Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by lesliebrodie

More info:

Published by: lesliebrodie on Jan 24, 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

07/07/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
a
J
4
5
6
I
8
910
11
T2
IJI4
15
I6I7
i8
T9
20
21
22
23
aA
L-t
25
262728SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
THE STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR
THECOUNTY
OFLOS
ANGELESSWAZI
ELKANZI
TAYLOR,
an
individual,
Case
No,
8C476847
BOSTWICK
&
JASSY
IIT
GARY L.BOSTWICK,
Cal. Bar
No,
79000
JEAN-PAUL JASSY,
Cal. Bar
No.
205513
KEVIN L.
VICK,
Cal.
Bar
No.
22073812400
Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 400
Los Angeles,
California
90025
Telephone:
310-979-6059
Facsimile:
3
1
0-3
l4-840
I
Attomeys for
Plaintiff
SWAZI
ELKANZI
TAYLOR
vs,
STATE
BAR
OF
THE STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA,
and
JAYNE
KIM,
in
hercapacity
as
lnterim
Chief
Trial
Counselof
theState
Bar of the
State
of California, andDOES
l-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
ii"!.t
i,
COMPLAINT
FOR:
VIOLATION
OF
ARTICLE
I,
SECTTON
IO
OF
THE
LTNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
AND
ARTICLE
I,
SECTION
9
OFTFIE
CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION
I
VIOLATTON
OF
THE DUE
PROCESS
CLAUSE
OF
THEFOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
OF
THE LINITED
STATES
CONSTITUTION
AND ARTICLE
I,
SECTION
7
OF
THE
CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION;
DECLARATORY
RELIEF:
INruNCTIVE
RELIEF;
VIOLATIONS
OF 42U.S,C.
Q
1983;
AND
vroLATroNS
oF
cAL.
CIV.
CODE
$52.1
-1-
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
8
910
11
tI
I2
ta
IJ
t4
15
16
t7
1819
20
2I
2224
25
262728
PlaintiffSWAZIELKANZI
TAYLOR.
("Plaintiff')
alleges
as
follows:
INTnOOUCTION
1)
This lawsuit
challenges
the
constitutionality
of
Senate
Bill
94
("SB94"),
codified in,
without limitation,California
Civil
Code
$S
2944.6
and29tA.7
and
California
Business andProfessions
Code
$
6106.3,
as
it
is being applied
and
enforced by
the
State
Bar
of
California
("State
Bar") toprohibit
attorneys
from
entering into
phased
or
"unbundled"
fee agteements
whenrepresentingclientsrelated
to
loan
modification services.
PlaintiffTaylor
seeks
to enjoin
the
enforcement
of
SB
94 inthat
regardarid
prays;
for
declaratory
judgment
thatthese
provisions
as
applied
and
interpretedbythe
State
Bar violate
the
United
States
and
California
Constitutions.
PARTIES
2)
PlaintiffTaylor
is
a
resident
of
the
county
of
Los Angeles
and
an
attorney
licensed by
the
State
Bar
of Califomia
topracticelaw,is
benehcially
interested
in
this
matter
and
has
suffered
injury
within
one
yearof the
filing
of
this
actionby
virtue
of theunconstitutionalinterpretation
and
enforcement
of
SB 94by the
State
Bar.
I{e
also
brings thissuit
for
declaratory
relief
on
behalfofall
other
personsdamaged
by
the
actions
of
theState
Bar byits
illegal
application
of
SB
94,
including
on
behalf
of
other
members
of the
Sitate
Bar
and
citizens
of
California
seekinglegal
representationin dealing
with
financial
institutions
with
respect
to
loanmodificationsduringthis
era
ofseverefinancial
crisis.
3)
Defendant
State
Bar
is
a
public
corporation
within
the
judicial
branch
of
government,
serving
as
an
arm
of
the
California
Supleme
Court.It
maintains
offices
in LosAngeles County
at
I149
South
Hill
Street,
Los Angeles,
4)
Defendant
Jayne
Kim
isthe
lnterim
Chief
Trial
Counsel
of
the
State
Bar
and is
a
resident
of
LosAngeles
Counry,
Defendant
Kim
is re,sponsible
for
the enforcement
of
someofthe
provisions
of
SB94 challenged
by
Plaintiffherein.
She
is
sued
both
in
her
ofhcial
and
personal
capacity.
,)
-L-
COMPLAINT
 
1
2
J
4
5
6
8
910
il
I2
13
r4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
262728
5)
Thetrue
names
of
defendantsnamed
herein
as
I
through
100
inclusive
are sued
bothin
their
official
and
personal
capacitiesand
are
presentlyunknown
to
Plaintiff,
whotherefore
sues
suchdefendants
by
fictitious
names,
Plaintiffwill
amend
this
Complaint
to
showthe
true
namos
and
identities
of
thesedefendants
whenthey
havebeen
ascertained.Does
l-100
are
responsible
fortheinterpretationand/orthe enforcement
c,f
some
of theprovisions
of
SB
94challenged
by
Plaintiff
herein.
6)
Plaintiff
is
informed
andbelieves,and thereonalleges,
that
eachdefendanthereinwastheagont
or employee
of
each
of
the
other
co-defendantsand,
indoing
the
thingshereinafter
alleged,was
acting
within
the
courseandscope
of
suchagency
oremployment
and
with
the
permission
andconsent
of their
co-defendants.
COMMON
FACTUAI
AND
LEGALALLEGATIONS
7)
This
controversy
began
with
the
enactrnent
of
SB 94
on
October
I
l,
2009.
SB
94
was
codified
in,among other
sections
of
Californiarcodes,
Civil
Code
$$
2944.6
and,2944.7
and
Califomia
BusinessandProfessions
Code
0
6106.3.
8)
The
State
Bar
publicly
takes
thepositionthat
an
attomey
who
provides
a
bonower
loan
modification
orotherforbearance
services
maynot
agree
with
the
bonower
thatthe
servicesrequested
will
be
broken down
into
component
partsand
that
a
fee
for
each component
part
may
not
be
earnedand
collected
as each
componentpart
is completed,
9)
The
State
Bar
also
publicly
takesthe
positionthat
if
the
services
to
be
provided
are
in
fact
loan
modification
services
or otherforbearanc,l
services,
or
are an
integralpart
of
suchservices,but
the
servicesare
notexpressly
designated
as
"loan
modification"
services
in the
fee
agreoment,
SB
94
would
apply
even
if
the
servicesare labeled
as
something otherthan
loan
modification
services.
-3-
COMPIAINT

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)//-->