Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDKRLAND i
McCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Streeh Suite 907
EIealdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
5
Attorneys for Defendanl.
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD
AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF
OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST
SIJED AS DOE 5
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual ) CASE NO, SCV-263456
12 )
Plaintiff, ) JAMES CARKY NORD AKA JIM NORD
13 ) AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF
) OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN
14 vs. ) TRUST'S PROPOSED ANSWER TO
) PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR, an AMENDED COMPLAINT
individual; SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, )
16 ~
)
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
i7 through 1 00, inclusive, )
)
Defendants )
)
19 )
20
COMES NOW Defendant JAMES CAREY NORD aka JIM NORD as an individual and
21
on behalf of the PARTRICK TRUST and MEIN TRUST sued as DOE 5 (hereinafter
22
"Defendant" ) by RICHARD ABEL on June 22, 202 I and answers the First Amended
Complaint on file as follows:
25
Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies
26
generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Richard Abel's First Amended
27
Complaint as far as said allegations refer to this answering Defendant. Defendant further
28
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OP THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S
PROPOSFD ANSWER To PLAINTIFF IUCIIARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
demes that Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum or sums alleged.,or in any other sum or sums,
2
or at all, by reason of any act, breach, or omission on the part of this ansviering Defendant.
3
AFFIRMATIVE DKFKiviSKS
As afBITnative defenses to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant alleges as
follows:
7 Failure to State Facts to Constitute a Cause of Action
8 l. As Defendant's first distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's pleading fails to state facts
10 Defendant under
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering CCP I'1
ll 430,10(e), including, but without limitation as follows:
12
(i) Richard Abel's First Amended Complaint is premised entirely upon speculation
13
as to both liability and damages where Richard Abel is the beneficiary of an April 2, 2014
li
filed judgment for $ 123,877.70, plus a share of $ 3,728,823.30 in punitive damages against
15
several individuals and entities, an October 6, 2016 filed judgment, a March 20, 2017 first
18
amended judgment and an August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against Robert
17
Zuckerman, plus a share of $ 6,000,000 in punitive damages and a share of attorney's fees and
18
costs. Plaintiff improperly claims he should have obtained more in an amount to be collected
19
on the judgments in the future where Plaintiff never retained Defendant to collect on the
20
judgments for him. Answering Defendant is not an attorney and has never been an attorney. In
short, Richard Abel has no damages since he is the beneficiary of two judgments and is a
creditor, and the cross-complaints against him were defensed. His claims are based on
2i speculation.
25 (ii) Judgment creditor, Robert Zuckerman, is in a Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy
that Richard Abel put him in as stated in a published opinion, In Re Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707
(9'" Cir. BAP 2020) where Richard Abel is mentioned in this published decision. Robert
Zuckerman obtained a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C section 727 on
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S
PROPOSFD ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN'I'
January 28, 2022 and a ceitified copy of such is filed in this action.
(iii) Richard Abel is haired by the following statutes of limitations as to his claims,
CCP ($ 340.6, 338, 343, other applicable statutes of limitation and case law under the holding
of Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 834 where Dale Davis and Jim Nord as well as other
5
judgment creditors in the Liebling action are mentioned in Richard Abel's November 2, 2018
filed complaint in this action. Richard Abel's claims of ignorance in his June 22, 2021 DOE 5
amendment is feigned.
(iv) Richard Abel obtained favorable judgments in Sonoma County Superior Couit
9
Case No. SCV-245738 where he was overcompensated by both judgments and did not suffer an
10
adverse judgment or a dismissal of his claims in this Sonoma County Superior Court action. In
ll
addition, Sunderland McCutchan, LLP successfully defensed Robert Zuckenuan's cross-
12
~
complaints against Richard Abel and his co-plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior Court Case
N SCV 245738
15 (v) Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is uncertain and indefinite as to his claims
against this answering Defendant where specific wrongful acts and damages are not alleged.
17 Plaintiff obtained several large judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-
is 245738 in the amounts of $ 14,545,001.00 and $ 15,235,096.00 where his claims were not
dismissed. Furthermore, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to general damages or
attorney's fees against this answering Defendant nor any defendant herein.
21 Plaintiff has no standing to complain of the $ 8,135.00 in monetary sanctions paid
(vi)
to Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP on April 10, 20'18 by Robert Zuckerman's counsel Nikki
23
Allen in open court as ordered by The Honorable Rene Chouteau. The $ 8,135 in paid sanctions
29
was allocated to Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP's clients in the Sonoma County Superior Court
25
action in subsequent written billings.
26
(vii) Richard Abel never retained Jim Nord nor Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP in this
27
action to collect on the judgments he received in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.
28
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF Ol'HF. PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S
PROPOSFD ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT
3
SCV-245738 where Richard Abel refused to sign a written fee agreement submitted to him for
any collection on the March 20, 2017 amended judgment..
(viii) Any dismissal of defendants in the Sonoma County action resulted from the
request of the the other plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738, or
5
their filed adversary complaint in Robert Zuckerman's bankruptcy, per the signed cooperation
agreement of all plaintiffs, where such tiled dismissals occurred before April 2, 2014 in Sonoma
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where dismissals dealt with those who filed
bankt71ptcy protection and had no liability in the action, or appeared to be fictional people.
9
(ix) Richard Abel has breached his cooperation agreement with the other plaintiffs and
10
his written fee agreement with defendants in bringing this action where Richard Abel obtained
11
duplicative favorable judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 per
12
I3
Exhibit "1" attached hereto
(x) Richard Abel was continuously updated in written emails and/or hard copy status
reports as to the status of SCV-245738. He never objected to matters until Sunderland
McCutchan, LLP began seeking that he pay his legal fees and costs under his dated and signed
17 written fee agreement with Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP commencing in 2017, where amongst
18 matters, the doctrine of quantum meruit applies. The Sonoma County Superior Court has
repeatedly approved the awarded attorneys'ees herein in filed orders and multiple judgments.
20 (xi) As to any issues of attorneys'ees claimed in Richard Abel's November 2, 2018
complaint, the Sonoma County Superior Court in a March 20, 2017 amended judgment against
22 2021 second amended judgment against Robert
Robert Zuckeiman, and in an August 4,
23
Zuckerman, awarded an additional $ 565,375.00 in attorneys'ees above the $ 414,650.00 in
24
26
attorneys'5
attorneys'ees
fees awarded
SCV-245738.
awarded
Richard
in the
Abel and
April
his
2, 2014 judgment for
co-plaintiffs in Sonoma
a total
County
of $ 980,025.00
Superior
in
Court Case No.
27
Richard Abel fabricated his claimed assignments in this matter per Exhibit "2"
(xii)
28
attached hereto by backdating the assignments as admitted in his response to Jacinda Duval's
'f RUST S
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT
4
first set of admissions on him attached as an exhibit to this answer. Richard Abel created dates
that are not notarized after former plaintiffs in the Lieblinv action wished to be dismissed and
3 wished
were dismissed with the court with filed documents where the last client who to be
dismissed as a plaintiff in the Liebling action was dismissed in early December 2013. On
5
September 14, 2012, Sunderland ~
McCutchan, I,LP sent Richard Abel one of their weekly
status letters on the L~ieblin action, attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and stating thaI. numerous
plaintiffs in the Liebliua action who wanted to be dismissed had been recently dismissed.
8
Richard Abel, as the liaison with Sunderland McCutchan, LLP, and the plaintiffs in the Lieblina
9
matter, never advised me that he had any assignments from former plaintiffs in the action given
1IJ
to him.
11
(xiii) On June 29, 2017, Richard Abel had a judgment lien concerning the March 20,
12
2017 amended judgment in the Lieblina action that he signed on June 26, 2017 bled with
13
California's Secretary of State where he claimed the entirety of the March 20, 2017 amended
judgment of $ 16,225,651,00 for himself to the other creditors'nd my detriment as stated
within Exhibit "4" attached hereto, demonstrating that he no longer deemed Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP representing him in the ~Lieblin action since the litigation scope of retention
18 had been concluded.
19 (xiv) Richard Abel's naming of me is in retaliation to the CCP section 473 motion and
an OSC re Contempt that I and judgment creditor Dale Davis authorized Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP to file where Richard Abel was ordered to draft a second amended judgment
22
'gainst Robert Zuckerman which he refused to do.
23
Plaintifps Own Neaiiuence and Assumption of the Risk
28
2. As Defendant's second distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
25
Amended Complaint herein, the negligence and fraud by Richard Abel as to his fabricated
26
claims.
27
///
28
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OP THE PARTIUCK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5
Acts of 3fhird Parties
2
3. As Defendant's third distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts thai. damages alleged in each cause of action
were exclusively caused or contributed to by negligence or other acts, concealment, or
5
omissions of other defendants, persons, or entities, whether parties to this action or not, and that
said negligence or other omissions were intervening actions breaking the chain of causation and
7
baning recovery by the Plaintiff. For example, exhibits to my November 12, 2021 declaration
6
in this matter reference thai, the Honorable Rene Choteau assisted in the drafting of the version
9
of the October 6, 2016 judgment that was filed in the Lieblina action with the Sonoma County
10
Superior Court Clerk.
12 As such, the claims against this answering Defendant were not the proximate cause of
Plaintiff's damages as alleged herein.
Statute of Limitations
15 4. As Defendant's fourth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Richard Abel's complaint is barred by CCP
17 law under
IJ) 338, 339, 340, 340.6, and/or 343, other applicable statutes of limitation and case
18
the holding of Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 834 where Dale Davis and Jim Nord as
19
well as other judgment creditors in the Lieblina action are mentioned in Richard Abel's
20
November 2, 2018 filed complaint in this action and his June 22, 2021 DOE 5 amendment of
21
me is feigned.
22
Failure to Mitiaate Damaues
23
5. As Defendant's fifth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that had Plaintiff taken reasonable steps toward
26 mitigating his damages and obtaining amended notarized assignments of the alleged former
clients he claims gave him assignments in the Lieblina action under the penalty of perjury as to
zs the date of the claimed assignments, the matter would be resolved as stated in a published
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIUCK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6
opinion, In Re Zuckeiman 613 B.R. 707 (9'6 Cir. BAP 2020) where Richard Abel is mentioned
in this published decision and the tribunal clearly states the issue of the claimed assignment is
3
between Richard Abel and the alleged assignors. Richard Abel has not filed a CCP section 473
motion per a May 6, 2021 filed order in the Liebling action.
7 6. As Defendant's sixth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint acts or omissions with reference to the subject matter of the amended
Complaint, consisting of, but not limited to, his own comparative negligence, wrongtul conduct,
fraud and breaches of the cooperation agreement and written fee agreement.
Comnarative Fault
12
7. As Defendant's seventh distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
13
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that at all times and places set foith in the
14
Complaint, certain parties, defendants and/or co-defendants, other than this answering
15
Defendant, named or unnamed herein, whether served or unserved, failed to exercise ordinary
16
care on his behalf, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion,
17
18
up to and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in
this action. The fault, if any, of this answering Defendant should be compared with the fault or
contributory negligence of other defendants, and damages, if any, should be apportioned among
the same in direct relation to each such defendant's comparative fault with the exception of the
22 intentional torts of the co-defendants.
23 This answering Defendant should be obligated to pay only such damages, if any, which
24 are directly attributable to their percentage of comparative fault. To require the answering
Defendant to pay any more than their percentage of comparative fault violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of California.
///
JAMES CARFY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDIJAL AND ON BEI IALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7
Absence of Liabili
8. As Defendant's eighth distinct and separate alTiimative defense to the First
3
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that any and all damages or injuries alleged by
Plaintiff were not and are not the result of acts or omissions by this answering Defendant
5
proximately causing said damages or injuries in that Plaintiff is the beneficiaiy of four
6
judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 entered April 2, 2014,
7
October 6, 2016, March 20, 2017, and August 4, 2021 where he was the prevailing party for
substantial sums of money on both judgments.
9
No FactuaVLegal Basis for Awarding Damages
10
9. As Defendant's ninth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
12 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that this answering Defendant at all times acted
in a proper, lawful, and legally peimitted fashion without malice or oppression. Richard Abel
has no damages as a matter of law in that Robert Zuckerman is in a Chapter 7 "no asset"
bankruptcy as stated in a published opinion, In Re Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9 Cir. BAP 2020)
where Richard Abel is mentioned in this published decision.
17
Supervening/Intervening Acts
18
10. As Defendant's tenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
19
Amended Complaint herein, the May 4, 2018 bankruptcy filing of Sudgment Debtor Robert
20
Zuckerman with respect to Plaintiff, constitutes a supervening and intervening factor with
21
respect to the Plaintiff's claims for damages against this answering Defendant in that Robert
22
Zuckeiman sought to discharge the March 20, 2017 amended judgment against him in the
23
Liebling Sonoma County action and Richard Abel is representing himself pro se in such
Chapter 7 "no assets" bankruptcy where Robert Zuckeiman has signed bankruptcy schedules
stating he has no assets.
27 Waiver, Estoppel, Fraud and Unclean Hands
Il. As Defendant's eleventh distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
JAMFS CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRIJST AND MEIN TRIJST'S
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABFL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPI.AINT
8
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is barred by the equitable doctrines
of waiver, estoppel, fraud, and unclean hands with respect to Plaintilps claims for damages
3
herein.
Specifically, Richard Abel failed to advise Defendant that he was seeking to obtain
assignments from client Defendants who had requested that they be dismissed from Sonoma
6
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 before they were dismissed in violation of his
7
duties to the Defendants in the Lieblina action as the liaison between Sunderland ~
McCutchan
LLP and the plaintiffs where Richard Abel's claimed assignments are backdated having
9
admitted in emails on March 29, 2014 and later,he had no assignments per Exhibit "2" hereto.
10
Additionally, as set forth in my November 12, 2021 filed declaration in this action, and
ll
referenced in the exhibits to it, Richard Abel, I and Nansi Weil received emails from
12
Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP with the proposed October 6, 2016 judgment against Robert
Zuckerman in the ~Lieblin action and the filed October 6, 2016 judgment. Richard Abel never
stated that his claimed assignments from former clients who dismissed as they requested were
not stated within the document.
17 Breach of Cooneration Aareemcnt
18 12. As Defendant's twelfth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Richard Abel breached his cooperation
20 Court Case No.
agreement with Defendants and the other Plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior
21 Defendants
SCV-245738 by obtaining assignments from the elderly Plaintiffs without telling
22 "1" hereto.
and the other remaining Plaintiffs in this action per Exhibit
23
Action Filed And Continued Without Factual Basis CCCP 8 128.7)
24
13. As Defendant's thirteenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
25
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that said action is without factual and legal basis
26
in that Plaintiff's action was filed to preclude monies for legal services he owes Defendants
29 where monetary sanctions under CCP ) 128.7 are warranted.
TRUST*S
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDIJAL AND ON BEHALf OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
9
Riaht to Amend Answer
Pk As Defendant's fouiteenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First
3
Amended Complaint herein, Defendant reserves his right to amend his answer to the amended
complaint to assert defenses as they become wananted through discovery,
5
15. As Defendant's fifteenth distinct and separate affnmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint herein, upon information and belief, Plaintiff received money or will
receive money regarding his claims in this action in the Rober Zuckerman filed bankruptcy.
10 Therefore, this answering Defendant is entitled to offset as to such monies of Plaintiff's claims
against this answering Defendant.
12 Fraud
13 16. As Defendant's sixteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff himself is guilty of fraud, thereby
extinguishing Defendant's obligations, if any, as set forth in Exhibit "2" attached hereto.
16 Estoppel
17
17. As Defendant's seventeenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
16
Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has waived and/or is estopped from
19
proceeding in this action by law, action, and/or conduct.
20
Laches
21
18. As Defendant's eighteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
22
Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by
23
the equitable doctrine of laches.
Unclean Hands
25
19. As Defendant's nineteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands due to his
29 fraudulent pleadings and allegations and his claimed summons served on Jim Nord is void in
JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF TIIE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S
PROPOSED ANSVJER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL *S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
that no amended summons was issued per CCP section 464 (c) tor the first amended complaint.
Waiver
3
20. As Defendant's twentieth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint, this answering Defendani. allcges that the claims asserted in Plaintiff's
5
Complaint are ban ed by the doctrine of waiver.
Civil Cod~e47
7
21. As Defendant's twenty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
8
Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred
9
pursuant to the privileges contained in Civil Code I'l47.
10
Civil Code ti954.5
11
22. As Defendant's twenty-second separate and distinct affirmative defense to the
12
First Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to comply with
Civil Code section 954.5.
15 Civil Code tl954.5
23. As Defendant's twenty-third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First
Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to seek amendment
18 of the judgment against Robert Zuckerman to include him as the assignee of the judgment
debtors based on his claimed assignments.
Civil Code ti954.5
21 24. As Defendant's twenty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the
22 answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to name
First Amended Complaint, this
23
indispensable parties to this action including but not limited to Henry Crigler and his spouse as
24
well as Ken Bowerman and his spouse as well as all of the claimed assignors to him in his
25
assignments that are not notarized.
26
UNKNOWN DEFENSES
27
Defendant cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable to this
28
action based upon the conclusory terms used in the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly,
JAMES CABBY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL*S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11
Defendant expressly resetves the right to assert additional defenses if and to the extent that such
affirmative defenses become applicable.
3
WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiff as follows:
5
l. That Plaintiff take nolhing by way of his First Amended Complaint;
For all costs of suit herein;
For reasonable attorney's fees; and,
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Date: June~+, 2022
12
Ed
13 Att aka
Jim he
Partrick Trust and Mein Trust SUED AS DOE 5
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
*S
JAMES CARF Y NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST
PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICI-IARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
12
EXHIBIT "1"
COOPERATION, VOTING RIGHTS ANII RECOVERY S~NG
AGREEMENT
This AGREEiiBNT (" AGREEMENT" ) is entered into by and between Hyam Liebling, et ab (others
specifically identified below) (collectively "CLIENTS" ) and
1, CONDITIONS AND TERMS
This AGREEMENT confirms, in writing, the duties owed to and between each individual CLIENTS snd
the CLIENTS as a whole, as well as the sharing of funds obtained through the litigation efforts be it the
result of verdict, settlement negohations or alternative dispute resolution.
2. SCOPE OF DUTIES
CLIENTS have a duty to cooperate with Sunderland~McCutchan, LLP (" ATTORNEY" ), snd with each
other, to achieve the collective purposes of the litigation known asSCV-, entitled Lieblins, et. al v,
Chsrlene Goodrich et al.,filed in the Sonoma County Superior Court and any other legal or settlement
proceedings arising therefrom. CLIENTS have a duty of good faith and fairdealing in their actions with
ATTORNEY, and each other, so as not to act in any way which would hinder or frustrate the purposes
of the above-entitled litigation.
CLIENTS are strongly advis
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDKRLAND i McCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Streeh Suite 907 EIealdsburg, California 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 5 Attorneys for Defendanl. JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST SIJED AS DOE 5 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual ) CASE NO, SCV-263456 12 ) Plaintiff, ) JAMES CARKY NORD AKA JIM NORD 13 ) AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF ) OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN 14 vs. ) TRUST'S PROPOSED ANSWER TO ) PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR, an AMENDED COMPLAINT individual; SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, ) 16 ~ ) LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 i7 through 1 00, inclusive, ) ) Defendants ) ) 19 ) 20 COMES NOW Defendant JAMES CAREY NORD aka JIM NORD as an individual and 21 on behalf of the PARTRICK TRUST and MEIN TRUST sued as DOE 5 (hereinafter 22 "Defendant" ) by RICHARD ABEL on June 22, 202 I and answers the First Amended Complaint on file as follows: 25 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies 26 generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Richard Abel's First Amended 27 Complaint as far as said allegations refer to this answering Defendant. Defendant further 28 JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OP THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S PROPOSFD ANSWER To PLAINTIFF IUCIIARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 demes that Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum or sums alleged.,or in any other sum or sums, 2 or at all, by reason of any act, breach, or omission on the part of this ansviering Defendant. 3 AFFIRMATIVE DKFKiviSKS As afBITnative defenses to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant alleges as follows: 7 Failure to State Facts to Constitute a Cause of Action 8 l. As Defendant's first distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's pleading fails to state facts 10 Defendant under sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering CCP I'1 ll 430,10(e), including, but without limitation as follows: 12 (i) Richard Abel's First Amended Complaint is premised entirely upon speculation 13 as to both liability and damages where Richard Abel is the beneficiary of an April 2, 2014 li filed judgment for $ 123,877.70, plus a share of $ 3,728,823.30 in punitive damages against 15 several individuals and entities, an October 6, 2016 filed judgment, a March 20, 2017 first 18 amended judgment and an August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against Robert 17 Zuckerman, plus a share of $ 6,000,000 in punitive damages and a share of attorney's fees and 18 costs. Plaintiff improperly claims he should have obtained more in an amount to be collected 19 on the judgments in the future where Plaintiff never retained Defendant to collect on the 20 judgments for him. Answering Defendant is not an attorney and has never been an attorney. In short, Richard Abel has no damages since he is the beneficiary of two judgments and is a creditor, and the cross-complaints against him were defensed. His claims are based on 2i speculation. 25 (ii) Judgment creditor, Robert Zuckerman, is in a Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy that Richard Abel put him in as stated in a published opinion, In Re Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9'" Cir. BAP 2020) where Richard Abel is mentioned in this published decision. Robert Zuckerman obtained a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C section 727 on JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S PROPOSFD ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN'I' January 28, 2022 and a ceitified copy of such is filed in this action. (iii) Richard Abel is haired by the following statutes of limitations as to his claims, CCP ($ 340.6, 338, 343, other applicable statutes of limitation and case law under the holding of Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 834 where Dale Davis and Jim Nord as well as other 5 judgment creditors in the Liebling action are mentioned in Richard Abel's November 2, 2018 filed complaint in this action. Richard Abel's claims of ignorance in his June 22, 2021 DOE 5 amendment is feigned. (iv) Richard Abel obtained favorable judgments in Sonoma County Superior Couit 9 Case No. SCV-245738 where he was overcompensated by both judgments and did not suffer an 10 adverse judgment or a dismissal of his claims in this Sonoma County Superior Court action. In ll addition, Sunderland McCutchan, LLP successfully defensed Robert Zuckenuan's cross- 12 ~ complaints against Richard Abel and his co-plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior Court Case N SCV 245738 15 (v) Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is uncertain and indefinite as to his claims against this answering Defendant where specific wrongful acts and damages are not alleged. 17 Plaintiff obtained several large judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV- is 245738 in the amounts of $ 14,545,001.00 and $ 15,235,096.00 where his claims were not dismissed. Furthermore, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to general damages or attorney's fees against this answering Defendant nor any defendant herein. 21 Plaintiff has no standing to complain of the $ 8,135.00 in monetary sanctions paid (vi) to Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP on April 10, 20'18 by Robert Zuckerman's counsel Nikki 23 Allen in open court as ordered by The Honorable Rene Chouteau. The $ 8,135 in paid sanctions 29 was allocated to Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP's clients in the Sonoma County Superior Court 25 action in subsequent written billings. 26 (vii) Richard Abel never retained Jim Nord nor Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP in this 27 action to collect on the judgments he received in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 28 JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF Ol'HF. PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S PROPOSFD ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT 3 SCV-245738 where Richard Abel refused to sign a written fee agreement submitted to him for any collection on the March 20, 2017 amended judgment.. (viii) Any dismissal of defendants in the Sonoma County action resulted from the request of the the other plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738, or 5 their filed adversary complaint in Robert Zuckerman's bankruptcy, per the signed cooperation agreement of all plaintiffs, where such tiled dismissals occurred before April 2, 2014 in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where dismissals dealt with those who filed bankt71ptcy protection and had no liability in the action, or appeared to be fictional people. 9 (ix) Richard Abel has breached his cooperation agreement with the other plaintiffs and 10 his written fee agreement with defendants in bringing this action where Richard Abel obtained 11 duplicative favorable judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 per 12 I3 Exhibit "1" attached hereto (x) Richard Abel was continuously updated in written emails and/or hard copy status reports as to the status of SCV-245738. He never objected to matters until Sunderland McCutchan, LLP began seeking that he pay his legal fees and costs under his dated and signed 17 written fee agreement with Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP commencing in 2017, where amongst 18 matters, the doctrine of quantum meruit applies. The Sonoma County Superior Court has repeatedly approved the awarded attorneys'ees herein in filed orders and multiple judgments. 20 (xi) As to any issues of attorneys'ees claimed in Richard Abel's November 2, 2018 complaint, the Sonoma County Superior Court in a March 20, 2017 amended judgment against 22 2021 second amended judgment against Robert Robert Zuckeiman, and in an August 4, 23 Zuckerman, awarded an additional $ 565,375.00 in attorneys'ees above the $ 414,650.00 in 24 26 attorneys'5 attorneys'ees fees awarded SCV-245738. awarded Richard in the Abel and April his 2, 2014 judgment for co-plaintiffs in Sonoma a total County of $ 980,025.00 Superior in Court Case No. 27 Richard Abel fabricated his claimed assignments in this matter per Exhibit "2" (xii) 28 attached hereto by backdating the assignments as admitted in his response to Jacinda Duval's 'f RUST S JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT 4 first set of admissions on him attached as an exhibit to this answer. Richard Abel created dates that are not notarized after former plaintiffs in the Lieblinv action wished to be dismissed and 3 wished were dismissed with the court with filed documents where the last client who to be dismissed as a plaintiff in the Liebling action was dismissed in early December 2013. On 5 September 14, 2012, Sunderland ~ McCutchan, I,LP sent Richard Abel one of their weekly status letters on the L~ieblin action, attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and stating thaI. numerous plaintiffs in the Liebliua action who wanted to be dismissed had been recently dismissed. 8 Richard Abel, as the liaison with Sunderland McCutchan, LLP, and the plaintiffs in the Lieblina 9 matter, never advised me that he had any assignments from former plaintiffs in the action given 1IJ to him. 11 (xiii) On June 29, 2017, Richard Abel had a judgment lien concerning the March 20, 12 2017 amended judgment in the Lieblina action that he signed on June 26, 2017 bled with 13 California's Secretary of State where he claimed the entirety of the March 20, 2017 amended judgment of $ 16,225,651,00 for himself to the other creditors'nd my detriment as stated within Exhibit "4" attached hereto, demonstrating that he no longer deemed Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP representing him in the ~Lieblin action since the litigation scope of retention 18 had been concluded. 19 (xiv) Richard Abel's naming of me is in retaliation to the CCP section 473 motion and an OSC re Contempt that I and judgment creditor Dale Davis authorized Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP to file where Richard Abel was ordered to draft a second amended judgment 22 'gainst Robert Zuckerman which he refused to do. 23 Plaintifps Own Neaiiuence and Assumption of the Risk 28 2. As Defendant's second distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 25 Amended Complaint herein, the negligence and fraud by Richard Abel as to his fabricated 26 claims. 27 /// 28 JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OP THE PARTIUCK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 Acts of 3fhird Parties 2 3. As Defendant's third distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts thai. damages alleged in each cause of action were exclusively caused or contributed to by negligence or other acts, concealment, or 5 omissions of other defendants, persons, or entities, whether parties to this action or not, and that said negligence or other omissions were intervening actions breaking the chain of causation and 7 baning recovery by the Plaintiff. For example, exhibits to my November 12, 2021 declaration 6 in this matter reference thai, the Honorable Rene Choteau assisted in the drafting of the version 9 of the October 6, 2016 judgment that was filed in the Lieblina action with the Sonoma County 10 Superior Court Clerk. 12 As such, the claims against this answering Defendant were not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages as alleged herein. Statute of Limitations 15 4. As Defendant's fourth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Richard Abel's complaint is barred by CCP 17 law under IJ) 338, 339, 340, 340.6, and/or 343, other applicable statutes of limitation and case 18 the holding of Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 834 where Dale Davis and Jim Nord as 19 well as other judgment creditors in the Lieblina action are mentioned in Richard Abel's 20 November 2, 2018 filed complaint in this action and his June 22, 2021 DOE 5 amendment of 21 me is feigned. 22 Failure to Mitiaate Damaues 23 5. As Defendant's fifth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that had Plaintiff taken reasonable steps toward 26 mitigating his damages and obtaining amended notarized assignments of the alleged former clients he claims gave him assignments in the Lieblina action under the penalty of perjury as to zs the date of the claimed assignments, the matter would be resolved as stated in a published JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIUCK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 opinion, In Re Zuckeiman 613 B.R. 707 (9'6 Cir. BAP 2020) where Richard Abel is mentioned in this published decision and the tribunal clearly states the issue of the claimed assignment is 3 between Richard Abel and the alleged assignors. Richard Abel has not filed a CCP section 473 motion per a May 6, 2021 filed order in the Liebling action. 7 6. As Defendant's sixth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint acts or omissions with reference to the subject matter of the amended Complaint, consisting of, but not limited to, his own comparative negligence, wrongtul conduct, fraud and breaches of the cooperation agreement and written fee agreement. Comnarative Fault 12 7. As Defendant's seventh distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 13 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that at all times and places set foith in the 14 Complaint, certain parties, defendants and/or co-defendants, other than this answering 15 Defendant, named or unnamed herein, whether served or unserved, failed to exercise ordinary 16 care on his behalf, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, 17 18 up to and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in this action. The fault, if any, of this answering Defendant should be compared with the fault or contributory negligence of other defendants, and damages, if any, should be apportioned among the same in direct relation to each such defendant's comparative fault with the exception of the 22 intentional torts of the co-defendants. 23 This answering Defendant should be obligated to pay only such damages, if any, which 24 are directly attributable to their percentage of comparative fault. To require the answering Defendant to pay any more than their percentage of comparative fault violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. /// JAMES CARFY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDIJAL AND ON BEI IALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 Absence of Liabili 8. As Defendant's eighth distinct and separate alTiimative defense to the First 3 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that any and all damages or injuries alleged by Plaintiff were not and are not the result of acts or omissions by this answering Defendant 5 proximately causing said damages or injuries in that Plaintiff is the beneficiaiy of four 6 judgments in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 entered April 2, 2014, 7 October 6, 2016, March 20, 2017, and August 4, 2021 where he was the prevailing party for substantial sums of money on both judgments. 9 No FactuaVLegal Basis for Awarding Damages 10 9. As Defendant's ninth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 12 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that this answering Defendant at all times acted in a proper, lawful, and legally peimitted fashion without malice or oppression. Richard Abel has no damages as a matter of law in that Robert Zuckerman is in a Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy as stated in a published opinion, In Re Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9 Cir. BAP 2020) where Richard Abel is mentioned in this published decision. 17 Supervening/Intervening Acts 18 10. As Defendant's tenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 19 Amended Complaint herein, the May 4, 2018 bankruptcy filing of Sudgment Debtor Robert 20 Zuckerman with respect to Plaintiff, constitutes a supervening and intervening factor with 21 respect to the Plaintiff's claims for damages against this answering Defendant in that Robert 22 Zuckeiman sought to discharge the March 20, 2017 amended judgment against him in the 23 Liebling Sonoma County action and Richard Abel is representing himself pro se in such Chapter 7 "no assets" bankruptcy where Robert Zuckeiman has signed bankruptcy schedules stating he has no assets. 27 Waiver, Estoppel, Fraud and Unclean Hands Il. As Defendant's eleventh distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First JAMFS CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRIJST AND MEIN TRIJST'S PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABFL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPI.AINT 8 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, fraud, and unclean hands with respect to Plaintilps claims for damages 3 herein. Specifically, Richard Abel failed to advise Defendant that he was seeking to obtain assignments from client Defendants who had requested that they be dismissed from Sonoma 6 County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 before they were dismissed in violation of his 7 duties to the Defendants in the Lieblina action as the liaison between Sunderland ~ McCutchan LLP and the plaintiffs where Richard Abel's claimed assignments are backdated having 9 admitted in emails on March 29, 2014 and later,he had no assignments per Exhibit "2" hereto. 10 Additionally, as set forth in my November 12, 2021 filed declaration in this action, and ll referenced in the exhibits to it, Richard Abel, I and Nansi Weil received emails from 12 Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP with the proposed October 6, 2016 judgment against Robert Zuckerman in the ~Lieblin action and the filed October 6, 2016 judgment. Richard Abel never stated that his claimed assignments from former clients who dismissed as they requested were not stated within the document. 17 Breach of Cooneration Aareemcnt 18 12. As Defendant's twelfth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that Richard Abel breached his cooperation 20 Court Case No. agreement with Defendants and the other Plaintiffs in Sonoma County Superior 21 Defendants SCV-245738 by obtaining assignments from the elderly Plaintiffs without telling 22 "1" hereto. and the other remaining Plaintiffs in this action per Exhibit 23 Action Filed And Continued Without Factual Basis CCCP 8 128.7) 24 13. As Defendant's thirteenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 25 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant asserts that said action is without factual and legal basis 26 in that Plaintiff's action was filed to preclude monies for legal services he owes Defendants 29 where monetary sanctions under CCP ) 128.7 are warranted. TRUST*S JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDIJAL AND ON BEHALf OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 Riaht to Amend Answer Pk As Defendant's fouiteenth distinct and separate affirmative defense to the First 3 Amended Complaint herein, Defendant reserves his right to amend his answer to the amended complaint to assert defenses as they become wananted through discovery, 5 15. As Defendant's fifteenth distinct and separate affnmative defense to the First Amended Complaint herein, upon information and belief, Plaintiff received money or will receive money regarding his claims in this action in the Rober Zuckerman filed bankruptcy. 10 Therefore, this answering Defendant is entitled to offset as to such monies of Plaintiff's claims against this answering Defendant. 12 Fraud 13 16. As Defendant's sixteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff himself is guilty of fraud, thereby extinguishing Defendant's obligations, if any, as set forth in Exhibit "2" attached hereto. 16 Estoppel 17 17. As Defendant's seventeenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First 16 Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has waived and/or is estopped from 19 proceeding in this action by law, action, and/or conduct. 20 Laches 21 18. As Defendant's eighteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First 22 Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by 23 the equitable doctrine of laches. Unclean Hands 25 19. As Defendant's nineteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands due to his 29 fraudulent pleadings and allegations and his claimed summons served on Jim Nord is void in JAMES CAREY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF TIIE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST'S PROPOSED ANSVJER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL *S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 that no amended summons was issued per CCP section 464 (c) tor the first amended complaint. Waiver 3 20. As Defendant's twentieth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint, this answering Defendani. allcges that the claims asserted in Plaintiff's 5 Complaint are ban ed by the doctrine of waiver. Civil Cod~e47 7 21. As Defendant's twenty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First 8 Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred 9 pursuant to the privileges contained in Civil Code I'l47. 10 Civil Code ti954.5 11 22. As Defendant's twenty-second separate and distinct affirmative defense to the 12 First Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to comply with Civil Code section 954.5. 15 Civil Code tl954.5 23. As Defendant's twenty-third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the First Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to seek amendment 18 of the judgment against Robert Zuckerman to include him as the assignee of the judgment debtors based on his claimed assignments. Civil Code ti954.5 21 24. As Defendant's twenty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the 22 answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to name First Amended Complaint, this 23 indispensable parties to this action including but not limited to Henry Crigler and his spouse as 24 well as Ken Bowerman and his spouse as well as all of the claimed assignors to him in his 25 assignments that are not notarized. 26 UNKNOWN DEFENSES 27 Defendant cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable to this 28 action based upon the conclusory terms used in the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, JAMES CABBY NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST*S PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL*S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 Defendant expressly resetves the right to assert additional defenses if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses become applicable. 3 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 5 l. That Plaintiff take nolhing by way of his First Amended Complaint; For all costs of suit herein; For reasonable attorney's fees; and, For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Date: June~+, 2022 12 Ed 13 Att aka Jim he Partrick Trust and Mein Trust SUED AS DOE 5 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 *S JAMES CARF Y NORD AKA JIM NORD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTRICK TRUST AND MEIN TRUST PROPOSED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF RICI-IARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 EXHIBIT "1" COOPERATION, VOTING RIGHTS ANII RECOVERY S~NG AGREEMENT This AGREEiiBNT (" AGREEMENT" ) is entered into by and between Hyam Liebling, et ab (others specifically identified below) (collectively "CLIENTS" ) and 1, CONDITIONS AND TERMS This AGREEMENT confirms, in writing, the duties owed to and between each individual CLIENTS snd the CLIENTS as a whole, as well as the sharing of funds obtained through the litigation efforts be it the result of verdict, settlement negohations or alternative dispute resolution. 2. SCOPE OF DUTIES CLIENTS have a duty to cooperate with Sunderland~McCutchan, LLP (" ATTORNEY" ), snd with each other, to achieve the collective purposes of the litigation known asSCV-, entitled Lieblins, et. al v, Chsrlene Goodrich et al.,filed in the Sonoma County Superior Court and any other legal or settlement proceedings arising therefrom. CLIENTS have a duty of good faith and fairdealing in their actions with ATTORNEY, and each other, so as not to act in any way which would hinder or frustrate the purposes of the above-entitled litigation. CLIENTS are strongly advis