On November 02, 2018 a
Request,Application
was filed
involving a dispute between
Abel, Richard,
and
Albini, Ed,
Davis, Dale,
Duval, Jacinda,
Fung, Lenora Verne,
Fung, Verna,
Hing, Bill,
Mccutchan, B Edward, Jr,
Nord, James,
Nord, Jim,
Peritore, Evalina,
Poeng, Justin,
Schulte, D. Mark,
Severson, Richard,
Spiridonoff, Walter,
Sunderland Mccutchan, Inc., A California Corporarion,
Sunderland Mccutchan, Llc, A California Limited Liability Company,
Sunderland Mccutchan, Llp,
Sunderland, Robert J.,
Weil, Nansi Ida,
Zdanek, Matthew,
for 25: Unlimited Professional Negligence
in the District Court of Sonoma County.
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDKRLAND i
McCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 DALE DAVIS sued as DOE 4
JAMES NORD aka JIM NORD as an individual and on behalf
of the Patrick Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOE 5
JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7
BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8
9 LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11
MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SONOMA
13
14 RICHARD ABEL, ) CASE NO. SCV-263456
)
15 Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR
)
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
vs ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
17 ) OR IN THK ALTKRNATIVK SUMMARY
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR., an ) AD JUDUCATION ON BEHALF OF
individual; SUNDERLAND ~
McCUTCHAN, )) DKFKNDANTS DALE DAVIS sued as DOE
19
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 4, JAMES NORD airs JIM NORD as an
through 100, inclusive. individual and on behalf of the Patrick
20 ) Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOK 5.
Defendants. ) JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7&
21 ) BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8.
22
LKNORA VKRNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POKNG SUED AS DOK 11
23 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOK 16
24
Date:
25 Time:
Dept: 13
26
Complaint Filed; November 2, 2018
27
Trial: March 10, 2023
28 The Honorable Christopher Honigsberg
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JIIDGMENT ON
BEHALF OP DEFENDANTS B. El@ARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLANQMcCUTCI.IAN, LLP
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq., and the holding of Traders Snorts. Inc. v. Citv of
3
San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4'" 37, DALE DAVIS sued as DOE 4, JAMES NORD aka JIM
4
NORD as an individual and on behalf of the Patrick Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOE 5,
JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7, BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8LENORA VERNE
FUNG SUED AS DOE 9JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED
8
AS DOE 16 request that this court take judicial notice of the following facts and documents in
9
this action in support of their motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, summaiy
10
adjudication to plaintiff, Richard Abel's in propria persona's first amended complaint against
12 them.
13
1. August 31, 2021 filed notice of the Second Amended Judgment against Robert
14
Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 and
15
the attached August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman.
16
Relevance: The allegations of Richard Abel's first amended complaint have been
18
eliminated by the August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in
19
20 Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 as to all claims
pertaining to the October 6, 2016 Judgment and the March 20, 2017 First Amended Judgment
22
against Robert Zuckerman by operation of law. August 4, 2021 second amended judgment
23
against Robert Zuckerman is privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).
24
25 1. Richard Abel's failure to appeal the Second Amended Judgment against Robert
26 Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738.
27
Relevance: The Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v.
28
Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 is a final judgment and is not
ISEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
.BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, LLP
~
2»
subject to an appeal. Its terms control where Richard Abel has been representing himself in the
2
Lieblinu action in propria persona since November 2017. An erroneous judgment is as
3
conclusive as a correct one. (Panos v. Great Western Packinu Co. (1943) 21 Cal. 2d 636, 640).
The defendants contend that the August 4, 2021 second amended judgment in Lieblinu v.
6 Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 controls despite Richard
Abel's contrary position.
8
3. The May 14, 2020 filed amended order in Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County
9
Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 which is already in the court's file in this action per a
10
prior request for judicial notice.
12 Relevance: The January 15, 2020 court transcript attached to the order shows that
13
Richard Abel's claims as to the First Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblina
14
v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 are premised upon
15
obtaining the issuance of a writ of execution against Robert Zuckerman (5:14-28, 6:1-3 of
16
I7 Exhibit "1"). The First Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman no longer exists as a
result of the August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Sonoma
19
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738.
20
4. In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9'" Cir. BAP 2020), a published decision
21
which is already in this court's file per a prior request for judicial notice.
23 Relevance: Robert Zuckerman is in a Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel held in its 2020 decision that issues as to Richard Abel's alleged assignments are
25
between him and the fourteen (14) appellees (Richard Abel's claimed assignors) in the matter to
26
be addressed in state court (Pages 719-720). There were thirty-eight (38) appellees in this
27
published decision based upon its four corners of which Richard Abel was making a claim as to
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION POR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
BEHALF QF DEFENDANTs B. EDIVAItD MccUTOHAN, JR4 RQBERT J, sUNDERLAND; AND sUNDERLAND ] Mc8UTcHAN, LLP
3
fourteen (14) alleged assignments of the thirty-eight designated appellees. Richard Abel has not
2
sued these fourteen (14) alleged assignors in this action HJbo are indispensable parties under the
3
law. The inference for why Richard Abel has not sued these fourteen (14) alleged assignors is
4
because he fabricated the dates and names on his claimed assignments in this action where
6 conveniently he has not attached such claimed assignments to any of his pleadings in this action.
5. April 26, 2022 filed request for judicial notice as to the certified copy of the Order of
8
Discharge concerning Robert Zuckerman's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in this action.
9
Relevance: California follows the majority rule that a malpractice plaintiff must prove
10
not only negligence on the part of his or her attorney but that careful management of the case-
12 within-a-case would have resulted in a favorable judgment "and collection of same...."
(Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002) 99 Cal. App. 563, 569).
14
Richard Abel fabricated his claimed assignments as to dismissed plaintiffs in the Liebline
15
action where he has yet to file a motion per the May 6, 2021 filed order in the Lieblina action set
16
forth in item 6 below. Richard Abel has no damages as a matter of law since Robert Zuckerman
obtained a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge
19
6. May 6, 2021 filed order in in Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court
20
Case No. SCV-245738.
21
22
Relevance: Richard Abel was given an opportunity to bring a motion in the Lieblina
23 matter to demonstrate with competent evidence that his claimed assignments of former plaintiffs
in the Lieblina action were obtained before the former plaintiffs were dismissed as requested.
25
His failure to do so creates an inference that the dates on the claimed assignments by Richard
26
Abel are backdated and the signatures may not be those of the former plaintiffs in the Lieblinu
27
29 matter.
SEBARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL PACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
BE@ALP OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR4 ROBERT J. SUNDL~RLAND; AND SUNDERLAND ( McCUTCHAN, LLP
4
7. The September 11, 2012 filed request for dismissal of plaintiffs in Lieblina v.
2
Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 previously attached to a filed
3
request for judicial notice in this action,
Relevance: Plaintiff, Richard Abel in propria persona, has no damages as a matter of law
6 as to any claims pertaining to Robert Zuckei7nan in this action and it was improper to either
admit or deny the January 28, 2022 Order of Discharge under 11 U.S.C. section 727 that is part
8
of this admission discovery motion where plaintiff Richard Abel participated in Robert
9
Zuckerman's bankruptcy matters. (In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9'" Cir. BAP 2020), a
10
published decision and Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002) 99 Cal. App. 563, 569). California
1z follows the majority rule that a malpractice plaintiff must prove not only negligence on the part
13
of his or her attorney but that careful management of the case-within-a-case would have resulted
14
in a favorable judgment "nnd coilection of some...." Richard Abel is claiming in this action that
15
despite being awarded sizeable judgments in the Lieblina action, he should have received more
16
I7 from claimed assignments of dismissed plaintiffs despite not complying with the court's May 6,
2021 order in the Lieblina action in filing a motion with the court to prove with competent
19
evidence that he obtained his claimed assignments from former plaintiffs before they were
20
dismissed as plaintiffs as they requested.
21
22 Many of the claimed assignments of Richard Abel in Jim Nord's first request for
23 admissions upon Richard Abel allegedly signed and dated by Randy Bailey [dated 2/I/2013],
Gary DeZorzi [dated I/30/13], Robert and Wendy Gilman [dated 2/22/2013], Gary Holbrook
25
[dated 2/I/13] and Dennis and Cathy Ripple [2/7/13] as a few examples were dismissed before
26
their alleged dated written assignments on September 11, 2012 as requested that Richard Abel
27
claims as his in this action and are presumably fabricated by Richard Abel.
SEPARATE STATEMENT OP UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENBON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS liOBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLAND i McCUTEHAN, LLP
On May 29, 2014, Richard Abel emailed Edward McCutchan that he had no written
2
assignments fi'om former plaintiffs in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court
3
Case No. SCV-245738. (See filed declaration of Edward McCutchan in this action on May 10,
2022 with respect to Dale Davis'nd Jacinda Duval's discovery motion against Richard Abel
6 heard September 12, 2022 resulting in a September 19, 2022 filed order).
8. Richard Abel's November 2017 filed substitution of attorneys in Lieblinu v.
8
Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where he is representing
9
himself in propria persona forward.
10
Relevance: The August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert
12 Zuckerman controls the judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma
13
County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where Richard Abel was representing himself in
14
tlte Lieblina action from November 201 7forward. Richard Abel cannot claim any tortious act
15
arising out of the August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman
16
controls the judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County
Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 against any of the named defendants in this action per
19
Civil Code section 47 (b) and Panos v. Great Western Packinv. Co. (1943) 21 Cal. 2d 636, 640.
',
20
21
Date: November 2022
23
Edward McCutch n
25 Attorney for Defen. ants DALE AVIS sued as
DOE4,JAMESNO a a IMNORD assn
26 individual and on behalf of the Patrick Trust and
Mein Trust sued as DOE 5, JACINDA DUVAL
27 SUED AS DOE 7, BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8,
28 LENORA VERNE PUNG SUED AS DOE 9,
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11, MATTHEW
ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
BEBALIIfOF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD MeCUTCMAN, JR.; ROBERT J. SUNDERLA5D; AND SUNDERLAND [ McCUTCHAN, LLP
6
PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP sections 1011, 1012, 1012.5, 1013)
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
4 COUNTY OF SONOMA )
5 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg,
California 95448.
On this date, Noventber N, 2022, I served the within SUPLKMENTAL REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOK DKFKNDNANTS REGARDING THEIR JOINDER TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARYH JUDGEMENT AND ADJUDUATION on the interested parties in said action,
9 including a true copy thereof, and served the same on the parties/counsel addressed as follows:
10 PLEASE SKK ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
The followi g is the procedure in which service of this document was affected:
12
U.S. Postal Service - placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the
13
mail is de P osited in a U.S. mailbox in the Ci ty of Healdsbur 8 California after the close
of the day's business.
15 Electronic Mail - I transmitted such documents(s) to the addressees at the below E-Mail
addresses:
16
Facsimile - I transmitted such documents(s) to the addressee(s) at the following facsimile
17 number(s):
18 One Legal's electronic service program. Using One Legal's electronic transmission
program, a true and correct copy of the documents was served on all counsel by e-mailing
a copy to each addressee named below.
20 Personal Service -I caused to be delivered such envelope(s) to the addressee(s) at the
address(es) set forth below.
21
22
I declare under penalty of perjury that thego~rgoing is true and correct and this document is
23
executed at Healdsburg, California on November, 2022.
25
26 EDWAR McCUTC N
27
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 4
BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTKI IAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUN DFRLAND; AND SUNDERLAND ~
McCUTCHAhfLLP
7
SERVICE LIST
Abel v. McCutchan. et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel
6 Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY
707 Hahman Drive, ¹9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301
8
Tel: (707) 340-3894
9 E-Mail:DererelQEmaihcom
10
Defendant in Pro Per: Nansi Weil
11
N a n s i I d a We i 1 ELECTRONIC SERVICE - ONLY
434 Fifth Avenue, Apt. 1240
13 Pittsburg, PA 15219
E-Mail:nansiweilQcomcast.net
15
Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland ~
McCutchan, Inc., Sunderland ~
McCutchan, LLP,
B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.
17
18
Alexander D. Promm, Esq.
Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC MAIL - ONLY
19 Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
A Professional Corporation
20
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398
Tel: (925) 930-9090
Fax: (925) 930-9035
E-Mail:anrommQElattvs.corn
23
24
25
26
27
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT OP UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 8 EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; PND SUNDERLAND ~
McCUTCHAN, LLP
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDKRLAND i McCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 DALE DAVIS sued as DOE 4 JAMES NORD aka JIM NORD as an individual and on behalf of the Patrick Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOE 5 JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7 BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8 9 LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SONOMA 13 14 RICHARD ABEL, ) CASE NO. SCV-263456 ) 15 Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ) JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF vs ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 17 ) OR IN THK ALTKRNATIVK SUMMARY B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR., an ) AD JUDUCATION ON BEHALF OF individual; SUNDERLAND ~ McCUTCHAN, )) DKFKNDANTS DALE DAVIS sued as DOE 19 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 4, JAMES NORD airs JIM NORD as an through 100, inclusive. individual and on behalf of the Patrick 20 ) Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOK 5. Defendants. ) JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7& 21 ) BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8. 22 LKNORA VKRNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POKNG SUED AS DOK 11 23 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOK 16 24 Date: 25 Time: Dept: 13 26 Complaint Filed; November 2, 2018 27 Trial: March 10, 2023 28 The Honorable Christopher Honigsberg SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JIIDGMENT ON BEHALF OP DEFENDANTS B. El@ARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLANQMcCUTCI.IAN, LLP TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq., and the holding of Traders Snorts. Inc. v. Citv of 3 San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4'" 37, DALE DAVIS sued as DOE 4, JAMES NORD aka JIM 4 NORD as an individual and on behalf of the Patrick Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOE 5, JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7, BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED 8 AS DOE 16 request that this court take judicial notice of the following facts and documents in 9 this action in support of their motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, summaiy 10 adjudication to plaintiff, Richard Abel's in propria persona's first amended complaint against 12 them. 13 1. August 31, 2021 filed notice of the Second Amended Judgment against Robert 14 Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 and 15 the attached August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman. 16 Relevance: The allegations of Richard Abel's first amended complaint have been 18 eliminated by the August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in 19 20 Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 as to all claims pertaining to the October 6, 2016 Judgment and the March 20, 2017 First Amended Judgment 22 against Robert Zuckerman by operation of law. August 4, 2021 second amended judgment 23 against Robert Zuckerman is privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). 24 25 1. Richard Abel's failure to appeal the Second Amended Judgment against Robert 26 Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. 27 Relevance: The Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. 28 Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 is a final judgment and is not ISEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON .BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, LLP ~ 2» subject to an appeal. Its terms control where Richard Abel has been representing himself in the 2 Lieblinu action in propria persona since November 2017. An erroneous judgment is as 3 conclusive as a correct one. (Panos v. Great Western Packinu Co. (1943) 21 Cal. 2d 636, 640). The defendants contend that the August 4, 2021 second amended judgment in Lieblinu v. 6 Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 controls despite Richard Abel's contrary position. 8 3. The May 14, 2020 filed amended order in Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County 9 Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 which is already in the court's file in this action per a 10 prior request for judicial notice. 12 Relevance: The January 15, 2020 court transcript attached to the order shows that 13 Richard Abel's claims as to the First Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblina 14 v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 are premised upon 15 obtaining the issuance of a writ of execution against Robert Zuckerman (5:14-28, 6:1-3 of 16 I7 Exhibit "1"). The First Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman no longer exists as a result of the August 4, 2021 Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Sonoma 19 County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. 20 4. In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9'" Cir. BAP 2020), a published decision 21 which is already in this court's file per a prior request for judicial notice. 23 Relevance: Robert Zuckerman is in a Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held in its 2020 decision that issues as to Richard Abel's alleged assignments are 25 between him and the fourteen (14) appellees (Richard Abel's claimed assignors) in the matter to 26 be addressed in state court (Pages 719-720). There were thirty-eight (38) appellees in this 27 published decision based upon its four corners of which Richard Abel was making a claim as to SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION POR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF QF DEFENDANTs B. EDIVAItD MccUTOHAN, JR4 RQBERT J, sUNDERLAND; AND sUNDERLAND ] Mc8UTcHAN, LLP 3 fourteen (14) alleged assignments of the thirty-eight designated appellees. Richard Abel has not 2 sued these fourteen (14) alleged assignors in this action HJbo are indispensable parties under the 3 law. The inference for why Richard Abel has not sued these fourteen (14) alleged assignors is 4 because he fabricated the dates and names on his claimed assignments in this action where 6 conveniently he has not attached such claimed assignments to any of his pleadings in this action. 5. April 26, 2022 filed request for judicial notice as to the certified copy of the Order of 8 Discharge concerning Robert Zuckerman's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in this action. 9 Relevance: California follows the majority rule that a malpractice plaintiff must prove 10 not only negligence on the part of his or her attorney but that careful management of the case- 12 within-a-case would have resulted in a favorable judgment "and collection of same...." (Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002) 99 Cal. App. 563, 569). 14 Richard Abel fabricated his claimed assignments as to dismissed plaintiffs in the Liebline 15 action where he has yet to file a motion per the May 6, 2021 filed order in the Lieblina action set 16 forth in item 6 below. Richard Abel has no damages as a matter of law since Robert Zuckerman obtained a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge 19 6. May 6, 2021 filed order in in Lieblina v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court 20 Case No. SCV-245738. 21 22 Relevance: Richard Abel was given an opportunity to bring a motion in the Lieblina 23 matter to demonstrate with competent evidence that his claimed assignments of former plaintiffs in the Lieblina action were obtained before the former plaintiffs were dismissed as requested. 25 His failure to do so creates an inference that the dates on the claimed assignments by Richard 26 Abel are backdated and the signatures may not be those of the former plaintiffs in the Lieblinu 27 29 matter. SEBARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL PACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BE@ALP OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR4 ROBERT J. SUNDL~RLAND; AND SUNDERLAND ( McCUTCHAN, LLP 4 7. The September 11, 2012 filed request for dismissal of plaintiffs in Lieblina v. 2 Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 previously attached to a filed 3 request for judicial notice in this action, Relevance: Plaintiff, Richard Abel in propria persona, has no damages as a matter of law 6 as to any claims pertaining to Robert Zuckei7nan in this action and it was improper to either admit or deny the January 28, 2022 Order of Discharge under 11 U.S.C. section 727 that is part 8 of this admission discovery motion where plaintiff Richard Abel participated in Robert 9 Zuckerman's bankruptcy matters. (In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9'" Cir. BAP 2020), a 10 published decision and Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002) 99 Cal. App. 563, 569). California 1z follows the majority rule that a malpractice plaintiff must prove not only negligence on the part 13 of his or her attorney but that careful management of the case-within-a-case would have resulted 14 in a favorable judgment "nnd coilection of some...." Richard Abel is claiming in this action that 15 despite being awarded sizeable judgments in the Lieblina action, he should have received more 16 I7 from claimed assignments of dismissed plaintiffs despite not complying with the court's May 6, 2021 order in the Lieblina action in filing a motion with the court to prove with competent 19 evidence that he obtained his claimed assignments from former plaintiffs before they were 20 dismissed as plaintiffs as they requested. 21 22 Many of the claimed assignments of Richard Abel in Jim Nord's first request for 23 admissions upon Richard Abel allegedly signed and dated by Randy Bailey [dated 2/I/2013], Gary DeZorzi [dated I/30/13], Robert and Wendy Gilman [dated 2/22/2013], Gary Holbrook 25 [dated 2/I/13] and Dennis and Cathy Ripple [2/7/13] as a few examples were dismissed before 26 their alleged dated written assignments on September 11, 2012 as requested that Richard Abel 27 claims as his in this action and are presumably fabricated by Richard Abel. SEPARATE STATEMENT OP UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENBON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS liOBERT J. SUNDERLAND; AND SUNDERLAND i McCUTEHAN, LLP On May 29, 2014, Richard Abel emailed Edward McCutchan that he had no written 2 assignments fi'om former plaintiffs in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court 3 Case No. SCV-245738. (See filed declaration of Edward McCutchan in this action on May 10, 2022 with respect to Dale Davis'nd Jacinda Duval's discovery motion against Richard Abel 6 heard September 12, 2022 resulting in a September 19, 2022 filed order). 8. Richard Abel's November 2017 filed substitution of attorneys in Lieblinu v. 8 Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where he is representing 9 himself in propria persona forward. 10 Relevance: The August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert 12 Zuckerman controls the judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma 13 County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 where Richard Abel was representing himself in 14 tlte Lieblina action from November 201 7forward. Richard Abel cannot claim any tortious act 15 arising out of the August 4, 2021 filed Second Amended Judgment against Robert Zuckerman 16 controls the judgment against Robert Zuckerman in Lieblinu v. Goodrich, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738 against any of the named defendants in this action per 19 Civil Code section 47 (b) and Panos v. Great Western Packinv. Co. (1943) 21 Cal. 2d 636, 640. ', 20 21 Date: November 2022 23 Edward McCutch n 25 Attorney for Defen. ants DALE AVIS sued as DOE4,JAMESNO a a IMNORD assn 26 individual and on behalf of the Patrick Trust and Mein Trust sued as DOE 5, JACINDA DUVAL 27 SUED AS DOE 7, BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8, 28 LENORA VERNE PUNG SUED AS DOE 9, JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11, MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEBALIIfOF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD MeCUTCMAN, JR.; ROBERT J. SUNDERLA5D; AND SUNDERLAND [ McCUTCHAN, LLP 6 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP sections 1011, 1012, 1012.5, 1013) 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SONOMA ) 5 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg, California 95448. On this date, Noventber N, 2022, I served the within SUPLKMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOK DKFKNDNANTS REGARDING THEIR JOINDER TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYH JUDGEMENT AND ADJUDUATION on the interested parties in said action, 9 including a true copy thereof, and served the same on the parties/counsel addressed as follows: 10 PLEASE SKK ATTACHED SERVICE LIST The followi g is the procedure in which service of this document was affected: 12 U.S. Postal Service - placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the 13 mail is de P osited in a U.S. mailbox in the Ci ty of Healdsbur 8 California after the close of the day's business. 15 Electronic Mail - I transmitted such documents(s) to the addressees at the below E-Mail addresses: 16 Facsimile - I transmitted such documents(s) to the addressee(s) at the following facsimile 17 number(s): 18 One Legal's electronic service program. Using One Legal's electronic transmission program, a true and correct copy of the documents was served on all counsel by e-mailing a copy to each addressee named below. 20 Personal Service -I caused to be delivered such envelope(s) to the addressee(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that thego~rgoing is true and correct and this document is 23 executed at Healdsburg, California on November, 2022. 25 26 EDWAR McCUTC N 27 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 4 BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS B. EDWARD McCUTKI IAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUN DFRLAND; AND SUNDERLAND ~ McCUTCHAhfLLP 7 SERVICE LIST Abel v. McCutchan. et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel 6 Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY 707 Hahman Drive, ¹9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301 8 Tel: (707) 340-3894 9 E-Mail:DererelQEmaihcom 10 Defendant in Pro Per: Nansi Weil 11 N a n s i I d a We i 1 ELECTRONIC SERVICE - ONLY 434 Fifth Avenue, Apt. 1240 13 Pittsburg, PA 15219 E-Mail:nansiweilQcomcast.net 15 Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland ~ McCutchan, Inc., Sunderland ~ McCutchan, LLP, B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. 17 18 Alexander D. Promm, Esq. Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC MAIL - ONLY 19 Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi A Professional Corporation 20 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398 Tel: (925) 930-9090 Fax: (925) 930-9035 E-Mail:anrommQElattvs.corn 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT OP UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 8 EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JRS ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; PND SUNDERLAND ~ McCUTCHAN, LLP