•&

'
I

Am*
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
2 3
4

flow

(rdongell@dlflawyers.com) John A. Lawrence (SBN 073395) 01awrence@dlflawyers.com)
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609

Richard A. Dongell (SBN 128083)
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

' FILED
OCT 252U13

707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor

I
i

5

Telephone: (213)943-6100 Facsimile: (213)943-6101

JOHN M. ULAHttt, CUEftK
BV MacHufvcs nPPIJTY

6
7 8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff Courtney Love Cobain

$36 \^w^\Am*\
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10
II

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
COURTNEY LOVECOBAIN
Plaintiffs,
i

12
13
14

Case No.:

;

BC525857
COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF
INTERFERENCE WITH A

15
16

17 18 19

E^xr^P ofProfessional corporations: RHONDA J. HOLMES, a professional corporation; and RHONDA J. HOLMES, an

GORDON &HOLMES, Civil Trial Lawyers, a

FJ5S£iARY DUTY> INTENTIONAL

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE

individual; and DOES 1through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

^Y4£IAGE'AND NEGLIGENT

20
21

22

COMES NOW Complainant COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN ("LOVE"), and
alleges, complains, and avers, as follows: '
I

,23
?24

The Parties, Venue and .Tu'risdirrtnn _ „ 0 0 < S -v 5

O m

JD x> i- m

33 -O O

P7

r~

o
—f
•v

-e. -i o s m rn

/Tl X*
^.

o

o

m
n
«
•"

3>
o-j

1 •
!26

LOVE is, and at all times herein mentioned was an inSivflMesid«| fft
S 5 w m .. c

«:

m
•"

Los Angeles County, California and/or New York State

;27
;28

2.

Defendant GORDON &HOLMES ("G&H") is and at all times menSo|d
1 '

|

'

"'

g w o

§§ §

00
r-i

Cfl KJ in
00

en

was alaw firm owned and operated as apartnership ofprofessional corporations, organized^!

1
2

existing under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia. G&H has its principal place ofbusiness in San
Diego County, California at 223 West Dale Street, San Diego, CA 92101. 3. Defendant RHONDA J. HOLMES, APC ("Holmes, APC") is and at all

3
4

times mentioned was aprofessional corporation authorized to practice law in the State of

5 6
7

California and authorized to form and did form apartnership with Frederic L. Gordon, APC ("Gordon, APC"). Holmes, APC and Gordon, APC are the sole owners/partners in G&H and at all times relevant, Holmes, APC was in the business ofpracticing law with Gordon, APC in San
Diego County, at 223 West Dale Street, San Diego, CA 92101. 4. Defendant RHONDA J. HOLMES ("HOLMES") is and at all times

8
9
10

11 12

mentioned herein was an attorney licensed to practice in the States ofCalifornia, Nevada, and Utah. HOLMES has her principal place ofbusiness in San Diego County, at 223 West Dale
Street, San Diego, CA 92101.

13
14

5.

Complainant LOVE is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at

all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each ofthem, were the agents and/or employees of
each ofthe remaining Defendants, and in doing the acts complained of, were acting within the
scope ofsuch agency and/or employment and with the permission, authority and consent ofeach
of the remaining Defendants.

15 16
17

18 19 20
21

6.

The acts and conduct ofDefendants that are alleged in this Complaint
Factual Background

occurred in the State of California.

7.

LOVE'S husband Kurt Cobain died in 1994 and an estate (the "Cobain

22

Estate") was set up to manage his assets on LOVE's behalfand on behalfofLOVE and their
daughter, Frances Bean Cobain ("Frances").

.,>23
924

"',25
<?26

,27 ?28

8. In or around late 2008, LOVE was introduced to HOLMES through a mutual acquaintance-a physician who had treated both LOVE and HOLMES. Defendants, through HOLMES, advised LOVE that she was correct in her beliefthat she had been misused by her advisers in the management ofthe Cobain Estate, and that LOVE should place her trust in Defendants to seek redress for those claims. Defendants gained LOVE's trust and confidence
2

2 3
4

and Defendants stated they would represent LOVE in her pursuit ofthe money and property LOVE believed to be stolen from the Cobain Estate. Moreover, HOLMES used her background,
as well as her knowledge ofLOVE's struggles, to forge aspecial relationship in which she

convinced LOVE that she understood LOVE and had only LOVE's best interests in mind, and
was not entering the relationship solely for her own personal gain. Based on these
representations, LOVE relied on Defendants.

5

6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13
14

9.

Between late 2008 and March 2009, LOVE met and communicated with

Defendants on numerous occasions, and Defendants promised to prepare and circulate adraft of
acomplaint involving the money and property stolen from the Cobain Estate.

10. On April 7, 2009, Defendants went public with apress release stating that they would be bringing an impending civil case regarding the fraud perpetuated on the Cobain Estate. By way ofexample, the press release quoted HOLMES stating, "I have never seen such

greed and moral ttupitx.de. This case is going to make Bernard Madofflook warm and fuzzy."
11 • LOVE never received adraft ofthe complaint which Defendants had •

15

16
17

18 19 20 21

claimed they were working on for months on her behalf. Among other excuses, Defendants represented that they had prepared adraft ofsuch acomplaint, but unknown agents has broken into her computer and erased the drafts. Later in 2009, LOVE reached out to Defendants regarding the complaint and Defendants told LOVE that they were "too busy" to draft the complaint. To date, Defendants have failed to provide acopy ofthis alleged draft complaint.
Holmes' Letter to Frances

22

12. On April 27, 2009, HOLMES sent aletter (the "HOLMES LETTER") to Frances, who was then sixteen years old. (A true and correct copy ofthe HOLMES LETTER is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A").

k23
©24

13.

LOVE first saw the HOLMES LETTER in or about November 2012,

/125
0?26

when the HOLMES LETTER was produced in discovery by Defendants in arelated action'
Defendants filed against LOVE on May 26, 2011 for libel, invasion ofprivacy - false light, and intentional interference with aprospective economic advantage (the "Related Action"). LOVE is
not an attorney or professional and none ofher prior counsel informed her ofthe significance of

M27
©28

ECONOMIC ^^^D^^rrwr^^^^^ PKObPhCIIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

w

1
2 3 4

HOLMES' wrongful conduct in the HOLMES LETTER. LOVE officially retained current counsel, Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP ("DLF") on September 6,2013, to investigate and quantify the nature and extent ofher damages and to move forward with this Complaint.
14. DLF focused LOVE's attention on specific statements and disclosures

5

contained in the HOLMES LETTER. Further, DLF focused LOVE on the legal significance of

6
7

the false representations (discussed below) HOLMES made as alawyer (retained only by LOVE)
to Frances in the HOLMES LETTER.

8
9
10 11

15. The HOLMES LETTER contained numerous unprofessional, shocking, and outrageous sentiments and improper disclosures ofattorney-client privileged
communications, including but not limited to, the following:

a.

HOLMES began the letter by stating that "I [Holmes] represent

12 13
14

you [Frances]." At the time she made this representation, this statement was false as HOLMES had never been hired to represent Frances. HOLMES further failed to disclose that she
represented LOVE in the letter.

15 16 17

b.

HOLMES included numerous allegations that she personally was a

victim ofanebulous conspiracy. Specifically, she claimed that, as aresult ofher representation of LOVE, HOLMES had been avictim of"a very large and very scary conspiracy" and that

18
19 20
21 22

"thieves" had "hacked into my PCS (on one such occasion, to make my legal briefin this very case 'disappear'); used my credit cards all over the country; and accessed/drained my savings
account." HOLMES had no basis in fact to make such claims.

c

HOLMES inexplicably included numerous personal and

K.23
G/24

inappropriate comments in the letter, including discussing her husband's and brother's suicide, and her own miscarriages and inability to have children. Such subjects were inappropriate for a
letter by an attorney to aminor whom she does not represent.

Z',25
0?26

d. HOLMES further disclosed client confidences, privileged as attorney-client communications, in the letter without receiving appropriate permission from
LOVE.

ik ^27
-?28

C0U|mUCIAR)Y BREACH OF i-iDUUARY n^^rlS^f^SM1^^ DUTY, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEMALPRACTICE, WITH A PRn<?PPrrrvp ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGEiGENT^TERiFER^NlfWITH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

1

e.

HOLMES knowingly and falsely represented that "[HOLMES]

2 3
4

lost [her] own husband from suicide within afew months ofyour Father's suicide." Based on public records, HOLMES' statement is not true and was knowingly false when she made this
statement.

5

f.

HOLMES knowingly and falsely misrepresented the amount of

6 7 8 9

money that Frances should have received as ofthat time from her trust in the Letter. Based on

public records, HOLMES' statement is not true and was knowingly false when she made this
statement.

10 11 12
13
14

g. HOLMES knowingly and falsely misrepresented and completely overstated her accomplishments as an attorney in the Letter from HOLMES to Frances. Based

on public records, HOLMES' statement is not true and was knowingly false when she made this
statement.

16.

HOLMES has given contradictory statements regarding the authorship of

15 16 17

the HOLMES LETTER in deposition testimony and aDeclaration in the Related Action, at one point stating that LOVE "drafted the entire letter" while at another point claiming it was based on LOVE's "numerous comments" to HOLMES. Both statements are in fact false, as LOVE
had no hand at all in writing the HOLMES LETTER.

18
19 20 21

17. Had LOVE received the HOLMES LETTER when it was sent on April 27, 2009, LOVE would have terminated HOLMES as her lawyer immediately. 18. LOVE incurred damages, including attorneys' fees and emotional distress,
as adirect result ofthe HOLMES LETTER. ;

19. At the time the HOLMES LETTER was sent, Frances was sixteen years old, and her affairs were being handled by Trust representatives, who eventually received the G?24 HOLMES LETTER. Due to the false and unprofessional representations in the HOLMES r> LETTER, Frances and the Trust representatives concluded that LOVE had hired an unstable and
,,23

22

0?26

paranoid person as Frances' lawyer.

Ki27
©28

HCONOM.C ^^^^^^S^^T

1

2 3
4 5

20. The HOLMES LETTER resulted in adeterioration in the relationship between Frances and other Trust representatives, as this letter convinced them that LOVE could
not be trusted with decision making capabilities.

21.
22.

This deterioration resulted in actual injury when Frances obtained a
Further injury was incurred when Frances and the other Trust

Temporary Restraining Order against LOVE in December 2009.

6 7

8
9

representatives forced LOVE's resignation in November 2010 as Manager ofEnd ofMusic, LLC ("EOM"). EOM contained the valuable publishing and publicity rights of Kurt Cobain. LOVE
and Frances are the only two members of EOM.
Holmes' July 2009 E-maiis

10
11

12

23. Holmes knowingly and falsely misrepresented and took sole and complete credit for single-handedly discovering several famous and valuable Kurt Cobain guitars and

13
14

other highly valued personal property ofKurt Cobain to LOVE and LOVE's personal managers
and assistants in aJuly 3, 2009 email. In this email, HOLMES took complete credit for discovering this information, expressly representing this discovery was based on her active investigation and her "TONS" ofcontacts in the Seattle/Washington State area. The truth is that

15 16 17 18

Mr. Phillip Gross and his lawyer contacted HOLMES, believing HOLMES was LOVE'S lawyer
at the time, to request helpful information to assist Mr. Gross in his litigation. HOLMES never reached out to or contacted Mr. Gross or his lawyer. Based on public records, HOLMES'
statements are not true and were knowingly false when she made them

19
20 21 22

24. HOLMES additionally represented herselfto be LOVE's attorney to Mr. Gross and bis attorney and other representatives on July 3, even though HOLMES claimed in the

Related Action that LOVE had terminated HOLMES from representing LOVE on May 4, 2009.
0.24

25.

LOVE incurred damages, including attorneys' fees and emotional distress,

%25
fv

as a direct result of these e-mails.

026

iV

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

G28

(Legal Malpractice - Professional Negligence)
6

COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE\WTTHLA PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTEREFERENCE WITH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

1 2 3
4

26.

LOVE incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1through 25, inclusive, ofthis Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

27.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, by reason ofits attorney-client

5
6 7 8 9

relationship with LOVE, owed aduty of care to LOVE to provide adequate and reasonable legal advice, services, communications, and guidance in accordance with relevant legal standards of care within the practice oflaw, in matters concerning the fraud perpetuated against the Cobain
Estate.

28. Defendants breached the relevant duty of care by failing to adequately represent LOVE in providing competent legal advice, full and accurate communications, and

10 11
12
13
14

withholding attorney-client privileged communications in accordance with relevant legal standards within the practice of law, as detailed more fully below. Defendants were negligent by
failing to use the skill and care that areasonably careful attorney would have used in similar

circumstances. Defendants also failed to live up to the standard ofprofessionalism in sending
out the HOLMES LETTER.

15

29.

Defendant made completely false representations inthe HOLMES

16 17 18
19 20

LETTER, stating that HOLMES represented Frances, and further HOLMES failed to disclose

that she represented LOVE - both actions which fall below the relevant legal standard ofcare within the practice oflaw. LOVE is informed and believes that the purpose ofthe HOLMES
LETTER was to secure representation of the Cobain Estate, and Defendants' false

representations and untrue statements made within the letter are a clear violation ofCalifornia

21 22

Rules ofProfessional Conduct ("RPC") Rule 1-400 (Advertising and Solicitation).
30. During the course ofthe parties' attorney-client relationship, Defendants revealed confidential attorney-client communications without the knowledge or consent of LOVE, and Defendants failed to communicate with LOVE regarding the HOLMES LETTER.
Defendants' disclosure ofLOVE's confidential communications to Frances in the HOLMES

. 23 024

."'25
026

LETTER is a clear and express violation ofRPC Rule 3-100 (Confidential Information ofa

Client), and California Business and Professions Code ("BPC") Section 6068(e)(1).
028

CQU£™fYLOVE COBAIN'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

p

31.
2
3
4

Defendants failed to inform LOVE regarding the content ofthe HOLMES

LETTER. Defendants' failure to keep LOVE informed about, and failure to discuss the contents
and substance ofthe HOLMES LETTER, is aclear violation ofRPC Rule 3-500
(Communication).

5

32.

LOVE was damaged as aresult ofthe above actions. As an example, as a

6
7 8
9

result ofthe HOLMES LETTER, the relationship between Frances and other Trust

representatives deteriorated, as this letter convinced them that LOVE could not be trusted with

decision making capabilities. This deterioration resulted in later legal proceedings to be taken against LOVE. LOVE incurred damages, including attorneys' fees and emotional distress, as a
direct result of the HOLMES LETTER.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

10
11

12 13
14

(Breach of FiduciaryDuty)

15

33. LOVE incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1through 32, inclusive, ofthis Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 34. Defendants, as attorneys for LOVE at all times relevant herein, were

16
17 18

obligated and required to act as fiduciary ofLOVE, and Defendants owed afiduciary duty to
preserve and protect LOVE's interests, rights, and opportunities.
35. Defendants, by virtue ofthe actions and failures to act described hereinabove, breached said fiduciary duties.

19 20 21
22

36. Specifically, Defendants breached the duty ofan attorney to not make misrepresentations and untrue statements on LOVE's behalfabout Frances, in violation of RPC
Rule 1-400 (Advertising and Solicitation).

J3
024
25

37.

Defendants breached the duty ofan attorney to keep secrete confidential

information ofaclient, pursuant to RPC Rule 3-100 (Confidential Information ofaClient) and
BPC Section 6068(e)(1), by disclosing LOVE's confidential information in the HOLMES
LETTER.

C26

kV
028

COURTNEY LOVE COBAW'S^^
FI£H£L^RY DUTY, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH APROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

1

2
•3
4

38. Further, Defendants breached the duty ofan attorney to communicate with its client pursuant to RPC 3-500 (Communication), by failing to communicate with LOVE
regarding the contents and substance ofthe HOLMES LETTER.

5 6
7

39. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants' breach offiduciary duties described above, LOVE has suffered damages, including attorneys'fees and emotional
distress damages, in an amount to be proven attrial.

8 9 10
11

40. Defendants' egregious breaches ofduties, in disclosing LOVE's attorneyclient confidential information, failing to inform LOVE about the contents and substance ofthe HOLMES LETTER, and falsely misrepresenting that HOLMES represented Frances in addition to other misrepresentations on LOVE's behalfabout Frances, were done intentionally and
fraudulently, and with reckless disregard for the truth. LOVE therefore seeks an award of
exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12 13
14 15

(Intentional Interference with aProspective Economic Advantage)
41. LOVE incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1through 40, inclusive, of this Complaint as though folly set forth herein.

16
17
18

42. LOVE had and continues to enjoy prospective and economic relationships with her daughter, Frances, and the Trust representatives, as LOVE is abeneficiary ofthe Cobain
Estate.

19 20 21

43.

Defendants, as attorneys hired to bring an action based on the fraud

22

0/24

perpetuated on the Cobain Estate, were well aware ofLOVE's interest in the Cobain Estate, as well as LOVE's prospective and economic relationships with Frances and Trust representatives. 44. Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct by using LOVE's attorney-client confidential information in the HOLMES LETTER, by falsely misrepresenting that HOLMES
represented Frances, and by including other inappropriate and unprofessional material in the
letter.

.'"25
0?26

s';27
0?28

45.

Defendants' abovementioned wrongful conduct was designed to, and in
9

fact did, disrupt and adversely affected LOVE's prospective and economic relationship with
'JSKSA?7 DUTY> INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH APROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTEREFERENCE WTTH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

1

Frances and Trust representatives of the Cobain Estate. As discussed above, as a result of

2 3
4

Defendants' wrongful conduct within the HOLMES LETTER, the relationship between Frances
and other Trust representatives deteriorated, as this letter convinced them that LOVE could not

be trusted with decision making capabilities. This deterioration resulted in legal proceedings to
be taken against LOVE.

5

6
7

46. 47.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts, LOVE has Defendants' aforementioned conduct was willful and oppressive, or

suffered damages and disruption to her relationships with Frances and Trust representatives.

8
9

fraudulent, or malicious, and thus LOVE is entitled to an award ofexemplary or punitive
damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 11

12
13
14

(Negligent Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage)
48.
49.

LOVE incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
Defendants, as herattorneys, owed a duty of care to LOVE.

paragraphs 1through 47, inclusive, ofthis Complaint as though fully set herein.
50.
representatives.

15
16

As LOVE's attorneys, Defendants had extensive knowledge of the Cobain

17
18 19 20
21

Estate, and LOVE's prospective and economic relationships with Frances and Trust
51. Because of Defendants' attorney-client relationship with LOVE,

Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants' aforementioned wrongful conduct
regarding the HOLMES LETTER would harm and disrupt LOVE's prospective and economic
relationships with Frances and Trust representatives.

22

k23
G;24

52.

Defendants failed to act with reasonable care by wrongfully interfering

with LOVE's economic relationships with Frances and Trust representatives, and Defendants'

.''25
IV

negligent conduct has infact disrupted LOVE's economic relationships with Frances and Trust
representatives.

0:26

0;28
10

COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTEREFERENCE WITH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

1

53.
be proven at trial.

As adirect and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful conduct, LOVE

2 3
4

has suffered damages, including attorneys' fees and emotional distress damages, in an amount to
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 6 7

WHEREFORE, LOVE prays as follows:

1. 2.

Damages, including emotional distress damages and attorneys' fees, in For interest, attorney's fees, and costs ofsuit incurred herein;

excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court;

8
9 10
11

3. 4.

For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For such further and other reliefas this Court deems just and proper.
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP

12 13
14

DATED: October 25, 2013

By:

15
16
17
18

Richard A. Donge
Attorneys for Plaintiff COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN

19 20
21 22 23

(24

"25
K'

026
27

m
11

COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN'S COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BREACH OF

FISV£^YPUTY' RETENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITHLA PROSPECTIVE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND NEGLIGENT INTEREFERENCE WTTH A
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

R

EXHIBIT A

800-422-9191

30% pcw recvcled tab
a Pnjfcssional indexes o Files product

www.proindexa.com

m

x i

E


|C3-I|
BOROon*HOimes

CIVIl. T>UL LAWYBKt

April 27,2009

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL

Ms. Frances B. Cobain 9145 St. Ives Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90069
RE: Estate of Kurt Cobain. et al Fraud Litigation

Dear Ms. Frances Cobain:

By way of forma! introduction, my name is Rhonda Holmes, and I am an attorney. I represent you, along with yourGrandmother Wendy, and your AuntsKim and Brianne. The work (am doing on all your behalfrelates to tracking down and prosecuting the peopleand entities who have beenstealing from and pillaging yourlate Father's estatesince the day he passed away. I am keenly aware ofthe sensitivity ofthismatter, as I lost my own husband from suicide within a few monthsof your Father's suicide. So please understand I write this letternot in any way to bringup matters which areupsettingand painful to you. But rather, I write you now because we all need yourhelp and yoursupport
Let me be clear atthe outset, it is beyond disputeyou will not"need" the funds from your late Father's estateas you embark on yourown career endeavors. No one doubts yourabilityto earn vast amounts ofmoney independently of your parents. Your Mom assuresme you area disciplined and focused younglady. Your Mother boasts to me incessantly of your genius- She has described for me on countless occasions "My Frances with the most talentedeyes andvoice

and writing ability and sense of composition I have ever seen".1 Even if you want nothing todo
On thematter of yourcareer, if youwillkindlyindulge me forjusta momentof unsolicited adviceas, despiteyears of trying, t wan unable toetay pregnant and carry ababyto full-term. So,envying abovealtyourMother's gifts,
her relotioiuihip with you, I'd be grateful ta you both forallowingme to overstep in thisone area: I understandDearFrances you

arcNOT in school atthe moment. Whileyourother-warldy talents of therarest sort maywelt lead you to a career which ostensiblybears tittleon conventional education; you willnever regret thegiftto yourself-esteem andto yourchildren andyour children's children of simply allowing yourself a full and proper education. Thiscruel world hasshown timeandagain it has littletolerance forthe"scholastkally-impaired". White my LASTintent here isto lecture (my FIRSTIsto PROTECT), (Ms

bears saying asI would feci remiss, not gifted with children of myown towhom toimpart these lessons, had Inotshared this bit
ofwisdomwith you now. What youdowithit is,of course, wellbeyond mycontrol.
A PjtBTNSatHtr OF KOfESSIOMAI. COafOMTIOKI

ftritik UConlon IWwKtt J. Katna | Hwihw T. Fty»i> jfttati*' N. Ocrutu
' EnutL- b«*@fc(}fd<tMii4Minwu<*itn

G&H000057

k

^.

Ms. Frances B. Cobain

April 27,2009 Page 2

with your late Father's, or later on this year, your Mother's sponsorships and clothing lines-even if you do not want adime oftheir money-- that simply misses the point The point is, your
Grandmother should beliving in alarge, comfortable ranch, as should your Aunts.

You are ALL the unfortunate victims ofavery large and very scary conspiracy. I have personally experienced the reach and criminality ofthese thieves; They have hacked into my PCs (on one. such occasion, to make my legal briefin this very case "disappear"); used mycredit
cards all over the country; and accessed/drained mysavings account. I am here toensure these

thieves do not mess with you anymore. Your Mom tells me the story ofwhat these people did to
you when you wereonly 11 years old. Theseeviland vile animals hadno conscience

whatsoever when they caused your life to fall apart at such ayoung age when they took your horse and home and displaced your family. My God, Frances-you were ONLY ELEVEN years old!! I You were still healing the wounds (and Iimagine still are) ofyour Father's horribly painful passing. These people are evil and deserve to pay. Not so much for the money for you or
for yourMother, butatleast for your Father's Mother and Sisters. You are all innocent victims in

this horrible mess. And INNOCENT you are. Here again, Iam not usually one to impart so much unsolicited pedantic rambling, but Icannot help but say to you (myself surviving not only
my Husband's suicide but my dear brother's suicide two months later), I pray not amoment is

spent on this planet when you EVER blame yourself, child- EVER!!! People do what they do, Sweetheart. We no more have the power to cause others' behaviors than we do to stop them. You, an innocent little child did NOTHING but deserve to be loved, nurtured, and protected. I am sosorry for what you went through. I pray to Ood, Buddha, and anyone else who will listen,
you don't spend onemoment in guilt orremorse. You were and are anINNOCENT VICTIM in

your Father's passing. Neither you NOR your Mother EVER deserve to beblamed, accused, or
otherwise. Enough said.

So too, are you, your Grandmother, and your Aunts innocent victims in this fraud being perpetrated on your late Father's estate. Frances-1 am atrial lawyer, specializing complex commercial litigation matters. Ihave handled these types ofcases successfully throughout my 21 -year career. Ihave recovered multiple milhons (ifnot billions) ofdollars for people inyour family's situation over the years. Iam afour-time recipient ofthe "Outstanding Trial Lawyer Award" and recent "Trial Lawyer ofthe Year" (which is somewhat akin to aGrammy in the legal world). Imention these accomplishments not to boast, but hopefully to give you asense that you are in good hands, and to instill in you the confidence Iwouldn't behandling this matter if Iwere not abundantly confident the facts are on our side. Your Mother has been handling mis matter on her own now for so long. Even though Iam now on board, Ido not get the sense your
t-J

Mom can 'let go' until the case if filed and begins running its course. I doubt I need toconvince

you how much this matter has consumed your Mother and threatens to destroy her spirit. The
sooner I have your support and hence the support of your Trust Fund, thesooner I can ease this
matter out of your Mom's hands.

G&H000058



Ms. Frances B. Cobain

April 27,2009
Page 3

To reiterate, the purpose ofreaching out to you at this point is to enlist your support. The last thing any ofus want, least ofall your Mother (who is FIERCELY protective ofyou, bythe way) is for you to be dragged into along court battle. Your Mother's only goal is to finish the
record she is currently working on and get you bom aNew York homes. Ofparticular importance will bethe support of your Trust when itcomes time for filing suit. Wewill need their support.
We will ail need to unite to make this a successful endeavor.

On the subject oftrust funds, they are strange animals. They do not always pay all the funds out when you are 18 like you would assume (unless aparticularly stupid parent ordered it or they are small). You do not have 1/1,000,000,000th ofwhat it appears you should have inmy view. My experience has shown me, the minute you turn 18 they will try and make you sign a waiver stating you will never sue them. They are likely saying meaniand terrible things about

your Mother even. Sadly, in 1998, they managed to get away wit, in myopinion, taking advantage of your Mom's lack of scholastics and education (billing you millions ofdollars, while your Mother never, ever billed you apenny). They accused your Mother of"diverting money in
*2003". Your Mother had (has) absolute discretion inthat regard. I KNOW that musthurtto hear. And, yes, ascrazy as it sounds, not ONE of your "protectors" (lawyers, bankers, accountants, managers, etc.) stood up tothis. They had too much of aninterest in keeping you and your Mom inthe dark, sadly. They do not seem tobeoperating any more "openly" today. For example, weare presently trying to find out how much you lost inthe huge economic downturn inrecent months, and simply getting noresponses whatsoever to our inquiries.
You see,Frances-3 things are very important:

1. Iam here and I am NOT going toletthose who perpetrated fraud against your late Father's estate and your family get away withit. You have my word on that. 1am here to protect your interests, as well as your Grandmother Wendy'sand your Aunts Kim's and Brianne's interests. They don't have topay meadime.
2. Your Mom - allshewants is for you to be secure andsafe. I am goingto make

sure you and your family are safe and secure so you Mom does not have todo all
of thiswork, I know shewould much prefer beinga Mother and anartist Please

stand byusand continue being patient Your Mother has 100% faith in your capacity to make aliving and bean artist of greatness and succeed at whatever you ultimately choose. That isnot the point, the point is;

fv

G&H000059

Ms, Frances B. Cobain

Aprif 27, 2009 Page 4

3. No onehas stopped these frauds from attacking yourFather's estateand pillaging it And for the sake of everyone, it needs to stop, and timeis of the
essence.

Thank you for taking the time toread and consider this letter, Frances. Please call me if

and whenever you need. My office phone number is: 619-696-0444. My cell phone number is:
619-572-2211. My email addressis: nholmesi@gordonandholrne8.com.

Withloveand warmest Regards,

GORDON & HOLMES
RJH:kam

G&H000060

~s

"Richard A. Dongell (SBN 128083) John A. Lawrence (SBN 073395)

/*TORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name . e^^mB. tarnumber, anaaddress):

CM-01Q
FOR COURT US£ ONLY

DONGELLLAWRENCE FINNEY LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
TELEPHONE NO: (213)943-6100
attorney for (N«mej: Courtney Love Cohain

faxno: (213)943-6101

WS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

FILED
OCT 25M

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
street address: 111 North Hill Street mailing address: 111 North Hill Street cityanozip code: Los Angeles. CA 90012

JOrwiM.CLAHKfc.CLfcHK
BY
CASE NUMBER:

ggANCHNAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

case NAME:
LxJ Unlimited
demanded

COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN v. GORDON &HOLMES, et al.
CD Limited
ComplexCase Designation
(Amount

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

(Amount

exceeds $25.000) $25,000 or less)
Auto Tort

demanded is

• Counter CD Joinder Filed with first appearance by defendant
(Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.402)

JUDGE:
OEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
• Auto (22)
Contract

CD Uninsured motorist (46)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death)Tort

i
i

IBreach of contract/warranty (06)
JInsurance coverage (18)
IEminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation

{Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

CD Rule 3.740 collections (09) lZJ Other collections (09)
CZ3 Other contract (37)
Real Property

CD Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) CD Construction defect (10)
CD Mass tort (40) I I Securities litigation (28) I I Environmental/Toxic tort (30)

I 1Asbestos (04) CD Product liability (24) I IMedical malpractice (45)

CZZZI Other PI/PDArVD (23)
Non-PI/PO/WD (Other) Tort

I

I; ...J Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)

CD Wrongful eviction (33)
Unlawful Detainer

L—i Business tort/unfair business practice (07) I IOther real property (26)
Cj Civil rights (08)
I IDefamation (13)

Enforcementof Judgment

Fraud (16)

CD Intellectual property (19)
I x . .I Professional negligence (25)

CD Commercial (31) CD Residential (32) CD Drugs (38)
Judicial Review

CD Enforcement of judgment (20)
MiscellaneousCivil Complaint

CD RICO (27)

CD Other complaint rnof specified above) (42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition

CZZ3 Other non-PI/PDA/VD tort (35)
Employment

CD Asset forfeiture (05)

CD Wrongful termination (36)
I IOther employment (15)
This case

CD Petition re: arbitration award (11)
CD Writ of mandate (02)
I IOther judicial review (39)

I _ „.l Partnership and corporate governance (21)

CD Other petition (not specified above) (43)

faclor^eouiSxceptS£& £%££? "** ^ °'^ ^^ ""**^ "the""*"-**<•mark me a CJ Large number of separately represented parties d. • Large number of witnesses
, I 1c k? , ,
4V Number of causes of action (specify): Four (4) S^This case CD is CD is not a class action suit.

3. Remed.es sought (cnecK a// tnatapply): a. CD monetae b. CD nonmoneta^declaratory or SSlSTc. ED punitive
JS«rYV

c. • Substanhal amount of documentaryeyidence

^Jl^S^T^^r ^ e ^ in Coordi"a«onwith-^-tionspendinginoneormorecourts ^e-consuming to resolve other counties, states, or countries or in afederal court
f. • Substantial postjudgment judicial superb ion

Richard A. Donee'll CSBN mnai)

Date:' Oc'torir 25K^l3relate<1 ^^ *'* "" ^ "n°tiCe °f related eWl^ "*° tomfiftois.)
^
{TYPE OR PRINT NAM6) ATTORNEY FORPARTY)

*• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule

W Unless this „acollections case under rule 3.740 or acomplex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Form Adoptedfor Mandatory"Use
Judicial Council of California

*"JZ^SfSS^SSl^^ "^°f^ Ca,if0m,a RU|SS °fC0Urt' V" ™* *™ *^ **•» cover sheet on a«.
CM-010[Rov. July t, 2007|

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Soluahns-

—————.. Pag« t of 2 Cal. Rules ofCourt, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3 400-3.403, 3.740;
Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10

i

INSTRUj|ONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COM SHEET

CM-010

The identification ofacase a's aSe 37^

damages, (2) punitive damages (3) recovery of real nmrirtJ ST, casefdoes not ,ndude af1 action seeking the following: (1) tort

oounsel, orboth to m^S^SSS'SS!?iaSK!!ria^^P^^ '" **" —^ "**a»"*• «S 2^^^ Undfr I"'6 374°iSdefi"ed aS a" action for «»«Y ofmoneyowed property, services, or money^ Su^iT^T«5^^12|,^andr^T/* ^ ^ fr°m atransacti0n in which
f' 'l""' be exempt from the 9eneral «me-for-service

one box for the case type that beTt*1SSZS S£22i2Sh?2n1 T? 6°" the •"•* ,n item 1- you must check check the more specific one. If the case has• rStSTca<£?5SS k t^T*' 8ud am0re Spedfic *"* of case ,is,ed in item L To assist you in completing the sheJ examptes of heTSeS Itt£^2 h* ** ?* ^J"**88 the P™3* cause of acti°nsheet must be filed only with your tnrtial oTeV FaS,,»l^1 ~ k 9. unlerueach Case *"* in i,em 1are Provided Mow. Acover

statistics about the types and numbers o^ses filed ^^J^fT*™?!? m* i' ThiS information wiH be used to compile

to the requirements for service' and obta,n!n|^^i2f2^fi3^~«Pon«« •*"*»*• *rule 3.740 collections case «h be subject
P«aintiffsdesignation,acounter-de8ignati^S
CASETYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort

requirements and case management rulesunless^a defendan?fi« IT

°r (5) a™^™* writ ofattachment

the case is complex.

Auto (22)—Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death

Contract

Breach ofContract/Warranty (06)
Breach of Rental/Lease

Uninsured Motorist (46) (ifthe
case involves an uninsured

motorist claimsubjectto
arbitration, check this item instead of Auto)

Contract (notunlawful detainer or wrongful eviction)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cai. Rules ofCourt Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect(10)

Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller
Negligent Breach of Contract/
Warranty

Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listedabove) (41) Enforcement of Judgment

Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence)

Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Oeath)
Tort

Other Breach ofContract/Warranty Collections (eg., money owed, open
bookaccounts) (09) Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff
Case

Asbestos (04)

Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/
Wrongful Death

OtherPromissory Note/Collections

Enforcement ofJudgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment(Outof
County)

ProductLiability (notasbestos or

Insurance Coverage (not provisionally
complex) (18)

toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45)
Medical Malpractice-

Auto Subrogation OtherCoverage

Confession ofJudgment (nondomestic relations) Sister State Judgment

Other Contract (37)
Contractual Fraud

Physicians &Surgeons Other ProfessionalHealthCare
Malpractice

Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaidtaxes)

Other PI/PDAA/D (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip
and fall)

OtherContract Dispute Real Property
Eminent Domain/Inverse

Petition/Certification ofEntry of
Judgmenton Unpaid Taxes

Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33)

Other Enforcement ofJudgment
Case

Intentional Bodily (njury/PD/WO (e.g., assault,vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)
Writ ofPossession ofReal Property
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)

OtherComplaint (not specified
above) (42)

Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD

Other Real Property (noteminent domain, landlord/tenant, or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer

Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (nonharassment)
Mechanics Lien

Non-PI/PDAVD (Other) Tort
^Business Tort/Unfair Business ., Practice (07)

Commercial (31) Residential(32)

OtherCommercial Complaint

Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition

'Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,
-., false arrest) (not civil

Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
drugs, check this item: otherwise,

'Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)
f> d3)
Fraud (16)

\ harassment) (08)

report as Commercial or Residential)
Judicial Review

Asset Forfeiture (05)

Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Writ-Administrative Mandamus

Partnershipand Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (notspecified
above) (43)
Civil Harassment

Intellectual Property (19)

(Professional Negligence (25)
Legal Malpractice

Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court
Case Matter

!-V Other Professional Malpractice
!~.> fnof medical orlegal)
Employment

Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult
Abuse

Writ-Other Limited Court Case
Review

Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35)

Election Contest

Other Judicial Review (39)
Review of Health Officer Order
'—

Petition for Name Change
Petition for Relief from Late
Claim

Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15)
CM-O10(Rev. July 1,2007| ~

Noticeof AppeaMLabor Commissioner Appeals

Other Civil Petition
Page 2 of 2

CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET

^^OURTNEYLOVE COBAIN v. GORDON& mLME^^TJ^^ ^m^WST
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND
/rcDT.^ATrrtr. STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO CQURTHOUSE LOCATION)

Item I. Check the types of hearing and fil in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case JURVTRIAL7 [T] VES CLASS ACTION? • YES LIM.TED CASE? Q VES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TR.AL 5 n^^n,.

Item II. .ndlcate the correctdistrict and courthouse .ocation (4 steps -„you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item 1.1, Pg. 4):
Step 2: Check« Superior Court type ofaction in Column B Wowwhich best describes the nature of this case.
Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (iee Column Cbeto»7
i' i«S!SH WKere bod«ily if|Jur*deatn or damage occurred

5. Location where performance required or defendant reskies

q iLSS!r0n wDerein defendant/respondent functions whollv 1n r2Sl0" w«h,er? onS or more of the parties reside *' 1U Location of Labor Commissioner Orfic
ffice

Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4in Item III; complete Item L Sign the declaration.
t o
»~

o

Auto (22)

5
<

Uninsured Motorist (46)
Asbestos (04)

• A7100 Motor Vehicle -Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death CD A711Q Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death-Uninsured Motorist
CD A6070 Asbestos Property Damage I 1A7221 Asbestos -Personal Injury/Wrongful Death

1,2.4.

1..2..4.

tr is

ProductLiability (24)

f "i
fS e

Medical Malpractice (45)

CD A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) • A7210 Medical Malpractice -Physicians & Surgeons
CjA7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice
I 1A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) <

1,2., 3., 4., 8.
1., 4.
1.,4.

Other
.^

* 5 a> £

CD

Personal Injury Property Damage
Wrongful Death (23)

1..4.
1,4. 1,3.
1..4.

1=1 A723° St^i^
I 1A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

I 1A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

K*

LAClV 109(Rev. 03/11)
LASCApproved 03-04

Local Rule 2.0

Page 1 of 4
LA-CV109

*"~* COURTNEY LOVE COBAIN v. GORDON TmLms,

if
3 3

Business Tort (07)
Civil Rights (08)

CD A6029 OtherCommercial/Business Tort (not friud/breach of contract)
CD A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination

1., 3.

1., 2., 3.
1-, 2„ 3.

Defamation (13)
Fraud (16)

CD A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)
CD A6013 Fraud (no contract)
CD A6017 Legal Malpractice f

(0

C P

§£
O

1,2., 3.

=

CO

E

Professional Negligence (25)
Other (35)

Z

Q

CD A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) CD A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort
I 1A6037 Wrongful Termination

1..2..3.
2,3.

$P

41 >.

E

Wrongful Termination (36)
Other Employment (15)

1,2., 3. 1., 2., 3.
10.

o
Q.

£
UJ

CD A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
I 1A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals

Breach ofContract/ Warranty
(06)

(not insurance)

CD A6004 Breach ofRental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful • A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) CD A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence)
CD A6019 Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud)
CD A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff

2., 5. 2., 5.

1..2..5.'
1..2., 5.

Q e

o

Collections (09)

o

CD A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case

2„ 5., 6.
2., 5.

Insurance Coverage (18)

CD A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
L__l A6009 Contractual Fraud {

1..2..5., 8.

OtherContract (37)

I 1A6031 Tortious Interference

j

1,2., 3., 5.

• A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence)
Eminent Domain/Inverse

1., 2., 3., 5. 1..2..3..8.

Condemnation (14)

c
41 a.

CD A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
CD A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case

Number of parcels
2„6.

2
a.

Wrongful Eviction (33)

"3

Other Real Property (26)

CD A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
CD A6032 Quiet Title

(

2„6.
2., 6. 2., 6.

Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
... o

c

(31)

K. ': '5
I Y:

Unlawful Detainer-Residential (32)
Unlawful Detainer-

CD A606Q OtherRealProperty(noteminentdomain,landlord/tenant,foreclosure) • A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs orwrongful eviction) CD A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
CD A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure

2„6.
2., 6.
2., 6. 2., 6.

Post-Foreclosure (34)

Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (33)

CD A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs

LACiy 109(Rev. 03/11)
LASCApproved 03-04

"CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0

Page 2 of 4

ST"* C0UI™Y1^VEC0BA1N v. GORDON & HOLMES"
tType;of(Actidn
(Checleonly<dh§)

CD A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case

2., 6.
2,5

CDA6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmA/acate Arbitration
CD A6151 Writ -Administrative Mandamus •

CD A6152 Writ -Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Ld A6153 Writ -Other Limited Court Case Review'
CD A6150 Other Writ/Judicial Review
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
a.

2,8.
2. 2.

2., 8.

t 1A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation
CD A6007 Construction Defect

1,2., 8.
1,2., 3.

£
o

Claims Involving MassTort (40)

o

CD A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
I 1A6035 Securities Litigation Case

1., 2., 8.
1,2,8.

A* "5
c o

Securities Litigation (28)
Environmental (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
Toxic Tort

o

CD A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental

1,2,3., 8.
•1..2..5.. 8.
2,9.

from Complex Case(41)

CD A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
I 1A6141 Sister State Judgment !

C

C

E

B

( )A6160 Abstract of Judgment
Enforcement

<

2., 6.

a %
c ._

of Judgment(20)

lit

o

CD A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domesticTelations) CD A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) CD A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry ofJudgment on Unpaid Tax
LCI A61I2 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case i
CD A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case

2., 9.
2„8. 2., 8.

2., 8, 9.
1,2,8

RICO (27)
OT ~ <o

o s> c
<o

fc
a

I 1A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
(Not Specified Above) (42)
Other Complaints

,

8
s

O
>

CD A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)
CD A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex)

1..2., 8. 2., 8.

o

CD A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex)

1,2., 8.
1., 2,8.

H>

Partnership Corporation Governance (21)

CD A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance'Case

2., 8.

f-"?

3

«C
•<o

.2
<u a.
>

CD A6123 Workplace Harassment
Other Petitions

CD A6121 Civil Harassment

J
I

j

2,3,9.

~<o
o
<a

(Not Specified Above)
(43)

CD A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case '
CD A6190 Election Contest

2., 3„9.

2., 3., 9.
2.

s

u

CD A6110 Petition for Change of Name

CD A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
CD A6100 Other Civil Petition

2., 7.

2., 3., 4., 8.
2., 9.

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)
LASCApproved 03-04

C'VIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION;

Local Rule 2.0

Page 3 of 4

I

}

I

short title: COURTNFA LO V bCOBAIN v. GORDON &HOLMES, et al!

CASE NUMBER

H

rdge '•as me Pr°Per reas°n for filing in the court location you selected.
address 9145 St. Ives Drive

this case
CITY:

u^rN:. Che«k,tne appropriate boxes for the numbers shown

f°r the *** °f aCtion that *ou fave se^ecteSZ
STATE:

• UJO 2. E 3.D 4.• 5.da.• 7. C38. • 9. CH 0.
2IP CODE:

Los Angeles

CA

90069

SSn^STi^c, «££)]
Dated: October 25. 2013

' °Unty °f L°S An9e,eS [C°de CiV' Pr0C" §392 et «*- ™« Local
(SIGNATURE OF ATTO$*4y/FIUNG PARTY) Richard A. Dongell

COMMENHCAEVYOUR NEW CoKr? CASE: C0MPLETED AND ^ADY TO BE F.LED .N ORDER TO PROPERLY
1. 2.

Original Complaint or Petition.

If filing aComplaint, acompleted Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.
Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.

3.
4.

Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev.

5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

0-1

0
J-.V

LACIV 109(Rev. 03/11)
LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page 4 of 4

Cobain v. Gordon & Holmes, Docket No. BC525857 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 25, 2013), Court Docket

General Information

Status Court Date Filed

Open Superior Court of California,County of Los Angeles 2013-10-25 00:00:00

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service View at Bloomberg Law // PAGE 24

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful