Matthew J. Staub SBN 275262 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pasha Law PC Superior Court of California, 302 Washington St Suite 150-6440 County of San Diego San Diego CA, 92103 04/28/2047 = 12:58:00 Fr Telephone: (858) 779-9604 Clerk of the Superior Court Email: staub@pashalaw.com By Ivbisea Reyes Deputy Clerk N. Pasha Attorney for: Na SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 'E OF CALIFORNIA NASIR N. PASHA, Case No.: 37-2016-00006885-CU-DF-CTL. Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND vs. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF| GEORGE BAY aka JOHNNY WOODS aka Dept. C72 RALPH DOE aka MGILL DOE, Judge: Hon. Timothy Taylor Defendant, Action Filed: March 1, 2016 1, INTRODUCTION Plaintiff seeks a Judgment by Default by Court against Defendant George Bay aka Johnny Woods aka Ralph Doe aka Mgill Doe. Defendant publicized three libelous and false statements about Plaintiff on ripoffreport.com. These statements were libelous on their face because they exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy as they describe Plaintiff as a person who is fraudulent, dishonest, and unethical. As a proximate result of the statements by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered loss of Plaintiff's reputation and injury to Plaintiff's occupation, all to Plaintiff's general damage and now seeks declaratory relief due to the statements made by Defendant, 1 PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF[ OF FACTS Plaintiff owns and operates a law firm that previously represented homeowners alleged to have been defrauded by loan modification service providers in the State of California and elsewhere. In the course of representing victims of loan modification fraud, Plaintiff published and wrote about loan modification companies in California on Plaintifi’s blog, including a company that received a cease and desist order from the California Department of Real Estate named SBLC Consultants, LLC, dba American Home Crisis Center (File No. H-5319 SAC, December 21, 2009). The cease and desist order issued by the Department of Real Estate provided that SBLC Consultants, LLC had engaged in acts or practices that constitute the engagement of business of advertising or assuming to act as a real estate broker without first obtaining a real estate license in connection with providing loan modification solutions. On January 20, 2010, Defendant (purportedly on behalf of SBLC Consultants, LLC), left a ‘comment on Plaintiff's blog regarding Plaintiff's post about SBLC Consultants, LLC that “you will be hearing from my attorneys. You are in the state of california and you are obviosly in need of business for your firm. You are illegally exploiting my firm with incorrect information and i will sue you for evewry penny you have!!! You are a Scam!!” [sic]. Later that day, Defendant called Plaintiff threatening legal action unless the cease and desist order was removed. When the order was not removed, Defendant published three false reviews about Plaintiff and his law firm, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Johnny Woods aka Ralph Doe aka Mgill Doe on March 1, 2016. Plaintiff later discovered the true name of the Defendant as George Bay and subsequently amended the complaint to name George Bay as the Defendant on July 12, 2016. Despite reasonable diligence, Plaintiff was unable to locate Defendant and hired a process server in New York to locate and serve the summons and complaint on Defendant. The process server was unable to locate and serve Defendant at his last known residence and last known place of work, Plaintiff then sought to serve the summons and complaint by publication in the Bronx Times, the newspaper most likely to give notice to Defendant based on his last known address. On November 4, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff's application for publication of summons. The Order PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFof Publication of Summons in this action was published on November 10, 2016, November 17, 2016, November 24, 2016, and December 1, 2016. Defendant failed to answer or otherwise plead. On January 19, 2017, the Court entered Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default against Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks a Judgment by Default by Court against Defendant for declaratory relief as prayed for herein, ILL, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING JUDGMENT Libel is defined under Cal. Civ. Code § 45 as a false and unprivileged publication by writing which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 45, libel has been broadly defined and has been held to include almost any language, which upon its face, has a natural tendency to injure a person's reputation, either generally, or with respect to his occupation. MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co., (1959) 52 Cal.2d 536, 546. For example, it is libelous to impute that an attomey is dishonest or unethical because of the probability of damage to his reputation as a professional. Albertini v. Schaefer, (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 822, 829, In order to establish liability for Defendant’s libelous statements, Plaintiff must show: 1. That Defendant George Bay made one or more statements to people other than Plaintiff. 2. That these people reasonably understood that the statements were about Plaintiff. ‘That these people reasonably understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff acted ina fraudulent, dishonest, and unethical manner. 4. That Defendant George Bay failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements. Defendant George Bay made statements to people other than Plaintiff when he published such statements about Plaintiff on a website that could be viewed worldwide by anyone and Defendant expected to be viewed by potential clients and legal colleagues of Plaintiff. Defendant's statements were riddled with false assertions and made without reasonable care as to whether the statements were true or false, with the purpose of damaging Plaintiff's business and reputation. 3 PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. The statement, “T While the entirety of the three narratives is false, the following statements are particularly injurious to Plaintiff's profession and libelous on their face as they clearly expose Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because: The statement, “NASIR PASHA ESQ PASHA LAW FIRM IS A LIAR, HE SHOULD BE DISBARRED” falsely suggests that Plaintiff is dishonest, untruthful, and unethical. . The statement, “NASIR PASHA ESQ PASHA LAW GROUP *SCAM ALERT*SCAM ALERT**” falsely implies that Plaintiff is fraudulently scheming customers for Plaintiff’s profit. s guy N .PASHA ..PASHA LAW FIRM clearley has found a new tactic to scam even more homeowners. Its a wonderful business. SCAM a home owner in a real estate closing with bait and switch and forgery tactics. Then scam them 5 years later when the destressed mortgage you had them sign by claiming you can help them modify there mortgage. Than SCAM them believing you can help them get thier money back from other scammers and also promise them a modification” [sic] falsely suggests that Plaintiff is fraudulently scheming customers, in part through forgery, for Plaintiff's profit. The statement, “This guy IS A CROOK AND IS FINDIND [sic] A WAY TO MAKE MONEY!!!” falsely implies that Plaintiff is using illegal means to take and accept money from customers. The statement, “NASIR PASHA ESQ NASIR PASHA MODIFICATION FRAUD**SCAM**FRAUD” falsely suggests that Plaintiff intentionally defrauded customers through a modification ploy. The statement, “He also told me not to make my ,mortgage payment” falsely implies that Plaintiff is incompetent due to providing unsound legal advice ‘The statements explicitly identify Plaintiff Nasir Pasha and his law firm by name, which when seen and read by persons all around the world, provides no doubt that the statements were 4 PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFconcerning Plaintiff. The statements can be reasonably viewed as implying provable statements of] fact that reflect negatively on Plaintiff's reputation and would lead readers to draw the conclusion that Plaintiff acts in a fraudulent, dishonest, and unethical manner. A reasonable person reading these statements would have no problem inferring Plaintiff was a fraud, scam, liar, crook, and forger. For these reasons, the statements made by Defendant equate to an actionable claim for libel. Defendant’s statements have caused injury to Plaintiff's profession by suffering loss of| reputation and embarrassment and Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that such statements are defamatory and shall be removed. A defamation suit may be treated as an action for declaratory relief if it is brought solely for nominal damages and expressly states that it is brought to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation and not to recover compensatory damages. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts §623, Special Note on Remedies (1977)). Plaintiff does not seek compensatory damages, but rather, requests the court declare Defendant's statements are defamatory as shown herein. IV. PRAYER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. For a declaration that the statements published by Defendant GEORGE BAY under the name “Johnny Woods” are false and defamatory and shall be caused to be removed. 2. For a declaration that the statements published by Defendant GEORGE BAY under the name “Ralph” are false and defamatory and shall be caused to be removed. For a declaration that the statements published by Defendant GEORGE BAY under the name “Mgill” are false and defamatory and shall be caused to be removed. 4. Costs in the amount of $1,585.00. ai Mi Mi Mi al 3 PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFI declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: April 27, 2017 Po Matthew J. Sy ‘Atiomey for 6 PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF