Richard Annen Lawyer Lawsuit For Client Fraud

Ci
Julie K. Parker, Esq., State Bar No. 153013

Cassandra C. Thorson, Esq., State Bar No. 112597
2 PARKER I THORSON
9340 Fuerte Drive, Ste. 300B
3 La Mesa, CA 91941
Telephone: (619) 698-9785
4 Facsimile: (619) 698-9786
Email: JulieParkerLawaol.com
5
F ". 7.0
I31:3!IILL'S OFFICE 21
CENITIAL DIVISION
2015 APR I
PM 3: 37 I
CLERK - SUPERIOR COURT

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY & ANDRE HARDY

7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
11
12
13
JOANN HARDY and

ANDRE HARDY
14
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
18
Case No.: 37-2014-00038084CU-PN-CTL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES:
VS.
RICHARD I ANNEN, ESQ.,

MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ.,
SPARBER, ANNEN, MORRIS &
GABRIEL, APLC;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
1. PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE
2. BREACH OF CONTRACT
3. HED
4. FRAUD
S. CONVERSION
6. SLANDER OF TITLE
7. NEGLIGENT HIRING
TRAINING & SUPERVISION
21
22 Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY & ANDRE HARDY allege against Defendants, and all of them,
23 as follows:
24
AwiEgA.m[oNs
GENERAL
.
25
26
27
1.
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, is and was an individual residing in the City of San
Diego, County of San Diego, State of California.
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et al.
1 2.
Plaintiff, ANDRE HARDY, is and was an individual residing in the City of San
Diego, County of San Diego, State of California.
3 3.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., is, and at all times herein mentioned was, engaged
in the licensed practice of law and practicing law in the County of San Diego, State
6
7 4.
of California.
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., is, and at all times herein mentioned was, engaged
in the licensed practice of law and practicing law in the County of San Diego, State
10
of California.
11
12
SPARSER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GABRIEL, APLC,[hereinatler referred to as
13
SPARBER, ANNEN], is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a professional law
14
corporation, whose principle place of business is in the County of San Diego, State
15
of California.
16
Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names or capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1
17
through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names.
18
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities when the
same has been ascertained.
19
Each Defendant designated as a DOE was negligent or in some other manner
20
responsible for the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged in this
21
complaint.
22
23
8.
24
25
26 %
At all times relevant to this action, each of the Defendants was the alter ego, partner,
agent, servant, or employee and under the control of each of the remaining
Defendants, and as such, was acting within the purpose, course and scope of the
employment, agency, authority and control.
27 \\\
28 \\\
2.
II
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Professional Negligence Against All Defendants
2
3
4 9.
Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of this Complaint, by reference, as
though fully set forth herein.
10.
of San Diego, State of California.
7
8
The tortious acts complained of in this Complaint all occurred within the County
11.
Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
9
10
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, were attorneys at law,
11
licensed in California, and each of them owed a duty to Plaintiffs to act reasonably,
12
with the appropriate standard of care as attorneys undertaking such representation
13
are expected to do.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY, consulted with defendants and
each of them, for the purpose of legal advice concerning the need to defend against a
spurious law suit arising from their recent purchase of a home. Commencing in or
about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action, Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER,
ANNEN, and each of them, undertook to do all things necessary and proper to
discharge their responsibility to Plaintiffs as their attorneys and agreed to undertake
responsibility to provide proper legal guidance regarding the methodology for
obtaining a proper and affordable legal defense.
13. Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently failed to act
reasonably and within the appropriate standard of care and thereby breached their
duty to Plaintiffs by performing numerous negligent acts, in that, among other things,
3.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et el.

2
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently advised
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY that they would represent them,
for a fee, pursuant to their retainer agreement, when they knew, that the claim for
which Plaintiffs were seeking legal assistance involved their newly purchased home
and such claim was covered by their homeowners policy.
7 14. Commencing in or about September 2004, and at all times relevant to this action,
8
SPARBER, ANNEN knew, from even a cursory review of the complaint that
10
Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY had been named as Defendants in
11
a lawsuit related to personal property left by the prior owner at the home Plaintiffs
12
had just purchased. Any reasonably knowledgeable attorney would know, or should
13
know, that said claim would be covered by their homeowners policy. Agreeing to
14
represent Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY. in such a circumstance,
15
was negligent as the homeowners policy would never cover this firm's charges.
16
Further, Defendants had a duty to investigate whether Plaintiffs' homeowners
17
insurance policy was available to pay for her defense. Defendants breached this duty
18
when they ignored the existence of the policy. Hence there was no reason for
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiffs to retain Defendants for any purpose. Since the claim would have been
covered by JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowner's policy,
SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently failed to
advise Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY to contact their
homeowners policy for free legal representation, but instead entered into a wrongful
retainer agreement to represent her for a fee they had no right to receive. Defendants,
and each of them, billed over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for legal
fees which were wrongfully incurred. Defendants have wrongfully collected over
28
4,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, eta).
two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000.000) of this exorbitant bill.'
2 15. Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY are laypersons, unfamiliar with
3
the law and were permissibly ignorant of the fact of damage or actual harm giving
rise to a cause of action for negligence against Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN,
ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, until Defendants
sued JOANN HARDY for collection on the remaining claimed forty-one thousand,
five hundred ninety-two dollars and forty-four cents ($41,592.44) of outstanding
balance from their wrongful billing on November 27, 2013. Upon being sued,
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY sought legal advice and learned, for the first time, that
10
Defendants had no business representing her in the first place, as her homeowners
11
insurance would have provided her free legal representation. Hence, any and all
12
billing by Defendants was wrongful. Plaintiff, ANDRE HARDY first learned on
13
Defendants' wrongdoing after JOANN HARDY filed her initial complaint filed
herein.
14
15 16. Upon learning of above wrongdoing, Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, reported
16
Defendants to the State Bar of California, which entity is seperately pursuing and
17
independent action against Defendant, ANNEN. Upon action by the State Bar of
18
California against Defendants, Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,
19
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, immediately dismissed
their wrongful collection action against Plaintiff JOANN HARDY.

20
21 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, RICHARD J.
22
23
24
25
ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each
of the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained severe and personal injuries
and have suffered and will continue to suffer great physical pain and injuries, all to
their non-economic or general damages.
26
27
'The Plaintiff in the underlying action was a misguided 92 year old man who brought suit
on very specious ground resulting in a settlement payment to HARDY to settle her emotional
28 distress and abuse of process claims.
5.
18.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, RICHARD J.
ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each
of the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur legal
and related expenses, all to their economic or special damages.
19.
The damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the negligence and conduct of the
Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial, exceed the
jurisdictional requirements of Superior Court.
Ill
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract Against All Defendants
10
11
20.
12
13
21.
As previously alleged, on or about September 2004, Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY,
14
and ANDRE HARDY retained Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,
15
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GABRIEL,
16
and each of the remaining defendants, to represent them in advising, instructing,
17
filing, and defending a claim in which Plaintiffs had been named in a lawsuit related
18
to personal property left by the prior owner at the home JOANN HARDY and
19
ANDRE HARDY had just purchased.
20
21
22
23
22.
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and

SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, did breach said contract
by, among other things:
a).
Failing to advise them that their homeowners policy would provide them free
legal representations;
b).
Failing to tender the claim to Plaintiffs ' homeowners insurance for legal
24
25
26
27
28
representations;
c).
Wrongfully billing them for legal fees, when no legal fees should have been
incurred by Plaintiffs;
6.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY V. ANNEN, et al.
d).
2
3
covered by their homeowners insurance;

e).
Charging the Plaintiffs an improper fee and bogus expenses after improperly
inducing them to hire Defendants.
4
5
Failing to advise Plaintiffs that they were incurring fees which would be
f).
Filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, on November 27, 2013,
for collection on the remaining forty-one thousand, five hundred ninety-two
dollars and forty-four cents ($41,592.44) of fees, after having collected over
two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000.00) of fees which
should never have been billed in the first place.
10
g).
Improperly recording two separate deeds of trust against Plaintiffs' properties
11
for collection on attorneys fees which should never have been billed in the
12
first place.
13
h).
Improperly recording two separate deeds of trust against Plaintiffs' real
14
properties to secure a promissory note without first counseling Plaintiffs to
15
seek separate legal counsel regarding their legal rights.
16
i).
Improperly attempting to induce Plaintiff JOANN HARDY to dismiss her
17
State Bar Complaint against Defendants in exchange for Defendants dropping
18
their sham Complaint for collection of unearned fees.
19
j).
Improperly engaging in Unjust Enrichment at the expense of Plaintiff.
20
21
23. As a proximate result of Defendant's, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.
22
JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, breach of contract as herein above
23
described, Plaintiffs have suffered actual and consequential damages in an amount to

be determined according to proof.
24
25
26
27
28
7.
IV
2
3
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional InflictiOliOrnotional Distress Against All Defendants
4 24. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of this Complaint, by reference, as
5
6 25. The misconduct of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.

7
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, AMEN, as alleged throughout was intentional,
malicious and outrageous. Further, it constituted a known violation of Defendants'
fiduciary duty and position of trust. RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.
10
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, knew that JOANN HARDY's and
11
ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners insurance would cover any claims against them for
12
free, but did not disclose the same to JOANN HARDY or ANDRE HARDY, instead
13
bilking them out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys fees which should
never have been incurred.

14
15 26. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
16
SPARBER, ANNEN, in November 2007, after having fraudulently induced JOANN
17
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY into signing their retainer agreement, and
18
fraudulently billing them for legal fees which unjustly enriched them at
19
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S expense, then recorded a deed of trust
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
against their real property, when they had no legal valid interest in their property,
refusing to release it until three years later, on May, 27, 2010. Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPAltBER,
ANNEN, then filed another fraudulent deed of trust on a different piece of
real property of Plaintiffs on May 20, 2010. Said liens were unfounded claims of
interest on their properties. Said liens filed by Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN,
ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, were unprivileged
and malicious.
27. The misconduct of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.
8.
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants
was intentional, willful, wanton, oppressive, and malicious and should not be
tolerated in civilized society, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive
damages.
4
5
28.
ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, as alleged above,
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were hurt and injured in their health,
strength, and activity sustaining severe mental distress and anxiety to their persons,
causing JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY great mental, physical and nervous
pain and suffering. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were traumatized by
10
Defendants', RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and
11
SPARBER, ANNEN, violation of a position of trust by taking advantage of their
12
ignorance of the law, cheating them out of money, then aggressively pursuing
13
14
15
As a proximate result of the intentional acts of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN,
collection on their ill-gotten billing to unjustly enrich themselves at their expense.

29.
As a result of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,

ESQ., and SPARBER. ANNEN, acts as alleged above, JOANN HARDY and
16
ANDRE HARDY have been damaged in an amount according to proof.
17
18
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud and Deceit Against All Defendants
19
20
30.
21
22

though hilly set forth herein.
31.
At the time that the misconduct of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,
23
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, as alleged above took
24
place, Defendants knew that JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners
25
insurance would cover, for free, the claim in which they had
26
been named as a Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, knew that JOANN
27
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY did not need to incur ANY out of pocket attorneys
28
fees, as the claim needed to be tendered to their homeowners insurance for handling
9.
of the claim. Defendant, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., is a licensed Real Estate

2
Broker, as well as an Attorney, who knew that the claim should be tendered to
homeowners insurance. Further, Defendants, and each of them, had been named in
4
5
numerous lawsuits themselves, as had vast knowledge and experience that claims
must be tendered to available insurance. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARSER, ANNEN, said nothing to JOANN
HARDY or ANDRE HARDY about their homeowners insurance, thus fraudulently
concealing said fact, and never tendered the claim to their homeowners insurance, as
required. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,
10
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, never told JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY
11
that they did not need to pay them for attorneys fees, and instead, whipped out their
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
retainer agreement for Plaintiffs to sign, thus, fraudulently inducing them to incur
exorbitant legal fees in order to unjustly enrich themselves at Plaitiffs' expense.
32. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY justifiably relied on Defendants',
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ.,
and SPARSER, ANNEN legal advice that they needed to retain their firm to
represent them, and that they were required to incur substantial legal fees at
Defendants' hands. Clearly JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY relied upon
Defendants' fraud, as no rational person would agree to pay any attorney out of their
own pocket, had they been advised that their homeowners insurance would provide
them free legal representation.
33. JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY were NEVER informed by Defendants,
RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARSER,
ANNEN that they could have and should have turned the underlying claim over to
their homeowners insurance. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL
W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, fraudulently concealed said facts
from Plaintiffs, so as to enrich themselves, at Plaintiffs' expense.
27 34. Consistently, from 2004 until November 27, 2013, when Defendants actually sued
28
Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY for collection on the balance of their fraudulent billing,
10.
Defendants affirmatively misrepresented that JOANN HARDY and ANDRE
HARDY needed to retain them for their services, needed to pay them for their
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
unnecessary billing, and that they had a right to collect from them the money they
claimed they were owed, despite that fact that their own fraudulent and/or negligent
misrepresentations were the start of all of their fraudulent bills, ab initio. These
misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment were intentional and outrageous, in
that JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY should never have been given
SPARSER, ANNEN, retainer agreement, as they knew JOANN HARDY and
ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners insurance policy would provide free legal
representation. Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, knew that their billing was fraudulent, and knew
that they had no right to lien Plaintiffs' properties or sue JOANN HARDY for
collection on attorneys fees which were fraudulently billed. After being served with
the Defendants collection action filed on November 27, 2013, JOANN HARDY was
advised that Defendants should never have billed her ANY fees, as the claim should
have been tendered to their homeowners insurance. JOANN HARDY then reported
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., and SPARSER, ANNEN, to the
California Bar. Immediately upon receiving notice of investigation of the State Bar,
Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, quickly filed a
dismissal of their fraudulent collection action, and attempted to coerce JOANN
HARDY into dismissing her State Bar action (which is a further violation of ethical
rules.)
35. As a result of Defendants', RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS,
25
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, non disclosure and fraudulent concealment of the
26
fact that Plaintiffs' homeowners insurance would cover the claim for which they
27
were seeking legal advice, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY unnecessarily
28
incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys fees which should never have
11.
been incurred. As a direct result of Defendants', RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,

2
MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, fraudulent and/or
negligent concealment, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY suffered extreme
financial distress and anxiety and worry about their home and welfare.
36.
SPARBER, ANNEN, non disclosure of the material facts known to them, that
JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S homeowners policy would cover the
claim for which they sought their legal advice, and their affirmative fraudulent
misrepresentations that they needed to retain their services, pay them
10
exorbitant attorney fees, and aggressive collection tactics on their fraudulent billing
11
was done with conscious disregard and willful oppression of the rights and welfare
12
ofJOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY and such non disclosure of the material
13
facts known to them, and affirmative misrepresentations constituted fraud upon the
14
Plaintiffs. As a proximate result thereof, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY
15
have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but not less than the
16
jurisdictional limit of this court.
17
37.
The aforementioned conduct was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit and/or
18
concealment of material facts known to Defendants, with the intention on the part of
19
Defendants of thereby depriving Plaintiffs of property, legal rights or otherwise
20
causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust
21
hardship and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, so as to justify an award of
22
exemplary and punitive damages.
23
VI
24
FEFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion Against All Defendants
25
26
38.
27
28

\\\
12.
I
39.
to them as settlement in the case of WILLIAM LOU et. al. v. JOANN JAFFE et.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 0IC836210.
4
5
Plaintiffs are and at all times relevant herein were, the owners of $250,000 awarded
40.
As Plaintiffs' representative in the underlying action, Defendants received the
settlement draft, but failed and refused to deliver the funds to Plaintiffs. Defendants
wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' interests in the above-described property by

diverting the entire sum to their own bank account and never paying the sum over to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs never consented to the taking of their settlement funds.
9
10
41.
sum or sums to be proven at trial, including all compensatory damages. Defendants'
11
conduct was a substantial factor in casing these damages. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are
12
entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property and will seek its
13
election of remedies at trial. Plaintiffs are further entitled to punitive damages
14
15
16
according to proof at the time of trial.

42.
Plaintiffs are further entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust on the

converted goods and their fruits and are entitled to a tracing with respect to the
17
18
As a result of Defendants' acts of conversion, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the
converted goods.
43.
19
Plaintiffs are further entitled to imposition of an equitable lien on the converted

goods.
20
VII
21
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Slander of Title Against Aft Defendants
22
23
44.
24
25
26

45.

SPARBER, ANNEN, in November 2007, after having fraudulently induced JOANN
27
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY into signing their retainer agreement, and
28
fraudulently billing them for legal fees which unjustly enriched them at JOANN
13.
HARDY and ANDRE HARDY'S expense, then recorded a deed of trust against
their real property, when they had no legal valid interest in their property, refusing to
release it until three years later, on May, 27, 2010. Defendants, RICHARD J.
ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARSER, ANNEN, then
filed another fraudulent deed of trust on a different piece of real property of
Plaintiffs on May 20, 2010. Said liens were unfounded claims of interest on their
property. Said liens filed by Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL
W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, were unprivileged and malicious.
9
10
46.
ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, unlawful claim on JOANN HARDY and ANDRE
11
HARDY'S property, it was reasonably foreseeable that JOANN HARDY and
12
ANDRE HARDY would be adversely affected as to prospective purchasers, lessees,
13
mortgages, or other real property interests, including, but not limited to, costs of
14
15
clearing title.
47.
16

ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, slander of title, Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary
17
damage.
18
VII
19
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Hiring. Training and Supervision Against All Defendants
20
21
22
48.
23
24
49.
SPARSER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GABRIEL, and each of the remaining
25
Defendants, had a duty, as an employer, to adequately investigate employees,
26
servants, agents, partners and/or associates prior to hiring; to properly train
27
employees, servants, agents, partners and/or associates; and to adequately supervise
28
employees, servants, agents, partners and/or associates in the performance of their

14.
jobs.
50. SPARBER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GAl3RIEL, and each of the remaining
3
Defendants, breached that duty of care by failing to hire only qualified employees,
servants, agents, partners and/or associates; failing to properly train those employees,
servants, agents, partners and/or associates; and failing to supervise those employees,
servants, agents, partners and/or associates in order to prevent the foreseeable
injuries which were inflicted upon Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE
HARDY, and which were caused by Defendants' negligence.
8
9
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY and ANDRE HARDY demand
10
judgment against Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.
11
JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of them, as follows:
12
13
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14
1.
For general or non-economic damages according to proof;
15
2.
For special or economic damages for legal and related expenses

according to proof;
16
17
3.
For actual and consequential damages according to proof;
18
4.
For reasonable attorney fees;
19
5.
For prejudgment interest according to proof;
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21
22
1.
23
2.

according to proof;
24
25
3.
26
4.
27
5.
28
\\\
15.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, HARDY v. ANNEN, et at
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1.
2.
according to proof;
3.
4.
For punitive damages according to proof;
5.
6.
10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.
2.

according to proof;
3.
4.
5.
6.
18
19
20
21
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1.
For economic and non-economic damages according to proof;
2.
3.
Alternatively, for damages and repossession of the converted property upon
22
election of remedies at trial by plaintiff;
23
4.
For compensation for the time and money expended in pursuit of the property;
24
5.
For the imposition of a constructive trust on the converted money and their
25
fruits and a tracing with respect to the converted goods;
26
6.
For the imposition of an equitable lien on the converted property.
27
7.
For punitive and exemplary damages;
28
8.

16.
9.
10.
For such other and further relief that is proper and just.
3
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
5
6
1.
2.

according to proof;
7
8
9
10
11
3.
4.
5.
6.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1.
2.

according to proof;
3.
4.
5.
19
20
21
22
ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1.
For cost of suit herein of this action; and
2.
For such other and further relief as this Court might deem just.
23
24
Dated: April 11 2015
i. ITHO
25
26
sanra C. ihorson, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
JOA101 HARDY & ANDRE HARDY
27
28
17.

Richard Annen Lawyer Lawsuit For Client Fraud

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Richard Annen Lawyer Lawsuit For Client Fraud

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ci

Julie K. Parker, Esq., State Bar No. 153013

CLERK - SUPERIOR COURT

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY & ANDRE HARDY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

JOANN HARDY and

Case No.: 37-2014-00038084CU-PN-CTL

RICHARD I ANNEN, ESQ.,

Diego, County of San Diego, State of California.

SPARSER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GABRIEL, APLC,[hereinatler referred to as

Each Defendant designated as a DOE was negligent or in some other manner

Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of this Complaint, by reference, as

though fully set forth herein.

of San Diego, State of California.

with the appropriate standard of care as attorneys undertaking such representation

are expected to do.

Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and

SPARBER, ANNEN, and each of the remaining defendants, negligently advised

and such claim was covered by their homeowners policy.

Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and

represent Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY, and ANDRE HARDY. in such a circumstance,

Further, Defendants had a duty to investigate whether Plaintiffs' homeowners

rise to a cause of action for negligence against Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN,

ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, until Defendants

five hundred ninety-two dollars and forty-four cents ($41,592.44) of outstanding

billing by Defendants was wrongful. Plaintiff, ANDRE HARDY first learned on

California against Defendants, Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,

MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, ANNEN, immediately dismissed

their wrongful collection action against Plaintiff JOANN HARDY.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, RICHARD J.

and related expenses, all to their economic or special damages.

Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial, exceed the

jurisdictional requirements of Superior Court.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

though fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of this Complaint, by reference, as

As previously alleged, on or about September 2004, Plaintiffs, JOANN HARDY,

and ANDRE HARDY retained Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ.,

MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, MORRIS & GABRIEL,

and each of the remaining defendants, to represent them in advising, instructing,

ANDRE HARDY had just purchased.

Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W. JACOBS, ESQ. and

covered by their homeowners insurance;

Filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff, JOANN HARDY, on November 27, 2013,

for collection on the remaining forty-one thousand, five hundred ninety-two

two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000.00) of fees which

should never have been billed in the first place.

Improperly recording two separate deeds of trust against Plaintiffs' properties

Improperly recording two separate deeds of trust against Plaintiffs' real

properties to secure a promissory note without first counseling Plaintiffs to

seek separate legal counsel regarding their legal rights.

Improperly attempting to induce Plaintiff JOANN HARDY to dismiss her

State Bar Complaint against Defendants in exchange for Defendants dropping

their sham Complaint for collection of unearned fees.

Improperly engaging in Unjust Enrichment at the expense of Plaintiff.

23. As a proximate result of Defendant's, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.

JACOBS, ESQ. and SPARBER, ANNEN, breach of contract as herein above

described, Plaintiffs have suffered actual and consequential damages in an amount to

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

though fully set forth herein.

6 25. The misconduct of Defendants, RICHARD J. ANNEN, ESQ., MICHAEL W.

JACOBS, ESQ., and SPARBER, AMEN, as alleged throughout was intentional,