E069286

CIVDS1208547

In the Court of Appeal, State of California

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a CA General Partnership,

dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Community
Respondent and Plaintiff
v.
MARTIN JACINTO
Appellant and Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

after 9/8/17 Order Denying Jacinto’s Motion to Set Aside Attorney Fee Order Obtained
through Extrinsic Fraud on the Court and Jacinto under CCP §1916, §177 and §187

Nancy D McCarron, CBN 164780

950 Roble Lane
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
nancyduffysb@yahoo.com
805-450-0450 fax 805-965-3492
Attorney for Appellant Martin Jacinto

1
PAGE 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. 3-6

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE (Procedural History) ............................................................ 9

Narrative Smells Like a Fish; Collusion is Transparent ................. 13

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ........................................................... 15

Standard of Review is De Novo ..................................................... 15

ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 15

1. The Fee Order Is Voidable as it Exceeded the Court’s Jurisdiction ............................... 15

2. Procedural and Substantive Deficiencies are Fatal to the Motion to Dismiss ................ 16
5

3. Post-Judgment Set Aside Motion is Appealable - CCP §904.1(a)(2) ............................ 16

4. Res Judicata Does Not Apply Where Adversarial Hearing Was Denied ....................... 17

5. Public Policy Favors Resolving Disputes and Appeals on their Merits ......................... 19

6. Cases Cited in the Motion to Dismiss are Not Dispositive of the Issues Presented ....... 20

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 22

EXHIBITS [links jump to each exhibit (in the record) supporting opposition] .................. 24

Proof of Service ................................................................................................................... last

2
PAGE 2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 CA3d 725, 737 .......................... 16
Arumbula v. Union Carbide (2005) 128 CA4th 333,340 (deadline is jurisdiction) ............ 14
Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 CA.4th 779,784-785 .................................................... 7
Barber v. CA Credit Co. (1964) 224 CA2d 635 .................................................................. 17
Bennet v. Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 560 ........................................................... 16
Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 C2d 143 ........................................................................... 22
Caldwell v. Caldwell (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 819, 821 ...................................................... 23
Canandaigua Wine Co, Inc. v. Cty. of Madera (2009) 177 CA4th 298........................... 22
Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 CA4th 684, 691 ................................................................... 8, 16
Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 CA4th. 929, 933-934 ................................................................ 8
Christianson Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412 .................................................. 15
Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175 ..................................... 15
Cope v. Cope (1964) 230 CA2d 218, 228.............................................................................. 8
Corey v. Weerts (1963) 214 CA2. 416 ................................................................................ 17
County of Kern v. Diller (1999) 69 CA4th 1412, 1425 .................................................... 20
Crocker v. Kuchman (1961) 194 CA2d.589 (cross-complaint) ........................................... 16
Daley v. County of Butte (1964) 227 CA2d. 380 .............................................................. 21
Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 CA.2d.788, 884 ................................................................... 17, 21
Duarte v. Chino Hospital (1999) (4/2 DCA)72 CA.4th 849, 856 ......................................... 7
Evan Zohar Construction v. Bellaire Townhouses (2015) 61 Cal.4th. 830 ...................... 22
Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758 ............................................................................... 16
Ferrano v. So. Cal. Gas (1980) 102 CA3d. 33, 40 .............................................................. 19
Guardianship of Waite (1939) 14 Cal.2d 727, 729.............................................................. 23
Gee v. Greyhound Lines (2016) 6 CA.5th 477, 485 ...................................................... 15, 19
Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 CA.4th 1384 ................. 16
Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. (2015) 233 CA.4th 882, 657-886 ................... 13
Harkins v. Fielder (1957) 150 CA2d 528, 536 .................................................................... 17
Hensley v. Hensley (1987) 190 CA3d 895, 898 .............................................................. 8, 19

3
PAGE 3
Hill v. Johnson (1961) 194 CA2d 779 ................................................................................. 17
In re Sade (1996) 13 C4th 952, 994 ................................................................................... 20
Jeffords v. Young (1929) 98 CA 400 ................................................................................... 17
Jonothan Neil & Assoc. Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 CA4th. 1481, 1487 ............................ 8, 16
Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 CA.3d 626, 633....................................................................... 16
Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 677 ................................. 23
Keyes v. Hurlbert (1941) 42 CA.2d 532, 535 ...................................................................... 19
Ladas v. CSAA (1993) 19 CA4th 761 ..................................................................................... 9
Lakin v. Watkins Assoc. (1993) 6 C4th 651 ....................................................................... 20
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1096, 1106 ......................... 15
Marriage of Brockman (1987) 194 CA.3d 1035, 1043 ......................................................... 9
Marriage of Carlsson (2008)163 CApp.4th 281 ............................................................... 23
Marriage of Coffin (1976) 63 CA3d 139, 148-149 ....................................................... 17, 21
Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337 ............................................................................ 21
Martin v. Johnson (1979) 88 CA3d 595, 603 .................................................................... 20
Mountain Air Enterprises LLC v. Sundowner LLC (7/31/2017) SC223536 ....................... 15
Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 CA2d 178 .......................................................................... 17, 22
Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners’ Association (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 ............... 7
Page v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1969) 3 CA.3d.121,127 .......................................... 8
Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 CA.4th 1513, 1525 .............................................................. 16
People v. Ryerson (1966) 241 CA2d 115; ........................................................................... 17
People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 ...................................................................... 7
Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal. 2d 363, 366-370 ............................................. 8, 19
Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 345 ....................................................................... 19
Rooney v. Vt. Inv. Corp (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 358 .......................................................... 21
Rosenbaum v. Tobias Estate (1942) 55 CA2d 39 ................................................................ 18
Scarbery & Bill Patch Land & Water Company (1959-4th D.) 170 CA.2d 368 ................. 16
Scott v. Dilks (1941) 47 CA2d 207 ...................................................................................... 17
Seacall Development v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1999) 73 CA.4th 201, 207 ...... 8
Sipe v. McKenna (1948) 88 CA2d. 1001 ............................................................................. 17

4
PAGE 4
South Spring St. Co. v. Deptartment of General Services (2009) 178 CA 4th 1009, 1014 ... 8
Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 843-844 ................................................. 23
Starpoint Props. v. Namvar (2011) 201 CA4th. 1101, 1107 ............................................ 21
Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 CA2d 829, 833 ..................................................................... 17
Stockton Theatres Inc. v. Palermo (1952) 109 CA.2d. 616, 619 ......................................... 19
Travelers Insurance (1969) 272 CA2d 819 ......................................................................... 17
Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 CA 3d. 1069 ......................................................................... 22
Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 CA2d 753 ................................................................................. 17
United Investors Life Insurance Co. (2005) 125 CA.4th 1300 ....................................... 19, 23
United States v. Throckmorten (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 ........................................... 7, 8, 16
Weitz v. Yankowsky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849 ........................................................................... 22
Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Dist. (2015) 61 C.4th 97 .............................................. 15
Zohar Const. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833-840 .............. 14, 19

5
PAGE 5
 STATUTES
CCP §43 ............................................................................................................................... 22
CCP §177 & §187 .................................................................................................................. 7
CCP §473 ...................................................................................................................... passim
CCP §904.1(a)(2). ................................................................................................................ 16
CCP §1003 ........................................................................................................................... 16
CCP §1008 .................................................................................................................... passim
CCP §1916 ................................................................................................................... 1, 7, 16
Civil §798.85 (MRL) ................................................................................................... 2, 9, 15
Govt. §12965(b) ..................................................................................................................... 9
42 USC §1981 ........................................................................................................................ 9
RULES
Rule 8.406 .................................................................................................................. 7, 16, 22
OTHER AUTHORITIES
CACI 106 and CACI 5002 ................................................................................................... 20

6
PAGE 6
 INTRODUCTION
Procedural and substantive deficiencies are fatal to the Motion to Dismiss [“MTD”].
Motion is procedurally deficient because it seeks relief under an inapplicable appellate Rule:

◄ MTD, p.6 ¶1

Rule 8.406 governs only Juvenile Appeals. [see Exh. 1] This case is not in juvenile court.
Stubblefield’s opening paragraph nakedly proclaims the 9/8/17 Denial Order is not appealable.
A contention unsupported by cogent argument and citation to authorities is deemed waived.1
Stubblefield misrepresents that Martin Jacinto tried to “evade statutory deadlines for appeal.”
Stubblefield failed to cite to evidence showing “numerous and tardy challenges.” [MTD, p.6]
Factual claims without citing to the record must be disregarded as this court held in Duarte. 2

Stubblefield’s disingenuous parsing of facts and misrepresentation of the record cannot

overcome the void nature of the orders garnered without constitutional due process which
deprived Jacinto of equal rights under the law. Juxtaposing Jacinto’s Statement of the Case
against Stubblefield’s deceptive Statement of the Case shows why the motion must be denied.
Stubblefield beats the CCP §473 & §1008 arguments like a dead horse, just as he did below.

Panel must realize the subject Motion to Set Aside a $190k fee award was not brought
under CCP §473 or §1008. See Motion to Set Aside in MTD at Exhibit E. Jacinto filed a
non-statutory motion under the court’s equitable powers delegated in CCP §177 & §187,
authorized under CCP §1916 conveying standing to file it, as set forth in Throckmorten. 3
A Supreme Court decision never overruled must be followed by all appellate courts. 4

1
Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners’ Association (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862
[citing Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 CA.4th 779,784-785; People v. Stanley
(1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; Tiernan v. CSU (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 216, footnote 4
2
Duarte v. Chino Hospital (1999) (4/2 DCA)72 CA.4th 849, 856 [Review Denied 9/1/99
1999 Cal. LEXIS] [no evidence to support factual assertions]
3
United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [non-statutory equitable motion]
4
McLain v. Llewellen Iron Works (1922) 56 CA58; Eddlemon v. SPC (1919) 31 Cal. 340

7
PAGE 7
 Throckmorten held where a party was prevented from presenting his case, whether by
false promise of compromise, or attorney conniving defeat, the judgment must be set aside:

◄ MTD: Exh. E @ 2

Throckmorten held courts must not set aside orders obtained by intrinsic fraud (perjury
or forgeries) because the mischief of retrying cases outweighs benefits; but, lower courts
must set aside orders obtained by extrinsic fraud where a party could not present his case:

“…the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud

set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties,
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to
frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried by the first court,
and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered.

Although P urges the Panel to tag Jacinto’s motion as a tardy CCP §473 or §1008 motion
Panel has no power to change history. Panel need only read Jacinto’s motion [MTD, Exh. E].
Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to §473 or §1008 in Jacinto’s caption or motion.
While res judicata precludes another §473 or §1008 motion it does not bar a non-statutory
equitable motion to set aside an order obtained by extrinsic fraud as held in Throckmorten. 5

Appeal lies from denial of a nonstatutory motion to vacate on extrinsic fraud or mistake. 6
7
Grant or denial of a motion to vacate is an appealable post-judgment “special order.”
Appeal lies because record does not disclose fraud as fees were awarded by procedural
default. Cope v. Cope (1964) 230 CA2d 218, 228.8 Jacinto was never given a hearing.

5
Seacall Development v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1999) 73 CA.4th 201, 207
6
Page v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1969) 3 CA.3d.121,127; Hensley v. Hensley
(1987) 190 CA3d 895, 898; Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal. 2d 363, 366-370.
7
Jonothan Neil & Assoc. Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 CA4th. 1481, 1487; South Spring St.
Co. v. Deptartment of General Services (2009) 178 CA 4th 1009, 1014; Carr v. Kamins
(2007) 151 CA4th. 929, 933-934; Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 CA4th 684, 691

8
PAGE 8
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(Procedural History)
8/16/12 Stubblefield filed 3 tort claims against Jacinto (ejectment, nuisance, trespass).
He alleged no contract with Jacinto, no MRL, and never prayed for attorney fees.
7/9/13 Judge Cohn granted Jacinto leave to file a cross-complaint finding no bad faith.
9/24/13 Judge Cohn denied Stubblefield’s motion to strike punitive damages from case.
11/14/17 Jacinto’s attorney Avila notified counsel of the suicide of Mrs. Jacinto’s son.
4/8/14 Williamson barreled to trial despite tragedy obtaining judgment against Jacinto.
[$41,166.58 + order to remove mobilehome; removal costs were to be credited].
In contempt of court Williamson never credited $31,846 against the judgment.
5/20/14 Jacinto notified Williamson he fired Avila and would work directly with him.
5/20/14 Williamson filed $16,721.92 costs memo with items not recoverable as costs. 9
7/3/14 Williamson filed $190,499 fee motion without a contract or statutory basis.
[grounds listed: Civil §798.85 (MRL), Govt. §12965(b), 42 USC §1981, etc.]
Williamson claimed $4,265 for the motion despite no hearing ever occurred.
Motion was fraudulently padded by $40k as its attached matrix showed $159k.
and Williamson’s subsequent email to Nahigian recited fees were about $158k.
9/11/14 Jacinto paid Richard Nahigian $25k retainer to oppose extortionate fee motion.
Nahigian is a criminal defense attorney as shown by his retainer agreement.
Nahigian was incompetent to defend a complex civil mobile home litigation.
[this fact will become crystal clear after reviewing the referenced documents]
10/1/14 Nahigian appeared at ex parte motion to amend $41,166.58 judgment to add costs.
Nahigian did not object to ex parte hearing on 1-day notice without an emergency.
Nahigian did not object to extortionate, unrecoverable costs items, despite Ladas.
Amended Judgment added $16,721.92 costs to $41,166.58 (total $57,888.50).
10/14/14 Stubblefield extorted a $5,000 deposit to move the home & $6,000 in “back rent”
11/19/14 Fee Motion continued; court advised “parties are attempting to resolve matter.”
12/17/14 Fee Motion was continued to 2/18/15; only Williamson appeared by court call

8
Marriage of Brockman (1987) 194 CA.3d 1035, 1043 (record does not show grounds)
9
Ladas v. CSAA (1993) 19 CA4th 761 (investigation, computer research, local travel, etc.)

9
PAGE 9
2/18/15 8:15 am iphone: Nahigian reminded Williamson he was in San Diego federal court
“Please postpone” “They are starting work this week. Will do everything on list.”
8:18 am iphone: Williamson says continue if he pays for reporter & interpreter set
8:55 am iphone: Nahigian tells Williamson “I personally will pay, Richard. Please”
9:38 am email: Williamson said “Noted your SD appearance. Court would not
continue, ruled anyway. $190k atty fees. Warrant issued for Jacinto. Bail $250k.

2/18/15 Transcript proves Williamson lied to the court to get $190k fee award by fraud.

Williamson never told the court he had agreed to a continuance nor ever asked for one.

◄ 2/18/15 9 am

◄ 2/18/15 9 am

2/18/15 Minute Order granting $190, 499 fee award was filed after the morning session.
Nahigian called the clerk to set a 2:00 pm appearance to get Jacinto’s warrant recalled.

10
PAGE 10
2/18/15 2:00 p.m. Nahigian and Jacinto both appeared to get the $250k warrant recalled.
Nahigian reminded court it had continued the fee motion twice to try to settle it.

◄ 2/18/15 2 pm

◄ 2/18/15 2 pm

◄ 2/18/15 2 pm

◄ 2/18/15 2 pm

◄ 2/18/15 2 pm

Transcript shows Williamson got $190,499 via fraud on the court by implying Nahigian
blew off the court hearing after 2 continuances and by concealing the San Diego emergency.

11
PAGE 11
 Williamson lied to Nahigian by telling him the court refused to continue the motion.
The transcript shows the court seemed surprised when Nahigian said Williamson told him
“the court was not willing to continue the motion.” The court knew this was not true as
shown by the court’s comment, “I don’t know why they said the court was not willing to
continue it; it didn’t come to me.” Williamson lied to the court and Nahigian to obtain a
$190,499 fee award without a hearing. Jacinto was deprived of any due process hearing.
Nahigian failed to oppose the fee motion or appear for oral argument at the 2/18/15 hearing.

Nahigian admitted writing an opposition to fee motion. So, why didn’t he file it in court?

◄admitted writing opposition

◄Opposition to fees never filed

What attorney, if not colluding with opponent, would not file an opposition he had prepared?

12
PAGE 12
 THE NARRATIVE SMELLS LIKE A FISH. COLLUSION IS TRANSPARENT!
WHAT NAHIGIAN DID AFTER 2/18/15 PROVES COLLUSION

2-18-15 Williamson sent Nahigian a Rule 3.1312 letter with proposed judgment for objection.
Despite knowing Williamson would get $190,499 by fraud he never filed any objection.
What attorney, if not colluding with opponent, would not file opposition he had prepared?

2/25/15 Williamson brought a $190,499 fee order to chambers without any filed objections.
Fee order was entered on the docket and served by mail on Nahigian by Williamson.
2/25/15 Nahigian timely mailed Motion for Reconsideration of fee award as court suggested,
and mailed it to Jacinto who had attended on 2/18/15 and heard the court’s suggestion.
Jacinto believed the court would set aside fees as it suggested moving to reconsider.
3/4/15 Clerk returned Nahigian’s Motion for Reconsideration by mail as he failed to sign it,
failed to reserve a calendar date, and failed to pay the motion fee or file a fee waiver.
Instead of reserving a new calendar date, signing the motion, and mailing it back
to court with a check or fee waiver, Nahigian hoarded it in his office for 6 months.
He never told Jacinto the motion was returned or that he would sit on it for 6 months.

What attorney, if not colluding with opponent, would not refile the motion in court that week?

5/21/15 Nahigian told the court Williamson wanted a global settlement of removal & fees.
Nahigian emailed Jacinto a copy of a settlement offer he emailed Williamson as follows:
Jacinto would pay judgment + interest; Williamson would keep Jacinto’s entitlement to
a $31,846 credit against judgment for relocation costs (as ordered on 4/8/14) for fees;
Williamson would keep Jacinto’s $5,000 deposit paid on 10/14/14 for attorney fees;
Jacinto would mail Williamson a $15,000 cashier’s payable to him personally for fees.
Under a global settlement Williamson got $51,846 in fees ($31,846+$5,000+$15,000).
This was 126% of the $41,168 judgment Williamson got in cash 30 days from the offer!
The mobile home had been removed and DHS inspector had signed off removal permit.

6/2/15 Jacinto’s son Chris Martinez lent Jacinto $15,000 cash to send 2 checks to Williamson.

8/25/15 Stubblefield’s demand sent to escrow, without crediting $31,846 for removal costs,
in contempt of the 4/8/14 order, constituted accord and satisfaction. UCC §3310(a);
Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. (2015) 233 CA.4th 882, 657-886

13
PAGE 13
8/26/15 Jacinto paid the entire judgment + Interest without a $31,846 removal cost credit.
Jacinto refinanced a $128,300 loan to a $200,000 12% hard $ loan to pay $63,106.40.
It was in addition to $15,000 loan from Chris Martinez to pay Williamson personally.
Jacinto waived $31,846 relocation credit and $5,000 deposit to pay Williamson’s fees.
Jacinto relied on Nahigian’s word that Williamson had accepted the global settlement.
8/28/15 After escrow paid his client & Williamson netted $51,846 fees (126% of judgment)
Nahigian finally refiled Motion for Reconsideration after sitting on it for 6 months.
Nahigian knew 8/28/15 was 10 days past CCP §473’s 6-month filing deadline (8/18/15)
Judgment was entered on 2/18/15 by minute order; signed order was entered 2/25/15.
What attorney, if not colluding with opponent, would sit on it 6 months to miss filing deadline?
9/17/15 Minute Order denying Motion to Reconsider as filed past §473 statutory deadline. 10
9/28/15 Nahigian filed a CCP §1008 Motion to Reconsider Denial of §473 Set Aside Motion.
11/13/15 Minute Order – Court denied CCP §1008 motion as no new facts were presented. 11
Nahigian knew the court would deny the CCP §1008 motion as he had no new facts.
12/4/15 Nahigian’s criminal law intern [Adam Birke] was admitted to California State Bar.
12/10/15 6 days later intern Adam Birke filed Notice of Appeal--signing Nahigian’s initials.
Nahigian made Jacinto pay $3,000 for a criminal law novice to work a civil appeal.
Novice Birke had no civil, appellate, or Mobile Home Residency Law experience.
4/26/16 Certified Copy of this court’s docket shows Birke’s bloopers in Jacinto’s appeal.
4/26/16 Docket shows a 4/20/16 unsigned Request to Dismiss the Appeal filed by Birke.
1/6/17 Certified Default Prove-Up Minute Order in Jacinto v. Nahigian CIVDS1604759
Court found misconduct & awarded $500k in punitive damages against Nahigian.
6/14/17 Court set aside default judgment after Nahigian timely filed a CCP §473 motion.
When Nahigian’s own neck was on chopping block he timely filed a §473 motion.
When Jacinto’s neck was on chopping block he intentionally filed it 10 days late.
What attorney, if not colluding with opponent, would purposely file a motion 10 days late?

After taking $28k in retainer fees Nahigian did nothing to advocate for Jacinto,
while doing everything to help Williamson obtain an extortionate $190k fee award.

10
CCP §473; Arumbula v. Union Carbide (2005) 128 CA4th 333,340 (deadline is jurisdiction)
11
Zohar Const & Remod., Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833-840

14
PAGE 14
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Relief from default is a question of law reviewed de novo. 12 Whether stare decisis
was applied is a question of law reviewed de novo.13 Whether denial of a motion to set
aside an order on equity powers (CCP §177, 187, 1916) is appealable is a statutory question
reviewed de novo. Whether criteria for a fee or cost award is satisfied is reviewed de novo. 14

ARGUMENTS
1. The $190k Fee Order Is Voidable as it Exceeded the Court’s Jurisdiction

Fees should not have been awarded. Complaint alleged 3 torts & no contract with Jacinto.
There was no contract basis for fees. Complaint did not allege MRL governed, did not request
fees as damages nor pray for fees. The fee motion was filed 7/3/14, continued twice, and called
up for hearing on 2/18/15. Grounds for fees were listed as: Civil §798.85 (MRL), as well as
state and federal fee-shifting statutes related to discrimination claims. None of them applied.

MRL’s fee-shifting code (Civil §798.85) did not apply because the complaint alleged
no landlord/tenant relationship with Jacinto – a prerequisite to MRL applying in a litigation.
Stubblefield could not claim fees under MRL after alleging no landlord/tenant relationship.

Secondly, the discrimination fee-shifting codes cited in the motion are not reciprocal.
They are hybrid. If Jacinto prevailed on the cross-claim he would be entitled to attorney fees.
A prevailing defendant is entitled to fees only where a court finds the claims were frivolous
or were prosecuted in bad faith. Christianson Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412
The court made no frivolous finding. Prevailing defendant is not entitled to costs absent a
finding the claim was frivolous. Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Dist. (2015) 61 C.4th 97
Stubblefield was never entitled to a fee award or costs under Christianson & Williams.

12
Gee v. Greyhound Lines (2016) 6 CA.5th 477, 485 (relief on order obtained by default)
13
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1096, 1106
14
Mountain Air Enterprises LLC v. Sundowner LLC (7/31/2017) SC223536; Connerly v.
State Personnel Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175 (statutory criteria for attorney fees)

15
PAGE 15
2. Procedural and substantive deficiencies are fatal to the Motion to Dismiss [“MTD”].

MTD is procedurally deficient as it seeks relief under an inapplicable appellate Rule:

◄ MTD, p.6 ¶1
Rule 8.406 governs only Juvenile Appeals. [see Exhibit 1] This case is not in juvenile court.
MTD must be denied for the procedural deficiency of seeking relief under the wrong Rule.

3. Non-Statutory Post-Judgment Set Aside Motion is Appealable Under CCP §904.1(a)(2)

Panel must realize Jacinto did not file a statutory CCP §473 or §1008 motion to set aside.
Jacinto filed a non-statutory motion under equitable powers delegated in CCP §§177, 187.
Legislators conveyed standing on Jacinto to file such motion when they enacted CCP §1916.
CCP §338’s 3-year limitation applies to a motion to vacate an order obtained by fraud. 15
The fraud must be extrinsic to the matter to be determined in the proceeding. Intrinsic fraud
(perjury or forgery) is not grounds to set aside as explained in Throckmorten & state courts.16
Fraud was extrinsic as Williamson & Nahigian prevented Jacinto from presenting a defense.

Under California law there is only one final judgment in an action.17 Every direction of a
court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in the judgment, is denominated
18
an order. CCP §1003 A post-judgment motion to vacate a judgment is a special order.
Post judgment orders are appealable under CCP §904.1(a)(2).19

15
Bennet v. Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 560; Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 CA.4th
1513, 1525; Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 CA3d 725, 737.
16
Pico v. Cohen (1891) 91 C.129, 133-134; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 CA.3d 626, 633
17
Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758; Scarbery & Bill Patch Land & Water Company
(1959-4th D.) 170 CA.2d 368; Crocker v. Kuchman (1961) 194 CA2d.589 (cross-complaint)
18
Jonothan Neil & Assoc. Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 CA4th. 1481, 1487; South Spring St. Co.
v. Department of General Services (2009) 178 CA 4th 1009, 1014; Carr v. Kamins
(2007) 151 CA4th. 929, 933-934; Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 CA4th 684, 691
19
Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 CA.4th 1384

16
PAGE 16
4. Res Judicata Does Not Apply Where Party Was Denied an Adversarial Hearing

Where order is attacked on grounds of fraud or collusion res judicata does not apply. 20
Fraud is proved by circumstantial evidence. Harkins v. Fielder (1957) 150 CA2d 528, 536
Jacinto’s Statement of the Case, supported by the attached documents provides a myriad
of evidence showing fraud and collusion between Jacinto and Stubblefield’s attorneys.
Jacinto did not have to prove intentional fraud. He only needed to show he was deprived
21
of an opportunity for a fair adversarial hearing. Corey v. Weerts (1963) 214 CA2. 416.

Whether it is denominated extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake if it results in judgment

being taken under circumstances of unfairness and injustice---without affording a party an
opportunity to participate in proceedings the court must set aside the inequitable order. Id
Extrinsic mistake alone is enough to vacate an order. Hill v. Johnson (1961) 194 CA2d 779.

Even where a CCP §473 or §1008 motion was denied res judicata does not bar relief
where an adversarial hearing was not provided. Jeffords v. Young (1929) 98 CA 400.
Due process at a minimum requires an adversarial hearing. 22 In Jeffords attorney told
plaintiff their quiet title trial was continued. Relying on his word they failed to appear.
Defendant prevailed. Court denied a CCP §473 motion as no affidavits supported it.
Plaintiff filed an equitable motion to set aside the judgment. The court held as follows:

A judgment procured by means of actual fraud, or collusion of the

complainant’s own attorney with the adverse parties or counsel, may
be set aside upon a proper showing. {…cites…} Ordinarily a client
is chargeable with the negligence of his own attorney. {…cites…}
But manifestly, when, without the knowledge or fault of a client, his
attorney becomes physically or mentally incapacitated so that his acts
or conduct which are controlled thereby leads to a damaging result in
pending litigation so detrimental and unjust as to shock the
conscience, surely equity will furnish relief. Jeffords, supra @ 405

20
Scott v. Dilks (1941) 47 CA2d 207
21
Barber v. CA Credit Co. (1964) 224 CA2d 635; People v. Ryerson (1966) 241 CA2d 115;
Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 CA2d 753; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 CA2d 788; Gibbons v.
Travelers Insurance (1969) 272 CA2d 819; Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 CA2d 178;
Sipe v. McKenna (1948) 88 CA2d. 1001;
22
Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 CA2d 829, 833; Marriage of Coffin (1976) 63 CA3d 139, 148

17
PAGE 17
 Here, it is undisputed Nahigian failed to file an opposition to Williamson’s fee motion,
notwithstanding writing an opposition. For some unknown reason he failed to file it.
Nahigian failed to appear at the hearing. The court entered a $190k fee award without
conducting a default prove-up hearing to make Williamson show fees were reasonable.
Nahigian mailed in a Motion to Reconsider on 2/25/15 (5 days after entry on 2/18/15).
After a clerk returned it for 3 deficiencies, Nahigian failed to cure them and re-submit it.
Because Nahigian had mailed a copy to Jacinto on 2/25/15 he believed it would be heard.

Willful suppression of material facts by a person in a confidential relationship is fraud.23

Nahigian concealed the return of the motion and his failure to re-file it until it was too late.
Nahigian knew the court had no jurisdiction to grant relief under CCP §473 after 6 months.
Nahigian knew the court would deny a CCP §1008 motion because there were no new facts.
Yet he concealed these material facts from Jacinto in breach of his fiduciary duty.
Jacinto’s reliance on Nahigian was justified as he paid a $25,000 cash retainer.

Nahigian appealed denial of a CCP §473 motion but dismissed the appeal in a few months.
Where attorney’s misconduct, whether it be intentional or not, leads to a damaging result
so detrimental and unjust as to shock the conscience, surely equity will furnish relief. Id

The purpose of granting equitable relief is that clients should not be punished where,
through no fault of their own, their attorneys were so grossly negligent judgment was
entered against them with no adversary hearing in which they could present a defense.

In Estudillo v. Security Loan & Trust (1906) 149 Cal. 556 the homeowner had paid off
$9,000 against the mortgage. After missing a few payments the bank foreclosed the loan.
Estudillo hired a defense attorney. Without telling them the attorney stipulated with the
bank’s attorney to enter judgment for the full amount of the loan, without a $9,000 credit.
After the court denied a new attorney’s CCP §473 motion to set aside the judgment
Estudillo appealed. The Supreme Court held where an attorney colludes with opposing
counsel to sell out his client the judgment must be set aside. Nahigian arranged a full
payoff of the judgment without a $31,846 credit for removal costs as the court ordered.
Nahigian’s misconduct is the subject of a State Bar Investigation which is pending.

23
Rosenbaum v. Tobias Estate (1942) 55 CA2d 39
18
PAGE 18
5. Public Policy Favors Resolving Disputes and Appeals On The Merits-Not By Default

Public policy favors resolving issues on the merits-not by default. Gee v. Greyhound 24
Gee held clients must be relieved from the burdens of erring or colluding attorneys.
Appeals should be decided on their merits and not by default or some procedural device.
Appeals should not be dismissed when a material question remains to be determined. 25
Here, a material question remains. Was Jacinto afforded a due process right to a hearing?
The answer is no. Williamson obtained a $190k fee order by procedural default, fraud,
and collusion by Jacinto’s attorney did everything in his power to uphold the fee award.
Nahigian failed to file an opposition he had composed, failed to appear at oral argument,
mailed in a an unsigned motion for reconsideration without calendaring a hearing date,
and without a check for the motion fee or a new fee waiver application signed by Jacinto.
Nahigian then sat on the returned motion and did not refile it until he knew it was too late.
Nahigian then filed an appeal he knew was bogus--only to dismiss it a few months later.

Where a party is deprived of a hearing the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
An appeal lies on the denial of equitable relief on a judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud. 26

When an Appellate Court needs to review the record to determine a Motion to Dismiss
the general rule is to defer ruling until the time set to determine the appeal on the merits. 27
Stubblefield is trying to deprive Jacinto of his constitutional right to appeal by presenting a
disingenuous Statement of the Case, replete with misrepresentations, coupled with filing
only a few cleverly cherry-picked documents, and parts of selected pleadings. For example
Stubblefield included Jacinto’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment (MTD, Exh. E) without the
attached Declaration of Martin Jacinto supporting the Motion to Set Aside Judgment.

24
Zohar Const & Remod., Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833-840;
Gee v. Greyhound Lines (2016) 6 CA.5th 477, 485 (relief on any order obtained by default)
25
Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 C.2d 536, 541;
United Investors Life Insurance Co. (2005) 125 CA.4th 1300
26
Page v. Insurance Co. of No.America (1969) 3 CA 3d 121. 127; Hensley v. Hensley (1987)
190 CA3d 895, 898; Phelen v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 366-370.
27
Stockton Theatres Inc. v. Palermo (1952) 109 CA.2d. 616, 619; Reed v. Norman (1957)
48 Cal.2d 338, 345; Keyes v. Hurlbert (1941) 42 CA.2d 532, 535; Ferrano v. So. Cal. Gas
(1980) 102 CA3d. 33, 40

19
PAGE 19
 Jacinto’s 3 page declaration provided indisputable evidence of Nahigian’s misconduct
resulting in a §190k default fee award. Stubblefield failed to file any contra declarations to
Jacinto’s testimony. Stubblefield could have noticed Nahigian’s deposition to obtain his
testimony under oath to rebut Jacinto’s declaration. He could have sought a voluntary
declaration from Nahigian to rebut Jacinto. He only filed his attorney’s declaration to rebut.

First, Williamson is not a party to the litigation so his declaration is inadmissible.

Secondly, attorney statements are opinions--not evidence. CACI 106 and CACI 5002.
Third, Williamson’s statements are hearsay as to what occurred between Jacinto & Nahigian.
A review of Martin Jacinto’s declaration provides ample evidence of Nahigian’s misconduct
resulting in a §190,499.00 fee award being entered against him through a procedural default.
Since there is no declaration from Nahigian to rebut Jacinto’s testimony is must be accepted.
Jacinto testified about what he would have offered in opposition to the extortionate motion.

6. Cases Cited in the Motion to Dismiss are Not Dispositive of the Issues Presented

The cases cited in MTD are not dispositive as they merely stand for general rules.

MTD cited Lakin v. Watkins Assoc. (1993) 6 C4th 651 holding not every post-judgment
order is appealable. Lakin held the order appealed must differ from the final judgment
and relate to its enforcement or effect. Here, the fee award differs from the judgment as
the judgment on the merits related only to tort damages. The fee order relates to claimed
fee entitlements. It relates to the judgment as without prevailing there could be no fees.
Lakin held post judgment fee orders are appealable as relating to a judgment. Lakin @ 654

MTD cited In re Sade (1996) 13 C4th 952, 994 for a general rule that appellate courts
can dismiss appeals. That is not dispositive of whether this appeal should be dismissed.
Sade was a juvenile case involving termination of parental rights. It does not apply here.

MTD cited County of Kern v. Diller (1999) 69 CA4th 1412, 1425. Diller is another
juvenile case involving paternity. Juvenile cases have unique procedures and case law,
which do not apply to regular civil cases governed by regular civil procedures.

MTD cited Martin v. Johnson (1979) 88 CA3d 595, 603 –noting only a general rule:
set aside motions are not appealable.

20
PAGE 20
 The Martin Panel also noted: “Exceptions to that rule do exist, however.”
Martin cited Daley v. County of Butte (1964) 227 CA2d. 380 holding denial of a set aside
is appealable if the order was obtained by extrinsic fraud or mistake. Martin @ 603-604.
Martin held where the appellate record would not reflect the moving party’s side of the
story, the order refusing to vacate is appealable. Here, the record did not reflect Jacinto’s
story as explained in his Statement of the Case.

MTD cited Rooney v. Vt. Inv. Corp (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 358 noting denial is the
general rule on appealability. Rooney also held “…an appeal from an order refusing to
vacate a judgment will lie when the record available to the appellate court raises issues
not disclosed or could not be disposed of on appeal from the judgment itself. Id @ 359
Here, the record would not have disclosed Nahigian’s collusion with Williamson.

MTD cited to Starpoint Props. v. Namvar (2011) 201 CA4th. 1101, 1107 which
involved failure to comply with a settlement agreement. The appeal was dismissed.
Starpoint held that “…fraud upon the court is only established when “extrinsic factors
have prevented one party to the litigation from presenting his or her case.” Starpoint
cited Marriage of Park (1980) 27 C.3d 337, 343 which is “on all fours” with this case.
At the first OSC wife was awarded custody of the children, child support, and exclusive
possession of the home. Wife was arrested and deported to Korea. Husband knew it but
concealed the information from the court. During a second OSC husband’s counsel said,
“The petitioner is living in Korea now… She left Mr. Park with the children, the assets
and the debts…” Counsel did not ask for a continuance. Husband was granted full
custody, all assets, and the child support order was vacated. Wife returned from Korea
and moved to set aside the judgment obtained by fraud. The trial court denied relief.
On appeal the High Court held husband had a duty to ask for a continuance.

The High Court also noted the grounds for equitable relief are extrinsic fraud and
mistake, and the terms tend to encompass almost any set of extrinsic circumstances which
deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing, citing other cases the High Court approved. 28
Similar events occurred in this case, as explained in the above Statement of the Case.

28
Marriage of Coffin (1976) 63 CA3d.139, 149; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 CA.2d.788, 884

21
PAGE 21
 Williamson did not tell the court Nahigian was stuck in federal court in San Diego,
or that he had agreed to a third continuance that morning. Williamson never asked for
a continuance and implied Nahigian and Jacinto blew off the 2/18/15 hearing.

MTD cited Canandaigua Wine Co, Inc. v. Cty. of Madera (2009) 177 CA4th 298.
It is inapposite as it involved appeal of an interlocutory order which is not appealable.

MTD cited Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 CA 3d. 1069. Tunis is inapposite as the
appeal was dismissed because it was based on identical arguments in the party’s prior
motion to reconsider. The case is inapposite as it involved a statutory §1008 motion
not an equitable motion. Here, Jacinto is making arguments not made in prior motions.

MTD cited Evan Zohar Construction v. Bellaire Townhouses (2015) 61 Cal.4th. 830
which is inapposite as it involved a statutory motion under CCP §473 and CCP §1008.

MTD failed to cite codes. It cited 2 Rules: Rules 8.108(c)[p.11] and 8.406 [p.6].
Neither Rule applies. Rule 8.406 doesn’t apply as it governs appeals in juvenile court.
This is not a juvenile case. Rule 8.108(c) only governs extending the regular 60-day
window to appeal set forth in Rule 8.104. Jacinto filed his appeal early (within 30 days).
None of the above cases cited in MTD are dispositive as the cases are inapposite.
They discuss only general rules---not special exceptions for extrinsic fraud and mistake.
CCP §473 codified the court’s inherent power to expunge a fraudulent record or set
aside a decree procured by extrinsic fraud. Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 821.
The inherent power is incident to constitutional grant of general jurisdiction. CCP §43;
Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 C2d 143; Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 CA2d 178
Equitable power to grant relief from default differs from power under CCP §473.29
CONCLUSION
"It is a cardinal principle of our jurisprudence that a party should not be bound or
concluded by a judgment unless he has had his day in court. This means that a party must
be duly cited to appear and afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence at
such hearing in support of his contentions. His right to a hearing does not depend upon
the will, caprice or discretion of the trial judge who is to make a decision upon the issues.

29
Weitz v. Yankowsky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849 (order set aside due to extrinsic fraud)

22
PAGE 22
 An order or judgment without such an opportunity is lacking in all the attributes of
a judicial determination. [Citations.] Refusal to permit counsel ... to present evidence
and make a reasonable argument in support of his client's position [i]s not a mere error
in procedure. It amount [s] to a deprival of a substantial statutory right ...." 30

"Denying a party the right to testify orto offer evidence is reversible per se." 31

Where the court denies a party his right to a fair hearing, it exceeds its jurisdiction,
and the error is reversible per se. (9 Witkin, Cal. Proc (4 th .ed.1997) Appeal, §449, p. 497
Whether we call this error "structural" or not is inconsequential. The failure to accord a
litigant his constitutional right to due process is reversible per se, and not subject to the
harmless error doctrine. Kelly @ 677. Marriage ofCarlsson (2008) 163 CApp.4th 281

Jacinto was never given an opportunity to present any opposition or oral argument.
Whether by fraud, collusion, gross negligence or mistake a judgment was entered which
should never have been entered. There was no contract or statutory basis for a fee award.
It was fraudulently padded by $40,000 and no findings were made as to reasonableness.

An appeal should not be dismissed when material questions remain to be determined. 32

It would be patently unfair to deprive Jacinto of his constitutional right to present the
Panel with the full record below and all transcripts, to brief issues and orally argue.
Stubblefield was not entitled to fees under the Christianburg and Williams Standards.
(no fees or costs allowed as the court never found discrimination claims were frivolous. ))

For all of the above reasons Jacinto asks the Panel to deny the motion to dismiss to
afford Jacinto his constitutional right to appeal.

Submitted: 11/20/17

30 Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839,843-844

31 Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 677; Fewel v. Fewel
(1943) 23 Cal.2d 431; Guardianship of Waite (1939) 14 Cal.2d 727,729; Caldwell v.
Caldwell (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 819, 821
32 United Investors Life Insurance Co. (2005) 125 CA.4th 1300

23 PAGE 23
 EXHIBITS

(to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal)

PAGE 24
 1 'lSI 0 Title 3. Appe:Uate Rules
1 .. Dtvis'lon 1~ Rules Re'talng to 11& SupremeCou.rtand Courts of Appeal
Chapter 1. General Prmiisl1,ons
Mflotatjions
Miae 1. In 'General
o
Am~de 2.Sefdce, F.Ungl: Filing F east FOifr1\Snd Number of Documents

o
ArticleJ. Seaied and 'Cooltdentlat Records

Amoe ~t A.ppfjca~j,onsandMotions.~·Ex.tel1cin;and Shortentng; Time

+ 0 AIIde 5. E~fing
o Chapter 2. CiVil Appeals
o cn,apter 3. arlm~nal Appe,afs

'Chapter 4. H,abeas C01rpus Appeals and Writs

ChG ·ter5. Juve:n~~e and Writs

Affi'(jle 1. Generatprowsion
History

Rate 8.400. Appl;j,ca1i:oo

Rule 8.401. C()inldentiaf:i~

1- MIde 2~ Appeals
Hljstory
Rule 8.403. Righ:t to appointment of appeffatecounseiand pretrequisi:tes for appeal
Ru~e g·.404,.Staypending appe.aJ
Ru~,e 8~40S. Fift;lngtheappe,al

o RuteB.407.
1
Record onappe,a1
Rule-a.40,S. :Re;cord ifn mulu,pJeappea:ts in the sanlecase
Rut,e 8.409. :Prepa.ringand sending the record
Rute B.410~ Augmenting andcofreetil'lg the reco'rd an the ~reviewiflgcourt
Ruf·e 8..411. Abandoning Ile appe.af
Rute8.412. ;Briefs by parti1esandamid icuriae
[RuleS.41ft Appeals from aU te;rminatlons of paren~al rights; dependency 3:ppeals in
o Amde3. Writs
o Mh::;]e 4. :Hearingand 'Decis:ion
,. 0 Chaptero. Cons e'fvatorship Appeals

(a) Normal time

(1) E.~epl as provided in (2) and 0). a ooti(,~ of appeallmlst be fired v.-ithin 6'0 days alter the rendit.ioo oC!he ~ or the making «the <.>«ler being appealed.
(!) In matters heard by a referee oot acting !IS 11 ~!Ir}' ~, llOOtK:e af sppealmnst be DIed \vitbin 60 days aftet: the referee's order becomes :final ilIlder role :5 .:540(<:).

~l} W'hea an appkatioo. fu£ rehearing of an order DC a r4t'\1"I!Ie oot acIing as. a tempot:m:y judge is denied .iJ1det rule 5542, 1l1.KJ!ice of appe<lI ttOOl the rwee' S OT..::b' IlIDst be filed within 60 days alt!!'f !bat mdel is sl!'tVed
....de£ ruIt; B3!S(b)(3) or 30 days'" e:nlry of the order deuying rehel!rlng, whiclleveris later.

(b) Cross-appeaJ :If aD appcllllillt timely apperus 1fom 11 ~~ or appeahiibte orde!;, the time for any oth«- party to 8ppeaI from. the same jndgmalt or Older is either the time specified in (11) Of 20 days: after tile superi«
court dak maib nofificaIion of the fnt appeal. wbicbe\''er .is Ia!a:

(e) No e~ oftime; .late Dotice of appeal Except as provided in mle 8.66, no court may mend the time to tile aootke of appeal. The superior court clerk must roark a late notice of appeal "Recei\-'ed [date] but not
tiled,r. notifY the party that the not:iee w<:Iuot:filedbecause ir was late, and send a c.opy of the marlcednotice ohppeahothe district appcllate p!l;)ject.(Subd (c)reletteredclfectr.e July L 1010; adoptedas s'Qbd{d) elfe<:m'e fu1y
1.2010.)
(d) Prfmlamre ~ of applnl A IlOtice ofappeal is premamre ilfi1ed before the j-adgment is ~ «the order is made, but the re\'ie\'l'q court may treat the notice as tied immediately <lfter the rendition of ~
or the mak:iIlg oftile order.(Subd (d) relettered elt"ectWe July t lQ10; adopted as S'Gbd (e) dfectil.-e July 1, 2010.)
Rutej8.406 iliWendedeifectivll July 1, 2010, adgptedefl'edi'l'l:: Juty 1,2010.
PAGE 25
 8 -

Robert S. Coldren, Esq., Bar No. 81710 FJ LED

.J
Robert G. Wil1l8msoD, Jr., Esq.j Bar No. 73176
o SUPERIORCOURT
2 Justus J. Britt, Esa:!,l Bar No. Z(j7352 =R&"'~~~
HART, KING &; CuLDREN AUG 1 8.Z012
3 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORAnON
200 Sandpointe, Fourtb Floor
4 Santa Ana, California 91707
Telephone: (714) 432-8100 Rf.~~JQ.~
5 Faes.mlle: (714) 546-7451
6 Attorneys for Plaintltrt STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES dba MOUNTAIN
SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY t
.7

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAlE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
.CIVDS120SSJJ'1
11 S1UBBLEFIFLD PROPERTIES, a
Case No. I
12 California general partnership, dba
!i ~ ~ ~ MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE Assigned for all purposes to:
a: ~ ~ B.! r3 HOME COMMUNITY t
Judge;
3fli5~ Dept:
88!!
it~ 2
14 Plaintiff;
~jw!:J
~ ~!~. lS v. COMPLAINT FOR:
'~12
,.: ~~< 16 (1) EJECTMENT;
~ ~ ~ MARTIN C~ JACINTO, an individual; and
z t...( ~ ~ 17 DOES I through 50, inclusive, (2) NUISANCE; and
18 Defendants. (3) TRESPASS I
19
I

[
II
20 ,
2J i
j

22 Plaintiffalleges as follows: I

23 GENERAL ALLEGAll0NS.
24 1. PJaintifr SnJBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES (UPlaintitr1 is, and at all times
I

25 mentioned herein 'was.' a California general partnership, doing business 8S MOUNTAIN

r

26 SHADOWS MOB1LE HOJME COMMUNITY.

27 2. At an times mentioned herein. Plainriffwa!i;., and is~ the owner and entitled to
i
28 possession of Ibat certain real property situated in San Bernardino County, California, and I
,
COMPLAJNT !
I

PAGE 26 j
i
 1 described as Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Community (the uPark"), louted at 4040
2 East Piedmont Drive, Highland, California 92346-4834, including without limitation, Space
l 120..
4 3. The Park is a mobilehom.e park as defmed by and pursuant to the Mobilehome
5, Residency Law, California Civil Code section 798.4. AU relations between the Park 811d
6 tenants residing within the Park are governed by f}le provisions of the Mobilehome
7 Residency Law, Civil Code § 798, et seq. (the "MRL'').
8 4. Plaintiff' is infonned and believes, IIId thereon alleges, that Defendant
9 MARTIN C. JACINTO (hereinafter "Jacinto"), is, and at a11 times mentioned hereto W8S an 3

10 individual residing in the City ofHigbland, County of San Bernardino, State ofCalifomia..
11 s. The true names and capacities of Defendant DOES 1 through ~O, inclusive,
z 12 whether individual, COIpOrat0, associate, or othervvise, are unknown to Plaintiff who

=I . &i
~~§i;
therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious ~es. Plaintiff wilt seek leave of this
~8 i"'I
13

.. ~ ~
i~iu
14 Court to amend this Complaint to show said Defendants' true names and capacities when

1S
same have been ascertainedt
128 ~
~B ~ 16 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that tach of the
"-
mg.(I}~
~~~UJ 11 Defendants Damed herein as DOES 1 thr~ugb SO, inclusive, were~ and are, in some manner
<
18 responsible for the actions, acts, and omissions herein al1e~ed" and for the damage ~used by :...

t9 the Defendants and are, therefore, jointly and severally liable for the damages caused to
20 Plaintiff.
21 7. Prior to April 201 I, Plaintiffhad a lease for Space 120 in the Park with Carol
22 Kirtland (''Xirttandt ')2t the fonner owner of the Camelot mobilehome located thereon~ Serial
23 Numbers S32561X and S32S61U (the uMobilehome"). Plaintiff is infonned and believes
24 and thereon alJeges that Kirkland vacated the Park. The Mobilehome is unoccupied and
;I
25 vacant. i

26 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and based thereon alleges, that Kirtland sold
'27 the Mobilehome to Jacinto in or about April2011 y without notifying 01' obtaining the consent

28 of Plaintiff. and in violation ofthe parties· written lease and the 1MRL.
2 ..
COMPLAINT

PAGE 27
 1 9. Plaintiff is infol1Ded and believes that Jacinto became the registered owner of
2 the Mobilehome upon his purchase from Kirtland, and that Jacinto either attempted to pay
3 rent on behalf of Kirtland, or paid the Park a storage fee for the use of Space 120 ftom June
4 2011 through December 2011. Jacinto never had any written rental agreement for the use of
S Space 120 with Plaintiffor the Park and no right ofoccupancy.
6 10. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in or about
7 December 2011, Jacinto and Kirkland stopped paying Plaintiff illY amounts for the usc of
8 Spaoe 120 at that time.
9 1I . On or about January 12, 2012, Plaintiff served upon Kirtland, Jacinto and all
10 Residents in Possession; a Three (3) Day Notioe to Pay Rent or Quit and Sixty (60) Day
1t Notice to Tenninate Possession; and a Three (3) Day Notice to Perfonn Covenuts or Quit
and Sixty (60) Day Notice to Terminate Possession. Jacmto made DO effort to, and did'not
curef the Notices.
12. P1aiotitf is infonned and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in or after
December 2011. Iacinto and/or persons acting on his behalf entered into the Mobitehomc for
the putpOses ofdamaging it, and did cause substantial damage to the MDbneho~e, rendering
it uninhabitable and unsightly. The damaged Mobilehome remains on Space 120 in
18 Plaintifi's Park without Plaintiff's permission and oonsent, and Defendant bas failed and
19 refused to remove it despite Plaintiff's request for possession of their real property upon
20 which the MobiIehome sits.

21
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIO~
23 (Ejectment Against all Defendaots)
24 13, Plaintiff hereby realjeges and incOIporates herein by reference the above
25 paragraphsl through 12 as though funy set forth herein.
26 14. Defendant is now in possession of Plaintiffs1 reaJ property, more specifically,
27 Space 120 and have been in possession of the property since in or about May 2011, when he
p

28 purchased the Mobilchome that occupies Space 120 without Plaintiffs knowledae and

3
COMPLAiNT

PAGE 28
 consent.
•
2 IS. Since January 12. 2012. Plaintiff has demanded of Defendant on numerous
3 occasions) that he pay the Park a reasonable rental rate or storage fee for the Mobilehome. or.
4 that he removes the MobiJebome from the Park!J but Defendant has ignored these. demands•.
5 has refused to remove the Mobilebome from Space 120~ has refused to pay storage fees, and
6 still unlawfully withholds possession of the premises by leaving the Mobilehome OD the
7 premises.

8 16. The reasonable vaJue of the rents and profits of the premises iS and was, the
f

9 sum of at least $9Ot .49 per month. Plaintiff has been damaged in this sum since January 1,
10 2012, and will continue to be damaged at the rate ofS901.49 per month as long as Defendant
11 leaves and refuses to remove tbe MobiIchome !Tom Space 120.

~ Il!f 12

;i~j 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Sa ~j
t)J it: '"
14 (TrespasslWaste Against all Defendallts)
~ j ~ 15 17. Plaintiff bereby reaUegcs and incorporates herein by refenmce the above

~iH 16 paragraphs 1 through 12, and 14 through 16, as though !UHy set forth herein.
~~-! Co
17 18. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and based thereon alleges, that commencing
11 in or about December 2011 ~ and continuing to the 'present time. Defendants caused a trespass
19 upon the Park property by. among other things; refusing to remove the Mobt1ehome from
20 Space 120 and leavIng it on Space 120 without Plaintiff's pennission or consent, for the
21 purposes ~f damaging it, and causing substantial in.jury to the Mobilebome, rendering it
22 uninhabitable and unsigbtly.
23 19. Defendant's conduct constitutes a trespass as well as waste. When Defendant
24 damaged the MobiJehome and left it uninhabitable and unsightly, Defendant «>mmitted
25 waste by causing a blight on Plaintiff's property, thus contributing to the deterioration of
Z6 Plaintiff's property.
27 ZOo As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's maintenan(te of the dama.ged
28 and unsightly Mobilchome on PlaIntiffs laneL Plaintiff bas suffered, and will continue to

4
'COMPLAINT

PAGE 29
 •
1 suffer in the future, damages in an amount not yet fully ascertained. When the fuU amount
2 of damages is known to Plaintiff, it will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set
:1 farth the full. amonnt of damages.
4 21. Defendant's condUct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause
.s injury to Flaintiff or was despicable conduct carried on by Defendant with a willful and
6 eonscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, Qr subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust
7 hardship in conscious disregard of PlaintiCrs rights, such as to constitute malice., oppression
8 or fraud, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damag~s in an amount appropriate to punish
9 or set an example of Defendant.
10 22. Defendant's wrongful conduct in continuing to maintain the damaged and
11 unsightly Mobi1ehome on Plaintiff's land and refusing to remove it. unless and until enjoined
l; 12 and restrained by order of this Court;, will cause great and irreparable injury through the
5! ~ i i,f:
8~.
13 ongomg injury to the property, and wiI1 deprive PJarntiff ofpeace of mind and of a safe and
88 § 14 secure community environment for its other tenants in the Park.
4~&i.
~~~ 15 23. Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law for the injuries cum:ntly being suffi:red
I-! i i 1 16 and threatened to occur in the future in that Defendant wiU continue to maintain the damaged
~.~~g
~. f ~ ~ 17 and lDlsightly MobUehome on Plaintiffs' land unless restrained, and Plaintiff would be
<
18 required to maintain a multip~icity ofjudicial proceedings to protect its interests. :..

19
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACI10N

21 (Nuisance AgaiDst All Defendaats)

'22 24. Plaintiff hereby reaUeges and incorporates herein by reference the above
23 paragraphs I through 12, 14 through 16, and 18 through 23, as though fully set forth herein"
24 25. Defendant's Mobi1ehome remains on Space 120 on Plaintiff's pr.operty.
25 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has caused a nuisance with respect to Plaintiff's use and
26 enjoyment of its property inasmuch 85 Defendant has, among other things.. entered into the
21 Mobilehome for the purposes of damaging ilt and caused substantial injury to the

28 Mobilehome, rendering it uninhabitable and unsightly; and left the damaged, unsightly

5
COMPLAINT

PAGE 30
 .'

"
I MobiJehome on Space 120 in Plaintiirs Park without Plaintilrs permission or consent, thus
2 causing a blight and threatening the health, safety and security of the other tenants in
3 Plaintiff's Pm'k..
4 26. These conditions have caused injury to Plaintiff in that they interfere with
S ~laintiff's free use of its property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life
6 and property in that the conditions are a danger to the health, safety and security of '
7 Plaintiff's tenants oftbe Park.
8 27. Plaintiffs use of its property is limited because of the nuisance created by
9 Defendants, and Plaintiff has suffered, and wil1 continue to suffer, damages in an amount
10 exceeding the jurisdictional1imit of this Court as long as the nuisance exists. When the full
11 amount of damages is known to Plaintiff, it will seek leave of Court to amead this Complaint
12 to set forth the fun amount ofdamages.
i£ii
:z
zQgS
~ 13 28. Defendant's conduct described herein intended by Defendant to cause
j 114 ~ury to Plaintiff or was despicable conduct carried on by the Dcfcndllllt with a willful and
VIllS

8~
U I~ 1S con~ious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust
.i
GG
i1 ~ ~
~ 16 hardship in oonscious disregard of Plaintiff"s rights, such as to constitute malice, oppression
If(

17 or fraud. thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish

.(

18 or set an example ofDefendant.

19 29.. Plaintiff is informed and b.elieves and thereon' alleges that unless restrained ,or
20 enjoined by an order of this Court; Defendant will continue to engage in and aUow the
21 nuis~ce. ~uch conduct win result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff cannot
22 utilize certain portions 'of its land affected by the conditions on Space 120 and wbile the
23 Mobilehome remains on Space 12{t The 1hreat of such irreparable and permanent damage
24 justify the issuance by this Court of an injunction as weU as an award of monetary damages
25 as authorized by law.

26 36. Plaintiff notified Defendant of the nuisance and that the nuisance was
27 interfering with Plaintitrs ttce use and eqjoyment of its land. Plaintiff demanded that the

6
'COMPLAINT

PAGE 31
 •
·~

1 nuisance be abated. Defendants nevertheless refused. and continue to refuse, to abate the
2 nuisance.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows:
4 ON THE FIRST CAUSE Of ACTION:
s L For restitution ofthe premises by removal oftbe Mobilehome;
6 2. For damages for the Defendants'. unlawful detention and/or or possession of
1 Space 120 at the rate of $90 1.49 per month from and after Ianuary 1, 2012.. until delivery of
8 possession thereof;
9 j, For costs of suit herein incurred; and
10 . 4~ For such other and further reHef as the Court deems just and proper.
11· ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION;
1. For general and special damagre& subject toproot;
2. For punitive and exemplary damages;
3. For an order requiring Dcfertdant to show cause, if any they have, why he
should not be enjoined.as hereinafter set forth during the pendency ofthis action;
4. For a temporary restmining order, a preliminary lrgunctioD. and a permanent
injunction, aU requiring Defendant and his agents, servants, and employees.. and all 'persons
)B acting under, in concert with, or for him.. to refrain from maintaining the damaged and
19 unsightly Mobilehome on Plaintiff's landl incJuding without limitation, on Space 120;
20 S. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
21 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22 ON TIiE nmm CAUSE OF AC"flON:
23 1. For general and special damages subject to proof;
24 2. For punitive and exemplary damages;
-
For an order requiring Defendant to show cause, if any they have, why he
r

2S 3.
26 should not be enjoined as hereinafter set forth during the pendency of this action;
27 4. For a temporary restraining Qmer~ a preliminary iqjWletion, and a permanent
28 injunction, all requiring Defendant and his I!gents. servants, and employees, and all persons
7
COM.PLAINT

PAGE 32
 •

',""""

1 acting under, in concert with, or for him, to refrain from maintaining the damaged and
2 unsightly MobiIehome on PJaintifrs land, including without limitation, on Space 120;

3 S. For costs ofsuit herein incurred; and'

4 6. For such other and further reliefas the Court deems just and proper.

S
6 Dated: AugustL:l.2012 HART. KING & COLDREN

7
8
9 o . 0 en
Ro W. Wi iamson
10 Justus 1. Britt
AttomcIs for PlaintiffSTUBBLEFIELD
11 PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
MOBILE HOME COl\4}..{UNlTY
! 12
~31~ 13
Uu 14
; ~"'1~3 IS
~~
.1 ~~ 16
~~_!
<C(
17
18

19

20
21
22
23
24

2S
26

27

28
8
lM6"CJ5014821~165()'19'lvJ
COMPLAINT

PAGE 33
 lVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sh-court.org/civillcivilminutes.asp?courtcod1-~l

Home Comphdnts/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case Type;

Cas~ Num.r:

Case CIVDS1208547
..... .. .......... .•
STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACIN1·0
Action: :"(~,!:.L. . _.. . . . . . . . ._.. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .

MOTION RE: LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT MARTIN C

JACINTO
07109/2013 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S3S

DAVID COHN. JUDGE

CLERK: GAIL ANDERSON
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS 4420
COURTATTENDANTI~OMO

ATTORNEY 1NFORMATION

ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR. PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

ATTORNEY MOISES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

PROCEEDINGS:
PRED1SPOSITION HEAR~NG HELD

MARTIN C JAC'NTOfS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS HEARD.

ARGUED BY COUNSEL ANO SUBMITTED.

MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-CQMPLAtNT IS GRANTED.

THE COURT FINDS NO BAD FAITH SHOWlNG; DEFENDANT HAS NEW COUNSEL WHO IS PURSUING THE CASE
ONH1S
BEHALF.

THE PROPOSED XCOMPLAtNT IS DEEMED FILED AND SERVED THIS DATE.

30 DAYS TO ANSWER.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE,

=== MINUTE ORDER END===­

1 of I. PAGE
7i22/17.34
2:09 PM
CIVDS1208547 Minute OrdcT'i - San Bernardino Main http://openacccss.Sb-COUJ:t.OrgiciVlL'CiVilminutes.a.;p·!courtcoi:t?ti{~

Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

CneType:

Case Number:

Case ClVDS1208547 ... STUBBLEFIELD ·V-JACINTO

Action: :.i~_~j' _..~. . _._._~ __.___.. . _.___~ . . . . __.. . . . . . . . .-...... __.. . . . . . . . . _

MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY CROSS DEFENDANT

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. A CALIFORNIA, THOMAS PARRISH
09/24/2013 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 535

DAVID COHN, JUDGE

CLERK; GArL ANDERSON

COURT REPORTER REGINA VEGA 12612

COLIRT ATTENDANT R BRUCATO

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

ROBERT WILLIAMSON APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.

ATTORNEY MO'SES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT JACrNTO.

PROCEEDINGS:

PREDISPOSITION HEARlNG HELD

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA'S M01"ION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OCROSSwCOMPLAINT IS

HEARD. .
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTlES, A CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT IS

DENIED.
THE COURT FINDS THAT PARAGRAPH #12 (AND TO ~9ME: EXTENT PARAGRAPH #13) J5 SUFFICEINT TO
SUPPQRT
THE ALLEGATION FOR PUNITlVE DAMAGES AT THE PLEADING STAGE.

DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO CONTfNUE TR'AL DATES IS DECLINED AT THJS TIME. 'SSUE TO BE ADDRESSEO
BY
STIPULATION OR EXPARTE APPLICATlON.

NOTICE WAIVED.

:== MINUTE ORDER END ==

10ft
PAGE 35
7/2211.7. 2:16PM
Robert G.. Williamson Jr.

From: maviles1232@aol.com
Sent: ThursdaYI November 14, 2013 4:37 PM
To: Robert G. Williamson Jr.
Subject: Re: 36568.0S0/lnspec1ion.

The Jacinto's are going thorugh a traumatic situation as we speak. A close family member unexpectedly passed away two
days ago. Tney win not be available for sometime.

Best regard8
Moises AViles
-Origins! Message-­
From: Robert G. Williamson Jr. <rwilfJamson@hkclaw.oom>
To: maviies1232 <mavUes1232tmaol.com>
Sent Wed, Nov 13t 20134:18 pm
Subject RE: 36568.0501Inspection.

Mr. Aviles:

Contentious postu~ng (s not helpful. Obviously. there is access to the park and your client controls access to their home.
My request was simply to arrange a mutually convenient time for all parties to inspect the intelior of your cUent·s home. If
you or your cnents are unwitling to cooperate and participate please just let me know. We may then take it up with the
CQlJrt

VTY

Robert G. Williamson Jr. , Partner

Hart. King & Coldren
4 Hutton Centre Drive. Suite 900 I Santa Ana. CA 92707
Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax.. 714..546-7457
rwilliamson@hkclaw.com I WW';V.hkclaw.com

From: maviles1232@aotcom [mailto:mavHes1232@aol.com1

Sent: Wednesday. November 13,2013 3:42 PM

To: Robert G. Williamson Jr.

Subject: Re: 36568.050I1nspection.

Without access from th mobilehome park. is almost impossible, to accomplish the lnspeetion since the mobilehome park

has in essence prevented access and has unlawfutly acquired the mobilehome through default

--Orfginal Message-
From: Robert G. Wnnamson Jr. <rwiUiamson@hkdaw.com>

To:maviles1232 <mavjles1232@ao!.com>

Sent Wed, Nov 13. 2013 1:0.7 pm

Subject 36568.050/InspectJon.

Mr. AViles:

Please call me to arrange a time mutuany convenient when we may inspect the jnterior of your clienfs mobilehome.

Robert G. WIlliamson Jr. , Partner

Hartl KIng & Coldren
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 I Santa Ana, CA 92107
Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax. 714..546-7457
rwilliamson@hkclaw.com I www.hkclsw.com

1
PAGE 36
 .::.. j .. :' ",'
l '"
":i.: , ,

r ':. .'
.......':'. -;........... '.::;": . :'

:', ': ' .... : « .. . ,~ ~

~,i:' ,':': ~"':. ..•. •

. - +.'
.;~,:' <' .ttegt3,:~~pkO.tt
"'f'::
.. : ',' .:' :" , ..:':: :
l .l77~-O~:0.9 ::OOiGO/~.:":'., .. ; :
.~
'. .: .F:ir~l·Legai:~up'p'ort,· W5jl'}779~mQO ~o/:~O'~9'1 :3~,~;, "
"::,-.: .:" ;:; _I
.. :
. . . ._: . . . :' :.. : '~~.-

. ::. .. +': : . j.': ....

" :. " :' :'
:. l!. '.! '

:::': : "L ;.:.

. i:';' J .:.~. _: :: '. :f);~·~~T~;~·;,L~r;)~~·I~ ';;':' ..

.;:) 11·"7r.'~"1-'~1:.1!"'\o
. .~: ;!_. :~.: . 'J SUpEf:\IO
. CQUr-: 1"~r'~""H~ ::;'!' ~':"'~·'~W·
' .. SAI'! SERPV".f\Diy'C S;'"
~'~J ..'I • :.:• ..! . : .

. . : ' .

,!" , ,!,

:. S.'()P:e.ruQR
; ~;'::
CdUltT :OFTl-Ut'STA T~ OF CAL·~FO~A..:
":'~;; :.,,:::,:::~:.: :~. ':.:!. ,~: .. ~,.L:;. .', ,'~:: ;::
..:: :.'. . CO~T¥:"0F ~':A:N B~ER'NARDIN:O'~ C~V]lf.;.·D1VJSION . . :+
..•• ' . : 'c. ·iv. SnmBli~D ~~O~E~Tlx~sj;i~. '.:..?::. C,~.·~.·~~N. . ·~..: .•drro.·;.··.,~~S. ·. \_.'0 8547 ,;,.••.. : .....',':,.' .' . ,.1
.' ;.'...: :·fl California g~11.ei~1 p~f:tn:~~hi'pi 4ba 1..... ':':' .l
.. :. ::..... !.".: .. :J1 MOUNtAThiSHADOWS'MOBILE: )' .. 1 . .:= '::

. :" . ·1·2: He.~~.~QMMl.fN:fTY,. . . ::. .\. :·gr?lfl~Whr~~rlifEl~:V.~R:

::: 'Erj ..: 'pirunt:iffj"" '! :'. ·t·: . !., "PU:OPERTIES, A:cALIFO:R.NlA

::: . "':' . :-:·::-'14=l\= .' .,,'. i·:· ':~~WM:~~~~l~tli~E::: oj;' '.;

"'. :...:: .,~ .': ..: .~ .~.;v.: .' ','" t.:1.l:t.:O~:CQlV1:fVJqN1rY;:A;NP·A·GA.1:N.$T::~ .
:" .~5 .'MARTIN C. JA.CINTo.·;·: ....;. '.. ~:~.DEEENDANT'1\'IARI'IN € : :JrA€ 1 NTO:
','0':: '~f~d~t ' · 1 ' .. '.. .... ~j.' ::.r~.~r~~".JTJ'RY.". T-RlA.L~·:
.' ;!
.. ;: . ...'. "',

•: • • • ,l • !.:' ~
.. " : . ~.. . . .'. :
• ,',1.

.:' J:~ ~::JS': .: . '. ': .:::-: : .:.: .... : ::.:, .. , ..

f~J9 :":;.:j=: Th~' cou.~t' :i!~avi~g' ":Wr~ct~tt:::a:.!v~diGf in :fayo( :Pla~inti:ff cLrid :'Cr.os.s: :n~f.en~~.t::"·
; ;
'I-~~--~--~~~~~:~~~~:"--~~

,. ...: .;20.. ,,·Sttlbbl~·fi~ld·. Pr~p~~~::~s~<~ ':,'t~alifo~~' gen¢r~f":pJm.¢r$l~p :" db'~' ~~unfajn Sbadows: ·lvl-obite.. :· ".
. ;:'.::·kl. H'tJln~; ~olnn~unliy D6f~n~~.~·: 1h~ll1as" P~Sh~ 5ued ns...M.r...·~.~s~l>a8:~~t· .;-:-..:: .....
and.::Cross
:-:, .:' :.'~", ..22 Def6ndarit ~J)~ .Cro~s C~lTlpJ:awailt Martip·.C·... J~¢inl{] "9n ·tbe;:lssue 'Of Iiabi-fity atid:'h~~in~' .:" ..,
, '23 disjlliH,thecmsSC on;~~jni9~M~ChP;2'Ot'4;·;- _; _ '. .... .. ." ...... ..... '1 ""'
"'; . ~ 2:4' . ::. . ·:':Oq· ~'arch li8, 2(H 4:;. the jury :ot)':!a ·sp.ecial 'v'er{~ict f~u~d ~ tba~ Defeudan~ 1Vladi~ C. 1 " ' ; .. ':'j .: ~;~;

.; . . : '. '2;.j.: J.ucJr~to: 5 ~.yr.~~.g!UI: ~onduct 'caused' hann

t~ P.l~jntiff 'Srobbleficjd Prop~rtlcs e:ntitliJ}}g Phu.tJ,tif!'," .:: . :"\ .
.' .:.' ..... . ",:. ~ ...:- .. :..
.... .... ;:.'. '.; .. : ,.:' ..... ,'. i , . . ... .'i,;:.:.
: " '~ . . :.. ;: :.~6 ,..to d-'ll!lage~ ;f:o~!f.las.~.,and;rutW-e.~en1al. v·ah.te·l:os~ aD'9 ~ost:of:reroovaJ oftbe mpbll.~houi~ fro~n i'
.!

. r· .:.­

.• , ,.; ':,', :27~!l~~e~1 l? and ;~tJf~tidri,oim~b\leIlQ~;~~,i';l\' ~JiditJ~~ Court Cierk lia~i1;ri reao~dedan1J flj~~::i ;1 . I

... '2& !tlie ~pl!llial v~rdict. rr !S:H~B)f On$iiRED~A:DiuDGED AND DECREED,· .. ; ·.lii.,"
:. ~ ::: J.~~,.U~[l"'1!5!HUO:6~11 .... I., :, '. 1

.:.IP/10PQstDJ /UDq(ll(tiT PAGE 37.,

 .. ~

' . 't Legal'Supp~rt ,(95111'7-9..0'1.00"': O(llOOj2.-

". .
t Legal'Suppor; (951kl.9"O·IOO 00'00/... 0 '.

:;

'. It ".::' .' JU~gD.1~Dt in:f~~Orof:Pl'aip·ti.ff'S~b~j~fiel~·p'~~p~·rti~S,; ~··¢a1if011ij~.:g~n~~~nlt}Wmer5hjpi ... .-

", :. '~2db~ M~~tau\S;adO~S MObil!! Home.do~~:.wty lmd lIga:~ 4eie~ant ~~G. Ja~ill~:
.. t :3if\tJiies~" ~$4l;1~~,5iii .' . ,.' , . . . . ; ," ......:' .•.
4 '•. '.• i;£~I.Defel)~ant ¥artm C, Jacinl~.haB lIomtercst in or possessnry right Ell f~b~ 1\1
~~

. . '.. :.• . :."; ;~~~~~;:~d:~i~,,;,s~~~t~~$il:,~)l~~ 7~~iY',,404Q,e.,.~pj~dnml'DriV~,'

.' .' : • . . " . " I • •

' ,..

... :; ~. 1 ':: .T,Ji!il~:<DefeDdant M~!ti.t;\ ·e"·Jaq~tp. phall'· b~ ·ii?d'. ~·e~bY·Is".. qrd~re(l' to-"remoY~':1;us
i aho~jldlb~e
" : " ' , '8' fr~~MopnUl.iJi Sha~pws Mobilebomc Community in accord~lc~' wi!b
.. . .': :
..,. ~!"re~~,irf~n,ents
.
~¢r... f~rth;in."NJ~nJfltl1io :Shadqws,Mobi.]~ll~lne
. . . . :.. N
. ,.:. y''''';.."-",. ,.
tOlTUJ)urility~~~~ij~v4
. w.
·ont:··:.,
..
~" -:.~,":"-"'~."'_w·'~"':"'····"'·'··~:T~":v"Y'.v-w.: ~.~,.~·~~t':T··'~w·t·w""Y~'~~~-~'''''''-"~''W'':''''''':"''''~~-~.w ;.w.w.•ww.......".v...w.......w .. w."'".,;.w.w......' -".'ww'..l.w'..T·w...'.,.•,."'.~A'. A'j:":.. . . -,.~y:w: ;W;"_~yA'·i·:,~w.+, ,.wi~~._~'
.:
.

: .;.. ")0:, Jertet.. ·~~~~d . Aprit 1:7.~· 2Ul3}:~ D.efendanf~· . r~~mov~ of his: lnobiJ~bo~~~: ...shaU;:be ·pt[ti~L.. : :;;.

···:_~f!~~~~!~~~_~~~L~~_~~~~c~~~l~;l~o,~!L~~L- ·
'Th~:C~l~t C~erlt~:baH f6rth.~ith entertrus judgment. ' ..,
", ~~lf.~~'()§~' ,-., .-". . 'H' ...
.". ; ....

.. . .

".: •.'.: ":­

~:.

13: :--- . , " : . ; . . . , . . ' .. '::'1

.~ ': . .. "

.":'~,RfI'
..:... , . J.1~: : .
",. : ,., ;.. , :Hdn. '~ryan f. !iost:er, J:u.dge l Superipr "
, ' COUtt'" . '::' ,:.. ,. :: ;" '.
\. .~: '.; ",: Hi
,:,:' ~ g' .: '~... .. "."" .+. .-~"
.. ~

':: .. ; .'. ;-::.'

'.:;. ..
.: :~

.. L"
.. .... ". . . ·:.r ": "
• ,1

~ _. .'

: )

..
. "'. . 2:6 -."
."
.. .
. i' '; .•• r" .. . ., .. . . ' ~
•• ;. :::. "; ~. .'.!"

:~i :'::.: • • • ;: .::: :.~??: !:. ': ; -;',~' .'" ,. • 1,.'

; •••: t· "•

.' ,I

. .. ~
~-. .
PAGE 38
 May 20, 2014

To~
Aviles & Associates
Attorneys At law
560 N Arrowhead Ave Ste 2A
San Bernardino, CA 92401

Robert Williamson Jr., Esq

From:

Martin C. Jacinto

3420 Broadmoor Blvd

San Bernardino.. Ca 92404

Dear Mr. AvHes,

# ___ L(egr~t t,~lnfQI!!lYQ!L!hat effe~tive today, we are ending our relationship with you,. and we want to deal
~Hm'''M''''''''''''''''''<'~'>'''' """*~",,_;c""""n·_""''"''''''''''t".'''_''''''"''''.'_/»<''''''Y';''w,,,-''n-'''Y.M·''''~>~~'""''~'''''''''''Nh'''''___.·."~'~M·"'W"-"'"'_"'Y'W'-·"_"N,'#N~'__"W''''bY&A'.H9"~~W._",,_'«<'''''''''',,""'''''''w.w.w,..

directfy with Mr. Robinson to settle the matter in regards to the judgment for case number CrVDS
1208547.

We fee' that we ca n solve this matter more effectively and in a faster manner by working directly with
Mr. Robinson.

Please forward any documentation you need us to complete to my address above.

Martin C. jacinto

/0

PAGE 39
INDEX of KEY DOCUMENTS Stubblefield v. Martin Jacinto CIVDS1208547 Removal COSTS related to: Martin Jacinto v. Richard Nahigian SBSC Case: CIVDS1604759
REMOVAL
Item Exh PAGES DATE DOCUMENT COSTS
GRAND TOTAL COMMENTS COMMENTS
alleged Jacinto paid rent 6/1/11-12/1/11 ( 7 mo); 1/12/12
Stubblefield's Complaint 3 TORT claims: served 3-day notice to pay/perform or quit; and served 60-
1 A 1-8 8/16/2012 Ejectment; Nuisance; and Trespass; named Space 120 day notice to terminate possession; plaintiff did not allege
Martin Jacinto (husband) only attorney fees as damages; plaintiff did not pray for fees; no
MRL allegations
asserts D stopped pymts Dec 2011; damaged home; 2-3
2 B 9-15 3/6/2013 Case Management Statement Justis Britt
days trial estimate; M&C w/Jacinto (not true)
3 C 17-21 4/17/2013 Parrish ltr to Jacinto--removal of home to Jacinto mailed to Jacinto's home address in SanBernardino
Docket shows no answer to Jacinto's cross- cross-complaint discrimination state law:Civil 51 Govt
4 D 22- 3/12/2014 trial set 3/12/14
complaint was filed; no "at issue" 12955;42 USC 1981,1985(3),3604(a);3605

Williamson never issued a partial satisfaction for the

Jacinto ordered to remove home; **costs to verified costs to remove the mobilehome despite being
Court directed verdict on liability and $41,166.58 judgmt
5 E 23-24 4/8/2014 remove shall be credit to partial satisfaction provided with copies of removal costs; no attorney who
dismissed Jacinto's cross-complaint entered on 4/8/14
of judgment represented Jacinto ever showed Jacintos a copy of the
judgment or explained removal costs were to be credited

6 F 25-30 5/8/2014 Notice of Entry Judgment 4/8/14 served to attorney Mosies Avila
Eva Stubblefield Hazard sent 4/17/13
Williamson encouraged Eva Stubblefield to
7 G 31- 5/14/2014 removal letter directly to Jacinto at his home -
talk to Jacinto (circumventing Avila)
not sent to his attorney Avila
Jacinto fired atty Avila; copy sent to Robert
$57,888.50 jgmt Aware Jacinto fired Avila on 5/20/14
Williamson with attached notice authorizing
8 H 32-33 5/20/2014 abstract recorded San Williamson served/mailed Costs memo to
Bruno Ehlert to "work with Williamson" to
Bernardino Cty Avila - knowing Jacinto had fired him
settle judgment
Fraudulent Costs Memo includes items
p.34: $1,484 copies; p.39: $3,115.95 pvt investigator; p.39:
Williamson filed fraudulent Costs Memo expressly excluded under CCP 1033.5 (b) and
$16,721.92 "costs" $3,497 online legal research; $320 court call; $1,277.93
including several line items expressly Ladas case as not recoverable; Williams v.
9 I 34-41 5/20/2014 added to $41,166.58 delivery svs; $509.32 travel; $85 fed ex; P served memo to
excluded under the costs statute. see CCP Chino Firt Dept (Christianson) precludes
jgmt atty Avila, despite knowing Jacinto fired Avila; Avila never
§1033.5(b) awarding costs or fees to Def. unless finding of
told Martin Jacinto he could challenge costs
frivolous
paid $5k deposit to demanded $5,000 deposit to start work Eva suggested that Jacinto "work through your atty"; Eva
10 J 42-43 5/23/2014 Eva sent letter directly to Jacinto home
remove home @ 120 (included in 11K below) knew Jacinto was not represented by atty
Civil §798.85 (MRL); Govt §12965(b) served motion on atty Avila despite knowing Jacinto fired
Motion-$190,449 atty fees p. 49; Williamson
11 K 44-52 7/3/2014 (discrimination); 42 USC §1981; Avila, who never notified Jacinto about the motion or ever
set hearing 11/19/14
§1985(3);§3604(a);§3505 federal disc mailed it to Jacinto
Signed $19,850 new contract to remove 4 contractors showed up to bid from May
home; Pacific returned $5,000 deposit check 2014 to Oct 2014; after each prospective
12 L 53-54 8/11/2014 paid Pacific $5,000 check was returned to Jacinto uncashed
as he could not work with CEO Thomas contrctor met w/CEO Tom Parrish they told
Parrish Jacinto they refuse to work w/Tom
Def agreed to pay
Fee Agreement-Richard Nahigian $10,000 p.59 cashier's check for $15,000 plus paid $10,000 cash on 9/30/14 as Nahigian would not sign
Nahigian $25K cash
13 M 55-59 9/11/2014 cash deposit; $25,000 retainer to oppose atty $25,000.00 Nahigian's note in red acknowledging Jacinto substitution of atty without partial payment; see Item 13
retainer to oppose
motion and negotiated removal of home had paid $10,000 cash initial deposit "M" p.59 $15,000 cashier chk 11/12/14
fees/costs
14 N 60-61 9/30/2014 Substitution of Atty - Nahigian paid Nahigian 2-pymt 3,000.00 would not sign substitution w/out pay paid $28,000 total to Nahigian to negotiate settlemt
Minute Order Granting Motion to amend amended judgment
Minute Order recited Richard Nahigian was
15 O 62-64 10/1/2014 judgment to add $16,721.92 fraudulent costs $57,888.50 - applied for
present during the hearing
to $41,166.58 jdgmt abstract that day
16 P 65-75 10/14/2014 $11,000 removal punch list-storage paid Hart/King $11,000.00 $11,000.00 work on punch list; storage, etc. RGW 8/11/17 aff.¶6:1-9 (5K dep;6K rent 4/1-oct-2014)
paid Palma Const. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 down pymt on contract to remove home see p. 71 paid Palma $2,500 deposit 10/14/14
despite just receiving $11,000 check from Jacinto and
1 Q 76- 10/17/2014 Order to Appear for Examination to Martin Jacinto Williamson applied for order 10/15/17
Nahigian purportedly working to settle the case
2 R 77- 11/8/2014 Nahigian settlement offer to P $53,000 lump sum
3 S 78- 11/8/2014 $57,888.50 Abstract Jgmt recorded
PAGE 40
recorded abstract despite lump sum settlement offer
 Williamson appeard by phone; asked for
4 T 79- 11/13/2014 Debtor Jacinto appeared for exam no appearance by Nahigian
continuance; crt continued to 11/19/14
Williamson "advised court parties are trying to
5 U 80- 11/19/2014 2nd Appearance by debtor Jacinto no appearance by Nahigian
settle" continue to 12/17/14
6 V 81- 11/19/2014 Motion for $190,449 atty fees continued to 12/17/14 no appearance by Nahigian
$4k progress pymt to
7 W 82- 11/23/2014 Palma Construction Invoice $4,000.00 $4,000.00 partial payment to Palma Construction
Palma Construct.
8 X 83- 11/24/2014 Jacinto Mot-be relieved as counsel off-calendar subsitution of attorney filed 10/9/14 Nahigian filed substitution of attorney 10/9/14
paid Palma $15K total
9 Y 84- 12/15/2014 Palma Construction Invoice for removal $8,500.00 $8,500.00 final removal costs to Palma 15K Palma Construction Removal Total $15,000.00
($2.5K+$4K+$8.5K)
10 Z 85- 12/17/2014 3rd Appearance by debtor Jacinto continued by Williamson by court call
11 AA 86- 12/17/2014 Continued Motion for Atty Fees continued by Williamson by court call
paid MTZ Creative Demolish wall and haul away existing concrete
12 BB 87- 12/30/2014 Contract-demolition and haul away $3,400.00 $3,400.00 MTZ Concrete Removal Cost $3,400
Concrete, inc. with pregrade after
13 CC 88-89 1/7/2015 email to Nahigian re: punch list
14 DD 90-91 2/4/2015 email to Williamson 4 contractors setl offer: 5K+15K fees+65K +45K+25K
in fed ct 2/18/15; please postpone hearings on
email: re: 2/17/15 mtg set up w/Tom Parrish
15 EE 92- 2/17/2015 atty fees and Jacinto debtor exam both set for
re:punch list to do
2/18/15
16 FF 93- 2/18/2015 court grants 190,499 atty fees no opposition; no appearance
atty must file affidavit Nahigian told Jacinto no need to appear because he would
17 GG 94-95 2/18/2015 4th hearing Jacinto debtor exam bench warrant issued for Jacinto arrest
w/sheriff to arrest appear and get a 4th continuance
18 HH 96-97 2/24/2015 Jacinto filed permit at HCD Department $196.00 $196.00 determine conformance w/codes $196 Permit Fee to HCD inspector
19 II 98- 2/25/2015 MTZ Creative Concrete Invoice paid MTZ Concrete $2,250.00 $2,250.00 concrete work demand by Tom Parrish $2,500 compact dirt w/tractor & water every ft at fill
20 JJ 99-102 2/25/2015 Fee Award $190, 499.00 recorded abstract of judgment
Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
21 KK 103- 2/27/2015
return on 3/19/15
22 LL 104- 3/9/2015 HCD inspected utility pedestal found no code violaitons; approved
M Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
23 105- 3/19/2015
M return on 4/16/15
24 NN 106- 4/16/2015 Jacinto debtor exam; off calendar by request of moving party
Jacinto believed Nahigian had settled with his "long-time
Jacintos paid $15K cash to atty Robert
setl offer:$5K+$15k fees;$65K in 27 friend" Williamson to accept cash settlement; Jacinto
25 OO 107-108 5/21/2015 Williamson, Jr. and took hard $ loan to pay
days;$45K in 27 days;25K @ $450/mo thought paying 15K fees+45K fees+25Kfees was accepted
$63,106.40 to satisfy 1st judgment
by Williamson to settle the case
paid to: Robert Nahigian told Jacinto's they were paying a fee to
26 PP 109- 6/2/2015 $12K+$3K cash: Robert Williamson, Jr. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 checks to: RGW, Jr ($12K+$3K)
Williamson, Jr. Williamson for "privilege to negotiate settlemt"
$41,166.58 jgmt + Nahigian did not require Williamson to provide an
Demand: $57,888.50+$5,202.04+15.86
27 QQ 110- 8/25/2015 $16,721.92 costs + no acknowledgement of judgmt provided acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment which is
($5,217.90 interest)+jdmt= $63,106.40
$5,217.90 interest standard procedure at an escrow closing
Nahigian never sought credit for removal costs despite that
28 RR 111- 8/26/2015 Belle Vista Escrow paid $63,106.40 paid Stubblefield $63,106.40 no credits for removal costs deducted
4/8/14 judgment expressly ordered it
1.4 yrs later ackknowledgment demand is Williamson sent unnotarized acknowledgment not
29 SS 112- 11/22/2016 Kent Sharp demands acknowledgment
finally served on Williamson complying with duty to notarize his signature
30 TT 113- 12/7/2016 Unnotarized acknowledgements sent Atty forced to request notarized docs Williamson receives ltr and resends new docs
atty sent to D&B Williamson resent notarized docs to Kent
31 UU 114- 1/9/2017 Notarized Acknowledgments re-sent No credit was ever issued for removal costs
escrow company Sharp; trying to retrieve acknowl.
32 hired Chris Lockwood to sue Nahigian retainer paid Apr '16 $5,000 had to hire Chris Lockwood sue Nahigian to recover damages
33 VV 115- 3/2/2017 hired Kent Sharp to work on 2 cases Paid to Kent Sharp $20,000.00 invoices to end of 2016 - invoice 3/27/17 paid Kent Sharp to prosecute default judgment
34 Total Removal Cost► $46,846.00 $162,952.40 ◄ Sub-total Post-Litigation Costs no credit despite order to issue credit 4/8/14
35 minus $ Williamson -$15,000.00 ADDED Costs Pre-Litigation Costs Mobilehome @ 120
36 $31,846.00 $11,000.00 purchase mobilehome approx April 2011
$10,000 remodel costs recommended by Tom
37 $10,000.00
Parrish and Mgr Marvin Freeman
38 $7,000.00 rent paid from June 2011-Dec 2011
39 $28,000.00 Sub-total Pre-Litigation Costs
40 $190,952.40 PAGE
◄GRAND TOTAL ALL COSTS ◄ doesn't include 12% interest on 2015 hard $ loan 41
 TOTALS

1.$

2.$

3, Jury feod and 3.$

4.$

5, Service

,,,,,,,,;, ",.,,,, 9. $

10. AtlOmIBVla€!S Sf",itUll:0nl ff.::~es arefixed wll170ut necesslfyof a court

'12. Court reporter fees

I am .the attorney. ~genL orp~rt'f vmoi:;faifUS the-sa coats, To thet best of my I<:r',owledf~e and ·betiefth!s memorandum of costs is correct
am.i>(hesecosts were necessarily lncurred in 1his caSe,

PAGE 42
 NUMBER
PROPERTIES V~ et CIVDS1200547

Fad Ex $ 85A1
Travel EXiDer1s.efS $

Attachment cohcem.s is ai! statemet}ls in

Atfachmentaremacie under llenalty

JUdicial Council

PAGE 43
 ~~,..:~ '7(~/'~
• iLegaISIJI'POt1 (951)779-0100 ~ I

1 .John H. Pentccost1 ENq~'I Bal'" No. 995%7

c .RDbtrt G. \ViliiamsoR, Jr., Esq., Bar Nil. 73176
2 RARTIKlNG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAnON
3 4 Hutto'll Centre Drive, Suite 900
Santa Ana., Californin 92707
4 Telephone: (114) 432--87(10
F_illllle: (714) 54.1457 ~ ~~".".t;t.
5 . at BRANDt DEPUtY
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants,. THOMAS PARRISH and STUBBLEFIELD
6 l'ROPERTJES1 dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALTFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10
t 1 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTlES, a Caliromia ) Case No. CIVDS 120854 7
general partnership, dba MOUNTAIN ))
12 SHADOWSMOBTLEHOME , ). Judge: Hem. Bryan F. Foster
Dept. 835J
13 'COMMUNITY, )
) , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOnON FOR
14 Plaintiff- ) ATTORNEYS1 FEES BY
) PLAINTIFF AND CROSS DEFENDANTS
IS v. ) STUBBLEFiELD PROPERTIES AND .
.) THOMAS PARRISH; MEMORANDUM OF
16 MARTIN C. JACINTO, an individual; and ) POINTS AND AUTHORmES AND
DOES 1 lhrough 50,;inclusive, } DECLARATION OF ROBERT G~
17 ) WILLIAMSON, JR. IN SUPPORT
Defendants. ) THEREOF
18 )
)
\ 9 .4ND ALL RELATED CROSS ..ACTTON
20
~
)
Date:
Time:
November 19, 2Q 14
8:30 a.m.
) Dept~: 835]
21 )

22' ------~----------------~~).
23
24
25
26

27
28

PAGE 44
 AND

matter rnay c(yurt, located

ATTORNE}/IS FEES.

PAGE 45
 and/or statullDfV pC1JallJCS the cross coni.pltiint.

partyw0uld be required to not '·'1"'1.,d.A>,"'Urt'l1·p. the. prevailing

J attoDICY"'S fJ .....J, ... u,:l.u".·...,. In light oflhese economic

4 and while from inceptioll l1tllgBltl0JU C!Qn~)lCliereCl its at nearly every;.

5 opportun.ity dtid~lg the as~;es:)e4 its legal position eXtJenses for the purpose I
I
6 extending a good faith ten11inate the l1t1;garlOn through settlement

As a effort to settle \vith Defendant at

I

Defendant's denlands
t() that point, and
II

case went to a jury concluded soundly against Defendant. (\Vil1. 1

13 For the reasons; PlaintifI respectflll1yrequest that the award Plaintiff

14 reasonable attorneys' at .lU __ "~"'\w·'" rate SGS(},OO total attorney time prior to the

lsfiHng of thl sMotiOrl , inthe 185,640.00.

16 additional $4~265.00 costs were, or wiIr incurred in connection

17 \vith award a sum of

r~sand

20 July 4 Respectfully subnlitted,

22

\ViHiamson, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiff ICross-Defendant
STUBBLEFIEI",D
IV10UNTAJN SHADO\VS
and Tl-lOMASPARRlSH

CRoss~DEFENDANTS ' POR ATTORNEY FEES',

PAGE 46
 I\t.torneys Fee,s
I

495,00
122.50

385.00
1.40 2,397,$0

*
l{~~OO n~oo 450 $ 562

Total hI's after

reduced rate

509.20 I$

PAGE 47
 1 correct copy of my e-mail of November 5, 2014 to Mr. Nahigian is attached hereto marked
2 Exhibit "8."

3 11. On November 6, 2014 I e-mailed Mr. Nahigian advising him to have Defendant's
4 contractor meet with Mr. Parrish to discuss scheduling and removal of Defendant's

5 mobilehome and provided Mr. Parrish's contact information and alternative contacts Ms.
6 Hazard or Ms. Faulise if Mr. Parrish was unavailable. I also again requested firm settlement
rl<. 7 numbers reminding him that at that time the amended judgment was $58,888.50 and the
~ 8 pending attorney fees motion was "--$15 BK" and that Defendant's judgment debtor hearing was
9 set for November 13, 2014--the attorney's fees motion was set for November 19, 2014. A true
10 and correct copy of my e-mail of November 6, 2014 to Mr. Nahigian is attached hereto marked
11 Exhibit "9."

0 12 12. On November 10,2014, I e-mailed Mr. Nahigian advising him I had not received
Or--­
0\0

13 his client's proposal. A true and correct copy of my e-mail of November 10, 2014 to Mr.
wr--­
5~
~ ~;s
z:::~ 14 Nahigian is attached hereto marked Exhibit "10."
~O::f2
0-
-ga....l
~f-6 15 13. Later that afternoon I acknowledged receipt of Mr. Nahigian's e-mail of that
~ Z
w~ ft

~< 16 same afternoon containing his client's settlement proposal and clarifying, among other things
§~
;:>z
:x:J5
'V
17 that the requested "5K credit" could not be considered until the mobilehome was removed. A
18 true and correct copy of my second e-mail of November 10,2014 to Mr. Nahigian containing

19 Mr. Nahigian's forwarded e-mail of the same date conveying Defendant's settlement proposal
"IIJ

20 is attached hereto marked Exhibit "11." (Mr. Nahigian's forwarded e-mail chain of November
21 10, 2014 shows November 8, 2014 as the date the proposal was sent to me. I did not receive it
22 on that date.)
23 14. In light of receiving Defendant's settlement proposal of November 10,2014, and
24 apparent issues Defendant was having with his contractor regarding removal of concrete around

25 the mobilehome, I agreed with Mr. Nahigian's request to continue Defendant's judgment
26 debtor hearing set for November 13, 2014. A true and correct copy of my e-mail of November

27 13, 2014 to Mr. Nahigian confinning the debtor hearing had been continued to November 19,

28
3
36568.050/4847-7483-3739v.l PAGE 48
DECLARATION OF ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON, JR.
 2.

PAGE 49
 4. to set
I
f

a)

FEE

PAGE 50
matter are expr,eS!HOnS

PAGE 51
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&cas...

Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case Type:

Case Number:

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action:

EX PARTE HEARING RE: FOR ORDER AMENDING JUDGMENT TO ADD COSTS

10/01/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35X

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: LORI MOWLES
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS 4420
COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED
EX PARTE ORDER SIGNED BY THE COURT.
AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND
AGAINST DEFENDANT AFTER TRIAL.
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 52
1 of 1 11/21/2017, 8:25 PM
 1 IN THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY COURT DISTRICT

SAN BERNARDINO DIVISION, COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO

STA OF I FORNIA

4 STUBBLEFIELD
5 inti
6 - vs- No. CIVDS
7 MARTIN JACINTO,
8

10

THE . BRYAN JUDGE

12 DEPARTf1ENT 8-35
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
1, 2014
15

6 APPEARANCES:
17
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ROBERT WILLIAMSON
18 Attorney at Law
9

20 FOR THE DEFENDANT: RICHARD NAHIGIAN

1''',\ :1
Attorney at Law
L...L

Reported
24

26 I
E. , CSR
PHOTOCOPYING OF TRANSCRIPT PROHIBITED TO GOVERNMENT 69954 (D)
PAGE 53
 1 SAN OCTOBER 1/

:2 NO. HON. F.
3 A.M.
4

5 number one;
6 versus
7 MR. Yes, morning.
8 WilliamSQl1

9 . NAHIGIAN Hortor. I am
10
11 ex
12

13
14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21 Honorfs I

22 cost
23 on a '-'.. . . . . '-fA

MR. Yes.
25 THE COURT:
26 an

Ka E. Sellers, f er

PAGE 54
 1

3 MR. 't thin.k: we to do

4 is motion I

5 I?
6

10
11

12 1st.
13 f.1R . Here is Honor. We

14 have

15 the

16 came up to 50-some
17 court
~~~"MM~~_,~ _ _ ·'~M~~"~~~-'~'~·~-

18 we
19 a no
20

and so us to have
22 and court ex no
23 reason
24
25 was a mot
26 to tax costs was

E .. Offie

PAGE 55
 3

2 cost.
3 MR . Wll~JI}\l'VlSON: cost.
4 THE cost
5

6
!vlE.

'7 THE

8
since
9 can
10 but I can say at
11
12 THE I don't find so I am
13 to
14

15
16 THE I

17 rvm.
THE COURT.:

19
20
21 case.
22 I hate to ,-.LJ..L.,LJ,Yt but you

23 are
24 THE I can
25 iYlR .

26
is we

E. Sellers, Official

PAGE 56
 1 There was a motion to Is
2

3 I not

4 danft

5 MR. I a motion
6 to I think just
7 according to Mr. of he
8 out.
9 TIi'E So probably moot. I knovl, I
10 don't in front me so I 't know.
11 May I I kilov,,'
if to not here.
13 perhaps court can
14 coupled
15 THE It is not a problem. 'V\TIat

J..b f we motion attorney's for

17 November before so
18 we on the
19 a that off
20 motion pending. I 1"-
L

21
22 THE

23 [vIR. I you;
24 makes sense.
25 is
6 on November 's fees.

E. Sellers,

PAGE 57
 1 I an amended
2

3
COURT: I

4
MR. you.
5 COURT:

6 are .)
7

8
9

10
11

13
14
15

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

E. Sellers, Official

PAGE 58
 1 !S

4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
6

7 I, KATHY E. , CSR, Official Court

8 Reporter of above-entit7 court, do hereby
9 certi fy:
10 That I am a i ed Shorthand Reporter of
11 the State of California duly licensed tice;
12 t I di d report in Steno ora 7 proceedi ngs
13 upon hearing of the a tioned cause at the t
14 and pJ ace herei n fore forth; that the foregoing
15 pages numbered 1 5, inclusive, constitute,
6 best of my know7 and be7 e a fu?l, true} and
17 correct t tion from my said shorthand no so
1 taken for the te of October 1, 2014.
19 Dated at Bernardino, California l this
20 14th day of July 2017.
21

22

25 } C, S. R. No,
26

KATHY E. SELLERS, CSR

PHOTOCOPYING OF TRANSCRIPT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE (D)

PAGE 59
 .t lega' Support (951 }77g..01 00 OOIOO/W

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CIVIL DI'IISION

10
11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a ) Case No. CIVDS 1208547
California general partnership, dba )
12 )
MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE )
13 HOME COMMUNITY, ) IPItOP9!iJU)} AMENDED JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
]4 Plaintiff, ~ STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A
CALIFORNIA GENERAL
15 v. PARTNERSHIP DBA MOUNTAIN
SHADOWS MOBILE HOME
16 COMMUNITY, AND AGAINST .
MARTIN C. JACINTO, DEFENDANT MARTIN c~ JACINTO
17 AFTER JURY TRlAL.
Defendant.
]8
19
20 The court having directed a verdict in favor Plaintiff and Cross Defendant
21 Stubblefield Properties, a California general partnership dba Mountain Shadows Mobile
22 Home. C01nmunity and Cross Defendant ThOlnas Parrish, sued as Mr.. Parrish, against
23 Defendant and Cross Complainant Martin C. Jacinto on the issue of liability and having
24 dismissed the Cross COlnp1aint on March 17,2014;

25 On March] BJ 2014, the jury on a special verdict found that Defendant Martin C.
26 Jacinto =5 wrongful conduct caused hann to PlaintiffStubblefleld Properties entitling Plaintiff
27 to damages for past and future rental value lost and cost ofrerooval of the ITIobilehome fronl
28 space 120 and restoration of mobHehome site, and the Court Clerk having recorded and filed

J6568J)50/48'!O-8891-3436v.1
I PROPOSED] "f,.I£ND£tJ JUDG~ftll't

PAGE 60
 e t legal Support (951)779-01 DO OOIO~

the special verdict. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANp ~ECR~ED,

2 Judglnent in favor of Plaintiff Stubblefield Properties, a California general partnership
3 dba Monnta.in Shadows Mobi1e Home Com,munity and against Defendant Martin C. Jacinto

4
in the SUln of $41, 166.58~
5 That Defendant Martin C. Jacinto has no interest ill or possessory leight or rigbts to
6 space 120 in Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community, 4040 E. Piedmont DriveJ
7 Highland. CA; and
8 That Defendant Martin C. Jacinto shan be and hereby is ordered to remove his
9 lllobUehome frotn Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community in accordance with
10 Plaintiffs requirements set forth in Mountain Shadows MobHeholne COlnmunity's move out
1] letter dated AprI1 17. 2013. Qefendanfs removal of his mobilehome shaH be partial
12 satisfaction oftlus judgment to the extent of his verified costs incurred for said removal.
13 Plaintiff to recoverits costs in the sum of$ 16~72l.92 fota totaljudBment in the smn
14 ofS51,888.50.

15 The C01Jrt Clerk shall forthwith enter this Amended Judgment.

16 1TISSOORDERED.
17
18 Dated: tJl!.
~____...r........_1 2014
r:r J
19 Hon. Bry n F. Foster, Judger Superior
Court
20
21

21
23
24
25

26
27
28

l65fil.tJ5OI411l1l-8891.)4J6v.l
[PROPOSED) ,Wr.NDEO JIJI>OM£NT

PAGE 61
 HPRT
A.TTORNEYS
I KI NG
AT lAW
RICHARD. E" NAHIGIAN
A'ITOItNEY AT LAW Robart G .. Williamson, Jr~ I Attorney at Law

"l"Br.SPHONB (626) 68)..3991 4 Hutton CenIte Driw. SuIte"900 I Santa Ha, Caifomla 92707
C,liU.Ul.AR (8ts) 414-5936 P: 714.432.8700 I F; 714.546.7457
ftAa;JMI.L/! (6:lt) 796-2554
I'Williamson@h~.ccm 1www.harUdnglaw.oom

PAGE 62
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess. sb-court. org/civillcivilminutes.asp ?courtcode=X&...

Home Minutes

Case Type:

Case Number:

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action: (Choose)

MOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH
11/19/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: LUANN GEESINK

COURT REPORTER BERNADETTE GRANADO 10451

COURT ATTENDANT R KRETZMEIER

APPEARANCES:

ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON ..IR PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT

PROCEEDINGS:

POST-DISPOSITION HEARING HELD

THE COURT IS ADVISED THE PARTIES ARE ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER. MATTER IS

RESET AS

STATED BELOW.

HEARINGS:

CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 12/17/14 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

ACTION - COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 63
1 of 1 11/1912017, 12:50 PM
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.orglcivil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X& ...

Minutes

Case Type:

Case Number: Search

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action: (Choose)

MOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH
12/17/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: LORI MOWLES

COURT REPORTER ROCIO GONZALEZ 10911

COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO

APPEARANCES:

ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, THOMAS

PARRISH.

DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT

PROCEEDINGS:

PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD

MOTION

COURT CONTINUES MATTER AS FOLLOWS

HEARINGS:

CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 02/18/15 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.

NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY COUNSEL

ACTION - COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 64
1 Ilf 1 11/1912017, 12:52 PM
Robert G. Williamson Jr.

From: Robert G. Williamson Jr.

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Richard Nahigian
Subject: Re: Jacinto

Noted your SD appearance.Court would not continue, ruled anyway. $190K atty fees.
Warrant issued forJacinto. Return, 2/27 8:30 a.m. , bail $250K.

Robert

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:55 AM, IIRichard Nahigian" <nahigian@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes. I personally will pay. Richard. Please. We are almost there. They have the money ready now

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:18 AM, "Robert G. Williamson Jr." <rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com> wrote:

It is up to the court. He may not postpone. I have cost of reporter and interpreter for
ojd. You pay for them if court continues?

Robert

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:15 AM, "Richard Nahigian" <nahigian@yahoo.com> wrote:

Reminding you that I am in Federal court ..... San Diego

today. Please postpone. They are starting work this week. Will do
everything on the punch list. You may confer with Eva. Thank
you. Richard
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 17,2015, at 9:13 AM, "Robert G. Williamson Jr."

<rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com> wrote:

Richard,

Per our tic: confirmed, 11 :00 a.m. today at Mountain

Shadows you will meet with Mr. Parrish at park office,
sp. 4, just inside the gate to your right, for purposes of
visiting sp. 120 to view punch list items that need to be
completed.

Robert

Robert G. Williamson Jr. I Partner

Hart J King
1
PAGE 65
 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

3 --000--

5 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, )
)
6 Petitioner, ) Case No. CIVDS1208547
}
7 -vs- )
)
8 MARTI JACINTO, )
)
9 Respondent. )

10

11

12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS

13 BEFORE HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE

14 DEPARTMENT S-24

15 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

16 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015

17

18 APPEARANCES:

19
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ROBERT WILLIAMSON
20 Attorney at Law

21
FOR THE DEFENDANT: RICHARD NAHIGIAN
22 Attorney at Law

23

24
REPORTED BY: STEPHANIE AUSTIN, CSR
25 Official Court Reporter
CSR No. 13119
26 COpy
Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter
PAGE 66
 1

1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2

2 A.M. SESSION

3 DEPARTMENT S-35 HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE

4 APPEARANCES:

5 The Plaintiff, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,

6 by counsel, ROBERT WILLIAMSON,

7 Attorney at Law.

8 (Stephanie Austin, CSR, Official Court

9 Reporter, CSR No. 13119.)

10 -000-

11 (Whereupon the following proceedings were

12 held in open court:)

13

14 THE COURT: Number five, Stubblefield versus

15 Jacinto.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning. Robert Williamson

17 appearing for plaintiff, moving partyw I'm also on number

18 eight, the order for appearance of judgment debtor.

19 THE COURT: Yeah.

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: I received a call, I think it was

21 the day before yesterday, from the Jacinto attorney,

22 Mr. Nahigian, who, again, sent me an e-mail morning,

23 hers in federal court. He's not going to appear.

24 You know, this motion has been pending for a long time.

25 THE COURT: I'm going to rule on the motion. If

26 he's not going to appear, he should have someone else

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 67
 2·

1 appear. The motion for attorney fees in the amount of

2 190,249 is granted.

3 As far as the examination of judgment debtor is

4 concerned

5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't see Mr. Jacinto in court.

6 THE COURT: What was the full amount of the

7 judgment?

8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Total amount, I think, was 57,000.

9 THE COURT: I'm going to issue a bench warrant for

10 250,000. If do you want to give me another date so if

--------~----------~~--------------------------
11 he's picked up?

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Whatever date convenient for

~-. 13 you.

14 THE COURT: We could noti you if someone shows up

15 the next day or --

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Within ten days?

17 THE COURT: Let's set it out for the how is the

18 27th of February, Friday?

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: That would be fine.

20 THE COURT: Okay. If he get's arraigned on that --

21 that bench warrant, we'll set for that date. If not, you

22 might call in, and we will just continue it. So you -- so

23 you can appear.

24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: You can contact the Sheriff's

26 Department about enforcing the bench warrant.

Stephanie Austin, Certifi Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 68
 3

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, your Honor.

2 (At which time, the foregoing proceedings were concluded.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 69
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess. sb-court. orglcivillcivilminutes .asp?courtcode=X&...

Home Minutes

Case Type:

Case Number: Search

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action: (Choose)

MOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH
02/18/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: PATRICIA VEGA

COURT REPORTER STEPHANIE AUSTIN 13119

COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO

APPEARANCES:

ATTORNEY ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

RICHARD NAHIGIAN FOR MARTIN C JACINTO NOT PRESENT

PROCEEDINGS:

08:40

POST-DISPOSITION HEARING HELD

MOTION

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH'S MOTION FOR ATTNY FEES IS HEARD.

NO OPPOSITION PRESENTED.

COURT FINDS:

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IS GRANTED.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

ACTION - COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 70
1 of 1 11119/2017, 12:52 PM
 4

1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015

2 P.M. SESSION

3 DEPARTMENT S-35 HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE

4 APPEARANCES:

5 The Defendant, MARTIN JACINTO, with his

6 counsel, RICHARD NAHIGIAN, Attorney at

7 Law.

8 (Stephanie Austin, CSR, Official Court

9 Reporter, CSR No. 13119.)

10 -000-

11 (Whereupon the following proceedings were

12 held in open court:)

.--..... 13

14 THE COURT: Okay. Come on forward.

15 MR. NAHIGIAN: Thank you.

16 THE COURT: Is this on this one?

17 THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT: Yes.

18 THE COURT: This so Stubblefield Properties versus

19 Jacinto.

20 MR. NAHIGIAN: Yes. Good afternoon, your Honor.

21 My name is Richard Nahigian. 11m the attorney for Martin

22 Jacinto. Mr. Jacinto is present. I understand that

23 proceedings took place in court this morning. It's not

24 proper for me to speak about those without Mr. Williamson

25 here. I want to speak about the aspect that I spoke with

26 him several times.

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 71
 5

1 THE COURT: It was on for a motion and creditor

2 examination.

3 MR. NAHIGIAN: What happened is, your Honor, I had

4 trial. There was a 40 or 41,000 verdict. There was 15

5 or 16,000 in costs, which was not challenged when this case

6 came to me several months later. I spoke with Mr.

7 Williamson at length and met him here several about

8 the balance, and he wanted -- we wanted to do a global

9 settlement. Before he would discuss settlement, he gave a,

10 kind of, punch of items which had not been done after

11 Mr. Jacinto received an adverse judgment and verdict.

12 We got that list. It was, basically, removal

13 of a mobile home. We contacted two different --

14 THE COURT: You may not talk about the merits.

15 MR. NAHIGIAN: I'm talking about the failure to

16 appear. He paid 20 or $22,000.00. Monday, of this week, we

17 had a very short conference. I went out personal to the

18 property, the mobile home site, and I coordinated this with

19 Mr. Williamson and Mr. Parrish, and I got a very brief punch

20 list. We did it and finished it this week. Mr. Jacinto

21 called. I talked to him Monday about that, and his wife,

22 and I stated that is what we are doing.

23 Mr. Jacinto can address the Court, or I can

24 speak to him, if you could tell him what the court date was.

25 THE COURT: Just to, kind of, shortcut this. You

26 mis-calendared this; is that what you are telling me?

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 72
 6

1 MR. NAHIGIAN: Yes. Okay.

2 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I just want you to recall the

3 warrant.

4 THE COURT: What date did we put it over?

5 THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT: The 27th of February.

6 THE DEFENDANT: I just --

7 THE COURT: You shouldn't talk. You are in good

8 shape. You are ordered back here on the 27th of February at

9 8:30 for a creditor's examination. You can talk to the

10 other side, if they want to work out a different date or

11 something of that nature. Unless there's some agreement,

12 and you notify the court, you are suppose to be back here on

13 the 27th, and I will recall the bench warrant.

14 MR. NAHIGIAN: You will recall and quash -- recall

15 the warrant?

16 THE COURT: I will recall the warrant. I don't

17 know if it's been sent out. Probably not.

18 MR. NAHIGIAN: I cannot discuss -- because he's not

19 here --

20 THE COURT: I made a ruling because there was no

21 opposition. You can do a reconsideration or whatever you

22 feel is necessary.

23 MR. NAHIGIAN: He's free to leave?

24 THE COURT: Yes. That's it.

-',
25 MR. NAHIGIAN: Okay.

26 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you.

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 73
 7

1 THE COURT: You can explain why you weren't here

2 this morning, but we set for an asc, also.

3 MR. NAHIGIAN: For me?

4 THE COURT: Yeah.

5 MR. NAHIGIAN: I was in federal court in San Diego.

6 I spoke to Mr. Williamson. He said if you pay for the

7 interpreter -- if you pay for the court reporter, he would

8 be willing to continue it. But he said the Court was not

9 willing to continue it, so I -- I was in federal court. I

10 notified him yesterday, because I was down there with the

11 DA.

12 THE COURT: I don't know why they said the court

13 wasn't willing to continue it, it didn't come to me.

14 Explain it next time, maybe you can work something out.

15 (At which time, the foregoing proceedings were concluded.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 74
 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

4 DEPARTMENT 8-35 HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE

6 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, )

7
Plaintiff, ) Case No. Civds1208547
vs. }
8 )

MARTIN JACINTO, )

9 ) E-065006
Defendant. )

10 )

) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13

14

15 I, Stephanie Austin, CSR, Official Court

16 Reporter, of the State of California, for the County of San

17 Bernardino, hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1

18 through 7, to the best of my knowledge and belief, comprise

19 a full, true and correct computerized transcript of the

20 proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on Wednesday,

21 February 17, 2015.

22

23 Dated this 1st day of March, 2016.

j¥~~~
24

25 ,CSR

26 Official Court Reporter, No. 1 19

Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

PAGE 75
------
--~-- ..
 1
• DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN
•
2 I, Richard E. Nahigian, hereby declares as follows:

3
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and have been so
4
licensed since January 1970.
5
2. I am attorney for defendant Martin J. Jacinto in the case herein.
6
3. I had prepared the previous discussion and points and authorities based on my review and
7
my analysis 'of plaintiffs award oflegal fees. Ibelieve the amount that I had suggested to
8
the court to award is more than appropriate.
9

10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
11
knowledge and belief.
12

13
Executed on SEPTEMBERzK;015, at Pasadena, California.
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
i .
24
...
. 25
;

26

27

28
4
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
j
PAGE 76
, .- .,
•
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN (SBN 45675)
Attorney at Law '
•
1122 East Green Street
2 Pasadena, California 91106 '
Telephone: (626) 683-3991
-3 Facsimile: (626) 796-2554

4 Attorney for Defendant

MARTIN C. JACINTO ·
5

6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CIVIL DIVISION
8
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A . ) CASE NO.: CIVDS1208547
9 CALIFORNIA GENERAL )
PARTNERSHIP, DBA MOUNTAIN ) . DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
10 SHADOWS MOBILE HOME ) PLANTIFF'S MOTION FOR
) ATTORNEY ' S FEE; MEMORANDUM
11 Plaintiff, ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
) DECLARATION OF RICHARD E.
12 v. ) NAHIGIAN
)
13 MARTIN C. JACINTO, )
Date: N IO)IJ <?i'Vlber
)
14 Defendant. ) Time: 8:30 A.M.
) Dept.: 35
15 ) HONORABLE BRYAN F. FOSTER,
) JUDGE PRESIDING
16 )
17 ----------------------~)
18
Defendant Martin C. Jacinto hereby opposes·plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees.
19 J. There are no attorney's fee provisions in the rules and regulations of the Mountain
20 Shadows communities. Secondly, there is no showing that Mr. Jacinto even

21 saw the rules and regulations nor signed them. He was not put on notice and
they cannot be imposed upon him at this time.
22
2. On the original rental agreement, that is the original rental agreement signed by
23
Mr. Jacinto's predecessors and by Mountain Shadows, which we do not have,
24
we have no information to know whether there are attorney's fees provisions in
25 that original contract. Evep if there were, there is absolutely no showing of
26 assignment of the contract and in fact the very contention and issues that

27 Plaintiff raised in the underlying lawsuit support the fact.

28 3, The big picture is that this is a simple trespass lawsuit. There was a trial, the

1
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER

PAGE 77
 • •
defendant lost, and the amount of the judgment was $41,000. Plaintiff contends
that because Mr. Jacinto's counsel filed a cross complaint that that constituted a
2
demand for extraordinary legal work. Mr. Williamson has contended and
3
shown that he is an extremely experienced attorney, long standing in mobile
4 home and mobile park litigation.
5 4. As I understand it that it now came out of the trial, there was at one time a few

6 very simple questions being asked of one of Plaintiff's witnesses regarding

purported prejudice. My understanding is that the witness testified that 80% of
7
occupants at Mountain Shadows were Hispanic thereby squelching any
8
contention that the mobile home was prejudice. This does not give rise to
9
complexity of any issues since cross complainant had to go forward with the
10 burden of showing some prejudice. Again as I understand it, one of the
II witnesses recited only one statement that reportedly individually and in a

12 managerial capacity plaintiff made which they deemed to be prejUdice.

5. In traditional lawsuits, other than rico or certain federal rights or employment
13
litigation, the typical attorney's fee is 10-15%. Here, attorney's fees sought are
14
500% of the awards. That is unconscionable and unnecessary. Ifa few of the
15
entries could be noted on certain dates, there were $1 ,700 or $1,800 attributable
16 to an attorney and other costs to paralegal and lesser down the lines. These are
17 not warranted.
18 6. By plaintiff's counsel ' s own statement bifurcating the amount oflegal fees
attributable to the case before and after a cross complaint was filed showed that
19
the total amount was not necessary or contemplated. There were no compelling
20
intricate issues or doctrines or contentions of instances which has not been
21 .
raised before. These were mundane issues,which have. been litigated
22 throughout the courts of these states, decades after decades and are rather.
23 elementary.

24 7. For an individual such:as Mr. Jacinto who expended approximately $10,000 for
J •

25 the mobile home, and 1. believe was going to receive $1,OOO/month for rent, and
again pay $1 ,OOO/month to Stubblefield; which would net him zero money does ·
26
not warrant a lifetime attorney's fee provision. These items should be placed
27
into a common sense viewpoint and within reasonable parameters. What is
28 reasonable for this court is for this court to decide .
2
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER

PAGE 78
,.

1
8.
• •
We had offered somewhere between $25,000-$35,000 for legal fees in addition to
paying ,the total award which has now accrued to over $61,000 in costs which
2
were included in that award.
3 We have paid the total amount of the costs and paid the total amount of the
9.
4 principal and interest on the judgment. So based upon a $40,000 award we had

5 offered 60, 70, 80 percent of that as legal fees and I think that should be

6 appropriate. I recall several months of negotiating, no counter offers other than

the full amount being made by the plaintiff so for all of those reasons, we are .
7
opposed to an award of attorney's fee in excess to $25,000-$35 ,000 to be paid
8
by defendant to plaintiff.
9
10

11 DATED: September lr,';015 ' Respectfully sub

12

13
Attorney for Defendant
14 Martin C. Jacinto

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24,

25

26 ,

27

2,8
3
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
PAGE 79
 •
HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KIN G • Robert G. Williamson, Jr.
rwilliamson@hartkinglaw'.com

February 18, 2015

Our File Number: 36568.050/483.2-5093-6354v.'
VIA E-MAIL ONLY

Richard Nahigian, Esq.

1122 E. Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106

Re: Stubblefield Properties v. Jacinto. Case No. CIVDS1208547

Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees

Mr. Nahiglan:

Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312(a), we are serving you with this letter and a proposed
order for your approval as conforming to the Court's order issued February 18, 2015 granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees. Please notify us within five (5) days whether the proposed
order is so approved or your ,reasons for disapproval. Otherwise, we will deem your non-
response an approval.

Very truly yours,

Robert G. Williamson, Jr.

Enclosures

A Professional Corporation
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900, Santa Ana; California '92707
Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hartkinglaw.comIFx 714.546:7457

PAGE 80
I'
 • ~ SCANIEI

2
3

6
7
g SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNry OF SAN BE&"TARDINO - CIVIL DIVISION
10

11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a Case No. CIVDS 1208547

12 California general partnership) dba
MOtJNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE
13
HOME COMMl.JN1:TY~ _ _ _ _ ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
14 Plaintiff: ATTORNEY'S FEES AND AWARD OF I

ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PLAINTIFF !'

15 v. AND AGAINST DEFENDANT.

16 MARTIN C. JACINTO,
Date: F ebruarj 18, 2015 I
I

Tilne: 8:30 a.m. !

17 Dept: S35
Defendant.
18

19

20 Plaintiffs, STUBBLEFIELD dba MOlJNTAIN. SlLWOWS

21 MOBILE HOME CO.MMlJ1\TJTY C~Plaintiff') iY1otion set for November
22 19, 2014 and continued to Decelnber 17, 2014, came on for hearing by the Court on
23 February 18, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Departlnent S35 of the above entitled court. Plaintiff
24 appeared by counsel, Hart, King Robert Wimamson~ Jr. and neither Defendant nor
25 Defendant's counsel appeared;
26 Upon proof made to the satisfaction of the Court and good cause appearing therefor,
27 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.
28 i
Plaintiff shaH recover its reasonable attorney ~ s fecs against Defendant Martin C.

36568.050i4S14-0380·3938v.i
{PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAfNT1FP'S ManON FOR ATTOFUiEY n-ES

PAGE 81
 ...

Jacinto in the amount of$i90A99.00.

2 The Clerk ofthe Court shaH enter this Order forthwith.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
41

i ~ ~
5 Dated: _ ~ f a:5 .~ 2015
6
Court
7. BRYANF:
8~ l

10

11

12

13

14

15
16 !

17

19

20 !
21 I
22 I
!
..,""
..d '

I
261
!l
27 ~.l
28 ~
--------------~-.-.--~---.

2
36S6itoSO/4814·0380·3938v.l
fPROPOSE'lJl ORDER GRANTING ;\:t'rJTI(j:V .ATTOR:NEY·'S FEES

PAGE 82
 10/9/2017 CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main

Pending Case
Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Images
Hearings Report
Case Type:
Case Number: i

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action:

NOTICE OF REJECTED MOTION SENT.

0310412015 -1:57 PM

MOTION IS RETURNED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. COURT REQUIRES ORIGINAL

SIGNATURES ON DOCS

UNLESS STATED BY FAX/ELECTRONIC 2. MUST RESERVE A DATE WITH THE COURT

PRIOR

TO FILING AND SERVING DOCUMENTS. THE SUGGESTED DATES OF 3/24/15 & 3/25/15

ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

THERESERVED DATEITIME/DEPARTMENT MUST BE INCLUDED ON SERVED

PAPERWORK.

3. THE FEE WAIVER ON FILE FOR DEFENDANT IS EXPIRED. MUST SUBMIT NEW
FW001 & FW003 OR SUBMIT FEES OF $465 FOR THIS HEARING

PAGE 83
http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/civillcivilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=DS1208547&casetype=CIV&dsn=&actionseq=2&actiond...1/1
 ~ 1':,/ ~A-r,:i
tI

Brien

From: CRYSTAL VICTORIA LOPEZ <crystal.lopezm@hotmail.com>

Sent: Friday, March 04. 2016 12:21 PM
TD: christopher.lockwood@ariaslockwood.com
Subject: RE: Jacinto

> Date: Thu.l 21 May 2015 16:31:15 ...0700

> From: nahigian@Vahoo.com
> Subject: RE: Jacinto
> To: crystaUopezm@hotmail.com
>
>no.
>
>
> ------------------_ ....-----------------------
> On Thu 1 5/21/15, CRYSTAL VICTORIA LOPEZ <crvstalJopezm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subject; RE: Jacinto
> To: 'IRichard Nahigian" <nahigian@yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015/ 4:26 PM
>
> #yiv9526546689
> #yiv9526546689 -­
> .yiv9526546689hmmessage P
>{
> margin:Opx;padding;Opx;}
> #yiv9526546689 body.yiv9526S46689h mmessage
>{
> font-size:12pt;font·family:Calib ri;}
> #yiv9526546689 Can you
> p'ease check if there are any future court dates. ,
> don't want to miss any.
>
>
> Carolina
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 21 May
> 201514:57:21-0700
> > From:
> nahlgian@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Jacinto
> :> To: rwiUiamson@hartkinglaw.com
:>:> CC: crystal.lopezm@hotmail.com
1
PAGE 84
 >
»
> > Robert,
»
:> > New proposal:

> Retain the $51000 in your trust

account; .
.J U I

*- :> Pay $15,,(000 cash re legal fees

wrt:ii'in'10 days of agreementj
:>
> AND (1) $65~QOO lump sum within 27 days
oragreement;
, .......
• Ii: ...

>
»or
»
:>
> :> (2) $45,000 lump sum within
> 27 days of agreement plus an additional $25.,000, payable at
> $450 per month~ encumbered by one of their properties .. no
> interest
»
> > They
> have to pay almost usurious ;nterest to their 'ender.
»
> > Richard Nah;gian
»
>
>

2
PAGE 85
 No. 0936802298
Date 06102/J 5 J1:47:56 AM
iA.,i\l BERNARDINO l.\fAIN NAZ
)Ol2 0000196 0084

Pay ***$12,000.00

To The ROBERT G WILLIAMSON JR

Order Of
Not-Negotiable
Customer Copy
Rcrniner (purchased By): CHRIS MARTINEZ Retain for your Records
Bank ofAmerica, N.A. 451002931717
PHOENIX,AZ

.'
'0:1:48'92;.
.:':..... ~ .

• ..... t

.... '~t _ : .:: ',_ ," '. ..",. "

~~~~~~~*.~~~+ ..
. : . . ., .' ..... MEMORANDUM .:' ..
. :::'.. : :." .~:::. :.- .. .~ ,

.. " . ... . .

,.:. '..':'.:, .. ~. "'"---.'.r;.. . .~·!r-."""·\;=~,

. . .-..:~ ("':-'.flJ:!:i;rt:.f~ '-.~,_-..· -.··.,...... '-.-.'~-----"-"':----

PAGE 86
 August 25-1 2015

Ron~14 M. fern;tndoSr.
SenlorTitleOfficer
LawYer$'TUle
1675:5 Von Karman Avenue #100
IrvineI ,CA '92606

PUr$:uant to. YQurreql,l~st, demand is,~ hf!t~y made for payoff of the judgment ·and the ,post Judgment
ort;f~ri~, qV~$1:2QJS47, em· beh~lf' a(Stu.t;i,ble~f[.ldPropertlesl d,b~~ Mount~iTl SbaQQYl$ Jvtobile,Home
.Comrttunity,enlered on October :1,.2014, recorded as :inStrument number '20.14-0418050 'and ::,on
.·'Fe.bhlary2:5#:·1O:1S tetOntea..ilsJnstfijm~nt 'U.imb~r,2.Ql~30100! re.spictively,:;a$ft)110W$:
" < • • ' , . . . ­ , " . .,

InstrumenfNo.:

Date ofJu<igment 10/1/2014

Oateo.f Ot~r
AmpuntofJU(lgipent $57,888.50
Amou:nt of Order
Interest Rate 10%
Date of Qetnqnd a/"l:S/2.01S
Daily ~nt~rf$t:i\ff1ol;lnt '$'15,86
IntetestOved·thru
Date ofJ)e.:m~d $,S,2Q2.G4

Total Amolirtt·DWed
As,~ b~e "'Dem.~d .$ Qi1)9Q·$4

4e c k:­ fDt-+t­ jt6;:~::. ~O {P~cFF oF 8~IISJ

.Ver.YtruIY·VQ~$,
Stlibbtefield Properties
On J>ehait,Of 'Malinta'in Shadows Moblleno.meCpmm~nity

Ka'thrine-,Paufise,.Office'Manager .

c:\user.s\kafbY\loc:umenu\msmhccurrent·prOjetts\spc l20-qemcind.d'ocx
PAGE 87
 BELLE VISTA ESCROW, INC.
273 North Euclid Ave., Upland. CA 91786
Tel.909·946·9188 .Fn.909-946-7846

BORROWER(S) FINAL CLOSING STATEMENT

ESCROW NO: 23691 - MT DATE: 8/26/2015

ESCROW OFFICER: MISTY R. TEETER TIME: 11:44 AM
CLOSING DATE: 8/25/2015
BORROWER(S): MARTIN C. JACINTO and CAROLINA S. RAMIREZ
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 363 WEST BASELINE AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410

DEBITS CREDITS

Encumbrances
Loan from: JDI HOME LOANS, INC. $ 200,000.00

Title Charges - LAWYERS TITLE

[Total Title Charges: $525.00]
Lenders Policy' For $200,000.00 $ 425.00
Title ~ Sub Escrow Fee $ 75.00
Endorsements $ 25.00

Recording Charges
[Total Recording Charges: $81.001
RECONVEYANCE $ 32.00
DEED OF TRUST $ 49.00

Escrow Charges
[Total Escrow Charges: $550.00]
Escrow Fee $ 500.00
ARCHIVE FEE $ 50.00

New Loan Charges

1st LOAN to: JDI HOME LOANS, INC.
[Total New Loan Charges: $7,437.60]
Interest @ $58.3330 Per Day From 8/24/2015 To 9/112015 $ 408.33
Loan Origination Fee $ 3,479.27
Tax Service Fee $ 125.00
PROCESSING FEE
UNDERWRITIN FEE
$
$
600.00
795.00
.
WIRE FEE $ 35.00
LENDER DOC PREP $ 495.00
INVESTOR REBATE: LARRY RISDON $ 1,200.00
INVESTOR ADMIN FEE $ 300.00

Loan Payoff
2nd Loan Payoff to: MORTGAGE PAYOFF $ 128,300.00

Additional Disbursements
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES DBA MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE $ 63,106.40
11
HOME COMMUNITY
,

PAGE 88
*Totals* $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00
 ,•
,.
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN, SB#45675
e SCANNED
·1122 East Green Street
Pasadena, California 91106 .
Office (626) 683-3991
Fax (626) 796-2554
Attorney for Defendant
MARTIN J. JACINTO

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO- CIVIL BRANCH

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A Case No.: CIVDS1208547

CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
DBA MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
HOME CCP §473(B), MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY
vs.
MARTIN J. JACINTO, Hearing Date: September 17, 2015
Dept: S35 ';J: 30 fl· m.
.-., Defendant. Judge: Honorable Bryan F. Foster

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECOR~<:> 'C2-\..\ J)J) 0

cv1 '?JOlo-o
\,\'bS <
~
·
o.;.
: ·: i ·

\3oi2~-'2o~i2...
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and
department in the courthouse located at 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California, that
Defendant will move the court for an order requesting that the Judgment be set aside. This
motion is made on the following grounds: Inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect
(CCP §473(b)).
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, Declaration of Richard E. Nahigian in support thereof, the records and papers on
file and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the
hearing.
DATED: August 21, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

By =--+"-'~.1£...U.~---1-+-'Ar~-"'
RIC ARD E. NAHIGIA
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDA
MARTIN C. JACINTO
PAGE 89
19
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SET ASIDE

I.
BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court for ejection, nuisance and
tr~spass. In this original complaint, there was no request for attorneys fees made on behalf of

the plaintiff. On July 9, 2013, a cross complaint was filed by defendant. On March 17, 2014,
this Court directed a verdict on liability in favor of plaintiff and dismissed the cross complaint.
On March 18, 2014, the jury awarded damages to the plaintiff in the sum of$41,166.58 and
ordered to remove mobile home from Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community. A Motion
for Attorney's Fees by Plaintiff was filed and set for November 19, 2014. The Attorney's Fees
Hearing was continued to December 17, 2014 and was heard on February 18, 2015. Defendant,
Martin Jacinto, nor his counsel, Richard E, Nahigian appeared at the hearing. On February 25,
2015, this court ordered the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the amount of
$190,499.00. On February 25, 2015, defense attorney Richard Nahigian served and mail filed
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion was rejected and returned for lack of
original signature, unavailable suggested court dates and fee waiver on file was expired. The
moving defendant is now asking for a set aside of the judgment for attorney's fees.

II.
LEGAL ARGUMENT

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §473(B), THE COURT

SHOULD SET ASIDE THIS ADVERSE JUDGMENT OR RULING BASED ON
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT .

A. Grounds for Relief.

On application, the court may, on any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her
legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or
her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (Code Civ. Proc. §
473(b)). In determining whether t.he attorney's mistake or inadvertence was excusable, "the
court inquires whether 'a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances'
might have made the same error.'" (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42
Cal.3d 270, 276, 228 Cal.Rptr. 190, 721 P.2d 71, italics added.) As demonstrated in the
Declaration, the excusable neglect of failing to attend the hearing and be able to argue the
M.otion for Attorney's Fees on the merits was due to a unforeseen and mandatory appearance in
PAGE 90
20
entry of the default. The Order Granting Attorney's Fees was dated and filed on February 25,
2015. The Motion for Set Aside of the Judgment is filed on August 24, 2015, within the six-
month time limit.

B. Policy of Law Favors Trial on Merits.

The policy of the law is that controversies should.be heard and disposed of on their
merits (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 681, 694-703, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351;
Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417). The law 11 looks with
[particular] disfavor on a party who, regardless of the merits of his cause, attempts to take
advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary." (Reed v.
Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244, 248, 8 Cal.Rptr. 39.)

c. Court Has Wide Discretion in Granting Relief.

A trial cour~ has wide discretion to grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section
473 (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).

o. Liberal Construction of Statute.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) is a remedial measure to be liberally construed,
and any doubts existing as to the propriety of setting aside a default thereunder will be resolved
in favor of a hearing on the merits (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 910, 95
Cal. Rptr. 417). "It is well settled that appellate courts have always been and are favorably
disposed toward such action upon the part of the trial courts as will permit, rather than prevent,
the adjudication of legal controversies upon their merits." (Benjamin v. Dalmo Mfg. (1948) 31
Cal.2d 523, 525, 190 P.2d 593 (Benjamin.)) Thus, "the provisions of section 473 of the Code of
Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and sound policy favors the determination of
actions on their merits." (Riskin v. Towers (1944) 24 Cal.2d 274, 279, 148 P.2d 611.)

III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the state of the case law, the preference for a matter to be heard on it's merits
and the factual sc~nario presented in the attached declaration, this court should set aside the
judgment and allow for the issue of attorney's fees to be litigated.

PAGE 91
21
,.

.
' , , . ATTORNEYFOR.ENDANT
J!kW
17
A

1~~,... ____
MARTIN C. JACINTO

PAGE 92
22
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&cas...

Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case Type:

Case Number:

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action:

MOTION RE: SET ASIDE JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO

09/17/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: PATRICIA VEGA
COURT REPORTER KIMBERLY MORROW 9396
COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.
ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION RE:SET ASIDE JUDGMENT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
MATTER TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION.
-
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COURT RULES ON THE SUBMITTED MATTER AS FOLLOWS:
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION RE:SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS IS DENIED.
THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY. EVEN IF TIMELY THE MOTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CCP SECTION 1008 IN
THAT
THERE IS NO SHOWING OF NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, OR LAW THAT WOULD BE
RELEVANT TO
THE ISSUE
-
CORRESPONDENCE COVERSHEET GENERATED TO MAIL COPY OF MINUTES/RULING ON SUBMITTED
MATTER TO COUNSEL OF RECORD.
NOTICE GIVEN BY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 93
1 of 1 11/19/2017, 3:57 PM
 11nll~

•
.;'

"<11...,..
i
J":>:O
'"
FI LED
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN (SBN 45675) SUPERIOR COURT OF CAliFORNIA
1 Attorney at Law COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO·
. SAN BeRNAROIN~ICT
1122 East Green Street
2 Pasadena, California 91106 SEP 28,2015 . __.....­
Telephone: (626) 683-3991
3 Facsimile: (626) 796-2554

4 Attorney for Defendant

BY J~~UTY
MARTIN C.1ACINTO
5
6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CIVIL DIVISION
8
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A . ) CASE NO.: CIVDS1208547
9 CALIFORNIA GENERAL )
PARTNERSHIP, DBA MOUNTAIN ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO
10 SHADOWS MOBILE HOME ) RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF
) DEFENDANT'S CCP473 MOTION;
11 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
12 v. ) ATTORNEY; ANSWER TO
) COMPLAINT
13

14
MARTIN C. JACINTO,

Defendant.
)
)
) Date: NO 'Vemb""'r f~
) Time: 8:30 A.M.
2£>1 ~ ­
15 ) Dept.: 35
) HONORABLE BRYAN F. FOSTER, I

16 ) JUDGE PRESIDING I
. I
)
17 .--­
18
Defendant hereby moves this court to set aside the denial of defendant's motion to set
19
aside judgment heard under submission on September 17, 2015 in Dept. 35 and notice having
20 been received by Attorney Nahigian and other parties on Monday September 20,2015. The
21 court's ruling on the submitted matters is as follows "Martin C. Jacinto's motion re: set aside
22 judgment is denied. The motion is untimely. Even if timely, the motion fails to comply withCCP'
23 1008 and there is no showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or laws that would be
relevant to the issue."
24

25
DATED: September 28,2015
26

27
Attorney for Defendant
28
Martin C. Jacinto
1
NOTICE OF TO RECONSIDER
PAGE 94
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIIES-AND DISCUSSION
1

2 California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1008 (a) provides "When an application for

3 an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or

4 granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after
5
service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different
6
facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to
7
reconsider the matter and modifY, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the
8
9 application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge,

10 what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are

11 claimed to be shown." Therefore today's motion is timely made.

12 There are several items which will now be discussed which will confirm and support that
13
the original motion was filed timely. The date of the order and the entry ofjudgment for the
14
attorney's fee was made on February 25,2015.
15
The motion filed by Defendant to set aside the judgment pursuant to CCP473 (b) was
16
17 filed on August 24, 2015. That in and of itself suffices to show that it was within the six month

18 requisite period.

19 In further support of our contention is Exhibit 1 appended hereto which is a letter

20 prepared by Plaintiffs Counsel on February 25, 2015 wherein he address to the court a proposed
21
order granting motions for attorney's fees and awards. He further states that he has enclosed two
22
self-addressed return envelopes for return of a conformed copy to each counsel. The point being
23
24 is that the order must necessarily have been made on or after February 25, 2015 since counsel for

25 . Plaintiff is requesting this court to sign the proposed order for attorney's fee and award of

26 attorney's fees to Plaintiff and against Defendant. In further support of our contention is a CLTA

27 preliminary property report form for a judgment entered by Plaintiff against Defendant. The
28
judgment for attorney's fees states that it was entered on "February 25, 2015 under case number
2
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
PAGE 95
 1 CIVDS1208547" a copy of Exhibit 2 is appended.

2 Exhibit 3 is the court's own docket for this case which reflects that on February 15,2015

3 the subject order for attorney's fee was granted. It further reflects that on February 18 the file

4 was held in Dept. 35 for hearing.

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12

13
14

15

16

17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
26

27
28

NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER

PAGE 96
 DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN
1
2 I, Richard E. Nahigian, hereby declares as follows:

3
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and have been so
4
licensed since January 1970.
5
2. I am attorney for defendant Martin 1. Jacinto in the case herein.
6
3. I had prepared the previous discussion and points and authorities based on my review and
7
my analysis ofplaintiffs award of legal fees. I believe the amount that I had suggested to
8
the court to award is more than appropriate.
9

10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
11

knowledge and belief.

12

13 Executed on SEPTEMBER~015, at Pasadena, California.

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
4
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER PAGE 97
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&cas...

Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case Type:

Case Number:

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action:

MOTION RE: TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS CCP473 MOTION FILED BY

DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO
11/13/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35

BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE

CLERK: PATRICIA VEGA
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS 4420
COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.
ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFS CCP473 MTN IS HEARD.
THE COURT GIVES ITS TENTATIVE RULING.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT ADOPTS ITS TENTATIVE RULING AS FOLLOWS:
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFS CCP473 MTN IS DENIED.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

PAGE 98
1 of 1 11/19/2017, 4:05 PM
~ttorney Search: The State Bar of California http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fallMemberiDetailJ306653

Adam Francis Birka-White - #306653

Current Status: Active

This member is ,active and may practice law in CalJfornia.

See below for more details.

Profile Information
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 306653

Los Angeles County Public Defender
Phone Number: (213) 974-2811
210 W Temple St FI19
Address:
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3231
Fax Number: Not Available
Map it
Email: abirka-white@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Undergraduate
County: Los Angeles Kenyon Coli; Gambier OH
School:
District: District 2
U of San Francisco SOL; San
Sections: Criminal Law Law School:
Francisco CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change

Present Active
12/4/2015 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Disciplinary and Related Actions

This member has no publiC record of discipline.

Administrative Actions
This member has no public record of administrative actions.

© 2017 The State Bar of California

PAGE 99
lof2 11119/2017,3:03 PM
 APP..002
mitcif3'WJfilgl"fil~~ww~is6'~e, state bar number. and address):
FOR COURT USE ONLY

-
1122 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106

TELEPHONE NO.:(626) 683-3991 FAX NO. (Optional): ( 626) 796-25 54

nahigian@yahoo.com
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
AnoRNEY FOR (NameJ: Martin J. Jacinto COUNTY OF SAN 13ERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Bemandino DEC 1 0 2015
STREET ADDREss: 24 7 West Third Street

~i~
MAILING ADDRESS:

San Bernadina 92401

av_
c1TY AND z1P coDE:

BRANCH NAME: Civil cvNT\;~ EPU1Y

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Stubblefield Properties

---- ·---·-·--·-- ·-·-·-·-·------··-·····-·-------·--·--···-·- ----. ···---
Martin J. Jacinto
-·-·-- --~· -.----~--~-

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:

CASE NUMBER:
[Z] NOTICE OF APPEAL D
CROSS-APPEAL CIVDS1208547
(UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (Judicial Council form
APP-001) before completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal.

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (name):

appeals from the following judgment or order in this case, which was entered on (date):
D Judgment after jury trial
D Judgment after court trial
D Default judgment
D Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion
D Judgment of dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure sections 581d, 583.250, 583.360, or 583.430
D Judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer
D An order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (a)(2)
D An order or judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(3)-{13)
0 Other (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal):
Appeal of Denial of Motion to Set Aside Judgment Awarding Attorney's Fees (CCP § 473, subd. (b).)
2. For cross-appeals only;
a. Date notice of appeal was filed in original appeal:
b. Date superior court clerk mailed notice of original appeal:
c. Court of Appeal case number (if known):

Date: December 10, 2015

Richard Nahigian
{TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

Page 1of2
Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100
Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF APPEAUCROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) www.courts.ca.gov
APP-002 [Rev. July 1, 2010} (Appellate)

PAGE 100
37
 APP-002
CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER:
Stubblefield Properties vs. Martin J. Jacinto CIVDS1208547

NOTICE TO PARTIES: A copy of this document must be mailed or personally delivered to the other party or parties to this appeal. A PARTY TO
THE APPEAL MAY NOT PERFORM THE MAILING OR DELIVERY HIMSELF OR HERSELF. A person who is at least 18 years old and is not a
party to this appeal must complete the information below and mail (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) or personally deliver the front and back of
this document. When the front and bacl.< of this document have been completed and a copy mailed or personally delivered, the original may then
be filed with the court.

PROOF OF SERVICE
0 Mail D Personal Service

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.

2. My residence or business address is (specify):

621 North Benton Way, Apt. 5, Los Angeles, CA 90026

3. I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the Notice of AppeaVCross-Appeal (Unlimited Civil Case) as follows (complete either a orb):
a. 0 Mail. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred.
(1) I enclosed a copy in an envelope and
(a) 0 deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
(b) CJ placed the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below, following
our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, In a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid.
(2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
(a) Name of person served: Robert G. Williamson
(b) ff~f!fs.:1 r<'iing: 10~1Iutton Centre Drive, Suite 900, Santa Ana, CA 92707

(c) Date of mailing: December 10, 2015

San Bernandino, CA
(d) Place of mailing (city and state):

b. D Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy as follows:

(1) Name of person served:
(2) Address where delivered:

(3) Date delivered:

(4) Time delivered:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ls true and correct.

Date: December 10, 2015

/.

Adam Bitka-White
(lYPE OR PRINT N,b.ME)
. . r~~21Lc <>
(SIGNATURE OF OECLARANT)

APP-002 (Rev. July 1, 2010] Page 2 of 2

NOTICE OF APPEAUCROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)
(Appellate)

PAGE 101
38
PAGE 102
113
11C::2017

Jan 21,

PAGE 103
1/[,12017
Click here_ notifications Jut case.

Careers rContact Us f A,ciceS,SJOll1tv I Public I'-'-""'''''''''''''' to Records! Terms ofUsel Privacy

Judicial of Camornia

PAGE 1043/3
PAGE 105
 APP:-0O1

iElEPHONENO (626) FAX NO.

E-MAfLAOo.~ES$ fOp(KJOOI).

APPEU..ANT:
RESPONDENT:

APPEAL

Date: April 20,.

Richard Nahlglan

REQUEST CASE}

PAGE 106
 PROOF
Mail

3. I matied or persQ.,~ ~Uv¢red a copy of the as TO!!O'N$ (Compie~ either a orb):

n, c;!J Malt I am aresidemm or employed in trw wtm1y Yihere themailifl9 ooctlrred.

(1; I ertdosed. a ropy in an enwlope and

Ca}
(b)

{2} The envelope was addressco3f1d ·mai·!ed a.S

(~) Name ofpersoo seNed' Wli fBanlSCfll
(o) AddreS$ onen!{et~;

oat~of maUing:
(Ii} of mailfng (City arid state).·
D. P.t$<)na! deifwry. I personally delivered a COrrj3S follo'#s:
(1) Name Of~M$e!VOO;
(2) Address where delivered:

{3} Date delivered:

(4} TIme delivered:

I declare umIat l~aJrv

Date: April

Richard Nahigian

PAGE 107
 Nahigianl Esq.
1.122.East Green Street
Pas:adena, C(lllfornia91 106

California Court of Appeal

Division 2

Suite

PAGE 108
PAGE 109
 COURT

CASE NO: 06/17

C.l;.BE TITLE: MARTIN·C JACINTO

DEPT: 831 01/a6/17

Rearing Re:DEFAULT

COMPLAINT

JOHN M

Clerk:
Cburt i; 1330.2

Court

APPEAF.ANCES :

Attorney L

IvlARTIN C

Parties Not Present:

:PROCEEDINGS:

Predisppsition
Action came on

interpret SPANISH into English

ilot

not

The Court
o,fGC68561
guidelines have

PAGE 110
 been the is
to

9:26
witness ~-MARTIN C

Plaintiffis Exhibit dtd 9/11/14 by R

(3pgs) intb

Substituion of atty dtd 100914

case 8547

Plaintiff1s
2 (4pg

's 08547 entered into

;ffCIVDS120.8547
f2pgsJ

appeal dtd 0/16

's Exhibit(s) #8 Court In:fo 50

entered into

#9 2656

2656 Aberdeen

Plaintiff l s dtd 2/10/11

into Evidence.

MaJrtin C
testimony the Court

finds:

Judgment
Judgment For:
Judgment

PAGE 111
I "
 is $

===

PAGE 112
PAGE 113
 Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., S213100 (Cal. May 04,2015)

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist.

S213100 (Cal. May 04, 2015)

Cal. Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) The trial court granted

summary judgment for the District and, in a separate
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA order, awarded the District its court costs. Williams
appealed from the latter order, contending that in the
S213100 absence of a finding his action was frivolous, unrea-
sonable or groundless, defendant should not have
05-04-2015
been awarded its costs.

LORING WINN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and The issues presented are these: Is a defendant prevail-
Appellant, v. CHINO VALLEY ing in a FEHA action entitled to its ordinary court
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICT, costs as a matter of right pursuant to Code of Civil
Defendant and Respondent.
Procedure section 1032, or only in the discretion of
the trial court pursuant to Government Code section
Counsel: Loring Winn Williams, in pro. per.; Hamil-
12965, a provision of FEHA itself? And, if the trial
ton & McInnis, Donald E. McInnis, Ben-Thomas
court does have discretion, must that discretion be ex-
Hamilton; The deRubertis Law Firm, David M. deRu-
ercised according to the rule applicable to attorney
bertis, Helen U. Kim; Pine & Pine and Norman Pine
fee awards in certain federal civil rights actions under
for Plaintiff and Appellant. Liebert Cassidy Whit-
Christiansburg Garment Co. v.EEOC(1978) 434 U.S. 412
more, Peter J. Brown and Judith S. Islas for Defendant
(Christiansburg), according to which a prevailing de-
and Respondent. Kira L. Klatchko for League of Cali-
fendant receives its attorney fees only if the plaintiffs
fornia Cities, California Association of Counties, Cal-
action was objectively groundless?
ifornia Special Districts Association, California Asso-
ciation of Sanitation Agencies, Fire Districts Associa-
We conclude Government Code section 12965, sub-
tion of California and Association of California Water
division (b), governs cost awards in FEHA actions, al-
Agencies as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
lowing trial courts discretion in awards of both attor-
Respondent.
ney fees and costs to prevailing FEHA parties. We fur-
ther conclude that in awarding attorney fees and costs,
the trial court's discretion is bounded by the rule of
WERDEGAR, J.
Christiansburg; an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff should
Ct.App. 4/2 E055755San Bernardino County Super. not be ordered to pay the defendant's fees or costs un-
Ct. No. CIVRS801732 less the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the
action without an objective basis for believing it had
Plaintiff Loring Winn Williams sued defendant Chi- potential merit.
no Valley Independent Fire District (the District) for
employment discrimination in violation of the Cal-
ifornia Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA;

casetext casetext.comlcase/williams-v-chino-valley... lof13

PAGE 114
PAGE 115
 Nancy Duffy McCarron, # 164780
Law Office of Nancy Duffy McCarron
950 Roble Lane
Santa Barbara, CA 93 103
805-450-0450 fax 805-965-3492
nancyduffysb@yahoo.com
Attorney for Martin Jacinto

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

STLTBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,
a California General Partnership, dba
ountain Shadows Mobile DECLARATION OF MARTIN JACINTO
ome Community, Plaintiff SUPPORTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE FEE
v. AWARD OBTAINED BY FRAUD ON THE
ARTIN JACINTO, an individual; and COURT AND DEFENDANT MARTIN JACINTO
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive CCP $128; CCP $ 177
Defendant
DATE: August 24,2017 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. S22 Honorable Bryan F. Foster
I, MARTIN JACINTO, declare:
I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness could
testify to the following:
1. I am defendant and cross-complainant in the above captioned case and make these
II statements in support of a motion to set aside a fee award obtained by fraud on the court and me
2. The complaint included 3 claims; nuisance, trespass and ejectment of my mobile home
from a mobile home park Stubblefield owned. On the advice of my attorney a t the time, I filed
a cross-complaint. The court ruled against me on both the complaint and the cross-complaint.
3. After the judgment was entered Robert ~ i l l i a m s o nattorney
, for Stubblefiqld, filed a
motion for attorney's fees seeking $190,499.00 I retained Richard Nahigian to file opposition
to the fee motion and to handle a few remaining issues about removal of the mobile home from
the park. Mr. Nahigian said he would do his best to represent me. Mr. Nahigian said he was
friends with Robert Williamson as they attended the same law school and had known each other
for many years as attorneys. Mr. Nahigian said, because of their friendship, he could negotiate
a settlement with Robert Williamson and that he would accept far less than $200,000.00 in fees.

-1-
Declaration Of Martin Jacinto Supporting Motion To Set Aside Fee Award PAGE 116
Obtained By Fraud On The Court And Defendant Martin Jacinto
 1 4. I signed a written retainer agreement with Mr. Nahigian. I paid him $25,000 advance
2 retainer fee at the time I signed the fee agreement.
3 5. Mr. Nahigian never disclosed that he did not intend to file any written opposition to the
4 fee motion or that he would not appear for oral arguments at the motion hearing. Mr. Nahigian
5 never disclosed there was no legal basis for fees as the complaint alleged no contract with me,
6 did not pray for fees, and did not allege attorney fees as damages. This was crucial information.
7 6. Mr. Nahigian never disclosed that, even if there were a basis for fees, one ground for
8 opposing the motion was showing a valid basis for the cross-complaint. If he had disclosed it
9 I would have declared and provided evidence to show why the cross-complaint was reasonable.
10 7. Mr. Nahigian never disclosed that another ground for opposing the fee motion was a
11 lack of assets or sufficient income to pay a large fee award. If he had disclosed those grounds,
12 I would have declared and provided evidence that I was unable to pay a large fee award.
13 8. I only learned after the fact that Mr. Nahigian had not appeared at the hearing on the fee

14 motion and that he never filed a written opposition to the motion. As a result it was granted.

15 9. I was supposed to attend a judgment debtor examination on 2/18/15. Mr. Nahigian said

16 I did not have to attend as he would appear to represent me, so I did not need to appear. Later

17 that day Mr. Nahigian called me to come to court immediately or I would be arrested. I rushed

18 over to court immediately. The court recalled the bench warrant issued that morning because I

19 did not appear for the debtor’s exam. I was extremely distressed by those events.

20 10. After entry of the attorney fee award, Mr. Nahigian said I needed to pay $15,000 to

21 Williamson as a “fee for the privilege of negotiating with Robert Williamson.” He told me there

22
was a good chance of a settlement if I did so. I paid $15,000.00. I then made the settlement
offer Mr. Nahigian advised me to make. Stubblefield did not accept it. I later learned that Mr.
23
Nahigian agreed to let Mr. Williamson keep the $15,000 I paid as a “non-refundable” amount.
24
It was not applied to the amount I owed for the judgment against me and the attorney fee award.
25
Later, I learned there was no realistic chance of Stubblefield accepting any settlement offer.
26
If he told me the $15,000 would not be applied to what I owed I would not have paid the money.
27
11. Mr. Nahigian said he could file motions which would vacate the fee award. He never
28
disclosed the motion was unaccepted becaus he failed to pay a filing fee or submit a fee waiver.

-2-
Declaration Of Martin Jacinto Supporting Motion To Set Aside Fee Award
Obtained By Fraud On The Court And Defendant Martin Jacinto PAGE 117
 12. Mr. Nahigian said I had a good ohafzce: of vaeatk~gthe fee award if 1 filed m appeal.
Based on his advice, I authorized him to file an zppeal and paid him mother 5875 for filing fees.
Mr. Nahigian did not disclose that he was only appealing denial o f a motion for reconsider the
denial of a motion to set aside the fee award, which had been denied as late. He did not tell me
the appeal had no realistic chance of success. If he had told me the mth, I would not have
su.&o~jZedfiling an a w l or paying a filing fee. Mr. Nahigian never disclosed thrrt 1would
1
wirh the appeal and lost it. Based on
owe more attorney fees to Mr. Williamson f l cox~tkx~ed
l d in
advice &.om a new attorney the appeal had no realistic chance o f success, and ~ ~ o uresult
owing more attorney fees. I directed Mr. Nnhigian to dismiss the apped w..hichhe dismissed. 1
13. I retained a new attorney to file a complajnt for damages against Mr.Nohigian which
was filed on 4/1116. CIVDS1604759. A copy is ameked as Exhibit D to this declaration.
14. A s a proximate result of Mr. Nahigian's failure to oppose the fee motion, bad advice,
3 &s]regmse~tations,fra~d,and collusion with Robert Williamson to sell me out, 1 paid below:
$ $25,090 advance retainer fee on 9f l f / 14
$ $3,000 fw his appearance in court on 2118/15 to get my arrest warrant recalled
$ $875 to file an appeal on or about December 12,2015
$ $1 5,000 for what 1 later learned was for ?he privilege to negotiate" not applied to my debt

/111 15. As a result of Mr. Nahigian' s failrve to oppose StubbleiieU9smo~ionfor atcmey fees,

1
17
18 misconduct, 8nd misrepresentations, i owe over $205,000.00with accrued interest.

II 16. I have been e&mely distressed by Mr.Nabigian's misconduct & misrepresentations.

I
11 I
$9
20 17. 1 did not discover that I could set aside the judgment obtained by fraud until Nancy
$
i
McCmaa read my case file and explained that I had a right to file a motion idset aside the

1 judgment obtained by faud and Mr. Nahigian's coHusion with his f t i d Robat Williamson.
18. Attached is a detailed chronology of conspiracy to defraud and fiaud. Exhibits are
attached to support my 'statements in this declaration and allegations in the ckon030@3;
of fraud.
I
25 11 CountyI declare under penalty of pejtuy that the foregoing
of San Bernardino on I$, 20 t
June 7.
i s true and conect. Exmuted in the
I
5

-3-
Declaration Of Meartin Jacifif~Suyspo&ing Motion 'ToSet Aside Fee Award
Obtsined By Fmud ORThe Court And kfenct~etMatin Jacirmt~
PAGE 118
 Martin C. Jacinto

May 18, 2017

Chronology of Conspiracy to Defraud, Fraud and Malpractice

Richard Nahagian had 2 State Bar Public Reprovals (Case #10-0-02178 and Case #10-0-03701) for
defrauding clients after one State Bar private discipline for defrauding a client. This is the fourth time
Richard Nahagian has defrauded a client in the same way demonstrating a racketeering enterprise.

Below outlines Richard Nahagian’s fraud and collusion with Robert Williamson in CIVDS1208547.

Exhibit A2-$41,166.58 Judgment was entered against me on the docket on 4/8/14 in CIVDS1208547
The judgment required Mr. Williamson to issue a partial satisfaction for my verified costs to move the
home out of plaintiff Stubblefield’s park as ordered. It cost $15,000 to move it. Mr. Williamson never
issued nor provided a partial satisfaction of judgment. Robert Williamson should have deducted
$15,000 from the $41,166.58 and revised the amount due on my judgment down to $26,166.58.
Exhibit B1–first page of Williamson’s invoice to Stubblefield Properties showing Williamson (RGW)
billed $55.00 for .2 hours to follow up on pending status of court signing and clerk entering judgment.
It shows Williamson knew judgment was entered 4/8/14. Williamson has practiced law 30 years.
Exhibit B2 –Williamson cited CRC 3.1702 as the code governing time to file “Notice of Fee Motion.”
This proves he was fully aware that under 3.1702(b)(1) he was required to file it within 60 days from
entry of judgment, which the clerk gave him on 4/8/14--proved by his own invoice in Exhibit B1.
Williamson’s fee motion should have been denied as untimely if it was brought to the attention of the
court by a competent attorney either by filing an opposition or arguing untimeliness at the hearing.
Exhibit B3 – shows Williamson misrepresented when the 60-day window to appeal started; i.e. not
from his self-serving Notice of Entry of Judgment---but rather 60 days from 4/8/14-clerk served a
conformed copy of judgment entered on 4/8/14. It is the same deadline to appeal under Rule 8.104
Exhibit B4-5 CRC 3.1700 (costs);CRC 3.1702(b)(1) (deadline-fee motion); Rule 8.104 (time-appeal)
Exhibit C1-13 on 5/20/14 Williamson filed an untimely, fraudulent $16,271.92 Costs Memo including
$9,418.61 of items expressly excluded in CCP §133.5 Exhibit C is a Request for Judicial Notice
filed by attorney McCarron in UDFS1406978 showing how Williamson’s Costs Memo filed in my
case was fraudulent. My trial attorney (Mr. Aviles) never filed a Motion to Tax Costs; he never told
me I had a right to tax costs in pro per, or Williamson had filed an untimely, fraudulent costs memo.
On 7/3/14 Williamson filed a fraudulent and untimely Motion for Attorney Fees for $188,040,
plus motion fees, plus $4,809 in anticipated fees to appear at a hearing he scheduled for 11/19/14.
Exhibit C14 shows how he padded the total he billed Stubblefield ($159,566.65) by $44,447.56.
Williamson included his fee matrix Exhibit C15 in his Motion for Attorney Fees. My trial attorney
(Mr. Aviles) never filed an opposition to the Motion for Attorney Fees Williamson mailed on 7/3/14.
Instead, a week later, Aviles filed a motion to be relieved as counsel on 7/14/14 which was granted.
On 9/11/14 I paid Richard Nahagian a $25,000 advanced retainer fee to substitute in as counsel.
I signed the retainer agreement he prepared. Nahagian promised he could convince Mr. Williamson
to accept considerably less fees than what he sought on the attorney fee motion he filed on 7/3/14.
Williamson set a hearing date on 11/19/14 which was six weeks after he had filed the motion 7/3/14.
Nahagian said Mr. Williamson was his long-term friend as they attended the same school years ago.
We did not realize their friendship was a conflict of interest for both sides. We trusted Nahagian and
believed he could convince his friend Robert Williamson to accept much less than $200,000 sought.
I had no reason to suspect that Nahagian was covertly conspiring with Mr. Williamson to sell me out.

1 PAGE 119
 On 9/30/14 Williamson moved ex parte to amend the $41,166.58 judgment to add $16,271.92
(the amount on a fraudulent Costs Memo he had filed on 5/20/14 which Mr. Aviles never opposed).
Despite paying a $25,000 retainer fee on 9/11/14 Nahagian never opposed the amendment.
On 10/1/14 (the next day) the court added unopposed costs increasing the judgment to $57,438.50.
Williamson never credited $15,000 moving costs as Judge Foster ordered in the 4/8/14 judgment.

Nahagian told me Williamson demanded I present a $63,000 cashier’s check payable to Mr.
Williamson for “$57,438.50 on the new judgment abstract, plus interest, and additional attorney fees.
Nahagian said if I satisfied the judgment in good faith, by paying $63,000 to Williamson, that he
would consider accepting far less in attorney fees. He said Williamson demanded that we also pay
$15,000 as a “non-refundable good faith negotiation fee” before he would consider accepting less.
Nahagian said to draw a $15,000 cashier’s check with the words non-refundable typed on its face.
I followed his advice. I paid $63,000 to satisfy the judgment, costs, interest and “added fees.”
I delivered a cashier’s check for $15,000 with the words “non-refundable” entered on its face.
I believed in good faith that Williamson would accept considerably less for attorney fees, which
I intended to pay off, and then move on with my life.

On 10/17/14 Williamson applied for debtor’s exam and served notice of an 11/13/14 examination
date on me on 10/23/14. I appeared for exam on 11/13/14. Nahagian did not appear. Williamson
appeared by telephone. I heard him ask the court to continue the exam until 11/19/14 at 8:30, which
was the same date and time Williamson had set Motion for Attorney Fees when he filed it on 7/3/14.
Nahagian never filed a motion to tax costs/set aside a fraudulent Costs Memo filed on 5/20/14.
Nahagian never filed an opposition to a fraudulently padded Motion for Fees set for 11/19/14.
Nahagian failed to appear on 11/19/14 despite notice of hearing on a fee motion & debtor’s exam.
Williamson and I appeared on 11/19/14. A 11/19/14 minute order recited that both matters were
continued to12/17/14 reciting “the parties are trying to resolve the issue of the attorney fees.”
I appeared on 12/17/14. Nahagian did not appear. Williamson appeared by telephone. I heard
him ask the court to continue the fee motion & exam for the third time. The court moved it to 2/18/15.
Nahagian said I did not have to appear on 2/18/15 because Nahagian would appear for me and that
he anticipated having the entire matter settled by 2/18/15---following negotiations over the holidays.

On 2/18/15 Nahagian failed to appear at 8:30 a.m. for the attorney fee motion or debtor’s exam.
Williamson appeared and argued the attorney fee motion first. The court granted the motion as
Nahagian failed to appear and there was no opposition on file. I did not appear on 2/18/15 because
Nahagian told me I did not need not appear as Nahagian would appear for oral arguments that day.

Despite having appeared 3 times for examination which was continued at Williamson’s request,
at this fourth debtor’s exam on 2/18/15 the court issued a $250,000 bench warrant for my arrest.
The minute 2/18/15 minute order recites that Nahagian called the court at 11:58 am to seek a new
2:30 p.m. hearing to recall my arrest warrant. Nahagian promised to appear with me at 2:30 p.m.
that day (2/18/15) to recall the warrant. Nahagian demanded $3,000 cash to get my arrest warrant
recalled. Because I did not want to be arrested and be put in jail on a $250,000 arrest warrant,
my family gathered $3,000 in cash to pay Nahagian to appear. It was the first time he appeared.
I have witnesses to prove Nahagian took $3,000 in cash to appear to get my arrest warrant recalled.
This was after receiving a $25,000 retainer & having provided minimal services and no appearances.
The court recalled the warrant for my arrest. The court continued the debtor exam 9 days to 2/27/15.

2
PAGE 120
 On 2/27/15 I appeared for exam. Nahagian failed to appear. Robert Williamson appeared.
The court granted Williamson’s fifth oral request for a fifth continuance resetting it to 3/19/15.

A 3/4/15 minute order recited that my petition to set aside a judgment for attorney fees had been
“returned” because Nahagian had not signed the motion; he had not reserved a hearing date in the
calendar department; (he inserted suggested hearing dates of 3/24/15 & 3/25/15I) Those dates
were not available. Nahagian did not include a $435 check for the filing fee, and Jacinto’s fee waiver
had expired. Nahagian failed to file a new fee waiver application with a prepared, proposed order.
Nahagian failed to correct the recited deficiencies or refile the motion before the deadline expired.

On 3/19/15 I appeared for debtor’s exam. Nahagian failed to appear . Williamson appeared but
sought a sixth continuance which the court granted. Debtor’s exam was continued to 4/16/15.
Nahagian did not appear. A 4/16/15 minute order recites “taken off calendar–no appearances”

On 8/24/15 Nahagian finally refiled a petition to set aside attorney fee judgment with a $435 check.
Nahagian did not bother to submit a fee waiver form to avoid paying a $435 filing fee. Nahagian set
the hearing for 9/17/15. On 9/3/15 Williamson filed opposition to the motion to set aside the
$200,000 attorney fee award under CCP §473 (attorney error) and objected to Nahagian’s affidavit.
Nahagian failed to file a Reply to Williamson’s opposition despite receiving $28,000 by then.

On 9/17/15 Nahagian appeared for the second time after being paid $25,000 plus §3,000 cash.
On 9/17/15 the court denied the motion to set aside judgment under CCP §473 reciting there were
no new or different facts relevant to the issues to set aside attorney fee judgment under CCP §1008.
The order is perplexing as a motion was not filed under CCP §1008 (which must be filed in15 days)
but rather was filed under CCP §473, which is to be construed liberally to achieve substantial justice.

On 9/28/15 Nahagian filed a motion to reconsider the court’s denial of relief under CCP §473,
setting a hearing for 11/13/15. On 10/30/15 Williamson filed opposition to the motion to reconsider.
Nahagian failed to file a Reply to Williamson’s opposition despite receiving $25,000 by way of
retainer on or about 9/11/14 and accepting $3,000 in cash to get my arrest warrant recalled.

On 11/13/15 Nahagian made a third appearance. He appeared on two motions trying to rectify
his own negligence, and appeared on 2/18/15 at 2:30 to get my arrest warrant recalled because he
knew it resulted from his own negligence in telling me that I did not need to appear on 2/18/15.
Nahagian promised to appear to oppose fees & simultaneously get a continuance on debtor’s exam.
After accepting a $25,000 retainer on 9/11/14 and $3,000 on2/18/15 ($28,000 total) the only services
he provided were to rectify his own 3 instances of gross negligence. The court denied the motion to
reconsider denial of his motion to set aside the fee award under CCP §473. (for attorney negligence)

On 12/10/15 Nahagian demanded that I pay $835.00 (the fee to file a Notice of Appeal) to rectify
his own gross negligence. Nahagian assured me the appellate panel would reverse the trial court’s
denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s denial of his first CCP §473 motion.

I did not understand until I obtained a second legal opinion that Nahagian filed the appeal only
to rectify gross negligence throughout the entire window of his representation starting on 9/11/14.

3 PAGE 121
Mr. Nahagian’s gross negligence and collusion with Mr. Williamson to sell me out, included:

1) failing to file a Motion to Tax Costs or Set Aside a fraudulent Costs Memo Williamson filed 5/20/14
as any fraudulent judgment can be set aside by a motion filed after discovering the actual fraud.
2) failing to file opposition to a fraudulent motion for attorney fees padded by $44,447.46 on 7/3/14
as it could be reduced if opposed, or set aside under CCP §663 due to fraudulent padding of fees.
3) failing to appear to oppose a fraudulent attorney fee motion at the continued hearing on 2/18/15;
4) failing to appear at a 2/18/15 debtor’s exam while fully aware an arrest warrant was probable
5) demanding $3,000 to appear to get the court to recall the $250,000 arrest warrant against me;
6) failing to deliver on a promise to “convince his friend Williamson to accept less in attorney fees”;
7) inducing me to pay a $25,000 retainer fee intending to provide little or no services in exchange and
then demanding an additional $3,000 to appear on 2/18/15 to get the court to recall the warrant, after
already receiving a $25,000 retainer, which should have covered this short 2/18/15 court appearance;
8) failing to provide monthly invoices reciting “services performed” against the $25,000 retainer fee;
9) failing to compel Williamson to issue “$15,000 partial satisfaction of judgment” for costs to move
the mobile home out of the park, as ordered in the 4/8/14 judgment recited on the action case report.
This is compelling evidence of Nahagian & Williamson’s conspiracy to defraud & joint fraud.
10) inducing me to pay $63,000 to “satisfy the judgment” when he knew, or should have known, that
I only owed $26,166.58 ($41,166.58 minus $15,000 costs to move the home) with minimal interest.
This is compelling evidence of Nahagian & Williamson’s conspiracy to defraud & joint fraud.

11) inducing me to obtain and deliver a $15,000 cashier’s check payable to Williamson, with the
words “non-refundable” typed on its face, for an “opportunity to negotiate to settle attorney fees.”
This is compelling evidence of Nahagian & Williamson’s conspiracy to defraud & joint fraud.

12) failing to timely re-file a motion to set aside a fraudulent fee judgment allowing deadline to expire.
13) failing to timely file a motion to set aside a 5/20/14 costs memo which was fraudulent on its face;
14) inducing me to agree to pay an $845 filing fee for a frivolous appeal with no chance of success
while failing to advise me that I would be liable for Williamson’s attorney fees to defend the appeal
This is compelling evidence of Nahagian & Williamson’s conspiracy to defraud & joint fraud.

I agreed to pay $835 to file appeal because Nahagian assured me that I would prevail on appeal.
I decided to obtain a second opinion as I lost trust in Nahagian’s competency, ethics, and honesty.
I met with Christopher Lockwood, an attorney who defeated Stubblefield on appeal. He advised me
there was no chance to succeed on the appeal. Nahagian filed a Notice of Appeal on 12/10/15.
I hired Mr. Lockwood to dismiss the appeal to avoid liability for Williamson’s fees to defend appeal.
After dismissing the appeal Mr. Lockwood filed a malpractice complaint against Richard Nahagian.

Exhibit D After service of a malpractice complaint Nahagian defaulted by failing to file an answer.
The case is currently pending as Nahagian just filed a new motion on 5/6/15 to set aside his default.

4
PAGE 122
 THE EFFECTS ON MY FAMILY
My family was devastated by my decision to buy a mobile home at Mountain Shadows Mobile
Home Park owned by Stubblefield Properties. My wife suffered emotional distress from repeated
acts of sexual harassment from park manager Marvin Freeman. Marvin Freeman and Tom Parrish
misled us before, during and after my purchase of a mobile home. I was financially devastated by
the costs already expended. I spent $10,000 acquiring the home, $10,000 on remodeling which
Marvin Freeman recommended, $12,000 in monthly rent to Stubblefield while we were remodeling
for 6 months from April –Dec of 2011 ($72,000) [see Stubblefield’s complaint filed8/16/12, par.8-9];
$15,000 to move the home as the court ordered, $63,000 I paid Williamson to satisfy the judgment,
$15,000 paid to Williamson as a “non-refundable” fee for the “opportunity to negotiate and settle,”
$25,000 attorney fees to Nahagian, $3,000 to Nahagian to get an arrest warrant recalled, and $835
filing fee for a frivolous appeal. This is a total loss of $213,000 not counting attorney fee award.
These costs resulted in depleting my savings and disposing of other assets to pay these costs.
The stress caused by this financial devastation has affected every person in my extended family.
The severe stress eventually resulted in the suicide of my wife’s son from all the stress in the home.
My family suffers from survivor guilt as we failed to recognize how this severe stress affected each
person in our extended family, and failed to seek mental health counseling before it was too late.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Richard Nahagian and Robert Williamson need to be held accountable for conspiracy to
defraud and callous disregard for Rules of Professional Conduct. I discovered Nahagian had
a long history of regularly violating Rules of Professional Conduct.

Exhibit E is the State Bar’s Public Reproval filed on 2/10/11. [Case10-0-02178 and Case 10-03701]
These two public reprovals were aggravated by a previous violation the State Bar punished with a
private reproval. Both cases cited above involved Nahagian’s extracting large cash retainer fees
($20,000 and $6,500) and then failing to provide the services for which clients paid the retainer fees.
Each breach of fiduciary duty resulted in severe consequences to the abused and defrauded clients.

Case 10-0-02178 [Estrada] resulted in a life sentence in prison being imposed on the client.
Nahagian accepted a $6,500 retainer from Estrada’s sister Martha Moto to file a motion for new trial
before Estrada was sentenced. Nahagian appeared at a 4/13/07 sentence hearing and asked the
court to continue sentencing to 6/27/07 to provide an opportunity to file a new motion for a new trial.
The court continued sentencing to 6/27/07. Nahagian never filed a motion for new trial by 6/27/07,
at which time Estrada was sentenced to life plus 25 years. Nahagian never refunded the $6,500.

Case 10-0-03701 [West]. West was charged with violating probation in PA 054907, with a 3-year
suspended prison term as a condition of probation. On 5/15/07 West paid Nahagian a $10,000
retainer fee for all services leading up to trial. On 8/3/07 West paid Nahagian $10,000 again for fees
to represent him through the jury trial. On 8/27/07 while trailing for trial, West entered a plea of nolo
contendere to certain charges in exchange for a 4 year sentence in state prison to run concurrently
with PA 054907. In August 2008 West sent a written request to Nahagian to refund only the second
$10,000 retainer fee to represent him at the jury trial because no jury trial occurred. Nahagian failed
to refund any portion of the $10,000 advanced retainer fees for a jury trial which never occurred.
Failing to refund fees not earned is a willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, 3-700(D)(2).
Violations of Rule 3-110(A) and Rule 4-100(B)(3) were dismissed in exchange for full client refunds.

[END]

5 PAGE 123
 APP-009E
PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (Court of Appeal)

Notice: This form may be used to provide proof that a document has been
served in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Please read Information
Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal) (form APP-009-INFO) before
completing this form. 1.

Case Name: Stubblefield v. Jacinto

Court of Appeal Case Number: E069286
Superior Court Case Number: CIVDS1208547

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age.

2. a. My residence IT] business address is (specify):
950 Roble Lane, Santa Barbara, CA

b. My electronic service address is (specify): nancyduffysb@yahoo.com

3. I electronically served the following documents (exact titles):

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

4. I electronically served the documents listed in 3. as follows:

a. Name of person served: Robert Williamson

On behalf of (name or names of parties represented, if person served is an attorney):

Stubblefield Properties, respondent

b. Electronic service address of person served: rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com

c. On (date): 11-22-17
The documents listed in 3. were served electronically on the persons and in the manner described in an attachment (write
"APP-009E, Item 4" at the top of the page).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: 11-22-17

Nancy Duffy McCarron

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)

1011
Fonn Approved for Optimal Use www.courts.ca.gov
PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
Judicial Council of Calfomia

APP-009E [New January 1,2017] (Court of Appeal)

PAGE 124