Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDKRLAND i
McCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907
3 Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8
LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11
s MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual, ) CASE NO. SCV-263456
)
13 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Plaintiff,
IN SUPPORT OF DOK
DEFENDANTS'OTION
vs. FOR JUDGMENT ON THK
15 PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED
individual; SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, ) COMPLAINT (Evid. Code tt 450 et seq.)
~
)
17 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES I
) Continued Hearing Date: September 12, 2022
through 100, inclusive, )
18 )
Time: I:30 p.m.
Defendants. ) Courtroom: 13
19 )
) Assigned For All Purposes to the
20 Honorable Christooher Honiasbera
21
Defendants, Bill Hing sued as Doe 8, Lenora Fung sued as Doe 9, Justin Poeng sued as
22
Doe 11 and Matthew Zdanek sued as Doe 16 pursuant to California Evidence Code tj450 et seq.,
23
and the holding of Traders Snorts. Inc. v. Citv of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4'" 37,
24
requests that this court take judicial notice of the following documents with respect to this
motion to dismiss Plaintiff, RICHARD ABEL'S First Amended Complaint in this action:
27
1. California State Bar printout of Lenora Fung dated June 27, 2022 stating that she is
28
not a California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A."
REQUEST POR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code I 450 ci scq3
1
Relevance: She is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. Plaintifps
2
first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are
3
clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Lenora Fung and
demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintiffs claims
6 against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted.
2. California State Bar printout of Bill Hing dated June 27, 2022 stating that he is not a
8
California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A."
9
Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. Plaintiff s
10
first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are
clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Bill Hing and demonstrates
13
that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifPS claims against a law firm
14
and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted.
15
16
3. California State Bar print out of Matthew Zdanek dated June 27, 2022 stating that he
17 is not a California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A."
18 Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. PlaintifPs
19
first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are
20
clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Mathew Zdanek and
21
demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifPS claims
23 against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted.
4. California State Bar printout of Justin Poeng dated June 27, 2022 stating that he is not
25
a California licensed attorney. Plaintiff's first and second causes of action for legal malpractice
26
and breach of a fiduciaiy duty are clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by
27
Justin Poeng and demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintiff s
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (EvId. Code 0 450 ei seqd
2
claims against a law firm and attorneys only attached as Exhibit "A."
2
Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. PlaintifPs
3
first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are
4
clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Justin Poeng and
6 demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifps claims
against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted.
8
5. The court's denial of plaintiff's December 15, 2021 motion to disqualify Sunderland ~
9
MCCutchan, LLP from representing Dale Davis in this action.
10
Relevance: Despite plaintifPs claims that the sixth, seventh and eighth causes of his
12 First Amended Complaint in this action for unjust enrichment, accounting, and injunctive
13
relief apply to the DOE defendants named on December 9, 2021, these causes of action per
14
the allegations within are based upon a plead attorney client relationship. Plaintifps eighth
15
cause of his First Amended Complaint is subject to demurrer.
16
17 6. The May 6, 2021 filed order after hearing in Lieblina v. Goodrich, et. al., Sonoma
County Superior Couit Case No. SCV-24573B is attached as Exhibit "B."
19
Relevance: Richard Abel was instructed to file a CCP section 473 motion to prove
20
that he had his claimed assignments from former plaintiffs who requested to be dismissed
21
and were before they were dismissed. His failure to file such a motion with proof that his
23 claimed assignments from former plaintiffs who requested to be dismissed and who were
dismissed demonstrates that Richard Abel backdated his claimed assignments and that
25
these assignments most likely were not signed by former plaintiffs in Lieblina v. Goodrich.
26
et. al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738.
27
28 7. The August 31, 2021 notice of Second Amended Judgment against Robert
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OP DOE DEPENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code 4 450 el seq3
3
Zuckerman, and the August 4, 2021 second amended judgement against Robert Zuckerman in
2
Lieblinu v. Goodrich, et.al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738, is attached
3
as Exhibit "C."
Relevance: Plaintifps entire First Amended Complaint is subject to demurrer
because it is based in part on the October 6, 2016 judgment and the March 20, 2017
amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al, Sonoma
8
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. Plaintifps allegations in his First Amended
9
Complaint have been resolved and superseded by the August 4, 2021 second amended
10
complaint against Robert Zuckerman where this judgment states plaintiff is representing
12 himself in propria persona.
13
Plaintiff has no damages in this action because Robert Zuckerman is insolvent and
14
has no assets to collect upon under California law. See also plaintifps admission of such in
15
par. 51 of his First Amended Complaint in this action where plaintiff is competing against
16
many of his former co-plaintiffs in Lieblina v. Goodrich. et. BL, Sonoma County Superior
Court Case No. SCV-245738 to collect against a discharged debtor in bankruptcy, Robert
19
Zuckerman. (See Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2021) 99 Cak App. 4ro 563).
20
8. The April 26, 2022 filed notice of certified copy of the United States Bankruptcy
21
Court's Chapter 7 discharge of Robert Zuckerman under 11 U.S.C. section 727.
23 Relevance: Plaintiff has no damages in this action because Robert Zuckerman is
insolvent and has no assets to collect upon under California law. See also plaintifps
25
admission of such in par. 51 of his First Amended Complaint in this action. (See Garretson
26
v. Harold I. Miller (2021) 99 Cal. App. 4'" 563).
27
28 9. Plaintiff s November 16, 2020 first amended complaint in this action.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON Tkis PLEADINGS
AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code t 450 et eeq.)
Relevance: There are no charging allegations as to the DOK defendants named on
December 9, 2021 other than that of general agency per par. 7. For plaintiff in his
opposition to moving parties'otion to dismiss under the three (3) year statute of CCP
4
section 583.210 et seq. to claim that his First Amended Complaint's sixth, seventh and
eighth causes for unjust enrichment, accounting, and injunctive relief are entirely new
causes of action against new DOK parties only and not tlie originally named parties of B.
Edward McCutclian, Jr., and Sunderland (
McCutclia», LLP which they are clearly not by
the expressly plead allegations, then the first five causes of action of the First Amended
Complaint are clearly barred by the applicable statute of limitations against the moving
DOK defendants herein and are subject to demurrer.
In Barrinuton v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 146, 157 California's Supreme
Court held that a complaint amended to charge a Doe defendant with a new cause of action
arising from a "different set of operative facts than previously plead" need not be served
within three (3) years of the original filing. (Ibid. a 157). Such is not present in this matter.
15 10. Richard Abel's filed substitution of attorney in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al., Sonoma
16
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 dated November 9, 2017 where he is representing
17
himself in place of Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP.
18
18 Relevance: Such document contradicts Richard Abeps argument in his Opposition
28 to this motion at pages 8 and 9 that the August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against
Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case
22
No. SCV-245738 was the last act in the "chain of causation" despite the second amended
23
judgment signed by the Honorable Arthur Wick came well after the November 16, 2020
24
first amended complaint in this action was filed where Richard Abel had been representing
26 himself in the Lieblina action since November 9, 2017.
27
10. Richard Abel's filed pleadings concerning his October 28, 2020 motion to file a
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS To PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid, Code I 450 et seq.)
5
first amended complaint in this action (CASE NO. SCV-263456) and the court's November
2
6, 2020 order.
3
Relevance: Richard Abeps pleadings associated with his October 28, 2020 motion to
file a first amended complaint in this action makes no mention as to any new causes of
6 action desired to be plead solely against any party not named in this action to date. (See
Barrinuton v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 146).
8
D t: J lyg),2e22 SUNDERLAND i
McCU
10
cikgy~
Edward McCutchan
12 Attorneys for Defcnda ts
BILL HING SUED A -- 8
13
LENORA VERNE PUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11
MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FaiST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code t 450 ei seq.)
6
CC
6/27/22, 10:30 AM Attorney Search - The Slate Bar of California
The State Bar of California
::-„b«j
Attorney Search
Your search for Fung, Lenora returned no results. Search Tips
~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or
Would you like to search for names that sound like Fung,
proper first name.
Lenora?
NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases
handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith
search Nunez. ~ Smith, J
For more search options, including the ability to search for ~ J D Smith
certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try
~ John D Smith
Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally
Licensed Lawyers. ~ Smith, John D
~ 123456
Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California
GOO
https://apps.cather ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch7Free Text=Fang'k2ctLenora8 SoundsLike=false
S/27/22, 10tsc AM Attorney Search - The State Bar of California
pp The State Bar of California
'-;::
Attorney Search
Your search for Poeng, Justin returned no results. Search Tips
~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or
Would you like to search for names that sound like Poeng,
Justin? proper first name.
NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases
handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith
search Nunez,
~ Smith, J
For more search options, including the ability to se'arch for ~ J D Smith
certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try
Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally
~ John D Smith
Licensed Lawyers, ~ Smith, John D
~ 123456
Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California
GOO
https://apps.cather ca.gov/attorney/Licenseesearch/Quicksearch7FreeText=poeng%2C+Justin&soundsLike&alee
6/27/22, 10:33 AM aar of California
Attorney Search - The State
i~~&! The State Bar of California
Attorney Search
Your search for Hing, William returned no results. Search Tips
~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or
Would you like to search for names that sound like Hing,
proper first name.
William?
NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases
handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith
search Nunez. ~ Smith, J
For more search options, including the ability to search for ~ J D Smith
certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try
~ John D Smith
Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally
Licensed Lawyers. ~ Smith, John D
~ 123456
Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California
GOO
https://apps.cather.ca.gov/attorney/Licenseesearch/Qufcksearch?pres Texti Htng%2C+Willtama SoundsLike&atse
CC
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SUNDERLAND i
McCUTCHAN, LLP Superior Court of California
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 County of Sonoma
Healdsburg, California 95448 5/6/2021 11:34 AM
Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Arlena D. Junior, Clerk of the Court
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 By: Angela Mendia, Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
HYAM LIEBLING, ET AL,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SONOMA — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 SCV-245738
HYAM LIEBLING AND JUNE LIEBLING CASE NO.
11 individually and on behalf of the HYAM
LIEBLING AND JUNE LIEBLING 1997
12 REVOCABLE TRUST, RICHARD ABEL, tPIKIPOSKQ] ORDER AFTER HKARING
DOLORES ABEL individually and on behalf
REGARDING JUDGMENT CRKDITORS
13
of the DOLORES MARIE ABEL LIVING DALE DAVIS'ND JIM NORD'S
TRUST, EDWARD P. ALBINI, JACKIE
PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW
14
ANN ALBINI, RANDY BAILEY, CARL CAUSE RK CONTEMPT AGAINST
15 BARNES, PATRICIA BARNES, DALE RICHARD ABEL.
BARNES AND CAROLINE BARNES
16 Date; March 10, 2021
individually and on behalf of the BARNES Time: 3:00 p.m.
17 FAMILY TRUST, GENE BARNES, KEN Dept.: 17
BOWERMAN AND CHRISTINE
10 BOWERMAN individually and on behalf of
the SHELLEY BOWERMAN LIVING
19
TRUST, EILEEN BOYLE individually and on
20 behalf of the EILEEN BOYLE 1990 TRUST,
JOHN CLEARY AND KATHLEEN J.
21 CLEARY individually and on behalf of the
22
JOHN AND KATHLEEN CLEARY 1996
TRUST, DENNIS CORDELLOS, JAMES T,
23 DEERING, FRANCINE DEERING, HENRY
T. CRIGLER on behalf of the HENRY
24 CRIGLER 1998 LIVING TRUST,
TOWLES
25 HENRY T. CRIGLER AND KATHLEEN
OWYOUNG individually and on behalf of the
26 HENRY T. CRIGLER AND KATHLEEN
OWYOUNG 1991 TRUST, DALE DAVIS,
27
GARY DEZORZI AND JUDITH DEZORZI
29 individually and on behalf of the GARY G.
~ ORDBR ArfsR HEARINo
1
1 DEZORZI AND THE JUDITH A DEZORZI
2
3
DUVAL, G~
2002 TRUST, SUKI FERL, JACINDA
H. GETTEMY
individually and on behalf of the G~
H. GETTEMY AND JOAN E. GETTEMY
2002 REVOCABLE TRUST, ROBERT
5
GILMAN, WENDY GILMAN, CRAIG
GREGORY, individually and on behalf of
6 C.G. BUILDERS EMPLOYEES TRUST,
KATHRYN GREGORY, MICHAEL
7
GUBERNIK, STEVE HARVEY, JOHN
8 HIGHTOWER AND POLLY ANN
HIGHTOWER individually and on behalf of
9 THE 1998 HIGHTOWER FAMILY TRUST,
BILL ONG HING AND LENORA VERNE
10
FUNG individually and on behalf of the HING
11 FUNG 2000 REVOCABLE TRUST,
GORDON HOGLAND individually and on
12 behalf of the GORDON J. HOGLAND AND
LUIS C. BARCLAY 1992 TRUST, GARY
13
HOLBROOIQ EDWARD KEANE, PAMELA
14 LANE, GLEN LANE, PETER KERSTON,
LILLIAN LAPHAM, RONALD P. LAPHAM
15 AND ROSEMARY E. LAPHAM individually
and on behalf of the RONALD P. LAPHAM
16
AND ROSEMARY E. LAPHAM TRUST,
17 VERNON LARSON, VITO LOVERO,
FREDRIC I. MANN AND KATHERINE
18 MANN individually and on behalf of the
19
MANN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST,
THOMAS B. MARSHALL, PATRICIA L.
20 MARSHALL, AMY MARSHALL, JACK
MILLER AND VIRGINIA MILLER
21 individually and on behalf of the JACK J.
22
MILLER and VIRGINIA R. MLLER 1995
REVOCABLE TRUST, JOHN MILLIKEN
23
on'ehalf
of WE CARE ANIMAL RESCUE,
CHARLIE RAY MOORE, MIREILLE M.
24 MOORE, CAREY JAMES, NORD KERRY
25 L. NORD individually and on behalf of the
PARTRICK FAMILY 1992 REVOCABLE
26 TRUST AND THE MEIN TRUST, KERRY
L. NORD individually and on behalf of the
27
MEIN TRUST, SCOTT PAGE, EVELINA
28 PERITORE, CHARLOTTE PITOIS, JUSTIN 7
~ ORDER AFTER HEAR84G
2
1 POENG, ALAN RICIOLI, GARY RICIOLI,
2
DENNIS RIPPLE, CATHY RIPPLE,
ELIZABETH ROSS on behalf of BETTY P.
3 MARTIN in her representative capacity as
trustee of the MARTIN FAMILY BYPASS
4
TRUST, IvIARK RUDIGER, LEON
5
SANDERS, DOROTHY SANDERS, MARY
LOU SCHMIDT individually and on behalf of
6 PENSCO TRUST FBO MARY LOU
SCHMIDT, CHARLES SEBRANEK, D.
7
MARK SHULTE individually and on behalf
8 of the D. MARK SHULTE 2002 TRUST,
RICHARD SEVERSEN individually and on
9 behalf of the EILENE M. SEVERSEN 1998
TRUST, LINDY SINCLAIR, SANDY
10
SMITH AND EDWARD L. SMITH,
11 individually, EDWARD L. SMITH on behalf
of EQUITY TRUST COMPANY
12 CUSTODIAN FBO EDWARD L. SMITH
IRA, WALTER SPIRIDONOFF, DONALD
13
STEWART, RYAN STRICKLER, JERRY
14 STRICKLER AND LINDA M. STRICKLER
individually and on behalf of the JERRY A.
15 STRICKLER AND LINDA M. STRICKLER
16
17
18
1998 TRUST, MARVIN TAYLOR,
BEVERLY J. TAYLOR, STEVE
TOWNSEND AND KELLY ~
TOWNSEND individually and on behalf of
the AUGUST 13, 2003 TOWNSEND
FAMILY TRUST, CARMEN VIOLIN,
19
NANSI WEIL, TROY WINSLOW AND
20 ROBIN WINSLOW individually and on
behalf of the TROY S. WINSLOW AND
21 ROBIN L. WINSLOW FAMILY TRUST,
22
LOUISE ESCHER YORK individually and on
behalf of the ERHARD W. YORK AND
23 LOUISE ESCHER 1989 TRUST AND
MATTHEW ZDANEK, GREGGE VERNON.
24
Plaintif1's,
25
26 vs,
27
CHARLENE GOODRICH, JEANNE
28 TRIACCA, JEFF GREENE, MALIBU
] ORDER AFTER HEARING
3
1 GREENE VIEW CORPORATION, GREENE
MALIBU VALLEY RANCH )
2
CORPORATION, GREENE MALIBU 3
3 CORPORA11ON, TRIPLE J'S
CORPORATION, GREENE LOWER
4
BROAD BEACH CORPORATION,
5
CANYON GREENE CORPORATION,
GREENE BROAD BEACH
5 CORPORATION, MALIBU BEACH VIEW
CORPORATION, STEPHEN REEDER,
7
CHARLES R. REEDER, ROBERT
8
ZUCKERMAN, JOHN W. CRUIKSHANK,
RAPHAEL ROSINGANA, RONALD
9 REDDEKOPP, ERIC REDDEKOPP, JOHN
PAULHANSON,STEVENK.TALBOT,
10
PETER SKARPIAS AKA PETER
11 SCARPIAS, JOYCELYN ORBASE, TYNA
DEGE~T, DAYSTAR REAL ESTATE
12 SERVICES, ANTHONY PHILLIP PIAZZA,
KJELL NELSON, CANDYCE LYNN
13
GERRIOR, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
14 INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DOES I
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE
15
Defendants.
16
17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
18
19 On March 10, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 17 of the Sonoma County Superior Court,
20 before the Honorable Arthur Wick presiding, moving parties Dale Davis'nd Jim Nord's
21
Petition for an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt Against Richard Abel for failing to comply
22
with a May 14, 2020 order in this action came regularly on for hearing. On March 9, 2021, a
23
tentative ruling was issued by the court. No party contested the court's tentative ruling.
24
25 Accordingly, it became the final order of the court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
27
This matter is on calendar. for: 1) the application by judgment debtors Dale Davis and Jim
28
~
Nord pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ("CCP") tj1209 for an order to show cause re: contempt
ORDER AFTER HEARING
4
against fellow judgment debtor Richard Abel for violating the May 2020 Ozder (defined below)
2
(the "Contempt Application" ); and 2) the hearing on the Court's own motion for reconsideration
3
of the May 2020 Order arising out of Mr. Davis's and Mr. Nord's underlying motion to amend
the judgment.
5 I. The Februaiv 10. 2021 Ivlinute Order
The February 10, 2021 Minute Order relating to the Contempt Application (the "Minute
8
Order" ) summarized the relevant procedural history as follows: plaintiffs/judgment creditors Mr.
9
Davis and Mr. Nord, zepresented by attorney McCutchan, filed a motion to amend the October 6,
10
2016 judgment and the March 20, 2017 amended judgment against Robert Edward Zuckeiman
12 entered in this action, nunc pro tune, pursuant to CCP tj473(d) (the "Amendment Motion" ). The
13
Amendment Motion was opposed by plaintiff/judgment creditor Mr. Abel, who had previously
14
been represented by attorney McCutchan. The minutes of the January 15, 2020 heming on the
15
Amendment Motion show that the Comz adopted its tentative ruling granting in part and denying
16
17 in part the Amendment Motion. A widtten order was entered on February 2 1, 2020. Thereafter,
on May 14, 2020 the Court entered an amended order after hearing (the "May 2020 Order").
19
The May 2020 Order directed Mz. Abel to take ceriain actions in connection with preparing
20
the second amended judgment consistent with the Courg s ruling, including entering his total
21
damages (which amounts were to include both his own damages and the damages of other
23 . plaintiffs/judgment creditors who assigned their claims. to him prior to their dismissal from the
action) and Mr. Abel was directed to serve it on the moving parties'ounsel and the judgment
25
debtor. The Contempt Application was based on Mr. Abel's failure to do so.
26
The Minute Order stated that the Contempt Application caused the Couri to review the
27
documents filed in connection with the Amendment Motion and the hanscript horn those
~
proceedings. The Minute Order quoted the portion of the transcript of the Janumy 15, 2020
ORDER AE1ER HEARING
5
hearing at which attorney McCutchan presented the idea of having Mr. Abel, who had filed an
2
opposition to the Motion, nevertheless prepare the [proposedj second amended judgment for the
3
salce of convenience (even though their own moving papers and [proposedj second amended
judgment had contained all of the relevant information). The Minute Order observed that it has
not in fact been expeditious to place the burden on Ivfn Abel of effectuating the relief Mr. Davis
and Mr. Nord sought in their Amendment Motion, even though Mr. Abel did not object to doing
8
so at the heiusng.
9
But the Minute Order stated that the more problematic issue which came to light in
10
connection with the Contempt Application was that the documents filed in support of the
12 Contempt Application indicated to the Court that Mr, Davis and lvhc Nord were seeking to
13
compel Mr. Abel to obey an order granting their motion wluch they themselves characterize as
14
embodying a "fiaud before this court." Specifically, the Minute Order found that while in
15
connection of the Amendment Motion they sought to distance themselves fiom the relief they
16
sought (referring to the omission of certain plaintiffs from the judgment as being "claimed"
omissions raised by Mr. Abel in the banla3iptcy court), Mr. Davis and Mr. Nord are now
19
affirmatively claiming that the assignments which are the basis for amending the judgment in
20
this case are ftaudulent because the relevant plaintiffs had been disinissed before they assigned
21
their claims to Ivhi Abel. Sae Notice of Contempt Application at 2:9-11 (" It is believed that the
23 claimed written assignments of former plaintiffs in this action to Richard Abel were purposefully
backdated by Richard Abel after these former plaintiffs were dismissed as they requested.").
25
The Minute Order stated that based on the fact that the moving parties now characterize the
26
underlying assignments as fraudulent, the Court intends to reconsider the Amendment Motion
27
and issue a new order regarding the scope of the corrections to the judgment. See Clark v. First
Union Sec., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1608 (" Consistent with the [court's inherent]
Traerasar4.ORDER AETER HEARING
6
powers, the trial court may, on its own motion reconsider its interim orders, after providing the
parties with notice and the oppoitunity to be heard."); CCP tj473(d) (authorizing relief on the
3
court's own motion). Specifically, it stated that the Court intends to vacate the May 2020 Order
and enter a new order on the Amendment Motion as follows:
"The Motion is GRANTED to correct the mathematical error in the award to Richmd Abel at
page 13, lines 4 and 5, nunc pro tune as of October 6, 2016; and
8
The Motion is GRANTED to remove from the judgment the following parties who were
9
dismissed from the action (and for whom there is no claimed assignment): Vito Lovero; Frederic
10
Mann; Katherine Mann; Leon Sanders; Mary Lou Schmidt; Charles Sebranek; Lindy Sinclair;
12 Carmen Violin; and, Loise Escher York, nunc pro tune as of October 6, 2016.
13
In all other respects the Amended Motion is DENIED, without prejudice to Mr. Abel bringing
14
any otherwise proper mo
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDKRLAND i McCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 3 Healdsburg, California 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8 LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 s MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual, ) CASE NO. SCV-263456 ) 13 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DOK DEFENDANTS'OTION vs. FOR JUDGMENT ON THK 15 PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED individual; SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, ) COMPLAINT (Evid. Code tt 450 et seq.) ~ ) 17 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES I ) Continued Hearing Date: September 12, 2022 through 100, inclusive, ) 18 ) Time: I:30 p.m. Defendants. ) Courtroom: 13 19 ) ) Assigned For All Purposes to the 20 Honorable Christooher Honiasbera 21 Defendants, Bill Hing sued as Doe 8, Lenora Fung sued as Doe 9, Justin Poeng sued as 22 Doe 11 and Matthew Zdanek sued as Doe 16 pursuant to California Evidence Code tj450 et seq., 23 and the holding of Traders Snorts. Inc. v. Citv of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4'" 37, 24 requests that this court take judicial notice of the following documents with respect to this motion to dismiss Plaintiff, RICHARD ABEL'S First Amended Complaint in this action: 27 1. California State Bar printout of Lenora Fung dated June 27, 2022 stating that she is 28 not a California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A." REQUEST POR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code I 450 ci scq3 1 Relevance: She is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. Plaintifps 2 first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are 3 clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Lenora Fung and demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintiffs claims 6 against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted. 2. California State Bar printout of Bill Hing dated June 27, 2022 stating that he is not a 8 California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A." 9 Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. Plaintiff s 10 first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Bill Hing and demonstrates 13 that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifPS claims against a law firm 14 and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted. 15 16 3. California State Bar print out of Matthew Zdanek dated June 27, 2022 stating that he 17 is not a California licensed attorney attached as Exhibit "A." 18 Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. PlaintifPs 19 first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are 20 clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Mathew Zdanek and 21 demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifPS claims 23 against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted. 4. California State Bar printout of Justin Poeng dated June 27, 2022 stating that he is not 25 a California licensed attorney. Plaintiff's first and second causes of action for legal malpractice 26 and breach of a fiduciaiy duty are clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by 27 Justin Poeng and demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintiff s REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (EvId. Code 0 450 ei seqd 2 claims against a law firm and attorneys only attached as Exhibit "A." 2 Relevance: He is not, and has never been, a California licensed attorney. PlaintifPs 3 first and second causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of a fiduciary duty are 4 clearly subject to a demurrer under CCP section 430.10 (e) by Justin Poeng and 6 demonstrates that the entire First Amended Complaint is based on plaintifps claims against a law firm and attorneys only where this motion to dismiss should be granted. 8 5. The court's denial of plaintiff's December 15, 2021 motion to disqualify Sunderland ~ 9 MCCutchan, LLP from representing Dale Davis in this action. 10 Relevance: Despite plaintifPs claims that the sixth, seventh and eighth causes of his 12 First Amended Complaint in this action for unjust enrichment, accounting, and injunctive 13 relief apply to the DOE defendants named on December 9, 2021, these causes of action per 14 the allegations within are based upon a plead attorney client relationship. Plaintifps eighth 15 cause of his First Amended Complaint is subject to demurrer. 16 17 6. The May 6, 2021 filed order after hearing in Lieblina v. Goodrich, et. al., Sonoma County Superior Couit Case No. SCV-24573B is attached as Exhibit "B." 19 Relevance: Richard Abel was instructed to file a CCP section 473 motion to prove 20 that he had his claimed assignments from former plaintiffs who requested to be dismissed 21 and were before they were dismissed. His failure to file such a motion with proof that his 23 claimed assignments from former plaintiffs who requested to be dismissed and who were dismissed demonstrates that Richard Abel backdated his claimed assignments and that 25 these assignments most likely were not signed by former plaintiffs in Lieblina v. Goodrich. 26 et. al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. 27 28 7. The August 31, 2021 notice of Second Amended Judgment against Robert REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OP DOE DEPENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code 4 450 el seq3 3 Zuckerman, and the August 4, 2021 second amended judgement against Robert Zuckerman in 2 Lieblinu v. Goodrich, et.al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738, is attached 3 as Exhibit "C." Relevance: Plaintifps entire First Amended Complaint is subject to demurrer because it is based in part on the October 6, 2016 judgment and the March 20, 2017 amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al, Sonoma 8 County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. Plaintifps allegations in his First Amended 9 Complaint have been resolved and superseded by the August 4, 2021 second amended 10 complaint against Robert Zuckerman where this judgment states plaintiff is representing 12 himself in propria persona. 13 Plaintiff has no damages in this action because Robert Zuckerman is insolvent and 14 has no assets to collect upon under California law. See also plaintifps admission of such in 15 par. 51 of his First Amended Complaint in this action where plaintiff is competing against 16 many of his former co-plaintiffs in Lieblina v. Goodrich. et. BL, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 to collect against a discharged debtor in bankruptcy, Robert 19 Zuckerman. (See Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2021) 99 Cak App. 4ro 563). 20 8. The April 26, 2022 filed notice of certified copy of the United States Bankruptcy 21 Court's Chapter 7 discharge of Robert Zuckerman under 11 U.S.C. section 727. 23 Relevance: Plaintiff has no damages in this action because Robert Zuckerman is insolvent and has no assets to collect upon under California law. See also plaintifps 25 admission of such in par. 51 of his First Amended Complaint in this action. (See Garretson 26 v. Harold I. Miller (2021) 99 Cal. App. 4'" 563). 27 28 9. Plaintiff s November 16, 2020 first amended complaint in this action. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON Tkis PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code t 450 et eeq.) Relevance: There are no charging allegations as to the DOK defendants named on December 9, 2021 other than that of general agency per par. 7. For plaintiff in his opposition to moving parties'otion to dismiss under the three (3) year statute of CCP 4 section 583.210 et seq. to claim that his First Amended Complaint's sixth, seventh and eighth causes for unjust enrichment, accounting, and injunctive relief are entirely new causes of action against new DOK parties only and not tlie originally named parties of B. Edward McCutclian, Jr., and Sunderland ( McCutclia», LLP which they are clearly not by the expressly plead allegations, then the first five causes of action of the First Amended Complaint are clearly barred by the applicable statute of limitations against the moving DOK defendants herein and are subject to demurrer. In Barrinuton v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 146, 157 California's Supreme Court held that a complaint amended to charge a Doe defendant with a new cause of action arising from a "different set of operative facts than previously plead" need not be served within three (3) years of the original filing. (Ibid. a 157). Such is not present in this matter. 15 10. Richard Abel's filed substitution of attorney in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al., Sonoma 16 County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 dated November 9, 2017 where he is representing 17 himself in place of Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP. 18 18 Relevance: Such document contradicts Richard Abeps argument in his Opposition 28 to this motion at pages 8 and 9 that the August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich. et. al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case 22 No. SCV-245738 was the last act in the "chain of causation" despite the second amended 23 judgment signed by the Honorable Arthur Wick came well after the November 16, 2020 24 first amended complaint in this action was filed where Richard Abel had been representing 26 himself in the Lieblina action since November 9, 2017. 27 10. Richard Abel's filed pleadings concerning his October 28, 2020 motion to file a 28 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS To PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid, Code I 450 et seq.) 5 first amended complaint in this action (CASE NO. SCV-263456) and the court's November 2 6, 2020 order. 3 Relevance: Richard Abeps pleadings associated with his October 28, 2020 motion to file a first amended complaint in this action makes no mention as to any new causes of 6 action desired to be plead solely against any party not named in this action to date. (See Barrinuton v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 146). 8 D t: J lyg),2e22 SUNDERLAND i McCU 10 cikgy~ Edward McCutchan 12 Attorneys for Defcnda ts BILL HING SUED A -- 8 13 LENORA VERNE PUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DOE DEFENDANTS'OTION POR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S FaiST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Evid. Code t 450 ei seq.) 6 CC 6/27/22, 10:30 AM Attorney Search - The Slate Bar of California The State Bar of California ::-„b«j Attorney Search Your search for Fung, Lenora returned no results. Search Tips ~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or Would you like to search for names that sound like Fung, proper first name. Lenora? NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith search Nunez. ~ Smith, J For more search options, including the ability to search for ~ J D Smith certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try ~ John D Smith Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally Licensed Lawyers. ~ Smith, John D ~ 123456 Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California GOO https://apps.cather ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch7Free Text=Fang'k2ctLenora8 SoundsLike=false S/27/22, 10tsc AM Attorney Search - The State Bar of California pp The State Bar of California '-;:: Attorney Search Your search for Poeng, Justin returned no results. Search Tips ~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or Would you like to search for names that sound like Poeng, Justin? proper first name. NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith search Nunez, ~ Smith, J For more search options, including the ability to se'arch for ~ J D Smith certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally ~ John D Smith Licensed Lawyers, ~ Smith, John D ~ 123456 Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California GOO https://apps.cather ca.gov/attorney/Licenseesearch/Quicksearch7FreeText=poeng%2C+Justin&soundsLike&alee 6/27/22, 10:33 AM aar of California Attorney Search - The State i~~&! The State Bar of California Attorney Search Your search for Hing, William returned no results. Search Tips ~ Do not use nicknames. Use either a first initial or Would you like to search for names that sound like Hing, proper first name. William? NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this search cannot Sample Search Phrases handle extended characters. Example: for Nunez, please ~ J Smith search Nunez. ~ Smith, J For more search options, including the ability to search for ~ J D Smith certified specialists or other practice characteristics, try ~ John D Smith Advanced Search. You can also search for Provisionally Licensed Lawyers. ~ Smith, John D ~ 123456 Copyright 2022 The State Bar of California GOO https://apps.cather.ca.gov/attorney/Licenseesearch/Qufcksearch?pres Texti Htng%2C+Willtama SoundsLike&atse CC Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) ELECTRONICALLY FILED SUNDERLAND i McCUTCHAN, LLP Superior Court of California 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 County of Sonoma Healdsburg, California 95448 5/6/2021 11:34 AM Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Arlena D. Junior, Clerk of the Court Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 By: Angela Mendia, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants HYAM LIEBLING, ET AL, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 SCV-245738 HYAM LIEBLING AND JUNE LIEBLING CASE NO. 11 individually and on behalf of the HYAM LIEBLING AND JUNE LIEBLING 1997 12 REVOCABLE TRUST, RICHARD ABEL, tPIKIPOSKQ] ORDER AFTER HKARING DOLORES ABEL individually and on behalf REGARDING JUDGMENT CRKDITORS 13 of the DOLORES MARIE ABEL LIVING DALE DAVIS'ND JIM NORD'S TRUST, EDWARD P. ALBINI, JACKIE PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW 14 ANN ALBINI, RANDY BAILEY, CARL CAUSE RK CONTEMPT AGAINST 15 BARNES, PATRICIA BARNES, DALE RICHARD ABEL. BARNES AND CAROLINE BARNES 16 Date; March 10, 2021 individually and on behalf of the BARNES Time: 3:00 p.m. 17 FAMILY TRUST, GENE BARNES, KEN Dept.: 17 BOWERMAN AND CHRISTINE 10 BOWERMAN individually and on behalf of the SHELLEY BOWERMAN LIVING 19 TRUST, EILEEN BOYLE individually and on 20 behalf of the EILEEN BOYLE 1990 TRUST, JOHN CLEARY AND KATHLEEN J. 21 CLEARY individually and on behalf of the 22 JOHN AND KATHLEEN CLEARY 1996 TRUST, DENNIS CORDELLOS, JAMES T, 23 DEERING, FRANCINE DEERING, HENRY T. CRIGLER on behalf of the HENRY 24 CRIGLER 1998 LIVING TRUST, TOWLES 25 HENRY T. CRIGLER AND KATHLEEN OWYOUNG individually and on behalf of the 26 HENRY T. CRIGLER AND KATHLEEN OWYOUNG 1991 TRUST, DALE DAVIS, 27 GARY DEZORZI AND JUDITH DEZORZI 29 individually and on behalf of the GARY G. ~ ORDBR ArfsR HEARINo 1 1 DEZORZI AND THE JUDITH A DEZORZI 2 3 DUVAL, G~ 2002 TRUST, SUKI FERL, JACINDA H. GETTEMY individually and on behalf of the G~ H. GETTEMY AND JOAN E. GETTEMY 2002 REVOCABLE TRUST, ROBERT 5 GILMAN, WENDY GILMAN, CRAIG GREGORY, individually and on behalf of 6 C.G. BUILDERS EMPLOYEES TRUST, KATHRYN GREGORY, MICHAEL 7 GUBERNIK, STEVE HARVEY, JOHN 8 HIGHTOWER AND POLLY ANN HIGHTOWER individually and on behalf of 9 THE 1998 HIGHTOWER FAMILY TRUST, BILL ONG HING AND LENORA VERNE 10 FUNG individually and on behalf of the HING 11 FUNG 2000 REVOCABLE TRUST, GORDON HOGLAND individually and on 12 behalf of the GORDON J. HOGLAND AND LUIS C. BARCLAY 1992 TRUST, GARY 13 HOLBROOIQ EDWARD KEANE, PAMELA 14 LANE, GLEN LANE, PETER KERSTON, LILLIAN LAPHAM, RONALD P. LAPHAM 15 AND ROSEMARY E. LAPHAM individually and on behalf of the RONALD P. LAPHAM 16 AND ROSEMARY E. LAPHAM TRUST, 17 VERNON LARSON, VITO LOVERO, FREDRIC I. MANN AND KATHERINE 18 MANN individually and on behalf of the 19 MANN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, THOMAS B. MARSHALL, PATRICIA L. 20 MARSHALL, AMY MARSHALL, JACK MILLER AND VIRGINIA MILLER 21 individually and on behalf of the JACK J. 22 MILLER and VIRGINIA R. MLLER 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST, JOHN MILLIKEN 23 on'ehalf of WE CARE ANIMAL RESCUE, CHARLIE RAY MOORE, MIREILLE M. 24 MOORE, CAREY JAMES, NORD KERRY 25 L. NORD individually and on behalf of the PARTRICK FAMILY 1992 REVOCABLE 26 TRUST AND THE MEIN TRUST, KERRY L. NORD individually and on behalf of the 27 MEIN TRUST, SCOTT PAGE, EVELINA 28 PERITORE, CHARLOTTE PITOIS, JUSTIN 7 ~ ORDER AFTER HEAR84G 2 1 POENG, ALAN RICIOLI, GARY RICIOLI, 2 DENNIS RIPPLE, CATHY RIPPLE, ELIZABETH ROSS on behalf of BETTY P. 3 MARTIN in her representative capacity as trustee of the MARTIN FAMILY BYPASS 4 TRUST, IvIARK RUDIGER, LEON 5 SANDERS, DOROTHY SANDERS, MARY LOU SCHMIDT individually and on behalf of 6 PENSCO TRUST FBO MARY LOU SCHMIDT, CHARLES SEBRANEK, D. 7 MARK SHULTE individually and on behalf 8 of the D. MARK SHULTE 2002 TRUST, RICHARD SEVERSEN individually and on 9 behalf of the EILENE M. SEVERSEN 1998 TRUST, LINDY SINCLAIR, SANDY 10 SMITH AND EDWARD L. SMITH, 11 individually, EDWARD L. SMITH on behalf of EQUITY TRUST COMPANY 12 CUSTODIAN FBO EDWARD L. SMITH IRA, WALTER SPIRIDONOFF, DONALD 13 STEWART, RYAN STRICKLER, JERRY 14 STRICKLER AND LINDA M. STRICKLER individually and on behalf of the JERRY A. 15 STRICKLER AND LINDA M. STRICKLER 16 17 18 1998 TRUST, MARVIN TAYLOR, BEVERLY J. TAYLOR, STEVE TOWNSEND AND KELLY ~ TOWNSEND individually and on behalf of the AUGUST 13, 2003 TOWNSEND FAMILY TRUST, CARMEN VIOLIN, 19 NANSI WEIL, TROY WINSLOW AND 20 ROBIN WINSLOW individually and on behalf of the TROY S. WINSLOW AND 21 ROBIN L. WINSLOW FAMILY TRUST, 22 LOUISE ESCHER YORK individually and on behalf of the ERHARD W. YORK AND 23 LOUISE ESCHER 1989 TRUST AND MATTHEW ZDANEK, GREGGE VERNON. 24 Plaintif1's, 25 26 vs, 27 CHARLENE GOODRICH, JEANNE 28 TRIACCA, JEFF GREENE, MALIBU ] ORDER AFTER HEARING 3 1 GREENE VIEW CORPORATION, GREENE MALIBU VALLEY RANCH ) 2 CORPORATION, GREENE MALIBU 3 3 CORPORA11ON, TRIPLE J'S CORPORATION, GREENE LOWER 4 BROAD BEACH CORPORATION, 5 CANYON GREENE CORPORATION, GREENE BROAD BEACH 5 CORPORATION, MALIBU BEACH VIEW CORPORATION, STEPHEN REEDER, 7 CHARLES R. REEDER, ROBERT 8 ZUCKERMAN, JOHN W. CRUIKSHANK, RAPHAEL ROSINGANA, RONALD 9 REDDEKOPP, ERIC REDDEKOPP, JOHN PAULHANSON,STEVENK.TALBOT, 10 PETER SKARPIAS AKA PETER 11 SCARPIAS, JOYCELYN ORBASE, TYNA DEGE~T, DAYSTAR REAL ESTATE 12 SERVICES, ANTHONY PHILLIP PIAZZA, KJELL NELSON, CANDYCE LYNN 13 GERRIOR, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 14 INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DOES I THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE 15 Defendants. 16 17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. 18 19 On March 10, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 17 of the Sonoma County Superior Court, 20 before the Honorable Arthur Wick presiding, moving parties Dale Davis'nd Jim Nord's 21 Petition for an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt Against Richard Abel for failing to comply 22 with a May 14, 2020 order in this action came regularly on for hearing. On March 9, 2021, a 23 tentative ruling was issued by the court. No party contested the court's tentative ruling. 24 25 Accordingly, it became the final order of the court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 27 This matter is on calendar. for: 1) the application by judgment debtors Dale Davis and Jim 28 ~ Nord pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ("CCP") tj1209 for an order to show cause re: contempt ORDER AFTER HEARING 4 against fellow judgment debtor Richard Abel for violating the May 2020 Ozder (defined below) 2 (the "Contempt Application" ); and 2) the hearing on the Court's own motion for reconsideration 3 of the May 2020 Order arising out of Mr. Davis's and Mr. Nord's underlying motion to amend the judgment. 5 I. The Februaiv 10. 2021 Ivlinute Order The February 10, 2021 Minute Order relating to the Contempt Application (the "Minute 8 Order" ) summarized the relevant procedural history as follows: plaintiffs/judgment creditors Mr. 9 Davis and Mr. Nord, zepresented by attorney McCutchan, filed a motion to amend the October 6, 10 2016 judgment and the March 20, 2017 amended judgment against Robert Edward Zuckeiman 12 entered in this action, nunc pro tune, pursuant to CCP tj473(d) (the "Amendment Motion" ). The 13 Amendment Motion was opposed by plaintiff/judgment creditor Mr. Abel, who had previously 14 been represented by attorney McCutchan. The minutes of the January 15, 2020 heming on the 15 Amendment Motion show that the Comz adopted its tentative ruling granting in part and denying 16 17 in part the Amendment Motion. A widtten order was entered on February 2 1, 2020. Thereafter, on May 14, 2020 the Court entered an amended order after hearing (the "May 2020 Order"). 19 The May 2020 Order directed Mz. Abel to take ceriain actions in connection with preparing 20 the second amended judgment consistent with the Courg s ruling, including entering his total 21 damages (which amounts were to include both his own damages and the damages of other 23 . plaintiffs/judgment creditors who assigned their claims. to him prior to their dismissal from the action) and Mr. Abel was directed to serve it on the moving parties'ounsel and the judgment 25 debtor. The Contempt Application was based on Mr. Abel's failure to do so. 26 The Minute Order stated that the Contempt Application caused the Couri to review the 27 documents filed in connection with the Amendment Motion and the hanscript horn those ~ proceedings. The Minute Order quoted the portion of the transcript of the Janumy 15, 2020 ORDER AE1ER HEARING 5 hearing at which attorney McCutchan presented the idea of having Mr. Abel, who had filed an 2 opposition to the Motion, nevertheless prepare the [proposedj second amended judgment for the 3 salce of convenience (even though their own moving papers and [proposedj second amended judgment had contained all of the relevant information). The Minute Order observed that it has not in fact been expeditious to place the burden on Ivfn Abel of effectuating the relief Mr. Davis and Mr. Nord sought in their Amendment Motion, even though Mr. Abel did not object to doing 8 so at the heiusng. 9 But the Minute Order stated that the more problematic issue which came to light in 10 connection with the Contempt Application was that the documents filed in support of the 12 Contempt Application indicated to the Court that Mr, Davis and lvhc Nord were seeking to 13 compel Mr. Abel to obey an order granting their motion wluch they themselves characterize as 14 embodying a "fiaud before this court." Specifically, the Minute Order found that while in 15 connection of the Amendment Motion they sought to distance themselves fiom the relief they 16 sought (referring to the omission of certain plaintiffs from the judgment as being "claimed" omissions raised by Mr. Abel in the banla3iptcy court), Mr. Davis and Mr. Nord are now 19 affirmatively claiming that the assignments which are the basis for amending the judgment in 20 this case are ftaudulent because the relevant plaintiffs had been disinissed before they assigned 21 their claims to Ivhi Abel. Sae Notice of Contempt Application at 2:9-11 (" It is believed that the 23 claimed written assignments of former plaintiffs in this action to Richard Abel were purposefully backdated by Richard Abel after these former plaintiffs were dismissed as they requested."). 25 The Minute Order stated that based on the fact that the moving parties now characterize the 26 underlying assignments as fraudulent, the Court intends to reconsider the Amendment Motion 27 and issue a new order regarding the scope of the corrections to the judgment. See Clark v. First Union Sec., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1608 (" Consistent with the [court's inherent] Traerasar4.ORDER AETER HEARING 6 powers, the trial court may, on its own motion reconsider its interim orders, after providing the parties with notice and the oppoitunity to be heard."); CCP tj473(d) (authorizing relief on the 3 court's own motion). Specifically, it stated that the Court intends to vacate the May 2020 Order and enter a new order on the Amendment Motion as follows: "The Motion is GRANTED to correct the mathematical error in the award to Richmd Abel at page 13, lines 4 and 5, nunc pro tune as of October 6, 2016; and 8 The Motion is GRANTED to remove from the judgment the following parties who were 9 dismissed from the action (and for whom there is no claimed assignment): Vito Lovero; Frederic 10 Mann; Katherine Mann; Leon Sanders; Mary Lou Schmidt; Charles Sebranek; Lindy Sinclair; 12 Carmen Violin; and, Loise Escher York, nunc pro tune as of October 6, 2016. 13 In all other respects the Amended Motion is DENIED, without prejudice to Mr. Abel bringing 14 any otherwise proper mo