Request for Judicial Notice - Archibald Cunningham v Kevin Singer Et Al - Class Action US District Court Central District of California - Receivership Specialists - Unauthorized Practice of Law Based Violations of Civil Rights with Monell-Related Claims

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 288 Page ID #:57
Patricia Barry, Esq. (SBN 59116)

634 S. Spring St., Suite 823
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 995-0734
Arch Cunningham (SBN 210625)
1489 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
archcunnghm@yahoo.com
(415) 563-1828
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN DOE, et al.
On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,
)
HUMBERTO RUIZ, both individually and on )
behalf of a class of others similarly situated. ) Case No. 2:14-CV-9104
)
)
Plaintiffs,
) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
v.
)
)
KEVIN SINGER, Court-appointed receiver, )
sued individually and official capacity;
)
RECEIVERSHIP SPECIALISTS, a California )
licensed business, JOHN RACHLIN,
)
principal, sued in his individual capacity;
)
RICK MARQUIS, principal, sued in his
)
individual capacity; KAMALA D. HARRIS, )
Attorney General of California, sued
)
individually and in her official capacity; CITY )
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; San )
Francisco County Sheriff ROSS MIRKARIMI,)
sued individually and in his official capacity; )
San Francisco District Attorney, GEORGE
)
GASCON, sued individually and in his official )
capacity; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELGES, a
municipality: District Attorney JACKIE
)
LACEY, sued individually and in her official )
capacity; COUNTY OF KERN, District
)
Attorney LISA GREEN, sued individually and )
in her official capacity; COUNTY OF
)
MARIN, District Attorney EDWARD S.
)
BERBERIAN, sued individually and in his
official capacity; COUNTY OF
SACRAMENT, District Attorney DON

SCULLY, sued individually and in his official
capacity; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, District
Attorney NANCY OMALLEY, sued
individually and in her official capacity;
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, District
Attorney SCOTT PETERSON, sued
individually and in his official capacity;
JUDGE BARBARA A. MEIERS, Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge, sued individually and in
her official capacity;
JUDGE ROBERT H. OBRIEN, Los Angeles
his official capacity; JUDGE THOMAS L.
BROWN, Sacramento Superior Court Judge,
sued individually and in his official capacity;
JUDGE LAWRENCE J. APPEL, Alameda
his official capacity: JUDGE LAUREL S.
BRADY, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge,
sued individually and in her official capacity;
JUDGE RANDOLPH HEUBACH, Marin
his official capacity; JUDGE MARLA
MILLER, San Francisco Court Judge, sued
JUDGE JAMES STOELKER, Santa Clara
Court Judge, sued individually and in his
official capacity; JUDGE LORNA H.
BRUMFIELD,, Kern Court Judge, sued
JUDGE DELBERT C. GEE, Alameda
his official capacity; JUDGE DAVID B.
FINN, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge,
sued individually and in his official capacity;
JUDGE LYNN OMALLEY TAYLOR, San
Francisco Court Judge, sued individually and
in her official capacity; JUDGE LYNN
JUDITH CRADDICK, Contra Costa Court
Judge, sued individually and in her official
capacity; JUDGE DONALD EVANS
QUIDACHAY, San Francisco Superior Court
Judge, sued individually and in his official
capacity; JUDGE A. JAMES ROBERTSON
II., San Francisco Superior Court, sued
individually and in his official capacity;
,JUDGE LILLIAN SING, San Francisco
her official capacity; PRESIDING JUDGE
MING-LEE, Presiding Judge of the San
Francisco Superior Court, sued individually
and in her official capacity; CHIEF JUSTICE
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of State
Supreme Court, Chair of California Judicial
Council, sued individually and in her official
capacity; PRESIDING JUSTICE ANTHONY

KLINE, California Court of Appeals, First
Appellate Division, sued individually and in
his official capacity; JUDGE JAMES
RICHMOND, Justice of California Court of
Appeals, First Appellate District, sued
individually and in her official capacity; JOHN
SCOTT McKAY, an officer of the court and
attorney in the underlying case, sued in his
individual capacity; MICHAEL COOMBS,
property-owner and partner in condominium
association, sued in individual capacity,
TAMARA WOODS, property-owner and
partner in condominium association, sued in
individual capacity.
Defendants, and DOES 1 through
10.
Plaintiffs and members of the Class respectfully request pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201
that the District Court take judicial notice of official records, transcripts, judicial council forms,
pleadings, and correspondences from various superiors courts of the state of California as well as
pleadings from California Commission on Judicial Performance.
Fed. R. Evid. 201 (b) states that [a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be determined. It is appropriate for a court to take judicial notice of
court filings and other matters of public interest such as the pleadings in related litigation. *See,
Reyna v. Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc. 442 F. 3d 741, 746, n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006); Schweitzer
v. Scott, 469 F. Supp. 1017, 1020 (C.C. Cal. 1979). Sufficient notice of matters subject to
judicial notice is provided by lodging a copy of the relevant documents and records with the
Court. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL

I, Patricia Barry, declare as follows:
1. I am the counsel for Plaintiffs and the members of the class and an active member of
the California State Bar.
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could
competently testify if called as a witness, except for matters stated upon information and belief,
and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
3. A true and correct copy of the following court records are attached to this declaration as
Exhibits A-EE. The records, pleadings, transcripts are from proceedings in superior courts of the
state of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
Exhibit
Title
Date
Pages
___________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A
Mark J. Geragos Complaint

Against State Bar President
Craig Holden
11/17/14
9-23
Exhibit B
Contempt of Court Hearing Against John

Tyler and Gregory J. Tyler; If Found Guilty,
Fine $1,000 and Hold Under Arrest for Five
Days or Until They Turn Over $3,245 of
Receivership Rents and Books/Records.
7/30/10
24-33
Exhibit C
Memo of Points and Authorities In Support

Of Humberto Ruiz Claim of Right to Possession
9/26/14
34-50
Exhibit D
Commission on Judicial Performance

Censure of Judge Thomas Kelly
2/28/95
51-53
Exhibit E
Motion for Order for Receiver to Obtain

Legal Counsel, Memo of Points & Authorities
9/11/12
54-73
Exhibit F
Declaration of Satwant Singh In Opposition

9/20/12
To Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of
Receiver (CIVMSC-12-01134, Santa Clara Sup. Ct.)
74-81
Exhibit G
Receivers Declaration and Response to Amend

Order Confirming Appointment
(CIVMSC-12-01134, Santa Clara Sup. Ct.)
5/23/14
82-91
Exhibit H
Kevin Singers Stipulation Amongst the Parties

To Buyout Interest in Property and Application
For Orders (CGC-504807; SF Sup. Ct).
1/18/13
92-106
Exhibit I
Kevin Singers Stipulation and Order

Correcting the Address and Name of the Real
Property to Be Secured By a Bank Loan
(FL 060341; Marin Sup. Ct)
5/31/11
107-114
Exhibit J
Judge Carvills Order Granting Motion to

Confirm Appointment Of Receiver
7/16/10
115-116
Exhibit K
Defendants Memo of Points and Authorities

In Opposition to Order to Show Cause Re
Appointment of Receiver
(Alameda Sup. Ct. No. RG 12-634973)
7/6/12
117-126
Exhibit L
Judge Delbert Dees Order Granting Receiver

7/10/12
127-128
Exhibit M
Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application for Order

Authorizing Receiver to Borrow Money and
Execute Receiver Certificates
9/10/12
129-142
Exhibit N
Judge Delbert Dees Order Granting Ex

Parte Application of Mr. Singer
9/12/12
143-148
Exhibit O
Order Appointing Receiver

(Contra Costa County Sup. Court No.
CIV C12-00284)
7/12/12
149-162
Exhibit P
Order Appointing Receiver

(SF Sup. Co. No. CGC 10-510760)
8/1/11
163-170
Exhibit Q
Judge Quidachay Signing Off on Kevin

Singers Writ of Possession
(SF Sup. Ct.No. CGC-10-510760)
8/20/14
171-182
Exhibit R
Declaration of Satwant Singh In Support of

4/1/14
Motion to Amend Order Confirming Appointment
Of Kevin Singer as Receiver (C-12-01134)
183-186
Exhibit S
Kevin Singers Notice of Order

Judge Blumfields Order
Granting Singers Ex Parte Application
(Kern County Sup. Ct. S-1500-CV-277435)
7/23/14
6/25/13
187-194
Exhibit T
Judge Solker Signing Off on Kevin Singers

Proposed Order for Sale of Bellville Way
Sunnyvale, CA (Santa Clara Sup. Co. No
112-CV-222194)
1/17/13
195-207
Exhibit U
Declaration of Mr. Singer in Support of

Motion for Interlocutory Judgment for
Partition of Real Property
6/14/13
208-240
(Santa Clara County Court; 112-cv-237304)

Exhibit V
Kevin Singers Stipulation RE: Distribution

Of Funds from Sale of Property
(Santa Clara County Sup. Ct. 112-cv-222194)
3/20/13
241-249
Exhibit W

(LA Sup. Ct., No. BC465205)
12/30/13
250-257
Exhibit X
Judge OBriens Order Granting

Appointment of Receiver
12/2/13
258-272
Exhibit Y
Kevin Singers Stipulation RE:

Approving Sales Package to Be Used
In the Sale of 12 Condominiums Units
(Sup. Ct. of Alameda, No. RG 10508193
7/15/10
273-281
Exhibit Z
Kevin Singers Order for Retaining

Jurisdiction Regarding Receivership
(Sup. Ct. of Alameda, No. RG9440563)
8/14/09
282-288
Exhbit AA
Kevin Singers Pleading, Ex Parte

Declaration of John Rachlin
12/24/13
289-291
Exhbit BB

(Santa Clara Sup. Ct. No. 112-CV-222194)
1/2/13
292-294
Exhibit CC

(Contra Costa Sup. Ct. No. CIVMSC 11-00890
11/26/13
295-297
Exhibit DD
Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application to

Sell Property, Points and Authorities
(Sacrament County Sup. Ct. No.
34-2012-00124519)
9/24/13
298-309
Exhibit EE
Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application

Confirming Stipulation to Conduct Sale
(SF Up. Ct. No. CGC-09-493126)
4/16/12
310-333
Exhibit FF
12/9/13
334-337
Exhibit GG
Judge David B. Finn Signing Off

On Kevin Singers Proposed Order
12/12/13
338-340
Exhibit HH
Judge Lynn OMalley Taylors Denial

Of Claim of Right to Possession
10/29/14
341-345
Exhibit II
Singers Ex Parte to Sell Property

1785 Rockwood Place, Concord
(Contra Costa County Sup. Ct.
No. CIVMSC 11-00890)
11/26/13
346-355
Exihibit JJ
Judge James. A. Robertson Signing Off

On Kevin Singers Order Instructing
Receiver as to The Distribution of Proceeds
From Sale of Liquor License
(SF Sup. Ct. No. CGC-09-492710)
1/31/1
356-365
Exhibit KK
Judge Robertson Signing Off on Kevin

Singers Order Approving and Ratifying
All of Receivers Acts and Transactions
(CGC- 13-533770)
3/7/14
366-375
Exhibit LL
Objections to Approval of Sale

(SF Sup. Ct. No. CGC 09-493126)
6/27/12
376-380
Exhibit MM
Opposition to Motion to Vacate Mr. Singers

Writ of Execution (SF Sup. Co. No. CGC 10510760)
9/29/14
381-387
Exhibit NN
Judge Quidachays Order Denying Claim of

Right of Possession by Humberto Ruiz, Jr.
(SF Sup. Co. No. CGC 10-510760)
10/8/14
388-392
Exhibit OO
Opposition to Motion for Appointment

Of a Receiver. (Marin County Sup. Ct. No
(CIV 025229)
9/26/11
393-402
Exhibit PP
Declaration of William Cheek in

Opposition to Motion for Appointment
Of a Receiver. (Marin County Sup. Ct. No
(CIV 025229)
9/26/11
403-407
Exhibit QQ
Receivers Declaration and Response

To Defendants Motion to Amend Order
Confirming Appointment of Kevin Singer
5/23/14
408-417
As Receiver (Sup. Ct. Contra Costa, No.

CIVMSC 12-01134)
Exhibit RR
Exhibit SS
Revised Notice of Continuance of

Hearing (LA Sup. Ct. BC447913)
10/3/14
Stipulation Between Kevin Singer

City National Bank, Kogan Law Firm
9/18/14
Kevin Singers Ex Parte Order to

Sell 228-318 White Lane In Bakersfield
(Kern County Sup. Ct. No. S-1500-CV-277435)
6/24/13
418-428
429-441
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patricia Barr
________________________
Patricia Barry, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs/Class
Dated: 11/22/14
EXHIBIT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
GERAGOS & GERAGOS

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28
644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3411
TELEPHONE (213) 625-3900
FACSIMILE (213) 625-1600
GERAGOS@GERAGOS.COM
MARK J. GERAGOS
SBN 108325
BEN J. MEISELAS
SBN 277412
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SENATOR JOSEPH DUNN (Ret.)
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
9
10
u
::;:
11
ro2
12
"'/jCl
d
Ooz
i;.iUo:o:
13
z::u.
-(.')
14
OONWO
0 O:O
wWQ
CL;;!
00wIU
0 \d(fj
"'o:o':l
< Ulw
i: !!<;f"l'l
i;.lI'<!"Z
co
0
_J
Case No.
SENATOR JOSEPH DUNN (Ret.),

Executive Director of the State Bar of
California; and WHISTLEBLOWER DOES
1-7,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1.WHISTLEBLOWER LIABILITY
AND RETALIATION CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
SECTION 1102.5
2.BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Plaintiff,
vs.
15
16
17
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;

CRAIG HOLDEN, an individual; and ROES
1 through 50, inclusive,
TRIAL
Defendants.
18
19
20
DEMAND FOR
INTRODUCTION
1.
Senator Joseph Dunn (Ret.), the Executive Director of the State Bar of
21
California, and Whistleblower DOES 1-7 bring this whistleblower action and demand for
22
injunctive relief against the State Bar of California (the "State Bar") based on the State Bar's
23
unilateral termination of Senator Dunn's employment on November 7, 2014, immediately
24
after Senator Dunn, and other whistleblowers, through counsel, lodged two whistleblower
25
notices with the State Bar's Board of Trustees ("BOT") on November 3, 2014 and November
26
5, 2014.
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
10
2.
1
2
prosecutorial lapses, and fiscal improprieties by State Bar President Craig Holden, certain
BOT members, and Chief Trial Counsel and head of the State Bar's Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel ("OCTC") Jayne Kim, which were being concealed from the public.
..,.
<Zl NWO
Senator Dunn's whistleblower notices identified senous ethical breaches,
3.
The conduct Senator Dunn complained about included (1) the unlawful
intentional manipulation and false reporting of backlog cases, (2) the intentional lack of
prosecutorial efforts to proactively investigate and prosecute "notario" and lawyer fraud as
envisioned by the Legislature in passing Assembly Bill 1159, and (3) the conflicted retention
of a private firm with close ties to a BOT member in violation of State Bar protocol to
10
evaluate a complaint against undisclosed targets and, upon information and belief, against
11
Senator Dunn.
12
outside of established protocol, leading to a bill that is likely in excess of $300,000.00, even
13
though a retired California Supreme Court Justice had agreed to provide the same services
14
pro bono as a way to give back to the State Bar. Even with this unnecessary and exorbitant
15
cost to members of the State Bar, the BOT only decided to terminate Senator Dunn without
16
cause.
Holden, and a small group of BOT members, hired the conflicted firm
0 .o:o
"'i/JiOl
;:,3 ciq;
i;.;iu
wwo
z::>u.
(')-
li:;i
00wIU
0 \Jui
"'"'o
W
;:,3 U)
ll)..,.(')
i;.;i:c..,.z
<D
0
_J
17
4.
Since becoming the Chief Executive of the State Bar in 2010, Senator Dunn
18
received consistent high praise and positive performance reviews in his formal performance
19
evaluations from 2011-2013. In fact, Senator Dunn's performance was determined to be so
20
excellent by the State Bar that he received bonuses substantially above his yearly salary
21
during the years 2011-2013.
22
5.
In September 2014, attorney Craig Holden was installed as the new President
23
of the State Bar. In May 2014, Holden was the only announced candidate, so it was clear he
24
would be elected State Bar President.
25
determined "to do something about Dunn," with the clear implication that he was determined
26
to have him fired. The events described below gave Holden the pretext to begin a process
27
28
Starting in May, Holden told several people he was
-2COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
11
leading to Senator Dunn's termination. Finally, after Senator Dunn sent his whistleblower
notice, Holden guided the BOT to terminate Senator Dunn, but even then only "without
cause."
6.
Defendant Craig Holden was installed as President of the State Bar in

Defendant Craig Holden, now a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
September 2014.
Smith LLP, is an attorney that has had difficulties in previous law firms and who submitted
irregular expense reports to the State Bar.
7.
Defendant Craig Holden's conduct is part of an effort to usurp executive
authority in the State Bar and has cleared the way for Defendant Holden to assume control
10
over the State Bar's executive functions. Employees of the State Bar have been infomLed
11
that Defendant Holden and Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley will oversee and
.ro l;i'.:<'.l
12
manage the State Bar in the "interim" period.
"'/JiOl
cid
..iu
wWQ
13
formation of a process to hire a new Executive Director. No previous State Bar President in
G::i
14
history has assumed executive management authority over the State Bar, as Defendant
o:6::J
"' Ulw
lfl..,.(.')
..i :r:..,.z
co
15
Holden has now done. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Holden has engaged in this conduct
16
to ultimately become the State Bar Executive Director.
..,.
OONWO
0 ll:'.O
z :Ju.
(.')-
00WIU
0 S2f-(j
0
_J
17
8.
There has been no announcement for the
In addition to the termination of Senator Dunn, the State Bar has recently
18
targeted some of the Whistleblower DOES 1-7 with various degrees of discipline and
19
retaliation because they corroborated and identified the same conduct Senator Dunn
20
complained of and joined in the whistleblower notices to the State Bar. Under the leadership
21
of Holden, the BOT has engaged in an effort to purge the ranks of whistleblowers at the State
22
Bar who were aware of and complained about the conduct of the BOT, President Holden,
23
and other ROE defendants. That purge of State Bar employees, consolidating power in the
24
hands of Holden, is unprecedented in the history of the State Bar.
25
26
27
28
9.
On Friday, November 7, 2014, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while giving a
speech for the State Bar in San Francisco, Plaintiff Senator Dunn received a termination
-3COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
12
letter from Defendant President Holden. The termination letter demanded that Senator Dunn
not speak with the press or public if he desired to negotiate a "mutually acceptable
[severance] agreement."
10.
Senator Dunn brings this whistleblower action to protect the public integrity of
the Defendant State Bar, to overturn the illegally motivated decision to terminate his
employment, and to vindicate his rights as a whistleblower.

PARTIES
7
8
<t
rotLl2
OONWO
c.!l /iOl
d
Oo
z
i;.ilUo:o:
Q
C,!) zwW
:Ju.
0
Senator Joseph Dunn (Ret.) is a former California State Senator who
represented California's 34th Senate District in Orange County, California. Senator Dunn
10
was appointed as Executive Director of the State Bar of California on November 22, 2010.
11
Senator Dunn served in this capacity as the State Bar's chief executive officer from
12
November 22, 2010 through his termination on November 8, 2014.
13
resident of Orange County, California.
Senator Dunn is a
0:0
-0-
CL<i
00wIU
0 \dt:;<Jl
c.!l o:ot:J
Ulw
i;.il f<tZ
'
c.!l
11.
lil<t ()
0
_J
14
12.
"The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and
15
licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while
16
holding office as a judge of a court of record." (Cal. Const., art VI, 9.) Under pain of
17
criminal punishment, no person may practice law in California unless he is an active member
18
of the State Bar. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 6125-6126.) The Board of Trustees of the State
19
Bar, upon authorization from the Legislature, fixes and imposes an annual membership fee
20
upon members of the State Bar. (Id. 6140.) The fees are paid into the treasury of the State
21
Bar, and become part of its funds. (Id. 6144.)
22
Trustees of the State Bar of California. The Board of Trustees makes rules of procedure,
23
regulates and operates the State Bar. The State Bar office is located at 845 South Figueroa
24
Street, Los Angeles, California 90017.
25
26
27
28
13.
The State Bar acts through the Board of
Defendant Craig Holden was installed as President of the State Bar in
September 2014 and is also a current partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
-4COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
13
Defendant Holden resides in Los Angeles County, California. Craig Holden is sued herein in
his individual capacity.
14.
ROES 1-50 include trustees and employees of the State Bar who acted in
concert with Defendant Holden as well as certain government employees not employed by
the State Bar.
6
7
8
9
AND VENUE
15.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are
residents of and/or are doing business in the State of California.

16.
Venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a) of the
10
California Code of Civil Procedure because the Defendants, or some of them, reside in this
11
county and the injuries alleged herein occurred in this county.
,)
12
STATEMENT OF FACTS
tci(J)
cid
..iu
wWQ
13
Senator Dunn's Appointment as Executive Director
rowO
OONW
0 ll'.O
z =iu.
17.
In 2009, the California Bureau of State Audits conducted a complete audit of
z u.<i:
(3:J
14
n:o":J
Ulw
Ul<t (!)
..i I<t z
<D
15
the State Bar's disciplinary system. The Bureau highlighted the backlog reporting process
16
and shined light on the failure of the State Bar to include all backlog cases in the annual
17
discipline report. The report called for more transparency in the reporting of backlog cases
18
to give stakeholders a clear picture of the State Bar's effectiveness.
19
criticized: "By not reporting consistently and including all pertinent information, the State
20
Bar is limiting its stakeholders' and the Legislatures ability to measure the effectiveness of
21
the discipline system."
oowIU
0 1,!{fj
0
_J
22
18.
The Audit Report
Senator Dunn was appointed as Executive Director in 2010, in the wake of this
23
highly critical audit, with the directive to reform the State Bar by bringing fiscal
24
responsibility and transparency to the State Bar's reporting obligations.
25
Director functions as the chief executive officer for the State Bar and oversees all employees.
26
The Executive Director is the only employee directly hired by the BOT and the Executive
27
28
The Executive
-5COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
14
Director reports directly to the BOT. All other State Bar employees report directly to the
Executive Director, with the exception of the head of the OCTC
prosecuting grievances in the State Bar Court
based on the unique appointment process which requires direct BOT approval and Senate
confirmation. The head of the OCTC is Jayne Kim.
<t
,}
.row
OONWO
0 0:0
"';i/iOJ
c:i<>::O:
..u
wwo
z ::>t>.
('.)-
LL;;!
00w:r:U
\,!uj
0 O:
"' OW
ci
S'.Ul
"2<t ('.)
""1 I<tz
(!)
0
_J
19.
responsible for
who exercises a quasi independent function
Senator Dunn succeeded in bringing important reforms to the State Bar. For
example, Senator Dunn brought the investigative backlog on open complaints with the State
Bar to near zero in 2011 after years of criticism from the legislature on the size of the
backlog. Senator Dunn oversaw the purchase, remodel, and move in to the State Bar's new
10
home at 845 South Figueroa Street. Working with the Chief Financial Officer, Senator Dunn
11
stabilized the State Bar's budget with no new increase in mandatory dues under his
12
leadership.
13
public protection mission of the State Bar. This includes outreach to other State regulatory
14
bodies, law enforcement, the consulate community, religious communities, labor unions, and
15
others. Senator Dunn is also credited with substantially improving relations between the
16
Legislature and the State Bar including launching joint town halls with other regulatory
17
partners through the district offices of legislators.
18
working group that met regularly to develop proposals to increase funding for legal services
19
in California.
20
20.
Senator Dunn created an external relations team to proactively advance the
Senator Dunn also created a small
In all his years as Executive Director of the State Bar, Senator Dunn received
21
glowing performance reviews. All of Senator Dunn's formal performance reviews from
22
2011-2013 were positive leading the State Bar to award him substantial yearly bonuses in
23
addition to his salary.
24
25
2 1.
Senator Dunn's written employment agreement, initially set for a three year
term, was renewed in 2013 for a subsequent three-year term through 2016.
However,
26
27
28
-6COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
15
Senator Dunn was given notice of termination on November 7, 2014, just one year into his
new term as Executive Director. The termination was "without cause."
rotLl2
OONWO
As discussed below, Senator Dunn had learned of egregious improprieties
being committed by BOT members, by Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim, and by Holden.
When Senator Dunn raised these concerns with other whistleblowers, which called to task
the State Bar's core functions and competencies, Senator Dunn was targeted by Holden who
has attempted to cover up for the malfeasance that was reported.
"evaluation" of certain executive employees at the State Bar including Senator Dunn and
tasked a private firm, outside of protocol, to investigate Senator Dunn and those executive
10
u
22.
employees.
Ethical Breaches - Unlawful Removal of Backlog
11
12
Holden initiated an
23.
Senator Dunn was one of the whistleblowers within the State Bar who reported
0'.0
"'IJiOl
Ooz
d
i;.l00'.0'.
wwo
z::i1.1.
(')-
G:<i
00 w :cU
0 '25ui
o
"'"'Ul
(f)<:t(')w
..ii<:tz
co
0
_J
13
that Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim unlawfully removed backlog cases from the official
14
reports released to the BOT and the public. This was done to benefit Ms. Kim in her
15
upcoming evaluation and to fraudulently inflate the productivity of her office.
16
24.
It was uncovered that at Ms. Kim's direction, internal reports were altered to
17
unlawfully remove cases from the statutory backlog. Ms. Kim then issued false reports to
18
the Regulation Admissions & Discipline ("RAD") Committee of the State Bar, the
19
membership of the State Bar, the Legislature and the Governor, and the general public.
20
25.
Ms. Kim's conduct did not involve a few isolated incidents but was shockingly
21
rampant. In her reports to the RAD Committee on September 30, 2013, Ms. Kim unlawfully
22
removed 269 cases from the internal reports. She then used the altered internal reports to
23
prepare her official quarterly report to the RAD Committee and posted this information on
24
the State Bar website for public consumption. The information in the public reports was
25
false and misleading due to Ms. Kim's unlawful removal of cases from the backlog reports.
26
27
28
-7COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
16
rotLlt
OONWO
o .n:o
r:.!l
/JiOl
..:-<
..8
wWO
The State Bar server that houses the backlog and case reports left a digital
footprint detailing the changes to the reports made at Ms. Kim's direction. The first run of
the backlog reports shows the accurate number of backlogged files. However, the backlog
report run two hours later removed a certain group of cases to artificially lower the number
of backlog cases. The metadata on the State Bar server exposes the changes and Ms. Kim's
misconduct. The reduction in the State Bar's backlog inventory was not due to increased
productivity but rather due to Ms. Kim's removal of cases from the official backlog reports.
26.
27.
The California Bureau of State Audits is set to conduct its biannual audit of the
State Bar in 2015. Rather than hold Ms. Kim and the OCTC accountable for its actions as
10
Senator Dunn encouraged, the State Bar has terminated Senator Dunn and taken adverse
11
actions against other whistleblowers for bringing this issue to their attention.
12
28.
Upon hearing concerns from Senator Dunn about her performance, Ms. Kim
13
attempted to preserve her position by filing a complaint against Senator Dunn. As detailed
LL;;!
14
below, an evaluation of Senator Dunn was conducted at an exorbitant expense to the
n:o':J
2Ulw
tfl-.;tl'l
15
membership of the State Bar. Ms. Kim's complaint against Senator Dunn was made shortly
16
after the annual review process for her was commenced, and was merely pretextual to avoid
17
Senator Dunn's oversight, criticism, and review of her.
18
provided a copy or summary of Ms. Kim's complaint to Senator Dunn. What we do know is
19
the unilateral decision to terminate Senator Dunn was made "without cause."
z :Ju_
(.')-
00 W IU
0 <dui
r:.!l
f;rolf-.;tZ
co
0
_J
Fiscal Improprieties
20
21
To date, the State Bar has not
29.
The BOT, upon receiving Ms. Kim's complaint, decided to conduct an
22
"internal evaluation" of Senator Dunn and others and to retain a private firm for that purpose.
23
This was despite the fact that a retired California Supreme Court Justice offered to do the
24
same evaluation, pro bono. The private firm retained by the State Bar had close personal ties
25
with BOT member Miriam Krinsky which ties were never fully disclosed prior to the firm's
26
27
28
-8COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
17
retention. The retention of the private firm, in addition to being an utter waste of State Bar
membership dues, violated State Bar protocol.
30.
The retention of private counsel by the State Bar is a function of the State
The protocol for retaining a private firm is
Bar's Office of General Counsel ("OGC").
simple: if it is determined that the retention of a private firm is needed, the OGC is charged
with selecting the appropriate firm based on experience and cost. The OGC protocol that is
in place attempts to secure the retention of a private firm on financially feasible terms and to
sift out potential conflicts of interest and cronyism with BOT members. Here, that process
was blatantly ignored.
10
3 1.
The selected firm was retained based on the recommendation of BOT member
::;:
11
Miriam Krinsky. The OGC was never consulted in this process; rather, Holden decided the
f-
row
12
OGC was "conflicted out" from performing its functions. Furthermore, this private firm was
ci<( :'!;
..iu
13
retained at exorbitant rates. Three billing partners from the private firm that were put on the
14
"evaluation" each billed in excess of $800 per hour.
15
services rendered by that private firm likely exceeds $300,000.00.
OONWO
O ri:o
c.!l /JiOl
C,!) WWQ
z ::Ju.
(.?-
(L;i
The current billable hours for the
00wIU
0 Ufii". ::J t2
c.!l
ll<t l?
2cllil
..i f<tZ
C,!) co
0
_J
16
32.
BOT member Miriam Krinsky had a close personal and professional
17
relationship with the private firm's lead billing partner who was assigned to lead the
18
"evaluation." Board Member Krinsky and the lead partner of the private firm had a two
19
decade long relationship beginning when they were co-counsel at the United States
20
Attorney's Office in the 1990s through 2010 when Ms. Krinsky shared office space with the
21
lead partner while she was the Executive Director of the LA County Citizen's Commission
22
in 2010. This was not disclosed to the BOT.
23
24
25
Legislative Compliance Failures

33.
Senator Dunn has raised concerns that the State Bar BOT and Jayne Kim of the
OCTC were not enforcing the provisions of Assembly Bill 1159.
26
27
28
-9COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
18
f-
"'i!JiOl
cid
i;.;iu
wWQ
C-' z :i u.
-<
('j:J
zu.
:i:U
prosecute both lawyer and "notario" fraud, a form of unauthorized practice of law ("UPL'')
that preys on California's large immigrant community.
"'n:o':J
Ulw
"<;)"('.)
""II"<;f"Z
C-' '
0
_J
35.
The bill contained an urgency clause and was therefore effective the date it was
signed into law in October 2013. At or around the same time Ms. Kim was unlawfully
removing the backlog cases from her internal and public reports, she was also not
prosecuting fraud cases pursuant to the legislative will. Ms. Kim's failure to comply with
the legislative mandate was so egregious it prompted the author of AB 1159,
10
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, to send a letter demanding answers concerning the lack
11
of enforcement.
12
36.
13
To date, the Legislature's questions about the enforcement of AB 1159 remain
ignored.
Whistleblower Notice
14
00W
O 'dui
The bill was passed to enhance OCTC enforcement powers to
Assembly and Senate.
0 D:'.Q
Assembly Bill 1159 was passed with bipartisan support of the State
.cowOONWO
34.
15
37.
On November 3, 2014, Senator Dunn and a group of other individuals
16
employed by the State Bar, through their counsel Geragos & Geragos, APC, submitted an
17
anonymous whistleblower complaint to the State Bar BOT outlining a number of the
18
concerns addressed above. Thereafter, on November 5, 2014, the whistleblowers submitted
19
another letter through counsel, providing further information and evidence of the
20
improprieties outlined herein. Senator Dunn was identified by the BOT as one of the group
21
of whistleblowers.
22
38.
Senator Dunn was given notice of his termination on Friday, November 7,
23
2014 at 5:00 p.m. while he was giving a speech for the State Bar in San Francisco. Senator
24
Dunn received no explanation as to the basis for his termination. Senator Dunn was also
25
instructed by Holden that if he wanted to negotiate a severance agreement, he should not
26
speak to the public or the press about what had taken place. To date, Senator Dunn has not
27
28
- 10 COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
19
been afforded any opportunity to respond to the unilateral notice of his termination or any of
the allegations that may have been made against him.
39.
On November 10, 2014, some of the other whistleblowers that were
responsible for providing information contained in the two whistleblower notices were
targeted with various degrees of retaliation and discipline and believe they are in imminent
jeopardy of being terminated. Like Senator Dunn, the other whistleblowers who have been
loyal, dedicated, and high level employees at the State Bar for many years received no
explanation for the sudden unilateral retaliation against them by the State Bar.
40.
It is with deep sadness and a heavy heart that Senator Dunn has been
10
compelled to bring this action against the State Bar of California, an organization which he
11
loyally served for four years. However, given the glaring injustices, unethical conduct, and
12
massive cover-up that has crippled the State Bar's ability to function, this action has become
i;.:,(ijm
;; cid
i;.;iu
wWQ
13
necessary to restore the public trust and confidence in the State Bar, to restore the integrity of
z :J u.
(,'.)-
14
the organization, and to vindicate Senator Dunn's rights.
o:o ci
\.!) Cf)
;;
(/)'<!"('.)
i;.;ii'<!"Z
tO
15
'<!"
Cl.rowNWO
0 O:O
a:<i!
Cl W IU
0 ldt;jui
w
0
_J
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

WHISTLEBLOWER LIABILITY AND RETALIATION
16
17
LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5
18
Senator Dunn Against Defendant the State Bar of California
19
20
41.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of
this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
21
42.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of the State Bar.
22
43.
On November 3, 2014 and November 5, 2014, Plaintiff made whistleblower
23
complaints to the State Bar as detailed above.
24
complaints to the State Bar's BOT about the willful failure of the Chief Trial Counsel Jayne
25
Kim to prosecute UPL fraud which would protect the immigrant community.
Additionally, Plaintiff made numerous
26
27
28
- 11 COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
20
44.
1
2
Director of the State Bar on November 7, 2014 because he was identified as a whistleblower
and because Holden intended to cover up malfeasance in the State Bar and secure his own
agenda in usurping executive authority within the State Bar.

45.
'<!"
r
.row-
Cl NWO
0 O'.O
Holden, Jayne Kim, and Miriam Krinsky. Specifically, the State Bar has terminated Plaintiff
because he reported the serious malfeasance, illegal conduct, and financial improprieties
described above.
46.
conduct violates the fundamental public policy against retaliation of whistleblowers in this
11
State and the protections afforded under Labor Code section 1102.5.
-ci-
14
00'.0 W
;; {f)Q
(/)'<!"('.)
15
0 '1!:ui
i;.lI'<!"z
c.!i
<D0
_J
47.
12
<.'.C)d
WIU
The termination of Plaintiff on account of his complaints about the unlawful
10
13
en
The State Bar has ratified and condoned the acts and omissions of Defendant
oli01
;; cid
..i u
C,!I wWQ
z ::i "-
Plaintiff was given notice of termination from his employment as Executive
As a result of the unlawful treatment of Plaintiff which culminated in his
termination, Plaintiff suffered damages.

48.
Defendants are subject to civil penalties and assessment under Labor Code
section 1102.5.
49.
16
Based on the unlawful acts taken by Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of
17
his position as Executive Director of the State Bar. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5,
18
Plaintiff Senator Dunn seeks his immediate reinstatement as Executive Director of the State
19
Bar, or alternatively, for the Court to issue an Order to Show Cause regarding why Senator
20
Dunn should not be immediately reinstated based on the unlawful termination by the State
21
Bar.
22
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
24
Senator Dunn Against Defendant Craig Holden and Board of Trustee ROES
25
26
27
28
50.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of
this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

- 12 COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
21
1
2
3
0 0:0
I,!)
(ijoi
cid
..i u
c.!i wWQ
z::ic,.
Q::J
6
ZlL <t
52.
Defendant Holden breached his fiduciary obligations by engaging
the
conflicted retention of a private firm, condoning and attempting to cover up the unlawful
removal of backlogged State Bar complaints, failing to implement legislation, and
terminating Plaintiff and the DOE whistleblowers for reporting the illegal, improper, and
unethical conduct described above.
11
r
row-
as Executive Director of the State Bar, to DOE Whistleblowers 1-7, and to the public.
conduct described above, including but not limited to, authorizing the out-of-protocol and
10
OO NWO
At all times, Defendant Holden owed a fiduciary duty to the State Bar, Plaintiff
51.
12
53.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has been
injured, in an amount according to proof at trial.

54.
Defendants' conduct was wanton, willful, and malicious giving rise to punitive
damages in favor of Plaintiff.
13
14
WHEREFORE,
15
On the First Cause of Action:
16
1.
For general and special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
17
2.
For pre- and post-judgment interest according to proof;
18
3.
For costs of suit incurred herein;
19
4.
For attorneys' fees;
20
5.
For damages and fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5;
21
6.
For injunctive relief reinstating Plaintiff as Executive Director of the State Bar
Plaintiffs request judgment against the Defendants as follows:
00 WIU
'2!;u1
o:o':l
8Cflw
ti)'<!"(')
..i f'<l"z
c.!i '
0
l.!l
0
_J
22
or, alternatively, for an Order to Show Cause why Senator Dunn (Ret.) should
23
not be immediately reinstated based on the unlawful termination and retaliation
24
by the State Bar; and
25
7.
For all other relief as this Court may deem proper.
26
27
28
- 13 COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
22
On the Second Cause of Action:
1.
For general and special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
2.
For pre- and post-judgment interest according to proof;
3.
For exemplary damages against Defendants;
4.
For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5.
For all other relief as this Court may deem proper.
7
8
9
10
'<!"
11
'"
.Clw-
12
0 -0:0
0
cid
13
OO NWO
/riOl
..iu
Q
C,!I wW
Z::JLc
(')-
a:;;!
00w:rU
ui
0 \d
Cl'. W
0 Q
Cfl ci
"2'<!"'<l"Z(')
"'1I
c.!i tO
0
_J
DATED: November 13, 2014
By:
. GERAGOS
MAR
BEN . MEISELAS
Atto eys for Plaintiff
SENATOR JOSEPH DUNN (Ret.)
14
15
16
17
18
TRIAL
DEMAND FOR
Plaintiff Senator Dunn (Ret.) hereby demands a jury trial.
19
20
DATED: November 13, 2014
21
22
23
By:
. GERAGOS
BEN J. EISELAS
Atto ys for Plaintiff
JOSEPH DUNN (Ret.)
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
23
EXHIBIT B
24
Exhibit B
25
Exhibit B
26
Exhibit B
27
Exhibit B
28
Exhibit B
29
Exhibit B
30
Exhibit B
31
Exhibit B
32
Exhibit B
33
EXHIBIT C
34
Exhibit C
35
Exhibit C
36
Exhibit C
37
Exhibit C
38
Exhibit C
39
Exhibit C
40
Exhibit C
41
Exhibit C
42
Exhibit C
43
Exhibit C
44
Exhibit C
45
Exhibit C
46
Exhibit C
47
Exhibit C
48
Exhibit C
49
Exhibit C
50
EXHIBIT D
51
Ji>iafc Df California
(Ermtmissinn on 3Jufrtriai |Jerf0rrnanrE

Ifll Jtofcarb ^freef, ^ u t f e 300
^ a n (IfranriscD, QjA 94105
(415)904-3650
FAX (41 5) 904-3666
February 28, 1995
Honorable Thomas M. Kelly

Judge of the Justice Court
Alpine Judicial District
P. O. Box 515
Markleeville, CA 96120-0515
Dear Judge Kelly:
The Commission on Judicial Performance has determined that
you should be publicly reproved for the following conduct:
"In 1987, before justice court judges were prohibited from
practicing law by California Constitution Article VI 17 and
Government Code 71607, Judge Kelly became attorney of record
for the plaintiff in Okoye v. Citicorp, Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. C 683268. Judge Kelly signed a complaint
prepared by a Nevada attorney whose law library and office
Judge Kelly sometimes used. Judge Kelly accommodated the
Nevada attorney without receiving a fee or promise of fee, and
without expecting a fee. The attorney had told Judge Kelly
that he intended to handle the case and would file a motion to
appear pro hac vice, seeking the court's permission to appear
as an out-of-state attorney with Kelly, a California attorney,
associated as counsel. However, within a month after the
complaint was filed, the Nevada attorney abandoned his plan to
file the application, and so advised Judge Kelly.
Because Kelly was counsel of record in Okoye v. Citicorp,
the defendant's counsel communicated with Judge Kelly at the
Nevada counsel's address. A demurrer to the complaint was
filed. Judge Kelly and the Nevada attorney discussed the matter
and agreed to stipulate to the demurrer. A first amended
complaint was filed; a demurrer to that complaint was
sustained, as well. No second amended complaint was filed.
During the spring and summer of 1987, defense counsel
contacted Judge Kelly four times to schedule the plaintiff's
deposition. Although Judge Kelly informed the Nevada attorney,
Judge Kelly did not notify the plaintiff. On one occasion,
Judge Kelly told defense counsel that he could not attend a
deposition because he was scheduled on a judicial assignment.
Exhibit D
52
Honorable Thomas M. Kelly

February 28, 1995
Page Two
No discovery pertinent to the merits of the case was
provided to the defense. On July 8, 1987, a motion to compel
production of documents was heard. There was no appearance for
plaintiff. The court ordered production of the requested
documents and ordered sanctions against Judge Kelly and the
plaintiff, which were later paid by the Nevada attorney. Judge
Kelly never notified the plaintiff.
On August 25, 1987, Judge Kelly appeared at a hearing on
defendant's motion to dismiss. This was the first occasion on
which the plaintiff and Judge Kelly met with each other. The
court ordered the case dismissed for failure to file a second
amended complaint, and imposed sanctions of $2,500 on both
Judge Kelly and the plaintiff.
A federal complaint signed by Judge Kelly also was filed on
behalf of the plaintiff, in April of 1987. It was dismissed
for lack of prosecution, and the motion to set the dismissal
aside was dismissed without hearing in December 1987.
The plaintiff sued Judge Kelly and the Nevada attorney for
breach of contract, fraud, and legal malpractice in their
representation of him in the Okoye v. Citicorp case. After a
court trial, the court found Judge Kelly and the Nevada
attorney liable on the cause of action for legal malpractice.
The Nevada attorney was also held liable for breach of
contract. Both were ordered to pay a judgment of $351,000.
The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
The trial court determined that Judge Kelly, by agreeing
that the Nevada attorney would handle the management of the
lawsuits in the absence of a court order permitting the Nevada
attorney to appear as counsel, after signing the complaints
prepared by the Nevada attorney, unlawfully aided and abetted
the unauthorized practice of law, contrary to Business and
Professions Code 6126(a) and Code of Professional
Responsibility Rule 3-101. The commission finds that by his
conduct in the case, including abandoning, for all intents and
purposes, a client for whom he was attorney of record, Judge
Kelly committed a breach of fiduciary duty and committed legal
malpractice. Judge Kelly's conduct constitutes conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the
judiciary into disrepute."
This public reproval is being issued with your consent.
Very truly yours,
i / ;
^--N i \
VICTORIA B. HENLEY
Director-Chief Counsel
/
!
Exhibit D
53
EXHIBIT E
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KEVIN SINGER
SUPERIOR COURT RECEIVER/REFEREE
RECEIVERSHIP SPECIALISTS
795 Folsom Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: (415) 848-2984
Fax: (415) 848-2301
E-mail: Kevin@ReceivershipSpecialists.com
Property Address:
4655-4677 Meade Street

Richmond, CA 94804
8
9
:tlO
I
SUPERIOR'COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
......_:...
cs-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CERF SPVI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability)

company,
)
)
)
)
v.
)
CHEROKEE SThIBON VENTURE I, LLC; a )
Plaintiff,
Delaware limited liability company,

PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL,
)
INC., an Iowa corporation, LUMIPHORE
)
INC., a Delaware corporation, GERONOVA )
RESEARCH, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
)
)
NANOASIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
California corporation, CHEMORAGA, INC., )
a California corporation and DOES
inclusive,
Defendants.
1-50,
)
)
)
)
)
--------
CASE NO:
C12-00284
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR

ORDER AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO
RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF
KEVIN SINGER IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
=:
Dept.:
ld,,
Wk
31
Judge: Hon. Laurel S. Brady

Martinez Superior Court
725 Court Street

Martinez, CA 94553
25
26
27
28
Page l
Exhibit E
55
RECEIVER'S MOTION TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL
TO:
RECORD:
THE PLANTIFFS, DEFENDANT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on
2012 at the hour of
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in Department
31, at the
Martinez Superior Courthouse at 725 Court Street, Martinez, CA
Receiver, Kevin Singer, will and does hereby move the Court to grant his NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO RETAIN LEGAL
COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION
OF KEVIN SINGER IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
94553, Superior Court
This Motion is based on this Notice of
10
Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Kevin Singer, pleadings,
11
records and files in this action, and oral and documentary evidence
12
hearing on this Motion.
13
DATED: September
14
15
as
may be presented at the
10, 2012
By:
Kevin Singer
Superior Court &
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit E
56
RECEIVER'S .MOTION TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL
Page 2
u
1
2
INTRODUCTION
1.
Through a stipulation amongst CERF SPVI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Plaintiff"),
collectively (''the Parties"), the Court granted an Order Appointing Receiver Ex Parte and
Temporary Restraining Order In Aid of Receiver ("Court Order") which was entered on July
12, 2012 and
Singer's ("Receiver") Oath was filed on approximately July
and management of the Property was transitioned to him on August
agreed upon transition date by the Parties.
and CHEROKE SIMEON VENTURE I, LLC
("Defendant"),
attached hereto as "Exhibit 1." The appointed Superior Court Receiver, Kevin
12, 2012, by
Plaintiff's Counsel
15\ 2012.
This was an
10
2.
The collateral for Plaintiff's Deed of Trust is a commercial and industrial building
11
located at
46554677 Meade Street, Richmond, CA 94894 (the "Property"). The Property is
12
commonly referred to as Campus Bay. The Property has a long history of chemical
13
manufactures using the site. In
14
oversight of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
15
"Exhibit 2," is information summarizing the environmental issues surrounding the Property.
16
3.
1997, an environmental cleanup was initiated under the

Attached as
One of Receiver's primary duties is to lease or release the Property or any
17
portion of it on terms acceptable to Plaintiff. Any lease contract entered into will require
18
disclosers regarding the environmental issues.
19
4.
On August
8,
2012
and August
9,
2012,
the Receiver had a disagreement with
20
Defendant's legal counsel over the ability of Defendant to collect past due rents from the
21
tenants.
22
Receiver, and came to an amicable resolution with the Receiver regarding the collection of past
23
due rent, but there remains a disagreement in between the Receiver and Defendant's legal
24
counsel the interpretation of the Court Order.
25
26
Defendant's legal counsel was properly representing her client, respectful to the
5.
Although the Receiver has the ability to write basic pleadings and file papers with
the Court, he is not an attorney. The Receiver is also not an expert in legal environmental
27
28
Exhibit E
57
Page 3
;;
disclosures that will need to be provided to tenants. The Receiver also seeks help from time to
time in interpreting the Court's Order and working with the Parties' legal counsels.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVER RETAINING COUNSEL
California Rules of Court 3.1180. Employment of attorney
A receiver must not employ an attorney without the approval of the court. The
application for approval to employ an attorney must be in writing and must state:
(1) The necessity for the employment;
(2) The name of the attorney whom the receiver proposes to employ; and
(3) That the attorney is not the attorney for, associated with, nor employed by an
10
11
attorney for any party.

The Court Order instructs the Receiver as follows (See "Exhibit 1"):
12
8a.)
13
preserve, protect, maintain, and operate the Property ..........;
14
8e.)
15
property managers, accountants, and other persons and professionals as Receiver
16
deems appropriate to effectuate the operation of the Property and to preserve and
17
protect the Property;
18
12)
19
this Court for further orders instructing Receiver.
Receiver shall have the power to take any and all lawful actions necessary to
Receiver is authorized to employ and compensate professionals, including
Receiver, or any party to this action, may from time to time, make application to
20
THE RECEIVER'S REQUEST TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL
21
The Receiver needs to retain legal counsel for the limited purpose of advising the
22
Receivership Estate on the proper way to disclose environmental issues to new tenants to limit
23
the liability of the Receivership Estate. The legal counsel retained by Receiver can also advise
24
the Receivership Estate on interpretation of the Court Order when the Parties are in
25
disagreement as to its interpretation.
26
27
28
The Receiver would like to retain Mia Blackler ("Ms. Blackler") and Manuel
Fishman
("Mr.
Fishman") of Buchalter Nemer. Ms. Blackler is an expert in receivership law
Exhibit E
58
Page 4
\_/
and Mr. Fishman is an expert in commercial lease contra cts and environmental issues. Their
billing rates are
assistance of associates whose billing rates are
3," are their bios.
$440 for Ms. Blackler and $495 per hour for Mr. Fishman and they utilize the
$300
to
$350
per hour. Attached as "Exhibit
WHEREFORE, The Receiver requests that the Court grant the following:
1. The Superior Court Receiver, Kevin Singer, is authorized to retain Mia Blackler and
. e
Manuel Fishman to advise him on any lease negotiations, disclosure issues related to the leas
negotiations and/or contracts, and guidance on interpretation of the Court Order.
9
10
11
2. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
DATED:
September
10, 2012
12
13
14
By:
ks
Kevin Singer
Superior Co
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 5
Exhibit E
59
u
1
'.,__;
DECLARATION OF KEVIN SINGER
I, KEVIN SINGER declare and state as follows:
am
a Superior Court Referee and Referee and have acted in that capacity in over 143
cases over the last eleven years.
specializes in Receivership and Referee appointments. If called upon to testify, I could and
would competently do so as to the matters hereinafter set forth based on firsthand knowledge.
I am the President of Receivership Specialists, which
I submit this Declaration in support of the accompanying NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF KEVIN
10
SINGER IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
11
Through a stipulation amongst CERF SPVI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
12
("Plaintiff'), and CHEROKE SIMEON VENTURE I, LLC ("Defendant"), collectively (''the
13
Parties"), the Court granted an Order Appointing Receiver Ex Parte and Temporary
14
Restraining Order
15
the Court Order, I was appointed Superior Court Receiver. The parties agreed that the property
16
located at
17
transitioned to my control on August 1,
In Aid of Receiver ("Court Order") which was entered on July 12, 2012. In
4655-4677 Meade Street, Richmond, CA 94894 (the "Property") was to be

2012.
18
2. The Property serves as collateral for Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and is a commercial
19
and industrial building commonly referred to as Campus Bay. The Property has a long history
20
of chemical manufactures using the site.
21
the oversight of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In 1997, an environmental cleanup was initiated under
22
3. One of my primary responsibilities is to lease or release the Property or any portion
23
of it on terms acceptable to Plaintiff. Any lease contract I have entered into will require
24
disclosers regarding the environmental issues.
25
26
27
28
4.
On August
8, 2012 and August 9, 2012, I had a disagreement with Defendant's
legal counsel over the ability of Defendant to collect past due rents from the tenants at the
Property. Defendant's legal counsel was properly representing her client, respectful to me, and
Exhibit E
60
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dena M. Cruz (CA State Bar No. 121508)

Richard Mooney (CA State Bar No. 176486)
Leena Rege (CA.State Bar No. 236827)
DRY.AN CAvE, LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA. 94105
Telephone: (415)268;,2000.
Facsimile: (415) 2681999
71111
.1 .
:P: l 2 o_,
""
.,. _
..
\: Sb
Attomeys for Plaintiff

CERF SPVI, LLC
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10
11
SPVI, LLC a Delaware limited liability

company
CERF
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CASE NO.: CIV C12-00284

1.
Plaintiff,
2.
v.
CHEROKEE SIMEON VENTURE I, LLC; a

Delaware limited liability company, PIONEER
ID-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Iowa
corporation, LUMIPHORE INC., a Delaware

corporation, OERONOVA RESEARCH, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, NANOASIS
TECHNOLOGIBS, INC., a California
corporation, CHBMORAGA, INC., a California
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
[PldJl"tJili!D] ORDER APPOINTING

RECEIVER EX PARTE
(PD] TEMPORARY
TRAINING ORDER IN AID OF
RECEIVER
(Ex Parte Application, Stipulation to Entry of

Order Appointing a Receiver and Preliminary
Injunction, Declaration of Edward Elanjian,
Declaration of Kevin Singer, Declaration of
Dena M. Cruz, and Oath of Receiver filed
concurrently herewith)
Date: July 12, 2012
Time: 1 :30 p.m.
Dept.: 60
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I
#80494 vt sar
[PROPOSBPJ ORDER Al':POIN'l'ING RBCBIVBREX PARTE AND TRO

CERF SPVI, LLC va. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.
Contra Costa SUperior Case No. Cl2-00284
Exhibit E
61

;;:
The motion of Plaintiff CERF SPV I, LLC ("Plaintiff'), for an ex parte order appointlng a
receiver and for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction came on for hearing in Department 60 of
this Court on July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m.. Plaintiff appeared by and through its counsel, Dena M.
Cruz; defendant Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC (''CSV'') appeared by and through its counsel,
Larisa A. Meisenheimer.
Having read and considered the moving papers, pleadings, and evidence in this matter;
having heard argument of counsel; and being apprised of the premises; it appearing to the Court that:
A. On or about September 6, 2007, Continental Environmental Redevelopment Financial,

LLC (''CERF'') entered into a Loan and Security Agreement (the "2007 Loan
9
10
Agreement") and certain related documents, agreements and ins1nments, as lender, with
11
CSV,
12
certain real property located in Contra Costa County, CA, commonly known as Campus
13
Bay ("Campus Bay'').
14
borrower, to fund, amongst other things, a portion of the cost to remediate
B. Plaintiff is the holder of a promissory note dated September 6, 2007, executed by CSV as
borrower (the ''Note").
15
16
as
C. The Note is secured by a deed of 1rust of even date (the ''Deed of Trust'') executed by
17
CSV in favor of CERF, which Note and Deed of Trust were assigned to Plaintiff on or
18
about September 6, 2007. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached to theDeclaration of
19
EdwardElanjian (''ElanjianDecl.") as ExhibitB.
20
D. TheDeed of Trust is a lien on the title to Campus Bay (the "Property''). A copy of the
21
Deed of Trust, which contains a legal description of the Property is attached to the
22
Elanjian Deel.
23
Exhibit B.
E. TheDeed of Trust contains a provision whereby all the rents, issues, and profits of the
Property are assigned as additional security on the Note and;
24
25
as
F. The 2007 Loan Agreement and the Deed of Trust contain certain provisions in which
26
CSV consented to the appointment of a receiver for the Property in the event of default
27
under the Borrowing Agreements; and,
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER. AP:POINTING RECEIVER BX PARTE AND TRO

#80494 vl saf
CERF SPVI, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.

Contra Costa Superior Case No. Cl2-00284
Exhibit E
62
u
. '
G. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint filed in this action Defendant CSV has defaulted on
l
2
its obligations mderthe 2007 Loan Agreement, Note and Deed of Trust (her einafter
collectively the 'Borrowing Agreements") in that CSV (i) failed to pay the outstanding
principal balance ofth.e loan, all accrued and unpaid interest thereon, and all other sums
owing to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Borrowing Agreements which were due
and payable on or before September 6, 2010; (ii) failed to pay when due and payable
property taxes assessed against the Property; and, (iii) fiiiled to pay premiums for
insurance required mder the terms of the Borrowing Agreements;
H.
Without admitting to or agreeing with Plaintiff's allegations, CSV stipulated on July 11,
2012, to the appointment of a receive r and a preliminary injunction.
10
11
TIIEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1HAT:
12
13
ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver and appoints Kevin
14
1.
15
Singer as receiv er (the "Receiver''}, such appointment to be effective on the
16
of office. Purswmt to the terms of the Deed of Trust, the Receiver does not need to file an
17
undertaldng or bon d.
18
2.
Receiver is appointed by this Court to take possession of the Property.
19
3.
CSV shall surrender possession of the Property to Receiver as of August 1, 2012 (the
20
"Effective Date"), and shall deliver to Receiver all keys, all books and records related to the
21
ownership and maintenance of the Property, checkbooks, ledgers, accomits payable and accounts
22
receivable records, leases, rent rolls, insurance policies and certificates (except as specified in
23
Paragraph 18), executory contracts, plans, specifications and drawings, and all other documents
24
whatsoever related to the ownership and maintenance of the Property (collectively "Books and
25
Records''). Receiver shall take possession and control of all Books and Records, except that
26
Receiver may, in his discretion, choose to leave whatever portions of the Books and Records he
27
decides appropriate in the possession of the. persons possessing the same, provided that Receiver
28
shall have immediate access to these items. Receiver shall retain possession of the Property until the
filing of Receiver s oath

'
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOlNTJNG RECEIVBREX PARTE AND TRO
#80494 vl saf
CERF SP'YI, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, UC.

Contra Costa Superior Case No. C12-00284
Exhibit E
63

::
earlier of further order of the Court or nonjudicial foreclosure of the Property by Plaintiff and/or its
assigns.
4.
personal property, assets, all rents due and hereinafter due, notes, receivables, actions and choses in
action; and,
action, or other evidence of indebtedness and, if need be, bring suit to recover the same in his own
name..
5.
may bein possession there6f, be and they are hereby directed to (i) attom to Receiver, and until the
As of the Effective Date, Receiver shall (i) receive and take charge of the Property and all
(ii) collect all outstanding accounts, receivables, leases, rents, actions and choses in
As of the Effective Date, the tenants in possession of the Property or such other persons as
(ii) to pay over to Receiver, or its duly designated agent, all rents of the
10
further order of the Court;
11
Prop ez:ty now due and unpaid or hereafter to become due. CSV is hereby enjoined and restrained
12
from collecting the rents of the Property as of the Effective Date; and that all tenants of the Property
13
and other persons liable for the rents be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained from paying any
14
rent for the Property to CSV, or its managing agent, its officers, directors, employees, agents, or
15
attomeys.
16
6.
17
possession ofthe Property, CSV is restrained and enjoined until further order of this Court from
18
disposing of silch rents, issues, profits, and revenues of the Property in any manner, other than by
19
turning over such rents, issues, profits, and revenues to Receiver until further order of this Court;
20
7.
21
Plaintiff, for services performed as receiver for the Property pursuant to invoices
22
Plaintiff describing in detail the services perfonned and the hours worked, to be paid as a priority
23
from the rents and revenues of the Property, or otherwise paid by Lender; provided, however, in no
24
event shall Receiver's hourly fee exceed$ 250.00 per hour and $150 per hour for Receiver's support
25
staff;
26
8.
27
the following:
If CSV should receive any rents or revenues from the Property, on or after Receiver takes
Receiver shall be paid fees calculated on an hourly basis, at rates previously provided to
Submitted to
Receiver shall be authorized and empowered to, and when required by this Order must, do
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER EX PAR'IE AND TRO

#80494Yl Hf
CERF SPVI, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.

Exhibit E
64
i-."!t'Gftke'opertjroh
\_}
::
, iBffe'{F:ll\W,;;-Ifo. ---
The power to possess,
manage and operate the Property shall include the power to assume or reject executory contracts,
including leases. Except as stated in Paragraph 18 ofthis Order. the power to possess, manage, and
operate shall also include the right to exclude from the Property anyone, including CSV and any
persons claiming under or through CSV, who are not in possession ofthe Property under valid lease
1O
or rental agreements or acting pursuant to an order or authority granted by the Department of Toxic
11
Substances Control ("DTSC'') or other government agency.
12
operations or management of any busess operated wi1hin the Property, nor, is Recei ver required to
13
assure that
14
within the Property conform to Califomia state law.
any required licenses and per.mi.ta applicable to any business currently conducted at or
(b)
15
Receiver shall not be responsible for the
Rents and profits: Receiver shall have the right and power to take possession
16
and control ofany rents, profits, or income whatsoever generated by the Property ("Rents") after the
17
Effective Date, including any pre-paid Rents and profits, Rents and profits due and owing, and any
18
Rents and profits which become due and owing thereafter on the Effective Date, whether held by
19
CSV, its property managers, tenants, or any other third party. Receiver shall deposit all funds
20
received in an FDIC insured deposit account ("Receivership Account,,). Receiver may receive and
21
endorse checks constituting income from the Property.

(c)
22
Management of the Property's Revenues: Receiver shall man.age the daily
23
operations ofthe Property and collect and hold all Rents, profits and other revenues generated by the
24
use and occupancy ofthe Property in the Receivership Account for which the authorized signatory
25
shall be Receiver and, at Receiver's option, designated agents ofReceiver. Receiver shall pay the
26
noimal, ordinary, and necessary operating expenses ofthe Property from the rents and other
27
revenues collected from the Property, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph numb ered 8G)
28
below; otherwise, such costs shall be paid by Plaintiff following Receiver's delivery to Plaintiff of
#804!>4 vl 1sf
4
[PROPOSED] ORDBR. APPOINTING RECEIVER EX PAR.TB ANDTRO
CERF SPYJ, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture 1, LLC.
Exhibit E
65
invoices describing such expenses in detail. All Rents, profits and revenue generated by the use and
occupancy ofthe Property shall be applied first to the payment of Operating Expenses.
Expenses shall include, without limitation, insurance, maintenance and repairs, utilities, payroll,
administration, refunds of security deposits, real property taxes, and assessments. Operating
Expenses shall not include, and Receiver shall not pay without further order of this Court or
Plaintiff's written consent: (i) any alle ged obligations owed to CSV, its agents, assigns, or to any
entity, person, partnership or cotporation owned, in whole or in part, by, related to, or otherwise
affiliated with CSV, or (ii) any obligations or payments owed, or claimed to be owed, to any junior
lien holder. All Rents, profits and revenue generated by the use and occupancy of the Property shall
10
then be applied to other fees, costs or expenses associated with the Property, as permitted by the
11
tenns of this Order.

(d)
12
Operating
Protection of the Prqpert;y and Insurance: Receiver shall have the power to,
13
and is ordered to, protect the Receivership Estate. "Receivership Estate" shall mean the Property,
14
Rents and profits, and other income derived from the Property and assets from any destruction, or
15
waste.
16
there ls sufficient insurance coverage to protect Plaintiff's security interest in the Property. If
17
necessary,
18
provided that the Receivership Estate's funds and required insurance
19
maintain existing insurance policies (except the PLL Insurance Policy referenced in Paragraph 17(b)
20
below) and pay any premiums due from available funds of the Receivership Estate. Receiver shall
21
not be persomtlly liable for any insurance claims arising before or after the appointment of a receiver
22
and procuremcmt of sufficient insurance. If insurance is not currently in place and cannot be
23
obtained by Receiver, the Court shall be notified within 30 days from the
Receiver shall determine upon taking possession ofthe Receivership Estate whether or not
Receiver shall attempt to procure sufficient insurance coverage as soon as practicable,
available.
Receiver may
date of this Order.
:iiiillia:eampell$ate
(e)
24
are
;Jl-l!i<:-Mt,
25
26
- ,;4;),
27
28
s
t/80494 vl saf
[PROPOSED] ORDBRAPPOINTIN"G RBCBIVBREX PARTE AND TRO

CERF SPVI, LLC. vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture!, LLC.
Exhibit E
66
shall file in this action a detailed inventory of all property
undertaking and Oa1h are filed, Receiver
of the Receivership Estate. Receiver shall also file a supplemental inventory thereof; if necessary.
Periodic Accounting: Receiver shall provide periodic statements of account
(g)
4
that include a
summary
of the ootivities of Receiver and any property manager, a schedule of
receipts and disbursements, a summary of Receiver and its professional's interim fees and expenses,
.6
and other such information as the Court may direct. Receiver sba11 file said accounting with. the
Court and shall serve upon Plaintiff's counsel and CSV' s counsel a copy of said accounting.
Receiver shall file a final report within 3 0 days after the termination of the receivership.
(b.)
. 1 o
Authorized Disbursements and Actions. Receiver shall be authorized, in the
exercise of Receiver's business judgment, to do, without limitation, the following:
11
(i)
12
Collect past due Rents and profits from tenants or former tenants of the
Property, and collect Rents and profits while this Order is in effect;
13
(ii)
Lease or r&-lease the Property or any portion of it on terms acceptable
16
(iii)
Evict tenants;
17
(iv)
As set forth in paragraph 8(c) above, pay Operating Expenses related
(v)
Incm and pay such other expenses as are reasonably necessary for
14
to P1aintiff;
15
to the Property.
18
19
Receiver to perform his duties;
20
Receiver's Initial Accounting: Within 30 days after the date Receiver's
(f)
21
(vi)
Retain, in Receiver's discretion, a working capital fund in an amount
22
sufficient for payment of Receivership expenses;
23
(vii)
Investigate and evaluate the financial condition and history of the
24
Property in order to determine their value and expenses, provided that such investigation does not
25
substantially increase the costs of the receivership over the compensation provided to Receiver
26
herein without Plaintiff's consent or further order of this Comt;
(viii)
27
28
Investigate and evaluate the Property for the presence of any readily
apparent dangerous conditions, hazardous waste, substances or chemicals that is not the subject of
6
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING R,BCBIVBREXPARTE AND TRO
CERFSP"YI, UC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture[, UC.
#80494 vl saf
Contra Costa Superior Case No. Cl2M00284
Exhibit E
67

"'
.
.. ,
'
20, 2011 Revised Draft Feasibility Stady and Remedial Action Plan for Lots 1,2, and 3,
the JUly
Campus Bay, Richmond, California ("Draft FSRAP'') or any revision or
(ix)
Subjeotto the terms of this Order,
amendment to same;
pay any necessary maintenance
required for health and safety reasons, property management fees, including :reimbursement for costs
on a monthly basis from the assets now held, or which may be received by, t1re Receivership Estate,
subject to.the final review of this Court;
(x)
Upon request of Pl Receiver shall tum over to Plaintiff, to be

lease proceeds net of (i) Receiver fees and expenses, (ii)
applied toward the indebtedness, any
Operating Expenses, and (iii) Receiver's working capital fund;

(xi)
10
Upon Plaintiff's consent, provide for the payment of all
capital
11
improvements to the Property required to bring the Property to good condition and allow the lease of
12
the Property or any portion of the Property. ReCeiver shall first make any emergency capital
13
improvements or repairs which are necessary, in Receiver's business judgment, to protect persons
14
and the Property from serious bodily harm or damage. Receiver shall promptly notify Plaintiff and
1S
CSV of the need, if any, for any emergency capital improvements;
16
17
(xii)
Contest or protest taxes or assessments with respect to the Property;
{)
Use any federal taxpayer identification numbers relating to the
and,
18
19
Property for any lawful purpose.
20
(i)
General Receivership Powers. In addition to all of the powers set forth above,
hereby vested with all of the
21
and subject to any limitations contained in this Order, Receiver is
22
general powers of receivers in cases of this kind, subject to the direction of this Court.
(j)
23
24
Limitations on Receiver's Authority: Except as provided for above, the
Receiver shall not, absent the consent of Plaintiffor further order of this Court:
25
(i)
Obtain loans, secured or unsecured, on behalf of the Receivership
26
Estate o r encumber the Receivership Estate. Notwithstanding this restriction
27
particularly set forth in paragraph 13 below, Receiver may request loans from Plaintiff at Plaintiff's
28
option and/or election to make any of the repairs and perform any maintenance determined by
on
loans, and as more
#80494 vl saf
[PROPOSBDJ ORDER APPOINTING RBCBIVBR.BX PARTE AND TRO

CERF SPT'l, LLC vs. Cheroke.e Stmeon Venture I, LLC.
Contra Costa Superior case No. Cl200284
Exhibit E
68
Receiver in his business judgment to be necessary to keep the Property in good condition, and any
emergency capital improvements or repairs as allowed above. Any and all loans Receiver obtains
from Pl pursuant to this paragraph, shall be: (i) deemed obligatory advances on the
indebtedness; (ii) added to the balance due; and (iii) secured by the operative Deed of Trust.
(ii)
5
6
Court, execute any documents that (i) result in a subdivision of the Property, or (ii) that result in a lot
line adjus1m.ent of any portion of the Property;
(iii)
8
9
Without the written consent of CSV and Plaintiff, or order of this
Without the written consent of CSV and Plaintiff, or order of this
Court, sell any portion of the Property.

Receiver shall have no responsibility for filing future federal and state income tax retums
1O
9.
11
(''Tax Retum'') or for dissolution of CSV. The responsibility for such filings lie exclusively with
12
csv.
13
10.
14
Estate upon ten (10) days notice to the parties. If no written specific objection is provided to
15
Receiver on all fees and expenses submitted; Receiver may pay its invoice and professional fees and
16
expenses owed from available Receivership Estate funds.
17
day period, Receiver must respond within a reasonable time to the parties with an acceptable
18
explanation. If an agreement cannot be reached, a noticed motion on shortened time will be filed
19
with the Court for approval of the fees and expenses in dispute.
20
11.
21
Receiver has no control, shall be obligations of CSV and may not be refunded by Receiver without
22
an
23
have paid or may pay to Receiver, if otherwise refundable under the terms of their leases or
24
agreements with Receiver1 shall be refundable by Receiver in accordance with the leases or
25
agreements.
26
12.
27
Receiver's fees and expenses will be paid monthly from available funds of the Receivership
If an
objection is received within the ten
Any security or other deposits which tenants have paid to CSV, or its agents, over which
order of this Court or approval of Plaintiff. Any other security or other deposits which tenants
.1.:: .:,,,,,,:,-:.,., ,,_.-'..
'.
miime!fi!:p]ftiontotbisealtti
f0f'OM.ets"'llel.Vtfff0'1f:
28
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER EX PARTBANDTRO

#804'4 vl aaf
CERF SPVJ, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, UC.

Exhibit E
69
'0
Receiver is authorized to borrow from Plaintiff such funds as are necessary to perform bis
13.
duties as set forth in tbis Order. No obligation on the part of Plaintiffto advance or loan funds to the
Receiver shall arise prior to the Receiver's preparation of a budget for management and operation of
4.
the Property, and the approval of said budget by Plaintiff. In any event, Plaintiff shall have no
obligation to advance or loan funds to the Receivership Estate except in its sole and absolute
discretion. In consideration for any such advance or loan, Receiver is authorized to and sh.all issue
to Plaintiff certificates of indebtedness ("Receiver's Certificates"), as evidence of receivership
indebtedness for any such advances made by Plaintiff pursuant to this Order. All Receiver's
Certificates shall be executed and delivered to Plaintiff by Receiver as a condition to funding, and
10
shall be numbered in sequential order for redemption purposes. All indebtedness represented by a
11
Receiver's Certi.fi.cate(s) shall be and constitute a lien and charge upon all assets of the Receivership
12
Estate, and with. respect to such assets and estate.
13
14.
14
Receiver is transferred by reason of a judicial foreclosure sale or nonjudicial trustee's sale conducted
15
pursuant to the tenns of the Deed of Trust sued upon in this action, Receiver shall immediately "turn
16
over possession and control of the applicable property, together with the Books and Records, and all
17
personal property associated therewith to the new owner upon presentation to Receiver of a certified
18
copy of the deed evidencing such transfer, or upon Order of this Court made upon an ex parte
19
application, which may be presented without Receiver's or counsel's personal appearance.
20
15.
21
aotions described in paragraph 18.
In the event that the title to a specific prQPerty and the personal property hereby entrusted to
Plaintiff and Receiver shall cooperate with CSV and Zen.eca, Inc., to effectuate the remedial
22
PRELIMlNARY INJUNCTION
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CSV, along with any of its trustees, property managers,
23
16.
24
co-trustees, partners, employees, agents,' representatives, contractors and any other person or entity
25
under their control \'Related Parties") are hereby enjoined and restrained from:
26
(a)
Committing or permitting waste of the Property;
27
(b)
Removing. transferring or otherwise disposing of the Property or any of its
28
:fixtures
and/or incorporated materials;

9
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RBCBIVBR BX PAR.TB AND TRO

i#80494vl sat'
CERF SPY.I, LLC w. Cherokee Stmeon Venture I, LLC.

Contta Costa Superior Case No. Cl2-00284
Exhibit E
70

i:
.''
(c)
Demandmg, collectin& diverting or receiving any Rents of the Property;
(d)
Transferring, moving, selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any of the
personal property and/or improvements located in or around the Property; and,
In any way interfering with the discharge of the Receiver's duties.
(e)
In addition, CSV and Related Parties shall be obligated to do, and shall be restrained from
17.
doing, the following:

Turnover of Books. and Records: Prior to the Effective Date, CSV shall tum
(f)
7
8
over complete copies of the Books and Records,
originals of the Books and Records to Receiver if so requested by the Receiver. CSV shall assist
as
defined herein, to Receiver. CSV shall deliver
10
Receiver in obtaining complete copies of the same in the event the Books and Records are held by
11
persons or entities other than CSV. CSV shall promptly, upon request by Receiver, furnish to
12
Receiver copies of such other financial infonnation or backup documentation relating to those Books
13
and Records.
(g)
14
Turnover of Insurance Information: CSV shall promptly provide Receiver
15
with the property insurance policies and policy information for the Property. CSV shall make
16
certain that Receiver is named as an additional insured on all applicable policies for the period that
17
Receiver shall be in possession of the Property, except for the Pollution Legal Liability Select Clean-
18
Up Cost Cap Insurance, Policy No. 195 8035 ("PLL Policy") issued by American Intematlonal
19
Specialty Lines Insurance Company, on which the Receiver shall not be named as an additional
20
insured ..
21
18.
22
selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any of the personal property, fixtures and/or improvements
23
located in and around the properties. In addition, CSV and Related Parties are enjoined and
24
restrained from creating any dangerous conditions on the Property and from interfering with the
25
necessary activities of Receiver.
CSV and Related Parties shall be enjoined and restrained from transfening, appropriating,
26
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CSV and/or Zeneca, Inc., shall have the right upon
27
reasonable written notice to Receiver and Plaintiff, to enter upon the Property to ex.amine, test and
28
inspect the environmental condition of the Property and to perform any and all acts related to the
10
[PROPOSED] 0'.IIDBR. APPOINTING RECBIVBR.EXPARTEAND TRO

#180494 vi sat
CERF SP"Pl, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.

Contra Costa Superior Case No. Cl2..00284
Exhibit E
71

t
Environmental Indemnity Agreement executed by CSV in favor of CERF, dated September 6, 2007
(''BIA"), related to any agreement or mandate from any governmental entity or official, including but
not limited to, implementing any remedies set forth in a Final Remedial Action Plan for Lots 1,2 and
3, Campus Bay, Richmond, California" ("FSRAP"), or related to other remediation activities
approved by or required by any governmental official or entity. As between CSV and the Plaint:ttI:
all terms and provisions contained in the EIA shall remain in place, including CSV's responsibility
for any damages to the Property as a result any investigatio testing or remedial WQrk it performs on
the Property.
In the
event CSV is unable to provide Receiver with evidence of insurance required by this
10
Order, Receiver,, in its sole discretio may, as set forth in paragraph 8(d) above, elect to acquire the
11
insurance and
allow investigation and/or remediation to occur.
12
19.
CSV and Related Parties shall be restrained and enjoined from transferring or
13
assigning, or encumbering atiy interest in the Property without further order of this Court. In
14
addition, CSV and Related Parties shall be restrained and enjoined from committing or pennitting
15
any waste on the Property or any part thereof: or suffedng or committing or permitting any act on
16
the Property or any part thereof in violation of law or removing or transferring or otherwise
17
disposing of any of the equipmeJrt or fixtures presently on the Receivership Estate or any part
18
thereof; until :further Otder of this Court.
19
20.
20
Procedure section 529.
Plaintiff is not required to file a preUminary injunction bond specified in California Civil
PROVISIONS UPON FORECLOSURE OR TERMINATION OF RECEIVERSHIP
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
22
In the event that any or all of the Property is sold in a non-judicial or judicial foreclosure
23
21.
24
proceeding, and the receivership remains in effect. funds previously paid to and held by Receiver
25
.shall continue to be held by Receiver until Receivers final account and report (the "Final Report") is
26
approved by the Court. After Court approval of the Final Report and payment of all Court approved
27
Receivership Estate expenses, Plaintiff shall receive net proceeds in accordance with the operative
28
loan documents attached to and referenced in the Verified Complaint in this matter.
11
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER EX PARTE AND TR.O

#80494 vl saf
CERF SPY!, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.

Contra Costa Superior Cue No. Cl2-00284
Exhibit E
72

;;
,.
.
.1
22.
In the event that the obligations owing to Plamtiff m:e not fully satisfied by the proceeds of
such sale, or in the event that this action is dismissed or the receivership is terminated for any reason
whatsoever. Receiver, upon Court approval ofR.eceiver's Final Report and payment of all Receivership
Estate expenses, shall be authorized to release, within two (2) business days ofReceiver's receipt of a
'Written request by Plaintiff, all net funds under Receiver's control to Plaintiff to be applied toward any
obligations CSV may owe pursuant to the loan documents set forth in tb.e Complaint. In the event that
this receivership is terminated and.no foreclosure sale of the Properties has occurred or the loan has
been fully satisfied by the proceeds of a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure sale of the Property or
otherwise, all funds under Receiver's control shall be disbursed pursuant to the Court's instructions
10
upon termination of the receivership.
11
23.
12
documents and any obligations incurre d by or to Receiver, Plaintiff and Receiver shall cooperate to
13
promptly prepare and obtain Court approval of a Final Report and an order discharging Receiver and
14
exonerating its bond.
15
24.
16
foreclosure sale, whether judicial or non-judicial, relating to the Note or Deed of Trust and all debt
17
under the Note is fully paid; (ii) Plaintiff consents to the termination of the Receivership; and (ill)
18
the Court issues an order approving the Receiver's Final Report, discharging the Receiver and
19
exonerating its bond, thereby, terminating the Receivership.
Promptly upon the satisfaction of the entire indebtedness to Plaintiff pursuant to the loan
Receiver shall remain an agent of this Court until: (i) the Property and all security is sold at a
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
JUDITH A. SANDERS
DATED:
JUL 1 2 201Z
Judge of the Superior Court
24
'fro T@
25
26
27
28
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RBCEIVBRBXPARTE AND TR.O

1#80494 vl aaf
CERF SPT'I, LLC vs. Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC.

Exhibit E
73
EXHIBIT F
74
Exhibit F
75
Exhibit F
76
Exhibit F
77
Exhibit F
78
Exhibit F
79
Exhibit F
80
Exhibit F
81
EXHIBIT G
82
Exhibit G
83
Exhibit G
84
Exhibit G
85
Exhibit G
86
Exhibit G
87
Exhibit G
88
Exhibit G
89
Exhibit G
90
Exhibit G
91
EXHIBIT H
92
Exhibit H
93
Exhibit H
94
Exhibit H
95
Exhibit H
96
Exhibit H
97
Exhibit H
98
Exhibit H
99
Exhibit H
100
Exhibit H
101
Exhibit H
102
Exhibit H
103
Exhibit H
104
Exhibit H
105
Exhibit H
106
EXHIBIT I
107
Exhibit I
108
Exhibit I
109
Exhibit I
110
Exhibit I
111
Exhibit I
112
Exhibit I
113
Exhibit I
114
EXHIBIT J
115
Exhibit J
116
EXHIBIT K
117
Exhibit K
118
Exhibit K
119
Exhibit K
120
Exhibit K
121
Exhibit K
122
Exhibit K
123
Exhibit K
124
Exhibit K
125
Exhibit K
126
EXHIBIT L
127
Exhibit L
128
EXHIBIT M
129
Exhibit M
130
Exhibit M
131
Exhibit M
132
Exhibit M
133
Exhibit M
134
Exhibit M
135
Exhibit M
136
Exhibit M
137
Exhibit M
138
Exhibit M
139
Exhibit M
140
Exhibit M
141
Exhibit M
142
EXHIBIT N
143
Exhibit N
144
Exhibit N
145
Exhibit N
146
Exhibit N
147
Exhibit N
148
EXHIBIT O
149
Exhibit O
150
Exhibit O
151
Exhibit O
152
Exhibit O
153
Exhibit O
154
Exhibit O
155
Exhibit O
156
Exhibit O
157
Exhibit O
158
Exhibit O
159
Exhibit O
160
Exhibit O
161
Exhibit O
162
EXHIBIT P
163
Exhibit P
164
Exhibit P
165
Exhibit P
166
Exhibit P
167
Exhibit P
168
Exhibit P
169
Exhibit P
170
EXHIBIT Q
171
Exhibit Q
172
Exhibit Q
173
Exhibit Q
174
Exhibit Q
175
Exhibit Q
176
Exhibit Q
177
Exhibit Q
178
Exhibit Q
179
Exhibit Q
180
Exhibit Q
181
Exhibit Q
182
EXHIBIT R
183
Exhibit R
184
Exhibit R
185
Exhibit R
186
EXHIBIT S
187
Exhibit S
188
Exhibit S
189
Exhibit S
190
Exhibit S
191
Exhibit S
192
Exhibit S
193
Exhibit S
194
EXHIBIT T
195
Exhibit T
196
Exhibit T
197
Exhibit T
198
Exhibit T
199
Exhibit T
200
Exhibit T
201
Exhibit T
202
Exhibit T
203
Exhibit T
204
Exhibit T
205
Exhibit T
206
Exhibit T
207
EXHIBIT U
208
Exhibit U
209
Exhibit U
210
Exhibit U
211
Exhibit U
212
Exhibit U
213
Exhibit U
214
Exhibit U
215
Exhibit U
216
Exhibit U
217
Exhibit U
218
Exhibit U
219
Exhibit U
220
Exhibit U
221
Exhibit U
222
Exhibit U
223
Exhibit U
224
Exhibit U
225
Exhibit U
226
Exhibit U
227
Exhibit U
228
Exhibit U
229
Exhibit U
230
Exhibit U
231
Exhibit U
232
Exhibit U
233
Exhibit U
234
Exhibit U
235
Exhibit U
236
Exhibit U
237
Exhibit U
238
Exhibit U
239
Exhibit U
240
EXHIBIT V
241
Exhibit V
242
Exhibit V
243
Exhibit V
244
Exhibit V
245
Exhibit V
246
Exhibit V
247
Exhibit V
248
Exhibit V
249
EXHIBIT W
250
Exhibit W
251
Exhibit W
252
Exhibit W
253
Exhibit W
254
Exhibit W
255
Exhibit W
256
Exhibit W
257
EXHIBIT X
258
Exhibit X
259
Exhibit X
260
Exhibit X
261
Exhibit X
262
Exhibit X
263
Exhibit X
264
Exhibit X
265
Exhibit X
266
Exhibit X
267
Exhibit X
268
Exhibit X
269
Exhibit X
270
Exhibit X
271
Exhibit X
272
EXHIBIT Y
273
Exhibit Y
274
Exhibit Y
275
Exhibit Y
276
Exhibit Y
277
Exhibit Y
278
Exhibit Y
279
Exhibit Y
280
Exhibit Y
281
EXHIBIT Z
282
Exhibit Z
283
Exhibit Z
284
Exhibit Z
285
Exhibit Z
286
Exhibit Z
287
Exhibit Z
288
Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3-1 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 153 Page ID #:345
EXHIBIT AA
289
Exhibit AA
290
Exhibit AA
291
EXHIBIT BB
292
Exhibit BB
293
Exhibit BB
294
EXHIBIT CC
295
Exhibit CC
296
Exhibit CC
297
EXHIBIT DD
298
Exhibit DD
299
Exhibit DD
300
Exhibit DD
301
Exhibit DD
302
Exhibit DD
303
Exhibit DD
304
Exhibit DD
305
Exhibit DD
306
Exhibit DD
307
Exhibit DD
308
Exhibit DD
309
EXHIBIT EE
310
Exhibit EE
311
Exhibit EE
312
Exhibit EE
313
Exhibit EE
314
Exhibit EE
315
Exhibit EE
316
Exhibit EE
317
Exhibit EE
318
Exhibit EE
319
Exhibit EE
320
Exhibit EE
321
Exhibit EE
322
Exhibit EE
323
Exhibit EE
324
Exhibit EE
325
Exhibit EE
326
Exhibit EE
327
Exhibit EE
328
Exhibit EE
329
Exhibit EE
330
Exhibit EE
331
Exhibit EE
332
Exhibit EE
333
EXHIBIT FF
334
Exhibit FF
335
Exhibit FF
336
Exhibit FF
337
EXHIBIT GG
338
Exhibit GG
339
Exhibit GG
340
EXHIBIT HH
341
Exhibit HH
342
Exhibit HH
343
Exhibit HH
344
Exhibit HH
345
EXHIBIT II
346
Exhibit II
347
Exhibit II
348
Exhibit II
349
Exhibit II
350
Exhibit II
351
Exhibit II
352
Exhibit II
353
Exhibit II
354
Exhibit II
355
EXHIBIT JJ
356
Exhibit JJ
357
Exhibit JJ
358
Exhibit JJ
359
Exhibit JJ
360
Exhibit JJ
361
Exhibit JJ
362
Exhibit JJ
363
Exhibit JJ
364
Exhibit JJ
365
EXHIBIT KK
366
Exhibit KK
367
Exhibit KK
368
Exhibit KK
369
Exhibit KK
370
Exhibit KK
371
Exhibit KK
372
Exhibit KK
373
Exhibit KK
374
Exhibit KK
375
EXHIBIT LL
376
Exhibit LL
377
Exhibit LL
378
Exhibit LL
379
Exhibit LL
380
EXHIBIT MM
381
Exhibit MM
382
Exhibit MM
383
Exhibit MM
384
Exhibit MM
385
Exhibit MM
386
Exhibit MM
387
EXHIBIT NN
388
Exhibit NN
389
Exhibit NN
390
Exhibit NN
391
Exhibit NN
392
EXHIBIT OO
393
Exhibit OO
394
Exhibit OO
395
Exhibit OO
396
Exhibit OO
397
Exhibit OO
398
Exhibit OO
399
Exhibit OO
400
Exhibit OO
401
Exhibit OO
402
EXHIBIT PP
403
Exhibit PP
404
Exhibit PP
405
Exhibit PP
406
Exhibit PP
407
EXHIBIT QQ
408
Exhibit QQ
409
Exhibit QQ
410
Exhibit QQ
411
Exhibit QQ
412
Exhibit QQ
413
Exhibit QQ
414
Exhibit QQ
415
Exhibit QQ
416
Exhibit QQ
417
EXHIBIT RR
418
Exhibit RR
419
Exhibit RR
420
Exhibit RR
421
Exhibit RR
422
Exhibit RR
423
Exhibit RR
424
Exhibit RR
425
Exhibit RR
426
Exhibit RR
427
Exhibit RR
428
EXHIBIT SS
429
Exhibit SS
430
Exhibit SS
431
Exhibit SS
432
Exhibit SS
433
Exhibit SS
434
Exhibit SS
435
Exhibit SS
436
Exhibit SS
437
Exhibit SS
438
Exhibit SS
439
Exhibit SS
440
Exhibit SS
441

Request for Judicial Notice - Archibald Cunningham v Kevin Singer Et Al - Class Action US District Court Central District of California - Receivership Specialists - Unauthorized Practice of Law Based Violations of Civil Rights with Monell-Related Claims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Request for Judicial Notice - Archibald Cunningham v Kevin Singer Et Al - Class Action US District Court Central District of California - Receivership Specialists - Unauthorized Practice of Law Based Violations of Civil Rights with Monell-Related Claims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 288 Page ID #:57

Patricia Barry, Esq. (SBN 59116)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 288 Page ID #:58

SACRAMENT, District Attorney DON

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 288 Page ID #:59

capacity; PRESIDING JUSTICE ANTHONY

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 288 Page ID #:60

Mark J. Geragos Complaint

Contempt of Court Hearing Against John

Memo of Points and Authorities In Support

Commission on Judicial Performance

Motion for Order for Receiver to Obtain

Declaration of Satwant Singh In Opposition

Receivers Declaration and Response to Amend

Kevin Singers Stipulation Amongst the Parties

Kevin Singers Stipulation and Order

Judge Carvills Order Granting Motion to

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 288 Page ID #:61

Defendants Memo of Points and Authorities

Judge Delbert Dees Order Granting Receiver

Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application for Order

Judge Delbert Dees Order Granting Ex

Order Appointing Receiver

Order Appointing Receiver

Judge Quidachay Signing Off on Kevin

Declaration of Satwant Singh In Support of

Kevin Singers Notice of Order

Judge Solker Signing Off on Kevin Singers

Declaration of Mr. Singer in Support of

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 6 of 288 Page ID #:62

(Santa Clara County Court; 112-cv-237304)

Kevin Singers Stipulation RE: Distribution

Kevin Singers Notice of Order

Judge OBriens Order Granting

Kevin Singers Stipulation RE:

Kevin Singers Order for Retaining

Kevin Singers Pleading, Ex Parte

Kevin Singers Pleading, Ex Parte

Kevin Singers Pleading, Ex Parte

Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application to

Kevin Singers Ex Parte Application

Kevin Singers Notice of Order

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 7 of 288 Page ID #:63

Judge David B. Finn Signing Off

Judge Lynn OMalley Taylors Denial

Singers Ex Parte to Sell Property

Judge James. A. Robertson Signing Off

Judge Robertson Signing Off on Kevin

Objections to Approval of Sale

Opposition to Motion to Vacate Mr. Singers

Judge Quidachays Order Denying Claim of

Opposition to Motion for Appointment

Declaration of William Cheek in

Receivers Declaration and Response

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 8 of 288 Page ID #:64

As Receiver (Sup. Ct. Contra Costa, No.

Revised Notice of Continuance of

Stipulation Between Kevin Singer

Kevin Singers Ex Parte Order to

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 9 of 288 Page ID #:65

Case 2:14-cv-09104-GW-JC Document 3 Filed 11/25/14 Page 10 of 288 Page ID #:66

GERAGOS & GERAGOS