Motion for Discovery in Jason Neel vs Asset Default Management, Inc, et al| Trellis.Law

On August 10, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Neel, Jason, Rushmyfile, Inc., United States Real Estate Corporation, and Cna Equities Group, Llc, Rushmyfile, Schwartz, Donald Esq, United States Real Estate Corporation, for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property in the District Court of Santa Cruz County.

Preview
Mark J. Sarni, Esq. (SBN 164364)
1
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2 3424 Carson Street, Suite 350
Torrance, California 90503
3 Telephone No.: (310) 542-0111
Facsimile No.: (310) 214-7254
4
Email: southbayadr@gmail.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant, Rushmyfile, Inc.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10
JASON NEEL, ) CASE NO: 22CV01758
11 )
12 Plaintiff, )
v. ) PART 2 OF 3 (EXHIBITS “B” - "C")
13 ) OF:
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET )
14
DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC.; UNITED ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
15 STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION; ) BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE,
CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND ) INC. TO DEEM MATTERS IN
16 RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AS
UNKNOWN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL
17
) DISCOVERY RESPONSES
18 Defendants. ) (INTERROGATORIES AND
) DOCUMENT PRODUCTION) AS
19 UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE ) AGAINST PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL
20 CORPORATION ) AND HIS GURADIAN AD LITEM;
) REQUEST FOR MONETARY
21 Cross-Complainant, ) SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
) 3,560 AGAINST SAID PARTIES;
22 v. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
23 ) AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION
JASON NEEL; CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC., a) OF MARK J. SARNI IN SUPPORT
24 professional corporation; a California ) THEREOF
Corporation; CODY MOLICA, and ROES 1-50,)
25 ) DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
Inclusive,
26 ) TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Cross-Defendants. ) PLACE: Dept. “5”
27 ) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
_______________________________________)
28 )

1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES – PART 2 OF 3 (EXHIBITS “B” - "C")
)
1
RUSHMYFILE, INC., a California Corporation, )
2 )
Cross-Complainant, )
3 )
v. )
4
)
5 CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC., a professional )
corporation; CODY MOLICA, an individual; )
6 DONALD SCHWARTZ, an individual; DEREK)
7 WHEAT AKA MIGUEL WHEAT AKA SAM )
WHEAT, an individual; and MOES 1-50, )
8 inclusive, )
)
9 Cross-Defendants. )
10 )
)
11 )
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES – PART 2 OF 3 (EXHIBIT “B”)
1 EXHIBIT "B"
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EXHIBIT "B"
16
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
DISC-001
ft�TORNEY OR PARTY \'\1THOUT ATTORNEY /,'-lame. Sia/a &a, nurru,,. nnu a'1dres>)
Mark J. Sarni. Esq. (SBN 164364)
3424 Carson Street. Suite 350. Torrance, CA 90503

TEU:':FHONE NO.: 310-542-0111. ext 224
I A,'O;C, {0t>lt0!1af) 310-214-1021
t·MAIL ADDRESS 10,_,tJ D (FEDERAL) l declare that I an, employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made.
17
Executed on March 31. 2023. at Torrance, Calif
18
�
19

20 MARK J. SARNI
21

2-l

28 ------·--···-··--·-············· ----·-·---..--·-·-·------
CASE NO. 22CVOl758

PROOF OF SERVICE
l
SERVICE LIST

:Thornton Davidson: Esq. I Attorney �or-PlaintifI Jason Neel (BY U.S.
2 ! Tl IORi"\lTON DAVIDSON, P.C. MAIL AND EMAIL)
I 1195 W. Shav; Ave., Ste. A I

Fresno, CA 9371 l I
thornton(ii;thorntondav i dson la \V :..9.9111
I

5
Pamela D. Simmons, Esq.
William Purdy. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jason Neel - (BY lJ .S.
6
LAW OFFJCE OF SIMMONS & PURDY MAIL AND EMAIL)
2425 Porter Street, Suite l 0
Soquel. CA 95073
8 pamelafa'pamelaw.com
bi1l(@pamclaw.com
9

Jeffrey H. Lov.'cnthal. Esq. Attorneys for Defendant and Cross
Complainant, United States Real Estate
10
Edward Egan Smith, Esq.
11 Matthew W. Delbridge, Esq. Corporation - (BY EMAIL ONLY)
STEYER LOWENTHAL
I2 BOO DROOK.AS ALVAREZ & SMITH
LLP
13 135 Pinc Street, 15 111 Floor
San Francisco. CA 94104
14 ilowcnthal(cvstcvcrlaw.com
esmith@;steverlaw.com

II Attorney for Defendants Supenor Loan
15 mdelhridge@stcverlav.:.com
16
Edward T. Weber. Esq.
17
Kristi M. Wells, Esq. Servicing and Asset Default Management,
Law Office of Edward T. Weber I Inc. (BY EMAIL ONLY)
18
17151 Newhope Street. Suite 203
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
r

ed@weberkgal.com
19

20
kristi({:i1edwebcrlegal.com

21
Michael T. Beuselinck. Esq.
22 Michal Beuselinck. P.S. Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Defendant
490 43 rd Street #37 CNA Equity Group. Inc. - (BY EMAIL
Oakland. CA 94609 I
!
ONLY)
mikc ,.,m.la wmtb.com
:24
Cody Molica
1029North Road #175
Westfield, MAO l 085 Defendant and Cross-Defendant. In Pro Per -
cmolica 11 'a:gmail.com I (BY EMA[L ONLY)

I
1

_j
27

28
CASE '10. 22CVOl758

PROOF OF SERVICE
1 EXHIBIT "C"
2
3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EXHIBIT "C"
17
NOTICE AND MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S AS ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORJES AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
Marl... J. Sarni. Esq. (SBN 164364)
ATTORNEY AT LA\V
3424 Carson Street. Suite 350
Torrance. California 90503
Telephone: (310) 542-0111
Facsimile: (31()) 214-7254
-+ · Email: southbfil'_adr(il',gmail.com

5 At1orney for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant. Rushmyfile, Inc.
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COlJRT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9

10
JASON NEEL ) CASE NO: 22CV01758
11 )
Plaintiff, ) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM
V.
) DEFENDANT RlJSHMYFILE, lNC. TO
) PLAlNTlFF JASON NEEL
13 )
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET ) (SET ONE)
14 DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC.: UNITED )
s7tTifS REA� ESTATE co��ORATION: )
15 I CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC, AND )
RUSHMYFILE. BUSINESS ENTlTY FORM )
16 )
UNKNOWN. and DOES 1-50. inclusive.
)
17
18
---------------))
Defendants.

UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE )
19 CORPORATION )
)
20 )
Cross-Complainant. )
21 )
V. )
)
'JASOJ\ NEEL: CNA EQUITY GROUP. INC .. a)
2] professional corporation: a California )
)
24 Corporation: CODY MOLICA, and ROES 1-50.)
Inclusive, )
25 )
Cross-Defendants. )
26 )
)
27 ---·---------)
)
28 )

SPECIAL [NTERROGATOR!ES BY DEFENDANT RUSH.MY FILE
TO PLAINTlFF NEEL (SET ONE)
RlJSHMYFILE. INC.. a California Corporation.)
.

)
')
Cross-Complainant. )
)
3 )
V. )
4
CNA EQUITY GROUP. lNC .. a professional )
5 corporation; CODY MOLICA. an individual; )
DONALD SCHWARTZ, an indi\'idual; DEREK)
6 WHEAT AK.A MIGUEL WHEAT AKA SAM �
7 WHEAT. an individual; and MOES 1-50. )
inclusive, )
)
Cross-De fendants. )
9 )
10
1l PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT RUSHMYFTLE, INC.
12
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL
13 SET NO: ONE
14 I.
15
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
17
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOU
18 allegations in paragraph 1 of YOUR First Amended Complaint (hereinafter. and throughout thi
19
set of intenogatorics, "FAC') which reads as follows:
20
··At all times relevant to this Complaint Plaintiff was a dependent adult with a
21
number of cognitive impairments."
22
(As used herein and throuRhout rhis set of inlerro::.;atories. the term "FACT" or '·FACTS"'
__,
').,
shall mean and include ull circumstances. events, and evidence perrainin.g to, relating to, or
24 wuching upon the item or muller i11 question Also. as used herein and throughout this set of
25 interrogawries, the term "YOU, ., 'TOUR·· or ·'YOURS"' shall refer to P!ainr{ffJAS'O.N NEEL)
26
27
28

SPECIAL INTERROGATORtES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYF!LE
TO PLAINTIFf NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
2 For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 1, please

3 "IDENTJFY all DOCUMENTS v.-bich RELATE TO YOUR response.
4 rAs used herein and throughout this set of interrogaTOries, the term "DOCU1\1EN7:'·:i' ..

5 shall mean a ·writing. ns defined in Evidmce Code section 250, and includes the original or a

6 cop,v of handwriting, typewriFing, printing, photosrating. phorographing. transmilling hy

7 electronic mail or .fhcsimile, and every other 1nea11s <�f recording upon any tangih/e thing mu/
f
8 fhrm o cmnmunicating or representation. including CD-Roms, DVDs. thumbdrives, or anyjbrm

9 r?fe!ectronic media or computeri::edfile ,1·hich may include word processing.files, database and

1O ,\preadsheet files, emails, accounting and payroll files. industry specific software generated files

l1 H'ith access to rhe soft ware 10 read the electronic data, etc., and lellers, words. pictures, ,wunds.
12 or ,\ymhols, or comhinations ofthem.
f
13 As used herein and throughout rhis set o interrogatories, "IDENTIFY" or '·JDEATITY"

14 when used in reference to a f)()('U,"1£1\'T means to state the date. the type ofDOCUMENT (e.g.,
f
15 invoice, letter, memorandum. telegraph. chart. etc.) or other means o idenrifying it. its present

16 location, and rhe name and address qf its present custodian.

17 As used herein and throughout this set of interrogatories, the terms "REFER OR
.
18 RELATE TO., and "REGARDING , shall mean mentioning or describing. pertaining ro.
19 referring w. relating to. connected with. creared in connection with or as a result o.f commenring
20 on, embodying, evaluating. analy::ing. re.fleeting or constituting, supporting. refuting.
21 concerning. containing. summarizing. memorializing, evidencing or connecting in any way,
22 logically or jactualZv, whether directly or indirectly. explicitly or implicitl_v. in whole or in part.
') �
__ ) with rhe mailer described herein.)
24
25 SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY NO. 3:

26 For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special lnterrogatory No. 1, IDENTIFY
27 each person who has knowledge of said FACT.

28 (As used herein and throughout this sci of interrogawries, "IDENTJ F}"' or

SPECIAL INTERROGATORlES BY D!:.1-'ENDANT RUSHMYFTLE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
·'JDEN7JTL ., ,-vhen used in reference lo u person means to state his/her full name and present
2
or lasr known address and telephone :Vo.. and his!her present or fast known position and

1 business affiliation.)
4

5
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
6
Please state, with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which suppon YOl r
7
allegations in paragraph 14 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
8
'"At all relevant times. each Defendant knew or realized that the other Defendants
9
were eng aging in or planned to engage in the violations of lavv alleged in this
10
complaint. Knowing or realizing that Defendants were engaging in unla\\-ful acts,
ll
each Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of these unlawful acts.
12
Each Defendant intended to and did encourage. facilitate and/or assist in the
13
commission of these unlawful acts. and thereby aided and abetted the other
14
Defendants in these unlawful acts. Each Defendant encouraged authorized.
15
approved, accepted and/or ratified the statements. concealments and acts of each
16
of the other Defendants. and accepted and profited from the benefits of such
17
statements. concealments and acts.,.
18

19 I
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
20
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 4, please
21
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
22
23
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
24
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special lnte1rngatory No. 4, IDENTIFY
25
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
26

'27
28

SPEClAL lNTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
")
Please st.ate. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOU
3
allegations in paragraph 18 of YOUR FAC in which Plaintiff claims he was a --consumer.. an
4
which reads specifically as follows:
5
··Plaintiff is 'the consumer' "vithin the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15
6
U.S.C. 1601 et seq ("TILA'") who O\\-TIS the Residence.'·
7
8
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
9
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 7. please
10
1DENTifY all DOCUMENTS ,,vhich RELATE TO YOUR response.
11
12
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
13 I
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Intenogatory No. 7. IDENTIFY
14
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
15
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
17
Please state. with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
18
allegations in paragraph 19 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
19
"From January 2018 tlu-ough August 2020 Plaintiff was unable to manage his
20
financial affairs. unable to contract with knowledge or understanding of the legal
21
consequences of his actions. and susceptible to financial abuse and manipulation
22
by others.,.
23
24
SPEClAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
25
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special lnten-ogatory No. 10, please
26
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
27
28

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
2
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, IDENTIFY
3
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
4

5
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
6
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support
7
allegations in paragraph 21 of YOUR F AC v-:hich reads as follows:
8
'·Without understanding the legal consequences of doing so. Plaintiff executed an
9
unlimited Power of Attorney in fa.\'or of Molica on March 17. 2019 ('POA-1':
10
Exh. A hereto). At the time Plaintiff believed that Molica's powers would be
11
limited to paying his bills, including those related to litigation involving the
12
Homeowner's Association which included his Residence. At the time Plaintiff
13
lacked the capacity to make financial decisions and he did not understand that
14 f
POA-1 gra11ted Molica unlimited power over Plaintif 's financial affairs."
15
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
17
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Inte1Togatory No. 13, please
18
IDENTTFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
19
20
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
21
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special fnterrogatory No. 13. IDENTIFY
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.

24
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. Hl:
Please state, with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
26
allegations in paragraph 26 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
27
..The net proceeds of the loan ($284,949.88) \Vere distributed to Schartz's Trust
28

SPECIAL lNTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAJNTlFF NLEL (SET ONE)
1
Account on March 27. 2019. whereupon Molica. usmg POA-1, directed
Schwartz where to distribute the funds. None of the funds were used for
3
Plaimiff s benefit. Instead. they were used to pay Molica. Wheat. and their
4
creditors and associates.··
5
6
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. I 7:
7
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 16, please
8
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
9
10
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
11
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 16, IDENTIFY
12
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
13
14
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
15
Please state. \Vilh as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which suppoii YOU
16
allegations in paragraph 26 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
17
"The net proceeds or the loan ($284,949.88) were distributed to Schartz's Trust
18
Account on March 27, 2019. whereupon Molica. using POA-1. directed
19
Schwartz where to distribute the funds. None or the funds were used for
20
Plaintiffs benefit. Instead, they were used to pay Molica, \\.'heat, and their
21
creditors and associates.''
22

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
24
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 19. please
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
26
27

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special [ntenogator No. 19, IDENTIFY
y

each person who has knowledge of said FACT.

5
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
6
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOU
7
allegations in paragraph 28 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
8
..Molica used POA-1 and POA-2 to conspire with Wheat and others to withdravv
9
over $1,000.000 from Plaintiffs bank accounts:'
10
11
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
12
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Intenogatory No. 22. please
13
I DEN TI FY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
14
15
.SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
16
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 22. IDENTIFY
17
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
18
19
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
20
Please state. with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
21
allegations in paragraph 29 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
22
·'On May 28. 2020. Ylolica convinced Plaintiff to execute yet another POA
which again gave Molica unlimited powers over Plaintiffs finances. ('POA-3";
24
Exh. C.) Plaintiff had no awareness at the time that Molica had used the prior
25
Powers of Attorney to thieve significant sums from him. Plaintiff continued to
'26
be mental unfit and subject to pressures placed upon him by Molica."
27
28

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 25. please

[DENTIFY all DOCUMENTS vvhich RELATE TO YOUR response.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
6
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 25, IDENTIFY
7
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
8
9
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
10
Please state, with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
11
allegations in paragraph 33 of YOUR r AC which reads as follows:
12
"RMF, through its principal Andrew Dioli. solicited USREC to fund 2020 Loan
13
I by claiming that the ·BotTowcr is self-employed, they own a well reviewed 2
14
retail businesses in Santa Cruz for the past 19 years. The family owns another
15
home locally.· All three of these statements were false: the first was derived from
16
the bogus Loan Application(s); Mr. Dioli just made up the other two as
17
alternative facts with no basis in realit). ''
18
19
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
20
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special fnterrogatory No. 28. please
21
fDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
22
23
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
24
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 28. IDENTIFY
25
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
26
27
28

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFlL.E
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
2
Please state. \\ith as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOUR
.)
allegations in paragraph 34 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
4
'"Defendants CNA and RMF co-brokered the 2020-1 Loan-1. Defendants
5
US REC. CAN, and RMF knew that the Molica had failed to make any of the
6
payments on the 2019 Loan. that the refinance was a fraud, that none the loan
7
were for 'business purposes.' and that the 2020 Loans l and 2 were fraudulently
8
obtained.'.
9

10
SPEClAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
11
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 31. please
12
IDENTJ rY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
13
14
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
15
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 31. IDENTIFY
16
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
17
18
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
19
Please state, with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
20
allegations in paragraph 35 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
21
"With respect to both the 2020 Loan-1 and 2020 Loan-2. the putative lenders
22
attempted to paper both transactions as loans used primarily for business
23
purposes and not for personal family or household purposes. This was done in
24
an attempt to make the loans exempt from the protections of Tl LA"
25
26
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
27
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Jnterrogatory No. 34, please
28
JO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFlLE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
11

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
41 4
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 3 . IDENTIFY
5
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
6

7
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
8
Please state. with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOL:J
9
allegations in paragraph 41 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
IO
"It was the lenders· legal obligation to clearly and conspicuously document their
11
exemption from TILA in order to claim the business purpose exemption. The
12
2020 Loan-1 refinanced a previous loan. Then� was no business pmpose
13
whatsoever. The 2020 Loan-2·s purpose appears to have been to settle a
14
threatened lawsuit by Molica against CNA tlu·ough the expedient of mortgaging
15
NEEI !s home yet again to obtain the money needed to settle the claim.
16
Incredibly some of the proceeds were used to close Loan-1 which actually cost
17
Molica money.··
18
19
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
20
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 37. please
21 I
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
22
--'
)"
SPEClAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
24
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 37, IDENTIFY
25
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
26
n
28
11
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RlJSHMYFlLE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
Please state, with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU
�
allegations in paragraph 45 of YOUR FAC \:vhich reads as follows:
.)

4
··on August 17. 2021. Sch\vartz filed a verified complaint requesting inter a/ia
5
equitable relief including but not limited to a temporary restraining order, as well
6
as preliminary injunctions to block the foreclosure sale. which was granted.
7
Attorney Schwartz signed the verification. Plaintiff Neel had no knowledge of
8
the Notice ofDcfault nor the Notice of Trustee's Sale:·
9
10
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
I1
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Jnterrogatory No. 40, please
12
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
13
14
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
15
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 40, IDENTIFY
16
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
17
18
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
19
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOU
20
allegations in paragraph 52 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
21
·'Plaintiff \\:as not competent to enter into any of the powers of attorney.
22
including POA-3, which was used in 2020 to obtain the $35.000 loan designated
23
as Loan-2 encumbering Plaintiffs Property without his knowledge.
24
understanding, or cons�nt."

26
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
27
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 43. please I
28
12
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF .NEEL (SET ONE)
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.

3
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
4
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special lnterTogatory No. 43, IDENTIFY
5
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
6

7
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
8
Please state. with as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOU�
9
allegations in paragraph 77 of YOUR FAC \\hich reads as follows:
10
"At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff was an adult Living with severe
11
cognitive impairments and was thus a dependent adult within the meaning of
12
Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 4512. 15610.23. Plaintiff was financially incapacitated
13
and extremely susceptible to undue influence due to cognitive impairments ...
14
15
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
16
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Jnterroga.ory No. 46, please
17
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
18
19
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48:
10
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 46, IDENTffY
21
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
22
23
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49:
24
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOU!
25
allegations in paragraph 77 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
26
··At all times mentioned herein. Plaintiff was an adult living with severe
27
cognitive impairments and was thus a dependent adult within the meaning of
28
13
SPl--,CIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET Ol\E)
Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 4512, 15610.23. Plaintiff was financially incapacitated

and extremely susceptible to undue influence due to cognitive impairments."
3
4
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50:
5
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 46. please
6
IDENTJFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
7
8
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51:
9
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 46, lDENTlFY
10
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
11
12
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52:
Please state, with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS v;hich support YOU
14
allegations in paragraph 77 of YOUR F AC which reads as follows:
15
'·All Defendants knowingly assisted Cody Molica in his efforts to appropriate
16
Plaintiffs home equity with a fraudulent intent. In addition, Plaintiff in
17
informed and believes that Defendants each took. appropriated, obtained and/or
18
retained Plaintiffs property with a fraudulent intent, for a wrongful use and/or
19
undue influence. Plaintiff is also informed and believes that each of the
20
Defendants also assisted one or more co-Defendants financial abuse of Plaintiff."
21
22
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:
23
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 52, please
24
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.

26
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54:
27
For each f ACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 52, IDENTIFY
28
14
SPECIAL INTERROG A TORIES BY DEPENDANT RUSHMYFU.E
TO PLAINTffF NEEL (SET ONE)
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
2

3
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55:
4
Please state, ,vith as much specificity as possible, all FACTS which support YOUR
5
alkgations in paragraph 92 of YOUR FAC which reads as follows:
6
.. Defendants' knowledge of the conspiracy is evidenced by the fact that was no
7
legitimate purpose for an attorney-in-fact taking out a substantial loan on the
8
property of a dependent adult. let alone a business purpose as claimed in the
9
fraudulent loan documents. The mortgage brokers assisted in the preparing
10
fraudulent loan application documents. All parties observed multiple inconsistent
11
loan applications. an obviously fraudulent lease concocted to classify the
12
refinance as a ·business purpose' loan. highly deficient loan documentation for
13
the deed of trust and promissory note, and Molica· s disregard for obtaining a
14
valid po,:ver of attorney prior to negotiation the 2019 loan.'·
15
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56:
17
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 55, please
18
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
19
20
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
21
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 55, IDENTIFY
22
each person who has knowledge of said FACT.
23
24

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
26
Please state. with as much specificity as possible. all FACTS which support YOl11
27
allegations in paragraph 99 of YOUR FAC vvhich reads as follows:
28
l5
SPECIAL JN'l ERROG ATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF 1'EEL (SET ONE)
'·Rather than withdrav.:ing from the deal. CNA and RMF gave substantial
2
assistance to Molica by soliciting mortgage loan that would encumber Plaintiffs
3
property. They also assisted in the preparation of fraudulent loan application
4
documents. They fully understood that the proceeds would go to the benefit of
5
Molica and his associates rather than the Plaintiff, but they only cared about their
6
fees on the transaction:·
7
8
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
9
for each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Jnten-ogatory No. 58. please
10
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
11
12
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
13
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 58, IDENTIFY
14
each person who ha� knowledge of said FACT.
15
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
17
Is it YOUR contention that Donald Schwartz acted outside the scope of his authority
18
YOUR attorney when he filed the original Complaint in this action?
19
20
,SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY NO. 62:
21
If YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 6 I is in the affirmative, upon what
22
FACTS do YOU base YOUR response?

24
.SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
25
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special lnterroga1:ory No. 62. please
26
lDENTlFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
27
28
16
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 13Y DrFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEFL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
2
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 62. IDENTIFY
., each person \Vho has knowledge of said FACT.
4

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:
6
Is it YOUR contention that Donald Schwartz acted outside the scope of his authority a�
7
YOUR attomey when he distributed loan proceeds generated from the equity in your home out o
8
Donald Schwartz's trust fund account?
()

10
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66:
11
If YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 65 is in the affirmative, upon what
FACTS do YOU base YOUR response?
13
14
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67:
15
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 66, please
16
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO YOUR response.
17
18
.SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68:
19
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 66, IDENTLFY
20
each person who has knowledge of said f ACT.
21

.SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69:
23
ls it YOUR contention that Donald Schwartz acted outside the scope of his authority a,
24
YOUR attorney at any point in time when he was representing YOU during your alleged mental
25
incapacitation?
26
27
28
17
SPECIAL IN'fERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYFILE
TO PLAINTJFF NEEL (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70:
2
If YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 69 is in the affimmtive, upon what

, FACTS do YOU base YOUR response?
4 !

5
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71:
6
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Intcnogatory No. 70. please
7
! lDENTifY all DOCUMENTS v,'hich RELATE TO YOUR response.
8
9
SPEC[AL INTERROGATORY NO. 72:
10
For each FACT stated in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 70, IDENTlFY
1l
each person v;ho has knov;ledgc of said FACT.
12 I

13
Dated: March 30, 2023 MARK J. SARNI
14

r�
ATTORNEY AT LAW
15 1',//,...--;,fl< {//.'
By:
,_/
/• ,r_\ I
16 -----
Mark .T. Sarni, Esq.
17 Attorney for Defendant and Cross
C omplainant, RUSHMYFJLE,
18 INC.
19
20
21
'.22

24
25
26
27
28
18
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYF!LL
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
DECLARATlON FOR ADDlTIONAL DISCOVERY
2 L M.ark J. Sarni. declare:

I. J am the attorney for Rushmyfi lc. Inc., a pai1y to the above captioned action or

4 proceeding.

5 I am propounding to Plaintiff Jason Neel the attached set of interrogatories.

6 This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared

7 interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of
8 specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

q 4. I have previously propounded a total of zero interrogatories to this party.

10 5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of 72 spcciall:; prepared interrogatories.

11 6. I am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the
12 parties in the case.

13 7. I have personally examined each of the questions in this set of interrogatories.

14 8. This number of questions is \\'arranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of

15 Civil Procedure because it is an expedient and cost-effective way to gather information that may

16 render as unnecessary one or more oral depositions. Also. based on the complexity of the issues

I7 in the instant case, the further interrogatories are wan·anted. (Specifically, the litigation involves

18 over 21 pages of allegations with I 08 paragraphs - including scores of sub-paragraphs - of
19 allegations.) Lastly, asking interrogatories in this fashion gives the respondent time to conduct

20 an inquiry and investigation for the purpose of preparing responses. It would be impractical and

2J unfair to ask these questions at a deposition because they arc very fact specific, and no one can
22 be expected to hold all this information in his or her mind.
9. None of the questions in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any
:24 improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is
25 directed. or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increa<;c in the cost of litigation. It is

26 1 necessary to have this infonnation for trial.

i
21 I
28

I
19
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSl!MYFILE
TO PLAINTIFF NEE:L (SET ONE)
I declare under penalty of pc�jury under the lmvs of California that the foregoing is true
..,
L
and correct, and that this declaration was executed in Torrance. California on March 30, 2023.
/j I_ - ,.-;-;; - -)
/,.,�
-
4
I/ '- ,'--(
_.
',,..--
,�", � .---. - --------

5 MARK J. SARNI
6
7

8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

23
24
25
26
27
28
20
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT RUSHMYF!LE
TO PLAINTIFF NEEL (SET ONE)
PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
3 C()lJN'I�·y OF LC)S ANGEL.ES )

4 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles. State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action: my business address is 3424 Carson Street.
5 Suite 350. Torrance, CA 90503.
6 On March 31, 2023, I served the following documents by the means indicated
below:
7

l. REQlJEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM DE.FENDANT
s
RUSHMYFJLE, ll'iC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL (SET ONE);
9 2. FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT
RlJSHMYFJLE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ,JASON NEEL (SET ONE);
](I 3. SPEClAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEf'ENDANT
RlJSHMYFILE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL (SET ONE);
JI
and,
12 4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
DEFENDANT RUSHMYFI.LE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF JASON NEEL
13 (SET ONE)
14 on the interested parties as follov;s by the following means:
15 (See Attached Service List)
16

17
0 (BY OVERNIGllT MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
18
prac1ice it v,:ould be deposited with Fed Express on that same day ,vith postage
thereon fully prepaid at To1Tance. California in the ordinary course of business. I
19
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
20 for mailing in affidavit.

21 � (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the film's practice of
collection and processing concspondence for mailing. Under that practice it
r
22 would be deposited v.ith U.S. postal service on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid at Torrance, California in the ordinary course of business. I
�) am aware that on motion of the party served. service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
24 for mailing in affidavit.

�5 0 (BY CERTIFIED MAJL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED). l deposited these
papers with the United Staies Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage
26 fully prepaid. I am a resident or

Case Info

Judge

Schmal, Timothy Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 08, 2023

Case Filing Date

August 10, 2021

County

Parties

Beuselinck, Michael Thomas Attorney
Beuselinck, Michael Thomas Attorney for the Defendant
CNA Equities Group, LLC Defendant
CNA Equity Group, Inc., a professional corporation Cross Defendant
Davidson, Thornton Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Davidson, Thornton Attorney for the Plaintiff
Jones, Brandi Guardian Ad Litem
Molica, Cody Cross Defendant
Neel, Jason Cross Defendant
Neel, Jason Plaintiff
Perez, Jacoby Ryan Attorney for the Defendant
Pro Se Attorney
Pro Se Attorney for the Defendant
RUSHMYFILE Defendant
Rushmyfile, Inc. Cross Complainant
RUSHMYFILE, INC., a California corporation Cross Defendant
Schwartz, Donald ESQ Cross Defendant
Schwartz, Donald ESQ Defendant
Smith, Edward Egan Attorney for the Defendant
United States Real Estate Corporation Cross Complainant
United States Real Estate Corporation Defendant
Wheat, Derek Cross Defendant
Jeffrey Lowenthal Attorneys for Defendants
Matthew Delbridge Attorneys for Defendants
Mark Sarni Attorney
Pamela Simmons Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Purdy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Julian Bach Attorneys for Defendants
Jennifer Johnson Attorney
Barbara White Attorney
Edward Weber Attorneys for Defendants
Kristi Wells Attorneys for Defendants
Kristi Marshall Attorneys for Defendants
Jed Lowenthal Attorney
Barry Gore Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Jason Neel vs United States Real Estate Corporation, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties