Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-07-2014 12:09 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-503332
Filing Date: Feb-07-2014 12:08
Filed by: RONNIE OTERO
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04370675
COMPLAINT
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE
AND PRINT SERVICES, INC et al
001004370675
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Oe YN DH BF WY
YN NN NY NY NR NN BS ee Be Be we Be Be Be eG
ec ND WH RBH F&F SO we IA DAH BRB WH SE S
GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN, Bar No. 57117
MORGAN K. LOPEZ, Bar No. 215513
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 210-2800
Facsimile: (925) 945-1975
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff
Shirley Hwang
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Lead Case No. CGC-10-503332
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, (Consolidated for all purposes with
CGC-11-512102)
Plaintiff,
L NDE MPL,
vs. NEGLIGEN NE LIGENCE TER
SE, CONVERS
FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES
INC.; WINSTON LUM; KAUSHAL
NIROULA; JAU CHANDRAKANT
SHAH; ELVIA PALOMINO; MORAD
AFRAIMI; MELVIN LEE EMERICH;
MARTINI CHNOOGLE; GRACHELLE
LANGUBAN; MERCHANTS BONDING
COMPANY, and DOES 1-24,
Pana HE TITLE IN CASE SO-
C- 2
Defendants.
SHIRLEY S. HWANG, CASE NO. CGC-11-512102
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES
INC., WINSTON LUM, KAUSHAL
NIROULA, JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH,
MELVIN LEE EMERICH, GRACHELLE
LANGUBAN, and MARTINI &
CHNOOGLE, and DOES 1-50,
Cross-Defendants,
TO EEeaEeEerere>s=>Ss=SESe
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102oC Oe NH HW BF WN
YN MY NY NKR KN NY & Be we Be Be Se Be Se eB
oN A WH RF YH YH =| SFO we RAH RB WN FS
Plaintiff Shirley S. Hwang (“Plaintiff”), for her Complaint against defendants
FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., WINSTON LUM, KAUSHAL NIROULA,
JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH, MELVIN LEE EMERICH, GRACHELLE LANGUBAN, and
MARTINI & CHNOOGLE alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is an individual and sues in her personal capacity as well as her capacity
as Trustee of the Trust of Shirley S. Hwang dated July 1, 1998, and as Trustee of the 425 First
Street #5501 Trust Dated September 17, 2008. At all times alleged herein she was and is an
individual owning property and residing in San Francisco County, California. She is the legal
and beneficial owner of the property hereinafter referred to.
2. Plaintiff has been assigned the right to sue on behalf of the complete ownership
interest of the properties and pursue all damages relating thereto.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant FEDEX
OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICE, INC. (“FEDEX”), is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas and
authorized to do business in the State of California.
4, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant WINSTON
LUM is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of San Francisco County, California.
Ss. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant KAUSHAL
NIROULA is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of San Francisco County,
California.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant JAY
CHANDRAKANT SHAH is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Clara
County, California.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MELVIN
LEE EMERICH is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Cruz County,
California.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant
GRACHELLE LANGUBAN was at all times herein mentioned a resident of San Francisco
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102County, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN was
at all relevant times a notary public employed by FEDEX at a retail office in San Francisco,
California.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MARTINI &
CHNOOGLE is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a Nevada Corporation established by
EMERICH for the purpose of distributing wrongfully obtained loan proceeds.
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them
are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names (“DOE Defendants”).
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the DOE Defendants is in
some manner responsible for the actions and damages alleged in this Complaint. When Plaintiff
ascertains the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, she will amend this Complaint.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, or employees of each of the
other defendants and that all of the things alleged to have been done by each defendant were done
in that defendant’s capacity as agent of the other defendants, within the scope of the defendant’s
authority as agent, servant, or employee, and with the permission and consent of the other
defendants.
12. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this county as the contracts, promissory notes,
grant deeds, and deeds of trust at issue were executed in the City and County of San Francisco,
the subject properties are located in the City and County of San Francisco, and the wrongful
conduct took place in the City and County of San Francisco.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13. In August and September 2008, Plaintiff and certain co-owners purchased three
condominiums in One Rincon Hill, a residential high-rise, commonly known as units 4802, 4902,
and 5501, 425 First Street, San Francisco, California 94105 (the “Properties”.
14. Plaintiff purchased the Properties for investment with the intention of selling them
shortly after purchasing them.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-31210215. On or about January 14, 2009, defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH,
LANGUBAN, and EMERICH conspired and agreed among themselves to cause to be recorded
forged grant deeds purporting to transfer title in the Properties from Plaintiff to defendant LUM.
True and correct copies of the purported grant deeds are attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 14,
2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store,
LANGUBAN performed the notarization of Plaintiffs forged signature on a the grant deeds.
These notarizations were done without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and without Plaintiff
present,
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 29,
2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store,
LANGUBAN performed the notarization of Plaintiff's forged signature on a
DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT. This notarization was done without Plaintiff's knowledge or
consent and without Plaintiff present. A true and correct copy the notarized
DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about February
28, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store,
LANGUBAN performed the notarization of ESCROW CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS.
This notarization was done without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and without Plaintiff
present. A true and correct copy of the notarized ESCROW CANCELLATION
INSTRUCTIONS is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
19. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the forgeries, did not consent to the transfer of her
Properties and LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, LANGUBAN, and EMERICH had no authority to
transfer the Properties. Defendant LUM had no legal ownership or any other lawful interest in
Plaintiffs Properties.
20. After the purported transfer of title to LUM, LUM, NIROULA, SHAH,
LANGUBAN, and EMERICH took various steps to secure loans on the Properties.
Ml
-4-
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102oC Oo YN KD HW BF WN
S
21. Onor about March 16, 2009, after confirming that LANGUBAN was employed
by FEDEX, Plaintiff called multiple FEDEX representatives to notify the company that its
employee, LANGUBAN, had notarized Plaintiff's forged signature on the grant deeds. Plaintiff
requested that FEDEX promptly provide her with an explanation, but FEDEX failed to do so,
22. Also on or about March 16, 2009, the San Francisco Police Department
interviewed LANGUBAN at the FEDEX store located at 369 Pine Street. Despite the fact that
this interview took place in its store during business hours, FEDEX still made no inquiries into
LANGUBAN’s conduct.
23. On March 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed two separate lawsuits to quiet title to the
Properties in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-09-486395 and Case No.
CGC-09-486391,
24. On or about March 23, 2009, LANGUBAN submitted a request to FEDEX to
transfer from its 369 Pine Street location in San Francisco California, to its store in Westwood,
California.
25. On or about April 20, 2009, with full knowledge of Plaintiff's earlier report,
FEDEX approved LANGUBAN’S request to transfer to its Westwood location, and continued to
ignore Plaintiff's notification regarding the fraudulent signatures and her request that FEDEX
investigate.
26. On or about May 22, 2009, FEDEX placed LANGUBAN on administrative leave
due to suspected job abandonment. FEDEX still did not respond to Plaintiff's March 16, 2009
inquiry.
27. On or about May 27, 2009, FEDEX terminated LANGUBAN due to job
abandonment, FEDEX still continued to ignore Plaintiff's complaint and failed to respond to her
in any way whatsoever.
28. — Having still heard nothing from FEDEX, on or about July 16, 2009, Plaintiff again
contacted FEDEX regarding LANGUBAN’s notarization of Plaintiff's forged signature on the
grant deeds. FEDEX’s representative advised Plaintiff that LANGUBAN no longer worked at
FEDEX but provided no further information.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Cem YN DA HW eB wBwN &
NN NY N NY NY NR NN — Be ewe eB Be Be ewe Be eB
oN DWH BF YW YH = Sow RA DR DH SS
29. Onor about July 8, 2010, Plaintiff obtained default judgments against LUM in
both actions, quieting title in her name with respect to the Properties.
30. — Following time-consuming and costly efforts, Plaintiff finally regained marketable
title to her Properties in late 2010.
31. Investigations by the San Francisco Police Department Economic Crimes Unit
revealed that these defendants collectively conspired to forge the grant deeds in an attempt to
wrongfully convey legal title to LUM to obtain money from loan proceeds. The police
investigation, which concluded that Plaintiff was a victim of real estate fraud, resulted in felony
criminal complaints being filed against LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, and EMERICH in the
Superior Court of the State of California City and County of San Francisco Action Numbers
10009191, 1009193, and 10003838, which proceedings are currently pending. The investigation
also resulted in a felony criminal complaint being filed against LANGUBAN in the Superior
Court of the State of California City and County of San Francisco Action Number 10018652.
The complaint charges LANGUBAN with, among other things, violating Penal Code sections
182(a)(1) (conspiracy), 487(a) (grand theft) (2 counts) 115(a) and 115.5(a) (filing false deeds) (3
counts each), 530.5(a) (unauthorized use of personal information), 118(a) (perjury) (3 counts),
470(c) (forgery of evidence) (3 counts) and 470(d) (forgery of a contract) (3 counts). After being
released on bail, LANGABUN fled the country.
32. In connection with its investigation into LANGUBAN’s role in the conspiracy, in
or around December 2009, the San Francisco Police Department served FEDEX with multiple
search warrants seeking LANGUBAN’s personnel records and other evidence. On information
and belief, FEDEX did not respond to these warrants in a timely fashion.
33. Asa direct result of defendants’ conduct, the Properties were encumbered and not
marketable until between August and December 2010.
34. — Asaresult, Plaintiff has sustained extensive financial losses, including lost sales
opportunities, lost rental income, carrying costs, loss of income, fees paid to recover title to the
property, emotional distress and other losses that will be shown.
Mt
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102om IN DH AW BF WN
YP NR NY NY NY NY NNN S| ee Be Be Be eB ewe eH
oN AW FF YW NH F&F SF CH NI AA RB wBWwN KF SD
First Cause of Action (Negligence)
(Against LANGUBAN and FEDEX)
35. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 34.
36. Defendant LANGUBAN held herself out as a California Notary Public with
commission number 1727582 registered in Los Angeles County.
37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, LANGUBAN was the agent and employee of defendant FEDEX.
38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN was
employed by FEDEX as a notary and performed the notarization of the purported grant deeds on
or about January 14, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment at a retail store of her
employer FEDEX, located on 369 Pine Street, in San Francisco California. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that FEDEX benefitted commercially from offering such notary
services to its customers.
39. By virtue of her position as a notary public, LANGUBAN owed a duty to Plaintiff
and all others who could be harmed by her failure to carry out her job responsibilities in a careful
and honest manner.
40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN breached
her duties, including, but not limited to the duties of due care, due diligence, honesty, and
integrity. Specifically, LANGUBAN engaged in the following negligent misconduct: (1) failing
to keep a journal of her notarial acts; (2) failing to identify the party executing the instruments;
(3) misusing her official notary stamp and seal; (4) notarizing a forged signature; or alternatively,
allowing a third party to use her official notary stamp and seal; and (5) failing to retain her notary
journal.
41. | As LANGUBAN’s employer, FEDEX is responsible for the conduct of
LANGUBAN under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Mf
Mt
-7-
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-51210242. Moreover, FEDEX’s failure to seasonably take action to preserve evidence and
discipline or discharge LANGUBAN, its agent, amounts to a ratification of her conduct, which
renders FEDEX an abettor and directly liable for all damage caused by her misconduct.
43. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligent acts committed by LANGUBAN
and FEDEX, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of
this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when
they have been more fully ascertained or proven.
Second Cause of Action (Negligence Per Se)
(Against LANGUBAN and FEDEX)
44. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 43.
45. California Civil Code sections 1185-1189 provides that the acknowledgement of
an instrument shall not be taken unless the acknowledging officer has satisfactory evidence that
the person making the acknowledgement is the individual who is described in and who executed.
the instrument.
46. Defendant LANGUBAN violated California Civil Code sections 1185-1189 when
she acknowledged the purported signatures of Plaintiff, who never appeared before her. Plaintiff
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN notarized the signature without
satisfactory evidence that the person making the acknowledgement was the individual who was
described in and who executed the instrument.
47. Plaintiff is within the class of persons and entities sought to be protected by
California Civil Code sections 1185-1189, which is intended to prevent the recording of
fraudulent documents,
48. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligent acts committed by LANGUBAN
and FEDEX, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of
this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when
they have been more fully ascertained or proven.
Wt
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Cm YN DH A FB NY &
YPN YY YN NY YN HN Ye ewe Be ewe Be ew ew Be
aN AW KR YB Hb F&F SGD we RA AA RB BH SF ST
Third Cause of Action (Negligence)
(Against FEDEX)
49, Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 48.
50. | FEDEX’s failure to investigate LANGUBAN after being notified by Plaintiff of
the illicit notarizations was negligent.
51. Asadirect and proximate result of FEDEX’s negligence, Plaintiff has been
damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will
amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more
fully ascertained or proven.
Fourth Cause of Action (Conversion)
(Against All Defendants)
52. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 51 above.
53. Plaintiff was entitled to exclusive dominion and control over the Properties,
54. Defendants, and each of them, took constructive possession of the Properties for a
significant period of time by asserting rights of dominion and control without Plaintiff's
knowledge or consent.
55. Asa direct and proximate result of said conversion, Plaintiff was damaged in an
amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this
complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully
ascertained of proven.
56. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI
& CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary
damages against these Defendants.
57. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but
reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are
discovered or proven.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-312102Fifth Cause of Action (Trespass)
(Against All Defendants)
58. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 57.
59. Plaintiff owned the Properties.
60. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally took constructive possession of the
Properties without Plaintiff's consent.
61. Asadirect and proximate result of said trespasses, Plaintiff was damaged in an
amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this
complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully
ascertained of proven.
62, Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI
& CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary
damages against these Defendants.
63. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but
reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are
discovered or proven.
Sixth Cause of Action (Slander of Title)
(Against All Defendants)
64. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs
1 through 63.
65. Pursuant to their illicit scheme, defendants slandered Plaintiff's title to the
Properties by causing to be recorded false deeds that purported to show that LUM, not Plaintiff,
was the owner of the Properties.
66. The knowingly false statements in these fraudulent deeds of trust were
maliciously made, without privilege or justification.
Ml
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-51210267. The false statements caused Plaintiff direct and immediate pecuniary loss and
damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this
complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully
ascertained or proven.
68. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI
& CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary
damages against these Defendants,
69. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but
reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are
discovered or proven.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants as follows:
i, For damages according to proof;
ii. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum;
iii. For punitive damages not less than nine times the compensatory damages
awarded, on counts 4, 5, and 6:
iv. For attorneys’ fees incurred in clearing title, on count 6;
v. For her costs of suit; and
vi. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: February 6, 2014 GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN
MORGAN K. LOPEZ
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Shirley Hwang
-lU-
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Exhibit 1HQ
Franeisen Rssessor-Recer
RECORDING REQUESTED BY |
Wiasion Lum i tine seo.
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL, TOr sessor“necor ger
Buds Se 76-00
TIS SUTTER STRRET #308 oe ate Wit a 27108
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Friday, 16, OB27:
TU Pa {4,023.0 Rept W OedSus5E4
REEL J809 IMAGE 0134
aghfdh/2-3
—. s . ee
qs (Sf St WHOL Cranrpew ~
THE UNDURSIONRD ORANTOR(s) DECLARR() Documentary ranstor'tax iss Fy & 772
Dl unincorporsted arcu * Computed on full veluo of Interust or property conveyed, or
i the city of Sun Francisco UT fll value loss value uf tens ur encumbrances renvalning wt the
Aime of sul
Parcel No, Lots (001,009.01 3,019,030 & 031, Block 3765,
Fe Lat 146 Block 3765,
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. receipt of which Is hureby acknowledged,
Shistey S, Hwang, Trusive of the Trust of Shirley $. Hwang Gated July t, 1998
hereby GRAN'(5) to
‘Winston Lum, w singte man:
the following roel property injhe Clty of'San Francisco County of Sun Francisco, Sinje gf California:
Mee worta ele Celia WAM end "B",
legd\ desdiphe -
Doted: Janunry 14,2009
‘Shirieg $1 Mwy
STATE OF CALI .
Snr N Hwsco Sa
ro
FOR NOTARY SGAL OR STAMP
. se @ je
1 See
wuthorteod capaoity(los) ind that
mut i Jee or the entity
apie, ‘Une (nstrement,
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Stato of
Collfornia thal the foregoing paragraph ly true and correct,
WITNESS snyinyid pad OfMelal seul,
Signature _
4eoye net 4OSFOE 2-17
Locate Nat CACTI7790-77.36-Z3SE-O40244002
‘Tale We! OF40D1PCSETAX
eXHIETT "A"
nu watrea property stinted tn te cy an CoD RARP Son Bat cts, dete ofl
incon December {¢ bn 800892
02, 348 of Pre ay nt On ieee a Ee sf Condon
vam th Hs in Plan fac
An undivided 1/390th Interest In Common In and to the Phase I Buliding Common Area, lying within the sbove
ieee oe io of Soe Reno ow Oe Pana ete i Dect, ap en mg
A) A Arriah enn on hace ciel he ach,
5) Exclusive Use Common Areas fer possession, use and enjoyment of those arexr designated on the
Declaration.
Pian end defined In the:
C) —_Notrexdusive easement for eress and support in and to the Phase { Building
Common Area and the Project: ea ae gn te Plan sod Beet the Declaration,
0.) All easements as defined In the Declaration,
Parcel Threw:
1
lon-exchesive easements for Use, enjoyment, Ingress, egress and support in and to the Piiase 1 Buliding Common Phase
{Chan feed Pat Cnn fe, 8 Se Pod aed denerived in the Declaration, for tbe benef, Parcel
Parcel Faurs
penvexcfusive acement wiipurtenart bo Parcel One hierdnabove for support, rapa and maintenence, end for ingress and
Arta ew oe Ober ection 1361{0),
Parcel Fiver .
Encroachment assements a8 defined In Saction 8.5 of the Declaration,
Parcel She
{labo ue easements, a shown and denied on he Fan and who Gesrbed nt Decerst,apputanantte Pte
‘One hereinabove for the pospession, use sad enjoyment of 1
A) eck D-4002 .
Assean’s Lots 019, 020 & O22, Block 3765. rent Tex Year)
Asseseor’sRecrow/Tite Hex D642 M4802
EXHIBIT "B"
THs GRANT DEED 1S SUBJECT TO allo ges grrad and brea pond pursant therovidan of afc
eee ee reed Hever by referees wth ihe om force en fact us Cu AUN et
A. The Dedarntion; and
8, Ad easements, reseuvertions, dedications end other Interests shown and defined on Bvt Pian,
BY AGCEITANCE GP Tilg GRANT DEED) Grane rept at eure to be tnund bythe events cortaignd Det,
stone Leinoniodpes foes rece al ances to bu bound Uba provisions of the Dectaration, which ara are hereby Incorporated
freee med Voor oroisin oumant, ns rer fi set for tha at length herein, and by the provisions of the Bylaws
an he Artelus of Incorporation of Onu Rincon Hil Association,
heraln Granted i 9 consiornniun as deta i Section 1354 9f the Caloens Cv Coca, anes subject to the
the Devis-Stirina Comman Interest Development Act, Part Four, Division Second of
’ Shirley S. Hygny, Tristan of fhe Trust of Shirley 5. Hwang dated July 2, 1996Exhibit 2* lan aa
‘ RECORDING REQUESTED BY a a nclsco fesity ie
Winston Lum
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL. TO! Lo bee aerron
WINSTON LUM
NSDSUTTERSTREEF ASO rie Jat is * 209 og
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 1 Pd $4, rage.
REEL ‘Si ga I
Pia 5 7a
gas BE StH ACE ws CAC TATG TE TUT aN POR RICO OE
we GRANT DEED 9 gu.
‘THE UNDURSIGNED ORANTOR(s) DICLARE(s) Documtentory Transter'Tax is$ Po 7 7 ——
D unincorporated urvs Cleomputed on full vulue of’ intereat or property conveyed, ur
Bi thyelty of San Franetvea {Bl vo le vale of Hens ar nsumbranes rerig ne
time of'sale
Paree) No, Lots 00 1,009.U15,019,020 & 021, Block 3763,
prionssd Block 3765, *
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, recelpi of which ly hereby acknowledyud,
Shirley 5, Hwang, Trualee nf the Trust of Shiviey 8, Hwang Uvled uly 1, 1998
hereby GRAN T(s) to
Wiaton Lamy single man
Ca arse props in the ndhs Cy of Sun Patt ele ofan ana sev, State f iGeiorntes
Dated: Jonuury, 34.2009
_—.. before mo, FOR NOTARY SRAI. OR STAMP
Notury petsol ly oppenred he
‘iho Proved to me on the basis of sntist i to be the AGH oy at
peraon(s)whose name(s) Isvare subscribed tothe lh Iran nd iia
toknowledyed to mo tha he/shethey excouted the xame In hianherthelr fl “Olianoeg t
futharlzed” cepacity(les) end thet by hisher/thelr slynetirots)un the J sy copra rest nut
Instrument the person(s), or thu entity upon behalf of whieh the person(s)
acted, executed the Instrument,
lcentify under PENALTY OF PRRJURY undor the laws of the Staie of
Calffornfa that the foregoing poragraph [3 true and correct,iso BEL fion
4, 208 foo af Coser
f qu of Lots 2, 9 and 15 of Assessor's Block.
aac Dectemation of Conditory, | aoomans of Ones Fa en one (ecorded
2006, Berea No and evtald Vor vers rarded by Cat eotat Fiat Acie
Han fr Ona Rincon NE, racarcd Jul 7, £008, eres Ho }209928-00 and eny further
recorded pursuant
‘An undhvided 1/390th Interest as Tenant in Common in and to the Phise 3 Building Common Ares, tying within the sbove
Fees ee reainat One Rincon HN ws shown on te Pen ond defined In the Dectaration, excepting and reserving
4.) All condominium units shown an the Plan and described In the Declaration.
5.) Exdusive Use Common Areaé for possession, use and enjoyment of those areas designated on the
) Plan end defined In the Dedarstion,
C.) — Non-exdusive easement for use, enoyment, ingest, egress end suppor in and to the Phase | Buk
) Connon Are® and Bve Project Coron rea ox shawn onthe Plan eri deverived tn the Decisration,
©.) All easements as dofined in the Declerstion,
Parcel Threat .
NNon-excusive easements for yess, egress and support in and to the Phase I Buikiing Comeon Area, Phase
1h sod Hane Coron A ran Ares et Soot the Plan ond desorbed nthe Deco, fr Ia Pent of are
puaivoon 1
rorresciusive easement appurtenant One herelnabove repair and maintenance, ond for ingress ond”
snap emanate et Section 1361(0), "
Pareel Five: :
Encroachment exements a3 defined in Section 6.5 of the Declaration, ,
Peron Bix: 1!
Exciusive use exsaments, a8 shown sown and deacibed on ihe Pan and vio esc nthe Delran, apartenatt are
(One hereinabove for the possession, use and enjoyment of 1
A) Deck D-4902
‘Assessor's Lots 019, 020 & 023, Block 3765 (portion-Cuurent Tax Year) .
Assessor's Lot 354, Block 3765 (Future Tex Yesr)Cecrow/ Tie Not 0640N 0502
EXHIBIT "B"
‘THIS GRANT DRED 1S SURDECT TO bi! of the riahts granted end burdens Imposed pursuant to the provisions ef the following,
‘all of which sre Incorporated herein by reference with the same forcs and etfect iy though fully eet forth herein:
A, The Dedaration; and
B, Aleasements, See eee eee ein oecnnn
tater Sesreeeiptal ridegres tobe 9 be prt a esa i Nery kenpettd
ecmowiedpes, 2
‘by reference Into Y Leoeeeeesicnns for tie ot tena hereon Seavey of ie Dye
and Uve Arthées of Tnoorpuravon of One
“The property herein grantad ts 8 condomintum es defined in Section 23: etm Cada i
Provisions of tre Davis Stirling Camman Laterest Oerelopment, Act, Tite Vi, Part Four, Division Second of
Grontee: ,
Shirley Sit of The ‘TiysoF Shi
Heal 1998 weyExhibit 3ina
RECORDING REQUESTED RY :
Winston Lum San Haneef tense dager :
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO! Pall ing i Se 07075 08 :
TSOSUTTER SrauaT aoe Cheek Humber S608
TRaNece rr is’ $8, 2009 09139188
SAN PRANCISCO, CA 94109 1.8 ta i CHES, \
t 1 33 .
Jeos In AGE OLS 2 '
vf
_ J:
Soo EF se BEACH AGONTT TUN TART HOH Re ea Tis 7 *
gas HE STE SO) GRANT DEED ee i
THD UNDERSIONRD GRANTOR) DECLARES) panne Trae Ta § 6b & ee :
Incomporaicd ure computed on full value of Inieresi or propurty con or
a thy lly orSen Pronelwy CHU value Wess voluy of tens: ov encunrbroncty remaining wt the
“ Any of sale ‘
¥ parce) No,Vol 38, Block 3765, Lot #389 + ‘
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDARATION, reselpt of which in hereby acknowledged,
‘Shirley S, Hwang, Trustes OF tha 428 Firat Stroet #830) Trust Dated September 17, 2008 i
hereby GRANT(s) 10
‘Winston Lam, a single man .
the eqat 8 real pruperty {nthe Cy gigan fe ofsan frunctys rete of Ban Frant State, of Californin:
Videser! pho LUBE tAe
Outed; January 14.2000
STATE OFCAL, i +
COUNTY OF eee a
On. N . before me, FOR NOTARY SRAL OR STAMP.
eae TN, pecan
who pro me on ‘salivirtlaty ie 4
egauieele
O2e
Derson(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed (o the within insrument ond.
ae aaah
‘ocknowledyed to me thet he/shoAthey executed the some In hishertthelr
aulhorived caprcity(les) ond that by hishor/helr signature(s)on the
tosiroment the person(s), or the entity upon behalror whileh | the person(s)
acted, excouted ihe (astrument,
| certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and comet,
WITNUSS my hog apd offtefat seal,
‘Signature.Tecron Wat CEADUESDLHY | mon!
Locate Wet CACTIOTGS-7738-2358-040 07
‘Tie Not 06-4034 FESOL-AN
Lege PRSERIPTON
‘All thet real property eRuated in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, described as follows:
Parcel One: ‘ .
‘Condomittlum Unk SS01 (Lot No, 389) of Parcel Map of Ong Rincon I Decamber 14, 2005, In Book 92 of Condominium
Maps, Papes333-and $24 ‘al Records bana noenger ood ah of Lots. ‘Sand iter auesors mo see
alto belng & portion of 100 Vara Block No. 344, ux siich Lint s shown on the inium Plan for One Rincon Hill
re attached to the Declaration ‘Coverwats and Restrictions of One Rincon Hit (*Dedaration’), reco?
13,2006, Serles No. Z00G-T191069, OMidel Records, and as said Plon was amended by thet certain First Amendment 66
Usa Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hil, recorded July 7, 2006, Series No, 2006-1209320-00 and any futher
errendinents and/or sninexastons recorded pursuant thereto,
Parcel Two:
An undivided 3/390th Interest as Terrant In Common In and to the Phase I Gullding Common Area, lying within the above
Ipterenced Parcs! Map of One Rincoe Hi, ws shown on tha Plan dnd cefined In the Declaration, excepting and reserving
A.) | Ail condominium units shown on the Piau brid described in the Declaration,
5.) Exclusive Use Common Areas for possession, use and erijoyment of those arene designated on the
Plan and defined in te Decisation, . ms fest
C) —_ Nonsexciusive easement for Ingress, egress end support in Bnd to the Phase I Bulkding:
Gomera Aron ord the Projet Cartnen es of hourton te Kengo estes ee
D,) ' Ad easements ne defined In the Dectumtion. ’
Parcel Yhrea:
Norrexclusive easements for use, enjoyment, ingress, egress and support in and to the Priase I Bullding Common Aves, Phase
{'Gamen Are end Master Canines het 8 von on he Pan ah Seeved in tne Decaradon to te beret al Pred
‘One hereinabove,
Paresl Fours
Anormexclusive ensement appurtenant to Parcel One hereinabove for support, repair and malntenance, and fo Ingress and
‘egress through the Cermmon Area, in secordsnce with Caltamia CIW Code Section 1361(a),
Parcel Fiver
Encroachment easements 83 defined In Section 6.5 of the Dectration,
Parcel Sr:
Exclusive use easements, as shawn and described on the Puan and alsa described In tw Decta ‘@ppurtenant to Parcel
ne heralaabove for Ce possession, use and enjoyment oft raion
Ad Deck D-SS01
Assessor's Lots & Tox Ye
Sos Ra ce eerExhibit 4DECLARATION / AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned hereby declare(s) under penalty of | eA foltawing statements are-truc and
correct and that ths declaration/a(Mdavit is made this day of slaviurari) 0 2009
At Saw.) to sity, ORK ale.
1) [, Shirley S.Hwang ,hereby declare that I am the true and lawful heirs of the grantor (s) in that
certain deeds recorded on January 16, 2009, document no 2009-1707975-00, 2009-1707976, and
H2009-1107997-00 «a copy of which is attached hereto,
2) £ also hereby dectare that all of the statements made: io (his declaration are true and accurate, and
that the above referenced deed represents the (rue nature.and intent of the grantor(s).
3) That the attached deed is valid transfer for the ownership of the property to the grantee named in
the deed and 1 do not claim any further ownership in the ren! property described therein,
4) That! acknowledge that the grantor(s) agreed that the deed was to be recorded in the county
recorder’s office.
5) That the possession of the property was given to the grantee and neither the grantor(s) nor | (we)
as the heir(s) for the grantor(s) have entered Into any other agreement with the grantee regarding
the property,
6) Thatl make this declaration for the bencfit and protection of the grantee and their successors in
interest.
1) That! make this declaration for the purpose of inducing Old Republic Title Company to issue
policies of title insurance, knowing that Old Republic Title Company will be issuing such polices
in reliance upon the truth and accuracy of the statements in this declaration.
COUNTY OF
on SaNary 64, OA berore me, ._ 6 i a Notary Public, personally
(here Insert name ancHitle of the officer)
appeared. Shite C._ fwa
who proved to me on theBasis: of s: evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is/are subscribed to the
within [nstrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized
capacity(les}, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s} acted, executed the instrument.
1 certify unde PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregding paragraph Is true and
correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, ELLE C. LANGUBAN
Commision @ 1727682
Signature __*
STATE OF CARO « }ss: '
COANE SS:
PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT #
Case # 10003838, Tm 10009193
10018652
CASE NAME: Li, BHERIGH, Shan,
LANGUBAN
PvLUM 1220Exhibit 5TRAN'S ESCROW CORPORATION
ESCROW CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS
tu: TRANS BSCROW CORPORATION
90 Great Onks Blvd., Suite 210
San Jose, CA 95119
Phone #: AOS) 225-3400 Fax # (408) 225-5550
Lserow No. 9y090292.001-NC
thoperty Address: 188 Miana St. apt 290
san ee HdtOS
Winston Lum, a Cae (eae Shirley, as Sellers being the prinedpal parties fa the referenced asceavs, mia whiclt a dejosit
orshasqaaiatee ts Bey by datewel you io cancel said escrow, return all documents to the resjective puticr why depesited!
‘same and to release said deposit as follows:
sst1n09.09
Mera & Chupasio dee wh Wire, See Attach,
5223000 00
ai Cheek.
F2N9819,00 Sslryactgwatd Loratengesellshall S A.
ichotlon Lauer ¢
AEN aes
a Wire FNB- Binvhoy Lorn
S720464,90
Jn considersiivn of the release of sai deposit as abuve stated, the undersigned hereby rateuse each ouier and TRANS ESCROW
CORPORATION for any and all gbligations a: Habillties in relation to Ibis escrow,
“The undersigned have read and understand ttese instructions and General Hrovisions, specifically items #11, 16, 21% 26.
BUYER:
DAMA
Winsien tum
SELLBR:
NOTE: This document serves as a CANCELLATION of the referenced escrow UNLY, I is aol lotenued 1 serve ws 9 cancellation v
ity Sales agecement ar contract, For such « cancellation, you should consult yuur Realtor ar veuwsel,
STATE OF cALiroRs
el a
on 4
a -Guthdicla appeared |
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evide
hossherthey executed the sane in bisthe:“theic auiberized capacity(ves) ind that by
inetennmat and ackanwiedoed 10 fe
ieee
}x
pan before mie,
Tina Gad Nate
10 be the person(s
niche’ Shirley
whose
5) isvare subscribed to the within
PvLUMoem NY DH WH FB WN
Lead Case No. CGC-10-503332
(consolidated for all purposes with CGC-11-512102)
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, Gina Bentley, the undersigned, hereby certify and declare under penalty of
perjury that the following statements are true and correct:
1, Iam over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within cause.
2. My business address is One Walnut Creek Center, 100 Pringle Avenue,
Suite 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
3. lam familiar with my employer’s mail collection and processing practices;
know that said mail is collected and deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same
day it is deposited in interoffice mail; and know that postage thereon is fully prepaid.
4. Following said practice, on February 7, 2014 I served a true and correct
copy of the attached document entitled exactly:
by placing it in an addressed, sealed envelope and depositing it in regularly maintained
interoffice mail to the following:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
Executed this 7th day of Fe
a]
PROOF OF SERVICEService List
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. FedEX Offie and Print Services Inc., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC10503332 — Lead case
(consolidated for all purposes with CGC-11-512102)
Thomas Trapani, Esq.
Scott Long, Esq.
Fidelity National Law Group
1550 Parkside Drive, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance
T: (925) 930-9550;
F: (925) 930-9588
E-mail: ekunnes@fnf.com
Craig J. Bassett, Esq.
Attorney at Law
25 W. First Street
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4559
Attorneys for Defendants Jay Chandrakant
Shak and Elvia Palomino
T: (408) 779-0007; F: (408) 778-6005
E-mail: chassett@garlic.com
Morad Afraimi
912 Edgecliff Drive
Reno, NV 89523
Pro se defendant Morad Afraimi
T: 775-825-3113 (wk); F: 775-825-7060
(phone and fax provided by prev attys office)
Kaushal Niroula, CDC #AN1518
Mule Creek State Prison
P.O. Box 409099
Tone, CA 95640
Todd Michael Austin, Esq.
Clinton & Clinton
100 Oceangate Blvd., 14th Fl.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Attorneys for Defendant FedEx Office and
Print Services, Inc.
T: (562) 216-5000; F: (562) 216-5001
E-mail: taustin@clinton-clinton.com
Winston Lum, CDC# AP2537
California Correctional Center
Facility B- 47-11U
P.O. Box 2400
Susanville, CA 96127-2400
In Pro Per Defendant Winston Lum
T: n/a; F: n/a; E-mail: n/a
Melvin Lee Emerich
209 Portola Court
Los Altos, CA 94022-1431
Attorney Pro Se for Defendant
Melvin lee Emerich
T: 650-776-8374
Email: mlemerich@yahoo.com
Michael L. Smith, Esq.
Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLC
2 Rincon Center
121 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Association of Counsel for Def. FedEx Office
and print Services, Inc.
T: 562-216-5000; F: 562-216-5001
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-07-2014 12:09 pm Case Number: CGC-10-503332 Filing Date: Feb-07-2014 12:08 Filed by: RONNIE OTERO Juke Box: 001 Image: 04370675 COMPLAINT COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC et al 001004370675 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Oe YN DH BF WY YN NN NY NY NR NN BS ee Be Be we Be Be Be eG ec ND WH RBH F&F SO we IA DAH BRB WH SE S GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP CLEMENT L. GLYNN, Bar No. 57117 MORGAN K. LOPEZ, Bar No. 215513 One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 210-2800 Facsimile: (925) 945-1975 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff Shirley Hwang SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Lead Case No. CGC-10-503332 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, (Consolidated for all purposes with CGC-11-512102) Plaintiff, L NDE MPL, vs. NEGLIGEN NE LIGENCE TER SE, CONVERS FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES INC.; WINSTON LUM; KAUSHAL NIROULA; JAU CHANDRAKANT SHAH; ELVIA PALOMINO; MORAD AFRAIMI; MELVIN LEE EMERICH; MARTINI CHNOOGLE; GRACHELLE LANGUBAN; MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY, and DOES 1-24, Pana HE TITLE IN CASE SO- C- 2 Defendants. SHIRLEY S. HWANG, CASE NO. CGC-11-512102 Plaintiff, vs. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES INC., WINSTON LUM, KAUSHAL NIROULA, JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH, MELVIN LEE EMERICH, GRACHELLE LANGUBAN, and MARTINI & CHNOOGLE, and DOES 1-50, Cross-Defendants, TO EEeaEeEerere>s=>Ss=SESe THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102oC Oe NH HW BF WN YN MY NY NKR KN NY & Be we Be Be Se Be Se eB oN A WH RF YH YH =| SFO we RAH RB WN FS Plaintiff Shirley S. Hwang (“Plaintiff”), for her Complaint against defendants FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., WINSTON LUM, KAUSHAL NIROULA, JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH, MELVIN LEE EMERICH, GRACHELLE LANGUBAN, and MARTINI & CHNOOGLE alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an individual and sues in her personal capacity as well as her capacity as Trustee of the Trust of Shirley S. Hwang dated July 1, 1998, and as Trustee of the 425 First Street #5501 Trust Dated September 17, 2008. At all times alleged herein she was and is an individual owning property and residing in San Francisco County, California. She is the legal and beneficial owner of the property hereinafter referred to. 2. Plaintiff has been assigned the right to sue on behalf of the complete ownership interest of the properties and pursue all damages relating thereto. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICE, INC. (“FEDEX”), is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas and authorized to do business in the State of California. 4, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant WINSTON LUM is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of San Francisco County, California. Ss. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant KAUSHAL NIROULA is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of San Francisco County, California. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Clara County, California. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MELVIN LEE EMERICH is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Cruz County, California. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant GRACHELLE LANGUBAN was at all times herein mentioned a resident of San Francisco THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102County, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN was at all relevant times a notary public employed by FEDEX at a retail office in San Francisco, California. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MARTINI & CHNOOGLE is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a Nevada Corporation established by EMERICH for the purpose of distributing wrongfully obtained loan proceeds. 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names (“DOE Defendants”). Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the DOE Defendants is in some manner responsible for the actions and damages alleged in this Complaint. When Plaintiff ascertains the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, she will amend this Complaint. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, or employees of each of the other defendants and that all of the things alleged to have been done by each defendant were done in that defendant’s capacity as agent of the other defendants, within the scope of the defendant’s authority as agent, servant, or employee, and with the permission and consent of the other defendants. 12. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this county as the contracts, promissory notes, grant deeds, and deeds of trust at issue were executed in the City and County of San Francisco, the subject properties are located in the City and County of San Francisco, and the wrongful conduct took place in the City and County of San Francisco. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 13. In August and September 2008, Plaintiff and certain co-owners purchased three condominiums in One Rincon Hill, a residential high-rise, commonly known as units 4802, 4902, and 5501, 425 First Street, San Francisco, California 94105 (the “Properties”. 14. Plaintiff purchased the Properties for investment with the intention of selling them shortly after purchasing them. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-31210215. On or about January 14, 2009, defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, LANGUBAN, and EMERICH conspired and agreed among themselves to cause to be recorded forged grant deeds purporting to transfer title in the Properties from Plaintiff to defendant LUM. True and correct copies of the purported grant deeds are attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 14, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store, LANGUBAN performed the notarization of Plaintiffs forged signature on a the grant deeds. These notarizations were done without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and without Plaintiff present, 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 29, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store, LANGUBAN performed the notarization of Plaintiff's forged signature on a DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT. This notarization was done without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and without Plaintiff present. A true and correct copy the notarized DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about February 28, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment as a notary at a FEDEX retail store, LANGUBAN performed the notarization of ESCROW CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS. This notarization was done without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and without Plaintiff present. A true and correct copy of the notarized ESCROW CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 19. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the forgeries, did not consent to the transfer of her Properties and LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, LANGUBAN, and EMERICH had no authority to transfer the Properties. Defendant LUM had no legal ownership or any other lawful interest in Plaintiffs Properties. 20. After the purported transfer of title to LUM, LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, LANGUBAN, and EMERICH took various steps to secure loans on the Properties. Ml -4- THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102oC Oo YN KD HW BF WN S 21. Onor about March 16, 2009, after confirming that LANGUBAN was employed by FEDEX, Plaintiff called multiple FEDEX representatives to notify the company that its employee, LANGUBAN, had notarized Plaintiff's forged signature on the grant deeds. Plaintiff requested that FEDEX promptly provide her with an explanation, but FEDEX failed to do so, 22. Also on or about March 16, 2009, the San Francisco Police Department interviewed LANGUBAN at the FEDEX store located at 369 Pine Street. Despite the fact that this interview took place in its store during business hours, FEDEX still made no inquiries into LANGUBAN’s conduct. 23. On March 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed two separate lawsuits to quiet title to the Properties in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-09-486395 and Case No. CGC-09-486391, 24. On or about March 23, 2009, LANGUBAN submitted a request to FEDEX to transfer from its 369 Pine Street location in San Francisco California, to its store in Westwood, California. 25. On or about April 20, 2009, with full knowledge of Plaintiff's earlier report, FEDEX approved LANGUBAN’S request to transfer to its Westwood location, and continued to ignore Plaintiff's notification regarding the fraudulent signatures and her request that FEDEX investigate. 26. On or about May 22, 2009, FEDEX placed LANGUBAN on administrative leave due to suspected job abandonment. FEDEX still did not respond to Plaintiff's March 16, 2009 inquiry. 27. On or about May 27, 2009, FEDEX terminated LANGUBAN due to job abandonment, FEDEX still continued to ignore Plaintiff's complaint and failed to respond to her in any way whatsoever. 28. — Having still heard nothing from FEDEX, on or about July 16, 2009, Plaintiff again contacted FEDEX regarding LANGUBAN’s notarization of Plaintiff's forged signature on the grant deeds. FEDEX’s representative advised Plaintiff that LANGUBAN no longer worked at FEDEX but provided no further information. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Cem YN DA HW eB wBwN & NN NY N NY NY NR NN — Be ewe eB Be Be ewe Be eB oN DWH BF YW YH = Sow RA DR DH SS 29. Onor about July 8, 2010, Plaintiff obtained default judgments against LUM in both actions, quieting title in her name with respect to the Properties. 30. — Following time-consuming and costly efforts, Plaintiff finally regained marketable title to her Properties in late 2010. 31. Investigations by the San Francisco Police Department Economic Crimes Unit revealed that these defendants collectively conspired to forge the grant deeds in an attempt to wrongfully convey legal title to LUM to obtain money from loan proceeds. The police investigation, which concluded that Plaintiff was a victim of real estate fraud, resulted in felony criminal complaints being filed against LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, and EMERICH in the Superior Court of the State of California City and County of San Francisco Action Numbers 10009191, 1009193, and 10003838, which proceedings are currently pending. The investigation also resulted in a felony criminal complaint being filed against LANGUBAN in the Superior Court of the State of California City and County of San Francisco Action Number 10018652. The complaint charges LANGUBAN with, among other things, violating Penal Code sections 182(a)(1) (conspiracy), 487(a) (grand theft) (2 counts) 115(a) and 115.5(a) (filing false deeds) (3 counts each), 530.5(a) (unauthorized use of personal information), 118(a) (perjury) (3 counts), 470(c) (forgery of evidence) (3 counts) and 470(d) (forgery of a contract) (3 counts). After being released on bail, LANGABUN fled the country. 32. In connection with its investigation into LANGUBAN’s role in the conspiracy, in or around December 2009, the San Francisco Police Department served FEDEX with multiple search warrants seeking LANGUBAN’s personnel records and other evidence. On information and belief, FEDEX did not respond to these warrants in a timely fashion. 33. Asa direct result of defendants’ conduct, the Properties were encumbered and not marketable until between August and December 2010. 34. — Asaresult, Plaintiff has sustained extensive financial losses, including lost sales opportunities, lost rental income, carrying costs, loss of income, fees paid to recover title to the property, emotional distress and other losses that will be shown. Mt THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102om IN DH AW BF WN YP NR NY NY NY NY NNN S| ee Be Be Be eB ewe eH oN AW FF YW NH F&F SF CH NI AA RB wBWwN KF SD First Cause of Action (Negligence) (Against LANGUBAN and FEDEX) 35. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 34. 36. Defendant LANGUBAN held herself out as a California Notary Public with commission number 1727582 registered in Los Angeles County. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, LANGUBAN was the agent and employee of defendant FEDEX. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN was employed by FEDEX as a notary and performed the notarization of the purported grant deeds on or about January 14, 2009, in the course and scope of her employment at a retail store of her employer FEDEX, located on 369 Pine Street, in San Francisco California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that FEDEX benefitted commercially from offering such notary services to its customers. 39. By virtue of her position as a notary public, LANGUBAN owed a duty to Plaintiff and all others who could be harmed by her failure to carry out her job responsibilities in a careful and honest manner. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN breached her duties, including, but not limited to the duties of due care, due diligence, honesty, and integrity. Specifically, LANGUBAN engaged in the following negligent misconduct: (1) failing to keep a journal of her notarial acts; (2) failing to identify the party executing the instruments; (3) misusing her official notary stamp and seal; (4) notarizing a forged signature; or alternatively, allowing a third party to use her official notary stamp and seal; and (5) failing to retain her notary journal. 41. | As LANGUBAN’s employer, FEDEX is responsible for the conduct of LANGUBAN under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Mf Mt -7- THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-51210242. Moreover, FEDEX’s failure to seasonably take action to preserve evidence and discipline or discharge LANGUBAN, its agent, amounts to a ratification of her conduct, which renders FEDEX an abettor and directly liable for all damage caused by her misconduct. 43. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligent acts committed by LANGUBAN and FEDEX, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained or proven. Second Cause of Action (Negligence Per Se) (Against LANGUBAN and FEDEX) 44. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 43. 45. California Civil Code sections 1185-1189 provides that the acknowledgement of an instrument shall not be taken unless the acknowledging officer has satisfactory evidence that the person making the acknowledgement is the individual who is described in and who executed. the instrument. 46. Defendant LANGUBAN violated California Civil Code sections 1185-1189 when she acknowledged the purported signatures of Plaintiff, who never appeared before her. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LANGUBAN notarized the signature without satisfactory evidence that the person making the acknowledgement was the individual who was described in and who executed the instrument. 47. Plaintiff is within the class of persons and entities sought to be protected by California Civil Code sections 1185-1189, which is intended to prevent the recording of fraudulent documents, 48. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligent acts committed by LANGUBAN and FEDEX, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained or proven. Wt THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Cm YN DH A FB NY & YPN YY YN NY YN HN Ye ewe Be ewe Be ew ew Be aN AW KR YB Hb F&F SGD we RA AA RB BH SF ST Third Cause of Action (Negligence) (Against FEDEX) 49, Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 48. 50. | FEDEX’s failure to investigate LANGUBAN after being notified by Plaintiff of the illicit notarizations was negligent. 51. Asadirect and proximate result of FEDEX’s negligence, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained or proven. Fourth Cause of Action (Conversion) (Against All Defendants) 52. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 51 above. 53. Plaintiff was entitled to exclusive dominion and control over the Properties, 54. Defendants, and each of them, took constructive possession of the Properties for a significant period of time by asserting rights of dominion and control without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. 55. Asa direct and proximate result of said conversion, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained of proven. 56. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI & CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary damages against these Defendants. 57. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are discovered or proven. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-312102Fifth Cause of Action (Trespass) (Against All Defendants) 58. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 57. 59. Plaintiff owned the Properties. 60. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally took constructive possession of the Properties without Plaintiff's consent. 61. Asadirect and proximate result of said trespasses, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained of proven. 62, Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI & CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary damages against these Defendants. 63. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are discovered or proven. Sixth Cause of Action (Slander of Title) (Against All Defendants) 64. Plaintiff incorporates and repleads by this reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63. 65. Pursuant to their illicit scheme, defendants slandered Plaintiff's title to the Properties by causing to be recorded false deeds that purported to show that LUM, not Plaintiff, was the owner of the Properties. 66. The knowingly false statements in these fraudulent deeds of trust were maliciously made, without privilege or justification. Ml THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-51210267. The false statements caused Plaintiff direct and immediate pecuniary loss and damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of said damages when they have been more fully ascertained or proven. 68. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH, EMERICH, LANGUBAN, and MARTINI & CHNOOGLE’s conduct was malicious and despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary damages against these Defendants, 69. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against FEDEX at this time, but reserves the right to amend to seek punitive damages against FEDEX if supporting facts are discovered or proven. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants as follows: i, For damages according to proof; ii. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum; iii. For punitive damages not less than nine times the compensatory damages awarded, on counts 4, 5, and 6: iv. For attorneys’ fees incurred in clearing title, on count 6; v. For her costs of suit; and vi. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Dated: February 6, 2014 GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP CLEMENT L. GLYNN MORGAN K. LOPEZ One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Shirley Hwang -lU- THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT in Case No. CGC-11-512102Exhibit 1HQ Franeisen Rssessor-Recer RECORDING REQUESTED BY | Wiasion Lum i tine seo. AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL, TOr sessor“necor ger Buds Se 76-00 TIS SUTTER STRRET #308 oe ate Wit a 27108 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Friday, 16, OB27: TU Pa {4,023.0 Rept W OedSus5E4 REEL J809 IMAGE 0134 aghfdh/2-3 —. s . ee qs (Sf St WHOL Cranrpew ~ THE UNDURSIONRD ORANTOR(s) DECLARR() Documentary ranstor'tax iss Fy & 772 Dl unincorporsted arcu * Computed on full veluo of Interust or property conveyed, or i the city of Sun Francisco UT fll value loss value uf tens ur encumbrances renvalning wt the Aime of sul Parcel No, Lots (001,009.01 3,019,030 & 031, Block 3765, Fe Lat 146 Block 3765, FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. receipt of which Is hureby acknowledged, Shistey S, Hwang, Trusive of the Trust of Shirley $. Hwang Gated July t, 1998 hereby GRAN'(5) to ‘Winston Lum, w singte man: the following roel property injhe Clty of'San Francisco County of Sun Francisco, Sinje gf California: Mee worta ele Celia WAM end "B", legd\ desdiphe - Doted: Janunry 14,2009 ‘Shirieg $1 Mwy STATE OF CALI . Snr N Hwsco Sa ro FOR NOTARY SGAL OR STAMP . se @ je 1 See wuthorteod capaoity(los) ind that mut i Jee or the entity apie, ‘Une (nstrement, I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Stato of Collfornia thal the foregoing paragraph ly true and correct, WITNESS snyinyid pad OfMelal seul, Signature _ 4eoye net 4OSFOE 2-17 Locate Nat CACTI7790-77.36-Z3SE-O40244002 ‘Tale We! OF40D1PCSETAX eXHIETT "A" nu watrea property stinted tn te cy an CoD RARP Son Bat cts, dete ofl incon December {¢ bn 800892 02, 348 of Pre ay nt On ieee a Ee sf Condon vam th Hs in Plan fac An undivided 1/390th Interest In Common In and to the Phase I Buliding Common Area, lying within the sbove ieee oe io of Soe Reno ow Oe Pana ete i Dect, ap en mg A) A Arriah enn on hace ciel he ach, 5) Exclusive Use Common Areas fer possession, use and enjoyment of those arexr designated on the Declaration. Pian end defined In the: C) —_Notrexdusive easement for eress and support in and to the Phase { Building Common Area and the Project: ea ae gn te Plan sod Beet the Declaration, 0.) All easements as defined In the Declaration, Parcel Threw: 1 lon-exchesive easements for Use, enjoyment, Ingress, egress and support in and to the Piiase 1 Buliding Common Phase {Chan feed Pat Cnn fe, 8 Se Pod aed denerived in the Declaration, for tbe benef, Parcel Parcel Faurs penvexcfusive acement wiipurtenart bo Parcel One hierdnabove for support, rapa and maintenence, end for ingress and Arta ew oe Ober ection 1361{0), Parcel Fiver . Encroachment assements a8 defined In Saction 8.5 of the Declaration, Parcel She {labo ue easements, a shown and denied on he Fan and who Gesrbed nt Decerst,apputanantte Pte ‘One hereinabove for the pospession, use sad enjoyment of 1 A) eck D-4002 . Assean’s Lots 019, 020 & O22, Block 3765. rent Tex Year) Asseseor’sRecrow/Tite Hex D642 M4802 EXHIBIT "B" THs GRANT DEED 1S SUBJECT TO allo ges grrad and brea pond pursant therovidan of afc eee ee reed Hever by referees wth ihe om force en fact us Cu AUN et A. The Dedarntion; and 8, Ad easements, reseuvertions, dedications end other Interests shown and defined on Bvt Pian, BY AGCEITANCE GP Tilg GRANT DEED) Grane rept at eure to be tnund bythe events cortaignd Det, stone Leinoniodpes foes rece al ances to bu bound Uba provisions of the Dectaration, which ara are hereby Incorporated freee med Voor oroisin oumant, ns rer fi set for tha at length herein, and by the provisions of the Bylaws an he Artelus of Incorporation of Onu Rincon Hil Association, heraln Granted i 9 consiornniun as deta i Section 1354 9f the Caloens Cv Coca, anes subject to the the Devis-Stirina Comman Interest Development Act, Part Four, Division Second of ’ Shirley S. Hygny, Tristan of fhe Trust of Shirley 5. Hwang dated July 2, 1996Exhibit 2* lan aa ‘ RECORDING REQUESTED BY a a nclsco fesity ie Winston Lum AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL. TO! Lo bee aerron WINSTON LUM NSDSUTTERSTREEF ASO rie Jat is * 209 og SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 1 Pd $4, rage. REEL ‘Si ga I Pia 5 7a gas BE StH ACE ws CAC TATG TE TUT aN POR RICO OE we GRANT DEED 9 gu. ‘THE UNDURSIGNED ORANTOR(s) DICLARE(s) Documtentory Transter'Tax is$ Po 7 7 —— D unincorporated urvs Cleomputed on full vulue of’ intereat or property conveyed, ur Bi thyelty of San Franetvea {Bl vo le vale of Hens ar nsumbranes rerig ne time of'sale Paree) No, Lots 00 1,009.U15,019,020 & 021, Block 3763, prionssd Block 3765, * FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, recelpi of which ly hereby acknowledyud, Shirley 5, Hwang, Trualee nf the Trust of Shiviey 8, Hwang Uvled uly 1, 1998 hereby GRAN T(s) to Wiaton Lamy single man Ca arse props in the ndhs Cy of Sun Patt ele ofan ana sev, State f iGeiorntes Dated: Jonuury, 34.2009 _—.. before mo, FOR NOTARY SRAI. OR STAMP Notury petsol ly oppenred he ‘iho Proved to me on the basis of sntist i to be the AGH oy at peraon(s)whose name(s) Isvare subscribed tothe lh Iran nd iia toknowledyed to mo tha he/shethey excouted the xame In hianherthelr fl “Olianoeg t futharlzed” cepacity(les) end thet by hisher/thelr slynetirots)un the J sy copra rest nut Instrument the person(s), or thu entity upon behalf of whieh the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument, lcentify under PENALTY OF PRRJURY undor the laws of the Staie of Calffornfa that the foregoing poragraph [3 true and correct,iso BEL fion 4, 208 foo af Coser f qu of Lots 2, 9 and 15 of Assessor's Block. aac Dectemation of Conditory, | aoomans of Ones Fa en one (ecorded 2006, Berea No and evtald Vor vers rarded by Cat eotat Fiat Acie Han fr Ona Rincon NE, racarcd Jul 7, £008, eres Ho }209928-00 and eny further recorded pursuant ‘An undhvided 1/390th Interest as Tenant in Common in and to the Phise 3 Building Common Ares, tying within the sbove Fees ee reainat One Rincon HN ws shown on te Pen ond defined In the Dectaration, excepting and reserving 4.) All condominium units shown an the Plan and described In the Declaration. 5.) Exdusive Use Common Areaé for possession, use and enjoyment of those areas designated on the ) Plan end defined In the Dedarstion, C.) — Non-exdusive easement for use, enoyment, ingest, egress end suppor in and to the Phase | Buk ) Connon Are® and Bve Project Coron rea ox shawn onthe Plan eri deverived tn the Decisration, ©.) All easements as dofined in the Declerstion, Parcel Threat . NNon-excusive easements for yess, egress and support in and to the Phase I Buikiing Comeon Area, Phase 1h sod Hane Coron A ran Ares et Soot the Plan ond desorbed nthe Deco, fr Ia Pent of are puaivoon 1 rorresciusive easement appurtenant One herelnabove repair and maintenance, ond for ingress ond” snap emanate et Section 1361(0), " Pareel Five: : Encroachment exements a3 defined in Section 6.5 of the Declaration, , Peron Bix: 1! Exciusive use exsaments, a8 shown sown and deacibed on ihe Pan and vio esc nthe Delran, apartenatt are (One hereinabove for the possession, use and enjoyment of 1 A) Deck D-4902 ‘Assessor's Lots 019, 020 & 023, Block 3765 (portion-Cuurent Tax Year) . Assessor's Lot 354, Block 3765 (Future Tex Yesr)Cecrow/ Tie Not 0640N 0502 EXHIBIT "B" ‘THIS GRANT DRED 1S SURDECT TO bi! of the riahts granted end burdens Imposed pursuant to the provisions ef the following, ‘all of which sre Incorporated herein by reference with the same forcs and etfect iy though fully eet forth herein: A, The Dedaration; and B, Aleasements, See eee eee ein oecnnn tater Sesreeeiptal ridegres tobe 9 be prt a esa i Nery kenpettd ecmowiedpes, 2 ‘by reference Into Y Leoeeeeesicnns for tie ot tena hereon Seavey of ie Dye and Uve Arthées of Tnoorpuravon of One “The property herein grantad ts 8 condomintum es defined in Section 23: etm Cada i Provisions of tre Davis Stirling Camman Laterest Oerelopment, Act, Tite Vi, Part Four, Division Second of Grontee: , Shirley Sit of The ‘TiysoF Shi Heal 1998 weyExhibit 3ina RECORDING REQUESTED RY : Winston Lum San Haneef tense dager : AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO! Pall ing i Se 07075 08 : TSOSUTTER SrauaT aoe Cheek Humber S608 TRaNece rr is’ $8, 2009 09139188 SAN PRANCISCO, CA 94109 1.8 ta i CHES, \ t 1 33 . Jeos In AGE OLS 2 ' vf _ J: Soo EF se BEACH AGONTT TUN TART HOH Re ea Tis 7 * gas HE STE SO) GRANT DEED ee i THD UNDERSIONRD GRANTOR) DECLARES) panne Trae Ta § 6b & ee : Incomporaicd ure computed on full value of Inieresi or propurty con or a thy lly orSen Pronelwy CHU value Wess voluy of tens: ov encunrbroncty remaining wt the “ Any of sale ‘ ¥ parce) No,Vol 38, Block 3765, Lot #389 + ‘ FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDARATION, reselpt of which in hereby acknowledged, ‘Shirley S, Hwang, Trustes OF tha 428 Firat Stroet #830) Trust Dated September 17, 2008 i hereby GRANT(s) 10 ‘Winston Lam, a single man . the eqat 8 real pruperty {nthe Cy gigan fe ofsan frunctys rete of Ban Frant State, of Californin: Videser! pho LUBE tAe Outed; January 14.2000 STATE OFCAL, i + COUNTY OF eee a On. N . before me, FOR NOTARY SRAL OR STAMP. eae TN, pecan who pro me on ‘salivirtlaty ie 4 egauieele O2e Derson(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed (o the within insrument ond. ae aaah ‘ocknowledyed to me thet he/shoAthey executed the some In hishertthelr aulhorived caprcity(les) ond that by hishor/helr signature(s)on the tosiroment the person(s), or the entity upon behalror whileh | the person(s) acted, excouted ihe (astrument, | certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and comet, WITNUSS my hog apd offtefat seal, ‘Signature.Tecron Wat CEADUESDLHY | mon! Locate Wet CACTIOTGS-7738-2358-040 07 ‘Tie Not 06-4034 FESOL-AN Lege PRSERIPTON ‘All thet real property eRuated in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, described as follows: Parcel One: ‘ . ‘Condomittlum Unk SS01 (Lot No, 389) of Parcel Map of Ong Rincon I Decamber 14, 2005, In Book 92 of Condominium Maps, Papes333-and $24 ‘al Records bana noenger ood ah of Lots. ‘Sand iter auesors mo see alto belng & portion of 100 Vara Block No. 344, ux siich Lint s shown on the inium Plan for One Rincon Hill re attached to the Declaration ‘Coverwats and Restrictions of One Rincon Hit (*Dedaration’), reco? 13,2006, Serles No. Z00G-T191069, OMidel Records, and as said Plon was amended by thet certain First Amendment 66 Usa Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hil, recorded July 7, 2006, Series No, 2006-1209320-00 and any futher errendinents and/or sninexastons recorded pursuant thereto, Parcel Two: An undivided 3/390th Interest as Terrant In Common In and to the Phase I Gullding Common Area, lying within the above Ipterenced Parcs! Map of One Rincoe Hi, ws shown on tha Plan dnd cefined In the Declaration, excepting and reserving A.) | Ail condominium units shown on the Piau brid described in the Declaration, 5.) Exclusive Use Common Areas for possession, use and erijoyment of those arene designated on the Plan and defined in te Decisation, . ms fest C) —_ Nonsexciusive easement for Ingress, egress end support in Bnd to the Phase I Bulkding: Gomera Aron ord the Projet Cartnen es of hourton te Kengo estes ee D,) ' Ad easements ne defined In the Dectumtion. ’ Parcel Yhrea: Norrexclusive easements for use, enjoyment, ingress, egress and support in and to the Priase I Bullding Common Aves, Phase {'Gamen Are end Master Canines het 8 von on he Pan ah Seeved in tne Decaradon to te beret al Pred ‘One hereinabove, Paresl Fours Anormexclusive ensement appurtenant to Parcel One hereinabove for support, repair and malntenance, and fo Ingress and ‘egress through the Cermmon Area, in secordsnce with Caltamia CIW Code Section 1361(a), Parcel Fiver Encroachment easements 83 defined In Section 6.5 of the Dectration, Parcel Sr: Exclusive use easements, as shawn and described on the Puan and alsa described In tw Decta ‘@ppurtenant to Parcel ne heralaabove for Ce possession, use and enjoyment oft raion Ad Deck D-SS01 Assessor's Lots & Tox Ye Sos Ra ce eerExhibit 4DECLARATION / AFFIDAVIT The undersigned hereby declare(s) under penalty of | eA foltawing statements are-truc and correct and that ths declaration/a(Mdavit is made this day of slaviurari) 0 2009 At Saw.) to sity, ORK ale. 1) [, Shirley S.Hwang ,hereby declare that I am the true and lawful heirs of the grantor (s) in that certain deeds recorded on January 16, 2009, document no 2009-1707975-00, 2009-1707976, and H2009-1107997-00 «a copy of which is attached hereto, 2) £ also hereby dectare that all of the statements made: io (his declaration are true and accurate, and that the above referenced deed represents the (rue nature.and intent of the grantor(s). 3) That the attached deed is valid transfer for the ownership of the property to the grantee named in the deed and 1 do not claim any further ownership in the ren! property described therein, 4) That! acknowledge that the grantor(s) agreed that the deed was to be recorded in the county recorder’s office. 5) That the possession of the property was given to the grantee and neither the grantor(s) nor | (we) as the heir(s) for the grantor(s) have entered Into any other agreement with the grantee regarding the property, 6) Thatl make this declaration for the bencfit and protection of the grantee and their successors in interest. 1) That! make this declaration for the purpose of inducing Old Republic Title Company to issue policies of title insurance, knowing that Old Republic Title Company will be issuing such polices in reliance upon the truth and accuracy of the statements in this declaration. COUNTY OF on SaNary 64, OA berore me, ._ 6 i a Notary Public, personally (here Insert name ancHitle of the officer) appeared. Shite C._ fwa who proved to me on theBasis: of s: evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is/are subscribed to the within [nstrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacity(les}, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s} acted, executed the instrument. 1 certify unde PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregding paragraph Is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal, ELLE C. LANGUBAN Commision @ 1727682 Signature __* STATE OF CARO « }ss: ' COANE SS: PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT # Case # 10003838, Tm 10009193 10018652 CASE NAME: Li, BHERIGH, Shan, LANGUBAN PvLUM 1220Exhibit 5TRAN'S ESCROW CORPORATION ESCROW CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS tu: TRANS BSCROW CORPORATION 90 Great Onks Blvd., Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95119 Phone #: AOS) 225-3400 Fax # (408) 225-5550 Lserow No. 9y090292.001-NC thoperty Address: 188 Miana St. apt 290 san ee HdtOS Winston Lum, a Cae (eae Shirley, as Sellers being the prinedpal parties fa the referenced asceavs, mia whiclt a dejosit orshasqaaiatee ts Bey by datewel you io cancel said escrow, return all documents to the resjective puticr why depesited! ‘same and to release said deposit as follows: sst1n09.09 Mera & Chupasio dee wh Wire, See Attach, 5223000 00 ai Cheek. F2N9819,00 Sslryactgwatd Loratengesellshall S A. ichotlon Lauer ¢ AEN aes a Wire FNB- Binvhoy Lorn S720464,90 Jn considersiivn of the release of sai deposit as abuve stated, the undersigned hereby rateuse each ouier and TRANS ESCROW CORPORATION for any and all gbligations a: Habillties in relation to Ibis escrow, “The undersigned have read and understand ttese instructions and General Hrovisions, specifically items #11, 16, 21% 26. BUYER: DAMA Winsien tum SELLBR: NOTE: This document serves as a CANCELLATION of the referenced escrow UNLY, I is aol lotenued 1 serve ws 9 cancellation v ity Sales agecement ar contract, For such « cancellation, you should consult yuur Realtor ar veuwsel, STATE OF cALiroRs el a on 4 a -Guthdicla appeared | who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evide hossherthey executed the sane in bisthe:“theic auiberized capacity(ves) ind that by inetennmat and ackanwiedoed 10 fe ieee }x pan before mie, Tina Gad Nate 10 be the person(s niche’ Shirley whose 5) isvare subscribed to the within PvLUMoem NY DH WH FB WN Lead Case No. CGC-10-503332 (consolidated for all purposes with CGC-11-512102) PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Gina Bentley, the undersigned, hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct: 1, Iam over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within cause. 2. My business address is One Walnut Creek Center, 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 3. lam familiar with my employer’s mail collection and processing practices; know that said mail is collected and deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day it is deposited in interoffice mail; and know that postage thereon is fully prepaid. 4. Following said practice, on February 7, 2014 I served a true and correct copy of the attached document entitled exactly: by placing it in an addressed, sealed envelope and depositing it in regularly maintained interoffice mail to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Executed this 7th day of Fe a] PROOF OF SERVICEService List Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. FedEX Offie and Print Services Inc., et al. San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC10503332 — Lead case (consolidated for all purposes with CGC-11-512102) Thomas Trapani, Esq. Scott Long, Esq. Fidelity National Law Group 1550 Parkside Drive, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth Land Title Insurance T: (925) 930-9550; F: (925) 930-9588 E-mail: ekunnes@fnf.com Craig J. Bassett, Esq. Attorney at Law 25 W. First Street Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4559 Attorneys for Defendants Jay Chandrakant Shak and Elvia Palomino T: (408) 779-0007; F: (408) 778-6005 E-mail: chassett@garlic.com Morad Afraimi 912 Edgecliff Drive Reno, NV 89523 Pro se defendant Morad Afraimi T: 775-825-3113 (wk); F: 775-825-7060 (phone and fax provided by prev attys office) Kaushal Niroula, CDC #AN1518 Mule Creek State Prison P.O. Box 409099 Tone, CA 95640 Todd Michael Austin, Esq. Clinton & Clinton 100 Oceangate Blvd., 14th Fl. Long Beach, CA 90802 Attorneys for Defendant FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. T: (562) 216-5000; F: (562) 216-5001 E-mail: taustin@clinton-clinton.com Winston Lum, CDC# AP2537 California Correctional Center Facility B- 47-11U P.O. Box 2400 Susanville, CA 96127-2400 In Pro Per Defendant Winston Lum T: n/a; F: n/a; E-mail: n/a Melvin Lee Emerich 209 Portola Court Los Altos, CA 94022-1431 Attorney Pro Se for Defendant Melvin lee Emerich T: 650-776-8374 Email: mlemerich@yahoo.com Michael L. Smith, Esq. Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLC 2 Rincon Center 121 Spear Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Association of Counsel for Def. FedEx Office and print Services, Inc. T: 562-216-5000; F: 562-216-5001 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE