Jin Rie......SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6/3/2007
Jin Rie 401 N. Bixel St. Los Angeles, CA 90026
Plaintiff in pro per
(213) 482-1804
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES--CENTRAL DISTRICT
JIN RIE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN ROSEN, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF ROSEN AND LOEB, a Partnership; SBS TRUST DEED NETWORK, a California Corporation; ASADUR TURSUGIAN, an individual; PETRA TURSUGIAN, an individual; RON S. GALPERIN, an individual dba LAW OFFICES OF RON S. GALPERIN; and DOES 1-50 inclusive,
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RESURRECTION OF BC275364 AND BC290904 AS ONE CONSOLIDATED CASE FOR NEW TRIAL AND FURTHER DISCOVERY FOR NEW TRIAL WITH NEW EVIDENCES PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 662 AND OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSION AS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF JIN RIE IN SUPPORT THEREOF ; DECLARATION OF YOUNG IM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Date: June 25, 2007 Time: 8:30 AM Dept.: 54 Judge: Hon. Ernest Hiroshige )
I. Preliminary Statement One of the major reasons for these motions is that recently, since September of 2006, Plaintiff directly and indirectly discovered new evidence which was never shown before or was contradictory to the existing evidence alleged by Defendants and the Courts including the Court of Appeal. Hence, we need to make further discovery to ascertain this new evidence. Based on the new evidence, we need further discovery on the previous allegations or evidence alleged by the defendants or confirmed by the courts. As seen in the criminal cases, such as those attached to Exhibit III, new trials were granted after the discovery of evidence (one from scientific investigation and the other from true admission by a key witness). Even after the passing of as many as 17 years from the date of the final judgments. Therefore, the new trial of this civil judgment also should be reheard now, even after the final judgment. This civil case can be very similar to criminal cases in this logic. Plaintiff has also new indirect evidences from Ron Galperin (“Galperin”) and Daniel Curry (“Curry”) in the form of requests for admission, which now need further discovery. Therefore, one consolidated case containing both Rosen Case (BC275364) and Galperin Case (BC290904) should be perfectly resurrected at this time for new trial and further discovery for new trial, and the third amended complaint of Rosen Case (“TAC”) as shown in Exhibit A of Judicial Notice and the first amended complaint of Galperin Case (“FAC”) as shown in Exhibit B of Judicial Notice can be used as the re-starting points for the new trial of this one consolidated case.
II. Brief description of Exhibits This document has many exhibits, mostly exhibits about direct or indirect new discoveries. Some of these exhibits have their own exhibits, like Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, etc. To minimize the confusion, this document uses Exhibit A, Exhibit B, etc. in request for judicial notice, and Exhibit I, Exhibit II, Exhibit III, etc. for other exhibits. Some of these exhibits (e.g., Exhibit I, II, etc.) have so many their exhibits (e.g., Exhibit 1, 2, etc.), the majority of which have little relevance to the purpose of this document, whereas only some of which are highly relevant. Therefore, some of Exhibits 1, 2, etc. may be left out. For example, Exhibit I (deposition booklet on Alan Rosen) has many pages of its own exhibits (Exhibit 1 through 10), but only 4 of them will be attached here in this document. The exhibits, Exhibit A and Exhibit B and Exhibit C, in request for judicial notice are described there. Nevertheless, Exhibit C (reporter’s transcript of Federal Court Trial on January 2, 2007) currently is not available. Plaintiff believes it will be sufficient to decide this resurrection motion without Exhibit C. But if this Court requires this exhibit, Plaintiff will provide it to the Court as early as possible. Other exhibits can briefly be described as follows. Exhibit I: Deposition transcript dated October 26, 2006, Deposition of Alan Rosen (“Rosen”). This Exhibit I has sub-exhibits, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 9. Exhibit II: Cover letter and Request for Admissions from Rosen, dated February 3, 2007. Exhibit III: Cover letter and Request for Admissions from Daniel Curry, dated February 28, 2007 and his attorney’s letter and Plaintiff’s second request letter dated March 22, 2007. Exhibit IV: Cover letter and Request for Admissions from Ron Galperin, dated February 8, 2005, and Cover letter and request for admission from Ron Galperin, dated January 5, 2006.
III. New direct and physical evidences from Rosen As described at Paragraphs 3-18 of the declaration, Plaintiff discovered new evidence since September of 2006, which was never shown before or was contradictory to the existing evidence alleged by the defendants and the courts. Plaintiff sent the request for the documents to Rosen about on September 9, 2006, during the discovery process of CV 05-05760 CAS (CWx). Two of the questions in the request are: “REQUEST NO 14: All WRITINGS including the cover letter and the 2966 notice, which YOU served to or attempted to serve to JIN RIE on about January 7, 1999, if you did.” “REQUEST NO 15: All WRITINGS to prove the successful service of the above things in REQUEST NO 14 to JIN RIE.” Plaintiff received Rosen’s responses to the request about on September 24, 2006. The total pages of the responded documents are about 12. All pages except 1 page are legal documents filed with the courts or created by the courts. The only one page document is a letter dated January 7, 1999 with post office slip at the right-bottom corner. That letter is shown here as Exhibit 3 (hereinafter, “Exhibit 3”) of deposition transcript (Exhibit I). At that time, this was the first time the Plaintiff ever saw the letter. He never received that letter at any time, including the whole year of 1999 and including a little after January 7, 1999. On October 26, 2006, Plaintiff took Rosen’s deposition. In Rosen’s deposition, he found many blatant lies and fraudulent statements, which prompted him to conduct further investigations. One of the lies is that he mailed the letter shown in Exhibit 3 with the 2966 notice on January 7, 1999 to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff never received either of them in January 1999; in other words, he received neither the letter (Exhibit 3) nor the notice (Exhibit 2) in January of 1999. Rosen also testified in his deposition that he mailed it to Plaintiff not by certified mail, but by regular mail on January 7, 1999. Nonetheless, Plaintiff never received Exhibit 3 any time in 1999. On the contrary, Plaintiff just received a letter dated April 14, 1999 (Exhibit 1) together with the 2966 notice back-dated January 7, 1999 (Exhibit 2) by certified mail in April of 1999 in one envelope. At his deposition on October 26, 2006 and at trial on January 2, 2007, Rosen testified differently that he just mailed the cover letter only dated April 14, 1999 to Plaintiff on April 14, 1999 by certified mail and by regular mail. At the time of the deposition, Plaintiff believed that Rosen was falsely alleging that he mailed the notice with some cover letter by certified mail not by regular mail on January 7, 1999 and Rosen was alleging that he mailed another cover letter with the backdated notice by certified mail. However, Rosen’s testimony has been quite different in the deposition and the trial testimony. After the deposition, on or about November 3, 2006, Rosen mailed Plaintiff a package of documents of about 83 pages, which also include the corresponding documents to Exhibit 1, 2, 3, and 9 of the deposition booklet. The post office slip at the right-bottom corner in Exhibit 3 was separated and combined to another post office slip stapled with Exhibit 1. This package has 3 copies of Exhibit 1, 3 copies of Exhibit 2, 1 copy of Exhibit 3, 2 copies of Exhibit 9 (1 copy of Exhibit 9 is attached to another stapled document). On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff visited Rosen’s office with a private investigator, Young Im. At that visit, Rosen showed Im and Rie the package he had, which are the same counter-parts to the package he sent to Plaintiff before. Rosen testified that the package mailed to Plaintiff (“Rie’s package”) is a copied version from his package (“Rosen’s package”). Rosen’s package also has three copies of Exhibit 1, three copies of Exhibit 2, one copy of Exhibit 3, and two copies of Exhibit 9, all of which are exactly counter-parted to Rie’s package. Plaintiff believes that the original of Exhibit 3 was created and printed and copied about in September of 2006 never in January of 1999, even thought it is back-dated as January 7, 1999 by about 7.5 years. Plaintiff believes it is fabricated letter and Rosen does not have old copies at all. And according to his testimony, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 2 were mailed together to Plaintiff on January 7, 1999 by regular mail only. However, the appearance of the paper/ printing/ signature and discoloring of the paper and the mark of the staples and punch holes are totally different in Exhibit 3 from the oldest copy of Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 9 respectively. Im and Rie reviewed each page of the four kinds of documents in more detail than other documents and found and concluded that: (1) At least one of the three copies of Exhibit 1 is a very old copy which was copied in 1999. (2) At least one of the two copies of Exhibit 9 is a very old copy which was copied in 1999. (3) At least one of the three copies of Exhibit 2 is very old copy which was copied in 1999. (4) The only copy of Exhibit 3 is never a very old copy but rather a new one which was copied about in September of 2006. Now, Plaintiff believes he has preponderance of evidence that he never received not only Exhibit 3 but also Exhibit 2 in January of 1999 and the first day I received Exhibit 3 was about September 24, 2006 but never January 8 or 9, 1999. Actually, Exhibit 3 (or the only exhibit of Exhibit II) is the second backdated document, whereas the first backdated document by Rosen is Exhibit 2 of Exhibit I (or Exhibit H submitted by Galperin). The second one was backdated by about 3 months, whereas the first one was backdated by about 7 years 8 months! Rosen is really an amazing document fabricator!
IV. New indirect and circumstantial evidence from Galperin, Rosen, and Curry A. From Galperin From about February 8, 2005, approximately twelve times Galperin has continued to refuse to answer the Requests for Admissions as shown in Exhibit IV or Deposition Notices and also has never denied any item of the admission either. Even if Galperin has refused to respond to discovery so many times, including admissions, it is now the time to deem the Admissions as admitted by Galperin. In other words, it is the time to confirm that every item in the request for admission from Galperin as seen in Exhibit IV is true. The discovery from Galperin should not be denied any more, at least for the purposes of clarification. At least Galperin never denied any of the admission items but he just refused to answer. Therefore, it is the time to deem as admissions as admitted. In other words, each item in Exhibit IV shall be deemed to be true. Then, based up on that information, this consolidated case shall proceed.
B. From Rosen As stated in Paragraph 24 of declaration, about on February 3, 2007, Plaintiff mailed the cover letter and request for admission to Rosen as shown in Exhibit II. It requests, “Admit that you never mailed the letter dated January 7, 1999 signed by you, whose copy is attached here and corresponds to Exhibit 9 of Plaintiff’s exhibit list at the trial, to Jin Rie about on January 7, 1999 or anytime in 1999.” Plaintiff has never received any response to this request from Rosen so far. About on March 12, 2007, Plaintiff made criminal report against Rosen to Federal District Attorney Office, since Rosen failed to respond even after February 20, 2007. Now, at this time, the court should deem the simple one admission from Rosen as admitted at least with preponderance of evidence regardless that it will be proved against Rosen beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, BC275364 and BC290904 shall be perfectly resurrected.
C. From Curry Daniel Curry is a former California Appellate Justice who ruled on both Galperin Case and Rosen Case. About on February 28, 2007, Plaintiff demanded some admission from Mr. Daniel Curry, and he did not deny any of the items of admission, but he just refused it once through his attorney. And then, Plaintiff sent another letter demanding the response to his request again. These are shown in Exhibit III. Since then, Plaintiff has not received any response so far from Curry or his attorney. Plaintiff is informed and believes that every item of the request is true. Subsequently, he is also informed and believes that Curry came to have bias against Plaintiff because Curry erroneously believed that Plaintiff was a liar; therefore, Curry and the two other justices could not rule on the legal issues, including statute of limitation in Galperin Case, fairly and impartially. It is clear that there was legal malpractice and judicial malpractice also. Hence, the major reason why Daniel Curry and other two appellate justices affirmed the judgment in Galperin Case is that they believed Plaintiff was lying. In other words, if they believed Rosen was telling the truth and Rie was telling lies, then they actually did not have to consider any legal issues, including the statute of limitation. They had the bias already against the alleged liar, Rie, which means at this time they did not actually consider the legal malpractice and subsidiary statute of limitation issues at all. Therefore, since they believed legal malpractice was not made at all, their discussion on the statute of limitations is perfunctory and meaningless. At this time, the court should take notice to the following: (1) Galperin, through his attorney, did not state that Exhibit H was served to Jin Rie on about January 7, 1999 in his respondent brief or oral argument in Court of Appeal. (2) The following two sentences are not contradictory each other: “Although the Notice Pursuant to Civil Code 2966 was required at the time the note became due in 1993, it was not until January 7, 1999 that Defendant Tursugian served the required Notice…” and “Defendant Tursugian served the required Notice on April 14, 1999.” (3) Both Galperin Case and Rosen Case as one consolidated case should be resurrected for further discovery that is needed to decide when Exhibit H was served to Jin Rie on or about January 7, 1999, or on or about April 14, 1999.
V. Motion to deem admissions as admitted Pursuant to CCP Section 2033.280 (b), “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” The above request for admission to Galperin, Rosen, and Curry shall be deemed to be admitted, and thus Plaintiff makes a motion for the court to do so. Or alternatively, Plaintiff makes a motion that the Court determines that those admissions as admitted at least until the final discovery. Or still alternatively, Plaintiff moves this Court to allow further discovery on each item of the requests for admission, though it is now obvious that each item in the three kinds of requests for admission is true.
VI. Judicial Malpractice It has still not physically been proved yet whether the judicial malpractices were (1) caused by bribed conspiracies of the judicial officers or (2) caused by sympathized or atmospheric or alienating (“ijime” in Japanese, “wangtta” in Korean) conspiracies of the judicial officers or (3) caused by their biases or prejudices or (4) simply caused by their inadvertent negligences. However, now it is obvious that judicial malpractices have been made both in Rosen Case and Galperin Case. For example, Hiroshige committed judicial malpractice in the Rosen Case, and Curry and the other two justices committed additional judicial malpractice in Galperin Case. Their judicial malpractices have been already virtually proved beyond reasonable doubt directly and indirectly based on the discussions until now up through Part V of this document and the exhibits. This is a civil version of judicial malpractice, whereas the two criminal cases attached in Exhibit III are criminal versions of judicial malpractice. By virtue of fair and impartial presiding in cases, the judicial officers have the fiduciary and other duties, including a duty to preside the case with care and skill ordinarily exercised by reasonably prudent judicial officers similarly situated under like circumstances. However, Hiroshige and Curry and other two justices breached each of their duties and failed to exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reasonably prudent judicial officers similarly situated under like circumstances, and thereby acted negligently and committed judicial malpractice.
VII. Consolidation CCP Section 404.1 provides, “Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” The consolidation of Galperin Case into Rosen Case satisfies this section. Furthermore, this consolidation will reduce the expenses for parties and Court. Some of the major grounds for this consolidation are: (1) these two actions involve common questions of law and fact; (2) especially the hot issue of the so-called ambiguous expression in Galperin Case is common in both cases. Because the decision on Rosen Case will impact whether Galperin Case is ripe, these should be consolidated. In Rosen Case, because Judge Hiroshige took a statement in a prior complaint as a settled fact without allowing explanation or discovery as to whether the notice was really served on January 7, 1999, a reasonable trier of fact may conclude otherwise - Judge refused to allow causes of action. In the Galperin Case, Galperin is the lawyer who is sued for malpractice for implying such ambiguous expression in the complaint, but not implying it explicitly nor clarifying it. If the Rosen Case is allowed to proceed, this issue in the Galperin Case will not be ripe for decision by Court of Appeal. If the Rosen Case is not allowed to proceed to trial, this issue is ripe. The facts in connection of this ambiguous expression should be evaluated and clarified in the Galperin Case rather than in the Rosen Case. On the other hand, the application of these facts and clarification to the theory of the laws should be made in the Rosen Case rather than in the Galperin Case. Without consolidation, in the worst instance, Rosen Case has to be delayed until the completion of the jury trial of the Galperin Case, which is obviously very unreasonable. This is one of the examples why the two cases should be consolidated.
VIII. Two aspects for the Consolidated Resurrection for New Trial and Further Discovery for New Trial with New Evidence A. First aspect Even if we assume the new allegations and new evidence by or from the major defendant, Alan Rosen, since September of 2006 are true, the Rosen Case should be perfectly resurrected. Even if Rosen’s evidence and his allegations are true, those alleged facts violate the law, like Civil Section 2966. According to Rosen’s allegations, he mailed the 2966 notice with a cover letter in regular mail never in certified mail to Plaintiff without any certificate of mailing on January 7, 1999. And then in April of 1999, he still did not send the 2966 notice but just mailed the cover letter only dated April 14, 1999 in certified mail and regular mail. In other words, in April Rosen just mailed cover letter only without the 2966 notice to Plaintiff. Comprehensively speaking, all of these imply that the 2966 notice was never served by certified mail or with certificate of mailing obtained from the United States Postal Service, in January of 1999, nor in April of 1999. And without obtaining the certificate of mailing from the United States Postal Service for the 2966 notice, the Defendants in the Rosen Case (Rosen, Tursugians, SBS, etc.) started the foreclosure from about late April of 1999, about 15 days from April 14, 1999, which was “less than 90 days before the balloon payment is due”. California Civil Code § 2966 (a) provides, “In a transaction regulated by this article, which includes a balloon payment note when the term for repayment is for a period in excess of one year, the holder of the note shall, not less than 90 nor more than 150 days before the balloon payment is due, deliver or mail by first-class mail, with a certificate of mailing obtained from the United States Postal Service, to the trustor, or his or her successor in interest, at the last known address of such person a written notice, to include: …” It is obvious that Defendants in the Rosen Case violated the law and committed wrongful foreclosure, even if the exhibits and testimony of Rosen since September of 2006 are true.
B. Second Aspect The letter of Rosen of January 7, 1999, backdated by about 7.5 years, and his related perjurious testimony were newly made and newly submitted and newly discovered since September of 2006. Those were never submitted or shown during the legal proceedings in 2002 and 2003 and 2004. The letter (Exhibit 3 of deposition transcript and Exhibit 9 of the exhibit list) and Rosen’s related allegations were virtually proved to be false and fabricated, with preponderance of evidence derived from the discovery process and trial in the Federal Court, even though Federal Court did not make any decision on that pursuant to a case law. It has been proved sufficiently that the letter in Exhibit 3 was fabricated by backdating seven and a half years. Therefore, if this case should be reopened again to decide whether that letter was fabricated or not one more time, but it should be assumed it is fabricated according to Plaintiff’s allegation as a matter of law. This cannot be demurred or cannot be stricken for any reason at this time, because that was newly submitted evidence and had been never shown before.
IX. Motion for the Consolidated Resurrection for New Trial and further Discovery for New Trial with New Evidence Plaintiff moves for a new trial and further discovery in this consolidated case. Primarily, this motion will be made on Code of Civil Procedure Section 662, which provides: “In ruling on such motion, in a cause tried without a jury, the court may, on such terms as may be just, change or add to the statement of decision, modify the judgment, in whole or in part, vacate the judgment, in whole or in part, and grant a new trial on all or part of the issues, or, in lieu of granting a new trial, may vacate and set aside the statement of decision and judgment and reopen the case for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence with the same effect as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before a decision had been filed or judgment rendered. Any judgment thereafter entered shall be subject to the provisions of sections 657 and 659.” Because, as stated until now, new evidences, which were contradictory to the existing assumed evidence or had not been shown before or were interrupted by judicial malpractice including motion in limine granting, etc., have been discovered recently, the old judgments shall be vacated and the case for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence with the same effect shall be reopened as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before a decision had been filed or judgment rendered. Secondarily, each and all of the following grounds which materially affected the substantial rights of the moving party and prevented a fair trial are also applicable to this motion except the fact that new pieces of evidence were discovered recently from September of 2006 and still they are being discovered. (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1)); (2) Irregularity in the proceedings caused by adverse party (CCP Sec. 657(1)); (3) Improper orders of the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1)); (4) Abuse of discretion by the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1)); (5) Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against (CCP Sec. 657(3)); (6) Newly-discovered evidence, material to the moving party's case, that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at trial (CCP Sec. 657(4)); (7) The award of damages was inadequate (CCP Sec. 657(5)); (8) The evidence was insufficient to justify the decision (CCP Sec. 657(6)); (9) The decision is contrary to law (CCP Sec. 657(6)); and (10) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (CCP Sec. 657(7)). For example, as stated previously, since September of 2006, Plaintiff came to obtain newly-discovered evidence that was material to the moving party's case, that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at trial (CCP Sec. 657(4)), and that could not have been discovered and produced at trial by an erroneous motion in limine ruling and by infringement of civil right by Judicial Officer Hiroshige, which constitute “Improper orders of the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1))”, “Abuse of discretion by the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1))”, “Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (CCP Sec. 657(7))”, etc. In addition, Rosen’s unique evidence from Galperin’s ambiguous expression is “The evidence was insufficient to justify the decision (CCP Sec. 657(6))”, etc. As a result, the judicial officers committed judicial malpractice resulting in “The award of damages was inadequate (CCP Sec. 657(5))”, “The decision is contrary to law (CCP Sec. 657(6))”, “Improper orders of the Court (CCP Sec. 657(1))”, “Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (CCP Sec. 657(7))”, etc. It may be argued that Improper orders of the Court, Abuse of discretion by the Court, etc. may be challenged within 15 days from the judgment. And it would have been argued that those errors were non-prejudicial and thus could be condoned because Rosen was telling the truth and Galperin was not concealing the truth and Rie was telling a lie. However, now, those errors became very seriously prejudicial and thus could not be condoned, because, according to newly discovered evidences, Rosen was lying a lot including new lies and Galperin was concealing the material truth and Rie was telling the truth. In addition, Judge Hiroshige had erroneously interrupted continual discoveries for new evidences from August 6, 2003 through granting motion in limine without reading Plaintiff’s thick opposition carefully. Therefore, all of the above errors shall be governed by CCP Section 662, which is not limited by 15 days.
X. Brief procedural statement about the initial motion filed on April 19, 2007 After filing the initial motion on April 19, 2007, about on May 10, 2007, Plaintiff fortuitously came to think he would need additional law code for this motion. After filing the reply on May 14, 2007, about on May 16, 2007, Plaintiff found there is another code that will be also applicable to this motion, that is, CCP Section 662. And he filed it urgently with the title of “PLAINTIFF’S URGENT SUPPLEMENT TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RESURRECTION” on May 17, 2007. But Plaintiff found the motion was denied at the hearing of May 21, 2007 while the Court emphasized the long time ago dismissal judgments. The Court told that it did not consider the urgent supplement. He explained the role of Section 662 and asked to modify the ruling to “deny with leave to amend the motion”, but the Court did not allow it. In addition, the Court tried to shorten Plaintiff’s explanation why the ruling should be modified to “with leave to amend” (he did not demand it to grant motion but just to modify it). Rather, the Court emphasized again that those cases were dismissed with prejudice long time ago and the judgments were affirmed by Court of Appeal. As of now, it is too early for Plaintiff to evaluate or comment on this procedure, though he feels it might be an abuse of discretion or lack of reasonable discretion. Then, Plaintiff told he would file another motion, and afterwards he came to file this supplemental motion with the new additional code.
XI. Perfect resurrection but with voluntary strike The well-known facts, which had been well known to judicial officers, are different now, according to many evidences including the continuous refusal of Galperin and the fabricated backdated January 7, 1999 letter. The newly found facts are Rie received neither the fabricated 7 ½ year backdated letter nor the 2966 notice from Rosen in January of 1999; and Exhibit H (which is identical to Exhibit 2 of Exhibit I) was never served to Rie in January of 1999. Those are true. Based upon those new facts and new evidence, it is time now for the perfect resurrection of both cases, the Rosen Case (BC275364) and the Galperin Case (BC290904), as one consolidated case. Subsequently, TAC of Rosen Case and FAC of Galperin Case can be used as the re-starting points. Nevertheless, Plaintiff voluntarily strikes one portion of TAC, the seventh cause of action, breach of fiduciary duty (P21 L15 – P22 L14 of Exhibit A). Currently it is “against all defendants”. Appellants voluntarily changed it to “against Defendants Tursugians, SBS, and DOES 1-50.” Also, Plaintiff strikes “ROSEN and R&L” at Line 25 of Page 21, and strike “or the lawyer/law office of these mortgagees or trustee” at Line 3-4 and “and their Attorney” at Line 11 of Page 22. This implies they release/exclude ROSEN and R&L from this 7th cause of action. In addition, if necessary, Plaintiff will be also willing to amend both TAC of Rosen Case and FAC of Galperin Case if it is ordered by the Court.
XII. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, both the Rosen Case and the Galperin Case should be resurrected as one consolidated case for the new trial and for further discovery for the new trial with new evidence.
web design by StouchDesign
NEWS IN ENGLISH
