09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #13 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part7 p493-591

1 II policies for the period that the Receiver shan be in possession of the estate.
If sufficient
2 II insurance coverage does not exist, the Receiver shall immediately notify the parties to this
3 II lawsuit and shall have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficient an-risk and liability
4 II insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5 /I if the Receiver does not have suffi cient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions
6 II from the Court with regard to whether insurance shall be obtained and how it is to be paid
7 II for. Jf consistent with existing law. the Receiver shall not be responsible for claims ansing
8 II from the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.
9
14. The Receiver shall be authorized to pay aJ] legal obligations of the
10 Ii
PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.
11
12 15. Zemik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
13 II anyone acting in concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
14 II necessary to enable the Receiver to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
15 /I management and control over the PROPERTY, including but not limited to:
16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys, books of accounts,
17
records, operating statements, budgets, real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
19
20 II (b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
21 /I Samaan.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II W02-WEST'j MMK I '-400492211.:

-5-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
493 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p493/679
16. The parties and their respective agents, employees, representatives
2 II and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from engaging
3 II in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4 II receivership estate and exercise management and control over the PROPERTY.
~ II Dated Novem~o; 2007

-Ii ~
~... ~ _
7 III <'a - -. Hon_ 10 - Segal

rl? 'JUt>dg~PERIOR
8 ,I
..COURT
,
-'..
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
-6-
W02-WEST·1MMKJ04004922J 1.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 II I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 333 South Hope
411 Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-1448.
Roben J. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph Zernik

The Law Department 320 S. Peck Drive
Coldwell Banker Residential Beverly Hins, California 90212
91 Brokerage Company jzl2345(cUearthlink.net
I
If 11611 San Vicente Blvd., Ninth Floor
10 Los Angeles, CA 90049-6510
Facsimile: (310) 447-1902
11 robert.shulkin@camoves.com
12 0 BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and

processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
J3 with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
14 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation dat1e or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
]5 affidavit.
16 110 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served such envelope or package to be

delivered on the same day to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the
17 overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package
designated by the overnight service carrier.
18 ..
~ BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the

19 office of the addressee(s).
20110 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused to be prepared and sent an email to the party
listed below at the e-mail address shown on the service list.
21
~ STATE: I declare under penalty of peJjury under the laws of the State of
22 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed on October 26, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.

~~ '//1/',/
24 \, " \\ ,/ "i J1
/ / ,. I
25 \ a. t,' ~/>;Z ;p;)

- - - /' . ! 1 . /.d:f..j f'
26
27
28

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 C
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

-23- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
SUPERIOR COURT

I
~J Z(~I?r
yt
\ '
SllPERJOR COCRT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORKIA
8 CmC'TY OF LOS ."'<GELES
9 WEST DISTRICT. SAl'TA MO:-JrCA
lU
) Case ]\'0.: SC 087.+00
11 l']VIE SAMAAK )
l2 Plaintiff, ., JCDGMEl'T
) BY COCRT PURSLAl'T TO
CCP SECTIOI\' 437c
13
14
vs.
JOSEPH ZER'<rK.
l
) Date: August 9. 2007
15 Defendant i Depm1ment I
Hon. Jacqueline A. Connor
10
This Coun. on August 9, 2007, granted The motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff
1S "\"ivie Samaan and L1rJcrc-d entry ofjudgment as requested in said motion. As such:
19 11 IS ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff1<ivie Samaan is awarded
specific pelfonnance L1fThe contract for purchase of real propeny ("Propeny") commonly kno\\TI
as .3:0 South Peck Drive. Beverly Hills, California 90212. Defendam Joseph Zemik is ordered
te, perform his obligations under the comract forthwith and proceed with dle sale of the Property
to :t\ls. Samaan at a purchase price of $1,718.000. Niv ie Sanlaan shall recover from defendant
costs of suit in the sum of~ and attorneys' fees in ~he amoum ofS O.
JACQUELINE A. CONNOR
26 : Date: August 9, 2007
He'n. Jacqueline A... Connor
}':'
Judge of the Superior Court
28
•1

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 D
28

SUPERIOR COURT

1 Joseph Zernik
in pro per
2 320 S. Peck Avenue
Beverly Hills, California 90212
3 Tel: 310-435-9107
Fax: 801-998-0917
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, ) Case No. SC087400
) No Valid Assignment On File
11 Plaintiff, )
)
12 v. )
) NOTICE
13 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 ) OF
through 20, inclusive, )
14 ) CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE
) OF
15 Defendants. ) REAL PROPERTY
_____________________________________ ) COMMONLY KNOWN
16 )
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, AS
)
17 ) 320 SOUTH PECK DR
Cross-Complainant,
) BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA
18 )
v. 90212
)
19 ) CITED IN
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
) JUDGMENT BY COURT
20 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an )
individual, PURSUANT TO CCP §437c
)
21 ) AUGUST 9, 2007
Cross-Defendants. )
22 )
_____________________________________ )
23
24 DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007
25
26
27
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
28
-1-
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT 1

1 ///
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 9, 20007, Judge Jacqueline Connor of
3 Department I, Los Angeles Superior Court, granted the Motion for Summary Judgment by
4 Plaintiff, and ordered entry of Judgment by Court.
5
As such:
6
It was ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff Nivie Samaan was awarded specific
7
performance of the Contract for Purchase of Real Property known as 320 South Peck Drive Beverly
8
Hills 90212.
9
10 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Contract for Purchase of Real Property that was
11 introduced as evidence by Keshavarzi in Plaintiff’s Reply for Motion for Summary Judgment. This
12 Contract for Purchase of Real Property served as the basis for Judge Connor’s Judgment by
13 Court entered August 9, 2007.
14 This Contract is held by Defendant as an offending document, to be reviewed as part of pending
15 Motions for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP §128.7, for the following reasons:
16
a) Plaintiff filed in 2005 claims without a Contract: In October 2005, Samaan filed claims in a
17
real estate specific performance with no contract that was the basis for such claim. Zernik submitted
18
in November 2005 demurrer pursuant to Statute of Fraud. Judge Connor denied such demurrer
19
without ordering Samaan to amend her claims. Such contract was eventually introduced as evidence
20
only in plaintiff’s Reply for Motion for summary judgment, heard on Aug 9, 2007.
21
22 b) Multiple variants of the Contract were produced in discovery, but none introduced by
23 Plaintiff as evidence until Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment: Among discovery documents
24 in Samaan v Zernik, Zernik identified six (6) different variants of the Contract. The Contract
25 introduced by Keshavarzi in plaintiff’s Reply for Motion for Summary Judgment, was one of two
26 such variants that were included in Samaan’s Loan File produced by Countrywide in response to
27 subpoena for documents. This contract was never found in Escrow file for this transaction, was
28 never found among documents produced by Libow and Coldwell Banker, Zernik’s realtor, and most
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

1 significantly - never found among documents produced by Plaintiff, who was both buyer and realtor
2 for buyer!
3 c) This Contract document was never properly authenticated: This document, which was the
4 product of fax transmission, was never properly authenticated by any reasonable standards required
5 for authentication of faxed documents. (e.g., see for reference Rules of Court regarding
6 authentication of fax filing with Court Clerk).
7
d) The preponderance of evidence shows that Plaintiff’s claims regarding identity of Sender,
8
Receiver, and time of transmission are all false and deliberately misleading: The fax cover sheet,
9
as well as declarations and oral arguments by Samaan, Parks, and Keshavarzi represent this
10
document as if it had been faxed by Parks, from the State of Washington, to Countrywide, in
11
northern California, on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm. Such claims seem also to be supported by the fax
12
cover sheet and the fax header imprint of this document. However, these were not the true facts in
13
this matter. The anonymous header imprint was routinely used by Samaan during the transaction in
14
2004 to fax documents that appeared to come from Parks. Samaan’s fax machine log was
15
introduced as evidence by Samaan herself. Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the fax log
16
introduced by Samaan. Added on the original document are comments in Courier font by Zernik,
17
and stars to show the instant transmission. This log shows that this Purchase Agreement document
18
was in fact the product of fax transmission from Samaan to her husband, JR Lloyd, and not from
19
Parks to Countrywide. Therefore, we do not know what time and by whom it was transferred to
20
Countrywide. Therefore, the transmission of this Contract for Purchase of Real Property was part
21
of the wire scheme by Samaan and Parks against Zernik and against Financial Institution –
22
Countrywide (albeit with full cooperation of Maria McLaurin – Branch Manger at San Rafael).
23
e) Even if the purported fax transmission data, as claimed by Samaan, were taken at face
24
value, this Contract contradicts Plaintiff’s claims that were the foundation of this litigation as a
25
whole and the Summary Judgment in particular: Samaan’s claimed-
26
27 i. That her loan funding was delayed only because of Defendant’s missing initials on a Contract faxed by Mara
Escrow on Friday, October 22, 3:42pm --yet Samaan removed the Loan Contingency in response to Notice to
28 Buyer to Perform of Oct 18, 2004, and the instant copy of the Contract shows that it was transmitted by Mara

1 Escrow on Oct 22, 3:42pm, and it does bear Defendant’s initials and signatures.
ii. That she did not remove the Appraisal Contingency, since the delay in Loan Approval delayed her appraisal –
2 yet Samaan already had an appraisal that came in at purchase price,
3 iii. That yet another copy of the Contract was transmitted by Mara Escrow to Victor Parks later than Oct 22, 2004,
3:42 pm -- but no evidence whatsoever was shown to that effect -- bearing Defendant’s initials and signature.
4 iv. That Victor Parks faxed this Contract -- purported to be the Contract document noticed here -- to Countrywide
on Oct 25, 2004, at 5:03pm -- but the fax log shows that the fax transmission of this document at that time was
5 from Samaan to Lloyd.
6 v. The purported receipt of this Contract by Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004 at 5:03 pm caused Countrywide to
immediately approve the loan (but on October 26, 2004, Samaan purportedly received an Underwriting Letter
7 stating Suspension of the Loan Application), which led to immediate approval of the appraisal, which allowed
Samaan to remove the Appraisal contingency – but Samaan removed the Appraisal Contingency on the morning
8 of Oct 25, 2004, prior to the purported receipt of the Contract by Countrywide.
9 vi. That Samaan removed the Appraisal Contingency on Oct 25, 2004 before Zernik issued Instruction to Cancel
Escrow – but Zernik issued, and Samaan received the Instruction on Oct 21, 2004.
10 Regardless of the offending nature of this document, this is the document that Judge Connor
11 referenced in her Judgment by Court, deemed entered on Aug 9, 2007, as the Contact for Purchase
12 of Real Property. Therefore, it is the instant document that is the foundation for the Specific
13 Performance ordered in that Judgment by Court.
14
Defendant Zernik is noticing this Contract for Purchase Agreement at this date, since:
15
a) Such document was never presented by proposed Referee Judge O’Brien, as part of
16
documents that would have formed the foundation for his authority as referee, if appointed. Those
17
documents were supplied to Judge O’Brien by Keshavarzi, yet he failed to provide a copy of the
18
Contract that he introduced in Court as the basis for his claims for Specific Performance.
19
20 b) Such document was never included in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Appraisal, although that
21 Appraisal is founded on Specific Performance of this Contract..
22 c) Such document was never included in Plaintiff’s Noticed Motion for Appointment of a
23 Receiver, although this Contract would be the foundation for Specific Performance executed by such
24 proposed Receiver.
25
d) Such document was never included in Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a Shortened Notice
26
Motion for Appointment of a Receiver, although this Contract would be the foundation for Specific
27
Performance executed by such proposed Receiver..
28
4

1 Therefore, Defendant is noticing this Contract for Purchase of Real Property, which was the
2 foundation for the claims of Specific Performance by Plaintiff, and also the foundation for the
3 Judgment by Court of Aug 9, 2007.
4
5
6
7 ________________________________________
8 JOSEPH ZERNIK
Defendant and Cross Complainant
9 in pro per
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

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 A
28
6

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 B
28
7

v- v
hp officcjet d135 Fax-History Repon for

printer/f"/s:anner/copier
. <lei 27 ;lOO4 ~:_
Last 30 transactions
I1$ JJim< IlIlt Identification Duration &w &t.lllll

OCt 19 7:17pm Fax Sent 8237218 0:29 1 OK
Oct 19 7126pn m...". 8237218 ;J:34 1 {}j(
Oct 19 8:20pm Fax Sent 8237218 lJ:""f r 0'1<'
Qct20 1O:09am Fax Sent 8587842 1030 4 OK
Oct 20 10: 120m fax Sent 2784934 1:05 4 OK
Ocl20 lO:l9am Fax Sent 2784934 1:22 4 OK
Oct 20 19:23am Fax Sent 8587842 1:20 4 OK
Oct 20 I :25om Ta 5em 8BnUI tt27 4 {}j(
OCt 20 1~:24pm fax Sent 18I89.l"61l33' ~ I m::
Oct 20 2:56pm Fax Sent 8237218 0:47 1 OK
Oct 20 SlS4pm Fax Sent 8237218 0:41 1 OK
Oct 21 li:1Spm fax sent 18189561133 0:37 1 OK
OCt 21 I :36pm fax Sent 8237218 0:43 1 OK
~21 ~i9pm Ta""" 4181135 ;r.4'5 1 furor '!'I1
Det2i SllSpm FaxSeot 4782135 1:44 2 Emrr 350
OCL2L "39pm -Ea-s...... . a:n12l&-_ ~ 7. ~
Oct 22 9~S4am Fax Sent 8237218 0:00 0 No answer
*** Oct 22 1l:2Oam fax Sent 19258927966 12:39 14 OK ***
Oct 22 1l:51am Fax Sent 14155321301 0:50 2 OK
0Ct22 Ifl;1pm mlieftt UBl256288 e:311 4 £m>r3W
OCt 22 1 :3lpm Fax Sent 12132256288 r:n 4 0'1<
Oct 25 12:43pm Fax Sent 18183411897 1:10 2 OK
Oct 25 4~I9pm fax Sent 14152590855 4:39 15 OK
Oct 25 4:1S/ipm Fax sent 14152590866 0:37 0 Error 3116
- -
Oct 25 4:~9pm fax Sent 14152590866 0:56 I Error 441
*** Oct 25 5:02"., _~ent 'll3fflS ~ -t5 QK ***
Oct 25 5:~2p ... Fal>SoM- 2184004- g.
Oct 25 5:24pm Fax Sent 2784934 1:05 2 OK
Oct 25 5:~2pm Fax Sent 8587842 1:03 2 OK
Oct 27 9:~2am Fax Sent 8237218 1:10 2 OK
FAX LOG OF SAMAAN AS INTRODUCED BY SAMAAN.

ALL COMMENTS IN COURIER, AND STAR NEAR SECIFIC TRANSMISSIONS
ARE BY JZ 11/3/07.
THIS FAX MACHINE WAS USED WITH TWO ALTERNATIVE IDENTITIES IN FAX
HEADER: SPELLBOUND, WHEN USED AS SAMAAN
ANONYMOUS - WHEN USED AS PARKS.
TRANSMISSION OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ARE MARKED WITH A STAR.
a) THE TRANSMISSION OF OCT 22 AT 11:20a, 14 pages:
Appears in Countrywide's loan file, as if sent by Samaan to
Countrywide at that time,but was transmitted to 925-892-7966
b) THE TRANSMISSION OF OCT 25 AT 5:03p, 15 pages (cover page added):
Appears in Countrywide's loan file, as if sent by Parks from 509 271 7845
(State of Washington) to 415 259 0966, Countrywide in San Rafael
(California). As shown here, in effect it was faxed from Samaan in Los
Angeles to her husband in Los Angeles

1 Joseph Zernik
In Pro Per
2 320 S. Peck Avenue
3 Beverly Hills, California 90212
Tel: (310) 435-9107
4 Fax: (801) 998-0917
PROOF OF SERVICE
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
6 I am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to the action; my business address is: ____________________________
7 On November 13, 2007, I served the foregoing document described as:
8 Notice of Contract for Purchase of Real Property
This document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a
9 true copy thereof in the firm’s mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in
the attached mailing list.
10
[x] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
11 practice it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon
fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that
12 on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or
13 postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this
declaration.
14 FOR ATTORNEYS FOR PARTIES
15 [ ] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to
the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in
16 the attached mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission
reported complete without error.
17
FOR COURT FILING
18 [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the
addressees noted in the attached mailing list.
19 [x] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copy. Sent by email with copy to me by Joseph Zernik in Pro Per.
20 Executed on Nov 13, 2007, Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 above is true and correct.
22 MAILING LIST:_______
1. NIVIE SAMAAN 2.COLDWELL BANKER + LIBOW
23 Moe Keshavarzi, Esq Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN, LLP COLDWELL BANKER
24
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET THE LAW DEPARTMENT
25 48TH FLOOR 11611 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
26 FAX: (213) 620-1398 FAX: 310 447 1902
27
__________________________ __________________________
28 Name Signature
8

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 E
28

SUPERIOR COURT

3 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
5 I NIVIE SAMAAN,
6 PLAINTI FF,
7 VS. NO. SC 087400
8 I JOSEPH ZERNIK,
9 DEFENDANT.
10
11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007
13
14 APPEARANCES:
15 FOR PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,

NIVIE SAMAAN: LLP
16 BY: MOE KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
17
18
FOR DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK
19 IN PROPRIA PERSONA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 ADRIANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370

OFFICIAL REPORTER
27
28

1
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 I 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 I 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 I SO IT'S ONE DAY LATE, BUT ANYWAY, I HAVEN'T READ IT, BUT I
22 I 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 I READ IT, BUT I WILL. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD EITHER ON
27 I THE MOTION OR THE EX PARTE, MR. ZERNIK?
28 MR. ZERNIK: I SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH THE - WHAT

2
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 -- THE 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 SHORTENED HEARING -- SHORTENED TIME FOR
11 HEARING ON THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH CALENDAR. BASICALLY, I'M
12 ASKING TO ESTABLISH WHEN 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 -
19 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS 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, BUT WITH THE CHANGES OF JUDGES, EVERY TIME IT WAS

3
1 I 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, MOTION 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
13 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
20 BECAUSE THE CASE WAS BOUNCED AROUND FROM COURT TO COURT.
21 MR. 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

4
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 THE NOTICE OF
6 I APPEAL STATES EVERYTHING NOT RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
7 JUDGMENT.
S 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 Hl\VE
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.
IS YES.
16 SO WHAT DATE WOULD YOU LIKE.
17 MR. ZERNIK: MONDAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE -
IS 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

5
1 I 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. 1 ' 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 UNDER JUDGE GOODMAN. JUDGE
22 GOODMAN FILED WITH HIM THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR
23 NEW TRIAL, AND 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

6
1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, ET CETERA.
2 ON THE OTHER MOTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO
3 I 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 I 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 GOODMAN. 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 MR. KESHAVARZI: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON

7
1 I 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 I 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

8
1 I 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 FUTURE 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 I PLAINTIFF CAME HERE, I THINK IT WAS LAST WEEK, FOR A MOTION TO
14 I 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 RECEIVER IN THIS INSTANT MOTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, HOW
20 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, WHICH 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

9
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 JUDGMENT.
S NEITHER THE JUDGMENT NOR THE CONTRACT ARE INCLUDED 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 DOCUMENT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
15 INCLUDE THEM, IS REASONABLY GOING TO 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
2S 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

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 ALSO TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT HE NEVER TOOK ANY
12 ACTION IN THIS CASE. YET PLAINTIFF SENT AN APPRAISER ON MY
13 PROPERTY, STARTED TITLE ACTION. AND THOSE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED
14 I BY ANYBODY. NOT BY REFEREE, NOT BY THE COURT, NOT BY ANYBODY.
15 SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE
16 JUDGMENT, WHEN, IN FACT, WHAT I DID IS I CALLED THE PEOPLE WHO
17 I SENT THOSE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THEM, "WHO 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 FRO~I
22 THE COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PLAINTIFF. THAT IS NOT THE
23 WAY JUDGMENT BY COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE EXECUTED. 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 INCLUDED 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.

11
1 AT THE SAME TIME, I REQUESTED THAT THE
2 REFEREE'S APPOINTMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
3 I THEN I DID IT IN THE SAME WAY, I CONSIDERED THE MOTION FOR
4 APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE, FOR
5 EXAMPLE, THE PROPOSED 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 OPERATE WITHOUT A CONTRACT? NO CONTRACT IS INCLUDED
15 IN THE 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

12
1 I VALID ACTION, THEN I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLARIFY ITS
2 I POSITION, BECAUSE THEN ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT ESCROW WAS
3 OPENED 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 THERE 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 THE 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 I 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

13
1 NO VALIDITY TO THE TITLE APPRAISAL ACTION WITEOUT AKY ACTION
2 BY THE REFEREE, I REQUEST THAT THE COURT - AND THIS IS THE
3 SECOND PROPOSED ORDER ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE COURT CLARIFIES
4 WHAT 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 CCURT: 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 TH~ COURT: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE'S WILLING OR
16 UNWILLING TO COMPLY. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHE~ A RE?EREE
17 - A RECEIVER SHOULD B~ 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
2S THE =NTEREST 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.
b8 AND: ORDERLY: I TRINK IS THE KEY HERE, YOUR HONOR.

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 I 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 JUDGE 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 POINT 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 THEY WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
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

15
,---------...::-----------------
1 YOUR HONOR. MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE
2 CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE
3 VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND
4 BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AGAINST EVERY JUDGE THAT HAS
5 BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND AGAINST MY CLIENTS.
6 THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE.
7 MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO,
8 YOUR HONOR. IT GOES TO HIS INTENT. IF I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
9 ALLOWED TO, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR YOUR HONOR
10 WITH AN EX PARTE ASKING FOR A TRO AND INJUNCTION. I BELIEVE
11 HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.
12 MY PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT WEB
13 SITE ALONG WITH HIS ACTIONS SO FAR, SHOWS THAT HE'S UNWILLING
14 TO SEE THIS JUDGMENT CARRIED THROUGH.
15 YOUR HONOR, MY CLIENTS HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT
16 SUMS OF MONEY IN ATTORNEYS FEE GETTING THIS JUDGMENT
17 ENFORCED -- GETTING THIS JUDGMENT. AND NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE
18 JUDGMENT SINCE AUGUST 9TH, MR. ZERNIK HAS NOTICED OVER 45
19 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS, YOUR HONOR, 45 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.
20 THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?
21 MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.
22 JUDGE CONNOR, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JUDGMENT SAID THAT WE WERE
23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE
24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.
25 SHE WASN'T SURE ABOUT PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT SHE SAID
26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.
27 SO WITH RESPECT TO PREJUDGMENT, WHO KNOWS. IT
28 MAY BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES,
'---------------~

16
1 BUT POST JUDGMENT WE CERTAINLY DO INTEND TO BRING THAT MOTION.
2 YOUR HONOR, WE MADE THE ARGUMENTS IN OUR
3 PAPERS. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR HONOR'S TIME. IF YOU
4 DON'T APPOINT A RECEIVER, THIS JUDGMENT IS NEVER GOING TO GET
5 ENFORCED, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. WE'VE TRIED
6 SENDING HIM A COpy OF THE JUDGMENT, SENDING HIM A COPY OF THE
7 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. WE TRIED CALLING THE REFEREE.
8 IF HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE REFEREE NOT HAVING
9 THE CONTRACT, WHY WOULDN'T HE JUST SHOW UP AND GIVE THE
10 REFEREE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT? MR. ZERNIK IS ELEVATING FORM
11 OVER SUBSTANCE. HE'S TRYING TO FINO TECHNICALITIES AND TR~ TO
12 GET OUT FROM THE JUDGMENT BEING ENFORCED AGAINST HIM ON
13 TECHNICALITIES.
14 ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT MY
15 DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD
16 OF THE JUDGMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON
17 THAT. THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. I
18 BELIEVED - AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I
19 SAl D, "WE NEED A JUDGMENT ENTERED." SHE SAl D, "I'M ENTERING
20 THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COPY OF THE ORDER AND
21 SAID THAT THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF
22 THE JUDGMENT, AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. THE
23 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY
24 THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS
2S THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER.
26 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOU GET THE LAST WORD.
27 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I'M REALLY CONFOUNDED BY EVERYTHING
28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI SAYS FROM BEGINNING TO THE END BECAUSE

17
1 HE'S A LAWYER. I'M NOT. I START FROM THE END. HOW CAN YOU
2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGME~T -
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIREC~ YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,
4 NOT TO HIM.
5 MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT
6 ORDER GRAN~ING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.
7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
8 THE ORDER G~ANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCUSSES
9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE
10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO
11 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHI?
12 FOR EXAMPLE, HE GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ATTORNEYS
13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS
14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED
15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A
16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLEn OUT IN THE
17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, T CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR
19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH
20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.
21 THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
22 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BEYOND THAT, HE'S MADE CLAIMS WHICH
23 ARE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIJI.TED ABOUT WEB SITE, ET CETERA. IF HE
24 HAD SUCH CLAIM, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT. HE SHOULD HAVE FILED
25 THE DOCUMENTS, BUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DID
26 NOT BRING BEFORE THE COURT, THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
27 BEYOND THAT HE SAYS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. JUDGE
28 O'BRIAN JID NOT HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DONE. JUDGE O'BRIAN

18
1 HIMSELF SIGNED, WITH COOPERATION OF PLAINTIFF, A PROPOSED
2 ORDER FOR HIS OWN APPOINTMENT, WHICH CAME BEFORE THE COURT IN
3 SOME KIND OF UNUSUAL LODGING MECHANISM BEFORE JUDGE GOODMAN
4 AND JUDGE GOODMAN DENIED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I WAS FOR IT.
5 I WAS LOOKING FOR A REFEREE THAT IS APPOINTED AS -- DULY
6 APPOINTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
7 BUT INSTEAD, HE WAS NOT APPOINTED. HE DID NOT
8 HAVE THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS. HE SHOULD HAVE -- HE RECEIVED
9 FROM THE COURT WITH THE ORDER APPOINTING HIM THE CORRECT
10 DOCUMENT. INSTEAD HE RELIED ON PLAINTIFF TO GIVE HIM THE
11 DOCUMENTS. AND HOW CAN PLAINTIFF SAY HE NEVER SAW THE
12 JUDGMENT? SO HOW DID YOU EXPECT TO EXECUTE IT? HOW COULD YOU
13 EXPECT TO EXECUTE SOMETHING YOU NEVER SAW?
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE REPEATING
15 YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOU'RE DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS TO COUNSEL,
16 NOT TO THE COURT. THE MATTER IS UNDER SUBMISSION. YOU WILL
17 BE NOTIFIED IN THE MAIL.
18 MR. KESHAVARZI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
19 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
20
21 I (AT 9:42 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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 F
28

SUPERIOR COURT

07-10-11 transcript 101107-Samaan.txt
***UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT***

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT WE O HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
NIVIE SAMAAN, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
VS. ) NO. SC 087400
)
JOSEPH ZERNIK, )
)
DEFENDANT. )
)
REPORTER'S UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
(NO APPEARANCE) LLP
BY: MMOE KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT AND JOSEPH ZERNIK,

CROSS-COMPLAINANT: IN PROPRIA PERSONA
ADRIANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370

OFFICIAL REPORTER

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007;
9:06 A.M.
Page 1

THE COURT: EX PARTE APPLICATION, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK

SC087400.
MR. KESHAVARZI: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MOE
KESHAVARZI WITH SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON WITH MY
COLLEAGUE ROBERT ** FOR PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN.
MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JOSEPH
ZERNIK IN PRO PER.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU GAVE ME A LOT OF PAPER. I
THINK SOMEONE HAS BEEN HERE ON THIS CASE EVERY DAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: HASN'T BEEN US. IT'S MY FIRST TIME
BEFORE YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, IT WON'T BE THE THE LAST EITHER
BECAUSE I'M GOING TO DENY YOUR EX PARTE APPLICATION
WITHOUT -- TENTATIVE RULING -- WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BRING A
NOTICED MOTION. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING EX PARTE WITH
ALL THIS STUFF YOU'RE GIVING ME UNLESS THERE'S SOME
EMERGENCY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS INDEED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHAT'S THE EMERGENCY?
MR. KESHAVARZI: THE EMERGENCY IS THAT WE HAVE HAD
THIS JUDGMENT FOR TWO MONTHS. MY CLIENTS HAVE A LOAN
APPROVAL. THERE WAS A JUDGMENT ENTERED ON AUGUST 8TH FOR
THEM TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY -- FOR MR. ZERNIK TO SELL THE
PROPERTIES. WE HAVE OBTAINED A LOAN APPROVAL. THE ONLY
1001

CONDITION FOR THE LOAN FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET THE MONEY
FROM THE BANK IS FROM MR. ZERNIK TO ALLOW AN APPRAISAL
INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LENDER --
THE COURT: -- NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
Page 2

MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR WE HAVE A JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIM. WE NEED AN ORDER FROM YOUR HONOR --
MR. ZERNIK: MAY I --
THE COURT: YOU MAY NOT. HIS TURN; THEN YOUR TURN.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WE NEED AN ORDER FROM YOUR HONOR
PERMITTING US TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY. IF WE CAN'T INSPECT
THE PROPERTY, HOW IS THE JUDGMENT TO BE ENFORCED,
YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. YOU
HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.
MR. KESHAVARZI: AND THERE'S A RELATED ISSUE, IF I
MAY. IF WE DON'T DO AN APPRAISAL INSPECTION OF THE
PROPERTY, THE LOAN WILL EXPIRE. THEY WILL HAVE TO APPLY
FOR ANOTHER LOAN WITH ANOTHER INTEREST RATE. MY CLIENTS --
THE COURT: RATES ARE FALLING, AREN'T THEY?
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: IN FACT DIDN'T WE JUST READ THAT THE --
HE'S SMILING. ISN'T THE FED LOWERING RATES?
MR. KESHAVARZI: IT MAY --
THE COURT: ISN'T THIS A GIFT? YOU CAN'T COMPLETE
THE LOAN SO YOU GET BETTER TERMS?
MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, IF HE HAD GONE THROUGH
1002

WITH THE TRANSITION THREE YEARS AGO, THE RATE THAT WE WOULD
HAVE GOTTEN WAS 2 PERCENT LOWER. YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: HANG ON A LITTLE LONGER AND MAYBE THE
RATES WILL COME DOWN.
MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I SAY THIS AND MY
Page 3

CLIENT MAY WALK IN THROUGH THE DOOR BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO
COME HERE AND HIS WIFE IN CASE YOU WANTED TO ASK THEM ANY
QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE I WANT TO RAISE FOR YOU.
THE COURT: YOU'RE DOING FINE. I DON'T NEED TO
QUESTION THEM.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THEY'RE TEETERING ON THE EDGE OF BANKRUPTCY. I MEAN THAT,
YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THEY HAVE POURED EVERYTHING THEY'VE
HAD, THIS FAMILY OF FIVE HAS POURED EVERYTHING THEY'VE HAD
INTO THIS LITIGATION.
WE'VE HAD A JUDGMENT FOR TWO MONTHS,
YOUR HONOR. JUDGE CONNOR APPOINTED A REFEREE AT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF BOTH PARTIES TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE JUDGMENT.
THE COURT: ALL THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS A REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION -- USUALLY CALL THEM A RECEIVER -- THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE REFEREE OR RECEIVER.
MR. KESHAVARZI: THE REFEREE WON'T DO THAT
YOUR HONOR. THERE IS A REASON HE WON'T DO THAT THE BECAUSE
JUDGE CONNOR'S ORDER DIDN'T SPECIFY THAT THE REFEREE WAS
BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639 OF THE C.C.P. THE REFEREE
WROTE A LETTER TO JUDGE GOODMAN, ASKING JUDGE GOODMAN TO
1003

CLARIY THAT HE WAS BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT 639 --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'M SORRY. HOLD ON.
THE COURT: DO YOU WAIVE COURT REPORTER?
MR. KESHAVARZI: IF YOUR HONOR WANTS ME TO.
THE COURT: I DON'T WANT YOU TO.
MR. KESHAVARZI: IS IT OKAY -- I'LL --
THE COURT: SLOW DOWN.
Page 4

MR. KESHAVARZI: I APOLOGIZE. THERE'S A LOT ON MY
MIND, AND I'LL TRY TO GO A LOT SLOWER, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE CONNOR'S ORDER, BEFORE SHE RECUSED HERSELF, DID NOT
STATE PURSUANT TO WHAT STATUTE SHE WAS APPOINTING JUDGE
O'BRIEN AS THE REFEREE.
WE APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE O'BRIEN. THERE WAS
A NOTICED HEARING BEFORE JUDGE O'BRIEN. WE APPEARED.
MR. ZERNIK DID NOT. JUDGE O'BRIEN SAID, "I CANNOT MAKE A
RULING IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF MY POWERS ARE
UNCLEAR." HE SAID, "WHY DON'T WE" -- WHY DON'T I ASK JUDGE
GOODMAN -- BECAUSE THE CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE
GOODMAN -- WHY DON'T I ASK JUDGE GOODMAN TO CLARIFY THAT
I'M BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639 -- I BELIEVE -- (A)(2)
WHICH SAYS THAT AFTER AN ORAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED, THE
COURT MAY APPOINT A REFEREE TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT.
SO JUDGE O'BRIEN WROTE A LETTER TO JUDGE
GOODMAN ASKING JUDGE GOODMAN TO CLARIFY THAT JUDGE
O'BRIEN'S APPOINTMENT WAS PURSUANT TO 639. THE CASE GOT
TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE BIDERMAN AND THEN TO YOUR HONOR. SO
1004

WE STILL -- AND JUDGE O'BRIEN YESTERDAY SENT AN E-MAIL TO
BOTH PARTIES SAYING, "I WILL NOT ACT ON THIS CASE UNTIL I
KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF MY POWERS ARE."
SO WE ARE IN THIS NO-MAN'S-LAND WHERE MY
CLIENTS ARE SPENDING MONEY EVERY DAY APPEARING ON
EX PARTES, AT LEAST 12 OR 15 SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED.
THE COURT: AND YOU ANTICIPATE MORE.
Page 5

MR. KESHAVARZI: AND WE HAVE ANTICIPATED MORE,
YOUR HONOR, BUT WE HAVE A JUDGMENT FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT
BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET A RULING CLARIFYING THE REFEREE.
THE COURT: THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JUDGMENTS.
YOU'RE ONLY HALF WAY THERE.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND WE'RE
WILLING AND READY AND WE WILL GO ALL THE WAY. WE JUST NEED
WHAT THE CODE SAYS WE'RE ENTITLED TO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES, IT'S YOUR TURN.
MR. ZERNIK: I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START, BUT MAYBE
I'LL START FROM TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A CHANCE AT
ALL THAT EVERYTHING IS HALF DONE AND EVERYTHING IS HALF
BAKED AND EVERYTHING IS NOT WORKING FOR HIM. BECAUSE
EVERYTHING WAS DONE AGAINST THE RULES.
YOU MET WITH O'BRIEN EX PARTE. YOU TRIED TO
GET O'BRIEN TO DO IT AGAINST THE RULES. I HAD TO WARN HIM
AS A JUDGE YOU SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING THAT HE'S NOT WITHIN
AUTHORITY SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE HE STOPPED DOING IT. SO
1005

IT'S NOT CHANCE HE SENT THAT LETTER HE'S NOT GOING TO DO
IT --
THE COURT: STOP. DO YOU WAIVE COURT REPORTER?
MR. ZERNIK: NO.
THE COURT: IF YOU DO NOT WAIVE COURT REPORTER, YOU
MUST SPEAK SLOWER. IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK SLOWER I'M GOING TO
DEEM YOU HAVE WAIVED COURT REPORTER, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK
I CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT. BUT PLEASE -- I CAN'T DO THAT SO I
WON'T -- PLEASE SPEAK SLOWER.
MR. ZERNIK: AFTER THAT HE TALKED ABOUT FINANCIAL
Page 6

DIFFICULTIES. I AM ALREADY TWO YEARS OR MORE THAN TWO
YEARS UNDER THE LIS PENDENS. WHERE I CANNOT EVEN ACCESS MY
OWN MONEY, KEEPING MYE BASICALLY STRANDED WITH A LIS
PENDENS FOR NOTHING AT ALL BECAUSE BASICALLY THE WHOLE
THING IS BASED ON FRAUD.
AND BEYOND THAT WHAT'S -- ONE THING THAT IS
EXTREMELY INTERESTING IS THAT THE EX PARTE ITSELF UNUSUALLY
WAS CALLED TO FIND ME IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW
COURT JUDGMENT. MY ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IT IS THAT YOU
NEVER EVER USE THE JUDGMENT. EVERYWHERE YOU GO YOU USE THE
ORDER GRANTING YOU A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. YOU NEVER USE THE
JUDGMENT ITSELF. EVEN HERE I'M LOOKING FOR IT. THERE'S NO
JUDGMENT IN YOUR APPLICATION. YOU NEVER USE THE JUDGMENT.
YOU WANT THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOU DON'T LIKE THE JUDGMENT. SO
YOU ASKING FOR IT TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOU NEVER
SHOW THE JUDGMENT. YOU NEVER GIVE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- IT'S THE SAME THING BOTH YOU
1006

AND JUDGE CONNOR ARE NOT BELIEVERS IN THIS AMBIGUITY.
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BOTH WAYS. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH
WAYS ALL THE TIME. YOU HAD IT BOTH WAYS FOR TWO YEARS, BUT
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING WHEN
YOU SAY YOU ARE SEEKING AN INSPECTION.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, IT'S AN INSPECTION APPRAISAL.
THE LENDER FOR --
THE COURT: I KNOW WHAT AN APPRAISAL IS. WHAT IS IT
YOU ARE ASKING FOR?
MR. KESHAVARZI: THE LENDER -- WE NEED TO HAVE AN
Page 7

APPRAISER GO INTO THE PROPERTY LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND
SAY, "YES THIS PROPERTY IS WORTH THE VALUE -- I
APOLOGIZE -- IT'S WORTH THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT.
THE COURT: HOW BIG IS THE PROPERTY?
MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO SAY IT'S
ABOUT 2000 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE -- IF YOUR HONOR IS
THINKING -- WE CAN DO A DRIVE-BY APPRAISAL. WE TRIED THAT
BUT THE APRAISER SAID LENDERS DON'T DO IT IN TODAY'S REAL
ESTATE MARKET. THEY REQUIRE AN INSIDE INSPECTION.
SO YOUR HONOR I'M FINE IF YOU WANT US TO GO
TO JUDGE O'BRIEN. I WOULD JUST ASK YOUR HONOR TO CLARIFY
FOR JUDGE O'BRIEN'S SAKE AND FOR BOTH PARTIES' SAKES THAT
HE IS A REFEREE PURSUANT TO 639 (A) (2), C.C.P. AND HE HAS
THE POWERS TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT AND WE'LL
GO TO HIM BECAUSE --
THE COURT: LET'S DO THIS --
1007

MR. ZERNIK: MAY I --
THE COURT: IN A SECOND. I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION.
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. WHY DON'T YOU SUBMIT A
PROPOSED ORDER BECAUSE I BELIEVE A RECEIVER IS THE
APPROPRIATE PERSON OR REFEREE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL
HIM -- A PROPOSED ORDER TO HAVE A RECEIVER OR REFEREE. DO
EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.
IT'S GOT TO BE A HEARING ON THAT SO THAT HE CAN OBJECT, AND
THEN CAN I MAKE A RULING RATHER THAN ME ENGAGING IN
CORRESPONDENCE WITH A REFEREE THAT SOMEONE ELSE APPOINTED.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH THAT,
YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION, BUT MAY I ASK
YOUR HONOR -- I WILL FILE IT WITH THE COURT WITHIN AN HOUR
Page 8

OF ME WALKING OUT OF HERE. I WILL SERVE IT ON MR. ZERNIK
AS FAST AS I CAN GET SOMEONE OUT THERE. IF YOUR HONOR MAY
SET THE HEARING FOR MONDAY MORNING SO WE CAN BE HERE.
THE COURT: MONDAY IS NOT SO GOOD. HOLD ON JUST A
SECOND.
MR. KESHAVARZI: ANY TIME YOUR HONOR WANTS THE FIRST
AVAILABLE DATE, PLEASE.
THE COURT: WEDNESDAY WOULD BE BETTER. THE 17TH. I
ASSUME THAT EITHER YOU, ONE, TWO OR THREE OF YOU WILL BE
BACK BETWEEN NOW AND THE 17TH SINCE YOU'RE HERE EVERY DAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: BUT FOR NOW IF YOU WANT TO SET SOMETHING
FOR THE 17TH, YOU CAN RESERVE IT WITH THE COURTROOM
ASSISTANT.
1008

MR. KESHAVARZI: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES, SIR.
MR. ZERNIK: TWO -- THREE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE
LEFT, FIRST OF ALL THE QUESTION OF -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE
ISSUE OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. WHERE ARE WE
STANDING ON THAT? I HAVE NOT SEEN YET ANY MINUTE ORDER
SIGNED BY THE SUPERVISING JUDGE? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ONE
OR NOT?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT THE SUPERVISING
JUDGE.
MR. ZERNIK: BUT --
THE COURT: THE SUPERVISING JUDGE TELL ME WHAT TO
DO. I DON'T TELL THE SUPERVISING JUDGE --
MR. ZERNIK: BUT YOU'RE ORDERED TO ABIDE BY THE
Page 9

LAW --
THE COURT: THAT I WILL TRY TO DO.
MR. ZERNIK: SO ARE --
THE COURT: I CAN'T TELL THE SUPERVISING JUDGE WHAT
TO DID.
MR. ZERNIK: ARE YOU AJUDICATING -- I DIDN'T SAY YOU
HAVE TO TELL HIM WHAT TO DO. I JUST SAY YOU HAVE TO WAIT
UNTIL YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS CASE.
RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ADJUDICATION POWERS. AS FAR
AS I'M CONCERNED YOU DON'T HAVE THE ASSIGNMENT. I WROTE ON
MY PAPERS ASSIGNMENT BY HEARSAY.
THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, THE OTHER ISSUE IS REGARDING THE
1009

REFEREE. THE RECEIVER HAD AN IMPLICATION OF BANKRUPTCY IN
IT.
THE COURT: NOT REALLY. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT DOES HAVE
THAT CONNOTATION BUT IT'S NOT THAT KIND OF RECEIVER.
YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. BUT IT'S JUST WE WHAT CALL
SOMEONE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THERE'S PROPERTY THAT NEEDS TO
BE SOLD FOR ANY REASON, IT'S -- YOU APPOINTMENT SOMEONE --
I'LL CALL THEM A REFEREE IF YOU LIKE BUT USUALLY YOU
APPOINTMENT SOMEONE -- I USUALLY CALL THEM A RECEIVER, BUT
YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MEAN BANKRUPTCY. IT
JUST MEANS SOMEONE TO BE IN CHARGE OF MAKING ESCROW HAPPEN,
SELLING THE PROPERTY, HIRING BROKERS, WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE
DONE. YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T MEAN IT IN THAT SENSE.
MR. ZERNIK: TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR A
REFEREE AND FOR A RECEIVER FROM A.D.R. PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE
WE'VE BEEN THERE BEFORE IN THAT SPOT BECAUSE JUDGE CONNOR
Page 10

WANTED TO APPOINT A REFEREE. MR. KESHAVARZI WENT AHEAD AND
INSTRUCTED A.D.R. TO APPOINT A RECEIVER. SHE GOT UPSET
WITH HIM. IT'S ALL IN THE MINUTES.
THE COURT: I WILL CALL HIM A REFEREE IF YOU LIKE.
MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, AND BUT --
THE REPORTER: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT HE
SAID.
THE COURT: STOP. HE SAID -- "IF I UNDERSTAND
CORRECTLY."
MR. ZERNIK: SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU WILL
PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS CASE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE
1010

A MINUTE ORDER WITH THE FULL DUALY AASSIGNMENT AS REQUIRED
BY LAW.
THE COURT: NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. YOU SAID THAT.
MR. ZERNIK: SO --
THE COURT: I WILL TRY TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
MR. ZERNIK: SO ARE YOU NOW DUALY ASSIGNED AS
REQUIRED BY LAW OR NOT?
THE COURT: WELL, TYPICALLY IN THE HEARINGS I ASK
THE QUESTIONS AND THE LAWYERS AND THE PARTIES ANSWER THEM.
SO IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.
MR. ZERNIK: IS THERE GOING TO FILE ANY MINUTE ORDER
SIGNED BY THE SUPERVISING JUDGE BECAUSE I DO HAVE NOT
ALWAYS 24 HOURS A DAY AS TO THE FILE. I CHECKED YESTERDAY.
SINCE YESTERDAY DID WE GET ANY MINUTE ORDER WITH
SUPERVISING JUDGE SIGNATURE?
THE COURT: IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW THE FILE YOU MAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT ON THAT
Page 11

ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK I CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: ON WHAT? WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN REVIEW
THE FILE?
MR. KESHAVARZI: NO, NO, THERE IS A MINUTE ORDER
THAT WENT OUT -- BECAUSE WE HAVE A COPY OF IT AND
MR. ZERNIK --
THE COURT: THEN GIVE HIM A COPY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. BOTH EX PARTES ARE DENIED WITHOUT
1011

PREJUDICE.
MR. KESHAVARZI: MAY I ADDRESS ONE OTHER --
THE COURT: NOTICE WAIVED?
MR. ZERNIK: NO, I --
MR. KESHAVARZI: I'LL PROVIDE NOTICE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DEFENDANTS TO GIVE NOTICE.
MR. KESHAVARZI: ONE QUICK ISSUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE WAS EX PARTE YESTERDAY THAT YOUR HONOR DENIED. WE
DID NOT HAVE A NOTICE OF THE EX PARTE. JUST FOR YOUR
INFORMATION YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK HAS FILED A NOTICE OF
APPEAL SO ALL PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE STAYED, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT
TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION MOVING FORWARD --
THE COURT: BUT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN COMING HERE
HAS TO DO WITH ENFORCEMENT PRETTY MUCH.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, HIS EX PARTE YESTERDAY FOR
RESTORATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND HIS --
THE COURT: THEY WERE 13 EX PARTES.
MR. KESHAVARZI: YESTERDAY THERE WERE 13 EX PARTES?
Page 12

THE COURT: YES, THEY WERE IN ONE DOCUMENT. ANYWAY
IT'S IN THE FILED IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT.
MR. KESHAVARZI: NO, I WON'T. SO IS YOUR HONOR
GOING SET A DATE FOR MR. ZERNIK'S OPPOSE THE PROPOSED
ORDER? I CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COURT ON THAT IF I
HAVE A HEARING ON NEXT WEDNESDAY BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD I
DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER HAD HE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ANYTHING OF
1012

THAT NATURE.
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S UP TO YOU. THERE
IS MUCH I DON'T KNOW.
MR. KESHAVARZI: SO WE'LL BE BACK. I'LL FILE THE
PROPOSED ORDER TODAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I ASSUME YOU WILL BE BACK EVERY DAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WE'LL FILE --
THE COURT: I'VE ONLY HAD THIS CASE FOUR OR FIVE
DAYS AND SOMEONE HAS BEEN HERE EVERYDAY. WHO'S COMING
TOMORROW BY THE WAY. TOMORROW IS FRIDAY. ARE YOU COMING
IN? YOU'VE GOT AN EX PARTE FOR TOMORROW?
MR. ZERNIK: I DON'T KNOW.
THE COURT: I GUESS YOU GOT ANOTHER HOUR TO FIND OUT
RIGHT? IT'S ONLY 9:20.
MR. KESHAVARZI: JUST ONE QUICK LAST QUESTION. I
PROMISE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SUBMIT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROPOSED ORDER OR DO YOU
JUST WANT THE PROPOSED ORDER.
THE COURT: THAT'S UP TO YOU.
MR. KESHAVARZI: OKAY.
Page 13

THE COURT: YOU HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE CALIFORNIA RULES
OF COURT. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO APPEAR BY PHONE, THE
COURT CALL INFORMATION IS ON THE LOWER SHELF.
MR. ZERNIK: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.
IF THIS GOING TO BE A SHORTENED NOTICE HEARING OR ON A
MOTION? WHAT IS THE EXACT PROCEDURE WHERE --
1013

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. IT'S HIS --
MR. ZERNIK: SO OKAY -- PROCEDURE --
THE REPORTER: I DIDN'T GET THAT. THAT'S NOT ON THE
RECORD.
THE COURT: THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT BECAUSE
DEFENDANT DID NOT SLOW DOWN THE LAST COMMENT WAS NOT
TRANSCRIBED. YOU MAY STATE IT AGAIN.
MR. ZERNIK: YES. I WAS ASKING THE HONORABLE JUDGE
IF HE SPECIFIED WHAT PROCEDURE WE'RE ENTERING AND MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE DID NOT SPECIFY ANY PROCEDURE
WHATSOEVER. THE BURDEN IS ON MR. KESHAVARZI TO DEFINE WHAT
PROCEDURE HE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN, AND THEN I
WILL HAVE TO USE THAT PROCEDURE, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT THE
MR. KESHAVARZI IS TRYING TO ENTER THE COURT INTO.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. ARE YOU ASKING ME SOMETHING?
MR. ZERNIK: NO.
THE COURT: OKAY. GOOD. OFF THE RECORD.
(AT 9:22 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)
Page 14

1014
Page 15

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
28
EXHIBIT G
SUPERIOR COURT

3 DEPARTMENT NO. WE-O HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
4
~
5 NIVIE SAMAAN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
6 PLAINTIFF,
7 VS. NO. sc087400
5
8 JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND )
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, )
9 )
D._E_FE_N_D_A_N_T_S_·_
10 5
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2007
14
15
16 APPEARANCES:
17 THE DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK
(IN PROPRIA PERSONA)
18 320 S. PECK
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
19
20 THE INTERVENOR: PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON
BY: DAVID J. PASTERNAK, ESQ.
21 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2200
22 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-2523
23
24
25
26 SANDRA MACNEIL, CSR #9013
OFFICIAL REPORTER
27 r '~ ." ''',fro • 1>'
28 i.',;' ',., ,,', ,<a

1
1 CASE NUMBER: sc087400

2 CASE NAME: SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK
3 SANTA MONICA, CA.: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2007
4 DEPARTMENT 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL
5 APPEARANCES: (SEE TITLE PAGE)
6 REPORTER: SANDRA MACNEIL, CSR NO. 9013
7 TIME: A.M. SESSION
8
9
10 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S GO TO THE NEXT
11 EX PARTE APPLICATION, SAMAAN VERSUS ZERNIK, sc087400.
12 MR. PASTERNAK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. DAVID
13 PASTERNAK, RECEIVER.
14 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR
15 APPEARANCE.
16 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
17 GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JOSEPH ZERNIK,
18 APPEARING PRO PER.
19 MR. PASTERNAK: YOUR HONOR, I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL
20 FROM MR. ZERf\IIK ABOUT HALF AN HOUR AGO THAT READS, "I
21 HAVE VACATED THE PROPERTY BY SUNDAY."
22 I SENT HIM A RESPONSE, "DOES THIS MEAN
23 THAT YOU DID VACATE OR THAT YOU WILL VACATE BY NEXT
24 SUNDAY? WHEN AND WHERE CAN MY OFFICE GET THE KEYS FROM
25 YOU?"
26 I'VE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THAT.
27 THE COURT: HAVE YOU VACATED THE PROPERTY?
28 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, AS OF LAST SUNDAY.

2
1 THE COURT: WHERE ARE THE KEYS?

2 MR. ZERNIK: BUT WHICH EX-PARTE ARE WE HEARING
3 NOW? I'M JUST NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE PROCEDURE. WHAT ARE
4 WE HEARING RIGHT NOW?
5 THE COURT: THIS IS AN EX PARTE APPLICATION BY
6 THE RECEIVER FOR AN ORDER --
7 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.
8 THE COURT: -- ORDERING DEFENDANT ZERNIK TO
9 VACATE THE PROPERTY, AND TWO, AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO
10 FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
11 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. I'M JUST RECEIVING THE PAPERS
12 RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAKING, SO I WAS ONLY GIVEN ON TOP OF
13 THE--
14 THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ
15 THEM?
16 MR. ZERNIK: OF COURSE, BUT ALSO I UNDERSTAND
17 THAT WE HAVE ON THE CALENDAR, ALSO, EX PARTE FOR STAY
18 TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
19 THE COURT: DID YOU FILE ONE?
20 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH. IT WAS FILED YESTERDAY, AND I
21 WAS LATE YESTERDAY. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS CONTINUED BY
22 YOUR HONOR TO TODAY.
23 THE COURT: NO. ACTUALLY, NO ONE SHOWED UP
24 YESTERDAY, SO I SAID I'D BE AVAILABLE TODAY. I HAVE THAT
25 ALSO, YEAH.
26 MR. ZERNIK: SO IN ORDER BY WHICH YOU WANT TO DO
27 IT IS?
28 THE COURT: I HAVE NO PREFERENCE.

3
1 MR. ZERNIK: I PREFER TO START WITH THE STAY.

2 THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A MOMENT AND READ
3 HIS PAPERS, OKAY?
4 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.
5 THE COURT: GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. I'LL CALL
6 THE CASE AGAIN.
7 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU.
8
9 (OTHER MATTERS HEARD, REPORTED;
10 NOT TRANSCRIBED HEREIN.)
11
12 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOU'RE READY?
13 MR. ZERNIK: ONE MORE MINUTE, IF POSSIBLE. I'M
14 JUST WRITING MYSELF A FEW NOTES.
15 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
16
17 (OTHER MATTERS HEARD, REPORTED;
18 NOT TRANSCRIBED HEREIN.)
19
20 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK ON THE
21 RECORD AND BACK TO THE EX-PARTE APPLICATION SAMAAN VERSUS
22 ZERNIK, SC087400.
23 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WE
24 ARE HEARING NOW FIRST THE EX PARTE THAT WAS CONTINUED
25 FROM YESTERDAY BY DEFENDANT FOR A STAY.
26 THE COURT: WE CAN HEAR YOUR EX PARTE FIRST IF
27 YOU LIKE.
28 MR. ZERNIK: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR

4
1 HONOR, AND I WANTED TO OPEN BY ASKING, WHAT'S THE LAST

2 NAME OF THE COURT REPORTER AND EXTENSION FOR CONTACT?
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN GET HER CARD AFTER THE
4 HEARING.
5 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.
6 PLEASE, IF YOU CAN, OKAY?
7 AND OTHERWISE, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO
8 THE RECORD THAT ON NOVEMBER 5TH I NOTICED THE COURT OF
9 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
10 YOUR HONOR IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF
11 AUGUST 9TH. YOUR HONOR, I'M ASKING IF YOU ARE AWARE OF A
12 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH WHICH I NOTICED AS
13 RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER 5TH. I ASSUME THAT IT WAS A
14 DOCUMENT OF THE COURT SO THAT YOUR HONOR WOULD BE AWARE
15 OF IT, BUT JUST IN CASE, I NOTICED IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER
16 5TH. CAN YOU PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF
17 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH?
18 THE COURT: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME,
19 BUT--
20 MR. ZERNIK: I'M ASKING --
21 THE COURT: IF IT'S BEEN IN THE FILE, I HAVE IT.
22 MR. ZERNIK: BUT YOUR HONOR, FIRST, JUDGE CONNOR
23 INDICATED IN MINUTE ORDER OF AUGUST 21ST THAT IT WAS IN
24 THE FILE SINCE AUGUST 9TH; HOWEVER, I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT
25 COULD BE RELIABLE. SO JUST TO DOUBLE-GUARANTEE IT, I
26 NOTICED IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF
27 YOUR HONOR HAS EVER SEEN A JUDGMENT BY COURT OF
28 NOVEMBER -- OF AUGUST 9TH BY -- SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR.

5
1 HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A DOCUMENT OF THAT NATURE?

2 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR EX PARTE?
3 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH. IT'S CRITICAL. I NEED TO
4 KNOW WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING
5 ANYTHING ABOUT. AND YOUR HONOR, IF YOU REFUSE TO
6 ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF A JUDGMENT BY COURT, THEN I
7 DO NOT KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET ANYTHING ELSE AFTER THAT,
8 BECAUSE ALL -- EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS EXECUTION OF A
9 JUDGMENT. SO IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A JUDGMENT IS, THEN I
10 DO NOT KNOW WHAT I'M ARGUING. SO CAN YOUR HONOR PLEASE
11 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS AWARE OF JUDGMENT BY COURT OF
12 AUGUST 9TH, SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR?
13 THE COURT: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO
14 DO, BUT
15 MR. ZERNIK: HAVE YOU SEEN IT? HAVE YOU EVER
16 READ IT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CONTENT OF THAT?
17 THE COURT: USUALLY DURING THE HEARINGS YOU
18 PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT, AND IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I ASK
19 THEM. WHATEVER'S IN THE FILE, MOST OF WHICH --
20 MR. ZERNIK: MY ARGUMENTS ARE ALL BASED ON
21 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY WHAT
22 YOUR HONOR IS EXECUTING, AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
23 BY MR. KESHAVARZI IN THE PAST CITED THE JUDGMENT;
24 HOWEVER, ROUTINELY THEY FAILED TO INCLUDE THE JUDGMENT.
25 INSTEAD, THEY INCLUDED A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT, AND I
26 REFERRED YOUR HONOR TO THAT IN THE LAST HEARING OF AUGUST
27 9TH -- OF NOVEMBER 9TH.
28 AND I WANT ALSO TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD

6
1 THAT TODAY I NOTICED THE COURT OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE

2 OF REAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS CITED, REFERENCED IN JUDGMENT
3 BY COURT BY JUDGE CONNOR OF AUGUST 9TH.
4 ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR
5 HONOR?
6 THE COURT: RIGHT HERE, YES.
7 MR. ZERNIK: YES. AND YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE, OR
8 IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT?
9 THE COURT: IT WAS JUST FILED TODAY, SO
10 PRESUMABLY IT WAS THE --
II MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT IT --
12 THE COURT: SINCE YOU'RE INTERRUPTING MY ANSWERS,
13 I WILL PRESUME YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING THEM.
14 YOU MAY PROCEED.
15 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE. THIS
16 CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF
17 THE JUDGMENT BY COURT BY JUDGE CONNOR, WHICH WAS A
18 JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THEREFORE, I WOULD
19 LIKE TO KNOW IF YOUR HONOR EVER SAW THIS CONTRACT PRIOR
20 TO TODAY, MY NOTICING IT. ALSO, ALL THE EX PARTE
21 APPLICATIONS BY ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI CLAIM THAT I REFUSED
22 OR IN OTHER WAYS INTERFERED WITH EXECUTION OF THE
23 JUDGMENT BY COURT.
24 SO YOUR HONOR, YOU RULED REPEATEDLY IN
25 FAVOR OF KESHAVARZI, AND I JUST WONDER HOW COULD THAT BE
26 IF YOU NEVER SEEN BEFORE THE JUDGMENT BY COURT IN THE
27 CONTRACT, BECAUSE THESE ARE THE ONES THAT PRESUMABLY
28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI WAS CLAIMING THAT I REFUSED TO OBEY.

7
1 THE COURT: WHERE IS MR. KESHAVARZI? HE CHECKED

2 IN.
3 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: HE DID?
4 THE COURT: HE DID.
5 MR. PASTERNAK: I HAVE NOT SEEN HIM THIS MORNING.
6 THE COURT: MS. FRASER, THIS IS HIS CARD.
7 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: WHAT'S HIS NAME AGAIN?
8 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI. MAYBE HE'S IN THE
9 HALLWAY.
10 MR. ZERNIK: AND THEN THE
11 THE COURT: HOLD ON. CAN WE JUST WAIT ONE
12 SECOND?
13 MR. ZERNIK: SURE.
14 THE COURT: HE'S HERE. HAVE YOU SEEN HIM?
15 MR. PASTERNAK: NO, I HAVE NOT, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE COURT: WELL, HE -- SHOULD WE WAIT FOR HIM?
17 MR. ZERNIK: AS YOU WISH, YOUR HONOR. I'M
18 WILLING TO WAIT AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
19 THE COURT: BECAUSE, WELL, AT LEAST ON THE EX
20 PARTE APPLICATION, HE'S FILED A WRITTEN OPPOSITION.
21 MR. PASTERNAK: I THOUGHT HE WAS COMING, YOUR
22 HONOR, BUT I'VE NOT SEEN HIM. I CAN CALL HIS OFFICE IF
23 YOU WANT.
24 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: WAS THAT FROM
25 YESTERDAY?
26 THE COURT: OH, IT COULD BE.
27 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: YES.
28 THE COURT: MAYBE HE'S NOT HERE. ANYWAY, I

8
1 APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.

2 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. SO YOUR HONOR, I'M STILL
3 TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. YOUR HONOR RULED IN FAVOR OF
4 KESHAVARZI REGARDING EX PARTE APPLICATION.
5 MR. KESHAVARZI CLAIMED THAT I REFUSED TO OBEY THE
6 JUDGMENT BY COURT, BUT IN THOSE APPLICATIONS HE ROUTINELY
7 INTRODUCED IN COURT A DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS NOT A JUDGMENT
8 BY COURT, AS JUDGMENT BY COURT. AND TODAY I ALSO
9 INTRODUCED IN COURT A DECLARATION REGARDING THE HEARING
10 ON NOVEMBER 9TH.
11 I WONDER IF YOUR HONOR CAN ACKNOWLEDGE
12 RECEIPT OF THE DECLARATION. AND ON PARAGRAPH 10 I
13 DESCRIBED THAT EXCHANGE THAT WAS IN THE COURT. I DO THAT
14 BECAUSE TRANSCRIPT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, ALTHOUGH I ORDERED
15 AND PAID A LONG TIME AGO. AND BASICALLY, HERE ON
16 PARAGRAPH 7 AND PARAGRAPH 9 I DESCRIBED THE EXCHANGE THAT
17 TOOK PLACE IN COURT AT THAT TIME WHERE I NOTE -- IN ORAL
18 ARGUMENT I NOTICED AGAIN, ALTHOUGH IT WAS ALSO IN
19 WRITTEN, THAT KESHAVARZI ROUTINELY, IN ANY COMMUNICATIONS
20 SINCE AUGUST 9TH, REPLACED THE JUDGMENT BY COURT BY
21 ANOTHER DOCUMENT. BEYOND THAT, I NOTICED THAT KESHAVARZI
22 WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT ON AUGUST 9TH TO NOTICE THE
23 JUDGMENT, BUT FAILED TO DO SO. AND AFTER THAT, ON
24 SEVERAL OCCASIONS AFTER AUGUST 9TH, I REMINDED KESHAVARZI
25 THAT THE COURT HAD ORDERED HIM TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT,
26 BUT HE REFUSED TO DO SO.
27 SO BECAUSE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, I'M ASKING
28 AGAIN IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST

9
19TH.
2 THE COURT: IF IT'S IN THE FILE, I HAVE SEEN IT.
3 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT I INTRODUCED IT TODAY, BUT
4 PRIOR TO TODAY. SO IT IS IN THE FILE AS OF TODAY. SO AS
5 OF NOVEMBER 5TH, WHAT I'M ASKING
6 THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE FILE?
7 MR. ZERNIK: OF COURSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FILE,
8 BUT--
9 THE COURT: YOU MAY.
10 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BUT YOUR HONOR, IF WE MOVE TO
11 SEEING IN THE FILE, THEN, AS YOU KNOW, ON AUGUST 31ST,
12 SUPERVISING JUDGE, AFTER SOME UNFORTUNATE EVENTS, AGREED
13 TO ALLOW ME TO SEE THE COURT FILE, AND HE ORDERED I WILL
14 BE ALLOWED TO SEE IT. HOWEVER, INITIALLY I WAS ALLOWED
15 TO SEE ONLY VOLUME -- HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS SIX
16 VOLUMES AT THE TIME IN THE COURT FILE, AND I WAS ALLOWED
17 TO SEE INITIALLY ONLY THREE VOLUMES: ONE, FOUR AND FIVE.
18 AND THEN TWO WEEKS AGO I WAS ALLOWED TO SEE TWO, THREE
19 AND SIX, AND IN PART INSPECTION OF THAT, ALTHOUGH I WAS
20 NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE ALL SIX OF THEM AT ONE TIME, I
21 INFORMED THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT THERE ARE MAJOR PARTS OF
22 THE FILE MISSING. AND THEN, TO MY AMAZEMENT, THEY PULLED
23 OUT VOLUME FOUR CONTINUED, WHICH WAS HIDDEN FOR ALL THIS
24 PERIOD. SO APPARENTLY, ALREADY BY AUGUST 31ST, WHEN THE
25 SUPERVISING JUDGE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WERE ONLY SIX
26 VOLUMES IN THIS COURT FILE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE
27 AND SIX, THERE WERE SEVEN VOLUMES IN THIS COURT FILE,
28 ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FOUR CONTINUED, FIVE AND SIX,

10
1 AND FOUR CONTINUED WAS REPEATEDLY HIDDEI\l FROM ME.

2 REGARDLESS --
3 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HERE IS VOLUME NINE WE
4 JUST STARTED.
5 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.
6 THE COURT: SO YOU ARE WELCOME TO SEE ALL OF
7 THEM.
8 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. THE ISSUE IS, WHEN I SEE,
9 INSPECT THE FILES AND ASK FOR COPIES, I ALSO HAD
10 AGREEMENTS WITH THE SUPERVISING JUDGE THAT UPON PICKUP OF
11 THE COPIES I WILL BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT THE COPIES
12 TOGETHER WITH THE ORIGINALS IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO
13 VERIFY THAT THE ORIGINAL -- THE COPIES ARE TRUE AND
14 CORRECT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL, SINCE SOONER OR LATER I
15 WILL HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECLARATION IN THAT REGARD.
16 HOWEVER, THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME, AND WHEN I
17 CAME TO PICK UP COPIES, ROUTINELY THE ORIGINALS ARE NOT
18 AVAILABLE.
19 BEYOND THAT, WHEN I CAME TO PICK UP THE
20 FIRST SET OF COPIES OF VOLUIVIE ONE, FOUR AND FIVE TWO
21 WEEKS AFTER AUGUST 31ST, AS AGREED, I WAS TOLD THAT I
22 WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR A FEW HOURS, AND THE REASON FOR
23 THE WAIT WAS THAT DEPARTMENT "I" HAD TO REORGANIZE THE
24 FILES. AND BASICALLY THEY RESHUFFLED THE VOLUMES,
25 PRACTICALLY MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPARE THE ORIGINALS
26 TO THE COPIES.
27 FURTHERMORE, YESTERDAY WHEN I CAME TO PICK
28 UP THE REMAINING OF WHATEVER I BELIEVED WAS SIX BUT THEN

11
1 TURNED OUT TO BE SEVEN VOLUMES, I WAS TOLD THAT EDNA FROM

2 THIS COURTROOM WENT DOWNSTAIRS DURING THE PROCESS OF
3 COPYING AND TRIED TO REARRANGE VOLUME SIX. ALTHOUGH, AS
4 YOU NOTED JUST A MINUTE AGO, WE ARE NOW ON VOLUME NINE,
5 AND IT'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE WHY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO
6 REARRANGE VOLUME SIX WHEN WE ARE IN VOLUME NINE. VOLUME
7 SIX SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED AND SEALED A LONG TIME AGO.
8 THE CLERK INFORMED ME THAT HE TOLD HER THAT IT'S
9 UNREASONABLE, BECAUSE HE HAS TO DISPLAY TO ME THE COPIES
10 AND THE ORIGINALS, AND STILL, IF THEY INSISTED ON
11 REARRANGING VOLUME SIX, WHY HE WAS PHOTOCOPYING IT,
12 AGAIN, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ASCERTAIN WHAT IS
13 IN THE FILE OR NOT IN THE FILE.
14 I'M NOTING ALL OF THIS BECAUSE THAT IS THE
15 REASON THAT I FIND IT NECESSARY TO NOTICE AGAIN THE COURT
16 OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, BECAUSE I CANNOT
17 ASCERTAIN FOR SURE WHAT IS IN THE COURT FILE AND WHAT IS
18 NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN AFTER A REVIEW OF THE FULL COURT
19 FILE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FOUR CONTINUED, FIVE AND
20 SIX, I FOUND MAJOR DOCUMENTS MISSING IN THIS COURT FILE,
21 INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY DOCUMENT WHICH WILL ESTABLISH
22 THE STANDING OF COUNTRYWIDE AS INTERFERER -- INTERVENOR
23 IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER TO EXPLAIN
24 HOW COUNTRYWIDE GAINED THAT STATUS. FOR EXAMPLE,
25 COUNTRYWIDE IS TRYING TO ENFORCE A COURT ORDER WHICH IS A
26 PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST ZERNIK, WHICH PRESUMABLY WAS
27 SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR ON JULY 23RD.
28 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT --

12
1 MR. ZERNIK: THAT DOCUMENTS IS NOWHERE TO BE

2 FOUND IN THE COURT FILE.
3 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. I DON'T KNOW
4 ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
5 MR. ZERNIK: I'M TELLING YOU, YOUR HONOR, THE
6 REASON WHY I NEEDED TO ASK YOU THE REQUEST ABOUT THE
7 JUDGMENT BY COURT IS BECAUSE THE COURT FILE IS IN
8 COMPLETE DISARRAY. I FILED NUMEROUS EX PARTE
9 APPLICATIONS WITH YOU AND THE JUDGE BEFORE YOU, WHICH I
10 CALLED EX PARTE FOR DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, WHERE I ASK
11 THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A COURT FILE WHICH IS DOWN
12 TO SOME BASIC STANDARDS OF DECENCY. BUT THE SITUATION
13 NOW IS THAT THERE IS NO COURT FILE THAT I CAN REFER TO.
14 THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU PERSONALLY, ARE YOU AWARE OF
15 THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9? BECAUSE I CANNOT
16 ASCERTAIN WHAT IS IN THE FILE, WHAT IS NOT IN THE FILE.
17 SO I'M ASKING YOU, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT
18 OF AUGUST 9TH?
19 THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD ON HIS EX
20 PARTE APPLICATION?
21 MR. PASTERNAK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
22 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO THE
23 RECEIVER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION.
24 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, I'M WILLING TO MOVE ON,
25 BUT THAT WAS A BASIC ISSUE.
26 THE NEXT QUESTION IS, SO YOU -- AS FAR AS
27 I'M CONCERNED, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE TO THE
28 QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU ARE AWARE OR NOT AWARE OF THE

13
1 JUDGMENT BY COURT. I'LL GO ON

2 THE COURT: DEPENDS I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
3 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH.
4 THE COURT: IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "AWARE."
5 IF THE JUDGMENT IS IN THE FILE, I PROBABLY HAVE SEEN IT.
6 AS I SIT HERE TODAY, I DO NOT REMEMBER EACH AND EVERY
7 DOCUMENT IN ALL EIGHT OR MORE VOLUMES THAT EXIST IN THE
8 CASE.
9 MR. ZERNIK: BUT YOUR HONOR --
10 THE COURT: SO THAT IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR
11 QUESTION.
12 MR. ZERNIK: SO AT LEAST FROM NOVEMBER 5TH, WHEN
13 I INTRODUCED TO THE FILE, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT, IF
14 THAT'S THE CASE. BUT ON NOVEMBER 9TH ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI
15 CAME BEFORE YOU WITH AN EX PARTE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
16 THE RECEIVER, AND IN THAT EX PARTE, ALTHOUGH HE HAD BEEN
17 ALREADY NOTICED BY ME AS OF NOVEMBER 5TH OF THAT JUDGMENT
18 BY COURT, HE STILL INTRODUCED A WRONG DOCUMENT AS A
19 JUDGMENT BY COURT, AND I POINTED IT OUT TO YOUR HONOR AT
20 THE TIME.
21 SO THAT'S WHY I'M SO PUZZLED ABOUT YOUR
22 HONOR'S CONDUCT. IT'S NOT CLEAR IF YOU ARE AWARE OR NOT
23 AWARE, BECAUSE AS OF NOVEMBER 5TH AT LEAST, I INTRODUCED
24 PERSONALLY A NOTICE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT, AND YET ON
25 NOVEMBER 9TH, AS EXPLAINED IN THE DECLARATION THAT I
26 ENTERED TODAY WHICH DESCRIBED THE EXCHANGE ON NOVEMBER
27 9TH, KESHAVARZI ENTERED THE WRONG DOCUMENT AS JUDGMENT BY
28 COURT. I INFORMED THE COURT OF THAT. I ASKED KESHAVARZI

14
1 FOR EXPLANATION, AND KESHAVARZI EXPLAINED THE JUDGMENT BY

2 COURT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE DOCUMENT THAT HE INTRODUCED,
3 AND THEREFORE, HE THINKS IT DOESN'T MATTER. AND I
4 POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT HE INTRODUCED
5 IS NOT JUDGMENT BY COURT.
6
6 MOREOVER, TO MAKE SOME DIFFERENCES CLEAR
7 TO HIM, I TOLD HIM THAT THE JUDGMENT BY COURT HAD LISTED
8 THE ATTORNEY FEES AT ZERO, AND THE DOCUMENT THAT HE
9 INTRODUCED DOES NOT EVEN DEAL WITH ISSUES LIKE THAT,
10 BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE JUDGMENT BY COURT. AND THEN HE SAID
11 THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE -- I'M QUOTING, DIALOGUE -- WITH
12 JUDGE CONNOR, AND I'M QUOTING AGAIN, HE SAID HE HAD AN
13 UNDERSTANDING WITH JUDGE CONNOR -- BOTH OF THEM OF COURSE
14 I'M NOT AWARE OF, BECAUSE IF IT WAS A DIALOGUE, IT WAS
15 WITH TWO PERSONS, AND THE TWO PERSONS EVIDENTLY WERE
16 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI AND JUDGE CONNOR. AND HE INFORMED
17 YOUR HONOR ON NOVEMBER 9TH, DURING THE HEARING, THAT HE
18 HAD A DIALOGUE WITH JUDGE CONNOR AND HE HAD AN
19 UNDERSTANDING WITH JUDGE CONNOR WHICH WERE COMPLETELY
20 OPPOSITE TO THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH THAT
21 JUDGE CONNOR INTRODUCED IN HER AUGUST 21ST MINUTE ORDER
22 AS IF IT WERE INTRODUCED ALREADY ON AUGUST 9TH.
23 THE SITUATION, WHICH, TO ME, IS VERY
24 WORD,, THAT ON
PUZZLING, BUT I HAVE TO ACCEPT HER AT HER WORD
25 AUGUST 21ST SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE ENTERED IT ON AUGUST
26 9TH, ALTHOUGH FROM AUGUST 9TH TO AUGUST 21ST THE JUDGMENT
27 BY COURT WAS NEVER TO BE FOUND, AT LEAST ON COURTNET, BUT
28 INFOR~IED THAT ON SUSTAINED.
ALSO I'M INFORrvlED THOSE ARE THE TWO

15
1 COMPUTER SYSTEMS OF THE COURT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT

2 THE JUDGMENT BY COURT WAS REALLY ENTERED ON AUGUST 9TH AS
3 CLAIMED BY JUDGE CONNOR ON AUGUST 21sT.
4 MOREOVER, ON BOTH AUGUST 14TH AND AUGUST
5 21ST, JUDGE CONNOR HELD, AT ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI'S
6 REQUEST, EX PARTE APPEARANCES FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
7 IT'S BEYOND MY LOGIC HOW A JUDGE CAN HOLD
8 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WHEN SHE
9 CLAIMS THAT SHE HAD ALREADY ENTERED IT PRIOR TO THAT, ON
10 AUGUST 9TH. BUT REGARDLESS, I TAKE HER AT HER WORD. AND
11 IF I'M TO BELIEVE THAT, THEN THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON
12 AUGUST 9TH, AND THAT IS WHAT IS LISTED AS IF IT WERE
13 HAPPENING IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AS IF IT WERE ENTERED
14 ON AUGUST 9TH. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS IN THE COURT FILE
15 TODAY, AS I TOLD YOU, THERE'S NO WAY THAT I CAN
16 ASCERTAIN. EVERY TIME I GO TO CHECK THE COURT FILE, IT'S
17 RESHUFFLED, REARRANGED IN A WAY THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO
18 ASCERTAIN THAT. IT'S A OBJECT THAT IS IMMUTABLE. ON THE
19 CONTRARY, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SOMEBODY IS MUTATING THIS
20 COURT FILE ON A ROUTINE BASIS EVEN IN VOLUMES THAT SHOULD
21 HAVE BEEN ALREADY SEALED LONG TIME AGO.
22 IN THAT SITUATION, I'M FINALLY PUZZLED ON
23 HOW TO ARGUE MOTIONS THAT WERE RECENTLY BEFORE THE COURT
24 AND WERE PRESUMABLY BASED ON THAT JUDGMENT WHEN IN FACT
25 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI ENTERED A DIFFEREI\JT DOCUt-JIENT, WHICH
26 IS NOT A JUDGMENT. AND I NOTICED YOUR HONOR ABOUT
27 IMPORTING ORAL ARGUMENT, ANY WRITTEN ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT
28 ACTION, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL, FALSE

16
1 REPRESENTATION OR FRAUD, WHEN AN ATTORNEY INTRODUCES IN

2 COURT A DOCUMENT AS EXHIBIT NUMBER WHATEVER AND SAYS THIS
3 EXHIBIT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF JUDGMENT BY COURT
4 OF AUGUST 9TH, AND THEN INTRODUCES, INSTEAD OF IT, A
5 DIFFERENT DOCUMENT, WHICH IS NOT THE JUDGMENT BY COURT.
6 AND ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI WAS HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR HONOR
7 AND TOLD YOU IT'S ALMOST THE SAME DOCUMENT, WHICH TO ME
8 IS VERY STRANGE ARGUMENT, BUT AGAIN I'M NOT A LAWYER. SO
9 HE CLAIMED THAT IT'S ALMOST THE SAME DOCUMENT. AND I
10 POINTED TO HIM, BUT THIS IS NOT THE JUDGMENT, AND FOR
11 EXArvIPLE, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT ATTORNEY'S FEES.
12 BUT THEN HE SAID, I HAD A DIALOGUE AND UNDERSTANDING WITH
13 JUDGE CONNOR, WHICH WAS OPPOSITE TO THE JUDGMENT BY COURT
14 THAT IS INTRODUCED IN FILE.
15 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU ARE REPEATING
16 YOURSELF.
17 I\t1R. ZERNIK: OKAY.
18 THE COURT: AND IT IS NOW MR. PASTERNAK'S TURN.
19 MR. ZERNIK: BUT YOUR HONOR
20 THE COURT: rviR. PASTERNAK.
21 MR. PASTERNAK: YOUR HONOR, I'M HERE ON MY EX
22 PARTE WHERE I HAVE SUBMITTED ALTERNATIVE ORDERS TO THE
23 COURT.
24 AS I INFORMED THE COURT IN MY EX PARTE
25 APPLICATION, I HAVE RECEIVED THE FINAL ESCROW DOCUMENTS
26 TO SIGN. I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THEy'VE BEEN
27 TRANSMITTED TO MR. ZERNIK. MR. ZERNIK HAS CONFIRMED IN
28 AN E-MAIL TO ME THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THEM. IT'S MY

17
1 INTENTION TO SIGN THEM, SUBMIT THEM TO THE ESCROW HOLDER,

2 MARA ESCROW, ON MONDAY, IF MR. ZERNIK HAS NOT DONE SO BY
3 THE END OF THIS WEEK. IT'S MY EXPECTATION THAT ESCROW
4 WILL BE READY TO CLOSE NEXT WEEK. BUT IMPLICIT, AND AS A
5 REQUIREMENT OF THE ESCROW, IS THAT POSSESSION OF THE
6 SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY BE TURNED OVER TO THE PURCHASER.
7 I WROTE TO MR. ZERNIK LAST WEEK, DEMANDED
8 THAT HE VACATE THE PROPERTY BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS LAST
9 MONDAY, TWO DAYS AGO. DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE UNTIL
10 THIS MORNING. AS I INFORMED THE COURT A LITTLE WHILE
11 AGO, ABOUT 8:00 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL
12 FROM MR. ZERNIK THAT IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE
13 VACATE -- CLAIMS TO HAVE VACATED THE PROPERTY LAST SUNDAY
14 OR WILL VACATE NEXT SUNDAY. I ASKED HIM ALSO ABOUT WHEN
15 AND WHERE I COULD OBTAIN THE KEYS TO THE PROPERTY FROM
16 HIM. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE. UNLESS HE IS --
17 MAKES ARRANGEMENTS TO TURN OVER THE KEYS --
18 THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING?
19 MR. PASTERNAK: I AM SEEKING ONE OF TWO
20 ALTERNATIVE ORDERS. ONE IS AN ORDER THAT'S THE
21 EQUIVALENT OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT WHICH WOULD
22 ENABLE OR DIRECT THE SHERIFF TO ENFORCE IT AS IF IT WAS A
23 WRIT OF EXECUTION TO VACATE MR. ZERNIK AND ANY OCCUPANTS
24 FROM THE PROPERTY. ALTERNATIVELY, I'M ASKING FOR
25 AUTHORITY TO FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE AGAINST
26 MR. ZERNIK.
27 THE PROBLEM WITH THE LATTER APPROACH IS,
28 I'VE BEEN TOLD BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT HIS CLIENT'S

18
1 FINANCING EXPIRES WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, AND IF I HAVE TO

2 FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF
3 THE PROPERTY, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO BEFORE THE
4 FINANCING EXPIRES.
5 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK?
6 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY AND
7 CORRECT SOME ISSUES.
8 FIRST OF ALL, I RESPONDED TO
9 MR. PASTERNAK'S INITIAL E-MAIL TWO DAYS AGO AND
10 ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF IT. I WONDER IF MR. PASTERNAK
11 WILL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF MY RESPONSE TO THAT TWO DAYS
12 AGO.
13 DID YOU RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM ME TWO DAYS
14 AGO?
15 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE
16 COURT.
17 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. SO I DO REQUEST THAT YOUR
18 HONOR ASK MR. PASTERNAK IF HE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF
19 THAT RESPONSE.
20 THE COURT: OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO LISTEN TO
21 WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
22 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I'M
23 TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE MR. PASTERNAK JUST ARGUED THAT I
24 NEVER RESPONDED, AND I'M SAYING THAT I DID RESPOND TWO
25 DAYS AGO, BUT I NEED TO BE -- AND MR. PASTERNAK ALSO TOLD
26 ME IN HIS E-MAIL THAT HE'S ACCEPTING E-MAIL AS A MODE OF
27 COMMUNICATION, WHICH IS VERY CONVENIENT FOR ME UNDER THE
28 CURRENT SITUATION WHERE I WAS FORCED TO LEAVE MY HOUSE.

19
1 SO I THANKED HIM FOR AGREEING TO ACCEPT E-MAIL, AND I

2 RESPONDED TO HIM BY E-MAIL. BUT IN HIS RESPONSE SO FAR,
3 HE'S IGNORING E-MAIL COMMUNICATION. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO
4 KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE RECEIVED IT. MAYBE YOUR HONOR CAN
5 CLARIFY THAT, WHETHER MR. PASTERNAK RECEIVED OR NOT MY
6 E-MAIL RESPONSE. HE CLAIMS --
7 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
8 DID YOU RECEIVE AN E-MAIL RESPONSE?
9 MR. PASTERNAK: I RECEIVED THREE E-MAILS FROM
10 ~IR. ZERNIK THAT WERE SENT VERY EARLY YESTERDAY MORNING.
11 I RECEIVED THEM YESTERDAY MORNING. BUT WHAT I WAS
12 STATING,
STATII\JG, YOUR HONOR, IS I DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO
13 MY NOVEMBER 14 LETTER TO THE INQUIRY OR THE DEMAND IN THE
14 LETTER THAT HE VACATE THE PROPERTY. I DIDN'T RECEIVE A
15 RESPONSE TO THAT.
16 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR --
17 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO KNOW?
18 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
19 THE FIRST OF THE THREE E-MAILS THAT MR.
20 PASTERNAK REFERS TO, THE FIRST LINE SAID, "I ACKNOWLEDGE
21 RECEIPT OF YOUR NOVEMBER 14TH LETTER," A~ID
AND I WENT ON TO
22 DESCRIBE IT. SO I DID RECEIVE IT. I DID VACATE THE
23 PROPERTY BY LAST SUNDAY, AND THEREFORE, I BELIEVE THE EX
24 PARTE IS MOOT IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S REFERRING TO A
25 SITUATION THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
26 BUT BEYOND THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOUR
27 HONOR, BECAUSE OF THE UNCLARITY ABOUT THE WHOLE SITUATION
28 HERE WITH THE JUDGMENT, I TOOK THE EXTRA EFFORT OF

20
1 NOTICING MR. PASTERNAK PERSONALLY OF THE JUDGMENT BY

2 COURT OF THE CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AND
3 SOME OTHER KEY DOCUMENTS IN THIS COURT FILE, AND I WOULD
4 LIKE TO ASK YOUR HONOR IF HE CAN ASK MR. PASTERNAK IF HE
5 CAN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THAT, BECAUSE WHILE I
6 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF HIS LETTER, HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE
7 RECEIPT OF MY E-MAILS, AND THAT'S LEFT ME IN A SITUATION
8 THAT IS AMBIGUOUS, WHAT HE KNOWS, WHAT HE DOESN'T KNOW,
9 AND IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO GO ON OPERATING, WHERE
10 I HAD AN INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH HIS REQUEST, AND IF I
11 DON'T KNOW IF HE RECEIVES MY COMMUNICATIONS, I DON'T KNOW
12 WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
13 CAN YOU -- YOUR HONOR PLEASE CONFIRM WITH
14 MR. PASTERNAK THAT HE RECEIVED THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE
15 ATTACHED TO THE E-MAIL IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 14TH
16 LETTER?
17 THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT.
18 YOU MAY CONTINUE. YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR
19 ARGUMENT.
20 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.
21 IN SHORT, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE VACATED THE
22 PROPERTY ALREADY BY SUNDAY, PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS
23 REQUESTED BY THE RECEIVER, AND I HAVE REPLIED TO THE
24 RECEIVER IN THAT REGARD. AND IF RECEIVER NEEDS TO MAKE
25 ARRANGEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF KEYS, I WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENT
26 WITH RECEIVER FOR THAT. THEREFORE, I BELIEVE THE EX
27 PARTE IS MOOT.
28 MR. PASTERNAK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THE

21
1 COURT ISSUE THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER, ORDERING HIM TO

2 VACATE. I WILL GO TO THE PROPERTY TODAY, HAVE THE LOCKS
3 CHANGED, TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND IN THE
4 EVENT THAT HE HAS IN FACT VACATED, I WILL DO NOTHING
5 FURTHER WITH THAT ORDER. IF HE HAS NOT, THEN I WILL ASK
6 THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE IT.
7 THE COURT: WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF AN ORDER IS
8 ISSUED AND IT'S NOT NEEDED, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO
9 EXECUTE ON THE ORDER.
10 ALL RIGHT. THE MATTERS ARE UNDER
11 SUBMISSION, AND YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CLERK.
12 MR. PASTERNAK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
13 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY ASK ONLY THAT
14 YOU MAKE YOUR RULINGS AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE SO THAT
15 THEY MAY BE REVIEWED BY APPEALS COURT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY
16 DIFFICULT TO REVIEW ANY RULINGS AND DECISIONS OF YOUR
17 HONOR IF THERE IS NO DETAIL TO IT.
18 THE COURT: I WILL DO MY BEST. YOU FILED ABOUT
19 20 TO 30 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS. I'M DOING MY BEST TO
20 KEEP UP.
21 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
22 THE COURT: THE MATTER'S UNDER SUBMISSION.
23 MR. PASTERNAK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. HAVE A
24 NICE HOLIDAY.
25
26 (THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)
27
28 --000--

3 DEPARTMENT NO. WE-O HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
4
5 NIVIE SAMAAN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
6 PLAINTIFF,
7 VS. NO. sc087400
8 JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
9
DEFENDANTS.
10
11
12
13 I, SANDRA MACNEIL, CSR #9013, OFFICIAL
14 REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY
16 CERTIFY THAT I DID CORRECTLY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS
17 CONTAINED HEREIN AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH
18 21, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
19 PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE IV1ATrER OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
20 CAUSE ON NOVEMBER 21, 2007.
21
22 , 20- ,-'7
--'-'
23
24
25
26
27
28

z Page 3/2 May 12, 2009
January 30, 2008 Opposition to

Defendant’s Ex Parte Application

II
I
OR/G/~JAL FILED
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
2
A Limited Liability Partnership
Includin~ Professional Corporations
JAN 3 a 2008
PHILLIP f\. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430
3 II MOE KESHA VARZI, Cal. Bar No. 223759
ROBERT MUSSIG, Cal. Bar No. 240369

SUPERIOR COUR~
4 11333 South HORe Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, Califomia 90071-1448
511 Telephone: 213-620-1780
FacSImile: 213-620-1398
7 II Attorneys for PlaintiffNivie Samaan
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT
10
II
NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12
Plaintiff,
13
v. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
14 DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual and APPLICATION
151lDOES I through 10,inclusive,
Hearing Date: January 30, 2008
16 Defendants.
17
Since judgment was entered against Defendant Joseph Zemik
18
("Zemik") in August 9,2007, he has filed over 82 ex parte applications! In yet
19 II
20 II
another such application, Zernik requests that the Court release the funds held by the
21 II
Receiver. The Cour1 should deny Zcrnik's ex parte request.
22
The Order appointing a receiver dated November 9,2007 (a true and
)"
_J " correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Moe Keshavarzi

2411 ("Keshavarzi Decl. ")), expressly provides that "upon close of escrow, the Receiver
25 II shan hold the net proceeds of the sale of the Property and before distributing it to
26 II Zcmik, deduct from that amount (1) any attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan
/71 1
- I I by this Court, (2) any damages incidental to the decree of specific perfonnance
28 II
- 1
\\CJ2~\\hT 1\1\11\.1 ~1006Lj41"; I
OPPOSITIO,\; TO E\ P4RTE APPLlCATIO\:
granted to Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses incurred as described
211 herein." (Exh. A, p. 4).

3
4 The Purchase Agreement between Samaan an Zernik, which the

:; Court's judgment specifically enforced, provides that "in any action ....between
() Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
7 to reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller ... "
8 (Keshavarzi Decl., Exh. B, Purchase Agreement, at ~ 22). Under this provision,

<) Samaan is entitled to her post-judgment attorney's fees (a substantial amount, given
10 Zernik's scorch earth litigation tactics, including his 82 post- judgment ex parte
11 applications), including the costs and fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. Ca1.
12 Code eiv. Proc. §§ 685.040; 685.080. Samaan intends to bring a motion for
I:; recovery of such fees.
14
Samaan is also entitled to damages incidental to the decree of specific
IS
performance, including rent from the time Zemik breached the Purchase Agreement
1() II
(September 2004) to the date of judgment and "interest di fferential damages"
17 II
because she has had to pay interest on her loan at a higher rate than at the time
18 II
escrow would have been timely closed. Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal. 2d 206
19 11
( 1963 )(holding that a plaintiff who prevails in his action to enforce a land sale
20 II
contract is entitled to rent from the time he was entitled to a conveyance); Hutton v.
21 II .
GI iksberg, 128 Cal. App. 3d 240 (1982).

22 II
7"
--)
In Hutton, for example, plaintiff purchasers sued defendant vendors for
24 II specific perfoffilance of a contract to sell an apartment building. The contract
2511 provided that plaintitIpurchasers would procure a new first deed oftmst loan at
2611 .
current rates and charges, and would execute a second deed of tmst loan With
27 II interest at 1/4% more than the interest on the first deed of trust. The trial court
2811 granted specific perfomlancc, and also awarded the purchasers $122,219 as
.._ . ~ -2- .~ ._ _~_. __ _ ._
585 ,1
1
1 \\(I~·\\iST ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p585/679
1\1\lKl .)IJO(,Y-lln I OPPOSITI01\ TO E\ PARTE APPLICATIO\l
compensation. The basis of the monetary award was that, at the time specified for
2 II perfom1ance, the purchasers had a loan commitment at 9 1/4% interest, but at the
311 time of the judgment, the prevaihng rate was 14%. lQ.. at 245
4
5
Likewise, in Stratton v. Tejani, the Court of Appeal held:"[W]e believe
6 a court must acknowledge the economic reality that if a seller's breach causes a
7 buyer to pay interest on a real estate loan higher than the rate initially bargained for,
8 then that buyer sustains damages for each dollar unnecessarily expended." 139 Cal.
9 lAPP. 3d 214 (1982).
II
10
When Zernik breached the Purchase Agreement October 2004, Samaan
J1
had procured a loan for 5.5°lrl. (Keshavarzi Dec!., Exh. C). For the same loan
12 11
Samaan now has to pay interest at the rate of7.375%. (!sL) Samaan is entitled to
13 II
recover the difference over the life the loan. Saaman intends to file a motion for the
14
recovery of damages incidental to decree of specific performance. Therefore,
J5 II
Samaan requests that the Court deny Zernik's motion until the hearing on Samaan's
J() II
motion for recovery of attorney's fees and damages.
17 "
18
ror the foregoing reasons, Samaan respectfully requests that the Court
19 " deny Zernik's ex parte application.
20
21 II Dated: January 29,2008

22
SHEPPARD, MU It-J, RICHTER & HAMPTON UP
\, )\ I~
7'
_J
24
By I
--- ~
25 Moe Keshavarzi
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26
NIVIE SMAAN
27
28
- "- )
\\02-\\FSTi\1\lKI ..O(jh9"j731 OPPOSJTIO:\ TO EX PARTE .\PPLlC-\TIO\
DECLARATION OF MOE KESHAVARZI
2 I, MOE KESHAVARZI, declare as follows:
3
4 1. I am an associate at the law finn of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &

5 Hampton, LLP, counscl to plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan"). I have personal
6 knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and, if called upon to testi fy to these
7 facts, I could and would competently do so.
s
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the
9
Order appointing Receiver.
10 "
11
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and conect copy of the
12 " Purchase Agreement between Samaan and Zemik.
13
14 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a truc and concct copy of

15 II documcnts evidencing the rates on Samaan's loans in 2004 and 2007.
I ()
17 I declare under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
18 II Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on January 29, 20~18, i~r Los Angeles, Cali fomia.
20
21 \
'; i r (
22 \ I )\; "'-"'-
By: ~
)"
~.)
24 Mac Keshavarzi
25
26
27
28
___74: _
588 II \\ (12 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p588/679
\\l"r I <1\!K:::'()i)(})~\7-j i OPPOSITIO;'; TO C\ P.jRTE APPLICATJO\
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ffJ
A Limlted Liability Partnership ~() ()~~&
J
"-
Including Professional Corporations '\ "1/; .0..;: :~1?, ,
PHILLIP A. DA VIS. Cal. Bar No. 110430 ~(';{, ", ' ,~~
~j/0 '0c-f'{<'~O~').>
3 Ii \'10E KESHA VARZl. Cal. Bar ?<o. 223759 /. A..I 0 ' r>
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor o,,/;
1 Cr /0." ()
I'"l
411 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 I./ f, ;'1' COt;
': I;/,~
<Y
I eJephone: 213-620-1780 &,. 1- ('1/(/ ,
vt?? '/{
5 :i Facsimile: 213-620-1398 ,,'. /~ reo O/"
orq 1'c
.b cJ>"C;
6 l/>(J~ /c.j'.{
·'dlurnn,; for Plalllti ff I\l\ic Samaan
8
q Sl'PERIOR C01'RT OF TIlE STATE OF CALIFOR:\IA
I
i
10 : FOR THE COL,NTY OF LOS ANGELES -- \VEST DISTRIC1
11 II NJVIE SAMAAN. an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12 Plaintiff. Honorable John A. Segal
13 v. ~)posedJ Order Appointing David].

astemak as ReceJVer.
] 4 II JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual and
DOES 1 through I D, inclusive,
15
Defendants,
16
17
] 811
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 I
271
28
-1-
I \\,n2·\\E;S, 'YFyIKI\400~Y:':'J ,; [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David J Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 i i appointed as Receiver to take possession. custody and control of the real property located
...,,
at 320 South Peck DriH:. Beverly Hills. Callfomia 902] 2. legal1y described as:
4
tot 252 of Tract 77] O. in the City of Beverlv Hills.
c; ('()untv of Los Angeles. State ofCalifomia. -as per map
rccorGed lI1 book ~3 PAGE is) 94 and 95 of maps. In the
6 office of the recorder of saJd county (the "PROPERTY").
1. Before pcrfomling hlS duries, the ReceJ\n shall execure a RcceJ\er's

8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 \\/ith surety thereon approved by this Court. in the
9
i slim of'" 1DJJ(I(r(J(I. cilnditioncd Up011 the faithful perfonmlllce of tIle Recei\er's dUlles.
10 j
1] 2. Within seven (7) days of his appointment, the Receiver is to disclose
]2 II to aJ] partIes any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires to
13 II assist in the management of the estate.
14
18
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
19
preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
20
(0 to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preserve,
2]
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
'1"
.... "-
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTIl\iC.; RECEJVER

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #13 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part7 p493-591

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #13 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part7 p493-591

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1 II policies for the period that the Receiver shan be in possession of the estate.

8 II from the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.

20 II (b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to

II W02-WEST'j MMK I '-400492211.:

~ II Dated Novem~o; 2007

7 III <'a - -. Hon_ 10 - Segal

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Roben J. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph Zernik

12 0 BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and

16 110 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served such envelope or package to be

~ BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the

23 Executed on October 26, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.

25 \ a. t,' ~/>;Z ;p;)

495 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p495/679

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

496 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p496/679

SllPERJOR COCRT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORKIA

8 CmC'TY OF LOS ."'<GELES

9 WEST DISTRICT. SAl'TA MO:-JrCA

19 11 IS ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff1<ivie Samaan is awarded

497 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p497/679

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

498 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p498/679

499 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p499/679

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

500 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p500/679

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

501 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p501/679

21 Appraisal is founded on Specific Performance of this Contract..

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

502 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p502/679

3 Judgment by Court of Aug 9, 2007.

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

503 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p503/679

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

504 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p504/679

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

520 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p520/679

hp officcjet d135 Fax-History Repon for

I1$ JJim< IlIlt Identification Duration &w &t.lllll

FAX LOG OF SAMAAN AS INTRODUCED BY SAMAAN.

521 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p521/679

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

522 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p522/679

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

523 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p523/679

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

7 VS. NO. SC 087400

11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

15 FOR PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,

26 ADRIANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370

524 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p524/679

1 CASE NUMBER: SC 087400

2 CASE NAME: NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH

4 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

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

6 REPORTER: ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.

8 TIME: 9:18 A.M.

9 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

19 MR. ZERNIK: NO-

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

6 ESTABLISH CALENDAR. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I -

18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE -

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