Preview
Filed
Superior Court of California,
Sacramento
Jason E. Fellner (SBN 245364) 0492024
Andrew W. Browning (SBN 326778) tarsonh
FELLNER LAW GROUP
90 New Montgomery St., Ste. 400
By ] Deputy
34-2017-00218210-C1J BT-GDS
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 658-9253
Facsimile: (415) 658-9256
jfellner@fellnerlawgroup.com
abrowning@fellnerlawgroup.com
John E. Cassinat (SBN 131214)
CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION
4815 Laguna Park Drive, Suite C
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Telephone: (916) 393-3030
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
11 Freidberg Law Corporation; and
Freidberg & Parker, LLP, a dissolved
12
limited liability partnership, in its winding up phase
13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
15
16
FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION, a Case No.: 34-2017-00218210
17 California corporation; and FREIDBERG &
PARKER, LLP, a dissolved limited liability FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
18 partnership, in its winding up phase, FOR:
BY FAX
19
Plaintiffs, (1) Adjudication of Lien;
20 (2) Adjudication of Pro Rata Lien
V. Amount Between Plaintiffs and
21 RPT;
RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, (3) Intentional Interference with
22
P.C, a Professional Corporation; HAIGHT Economic Expectancy;
23 BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP, a (4) Intentional Interference with
California limited liability partnership; Contract;
24 PERKINS COIE LLP, a California limited (5) Unjust Enrichment;
liability partnership; PORT J. PARKER, an (6) Money Had and Received;
25
individual; FRANK RADOSLOVICH, an (7) Breach of Constructive Trust.
26 individual; PRISCILLA L. HILL, as Trustee
of Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust
27
dated October 3,1990; PRISCILLA L. HILL
28
as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla
1
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
P. Hill Revocable Trust established June
23,2011; PRISCILLA L. HILL as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Theodore F.
Hill; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
And Related Cross-Complaints
Plaintiffs FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION and FREIDBERG & PARKER, LLP|
allege as follows:
10 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
11 1. Plaintiff FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION, was at all relevant times to thig
12 litigation a professional law corporation duly licensed to practice law in the State of California
13 FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION (“FLC”) has changed its name to FREIDBERG
14 CORPORATION (hereinafter “FC”). At present, FC is a California corporation in good standing|
15 but is no longer licensed to practice law in the State of California.
16 2. Plaintiff FREIDBERG & PARKER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership
17 (hereinafter referred to as “F&P”), was and at all relevant times up to January 1, 2012, a limited
18 liability partnership registered to practice law in the State of California with its principal place of
19 business in Sacramento, California. F&P was comprised of partners Ed Freidberg (“ED”) and
20 Defendant PORT J. PARKER. F&P dissolved effective January 1, 2013, and brings this action in
21 its winding up phase. FC and F&P are collectively referred to as PLAINTIFFS.
22 3. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that DEFENDANT
23 RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, P.C. and DOES 1-3 was a law corporation practicing law
24 with its offices located in Sacramento, California. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that
25 RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, P.C. changed its name to RADOSLOVICH, PARKER,
26 P.C., and then to RADOSLOVICH SHAPIRO, PC ATTORNEYS. This entity, including DOES
27 1-3, is referred to hereinafter as RPT.
28 4. Defendant PORT J. PARKER (“PARKER™), is an attorney licensed to practice law
2
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
in the State of California, and at all times relevant herein was and is practicing his profession with
one or more of the Defendants set forth in Paragraph 3 above.
5 Defendant FRANK RADOSLOVICH (“RADOSLOVICH?”) is an attorney licensed
to practice law in the State of California, and at all times relevant herein, practicing his profession
with one or more of the Defendants set forth in Paragraph 3 above.
6. Defendants HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP (“HB&B™) and DOES 4-6
are a limited liability partnership, licensed to practice law in the State of California and at all
relevant times herein was and is practicing law, with multiple law offices in the State of California,
including offices in San Francisco, California.
10 T Defendant PERKINS COIE, LLP, and DOES 7-9 are a limited liability partnership
11 licensed to practice law in the State of California and at all relevant times herein was and iy
12 practicing law, with multiple law offices in the United States, including offices in Palo Alto,
13 California.
14 8. Defendant DOES 10-15 are errors and omissions insurance carriers, insurance
15 carriers, insurance companies and other entities, the identity of which is unknown to PLAINTIFFS]
16 who insured one or more of the defendants in the underlying action of Hill v. Wilke Fleury Hoffelt
17 Gould & Birney, LLP, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-00114402 (“Hill
18 Lawsuit”) but not limited to, defense costs and indemnity coverage and whom PLAINTIFFS are
19 informed, believe and therefore allege, participated in the decisions and actions that were taken,
20 as set forth herein, and are liable for their conduct for the actions and lack of actions described
21 herein after and as set forth in the third through eighth causes of action.
22 9. Defendants PRISCILLA L. HILL is an individual (“PAT"), and at all times relevant
23 herein was and is a resident of the County of Sacramento. PAT was at all times relevant herein the
24 Trustee of The Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, the Trustee of the
25 Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, and the Special
26 Administrator of the Estate of Theodore F. Hill (hereinafter referred to collectively as (“The
27 PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS”).
28 10. The complete and true names, involvement and/or capacities, whether individual,
3
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
corporate, professional, or otherwise, of the DEFENDANTS named herein as DOES 1-15, are nof
presently fully known and/or are unknown to PLAINTIFFS who, therefore, sue said DOES
defendants under such fictitious names. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believe, and based thereon,
allege that said fictitiously named defendants are in some manner liable to the PLAINTIFFS fo
the relief herein requested. PLAINTIFFS hereby request leave of the Court to amend thig
Complaint to set forth the true names, involvement, and/or capacities, whether individual,
professional, or otherwise, when the same have been ascertained or adequate discovery is taken.
11. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege, that DOES 10-15 are
errors and omissions carriers and other insurance carriers who insured one or more of the
10 defendants in the Hill Lawsuit, who did violate and disregard and ignore PLAINTIFFS lien rights,
11 as set forth herein. The names and identities of these carriers are unknown to PLAINTIFFS whq
12 sue them under the fictitious names as DOES 10-15.
13 12. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon, allege that at all
14 relevant times herein DEFENDANTS and/or DOES 16-30 were and are attorneys, officers,
15 directors, agents, representatives, servants, joint ventures, aiders and abettors, co-conspirators|
16 representatives, and/or employees of the other defendants, and each of them. PLAINTIFFS arg
17 further informed, believes, and based thereon allege that at all times relevant herein, the named
18 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were acting within the scope and course of sad agencies)
19 services, ventures, conspiracies, and/or employment with the other defendants, and/or with theig
20 ratification, knowledge, and/or consent.
21 13. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court and in the County as named
22 Defendants PARKER, RPT, RADOSLOVICH and PAT, at all times relevant herein, are residents
23 of the County of Sacramento; and RPT’s offices are in the County of Sacramento. The Hill Lawsuif
24 was filed and litigated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
25 Sacramento. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this
26 Court. Accordingly, jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper.
27 14. On October 13, 2011, Theodore F. Hill (hereafter referred to as “TED”),
28 individually and as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990,
4
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
and as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011
(hereafter referred to as “Trust Plaintiffs”), engaged F&P to analyze and evaluate potential
meritorious claims against; the law firm of Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney, LLP and one of
its partners, Ernest James Krtil (hereinafter referred to as “Wilke Defendants™); the accountancy
firm of Matson & Isom, and one of its shareholders, Craig Richard Duncan (hereinafter referred
to as “Accountant Defendants™); Thomas P. Deany, an officer of Nor-Cal Products, Inc., and the
Trustee of the Craig Hill 1991 Revocable Trust; and David L. Chambers, the husband of Hillis
Chambers, individually and as Trustee of the David and Hollis Chambers Revocable Trust
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Trust Defendants™). A copy of the October 13
Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference as if the same were fully sef
11 forth herein.
12 15. On November 14, 2011, TED, individually and as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill
13 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, and as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla P
14 Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, agreed to modify the October 13, 2011, retainer
15 agreement. A copy of the November 14 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated by
16 reference as if the same were fully set forth herein.
17 16. The November 14 Agreement provides, among other things, that: (a) F&P shall
18 receive as compensation a contingent fee of 40% of any gross recovery by TED individually and
19 as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, and as Trustee of
20 the Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, and (b) if the
21 recovery occurred after the first day the action was scheduled for trial, F&P would receive as
22 compensation 50% of the gross recovery. The November 14 Agreement also provided that:
23
It is understood and agreed that Attorney is assigned a lien as part of the Agreement agains
24 the Litigation and/or upon any recovery of Client, his successors, estate and/or agents by
way of compromise, settlement and/or judgment.
25
26 17. On November 21, 2011, F&P filed suit against the Trust Defendants in Hill v. Wilke
27 Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney, LLP, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-
28 00114402 (hereinafter “Hill Lawsuit™).
: 3
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
18. On December 27, 2011, TED passed away and his spouse, PAT, individually, as
successor in interest to TED’s estate, and as co-trustee of the TED Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated
October 3, 1990 and the Theodore F. and Priscilla L. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23,
2011, became TED’s successor in interest.
19. On February 15, 2012, PAT, as TED’s successor in interest, and F&P entered into
an agreement whereby PAT ratified, confirmed, consented to, and assumed all rights and
obligations pursuant to the October 13, 2011 and November 14, 2011 Agreements. A copy of the
February 15 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 3, and is incorporated by reference as if the same
were fully set forth herein.
10 20. F&P was dissolved effective January 1, 2013, and is still in its winding up phasg
11 pending, among other things, the outcome of this litigation.
12 21. Prior to the dissolution of F&P, partners ED and PARKER’s relationship soured,
13 leading to PARKER developing malice, hatred, and ill will toward ED personally and toward ED’s
14 law corporation FLC. PARKER’s personal desire to injure ED and FLC persisted after the
15 dissolution of F&P as PARKER continued his practice as a partner and officer at RPT.
16 22. OnJune 22,2013, PAT agreed to have FLC represent her in place of the dissolved
17 partnership under the same terms and conditions set forth in the November 14, 2011 Agreement
18 and the February 15, 2012 Agreement, and executed a Substitution of Attorney form. A copy of
19 the June 22 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 4, and is incorporated by reference as if the samg
20 were fully set forth herein. A copy of the Substitution of Attorney form executed by PAT if
21 attached as Exhibit 5.
22 23. F&P prepared for and diligently prosecuted the Hill Lawsuit from October 2011
23 through January 1, 2013 and thereafter FLC prepared for and diligently prosecuted the Hill Lawsuif
24 through May 15, 2015. F&P’s and FLC’s services included, but are not limited to, legal and factual
25 investigation of the underlying action, performing legal research and analysis, drafting pleadings,
26 participating in law and motion matters, written discovery, depositions, engagement of expert
27 witnesses, preparing for and participating in a mediation.
28 24. As the result of the mediation, FLC obtained a $1.5 million settlement from the
6
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accountant Defendants on behalf of Trust Plaintiffs and PAT. FLC continued to prosecute Trust
Plaintiffs and PAT’s litigation against the remaining Defendants. _
25. As aresult of the diligent representation By F&P and FLC over a three year and
seven-month period, as of May 15, 2015, the Hill Lawsuit was nearly ready for trial.
26. The Wilke Defendants moved to disqualify and prevent FLC from trying the casg
against the remaining Defendants. The court disqualified FLC from continuing to represent the
Trust Plaintiffs effective May 15, 2015.
27. Atthe time that FLC was disqualified from further representing PAT and the Trusts,
FLC had been representing PAT’s interests, her husband’s interests, and the Trusts’ interests for 3
10 period of three years, seven months. In that period of time, FLC attorneys spent thousands of hours
11 providing legal services to prosecute the HILL cases. FLC lawyers strategized on a host of legal
12 issues to develop and formulate the best way to effectively present a winning case, meticulously
13 prepared the case, filed pleadings to support the case, prepared for and took extensive depositions,
14 prepared for and defended multiple depositions, retained two forensic handwriting experts,
15 standard of care expert on estate practices and a neuropsychologist expert. FLC, in its three- and
16 one-half years of representing the plaintiffs in the HILL case, had the HILL case in a posture thaf
17 it could be tried before a jury without much additional work other than preparing for the trial based
18 upon the services that had been performed.
19 28. On or about June 2, 2015, the Trust Plaintiffs engaged Defendant RPT, including
20 PARKER and RADOSLOVICH as named partners in the firm, to represent them against the
21 remaining Defendants in the Hill Lawsuit.
22 29. On October 14, 2015, FLC filed a “Notice of Lien” in the Hill Lawsuit, a copy of
23 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
24 herein. The Notice of Lien was served on HB&B; Perkins Coie; and RPT.
25 30. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on August 30, 2016, the Trust Plaintiffs
26 entered into a stipulation with the remaining defendants. At some later date, FLC was informed by
27 counsel for Priscilla L. Hill, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Hill Estate, that RPT
28 settled the Hill Lawsuit against the remaining defendants for $7,158.622.00.
7
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
31. Immediately upon receipt of the settlement funds, Defendants RPT, PARKER|
RADOSLOVICH, and DOES 1-10 were obligated to safeguard and set aside in a safe account all
funds which they received on behalf of their clients in the settlement for the benefit of and tq
protect PLAINTIFFS’ charging lien as alleged above. On September 9, 2016, FLC emailed and
mailed to attorneys defending the remaining defendants in the Hill Lawsuit a letter enclosing the
October 14, 2015 Notice of Lien, setting forth numerous California precedents and decisions and
stating, “...if your insurance carrier client pays the settlement proceeds to the Plaintiffs or theis
counsel without protecting and safeguarding FLC’s lien rights to claim attorneys’ fees, youn
insurance carrier client will be liable for intentional interference with FLC’s prospective economid
10 advantage. Levin, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 1287-88.” A true and correct copy of this letter i
11 attached as Exhibit 7. ‘
12 32. The insurance carriers sued herein and DOES 10-15 blatantly violated their legal
13 obligations by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights, Instead they provided the full amount
14 of the settlement proceeds to RPT without any limitation on RPT’s ability to use said funds and
15 without requiring that the funds be deposited into a court protected account or other safeguarded
16 escrow account not to be distributed until the lien rights of PLAINTIFFS have been resolved. Nof
17 did the insurance carriers, Defendants DOES 10-15, interplead the funds with the court to allow a
18 judicial resolution of PLAINTIFF’ lien rights. Said insurance carriers Defendants DOES 10-15
19 did not restrict in any way the DEFENDANTS’ use of these funds. PLAINTIFFS are informed
20 and believe and therefore allege that the insurance carriers DOES 10-15, for all DEFENDANTS
21 who participated and contributed to the ultimate settlement, agreed to and blatantly violated, as set
22 forth above, PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights.
23 33. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that Insurance carriers
24 DOES 10-15 proposed and required PAT indemnify them as an inducement to settle in the HILL
25 LAWSUIT with willful and malicious intent in efforts to reach impunity all intending to causg
26 injury to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights.
27 34. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that the
28 DEFENDANTS and each of them, have acted in intentional violation of PLAINTIFF’S lien right
8
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
in and to the settlement proceeds and have failed to safeguard and protect PLAINTIFFS’ lien
rights.
35. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that one or more of the
DEFENDANTS distributed the amount that the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS were entitled
to in accordance with their fee agreement with RPT to the PRISCILLA HIL DEFENDANTS; that
RPT deposited in one or more of its account all or a substantial portion of the attorney’s fees it
would have been otherwise entitled to, absent PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights; and that PARKER and
RADOSLOVICH and DOES 1-3 and 16-30, received in distributions from RPT some or all of the
revenues it would have been entitled to had RPT been entitled to 100% of the attorney’s fee under
10 its fee agreement, absent PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights.
11 36. PLAINTIFFS have received no payment of any kind as a result of their lien rightg
1 to the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds.
13 37. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS
14 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and
15 16-30, received settlement proceeds from the remaining DEFENDANTS in the Hill Lawsuit and
16 have distributed to PAT a portion of the settlement proceeds, all in deliberate and premeditated
17 violation of PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights to the proceeds of the Hill Lawsuit settlement intended tq
tortiously cause injury to PLAINTIFFS.
19 38. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS
20 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and
21 16-30, knew of and did in fact intentionally interfere with PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights in a willful
2 and deliberate manner by disposing of or spending some or all of the remaining settlement
23 proceeds which represent attorney’s fees that were subject to PLAINTIFFS’ liens. DEFENDANTS
24 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and
25 16-30 were aware of the probable consequences of their conduct, and willfully and deliberately
26 failed to avoid those consequences.
27 39. PLINTIFFS have received no payment by any of the defendants for the attorney’s
28 fees plaintiffs are entitled to in accordance with their lien rights, as described above.
9
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
40. After this action was filed, PAT demanded binding contractual arbitration to
determine, among other things, whether a valid lien existed arising out of any of the Agreements
identified hereinabove as Exhibit 2, 3, and/or 4.
41. PLAINTIFFS arbitrated the validity of the lien against PAT in a binding arbitration
before a panel of three arbitrators on various dates between May 20 and June 6, 2019. On March
5, 2020, the panel of arbitrators issued a final arbitration award and determined that the lien wa.
valid and legally enforceable. That award has been confirmed by the Sacramento County Superio
Court.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 ADJUDICATION OF LIEN
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 42. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-37C of this Complaint
13 as though fully set forth herein.
14
PLAINTIFFS seek a judicial adjudication that their lien attaches to all of the settlement proceeds
15
received in the Hill Lawsuit and has priority over the liens of successor attorneys, such as RPT|
16
and the liens of creditors who filed subsequent to the date of the fee agreement that provided
17
PLAINTIFFS with a lien on the Hill Lawsuit settlement. PLAINTIFFS further seek that their liens
18
have priority over the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ entitlement to a portion of the
19
settlement proceeds.
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21
ADJUDICATION OF THE PRO RATA LIEN
22
AMOUNT BEWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND RPT
23
(Against All Defendants other than PAT)
24
43. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs1-39 of this Complaint ag
25
though fully set forth herein. |
26
44, Based on the valid lien that exists between PLAINTIFFS and PAT, as determined
27
28
in the binding arbitration between PLAINTIFFS and PAT, PLAINTIFFS seek a judicial
10
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
determination of the pro rata reasonable value of PLAINTIFFS’ services as the initial attorney,
compared to the pro rata reasonable value of the services of RPT in the representation of the Hill
Lawsuit plaintiffs in accordance with the principles and rationale of the law, as exemplified by
Cazares v. Saenz (1989) 208 Cal.App.3rd 279, 288-289.
45. PLAINTIFFS seek an award of damages against DEFENDANTS, and each of them|
(other than PTA), for the amount determined by the trier of fact to be the pro rata reasonable valug
of PLAINTIFFS’ services up to the time of the termination of FLC’s services the Hill Lawsuit
compared to the pro rata reasonable value of RPT’s services.
46. Since PLAINTIFFS performed the vast majority of the work on the Hill Lawsuit
10 for three and a half years before FLC was disqualified on May 15, 2015 and RPT did very little
11 work on the Hill Lawsuit before the case settled on August 30, 2016, PLAINTIFFS are entitled tq
12 the vast majority of the contingency fee established in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. This “Pro Rata Lien
13 Amount” is equal to not less than the forty (40%) percent contingency rate on the gross settlement
14 as set forth in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, multiplied by the $7,158.622.00 settlement of the Hill Lawsuit,
minus the amount of arbitrators awarded PLAINTIFFS against PAT in the final arbitration award
16 dated March 5, 2020.
17 47. DEFENDANTS and each of them (other than PAT) are legally liéble to
18 PLAINTIFFS for the Pro Rata Lien Amount because they failed and refused to acknowledge,
19 protect, preserve and pay the Pro Rata Lien Amount to PLAINTFFS at the time the Hill Lawsuit
20 was settled, as the DEFENDANTS were legally obligated to do.
21 48. PLAINTIFFS seek interest at the rate often percent per annum for the amount of
22 attorneys fees that they are awarded in this action form the date DEFENDANTS exercised
23 exclusive control and dominion over the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit Proceeds to the present|
24 DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), intentionally, willfully, maliciously and
25 recklessly failed and refused to acknowledge, protect, preserve and pay the Pro Rata Lien Amount
26 to PLAINTIFFS at the time the Hill Lawsuit was settled, as they were legally obligated to do.
27 Their acts, errors and omissions occurred with malice or oppression, with the intent to cause injury
28 to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct
11
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and deprived PLAINTIFFS of theirw
property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages
under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be established at trial against all DEFENDANTS (other|
than PAT).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC EXPECTANCY
(Against All Defendants, Except PAT)
49. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-43 of this Complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
10 50. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally refused tq
11
recognize, acknowledge or honor PLAINTIFFS’ liens, as set forth in the November 14, 2011 and
12 February 15, 2012 Agreements.
13 51. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally refused tq
14 recognize, acknowledge or honor the Notice of Lien filed by FLC in the Hill Lawsuit as set forth
15 in § 27 above, thereby interfering with PLAINTIFFS prospective economic advantage.
16 52. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, has damaged PLAINTIFFS byj
17
denying PLAINTIFFS’ recovery of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they were entitled from
18 the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds.
19
53. As a further direct and legal result of such intentional interference, PLAINTIFFS
20
are entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded
21 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion ovet
22 the settlement proceeds obtained by RPT from the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit.
23 54. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL
24 DEFENDANTS, by the conduct alleged herein, have intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and
25
oppressively violated PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights which entitled PLAINTIFFS to receive the Pro
26 Rata Lien Amount.
27
55. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL
28
DEFENDANTS, have intentionally interfered with FLC’s economic advantage, and such
12
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
interference was committed with malice or oppression, with the intent to cause injury to
PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct
was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and conscious disregard of
PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS arg
entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to
be established at trial against all DEFENDANTS, except the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
(Against All Defendants, Except PAT)
10 56. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-50 of this Complaint
11 as though fully set forth herein.
12 57. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), by refusing to acknowledge
13 and recognize PLAINTIFFS’ charging lien rights, have intentionally interfered with
14 PLAINTIFFS’ rights under the November 14, 2011 Agreement and the February 15, 2012
15 Agreement.
16 58. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally interfered
17 with plaintiffs’ contractual relationship with the Hill Lawsuit plaintiffs without justification.
59. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, has damaged PLAINTIFFS by}
19 denying PLAINTIFFS’ recovery of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they were entitled from
20 the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds.
21 60. As a further direct and legal result of such intentional interference, PLAINTIFFS
22 are entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded
23 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over
24 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present in this action.
25 61. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL
26 DEFENDANTS, have committed the interference described in this Cause of Action with malice
27 or oppression, with the intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious
28 disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to
13
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
unjust hardship and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of
their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive
damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be established at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against RPT, PARKER and RADOSLOVICH and DOES 1-3)
62. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 59 of this Complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
63. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, obtained possession and control of the
10
settlement proceeds obtained from the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit, and its distribution of &
11
portion of those proceeds to the plaintiffs in the Hill Lawsuit and DEFENDANTS retention of
12
attorney’s fees from those proceeds has unjustly benefitted them since PLAINTIFFS are entitled
13
to a substantial pro rata allocation as sought in the Second Cause of Action herein.
14 64. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct as described herein|
15 PLAINTIFFS have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the attorney’s fees that
16 PLAINTIFEFS are entitled to that have been dispersed, dissipated, and otherwise disposed of by the
17 DEFENDANTS.
18
65. DEFENDANTS, by their conduct as set forth above, have been unjustly enriched
19 by obtaining the benefits of distributing and dispersing the attorney’s fees obtained from the
20 settlement proceeds of the Hill Lawsuit and they have been enriched to the extent of the amount
21
of the attorney’s fees awarded to PLAINTIFFS in accordance with the First and Second Causes of
22 Action.
23 66. PLAINTIFFS seek pre-judgment interest on all amounts due and owing
24 PLAINTIFS t the legal rate of 10% per annum from the date DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
25
received PLAINTIFFS’ portion of the attorney’s fees to the present.
26
67. By engaging in the conduct described above, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
27
excluding for purpose of this paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have acted
28
intentionally, willfully, fraudulently, oppressively and maliciously. In addition, said conduct by
14
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
said DEFENDANTS was despicable and carried out wit the willful and conscious disregard of
PLAINTIFFS’ rights and as a consequence entitles PLAINTIFFS’ to an award of punitive damageg
in an amount to be awarded by the trier of fact.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
(Against all Defendants)
68. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1- 65 of this Complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
69. DEFENDANTS; and each of them, were in possession of or came into possession
10 of the Pro Rata Lien Amount that PLAINTIFFS are judicially determined to be entitled to in
11 accordance with the allegations of the First and Second Causes of Action. Therefore, PLAINTIFFS
12 are legally entitled to the Pro Rata Lien Amount that was or is int eh possession of DEFENDANTS.
13 70. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct described above, PLAINTIFFS
14 is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded
15 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over
16 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present.
17 71. By engaging in the conduct described above, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
18 excluding for purpose of this paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have acted
19 intentionally, willfully, fraudulently, oppressively and maliciously. In addition, said conduct by
20 said DEFENDANTS was despicable and carried out with the willful and conscious disregard of
21
PLAINTIFFS’ rights and as a consequence entitles PLAINTIFFS’ to an award of punitive damages
22 in amount to be awarded by the trier of fact.
23
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
BREACH OF TRUST
25
(Against All Defendants)
26
72. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint
27
as though fully set forth herein.
28
15
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
73. From the time DEFENDANTS received the proceeds of the settlement in the Hill
Lawsuit, said DEFENDANTS should have held the Pro Rata Lien Amount in its entirety as trustees
for the benefit of PLAINTIFFS who were entitled to fees in accordance with their liens and with
the established law of the reasonable value of their services as alleged in the Second Cause of
Action herein. |
74. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have refused to even acknowledge the existence
of PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights, PLAINTIFFS’ entitlement to an allocation of the attorney’s fees, and
have failed and refused to place the amount of attorney’s fees DEFENDANTS have received intog
a blocked or court-protected account that cannot be withdrawn until the parties agree or the Court
10 orders, thereby preventing PLAINTIFFS from obtaining what PLAINTIFFS are entitled to fo
11 their lengthy representation of the plaintiffs in the Hill Lawsuit.
75. Asadirect and legal result of this breach of trust, PLAINTIFFS have been damaged
13 by the loss of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they are entitled.
14 76. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct described above, PLAINTIFFS
15 is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded
16 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over
17 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present.
18 77. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, excluding for purpose of the allegations of thig
19 paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have intentionally breached the trust and
20 have committed said breach with malice, fraud, and oppression and with the intent to cause injury
21 to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. Such conduct
22 was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and conscious disregard of
23 PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS arg
24 entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to
25 be established at trial.
26 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, ag
27 follows:
28
ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
16
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. For a judicial determination that PLAINTIFFS lien rights have priority over the
liens of the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ successor attorneys and creditors whose liens
were created subsequent to the creation of PLAINTIFFS’ liens.
ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. For a judicial determination that PLAINTIFFS lien rights have priority over the
liens of the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ successor attorneys and creditors whose liens
were created subsequent to the creation of PLAINTIFFS’ liens.
2. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial.
3. For interest at the rate often percent per annum from the date the DEFENDANTS
10 had possession of the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
11 4. For cost of suit incurred herein;
12 5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
13 ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
14 1 For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial.
15
2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of
16
the Settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
17
3. 3, For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, excep{
18
the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS;
19
4. For costs of suit incurred herein;
20
5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
21
ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
22
1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial.
23
2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of
24
the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
25
26
3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of
27 the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with
28 regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the
17
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
settlement of the Hill Lawsuit;
4. For punitive and exemplary damages against ALL DEFENDANTS, except thg
PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein;
6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial.
2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of
the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
10
3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of
11
the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with
12
regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the
13
settlement of the Hill Lawsuit;
14
15
4. For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, except thg
16
PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein;
18 6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
19 ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
20 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof a trial.
21 2 For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of
22 the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
23
3. For constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of the
24
attorney’s fees in its possession of the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with regard
25
to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the settlement of
26
the Hill Lawsuit;
27
4, For costs of suit incurred herein;
28
18
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial.
2 For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of
the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present;
3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of
the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with
regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the
settlement of the Hill Lawsuit;
10
4. For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, except the
11
PRISCILL HILL DEFENDANTS;
12
5. For costs of suit incurred herein;
13
6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate.
14
15
16
17
Date: April 18, 2024 FELLNER LAW GROUP
18
19
20 By: M““fl
Jason E. Fellner, Esq.
21
Andrew W. Browning, Esq.
22 Attorneys for Freidberg Law Corporation; and
Freidberg & Parker, LLP
23
24
25
26
27
28
19 .
