Preview
1 W. CHRISTIAN KRANKEMANN (SBN 220438)
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES P.C.
2 Attorneys At Law
420 E Street, Suite 100 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Santa Rosa, California 95404 F I L E D
Telephone: (707) 524-2200 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Facsimile: (866) 858-0100
04/14/2020
5 Attorney for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court
EDWARD DORSANEO BY: MADONNA CARANTO
Deputy Clerk
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
P.C.
11 EDWARD DORSANEO CASE NO.: CGC-19-576246
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
12 Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
13 vs.
1) Legal Malpractice
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 JEFFREY NEUSTADT, and DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive, 2) Breach of Contract
15
16 Defendants. Demand for Jury Trial
17
Telephone
18 INTRODUCTION
19 1. Plaintiff, EDWARD DORSANEO, is and at all times relevant herein was a resident
20 of Sonoma County, California.
21 2. Defendant, JEFFREY NEUSTADT, is believed to be a resident of the County of San
22 Francisco, State of California and an attorney licensed in the State of California, admitted to the bar
23 in 1973, and operating his law practice in the City of San Francisco.
24 3. Plaintiff alleges that DOES 1 through 10 at all relevant times were employees or
25 agents of Defendant and assisted Defendant in the wrongful conduct stated herein. Plaintiff
26 reserves the right to name those additional defendants upon learning of their identities and potential
27 legal responsibility for the matters herein alleged.
28 4. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the employer,
-1-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 employee, agent, servant, principal or subsidiary of the other Defendants and at all times acted
2 within the scope of such employment or agency and with the knowledge and approval of the other
3 Defendants.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 5. On or about February 16, 2017 – EDWARD DORSANEO’s ex-wife, Tetyana
6 Dorsaneo, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
7 against Plaintiff alleging Breach of Contract of Form I-864 in violation of U.S.C. §1182(A)(4)(c).
8 6. In response to the Complaint, EDWARD DORSANEO met with attorney, JEFFREY
9 NEUSTADT, to determine if he would be experienced and qualified to be his legal counsel and to
10 represent Plaintiff in defense of the claims alleged in the Complaint filed by Tetyana Dorsaneo,
P.C.
11 Case Number 4:17-CV-00765. JEFFREY NEUSTADT represented and warranted to EDWARD
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
12 DORSANEO that he has practiced law in the State of California for over 40 years and was
13 experienced in the areas of law raised in the Complaint brought by Tetyana Dorsaneo.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 7. In response to the representations and warranties made, that his best interests would
15 be represented, EDWARD DORSANEO retained JEFFREY NEUSTADT to be his legal counsel
16 and to represent Plaintiff in defense of the claims alleged in the Complaint filed by Tetyana
17 Dorsaneo, Case Number 4:17-CV-00765.
Telephone
18 8. On or about April 11, 2017 – JEFFREY NEUSTADT filed an Answer on behalf of
19 EDWARD DORSANEO. The Answer contained three Affirmative Defenses, in essence alleging
20 fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement. JEFFREY NEUSTADT did not file any
21 Cross-Complaint based on fraud or abuse of process against Tetyana Dorsaneo, which pursuant to
22 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was required to be done at the time that the Answer was filed.
23 9. In addition to the failure to file any compulsory Cross-Complaints, JEFFREY
24 NEUSTADT failed to advise EDWARD DORSANEO that the prevailing party in a breach of
25 contract of Form I-864 case in violation of U.S.C. §1182(A)(4)(c) is entitled to an award of
26 attorney’s fees and costs.
27 10. Pursuant to the standing order applicable in the case in the District Court, all
28 dispositive motions should have been filed no later than the deadlines specified in Civil L.R. 73-
-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 1(a)(1) and (2). As a result, no dispositive motions were to be filed after May 17, 2017.
2 11. On or about November 14, 2017 – JEFFREY NEUSTADT, on behalf of EDWARD
3 DORSANEO, filed a Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Join Required Parties. In essence,
4 JEFFREY NEUSTADT argued that since Tetyana Dorsaneo filed a complaint for breach of
5 contract alleging that she is a beneficiary “sponsored immigrant” of an I-864 contract executed
6 between EDWARD DORSANEO and the United States of America, that the United State of
7 America was a necessary party to the action.
8 12. On or about December 22, 2017 – the Court issued and filed its Order denying
9 EDWARD DORSANEO’s Motion to Dismiss, Denying Sanctions and Setting Summary Judgment
10 Schedule. In paragraph #1 on page 1 of the Order filed on December 22, 2017 – The Court states
P.C.
11 that…
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
“[i]t also bears noting that Edward failed to file his motion before the deadline
12 for dispositive motions. The Court could sanction Edward and his counsel for
failing to meet this deadline, particularly since Edward’s counsel has already been
13 warned that he must do a better job of following the rules. However, because it is
three days before Christmas, the Court will simply give one more warning: Edward
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 and his counsel will be sanctioned if they do not follow the rules, including this
Court’s standing orders, going forward.”
15
16 13. On or about February 24, 2018 – The Court granted Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for
17 Summary Judgment. The Court had previously found EDWARD DORSANEO liable for damages
Telephone
18 to Tetyana under the Form I-864 contract and left discovery open as to the amount of financial
19 assistance he owed. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Tetyana presented evidence that
20 EDWARD DORSANEO owed her $49,775.81. Attorney JEFFREY NEUSTADT did not present
21 any evidence on EDWARD DORSANEO’s behalf disputing the amount or establishing any
22 terminating events or any offsets to the amounts owed to Tetyana.
23 14. Also on or about February 24, 2018 – The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as
24 to why EDWARD DORSANEO and JEFFREY NEUSTADT should not be sanctioned for
25 threatening criminal prosecution in the course of civil proceedings. Specifically, JEFFREY
26 NEUSTADT including in the opposition to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for Summary Judgment
27 that she (1) violated federal immigration law, (2) violated criminal law and (3) argued that she
28 “should be referred by the Court to law enforcement for investigation”. In addition, at the direction
-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and recommendation from JEFFREY NEUSTADT, Plaintiff filed a declaration in opposition to
2 Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for Summary Judgment that he would provide the results of his private
3 investigation to law enforcement.
4 15. The Court stated that this threat was in direct violation of California Rule of
5 Professional Conduct 5-100 which prohibits members of the California bar from threatening to
6 present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute. The Court also stated that this
7 conduct may have constituted criminal extortion under California Penal Code §508, 519 and 523. In
8 addition, the Court stated that JEFFREY NEUSTADT was ordered to show cause why he should
9 not be: (i) referred to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct under Civil Local
10 Rule 11-6 and/or (ii) referred to the State Bar of California for this behavior.
P.C.
11 16. On or about April 4, 2018 – The Court issued its ruling on the Order to Show Cause.
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
12 The Court found that JEFFREY NEUSTADT engaged in at least two kinds of serious misconduct
13 in this case. First, the Court found that JEFFREY NEUSTADT violated California Rule of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 Professional Conduct 5-100 which forbids lawyers from threatening to present criminal charges to
15 obtain an advantage in a civil suit. The Court stated that it advised JEFFREY NEUSTADT to
16 withdraw the assertions that Tetyana violated federal immigration and criminal law. Instead,
17 JEFFREY NEUSTADT in his response to the Order to Show Cause reaffirmed them, declaring to
Telephone
18 the Court that he presented the allegations to law enforcement.
19 17. The Court stated in its April 4, 2018 findings that JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s
20 allegations were not only inappropriate, but also non-responsive to the motion being briefed as they
21 were raised to argue liability when the Court had already ruled on the issue. The Court concluding
22 by stating that JEFFREY NEUSTADT violated Rule 11 at least twice: first in the moving papers –
23 by advancing arguments in bad faith and for an improper purpose; and second when pressing the
24 argument in bad faith despite being on notice how frivolous it was.
25 18. Throughout the litigation brought by Tetyana Dorsaneo, JEFFREY NEUSTADT
26 failed to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of the exposure to attorney’s fees that would be awarded
27 to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s counsel. All the while, JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s handling of the matter
28 resulted in needlessly increased attorney’s fees owed to JEFFREY NEUSTADT as well as
-4-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 increased attorney’s fees owed to the attorneys represented Tetyana Dorsaneo.
2 19. The trial court sanctioned JEFFREY NEUSTADT for violations of Rule 11 and
3 referred the matter to the California State Bar for consideration of whether JEFFREY NEUSTADT
4 violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
5 20. The trial court’s ruling and the California State Bar association referral were
6 appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
7 21. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision and denied the appeals. It
8 recognized that the defenses raised by JEFFREY NEUSTADT were not defenses provide by
9 applicable statutes, regulations or the I-864 contract. The Court recognized JEFFREY
10 NEUSTADT conducted no discovery on Tetyana’s income and failed to respond to discovery
P.C.
11 requests. Further, it reiterated that JEFFREY NEUSTADT “did not, in fact, present evidence or
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
12 argument on the issues then at hand and also submitted irrelevant and scandalous information about
13 Tetyana.”
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 22. The Court refused to overturn the sanction entered against JEFFREY NEUSTADT
15 that was appealed by JEFFERY NEUSTADT as the Ninth Circuit of Appeals agreed that the
16 evidence JEFFREY NEUSTADT submitted to the trial court was used for an improper purpose.
17
Telephone
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Legal Malpractice
19 (Against JEFFREY NEUSTADT and DOES 1-10)
20
23. Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though
21
fully set forth at length and incorporate the same herein by reference.
22
24. JEFFREY NEUSTADT and EDWARD DORSANEO entered into an agreement in
23
connection with the Complaint filed by Tetyana Dorsaneo, Case Number 4:17-CV-00765 giving
24
rise to an attorney-client relationship sufficient that JEFFREY NEUSTADT owed a duty of care to
25
EDWARD DORSANEO.
26
25. As a result of that attorney-client relationship, JEFFREY NEUSTADT had a legal
27
duty to use skill, prudence, competence and diligence as other members of the legal profession
28
-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 commonly possess and exercise.
2 26. JEFFREY NEUSTADT made several errors and omissions in his representation of
3 EDWARD DORSANEO in the above-referenced matter, including but not limited to conducting
4 himself in a manner to needless increase the amount of attorney’s fees incurred for the
5 representation; failing to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of the exposure for owing attorney’s fees
6 to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s legal counsel; failing to competently represent EDWARD DORSANEO’s
7 best interests; failing to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of his lack of experience in handling I-864
8 claims and litigation and in failing to adhere to the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
9 These errors, among others, resulted in a breach of the duty owed to EDWARD DORSANEO.
10 27. JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s breach of the duty owed to EDWARD DORSANEO
P.C.
11 resulted in financial harm to EDWARD DORSANEO and was the direct and approximate cause of
(707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100
KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES
420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404
12 EDWARD DORSANEO owing Tetyana Dorsaneo almost $200,000.00 in damages, which
13 approximately $150,000.00 of that amount were for her attorney’s fees.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 28. In addition, JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s breach of duty owed to EDWARD
15 DORSANEO resulted in continuing financial obligations to Tetyana Dorsaneo due to the failure to
16 file a viable Cross-Complaint for fraud related causes of action against Tetyana Dorsaneo and
17 establish a terminating event and offsets to monies owed Tetyana Dorsaneo.
Telephone
18 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ incompetence and professional
19 negligence, Plaintiff suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract
21
(Against JEFFREY NEUSTADT and DOES 1-10)
22 30. Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though
23 fully set forth at length and incorporate the same herein by reference.
24 31. On or about March 2017, JEFFREY NEUSTADT and EDWARD DORSANEO
25 entered into a legal contract in which EDWARD DORSANEO retained JEFFREY NEUSTADT to
26 provide certain legal services in connection with the Tetyana Dorsaneo Action in a competent
27 fashion.
28 32. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on his part in
-6-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
1 W. CHRISTIAN KRANKEMANN (SBN 220438) KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES P.C. 2 Attorneys At Law 420 E Street, Suite 100 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Santa Rosa, California 95404 F I L E D Telephone: (707) 524-2200 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Facsimile: (866) 858-0100 04/14/2020 5 Attorney for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court EDWARD DORSANEO BY: MADONNA CARANTO Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 P.C. 11 EDWARD DORSANEO CASE NO.: CGC-19-576246 (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 12 Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 vs. 1) Legal Malpractice ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 JEFFREY NEUSTADT, and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, 2) Breach of Contract 15 16 Defendants. Demand for Jury Trial 17 Telephone 18 INTRODUCTION 19 1. Plaintiff, EDWARD DORSANEO, is and at all times relevant herein was a resident 20 of Sonoma County, California. 21 2. Defendant, JEFFREY NEUSTADT, is believed to be a resident of the County of San 22 Francisco, State of California and an attorney licensed in the State of California, admitted to the bar 23 in 1973, and operating his law practice in the City of San Francisco. 24 3. Plaintiff alleges that DOES 1 through 10 at all relevant times were employees or 25 agents of Defendant and assisted Defendant in the wrongful conduct stated herein. Plaintiff 26 reserves the right to name those additional defendants upon learning of their identities and potential 27 legal responsibility for the matters herein alleged. 28 4. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the employer, -1- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 employee, agent, servant, principal or subsidiary of the other Defendants and at all times acted 2 within the scope of such employment or agency and with the knowledge and approval of the other 3 Defendants. 4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5 5. On or about February 16, 2017 – EDWARD DORSANEO’s ex-wife, Tetyana 6 Dorsaneo, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, 7 against Plaintiff alleging Breach of Contract of Form I-864 in violation of U.S.C. §1182(A)(4)(c). 8 6. In response to the Complaint, EDWARD DORSANEO met with attorney, JEFFREY 9 NEUSTADT, to determine if he would be experienced and qualified to be his legal counsel and to 10 represent Plaintiff in defense of the claims alleged in the Complaint filed by Tetyana Dorsaneo, P.C. 11 Case Number 4:17-CV-00765. JEFFREY NEUSTADT represented and warranted to EDWARD (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 12 DORSANEO that he has practiced law in the State of California for over 40 years and was 13 experienced in the areas of law raised in the Complaint brought by Tetyana Dorsaneo. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 7. In response to the representations and warranties made, that his best interests would 15 be represented, EDWARD DORSANEO retained JEFFREY NEUSTADT to be his legal counsel 16 and to represent Plaintiff in defense of the claims alleged in the Complaint filed by Tetyana 17 Dorsaneo, Case Number 4:17-CV-00765. Telephone 18 8. On or about April 11, 2017 – JEFFREY NEUSTADT filed an Answer on behalf of 19 EDWARD DORSANEO. The Answer contained three Affirmative Defenses, in essence alleging 20 fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement. JEFFREY NEUSTADT did not file any 21 Cross-Complaint based on fraud or abuse of process against Tetyana Dorsaneo, which pursuant to 22 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was required to be done at the time that the Answer was filed. 23 9. In addition to the failure to file any compulsory Cross-Complaints, JEFFREY 24 NEUSTADT failed to advise EDWARD DORSANEO that the prevailing party in a breach of 25 contract of Form I-864 case in violation of U.S.C. §1182(A)(4)(c) is entitled to an award of 26 attorney’s fees and costs. 27 10. Pursuant to the standing order applicable in the case in the District Court, all 28 dispositive motions should have been filed no later than the deadlines specified in Civil L.R. 73- -2- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1(a)(1) and (2). As a result, no dispositive motions were to be filed after May 17, 2017. 2 11. On or about November 14, 2017 – JEFFREY NEUSTADT, on behalf of EDWARD 3 DORSANEO, filed a Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Join Required Parties. In essence, 4 JEFFREY NEUSTADT argued that since Tetyana Dorsaneo filed a complaint for breach of 5 contract alleging that she is a beneficiary “sponsored immigrant” of an I-864 contract executed 6 between EDWARD DORSANEO and the United States of America, that the United State of 7 America was a necessary party to the action. 8 12. On or about December 22, 2017 – the Court issued and filed its Order denying 9 EDWARD DORSANEO’s Motion to Dismiss, Denying Sanctions and Setting Summary Judgment 10 Schedule. In paragraph #1 on page 1 of the Order filed on December 22, 2017 – The Court states P.C. 11 that… (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 “[i]t also bears noting that Edward failed to file his motion before the deadline 12 for dispositive motions. The Court could sanction Edward and his counsel for failing to meet this deadline, particularly since Edward’s counsel has already been 13 warned that he must do a better job of following the rules. However, because it is three days before Christmas, the Court will simply give one more warning: Edward ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 and his counsel will be sanctioned if they do not follow the rules, including this Court’s standing orders, going forward.” 15 16 13. On or about February 24, 2018 – The Court granted Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for 17 Summary Judgment. The Court had previously found EDWARD DORSANEO liable for damages Telephone 18 to Tetyana under the Form I-864 contract and left discovery open as to the amount of financial 19 assistance he owed. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Tetyana presented evidence that 20 EDWARD DORSANEO owed her $49,775.81. Attorney JEFFREY NEUSTADT did not present 21 any evidence on EDWARD DORSANEO’s behalf disputing the amount or establishing any 22 terminating events or any offsets to the amounts owed to Tetyana. 23 14. Also on or about February 24, 2018 – The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as 24 to why EDWARD DORSANEO and JEFFREY NEUSTADT should not be sanctioned for 25 threatening criminal prosecution in the course of civil proceedings. Specifically, JEFFREY 26 NEUSTADT including in the opposition to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for Summary Judgment 27 that she (1) violated federal immigration law, (2) violated criminal law and (3) argued that she 28 “should be referred by the Court to law enforcement for investigation”. In addition, at the direction -3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and recommendation from JEFFREY NEUSTADT, Plaintiff filed a declaration in opposition to 2 Tetyana Dorsaneo’s Motion for Summary Judgment that he would provide the results of his private 3 investigation to law enforcement. 4 15. The Court stated that this threat was in direct violation of California Rule of 5 Professional Conduct 5-100 which prohibits members of the California bar from threatening to 6 present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute. The Court also stated that this 7 conduct may have constituted criminal extortion under California Penal Code §508, 519 and 523. In 8 addition, the Court stated that JEFFREY NEUSTADT was ordered to show cause why he should 9 not be: (i) referred to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct under Civil Local 10 Rule 11-6 and/or (ii) referred to the State Bar of California for this behavior. P.C. 11 16. On or about April 4, 2018 – The Court issued its ruling on the Order to Show Cause. (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 12 The Court found that JEFFREY NEUSTADT engaged in at least two kinds of serious misconduct 13 in this case. First, the Court found that JEFFREY NEUSTADT violated California Rule of ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 Professional Conduct 5-100 which forbids lawyers from threatening to present criminal charges to 15 obtain an advantage in a civil suit. The Court stated that it advised JEFFREY NEUSTADT to 16 withdraw the assertions that Tetyana violated federal immigration and criminal law. Instead, 17 JEFFREY NEUSTADT in his response to the Order to Show Cause reaffirmed them, declaring to Telephone 18 the Court that he presented the allegations to law enforcement. 19 17. The Court stated in its April 4, 2018 findings that JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s 20 allegations were not only inappropriate, but also non-responsive to the motion being briefed as they 21 were raised to argue liability when the Court had already ruled on the issue. The Court concluding 22 by stating that JEFFREY NEUSTADT violated Rule 11 at least twice: first in the moving papers – 23 by advancing arguments in bad faith and for an improper purpose; and second when pressing the 24 argument in bad faith despite being on notice how frivolous it was. 25 18. Throughout the litigation brought by Tetyana Dorsaneo, JEFFREY NEUSTADT 26 failed to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of the exposure to attorney’s fees that would be awarded 27 to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s counsel. All the while, JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s handling of the matter 28 resulted in needlessly increased attorney’s fees owed to JEFFREY NEUSTADT as well as -4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 increased attorney’s fees owed to the attorneys represented Tetyana Dorsaneo. 2 19. The trial court sanctioned JEFFREY NEUSTADT for violations of Rule 11 and 3 referred the matter to the California State Bar for consideration of whether JEFFREY NEUSTADT 4 violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 5 20. The trial court’s ruling and the California State Bar association referral were 6 appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 7 21. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision and denied the appeals. It 8 recognized that the defenses raised by JEFFREY NEUSTADT were not defenses provide by 9 applicable statutes, regulations or the I-864 contract. The Court recognized JEFFREY 10 NEUSTADT conducted no discovery on Tetyana’s income and failed to respond to discovery P.C. 11 requests. Further, it reiterated that JEFFREY NEUSTADT “did not, in fact, present evidence or (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 12 argument on the issues then at hand and also submitted irrelevant and scandalous information about 13 Tetyana.” ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 22. The Court refused to overturn the sanction entered against JEFFREY NEUSTADT 15 that was appealed by JEFFERY NEUSTADT as the Ninth Circuit of Appeals agreed that the 16 evidence JEFFREY NEUSTADT submitted to the trial court was used for an improper purpose. 17 Telephone FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Legal Malpractice 19 (Against JEFFREY NEUSTADT and DOES 1-10) 20 23. Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though 21 fully set forth at length and incorporate the same herein by reference. 22 24. JEFFREY NEUSTADT and EDWARD DORSANEO entered into an agreement in 23 connection with the Complaint filed by Tetyana Dorsaneo, Case Number 4:17-CV-00765 giving 24 rise to an attorney-client relationship sufficient that JEFFREY NEUSTADT owed a duty of care to 25 EDWARD DORSANEO. 26 25. As a result of that attorney-client relationship, JEFFREY NEUSTADT had a legal 27 duty to use skill, prudence, competence and diligence as other members of the legal profession 28 -5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 commonly possess and exercise. 2 26. JEFFREY NEUSTADT made several errors and omissions in his representation of 3 EDWARD DORSANEO in the above-referenced matter, including but not limited to conducting 4 himself in a manner to needless increase the amount of attorney’s fees incurred for the 5 representation; failing to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of the exposure for owing attorney’s fees 6 to Tetyana Dorsaneo’s legal counsel; failing to competently represent EDWARD DORSANEO’s 7 best interests; failing to advise EDWARD DORSANEO of his lack of experience in handling I-864 8 claims and litigation and in failing to adhere to the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 9 These errors, among others, resulted in a breach of the duty owed to EDWARD DORSANEO. 10 27. JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s breach of the duty owed to EDWARD DORSANEO P.C. 11 resulted in financial harm to EDWARD DORSANEO and was the direct and approximate cause of (707) 524-2200 | Facsimile (866) 858-0100 KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES 420 E Street, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 12 EDWARD DORSANEO owing Tetyana Dorsaneo almost $200,000.00 in damages, which 13 approximately $150,000.00 of that amount were for her attorney’s fees. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 28. In addition, JEFFREY NEUSTADT’s breach of duty owed to EDWARD 15 DORSANEO resulted in continuing financial obligations to Tetyana Dorsaneo due to the failure to 16 file a viable Cross-Complaint for fraud related causes of action against Tetyana Dorsaneo and 17 establish a terminating event and offsets to monies owed Tetyana Dorsaneo. Telephone 18 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ incompetence and professional 19 negligence, Plaintiff suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract 21 (Against JEFFREY NEUSTADT and DOES 1-10) 22 30. Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though 23 fully set forth at length and incorporate the same herein by reference. 24 31. On or about March 2017, JEFFREY NEUSTADT and EDWARD DORSANEO 25 entered into a legal contract in which EDWARD DORSANEO retained JEFFREY NEUSTADT to 26 provide certain legal services in connection with the Tetyana Dorsaneo Action in a competent 27 fashion. 28 32. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on his part in -6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES