Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Affidavit of David Gingras re: Ripoff Report's Response to Lisa Borodkin's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

Affidavit of David Gingras re: Ripoff Report's Response to Lisa Borodkin's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 106|Likes:
Published by Ripoff Report
Affidavit of David Gingras re: Ripoff Report's Response to Lisa Borodkin's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
Affidavit of David Gingras re: Ripoff Report's Response to Lisa Borodkin's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: Ripoff Report on Nov 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
AFFIDAVIT OFDAVID GINGRAS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    G     I    N     G     R    A    S     L    A    W     O     F    F    I    C     E ,     P    L    L    C     3     9     4    1    E .     C     H    A    N     D    L    E    R    B    L    V     D .  ,     #     1    0     6   -    2    4    3     P    H    O     E    N     I    X ,     A    Z    8     5     0     4    8 
David S. Gingras, #021097
Gingras Law Office, PLLC
3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243Phoenix, AZ 85048Tel.: (480)668-3623Fax: (480) 248-3196David@GingrasLaw.comAttorney forPlaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an Arizonalimited liability company,Plaintiff,v.Lisa Jean Borodkin,
et al 
.,Defendants.Raymond Mobrez,Counterclaimant,v.Xcentric Ventures, LLC, andEdward Magedson,Counterdefendants.Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS
AFFIDAVIT OFDAVID GINGRAS INSUPPORT OFPLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANT XCENTRICVENTURES, LLC’SRESPONSE TO LISABORODKIN’S MOTION FOR RULE 11SANCTIONS
I,David S. Gingras declare as follows:1.My name isDavid Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of theState of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, andif called to testify in court or other  proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 140-1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 84
 
2
AFFIDAVIT OFDAVID GINGRAS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    G     I    N     G     R    A    S     L    A    W     O     F    F    I    C     E ,     P    L    L    C     3     9     4    1    E .     C     H    A    N     D    L    E    R    B    L    V     D .  ,     #     1    0     6   -    2    4    3     P    H    O     E    N     I    X ,     A    Z    8     5     0     4    8 
2.I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona andCalifornia, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona andCalifornia and I am admitted topractice and in good standing with the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Arizona andthe United States District Court for the Northern,Central, and Eastern Districts of California.3.I represented Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in the lawsuitfiled against them in California entitled
 Asia Economic Institute, LLC, et al. v. XcentricVentures, LLC 
,
et al 
., Case No. 10-cv-1360 (the “California litigation”). I representedXcentric and Mr. Magedson in the California litigation from the date the case began untilthe entry of final judgment and I was personally involved in every aspect of the case.4.I drafted and filed both Xcentric’s original Complaint and the FirstAmended Complaint in this matter. I electronically signed both of these pleadings, and Iam aware that my signature on each represented a certification that both pleadingscomplied with the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.5.At the time I signed boththe original Complaint and the First AmendedComplaint in this matter, I had a good faith belief, formed after an extensive inquiry, thateach pleading complied with the standards of Rule 11. I maintain the same belief as of the date of this affidavit.6.I have reviewed theMotion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed in this matter byMs. Borodkin on October 17, 2012 (Doc. #134). This motion is actually thefifth versionin alongseriesofnumerousproposed Rule 11 motions served by Ms. Borodkin.7.The first proposed Rule 11 motion I received from Ms. Borodkin, throughhercounsel Mr. Funkhouser, is attached hereto as
Exhibit A
(excluding exhibits). Thisfirst draft was sent to memore than a year agoon October 4, 2011.8.After close scrutiny, I concluded thatMs. Borodkin’s first Rule 11 motioncontained arguments whichwereseriouslymisleading and/or blatantly false. As such,Iwasconcerned that Ms. Borodkin’s counsel,Mr. Funkhouser, may have been relying oninaccurate information provided by Ms. Borodkin.
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 140-1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 2 of 84
 
3
AFFIDAVIT OFDAVID GINGRAS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    G     I    N     G     R    A    S     L    A    W     O     F    F    I    C     E ,     P    L    L    C     3     9     4    1    E .     C     H    A    N     D    L    E    R    B    L    V     D .  ,     #     1    0     6   -    2    4    3     P    H    O     E    N     I    X ,     A    Z    8     5     0     4    8 
9.For example, thedraft motionattempted to minimize Ms. Borodkin’s rolein the California Litigation by stating (falsely) that shewas only involved inlitigatingthe prior California action “for exactly three (3)months out of the case’s eighteen (18) monthspan.” Ex. A, Mot. at 2:2–3.I knew this assertion was false becauseI was personally presentin court in California when Ms. Borodkin first appeared in the case on April 19,2010, and I knew that she remained actively involved in the case for nearly 14 monthsuntil the entry of final judgment on June 15, 2011.10.In addition, the first draft motion containedadditionalarguments that couldnot possibly have been presented in good faith. Upon reviewing these,I was concernedthat ifsuch points were left addressed, itmight have needlessly expanded this litigationand caused it to become more acrimonious than it already was.11.For example,on page 16 of the first draft motion, Ms. Borodkin falselyaccused me of personally recording the phone calls between Mr. Mobrez and Mr.Magedson which were at issue in the prior California case. Based on this false claim,Ms. Borodkin’s motion argued that “Gingras has contravened Arizona’s ethics rules aswell.” Ex A., Mot. at 16:5–6. Ms. Borodkin further accused me of “suppressing” theexistence of the recordings, and that “[s]uch withholding ofobviously pertinentinformation violates the dutyof candor and forthrightness mandated by the Arizona Bar.”
 Id 
. at 17:5–6. In closing, Ms. Borodkin asked this court to refer me “to the Arizona andCalifornia Bars for disciplinary action.”
 Id 
. at 17:15–16.12.The presence of these serious allegations in a Draft Rule 11 motion wereastonishing because Ms. Borodkin knewthey werecompletely false. She knew this because she made virtually the same arguments in the prior California action and her arguments were reviewed and then rejected by the district court which specifically foundthat the phone calls from Mr. Mobrez to Mr. Magedson “were automatically recorded bya third-party vendor hired by Xcentric to record all telephone calls to Ripoff Report'smain phone number.”
 Asia Economic Institute, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC 
, 2010 WL4977054, *10 (C.D.Cal. 2010).
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 140-1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 84

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->