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Exhibit 1
FREIDBERG & rARKER,LLP
Edward Freidberg
Port J. Pa
Preview
Filed Superior Court of California, Sacramento Jason E. Fellner (SBN 245364) 0492024 Andrew W. Browning (SBN 326778) tarsonh FELLNER LAW GROUP 90 New Montgomery St., Ste. 400 By ] Deputy 34-2017-00218210-C1J BT-GDS San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 658-9253 Facsimile: (415) 658-9256 jfellner@fellnerlawgroup.com abrowning@fellnerlawgroup.com John E. Cassinat (SBN 131214) CASSINAT LAW CORPORATION 4815 Laguna Park Drive, Suite C Elk Grove, CA 95758 Telephone: (916) 393-3030 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 11 Freidberg Law Corporation; and Freidberg & Parker, LLP, a dissolved 12 limited liability partnership, in its winding up phase 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 15 16 FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION, a Case No.: 34-2017-00218210 17 California corporation; and FREIDBERG & PARKER, LLP, a dissolved limited liability FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 partnership, in its winding up phase, FOR: BY FAX 19 Plaintiffs, (1) Adjudication of Lien; 20 (2) Adjudication of Pro Rata Lien V. Amount Between Plaintiffs and 21 RPT; RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, (3) Intentional Interference with 22 P.C, a Professional Corporation; HAIGHT Economic Expectancy; 23 BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP, a (4) Intentional Interference with California limited liability partnership; Contract; 24 PERKINS COIE LLP, a California limited (5) Unjust Enrichment; liability partnership; PORT J. PARKER, an (6) Money Had and Received; 25 individual; FRANK RADOSLOVICH, an (7) Breach of Constructive Trust. 26 individual; PRISCILLA L. HILL, as Trustee of Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust 27 dated October 3,1990; PRISCILLA L. HILL 28 as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla 1 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23,2011; PRISCILLA L. HILL as Special Administrator of the Estate of Theodore F. Hill; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. And Related Cross-Complaints Plaintiffs FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION and FREIDBERG & PARKER, LLP| allege as follows: 10 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 11 1. Plaintiff FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION, was at all relevant times to thig 12 litigation a professional law corporation duly licensed to practice law in the State of California 13 FREIDBERG LAW CORPORATION (“FLC”) has changed its name to FREIDBERG 14 CORPORATION (hereinafter “FC”). At present, FC is a California corporation in good standing| 15 but is no longer licensed to practice law in the State of California. 16 2. Plaintiff FREIDBERG & PARKER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership 17 (hereinafter referred to as “F&P”), was and at all relevant times up to January 1, 2012, a limited 18 liability partnership registered to practice law in the State of California with its principal place of 19 business in Sacramento, California. F&P was comprised of partners Ed Freidberg (“ED”) and 20 Defendant PORT J. PARKER. F&P dissolved effective January 1, 2013, and brings this action in 21 its winding up phase. FC and F&P are collectively referred to as PLAINTIFFS. 22 3. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that DEFENDANT 23 RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, P.C. and DOES 1-3 was a law corporation practicing law 24 with its offices located in Sacramento, California. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that 25 RADOSLOVICH PARKER TURNER, P.C. changed its name to RADOSLOVICH, PARKER, 26 P.C., and then to RADOSLOVICH SHAPIRO, PC ATTORNEYS. This entity, including DOES 27 1-3, is referred to hereinafter as RPT. 28 4. Defendant PORT J. PARKER (“PARKER™), is an attorney licensed to practice law 2 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT in the State of California, and at all times relevant herein was and is practicing his profession with one or more of the Defendants set forth in Paragraph 3 above. 5 Defendant FRANK RADOSLOVICH (“RADOSLOVICH?”) is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and at all times relevant herein, practicing his profession with one or more of the Defendants set forth in Paragraph 3 above. 6. Defendants HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP (“HB&B™) and DOES 4-6 are a limited liability partnership, licensed to practice law in the State of California and at all relevant times herein was and is practicing law, with multiple law offices in the State of California, including offices in San Francisco, California. 10 T Defendant PERKINS COIE, LLP, and DOES 7-9 are a limited liability partnership 11 licensed to practice law in the State of California and at all relevant times herein was and iy 12 practicing law, with multiple law offices in the United States, including offices in Palo Alto, 13 California. 14 8. Defendant DOES 10-15 are errors and omissions insurance carriers, insurance 15 carriers, insurance companies and other entities, the identity of which is unknown to PLAINTIFFS] 16 who insured one or more of the defendants in the underlying action of Hill v. Wilke Fleury Hoffelt 17 Gould & Birney, LLP, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-00114402 (“Hill 18 Lawsuit”) but not limited to, defense costs and indemnity coverage and whom PLAINTIFFS are 19 informed, believe and therefore allege, participated in the decisions and actions that were taken, 20 as set forth herein, and are liable for their conduct for the actions and lack of actions described 21 herein after and as set forth in the third through eighth causes of action. 22 9. Defendants PRISCILLA L. HILL is an individual (“PAT"), and at all times relevant 23 herein was and is a resident of the County of Sacramento. PAT was at all times relevant herein the 24 Trustee of The Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, the Trustee of the 25 Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, and the Special 26 Administrator of the Estate of Theodore F. Hill (hereinafter referred to collectively as (“The 27 PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS”). 28 10. The complete and true names, involvement and/or capacities, whether individual, 3 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT corporate, professional, or otherwise, of the DEFENDANTS named herein as DOES 1-15, are nof presently fully known and/or are unknown to PLAINTIFFS who, therefore, sue said DOES defendants under such fictitious names. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believe, and based thereon, allege that said fictitiously named defendants are in some manner liable to the PLAINTIFFS fo the relief herein requested. PLAINTIFFS hereby request leave of the Court to amend thig Complaint to set forth the true names, involvement, and/or capacities, whether individual, professional, or otherwise, when the same have been ascertained or adequate discovery is taken. 11. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege, that DOES 10-15 are errors and omissions carriers and other insurance carriers who insured one or more of the 10 defendants in the Hill Lawsuit, who did violate and disregard and ignore PLAINTIFFS lien rights, 11 as set forth herein. The names and identities of these carriers are unknown to PLAINTIFFS whq 12 sue them under the fictitious names as DOES 10-15. 13 12. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon, allege that at all 14 relevant times herein DEFENDANTS and/or DOES 16-30 were and are attorneys, officers, 15 directors, agents, representatives, servants, joint ventures, aiders and abettors, co-conspirators| 16 representatives, and/or employees of the other defendants, and each of them. PLAINTIFFS arg 17 further informed, believes, and based thereon allege that at all times relevant herein, the named 18 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were acting within the scope and course of sad agencies) 19 services, ventures, conspiracies, and/or employment with the other defendants, and/or with theig 20 ratification, knowledge, and/or consent. 21 13. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court and in the County as named 22 Defendants PARKER, RPT, RADOSLOVICH and PAT, at all times relevant herein, are residents 23 of the County of Sacramento; and RPT’s offices are in the County of Sacramento. The Hill Lawsuif 24 was filed and litigated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 25 Sacramento. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this 26 Court. Accordingly, jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper. 27 14. On October 13, 2011, Theodore F. Hill (hereafter referred to as “TED”), 28 individually and as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, 4 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT and as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011 (hereafter referred to as “Trust Plaintiffs”), engaged F&P to analyze and evaluate potential meritorious claims against; the law firm of Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney, LLP and one of its partners, Ernest James Krtil (hereinafter referred to as “Wilke Defendants™); the accountancy firm of Matson & Isom, and one of its shareholders, Craig Richard Duncan (hereinafter referred to as “Accountant Defendants™); Thomas P. Deany, an officer of Nor-Cal Products, Inc., and the Trustee of the Craig Hill 1991 Revocable Trust; and David L. Chambers, the husband of Hillis Chambers, individually and as Trustee of the David and Hollis Chambers Revocable Trust (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Trust Defendants™). A copy of the October 13 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference as if the same were fully sef 11 forth herein. 12 15. On November 14, 2011, TED, individually and as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill 13 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, and as Trustee of the Theodore F. and Priscilla P 14 Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, agreed to modify the October 13, 2011, retainer 15 agreement. A copy of the November 14 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated by 16 reference as if the same were fully set forth herein. 17 16. The November 14 Agreement provides, among other things, that: (a) F&P shall 18 receive as compensation a contingent fee of 40% of any gross recovery by TED individually and 19 as Trustee of the Theodore F. Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990, and as Trustee of 20 the Theodore F. and Priscilla P. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, and (b) if the 21 recovery occurred after the first day the action was scheduled for trial, F&P would receive as 22 compensation 50% of the gross recovery. The November 14 Agreement also provided that: 23 It is understood and agreed that Attorney is assigned a lien as part of the Agreement agains 24 the Litigation and/or upon any recovery of Client, his successors, estate and/or agents by way of compromise, settlement and/or judgment. 25 26 17. On November 21, 2011, F&P filed suit against the Trust Defendants in Hill v. Wilke 27 Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney, LLP, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2011- 28 00114402 (hereinafter “Hill Lawsuit™). : 3 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 18. On December 27, 2011, TED passed away and his spouse, PAT, individually, as successor in interest to TED’s estate, and as co-trustee of the TED Hill 1990 Revocable Trust dated October 3, 1990 and the Theodore F. and Priscilla L. Hill Revocable Trust established June 23, 2011, became TED’s successor in interest. 19. On February 15, 2012, PAT, as TED’s successor in interest, and F&P entered into an agreement whereby PAT ratified, confirmed, consented to, and assumed all rights and obligations pursuant to the October 13, 2011 and November 14, 2011 Agreements. A copy of the February 15 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 3, and is incorporated by reference as if the same were fully set forth herein. 10 20. F&P was dissolved effective January 1, 2013, and is still in its winding up phasg 11 pending, among other things, the outcome of this litigation. 12 21. Prior to the dissolution of F&P, partners ED and PARKER’s relationship soured, 13 leading to PARKER developing malice, hatred, and ill will toward ED personally and toward ED’s 14 law corporation FLC. PARKER’s personal desire to injure ED and FLC persisted after the 15 dissolution of F&P as PARKER continued his practice as a partner and officer at RPT. 16 22. OnJune 22,2013, PAT agreed to have FLC represent her in place of the dissolved 17 partnership under the same terms and conditions set forth in the November 14, 2011 Agreement 18 and the February 15, 2012 Agreement, and executed a Substitution of Attorney form. A copy of 19 the June 22 Agreement is attached as Exhibit 4, and is incorporated by reference as if the samg 20 were fully set forth herein. A copy of the Substitution of Attorney form executed by PAT if 21 attached as Exhibit 5. 22 23. F&P prepared for and diligently prosecuted the Hill Lawsuit from October 2011 23 through January 1, 2013 and thereafter FLC prepared for and diligently prosecuted the Hill Lawsuif 24 through May 15, 2015. F&P’s and FLC’s services included, but are not limited to, legal and factual 25 investigation of the underlying action, performing legal research and analysis, drafting pleadings, 26 participating in law and motion matters, written discovery, depositions, engagement of expert 27 witnesses, preparing for and participating in a mediation. 28 24. As the result of the mediation, FLC obtained a $1.5 million settlement from the 6 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Accountant Defendants on behalf of Trust Plaintiffs and PAT. FLC continued to prosecute Trust Plaintiffs and PAT’s litigation against the remaining Defendants. _ 25. As aresult of the diligent representation By F&P and FLC over a three year and seven-month period, as of May 15, 2015, the Hill Lawsuit was nearly ready for trial. 26. The Wilke Defendants moved to disqualify and prevent FLC from trying the casg against the remaining Defendants. The court disqualified FLC from continuing to represent the Trust Plaintiffs effective May 15, 2015. 27. Atthe time that FLC was disqualified from further representing PAT and the Trusts, FLC had been representing PAT’s interests, her husband’s interests, and the Trusts’ interests for 3 10 period of three years, seven months. In that period of time, FLC attorneys spent thousands of hours 11 providing legal services to prosecute the HILL cases. FLC lawyers strategized on a host of legal 12 issues to develop and formulate the best way to effectively present a winning case, meticulously 13 prepared the case, filed pleadings to support the case, prepared for and took extensive depositions, 14 prepared for and defended multiple depositions, retained two forensic handwriting experts, 15 standard of care expert on estate practices and a neuropsychologist expert. FLC, in its three- and 16 one-half years of representing the plaintiffs in the HILL case, had the HILL case in a posture thaf 17 it could be tried before a jury without much additional work other than preparing for the trial based 18 upon the services that had been performed. 19 28. On or about June 2, 2015, the Trust Plaintiffs engaged Defendant RPT, including 20 PARKER and RADOSLOVICH as named partners in the firm, to represent them against the 21 remaining Defendants in the Hill Lawsuit. 22 29. On October 14, 2015, FLC filed a “Notice of Lien” in the Hill Lawsuit, a copy of 23 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth 24 herein. The Notice of Lien was served on HB&B; Perkins Coie; and RPT. 25 30. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on August 30, 2016, the Trust Plaintiffs 26 entered into a stipulation with the remaining defendants. At some later date, FLC was informed by 27 counsel for Priscilla L. Hill, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Hill Estate, that RPT 28 settled the Hill Lawsuit against the remaining defendants for $7,158.622.00. 7 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 31. Immediately upon receipt of the settlement funds, Defendants RPT, PARKER| RADOSLOVICH, and DOES 1-10 were obligated to safeguard and set aside in a safe account all funds which they received on behalf of their clients in the settlement for the benefit of and tq protect PLAINTIFFS’ charging lien as alleged above. On September 9, 2016, FLC emailed and mailed to attorneys defending the remaining defendants in the Hill Lawsuit a letter enclosing the October 14, 2015 Notice of Lien, setting forth numerous California precedents and decisions and stating, “...if your insurance carrier client pays the settlement proceeds to the Plaintiffs or theis counsel without protecting and safeguarding FLC’s lien rights to claim attorneys’ fees, youn insurance carrier client will be liable for intentional interference with FLC’s prospective economid 10 advantage. Levin, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 1287-88.” A true and correct copy of this letter i 11 attached as Exhibit 7. ‘ 12 32. The insurance carriers sued herein and DOES 10-15 blatantly violated their legal 13 obligations by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights, Instead they provided the full amount 14 of the settlement proceeds to RPT without any limitation on RPT’s ability to use said funds and 15 without requiring that the funds be deposited into a court protected account or other safeguarded 16 escrow account not to be distributed until the lien rights of PLAINTIFFS have been resolved. Nof 17 did the insurance carriers, Defendants DOES 10-15, interplead the funds with the court to allow a 18 judicial resolution of PLAINTIFF’ lien rights. Said insurance carriers Defendants DOES 10-15 19 did not restrict in any way the DEFENDANTS’ use of these funds. PLAINTIFFS are informed 20 and believe and therefore allege that the insurance carriers DOES 10-15, for all DEFENDANTS 21 who participated and contributed to the ultimate settlement, agreed to and blatantly violated, as set 22 forth above, PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights. 23 33. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that Insurance carriers 24 DOES 10-15 proposed and required PAT indemnify them as an inducement to settle in the HILL 25 LAWSUIT with willful and malicious intent in efforts to reach impunity all intending to causg 26 injury to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. 27 34. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that the 28 DEFENDANTS and each of them, have acted in intentional violation of PLAINTIFF’S lien right 8 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT in and to the settlement proceeds and have failed to safeguard and protect PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights. 35. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that one or more of the DEFENDANTS distributed the amount that the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS were entitled to in accordance with their fee agreement with RPT to the PRISCILLA HIL DEFENDANTS; that RPT deposited in one or more of its account all or a substantial portion of the attorney’s fees it would have been otherwise entitled to, absent PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights; and that PARKER and RADOSLOVICH and DOES 1-3 and 16-30, received in distributions from RPT some or all of the revenues it would have been entitled to had RPT been entitled to 100% of the attorney’s fee under 10 its fee agreement, absent PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights. 11 36. PLAINTIFFS have received no payment of any kind as a result of their lien rightg 1 to the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds. 13 37. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS 14 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and 15 16-30, received settlement proceeds from the remaining DEFENDANTS in the Hill Lawsuit and 16 have distributed to PAT a portion of the settlement proceeds, all in deliberate and premeditated 17 violation of PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights to the proceeds of the Hill Lawsuit settlement intended tq tortiously cause injury to PLAINTIFFS. 19 38. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS 20 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and 21 16-30, knew of and did in fact intentionally interfere with PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights in a willful 2 and deliberate manner by disposing of or spending some or all of the remaining settlement 23 proceeds which represent attorney’s fees that were subject to PLAINTIFFS’ liens. DEFENDANTS 24 RPT, PARKER, RADOSLOVICH, the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-3 and 25 16-30 were aware of the probable consequences of their conduct, and willfully and deliberately 26 failed to avoid those consequences. 27 39. PLINTIFFS have received no payment by any of the defendants for the attorney’s 28 fees plaintiffs are entitled to in accordance with their lien rights, as described above. 9 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 40. After this action was filed, PAT demanded binding contractual arbitration to determine, among other things, whether a valid lien existed arising out of any of the Agreements identified hereinabove as Exhibit 2, 3, and/or 4. 41. PLAINTIFFS arbitrated the validity of the lien against PAT in a binding arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators on various dates between May 20 and June 6, 2019. On March 5, 2020, the panel of arbitrators issued a final arbitration award and determined that the lien wa. valid and legally enforceable. That award has been confirmed by the Sacramento County Superio Court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 ADJUDICATION OF LIEN 11 (Against All Defendants) 12 42. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-37C of this Complaint 13 as though fully set forth herein. 14 PLAINTIFFS seek a judicial adjudication that their lien attaches to all of the settlement proceeds 15 received in the Hill Lawsuit and has priority over the liens of successor attorneys, such as RPT| 16 and the liens of creditors who filed subsequent to the date of the fee agreement that provided 17 PLAINTIFFS with a lien on the Hill Lawsuit settlement. PLAINTIFFS further seek that their liens 18 have priority over the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ entitlement to a portion of the 19 settlement proceeds. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 ADJUDICATION OF THE PRO RATA LIEN 22 AMOUNT BEWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND RPT 23 (Against All Defendants other than PAT) 24 43. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs1-39 of this Complaint ag 25 though fully set forth herein. | 26 44, Based on the valid lien that exists between PLAINTIFFS and PAT, as determined 27 28 in the binding arbitration between PLAINTIFFS and PAT, PLAINTIFFS seek a judicial 10 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT determination of the pro rata reasonable value of PLAINTIFFS’ services as the initial attorney, compared to the pro rata reasonable value of the services of RPT in the representation of the Hill Lawsuit plaintiffs in accordance with the principles and rationale of the law, as exemplified by Cazares v. Saenz (1989) 208 Cal.App.3rd 279, 288-289. 45. PLAINTIFFS seek an award of damages against DEFENDANTS, and each of them| (other than PTA), for the amount determined by the trier of fact to be the pro rata reasonable valug of PLAINTIFFS’ services up to the time of the termination of FLC’s services the Hill Lawsuit compared to the pro rata reasonable value of RPT’s services. 46. Since PLAINTIFFS performed the vast majority of the work on the Hill Lawsuit 10 for three and a half years before FLC was disqualified on May 15, 2015 and RPT did very little 11 work on the Hill Lawsuit before the case settled on August 30, 2016, PLAINTIFFS are entitled tq 12 the vast majority of the contingency fee established in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. This “Pro Rata Lien 13 Amount” is equal to not less than the forty (40%) percent contingency rate on the gross settlement 14 as set forth in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, multiplied by the $7,158.622.00 settlement of the Hill Lawsuit, minus the amount of arbitrators awarded PLAINTIFFS against PAT in the final arbitration award 16 dated March 5, 2020. 17 47. DEFENDANTS and each of them (other than PAT) are legally liéble to 18 PLAINTIFFS for the Pro Rata Lien Amount because they failed and refused to acknowledge, 19 protect, preserve and pay the Pro Rata Lien Amount to PLAINTFFS at the time the Hill Lawsuit 20 was settled, as the DEFENDANTS were legally obligated to do. 21 48. PLAINTIFFS seek interest at the rate often percent per annum for the amount of 22 attorneys fees that they are awarded in this action form the date DEFENDANTS exercised 23 exclusive control and dominion over the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit Proceeds to the present| 24 DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), intentionally, willfully, maliciously and 25 recklessly failed and refused to acknowledge, protect, preserve and pay the Pro Rata Lien Amount 26 to PLAINTIFFS at the time the Hill Lawsuit was settled, as they were legally obligated to do. 27 Their acts, errors and omissions occurred with malice or oppression, with the intent to cause injury 28 to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct 11 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and deprived PLAINTIFFS of theirw property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be established at trial against all DEFENDANTS (other| than PAT). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC EXPECTANCY (Against All Defendants, Except PAT) 49. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-43 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 10 50. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally refused tq 11 recognize, acknowledge or honor PLAINTIFFS’ liens, as set forth in the November 14, 2011 and 12 February 15, 2012 Agreements. 13 51. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally refused tq 14 recognize, acknowledge or honor the Notice of Lien filed by FLC in the Hill Lawsuit as set forth 15 in § 27 above, thereby interfering with PLAINTIFFS prospective economic advantage. 16 52. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, has damaged PLAINTIFFS byj 17 denying PLAINTIFFS’ recovery of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they were entitled from 18 the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds. 19 53. As a further direct and legal result of such intentional interference, PLAINTIFFS 20 are entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded 21 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion ovet 22 the settlement proceeds obtained by RPT from the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit. 23 54. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL 24 DEFENDANTS, by the conduct alleged herein, have intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and 25 oppressively violated PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights which entitled PLAINTIFFS to receive the Pro 26 Rata Lien Amount. 27 55. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL 28 DEFENDANTS, have intentionally interfered with FLC’s economic advantage, and such 12 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT interference was committed with malice or oppression, with the intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS arg entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be established at trial against all DEFENDANTS, except the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (Against All Defendants, Except PAT) 10 56. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-50 of this Complaint 11 as though fully set forth herein. 12 57. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), by refusing to acknowledge 13 and recognize PLAINTIFFS’ charging lien rights, have intentionally interfered with 14 PLAINTIFFS’ rights under the November 14, 2011 Agreement and the February 15, 2012 15 Agreement. 16 58. DEFENDANTS, and each of them (other than PAT), have intentionally interfered 17 with plaintiffs’ contractual relationship with the Hill Lawsuit plaintiffs without justification. 59. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, has damaged PLAINTIFFS by} 19 denying PLAINTIFFS’ recovery of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they were entitled from 20 the Hill Lawsuit settlement proceeds. 21 60. As a further direct and legal result of such intentional interference, PLAINTIFFS 22 are entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded 23 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over 24 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present in this action. 25 61. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, except for the PRISCILLA HILL 26 DEFENDANTS, have committed the interference described in this Cause of Action with malice 27 or oppression, with the intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious 28 disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Such conduct was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to 13 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT unjust hardship and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be established at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT (Against RPT, PARKER and RADOSLOVICH and DOES 1-3) 62. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 59 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 63. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, obtained possession and control of the 10 settlement proceeds obtained from the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit, and its distribution of & 11 portion of those proceeds to the plaintiffs in the Hill Lawsuit and DEFENDANTS retention of 12 attorney’s fees from those proceeds has unjustly benefitted them since PLAINTIFFS are entitled 13 to a substantial pro rata allocation as sought in the Second Cause of Action herein. 14 64. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct as described herein| 15 PLAINTIFFS have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the attorney’s fees that 16 PLAINTIFEFS are entitled to that have been dispersed, dissipated, and otherwise disposed of by the 17 DEFENDANTS. 18 65. DEFENDANTS, by their conduct as set forth above, have been unjustly enriched 19 by obtaining the benefits of distributing and dispersing the attorney’s fees obtained from the 20 settlement proceeds of the Hill Lawsuit and they have been enriched to the extent of the amount 21 of the attorney’s fees awarded to PLAINTIFFS in accordance with the First and Second Causes of 22 Action. 23 66. PLAINTIFFS seek pre-judgment interest on all amounts due and owing 24 PLAINTIFS t the legal rate of 10% per annum from the date DEFENDANTS, and each of them, 25 received PLAINTIFFS’ portion of the attorney’s fees to the present. 26 67. By engaging in the conduct described above, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, 27 excluding for purpose of this paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have acted 28 intentionally, willfully, fraudulently, oppressively and maliciously. In addition, said conduct by 14 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT said DEFENDANTS was despicable and carried out wit the willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’ rights and as a consequence entitles PLAINTIFFS’ to an award of punitive damageg in an amount to be awarded by the trier of fact. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (Against all Defendants) 68. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1- 65 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 69. DEFENDANTS; and each of them, were in possession of or came into possession 10 of the Pro Rata Lien Amount that PLAINTIFFS are judicially determined to be entitled to in 11 accordance with the allegations of the First and Second Causes of Action. Therefore, PLAINTIFFS 12 are legally entitled to the Pro Rata Lien Amount that was or is int eh possession of DEFENDANTS. 13 70. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct described above, PLAINTIFFS 14 is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded 15 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over 16 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present. 17 71. By engaging in the conduct described above, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, 18 excluding for purpose of this paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have acted 19 intentionally, willfully, fraudulently, oppressively and maliciously. In addition, said conduct by 20 said DEFENDANTS was despicable and carried out with the willful and conscious disregard of 21 PLAINTIFFS’ rights and as a consequence entitles PLAINTIFFS’ to an award of punitive damages 22 in amount to be awarded by the trier of fact. 23 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 BREACH OF TRUST 25 (Against All Defendants) 26 72. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint 27 as though fully set forth herein. 28 15 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 73. From the time DEFENDANTS received the proceeds of the settlement in the Hill Lawsuit, said DEFENDANTS should have held the Pro Rata Lien Amount in its entirety as trustees for the benefit of PLAINTIFFS who were entitled to fees in accordance with their liens and with the established law of the reasonable value of their services as alleged in the Second Cause of Action herein. | 74. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have refused to even acknowledge the existence of PLAINTIFFS’ lien rights, PLAINTIFFS’ entitlement to an allocation of the attorney’s fees, and have failed and refused to place the amount of attorney’s fees DEFENDANTS have received intog a blocked or court-protected account that cannot be withdrawn until the parties agree or the Court 10 orders, thereby preventing PLAINTIFFS from obtaining what PLAINTIFFS are entitled to fo 11 their lengthy representation of the plaintiffs in the Hill Lawsuit. 75. Asadirect and legal result of this breach of trust, PLAINTIFFS have been damaged 13 by the loss of the Pro Rata Lien Amount to which they are entitled. 14 76. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct described above, PLAINTIFFS 15 is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount of attorney’s fees it is awarded 16 in this action from the date that DEFENDANTS exercised exclusive control and dominion over 17 the attorney’s fees portion of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit to the present. 18 77. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, excluding for purpose of the allegations of thig 19 paragraph only the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS, have intentionally breached the trust and 20 have committed said breach with malice, fraud, and oppression and with the intent to cause injury 21 to PLAINTIFFS and with a willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. Such conduct 22 was despicable and subjected PLAINTIFFS to unjust hardship and conscious disregard of 23 PLAINTIFFS’ rights and deprived PLAINTIFFS of their property. Accordingly, PLAINTIFFS arg 24 entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to 25 be established at trial. 26 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, ag 27 follows: 28 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 16 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. For a judicial determination that PLAINTIFFS lien rights have priority over the liens of the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ successor attorneys and creditors whose liens were created subsequent to the creation of PLAINTIFFS’ liens. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. For a judicial determination that PLAINTIFFS lien rights have priority over the liens of the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS’ successor attorneys and creditors whose liens were created subsequent to the creation of PLAINTIFFS’ liens. 2. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial. 3. For interest at the rate often percent per annum from the date the DEFENDANTS 10 had possession of the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 11 4. For cost of suit incurred herein; 12 5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. 13 ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 14 1 For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial. 15 2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of 16 the Settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 17 3. 3, For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, excep{ 18 the PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS; 19 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; 20 5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. 21 ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 22 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial. 23 2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of 24 the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 25 26 3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of 27 the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with 28 regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the 17 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT settlement of the Hill Lawsuit; 4. For punitive and exemplary damages against ALL DEFENDANTS, except thg PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; 6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial. 2. For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 10 3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of 11 the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with 12 regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the 13 settlement of the Hill Lawsuit; 14 15 4. For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, except thg 16 PRISCILLA HILL DEFENDANTS; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; 18 6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. 19 ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 20 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof a trial. 21 2 For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of 22 the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 23 3. For constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of the 24 attorney’s fees in its possession of the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with regard 25 to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the settlement of 26 the Hill Lawsuit; 27 4, For costs of suit incurred herein; 28 18 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 5. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof at trial. 2 For interest at the rate of 10% from the date the DEFENDANTS had possession of the settlement proceeds from the Hill Lawsuit settlement to the present; 3. For a constructive trust compelling the DEFENDANTS to transfer the amount of the attorney’s fees in its possession to the PLAINTIFF in an amount the Court determines with regard to the allocation of the attorney’s fees obtained by DEFENDANTS by virtue of the settlement of the Hill Lawsuit; 10 4. For punitive and exemplary damages against all DEFENDANTS, except the 11 PRISCILL HILL DEFENDANTS; 12 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; 13 6. Any other further relief that the court may deem appropriate. 14 15 16 17 Date: April 18, 2024 FELLNER LAW GROUP 18 19 20 By: M““fl Jason E. Fellner, Esq. 21 Andrew W. Browning, Esq. 22 Attorneys for Freidberg Law Corporation; and Freidberg & Parker, LLP 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 . FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Exhibit 1 FREIDBERG & rARKER,LLP Edward Freidberg Port J. Pa