Preview
1 |) Janet Haywood
; 1476 W. 9" Street, Suite B1
Upland, California 91786
3 ||(951) 545-4462
Jhaywood@genushomecare.com
4
> || Plaintiff in Propria Persona
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10 :
1 || JANET HAYWOOD, an individual Case No.: 22STCV13629
12 Plaintiff,
8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
14 FOR:
15 VS.
1) BREACH OF CONTRACT
16
Electronically Received 02/09/2023 01:27 AM
17 || STEPHEN CHO, an individual, CREATIVE 2) BREACH OF IMPLIED
RECOVERY CONCEPTS, entity-type COVENANT OF GOOD
18 || unknown; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
19 Defendants 3) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
20 FRAUD
21
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3
23 Comes now, Plaintiff JANET HAYWOOD, who complains and alleges as follows:
24
PARTIES AND RELATIONSHIPS
25
(hereinafter “PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’) is an
6 1. Plaintiff JANET HAYWOOD
Los Angeles, State of
17 individual who at all times mentioned herein resides in the County of
28 || California.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — - 1
| 2. Defendant STEPHEN CHO (hereinafter “(DEFENDANT CHO”) is an individual
2 || who at all times mentioned herein is an active licensed attorney in the County of Los Angeles,
State of California.
; 3. Defendant CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS (hereafter “DEFENDANT
6 || CREATIVE RECOVERY) is an entity of unknown type doing business in the County of Los
7 || Angeles, State of California and is affiliated with and/or owned by DEFENDANT CHO and
8 || functions the aggressive STRONG ARM BILL COLLECTOR on behalf of as DEFENDANT
° CHO.
10
Hl 4, The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or associates, or
12 || otherwise, of Defendants, named Does | through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore,
13 || sues said Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show
Plaintiff is
14 || their true names and capacities when their true names have been ascertained.
as a
. :nformed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants, designated herein
alleged and
7 DOE, was in some manner legally responsible for the events and occurrences herein
1g || unlawfully and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff.
joint
19 6. Atall times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the servant, agent,
all times material
20 venturer, and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and was at
venture, and / or
» hereto, acting within the course and scope of their position, service, agency,
o
employment. Additionally, each of the Defendants ratified, approved and adopted the conduct
74 ||\the other Defendants.
25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
26 7. Onor about 2017 PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD retained Attorney DEFENDANT
of the Los Angeles County
: CHO to represent her in a lawsuit filed in the Stanley Mosk Division
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT | - 2
1 || Superipr Court in a matter commonly known as Genus v. Haywood, which was a dispute arising
2 || out of an improved parcel of residential property owned and/or controlled by the PLAINTIFF
HAYWOOD and located at 10427 S. Denker Avenue, Los Angeles, California (hereinafter
; referred to as the “DENKER PROPERTY”).
6 8. DEFENDANT CHO aggressively litigated the case, in the process conducting
7 |lelaborate unnecessary Discovery as well as engaging in unnecessary litigation activities that
8 || were not prudent given the “big picture” economic constraints of the litigation, with the legal
in
; fees increasing exorbitantly with the passing of each month, and with there seemingly no end
4 sight to the burgeoning attorneys fees. D
12 9. DEFENDANT CHO convinced the Plaintiff that these legal fees were absolutely
legal fees were
13 ||necessary, and in the process turned a “blinde eye” to the stark reality that the
HAYWOOD.
M4 larger than the value of the litigation and its potential liability of PLAINTIFF
CHO repeatedly represented to the PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that
. 10. DEFENDANT
were absolutely
. these inordinately detailed and superfluous redundant litigation activities
would enable PLAINTIFF
1g || essential to the litigation process and were critical actions that
19 || HAYWOOD to prevail at the trial in this matter.
NT CHO
20 11. But despite all of these representations, on the eve of trial DEFENDA
pressured and coerced the PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD to participate actively in a Settlement
Conference. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD took the bait and participated in the Settlement
24 || Conference, but was not well prepared by DEFENDANT CHO in advance of the Settlement
the active efforts of
25 || Conference, and thus during the Settlement Conference caved into
D to settle the dispute o
26 || DEFENDANT CHO to induce if not compel PLAINTIFF HAYWOO
costs and expensed of litigation as
" terms that she could have settled the dispute without the time,
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -3
1 || well as attorneys fees.
2 12. During the Settlement Conference, DEFENDANT CHO made it evident to
PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that despite all of the preparation and expenses incurred by
; DEFENDANT CHO that PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD was not ready to go to trial so the only
6 |{sensible outcome for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD would be a settlement of the dispute without a
\Itrial. In addition, DEFENDANT CHO represented to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that he was
7
Most
8 || not prepared to go to trial without incurring significant additional attorneys fees and costs.
. importantly, DEFENDANT CHO informed PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD falsely that
4 PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD faced the prospect of being incarcerated by the trial judge if
12 || PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD did not relinquish her interest in the DENKER HOUSE for the
13 |lamount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($650,000).
CHO, the
14 13. While under the duress and as a resulto of the coercion of DEFENDANT
° Plaintiff settled the case even though she had incurred approximately TWO HUNDRED
. THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) of attorneys fees in preparation for a trial that never
to settle that
1g || happened and was likely never destined to happen in light of the pressure
19 || DEFENDANT CHO placed upon PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD.
70 14. Shortly thereafter, with the ink barely even dry on the legal documents
large Bill for attorneys fees to
" memorializing the settlement, DEFENDANT CHO passed off his
payment of the attorneys
DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, who aggressively sought
74 || fees from PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD, even going so far as to commence litigation against
25 || PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD as well as engage in overly aggressive efforts to obtain a “silent”
26 || Default Judgment against PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that DEFENDANT CREATIVE
used to levy the bank accounts of PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and her immediate
i. RECOVERY
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT | - 4
| || family, with those funds eventually being returned to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD based upon
2 || Court Orders obtained by PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD issuing directives to DEFENDANT
. CREATIVE RECOVERY to return to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD any and all levied funds.
; 15. The Draconian collection actions of DEFENDANT CREATVE RECOVERY
6 ||confirmed PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s suspicions that the reason that DEFENDANT CHO
to induce
7 ||racked up such and exorbitant amount of unnecessary attorneys fees when he intended
to manifest the
8 || settlement was because DEFENDANT CHO was overtly engaging in actions
; and act out a CONSPIRATORIAL SCHEME to use DEFENDANT CREATIVE
basicall
4 RECOVERY to collect aggressively his exorbitant and worthless attorneys fees, which
were
12 |{confirmed that DEFENDANT CHO and DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY
13 || conspiring to defraud PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD collecting from clients of DEFENDANT
ANT CHO
14 |} CHO exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees racked up unreasonably by DEFEND
» during the litigation process.
° FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION --BREACH OF CONTRACT
M7 (Against All Defendants)
" 16. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1)
set forth herein.
, through Fifteen (15) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully
a contract in
21 17. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into
22 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange
fees and costs for those useful and
23 || for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal
* valuable legal services.
. 18. DEFENDANT CHO breached this contract by racking up exorbitant unnecessary
the litigation, and that such legal
27 |\attorneys fees while knowing full well that he intended to settle
ANT CHO relentlessly pursued and
28 || efforts were superfluous and unnecessary, but DEFEND
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT = -5
1 || charged these fees because he knew that most if not all of them would be collected by
2 || DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, which acted as DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’
. COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY’s sole
up by
5 || Purpose to collect most if not all of the exorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked
6 || DEFENDANT CHO on cases that he intended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees
7 \|and expenses normally only expended for cases that actually must be taken to trial.
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION --
9 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
10 (Against All Defendants)
i 19. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1)
12 ||through Eighteen (18) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
13 20. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into a contract in
14 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange
costs for those useful and
»° for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal fees and
. valuable legal services.
of Good Fait
18 21. Within every contractual relationship there exists an Implied Covenant
19 || and Fair Dealing.
20 22. DEFENDANT CHO breached this Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
knowing full well that he
" Dealing by racking up exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees while
s and unnecessary, but |
intended to settle the litigation, and that such legal efforts were superfluou
that most if
94 || DEFENDANT CHO relentlessly pursued and charged these fees because he knew
25 |\not all of them would be collected by DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, which acted
26 || 1s DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’ COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT
" CREATIVE RECOVERY’ sole purpose to collect aggressively most if not all of the
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — - 6
1 |lexorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked up by DEFENDANT CHO on cases that he
> || intended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees and expenses normally only expended
for cases that actually must be taken to trial.
; THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -- CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
(Against All Defendants)
22. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1)
3 through Twenty One (21) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
9 23. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into a contract in
10 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange
and
1l || for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal fees and costs for those useful
. valuable legal services.
E
4 21. In reality, the decision by DEFENDANT CHO and DEFENDANT CREATIV
15 || RECOVERY was an overt act that manifested the purpose of their CONSPIRACY TO
16 || DEFRAUD in which PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD was their victim.
ACY T
M 22. DEFENDANT CHO engaged in overt acts in furtherance of this CONSPIR
knowing full well that he
8 DEFRAUD by racking up exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees while
s and unnecessary, but
intended to settle the litigation, and that such legal efforts were superfluou
because he knew that most if
21 || DEFENDANT CHO relentlessly pursued and charged these fees
CREATIVE RECOVERY, which
22 || not all of them would be collected by DEFENDANT
D by acting as
23 engaged in overt acts in furtherance of the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAU
“ DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’ COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT
if not all of the
. CREATIVE RECOVERY’s sole purpose to collect aggressively most
CHO on cases that he
7 ||exorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked up by DEFENDANT
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -7
1 |lintended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees and expenses normally only expended
> || for cases that actually must be taken to trial.
3
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
> || follows:
ON ALL CAUSE(S) OF ACTION:
§ 1. General damages in an amount according to proof; and
9 2. Special Damages in an amount according to proof; and
10 3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof; and
iM 4. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and
. 5. Such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
1
14
15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
W Respectfully submitted,
ig || Dated: February 9, 2023 : ! | i /
19 ET HAYWO
50 Plaintiff In Propria Persona
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -8
Preview
1 |) Janet Haywood ; 1476 W. 9" Street, Suite B1 Upland, California 91786 3 ||(951) 545-4462 Jhaywood@genushomecare.com 4 > || Plaintiff in Propria Persona 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 10 : 1 || JANET HAYWOOD, an individual Case No.: 22STCV13629 12 Plaintiff, 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 FOR: 15 VS. 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT 16 Electronically Received 02/09/2023 01:27 AM 17 || STEPHEN CHO, an individual, CREATIVE 2) BREACH OF IMPLIED RECOVERY CONCEPTS, entity-type COVENANT OF GOOD 18 || unknown; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 19 Defendants 3) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT 20 FRAUD 21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 23 Comes now, Plaintiff JANET HAYWOOD, who complains and alleges as follows: 24 PARTIES AND RELATIONSHIPS 25 (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’) is an 6 1. Plaintiff JANET HAYWOOD Los Angeles, State of 17 individual who at all times mentioned herein resides in the County of 28 || California. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — - 1 | 2. Defendant STEPHEN CHO (hereinafter “(DEFENDANT CHO”) is an individual 2 || who at all times mentioned herein is an active licensed attorney in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. ; 3. Defendant CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS (hereafter “DEFENDANT 6 || CREATIVE RECOVERY) is an entity of unknown type doing business in the County of Los 7 || Angeles, State of California and is affiliated with and/or owned by DEFENDANT CHO and 8 || functions the aggressive STRONG ARM BILL COLLECTOR on behalf of as DEFENDANT ° CHO. 10 Hl 4, The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or associates, or 12 || otherwise, of Defendants, named Does | through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore, 13 || sues said Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show Plaintiff is 14 || their true names and capacities when their true names have been ascertained. as a . :nformed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants, designated herein alleged and 7 DOE, was in some manner legally responsible for the events and occurrences herein 1g || unlawfully and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. joint 19 6. Atall times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the servant, agent, all times material 20 venturer, and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and was at venture, and / or » hereto, acting within the course and scope of their position, service, agency, o employment. Additionally, each of the Defendants ratified, approved and adopted the conduct 74 ||\the other Defendants. 25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS & FACTUAL BACKGROUND 26 7. Onor about 2017 PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD retained Attorney DEFENDANT of the Los Angeles County : CHO to represent her in a lawsuit filed in the Stanley Mosk Division 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT | - 2 1 || Superipr Court in a matter commonly known as Genus v. Haywood, which was a dispute arising 2 || out of an improved parcel of residential property owned and/or controlled by the PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and located at 10427 S. Denker Avenue, Los Angeles, California (hereinafter ; referred to as the “DENKER PROPERTY”). 6 8. DEFENDANT CHO aggressively litigated the case, in the process conducting 7 |lelaborate unnecessary Discovery as well as engaging in unnecessary litigation activities that 8 || were not prudent given the “big picture” economic constraints of the litigation, with the legal in ; fees increasing exorbitantly with the passing of each month, and with there seemingly no end 4 sight to the burgeoning attorneys fees. D 12 9. DEFENDANT CHO convinced the Plaintiff that these legal fees were absolutely legal fees were 13 ||necessary, and in the process turned a “blinde eye” to the stark reality that the HAYWOOD. M4 larger than the value of the litigation and its potential liability of PLAINTIFF CHO repeatedly represented to the PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that . 10. DEFENDANT were absolutely . these inordinately detailed and superfluous redundant litigation activities would enable PLAINTIFF 1g || essential to the litigation process and were critical actions that 19 || HAYWOOD to prevail at the trial in this matter. NT CHO 20 11. But despite all of these representations, on the eve of trial DEFENDA pressured and coerced the PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD to participate actively in a Settlement Conference. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD took the bait and participated in the Settlement 24 || Conference, but was not well prepared by DEFENDANT CHO in advance of the Settlement the active efforts of 25 || Conference, and thus during the Settlement Conference caved into D to settle the dispute o 26 || DEFENDANT CHO to induce if not compel PLAINTIFF HAYWOO costs and expensed of litigation as " terms that she could have settled the dispute without the time, 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -3 1 || well as attorneys fees. 2 12. During the Settlement Conference, DEFENDANT CHO made it evident to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that despite all of the preparation and expenses incurred by ; DEFENDANT CHO that PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD was not ready to go to trial so the only 6 |{sensible outcome for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD would be a settlement of the dispute without a \Itrial. In addition, DEFENDANT CHO represented to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that he was 7 Most 8 || not prepared to go to trial without incurring significant additional attorneys fees and costs. . importantly, DEFENDANT CHO informed PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD falsely that 4 PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD faced the prospect of being incarcerated by the trial judge if 12 || PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD did not relinquish her interest in the DENKER HOUSE for the 13 |lamount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($650,000). CHO, the 14 13. While under the duress and as a resulto of the coercion of DEFENDANT ° Plaintiff settled the case even though she had incurred approximately TWO HUNDRED . THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) of attorneys fees in preparation for a trial that never to settle that 1g || happened and was likely never destined to happen in light of the pressure 19 || DEFENDANT CHO placed upon PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD. 70 14. Shortly thereafter, with the ink barely even dry on the legal documents large Bill for attorneys fees to " memorializing the settlement, DEFENDANT CHO passed off his payment of the attorneys DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, who aggressively sought 74 || fees from PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD, even going so far as to commence litigation against 25 || PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD as well as engage in overly aggressive efforts to obtain a “silent” 26 || Default Judgment against PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD that DEFENDANT CREATIVE used to levy the bank accounts of PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and her immediate i. RECOVERY 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT | - 4 | || family, with those funds eventually being returned to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD based upon 2 || Court Orders obtained by PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD issuing directives to DEFENDANT . CREATIVE RECOVERY to return to PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD any and all levied funds. ; 15. The Draconian collection actions of DEFENDANT CREATVE RECOVERY 6 ||confirmed PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s suspicions that the reason that DEFENDANT CHO to induce 7 ||racked up such and exorbitant amount of unnecessary attorneys fees when he intended to manifest the 8 || settlement was because DEFENDANT CHO was overtly engaging in actions ; and act out a CONSPIRATORIAL SCHEME to use DEFENDANT CREATIVE basicall 4 RECOVERY to collect aggressively his exorbitant and worthless attorneys fees, which were 12 |{confirmed that DEFENDANT CHO and DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY 13 || conspiring to defraud PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD collecting from clients of DEFENDANT ANT CHO 14 |} CHO exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees racked up unreasonably by DEFEND » during the litigation process. ° FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION --BREACH OF CONTRACT M7 (Against All Defendants) " 16. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1) set forth herein. , through Fifteen (15) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully a contract in 21 17. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into 22 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange fees and costs for those useful and 23 || for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal * valuable legal services. . 18. DEFENDANT CHO breached this contract by racking up exorbitant unnecessary the litigation, and that such legal 27 |\attorneys fees while knowing full well that he intended to settle ANT CHO relentlessly pursued and 28 || efforts were superfluous and unnecessary, but DEFEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT = -5 1 || charged these fees because he knew that most if not all of them would be collected by 2 || DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, which acted as DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’ . COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY’s sole up by 5 || Purpose to collect most if not all of the exorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked 6 || DEFENDANT CHO on cases that he intended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees 7 \|and expenses normally only expended for cases that actually must be taken to trial. 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -- 9 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 10 (Against All Defendants) i 19. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1) 12 ||through Eighteen (18) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 13 20. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into a contract in 14 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange costs for those useful and »° for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal fees and . valuable legal services. of Good Fait 18 21. Within every contractual relationship there exists an Implied Covenant 19 || and Fair Dealing. 20 22. DEFENDANT CHO breached this Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair knowing full well that he " Dealing by racking up exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees while s and unnecessary, but | intended to settle the litigation, and that such legal efforts were superfluou that most if 94 || DEFENDANT CHO relentlessly pursued and charged these fees because he knew 25 |\not all of them would be collected by DEFENDANT CREATIVE RECOVERY, which acted 26 || 1s DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’ COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT " CREATIVE RECOVERY’ sole purpose to collect aggressively most if not all of the 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — - 6 1 |lexorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked up by DEFENDANT CHO on cases that he > || intended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees and expenses normally only expended for cases that actually must be taken to trial. ; THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -- CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (Against All Defendants) 22. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD hereby incorporates by reference Paragraph One (1) 3 through Twenty One (21) of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 9 23. PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD and DEFENDANT CHO entered into a contract in 10 || which DEFENDANT CHO promised to provide useful and valuable legal services in exchange and 1l || for PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD’s promise to pay him legal fees and costs for those useful . valuable legal services. E 4 21. In reality, the decision by DEFENDANT CHO and DEFENDANT CREATIV 15 || RECOVERY was an overt act that manifested the purpose of their CONSPIRACY TO 16 || DEFRAUD in which PLAINTIFF HAYWOOD was their victim. ACY T M 22. DEFENDANT CHO engaged in overt acts in furtherance of this CONSPIR knowing full well that he 8 DEFRAUD by racking up exorbitant unnecessary attorneys fees while s and unnecessary, but intended to settle the litigation, and that such legal efforts were superfluou because he knew that most if 21 || DEFENDANT CHO relentlessly pursued and charged these fees CREATIVE RECOVERY, which 22 || not all of them would be collected by DEFENDANT D by acting as 23 engaged in overt acts in furtherance of the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAU “ DEFENDANT CHO’s ‘in house’ COLLECTION STRONG ARM , with DEFENDANT if not all of the . CREATIVE RECOVERY’s sole purpose to collect aggressively most CHO on cases that he 7 ||exorbitant and unnecessary legal fees racked up by DEFENDANT 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -7 1 |lintended to settle despite incurring unnecessarily the fees and expenses normally only expended > || for cases that actually must be taken to trial. 3 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as > || follows: ON ALL CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: § 1. General damages in an amount according to proof; and 9 2. Special Damages in an amount according to proof; and 10 3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof; and iM 4. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and . 5. Such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. 1 14 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 W Respectfully submitted, ig || Dated: February 9, 2023 : ! | i / 19 ET HAYWO 50 Plaintiff In Propria Persona 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCOMPLAINT — -8