Preview
"County of Placer
David McCarthy
dba Orange Capital Solutions May Oa 2020
40485 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd #389 oe
Murrieta, California 92563 botke CK
Ghatn
Tel: (951) 402-6887 oes vier!
In Pro-Per -
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
Anthony Palos Case No.: SCV 0020322
Orange Capital Solutions (Assignee) Assignee's Notice of Motion and Motion
10 _— to Set-Aside Default and Default Judgment
Plaintiff Orders, If Entered CCP §473(b); CCP §473(d)
11 (Order Granting Motion to Set-Aside Default
and Void Default Judgment Pursuant to
12 VS. Stipulation & Order Granting Motion to
Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to
13 Stipulation); Points and Authorities;
Steven Palos Declaration.
14
Defendant Date: 12/10/2020
15 Time: 8:30 AM
Dept: 42
16
17 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
18 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and department
19 in the courthouse located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, that Assignee
20 ORANGE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, dba DAVID MCCARTHY willmove the court for an order
21 requesting that the Default Orders and, ifentered, Default Judgment Orders be set aside. The
22 Orders at issue are an ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VOID
23 DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING MOTION
24 TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS PUSUANT TO STIPULATION that the Court granted
25 March 13, 2019 (Exhibit F and G).
neglect (CCP
26 This motion is made on the grounds of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable
issued despite
27 §473(b)) and that the judgment and/or default isvoid (CCP §473(d)). These Orders
28 Orange Capital Solutions established as Assignee of record 4/23/18, however the Court proceeded
Motion andMotion _ Page 1 of 8
Assignee'sNotice of
to grant these two orders without any sign of consent, agreement, or transfer of that interest from
Assignee, providing error under either section, as discussed below
This motion will be based upon this notice, the attached points and authorities and declaration
of David McCarthy, and the records and filesin this action.
Placer Court provides the following regarding Tentative rulings: they are posted at noon one day
prior to each Law and Motion Calendar. Tentative rulings will be the final ruling unless the court and
allparties are notified of a request for oral argument by 4pm the day before the scheduled hearing
per Local rule 20.2.3. For submitting orders after hearing, refer to Local Rule 20.2.5. To obtain a
tentative ruling call (916)408-6480. To request an oral argument call (916)408-6481 or for Tahoe
10 call (530)584-3463.
11
BACKGROUND OF MOTION
12
My name is David McCarthy. | am the currently employed and own Orange Capital Solutions,
13
and have been for over thirteen (13) years. |am over the age of 18, and am a current resident of
14
Murrieta, California. Ifcalled upon to testify, | willtestify to the following facts:
15
16 Parties:
17 1. Anthony Palos is the original PLAINTIFF in the initialcase in chief, known as the “Plaintiff”.
18 2. Steven Palos is the original DEFENDANT and isbrother to Anthony Palos, known as the
“Defendant”.
19
3. David McCarthy dba Orange Capital Solutions isthe current Assignee of the rights, titleand
20 interests of the judgment that Plaintiff obtained from the case in chief, hereafter known as
"Assignee". Assignee is filingthis motion for relief in light of the facts discussed below.
21
22 Factual Summary:
23 1) Plaintiff originally obtained a default judgment against his brother, Defendant, for defrauding
him of shared proceeds of a sale of a property they owned together (Case No: SCV0020322)
24 (Exhibit A)), then renewed on Nov 16th, 2017 (Exhibit B). Exhibit E is the complaint itself.
25 2) Defendant filed a fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment on July 17, 2009 (Exhibit K), without
paying monies due to Plaintiff.
26
3) Plaintiff, upon discovering this fraudulent filingof Satisfaction of Judgment, Plaintiff, motioned
ar the court to Vacate the Satisfaction of Judgment (Exhibit C), which was granted on 11/16/17.
28 4) Plaintiff thereafter assigned his rights, titleand interests to David McCarthy, dba Orange Capital
Assignee'sNotice ofMotionand Motion O Page 2 of8
Solutions, hereby known as “Assignee” (Exhibit D) on 04/23/18.
5) Eventually, both brothers reconcile their differences and sought to stipulate and vacate judgment
without notice or assent to Assignee, depriving Assignee of his rights under contract and
California law. Motions were filed and granted by the Court, although without serving and
notifying Assignee and regards Assignee’s property interests.
6) Defendant thereafter sues and obtains default judgment against Assignee to recover previously
collected funds (RSC 0025432). The events and dates are covered in detail below, while
referencing Exhibits submitted in support.
CCP 415.10 - Manner of Service of Summons [415.10 - 415.95]
1) 2/10/07 Plaintiff served Defendant by Kenneth Aaron Campbell (“KAC”), who personally served
Defendant. Kenneth Aaron Campbell (KAC) has a son by the same name (Aaron Kenneth
Campbell). This personal service was witnessed by Crystal Palos, (Exhibit |, Exhibit J). KAC
served him at about 1:00 pm at 505 Sunrise Blvd., Roseville, California.
10
2) 4/11/07 Plaintiff filed original Proof of Service, although Defendant almost 12years later claimed
11 the service was defective and fraudulent. Defendant alleges that the signor of the Proof of
Service was jailed at that time, however itwas not the son, itwas the father that performed
12 service.
declaration of Kenneth Campbell (father) (Exhibit P ),acknowledges the father and
13 3) Based on the
has the same name. Furthermore, he acknowled ges that the services was completed then
son
14 in the next sentences, he denies it!
4) 12/10/18, in phone call, individual that served process KAC, who shares same name as his
15
Assignee that the Plaintiff of this case “beat the shit out of my daughter” and was no
son, tells
longer on good terms with Plaintiff,leading Assignee to believe he had a personal vendetta with
16
Plaintiff.
17
statement and declaration of support (Exhibit | and J) of Crystal Palos
5) Copy of the notarized
18 were provided to allparties involved.
obtained default judgment against Defendant for $124,000.00, (Exhibit A).
19 6) 10/15/07 Plaintiff
Defendant filed a fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment, (Exhibit K). Itis on information
20 7) 7/17/09
Defendant filed this, because Defendant was the only party to benefit
and reasonable belief that
21 from filing this document.
Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the order, (Exhibit C).
22 8) 11/16/17
the judgment on the same day, amounting to $247,413.00, (Exhibit B).
23 9) Plaintiffalso renewed
Judgment were provided to the Defendant to which he took no action.
24 10) Notices of Renewal of
the period of ility
enforceab of the judgmen t until 10 years from the date the
a. This renewal extends
25 application for renewal was filed.
you may make a motion to vacate or modify the renewal with thiscourt.
b. Ifyou object to thisrenewal,
make thismotion within 30 days after service of this notice on you.
26 c. You must
forand Renewal of the Judgmen t is attached (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
d. A copy of the Application
27 3.1900).
research concludes the Service was valid, and itcomplies CCP 415.10.
28 11) Assignees
a Page 3 of8
Assignee’sNoticeof Motionand Motion
Assignment of Judgment (CCP 673) (Exhibit D):
1) 2/15/18 Plaintiffassigned the judgment to Assignee, (Exhibit H), and notarized and filed with
the Court on 4/23/18, (Exhibit D). By doing so, Plaintiff assigned all rights, title,and interest to
Assignee, making it property of the Assignee.
a. What does assignment of Judgment mean?
Assigning your judgment means that the Plaintiff,Creditor or Assignor forfeits its
ownership of the judgment permanently to the Assignee. Itis a one-way sale that
cannot be reversed. It means any major decision or settlement has to go through the
Assignee now, and the Assignor willhave no control over it.
2) Assignee never relinquished or surrendered itsrights nor ever reassigned the judgment to Plaintiff.
3) Assignee never consented or stipulated to any motions filed by Plaintiff or his attorney.
4) Although Plaintiff surrendered whatever rights he may have had, he did not have rights or
authority to negotiate and dispose of any of Assignee’s rights, property, or interests.
10 5) Assignee performed on his contract and started an asset search and located Defendant’s
employment.
11
6) 7/6/18 Assignee filed Writ of Execution and began garnishment of wages. Approximately one
12 week later, Defendant tells Assignee that the original service of the judgment was defective
and fraudulent.
13
7) 11/2018 Assignee begins receiving $400.00, on a biweekly basis, collecting up to $3,119.58.
14
8) 01/25/19 Plaintiff's attorney contacts Assignee seeking to cancel garnishment so that the parties
15 can settle. Assignee ends garnishment in good faith expectation of some value of the
settlement or judgment. Email communications are attached (Exhibit N).
16
9) 02/7/19 Plaintiff's attorney sought money back from Assignee to Defendant, by phone, causing
17 Assignee to state that itis Assignee’s rights and interests at issue which cannot be settled
merely between Plaintiff and Defendant. Exhibit M is the email correspondences.
18
10) 03/13/19 (almost ten years after Defendant's fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment) Plaintiff
19 filed Motion to Quash Service and a Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Proof of Service, and
Judgment and Plaintiff's attorney filed Satisfaction of Judgment by Stipulation (Exhibit F and G).
20
21 Statue of Limitation CCP 338(d):
22 1) On July 17th 2009, an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (EJ-100) (Exhibit K) was
filed with the Roseville, Court.
23
2) This filingwas not done or completed by the Plaintiff.
24
3) Once this fraudulent filing was discovered by the Plaintiff, on Nov 16th, 2017 the Plaintiffhad
25 the Order Vacated (Exhibit C).
26 4) The only person to benefit from the fraudulent filingof an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction is
the Defendant. At the time the Defendant did not question ifthe service was valid. Instead
27 a EJ-100 was filed.
28 5) The Defendant knew of Judgment SCV 0020322 against him since he filed the Acknowledgment
Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion Page 4 of8
of Satisfaction on 07/17/09. That is over nine (9) years before the Defendant raised the issue of
Fraudulent service.. At the very least when the
6) Defendant took no action on this judgment for 9 years after filingthe Satisfaction of Judgment.
The issue of fraudulent service was never raised during this time.
7) CCP 338(d) states (within three (3) years):
a. An action for reliefon the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is
not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts
constituting the fraud or mistake.
i) Defendant claims he was not served, because the Process Server was in jailat the time
of the service. So when EJ-100 was filed in July 17th 2009, the Defendant would have
know he was not served, this issue was never raised, instead the Defendant filed an
Acknowledgment of Satisfaction (EJ-100) to resolve the matter.
ii)The Defendant had known of this judgment and the service completed against him for
over 9 years, before he claimed the service was fraudulent.
8) The Defendant had known of this judgment against him and the service completed for over 9
10 years, before he took any action. Thus, the Defendant had forfeited his right to do so under
CCP 338(d).
11
9) The Assignee requests, the Motion to Set-Aside Service of Summons be quashed.
12
13 CCP 683.010 to 683.220 Renew of Judgment:
The renewal of Judgment was completed by Plaintiff's Attorney, W Steven Shumway Esq.
14 CSB 119351:
15 1) The Judgment was renewed on Nov 16th, 2017 (Exhibit B).
16 2) Notice of Renewal of Judgment was sent to the Defendant.
17 3) Defendant had 30 days to make a motion after the service of the notice.
18 4) Defendant filed no motion of opposition to the Renewal of Judgment.
19 5) 30 days had expired by the time Defendant raised the issue of Fraudulent service.
20
Conspiracy to Defraud the Assignee of his Commission and Interference and Violating into
21 Assignee's Property Rights:
22 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant conspired to defraud the Assignee out of his commission. Itis
unknown to the Assignee the amount the parties settled the Judgment for. Itappears to the
23 Assignee, Plaintiffagreed to have the judgment dismissed without putting up a fight or
defending his rights at all.
24
2) 05/14/19 Defendant demands money back, through email conversations but without providing
25 legal documents. Assignee states he willbe back from travels in September (Exhibit O).
3) 09/2019 Assignee is provided the legal documents filed by Plaintiff and Defendant. Exhibit O.
26
27 4) 02/06/2020 Defendant demands money from Assignee.
28 5) 03/2020 Defendant filescomplaint against Assignee.
—_ a Page 5 of8
Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion
6) 06/22/20 Defendant obtains default judgment against Assignee.
7) 06/30/20 Assignee filed Motion to Vacate, with next scheduled hearing for 12/14/2020.
8) Assignee has made itclear to allparties that itwill not reassign judgment to Plaintiff nor will it
cancel wage garnishment without the commission due under the Assignment terms & conditions.
9) The assignment terms and conditions provide for 40% of collection owed to Assignee. It also
provides for principle, interest, and any expenses. The principle was $98,965.20 plus interest
from judgment renewal date at 40% annually, calculated at simple interest, plus any out of
pocket expenses from Assignee.
10) Assignee seeks that the Court dismiss, void, and/or set aside the motions filed by Plaintiff and
Defendant as their Stipulation was improper, regarding property of the Assignee.
11) Because the Orders of the Court impact Assignee’s rights, who never provided any consent, nor
was timely notified, those orders cannot stand.
12) Also, because those same Orders were made regarding Assignee’s rights and interests to the
Judgment at issue, those orders also are without foundation because the real party of interest
11 was not included nor present, nor behind any of those motions or requests. The motions or
requests that were made by the parties regarded Assignee’s property, rights, and interests.
12
13) Nineteenth Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933) and
13 Jack B. Parson Cos. V. Nield 751 P. 2d 1131, 1133 (Utah 1988):
a. The Courts have concluded that the Assignor (Plaintiff)not to interfere with the Assignees
14 right with the assigned asset (judgment in this case).
b. Courts have held that a debtor (Defendant) cannot contrive with the assignor (Plaintiff) to
15 defraud the Assignee with full knowledge of the assignment.
i)All parities involved, the Plaintiff, the Defendants and their attorneys were fully aware that
16 the Judgment was assigned to David McCarthy dba Orange Capital Solutions.
ii)Even with this knowledge of the judgment being assigned, the parties went ahead and filed
17 motion(s) with the Court to vacate the Judgment.
iii)
To any filingswithout the Assignee's consent, the Assignee objects.
18
Summary:
19
1) Orange Capital Solutions is the current Assignee for Judgment Case #: SCV 0020322.
20
2) Orange Capital Solutions did not give-up itsrights as the Assignee or return the Judgment.
21
3) Orange Capital Solutions holds all rights, title,and interest in Jdg Case #: SCV 0020322.
22
4) Any filingwith the court has to be approved and agreed by the Assignee (CCP 673 - 681.020
23 (see attached Memorandum of Authority).
24 5) Any agreement reached between the Parties (plaintiffand defendant) is not enforceable, without
the consent or the agreement of the legal Assignee. Furthermore, the courts have determined
25 that the debtor and the assignor may not contrive to defraud the Assignee Court in Nineteenth
Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933).
26
6) The Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to Stipulation should be
27 Set Aside, because the Father, Kenneth Aaron Campbell, completed the service.
28 7) Crystal Palos witnessed the actual completed Service. Provided a Declaration of Support of
of Motionand Motion - 7 Page 6 of8
Assignee'sNotice
Opposition to Motion to Quash Service of Summons and a Notarized statement, was provided
to all parties. The service was completed in accordance with CCP 415.10.
8) Defendant is in violation of CCP 338(d) claiming fraud after he had known about this judgment
for over 9 years.
9) The judgment was renewed and proper notice(s) was given to Defendant, and the Defendant had
30 days to object, which was not done.
10) These two motions, the Motion to Quash the Summon, and the Motion to Quash the Judgment
should be Set Aside, Void or Quash for the following reasons:
a) The Judgment Case no.: SCV 0020322 was/is assigned to Orange Capital Solutions. The
Plaintiffhad assigned, itsrights, titleand interest to the Assignee. The Plaintiff and his
attorney did not have the authority to negotiate on this judgment without the approval or
consent of the Assignee.
b) The original Proof of Service for complaint and summons was valid and itwas completed
10 in accordance with CCP 415.10.
11 C) Defendant violated CCP 338(d) claiming the service was fraudulent, when the Defendant
had known about the Judgment and the Service for over 10 years.
12
d) The judgment was renewed and proper notice(s) was given to Defendant, and the Defendant
13 had 30 days to object, which was not done.
14 e) Nineteenth Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933)
Itis imperative to protect the legal rights and interests of an assignee of a chose in action
15 acting in good faith against any unauthorized act on the part of the assignor. Thus, once a
notice of assignment has been served to the debtor, an assignee cannot interfere with the
16 rights of the assignee by entering into collusive agreements with the debtor. Courts have
held that a debtor cannot contrive with the assignor to defraud the assignee with full
17 knowledge of the assignment.
18
Prayer:
19
1) As the Legal Assignee, Orange Capital Solutions, who holds all rights, title,and interest in this
20 matter, requests the following motions be voided, quashed and set-aside:
21 © Order Granting Motion to Set-Aside Default and Void Default Judgment Pursuant to
Stipulation.
22
e Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to Stipulation.
23
2) Reactivate/Reinstate Judgment Case # SCV 002032 the Judgment so it isenforceable under
24 the Laws of the State of California.
25
|declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CA that the foregoing istrue correct.
26
Date: Oct 28th, 2020
27
Dey { *
28 David McCarthy
Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion 7 7 Page 7 of8
Summary of Exhibits:
Exhibit Exhibit Title
2007 Entry of Judgment against Steven Palos
MMIOOY
Judgment Renewal
OrderTOAAC7
to Vacate Fraudulent Paid-in-Full Filing
Judgment Assignment to Orange Capital Solutions
2007 Complaint filing for Fraud by Anthony Palos
Motion to Quash
Motion to Set-Aside Judgment
VOZSr-
Contract between Orange Capital Solutions and Anthony Palos
Declaration of Crystal Palos
Notarized statement of Crystal Palos
Fraudulent filing of Acknowledgment of Satisfaction
Original Proof of Service filed on April 11th, 2007.
Steven Shumway - email correspondences
Termination of Garnishment
Steven Palos - email correspondences
10 Declaration of Kenneth Campbell
11
Attorneys involved in Motion to Quash the Service and Set-Aside Judgment:
12
Anthony Palos's Attorney (Plaintiff):
13 W. Steven Shumway Esq. CSB 119351
3400 Douglas
14 Roseville, CA 95661
916-789-8821
15
Steven Palos's Attorney (Defendant):
16 Sean Gavin CSB 251124
2349 Gateway Oaks Dr #200
17 Sacramento, Ca 95833-4244
916-263-0550
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion Page 8 of8
Preview
"County of Placer David McCarthy dba Orange Capital Solutions May Oa 2020 40485 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd #389 oe Murrieta, California 92563 botke CK Ghatn Tel: (951) 402-6887 oes vier! In Pro-Per - IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER Anthony Palos Case No.: SCV 0020322 Orange Capital Solutions (Assignee) Assignee's Notice of Motion and Motion 10 _— to Set-Aside Default and Default Judgment Plaintiff Orders, If Entered CCP §473(b); CCP §473(d) 11 (Order Granting Motion to Set-Aside Default and Void Default Judgment Pursuant to 12 VS. Stipulation & Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to 13 Stipulation); Points and Authorities; Steven Palos Declaration. 14 Defendant Date: 12/10/2020 15 Time: 8:30 AM Dept: 42 16 17 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY: 18 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and department 19 in the courthouse located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, that Assignee 20 ORANGE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, dba DAVID MCCARTHY willmove the court for an order 21 requesting that the Default Orders and, ifentered, Default Judgment Orders be set aside. The 22 Orders at issue are an ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VOID 23 DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING MOTION 24 TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS PUSUANT TO STIPULATION that the Court granted 25 March 13, 2019 (Exhibit F and G). neglect (CCP 26 This motion is made on the grounds of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable issued despite 27 §473(b)) and that the judgment and/or default isvoid (CCP §473(d)). These Orders 28 Orange Capital Solutions established as Assignee of record 4/23/18, however the Court proceeded Motion andMotion _ Page 1 of 8 Assignee'sNotice of to grant these two orders without any sign of consent, agreement, or transfer of that interest from Assignee, providing error under either section, as discussed below This motion will be based upon this notice, the attached points and authorities and declaration of David McCarthy, and the records and filesin this action. Placer Court provides the following regarding Tentative rulings: they are posted at noon one day prior to each Law and Motion Calendar. Tentative rulings will be the final ruling unless the court and allparties are notified of a request for oral argument by 4pm the day before the scheduled hearing per Local rule 20.2.3. For submitting orders after hearing, refer to Local Rule 20.2.5. To obtain a tentative ruling call (916)408-6480. To request an oral argument call (916)408-6481 or for Tahoe 10 call (530)584-3463. 11 BACKGROUND OF MOTION 12 My name is David McCarthy. | am the currently employed and own Orange Capital Solutions, 13 and have been for over thirteen (13) years. |am over the age of 18, and am a current resident of 14 Murrieta, California. Ifcalled upon to testify, | willtestify to the following facts: 15 16 Parties: 17 1. Anthony Palos is the original PLAINTIFF in the initialcase in chief, known as the “Plaintiff”. 18 2. Steven Palos is the original DEFENDANT and isbrother to Anthony Palos, known as the “Defendant”. 19 3. David McCarthy dba Orange Capital Solutions isthe current Assignee of the rights, titleand 20 interests of the judgment that Plaintiff obtained from the case in chief, hereafter known as "Assignee". Assignee is filingthis motion for relief in light of the facts discussed below. 21 22 Factual Summary: 23 1) Plaintiff originally obtained a default judgment against his brother, Defendant, for defrauding him of shared proceeds of a sale of a property they owned together (Case No: SCV0020322) 24 (Exhibit A)), then renewed on Nov 16th, 2017 (Exhibit B). Exhibit E is the complaint itself. 25 2) Defendant filed a fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment on July 17, 2009 (Exhibit K), without paying monies due to Plaintiff. 26 3) Plaintiff, upon discovering this fraudulent filingof Satisfaction of Judgment, Plaintiff, motioned ar the court to Vacate the Satisfaction of Judgment (Exhibit C), which was granted on 11/16/17. 28 4) Plaintiff thereafter assigned his rights, titleand interests to David McCarthy, dba Orange Capital Assignee'sNotice ofMotionand Motion O Page 2 of8 Solutions, hereby known as “Assignee” (Exhibit D) on 04/23/18. 5) Eventually, both brothers reconcile their differences and sought to stipulate and vacate judgment without notice or assent to Assignee, depriving Assignee of his rights under contract and California law. Motions were filed and granted by the Court, although without serving and notifying Assignee and regards Assignee’s property interests. 6) Defendant thereafter sues and obtains default judgment against Assignee to recover previously collected funds (RSC 0025432). The events and dates are covered in detail below, while referencing Exhibits submitted in support. CCP 415.10 - Manner of Service of Summons [415.10 - 415.95] 1) 2/10/07 Plaintiff served Defendant by Kenneth Aaron Campbell (“KAC”), who personally served Defendant. Kenneth Aaron Campbell (KAC) has a son by the same name (Aaron Kenneth Campbell). This personal service was witnessed by Crystal Palos, (Exhibit |, Exhibit J). KAC served him at about 1:00 pm at 505 Sunrise Blvd., Roseville, California. 10 2) 4/11/07 Plaintiff filed original Proof of Service, although Defendant almost 12years later claimed 11 the service was defective and fraudulent. Defendant alleges that the signor of the Proof of Service was jailed at that time, however itwas not the son, itwas the father that performed 12 service. declaration of Kenneth Campbell (father) (Exhibit P ),acknowledges the father and 13 3) Based on the has the same name. Furthermore, he acknowled ges that the services was completed then son 14 in the next sentences, he denies it! 4) 12/10/18, in phone call, individual that served process KAC, who shares same name as his 15 Assignee that the Plaintiff of this case “beat the shit out of my daughter” and was no son, tells longer on good terms with Plaintiff,leading Assignee to believe he had a personal vendetta with 16 Plaintiff. 17 statement and declaration of support (Exhibit | and J) of Crystal Palos 5) Copy of the notarized 18 were provided to allparties involved. obtained default judgment against Defendant for $124,000.00, (Exhibit A). 19 6) 10/15/07 Plaintiff Defendant filed a fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment, (Exhibit K). Itis on information 20 7) 7/17/09 Defendant filed this, because Defendant was the only party to benefit and reasonable belief that 21 from filing this document. Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the order, (Exhibit C). 22 8) 11/16/17 the judgment on the same day, amounting to $247,413.00, (Exhibit B). 23 9) Plaintiffalso renewed Judgment were provided to the Defendant to which he took no action. 24 10) Notices of Renewal of the period of ility enforceab of the judgmen t until 10 years from the date the a. This renewal extends 25 application for renewal was filed. you may make a motion to vacate or modify the renewal with thiscourt. b. Ifyou object to thisrenewal, make thismotion within 30 days after service of this notice on you. 26 c. You must forand Renewal of the Judgmen t is attached (Cal. Rules of Court, rule d. A copy of the Application 27 3.1900). research concludes the Service was valid, and itcomplies CCP 415.10. 28 11) Assignees a Page 3 of8 Assignee’sNoticeof Motionand Motion Assignment of Judgment (CCP 673) (Exhibit D): 1) 2/15/18 Plaintiffassigned the judgment to Assignee, (Exhibit H), and notarized and filed with the Court on 4/23/18, (Exhibit D). By doing so, Plaintiff assigned all rights, title,and interest to Assignee, making it property of the Assignee. a. What does assignment of Judgment mean? Assigning your judgment means that the Plaintiff,Creditor or Assignor forfeits its ownership of the judgment permanently to the Assignee. Itis a one-way sale that cannot be reversed. It means any major decision or settlement has to go through the Assignee now, and the Assignor willhave no control over it. 2) Assignee never relinquished or surrendered itsrights nor ever reassigned the judgment to Plaintiff. 3) Assignee never consented or stipulated to any motions filed by Plaintiff or his attorney. 4) Although Plaintiff surrendered whatever rights he may have had, he did not have rights or authority to negotiate and dispose of any of Assignee’s rights, property, or interests. 10 5) Assignee performed on his contract and started an asset search and located Defendant’s employment. 11 6) 7/6/18 Assignee filed Writ of Execution and began garnishment of wages. Approximately one 12 week later, Defendant tells Assignee that the original service of the judgment was defective and fraudulent. 13 7) 11/2018 Assignee begins receiving $400.00, on a biweekly basis, collecting up to $3,119.58. 14 8) 01/25/19 Plaintiff's attorney contacts Assignee seeking to cancel garnishment so that the parties 15 can settle. Assignee ends garnishment in good faith expectation of some value of the settlement or judgment. Email communications are attached (Exhibit N). 16 9) 02/7/19 Plaintiff's attorney sought money back from Assignee to Defendant, by phone, causing 17 Assignee to state that itis Assignee’s rights and interests at issue which cannot be settled merely between Plaintiff and Defendant. Exhibit M is the email correspondences. 18 10) 03/13/19 (almost ten years after Defendant's fraudulent Satisfaction of Judgment) Plaintiff 19 filed Motion to Quash Service and a Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Proof of Service, and Judgment and Plaintiff's attorney filed Satisfaction of Judgment by Stipulation (Exhibit F and G). 20 21 Statue of Limitation CCP 338(d): 22 1) On July 17th 2009, an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (EJ-100) (Exhibit K) was filed with the Roseville, Court. 23 2) This filingwas not done or completed by the Plaintiff. 24 3) Once this fraudulent filing was discovered by the Plaintiff, on Nov 16th, 2017 the Plaintiffhad 25 the Order Vacated (Exhibit C). 26 4) The only person to benefit from the fraudulent filingof an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction is the Defendant. At the time the Defendant did not question ifthe service was valid. Instead 27 a EJ-100 was filed. 28 5) The Defendant knew of Judgment SCV 0020322 against him since he filed the Acknowledgment Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion Page 4 of8 of Satisfaction on 07/17/09. That is over nine (9) years before the Defendant raised the issue of Fraudulent service.. At the very least when the 6) Defendant took no action on this judgment for 9 years after filingthe Satisfaction of Judgment. The issue of fraudulent service was never raised during this time. 7) CCP 338(d) states (within three (3) years): a. An action for reliefon the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake. i) Defendant claims he was not served, because the Process Server was in jailat the time of the service. So when EJ-100 was filed in July 17th 2009, the Defendant would have know he was not served, this issue was never raised, instead the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction (EJ-100) to resolve the matter. ii)The Defendant had known of this judgment and the service completed against him for over 9 years, before he claimed the service was fraudulent. 8) The Defendant had known of this judgment against him and the service completed for over 9 10 years, before he took any action. Thus, the Defendant had forfeited his right to do so under CCP 338(d). 11 9) The Assignee requests, the Motion to Set-Aside Service of Summons be quashed. 12 13 CCP 683.010 to 683.220 Renew of Judgment: The renewal of Judgment was completed by Plaintiff's Attorney, W Steven Shumway Esq. 14 CSB 119351: 15 1) The Judgment was renewed on Nov 16th, 2017 (Exhibit B). 16 2) Notice of Renewal of Judgment was sent to the Defendant. 17 3) Defendant had 30 days to make a motion after the service of the notice. 18 4) Defendant filed no motion of opposition to the Renewal of Judgment. 19 5) 30 days had expired by the time Defendant raised the issue of Fraudulent service. 20 Conspiracy to Defraud the Assignee of his Commission and Interference and Violating into 21 Assignee's Property Rights: 22 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant conspired to defraud the Assignee out of his commission. Itis unknown to the Assignee the amount the parties settled the Judgment for. Itappears to the 23 Assignee, Plaintiffagreed to have the judgment dismissed without putting up a fight or defending his rights at all. 24 2) 05/14/19 Defendant demands money back, through email conversations but without providing 25 legal documents. Assignee states he willbe back from travels in September (Exhibit O). 3) 09/2019 Assignee is provided the legal documents filed by Plaintiff and Defendant. Exhibit O. 26 27 4) 02/06/2020 Defendant demands money from Assignee. 28 5) 03/2020 Defendant filescomplaint against Assignee. —_ a Page 5 of8 Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion 6) 06/22/20 Defendant obtains default judgment against Assignee. 7) 06/30/20 Assignee filed Motion to Vacate, with next scheduled hearing for 12/14/2020. 8) Assignee has made itclear to allparties that itwill not reassign judgment to Plaintiff nor will it cancel wage garnishment without the commission due under the Assignment terms & conditions. 9) The assignment terms and conditions provide for 40% of collection owed to Assignee. It also provides for principle, interest, and any expenses. The principle was $98,965.20 plus interest from judgment renewal date at 40% annually, calculated at simple interest, plus any out of pocket expenses from Assignee. 10) Assignee seeks that the Court dismiss, void, and/or set aside the motions filed by Plaintiff and Defendant as their Stipulation was improper, regarding property of the Assignee. 11) Because the Orders of the Court impact Assignee’s rights, who never provided any consent, nor was timely notified, those orders cannot stand. 12) Also, because those same Orders were made regarding Assignee’s rights and interests to the Judgment at issue, those orders also are without foundation because the real party of interest 11 was not included nor present, nor behind any of those motions or requests. The motions or requests that were made by the parties regarded Assignee’s property, rights, and interests. 12 13) Nineteenth Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933) and 13 Jack B. Parson Cos. V. Nield 751 P. 2d 1131, 1133 (Utah 1988): a. The Courts have concluded that the Assignor (Plaintiff)not to interfere with the Assignees 14 right with the assigned asset (judgment in this case). b. Courts have held that a debtor (Defendant) cannot contrive with the assignor (Plaintiff) to 15 defraud the Assignee with full knowledge of the assignment. i)All parities involved, the Plaintiff, the Defendants and their attorneys were fully aware that 16 the Judgment was assigned to David McCarthy dba Orange Capital Solutions. ii)Even with this knowledge of the judgment being assigned, the parties went ahead and filed 17 motion(s) with the Court to vacate the Judgment. iii) To any filingswithout the Assignee's consent, the Assignee objects. 18 Summary: 19 1) Orange Capital Solutions is the current Assignee for Judgment Case #: SCV 0020322. 20 2) Orange Capital Solutions did not give-up itsrights as the Assignee or return the Judgment. 21 3) Orange Capital Solutions holds all rights, title,and interest in Jdg Case #: SCV 0020322. 22 4) Any filingwith the court has to be approved and agreed by the Assignee (CCP 673 - 681.020 23 (see attached Memorandum of Authority). 24 5) Any agreement reached between the Parties (plaintiffand defendant) is not enforceable, without the consent or the agreement of the legal Assignee. Furthermore, the courts have determined 25 that the debtor and the assignor may not contrive to defraud the Assignee Court in Nineteenth Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933). 26 6) The Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to Stipulation should be 27 Set Aside, because the Father, Kenneth Aaron Campbell, completed the service. 28 7) Crystal Palos witnessed the actual completed Service. Provided a Declaration of Support of of Motionand Motion - 7 Page 6 of8 Assignee'sNotice Opposition to Motion to Quash Service of Summons and a Notarized statement, was provided to all parties. The service was completed in accordance with CCP 415.10. 8) Defendant is in violation of CCP 338(d) claiming fraud after he had known about this judgment for over 9 years. 9) The judgment was renewed and proper notice(s) was given to Defendant, and the Defendant had 30 days to object, which was not done. 10) These two motions, the Motion to Quash the Summon, and the Motion to Quash the Judgment should be Set Aside, Void or Quash for the following reasons: a) The Judgment Case no.: SCV 0020322 was/is assigned to Orange Capital Solutions. The Plaintiffhad assigned, itsrights, titleand interest to the Assignee. The Plaintiff and his attorney did not have the authority to negotiate on this judgment without the approval or consent of the Assignee. b) The original Proof of Service for complaint and summons was valid and itwas completed 10 in accordance with CCP 415.10. 11 C) Defendant violated CCP 338(d) claiming the service was fraudulent, when the Defendant had known about the Judgment and the Service for over 10 years. 12 d) The judgment was renewed and proper notice(s) was given to Defendant, and the Defendant 13 had 30 days to object, which was not done. 14 e) Nineteenth Reality Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278 (Cal. App. 1933) Itis imperative to protect the legal rights and interests of an assignee of a chose in action 15 acting in good faith against any unauthorized act on the part of the assignor. Thus, once a notice of assignment has been served to the debtor, an assignee cannot interfere with the 16 rights of the assignee by entering into collusive agreements with the debtor. Courts have held that a debtor cannot contrive with the assignor to defraud the assignee with full 17 knowledge of the assignment. 18 Prayer: 19 1) As the Legal Assignee, Orange Capital Solutions, who holds all rights, title,and interest in this 20 matter, requests the following motions be voided, quashed and set-aside: 21 © Order Granting Motion to Set-Aside Default and Void Default Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation. 22 e Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to Stipulation. 23 2) Reactivate/Reinstate Judgment Case # SCV 002032 the Judgment so it isenforceable under 24 the Laws of the State of California. 25 |declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CA that the foregoing istrue correct. 26 Date: Oct 28th, 2020 27 Dey { * 28 David McCarthy Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion 7 7 Page 7 of8 Summary of Exhibits: Exhibit Exhibit Title 2007 Entry of Judgment against Steven Palos MMIOOY Judgment Renewal OrderTOAAC7 to Vacate Fraudulent Paid-in-Full Filing Judgment Assignment to Orange Capital Solutions 2007 Complaint filing for Fraud by Anthony Palos Motion to Quash Motion to Set-Aside Judgment VOZSr- Contract between Orange Capital Solutions and Anthony Palos Declaration of Crystal Palos Notarized statement of Crystal Palos Fraudulent filing of Acknowledgment of Satisfaction Original Proof of Service filed on April 11th, 2007. Steven Shumway - email correspondences Termination of Garnishment Steven Palos - email correspondences 10 Declaration of Kenneth Campbell 11 Attorneys involved in Motion to Quash the Service and Set-Aside Judgment: 12 Anthony Palos's Attorney (Plaintiff): 13 W. Steven Shumway Esq. CSB 119351 3400 Douglas 14 Roseville, CA 95661 916-789-8821 15 Steven Palos's Attorney (Defendant): 16 Sean Gavin CSB 251124 2349 Gateway Oaks Dr #200 17 Sacramento, Ca 95833-4244 916-263-0550 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Assignee'sNoticeof Motionand Motion Page 8 of8