1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

LAW OFFICES OF BRET D. LEWIS Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard--3rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 207-0696 Fax: (310) 362-8424

Attorney for Defendant Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. SUPERIOR Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles

Case No. BC410835 [Assigned to Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon] NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION: (1) TO

- 1 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 REQUIRE PLAINTIFF MICHAEL GOLAND TO FURNISH SECURITY PURSUANT TO CCP §391.1; AND OTHERWISE OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE NEW LITIGATION IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE AND (2) STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP §425.16; (3) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 3.300; DECLARATION OF SUSAN MARLOWE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF BRET D. LEWIS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [PROPOSED] ORDER Date: August 4, 2009 Time: 8:30 AM Dept. Dept. 74

MICHAEL GOLAND,

) ) - 2 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. LIMA NORRIS, DOG AT HOME, INC., SUSAN MARLOWE, ET AL. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

- 3 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) )

TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL GOLAND (―PLAINTIFF or GOLAND‖), THE COURT, AND ALL PARTIES IN THIS ACTION, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT: on August 4, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 74, Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon presiding, of the above-entitled court, located at Los Angeles Superior Court 111 N. Hill Street, CA 90012, Defendants Susan Marlowe (―Marlowe‖) and Dog at Home, Inc. will move this Court for:
A.

Entry of a prefiling order which prohibits Plaintiff from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be

- 4 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 filed in accordance with CCP §391.7(a) such that disobedience of such order may be punished as a contempt of court;
B.

An order requiring Plaintiff to furnish security pursuant to and in accordance with CCP §391.1;

C.

An order striking Plaintiff‘s herein complaint in its entirety pursuant to CCP §425.16;

D.

An order for the recovery of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to CCP §425.16(c) in the amount of $18,715;

E.

An order for Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to defendants as reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the amount of not less than $18,715 for failure,

- 5 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 without good cause, to comply California Rules of Court Rule 3.3001 pertaining to the filing of a Notice of Related Case; and

1

Cal. Rule of Court Rule 3.300 which provides, inter alia, as follows: ―(a) Definition of “related case”A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: (1) Involves the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents , or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of , or damages to the same property, or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (b) Duty to provide notice Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding, pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case. (c) Contents of the Notice The Notice of Related Case must…be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases… (e) Time for service The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible but not later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.‖

- 6 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
F.

such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

This motion is made pursuant to CCP§391.1, CCP§391.2; CCP§391.7(a); and CCP§425.16 and is based upon the ground that Goland is a vexatious litigant, that the filing of the herein complaint is a cause of action in violation of CCP§425.16(b)(1), and that there is not any probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendants because there is no probability that he will prevail. Said motion is further brought pursuant to Rule 2.30, Cal. Rules of Court. Finally, said motion is further based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached exhibits, the declarations filed herein, and the papers and documents filed

- 7 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 in this case and such oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this matter. Dated this __th day of June, 2009. By: Law Offices of Bret D. Lewis Attorney for Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.

- 8 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY. Plaintiff Michael Goland (―Plaintiff‖ or ―Goland‖) filed the herein complaint on March 30, 2009. The herein complaint arises out of a purportedly false and fraudulently executed Proof of Service executed by process server and co-defendant Lima Norris in December, 2005 in connection with (2005) LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland. (Complaint at ¶9). By way of background, LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland was an action initiated by Dog at Home, Inc., a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation, to remove a fraudulently filed deed of trust to Goland in the amount of $1,000,000 placed on property located at 421 N. Moss Street Burbank, California owned by Dog at Home, Inc. (M. Dec. at ¶22; RFJN at Ex. H.) Susan Marlowe is the president and sole director of Dog at Home, - 9 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Inc. and has served in this capacity without compensation since the inception of the formation of the company. M. Decl. at ¶1. Dog at Home sought to have the lien removed by filing a claim for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. (RFJN at Ex. H.) A default judgment was obtained in this matter against Goland. (RFJN at Ex. L.) Then, Goland‘s motion to set aside the default was denied. Then, Goland‘s motion to reconsider was similarly denied2. (L. Dec. at ¶6.)

Goland has appealed the motion to reconsider his set aside motion (Appeal No. B200133) and it is unlikely that a final order on the appeal will be issued before the date of the hearing in this matter. Moreover, it is uncertain that the results of the appeal will be relevant to this motion even if Goland is the prevailing party because, inter alia, the legal standards at issue are different and the relevancy of the grounds of decision may be insignificant. As set forth infra IV A, a weighing of the evidence is required, and the standard to be applied is whether there is a ―reasonable probability‖ that Goland will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendants. Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson LLP, 40 Cal. 4th 780 (2007). Moreover, ―no determination made by the court in determining the motion is a determination of any issue in the litigation or the merits thereof.‖ CCP §391.2. In the context of the appeal, the trial court‘s ruling - 10 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The herein complaint alleges four causes of action against defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. all of which are based upon and specifically derive from the purportedly fraudulently executed Proof of Service: 1) Extrinsic fraud3; 2) Negligence; 3) Intentional

on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the ―abuse of discretion‖ standard and involves no ―weighing of evidence‖ per se. In Appeal No. B200133, the appeal will be limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider ―new or different facts or laws‖ under CCP §1008. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 212 (2005).
3

Goland‘s claim for ―Extrinsic Fraud‖ is a misnomer in respect of which there exists no claim. The terms ―extrinsic fraud‖ and ―intrinsic fraud‖ are terms that apply to circumstances that justify setting aside a default. Heyman v. Franchise Mortg. Acceptance Corp., 107 Cal.App.4th 921 (Cal. App., 2003). There is no independent tort of ―extrinsic fraud.‖ Even if is claim is considered as a fraud claim, neither can Goland cannot satisfy his burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the fraud (Sierra Nat. Bank v. Brown 18 Cal. App.3d 98 (1981)) nor has Goland stated the elements of a fraud claim (South Tahoe Gas Co. v. Hofmann Land Improvement Co. (1972). Moreover, as discussed infra, in view of the Supreme Court‘s decision in Rusheen v. Cohen, the litigation privilege extends to all torts except malicious prosecution.

- 11 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Infliction of Emotional Distress and 4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The complaint further alleges that Lima Norris was the agent and/or employee of defendants Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. and that such parties, including all of their officers and directors, willfully conspired to file an allegedly false declaration of service. (Comp. ¶¶2, 8). Finally, despite the existence of six separate pending actions4 between the parties, Goland did not file a Notice of Related Case herein5. (M. Dec. ¶¶19-20). Clearly, this case and

4

These actions include: 1) Dog at Home v. Goland v. Goland LASC SC088376; 2) Goland v. Susan Marlowe, Dog at Home LASC Case No. EC0448861; 3) Goland v. Marlowe Kern County Case No. SC-1500-CV 264532 WDP; 4) Goland v. Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. EC046471; 5) Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410639; and 6) Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe LASC Case No. BC310834, which is a case in which Brad Herman is Goland‘s strawman.

- 12 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the underlying matter LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland are related. II. A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IS STATUTORILY DEFINED TO INCLUDE ACTUAL PLAINTIFFS WHO RELITIGATE PRIOR CASES AND THOSE PERSONS WHO ACT TO CAUSE SUCH PERSONS TO RELITIGATE SUCH MATTERS. CCP§§391(b) defines the term ―Vexatious Litigant‖ as follows: ―(b)―Vexatious Litigant ― means a person who does any of the following:…

5

Indeed, Goland ignored an order of Hon. Judge Laura A. Matz on May 19, 2009 to file a Notice of Related Case in all pending matters as set forth in the separate Request for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt filed herein. (M. Decl. at ¶¶19-20). - 13 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ―(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy , or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined…‖ CCP§391(d) explicitly defines the term ―Plaintiff‖ to include those actual plaintiffs who are ―Vexatious Litigants‖ as defined above and, additionally, those persons who act to cause a litigation to be filed as follows:

- 14 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (d) ―Plaintiff‖ means the person who commences, institutes or maintains a litigation or causes it to be commenced, instituted or maintained, including an attorney at law acting in propria persona.‖ (Emphasis added). III. GOLAND WAS FOUND TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IN LASC CASE NO. SC097949 SPELLMAN V. GOLAND, MARLOWE FOR COLLUDING WITH THE PLAINTIFF SPELLMAN THEREIN IN RELITIGATING A PRIOR MATTER.

- 15 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 On March 18, 2009 Susan Marlowe filed a motion, inter alia, to fix Michael Goland6 as the defacto petitioner in the LASC Case No.SC097949 action then pending styled as Michael Spellman v. Goland and Marlowe, et al. In ruling on the motion therein the court noted, inter alia, that:
1.

―the proof of service lists the case caption as Michael ―Goland‖ v. Maple Whitworth, Inc., et al., instead of Michael ―Spellman.‖…;

2.

the summons issued for the First Amended Complaint also inconsistently state[d] in one location that the plaintiff is ―Michael Goland‖ and in another that plaintiff is ―Michael Spellman.‖…;

6

Said motion was filed as part of a motion to set aside default and a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiff, Michael Spellman, against defendants Michael Goland and Susan Marlowe. (L. Dec. ¶7). - 16 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3.

the same address has been listed and used by [Plaintiff‘s process serverand Goland‘s process server] Samuel Shore, plaintiff‘s [Michael Spellman‘s] counsel Kenneth Lance Haddix and Moses Abonal (who was named to receive legal process on behalf of Michael Goland in another action) – that address is 12304 Santa Monica Blvd. In fact, Maple Drive Villas‘ earlier demurrer in this case was served in October 2008 as follows:

Moses Abonal Attorney for Plaintiff Law Offices of Lance Haddix & Associates 12304 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 300—Second Floor

- 17 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Los Angeles, CA 90025-2593; [and]
4.

These facts plus Michael Goland providing his own declaration in support of SPELLMAN‘s motion for leave to file a lis pendens in this action and admitting to assisting SPELLMAN with a pleading for this action prior to retaining attorney Haddix (Goland Oppos., at p. 3.) supports MARLOWE‘s assertion that there is some type of collusion or other questionable conduct being perpetrated here…‖

Based on the foregoing, the Court thereafter made a finding of fact as follows: ―the court finds that each of SPELLMAN, who originally filed the herein action, in propria, and GOLAND, who at all times has been in propria, are attempting to relitigate, in propria, the validity of the determination against the same defendants or

- 18 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined and relitigate the cause of action, claim, controversy or any of the issues of fact, or law, determined or concluded by the final determination or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined within the meaning of CCP §391(a)(2).‖ (emphasis added) IV. THERE IS NOT A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT GOLAND WILL PREVAIL AGAINST MARLOWE IN THE HEREIN LITIGATION AND THE MOVING PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING GOLAND TO POST A BOND UNDER CCP§391.1. A. OVERVIEW OF CCP§391.1.

- 19 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CCP §391.1 authorizes a defendant to move at any time for an order to require the plaintiff to furnish security. CCP§391.1. ―Final judgment,‖ for purposes of vexatious litigant statute allowing defendant to move for order requiring security at any time until final judgment is entered, does not occur until time for appeal has passed or remittitur has issued, and thus, vexatious litigant statutes can apply to litigants who seek appeal. McColm v. Westwood Park Ass’n 62 Cal. App. 4th 1211(App. 1 Dist. 1998). Accordingly, appellate courts have also applied vexatious litigant law to appeals and writ petitions filed in the courts of appeal. In re R H v. RH F055047 (Cal. App. 1/26/2009) (Cal. App., 2009). The motion must be supported by a showing that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. CCP §391.1. If, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff - 20 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant, the court shall order the plaintiff to furnish security, for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix. CCP §391.3. In determining whether in a CCP §391.1 motion there is a ―reasonable probability‖ that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation, our Supreme Court adopted the more liberal standard applied by Beyerbach v. Juno Oil Co., 42 Cal.2d 11(1954) and held that the court is required to weigh the evidence, based upon conflicting evidence, and perform an evaluative function. Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson LLP 40 Cal. 4th 780 (2007). Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the application of the stricter standard applied in Devereaux v. Latham & Watkins 32 Cal. App.4th 1571 (1995) which allowed the Court merely to assume the

- 21 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 truth of alleged facts and determine only whether the claim was foreclosed as a matter of law in applying the security requirement. Moran at fn 7. B. THERE IS NO PROBABILITY THAT GOLAND WILL PREVAIL IN THE

LITIGATION AGAINST SUSAN MARLOWE BECAUSE THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT ARE BASED UPON THE COMMUNICATIVE ACT OF FILING ALLEGEDLY FALSE DECLARATIONS OF SERVICE TO OBTAIN A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROTECTED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IN CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(b) AS COMMUNICATIONS IN THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS. The gravamen of each of Plaintiff‘s herein cause of action is clearly the filing of allegedly false declarations of service to obtain a default judgment. However, our Supreme Court in - 22 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Rusheen v. Cohen 37 Cal. 4th 1048 (2006) has made it clear that where the cause of action is based on a ―communicative act‖ of filing allegedly false declarations of service to obtain a default judgment that this activity is protected by the litigation privilege in California Civil Code Section 47(b) as communications in the course of judicial proceedings. As stated by our Supreme Court in Rusheen v. Cohen:
A.

―The Litigation Privilege Protects the Communicative Act of Filing a Declaration of Service, the Gravamen of the Abuse of Process Claim in This Case.‖ Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1061;

B.

―the gravamen of the action was…the procurement of the judgment based on the use of allegedly perjured declarations of service. Because these declarations were communications "(1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or - 23 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action" (Silberg supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365), the litigation privilege applies to the declarations and protects against torts[39 Cal.Rptr.3d 527] arising from the privileged declarations. (Id. at p. 214, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365.) ―Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1062;
C.

―modern public policy seeks to encourage free access to the courts and finality of judgments by limiting derivative tort claims arising out of litigation-related misconduct and by favoring sanctions within the original lawsuit…. Pollock v. University of Southern California, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1430-1431, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 122 [no civil causes of action for perjury or abuse of process for filing

- 24 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 false declarations]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971),22 Cal.App.3d 626, 99 Cal. Rptr. 393 [no cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress].) Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1063; and
D.

―we

conclude

that…

unless

it

is

demonstrated

that

an

independent,

noncommunicative, wrongful act was the gravamen of the action, the litigation privilege applies…Here…the gravamen of the action was the procurement of the judgment, not its enforcement.‖ Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1065. Moreover, in Rusheen, our Supreme Court made it clear that the litigation privilege which prohibits claims based on allegedly false declarations of service to obtain defaults judgments extends to “all torts” except for malicious prosecution. (―Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication, - 25 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution.‖ Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1057). There is no civil cause of action for "perjury" which is a criminal wrong. Taylor v. Bidell, 65 Cal. 489 (1884); Kappel v. Bartless 200 Cal. App.3d 1457 (1988). Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 464 (1999). Further, the Supreme Court held that: ―the litigation privilege is absolute and applies regardless of malice.” Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1063. Additionally, no cause of action for civil conspiracy arises out of claim based on allegedly false declarations of service: ―Additionally, a civil conspiracy does not give rise to a cause of action unless an independent civil wrong has been committed‖. Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1062. Finally, since the filing of an allegedly false proof of service is privileged under Civil Code Section 47(b), the Supreme Court in Rusheen v. Cohen held that it was proper for the trial court to strike the complaint and enter judgment for the moving party under the Anti-SLAPP

- 26 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Statute Code Civ. Proc. §425.16. (―Because the trial court correctly found that there was no reasonable probability Rusheen's abuse of process claim would prevail on the ground Cohen's allegedly wrongful conduct was privileged (Civ. Code §47, subd. (b)), it properly granted the antiSLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., §425.16), struck the cross-complaint against Cohen, and entered judgment in his favor.‖) Rusheen v. Cohen at p.1065 Since each of Goland‘s claims are based on the filing of an allegedly false proof of service, the prosecution of Goland‘s claims are prohibited and protected by the litigation privilege in Civil Code Section 47 subdivision (b). Moreover, given the ruling of the Supreme Court in Rusheen v. Cohen it is clear that Goland has no probability of prevailing in this lawsuit and the complaint should be striken under the Anti-SLAPP statute Code of Civ. Proc. §425.16.

- 27 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moreover, Goland cannot demonstrate that Lima Norris fraudulently executed a Proof of Service and that Susan Marlowe and/or Dog at Home, Inc. conspired in such fraud under any scenario. As stated in the declaration of Susan Marlowe, neither she nor Dog at Home, Inc. had anything to do with hiring Lima Norris and/or serving Goland in the subject action, all of which was handled by her attorneys Kaplan, Kenegos and Kadin. As stated in State v. Pfeiffer, E043442 (Cal. App. 4/21/2008) (Cal. App., 2008): "When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the burden is ordinarily on the plaintiff to demonstrate "the facts requisite to an effective service." (Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.) "[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper . . . if the proof of service complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs." (Id. at pp. 1441-1442.)‖

- 28 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Here, Goland cannot shift the burden and his action must fail. (L. Dec. ¶14 Ex. ―Z‖). Finally, given that Marlowe is the sole director/officer of not-for-profit Dog at Home, Inc., Goland must satisfy the requirements of CCP §425.15 in bringing such suit which requires entry of a pre-filing ―order allowing the pleading that includes the claim to be filed only after the court determines that the party seeking to file the pleading has established evidence that substantiates the claim‖, including a verified complaint. CCP§425.15(a). Here, the statute has not been complied with. V. GOLAND SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF RELATED CASE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT RULE 2.30.

- 29 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Rule 2.30, Cal. Rules of Court, is designed to encourage the efficient administration of the judicial system and to discourage the likes of Goland from inappropriate courtroom tactics -- by providing, in relevant part, as follows: ―(a) Application. This sanctions rule applies to the rules in the California

Rules of Court relating to general civil cases . . . ―(b) Sanctions. In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court

may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. For the purposes of this rule, ‗person‘ means a party, [or] a party's attorney . . . If a failure to comply with an applicable rule is the responsibility of counsel

- 30 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 and not of the party, any penalty must be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party's cause of action or defense thereto. ―(c) Notice and procedure. Sanctions must not be imposed under this rule

except on noticed motion by the party seeking sanctions . . . A party's motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought . . . ―(d) Award of expenses. In addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the

court may order the person who has violated an applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party's reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions . . . .‖ (emphasis added.)

- 31 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As set forth in the declaration of Susan Marlowe, this case is related to each of the following cases: 1) Dog at Home v. Goland LASC SC088376; 2) Goland v. Susan Marlowe, Dog at Home LASC Case No. EC0448861; 3) Goland v. Marlowe Kern County Case No. SC-1500CV 264532 WDP; 4) Goland v. Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. EC046471; 5) Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410639; and 6) Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe LASC Case No. BC310834. Without any, much less ―good‖ cause, Goland failed to comply with Rule 3.300, Cal. Rules of Court, in regard to the filing of a notice of related case. Certainly, there can be no doubt that this matter is related within the meaning of Cal. Rule of Court Rule 3.300 to the underlying matter in respect of which it arises and refers to in the text of the complaint: 1) Dog at Home v. Goland LASC SC088376.

- 32 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As a result thereof, Goland, should be required to pay defendants reasonable monetary sanctions in the sum of $15,040. L. Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. VI. THE ENTIRE MATTER IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SHAM LAWSUIT TO HARRASS GOLAND’S EX-WIFE SUSAN MARLOWE AND THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER THE BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIES AND THE HISTORY OF LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CREDIBILITY. A. Background of Marlowe. Marlowe is a CPA who was briefly married to Michael Goland during the period of approximately 1999 to 2002. (M. Dec. ¶5). She is also charitably minded and is the president of Dog at Home, Inc., a 501(c) corporation organized by Marlowe to provide charitable services for the benefit of dogs. (M. Dec. ¶1). She has no felony convictions nor has she ever been charged with a felony. (M. Dec. ¶11). Since her divorce from Goland in - 33 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2002, Goland has filed a number of lawsuits against her and Dog at Home, Inc. in respect of which he has exhibited a relentless pattern of litigating and relitigating, directly and through strawmen, the same thing over and over again instead of exercising any modicum of efficiency by bringing all his claims in one forum, the ulterior motive of which is to antagonize Marlowe and cause her undue anguish and despair. (M. Dec.¶ ¶12-13, Exs.A,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,Q ). B. Background of Criminal and Litigation Terrorist Goland and Lack of Credibility. In contrast to Marlowe, Goland is a convicted felon and has a history of organized fraud, dubious credibility and his only job is that of a being a professional litigant with over 120+ lawsuits to his name. (L. Dec¶8, Ex.U, V). He was convicted in 1991 under 18 U.S.C. 371; 1001; Conspiracy to Make False Statement to a Government Agency (Count 1); 18 U.S.C. 1001; 2(b): False Statement to a Government Agency; Causing An act To be Done (Counts 2-12, 15; 18 U.S.C. 1001 False

- 34 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Statement to a Government Agency; Aiding and Abetting (Counts 13, 14, 16); 18 U.S.C. 1001; False Statement to a Government Agency (Counts 12-10) Class D Felonies in a matter where Goland orchestrated a series of false written statements to federal regulatory authorities to obtain surreptitious control of a Savings and Loan in California and then lied under oath when questioned about his scheme. US. v. Goland, 972 F.2d 1347 (1992). He was also convicted of committing campaign violations in the race between Alan Cranston, Ed Zschau and Ed Vallen for the U.S. Senate in the 1986 California election by virtue of making excess contributions to a political campaign. US v. Goland, 959 F.2d 1449 (1992). (L. Dec¶8, Ex.U). From 2002-2007, the perception of Goland as an individual of dubious credibility has been reflected in numerous judicial proceedings. In 2002 in LASC Case No. NC023478 styled as Sudnicki v. American Recovery, Inc. et al., Hon. Judge James L. Wright held that: ―…Goland

- 35 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 secured [his] position…through fraud...and committed actual fraud.‖ (L. Dec¶9, Ex.W). In a 2006 bench trial before Hon. Judge Michael L. Stern in LASC Case No. BC310024 in which Goland testified, the Judge found that Goland possessed ―challeng[ed] believability‖ and ―undermin[ed] credibility‖. (L. Dec¶10, Ex.X) Similarly, in 2007 in LASC Case No. SC088376, Hon. Judge

Richard Neidorf. stated as his reasoning for refusing to set aside Goland‘s default: ―Basically I told Mr. Goland I didn’t believe him. I believed he was served. I believe he was lying to the Court and everybody else about not being served and that’s why I didn’t set it aside.‖ (L. Dec¶11,

Ex.Y). As stated supra, most recently, in 2009, in LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v. Marlowe and Goland in sustaining a demurrer with prejudice on the grounds that the matter was res judicata, Hon. Jacqueline A. Connor held Goland was a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP §391 insofar as it was specifically the finding of the court that: ―SPELLMAN, who originally filed

- 36 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the herein action, in propria, and GOLAND, who at all times has been in propria, are attempting to relitigate, in propria, the validity of the determination against the same defendants or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined and relitigate the cause of action, claim, controversy or any of the issues of fact, or law, determined or concluded by the final determination or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined within the meaning of CCP §391(a)(2).‖ Further, Goland has a pattern of avoiding the filing of Notices of Related Cases and an OSC is now pending for this failure in LASC SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe. Aside from his criminal past, Goland has more litigation experience than most lawyers with 120+ lawsuits (L.Dec. ¶8 at Ex. V) under his belt, principally involving real estate matters which he vigorously pursues, including, filing motions to reconsider and pursuing appeals. He has

- 37 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 stated under penalty of perjury that he is ―judgment proof.‖ He has organized his affairs with purported judgment creditor Hebard Partnership who he has an extremely cozy relationship, who immediately surfaces in each and every case in which Goland is a plaintiff as a lien claimant to collect and shield the proceeds of any judgment that Goland may effectively extort through his vexatious litigation, and who secretly collects monies from a real estate venture Goland indirectly and covertly controls through Hebard Partnership. (M. Dec. ¶14). He also feigns

disability/poverty to obtain disability insurance/income, though he is perfectly-abled. (M. Dec. ¶35). In short, for all intents and purposes, he is the functional equivalent of a Litigation Terrorist and his terror has been directed at Susan Marlowe (and her charitable organization, Dog at Home, Inc. in respect of which she is the president and sole director) in the context of each of the

- 38 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 proceedings stated herein—all of which could have been brought in one action—but intentionally-were not. VII. PLAINTIFF’S IN PROPRIA PERSONA STATUS IS NO DEFENSE. The fact that Goland is representing himself should be of no consequence. It is wellestablished law that Goland is held to the same procedural and substantive rules as is an attorney. The pleadings and motions filed by a party in the trial court are subject to the standards generally applied by California courts in civil litigation. Gamet v. Blanchard 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 12841285 (2001) [self-representing litigants are not exempt from statutes or court rules governing procedure].) (―When an appellant decides to represent himself in propria persona, "he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys ―) Bistawros v.

- 39 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Greenberg, 189 Cal. App. 3d 189, 193 (1987); Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. 43 Cal. App. 4th 1200, 1210 (1996). VIII. CONCLUSION.

But for the failures by Goland, Defendant need not have incurred reasonable attorneys‘ fees and costs in the total sum of $18,715. CCP §425.16(c) and Rule 2.30, Cal. Rules of Court provides a simple, just and convenient means for the Court, while wearing its equitable hat and bouncing on the woolsack, to shift the attorneys‘ fees and costs incurred by defendants in defending against Goland‘s bad faith games to the party who sought to unduly and inappropriately harass Marlowe, which is clearly what is happening here. Finally, Goland‘s activities can no longer be tolerated as a matter of the public good and a pre-filing order and bond order must be

- 40 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 initiated in this case. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the herein motion and the relief herein requested.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2009. By: Law Offices of Bret D. Lewis Attorney for Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.

- 41 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

LAW OFFICES OF BRET D. LEWIS Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard 3rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 207-0696 Fax: (310) 362-8424

Attorney for Defendant Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. SUPERIOR Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles

Case No. BC410835 [Assigned to Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon]

- 42 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DECLARATION OF SUSAN MARLOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Date: August 4, 2009 Time: 8:30 AM Dept. Dept. 74

MICHAEL GOLAND,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LIMA NORRIS, DOG AT HOME, INC., SUSAN ) MARLOWE, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) - 43 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DECLARATION OF SUSAN MARLOWE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
I, Susan Marlowe, have personal knowledge of all facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto, declare as follows and request that this Court take judicial notice of specific records referred to herein and all records on file in this action pursuant to California Evidence Code §§452(d) and 453: - 44 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. I am the president and sole director of Dog at Home, Inc., a 501(c) not-for-profit company organized to provide charitable services to dogs, and I have acted in such capacity at all material times since the filing of the complaint against plaintiff herein, Michael Goland, in 2005 in LASC Case No. LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland. In such capacity, I am informed of all amounts paid for any reason to any party by Dog at Home, Inc. during the period of 2005 to present. I am the only officer/director of Dog at Home, Inc. and have held all of the offices since the formation of the company. I have served without compensation in all these capacities since the inception of the formation of Dog at Home, Inc. 2. In 2005, Dog at Home, Inc. –not Susan Marlowe--engaged the law firm of Kaplan, Kenegos & Kadin to represent it in LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland, Dog at Home, Inc. and such law firm was the attorney of record at all material times in

- 45 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 such matter. As the attorneys of record for Dog at Home, Inc., these attorneys filed each and every pleading filed by Dog at Home, Inc., including the Proofs of Service on file therein. I did not file any documents in this case. Moreover, at no time was I a party to such litigation in my individual capacity nor were such attorneys representing me in this litigation. 3. As the attorneys for Dog at Home, Inc. in LASC Case No.SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Michael Goland all monies for attorney services and other charges were paid directly to these attorneys by Dog at Home, Inc. Moreover, at no time did I or Dog at Home, Inc. ever pay Lima Norris to perform any service on my behalf or on behalf of Dog at Home, Inc. 4. As to the particulars of service of process in LASC Case No. SC088376, I did not engage or employ Lima Norris at any time to serve process on Michael Goland on my behalf or on behalf of Dog at Home, Inc. To the contrary, Lima Norris was engaged by attorneys Kaplan,

- 46 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kenegos & Kadin—not me or Dog at Home, Inc. Accordingly, at no time was Lima Norris acting as my agent or employee in serving process on Michael Goland. 5. I only spoke to Lima Norris once. This occurred on or about December, 2005 prior to the date of the Proof of Service at issue in LASC Case No. SC088376. I gave Ms. Norris a detailed physical description of Goland and confirmed that she had received the photo that I had sent to my attorneys of Goland. At the time, I indicated that Goland had a deformed left arm due to a polio and that, accordingly, his recognition by her would be unmistakable, and I otherwise described his physical appearance to Ms. Norris in detail. During the period of approx. 1999 to 2002, I was married to Michael Goland and was well-aware of his appearance and his deformity. I had no prior relationship with Lima Norris prior to this time nor have I had any relationship or other contact with Ms. Norris since this time.

- 47 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6. At no time did I tell Ms. Norris or any party to intentionally not serve Goland or file a false proof of service. At no time, did I tell Ms. Norris or any party to negligently serve Goland or file a false proof of service. 7. Further, I did not conspire with Lima Norris or any party to cause Goland not to be served or file a false proof of service. 8. Except for the foregoing, neither I nor Dog at Home, Inc. have any knowledge as to the validity of the proof of services filed herein. 9. It is untrue that Goland has incurred substantial attorneys fees, costs and expenses in attempting to set aside the default in LASC Case No. SC088376. In fact, in each case in which Goland is a party he has obtained a fee waiver so there are no attorneys fees or costs that he incurs.

- 48 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10. Further it is untrue that Goland has sustained impairment of his credit, loss of

economic opportunities and loss of profits of any sort. He is on permanent disability and he is admittedly judgment proof and this has nothing to do with the herein matters. 11. I have never been convicted or charged with a felony. I have am a practicing CPA since I began my career as my principal source of income. 12. I have been involved in substantial litigation with my ex-husband in which he exhibits a relentless pattern of litigating and relitigating, directly and through strawmen, the same thing over and over again instead of bringing all his claims in one forum to an end of antagonizing me and causing me anguish and dispair and causing me financial ruin. He has also sued my current husband Jack Shlush.

- 49 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13. As of a recent date, I am a party to the following seven pending matters with Michael Goland, true and correct copies of the complaints of which are attached as indicated:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Dog at Home v. Goland v. Goland LASC SC088376 (Ex. H); Goland v. Susan Marlowe, Dog at Home LASC Case No. EC0448861 (Ex.E); Goland v. Marlowe Kern County Case No. SC-1500-CV 264532 WDP (Ex.F); Goland v. Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. EC046471 (Ex. Q); Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410639 (Ex. I); Goland v. Lima Norris/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410835 (Ex.J); Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe LASC Case No. BC310834 (Ex. K1).

14. I am informed and believe that Goland has obtained a fee waiver in each of these cases, though Goland owns and controls substantial assets through affiliated shell companies he

- 50 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 operates. During the time we were married he confided to me that he had an ownership interest in an oil refinery in Louisiana called NRG, Inc., Compton Slauson Property, Kings Canyon Consortium, PS Capital and Siegel Ltd. (a mini-wherehouse). He also had told me that his most lucrative business was the ownership of mini-wherehouses, had founded Lock N Store mini wherehouses and at the time had 78,000 tenants and produces substantial income. At the end of our religious marriage he had substituted William Hebard, a client with a long history of trust, into the position of majority interest in the Segel Ltd partnership. This way he could control the money of the mini wherehouse through William Hebard, who mysteriously surfaces as a lien claimant in every lawsuit that Goland files and aggressively pursues despite the fact that apparently William Hebard will collect all the proceeds of any judgment.

- 51 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15. By way of further background, Goland is a convicted felon who has been incarcerated in federal prison for orchestrating fraud consisting of: (1) making false statements to regulatory authorities in conjunction with his purchase of a savings and loan bank; and (2) making political campaign contributions in excess of the legal limit to various candidates for federal office. See US v. Goland, 959 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir. 1992); US v. Goland, 972 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1992) (slip op.) I was briefly married to Goland during the period of approx. 1999-2002. 16. Additionally, on May 11, 2009, in LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v.

Goland/Marlowe, the court recognized that Goland was utilizing Spellman as a strawman in bringing that case. Despite the fact that Goland was not the named plaintiff therein, the Court

- 52 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 found that due to collusion between Goland and Spellman that Goland was a vexatious litigant within the meaning of the Vexatious Litigant statute CCP§391(a)(2)7:

7

CCP§§391(b) defines the term ―Vexatious Litigant‖ as follows: ―(b)―Vexatious Litigant ― means a person who

does any of the following:…―(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined…‖ CCP§391(d) explicitly

defines the term ―Plaintiff‖ to include those actual plaintiffs who are ―Vexatious Litigants‖ as defined above and, additionally, those persons who act to cause a litigation to be filed as follows: (d) ―Plaintiff‖ means the person who commences, institutes or maintains a litigation or causes it to be commenced, instituted or maintained, including an attorney at law acting in propria persona.‖ (Emphasis added).

- 53 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ―[with reference to Spellman and Goland]…there is some type of collusion or other questionable conduct being perpetrated here and the court finds that each of SPELLMAN, who originally filed the herein action, in propria, and GOLAND, who at all times has been in propria, are attempting to relitigate, in propria, the validity of the determination against the same defendants or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined and relitigate the cause of action, claim, controversy or any of the issues of fact, or law, determined or concluded by the final determination or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined within the meaning of CCP §391(a)(2).‖ (emphasis added)

- 54 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the order. LASC Case No. BC310834 Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe 17. This pattern of using strawmen to conduct litigation appears to be what Goland has done in LASC Case No. BC310834 Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe (Ex. “K1) in that Brad Herman appears to be Goland‘s strawman as of March 2009. This matter is based on an

assignment of claim to pro per defendant Brad Herman from the original plaintiff BJH Holdings who initiated 2005 LASC Case No. BC340631 styled as BJH Holdings, LLC v. Dog at Home, Inc./Marlowe/Goland, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “K2”. This case was dismissed voluntarily by plaintiffs after my attorneys sent BJH Holdings a letter dated October 17, 2005, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit “K3” in which my attorneys advised: “Ms. Marlowe’s former husband Michael Goland has a history of filing bogus

- 55 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lawsuits against ms. Marlwoe and others, as well as trying to tie up properties with lis pendens. These lawsuits have been filed either in Mr. Goland’s name or in the name of strawpersons, including Robert Nathan, who is also apparently involved in your lawsuit.” In fact, Goland has confided to me that he has a network of associates and friends in respect of whom he brings and intends to bring lawsuits against me as strawpersons, and he has admitted to being judgment proof in numerous court pleadings, which is a façade to assist him to bring frivolous lawsuits without repercussions of sanctions or adverse judgment. 18. In LASC Case No. BC410834 Herman v Marlowe/Goland (Ex. K1), there can be no doubt that Brad Herman is the nominal plaintiff only therein and colluded and conspired with Goland to bring this action just as Goland has held to have colluded and conspired to commence the LASC SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe action (Ex. G) indirectly through Spellman.

- 56 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In short, it should be clear that Goland—not Brad Herman--actually filed the Brad Herman matter (LASC Case No. BC410834 Ex. K1) and is responsible for its being prosecuted. Consider the following facts: (A) The filing dates for each of the Brad Herman matter (LASC Case No. BC410834) and the Goland/Lima Norris matter (LASC Case No. BC410835) are both on March 30, 2009; (Exhibits J, K1) (B) The filing time for the Brad Herman matter (LASC Case No. BC410834) and the Goland/Lima Norris matter (LASC Case No. BC410835) are minutes apart and obviously were filed by the same clerk. (Exhibits J, K1) (C) Per the complaint in the Brad Herman matter (LASC Case No. BC410834) as indicated on the cover page of the complaint the filing date/time was 03/30/09 04:29:02. (Exhibit K1) (D) Per the complaint in the Goland/Lima Norris matter this complaint was filed on 03/30/09 at 04:32:33—only three minutes apart. (Exhibit J)

- 57 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (E) Given that it is my experience that it takes approximately 3 minutes for a clerk to process the filing of a complaint there can be no explanation other than that the same person filed each complaint. (F) The handwriting on the upper left hand sides assigning the applicable Judges appear to be of the same person. (Exhibit J, K1) (G) Finally, the filing numbers for each of the two complaints are successive filing numbers, Case No. BC410834 and Case No. BC410835, so it should be clear that these documents were filed by the same person and before the same filing clerk. (Exhibit J,K1) The Order To File a Related Case 19. On May 19, 2009, the Los Angeles Superior Court Glendale Division in LASC Case No. EC0446471 Goland v. Marlowe issued and duly served Goland with an order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” which provides in pertinent part: ―Michael Goland is ordered to file a Notice of Related Cases in this case and in case number EC044886, Michael Goland vs. Dog at Home, Inc. et al. filed in the North Central District - 58 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Court of the Burbank Courthouse and any other case pending in this county, pursuant to rule 7.3 of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules, not later than 4:00 p.m. on June 4, 2009 .‖ 20. But Michael Goland has failed to comply with this order. Goland v. Lima Norris is Related to Dog at Home v. Goland and Many Other Cases Filed by Goland To Harass Marlowe—Ex. “J 21. Michael Goland v. Lima Norris/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410835 (Ex. J) is a pending case that is related to also pending LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland (Ex. H) and many other cases which all concern the resolution of the rights of the ownership of property owned by Dog at Home, Inc. located at 422 N. Moss Street, property derivative thereto, and the overall ownership of Dog at Home, Inc. The latter case (LASC Case

- 59 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland at Ex. H) concerns the rights of the parties in property located at 421 Moss Street Burbank, CA 91502. 22. By way of background, Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland was an action to remove a fraudulently filed deed of trust to Goland in the amount of $1,000,000 placed on property located at 421 N. Moss Street Burbank, California owned by Dog at Home, Inc. Dog at Home sought to have the lien removed by filing a claim for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. (Ex. H par. 4, 7, 11-14). In the context of this proceeding, the issue for the Court to determine was the party entitled to ownership of the 421 N. Moss Street, Burbank, California and Goland‘s rights, if any, therein, who claimed to be the authorized agent of Dog At Home, Inc. A default judgment was obtained in this matter which is presently on appeal. Attached hereto as Exhibit “L” is a true and correct copy of the judgment. (California law is well settled that pending appeal a trial court

- 60 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 judgment is not final. Sandoval v. Superior Court 140 Cal. App. 3d 932, 936 (1983) Accordingly, this matter is still pending for purposes of Rule 3.300). The process server in the case in respect of which the default judgment was based was ―Lima Norris.‖ 23. The former case (Michael Goland v. Lima Norris/Susan Marlowe LASC Case No. BC410835) alleges that the parties conspired with Lima Norris to falsely sign and file a Proof of Serve in the former Dog at Home v. Goland action and specifically refers to this action in the complaint. (Ex. J at p.3 par.9-13).

Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue Team/Susan Marlowe LASC No. BC410639 is Related to Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland and Numerous Other Cases Filed by Goland To Harass Marlowe—Ex. “I”. 24. Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue Team/Susan Marlowe (LASC Case No. BC410639 at Ex. I) is a pending case and is also related to pending case Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland (LASC - 61 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. SC088376 at Ex. H) because both cases, similarly, concern the rights of the parties in property located at 421 Moss Street Burbank, CA 91502. The former case is a quiet title action to quiet the title to the 421 Moss Street Burbank, CA property in which it is alleged that each of the parties conspired to improperly acquire title to the 421 Moss Street property. (Exhibit “I” is a true copy of this the Goland v. Humane Animal matter.). Further, such case claims that Marlowe breached the terms of a written Marital Settlement Agreement in doing so:

―On or about October 3, 2002, [Goland] and Marlowe signed a Term Sheet for Marriage Settlement Agreement (the ―MSA‖). The MSA contained various addendums that were all signed simultaneously with the MSA but which were intentionally not integrated into the MSA agreement…Under the MSA,..Marlowe..was to act on behalf of [Goland] in these

- 62 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 various entities [Goland] had created; Marlowe was to receive consideration for these acts, including use of her then pristine credit which [Goland] a 35 year developer and financial consultant, had cleaned up for Marlowe so that shoulcould be of assistance to [Goland]…Marlowe then set about a secret plan to defraud [Goland]..‖ (Ex. I, p.3 at par. 11-13).

Brad Herman v. Dog at Home, Inc./Michael Goland (LASC Case No. BC410834) is related to Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland and Numerous Other Cases Filed by Goland— Ex.”K1”. 25. Brad Herman v. Dog at Home, Inc./Michael Goland/Susan Marlowe (LASC Case No. SC088376 at Ex. K1) is a pending case and is also related to pending case Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland (LASC Case No. SC088376. First, as stated above, it should be clear that Brad Herman is Goland‘s strawman and that the defacto plaintiff in this action is Michael Goland—not Brad - 63 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Herman. This fact notwithstanding, next, it must be clear that Goland had knowledge of this action because the actions were filed at the same time in front of the same clerk and Goland is in pro per in the action in which he is named as a plaintiff. Finally, this case too is a claim to quiet title in respect of, inter alia, the property located at 421 Moss Street Burbank, CA in respect of which an actual controversy exists concerning the parties rights.

All of the above cases are related to the following additional pending cases: 1) LASC Case No.EC044886 Goland v. Dog at Home, Inc./Susan Marlowe; 2) Kern County Case No. S-1500 CV 264532 WDP Goland v. Marlowe; 3) LASC Case No. EC046471Goland v. Marlowe; and 4) LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe. A. Dog at Home v. Goland (Ex. H) is related to Goland v. Dog at Home, Inc. (Ex. E) 26. Pending case Dog at Home v. Goland (LASC Case SC088376 Ex. H) is also related to pending case Goland v. Dog at Home/Marlowe (LASC Case No. EC044886 Ex. E).

- 64 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 By way of further background, when Goland was not satisfied with the result in the Dog at Home v. Goland case (Ex. H), Goland initiated LASC Case No. EC044886 (Ex. E) against Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. arising out of Goland‘s claims to ownership of the 421 N. Moss Street, Burbank, California property. The graveman of this complaint, though this time

characterized principally as a Breach of Fiduciary claim, was that somehow Defendants Dog at Home and Susan Marlowe purportedly breached a fiduciary duty to Goland in acquiring the property located at 421 N. Moss Street, Burbank, California in which Goland was entitled to an interest. In evaluating this case, the Court recognized in numerous of its rulings that these two matters: ―(1) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, (2) or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3)

- 65 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.‖ (Cal. Rule of Ct. Rule 3.300) Accordingly, when Dog at Home, Inc./Marlowe demurred to Goland‘s complaint on the basis of res judicata, the court held, inter alia: ―The Demurrer of Susan Marlowe to the second cause of action [DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY]is sustained without leave to amend… The Demurrers of Defendant Dog at Home, Inc. are sustained without leave to amend…The Court in SC088376 determined in its default judgment against Michael Goland for quiet title, that Michael Goland does not have any legitimate affiliation with Defendant Dog at home, Inc. and the complaint in this case does not set forth any other - 66 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 theory on which to base Michael Goland‘s contention that his help in acquiring 421 Moss Street entitles him to ownership rights and title to the property.‖ (Exhibit. “M” at p.12 lns 4-5). Attached hereto as Exhibit “M” is a true and correct copy of the court‘s ruling and the applicable demurrer. Accordingly, in the context of evaluating matters further, on February 29, 2008, the court ruled that: ―…a review of the website for the Second Appellant District of the California Appellate Courts reveals that an appeal is pending in Dog at Home v. Michael Goland and that the opening brief is due on March 24, 2008. While an appeal is pending a trial court judgment is not final and will not be given res judicata effect… The court will, therefore, stay this action pending the

- 67 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 outcome of the appeal in Dog at Home v Michael Goland, a prior action pending between the parties.― (Exhibit “N” at p.2.) Attached hereto as Exhibit “N” is a true and correct copy of the court‘s ruling. Of further relevance is that Goland filed a Lis Pendens in this action pertaining to property located in Tehachapi, California. As stated below, Goland filed a separate lawsuit claiming that proceeds from the sale of the 421 N. Moss Street property were used to purchase property located at 24492 Bear Mountain Rd, Tehachapi, CA. Attached hereto as Exhibit “O“ is a true and correct copy of this Lis Pendens. B. Each of Dog at Home v. Goland and Goland v. Dog at Home/Marlowe are related to Kern County Goland v. Marlowe.—Ex. “F” 27. Pending case Kern County Case No. S-1500 CV 264532 WDP Goland v. Marlowe, a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit “F” is yet again a restatement of each of the above - 68 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 pending cases and is directly related to the key issue of whether Goland is entitled to any ownership interest in the 421 N. Moss Street, Burbank, California property and thereby derivatively Tehachapi property located at 24492 Bear Mountain Rd, Tehachapi, CA. More specifically, this complaint claims that Marlowe converted certain assets, including the property located at 421 N. Moss Street, Burbank, California and that the proceeds were used to acquire an additional property located at Tehachapi in which Goland now claims an interest. (Exhibit F at par. 12-14) Additionally, Goland made the same claim VERBATIM as made in the newly filed Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue case (Exhibit “I”) that Goland‘s rights are derivative of a marital settlement agreement. Just as stated in the Goland v. Humare Animal Rescue cases, Goland stated in this matter that:

- 69 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ―On or about October 3, 2002, [Goland] and Marlowe signed a Term Sheet for Marriage Settlement Agreement (the ―MSA‖). The MSA contained various addendums that were all signed simultaneously with the MSA but which were intentionally not integrated into the MSA agreement…Under the MSA,..Marlowe..was to act on behalf of [Goland] in these various entities [Goland] had created; Marlowe was to receive consideration for these acts, including use of her then pristine credit which [Goland] a 35 year developer and financial consultant, had cleaned up for Marlowe so that shoulcould be of assistance to [Goland]…Marlowe then set about a secret plan to defraud [Goland]…‖ Further, in this case Goland made it absolutely clear that this breach pertained to the same 421 Moss Street Property: ―Notwithstanding the foreogoing, Marlowe then set about a secret plan to defraud Plaintiff and to embezzle and convert Plaintiff‘s assets for Defendant

- 70 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Marlowe‘s sole benefit. One of these subsequent entities that Defendant acknowledged under oath, Dog at Home, Inc. purchased a property (the ―Moss Property‖) which 100% of its funding for this property‘s purchase came entirely frm Plaintiff…‖ (Ex. F at par. 1213). The Court‘s most recent ruling in Kern County on March 5, 2009 granting a stay of the proceedings in the context of a motion for abatement makes it clear that this matter is related to each of the above matters in that that matter and the above cases all involve the same controversy and same primary right. Clearly, if matters involve the same controversy and same primary right such that a motion to abate would be granted, such matters must necessarily: ―(1) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents , (2) or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to,

- 71 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 possession of , or damages to the same property, or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.‖ Attached hereto as Exhibit “P“ is a true and correct copy of the court‘s order and the underlying motion pertaining thereto. As indicated in the motion, inter alia, my attorney argued that:

―the key issue to be decided by this Court is whether or not Goland has any interest in the Tehachapi property. And key to this determination will be a determination as to whether Marlowe and/or Dog at Home acted improperly in converting and selling the ―Moss Property‖, the proceeds of which were allegedly used to acquire the Tehachapi property. In this regard, it would seem that if Marlowe demonstrates that she and/or Dog at Home were entitled to all of the

- 72 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 right, title and interest in the Moss property, then, Goland would have no interest in proceeds from the sale of such property. On the other hand, if Goland

demonstrates that he and/or his companies have no right to any portion of the Moss Property, then Goland may have some claim to the proceeds from the sale of such property and tracing to Tehachapi;..― (Ex. P at p.3)

―The ownership of the Moss property and derivative rights is presently at issue in the following lawsuits: (2005) LASC Case No. SC088376; (2007) and LASC Case N. EC044886; which lawsuits concern the same primary rights and allegations. LASC Case No. SC088476 is on appeal, and LASC Case No.

EC044886, though not on appeal, has been stayed pending the appeal by the actions of the Court insofar as it seemed to clear to this Court that the results of

- 73 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the appeal in LASC SC088376 may impact the results in LASC Case No. EC044886;‖ (Ex. P at p.4)

―The controversy between the parties in LASC Case No. EC04886 and LASC Case No. SC088376 involve substantially the same controversy and same primary right [as in the Kern County Case]. The issue is whether Goland is entitled to ownership in the Moss property, and the proceeds from the sale therefrom, whether Marlowe and Dog at Home have converted such property and whether Goland has any affiliation to Dog at home. Accordingly, this matter should be abated.‖ (Ex. P at p.8)

―The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: i.e., violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action. A

- 74 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 pleading stating two ―causes of action‖ involving the same primary right contravenes the rule against ‗splitting‘ a cause of action. Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal. 4th 666, 681-682 (1994); Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 C4th 1127, 1145. California law provides that where a second action is filed involving the same parties and primary rights, the defendant is entitled to have the second action abated as a matter of right. ― An order of abatement issues as a matter of right (i.e., mandatory) not as a matter of discretion (i.e., discretionary) where the conditions for its issuance exist.‖ (Ex.P at p.7)

LASC Case No. EC046471 Goland v. Marlowe is Related to The Above Cases.

- 75 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 28. Pending case Goland v. Marlowe LASC Case NO. EC046471 is yet another disguised restatement of the above pending cases of Goland against Marlowe and related parties. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Q“ is a true and correct copy of this complaint. In this matter Goland makes reference to a breach of the same marital settlement agreement referred to in the newly filed Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue Team and Goland v. Marlowe cases. As set forth in this complaint, Goland alleged: ―Goland alleges that on or about October 2, 2002, a written agreement was made between Plaintiff Michael Goland and Defendant Susan Marlowe…The essential terms of the agreement are as follows: Defendant was to act as nominal holder of Plaintiff’s assets and properties, utilizing and managing them only in accordance with Plaintiff’s express instructions, and for Plaintiff’s benefit;”(Ex. Q at p.3 BC-1) On or about January 15, 2004

- 76 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the following acts, inter alia, creating false stock certificates, encumbering and transferring Plaintiff’s assets for Defendant’s benefit, and by diluting and destroying Plaintiff’s equitable interest in various real properties and personal property, all without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and to Plaintiff’s proximate damage and to Defendant’s unjust enrichment. (Ex. Q at p.3 BC-2). Further, the Case Management Statement filed in this matter by Goland makes it absolutely clear that this matter concerns Dog at Home, Inc. As stated in the Case Management Statement filed therein in response to the a request to provide a brief summary of the case, Goland responded: ―[Marlowe] has falsely represented to others that defendant is the owner of…Maple Whitworth, Inc., Marlowe Associates, LLC and Dog at Home, Inc. when in fact plaintiff formed

- 77 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 and capitalized all three entities.‖ (emphasis added). (Ex. R.) Attached hereto as Exhibit ”R” is a true and correct copy of the Case Management Statement providing this statement by Goland. Further as indicated in Goland‘s Declaration filed in Support of His Application for a Default Judgment it is clear that this case is related to Goland‘s claimed breach by Marlowe of the terms of the Marital Settlement Agreement: ―On October 3, 2002, Marlowe and I entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (―MSA‖)…It is the collective breaches of this MSA contract...that has caused me to institute these instant proceedings…Further, Addendums to the MSA were concurrently executed and at the same time Marlowe executed a Power of Attorney giving me the exclusive control and agency over Maple Whitworth, Inc….Attached…Statement of Damages articulates and calculates the total harm and losses caused me by Marlowe‘s

- 78 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 violation of the MSA directly and subsequent damages which flow directly from her violation of the MSA. The total harm has been calculated to be $4,427,755 as of March 16, 2008.―) (Ex.S at par. 2, 13).) A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Michael Goland and exhibits filed in LASC Case No EC046471 Goland v. Marlowe attached hereto as Exhibit “S”. Such Declaration further demonstrates that this case is related to Spellman v. Maple Whitworth, Inc./Goland/Marlowe as set for the in the immediately succeeding paragraph.

LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe is related to the other abovementioned cases. 29. Pending case Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe LASC Case NO. SC097949 is yet another disguised restatement of the above pending cases of Goland against Marlowe and related parties. - 79 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 This case is essentially a quiet title action pertaining to property located at 9221 Whitworth Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 and claims that Spellman was defrauded out of his rights in the property and Maple Whitworth, Inc. by Marlowe. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G “ is a true and correct copy of this complaint. However, the following facts make this case related to each of the above cases: First, the court in Spellman has held that Spellman was used as a strawman for Goland and that Goland, due to his actions in Spellman, fell within the definition of being a vexatious litigant and is representative of a patter of initiating litigation to harass Marlowe that all the herein cases demonstrate. Next, Goland utilized the Spellman v. Maple Whitworth case to attempt to obtain a Lis Pendens on Marlowe‘s property at 24492 Bear Mountain Rd, Tehachapi, CA, which Goland

- 80 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 claimed was derived from the 421 Moss Street sale and filed a notice of Lis Pendens therein. (Goland had attempted to obtain a Lis Pendens on this property in LASC Case No. EC044883 and Kern County Case No. S-1500 CV 264532 WDP, as stated above.) Next, the documents submitted by Goland in the context of his prove up in Goland v. Marlowe LASC Case No. EC046471 demonstrate that the gist of this claim concerned, among other things, assets consisting of the Maple Whitworth, Inc. property and or pertaining to the Maple Whitworth property and his claimed breaches by Marlowe of the terms of the Marital Settlement Agreement. (See discussion p.17, supra) (Ex. S) In such Declaration, Goland states, inter alia:
A.

―It is the collective breaches of this MSA contract, including the numerous intentional failures by Marlowe in her position of trust that has caused me to institute these instant proceedings…‖ (Ex. S p.1, par.2 lns26-27). Also see - 81 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Statement of Damages (Ex.S) in which Goland states ―Plaintiff Micahel Goland has sustained damages and has been harmed by Defendant Susan Marlowe by her breaching the …MSA;
B.

He attaches a copy of the Maritial Settlement Agreement. (Ex. L at Exhibit 1 thereto.);

C.

Other documents included in his prove up include without limitation, (i)

Purported assignment and conveyance of membership interest pertaining to Maple Whitworth; (ii) Maple Whitworth‘s corporate resolutions in favor of Michael Goland; (iii) Declaration of Martin Lipsic pertaining to his understanding of ownership of Maple Whitworth, Inc.; (iv) resignation of incorporator of Maple Whitworth, Inc. (iv) Declaration of Silvio Nardoni pertaining to Maple Whitworth, Inc. ownership; (v) see all other

- 82 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 documents pertaining to Goland‘s claim as to ownership in the Maple Whitworth, Inc. company which owned the property located at 9221 Maplwe Whitworth Drive.

Finally, in the context of his discovery, he sought to obtain information pertaining to Dog at Home, Inc. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “T‖ is a true and correct copy of discovery served in Spellman v. Maple Whitworth requesting information pertaining to Dog at Home, Inc.

30.

As evidenced by the foregoing, the overriding purpose of Goland in bringing a

multitude of lawsuits instead of just one lawsuit in which all of his claims are addressed against all parties is to create as much havoc and chaos as possible—there simply can be no other reason. If there were another reason, Goland would bring and would have brought all his claims in one - 83 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 forum. Further, Goland routinely blames the existence of proceedings in one lawsuit as a reason to seek a delay in another lawsuit, thereby causing an extreme number of unnecessary ex-parte hearings called by Goland and it has been an extraordinary task to get to the point where there is an understanding of the inter-relatedness of the various lawsuits. Additionally, numerous similar motions have been filed in each of the cases. 31. By way of further background in February 2004, an individual named Robert Mayman filed a lawsuit against Mr. Shlush, Maple Whitworth, Inc. (―MWI‖) and me, claiming that he (Mayman) was the trustee of a trust formed by Mr. Goland, and that this trust owned MWI and the Maple-Whitworth Property, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC310024. This case, was heavily litigated, lis pendens were recorded against the Maple-Whitworth Property and expunged, only to be re-recorded. The case went to trial, Mr. Goland testified, and the my attorneys won a

- 84 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 judgment rendered in July 2006 confirming that Mr. Shlush owned MWI and ordering as follows: ―said property is owned by Maple Whitworth, Inc., a California corporation of which Jacob Shlush is the owner and president…, all other persons claiming any interest in the property are permanently enjoined from taking any actions on behalf of Maple Whitworth, Inc., using the name Maple Whitworth, Inc. and interfering in the operations of Maple Whitworth, Inc. or the property located at 9221 Whitworth Drive, Beverly Hills, CA in any manner.‖ A true and correct copy of the Bench trial order as Exhibit “U”. property. 32. During the course of that litigation, dozens more cases were filed against Mr. Shlush, MWI and myself. Many of these cases were instituted by Mr. Goland, who filed lawsuits in his I thought that this case ended the dispute about this

- 85 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 own name or in the names of others. Lis pendens kept popping up, which clouded title to the Maple-Whitworth Property. 33. During the ensuing time period, there were more than two dozen lawsuits filed by or against Mr. Shlush, myself and/or MWI, including the following, in which the Kaplan Firm represented Mr. Shlush and/or MWI and/or myself:
1.

Michael Goland vs. Jacob Shlush (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SS012362)

2.

Jacob Shlush vs. Michael Sofris, Marlowe Associates LLC vs. Jack Shlush, Susan Marlowe, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC312366)

3.

Kings Canyon Consortium vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc., Jack Shlush (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC008652)

- 86 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4.

Maple-Whitworth, Inc. vs. Superior Court of the State of California (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC316982)

5.

Gabriella Calhoun vs. Maple Drive Village, Jack Shlush, Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 06U00707)

6.

Maple-Whitworth, Inc. vs. Michael Goland (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 04U00251)

7.

Ari Ralbag vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc., Susan Marlowe, Jack Shlush (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC083268)

8.

Kings Canyon Consortium vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (a second Kings Canyon Case, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC088652)

- 87 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9.

In Re Maple-Whitworth, Inc. Involuntary Bankruptcy Case in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California Case No. LA-0432868AA)

10.

Adversary Action in the Maple-Whitworth Bankruptcy entitled Michael Sofris vs. Jack Shlush, Maple-Whitworth, Inc.

11. 12.

Adversary No. AD 05-01110AA), Jack Shlush vs. Michael Sofris, Bankruptcy Adversary Case No. ADV05-01162), Jack Shlush vs. Roxanne Kamel, Bankruptcy; Adversary No. 05-01163)

13.

Bankruptcy Adversary Action Ari Ralbag vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. and Jack Shlush Bankruptcy Adversary No. AD05-01087AA)

- 88 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
14.

Bankruptcy Adversary Case Robert Mayman etc. vs. Susan Marlowe, Jack Shlush, et al.

15.

Bankruptcy Adversary Case No. AD05-01111AA), Jack Shlush vs. Michael Gluck Bankruptcy Adversary No. 05-01165)

16.

Bankruptcy Adversary Case Rosendo Gonzalez vs. Jack Shlush Adversary No. 05-01395AA)

17.

Adversary Case Michael Spellman, et al. vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc., Jack Shlush, Bankruptcy Adversary No. AD05-01134AA)

18.

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit Appeal in the case of Michael N. Sofris vs. MapleWhitworth, Inc. Ninth Circuit Case No. 07-56537)

- 89 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19.

Involuntary Bankruptcy entitled In Re Maple-Whitworth United States Bankruptcy Court Case No. LA 05-50085AA)

20.

Spellman vs. Maple-Whitworth, Inc., Marlowe, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC097949)

21.

Marlowe Associates LLC vs. Steven Schuman, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC313649)

22.

Marlowe Associates LLC vs. Robert Ebriani, Alternate Dispute Resolution Services Case No. 06-1425TS

23.

Estate of Luca Kamel (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SP006361)

Jacob Shlush vs. Golden West Yachts (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 04U00713).

- 90 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 34. The court in Spellman v. Marlowe case LASC Case No. SC097949 (Ex. G”), which concerns the same Maple Whitworth property has sustained my demurrer on res judicata grounds and set an OSC re failue to file a Notice of Related case which is pending. Goland has confided to me that Spellman is his strawman and he is behind that dispute. Spellman‘s attorney is the same address as for Goland. 35. Since we have been divorced he has been using his pretended disability and pretended poverty to obtain disability from the government. This could not be further from the truth, and his incapacity has no impact on his ability to file and prosecute lawsuits. I have filed a complaint with Social Security to get them to investigate this matter. In fact, the address for

- 91 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 36. I have been forced to borrow money to defend myself in these frivolous lawsuits. I have considered suicide and consider it from time to time. I urge the court to help me put an end to this nightmare. 37. Attached hereto as Exhibit “ZZ” is a true and correct copy of the Articles of Incorporation of Dog at Home, Inc. confirming its not-for-profit status under 501(c). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 25, 2009.

By_________________________ Name: Susan Marlowe

- 92 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bret D. Lewis (State Bar No.166819) Law Offices of Bret D. Lewis Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Blvd.-3rd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-207-0696 Fax: 310-362-8424 Attorney for SUSAN MARLOWE/DOG AT HOME, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I. MICHAEL GOLAND, Plaintiff, v. ) Case No.: BC410835 ) ) DECLARATION OF BRET D. LEWIS IN ) SUPPORT OF MOTION )

- 93 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIMA NORRIS, SUSAN MARLOWE, DOG AT HOME, INC., Defendant. ) ) Hearing Date: August 4, 2009 ) Time: 8:30 A.M. ) Dept. 74 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

- 94 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

DECLARATION OF BRET D. LEWIS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
I, Bret D. Lewis, have personal knowledge of all facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto, declare as follows and request that this Court take judicial notice of specific records referred to herein and all records on file in this action pursuant to California Evidence Code §§452(d) and 453: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and other States. I have been practicing law since 1987, and I am a 1986 graduate of Northwestern University School of Law. I work alone without an assistant or secretary.
1. 2.

I am counsel for Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. My hourly rate is $350 per hour.

- 95 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3.

I spent 36 hours on preparing the herein motion.

5. I incurred $865 as costs of the herein motion, comprising costs, messenger fees, copying charges and stamps. I anticipate spending 15 hours on a Reply and appearing at the hearing and preparing for the hearing and submitting post-hearing notices, however, I request leave of court to submit my actual hours in a supplemental declaration. Accordingly, the amount of attorneys fees is $17,850 i.e. 51 x $350, which together with costs totals $18,715. 6. LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland is presently on appeal,

Appeal Case No. B200133. In this matter, a default judgment was obtained against Goland. In the underlying case, Goland filed a motion to set aside the default, which was denied. Thereafter, Goland filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to set aside, which was also denied. The appeal is limited to the denial of the motion to reconsider.

- 96 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7. I filed a motion, inter alia, to fix Michael Goland as the defacto petitioner in Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe LASC Case No. SC097949 on March 18, 2009. Said motion was filed as part f a motion to set aside default and accompanying demurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Michael Spellman against Michael Goland and Susan Marlowe. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of the Judgment and Order of the United States Court Docket No. CR90-532(a)-FR pertaining to Michael Goland‘s criminal convictions. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “V‖ is a true and correct copy of the docket/index search under Goland‘s name indicating that he is a party in over 120+ lawsuits. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “W” is a true and correct copy of the Judgment of James L. Wright in LASC Case No. NC023468 finding that Goland engaged in actual fraud.

- 97 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “X” is a true and correct copy of the Judgment resulting from the bench trial before Hon. Judge Michael L. Stern in LASC Case No. BC310024 in which Judge Stern found that Goland possessed ―challenged believability‖ and ―undermin[ed] credibility.‖ 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Y‖ is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the 2007 hearing before Hon. Judge Richard Neidorf in which the Judge states: ―Basically, I told Mr. Goland that I didn’t believe him. I believed he was served. I believe he was lying to the Court and everybody else about not being served and that’s why I didn’t set it aside.‖ 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Z” are true and correct copies of the following

documents which were filed in the underlying action LASC Case SC088376 (1) the Proof of Service filed by Lima Norris; (2) the Supplemental Declaration of Lima Norris confirming that the

- 98 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 served a person with a deformity and (3) the declaration of Jerry Kaplan, Esq. confirming that the property manager had told him when Goland was going to be on the property so he could effect service. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 25, 2009. By_________________________ Name: Bret D. Lewis

- 99 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bret D. Lewis (State Bar No.166819) Law Offices of Bret D. Lewis Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Blvd.-3rd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-207-0696 Fax: 310-362-8424 Attorney for SUSAN MARLOWE/DOG AT HOME, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES II. MICHAEL GOLAND, Plaintiff, v. ) Case No.: BC410835 ) ) CASE ASSIGNED TO THE HON. TERESA ) SANCHEZ-GORDON )

- 100 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMA NORRIS, SUSAN MARLOWE, DOG AT ) HOME, INC., ) Hearing Date: August 4, 2009 ) Time: 8:30 A.M. Defendant. ) Dept. 74 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

- 101 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 On August 4, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 74 of the above-entitled Court, the OSC Re: Contempt came on regularly for hearing before Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge of the Superior Court. At the hearing, Bret D. Lewis. Esq. (ALewis@) appeared on behalf of defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.; and [___] _______ appeared on behalf of Michael Goland; and Upon due consideration of the moving papers and the arguments of counsel/Goland, the Court finds that: (A) Goland is a vexatious litigant as defined in CCP§391; There is no reasonable probability that Goland will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendants under CCP §391.3;

A.

- 102 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
B.

The herein claims concern a cause of action against a person arising from an act in furtherance of the person‘s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California in connection with a public issue under CCP §425.16; and

C.

Goland has not established a probability that he will prevail on the claims herein under CCP §425.16.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Michael Goland is ordered to furnish security in the amount $_______ for the benefit of defendants in ____ days;
E.

D.

A prefiling order is hereby entered prohibiting Michael Goland directly or indirectly from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the Court where the litigation is proposed to be - 103 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 filed such that disobedience of the order will be punished as contempt of court pursuant to CCP§391.7(a); and
F.

The clerk of each court of the State of California is ordered to refrain from filing any litigation presented by Michael Goland unless Michael Goland obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting the filing pursuant to CCP§391.7(c) and is otherwise directed to follow the procedures established in CCP§391.7 applicable when a pre-filing order is in effect.

G.

Michael Goland is ordered to reimburse defendants for all attorneys fee and costs incurred to date in the amount $_______________;

H.

Michael Goland is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to defendants as reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the amount of not less than $__________for failure, without

- 104 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 good cause, to comply California Rules of Court Rule 3.300 pertaining to the filing of a Notice of Related Case; and
I. J. K.

______________________________________________________________________. ______________________________________________________________________. _____________________________________________________________________.

_______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________

___________________________ Hon., Judge of the Superior Court

- 105 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bret D. Lewis (State Bar No.166819) Law Offices of Bret D. Lewis Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Blvd.-3rd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-207-0696 Fax: 310-362-8424 Attorney for SUSAN MARLOWE/DOG AT HOME, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES III. MICHAEL GOLAND, Plaintiff, v. ) Case No.: BC410835 ) ) CASE ASSIGNED TO THE HON. TERESA ) SANCHEZ-GORDON )

- 106 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) EXHIBITS AND INDEX LIMA NORRIS, SUSAN MARLOWE, DOG AT ) HOME, INC., ) Hearing Date: August 4, 2009 ) Time: 8:30 A.M. Defendant. ) Dept. 74 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

- 107 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Exhibit “A”--The Court‘s order in LASC Case No. EC0446471 Goland v. Marlowe providing: ―Michael Goland is ordered to file a Notice of Related Cases in this case and in case number EC044886, Michael Goland vs. Dog at Home, Inc. et al. filed in the North Central District Court of the Burbank Courthouse and any other case pending in this county, pursuant to rule 7.3 of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules, not later than 4:00 p.m. on June 4, 2009.‖ 2. Exhibit “B”— INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 3. Exhibit “C”-- The Court‘s order in LASC Case No. SC09749 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe in which the Court recognized that Goland that due to collusion between goland and Spellman that Goland was a vexatious litigant within the meaning of the Vexatious litgant Statute CCP§391(a)(2). 4. Exhibit “D‖—INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 5. Exhibit “E”—The complaint filed in LASC Case No. EC044886 styled as Goland v. Dog at Home, Inc./Marlowe. 6. Exhibit “F”—The complaint filed in Kern County Case No. S-1500-CV 264532 WDP Goland v. Marlowe.

- 108 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7. Exhibit “G”--The complaint filed in LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe. 8. Exhibit “H‖--The complaint filed in LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland. 9. Exhibit “I‖—The complaint filed in LASC Case No. BC410639 Goland v. Humane Animal Rescue/Susan Marlowe. 10. Exhibit “J”—The complaint filed in LASC Case No. BC410835 Goland v. Lima Norris/Susan Marlowe (March 27/2009) 11. Exhibit “K1”—The complaint filed in LASC Case No. BC310834 Brad Herman v. Goland/Marlowe. 12. Exhibit “K2”—The original complaint filed in LASC Case No. BC340631 styled as BJH Holdings v. Dog at Home, Inc. pursuant to which Brad Herman was assigned the rights to commence his case LASC Case No. BC310834. 13. Exhibit “K3”—Letter dated October 17, 2005 to counsel for BJH Holdings directing them to remove their lis pendens. 14. Exhibit “L”—The default judgment obtained against Goland in LASC Case No. SC 088376. - 109 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15. Exhibit “M”—The Court‘s ruling on the demurrer filed in LASC Case No. EC044886 Goland v. Dog at Home, Inc./Marlowe and the applicable demurrer. 16. Exhibit “N”—The court‘s order on February 29, 2008 in LASC Case No. EC044886 Goland v. Dog at Home, Inc./Marlowe. 17. Exhibit “O”—The Lis Pendens filed in LASC Case No. EC044886 pertaining to property located in Techachapi, California owned by Marlowe. 18. Exhibit “P‖—The Court‘s order granting the Motion to Abate Filed in Kern County Case No. S-1500 CV 264532 WDP and the underlying Motion to Abate filed therein. 17. Exhibit “Q‖—The complaint filed in LASC Case No. EC046471. 20. Exhibit “R‖—The Case Management Statement filed in Goland v. Marlowe LASC Case No. EC046471. 21. Exhibit “S”—Declaration of Goland filed in Support of Application for Default Judgment (and Exhibits) in LASC Case No. EC046471.

- 110 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 22. Exhibit “T”—Discovery requested by Goland pertaining to Dog at Home, Inc. in LASC Case No. SC097949 Spellman v. Goland/Marlowe. 23. Exhibit “U‖—The Judgment and Order of the United Stated District ourt Docket No. CCR90-532(a)-FR pertaining to Michael Goland‘s criminal convictions. 24. Exhibit “V”—The Results of a LASC docket name search for Michael Goland. 25. Exhibit “W‖—The Judgment of James L. Wright in LASC Case No. NC023468 finding that Michael Goland engaged in actual fraud. 26. Exhibit “X”--The Reporter‘s Transcript from the hearing before Hon. Judge Richard Neidorf in LASC Case No. SC088376 Dog at Home, Inc. v. Goland held on April 24, 2007. 27. Exhibit “Y”—The Judgment After Bench Trial in LASCC Case No. BC310024 by Hon. Michael L. Stern issued on July 31, 2006 which stated that Goland had questionable credibility. 28. Exhibit “Z‖—Copies of documents filed in LASC Case No. SC088376 confirming service on Goland of the complaint therein and otherwise cofirming his whereabouts on the date of service. 29. Exhibit “ZZ” Copy of the Articles of Incorporation of Dog at Home, Inc. confirming its notfor-profit status. - 111 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

- 112 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Santa Monica Wellesley Plaza 12304 Santa Monica Blvd.–3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
On June , 2009 I served on the interested parties in this action the within document entitled: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION: (1) TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF MICHAEL GOLAND TO FURNISH SECURITY PURSUANT TO CCP §391.1; AND OTHERWISE OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE NEW LITIGATION IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE AND (2) STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP §425.16; (3) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 3.300; DECLARATION OF SUSAN MARLOWE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF BRET D. LEWIS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [PROPOSED] ORDER

[x]

by mail as follows: The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with the firm‘s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service
- 113 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Michael Goland P.O. Box 3799 Beverly Hills, CA 90212

[X]

(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June ___, 2009, at Los Angeles, California. ______________________ Bret D. Lewis

- 114 -MOTION TO REQUIRE SECURITY, ETC.