Order to Show Cause: DAWN LOFTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL VS. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF WELLS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-25-2012 11:32 am

Case Number: CGC-11-509502

Filing Date: Sep-25-2012 11:31

Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03777749
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

DAWN LOFTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL VS. WELLS FARGO

HOME MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF WELLS

001003777749

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

ABy Fax

Co eo NTN DH Fe BW N

Kuepinst PC
801 K STREET, Sure 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

_

Ny N NY N WN NN De we ea i es
BRRFRRRBKRERSeSeWARBEEHKRTS

Natalie P. Vance, Bar No. 206708
Gregory T. Fayard, Bar No. 212930 F

KLINEDINST PC cud, ab. Bg

801 K Street, Suite 2800 Cam ca 1h 2
Sacramento, California 95814 SE te
(916) 444-7573/FAX (916) 444-7544 Pas 2019
nvance@klinedinstlaw.com wea OF 7,
gfayard@Klinedinstlaw.com HE ©

Attorneys for

Initiative Legal Group, APC, Initiative Legal
Group, LLP, Marc Primo Pulisci, G. Arthur
Meneses, Joseph S. Liu, and Monica
Balderrama (collectively “ILG”)

COupy

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DAWN LOFTON, individually and on Case No. CGC-11-509502
behalf of all others similarly situated,
ILG’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Plaintiffs, PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Vv.
Date: September 28, 2012
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a | Time: 430 p.m.
division of WELLS FARGO BANK, «1 Date:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trial Date: None set
Defendants.

ILG submits the following objections and Motion to Strike Evidence and as follows:

OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF RICHARD ZITRIN AND EXHIBITS
Material Objected to:

1. Declaration of Richard Zitrin,
14, page 1, lines 10-18: “On
July 12, 2012, Thad a
conversation with Mr. Banks
about providing me documents.

Grounds for Objections:

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

Sustained
Overruled

-1-
OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKunepinst PC
801 K Street, Surte 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

oC ond Dn F&F Bw N &

NR NHN NY NY N NN ww ees
BNRRRBRRBSERSRWABDESBHRTS

2. Declaration of Richard Zitrin,

and at his request specified to
him what documents I was
seeking immediately, as follows:
° Memoranda and or
emails during the mediation that
relate to settlement issues
involving ILG and its clients;

e Memoranda and or
emails following the mediation
that relate to settlement issues
involving ILG and its clients;

° A ‘term sheet’ or
memorandum of intent or other
similar document, unsigned, that
describes the settlement or
putative settlement if you prefer —
my understanding is that at least
one specific document like this
exists.”

15, page 1, lines 19-21: “On
July 17, 2012, Mr. Banks
transmitted to me a brief cover
letter and 45 pages of documents
Bates-stamped ILG 1 through 45.
The letter and those documents
are attached hereto as Exhibit A.”

Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained

and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200);
lacks foundation and lack of personal
knowledge (Evid. Code §§403, 413,
702).

Overruled

3. Declaration of Richard Zitrin,
45, page 1, lines 3-6: “Although
it now appears to be undisputed
that there was no mediation
between ‘the parties’ because
none of ILG’s clients attended
nor were even aware of the
mediation, I have not included
the pages stamped 44 and 45.”

4. Declaration of Richard Zitrin,
46, page 1, lines 3-6: “On
August 2, 2012, I advised Mr.
Banks that I had brought in
Chavez & Gertler as class
counsel, that we intended to
proceed with the Maxon matter
on a class basis, and that we

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (e.g., “...none of
ILG’s clients attended nor were even
aware of the mediation....”) (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading
(Evid. Code § 352); inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152);
impermissible expert opinion/legal
conclusion (Evid. Code §801).

Sustained
Overruled

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (e.g., “...to the
ILG-Client Class Members.”) (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); hearsay
(Evid. Code § 1200); misleading and
unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
352): inadmissible confidential

-2-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Sustained
Overruled

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OFKuNeDINsT PC
801 K Street, Surre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

om YN DH FF WN

10

would agree to forbear from
filing suit and consider the
possibility of engaging in pre-
filing discussions concerning the
settlement negotiated by ILG and
the activities of ILG, but only as
to the entire class, and only if a
number of conditions, which I
specified, had been met.”

settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.).

5. Declaration of Richard Zitrin, | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
4 8, page 2, lines 8-9: “On 351); lacks foundation and lack of
August 17, 2012, based on the personal knowledge (e.g., “...to its Overruled
dates of the documents, Initiative | former clients”) (Evid. Code §§ 403,
Legal Group sent supposed 412, 702); misleading (Evid. Code §
settlement documents and $1,000 | 352); inadmissible confidential
checks to its former clients.” settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.).
6. Exhibit A to Declaration of Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Richard Zitrin, p. 1, July 17, and settlement negotiations (Evid.
2012 letter from Jim Banks. Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled ___

7. Exhibit A to Declaration of
Richard Zitrin, pp. ILG 1-3, letter
from Attorney Primo to Attorney
Porter.

1152, 1154, et seq.); lacks foundation
/authentication (Evid. Code §403,
412, 702); Lacks authentication
(Evid. Code §1401); hearsay (Evid.
Code § 1200).

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); lacks foundation
/authentication (Evid. Code §403,
412, 702); Lacks authentication
(Evid. Code §1401); hearsay (Evid.
Code § 1200).

Sustained
Overruled

8. Exhibit A to Declaration of
Richard Zitrin, pp. ILG 4-7, draft
Settlement Agreement between
Wells Fargo and Initiative Legal
Group.

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); lacks foundation
/authentication (Evid. Code §403,
412, 702); Lacks authentication
(Evid. Code §1401).

Sustained
Overruled

9. Exhibit A to Declaration of Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Richard Zitrin, pp. ILG 8-10, e- | and settlement negotiations (Evid.
mails to/from Attorneys Primo _| Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled ___
and Porter. 1152, 1154, et seq.); lacks foundation

/authentication (Evid. Code §403,

412, 702); Lacks authentication

(Evid. Code §1401).
10. Exhibit A to Declaration of | Lacks foundation /authentication Sustained

Richard Zitrin, pp. ILG 11-14,

(Evid. Code §403, 412, 702); Lacks
-3-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKunepinst PC
801 K STREET, Surte 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

0 ON DH RF WN

by N NY N N meee

unsigned Stipulation for

authentication (Evid. Code §1401).

Dismissal, Bhalla v. Wells Fargo, Overruled ___
Santa Clara Case 110CV176172.
11. Exhibit A to Declaration of | Lacks foundation /authentication Sustained
Richard Zitrin, July 15-17, e- (Evid. Code §403, 412, 702); Lacks
mails to/from Rust Consulting. _| authentication (Evid. Code §1401); | Overruled __
Hearsay (Evid. Code§ 1200).
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK A. CHAVEZ

Material Objected to:

12. Declaration of Mark A.
Chavez, § 2, page 1, lines 11-15:
“In the ‘Disclosure Statement’
enclosed with ILG’s August 17,
2012 letter to the [LG-Client
Class Members (Exh. L to the
Maxon Declaration), Mr.
Meneses cites to these same
cases as evidencing the work ILG
did to earn its claimed $5.5
million in attorneys’ fees,
acknowledging that ‘[t]he Lofton
case settled the overlapping
claims asserted by ILG on behalf
of 600 clients.”

Grounds for Objections:

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (e.g., “...to the
ILG-Client Class Members.”) (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading
(Evid. Code § 352); hearsay (Evid.
Code § 1200); inadmissible
secondary evidence of a writing
(Evid. Code § 1521).

Sustained
Overruled

13. Declaration of Mark A.
Chavez, { 3, page 1, lines 16-18:
“A review of the allegations
made by ILG Attorneys on behalf
of the HMCs in the cases cited by
Mr. Meneses indicates that the
claims were resolved by the
Lofton settlement.”

14. Declaration of Mark A.
Chavez, { 3, page 1, lines 18-21:
“In each action, the alleged right
to recovery was premised on the
claim that Wells Fargo
‘compensated Plaintiffs on a
commission sales basis and did
not keep records of Plaintiffs’
work hours or their activities,’
and that Wells Fargo wrongly
classified its HMCs as exempt
employees.”

15. ° Declaration of Mark A.

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200);
improper expert witness testimony
and legal conclusion (Evid. Code §§
800, 802, 803).

Sustained

Overruled

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200); improper expert witness

testimony and legal conclusion (Evid.

Code §§ 800, 802, 803); inadmissible
secondary evidence of a writing
(Evid. Code § 1521).

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
-4-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Sustained
Overruled

Sustained

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OFKunepinst PC
801 K Street, Surre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co em NN DH HW FF Ww NH &

N N y mt thet hth nk make

Chavez, { 4, page 1, line 22:

“ILG Attorneys filed two class or
representative actions...”

351); lacks foundation and lack of

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ ~ a
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

Code § 352).

16. Declaration of Mark A.
Chavez, { 6, page 2, lines 21-24:
“The claims in Mather are
similarly premised on the
allegation that because Wells
Fargo compensated its HMCs on
a commission sales basis and
classified them as exempt
employees, it did not keep and
thus failed to provide records of
Plaintiffs’ work hours and
activities.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ | Overruled
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200); improper expert witness
testimony and legal conclusion (Evid.
Code §§ 800, 802, 803).

17. Declaration of Mark A. Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained

Chavez, § 9, page 3, line 4: “ILG
Attorneys dismissed all of the
above actions after Lofton was
settled.”

351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ | Overruled
403, 412, 702); misleading and
unduly prejudicial (actions were
dismissed after resolution of non-
class action cases, not because of
settlement in Lofton) (Evid. Code §
352); improper expert witness
testimony and legal conclusion (Evid.
Code §§ 800, 802, 803).

OBJECTIONS TO DAVID MAXON DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS

Material Objected to:

Grounds for Objections: Ruling:

18. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon,{ 3, page 1, lines 9-10:
“ILG and its attorneys
(collectively “ILG Attorneys”)
later agreed to represent me in
pursuing my employment-related
claims against Wells Fargo.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521).

Sustained

Overruled.

19. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 3, page 1, lines 10-13:
“ILG Attorneys agreed to
prosecute my claims on a full
contingency fee basis in
exchange for the greater of one-
third of any amounts recovered
on my behalf, or the attorneys’

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521).

-5-

—e eee
OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKunepinst PC
801 K Street, Suite 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

ow YN A nH F WN |

NN NY N NY NN KN NO Bw we ew ee ae
on AD WU FF WN KF OOD Oe ND DH F&F YW NY KF OC

hourly fees, and that ILG
Attorneys would not be entitled

to any fees if they failed to obtain
a monetary recovery for me.”

20. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 4, page 1, lines 14-16:
“,..I was unaware that other
current and former Home
Mortgage Consultants had filed
employment-related claims
against Wells Fargo. ILG
Attorneys did not inform me of
the existence of this litigation or
its significance.”

21. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, 4, page 1, lines 18-19:
“At no time did the ILG
Attorneys ever seek or obtain any
authorization to dismiss the
Mather action.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702); misleading and
unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
352); incomplete conversation (Evid.
Code § 356).

Overruled

Sustained
Overruled

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. § 1521);
improper lay witness testimony and
legal conclusion (Evid. Code §§ 800,
802, 803).

22. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, 6, page 1, lines 25-26:
“The Notice of Lofton Settlement
stated that there would be a total
settlement of $19 million on
behalf of all the HMCs who
worked or had worked for Wells
Fargo. Exhibit A.”

23. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 10, page 2, lines 13-14:
“Mr. Liu reiterated that I needed
to submit a claim form in order to
receive a settlement payment.”

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
702); misleading (Evid. Code § 352);
hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200);
inadmissible secondary evidence of a
writing (Evid. § 1521).

Sustained
Overruled

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
702); misleading and unduly
prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
incomplete conversation (Evid. Code

Sustained
Overruled

-6-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKuneoinst PC
801 K Street, Surre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co wm IQ DAH RF WN

NY N NH NH NY NY YN DN Dee mm es
on DH HN F&F YW NH &§ FS OD BN KH UH F&F WHY KY SO

§ 356); hearsay (Evid. § 1200).

24. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
Maxon, § 12, page 2, lines 18-19: | 351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
“At no point in time [sic] the ILG | §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading and | Overruled ____
Attorneys inform me of any unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
potential benefits of opting out of | 352); incomplete conversation (Evid.
Lofton Settlement class.” Code § 356).
25. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, § 13, page 2, lines 20-21: | 351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
“At no point in time did the ILG_ | §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading and | Overruled __
Attorneys inform me of any unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
advantages of proceeding with 352); incomplete conversation (Evid.
my own lawsuit.” Code § 356).
26. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, § 14, page 2, lines 22-23: | 351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
per the instructions of the ILG | §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading and | Overruled __
Attorneys, I signed the claim unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
form attached to the Notice of 352).
Lofton Settlement, and sent it to
ILG Attorneys.”
27. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Maxon, § 18, page 3, lines 7-9: and settlement negotiations (Evid.
“According to the January 30, _| Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled __
2012 letter, the ILG Attorneys 1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
had negotiated another settlement | Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
with Wells Fargo (“Supplemental | foundation, particularly
Settlement”) on behalf of myself | “Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
and approximately 600 other Code §§ 403, 412, 702);
people.” mischaracterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352); inadmissible
secondary evidence of a writing
(Evid. Code § 1521); hearsay (Evid.
Code § 1200).
28. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Maxon, § 18, page 3, lines 9-11: | and settlement negotiations (Evid.
“Specifically, the letter stated | Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled ___
that ‘we have agreed that by 1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.

signing the enclosed form, you
will receive $750 and our fees
will be the remaining
approximately $5,520,000
dollars.”

Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
702); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

-7-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKuepinst PC
801 K Street, Surte 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co Oo DH FW NY =

N NY emt
BNRRREBRESSCSerTABDEBRASY

29. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained

Maxon, § 19, page 3, lines 12-14:

and settlement negotiations (Evid.

“Attached to the January 30, Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled ___
2012 letter from G. Arthur 1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
Meneses discussing the Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
Supplemental Settlement was a foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
‘Confidential Individual Release | 702); inadmissible secondary
and Acknowledgment,’ Exhibit | evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
F...” 1521); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).
30. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Maxon, { 20, page 3, lines 23-28: | and settlement negotiations (Evid.
“None of the ILG Attorneys had | Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled
informed me that they were 1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
negotiating a settlement Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
agreement on my behalf with foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
Wells Fargo, informed me of the | 702); misleading and unduly
proposed terms of the settlement, | prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
or asked me if I agreed to or inadmissible confidential settlement
approved the settlement terms, negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
and prior to receipt of the letterI | 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152).
was totally unaware of those
events.”
31. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Maxon, § 21, page 4, lines 1-2: and settlement negotiations (Evid.
“At no point in time did the ILG_ | Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled
Attorneys seek or obtain my 1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
consent to engage in settlement Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
negotiations [sic] Wells Fargo.” | foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
702); misleading and unduly
prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
inadmissible confidential settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152).
32. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Maxon, 22, page 4, lines 3-5: and settlement negotiations (Evid. Overruled

“At no point in time prior to the
January 30, 2012 letter did the
ILG Attorneys inform me of the
existence or nature of the
settlement negotiations related to
or culminating in the
Supplemental Agreement.”

—
OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Agreement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702);
mischaracterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352); Attorey-client
privileged communication (Evid. §

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKuepinst PC
801 K Street, Sutre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

wo mw YI DH FF BW NY &

NY N NY NY N N N YN Nw mm me
eon DAW BF YW NH KF DD MI DH FF BW NHN HK

952).

33. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 23, page 4, lines 6-7:
“At no point in time did the ILG
Attorneys seek or obtain my
consent to engage in settlement
negotiations related to or
culminating in the Supplemental
Settlement.”

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.); Irrelevant (Evid.
Code §§ 210, 350-351); lacks
foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702);
mischaracterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352).

Sustained
Overruled

34. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, 24, page 4, lines 8-9:
“At no point in time did the ILG
Attorneys seek or obtain my
consent to extend any settlement
offers.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702);
mischaracterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352); nadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).

Sustained
Overruled

35. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 25, page 4, lines 10-11:
“At no point in time prior to the
January 30, 2012 letter did the
ILG Attorneys seek or obtain my
consent to the purported terms of
the Supplemental Settlement.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); mis-
characterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352); inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.)

Sustained

Overruled

36. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 26, page 4, lines 12-13:
“The Notice of Lofton Settlement
did not advise me of the
existence or terms of the
Supplemental Settlement
described in the January 30, 2012
letter.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702);
mischaracterization of evidence,
misleading and unduly prejudicial
(Evid. Code § 352); inadmissible
secondary evidence of a writing
(Evid. Code § 1521); hearsay (Evid.
Code § 1200); Inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,

Sustained
Overruled

-9-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKurneornst PC
801 K Street, Sure 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

fo eo IY DH FF WHY &

NHN N NY NY N N NB Nw mm eet
eo TDN A BR YW NY F§ FG Oo ON DH F&F WB KY —& CS

1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).

37. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, { 27, page 4, lines 14-15:
“ILG Attorneys never provided,
or offered to provide, me with a
written copy of the complete
Supplemental Settlement they
represented they had reached
with Wells Fargo.”

|

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” and “they
had reached” (Evid. Code §§ 403,
412, 702); mischaracterization of
evidence, misleading and unduly
prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
inadmissible secondary evidence of a
writing (Evid. Code § 1521);
inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.).

38. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, { 27, page 4, lines 15-18:
“T declined, [sic] to sign the
Confidential Release and
Acknowledgment (Exhibit F) and
have never received any portion
of the Supplemental Settlement. I
never consented to the dismissal
of any lawsuit filed on my behalf
by the ILG Attorneys.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading
and unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
352); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521); inadmissible confidential
mediation and settlement negotiations
(Evid. Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124,
1126, 1152, 1154, et seq.);
inadmissible legal conclusion (Evid.
Code §§ 802, 803).

Sustained

Overruled

Sustained

Overruled

39. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, § 28, page 4, lines 20-22:
“,..the letter stated that I ‘do not
understand why it is I am to
receive only $750 while your
firm will receive over $5,500,000
in fees and costs.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading
and unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
352); inadmissible secondary
evidence of a writing (Evid. Code §
1521); hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200);
inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.).

Sustained
Overruled

40. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, { 29, page 4, lines 25-27:
“On March 9, 2012, Thad a
telephone conversation with G.
Arthur Meneses, during which he

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation, particularly
“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.
Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading
and unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §

-10-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Sustained
Overruled

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OFKuneoinst PC

801 K StrEET, SurTe 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co em YN DH HW FF WN =

Soe ee eRe oe
RBNRRFRRBRESSeBVABTDEBHRAS

advised me that the large amount
of fees in the Supplemental
Settlement was to compensate
ILG for 6 years of work,
including work on three class
actions.”

352); inadmissible confidential
mediation and settlement negotiations
(Evid. Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124,
1126, 1152, 1154, et seq.); hearsay
(Evid. Code § 1200).

41. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, q 31, page 5, lines 6-8: 351); lacks foundation, particularly
“In My [sic] April 10 letter, I “Supplemental Settlement” (Evid. Overruled
asked for more information and Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading,
records pertaining to bills, time mischaracterizes evidence (words
sheets and fee agreements “Supplemental Settlement” not in
connected to the Supplemental April 10 letter) and unduly
Settlement, and asked whether prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
there had been court approval of | inadmissible secondary evidence of a
those fees.” writing (Evid. Code § 1521); hearsay
(Evid. Code § 1200); inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).
42. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, { 34, page 5, lines 20-22: | 351); lacks foundation, particularly
“In or around late-April 2012, | “Supplemental Settlement” (Evid. Overruled ___
called G. Arthur Meneses and left | Code §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading,
him a voicemail, in which I again | mischaracterizes evidence (words
requested that he respond to my _| “Supplemental Settlement” not in
April 10, 2011 letter in writing, April 10 letter) and unduly
and again requested bills, time prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352);
sheets and fee agreements inadmissible secondary evidence of a
connected to the Supplemental writing (Evid. Code § 1521); hearsay
Settlement.” (Evid. Code § 1200); inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).
43. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
Maxon, § 35, page 5, lines 23-24: | 351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
“[ never received any writing or | §§ 403, 412, 702); misleading and | Overruled __
verbal communications from the | unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
ILG Attorneys after receiving G. | 352).
Arthur Menses’ April 24, 2012
letter.
44. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained

Maxon, 36, page 5, lines 26-28:

351); lacks foundation, particularly
-ll-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OFKunepinst PC
801 K Street, Surre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co eo nN DH FF WB NY

“In late August 2012, Mr.

“Supplemental Settlement” (Evid.

Shechtman gave me a copy ofa | Code §§ 403, 412, 702); inadmissible | OV™e¢ ——
letter dated August 17, 2012 that | secondary evidence of a writing
he had received from ILG, a true | (Evid. Code § 1521); hearsay (Evid.
and correct copy of which is Code § 1200); writing lacks
attached hereto as ‘Exhibit L.”” | authentication (Evid. Code §
1401(b)); Inadmissible confidential
mediation and settlement negotiations
(Evid. Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124,
1126, 1152, 1154, et seq.).
{_
45. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, { 37, page 6, lines 5-6: 351); lacks foundation and lack of
“[ am informed and believe that | personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ | Overruled ____
similar letters and checks were 403, 412, 702); misleading and
sent to all of the 600 HMCs who | unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
ILG represented in this matter.” | 352); statement is unsupported by
any evidence, is based on conjecture
and speculation, and contrary to the
evidence, and thus, should be stricken
or disregarded (Evid. Code §§ 403,
412, 702); inadmissible confidential
mediation and settlement negotiations
(Evid. Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124,
1126, 1152, 1154, et seq.).
46. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- Sustained
Maxon, § 38, page 6, lines 9-11: | 351); lacks foundation and lack of
“I do not believe the allocation of | personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ | Overruled ___
$5.5 million of the Supplemental | 403, 412, 702); misleading and
Settlement to ILG as attorneys’ unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
fees, with the HMCs getting only | 352); improper lay witness testimony
$500,000, is fair or consistent and legal conclusion (Evid. Code §§
with the terms on which ILG 800, 802, 803); inadmissible
stated it would represent me.” confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,
1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).
47. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
Maxon, § 39, page 6, lines 12-13: | 351); lacks foundation and lack of Overruled

“Tam moving to intervene for the
purpose of challenging the ILG
Attomeys’ unlawful collection
and retention of $5.5 million
from the Supplemental
Settlement.”

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading and
unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
352); improper lay witness testimony
and legal conclusion (Evid. Code §§
800, 802, 803); inadmissible
confidential mediation and settlement
negotiations (Evid. Code §§ 1119,

-12-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKuNeoinsT PC
801 K Street, Surre 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co Oe YN DH F&F WN

N N meee
BRRRRESRPBRSSERDZEBERERZS

1123, 1124, 1126, 1152, 1154, et
seq.).

48. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
Maxon, § 41, page 6, lines 17-18: | 351); lacks foundation and lack of
“Tam a member of the certified | personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
class in this action and have 403, 412, 702); misleading and
direct and immediate interest in | unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §

this matter.” 352); improper lay witness testimony
and legal conclusion (Evid. Code §§
800, 802, 803).

Sustained
Overruled

49. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
Maxon, § 42, page 6, lines 19-21: | 351); lacks foundation and lack of 1
“...1 firmly believe that my personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ Overruled
reasons for intervention outweigh | 403, 412, 702); misleading and
any opposition that existing unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code §
parties might have.” 352); improper legal conclusion and

lay witness testimony (Evid. Code

§§ 800, 802, 803).
50. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
Maxon, Exhibit A. 351); Writing lacks authentication

(Evid. Code § 1401). Overruled
51. Declaration of David Mark | Writing lacks authentication (Evid. Sustained
Maxon, Exhibit B (May 16, 2011 | Code § 1401).
email from Joe Liu at Overruled
marketing@initiativelegal.com)
52. Declaration of David Mark | Violation of Mr. Maxon’s right of Sustained
Maxon, Exhibit C (Claim form). | privacy; Maxon’s attorneys Chavez Overruled

& Gertler filed with the court as a
public record the Social Security
Number of Mr. Maxon; Writing lacks
authentication (Evid. Code § 1401).

53. Declaration of David Mark | Inadmissible confidential mediation
Maxon, Exhibit E (“January 30, | and settlement negotiations (Evid.
2012 Letter”). Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152, 1154, et seq.).

Sustained
Overruled

54, Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
Maxon, Exhibit F (“Confidential | 351); inadmissible confidential
Individual Release settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
Acknowledgment”). §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,

1154, et seq.).

Sustained

Overruled

55. Declaration of David Mark | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
Maxon, Exhibit G (March 5, 351); inadmissible confidential

-13-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SustainedKuNeDINsT PC
801 K Street, Sure 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Cow rd Dw FB BN =

Nb NN N NY YD Pe

2012 letter from Maxon to Liu).

56. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit H (March 12,
2012 letter from Meneses to
Maxon).

57. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit I (April 10, 2012
letter from Maxon to Meneses).

settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); inadmissible confidential
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.).

