Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.08.09
05:06:47 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

07-09-10 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles
Disqualification for Cause of Judge Jacqueline Connor

Table of Contents
1. Dr Zernik’s filing, as copied from court file ………………………… 1
2. Court Reporter’s transcript ………………………… 29
3. Minutes, as copied from court file ………………………… 36
4. Register of Actions (California civil docket) ………………………… 43
5. Case Summary (not a formal court record) ………………………… 51

Proceeding of September 10, 2007, and its records are considered the best evidence of public corruption and
deprivation of rights by Judge Jacqueline Connor in the case.

The case as a whole was pretense litigation – the Clerk of the Court refused to certify it as a case of the
Superior Court of California.

The fraud in the case culminated in conveyance of title through Grant Deeds issued by Attorney David
Pasternak, which were opined as fraud by a Fraud Expert second to none.

The records of the September 10, 2007 proceedings are deemed fraud, in and of themselves, on numerous
accounts:

1. Dr Zernik’s filing, as copied from court file - was missing substantial part of the exhibits.

2. Court Reporter’s transcript - documented that no hearing was conducted on that date.

3. Minutes of the proceeding - were never authenticated, but were inserted in court file nevertheless. The
Minutes purported to record a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never ruled.

4. Register of Actions – documented false recording of the proceeding, including, but not limited the
false record of adjudication:

09/10/07 Event Complete

Recusal
Motion Granted
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
5. Case Summary – documented false recording of the proceeding:
09/10/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding
Recusal (MOTION FOR SANCTIONS) - Motion Granted
1. September 10, 2007 – Paper copied from court file:
Dr Zernik’s Filing for Immediate Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline
Connor

1/51
 C
v I' CI'lltdlly signed by

. .' LED ~ } Jospph {",,"k

DN: cn-o )o5eph b'JI1lk.
coihri'~·L.
o
T nS\>(ji:LFC:. '-)lTI'ERIOR em.1II 'Jz12345'ealtbl,
I1k.net c=us
r ,re: ie',)? .,)<l.10
02.3721 nroc
~!: i' '107001"
Joseph Zcrnik, D\IO, PhD
Defendant in Pro PCI' .)()H!'!;\ (:... t.J.\F:!<E, CLERK
., II 32ft South Peck Dri, c ;:",0' \'." t' '~\.~
~.... _".;,,/' /,:. .l" ~ .J\Nt
BeH~r1~ Hills l'A 90212 BY 6ARBA.iA VARGAS, EPU"TY
3

-+ SlPERIOR eOtRT Of THE STATE OF C\LlFOR\IA

~ FOR THE COl::"TY Of LOS A~GELES

(,

7 \ ,\[VIE SA \1:\.-\\,:-In mdi, IdllUL Case ~(). SCIIS7 ~n()

~ PlaintilT. THE HO~OR-\BL£ JLDGE J CON~OR

()

10 JOSEPH ZER\IK. an indi' idllaL and DOES I fILl.'\iG fOR THE PliRPOSE OF
through 2tl. illc!lIsi, c. 1\IMEDlATE DlSQVALlflCAnON OF
1\ THE HO~ORABLE .JloGE CONNOR
Dcfi.:nd;U1ls PI:RSV;\;\T TO CCP § 1i0.3.
12
13 l!JOSEPH lER~IK. an II1di,iJuaL A COpy IS BEI~G SI,fUTANEOlJSLY
FILED WITH THE SUPERVISING H;DGE,
\.+ II Cross-Complainant. SI PERIOR COLRT, SA"TA \IONIC\:
I:'
1h i I COLDWELL R.-\\KER RESJDENTI.\L
BROI"ERAliE; 'vI!CH,\EL LlBO\V, an DATE: SEPTE'IBER to,2007
17 I, I indiyidual. TI:\\£: 8:30AM
PLACE: oEPART\JENT WE-J
IX
(' rO'iS-Dckndants.
19

21)

21 -----_._------------ -

22
OECL.\R\TlO~ Of .JOSEPH ZER:\IK
23
2~ ti I. Defendanl .md CrIbs C,lmplalnanl J('s~ph Zermk. declare :l,~ (o]J!)\\,;

)~ Ii I) I object to :my hcanng ,)r allY lrinl beforejudge Connor

;~, I) 2) Il1bJc(tcd h:f()r~. hut 111\ ()hJ~~tiun. pur,\uant to eep /71)3 \\as ignored. and I tl1l'ref'ore
27 nhlCcl a~:lln nun
.2K

1·111\(; 1'01{ 1111-: 1'1 uro..;/-: OF

I \("FU!.\ 1'1': UI"QI\UFI(\ 1'10'1 OF TilE
1I0\OR\ !II I' -11/)(;1-: (,()'\'\OR Il. \SED 0\
( (\' § 1"11.3. {'as{' \0. ~('OS~ ~IHl

2/51
 3) [hold IhatJudge Connor IS biased. :lnd should kne recused herselt'.
2 ~) I also hold and belJe\i~ that Judge Connor's conduct in Ill' case \\as dishonest and
3
entirel' Inappropriate for a Judge Surel~ it did not resemble the conduct of a Judge
.f

5 engaged in an abO\ e board legal procedure.

() 5) Judge Connor routinely olTers Plaintiff and Non-Party Count~ "Ide preferentIal
7
treatment. Belo\\ are some e\ample of treatment lhat put me in disad, antage,
8

9 II CCP g170.1 (a) says:

10 A luJ~.: shall he Jisqllillili.:d if..tn\ one or more of the j')l1o\\ing. is true
((,) 1,\)hlr an\ reastltl,
II II) The judt!e heh.:\es Ins I'r her reellsal \\oulJ I'urther the interests l'I'Jllstice.
(ill lhe !\ll!t'-e helIe\ es there is a substantial Joubt as ttl hiS or her capaclt' to he imrartial.
1:2 111111\ ['erstlll ;mare 1),'lhc l~lCts might n::lsonahh entertam a dOllht that thc.Judlll' \\ouIJ he ahle t<) he

13 II impartial
I or pre.llkhc.: to\\arJ a !.1\\\lT
IHI 131,1" 111 the pro..:eeding. mil\ he t'-folmds !,)r disqualificatIOn.

14 'I CCP § 170.3 (3) says

IS III If't/lidge Jell'Tl11ines himselfor her'ielft(\ he Jlsqu:dified, lhejllJge sh:Jl1 nolit\ the pre.;idinf:!Judge of!he
comt o!'!ns nr her r,:cllsal ,tnd shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as pnn Joed in Section
16 17 (14. unkss his I)r her OiS<jUdliricatilln is \\ai\l~d b\ the pilrties ,IS rrO\ ideJ in subdi\ ision(b,
(2) If the .IuJge di squalll' ing himself or herseJ f is the only ./udge or the preslding.l udge of the court. the
17 11OtlficatlOn shall be sent to the persol1 ha\ in!? allthont\ to assign another ]uuge to replace the uisqtmIified
ludl!e
IX
CCP §170.3 (b) sayS
I I) (1) i\\llJg.e \\h\) dd.:mllnes h 11 11 sel I' 'lr herself tn he disqualificd afkr eliselosm~ thc ba,;is t~)r his or her
uhquali !'Icatlon on thc rec\)rd may ask the parties and their attome\ 'i \\ hcth.:r the\ \\ish to \\ili\c the
20 disqllahfi';;III\l1l. e,\,;ept \\here the basis fur ,lIsqllaIilic~tlOn 1S as pro\lJed m parag.raph 12').
.\ \\di\cr of ,lisqllaliticatl<lll shall leclte the hasi,; \~)r thc ,l\';l\uahfication, and is elTecti\c onh \\hen
21 'Igned 10\ all parties and their ;ttt()me~ sand Jiled in the recI\rd
,.., , 12) ['here ,1Ia 11 be, Ill) \\ aJ\ cr <11' <hS<jlW Ii ficatlOn if the \'1(ISIS thl'rc!()fe IS l'lthcr 'If the !'111111\\ ing.'
I \.\ \ ! he li',.lge has a l'cr"",,d b1as \lr preludlcc el\IlCcrnmg. a p:lrt\
!Ill Ihe judt'-e -l'ned ,IS:lIl altornc\ 111 the l11illtcr in contnners\. or the]uoge has heen a material \\Itness
.23
,;. l!l';CnJll1f!. that matter

2.+ (3) I hc .illcltl-e cLal1 1],)\ ;>:>:\,. tn mUlll:C a \\;ll\er at"l ~\):d\ <l'.\I:u :!\\\ <:['t;)rl tl) ell"l:\1\er \\hld\ la\\\er~ nr \'altll:~;
j;I\,'red 'Ir O['!'lhed:1 ,\,II\\'[ "f,j:-;qu,tht"c'IIII.n,
2.') H) [I' !:,W'II1JS I',r dl''llldII l'ic,l!wn :Ire t'ir,;, 1c:l!lted I't' "r :m:·;e dfter the Illd!:,e has l\ld,k <Inc or I1wre ntlmils in
" pr')';"l:dm(!. hilt \-I'k1e ,he' 1\!<ltle 1'.:1'.; ';<In:plct.:J jCJchCi<''\ :1l:1;1'11 m <J rmcu:dintl. Ihell.1dge ~hall lmil:;s
2() ihl: dhqlwlIl:l:at"',!\ ;'e '\dl\ed, lhsqualll' hlm,elf III herselL hUI in Ihe Clh'l'IlCl' ,'I' gOllU ,:ulIse the ruhng.~
ill' ",;ile lId:, I1wdl' ilp I,) ih,lt tlll1l' ::ilall;;\I' h:: I,d ,I,idl' h\ I);>: jld",>: '.'!lo rl'j,Llce' Ih>: ,!J:.,quulil·ieJ jlldge
27 i'

2X I!CCp ,170.3 (C) s~l'S

H II \(; FOI{ TilE PIRI'()SE OF
-2- 1\I\lEDl.\ n: D1SQI \UFI<.\ rrO\ OF rm:
1I0\OR \ULE.11 I)(;E (U'>.'I,OR Il\SF:D 0'\

IIII
(( r~ l-:'fU. ('as(' .",,,. S( '(187-'(10

3/51
 (Il If .lluJet.: \\hl) 'hlHdd dl,qllahh hlmsdt' Ilr hersdt'rl'fll,es I'f Lll1> II) ,Ill Sll. am I'drt\ ma\ fill' \Iith the

II c'krk a 1\ nl\cn \t'nt'jed ,tatel1ll'nt Ilblt'clmg. to lhl' hl'arin~ \)1' ,-nat hd;)rl' thl' ludg.l' an,l '<?tting. \;)rth the
.2 !;tds 1'1ln,tltultng. Ihl' ttrounds for ,bsqua!lflcatwl1 1)1' th.: .!I,dge I he statement ,hall hc presel1tl'd al th.:
C.lrhl,,,t l'rac\ic~thll' '))1I' P rtlllllt\lt'ter di,cI)\I'n Ill' th.: Llcts cpn,titutinll thl' g.rllLlIld 1;11' dlsqualltic~ltiol1
CITies I)l'the stat<:ml'nt ,.halll><: sened 1111 each palt\ 1)1 hIS \)1' hel ~Ittt'rnl'\ \\ho has appl'aled ,mJ ,hall be
3 [I p<.'rson~tlh "-:1'\ ed 011 the Judge alkg,.:d to he disquahtied, or tln hi, Ill' her l'll'rk. rrO\ id.:d that the ,Judg,e IS
pr,:s':l1t 111 the cl1[trthl1l1Se or in chamhers.
: II <2, Wit!l,)\lt clll1ccding. tus 1)1 her di,qualitication, <lludg.e \\ hose 1l11partlalit\ has h.:el1 challenged b\ the
fiJmg 1)1' a \\ ntten stall:I11ent rna\ r.:qucst ,1t1\ othl'r Judge :\grecd upon r)\ the partll's II) sit and act in hi, <lr
hel pL\ce
() II (3) Withm I I) IId\ S art.:r \he l'iling. 11r S':I\ Ice. \\ hidle\ l'r IS lakr. lhe wdg.e ma\ 11k a ..:onsent to

7 II disqualification 111 \\ hich ..'asc (h.: Judge ,haJJ 11<ltify tbe prc'lding..JuJ!l-c tIl' the pcr'ion authori/l'd to
,I!lpomt a replac':lllcnt Ilrhis pr her rccu,al as pnl\\,kd Il1 suhdl\I'lIln "II. or the JlKlf!': ma\ fIll' a \\flltl'n
8 \ enfied ,1I1".\cr al\nl1tting Ilr den:- ing. a1~\ tlr ..ill of the alleg.ations contained JI1 the part'."s -;tatem.:nt and
-;etting forth any aJditional facts material Ilr r.:knnt t,) the qu.:stit)n Ill' disquahllcation The ck'rk shall
t) linth\lltl! transmit a COP\ Ill' the .Judge', Un,\H:I tn each paltY 'll his (l[' h.:r altome\ \lho has app.:ared 111
the dcti\Jn.
10 ,\judg.c \\ho Llils to lile a consent Ilr anSI\er I\ithin thc time allO\\.:d ,hall he deemed to haye consented
to Ius Ilr hcr dLsqualIfication and the clerk shall noti!) the pr.:sidll1gJudg.e \)f pl'rson authorl/ed til appoint
II ;,t replaccment l,f1.11e r.:cusal:1S pnnidcd in 'iuhdi\ision fal.

(S) /\ Judge II ho r.:fuscs tIl r.:cus~· himself or her,elf shall nllt P~lS, IlfXm hIS tlr her 0\\ n chsqualdication Of
12 dplln the sutliclcnc\ III Ia\l. Llct 01 \)th':rI\l,e. 1)1' the ,tatemcnt nf dlSll'wlit'icatll1!1 filed b\ a pmt' In that
ca:,e, the qu.:,tlon PI' dl,qualific;llIOll ,hall h.: heard and Jctermll1ed \1\ dnllther .Judg.e agrccd upon h:-' all
13
tbe partll's \\l!u ha\e ..Jppcared 1)1. in 1he nent thc\ ,Ir.: un,lhle to ag.ree \\lthll1 live Ja\S ofnotitication of
l-l Ihe .Judg.c·s an".leL b\ a Judg.e sell'cted hy the chaiqlersnn of the JudICial Council. 1)1' 11' the chairperson is
11l1dt ,Ie to :Ict, thl' \ ice ..:h:nrper,pn, The c il'rk ,hall noll h the e'(ecuti\ e Illlic<:r I If the Judicial L'lluncil of

15 the need for a 'ieketion The sdection shall he made as e'(peditioush as fX",ihle No challeng.e pursuant
to Ihis Sllbdl\i,i,)Il Ilr ScdilHl l70r) l1la~ Ol.' made agamst the judg.e ,deeted til dl.'Clde thl.' qu.:stion of
I () Jisqu:I li !'icalion
II (6) fhc ,udge deciding lhe ljllesti\)fl Ill' disyuaJillcation may deCIde the questl\)fl on thc hasis of the statement
17 "f dLsqualitlcatll)fl and ,1l1S\\er and any \Hillen arguments as the Judg.e requests, or the Judge may sd th.:
matter for hearing :IS pn'mrt]y ,I, practicable. If a hearing IS ordered, thcl11dge shalll'cmnt the parties and
IX :he ,udp.e alkg<:d to h.: dlSqualiticd to argu.: the queslll'n of disqu.lllllc:ltlon and shaJl for good cause
SitO\\11 hcar <:vld.:nc.: nn am disput.:d Issue of til..:!. [f the Judg,.: declding. the qu.:stion 1)1' dlsquahtieati()fl
19
detenl11ncs that the .Judge IS dlsquali tied. Ihc J uJg.<: hearing the que,tion shall !1utit\ the prcsiding Judg.: or
the TXTSI)fl havi ng ,llIthpritv 10 ;j promt d replacement of the disqua Jifi.:dj lhig.: as pm\ Ided in suhdi\ islon
20
la\.
21
e'ep SI71U (d)~aH
22 j h.: dct~'rnl!l1atl\ln of the que,tion I)t' the dlSqualificu!lIm of U .JlIdg,.: IS not ,111 appealuble ,)rder ,md maY h.:
re\ le\\ed \Jnh h\ :\ \Int ('I'mandate from Ihe appropriate court of appeal '<ll!tlht onh !w th.: parties It) the
2J rrf'I'l'edmg TIl<: petiti<'n 1<'1' th.: '·\flt ,hid] lot: !'zlcd and ":ned \\lthin I" d.J''; :Iikr "en iee "f \\Jitten
uotice Ill' <:nl1'\ Illlllc cOLlrt'; "rd<:r Ikt<:llllll1lllg. lite qucstlOn PI' disqu,ilit'icatlllTl If the nollce ur ~'ntn IS
2-l ';er\ cd h n:,IIL l:'ill 11m.: ,h,dll'e e'(tended :IS prn\ Hkd !11 "'lhdi\l;1I\1l la \ ,)1' Seclinn III I j

25 ICCP ~ 170A (al mn:

.2() ,\ ,1: 'ljlkdl!'il',ljlt.1;.'.:. nI11\\ ;t:b1.ln,i:ng hIS "f her dlsqt"diticatl\lll 1l1:J\ do ,111:- Ill' the !<)Ihm mg
r ! i Ld\l' an\ ,:Jet1on ()r h,UC :111\ drdcf l~CLL'\~~H"Y t\.) !n~llllr:lln the
II 11'1 S,ll..:1 11111 "I' Ihl.' <:1'llrt j1endl!lil the ,"S1ilnrl1~'l1t \)1' ,.Illidge n"t
27
,ii,qll,dlfled
2X (~ : i{l'(l'~"il ./11\ ,ilil ..Tilid:;C :Isr~'eJ 'irOn hI :11e parllcs III sll :,n.]

lIU .... <; FOI{ rIlE PI I{POSE OF

-3- I\(\(EDI\ n: mo.;C)I\L1F1C\ no.... OF filE
1I0.... 01UIlU: ./LDGE ('0 01{ R\SED 0 ....
«I' ~ t ':'11.3. CoL '\n. SCOH7.l00

4/51
 ,let In 111S ,)r her f'1.1cc
1,,' , I lear ,md dl'!l'rrnmc l'llre!\ eldClult matkr~.

2 I III !s'Ul' an l,rJn (or !'lhSessll>n prlllr to Jlldt!.rnl'nt In e1l1llll'nl

el'l1l1mn !'l'l'C L'l'llt ngs
3 I I~i "d
rr<1cl'l'dilli!-~ for tnil! or h.:anng.
I(') C,mJuctsdtk1l1ent conferences
~

CCP ~t70A (b) says:

5
!\Int\\ Ith~LIllJlIJf! par:ltlraph 1)'1 nf ,uhJi\ ISlOn lei of Sed1l.>n 17n" if a statement l)f dl''lu:tlitlcatlon I~
h llrltulld\ fIled III 11' \)1\ Its I~lce It discloses 1111 lq;al e:-rolltlds [ilr disqllalilicatllJrl the Ina1.llldge agalllst
II hum it \1 as fikd 1l1,tl ohler It stnckl'll
7
eep sI 70A (c) says:
8 (I) If a stakml'nt PI' J1s'lllLlhficatH)n IS fileJ after a trial or hearing has commenced h\ the start of \ ,)Ir dire,
()
h\ the ';\\eanng of the tirst \litness or hy the s!lhmissi(m 01':1 motion for deCIsion, the Judge \\hose
IIllI'artIaht~ has bet'n 'lllcstionl'u may ,)ruer the tnal O! hCuring In cont1I111t:, notl\ ithstanding the filing l\f
the ~talemenl of dIsqualification. The issue (If dis'lualIt'icatwn ,hall he rekrred to ,mother Judge for
III deCIsion as prmideJ lTl,uhdinsion fa) of Sedion 1703, and ifit i, ddennined that the,udge is
dis'lllaiJ lied, .dl nrJers and rlll ings of the i lIdge fnund to he dIsqualified made after the filing of the
II
,tatement ~hall he \ aeakd,
12 (2) For the Plt!pose~ of:his stlbdi\ lsjon, II'I Ai:1 proceeding is tiled in a smgk Judge <.;ouft PI' has been
:Issigned In a single JuJge !"r cOl11prehcnsi\e disposition, and I B) thc procceding h<ls bel'n set ["I' (rial,)!
13 hcarmg 3il ,',r more dm ,-; JJl ad\Cll1ce hefon: a judge \\ hose name \\as ).;nOI\n at the time, the tnal or
hcurrng shall he ,kerned In haw <.;oml11enecd II) elm's pnor to rhe date s<.;hedllJcJ 1,)(' trial or hearing as In
14 ,111\ grlllUlds I'lr disqualitlc<ltion kno\ll1 hefore that tIllle.
(3) 1\ part'. l1la\ 1ilc I1P more than nne statement "f
15 dl''ilialrllC,ltll>rl ,Igamst a .11IJge [Ullc~s t~lets 'u)lgestlng ne\\ gr<HUlc!S
I,'r dlsqllaliliealion ,He first learned of or arise alh:! the first
16 statement "I' Jisqualiflcalwn \Ias Illed. Repetit!\,c statemcnts of
JisLjualI tieation nnt allq!.mg {[Ids suggestlllg new g.nlUnJs for
17 ,ltsLjllalification shall he stncken h~ the Judge agamst nhnm thn arc
lib!
IX
I') CCP st 70... (tI) Sl\\'S:
E"\cepl as pfl\\1<1:d in this secti,m, a dlslJualiliedludge shall ha\e no ]'\)\\er 10 act m am p!oceeding after his
20 or her disqllalitieatinn or after the fillllg ,)1' a statement of disqllalifieatlllI1 LlIltll the qlleslinn nfhis nr her
,lisqLlaliticatiol1 has heen ddel111ined
21

22
.Keepine Befendant ["informed
23
~,-l I a) Denial of Access to \ly File
25 I 6) I \\as d~nied ~lCcess to my o\\n case lile for many months. and could not e\ aluate \\hat

~() I
I
happened In this case (Exh I - a true ,:md corr~ct cop~ of DDS Declamtion)
I
"7 i
- 17) Due to a I uck~ break. \\ hen Judge Connor \\ as on YacatlOl1. and m~ ex parte \\ as heard b~
2S (I

II 1'11.1:\(; lOR TilE Pl RPOSE OF

I\I'IFDL\ n: IWiQI'\L1F1C\TlO'i m TIlE
~ -4-
IIO\OR\IU,E.l1 u(a: (O\'iOR B.\SED 0'
( ( P § 1 ~n.3. (as(" 'n. S( 'OR--100
I
5/51
 Judge Segal. I started gettmg access to documents.
2
8) In the past \\ eek I \\ as gl\en more access to documents than c\ er before. due to direct
3
inten entlOn of the Supen Ising Judge.
4

5 9) Therefore. on most issues. I am now able for the first time to file again the for Immediate

6 disqualification or Judge Connor pursuant to CCP 170.3

7
b) False Wai"e.·s of ~otice
~
IO)Judge Connor falsely claims that I \\ai\t~d notice of essentiailv everything. \\hich I hm e
<)

10 ne\ er done. In manv ~1inute Order I no\\ found the note:

I1 "Notice h waive,£'. ~ E'ill 2 - a true and correct copy of :'vtinutes of It L117-8/1)/07 with
12
Zemik's suggested corrections)
13
a) These are raIse records - I hm c never agreed to \\ ai\e notice.
14

15 b) No transcript \\as e\ er produced in \\hich I \\as recorded as saying r \\ai\e notice.

16
c) For \\ai\c of notIce all parties must agree to such. Cold\\ell Banker and Libo\\. t\\O
J7
parties. \\ere absent in most sessions in this litigation. Therefore. it is ob\ ious that no
18
1\) :\1inutes of an~ sessions \\ here either of these 1\\0 parties \\as absent could legitimately

20 ha\ e a "notice is waived" record in it.

21
d) Lasl \\ eek. on September 4. 2007. I filed an E" Parte application to protest in \\fiting
22
this ddiberate practice that keeps a part~ uninfonned regarding the litigatIOn. E\ en on
13

24 lhat \ en same day. the \linut~s said

25 "SOfia i.~ wahw/" - a c\ mcal disregard of the la\\

2(,
c) False Declanltion of 'tailing 'linutes
27
2X 10) In a number or \Iinutes I found recentl\ false declarations that state that such minutes

HLI\G FOR Tim 1'1 J{I'OSEOF

-5- I\I\IEOl.\n: D1S()(\IIF1C\TlO\ OFTHE
1/0\OR \ULE./1 DGE CO\ \OR IJ.\SFI) 0\
(CI' ~ nu. Cast' \0. sn)!l;~OO

6/51
 and e,plallls that the then \ al i d Trial Date \\ as con tlt1ued t\\ Ice not too long before then.

"" Be~ and Ihat. it goes on to pro\ ide a tOlally di fferent and false c\.clIse for the demal of
3
e\.ll?nSlOn of Disco\ cry Cut Off Date - as some klIld of punishment lor the fact that r
..+
51' purportedl~ did not cooperate \\ith my deposition. The Judge then proceeds to gi\e the

6 I record of Ihis lack of cooperation that resulted in clItting off disco\ e~ .

7
IS)
~
I. Once - Ihe Judge granted me an e\.tension of deposition date
l)

JO n. Once - Keshm aui canceled my deposition claiming sickness <but some accolmts

Il he faked it in order to undermine disco\ e~·. and canceled all deposition schedules
1:2
agreed unti I that dale.
13
III Once -- Keshm arzi canceled due to his 0\\ n schedule contlict
1..+

15 16) In short - in orderjuslil\ an error m adjudication. possibl\ a bias in adjudication. Judge

lei
Connor entered a CO\ ert record that entirely contradicted her \\ords in open Court. and also
17
\\as illogicaL and defamato~' to Defendant Cor no reason at all.
I~

II) 17)

20 b) RelatiYe to Entl)' & ~otice of Judgment - :\linutes of,\ugust 21, 2007 (Exh 3 - is
21
a true and correct copy of the August 21, 2007 Minutes)
:22
The case of the minutes of August 21. 2007. IS separately discussed below. Suffice is 10 say.
.23

24 that page I of the minutes. \\ hich \\ as the information a\ aibble to those present 111 the E\.
2.5 Parte hearing. IS fully contradicted in page 2. The \Iinutes declare that Ihe~ \\ ere mailed out
:2(i
on \ugust 21. 21)ll7. but thc~ arri\ cd hOlh at Defendant. and also per statement of Kesh~l\ aui
27 i
2K I at PlalntllT. onl~ on August 29. 20()7. III an em elope post marked August 2X. 2007

HI.I\(; FOR TilE 1'1 IU'(JSE OF

-7 - I\I\IFIlI.\ rE I)(SI}I\L1FlC\ nO\ OF TIlE
1I0\OR.\IlLE .JlD<;E ('()Y\OR R\SED 0.'\
( (I' § I ;fI.J. ('a.,(' '\n. S( OR':' ~OO

7/51
 17) Judge Conl1or' s conduct. discussed behm. relatl\ e to :\ atice of Judgment. IS judged by

2 me to rall bet\\ een manipulation and dishonesty - intended to depri\ e me or m~ legal rights
3
to tak.e legal action such as ~[otion for Reconsideration and \Iotion I'or \ie\\ Trial. This
-+
manipulatIon in and of itself is testimony that Judge Connor is concerned that her ruling and
5

6 II Judgment \\ auld ne\ er stand the test of a secondary re\ le\\ - and justly so
7
11,e Judge \\ rongt"uJly depri\t~d me of the opportul1lty to mo\ e lor ne" trial by:
~

( I ) falsely claiming 1\\ ai \ ed notice of entry ofjudgment:

()

to (2) denying me access to my Jile so 1could find out on my o\\n (i.e.. e\en "ithout

It notice) "hether it had been entered and \\hen~

( :2
(3) \\fongly insisting that my time to sed. a new trial or to \ acate judgment had
13
begun to run on August <) \\ hen 1\\ ere handed a cop~ of the judgment (c\ en
14

15 though the applicable statutes say the clerk can only start the clock by mailing a

16 document entitled "notice of entry" pursuant to the court's order):

17
(4) \\ithholding the August 21 minute order -- \\hich I \\ould ha\e recei\ed less than
I~
I l) rifteen da~ satter August () had it been mailed promptly and \\hieh said judgment

20 had been entered on that date .- until more than 15 days had passed; and
21
(5) by ha\ ing her clerk falsely declare on the August 21 minute order (the first
22
minute ord~r that \\as e\ er sen ed on \ou) that she had sen ed it by mail on Ihat
23
24 date desplte proof that it \\:lS mailed a \\eek later

25 [nfounded Del'ogatory Statements Regarding Defendant, l sed to Justify Errol'S in

2()
Adjudication, and to lndermine Defendant's Access to Legal Counsel.
:7
18) The ((lIse c!(llms that Defendant obfuscated in scheduling his deposition appeared in the
2K

1-11.1\(; FOR TilE I't RPOSE OF

-8- I\l\lEm\lE D(S()I\UFIC\rJO\ OF I'm:
1I0"\oR\llLE .JIDGE co." "'OR R\SED 0\
('CP § 1711.3. ('as.' '\(J. seoll':' ~OO

8/51
 \I1nutcs of July 11. 2()()7. to justify th~ error 111 adjudIcation on DISCO\ ~ry Cut Orf Date
2 Thc 1:1CtS that Judge Connor herself lists to substantiate such c1alOls sho\\ that lhese are
3
I'm olous del:1maton statements.
~

5 19) Strangely. Judge Connor found it necessa0 to r~peat such unfounded defamato~

() statements JI1 the \hnutes of A.ug 9, 2007. for the Summa0 Judgment - again to justit\ or
7
cmer up maJor errors in adjudication - relati\~ to the dCl1laJ of Lcme to Amend (Exh 4 - IS
~

q
a tme and correct copy of the T\linutes of Aug <>. 1007)

10 20) Judge Connor opens \\ ith a true and \ alid statement: ". leave /0 amend a complaint is

[ \
usually !Iherally ,l.!,rw1feJ 0 ", but then she goes on \\ ith unreasonable excuses for denying the
12
Lem e to Amend. including the compulso~ cross-complaints against Plamtiff.. and to 0

13
bolster such, she r~sorts again to defamato~ statements:
14

15 "Second Ihe ('olin/indIo IIJm thae 1.1' slIhSIaJ7/101 n'idmce /0 show thar .\lr. Zcrl1lk is not acting

I()
/11 goodf{1I th.·'
17
21) Judge Connor reprimanded Defendant on many occasions for his insistence on remaining in
18
l I) Pro Per e\ cn \\ hen he had legal counsel \Iy stance \\ as the outcome of complete lack of

20 confidence, based on unfortunate experiences. I hold and bclic\\~ that the environment created

2\ b~ Judge Connor in the Court room had a lot to do \\ i th that. But I \\ as still stunned \\ hen I
.,..,
i
~- llinall~ recei\ed a \ crified statcment of Att HolTman regardlllg his interaction \\ ith Judge Connor
n'
2~ I '
lion his \ Cf\ first cncounter \\ ith her. on Au!!ust 21
~
.~()() 7 Judge Connor made daouatof\. ~

25 i cOllllllenls that "cre clearly meant to undermim: lll~ access to legal counsel (E"h :' -tme and

.2f) II correct C0P~ of A

i
tl HotTman' s \eritied statement)

27 11
2X II
II _1)-
FII.I.'G FOR IIIE 1'\ IU'O'... E OF
I\I\IED( \ rF I)I:->QI" \LIne\ flO' OF TilE
I,
ItO~OR\BI.E ./lJ)G ,,: (O:\,\OR II. \SEIH):\

«
I P § 1711.3. C":I\.. \0. ScOH7 ~oo

9/51
 22) ,'\tt Schorr reported to me that Judge Connor made unusual comments. that he interpreted as
2 dcrogaton. on his, c0 first appearance as \\ ell I <1m ~ et to obtalll lh<ll transcript
3
Opposite Rulin2s on the Same Issue - Fon:.ed Signatures - in the Vel)' Same Hearing
,~

23) In the same \finules (Aug 9, lOOT). as a final footnote to her decision to deny Le~l\e to
5

6 Amend Claims. and as part of the list of claims presumed to pro' e Zemik's lack of good
7
faith. Judge Connor addressed a critical Issue that she ruled upon in the opening of the
8
hearing on Surnrna0 Judgment. This issue had nothing to do "ith the Leaye to Amend
<)

10 Claims,

II "AII', lCl'I1ik col1tend~ that hIS own OppOSilIOtl popel's 10 ploi/1l1tf's sWllJ1JarY/1ldgmcnt motiO/1

12
Here rtlillpered 'rlllh or ultered prior to hemgiifed wirh the COlirt, tho1lgh he has taken no
IJ
pOI'!fW!1 us to Hllat !Ie L'hI/InS \1 LIS tllten:t(',
l-l
15 ,III 2-4) I c:\ plamed
' that'
I (}
a) I had a chance after filing ex parte "ith Judge Segal. to inspect my filings "ith
17
Court's Research Attorney. and they \\ere not .rune, At that time I filed "ith Rearch
18
,,\ttome~ a short \erilied statement that those tilings "ere not mine. They \\ere
\9

20 missing the digital signatures securing my filings. and the \Yet signatures. \\here
21
present. "ere not mine either.
22
b, I explained the follo\\ing:
23

2-1 25) TmflSuipt of Hearin~ of Plaintiffs "lotion for Summar'Y .Judgment: Page 3:

25 (E:\h :; - J true and corred copy or page J-,.J. l-l or the respeeti\(~ trans en pt)
2()
7 --\IR lER\IK. I H, \ VF DECLARATlO\' FRO\f THE SERVICE
27 ~ THAT 'n1ERE \VAS .\'i l\TOW\RDLY ,-\FFAIR THAT HAPPE\ED ..
2X
I had a declaration that "as In ..:treet an admission by Att Schorr that m~ filings \\ere
I'II.I'\(; FOR rilE P\ IU)O~E OF
_I ()- ("\lFD!\ rF l>r:-;QI\IIF(("\ no\ OF TilE
IIO.'iOR.\BLE ,II DGE C'(),\\OR 1J\~E1) 0'\
C('P ~ I ~IU. C'ast> '\u. SCUll: ~UU

10/51
 t:lmpered \\ ith in hiS office (E:\h 6 - :l true :lnd correct copy of declaration by Att
2 Schorr)
3
26) \ione oCthat helped. I don't beJie\e that Judge Connor understood the concept of Digital
~

" I Signatures in the tirs! place. She repeated the question of"\\hat is misslIlg" I hold and

;j I belte\ e that this question is entin~ly irrele"mt question \\ hen ~ au ha\ e adulterated
an
7
document. Regardless, Judge Connor. ruling on forged sIgnatures that appear rather Similar
~
to the genuine ones, declared:
l)

III TI'anscl'ipt of Hearing of Plaintitrs \fotion for Summal)' Judgment: Page 4:

I
Il 10 "I HAVE A SEPARATE STATE\lENT THAT'S FILED
12 IJ JUL Y ::::!()lh Irs SIGNED BY you. THE SIGNATURES APPEAR
1:2 TO BE THE SAME SIGNATLJRES.
13 13 \lR ZERNIK: Irs NOT MY SIGNATURES.
l4 THE COURT ( HAVE A STATEl\IENT. YOU ARE '\101' GOli\G
14
15 TO HAVE THIS CONTINUED. THE \·lATTER IS 1\;01' CONTINt'ED.··
15

1(,
27) That \\as of course a critical ruling that doomed the "hole hearing from Defendant's
17
,I perspectl\ e.
IX I

19 28) In the same hearmg, I presented in brief the six categories of fraud found in Samaan' s

20 case One of them: Fraudulent Inducement. is based on a forged Letter of Prequalification

2\
mentioned that analysis orthe signatures of\;lr Parks found in Plaintiffs loan file and court
22
23 '1 documents Identiti..::d three t\,
pes of ~
such signatures
1

241129) Tunmi,t of f1earing of Plaintiff's \lotion for Summary Judgment: Page 14 (Exh
,- r' ~
-)
'(,
- ):'T

II ~ LO.\:\, BROKER STATI'.G TH.\T B,\SED 0:\ REVIEW OF

27 I)) BLYER'S \\ RITTE\i ,\PPLICATlO'. A'.;D CREDIT REPORT. BL-YER
:~ I (, PREQL·.-\LJFIED OR PREAPPROVED FOR THE "'EW LOA\' SPECIFIED

1'11.1:\(; H)R Till·, 1'1 KI'O~E OF

_11_ I\I\IFJ>LHF Dl"(}(\I.IF1C\TIO' OFTlH:
1l0\0IUBLE.1l J)CE (OYW)R H.\SED 0\
« 'I' § t 70.3. Ct,.. .\n. sellll"' ~Illl

11/51
 7 f'\ 2-C ABOVE. THAT IS BASICA.LLY WHAT THE
J ''I X
PREQL\LlFIC ATIO'J LETTER WAS SCPPOSED TO ADDRESS. A~D WE
- 19 HAVE CO~TE'\iDED ALL ALO?\G THAT THE PREQCALIFICATION
LETTER IS A CASE OF FRALD OF OFFE'\iSIVE - OFFE:'\iDl1\;G
3 I) ~ (: DOCL:;\IE~T
4 I 12

5 J ·f
() I 15
7 II I ()
r 3
Y, THOLGH, ITS A CE'\iRAL
I'\iTERESTIG~L
DOCLj\lE~T I~ EACH TRA~SACTION. BOTH PLAI~TIFF A'\iD
'.IR. PARKS, THE LOX\; BROKER FAILED TO I'\iCLLDE IT IN A'\iY
DOClJ:\IE:\T PRODLCTION THAT THEY PROVIDED TO lS
SO TO \IE ITS AD.IOST LIKE TI!EY DIO\VN IT
17 AFTER THE FACT BUT THE FACT IS, FOR EXA:YIPLE, THAT THE
\~ SIGNATCRE ON n'L<\T DOCUMENT BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE
:1 19
20
SIGNATL'RE WHICH I WANT TO BELIEVE IS THE TRUE SIGNATURE
OF MR. PARKS. AND I WANT OT BELIEVE THAT \JR. PARKS
10 I 21 SINGED ON CORE DOCl!r-..1ENT HERE IN SANTA 1\fONICA OF
22 SPECIFICALLY ON THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS HIS
II l 23 DECLARTIONS. lin court -j/I
12112~ IJ"i
I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE HIS TRUE
SIGNATL'RES. I AM NOT ANY EXPERT IN THE FIELD.
13 126 BCT I CONTEND THAST A LAYPERSON CAN SEE THAT THERE IS NO

II;~
RESEJ\1BLA)JCE BETWEEN THOSE SIGNASTCRES IN THE COLRT AND
14 n~E SIGNATURES THAT APPEAR IN THE FILE.
15

I() 1130) In her rulings on Summar~: Judgment Judge Connor sustained objections to any
17
statement that claimed that such signatures do not bear resemblance to each other. since I am
I~

II) II not an e'pert witness in the field. And as a consequence. she also dismissed my Fraudulent

20 Inducement claims:
21
" ril1al zr, Mr Zerni/.:\/ralldu!eJ1t inducement claim, hased on an allegcd(vkallduleJ1t !oan
22
~3 II
jJrc£/lIulifIUiflOl1 leIter h'
.
Victor Furks datcJ Scplcmncr 7, 2{j{)-I. is no rnore than a rcd

24 II hcrrli)~ "

25 11 3 1) In shOt't- \\hen it had to do \\ith a complicated cas~. lorged signatures that resembled

2h [II the genuine ones. and "ith DIgital Signatures. Judge Connor rdl hersdfauthorlled to rule on
27
.,'" il th~ subject. but "hen I obsen ed that some signatures "ere entirely dilTerent from others.
-() I,
I·IU,\(; Hm nlE I'! RPOSE OF
-12- I\I\IEO\.\ n: 11ISI)! \11 Elf' \ no'\ OF TilE
1I0'\OR\/ILE .JID<;E (O,\,\OR n \SED 0\

II
('( '(' *
1 ~f1.j, (,IS(' \;11. ~('08':'~OO

12/51
 such stakments \\ ere inadmIssIble. as "Improper nF,-'r( (('sIIInony··. :md It all \\ as \\ ithin

" the same hearing

3
Opposite Rulin2,s on the Same Issue - Defeftive E\identiary Rulings For'ms
.f

5 32) When m~ attorney made errors in the tiling of forms for E\ identia~ Rulings in our

() l\lotion to E.\.punge Lis Pendens. Judge Connor simply decided not to pro, Ide such rulings
7
E\ en \\ hen \\ e prO' Ided r~placement forms to meet all rules. the Judge \\ auld not issue the
8
()
e, identiary rulings (see \finutes of July 23.2007:

10 "11,e Court decline... to rule on tlte Evidentiary Objection.... The CourtjimJ... tl'e
E,'ideutiary Objectiom tire not properlY.filed pur.\'UaI,t to Rule." ofCourt 3.13.5-1. •,
II

12 In contrast. \\hen at1ome~ lor Plaintiff errs in the tiling of forms for E\ identia~ Rulings in

13 his \lotion for Summa~' Judgment. the outcome \\as 'e~' different:
14
3,.3) TI'anscl;pt of Hearing of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: Page 10 (Exh
15

16
,'!-:'1; WITH RESPECT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
13 ."IR ZERNIK'S DECLARATION, THEY ARE ALL SUSTAINED
17 .... EXCEPT - AND OU DIDN'T BOTHER TO NUMBER THEM. SO I
15 HAD TO NUMBER THEM MYSELF. Nl;:\lBERS 3,6,8,10,18,23....
IS

It)
3") In short - in a sim ilar situation. \\ hen Defendant's attorncy errcd in constructing fonns for
20
2\ I hidcntian. rulings. Dclcndant lost forc\cr thc right to gct
~
such rulings Whcn Plaintiff aHornc\
~ .

II I errcd in eonstmeting sueh ronns - the Judge fixed thcm for him. and issucd thc mlings.

23 , Opposite Rulings on the Same Issue - Discover)' Refer'ence.

2--\.
35)·\lread~ 111 April 20U7. it \\as ob\ious to me that Kesha\J.r/l \\ould t~ to undermine
25
disco, e0. and had to h:ne no \\itnesses and no depositiOns. to keep hIS (llents from bemg
2(,
27 II e'\posed for their fraud. Therefore. r asked c, parte for a DISCO\ ~f\ Referee. \ used a form

2X II constructed by the JudiCIal C\)lmcil of California III order to make sure that the tiling \\as

HLI\<; 1'01{ mE PI I{POsE OF

-13- 1\1\11'1>1.\ rE J)JSI)I\UFI(' \ \'I()'; OF rm:
1I0'iOR\IlI.E ./lD(a: (O\\()I{ R.\SED 0"
( (\' § 1-:'IU. (';IS~ 'n. S( 'OW' ~OO

13/51
 complete and in compliance" Ith the b"
.2 36) '\;0 opposition sho\\ed up for the hearing. but Judge Connor denied my e" parte
3
an~ \\ a~. sa~ mg (\linutes of -I- 3 07). that
-f

5 .. {he ('(Jllr/linds Ihe motion 10 he lI1appropriate ((.'I e/l1 E-.: Parle /lpp!lca/iol1.

() On the other hand. "hen Kesha\arzi asked for DiscO\ery Referee ex parte. on July 2-1-. 2007.
7
And tiled Incomplete filing. out of compliance "ith the la\\. In e, parte. the court ordered:
~
( I'! "Pla1l7Idl\ ex parle appllcalion ro appOInt a discon',)' rekree during the deposition of'
) Dcti:ndul1t }oscl1h Zerl1lk is (IRAN1J..D" (Aug 2-l. 2007 Minutes)
10
37) In shol·t: Disco\ ery Referee e" parte \\as not appropnate "hen tiled by Defendant. but
II

12 \\as perfectly fine "hen filed by Plaintiff

13 PI'eretTed Status to Countrywide and its Attomeys in a Litigation that is foreign to

14
them..
15
The preferred status of Country" ide could be seen in a \ ariely of issues:
\ (I

17 a) Scheduling a Special Appearance for Countl-ywide:

18 38) RelJtn e to Count,!" ide - Countl!'\\ ide \\as listed in di fferent times and di fferent papers
\9
under Plaintiff. Defendant. Inlef\enor. '-Jon-Party, etc. There is no \\ay to assume that
20
Count~ \\ ide is treated equallY to me lmder Judge Connor.
21

22 39) To start out. I could not c\en begin to imagine ho\\ to approach a judge. in order to
23 bring c:" p:1I1e appeal for a Protecti\ e Order In a lItigation that \ am not a side to
2-1-
Countr: \\ Jde managed to do thnt. and presumablY" ithout 311Y e:\ parte commlmication that
25
2(1 surel~ the Judge \\ auld hold totally improper So ho\\ "as the special e, parte appearance of

27 II ('ountf\ \\ Ide e\er scheJuled') The CkrJ... said it came directly from the Judge-
2X '

F1L1'\(; FOR TilE 1'1 RPOSE OF

- 1-1-- l\\\IF()(\ n: nhQI \L1FI(\T\O\ OF TilE
J(O\OR\IlLE ,11 I)(;E (n'i\OR II\S!':» 0 \
« I' *
17ft,3, ('a~l''\(), S{ 'OH- "'00
I

14/51
 b) Write ups for a Special Best Friend -- Countl)''\\ide
2 40) Count0 "ide lS not interested In high, isibility in this case. Therefore. if one looks at the
3
case summary online. one reaIiLes that the name of Count0\\ Ide ne, er appears among the
4
parties. Therefore. an~ computeri/.ed indexing s~stem \\Quld miss this case as far as
5
h Counln \\ ide' s 1m 0" ement.
7
41) I enclosed (Exh q. is a true and correct copy or Online Case Summary ,\ ith suggested
~ I' tl
\)
Iproof reading comments)
\() 1142) Judge Connor offered to Count~\\ide preferred conditions in the court that she had

II ne\ er offered to me. for example.. liling a motion \\Ith no deadline for mm mg papers.
12
panicipating in litigation and motions \\here they are not a party at all ..
13
43) \Vhen I protested Count~\\ ide standing in my Summa~ Judgement the exchange \\ent
14

1511likelhis
Ih
-{4) TI'anscript of Hea.-ing of Plaintitrs Motion for Summal)' Judgment: Page 1 (Exh
17 II~: '1-
IX II 21 \1R ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL. I WANTED TO ASK YOUR
1\) 22 HONOR IF YO UCAN CLARIFY WHAT IS THE REASON THAT
23 ATTORNEY FOR CUNTRYWIDE IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM
20 24 RIGHT NOW')
2:' THE COURT: SHE WANTS TO BE HERE.
21 2{j MR. ZERNIK: SO SHE HAS FULL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
,.,'") 27 l~ THESE PROCEEDINGS?
2X THE COL RT: DO YOU HA VE A PROBLEM'
23 2IJ .\1R ZERNIK: YES. I HA VE A PROBLE.\l 8ECALSE I BELlt:Vt:
30 SHE IS 0,;OT A PARTY.
2-l

25
~5) A COPY OF THIS FILI:\G IS BEI:\G SI\IUTA:\EOl SLY FILED WITH THE
21,

27 SLPERVIS/:\G JlDGE. SLPERIOR COLRT. SA:\TA \IO:\IC.\ I\. ORDER

2X J. TO E\.SL RE TI·t\.T IL DGE CO;-"'\,OR DOES GIVE ecp ~ 170.3 [TS Dt. E

F1U\(; FOR TilE 1'1 RI'OSF OF

-15- I\I\IFDI.HE m"()I\lIFlC\T10\ OF TilE
IIO\OR\JJLF.1l 1)(;£ (-O:\'OR 8.\SFD 0\
n ·1' § l'~(U. Cast' \0. S( ·0117.400

15/51
 C00JSIDERATIO\i:

.2 b. TO RECORD THE HO\!ORABLE JlDGE CO\i\:OR'S RESPONSE TO CCP ~

3
170 ~.

-1
c. I\! CASE SHE DOES NOT DISQCALIFY HERSELF- TO DEMDA:--;D
:'
[0.I:\lEDlATE RECUSAL BY THE SlPERVISING JUDGE PER ecp ~17()3 (~).
()

BASED ON THIS FILING PlJRSLJA;-.JT TO CCP § 170.3.

7 'I

,I
d. ALSO. \VITH THIS FILING WITH THE SUPERVISING JlJDGE. I REQUEST
~ I
<) I
THAT HE RULE Or--; JUDGE CONNOR RESPONSE TO THE FlLING
10
PURSL"ANT TO CCP § 170,] ON 7/12,07
It
e. ALSO. WITH THIS FILING \VITH THE SLPERVISING JUDGE. I REQUEST
12
THAT HE RULE ON THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY PROCEEDINGS IN SAMAAN
13

14,1 V ZERNIK. \VHERE JUDGE CONNOR PRESIDED FROM 7/12,07 TO THE

I.' PRESENT
I ()

17 I declare under penalty or pe~ury under the la\\s of the United States that the foregoing is
I~ true and correct.
\9 Executed on Sept to. 2007. in Be\erly Hills. California
20 . -·-i,.c.... ?
./ G.. '·~L.

21
,")
Joseph Zernik
23 Defendant in Pro Per
2-l
"';;

2()

27
2X
1-111"(; FOI{ I'lJE PI I{POSE OF
_I (,_ I\L\IFIH\TE DhQI\IIFlC\ 1'10" OF TilE
1I0"'OR\BJ.E./I ()(;E (OY\OR H.\SEJ) 0'"
('( I' ~ 1-0.3. (;IS(' .'\n. S(flH7..jOO

16/51
17/51
OUtLIlII.)S '11\ .ll;l'.) T'U':'I ,I»
*
.\0 (HS\H HO\\O) :1~)a \I' :n U\ 11 0.\ 011
:111,L.-I0 \01.1\'. )Hny 10";)<1 :1.1 H<HJXI\J - L1-
.10 :1S0dll lei :m.l M<H ~)\nH
LZ.
t:::
IZ
oz
R\
LI
I) \
t\
£1
ZI
\1
0\
L
I)
£
I1JOIHX3
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

lUTE, 01/16/07
i'il DEPT. WEI
HO~O~LF. JACQUELINE A. CO~~OR JUDGE II V. JAIME DEPl:TY CLERK

HONORABLE JeDGE PRO Tnt ELECTRO:'1IC RECORDP.-<G MONITOR

B. VARGAS CA Depuly Sheriff, L. Me KE..."J Z I E eSR#5567 Reporter

"

8:35 amlSC087400 Plaintiff

Cnull5el
NIVTE S.'\..'viA'\N
'IS rkfendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel

ieep 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

1~A llJRE 01'- PROCF:t~DING-:S=: ==:===-c..--===,.....".-============-====

DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS

\ COUNSEL;
,

- ;~I :-

\.- .
.. _._ __ ." --.--.- _-_. -_ .. '

Pa'3e 1 of "
~ DSPT. (vEl
r-:"1:INUTES ENTERED
01/16/07
I'
I
I COUNTY C~~RK --.J

18/51
13-~R-a7 03:1~?t1 FROM-DDS Lelal 213 620 '430 T-S03 P 001/00Z F-6,9
."
..... ," . :.; .~ 3: •.• _ :_ ',) ; .
C :]:',l:IY ('Jr.?,) by
". ,CSt~prl Zer",i(
:':N cr:)0Seph

) .~ L Ze'n,k,
emd!I=;1'2J...JS 't-:<1r
thflni(.,.... f?t. '>'-15

DDSLEG~LSUPPORTSYSTEM ~Me J.'::,.J;·~8

=9:~8
';
-14 'J7' :0'

TEL. (JI3) 6J:·1013

FAX; (2 tJ) 5!IJ·143J
j r;Li: ~i ~ Lc:or.1
.....
F.!..X TF),~'S\~IT-:-AL CO\=:R PAC:

TO: j ~~-< ~'"' ?: l Vll' t ~

D,.\ T £ :_~:--_~_ _~_ _

FRO.\!: A\~'
' --,,;;
? r.u ['·'1..-
.......... :,'....J CO\'~!'
..... LLfD"·r ~
:.:"\~_V~

CO;\! 1"1 E,\"TS : ~ __ ~ _

lr.rorrnJ~i:J., r;;o".tJ:,",d :Hr~:o is >~rtc(I; .. cOl'lriden:::1 a"d 5~0l1ld b~ i:;-"W~;3:!I~' ~i\'er1 :~ :::: p~;",s~~
(.:~ ,,·,'hOi"~ i~,~ Jjcl·~)i~d. A~y ;",~proc(.;c~jO(i Or" r..:ii! C; any ;,1ror,'";l;;,:;ol~ ;a.-.:J :,,"::~ r.~,-~:c r:,-2.i.T
~'~rpjse oiher :r~~ r~r \';h:i;~, '( i; i,".t:r.dd is s::i:::. prc;i~i:ec.
'

'COS(':ECTI:-:c.; \YllH YOU"

19/51
 213620'430 r-503 P 00z/002 F-619
13-~AR-07 03:18PM FRO~DDS Lalat

;~~I1!-~~-~l1~lYrL; :~~-'·m;f~!;[I-:i::':~:' ·.~:~;~~i·;~'f{;;·;~r'~3:f;;~~,r:ft10f·2'0~i:'~'1?,. :'

ATTORNEY • COP y • M E SSE N G E R
S E R V c E S

I, Alex Rodriguez, do declare as follows:

1. I am the Manager for the Los Angeles office of DDS Legal Support.

2. A DDS client, Law Offices of Deborah R. Bronner, requested

that copies of certain documents from the court file in Samaan v.
Zernik Case No. SC087400. These requests were made numerous
times between March 2007 i!nd July 2007.

3. After each request, I directed an Attorney Service runner to fulfill

the client's order and make the requested copies. However, each time,
the DDS Attornev Service runner was told by the clerk in the clerk's
office that the file was not available.

4. On Monday August 6, a DDS representative picked up copies from

Volume One and Volume Two. However, the DDS representative was
informed that Volumes Three and Volume Four are not available.

Executed this 6th day of Augu~ 2007 in Los Angeles, California.

29008,''';101 Street. ;;~':c E106, ':csla 'if:", • C311'~'n a '126;';; phDn" 7l~,61J2 5o~1i 14X 714.662.3379 I."b www.ddslegal.cur"]

20/51
21/51
oot ':'Hll. >'S ' 0 \ ;}sIl, >. 'f'O':'1 ~ d 1)
\:0 (I:~snl HO\\O, >. :'I~)Q 1/' :nllnlO\OIl
:-111.[ .10 \01.1 \,)J.H 1\ JOSI(I :1.1 \"1<1,11\)\) -~ 1-
:I<)'.1S(),!lI ld ·.ml. H(H ~)\nJ.·1
LZ
c- '-
tZ
£:Z
zz
Ii:
0;:
RI
LI
91
tl
Zl
11
01
(,
t
£:
Z lJ81HX3
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 01/16/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUEL::NE A. CONNOR JCDGEII V. JAIME DEPlITY CLERK

HONORABLE ll;rxm PRO TE.'vl l ELECTROI\IC RECORDI1\'G ~1ONITOR

B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriffl: NONE Reporter

8: 30 am: SC087400 =- Plaimiff

COllIDel
i-"---~-----

: CHARES D. CUMMINGS
-- - -------- -----------
(X)
NIVIE SA.'1A..l\N ••.••• " • • L. ~, ••• ~. __ ._ _ • ••• __ .~ _~. .', 'w" .~ •

VS Ddendant NO APPEA..~CE
JOSEPH ZER.c\TIK Counsel ,/

j
CCP 170.6 - ~u~GE NEIDOR~

~ATURE OF PROCEEDlJ'iiGS:

DEENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR A MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSELi

The Court reads and considers the moving papers cf the

record.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant's ex parte application is
granted.
Accordingly Motion to be relieved as Counsel is
reserved for hearing on February 5, 2007 at 8:30
a.m. in Department WE"I"
Order is signed and filed th~s date.
Counsel for ~efendant/Cross-Complainantis ordered
to give notice.

Mr~ES ENTERED
j~~6%o ;
Page 1 of 1
~ DEPT. I
""1~'l'T"V1 CLERK
r.. --- !
!~-----~
I

22/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
)'
DATE: 00/00/00 DEPT.
i
JUDGE I DEPUTY CLERK

nJ
IiO]'l;ORABLE

fIO~OR-\Bl.I' JUDGE PRO fUiCTRONlC RECORDING MONITOR

I

~puty Sheriff. R<-porter

==~.....;.;;;;;r:====-====-===---=== =====
I Plainutf
Coun,d

IXf~ndant

Counsel

]l"'ATCRE OF PROCEEDll'GS:

Page 1 of 1 DEP1'. vJE:::

MINUTES ENTERED
02/05/07
I
COUNTY CLERK
J

23/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
II
DATE: 02 / C5 / 07 DEn'. WEI

HONORABLE ,JACQ'L"ELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

I
HO~OR.\BLE IDX1E PRO TEM I ELECTROSIC RECORDI'\G .\fONnOR
#13
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Shen~ L. i
I
McKE~JZ:E CSR#5567 Reporter
-========~======
8:30 a1SC087400 r;,lmtiff
Cnun5cl MOE KESHAVARZI (X)
!'KIVIE
VS
SAMA.""-~
Ddcndanl CHARLES D. CtJMMINGS (X)
JOS3PH ZERNIK (x) Counsel
INPROFRIA PERSONAS
'CCP 170.6 - J0DGE NEIDORF
tAITRE Ot'I'ROCEEDINGS,
DEFEND.~~T'S( JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOT~ON TO BE RELIEVED
AS COUNSEL BY LAW CFFICE OF S~~LIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE,
l LLP;
/Matter is called for hearing.
i
Counsel acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative
ruling as follows:.
The motion of Charles D. Cummings and Sullivan,
Workman & Dee, LLP to be rel~eved as counsel is
continued to February 26 at 8:30 a.m. in order to
effect proper service of all moving papers on
defendant/client Joseph Zernik and the other parties
to this action. Moving parties are also to lodge and
serve a proposed order usin9 mandatory :orm MC-053.
Moving party is to give notlce of this ruling.
First, the proofs of service attached to the moving
papers are neither signed nor dated. As such, there
is no proof ~hat the moving papers were properly
served on the client, defendant Joseph Zernik or the
other parties to this action.
Second, pursuant to CCP §284 and eRe 3.1362
(formerly 376), a proposed order using ~andatory

form MC-032 is requl~ed to be locged and served in

conjunction with a motion to be relieved as counsel.
,No such orde~ has been lodged with the Court or is
included in che unexecuced p~oofs of service. The
j Court noces that, pursuant to eRC 3.1352{e)

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 1 of 2 DEPT. WEI 02/05/07
COUNTY CLERK

24/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE: 02/05/07 II DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELDiE A. CONNOR JCDGJ V. JAIME DEP1.J"TY CLERK

IIGNORABLE JUDGE PRO TEt,1! ELECTRO~lC RECORDING MONITOR

#13
B. VARGAS CA
'L-C..I L. McKENZIE
DCPU~~! CSR#5567 Reporter
===---""==;::== ===:--=====
8: 30 a I SC087400 Plainlllf
\ Coun.~el MOE KESHAVARZI (X)
NI VIE SA:v'f.A.A..cl\T
VS Defendant CHARLES 8. CUMMINGS (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Cuunscl
INPROPRIA PERSONAS
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATh'RE OF PROCEEDINGS:
..
(formerly 376), after the order is signed, a copy of
the signed order must be served on the client and on
all parties that have appeared in the case. The
court may delay the effective date of the order
relievin~ cour.sel until proof of service of a copy
of the slgned order on the cllent has been filed
with the court.
Otherwise , ~he Court's tentative would be to GRANT
j the motion on substantive grounds.

j The Court finds Defendant, Joseph Zemick is present

in Court.
Accordingly, Motion to be relieved as counsel of
record filed by Charles D. Cummings, and Sullivan,
Workman & Dee, LLP is GR&~TED. Ccunsel for the
moving party is ordered to give notice.
Order is signed and filed this date and a conformed
copy is served to Defendant Joseph Zernik in open
court.
Defendant's oral motion for a 30 day continuance
to seek new counsel is granted.
Accordingly, Further Status Conference is set for
March 6, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department WE"!".
i
ICounsel for Plainti:f is ordered to give notice.

Page 2 of 2 DEPT. WEI

r MINUTES
03/06/07
ENTERED I
I COUNTY CLERK I
I ~

25/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DAIL 03/06/07 DEPT. HEI

HOl'ORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGEII V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HO'lOR-\BLJ2 JUDGE PRO TE..'\111 ELECTRONIC RECORDrNG MOl'\ITOR

#10
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Shent~~~KENZIE CSR#5567 Reponer
r-
8:33 amlSC087400 Plamtiif
Counsel JEl\"NIFER JORDAN (X)
NIVIE SAMAA...'J
VS DefendJ.nt ZACHARY D. SCHORR eX)
JOSEPH ZERNIK Coumel
ROBERT J. SHULKIN (x)
COt,~T CALL
iCC? 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDIN"GS:

FURTHER STA~US CONFERENCE;

Further Status Conference is held.

Counsel, Zachary D. Schorr represents to the Court
that he has Substituted-In as counsel of reccrd for
the Defendant Joseph Zernik.
Post Mediat~on Status Conference set for May 17, 2007
is to remain.

Not-icc i~ waived.

~~_--
I MINUTES ENTERED
1
Page 1 of 1 DEPY. NEI 03/28/07
COUNTY CLERK I
I

26/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 03/28/:] 7 II DEPT. 'tiEl

I'
JlONOR.\BLE JACQUEI...I~JE A. CO~OR JUDGEII V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

1I0NORADLE J1JDGE PRO rEM I FLECTROMC RECORDL,G MONITOR

B. VARGAS CA Deputy ShCrif~1 NONE Reporter

::::::==::::::-~
,
8:30 alSC087400 PhintiJr !
,. ~. _.. - -,~-
.. _--.:;..

C'AlcnseJ
NIVIE S.ll,.,.'\W\N
. .l S Defendant :JO AP-PEATillNCS8
JOSEPH ZERc'JIK 1 .~~ •• -- .----.;..- - }- Counst:! ~ . ~; :1 ,.-
_______ .••__ ..• __ ~_~ __.,._ .•.__ ~~ ..._.. __".. -1

CCP 170.6 - ~UDGE NEIDORF

~ ATUlffi OF PROCEEDJ1IiGS:

PLAINTIFF'S (NIVIE SAMAAN) EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

PERMIT MOTION FOR S~~RY JUDGMENT TO BE HEARD ON
JULY 5, 2007, LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL
DATE.
The Co~rt reads and considers the moving papers and
opposition off the record.
?laintiff'9 ex parte application is GRANTED.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment
is reserved for July 5, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in
Department \'lE"I". Counsel to file motion.
Accordingly, Final Status Conference set for
July 5, 2007 is advanced to this date and continued
to August 2, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department WE"I".
Jury Trial set for July 13, 2007 is advanced to this
date and continued to August 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in
Department WE"I".
:Notice- is wal ved.

Page 1 of 1 DEPT. HEl

I MINUTES ENTERED
04/03/07
COUNTY CLERl<

27/51
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 09/11/07 DEPT. WEH

HO:-.lORABLE All aCl J. Goodman lLDGEl1 D. SALISBURY DEPCTY CLERK
B. HALL, CSL.
HONORABLE lLDGE PRO THI ELECTRO:\!C RECORDI\,G \IO"'ITOR
Order
Deputy SherifI'll NONE R~poner

8:30 amlSC037400 Plaintiff

Counsel
NIVIE SAMAAN NO APPEARANCES
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel
TRNSFRRED TO WLA-DEPT.H.ON 9/11
RECUSAL - JACQUELINE CONNOR, JU
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
~AT(TRE OF PROCEEDIN"GS:

John A. Ylar.k~)Exe~utive ~fficer/Clerk

By: k;. 'Y? ..l'-<.>--' '---

D. SaTi-sDury

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA. 90071-1448

Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.

The Law Department
Coldwell Banker Residential
Brokerage Company
11611 San Vicente Blvd., Ninth floor
Los Angeles, CA. 90049-6510

Joseph Zernik
320 S. Peck Drive
Beverly Hills, CA. 90212

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 2 of 2 DEPT. WEH 09/11/07
COUNTY CLERK

28/51
2. September 10, 2007 – Transcript of Proceeding:
Dr Zernik’s Filing for Immediate Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline
Connor

29/51
 .,
.l

1
-L SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 DEPARTMENT WE-I HON. JACQUELINE A. CONNOR, JUDGE

5 I NIVIE SAMAAN,

6 I PLAINTIFF,

7 VS. NO. SC087400

8 I JOSEPH ZERNIK,

9 DEFENDANT.
ORIGINAL
10

11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

13 MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

14

15 APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SHEPPARD, MULLIN,
16 RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
BY: ROBERT MUSSIG, ESQ.
17 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
48TH FLOOR
18 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071

19

20

21

22 FOR THE DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK, IN PRO PER

23

24

25

26

27

28 KELLY J. CALL, CSR NO. 5714

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
30/51
 2

1 CASE NUMBER: SC087400

2 CASE NAME: SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK

3 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

4 DEPARTMENT WE-I HON. JACQUELINE A. CONNOR

5 APPEA~qNCES: ROBERT MUSSIG, ESQ.

6 JOSEPH ZERNIK, IN PRO PER

7 REPORTER: KELLY J. CALL, CSR 5714

8 TIME: MORNING SESSION

9 --0--

10

11 THE COURT: SAMAAN VERSUS ZERNIK.

12 MR. MUSSIG: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

13 ROBERT MUSSIG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

14 MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING.

15 THE COURT: MR. MUSSIG, ARE YOU TAKING OVER OR

16 STANOI~G IN TODAY?

17 MR. MUSSIG: I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MOE.

18 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, WE HAVE YOUR MOTION

19 TODAY. I DID FILE A TENTATIVE, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A 170,

20 SO I NEED TO READ THE 170.

21 MR. ZERNIK: YES.

22 THE COURT: YOU HAVE A COPY?

23 MR. MUSSIG: I HAVE A COPY, YOUR HONOR, BUT I

24 DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS -- IS THIS AN EX PARTE FILING? HE

25 DIDN'T GIVE NOTICE OF THIS. I JUST GOT THIS TODAY.

26 THE COURT: 170, I THINK, CAN BE DONE ANY TIME.

27 MR. ZERNIK: IT IS CONTINUING EDUCATION. HE MAY

28 GET CONTINUING EDUCATION.

31/51
 3

2 THE COURT: PARDON ME. WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?

3 MR. ZERNIK: I DIDN'T GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE, BUT

4 HE MAY GET CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS.

5 THE COURT: LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE PAPERS.

6 HAVE A SEAT.

8 I (RECESS. )
9

10 THE COURT: SAMAAN VERSUS ZERNIK. CAN YOU STATE

11 YOUR APPEARANCES ONE MORE TIME.

12 MR. MUSSIG: ROBERT MUSSIG FOR PLAINTIFF,

13 SAMAAN.

14 MR. ZERNIK: JOSEPH ZERNIK, IN PRO PER,

15 YOUR HONOR.

16 THE COURT: OKAY. WE HAD A 128.7 MOTION WHICH I

17 PUT A TENTATIVE ON AND MR. ZERNIK PUT ON A 170.3.

18 AT THIS POINT I WILL RECUSE MYSELF ON THE

19 170.3(C)(2).

20 I ABSOLUTELY, ADAMANTLY DENY AND CONTEST

21 AND DISPUTE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MR. ZERNIK. I DON'T

22 CONCEDE ANYTHING, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE INTEREST OF

23 JUSTICE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO RECUSE MYSELF UNDER

24 POINT 3 (C) (2). THAT MEANS I HAVE GOT TO STAY THE -- I

25 WILL GO AHEAD AND FILE THE TENTATIVE, HAVE THE WHOLE

26 THING STAYED.

27 WE NEED TO SEND YOU TO DEPARTMENT A, AND

28 I CAN YOU HAVE RUTHY TALK TO THE SUPERVISING JUDGE TO MAKE

32/51
 4

seRE IT GETS REASSIGNED.

2 THE CLERK: I SENT HER AN E-MAIL.

3 THE COURT: SHE NEEDS TO TALK TO THE SUPERVISING

4 I JUDGE BECAUSE SHE TALKED TO MR. ZERNIK IN THE PAST. 00

5 I THEY GO THERE NOW?

6 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR
7 I THIS APPL'l.RANCE. IT IS SUFFICIENTLY AN APPEARANCE. THE

8 I WAY I REAJ THE LAW, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THERE IS AN

APPEARANCE.

10 THE COURT: I DON'T NEED YOUR INSTRUCTION,

11 I MR. ZERNll<. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU ARE

1:2 I GOING. I NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING

13 I TO GO.

14 MR. MUSSIG: YOUR HONOR, THAT WAS 173.3?

15 'lHE COURT: (C) (2). I AM RECUSING ON MY OWN

16 I tJlOT ION.
17

l Ci
u (PAUSE. )

19

20 THE COURT: GO TO JUDGE GOODMAN IN DEPARTMENT H

21 I OF THE WEST L. A. COURTHOUSE. DEPARTMENT H, JUDGE

22 I GOODMAN.

23 I JUDGE GOODMAN, DEPARTMENT H, AND YOU WILL

24 I BE NOT I FlED AS TO THE NEW DATE.

2S THE CLERK: ALL OF OUR DATES ARE VACATED.

26 THE COURT: OKAY.

27 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

28 THE COURT: I WILL HAVE PLAINTIFF GIVE NOTICE.

33/51
 5

1 ~~. MUSSIG: OKAY.

2 THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
3

4 (END OF PROCEEDINGS.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
34/51
 6

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 DEPARTMENT WE-I HON. JACQUELINE A. CONNOR, JUDGE

5 I NIVIE SAt/AAN,

6
PLAINTIFF,
7
VS. NO. SC087400
8
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
9
DEFENDANT.
10

11

12

13 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
14 I COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

15

16 I I, KELLY J. CALL, CSR NO. 5714, OFFICIAL

17 I REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

18 I CALIFORNLA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY

19 I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE,

20 I COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE

21 I PROCEEDIKGS HELD AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF

22 I THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

2312007.

24 I DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007.

25

26 .
-<.'
, ,. '\
/---
27 \r
OFFICIAL
28
35/51
3. September 10, 2007 – Minutes of Proceeding, as copied from court file:
Dr Zernik’s Filing for Immediate Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline
Connor

36/51
 SUPERIOR COUR I OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0, LOS ANGELES

J) \1'1' 09/ 10/ 07 DEVI. WEI

HO,\;OR.\BLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR Jl'DGEl1 V. JAIME DEPlTY CLERK

IIO'\OR.\BLE Jl'DGE PRO TE\I EIECTRO,\;IC RECORDT:\(; \-!O!\[TOR

#13
B. VARGAS CA Deput\ Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Rt:pnrter

8:30 amfSC087400 Pia Illll ft

Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) CoullSd ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

~ATl'RE OF PROCEEIHNCS:

DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;

Matter is called for hearing. Both parties

acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
as follows:
~he motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
pursuant to Code of civil Procedures §128.7 is
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must

follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party

must serve on the offending party a motion for
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
then be filed.

The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to

permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 1 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 37/51
PAGE 155
 ---SUPERIOR COU" I OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Or lOS ANGELES

D.\TE 09/ l 0 / 07 DEPT. WEI

IIO'\OR.\I3LE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JlDGEII V. JAIME DEPlTY CLERK

1I0:'OR.\Bl E JLDGE PRO TDI ELECTRO\[C RECORDI:,\(; V[():\ITOR

#1:3
B. VARGAS CA DeptH) SherIffll K. CALL CSR#5567 Rqlortn

8:30 amlSC087400 PldlJ1tlfl

Coun,e! ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Ddendam
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Couns,,1 ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

~ATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion

for sanctions unless there is some action the
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 434,440-441.)
SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
because the Court granted her summary judgment
motion. However, the correct principle to be
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period
runs from the filing date of the new and different
motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410,

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 2 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 38/51
PAGE 156
 SUPERIOR COUR~I OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY at" LOS ANGELES

DUE. 09/10/07 DEPT. WEI

1I0'\ORo\IlLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JlDGEl1 V. JAIME DfCPlTY CLERK

IIO'\OR,\BLE JlODGE PRO TDI ELECTRO'ilC' RECORDIV, \IO:\ITllR

#13
B. VARGAS CA Depu!; Shalnll K. CALL CSR#5567 Rep"ne,

8:30 amjSC087400 Pl;llntlft

C"umcl ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
'IS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

r"lATCRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
I
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
independent evidence to establish how the motions
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
it was served five months after the alleged
offending documents were submitted to the Court in
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
brought following judicial disposition of the
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
already considered and rejected the substantive
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
sanctionable conduct.
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED.

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 3 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 39/51
PAGE 157
 SUPERIOR COUR I OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Or LOS ANGELES

DXIT 09/10/07 DEPT. WEI

IIO-';ORABU: JACQUELINE A. CONNOR )lDGEII V. JAIME DEP\ TY CLERK

HO-';ORA13LE lLDGE PRO TE\! ELECTRO\IC RFTORDI\(j \IO-';ITOR

#13
B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheritl/l K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporrer

8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff

Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) C"unse! ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

NA1TRE OF PROCEEDINGS:

The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until
further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Department WE"H" , Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
Judge presiding for all purposes.
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
calendar.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
OFF THE RECORD:

Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at

8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in

~INUTES ENTERED I
Page 4 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07 1
COUNTY CLERK .

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 40/51
PAGE 158
 SUPERIOR CO Uk I JF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Ol LOS ANGELES

DATE 09/ 1 0 / 07 DEPT. WEI

IIO:\ORABlE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JeDGEl1 V. JAIHE DEPl'TY CLERK

IIO:',ORA BLE H"DGE PRO TE\! ELECTRO:\lC RECORDI\'G \IO:\!TOR

#13
B. VARGAS CA DeptH! SherIffll K. CALL CSR#5567 ReJ1()rlt'r

8:30 amlSC087400 Pla,nllft

Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel ROBERT HUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

NATl'RE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Department WE"H")

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

of the

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
9-l0-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in SANTA HONICA, California, one copy of the
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
MOE KESHAVARZI
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448

Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 5 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 41/51
PAGE 159
 SUPERIOR COUR I OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Or LOS ANGELES

I).\TI: 09/10/07 DEPT. WEI

1l0'JOR\flLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR Jl·DGEII V. JAIME DEPlTY CLERK

IfO\OR.\BLE ]l"DGE PRO Tnl ELECTRO\IC RECORDf:\G \,IO\ITOR

#13
B. VARGAS CA Deplll)' Sherltfll K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

8:30 am!SC087400 PLllntlft

Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS DeknJanr
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

By:
V. JAIME

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 6 of 6 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK

Exhibits Volume IV
MINUTE ORDERS from PAPER FILE 42/51
PAGE 160
4. September 10, 2007 –Proceeding, as recorded in Register of Actions (California civil
docket):
Dr Zernik’s Filing for Immediate Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline
Connor

43/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

Ci vi] Di vision

[I Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
The Court's order regarding Defendant's Ex Parte
Application for Specification of Terms of Appointment
of Escrow Referee is signed and filed this date
and incorporated herein.
Each side, if It desires is invited to submit any
detailed specifications to the appointment order
within 7 days for the Court's consideration.
Defendant/Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
09/05/07 Event Complete
Ex-Parte Application

Motion Denied

09/10/07 Document Filed

Miscellaneous-Other MEMO
Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per
filing for the purpose of

immediate disqualification of the

honorable judge connor pursuant to

170.3
On Behalf of ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant
Filed By Zernik, Joseph Defendant, & Defendant in
09/10/07 Document Filed
Notice MEMO
Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per
RE: DEF EXPARTE APPLIC FOR
SPECIFICATION OF TERM OF APPOINT­
MENT OF ESCROW REFEREE
2) EXPARTE APPLIC TO CORRECT
ERRONEOUS NOTATIONS IN MINUTE ORDR
FOR WAIVED NTC
On Behalf of ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant

PAGE: 106 04/30/08 15:28:50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 108 44/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

Ci vi] Di vision

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
Filed By Zernik, Joseph Defendant, & Defendant in
09/10/07 Event
Recusal MEMO
Jacqueline A. Connor
8:30 am
DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;

Matter is called for hearing. Both parties

acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
as follows:
The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
must serve on the offending party a motion for
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
then be filed.
The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to
permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe
harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
for sanctions unless there is some action the
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive

PAGE: 107 04/30/08 15:28:50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 109 45/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

civil Division

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
court has already rendered its judgment in the casej
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
because the Court granted her summary judgment
motion. However, the correct principle to be
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period
runs from the filing date of the new and different
motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410,
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
independent evidence to establish how the motions
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
it was served five months after the alleged
offending documents were submitted to the Court in
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006j and
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary

PAGE: 108
04/30/08 15:28:50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 110 46/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

Civil Division

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
brought following judicial disposition of the
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
already considered and rejected the substantive
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
sanctionable conduct.
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED.
The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until
further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
Judge presiding for all purposes.
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
calendar.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

OFF THE RECORD:

PAGE: 109 04/30/08 15:28:50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 111 47/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

Ci vi] Di vision

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at
8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
Department WE" H" )

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

of the
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the

above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
MOE KESHAVARZI
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448

Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk

By:
V. JAIME
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

09/10/07 Event Complete

Recusal MEMO

PAGE: 110 04/30/08 15:28:50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 112 48/51
 CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Santa Monica - West District

Civil Division

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
Motion Granted
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

09/10/07 Event Complete

Jury Trial MEMb
Advanced to this date & Vacated
est time: 5-7 days

09/10/07 Event Complete

Final Status Conference MEMQ
Advanced to this date & Vacated
JT: 1-11-08

09/10/07 Event Complete

Final Status Conference MEMct>
Advanced to this date, o/c settled
JT: 1-11-08

09/10/07 Event Complete

Further Status Conference
Advanced to this date & Vacated
09/11/07 Document Filed
Notice MEMO
Clerk
NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF ACTION SENT
TO: ATTY FOR PLNTFF,MOE KESHAVARZI
ATTY FOR DFNDNT, EDWARD A. HOFFMAN
ATTY FOR DFNDNT,CHARLES D.CUMMINGS
+ATTYS FOR: X-DFNDNT & INTERVENOR

PAGE: 111 04/30/08 15: 28: 510

EXHIBIT APPENDIX
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT
VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.
PAGE 113 49/51
5. September 10, 2007 –Proceeding, as recorded in the online Case Summary (not an
official court record):
Dr Zernik’s Filing for Immediate Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline
Connor

50/51
 10/05/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEC, Joseph S. Biderman, Presiding
Recusal (RE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVEFOR NEW TRIAL;) - Transferred to
Diff. Department

10/03/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEH, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding

Recusal - Case is reassigned

09/20/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEH, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Denied

09/20/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEH, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) - Court Makes Order

09/17/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEH, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Denied

09/11/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEH, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) - Court Makes Order

09/10/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Recusal (MOTION FOR SANCTIONS) - Motion Granted

09/05/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Denied

08/30/2007 at 08:36 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Hearing-Other (AND STATUS CONFERENCE RE: REFEREEAPPOINTMENTJT: 9-07-07)
- Completed

08/28/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Granted

08/21/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application (FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) - Granted & denied in
part/Iss.Cont.

08/16/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEO, John L. Segal, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Continued

08/14/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion continued

08/09/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Motion for Summary Judgment (2) MOTION FOR LEAVE) - Motion Granted in Part

08/02/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEO, John L. Segal, Presiding

Exparte proceeding - Completed

Click on any of the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date
indicated:
TOP 8/1/2007 11/9/2006

08/01/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEO, John L. Segal, Presiding

Exparte proceeding - Continued by Court

07/27/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Denied

51/51
07/27/2007 at 08:30 am in Department WEI, Jacqueline A. Connor, Presiding

Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 11/1/2007