S WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT ARE BELIED BY HIS

14 CONDUCT. AND MOST RECENTLY

15 THE COURT: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE'S WILLING OR


16 UNWILLING TO COMPLY. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER A REFEREE

17 -- A RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED.

18 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE A

19 RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO CARRY OUT THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE

20 MR. ZERNIK ON HIS OWN IS UNWILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE

21 JUDGMENT AND SEE THE JUDGMENT THROUGH, YOUR HONOR.


22 SECTION 7. -- 708.62 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

23 PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT A


24 RECEIVER WHERE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SHOWS THAT CONSIDERING

25 THE INTEREST OF BOTH THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND THE JUDGMENT

26 DEBTOR, THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS A REASONABLE METHOD

27 TO OBTAIN THE FAIR AND ORDERLY SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.

28 AND: ORDERLY: I THINK IS THE KEY HERE, YOUR HONOR.

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 584

392 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p392/679


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 38 of 50

14
.....-------=-------------
1 MR. ZERNIK CLAIMS THAT HE WANTS TO COOPERATE
2 WITH US AND SEE THE JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THROUGH, TO CARRY THE
3 JUDGMENT INTO EFFECT, BUT SINCE THE BEGINNING, SINCE THE DAY

4 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, HE'S DONE EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO

5 AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT.


6 HE RECOMMENDED THAT JUDGE O'BRIAN BE APPOINTED
7 AS A REFEREE. HE RECOMMENDED MR. O'BRIAN, AND THEN WHEN IT
8 CAME TIME FOR JUDGS O'BRIAN TO SET A HEARING, MR. ZERNIK

9 DIDN'T SHOW UP. HE NEVER EVEN PAID MR. O'BRIAN'S BILLS. AND

10 IT REACHED A ?OINT WHERE JUDGE O'BRIAN HAD TO GET OUT OF T~E

11 CASE. HE DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF, BUT HE WROTE A LETTER TO YOUR


12 HONOR IN WHICH HE SAID "I CAN NO LONGER SERVE AS A REFEREE IN

13 THIS CASE."

14 THE COURT: ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE WHOLE ADR

15 ORGANIZATION.

16 MR. KESHAVARZI: HE DID, YOUR HONOR. SO ADR IS CLOSED

17 TO US NOW. WE CAN'T EVEN USE THEM IF WE WANTED TO FOR A

18 REFEREE. WE COULDN'T EVEN USE THEM TO GET A RECEIVER BECAUSE

19 TH2Y WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH TH~S.

20 WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, WE WANTED TO GET

21 THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY STARTED TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.

22 WE WANTED TO GET A TITLE REPORT. SO PEOPLE WHO WERE PREPARING

23 THE TITLE REPORT CONTACTED MR. ZERNIK. MR. ZERNIK SAID --

24 THE COURT: I THINK YOU'RE REPEATING WHAT'S IN YOUR


25 PAPER, AREN'T YOU?

26 MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR.

27 THE COURT: I GOT IT.

28 MR. KESHAVARZI: LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT TO

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


PAGE 585

393 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p393/679