Overruled

Sustained
Overruled

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); inadmissible confidential
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

Sustained

Overruled

58. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit J (April 20, 2012
letter from Maxon to Meneses).

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); inadmissible confidential
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

Sustained
Overruled

59. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit K (April 24,
2012 letter from Meneses to
Maxon).

60. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit L (August 17,
2012 letter and packet to Stanley
Daniel Schechtman from ILG.)

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); inadmissible confidential
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.).

Sustained
Overruled

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation (Evid. Code
§§ 403, 412, 702); inadmissible
secondary evidence of a writing
(Evid. Code § 1521); writing lacks
authentication (Evid. Code §
1401(b)); inadmissible confidential
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152,
1154, et seq.); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

Sustained
Overruled

61. Declaration of David Mark
Maxon, Exhibit M (Proposed
Complaint in Intervention).

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); Writing lacks authentication
(Evid. Code § 1401).

Sustained
Overruled

OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RICHARD ZITRIN AND

EXHIBITS

-14-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKuNeDINST PC
801 K Street, SurTe 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

oe ND WH RF WBN

N v oe oe — es
BNRRRRBRHKRBRSRSRIRAEST ES

Material Objected to:

Grounds for Objections:

Ruling:

62. Supplemental Declaration
of Richard Zitrin, | 4, page 1,
lines 14-15: “[I]t appeared to me
‘undisputed that there was no
mediation between ‘the parties,’
because none of ILG’s clients
attended or were even aware of
the mediation.”

Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-
351); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (e.g., “...none
of ILG’s clients attended nor were
even aware of the mediation....”)
(Evid. Code §§ 403, 412, 702);
misleading (Evid. Code § 352);
inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); impermissible expert
opinion/legal conclusion (Evid.

Sustained

Overruled

| Code §801). |
63. Supplemental Declaration | Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350- | Sustained
of Richard Zitrin, | 5, page 1, 351); lacks foundation and lack of
lines 21-25: “Given the personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§ | Overruled ____
pleadings of both the “parties,” 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Wells Fargo and ILG (which Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
appears to be acting as a “4 ” | 1200); impermissible expert
and not on behalf of its clients, as | opinion/legal conclusion (Evid.
no clients were present at the Code §801).
mediation), any claim of
privilege with respect to these
parties has been waived.”

L

64. Supplemental Declaration | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
of Richard Zitrin, ] 6, page 1, and settlement negotiations (Evid.
lines 26-28: “These two pages, | Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled

enumerated 44 and 45
demonstrate the truth of what
actually happened. Inter alia,
paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 directly
refer to the “related class
settlement”and “similar or
related claims” which could only
refer to the Lofton settlement.”

1152); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200); impermissible expert
opinion/legal conclusion (Evid.
Code §801).

65. Supplemental Declaration
of Richard Zitrin, ] 7, page 1,
lines 6-10: “...on that date he
advised me that there had been a
settlement reached with ILG, and
a settlement executed at the
February 2011 mediation.”

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

66. Supplemental Declaration
of Richard Zitrin, { 8, page 1,
lines 15-16: “Mr. Porter then
told me that he had been
mistaken about a formal

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

-15-

Sustained
Overruled

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKunepinst PC
801 K Street, SurTe 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co mem YN DH FF WN

settlement agreement being

403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

signed and that instead what he _| Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

called a ‘term sheet’ had been 1200).

created and agreed to, but not

signed.”

67. Supplemental Declaration | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained

of Richard Zitrin, { 8, page 1, and settlement negotiations (Evid.

lines 12-15: “Based on the Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, | Overruled ___
content of what Mr. Porter told 1152); lacks foundation and lack of

me in the July 9 phone call, it personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

appears that Exhibit A, pages 44 | 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

and 45 of the Banks documents is | Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

that ‘term sheet.’” 1200).

68. Exhibit A to Supplemental | Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
Declaration of Richard Zitrin, and settlement negotiations (Evid.

Term Sheet exchanged at Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, | Overruled ___
mediation. 1152); lacks foundation and lack of

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KEVIN MCINERNEY

69. Declaration of Kevin Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
McInerney, { 6, lines 12-14: “As _ | and settlement negotiations (Evid.

a condition of that settlement, Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled ____
however, Wells Fargo insisted 1152).

that the class be defined to

include all HMCs, including

those who were represented by

ILG.”

70. Declaration of Kevin Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
MclInerey, { 6, lines 14-16: and settlement negotiations (Evid.

“Wells Fargo explained that it Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled _____
was concerned that ILG might 1152); lacks foundation and lack of

not be able to deliver individual | personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

releases from each of its 600 403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

clients. (According to Wells Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

Fargo, ILG had had some 1200).

difficulty producing its clients for

deposition.)”

71. Declaration of Kevin Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained
McInerney, §[ 6, lines 16-18: “To | and settlement negotiations (Evid.

ensure the claims of all HMCs Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled

were resolved, Wells Fargo
insisted that all HMCs, including
those represented by ILG, would
be given the right to make a
claim under the Lofton settlement
and be bound by the Lofton
release.”

1152); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

-16-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEKunepinst PC
801 K STREET, Surte 2800

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co oN Dn Hh FF Ww NY =

N N N NN Dm ees

72. Declaration of Kevin
McInerney, § 6, lines 18-20: “We
were told also that ILG and Wells
Fargo had agreed to set up a
separate, $6 million fund for
ILG’s clients. We were told not
other details about ILG’s
settlement at the time.”

73. Declaration of Kevin
Mclnerney, { 7, p. 5, lines 18-20;
“Fourth, I had absolutely no
reason to suspect that ILG
intended to appropriate the lion’s
share of the $6 million settlement
for itself.”

74. Declaration of Kevin
McInerney, { 7, p. 5, line 21-, p.
6, line 3: “In particular, I
assumed ILG would: 1) promptly
disclose to its clients that it had
negotiated a $ 6 million dollar
settlement fund on their behalf;
2) devise a fair and ethical way to
divide the $6 million among its
clients; 3) explain to each client
how much he would receive in an
individual settlement as opposed
to participating in the Lofton
settlement; and 4) depending on
the individual circumstances of
each client, advise that person
either to make a claim in Lofton
or opt out.”

Inadmissible confidential and
settlement negotiations (Evid. Code
§§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1152);
lacks foundation and lack of personal
knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 403, 412,
702); misleading (Evid. Code § 352);
hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200).

Lacks foundation and lack of

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

1200); impermissible expert

nee conclusion (Evid. Code
1).

Sustained
Overruled

Sustained

Overruled

Lacks foundation and lack of

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

1200); impermissible expert

Seon ieent conclusion (Evid. Code
).

75. Declaration of Kevin
Mclnerney, { 7, p. 6, Ins. 3-6: “I
had absolutely no idea that ILG
planned to encourage all of its
clients to participate in the
Lofton settlement so that their
claims would be extinguished
and ILG could appropriate $5.5
million for itself.”

Lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200); impermissible expert

shiy ieee! conclusion (Evid. Code

Sustained
Overruled

Sustained
Overruled

76. Declaration of Kevin
MclInerney, page 6, footnote 3:
“Wells Fargo counsel, Lindbergh
Porter, told me after the
mediation that each ILG client
who accepted an individual
settlement would be expected to
sign both an individual release
and a “waiver” of that person’s

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

Inadmissible confidential mediation
and settlement negotiations (Evid.
Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126,
1152); lacks foundation and lack of
personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§
403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.
Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200).

-17-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Sustained
OverruledKuINEDINST PC
801 K Street, Sure 2800
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

Co mem ND WH BF BW NY &

yon v pe ~ = Be oe oe
RBRRERRBRRBSESBWRBDESEHKRES

right to opt out of the Lofton
settlement.”

77. Declaration of Kevin
MclInemey, page 6, footnote 3:
“According to Mr. Porter, Wells
Fargo wanted ILG’s clients to be
bound by the res judicata effect
of the Lofton settlement.”

DATED: September 24, 2012

1619170v1

Inadmissible confidential mediation | Sustained

and settlement negotiations (Evid.

Code §§ 1119, 1123, 1124, 1126, Overruled _____
1152); lacks foundation and lack of

personal knowledge (Evid. Code §§

403, 412, 702); misleading (Evid.

Code § 352); hearsay (Evid. Code §

1200).

KLINEDINST PC

Ze

Natalie P. Vance

Gregory T. Fayard

Attorneys for Initiative Legal Group, APC,
Initiative Legal Group, LLP, Marc Primo
Pulisci, G. Arthur Meneses, Joseph S. Liu,
and Monica Balderrama (collectively “ILG”)

By:

-18-

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE