Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I represent Martin Jacinto and wife Carolina Ramirez – complainants in this Case No. 16-0-16202,
in Stubblefield v. Jacinto (CIVDS1208547) and Martin Jacinto v. Richard Nahigian (CIVDS1604759).
On July 21, 2016 Jacinto filed a bar complaint against Richard Nahigian and Robert Williamson related
to collusion in CIVDS1208547 resulting in $190,499.00 in fees against Jacinto on a $10,000 mobile home.
As you know on 9-28-17 Lita Abella sent a letter to Jacinto notifying him that she had closed the case.
On 10-16-17 we filed a Request to Review not only Ms. Abella’s conclusions but also her inherent conflicts.
Jacinto provided a significant amount of detailed evidence showing why Ms. Abella’s conclusions were not
supported by the overwhelming evidence Jacinto presented in his California State Bar attorney complaint.
Since July 21, 2016 I have discovered significant additional evidence. I obtained certified copies of
additional court records and transcripts attached to this supplement. Also attached is Jacinto’s brief
entitled “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal” filed at 4/2 DCA on 11/22/17. [Exh. 1 filed separately].
Stubblefield moved to dismiss Jacinto’s appeal of denial of a motion to set aside the $190,499.00 fee award
obtained by fraud on the court and Jacinto. Disposition of the motion to dismiss the appeal is pending.
We ask you to review Ms. Abella’s conclusion that there was no evidence against Robert Williamson.
Jacinto’s Statement of Facts in the attached “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal” provides compelling
evidence showing Nahigian colluded with Williamson to make sure he got the extortionate $190,499.00 fee
award by failing to file an opposition and failing to appear at oral argument. Nahigian intentionally failed
to file a CCP §473 motion to set it aside until 9/28/15---after the 6-month deadline to file it had expired.
Nahigian violated a fiduciary duty to Jacinto by initiating a conference call between Jacinto’s hard
money lender Bruno Ehlert, Williamson, Stubblefield, and Jacintos [Exh. 2] for Ehlert to disclose all of
Jacinto’s assets for Williamson to decide which property to arrange a 12% hard $ loan to get $$63,106.40
to pay Stubblefield’s judgment in full with 10% interest [Exh. 3]. This was without deducting $31,846.00
for removal costs---despite the court’s order to deduct removal costs from the awarded judgment.[Exh. 4];
and without deducting $5,000 to refund Jacinto’s deposit posted before removing the mobile home [Exh. 5].
Nahigian then summoned Jacinto’s son Chris Martinez to lend Jacinto $15,000 to create a cashier’s check
payable to Robert Williamson, Jr. personally for the “privilege” of negotiating a “settlement.” [Exh. 6].
Williamson actually netted $51,846 in fees ($31,846 not credited+$5,000 not credited+$15,000 cold cash).
This was 126% of the $41,168.0 4/8/14 judgment despite that Williamson was not entitled to any fees.
Page 1
Bottom line: Nahigian did everything to help Williamson and Stubblefield extort money from Jacinto,
and nothing to help Jacinto settle the fees with Williamson, set aside the extortionate $190,499 judgment,
or obtain two credits Jacinto was entitled to against Stubblefield’s judgment. [$31,846.00 + $5,000.00].
Nahigian facilitated nothing except benefits to Williamson & Stubblefield and cash detriments to Jacinto.
This was after collecting a $25,000 retainer+$3,000 for an intern to prosecute a bogus appeal he dismissed.
2/7/16 Nahigian paid for appeal documents with a $199.00 check drawn on from his personal bank account
proving he commingled client funds in his personal account. Ms. Abella missed this misconduct. [Exh. 7 ]
We ask you to review what happened in CIVDS1604759 - Martin Jacinto v. Richard Nahigian and
investigate Jacinto’s former attorney Kent Sharp and Nahigian’s attorney Chris Overton for collusion.
In 2016 Jacinto hired Chris Lockwood (an honest attorney they met through church) to sue Nahigian.
Chris diligently investigated facts, gathered documents, and filed a malpractice case against Mr. Nahigian.
Chris Overton served the malpractice lawsuit on Nahigian in early 2016. While waiting for Nahigian to
answer the complaint Jacinto’s hard money lender Bruno Ehlert advised Jacinto to hire attorney Kent
Sharp to litigate the malpractice case. Jacinto set up a meeting with Kent Sharp at his San Diego office.
During that consultation Kent Sharp advised Jacinto to fire Chris Overton and solicited Jacinto to sign
a substitution of attorney form. Jacinto signed it. Kent Sharp took over the malpractice case that day and
also took over Stubblefield’s case against Jacinto CIVDS1208547. Kent Sharp never moved to set aside the
extortionate $190,499.00 judgment obtained by fraud on the court and Jacinto. [see Exhibit 1–Opposition]
Kent Sharp simply advised Jacintos to refinance another property with a 12% interest hard $ loan to pay
Stubblefield $190,499.00 plus interest and to pay additional attorney fees to Robert Williamson.
Kent Sharp amended Jacinto’s malpractice complaint to include punitive damages for breach of duty,
served it on Nahigian, and then took his default 31 days later. This was 9 days too early because the
process server did not serve Nahigian personally but rather served it on Nahigian’s receptionist at his
Pasadena office. Rather than stipulate to set aside the default and accept Nahigian answer Kent Sharp
spent the next 10 months litigating the issue while billing Jacinto $20,000. (Exh. 8]. This was an egregious
violation of duty to the client. Sharp knew Judge Pacheco would set aside Nahigian’s default because
courts must set aside a default judgment if the party submits an attorney’s affidavit admitting fault.
After oral arguments on 6/13/17 Judge Pacheco set aside Nahigian’s default on 6/14/17. I attended
oral arguments on 6/13/17 to represent third party Bonnie Shipley concerning a new lien she had against
Stubblefield’s lien in Nahigian’s case as he had not fully paid Shipley’s judgment in CIVDS1204130.
Before the morning calendar on 6/13/17 Judge Pacheco’s clerk distributed a tentative ruling on the motion
to Jacinto’s attorney [Kent Sharp], Nahigian’s attorney [Chris Overton] and me for Ms. Shipley. [Exh. 9]
The tentative order showed the court would set aside the default but deny $10,000 in attorney fees Kent
Sharp had requested. Kent Sharp had a duty to argue against fee denial as he knew Jacinto paid $20,000.
Yet, the 6/13/17 transcript shows Kent Sharp never argued against denying Jacinto attorney fees. [Exh. 10]
Secondly, Kent Sharp never shared the tentative ruling with Mrs. Jacinto when she arrived at the hearing.
Nahigian only asked the court to set aside default and enter his proposed answer. The moving papers never
asked the court to quash Jacinto’s recorded $734,000 judgment, including $500,000 in punitive damages.
There was nothing in Sharp’s opposition or Nahigian’s reply on quashing Jacinto’s judgment abstract.
The 6/13/17 transcript [Exh. 10] shows quashing Jacinto’s abstract of judgment was never argued in court.
Quashing the abstract prejudiced Jacinto as Nahigian was trying to sell his $6,000,000.00 Los Angeles estate
and he would not have been able to close escrow unless Jacinto’s recorded judgment abstract was quashed.
Chris Overton inserted “abstract is quashed” into the proposed order he delivered to chambers on 6/13/17.
Overton failed to comply with Rule 3.1312 by first giving the proposed order to Kent Sharp, and waiting 5
days for Kent Sharp’s objections to the form of the order before delivering it to chambers for signature.
Page 2
The order shows it was signed 6/14/17 (a day after 6/13/17 oral arguments) with no objections from Sharp.
Overton violated his duties as a court officer by inserting “quash abstract” into the proposed order,
knowing he never sought such relief in moving papers or during oral arguments on 6/13/17. He willfully
violated Rule 3.1312. If he gave the proposed order to Kent Sharp on 6/13/17 then Kent Sharp violated
his duties to Jacinto by not protecting Jacinto’s right to seek an attachment order to attach sale proceeds,
since Judge Pacheco awarded $500,000 in punitive damages after reviewing default evidence presented.
On 6/14/17 a set aside default order, quashing the $734,000 judgment abstract was entered. (Exh 11].
On 8/8/17 Nahigian’s sale escrow closed. Nahigian received $1,146,336.99 in net proceeds. [Exh. 12].
We ask you to prosecute Nahigian for his egregious violations of Rules of Professional Conduct and fraud.
We ask you to compel restitution to Jacinto for all damages caused by Nahigian’s egregious misconduct.
We ask you to investigate Robert Williamson, Chris Overton, and Kent Sharp for their roles in colluding
with each other to enrich their clients to the severe financial detriment of Jacinto who has been straddled
with insurmountable debt for which they can never repay in a lifetime of working overtime to survive.
English is Jacintos’ second language. They have worked double shifts and overtime to comply with the
court’s 4/18/14 order to remove the mobile home from Stubblefield’s park, to make payments on the 12%
hard money loan on their property to pay off $63,106.40. Jacinto’s son committed suicide right before the
trial in CIVDS1208547 from extreme stress in the family household resulting from an endless nightmare
generated by a $10,000.00 purchase of a mobile home to relocate their elderly, failing mother from Mexico.
They have suffered enough. They lost a son. This nightmare has cost Jacinto $200,000 already. [Exh. 13].
Stubblefield got the mobile home removed from his park and received $63,106.40 to satisfy the judgment.
Jacinto never received a $31,846.00 credit from the judgment as the court had ordered. Jacinto never
received a $5,000 refund on a deposit Stubblefield took from him before he would approve the removal.
Williamson netted $51,846 in fees ($31,846 not credited for removal costs+$5,000 not credited for refund of
Jacinto’s $5,000 deposit +$15,000 cold cash paid by Chris Martinez on behalf of his parents (the Jacintos).
This was 126% of the $41,168.0 4/8/14 judgment---despite that Williamson was not entitled to any fees
under federal and state law. [Exh. 14] Nahigian received $1,146,336.99 net proceeds by selling his home.
Nahigian received $28,000.00 from Jacinto. Kent Sharp received over $20,000 from Jacinto and is still
harassing them with monthly invoices despite doing nothing to help them and everything to their prejudice.
Nahigian did nothing to help Jacintos and everything to their prejudice. It is time for justice to prevail!
We urge you not to let any of the greedy scoundrels get away with abusing innocent victims who can barely
speak English but work diligently to contribute to our community. Martin Jacinto runs an appliance repair
business and his wife Carolina runs a janitorial business to keep our schools and local businesses sanitary.
Their only mistake was to try to relocate a mom from Mexico into Stubblefield’s senior mobile home park.
No good deed ever goes unpunished! For this good deed they have endured a financial nightmare since 2012.
This nightmare must end! It is time for the State Bar to protect victims – not scoundrels with a bar license!
This is the fourth time Nahigian extorted a significant cash retainer without performing the legal services.
[see Exh. 15] The Bar imposed a private reproval on Nahigian for 2 public reprovals against Nahigian.
We await your decision upon full review of CIVDS1208547, CIVDS1604759, Ms. Lila Abella’s conflicts,
Richard Nahigian, Robert Williamson, Chris Overton and Kent Sharp.
12/11/17
Page 3
DECLARATION OF IUCHARD NAHIGIAN 2
I, Richard E. Nahigian ,declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and have
been so licensed since January 1970.
2. I am the attorney for defendant Martin J. Jacinto in the case herein.
3. During the pendency of the original complaint, Mr. Jacinto retained h4oises A.
Aviles to represent him. Mr. Aviles was the driving force behind the cross complaint
being filed on behalf of Mr. Jacinto. It as in this cross complaint that attorney's fees were
fist addressed by either party.
4. After the conclusion of trial, Mr. Jacinto fired Mr. Aviles as his representative for
his failure to properly advise Mr. Jacinto of the possible consequences that could result
from losing at trial.
5. On July 16,2014, Mr. Aviles forwarded Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion
for Attorney's Fees to Mr. Jacinto.
6. On September 11,2014, Mr. Jacinto retained my services to represent him in this
matter. I contacted attorney Robert G. Williamson from King1 Hart to start negotiating
the terms of the "punch list" and settlement of the jury verdict. The jury verdict ordered
Mr. Jacinto to remove the mobile home fiom the Mountain Shadows Mobilehome
Community under the strict provisions outlined by Plaintiff, Thomas Parrish, the Senior
Vice President of Stubblefield Properties in a Removal Letter dated April 17,2013.
7. Staring in October 2014, Mr. Jacinto received numerous bids to perform he
mobile home removal fkom Shadow Hills.
8. In mid October, 2014, Robert G. Williamson received Mr. Jacinto's contract with
Palma ~onstruction,a cashier's check, %Certificateof Liability Insurance with *
Mountain Shadows as a certificate holder and a copy of the April 17,20 13 Removal
Letter. Palma Construction was retained to start the punch list requirements and remove
the mobile home fiom the space.
9. In November 2014, the punch list items were started, and the mobile home was
removed fiom the site. There was additional work to be completed by a separate
I- .-
contractor for the concrete and grading work.
lo. In early November 2014, Mr. Jacinto made a settlement offer to Plaintiff for
Page 4
11. This offer was again made in writing on November 8,2014.
12. During the course of the next few months, there were numerous attempts by Mr.
Jacinto and myself to clear up the punch card items with Mr. Parrish, such as filling in
the depression fiom the concrete removal and grading the property.
13. On February 5,2015, Robert G. Williamson asked me to clarify my client's
proposal for settlement, which I did on the same date.
is . On February 16,20 15, I contacted Robert G. Williamson to confirm a meeting
with Mr. Parrish at Mountain Shadows for a site visit. I also informed him that I had to
be in San Diego in the afternoon on February 17,2015 for a federal criminal matter.
r5 . On February 17,2015, I met with Mr. Parrish and his assistant, Eva, at Mountain
Shadows were we went over all items remaining on the punch list and trying to
accomplish an acceptable manner to complete the items.
16. On February 17,2015, I attended the United States District Court criminal
matter, which went over to February 18,2015. I immediately advised Robert G.
Williamson of the fact that the federal criminal matter mandated my appearance and I
would need to postpone the Attorney's Fees Hearing. The Motion had previously been
postponed in order to allow the defendant to complete the punch list requirements.
17. Early on February 18,2015, I contacted Robert G. Williamson at 8:15am and
reminded him that I was in federal court and all remaining punch list items were
scheduled to be completed shortly.
18. Robert G. Williamson responded within three minutes and asked if I would
assume the costs of the court reporter and interpreter if the matter were postponed, to
which I agreed.
19. At 10:38am, Robert G. Williamson informed me that the Court would not
continue the hearing and a bench warrant was issued for Mr. Jacinto for his fail&e to
appear at the Judgment Debtor Hearing.
I
20. I directed Mr. Jacinto to appear in Department 35 that afternoon and drove
directly fiom the United States District Court in San Diego to San Bernardino to
surrender Mr. Jacinto to the court and the bench warrant was recalled.
21. The court suggested I file a Motion for Reconsideration for the Attomey's Fees.
- _-
22. On February 19,2015, Robert G. Williamson represented that we would talk
settlement after the site work had been completed per the Removal Letter.
31 On Fehninrv 75 7n15 the Order Grnntina A t t n r n ~ v ' cFPPCin the nmniint nf Page 5
was rejected for lack of original signature, failure to reserve a date with the court prior to
filing and because the fee waiver on file for Mr. Jacinto had expired and the* fee
submitted in the amount of $465 for this hearing.
2s. On March 15,2015, Robert G. Williamson and I agreed to put a hold on the
attomey's fees in hopes that we would be able to resolve the issue through settlement
negotiations. I
26. On April 10,2015, Robert G. Williamson informed me that Mr. Parrish intended
to cancel Mr. Jacinto's Debtor Hearing and we set up a meeting with all parties to
discuss Mr. Jacinto's assets in order to reach a settlement.
27. On April 20,201 5, Robert G. Williamson, Mr. Parrish, his assistant, Eva, Mr.
Jacinto, his wife. Yolanda and I met. During this meeting, we ----------
Georg Bruno Ehlert. Mr. Ehlert is a loan coordinator for the Jacinto's and has detailed
F,
Robert G. Williamson for fhetdaf amount of the original judgment (including the tax
penalty) in order for Mr. Jacinto to make full payment and has yet to receive any,word
back. Mr. Ehlert followed up with Robert G. Williamson again the next day with no
response. (See Exhibit A,) This is only further demonstrative evidence of the Plaintiffs
continual efforts to make this process as challenging and difficult as possible for Mr.
Jacinto.
I declare under penalty of pejury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 21,20 15, at Pasadena, California.
Richard E. R a h i g i w
Page 8
3
August 25,2015
Pursuant toyour request, demand is hereby made for payoff of the judgment and the post judgment
order in ClYl?S12?8547 on behalf of Stubblefield Properties, dba, Mountain Shadows ~ o b i l eHome
Community entered on October 1,2014, recorded as instrument number 2014-Wl8050 and on
-'February25,2015 recorded 2s instrument number 2015-30100,respectively, as follows:
c : \ u s e r s \ k a t h y W ~ e n t s ~ s m hcurrent
c projects\spc 120 demand.docx
Page 9
4
et Legal Support (951 )779-01 00 00/00/2-
First Legal Support (951 )779-01 00 00/00/2013
3 ~.PR 0 B 7.014
?:J
ill . -
4
BY '--J J.'.!_\..U~~~-,-.\::~--Y~
<::;!- ~ERES/\ WAHNER, Dl'.:PUTY
~ c:>
,-...~
:::J
'<:t'
!ill C'l
~
0::
<t
~
!Jill SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~ 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO- CIVIL DIVISION
17
]8
19
Defendant.
l
The court having directed a verclict in favor Plaintiff and Cross Defendant
20 Stubblefield Properties, a California general partnership dba Mountain Shadows Mobile
21 Home Community and Cross Defendant Thomas Panisb, sued as Mr. Panish, against
22 Defendant and Cross Complainant Martin C. Jacinto on tbe issue of liability and having
24. On March 18, 2014, tbe jury on a special verclict found that Defendant Martin C.
25 Jacinto's wrongful conduct caused hann to Plaintiff Stubblefield Properties entitling Plaintiff
26 to damages for past and fllture rental value lost and cost of removal of tbe mobilehome from
27 space l 20 and restoration of mobilehome site, and the Court Clerk having recorded and filed
28 the special verdict, JT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADruDGED AND DECREED, ·
Page 10
J 6568.050/,1852-SB I0-6521 v. l
{P/10/'0SED) JUDG~I£1/T
-t
A>t Legal Support (9512779-01 00 00/00/2-
Legal Support (951),79-0100 00/00/20 W
2 dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Cornmun.ity and against Defendant Martin C. Jacinto
7 That Defendant Martin C. Jacinto shall be and hereby is ordered to ·· remove ills
9 Plaintiffs requirements set forth in Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Cmmnun.ity's move out
10 letter dated April 17, 2013. Defendant's removal of his mobilebome shall be partial
11 satisfaction of this judgment to tl1e extent of Ius verified costs incurred for said removal.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated:QL!- (j b , 2014
17 l-Ion. Bryan F. Foster, Judge, Supe1ior
Court
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
J656S.OS0/4851-881 0-6521 v.I
{PROPOSED} JUDGM£/'IT
Page 11
. .
PURCHASER'S RECEIPT RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS -
" '& :?'-':-a - ypF,-I"W,W~-',5
. @+
.
1
. . . - -
. SECURITY
Q F C A L I F OBANK - O1 409"
--
I
5
RNIA -. :
--
?
-., +-
'AYABLE TO
-
+kaz, i
.-
. . .- .
~ ~
AF~--E
. . I.
,--
.I--
+-~%GY~Y-=
"-T
-=-;:'
A
v
=
' 7
I
zL,'aaJ#
~
-. ' .
....-:
I.
r r
. ' AL
3
.
P
. .
E :i i
-. .--- Y
, I.
ja iis Ss3'
*. -
F viir.nt
&;II.~sx v w $ x 4 t *lfr$m
-
. . .
.
i
. .
lf,
' :--e-->.
-
--. . MEMORANDUM
CASHIER'S CHECKi- - - :- . ,
, m-
-. > .
-- - .. 7
- - . . - '- ..
L
- . .
.I . .. -
- - .ah--. - -
*
.
,, - -,
.- 4 . ,
. 1 - -
-
t b
Z ZCGCM.&&f . h205000
- L8
&:-;&----+*.* .a 2 "ds.5 : 2.- L -A'-
Page 12
Cashier's Check - Customer Copy
.a..
- t hi NO. 0936802298
dn,a~xtummtud~vdtisgporiod-uillberequid
/ prior a rspl-cnt. This check should be negdiatd within ?O dsys . 91 -17011221 Date 06/02/15 1 1 :47:56AM
Void After 90 Days
SAN BERNARDINO MAIN NAZ
0012 0000196 0084
Page 13
1832
16_24/12204463
RICHARD E NAHIGIAN 2656607199
2656 ABERDEEN AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90027-1222
I!II .. w,,,.,..,o',o,'A
c~~rornll .' ~ ~~ Y)~
!/i,epF
......
Page 14
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNI A, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
8303 N. Haven Avenue, 1" Floor, Ranch o Cucamonga, CA 91730-3848
.",-;:....
TO:
RICHARD NA HIGIAN, ESQ. ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON. ESQ .
ATTORNEY F O R APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
You are hereby noti fied, pursuant to th e California Rules of Court, that you r estimated costs to prepare the tran script on appeal in the amount li sted
below are as follows:
[8J An Original and one copy on appeal (If a cross-appeal has been filed, the initial expense of preparin g the record on appeal shall be bo rne
equally by the parties appealing.)
CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT:
@ PELLANT - ORIG INAL AND ONE COpy - $ 187.00 - 100.00 paid ~ $87.00 Estimate Du e
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT:
~PELLANT - ORIG INAL AND
l.:/6j..m copy IN $62.00
IZJ PAPER $50.00 Non-refu ndab le Trust Fee - DUE
o COMP UTER-READABLE FORMAT $ 112.00 Estimate Due
NOTE: Please return a copy of this notice with you r payment to the address listed above.
MAKE nmCK PAY ABLE TO "CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT"
ATTN: CA ROLYN DANIELS
N TE OF COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTS
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
LA JOLLA LAW GROUP
8
August 4,2016
Martin C. Jacinto
3420 Broadmoore Blvd.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Carolina S. Ramirez
3420 BroadmooreBlvd.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
ATTORNEY/CLIENT
FEE AGREEMENT
This letter will confinn La Jolla Law Group's willingness and appreciation for the
opportunity to represent you in this matter, and along with the fee agreement enclosed herewith,
sets forth the terms and conditions which will apply.
Please understand that in order for us to represent you, we will need you to submit a
retainer fee in the amount of $10,000.00. La Jolla Law Group does not accept cases on a pay as
you go basis because we want to avoid any possible conflict of interest with our clients, which
we believe forced bill collectioll, entails. Pursuant to our agreement, the initial deposit of
$5,000.00 towards the total retainer will be provided to La Jolla Law Group today at the time of
executing the enclosed Attorney-Client Fee Agreement, with the remaining $5,000.00 of the total
retainer due within 30 days, i.e., no later than September 3, 2016.
Enclosed, please find the Attorney - Client Fee Agreement. Please sign and date where
indicated, make a copy for your files, and return the original executed Fee Agreement in the
envelope provided. Should you wish to make the retainer payment via credit card, please contact
our office to provide the necessary information to do so. La Jolla Law Group is under no
obligation to perform legal services prior to receiving an initial retainer and a signed
agreement.
We will perform legal services called for under this Agreement, respond promptly to your
inquiries and communications, and keep you informed of the status of your matter. We
encourage you to keep us apprised of facts pertinent to our representation, return our calls on a
timely basis, and review and comment to us in regard to documents we may periodically send to
you.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation to the foregoing,
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
KLS:slr
Enclosure
Page 19
04/03/2017 MON 15:46 FAX r41001
*********************
*** FAX TX REPORT ***
*********************
TRANSMISSION OK
F'A C S I MIL E
April 3, 2017 No. of Pages (including eover):
CC:
Message:
Pursuant to your request, attached to this facsimile cover sheet please find the Fee
Agreement with Richard Nabigian and a summary of the legal fees paid to our office in
2016.
Page 20
3/2/2017 LA JOLLA LAW GROUP
9:12 AM AIR Transaction Listing Page 1
Selection Criteria
10 TypeClient
.......-________
Oate...... Invoice #
;..=;C:..:..;h..;;.ec;:;;.:.k..:....:N:..;;;.u=.;m:..;;.:;::..;be=.;r_--.;.,._ _ _ _ _ _ _~;;,.;;,.;,;.;;.~______=___......__ _ T.:. .;:o: ;. :;ta: ;.1
____<. .........................- - . ._ _
Grand Total
Payment. (20000.00)
Page 21
/
o::T 16
0\
17
18
2 RESPECTFULLY SlTBMITTED:
BY:~
5
7
i<ENTCSHA YsQ.
8
10 VERIFICATION
11
0
0
C""l 12 I, Kent L. Sharp, am the principal of LA JOLLA LAW GROlTP named above. I have
6~
0.. ;:::l r-
;:::lC/.lC""l_
8 ~ 0 f'I 13 read the attached notice and am familiar with its contents. At all times relevant to the Notice, I
oQ)f'lC""l
;:::l 0\ _
~ ~ <t:: N
ro ;> U 0 14 was and have been licensed to practice law in the State of California. To the best of my
-l <C ~ f'!
:§ ~ :§ ~
o Q) >--,
0 00
>--,
ro C
<I)
••
ro E--< 15 knowledge, the contents ofthe Notice are true.
-lc3-l
"""
0
"""
0'\
16 ~//
By:
17
KENT L. SHARP, ESQ.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Notice of Attorney Lien by La Jolla Law Group Page 23
Serrano, Suzanne
2. The court will GRANT Defendant Richard Nahigian's motion for relief from the default
and default judgment and deem the proposed answer filed and served; and
3. The court will DENY Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs.
1
Page 24
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
5 MARTIN C. JACINTO, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
vs. ) CASE NO. CIVDS1604759
7 )
RICHARD NAHIGIAN, )
8 )
)
9 Defendant. )
10
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS
11
Before Hon. John M. Pacheco, Judge
12
Department S-31
13 San Bernardino, California
15
APPEARANCES:
16
For the Plaintiff: KENT L. SHARP
17 Attorney at Law
23
24
25
26
Page 25
1
2 A.M. SESSION
4 APPEARANCES:
14 -oOo-
15
18 behalf of Plaintiffs.
25 I'm not here for these arguments, your Honor. I am just here
6 judgment against Jacinto. They want you to take that out and
8 much older. And we also have a lien in the other Jacinto case.
11 they're successful and you take any money out of Mr. Nahigian
14 we want our money first out of that. It's about 38,000 right
19 there's money we want our 38,000 rather than them get their 200
20 total.
26 the tentative?
25 State Bar, and the California State Bar has inquired with
6 October 2016 he was assisting at the time the answer was due,
14 they've asked for our files in this case against Mr. Nahigian.
15 That's why I had that phone call with the California State Bar.
19 e-mails that we have with Mr. Kaspar. And Mr. Kaspar isn't new
26 ahead and set aside that default. Mr. Lockwood says, give me
1 your papers. Let me see what your request is. Why? What's
3 into the case in August, Mr. Kaspar asked me to set aside the
18 the phone.
20 Mr. Kaspar would have filed and he would have served an answer.
22 that some answer was filed in court you would expect him,
25 by Mr. Kaspar.
10 foundation.
24 the Court, I'm going to file it right now. I'm going to file
2 feel like I'm repeating Mr. Lockwood from six months ago.
11 are false.
22 default.
24 lies are.
26 file was rejected on 10/22. Well, who does he learn this from,
7 your Honor, "I just got a message from my process server that
18 claiming he should have relief on. And that is that the entry
22 these papers that we ever see that. And we know it's false
26 says he doesn't work for a company, he does filing and odd jobs
11 October 25th.
13 you even said, are you going to file an answer? I'll be filing
16 wants to come in, what, that was on October 4th, he's almost
17 six months after the entry of default. Yeah, he's within his
21 don't see him saying, no, that's a really true statement. And
22 the reason is because it's false. And it's false on the very
25 14th. We know that's not true by his own e-mails and by his
3 declaration.
8 State Bar.
9 Thank you.
11 Counsel?
15 argument for us, because Mr. Kaspar was the problem here.
17 that and get the case going. And counsel's own opposition
18 brief makes clear that the standard here is not simply saying,
23 attorney and that the fault rests indeed with the client
24 himself.
26 did or didn't do that caused this problem. Mr. Kaspar was the
4 representing him in the State Bar action, for example. But I'm
5 not going to jump at shadows here. The bottom line is, this is
7 at fault.
19 fact.
22 this case.
4 Mr. Kaspar has shown in his own e-mails, in his own ex parte
10 that one little area, Mr. Kaspar has no neglect. He just does
13 answer. And I asked him why? And he says, I don't know why.
18 arguments, Counsel.
21 (End of proceedings.)
22
23
24
25
26
5 MARTIN C. JACINTO, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
vs. ) CASE NO. CIVDS1604759
7 )
RICHARD NAHIGIAN, )
8 )
) REPORTER'S
9 Defendant. ) CERTIFICATE
10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
11 ) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
12
19 2017.
21
22 ___________________________________
Official Reporter, C.S.R. No. 10911
23
24
25
26
Page 39
•
Christopher W. P. Overton (SBN 196823)
Law Office of Christopher W. P. Overton
•,,".lfA~'J.~~ED
- 2 84 N. Wilson Ave., #106
Pasadena, CA 91106
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
JUN 1 4 2017
3 Tel (213 ) 926-1119
"
4 Attorneys for Defendant, RICHARD NAHIGIAN BY ~",~Ld
SUZAN SEM. AND, DEPUTY
5
17
18
19 The Court, having considered the briefs, evidence and arguments submitted by the
20 parties, rules as follows :
21 1) The motion is granted;
22 2) The judgment against Richard Nahigian, in favor of Martin C. Jacinto, which.was ·
23 entered in the above entitled action on or about January 6, 2017, is vacated;
24 3) All abstracts of judgment based upon that judgment, including but not necessarily
25 limited to those issued on January 6, 2017 and February 6, 2017, are ordered
26 expunged and stricken;
27 4) Defendant Richard Nahigian is granted relief from default;
28 11
ORDER GRANTING RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Page 40
I
•
1
• •
5) The court shall deem the proposed Answer to Complaint lodged by Richard
2 Nahigian on or about May 16, 2017 to be as filed as of this date;
3 6) The court shall deem the proposed Cross-Complaint lodged by Richard Nahigian
4 on or about May 16, 2017 to be as filed as of this date;
5 7)
6
7
8
9
10
11 9.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 . . ..:. --'4-...........,~~-----------------------
- ~. . ) ,
25
26
Hon. John M. Pacheco,
- ""27- Judge of the Superior Court
B~DePUty
Met LtClncl~
Page 42
DAVIS & DAVIS LAW GROUP, APe
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS. SUITe 960
M. STEPHEN DAYIS Tel: (310) 277-2323
MArrHEW S. DAYIS LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067 fax: (310) 556-2308
Writer's E·Mall:
dlalOddesq.cam
November 9, 2017
In satisfaction of the Deposition Subpoena for Production ofBusiness Records issued October 6,
2017, enclosed are the documents requested, per agreement of counsel, regarding American Trust
Escrow File No. 021030-SA identified by Bates Numbers 00001 to ATE 00006, together with a
Declaration of Custodian of Records.
If you should have any questions in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
D~
MSD:sr
Enclosures
c: American Trust Escrow
Page 43
I 1
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - mSTICE CENTER
10
11 MARTIN JACINTO, CASE NO. CIVDS1604759
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN
13 v. OF RECORDS OF AMERICAN
TRUST ESCROW, INC. PURSUANT
14 RICHARD NAHIGIAN, TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE
Defendant. SECTIONS 1560-1561
15
16
17 I, CONNIE SCIDRTZ, declare:
18 I am an employee ofAmerican Trust Escrow, Inc. and a duly authori;z:ed Custodian
19 ofthe records ofAmerican Trust Escrow, Inc., a California corporation. I have authority
20 to certify said records.
21 I received a Deposition Subpoena for Production ofBusiness Records, issued on
22 October 6,2017, out ofthe above-entitled Court in the above-entitled action calling for the
23 escrow file and documents therein of Escrow No. 021030-SA.
24 The acconlpanying copies are true copies ·of the records described in said subpoena
25 that are in my possession as Custodian of Records of American Trust Escrow, Inc., as
Page 44
I
~
1
in the ordinary course of business at or near the time ofthe acts, conditions or events
j
~
2
recorded therein.
I 3
Exec~ted on November ~ 20.17.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
4
'j»
5
foregoing is true and correct.
6
10
11
12
13
14
I<
15
16
17
18
19
I
20
I
~
21
22
I
23
24
It
25
26
27
28
i
2
!I
!
TO CAUFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECfIONS 1560-1561
tI
Page 45
I
1662 Hlllhurti Avenue
AMLHICl~N L~ Angele., CA 90027
! i ! >'
Phone: (3U) 671,,2255
Fax: (323) 328.1790
NetProCHR 1.146..336.99
TOTAL $ 4.865.000.00 $ 4~B&5,OOO,OO
OOsingDate 8/6/2017
SEllER'S TRANSACTION
CA License 10
.. .. "'...., .... .......
~ ;."
.00899496
Contact
Con!!~!~.lkense 10
Emait
to
American 1 rusthcfOW
I.....
11662 Hillhurst Avenue
_·_l~8!~~~::,.g~.~~!.~ . . ~
"'i~~:::36 ~~i
CA liCenSe ID
Contact Alison
"~_'~"""A" ."",,,,,,,.,--, ~, .. """""""~~",~~,~,,,,,
$!:!!~~t,.~. .~~!!~e 10
Email
Phone
OS
06
07
08
00
07
08
At the clof;e of your above..numnered escrow.~ou are authori%eda~ lnltructed topsy the following:
Pay Commission to Sothebtslntemational R,eslty $121.625.00
Charles Clad<
This instruction irrevocabtyusignsthe above slatedeommission toJ"e'sbove named Broker(.}. This instruction may not
be amended or revoked without the written consent of the Broker(~ bereinabove ,named.
Richard Nahigian
Eileen Nahig:lan
~~~----------~-----
ATE 00004
Page 49
A MeR I C,--,,'..,
...... AN
,~.~"-.--~ '~--""""'-----'""
CHECKko:
1fS..160611220
'086136
trust eSCROW
PAY
TO THE
'ORDER GF Sotheby's In"!maU"lat
HiUhU~~~~~i~e
1801 N,
los AngelesrCA 90027
086136
PAY TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDREOEIGHTYANO 431100 :OOLLARS _____,...~ ____.._____-;.._4 _____;....._.
TO THE
ORDER OF Sotheby'stnt~roationaJ Realty
180'1 N. HlUhu(stAvenue
Los Angeles. CA90027
ATE 00005
Page 50
THiS CHECK IS PR/f.,lfED ON CHEMIt.Al R[ACT!VE PAPER WHICH CONIA1NS A WATEHMARK HOLD UF TO {\ liGHT 10 vIEW
TO THE
OROEROF
1801 N. HUIA~it..~rntie
Los Angeles, CA 90021
10 Vm!FY THE AUTtIl:riTIClTV OF THIS CHE CK RUS on BREATHE ON fHE OVAl, COLOR Will DlSAPf'EAR, lHE~, HEi\PPEAH
CHECK NO:
ATE
086139
1-0$ ~1~ Couruy
PAY EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNORED FIFTY-SIX ANO 46/100 OOLLARS -'~-~-.,,.---.------------~--,.-.......
TO THE
ORDER OF Sotheby's Internatiomrl·Rea1ty
1801 N. HiUhuf$t Avenue
los Angeles CA9QQ27
1
6 F 25-30 5/8/2014 Notice of Entry Judgment 4/8/14 served to attorney Mosies Avila
Eva Stubblefield Hazard sent 4/17/13
Williamson encouraged Eva Stubblefield to
7 G 31- 5/14/2014 removal letter directly to Jacinto at his home -
talk to Jacinto (circumventing Avila)
not sent to his attorney Avila
Jacinto fired atty Avila; copy sent to Robert
$57,888.50 jgmt Aware Jacinto fired Avila on 5/20/14
Williamson with attached notice authorizing
8 H 32-33 5/20/2014 abstract recorded San Williamson served/mailed Costs memo to
Bruno Ehlert to "work with Williamson" to
Bernardino Cty Avila - knowing Jacinto had fired him
settle judgment
Fraudulent Costs Memo includes items
p.34: $1,484 copies; p.39: $3,115.95 pvt investigator; p.39:
Williamson filed fraudulent Costs Memo expressly excluded under CCP 1033.5 (b) and
$16,721.92 "costs" $3,497 online legal research; $320 court call; $1,277.93
including several line items expressly Ladas case as not recoverable; Williams v.
9 I 34-41 5/20/2014 added to $41,166.58 delivery svs; $509.32 travel; $85 fed ex; P served memo to
excluded under the costs statute. see CCP Chino Firt Dept (Christianson) precludes
jgmt atty Avila, despite knowing Jacinto fired Avila; Avila never
§1033.5(b) awarding costs or fees to Def. unless finding of
told Martin Jacinto he could challenge costs
frivolous
paid $5k deposit to demanded $5,000 deposit to start work Eva suggested that Jacinto "work through your atty"; Eva
10 J 42-43 5/23/2014 Eva sent letter directly to Jacinto home
remove home @ 120 (included in 11K below) knew Jacinto was not represented by atty
Civil §798.85 (MRL); Govt §12965(b) served motion on atty Avila despite knowing Jacinto fired
Motion-$190,449 atty fees p. 49; Williamson
11 K 44-52 7/3/2014 (discrimination); 42 USC §1981; Avila, who never notified Jacinto about the motion or ever
set hearing 11/19/14
§1985(3);§3604(a);§3505 federal disc mailed it to Jacinto
Signed $19,850 new contract to remove 4 contractors showed up to bid from May
home; Pacific returned $5,000 deposit check 2014 to Oct 2014; after each prospective
12 L 53-54 8/11/2014 paid Pacific $5,000 check was returned to Jacinto uncashed
as he could not work with CEO Thomas contrctor met w/CEO Tom Parrish they told
Parrish Jacinto they refuse to work w/Tom
Def agreed to pay
Fee Agreement-Richard Nahigian $10,000 p.59 cashier's check for $15,000 plus paid $10,000 cash on 9/30/14 as Nahigian would not sign
Nahigian $25K cash
13 M 55-59 9/11/2014 cash deposit; $25,000 retainer to oppose atty $25,000.00 Nahigian's note in red acknowledging Jacinto substitution of atty without partial payment; see Item 13
retainer to oppose
motion and negotiated removal of home had paid $10,000 cash initial deposit "M" p.59 $15,000 cashier chk 11/12/14
fees/costs
14 N 60-61 9/30/2014 Substitution of Atty - Nahigian paid Nahigian 2-pymt 3,000.00 would not sign substitution w/out pay paid $28,000 total to Nahigian to negotiate settlemt
Minute Order Granting Motion to amend amended judgment
Minute Order recited Richard Nahigian was
15 O 62-64 10/1/2014 judgment to add $16,721.92 fraudulent costs $57,888.50 - applied for
present during the hearing
to $41,166.58 jdgmt abstract that day
16 P 65-75 10/14/2014 $11,000 removal punch list-storage paid Hart/King $11,000.00 $11,000.00 work on punch list; storage, etc. RGW 8/11/17 aff.¶6:1-9 (5K dep;6K rent 4/1-oct-2014)
paid Palma Const. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 down pymt on contract to remove home see p. 71 paid Palma $2,500 deposit 10/14/14
despite just receiving $11,000 check from Jacinto and
1 Q 76- 10/17/2014 Order to Appear for Examination to Martin Jacinto Williamson applied for order 10/15/17
Nahigian purportedly working to settle the case
2 R 77- 11/8/2014 Nahigian settlement offer to P $53,000 lump sum
3 S 78- 11/8/2014 $57,888.50 Abstract Jgmt recorded Page
recorded abstract despite lump sum settlement offer 52
Williamson appeard by phone; asked for
4 T 79- 11/13/2014 Debtor Jacinto appeared for exam no appearance by Nahigian
continuance; crt continued to 11/19/14
Williamson "advised court parties are trying to
5 U 80- 11/19/2014 2nd Appearance by debtor Jacinto no appearance by Nahigian
settle" continue to 12/17/14
6 V 81- 11/19/2014 Motion for $190,449 atty fees continued to 12/17/14 no appearance by Nahigian
$4k progress pymt to
7 W 82- 11/23/2014 Palma Construction Invoice $4,000.00 $4,000.00 partial payment to Palma Construction
Palma Construct.
8 X 83- 11/24/2014 Jacinto Mot-be relieved as counsel off-calendar subsitution of attorney filed 10/9/14 Nahigian filed substitution of attorney 10/9/14
paid Palma $15K total
9 Y 84- 12/15/2014 Palma Construction Invoice for removal $8,500.00 $8,500.00 final removal costs to Palma 15K Palma Construction Removal Total $15,000.00
($2.5K+$4K+$8.5K)
10 Z 85- 12/17/2014 3rd Appearance by debtor Jacinto continued by Williamson by court call
11 AA 86- 12/17/2014 Continued Motion for Atty Fees continued by Williamson by court call
paid MTZ Creative Demolish wall and haul away existing concrete
12 BB 87- 12/30/2014 Contract-demolition and haul away $3,400.00 $3,400.00 MTZ Concrete Removal Cost $3,400
Concrete, inc. with pregrade after
13 CC 88-89 1/7/2015 email to Nahigian re: punch list
14 DD 90-91 2/4/2015 email to Williamson 4 contractors setl offer: 5K+15K fees+65K +45K+25K
in fed ct 2/18/15; please postpone hearings on
email: re: 2/17/15 mtg set up w/Tom Parrish
15 EE 92- 2/17/2015 atty fees and Jacinto debtor exam both set for
re:punch list to do
2/18/15
16 FF 93- 2/18/2015 court grants 190,499 atty fees no opposition; no appearance
atty must file affidavit Nahigian told Jacinto no need to appear because he would
17 GG 94-95 2/18/2015 4th hearing Jacinto debtor exam bench warrant issued for Jacinto arrest
w/sheriff to arrest appear and get a 4th continuance
18 HH 96-97 2/24/2015 Jacinto filed permit at HCD Department $196.00 $196.00 determine conformance w/codes $196 Permit Fee to HCD inspector
19 II 98- 2/25/2015 MTZ Creative Concrete Invoice paid MTZ Concrete $2,250.00 $2,250.00 concrete work demand by Tom Parrish $2,500 compact dirt w/tractor & water every ft at fill
20 JJ 99-102 2/25/2015 Fee Award $190, 499.00 recorded abstract of judgment
Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
21 KK 103- 2/27/2015
return on 3/19/15
22 LL 104- 3/9/2015 HCD inspected utility pedestal found no code violaitons; approved
M Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
23 105- 3/19/2015
M return on 4/16/15
24 NN 106- 4/16/2015 Jacinto debtor exam; off calendar by request of moving party
Jacinto believed Nahigian had settled with his "long-time
Jacintos paid $15K cash to atty Robert
setl offer:$5K+$15k fees;$65K in 27 friend" Williamson to accept cash settlement; Jacinto
25 OO 107-108 5/21/2015 Williamson, Jr. and took hard $ loan to pay
days;$45K in 27 days;25K @ $450/mo thought paying 15K fees+45K fees+25Kfees was accepted
$63,106.40 to satisfy 1st judgment
by Williamson to settle the case
paid to: Robert Nahigian told Jacinto's they were paying a fee to
26 PP 109- 6/2/2015 $12K+$3K cash: Robert Williamson, Jr. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 checks to: RGW, Jr ($12K+$3K)
Williamson, Jr. Williamson for "privilege to negotiate settlemt"
$41,166.58 jgmt + Nahigian did not require Williamson to provide an
Demand: $57,888.50+$5,202.04+15.86
27 QQ 110- 8/25/2015 $16,721.92 costs + no acknowledgement of judgmt provided acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment which is
($5,217.90 interest)+jdmt= $63,106.40
$5,217.90 interest standard procedure at an escrow closing
Nahigian never sought credit for removal costs despite that
28 RR 111- 8/26/2015 Belle Vista Escrow paid $63,106.40 paid Stubblefield $63,106.40 no credits for removal costs deducted
4/8/14 judgment expressly ordered it
1.4 yrs later ackknowledgment demand is Williamson sent unnotarized acknowledgment not
29 SS 112- 11/22/2016 Kent Sharp demands acknowledgment
finally served on Williamson complying with duty to notarize his signature
30 TT 113- 12/7/2016 Unnotarized acknowledgements sent Atty forced to request notarized docs Williamson receives ltr and resends new docs
atty sent to D&B Williamson resent notarized docs to Kent
31 UU 114- 1/9/2017 Notarized Acknowledgments re-sent No credit was ever issued for removal costs
escrow company Sharp; trying to retrieve acknowl.
32 hired Chris Lockwood to sue Nahigian retainer paid Apr '16 $5,000 had to hire Chris Lockwood sue Nahigian to recover damages
33 VV 115- 3/2/2017 hired Kent Sharp to work on 2 cases Paid to Kent Sharp $20,000.00 invoices to end of 2016 - invoice 3/27/17 paid Kent Sharp to prosecute default judgment
34 Total Removal Cost► $46,846.00 $162,952.40 ◄ Sub-total Post-Litigation Costs no credit despite order to issue credit 4/8/14
35 minus $ Williamson -$15,000.00 ADDED Costs Pre-Litigation Costs Mobilehome @ 120
36 $31,846.00 $11,000.00 purchase mobilehome approx April 2011
$10,000 remodel costs recommended by Tom
37 $10,000.00
Parrish and Mgr Marvin Freeman
38 $7,000.00 rent paid from June 2011-Dec 2011
39 $28,000.00 Sub-total Pre-Litigation Costs
40 $190,952.40 ◄GRAND TOTAL ALL COSTS ◄ doesn't include 12% interest on 2015 hard $ loanPage 53
Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., S213100 (Cal. May 04, 2015)
LORING WINN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and The issues presented are these: Is a defendant prevail-
Appellant, v. CHINO VALLEY ing in a FEHA action entitled to its ordinary court
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICT, costs as a matter of right pursuant to Code of Civil
Defendant and Respondent.
Procedure section 1032, or only in the discretion of
the trial court pursuant to Government Code section
Counsel: Loring Winn Williams, in pro. per.; Hamil-
12965, a provision of FEHA itself? And, if the trial
ton & McInnis, Donald E. McInnis, Ben-Thomas
court does have discretion, must that discretion be ex-
Hamilton; The deRubertis Law Firm, David M. deRu-
ercised according to the rule *2 applicable to attorney
bertis, Helen U. Kim; Pine & Pine and Norman Pine
fee awards in certain federal civil rights actions under
for Plaintiff and Appellant. Liebert Cassidy Whit-
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412
more, Peter J. Brown and Judith S. Islas for Defendant
(Christiansburg), according to which a prevailing de-
and Respondent. Kira L. Klatchko for League of Cali-
fornia Cities, California Association of Counties, Cal- fendant receives its attorney fees only if the plaintiff's
ifornia Special Districts Association, California Asso- action was objectively groundless?
ciation of Sanitation Agencies, Fire Districts Associa-
We conclude Government Code section 12965, sub-
tion of California and Association of California Water
division (b), governs cost awards in FEHA actions, al-
Agencies as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
lowing trial courts discretion in awards of both attor-
Respondent.
ney fees and costs to prevailing FEHA parties. We fur-
ther conclude that in awarding attorney fees and costs,
the trial court's discretion is bounded by the rule of
WERDEGAR, J.
Christiansburg; an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff should
Ct.App. 4/2 E055755San Bernardino County Super. not be ordered to pay the defendant's fees or costs un-
Ct. No. CIVRS801732 less the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the
action without an objective basis for believing it had
Plaintiff Loring Winn Williams sued defendant Chi- potential merit.
no Valley Independent Fire District (the District) for
employment discrimination in violation of the Cal-
ifornia Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA; 14
casetext.com/case/williams-v-chino-valley... 1 of 13
Page 54
ORI(;INAL
(Do not write above this line.)
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the
space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.go, "Facts,"
"Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:
(1) Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted Jonuory 15, ] 970.
(2) The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or
disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The
stipulation consists of 15 pages, not including the order.
(4) A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
under "Facts."
(Effective January 1,2011)
Reproval
15 Page 55
(Do not write above this line.)
(5) Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of
Law".
(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
"Supporting Authority."
(7) No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any
pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
(8) Payment of Disciplinary CostsnRespondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 &
6140.7. (Check one option only):
[] Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public
reproval).
[] Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
[] Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years:
(Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If
Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar
Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
[] Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver Qf Costs".
[] Costs are entirely waived.
(a) [] A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to
initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership
records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web
page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to
the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as
evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
(b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of
the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries
and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
(c) [] A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official
State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record
of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
B. Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for
Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances
are required.
(c) [] Rules of Professional Conduct/State Bar Act violations: 60~8(b) Bus. & Prof.
(2) [] Dishonesty: Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty,
concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.
(3) [] Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account
to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or
property.
(4) [] Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.
(5) [] Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.
(6) [] Lack of Cooperation: Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her
misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings.
(7) [] Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct: Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing
or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.
[] No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.
(2) [] No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct.
(3) [] Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of
his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
(4) [] Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and
recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her
misconduct.
(6) [] Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
Page 57
(Do not write above this line.)
any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer
suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.
(9) [] Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress
which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and
which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
(10) [] Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.
(11) [] Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal
and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.
(12) [] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
See attached
D. Discipline:
(a) [] Approved by the Court prior to initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (no public disclosure).
(b) [] Approved by the Court after initiation of the State Bar Court proceedings (public disclosure).
o../r
(1) [] Respondent must comply with the conditions attached to the reproval for a period of one year.
(2) [] During the condition period attached to the reproval, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the
State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
(3) [] Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
(4) Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
(5) [] Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10,
July 10, and October 10 of the condition period attached to the reproval. Under penalty of perjury,
Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of
Professional Conduct, and all conditions of the reproval during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent
(Effective January 1,2011 )
Reproval
4
Page 58
(Do not write above this line.)
must also state in each report whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State
Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover
less than 30 (thirty) days, that report must be submitted on the next following quarter date, and cover the
extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the condition period and no later than the last day of the condition
period.
(6) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance.
During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish such reports as may be requested, in addition to
the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully
with the monitor.
(7) Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has
complied with the conditions attached to the reproval.
(8) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
at the end of that session.
(9) , Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office
of Probation.
(10) [] Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one
year of the effective date of the reproval.
Financial Conditions
a. Restitution
Respondent must pay restitution (including the principal amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the
payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all
or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the
amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
[] Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of
Probation not later than May 3 l, 2011.
Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent
must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report, or
as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of
probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s) in order to complete
the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
[] If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court,
the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
[] 1. If Respondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly
report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified
public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of
California, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated
as a "Trust Account" or "Clients’ Funds Account";
Page 61
(Do not write above this line.)
A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such
client; and,
4. the current balance for such client.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and,
each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any
differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the
reasons for the differences.
Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other properties held for clients that
specifies:
i. each item of security and property held;
ii. the person on whose behalf the security or property is held;
iii. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v. the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
If Respondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period
covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the
Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the
accountant’s certificate described above.
3. The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.
[] Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School,
within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph (A)(7) is not applicable.
FACTS:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the
specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code sections as follows:
In or about April 2007, Martha Moto ("Moto") hired Respondent to represent her brother,
Nicomedes Estrada ("Estrada") at sentencing following his conviction for attempt murder
in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VA072145 ("Estrada matter") and to
file a motion for a new trial. Estrada was over the age of 18.
3. Respondent did not obtain Estrada’s informed written consent before accepting
compensation from Moto to represent Estrada.
On or about April 13, 2007 Respondent appeared on behalf of Estrada for sentencing and
informed the court that he intended to file a motion for a new trial. Sentencing was
continued to June 8, 2007 with the Motion for New Trial calendared for May 30, 2007.
5. Respondent sought and the court granted a continuance of the motion and sentencing
until June 27, 2007.
6. At no time prior to June 27, 2007, did Respondent file a Motion for New Trial on
Estrada’s behalf.
7. On or about June 27, 2007, Estrada was sentenced to life in prison plus 25 years to life.
At no time did Respondent contact Estrada and inform him that he would not file a
Motion for New Trial, or explain to Estrada the reasons why he did not file the motion.
Respondent took no further actions to inform Estrada of his legal options. Respondent
conveyed the information only to Moto.
Page 63
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By not informing Estrada in advance that he would not file a Motion for New Trial,
Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a
matter in which he agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and
Professions Code, section 6068(m).
By not obtaining Estrada’s informed written consent before accepting compensation from
Moto to perform services for Estrada, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 3-310(F).
By failing to refund the $6,500 to Estrada, Respondent failed to promptly refund any part
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(D)(2).
FACTS:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the
specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code sections as follows:
In or about May 2007, respondent was hired by Henry Clay West ("West") to represent
him in Los Angeles County Superior Court case numbers PA 059029 and PA 054907.
Case number PA 054907 was a violation of probation matter, with a three year suspended
prison term as a condition of probation. On or about May 15, 2007, West paid
Respondent $10,000 in advance legal fees for all legal services leading up to trial.
On August 27, 2007, case number PA 059029 was trailing day 8 of 10 for trial when
West entered a plea of nolo contendre to certain charges in exchange for a total sentence
of four years in state prison to run concurrently with PA 054907.
In or about August, 2008, West wrote Respondent requesting a refund of the $10,000 in
advanced fees to represent West at trial. Respondent did not refund any portion of the
fee.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
By failing to refund the $10,000 to West, Respondent failed to promptly refund any part
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(D)(2).
10
Nahigian Stip Attachment
Page 64
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on
December 2, 2010, and the facts and/or conclusions of law contained in this stipulation.
Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The
parties further waive the right to a formal hearing on any charge not included in the pending
Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss the following alleged violations in
the interest of justice:
Case No. 10-O-02178 Count One Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110(A)
Case No. 10-O-02178 Count Four Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100(B)(3)
¯ Respondent acted in good faith by communicating through Moto, with the expectation all
information would be conveyed to Estrada.
Respondent has demonstrated remorse and has attempted to refund the fee in full in both
matters, however, because both Estrada and West are currently incarcerated in the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, both Respondent and the State
Bar have experienced certain difficulties in ascertaining an appropriate repository for the
funds.
¯ Respondent has been a member for 40 years with one prior minor incident of misconduct,
which, as discussed below should have little weight in aggravation.
To determine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociak
v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A
disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See
Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Moreover, the recommended discipline must rest
upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter of Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 119.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
11
Nahigian Stip Attachment
Page 65
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar
of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of
a member’s professional misconduct are the protection of the public, the
courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional
standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal
profession. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction
imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative
sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions
for professional misconduct.
Pursuant to Standard 1.5 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
1.5(f): any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a
sanction for professional misconduct as set forth in standard 1.3.
Pursuant to Standard 2.4 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
Pursuant to Standard 2.6 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
12
Nahigian Stip Attachment
Page 66
Pursuant to Standard 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
Reproval is the appropriate sanction in this matter. First, the parties submit a
deviation from Standard 2.6 is appropriate in this case based upon the factors enumerated
in mitigation in Section "C" above. The parties agree that while Respondent failed to
communicate directly with Mr. Estrada about Respondent’s reasons for declining to file a
Motion for New Trial, Respondent did communicate this information to Moto
maintaining a good faith, albeit mistaken, belief it would be sufficient for Moto to
communicate to Mr. Estrada.
Moreover, Respondent has been willing to make restitution by refunding the fees
in full to both Estrada and West without regard to any portion which might have actually
been earned. The parties submit that because both West and Estrada have been
incarcerated in facilities throughout the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
difficulties in locating an appropriate repository for these funds precluded Respondent
from acting earlier to refund these fees.
13
Nahigian Stip Attachment
Page 67
The parties further submit that the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this
matter with the imposition of a Public Reproval with those probationary conditions
articulated herein.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed
Respondent that as of February 9, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,925.00.
Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from
the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further
proceedings.
14
Nahigian Stip Attachment
Page 68
(Do not write above this line.)
In the Matter of Case number(s):
Richard Nahigian 10-O-02178 and 10-O-O3701
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with
each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Committee 10/16/00. Revised 12/16/2004; 12/13/2006.) Signature Page
Page 69
(Do not write above this line.)
REPROVAL ORDER
Finding that the stipulation protects the public and that the interests of Respondent will be served by any conditions
attached to the reproval, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without
prejudice, and:
The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
[] The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the
REPROVAL IMPOSED.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed
within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved
stipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after
service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval may constitute cause for a separate
proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen
and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of Los Angeles, on February 10, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):
by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on
February 10, 2011. ................... .-..
Rose Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
Page 71