Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. No. 1667CV01419
SABA HASHEM, individual and as Manager
of D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC
Plaintiff/Defendant-Intervenor
v.
STEPHEN D’ ANGELO, individually and as a
Manager of D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC, and
D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC,
Defendants/Defendant Intervenor,
Reach and Apply Defendant,
Vv.
JENNIFER M. CARRION,
Plaintiff-Intervenor.
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, JENNIFER M. CARRION’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ (1) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S
ORDER ALLOWING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (2) EMERGENCY MOTION TO
WITHDRAW (3) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMPOUNDMENT, (4) EMERGENCY
MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING SETTLEMENT, (5)
EMEGENCY MOTION TO PAY LEGAL COUNSEL FEES
AND
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S REPLY TO (6) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
TRUSTEE PROCESS ATTACHMENT, REACH & APPLY AND COUNSEL FEES, AND
(7) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR FEE PETITION
NOW COMES the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion’s, who hereby respectfully
opposes the Defendants’ Emergency (1) Motion for Reconsideration of Court’ Order Allowing
Summary Judgment in Ms. Carrion’s favor, (2) Motion to Withdraw, (3) Motion for
Impoundment, (4) Motion to Produce Documents Concerning Settlement, (5) Motion to Pay
Legal Counsel Fees. Furthermore, Ms. Carrion also hereby responds to the Defendants’
\
Page 1 of 9- Opposition to Motion for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply, and Motion for Attommey’s Fees,
and the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s fee petition.
As Grounds Therefore, the Plaintiff-Intervenor avers that the Defendants’ papers assert
numerous claims that are simply untrue or have already been decided upon by the Court. In
particular, Mr. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC has no “clean hands” in all these
matters (See D’Angelo Trial Testimony November 21, 2011 attached as Exhibit A at 8-19, 8-32.
8-33, 8-38, 8-39, 8-44, 8-46, 8-58, 8-59.); (2) Mr. D’Angelo and DLG’s intended to avoid
payment of a debt (See Exs. A- I, Trustee Process Motion & Emergency Motion to Withhold
Payment of Settlement Funds); (3) the Defendants did not winding up D’ Angelo & Hashem,
LLC despite facing supplementary process by prior Counsel Mark Giarrusso, who passed away
(Supplementary Process Docket Lawrence District Court, attached Exhibit B); (4) Defendants
paid themselves six figure draws to themselves in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 from the Law
Firm accounts that fall outside of its “normal business operations” (Exhibits D & F to
Intervenor’s Motion for Reach & Apply); and (5) Mr. D’Angelo has had a full ability to pay Ms.
Carrion’s judgment. (See Exhibits B& F to Reach & Apply Motions)
First and foremost, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is time barred under our
Rules of Civil procedure. MRCP 59 & MRAP 27. Defendants have also failed to file a Notice
of Appeal timely. While the exigent circumstances of the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic have
affected the tolling of filings, the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider must be denied as they have
filed their motion after the elapsed time allowed by Rule 27 & Rule 59. Per the Supreme Judicial
Court Third Updated Order, “all civil staiutes of limitations were tolled by Prior SJC Orders
from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, and will not be tolled any further unless there is a
new surge in Covid-19 cases in the Commonwealth and the SJC determines that a new or
Page 2 of 9extended period of tolling is needed.” Third Updated Order Regarding Court Operations Under
the Exigent Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic.
The original Summary Judgment Order from the Honorable Judge Deakin was issued on
April 7, 2020. J. Deakin Summary Judgment Order, Dated 04/08/2020. By the SJC Order, this
would have tolled the ability of the Defendant to file a Motion to Reconsider to July 14, 2020 per
MRAP 27 & MRCP 59 which provides a 14sday opportunity to file such motions. The Defendant
did not file such motion until July 29, 2020, which is more than double the allotted time allowed
to file such motion and is in violation of MRAP 27& MRCP 59. Further, the Defendants have
failed to file a Notice of Appeal on or before July 31, 2020, which would have been thirty (30)
days from June 30, 2020.
The Defendant is once again attempting to hinder Ms. Carrion from receiving the justice
and equitable result which she has fought for, for more than a decade, to receive and attempting
to delay or hinder her from collecting what she is owed as the judgment creditor. Ms. Carrion
had already received a “final judgment” in 2011. In Jennifer Carrion v. Saba Hashem, et al, C.A.
0784CV02073, the Defendants’ predecessor law firm was a party to that action. Exhibit G - Case
Summary of Carrion v. Hashem, et al attached to Intervenor’s Reach & Apply Motions.
On November 29, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Carrion for a judgment
in the amount of $109,000.00 plus interests and. costs. Summary Judgment Opinion. Ms. Carrion
only intervened in the current underlying matter because she has not been paid what she is owed.
She is not an interested party pertaining to any of the remaining claims of the underlying action
and was awarded summary judgment in this matter because this matter had already been
litigated, there were no new facts brought by the defendants, and the defendants had refused to
pay Ms. Carrion prior.
Page 3 of 9Mr. D*Angelo and his counsel have repeatedly stated that the Defendant “had clean bands
in this matter” however, that is not accurate, Mr. D’ Angelo testified in Court on November 18,
2011, that Mr. D’Angelo told Mr. Hashem to fire Ms. Carrion. Ex. A Testimony of D’Angelo,
Pg. 8-38, Line 23 to Pg. 8-39, Line 1, 11/18/11. In his testimony, Mr. D'Angelo responds to the
question of “and why did you tell Mr. Hashem to fire her” with “it was his turn, he had never
JSired anybody before and I thought he needed to do this.” Id at Page 8-39, Lines 9-12.
Defendants again lie to this Honorable Court in its opposition to Trustee Process Attachment on
Pages 11 — 13. However, this matter is about a successor law firm refusing to pay a known
liability of its predecessor law firm. Predecessor law firm knowingly disregarded Ms. Carrion’s
Executions in 2015 and supplementary process led by Ms. Carrion’s prior counsel, who is now
deceased. (Exhibit B Attached — Supplementary Process Docket).
Further, Ms. Carrion vehemently opposes allowing any attorney with connections to, or,
employed by, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC from representing the Defendants, because this creates
serious Conflicts of Interest. The Defendants are attempting to represent themselves by someone
associated with D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC whether it be another associate or a “third-party
contractor.” If this motion was to be allowed, this would likely continue to prolong litigation as
the Defendant has repeatedly hindered collection in the past. If the Defendant represents himself
or has an interested counsel in representing, this will only drag out the litigation process and
collection of the judgment which is owed to Ms. Carrion since her jury verdict in 2011.
Page 4 of 9Additionally, the Defendant has continued to not be entirely forthcoming in the
production of documents, testifying in coutt, as well as defying court orders. For example, on
July 14, 2020, Honorable Judge Deakin issued a Procedural Order upon Stephen L..D’ Angelo.
The Procedural Order issued by Judge Deakin stated that “No later than July 30, 2020, Stephen
L. D’Angelo shall file a supplemental affidavit which shall set out:
- 1. The amount, source, and date of any payment(s) of whatever type received by the
D’Angelo Law Group and/or any attorney, employee, or other representative of the
D’ Angelo Law Group in connection with the Columbia Gas class action;
2. The terms of any contingent fee agreement or arrangement for payment for legal
services rendered in connection with the Columbia Gas class action and a statement
as to whether the D’ Angelo Law Group has been paid as a result of the agreement or
arrangement or, if not, whether the D’ Angelo Law Group anticipates being paid as a
result of the agreement or arrangement and, if so, when and how the D’Angelo Law
Group anticipates being paid;
3. A listing—by name, position, and weekly earnings—of D’ Angelo Law Group’s
weekly payroll from January 1, 2020, to present; and
4. The amount(s) of any draws taken by Stephen L. D’Angelo, Esquire, and/or any other
partner, owner, or proprietor of the D’ Angelo Law Group from assets of the
D’ Angelo Law Group in 2018, 2019, and 2020.” Ex. A Judge Deakin’s
Memorandum, Procedural Order, and Preliminary Injunction, Dated July 16, 2020.
There has been no supplemental affidavit submitted by Stephen L. D’Angelo and the date
of which was due has passed. Thus, he is in violation of Judge Deakin’s Procedural Order. This
provides an example of certain type of methods and tactics that the Defendant will attempt to
undertake to frustrate the judicial process if he was awarded the opportunity to defond himself or
have an associate of the firm represent the Defendant.
The likelihood of préjudice and, or, conflicts of interests that will take place is significant
and given the Defendant’s previous track record in this case (and in other cases) to not be
entirely forthcoming with requests and court orders suggests that'these type of behaviors will
increase substantially should the Defendant or an associate of the Defendant be appointed as
counsel for the Defendant.
Page.5 of 9As further evidence that this is not the first oceasion that the Defendant, Mr. D’Angelo,
has not been forthcoming. He has previously not disclosed fully about his living situation and
finances when he has had a judgment rendered against him. In Stephen L. D’Angelo v. New
Hampshire Supreme Court. and Brian Germain, Esq., United States District Judge McAuliffe,
stated that through various orders, the court observed that “D’ Angelo has a well-documented
history of thwarting the discovery process and of selectively excluding relevant financial
information to the detriment of the Petitioner.” Exhibit C D’ Angelo v. New Hampshire Supreme
Court et al, 2012 DNH 204 (2012). It was also noted that the Court had “already found Mr.
D’Angelo in Contempt of Court on multiple occasions.” Id, Furthermore, the Court went on to
observe that:
“D’ Angelo would represent that his gross income ranges from $29,500.00 to a high of
$93,387.00 while being able to travel extensively, own two Porsche automobiles, purchase a
40ft yacht for $190,000.00, own several automobiles includes a Lexus, and maintain a lifestyle
that would indicate by his travel, entertainment, and expenditures that he has disposable monies
in excess of those stated in his Financial Affidavit.” Id.
The Court was so concerned with Mr. D’ Angelo’s actions that the Court appointed Attorney
Brian Germaine as a Commissioner, to investigate and report to the court with regard to
D’Angelo’s gross income from 2006 forward. Id.
With these pass instances, the Plaintiff-Intervenor asks this Honorable Court to be wary
of the Defendant’s tactics as the potential of bias, conflicts, and prejudice are significant.
Further, the Defendants claim to have extended Ms. Carrion a settlement offer to predecessor
counsel, which is puntrue. That correspondence is attached to the Summary Judgment Record
and did not offer settlement but alleged bankruptcy when the Defendants was pocketing over. six
figure draws. Exhibits 12 & 13 to Summary Judgment Joint Appendix, and Compare with
Exhibits 4~11 in that Joint Appendix.
Page 6 of 9Additionally, Ms. Carrion asks this Honorable Court to DENY the Defendant's Motion fo
Produce Documents and Communications Conceming the Settlement with Saba Hashem. The
Defendants Mr. D’Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group have been wholly uncooperative through
every stage of this litigation which has spanned over a decade now.
The Defendant has evaded service, lied in his pleadings, lied in his affidavits, and has no
tight to these communications. Ms. Carrion received judgment against Saba Hashem AND
D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC and successor liability has already been attached to D’ Angelo Law
Group, LLC. Whether Mr. Hashem wanted to do what was “right” and equitable and attempt to
put this judgment behind him is none of the concern of the Defendant who has continuously
prolonged and hindered this litigation. Additionally, the Defendant has refused to appear in
court, offer testimony, or has filed frivolous motions to delay the process of justice and waste
judicial time and resources.
Plaintiff-Intervenor and Mr. Hashem reached a confidential settlement in attempts for Mr.
Hashem to rectify his past mistakes. However, this does not and did not free the Defendant Law
Firm from successor liability. Plaintiff-Intervenor will not be double dipping in receipt of funds
as judgment creditor. Plaintiff-Intervenor will also be more than willing to share the details of the
settlement with the Defendant, as soon as the Defendant starts to make payments on ihe
judgment balance that is owed to Ms. Carrion.
This is another attempt by the Defendant to hinder Ms. Carrion’s attempts at seeking
justice and being made whole. As is evident, the Defendant is known to engage in this type of
behavior in the past and has even do so to his own family as the underlying judgment of
. D'Angelo v. New Hampshire Supreme Court et al., was for unpaid child support of his son. Id.
Page 7 of 9WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion, requests the following
relief from this Honorable Court that —
1. DENY Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration regarding Summary Judgment
2. DENY Opposing Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw only to the extent that the newly
appointed counsel not be either (a) the Defendant, himself; (b) an Associate or
employee of D’Angelo Law Group, LLG: (c) “A Third-Party Contractor” who has
appeared on behalf of D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC, in any capacity, in the past 5
years;
3, DENY Defendant’s Motion to Produce Documents Concerning the Settlement
between Ms. Carrion and Mr. Hashem, and
4. . Appoint an Attomey to act as a Commissioner to investigate and report to the court
with regard to D’Angelo’s finances as he has a history of excluding relevant detatls;
5. DENY Defendants’ Motion for Impoundment, as client information has been
redacted, and federal court has denied Defendants’ prior motions for protective order;
6. DENY Defendants’ Motion to pay attorney’s fees until Ms. Carrion is paid in full
100%, And
7. Any other relief that this Court deems fair and just.
Dated: August 4, 2020 : ,
Respectfully Submitted,
The Plaintiff-Intervenor,
Jennifer M, Carrion
By her Counsel,
Page 8 of 9Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire
Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC
Shipway Place, Suite C2
Charlestown Navy Yard
Boston, Massachusetts 02129
Telephone: (617) 398 — 6728 °
Facsimile:.(617) 398 - 6730
E-mail: Memaysa@riverabujosalaw.com
BBO no.: 665965.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq., do herewith certify that I have on this 57! day of August 2020,
I served a copy of the within document by electronic mail upon counsel appeared in this action,
to wit: . . .
Kenneth Cossingham, Esq.
Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.
Cossingham Law Office, PC
30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404
North Andover, MA 01845
tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com
kcossingham@cossinghamlaw.com
Albert L. Farrah Jr., Esq.
Farrah & Farrah
800 Boyiston Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02199
alf@farrah-law.com *
Direct dial (617) 694-1549
Page 9 0f9
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No. 1667CV01419 SABA HASHEM, individual and as Manager of D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC Plaintiff/Defendant-Intervenor v. STEPHEN D’ ANGELO, individually and as a Manager of D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC, and D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC, Defendants/Defendant Intervenor, Reach and Apply Defendant, Vv. JENNIFER M. CARRION, Plaintiff-Intervenor. PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, JENNIFER M. CARRION’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ (1) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S ORDER ALLOWING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (2) EMERGENCY MOTION TO WITHDRAW (3) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMPOUNDMENT, (4) EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING SETTLEMENT, (5) EMEGENCY MOTION TO PAY LEGAL COUNSEL FEES AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S REPLY TO (6) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUSTEE PROCESS ATTACHMENT, REACH & APPLY AND COUNSEL FEES, AND (7) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR FEE PETITION NOW COMES the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion’s, who hereby respectfully opposes the Defendants’ Emergency (1) Motion for Reconsideration of Court’ Order Allowing Summary Judgment in Ms. Carrion’s favor, (2) Motion to Withdraw, (3) Motion for Impoundment, (4) Motion to Produce Documents Concerning Settlement, (5) Motion to Pay Legal Counsel Fees. Furthermore, Ms. Carrion also hereby responds to the Defendants’ \ Page 1 of 9- Opposition to Motion for Trustee Process, to Reach and Apply, and Motion for Attommey’s Fees, and the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s fee petition. As Grounds Therefore, the Plaintiff-Intervenor avers that the Defendants’ papers assert numerous claims that are simply untrue or have already been decided upon by the Court. In particular, Mr. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC has no “clean hands” in all these matters (See D’Angelo Trial Testimony November 21, 2011 attached as Exhibit A at 8-19, 8-32. 8-33, 8-38, 8-39, 8-44, 8-46, 8-58, 8-59.); (2) Mr. D’Angelo and DLG’s intended to avoid payment of a debt (See Exs. A- I, Trustee Process Motion & Emergency Motion to Withhold Payment of Settlement Funds); (3) the Defendants did not winding up D’ Angelo & Hashem, LLC despite facing supplementary process by prior Counsel Mark Giarrusso, who passed away (Supplementary Process Docket Lawrence District Court, attached Exhibit B); (4) Defendants paid themselves six figure draws to themselves in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 from the Law Firm accounts that fall outside of its “normal business operations” (Exhibits D & F to Intervenor’s Motion for Reach & Apply); and (5) Mr. D’Angelo has had a full ability to pay Ms. Carrion’s judgment. (See Exhibits B& F to Reach & Apply Motions) First and foremost, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is time barred under our Rules of Civil procedure. MRCP 59 & MRAP 27. Defendants have also failed to file a Notice of Appeal timely. While the exigent circumstances of the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic have affected the tolling of filings, the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider must be denied as they have filed their motion after the elapsed time allowed by Rule 27 & Rule 59. Per the Supreme Judicial Court Third Updated Order, “all civil staiutes of limitations were tolled by Prior SJC Orders from March 17, 2020, through June 30, 2020, and will not be tolled any further unless there is a new surge in Covid-19 cases in the Commonwealth and the SJC determines that a new or Page 2 of 9extended period of tolling is needed.” Third Updated Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic. The original Summary Judgment Order from the Honorable Judge Deakin was issued on April 7, 2020. J. Deakin Summary Judgment Order, Dated 04/08/2020. By the SJC Order, this would have tolled the ability of the Defendant to file a Motion to Reconsider to July 14, 2020 per MRAP 27 & MRCP 59 which provides a 14sday opportunity to file such motions. The Defendant did not file such motion until July 29, 2020, which is more than double the allotted time allowed to file such motion and is in violation of MRAP 27& MRCP 59. Further, the Defendants have failed to file a Notice of Appeal on or before July 31, 2020, which would have been thirty (30) days from June 30, 2020. The Defendant is once again attempting to hinder Ms. Carrion from receiving the justice and equitable result which she has fought for, for more than a decade, to receive and attempting to delay or hinder her from collecting what she is owed as the judgment creditor. Ms. Carrion had already received a “final judgment” in 2011. In Jennifer Carrion v. Saba Hashem, et al, C.A. 0784CV02073, the Defendants’ predecessor law firm was a party to that action. Exhibit G - Case Summary of Carrion v. Hashem, et al attached to Intervenor’s Reach & Apply Motions. On November 29, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Carrion for a judgment in the amount of $109,000.00 plus interests and. costs. Summary Judgment Opinion. Ms. Carrion only intervened in the current underlying matter because she has not been paid what she is owed. She is not an interested party pertaining to any of the remaining claims of the underlying action and was awarded summary judgment in this matter because this matter had already been litigated, there were no new facts brought by the defendants, and the defendants had refused to pay Ms. Carrion prior. Page 3 of 9Mr. D*Angelo and his counsel have repeatedly stated that the Defendant “had clean bands in this matter” however, that is not accurate, Mr. D’ Angelo testified in Court on November 18, 2011, that Mr. D’Angelo told Mr. Hashem to fire Ms. Carrion. Ex. A Testimony of D’Angelo, Pg. 8-38, Line 23 to Pg. 8-39, Line 1, 11/18/11. In his testimony, Mr. D'Angelo responds to the question of “and why did you tell Mr. Hashem to fire her” with “it was his turn, he had never JSired anybody before and I thought he needed to do this.” Id at Page 8-39, Lines 9-12. Defendants again lie to this Honorable Court in its opposition to Trustee Process Attachment on Pages 11 — 13. However, this matter is about a successor law firm refusing to pay a known liability of its predecessor law firm. Predecessor law firm knowingly disregarded Ms. Carrion’s Executions in 2015 and supplementary process led by Ms. Carrion’s prior counsel, who is now deceased. (Exhibit B Attached — Supplementary Process Docket). Further, Ms. Carrion vehemently opposes allowing any attorney with connections to, or, employed by, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC from representing the Defendants, because this creates serious Conflicts of Interest. The Defendants are attempting to represent themselves by someone associated with D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC whether it be another associate or a “third-party contractor.” If this motion was to be allowed, this would likely continue to prolong litigation as the Defendant has repeatedly hindered collection in the past. If the Defendant represents himself or has an interested counsel in representing, this will only drag out the litigation process and collection of the judgment which is owed to Ms. Carrion since her jury verdict in 2011. Page 4 of 9Additionally, the Defendant has continued to not be entirely forthcoming in the production of documents, testifying in coutt, as well as defying court orders. For example, on July 14, 2020, Honorable Judge Deakin issued a Procedural Order upon Stephen L..D’ Angelo. The Procedural Order issued by Judge Deakin stated that “No later than July 30, 2020, Stephen L. D’Angelo shall file a supplemental affidavit which shall set out: - 1. The amount, source, and date of any payment(s) of whatever type received by the D’Angelo Law Group and/or any attorney, employee, or other representative of the D’ Angelo Law Group in connection with the Columbia Gas class action; 2. The terms of any contingent fee agreement or arrangement for payment for legal services rendered in connection with the Columbia Gas class action and a statement as to whether the D’ Angelo Law Group has been paid as a result of the agreement or arrangement or, if not, whether the D’ Angelo Law Group anticipates being paid as a result of the agreement or arrangement and, if so, when and how the D’Angelo Law Group anticipates being paid; 3. A listing—by name, position, and weekly earnings—of D’ Angelo Law Group’s weekly payroll from January 1, 2020, to present; and 4. The amount(s) of any draws taken by Stephen L. D’Angelo, Esquire, and/or any other partner, owner, or proprietor of the D’ Angelo Law Group from assets of the D’ Angelo Law Group in 2018, 2019, and 2020.” Ex. A Judge Deakin’s Memorandum, Procedural Order, and Preliminary Injunction, Dated July 16, 2020. There has been no supplemental affidavit submitted by Stephen L. D’Angelo and the date of which was due has passed. Thus, he is in violation of Judge Deakin’s Procedural Order. This provides an example of certain type of methods and tactics that the Defendant will attempt to undertake to frustrate the judicial process if he was awarded the opportunity to defond himself or have an associate of the firm represent the Defendant. The likelihood of préjudice and, or, conflicts of interests that will take place is significant and given the Defendant’s previous track record in this case (and in other cases) to not be entirely forthcoming with requests and court orders suggests that'these type of behaviors will increase substantially should the Defendant or an associate of the Defendant be appointed as counsel for the Defendant. Page.5 of 9As further evidence that this is not the first oceasion that the Defendant, Mr. D’Angelo, has not been forthcoming. He has previously not disclosed fully about his living situation and finances when he has had a judgment rendered against him. In Stephen L. D’Angelo v. New Hampshire Supreme Court. and Brian Germain, Esq., United States District Judge McAuliffe, stated that through various orders, the court observed that “D’ Angelo has a well-documented history of thwarting the discovery process and of selectively excluding relevant financial information to the detriment of the Petitioner.” Exhibit C D’ Angelo v. New Hampshire Supreme Court et al, 2012 DNH 204 (2012). It was also noted that the Court had “already found Mr. D’Angelo in Contempt of Court on multiple occasions.” Id, Furthermore, the Court went on to observe that: “D’ Angelo would represent that his gross income ranges from $29,500.00 to a high of $93,387.00 while being able to travel extensively, own two Porsche automobiles, purchase a 40ft yacht for $190,000.00, own several automobiles includes a Lexus, and maintain a lifestyle that would indicate by his travel, entertainment, and expenditures that he has disposable monies in excess of those stated in his Financial Affidavit.” Id. The Court was so concerned with Mr. D’ Angelo’s actions that the Court appointed Attorney Brian Germaine as a Commissioner, to investigate and report to the court with regard to D’Angelo’s gross income from 2006 forward. Id. With these pass instances, the Plaintiff-Intervenor asks this Honorable Court to be wary of the Defendant’s tactics as the potential of bias, conflicts, and prejudice are significant. Further, the Defendants claim to have extended Ms. Carrion a settlement offer to predecessor counsel, which is puntrue. That correspondence is attached to the Summary Judgment Record and did not offer settlement but alleged bankruptcy when the Defendants was pocketing over. six figure draws. Exhibits 12 & 13 to Summary Judgment Joint Appendix, and Compare with Exhibits 4~11 in that Joint Appendix. Page 6 of 9Additionally, Ms. Carrion asks this Honorable Court to DENY the Defendant's Motion fo Produce Documents and Communications Conceming the Settlement with Saba Hashem. The Defendants Mr. D’Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group have been wholly uncooperative through every stage of this litigation which has spanned over a decade now. The Defendant has evaded service, lied in his pleadings, lied in his affidavits, and has no tight to these communications. Ms. Carrion received judgment against Saba Hashem AND D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC and successor liability has already been attached to D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC. Whether Mr. Hashem wanted to do what was “right” and equitable and attempt to put this judgment behind him is none of the concern of the Defendant who has continuously prolonged and hindered this litigation. Additionally, the Defendant has refused to appear in court, offer testimony, or has filed frivolous motions to delay the process of justice and waste judicial time and resources. Plaintiff-Intervenor and Mr. Hashem reached a confidential settlement in attempts for Mr. Hashem to rectify his past mistakes. However, this does not and did not free the Defendant Law Firm from successor liability. Plaintiff-Intervenor will not be double dipping in receipt of funds as judgment creditor. Plaintiff-Intervenor will also be more than willing to share the details of the settlement with the Defendant, as soon as the Defendant starts to make payments on ihe judgment balance that is owed to Ms. Carrion. This is another attempt by the Defendant to hinder Ms. Carrion’s attempts at seeking justice and being made whole. As is evident, the Defendant is known to engage in this type of behavior in the past and has even do so to his own family as the underlying judgment of . D'Angelo v. New Hampshire Supreme Court et al., was for unpaid child support of his son. Id. Page 7 of 9WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M. Carrion, requests the following relief from this Honorable Court that — 1. DENY Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration regarding Summary Judgment 2. DENY Opposing Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw only to the extent that the newly appointed counsel not be either (a) the Defendant, himself; (b) an Associate or employee of D’Angelo Law Group, LLG: (c) “A Third-Party Contractor” who has appeared on behalf of D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC, in any capacity, in the past 5 years; 3, DENY Defendant’s Motion to Produce Documents Concerning the Settlement between Ms. Carrion and Mr. Hashem, and 4. . Appoint an Attomey to act as a Commissioner to investigate and report to the court with regard to D’Angelo’s finances as he has a history of excluding relevant detatls; 5. DENY Defendants’ Motion for Impoundment, as client information has been redacted, and federal court has denied Defendants’ prior motions for protective order; 6. DENY Defendants’ Motion to pay attorney’s fees until Ms. Carrion is paid in full 100%, And 7. Any other relief that this Court deems fair and just. Dated: August 4, 2020 : , Respectfully Submitted, The Plaintiff-Intervenor, Jennifer M, Carrion By her Counsel, Page 8 of 9Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esquire Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC Shipway Place, Suite C2 Charlestown Navy Yard Boston, Massachusetts 02129 Telephone: (617) 398 — 6728 ° Facsimile:.(617) 398 - 6730 E-mail: Memaysa@riverabujosalaw.com BBO no.: 665965. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa, Esq., do herewith certify that I have on this 57! day of August 2020, I served a copy of the within document by electronic mail upon counsel appeared in this action, to wit: . . . Kenneth Cossingham, Esq. Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq. Cossingham Law Office, PC 30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404 North Andover, MA 01845 tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com kcossingham@cossinghamlaw.com Albert L. Farrah Jr., Esq. Farrah & Farrah 800 Boyiston Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02199 alf@farrah-law.com * Direct dial (617) 694-1549 Page 9 0f9