You are on page 1of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mitchell J. Stein (SBN 121750) In Propria Persona c/o Erikson M. Davis 11574 Iowa Avenue, Suite 104 Los Angeles, California 90025 Phone: (914) 922-5212 Fax: (914) 652-2431 E-mail: private.oceibod@gmail.com Erikson M. Davis (SBN 197841) LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON M. DAVIS 11574 Iowa Avenue, Suite 104 Los Angeles, California 90025 Phone: (310) 231-7808 Fax: (818) 597-2132 E-mail: erikdavis@att.net Attorney for all Plaintiffs except Mitchell J. Stein

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- CENTRAL DISTRICT

TODD LEGASPI, an individual; MORGAN LAWLEY, an individual; NANCY H. FROST, an individual; JACKLYN SYLVESTRE, an individual; NIKKI WHITE, an individual; REBECCA ABAD, an individual; GINA ADAMS, an individual; RICK ADAMS, an individual; BIBIAN AFABLE, an individual; SUREN ALAVERDYAN, an individual; KARL AMRINE, an individual; ERIC ANDERSON, an individual; PAMELA ANDERSON, an individual; SABRINA ANDERSON, an individual; DONALD ANDREWS, an individual; DAVID APPEL, an individual; EWY AXELSSON, an individual; JOHN BAHURA, an individual; IRMA BACKER-PARRA, an individual; BRUCE BARMAKIAN, an individual; RODDRICK BARNETT, an individual; ROBERT BERRY, an individual; JOHN BOOTH, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1

Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD; 2. LEGAL MALPRACTICE; 3. CONCEALMENT AND DECEIT; 4. CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY; 5. APPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS; 6. UNLAWFUL USE OF NAME AND LIKENESS.

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ARACELI BOWMAN, an individual; BILLY BOWMAN, an individual; PATRICK BOYD, an individual; JOAN BROWN, an individual; BONNIE BUCKLEY, an individual; TOBY BUTTERWORTH, an individual; NELIDA CAMPOS, an individual; JERRY CANADAY, an individual; FRANCIS CELO, an individual; JOHN CHARLSON, an individual; KATHERINE CHARLSON, an individual; JOSEPH CHAVOEN, an individual; GRANT CLARK, an individual; HUGH COLLINS, an individual; SEAN COMBS, an individual; ARTURO CONCHA, an individual; CHERIE COOK, an individual; DENISE COOK, an individual; RANDALL COOK, an individual; MATHEW CROSBIE, an individual; HOUSTON CURTIS, an individual; ERIC CUTLER, an individual; CHARLES DANIELS, an individual; RICARDO DAVALOS, an individual; TROY DAVIS, an individual; SARKIS DAVODDANIEL, an individual; DAVID DE LEON, an individual; MARTHA DE LEON, an individual; PAZ DIAZ, an individual; OLIC DUNNING III, an individual; DAVID EBADAT, an individual; MEHRDAD EMESHA, an individual; DAVID ESTRADA, an individual; TY ETTERLEIN, an individual; MICHELLE FAVAZZO, an individual; ROGER FOSDICK, an individual; JAMES FRASER, an individual; ROBERT GRAHAM, an individual; GRETA GREGORIO, an individual; BRIAN GURNEE, an individual; AHMAD HAKIMJAVADI, an individual; RICHARD HALE, an individual; JACK HALLEY, an individual; STEVEN HARDIE, an individual; CINDY HARRISON, an individual; MARIO HERRERA, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
2

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HEATH HODEL, an individual; PAT HUNT, an individual; JOSEPH IGNACIO, an individual; REBECCA IGNACIO, an individual; MUHAMMAD ISLAM, an individual; GUS KATSIKIDES, an individual; KEVIN KEEHL, an individual; CARLEEN KELLER, an individual; CHRIS KIM, an individual; JAY KIM , an individual; BRENT KOMOUROUS, an individual; DEAN KRAEMER, an individual; JOSHUA KREITZER, an individual; MAZLINA LAI, an individual; STEPHANIE LANDEN, an individual; BRUCE LAWSON, an individual; TRAVIS LEAGE, an individual; JACQUELYNN LEONARDO, an individual; CARMEN LINARES, an individual; LAUREN LOCEY, an individual; ANA MACIAS, an individual; MARCO MACIAS, an individual; LOUIS MAGES, an individual; PATRICIA MAGES, an individual; STEFAN MAHALEY, an individual; DENISE MANRIQUEZ, an individual; EDUARDO MARQUEZ, an individual; ELNORA MARSHALL, an individual; FRANK A. MARTINEZ, an individual; FRANK MARTINEZ, an individual; ELIZABETH MATSIK, an individual; CALVIN MATTHEWS, an individual; SEAN MCDONALD, an individual; MARY MEDINA, an individual; BRUCE MILLIGAN, an individual; MARIA MIRANDA, an individual; TOBY MOORE, an individual; LEONIDES MORALES, an individual; ERICA MORGERA, an individual; YOLANDA NATIVIDAD, an individual; ALAN NESS, an individual; JOHN OCAMPO, an individual; ROMAN OLIVOS, an individual; JUAN PADILLA, an individual; ALAN PARSONS, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
3

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KAZIMIR PATELSKI, an individual; CINDY PATELSKI, an individual; RICARDO PEREZ, an individual; JAMES PETERSON, an individual; DOUGLAS POWERS, an individual; ANNA MARIA PREZIO, an individual; NOOROLLAH RAHDAR, an individual; STEPHEN ROBINSON, an individual; BARBARA ROBINSON, an individual; ARTHUR RODRIGUEZ, an individual; JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, an individual; ETHAN ROSS, an individual; JESSE SABAGQUIT, an individual; DERRICK SANDERS, an individual; CARL SANKO, an individual; REGINALD SANTIAGO, an individual; BRANNON SCIANNA, an individual; MARCIA SCIANNA, an individual; JOHN SCIORTINO, an individual; BRIAN SEXSON, an individual; PETER SHELDON, an individual; SCOTT SHUBB, an individual; BALJIT SINGH, an individual; BALDEV SINGH, an individual; MARK SMITH, an individual; NIDA SMITH, an individual; WILLIE SMITH, an individual; MILTON SMITH II, an individual; JOANNE SNYDER-DAVIDSON, an individual; RICHARD SORENSEN, an individual; HEMALATHA SOURI-PARSONS, an individual; GEORGE STROUP, an individual; SUZANNE SUGGS, an individual; SALLY SYMONS, an individual; GILDA TAHMURESZADEH, an individual; BOB TIDD, an individual; BETTY TIMBERS, an individual; ANDREY TODOROV, an individual; ALMA TOWNSEND, an individual; GREG TOWNSEND, an individual; TIMOTHY TUMA, an individual; WILLIAM VICKERY, an individual; ENRIQUE VILLANUEVA, an individual; NADIA VILLARREAL, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
4

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CHRISTOPHER VILLARUZ, an individual; LINDA VO, an individual; PATRICK VUONG, an individual; HARJINDER WARAICH, an individual; GURMEET WARAICH, an individual; MELISSA WARNER, an individual; EDNA WENNING, an individual; JIM WETZEL, an individual; TODD WIDENER, an individual; VERONICA WIDENER, an individual; TIMOTHY WIDLUND, an individual; CRAIG WILLIAMS, an individual; RICHARD WILSON, an individual; PETER KREUZER, an individual; DAVID BEAUBIEN, an individual; ROGER FENSTERMACHER, an individual; TRACEY HAMPTON-STEIN, an individual; RENE MINNAAR, an individual; LYNN KIMBERLEY, an individual; JOSEPH CINA, an individual; EVELYN IRVING, an individual; BERTHA CREVOLIN, an individual; RONNIE CREVOLIN, an individual; JON OXIDINE, an individual; CRANFORD L. SCOTT, an individual; SHEILA SCOTT , an individual; COURTNEY SCOTT, an individual; PAUL SIBORO, an individual; MICHELLE NUNIES, an individual; KEVIN WALKER, an individual; JILL WALKER, an individual; CARY CRUZ, an individual; JOHN MACIAS, an individual; RONNIE VAN GREEN, an individual; SALVADOR HUIZAR, an individual; EDITHA C. RESTAURO, an individual; OSCAR GONZALEZ, an individual; MICHAEL AKIN, an individual; JOANNA SINGH, an individual; JACK LEFLER, an individual; ELIAS VIEYRA, an individual; STEVEN GUMIENNY, an individual; JOHNNY MARIE TORRES, an individual; JOSEPH GOMEZ, an individual; SUSAN FRANCO, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
5

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CHARLEY SMITH, an individual; RAYMOND HILL, an individual; BASHEER MURAD, an individual; BARRY BOZARTH, an individual; RICHARD J. FOMIN, an individual; KEVIN THOMPSON, an individual; EDWARD LIZARDO, an individual; LINDA LIZARDO, an individual; ZANE T. WALKER, an individual; NICOLE EDGECOMBRE, an individual; KENNETH EDGECOMBRE, an individual; ARNOLD BRIGMAN, an individual; DEBORAH BRIGMAN, an individual; FATTEMAH FADAKER, an individual; ASHLEYJANE LARSEN, an individual; CHRISTIAN LARSEN, an individual; JOHN PHILLINGANE, an individual; JOSEPH BARTOLI, an individual; ROBERTA ALVAREZ, an individual; TONY TURTURICI, an individual; BENJAMIN GAMEZ, an individual; ELISEO RAMOS, an individual; LIZETTE FIELDER, an individual; MICHAEL OWEN, an individual; MELISSA OWEN, an individual; ANTONIO ARCINAS, an individual; STEVEN QUICK, an individual; REBECCA QUICK, an individual; NANCY HELLER RILEY, an individual; SIMON SARKISIAN, an individual; ARMANDO HINOJOSA, an individual; NICHOLAS ROB JONES, an individual; LAUDELYN GUTIERREZ, an individual; ROWAN GUTIERREZ, an individual; MARIA PANTOJA, an individual; JOSE JAVIER PANTOJA, an individual; JULIET SICSIC, an individual; ASHMELLEY THERVIL, an individual; ELIZABETH MCCULLOOUGH, an individual; LORI BATMAN, an individual; KEVIN BATMEN, an individual; HIROSHI NAKAYAMA, an individual; GOERGE BENNETT, an individual; AMANDA BENNETT, an individual; LEONARD T. HERNANDEZ, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
6

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MODJULITA A. HERNANDEZ, an individual; WALTER WEISS, an individual; DIANE WEISS, an individual; WILLIAM RABELLO, an individual; ALVIN BLAKE, an individual; TAWANA BLAKE, an individual; MELANDO ANTHONY MARTINEZ, an individual; HEATHER MAHONEY, an individual; SONIKA TINKER, an individual; DEBRA REIN, an individual; DIONICO CORTEZ, an individual; DON DECKER, an individual; TAMMY DECKER, an individual; DANN FRIEND, an individual; MATTHEW FRIEND, an individual; JAMES W. LOCKER, an individual; DOUGLAS LIZARDI, an individual; DEBBIE LIZARDI, an individual; JOSE ALFREDO SEGOVIA, an individual; TONY TRUJILLO, an individual; DONNA TRUJILLO, an individual; JAMES SHIPMAN, an individual; CHRISTINE SHIPMAN, an individual; LEROY ANDERSON, an individual; ALEXANDER ARRORACI, an individual; RENEE BAYLIS, an individual; THEADFORD BRINKLEY, an individual; ERNESTINE BRINKLEY, an individual; DENNIS BULMER, an individual; STEVEN CAMPANELLI, an individual; KEVIN CHEEK, an individual; AIMEE CHEEK, an individual; GEORGE COBURN, an individual; DORIS COBURN, an individual; KC CRANDALL, an individual; KEITH DENSON, an individual; CHERYL FORD, an individual; EDGART GONZALEZ, an individual; JOHN HANSON, an individual; SESSING HEWITT, an individual; JEFF LAVENDER, an individual; MARA LAVENDER, an individual; ROBERT LEWIN, an individual; JOSE MEZA, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
7

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AIDA MEZA an individual; VIRGEN MONDRAGON, an individual; WILLIAM OAKS, an individual; DOMINADOR RAMOS, an individual; PETRONILLA RAMOS an individual; SHERYL SEIM-MONTOYA, an individual; RICHARD STRUNK, an individual; ANGELA STRUNK an individual; CHARLES TAM, an individual; RUBY TAM an individual; ROBERTO VARGAS, an individual; RUTH VARGAS an individual; CARROLL WALTERS, an individual; ANGELA WALTERS an individual; RONALD WILLIAMS, an individual; BRIAN R. CARLSON, an individual; LUCY N. CARLSON, an individual; JOSE OSEGUERA, an individual; DEANA OSEGUERA, an individual; KIRK CARMICHAEL, an individual; LARRY CAPOTS, an individual; IRVING PHAN, an individual; CHRISTINE DAO, an individual; ROGER JAMES, an individual; MARIA ELENA CRUZ, an individual; GERALD E. ROBERTS, an individual; AUDRENE ANN ALENCASTREROBERTS, an individual; LISA RODRIGUEZ, an individual; ANTONIO FUENTES, an individual; MARIA FUENTES, an individual; HILARIO LUCERO, an individual; KAMLESH BATNA, an individual; GURDAYAL BATNA, an individual; HONORIO DIZON, an individual; AUELINA DIZON, an individual; GERARD CANNELLA, an individual; MELANIE CANNELLA, an individual; WILFREDO FELICIANO, an individual; DEAN COPPER, an individual; BRENDA COPPER, an individual; JORGE A. TORRES, an individual; ANDRES BENAVIDEZ, an individual; FARAHNAZ MIRSHAFIEE, an individual; BAHMAN MIRSHAFIEE, an individual; JAVIER JIMENEZ, an individual;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
8

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MAGDALENA GUIZAR, an individual; OSCAR GARCIA, an individual; MICHAEL SANTOS, an individual; WILLIAM MITCHELL, an individual; KIMBERLY MITCHELL, an individual; WILLIAM CLOWNEY, an individual; MARY CLOWNEY, an individual; LEPHAS BAILEY, an individual; JON CARLSON, an individual; KIMBERLY CARLSON, an individual; GERDA HYPPOLITE, an individual; JAMES BEEKS, an individual; DARLENE BEEKS, individual; TERRY SHAFFER, individual; KLAUDIA WILCZKOWIAK, individual; ANA DUENAS, individual; HARLEY HUNTER, individual; JEAN HUNTER, individual; HUY KHAC VO, individual; THEIN LAM LE, individual; KEN LEON, individual; ROBERT GREGG, individual; DAVID WALLACE, individual; VICTORIA WALLACE, individual; RALPH HOLLOWAY, individual; DARLENE HOLLOWAY, individual; WILLIAM TUCKER, individual; CHARLOTTE O. TUCKER, individual; EDWARD BOSTOCK, individual; SOCORRO PAREDA, individual; STEVEN D. EHLERS, individual; SEYED ALI RAZAVI, individual; JONNY MARIE TORRES, individual; SUZAN BRITTAN-BERGMAN, individual; SALLY FIGUEIRIDO, an individual; MANUEL LANDAVASO, an individual; and THERESI VILLARUZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs, vs. KENIN M. SPIVAK, an individual; EDWIN LASMAN, an individual; THEODORE MALONEY, an individual, SML LLP, a California Limited Liability

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
9

COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Partnership; BROOKSTONE LAW, a California Professional Corporation; VITO TORCHIA, JR., an individual; DAMIAN KUTZNER, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial and allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.
9 10

Virtually every Plaintiff herein is a Plaintiff in pending bank litigation venued in

Civil Courthouse West (CCW) before the Honorable William F. Highberger. This case grows out of fraud committed outside of court notwithstanding assurances made to Judge Highberger or

11

at times during which Judge Highberger had and continues to have jurisdiction over more than
12

90% of the parties herein.


13

2.
14 15

This is a case involving undeniable fraud, deceit and violations of State law and

violations of the State Bar Act by all Defendants, acting in concert. The fraud and deceit is indisputable, evidenced conclusively by Exhibits 1 and 2 to this complaint and other evidence
16 17 18

Plaintiffs shall proffer at the appropriate time. As Exhibits 1 and 2 demonstrate and as additional evidence will show Defendants and each of them engaged in a conspiracy that began in December, 2010 to (a) represent that they had expertise in the area of bank mortgage

19

litigation, which they did not have even a scintilla of, (b) induce Plaintiffs to either pay them
20

money, or to forego valuable legal rights against them, or (in the case of Mr. Stein) using his
21 22

name and likeness without authority and founded upon fraud: All based upon Defendants untrue statements, inducements and other misconduct and (c) distribute to Defendants and

23

millions of consumers (nationwide) illegal mailers and video tapes that falsely represented,
24 25 26 27 28

among other things, that banks had settled a class action and such banks would be paying to Plaintiffs up to $75,000. Each of the foregoing three acts were done by Defendants and each of them based upon a conspiracy entered into by Defendants knowingly, willfully and intentionally for purposes of duping all of Plaintiffs herein. Included among the conspiracy by
10 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

all Defendants, acting in concert, was utilizing the false advertising to adversely impact the rights of millions of home owners across the United States and to defraud their elected representatives for reasons amounting to nothing but pure profit. 3. Defendants have illegally split the illicit proceeds of their fraudulent

advertisements through various contractual mechanisms, including (but not limited to) paying money under a make believe attorney-client privilege -- which is discoverable pursuant to the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The profits collected by Defendants pursuant to this conspiracy are well in excess of $10 million as alleged below since December 2010, and the damages to Plaintiffs resulting from Defendants' conspiracy is in excess of $1 billion. VENUE 4. Venue is proper in the Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Los

Angeles, California (Los Angeles), because the conspiracy alleged herein was developed and implemented in Los Angeles, tortious acts of the Defendants were organized and implemented from offices and other locations in the city of Los Angeles, and the residence of the Defendants or some of them is in Los Angeles, California. All defendants herein are either residents of Los Angeles, California or committed their conspiratorial and tortious acts in Los Angeles with the intention that they have effect in Los Angeles, California. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the California Constitution, Article V, Section 10, because this case is not a cause given by statute to other trial courts. Further, this Court has jurisdiction over each of the Defendants and venue is proper in accordance with Section 395(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure because a substantial portion of the wrongdoing alleged in this Complaint took place in Los Angeles, California, the Defendants are authorized to do business in, and have sufficient minimum contacts with, Los Angeles, California, and the Defendants intentionally availed themselves of the benefits of resources provided in Los Angeles, California through the promotion, sale and maintenance of unlawful marketing materials, infomercials, mailers, fliers and communications with home owners nationwide in a fraudulent manner as alleged herein.

//
11 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

PARTIES
2

1.
3

Plaintiff TODD LEGASPI is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MORGAN LAWLEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff NANCY H. FROST is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JACKLYN SILVESTRE is an individual residing in the State of

2.
4

3.
5

4.
6

California.
7

5.
8

Plaintiff NIKKI WHITE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff REBECCA ABAD is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff GINA ADAMS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RICK ADAMS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BIBIAN AFABLE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SUREN ALAVERDYAN is an individual residing in the State of

6.
9

7.
10

8.
11

9.
12

10.
13

California.
14

11.
15

Plaintiff KARL AMRINE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ERIC ANDERSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PAMELA ANDERSON is an individual residing in the State of

12.
16

13.
17

California.
18

14.
19

Plaintiff SABRINA ANDERSON is an individual residing in the State of

California.
20

15.
21

Plaintiff DONALD ANDREWS is an individual residing in the State of

California.
22

16.
23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff DAVID APPEL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff EWY AXELSSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOHN BAHURA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff IRMA BAKER-PARRA is an individual residing in the State of

17. 18. 19. California.

12 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

20. California.; 21. 22. 23. California. 24. 25. 26. 27. California.; 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. California. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. California. 42.

Plaintiff BRUCE BARMAKIAN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ROBERT BERRY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOHN BOOTH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ARACELI BOWMAN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff PATRICK BOYD is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOAN BROWN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BONNIE BUCKLEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TOBY BUTTERWORTH is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff NELIDA CAMPOS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JERRY CANADAY, an individual; Plaintiff FRANCIS CELO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOHN CHARLSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KATHERINE CHARLSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOSEPH CHAVOEN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff GRANT CLARK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HUGH COLLINS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SEAN COMBS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ARTURO CONCHA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHERIE COOK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DENISE COOK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RANDALL COOK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MATTHEW CROSBIE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff HOUSTON CURTIS is an individual residing in the State of California.


13 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

43. 44. 45. California. 46. 47. California. 48. 49. 50. California. 51. 52. 53. 54. California. 55. 56. 57. California. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. California. 64.

Plaintiff ERIC CUTLER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHARLES DANIELS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RICARDO DAVALOS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff TROY DAVIS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SARKIS DAVODDANIEL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DAVID DE LEON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARTHA DE LEON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HEATHER MAHONEY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff PAZ DIAZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff OLIC DUNNING III is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DAVID EBADAT, an individual; Plaintiff MEHRDAD EMESHA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DAVID ESTRADA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TY ETTERLEIN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MICHELLE FAVAZZO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ROGER FOSDICK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JAMES FRASER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROBERT GRAHAM is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff GRETA GREGORIO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BRIAN GURNEE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff AHMAD HAKIMJAVADI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RICHARD HALE is an individual residing in the State of California.


14 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. California. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. California. 79. 80. 81. 82. California. 83. 84. 85. California. 86. 87. 88.

Plaintiff JACK HALLEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEVEN HARDIE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CINDY HARRISON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARIO HERRERA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HEATH HODEL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PAT HUNT is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOSEPH IGNACIO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MUHAMMAD ISLAM is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GUS KATSIKIDES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KEVIN KEEHL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CARLEEN KELLER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHRIS KIM is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JAY KIM is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BRENT KOMOUROUS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DEAN KRAEMER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOSHUA KREITZER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MAZLINA LAI is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEPHANIE LANDEN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff BRUCE LAWSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TRAVIS LEAGE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JACQUELYNN LEONARDO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CARMEN LINARES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff LAUREN LOCEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ANA MACIAS is an individual residing in the State of California.
15 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. California. 94. California. 95. California. 96. California. 97. 98. California. 99. California. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. California. 106. 107. California. 108.

Plaintiff MARCO MACIAS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff LOUIS MAGES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PATRICIA MAGES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEFAN MAHALEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DENISE MANRIQUEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff EDUARDO MARQUEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ELNORA MARSHALL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff FRANK A. MARTINEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff FRANK MARTINEZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ELIZABETH MATSIK is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CALVIN MATTHEWS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SEAN MCDONALD is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARY MEDINA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BRUCE MILLIGAN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARIA MIRANDA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TOBY MOORE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff LEONIDES MORALES is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ERICA MORGERA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff YOLANDA NATIVIDAD is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ALAN NESS is an individual residing in the State of California.


16 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

109. 110. 111. 112. 113. California. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. California. 119. California. 120. California. 121. California. 122. California. 123. California. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. California.

Plaintiff JOHN OCAMPO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROMAN OLIVOS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JUAN PADILLA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ALAN PARSONS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KAZIMIR PATELSKI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CINDY PATELSKI is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RICARDO PEREZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JAMES PETERSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DOUGLAS POWERS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ANNA MARIA PREZIO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff NOOROLLAH RAHDAR is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff STEPHEN ROBINSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff BARBARA ROBINSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ARTHUR RODRIGUEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ETHAN ROSS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JESSE SABAGQUIT is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DERRICK SANDERS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CARL SANKO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff REGINALD SANTIAGO is an individual residing in the State of

17 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

129. California. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. California. 142. California. 143. of California. 144. 145.
146.

Plaintiff BRANNON SCIANNA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MARCIA SCIANNA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOHN SCIORTINO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BRIAN SEXSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PETER SHELDON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SCOTT SHUBB is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BALJIT SINGH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BALDEV SINGH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARK SMITH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff NIDA SMITH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff WILLIE SMITH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MILTON SMITH II is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOANNE SNYDER-DAVIDSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RICHARD SORENSEN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff HEMALATHA SOURI-PARSONS is an individual residing in the State

Plaintiff GEORGE STROUP is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SUZANNE SUGGS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff SALLY SIMONS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff GILDA TAHMURESZADEH is an individual residing in the State of

147. California. 148. 149. 150. California.

Plaintiff BOB TIDD is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BETTY TIMBERS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ANDREY TODOROV is an individual residing in the State of

18 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

151. 152. 153. 154. California. 155. California. 156. California. 157. California. 158. 159. 160. California. 161. California. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. California. 167. California. 168. 169. 170.

Plaintiff ALMA TOWNSEND is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff GREG TOWNSEND is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TIMOTHY TUMA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff WILLIAM VICKERY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ENRIQUE VILLANUEVA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff NADIA VILLARREAL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER VILLARUZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LINDA VO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PATRICK VUONG is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HARJINDER WARAICH is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GURMEET WARAICH is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MELISSA WARNER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff EDNA WENNING is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JIM WETZEL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TODD WIDENER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff VERONICA WIDENER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff TIMOTHY WIDLUND is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CRAIG WILLIAMS is an individual residing in the State of California.; Plaintiff RICHARD WILSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PETER KREUZER is an individual residing in the State of California.
19 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

171. 172. 173. California. 174. California.; 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. California. 180. California. 181. California. 182. 183. 184. 185. California. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. California. 191.

Plaintiff MITCHELL J. STEIN is an individual residing in the State of California.

Plaintiff DAVID BEAUBIAN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROGER FENSTERMACHER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff TRACEY HAMPTON-STEIN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RENE MINNAAR is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff LYNN KIMBERLEY is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOSEPH CINA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff EVELYN IRVING is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BERTHA CREVOLIN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RONNIE CREVOLIN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CRANFORD L. SCOTT is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SHEILA SCOTT is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff COURTNEY SCOTT is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff PAUL SIBIRO is an individual residing in the State of California.; Plaintiff MICHELLE NUNIES is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KEVIN WALKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JILL WALKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CARY CRUZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOHN MACIAS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RONNIE VAN GREEN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SALVADOR HUIZAR is an individual residing in the State of


20 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California. 192. California. 193. California. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. California. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. California. 207. 208. 209. California. 210. California. 211. California.
21 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

Plaintiff EDITHA C. RESTAURO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff OSCAR GONZALEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MICHAEL AKIN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JOANNA SINGH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff JACK LEFLER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ELIAS VIEYRA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEVEN GUMIENNY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SUSAN FRANCO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHARLEY SMITH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RAYMOND HILL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BASHEER MURAD is an individual residing in the State of Idaho. Plaintiff BARRY BOZARTH is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RICHARD J. FOMIN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KEVIN THOMPSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff EDWARD LIZARDO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LINDA LIZARDO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ZANE T. WALKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff NICOLE EDGECOMBE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ARNOLD BRIGMAN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DEBORAH BRIGMAN is an individual residing in the State of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

212. California. 213. California. 214. California. 215. California. 216. 217. California. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. California. 227. 228. California. 229. California. 230. Maine.

Plaintiff FATTEHAH FADAKER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ASHLEY JANE LARSEN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CHRISTIAN LARSEN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOHN PHILLINGANE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOSEPH BARTOLI is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROBERTA ALVAREZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff TONY TURTURICI is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff BENJAMIN GAMEZ, an individual residing in the State of California; Plaintiff LIZETTE FIEDLER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MICHAEL OWEN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MELISSA OWEN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ATONIO ARCINAS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEVEN QUICK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff REBECCA QUICK is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff NANCY HELLER RILEY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SIMON SARKISIAN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ARMANDO HINOJOSA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff NICHOLAS ROB JONES is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LAUDELYN GUTIERREZ is an individual residing in the State of

22 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

231. California.; 232. 233. Illinois. 234. 235. 236. Florida. 237. 238. California. 239. 240. California. 241. Washington. 242. Washington. 243. California. 244. California. 245. 246. 247. California. 248.

Plaintiff ROWEN GUTIERREZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MARIA PANTOJA is an individual residing in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff JOSE JAVIER PANTOJA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JULIET SICSIC is an individual residing in the State of Florida. Plaintiff ASHMELLY THERVIL is an individual residing in the State of Florida. Plaintiff ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGH is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LORI BATMAN is an individual residing in the State of Arizona. Plaintiff KIMBERLY CARLSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KEVIN BATMAN is an individual residing in the State of Florida. Plaintiff HIROSHI NAKAYAMA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GEORGE BENNETT is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff AMANDA BENNETT is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LEONARD T. HERNANDEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MODJULITA A. HERNANDEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff WALTER WEISS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DIANE WEISS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff WILLIAM RABELLO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ALVIN BLAKE is an individual residing in the State of California.


23 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

249. 250.

Plaintiff TAWANA BLAKE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MELANDO ANTHONY MARTINEZ is an individual residing in

the State of California. 251. California. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. California. 259. 260. Pennsylvania. 261. Pennsylvania. 262. Texas. 263. Mexico. 264. Mexico. 265. 266. California.

Plaintiff HEATHER MAHONEY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SONIKA TINKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DEBRA REIN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DIONICO CORTEZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DON DECKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TAMMY DECKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DANN FRIEND is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MATTHEW FRIEND is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JAMES LOCKER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DOUGLAS LIZARDI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DEBBIE LIZARDI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOSE ALFREDO SEGOVIA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff TONY TRUJILLO is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff DONNA TRUJILLO is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff JAMES SHIPMAN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHRISTINE SHIPMAN is an individual residing in the State of

24 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

267. California. 268. California. 269. 270.

Plaintiff LEROY ANDERSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ALEXANDER ARRORACI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RENE BAYLIS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff THEADFORD BRINKLEY is an individual residing in the State of

North Carolina. 271.

Plaintiff ERNESTINE BRINKLEY is an individual residing in the State of

North Carolina. 272. 273. California. 274. 275. 276. California. 277. 278. 279. 280. California. 281. 282. York. 283. 284. California. 285.

Plaintiff DENNIS BULMER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff STEVEN CAMPANELLI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KEVIN CHEEK is an individual residing in the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff AIMEE CHEEK is an individual residing in the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff GEORGE COBURN is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KC CRANDALL is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KEITH DENSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHERYL FORD is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff EDGART GONZALEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOHN HANSON is an individual residing in the State of Utah. Plaintiff SESSING HEWITT is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff JEFF LAVENDER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARA LAVENDER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ROBERT LEWIN is an individual residing in the State of California.


25 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

286. 287. 288. California. 289. 290. California. 291. California. 292. Oregon. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. California. 298. 299. Virginia. 300. Virginia. 301. California. 302. California. 303. California.

Plaintiff JOSE MEZA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff AIDA MEZA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff VIRGEN MONDRAGON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff WILLIAM OAKS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DOMINADOR RAMOS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff PETRONILLA RAMOS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SHERYL SEIM-MONTOYA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RICHARD STRUNK is an individual residing in the State of Ohio. Plaintiff ANGELA STRUNK is an individual residing in the State of Ohio. Plaintiff CHARLES TAM is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff RUBY TAM is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROBERTO VARGAS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RUTH VARGAS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CARROLL WALTERS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ANGELA WALTERS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RONALD WILLIAMS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff BRIAN R. CARLSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LUCY N. CARLSON is an individual residing in the State of

26 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

304. 305. California. 306. California. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. California. 312. California. 313.

Plaintiff JOSE OSEGUERA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DEANA OSEGUERA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KIRK CARMICHAEL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff LARRY CAPOTS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff IRVING PHAN is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff CHRISTINE DAO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROGER JAMES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MARIA ELENA CRUZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GERALD E. ROBERTS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff AUDRENE ANN ALENCASTRE-ROBERTS is an individual

residing in the State of California. 314. California. 315. California. 316. 317. California. 318. California. 319. California. 320. 321.

Plaintiff LISA RODRIGUEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ANTONIA FUENTES is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MARIA FUENTES is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HILARIO LUCERO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KAMLESH BATNA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GURDAYAL BATNA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff HONORIA DIZON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff AUELINA DIZON is an individual residing in the State of California.
27 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

322. York. 323. York. 324. Illinois. 325. 326. York. 327. 328. California. 329. California. 330. California. 331. 332. California. 333. 334. California. 335. Washington. 336. Washington. 337. Carolina.

Plaintiff GERARD CANNELLA is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff MELANIE CANNELLA is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff WILFREDO FELICIANO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DEAN COPPER is an individual residing in the State of New York. Plaintiff BRENDA COPPER is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff JORGE A. TORRES is an individual residing in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff ANDRES BENAVIDEZ is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff FARAHNAZ MIRSHAFIEE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff BAHMAN MIRSHAFIEE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JAVIER JIMENEZ is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MAGDALENA GUIZAR is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff OSCAR GARCIA is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff WILLIAM MITCHELL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff KIMBERLEY MITCHELL is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff WILLIAM CLOWNEY is an individual residing in the State of South

28 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

338. Carolina. 339. 340. 341. California. 342. California. 343. 344. 345. 346. California. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. California. 355. California. 356. Colorado. 357. Colorado.

Plaintiff MARY CLOWNEY is an individual residing in the State of South

Plaintiff LEPHAS BAILEY is an individual residing in the State of Virginia. Plaintiff JON CARLSON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KIMBERLY CARLSON is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff GERDA HYPPOLITE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JAMES BEEKS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DARLENE BEEKS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff TERRY SHAFFER is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KLAUDIA WILCZKOWIAK is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff ANA DUENAS is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff HARLEY HUNTER is an individual residing in the State of Colorado. Plaintiff JEAN HUNTER is an individual residing in the State of Colorado. Plaintiff HUY KHAC VO is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff THEIN LAM LE is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff KEN LEON is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff ROBERT GREGG is an individual residing in the State of California. Plaintiff DAVID WALLACE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff VICTORIA WALLACE is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff RALPH HOLLOWAY is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff DARLENE HOLLOWAY is an individual residing in the State of

29 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

358. California. 359. California. 360. California. 361. California. 362. California. 363. California. 364. California. 365. of California. 366. California. 367. California. 368. California.

Plaintiff WILLIAM TUCKER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff CHARLOTTE O. TUCKER is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff EDWARD BOSTOCK is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SOCORRO PAREDA is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff STEVEN D. EHLERS is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SEYED ALI RAZAVI is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff JOHNNY MARIE TORRES is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff SUZAN BRITTAN-BERGMAN is an individual residing in the State

Plaintiff SALLY FIGUEIRIDO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff MANUEL LANDAVASO is an individual residing in the State of

Plaintiff THERESI VILLARUZ is an individual residing in the State of

369.

Defendant BROOKSTONE LAW is a law firm and a California

Professional Corporation. 370. Defendant VITO TORCHIA, JR. is an individual and the owner and

Managing Attorney of Defendant BROOKSTONE LAW. 371. Defendant DAMIAN KUTZNER is a non-attorney who controls Defendant

BROOKSTONE LAW from behind the scenes.


30 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

372.

Defendant SML LLP is a law firm and a California Limited Liability

Partnership. Its initials are derived from Defendants KENIN M. SPIVAK, THEODORE MALONEY and EDWIN LASMAN, all senior attorneys for this Defendant law firm. 373. Defendant KENIN M. SPIVAK is an individual and a partner of Defendant

SML LLP, and former counsel for many of the Plaintiffs herein. 374. Defendant THEODORE MALONEY is an individual and a partner of

Defendant SML LLP, and former counsel for many of the Plaintiffs herein. 375. SML LLP. 376. Defendant CHRISTOPHER TOMASZEWSKI is a resident of Sacramento Defendant EDWIN LASMAN is an individual and a partner of Defendant

and Of Counsel to Los Angeles-based SML, and joined in the conspiracy as aforementioned which benefitted all Defendants herein in the millions of dollars and in the stripping of contractual and common law legal rights of Plaintiffs. 377. Defendant BRIDGET JONES is a resident of Sacramento and Of Counsel

to Los Angeles-based SML, and joined in the conspiracy as aforementioned which benefitted all Defendants herein in the millions of dollars and in the stripping of contractual and common law legal rights of Plaintiffs. 378. Defendant APEX LEGAL GROUP, P.C. is a California professional

corporation with two employees: Defendants Tomaszewski and Jones. 379. Plaintiffs are is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

sued herein as DOES 1 through 200, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these Defendants once such information is ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that certain plaintiffs in the case now pending in CCW docket number BC409444 were complicit in the conspiracy alleged herein particularly Paul and Lisa Ronald and certain other persons in Case No. BC40944 -- however Plaintiffs shall not name any such persons as Defendants unless and until there is conclusive probable cause to do so.
31 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

380.

Each of the Defendants herein was the agent or employee of the other

Defendants herein, and thereby participated in all of the wrongdoing described below. Each Defendant performed the bad acts described, and/or knew of and ratified such wrongful conduct performed by the other Defendants. Thus, each Defendant is responsible for the acts, events and omissions set forth herein and is sued for that reason. The facts regarding the agency, employment, and affiliation in the conspiracy are set forth below in greater detail. STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 381. Plaintiff Mitchell J. Stein is a well-known attorney practicing in California

since 1985 with no record of discipline whatsoever. Over the course of his career, Mr. Stein has been lead lawyer in some of the most renowned cases in United States history and became known in the press as The Doberman. Mr. Stein has utilized the moniker of a Doberman Pinscher dog next to his name from and after publication of a 1991 article in Premiere Magazine labeling Mr. Stein The Doberman in connection of a high profile case against NBC, Warner Bros., and Viacom. 382. In March 2009, Mr. Stein filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County

Superior Court on behalf of a number of plaintiff clients entitled Ronald vs. Bank of America, Case No. BC409444. 383. The Ronald Complaint -- the first of its kind and referred to in an August 2009, highly publicized, California Attorney General action as the granddaddy of all mass actions against banks resulting from the 2008 meltdown alleged and continues to allege that Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and its successor Bank of America, along with other defendants, were instrumental in engineering the mortgage crisis that threw the nation into an economic tailspin by (among other things) defrauding homeowner-borrowers through (a) inflated appraisals, (b) a complicated and unlawful scheme to resell the resulting promissory notes on the secondary market to be bundled for investors as part of unlawful securitized loan pools and (c) the resulting inability of Bank of America to modify the mortgages of Californians (notwithstanding the receipt by
32 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Bank of billions of dollars of governmental TARP money and other governmental consideration) because Bank of America knew not who owned the loans it was servicing. 384. Over the ensuing two years-plus, the number of Ronald Plaintiffs grew

from a handful to over two hundred. At the inception of the case, Mr. Stein moved from Florida to California in order to assist numerous Californians in halting Bank of Americas conduct through the use of the court system. The Ronald case was the first of Mr. Steins efforts. These Californians included clients of Defendants Apex Legal Group, Christopher Tomaszewski and Bridget Jones, who were represented by Mr. Stein for no charge whatsoever. Mr. Stein personally prepared the lawsuit described by the California Attorney General as the granddaddy of all such actions as well as injunction papers, during the second week of March, 2009. On March 12, 2009, Mr. Stein filed suit for these Californians in the Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California. On that date, Mr. Stein in behalf of the initial plaintiffs in the Ronald case applied for temporary injunctive relief before the Honorable David Yaffe on the 8th floor of the Hill Street courthouse. Rather than subject itself to this hearing, Bank of America stipulated with Mr. Stein on the record to cease at that time -proceeding with the foreclosure sales then scheduled on the Ronald-plaintiffs homes. This agreement was placed on the record before the Hon. David Yaffe. As a matter of fact and law, there is no legal difference between the agreement placed on the record before Judge Yaffe, on the one hand, and Judge Yaffe issuing a temporary restraining order containing the terms stipulated to, on the other hand. 385. The Ronald case was then (in 2009) immediately transferred to CCW,

where Mr. Stein had prior experience as referred to on the record by the Hon. Victoria G. Chaney on June 19, 2009 when Mr. Stein again appeared ex parte seeking relief that Bank of America rescind outstanding Notices of Default against Ronald-plaintiffs homes. Once again, Bank of America appeared in court for the hearing, but stipulated to the relief as opposed to subjecting itself to a hearing on the merits. As a matter of fact and law, there is no legal difference between the agreement placed on the record before
33 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Judge Chaney, on the one hand, and Judge Chaney issuing a temporary restraining order containing the terms stipulated to, on the other hand. 386. At the time of the June 19, 2009 stipulation placed on the record before

Judge Chaney, Bank of America stipulated to the addition of more than 1,000 Roe plaintiffs given the nature of the statewide foreclosure crises that was looming at the time and remains looming as of the date of filing this action, and the home owners in the queue of foreclosure as planned by Bank of America. 387. Bank of America has made various tactical maneuvers in order to eliminate

the Ronald case from the microscope usually placed on it by experienced CCW jurists. The first in or about April 2009 -- was that Bank of America objected to the cases complex litigation status. The Hon. Carl J. West denied such objection without briefing or oral argument. The second was that Bank of America removed the case to Federal District Court some one year after it was filed, and was promptly thrown out of Federal District Court by order of the Hon. Manuel Real upon a successful remand petition filed by Mr. Stein and his legal team. Judge Real ruled that one of Bank of Americas primary arguments in connection with that motion was absurd. 388. As the case proceeded, Attorney Stein began to expand the lawyers in the

case (a) given that Apex Legal Group, Inc., Christopher Tomaszewski and Bridget Jones had no litigation experience whatsoever and were new members of the Bar, (b) the geographical distance between Apex, Tomaszewski and Jones place of residence Sacramento and the venue of the Ronald case (Los Angeles). In or about May, 2011, Attorney Stein associated into the Ronald case as Plaintiffs co-counsel Attorneys Erikson M. Davis and Defendant Kenin M. Spivak. Defendant Spivak was an attorney who had originally become a member of the California bar in 1981, but had only become active with the State Bar as of 2008, after a lengthy period of inactivity while engaged in business pursuits. Defendant Spivak had no experience whatsoever as of 2010 in representing homeowners against banks or banks against homeowners. Mr. Davis had more experience than Mr. Spivak but was not as senior or as experienced in business
34 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

matters as was Mr. Spivak. Mr. Stein felt that these five (5) lawyers would make a good and comprehensive legal team in now moving the case to trial for the benefit of thousands of Californians. Mr. Stein reported these facts to clients in the Ronald case, as he had done upon first meeting Maloney before Christmas, 2010, when Mr. Stein caused to be sent to all Ronald plaintiffs a Christmas card that also contained a status update of the case. 389. Unknown to attorney Stein or any of the Plaintiffs in the Ronald case

most of whom are Plaintiffs here -- Spivak had ulterior motives for wanting to be part of the Ronald case. His motives were one of fraud, deceit and profit, which he failed to disclose to anybody upon his association into the case by Mr. Stein in March 2010. Within three months of being associated into the case, Defendant Spivak began asking anybody he could find including Stein and at least half of the Plaintiffs herein for money or agreements to pay money. 390. Unsatisfied with the responses of Plaintiffs, other clients of Mr. Stein, and

other persons who Defendant Spivak had met and negotiated with, Defendants Spivak, Maloney and Lasman formulated the following plan in or about December, 2010: That Maloney who had a prior relationship with Spivak and Lasman would take offices alongside Mr. Stein to learn everything he could from Mr. Stein (who was described by Mr. Maloney as an expert on such banking issues) about the banking industry and the rights of home owners as a result of the current banking and financial crisis; That Maloney would do certain contract work for Mr. Stein in connection with the Ronald case in order to induce Mr. Stein to deliver more and more of the background facts and circumstances of the banking crises to Maloney who would then deliver them to Mr. Spivak; That Maloney would vie to attend meetings with representatives of the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security who were working with Mr. Stein in attempts to understand the actions of Bank of America and
35 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

other bank servicers in order to poach additional contacts utilized to protect all Plaintiffs herein and more specifically all Ronald plaintiffs and other home owners who were clients of Mr. Stein. Maloney did attend one such meeting in person in the offices of Senator Dianne Feinstein; That Spivak would utilize the information both he and Maloney were able to poach from Mr. Stein, to ultimately form law firms and relationships to initiate massive marketing campaigns (a) selling themselves as experts in the field of bank litigation and (b) lying to home owners with false mailers and advertisements in order to induce them to send money for the benefit of Spivak and Maloney; and The new law firm of the Defendants was critical because Lasman and Maloneys prior law firm Case Knowlson & Jordan had eliminated Lasman and Maloney from their future plans. 391. In the course of their conspiracy as referenced above, Defendants Spivak,

Maloney, Tomaszewski, Jones and Apex Legal Group, P.C. (on the one hand, hereinafter Maloney Group) met Defendants Torchia, Kutzner and Brookstone Law, P.C. (on the other hand, hereinafter United Law Group or Brookstone Group). Starting no later than December 31, 2010, the Maloney Group and United Law Group specifically agreed that the only way for them to successfully (a) send out false mailers to millions of American citizens such as the false mailer appended hereto as Exhibit 1, (b) imitate the business name Mitchell J. Stein and the logo (first initiated in the aforementioned 1991 article in Premiere Magazine) and stating to the public that Mitchell Stein was involved with Defendants in their advertisements and telemarketing services, and (c) to dupe American citizens to pay them millions of dollars based upon these kinds of fraudulent practices, was as follows: To somehow eliminate Mr. Stein from the Ronald litigation, because Mr. Stein had rebuked all efforts at advertisement of his name and likeness by way of, among other things, open and notorious statements on his official Website stating
36 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that no person other than Mr. Steins directly supervised employees or staff were or are capable of binding him or speaking for him. 392. Based upon the conspiracy, the Maloney Group lacking any standing under law given that they were not real parties in interest to any case against any bank in the United States made a motion in the Ronald case to remove Mr. Stein as lead counsel in such case. Notwithstanding that the motion was unsuccessful, the Maloney Group sent out hundreds of mailers that made representations to the opposite: That the motion was successful and that clients should chose them as their lawyers. Mr. Stein did no such marketing whatsoever, and never lied about the ruling of Judge Highberger orally or in writing. After the hearing on this motion -- described in words or substance as strange by Judge Highberger -- a four month negotiation ensued supervised by the Trial Judge in Ronald, the Hon. William F. Highberger, where the Maloney Group, on the one hand, and Mr. Stein, on the other hand, agreed to attempt to identify or otherwise determine which clients they were willing to represent and which clients actually chose to represent them, while following the State Bar Act in communicating with each client. Never disclosed to Mr. Stein, to Plaintiffs, or to Judge Highberger were (a) the fact that the material delays during this negotiation process were the result of the aforementioned conspiracy, and (b) the fact that the material delays during this negotiation process were the result of meetings between the Maloney Group and United Law Group in which they agreed on how they would market, manipulate and defraud American home owners during the pendency of the negotiations being supervised by Judge Highberger and thereafter. Never disclosed to Plaintiffs was the fact that from December, 2010 through March 29, 2011 and even thereafter the Maloney Group and United Law Group were using the name and likeness of Mitchell J. Stein and his trade dress to induce homeowners to pay them money. For example, lead Plaintiff Todd Legaspi a highly regarded member of our United States military paid money to the Maloney Group and the Brookstone Group and United Law Group (and has been asked to pay more money) based upon the
37 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

representation by Vito Torchia (through his staff and individually) that The Doberman (Mitchell J. Stein) is currently representing Mr. Legaspi. That representation made by Vito Torchia in conspiracy with all Defendants herein, was at all times false and none of the Defendants had any belief that such a statement was authorized by Mr. Stein or was truthful. 393. All Plaintiffs except Mr. Stein who were a part of the general public aggrieved by the bank crises were innocent of the concealments of the Maloney Group and the United Law Group. Had Plaintiffs herein known that Defendants and each of them were utilizing the time and apparent good faith efforts (being supervised by Judge Highberger) to in fact send out false mailers announcing fictitious class action settlements that did not exist, and to in fact fabricate other documents and evidence in furtherance of their scheme, the Plaintiffs (a) would have not paid money to Defendants, (b) would have not permitted Mr. Stein to negotiate a resolution with the Maloney Defendants during the four month process supervised by Judge Highberger, but, rather, would have sued the Maloney Group and United Law Group in order to protect their legal rights and (c) would have taken other actions designed to protect their interests in the midst of this kind of corrupt and unlawful misconduct. 394. Concurrently therewith and in order to deflect attention from the Defendants unlawful marketing campaign, Defendant Pansky engaged in extra judicial activities designed to further the scheme and conspiracy for her own financial benefit. Defendant Panskys objective was to deflect attention away from Defendants and toward Plaintiff Mitchell J. Stein and the plaintiff-homeowners he serves: Plaintiffs herein. Defendant Pansky did all of this without disclosing to the general public the truth about the contents of illegal mailers sent out to millions of Americans such as the mailer, Exhibit 1 hereto. This was a part of the conspiracy to the great damage of all Plaintiffs herein. Illegal mailers and advertisements, and trickery and intrinsic fraud to courts, in the middle of a crisis such as this one, hinders and delays the efforts of legitimate persons and lawyers wishing to bring the actual and ultimate wrongdoers to justice.
38 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

395.

To top it off, as the Defendants were completing the first phase of their

fraud and deceit on unsuspecting American homeowners, they produced infomercials attended by Defendants Vito Torchia, Kenin Spivak and Theodore Maloney on the heels of their illegal mailer Exhibit 1 hereto. The informercials which bear the name Brookstone Law Group (i.e., United Law Group) on the bottom of the screen were meant to follow up on the marketing blitz to profit off of the illegal mailer Exhibit 1 hereto. During this time, bank servicers increased foreclosure efforts based upon the unique California non-judicial foreclosure laws and Plaintiffs were harmed extensively by foreclosures, invasions of their privacy, and other actions taken by bank servicers during the deceptions practiced by the Defendants and at a time when Defendants were their lawyers. In truth and in fact, the Defendants (with the exception of Defendant Lasman) had never obtained a restraining order, an injunction or a stipulation against a bank, or even brought an application for one, over the course of their entire careers before meeting Mr. Stein. Nonetheless, they have produced and distributed infomercials coupled with illegal mailers that induced home owners across the United States to believe that the banks in the United States have agreed to pay up to $75,000.00 to them by banks who have settled matters labeled as class settlements. 396. The leader of marketing for Defendants is Damian Kutzner, who is under

an injunction for the next decade in favor of the Federal Trade Commission restraining him or his associates and each of them from performing a host of marketing schemes previously performed by Kutzner. The Defendants have knowingly assisted Kutzner in circumventing this FTC injunction. A true and correct copy of the FTC injunction issued against Defendant Kutzner is appended hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated herein by reference. 397. The Defendants scheme unraveled in June, 2011, (a) as Defendant Pansky provided public relations services to aid the conspiracy in duping citizens to pay Defendants money, while knowing that Bank of America and its lawyers at Bryan Cave had paid money for the Attorney General campaign of Kamala Harris -- although her
39 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

campaign had ended four months prior to the contributions to induce her to take action against Mr. Stein for illegal marketing notwithstanding the foregoing facts and the fact that the only lawyer of all lawyers discussed in this new complaint, who is competent to take on the banks, has been proven to be Mr. Stein who has never approved or disseminated any advertisement (mailer, infomercial or otherwise) ever; and (b) as Defendants solicited clients nationwide with false telecommunications systems, false mailers and false advertisements to the American public as set forth above. 398. Shortly after that time with the fraud and deceit being well known as a result of Plaintiffs investigation -- all of the Plaintiffs harmed by the schemes of Defendants, and each of them, with each Defendant having a different role, began contacting counsel in order to file suit as a critical resort to protect themselves from acts and misconduct by members of the Bar as alleged above that shakes the Bar at its very foundation. Indeed, Exhibit 1 is an illegal mailer that is unrivaled in its falsity and brazenness. It alone generated more than $10 million of ill-gotten gains to Defendants induced by fraud and false advertising. While the marketing and illegal activities surrounding it were done mainly by Maloney, Kutzner, Spivak, and Torchia, the conspiracy could not be complete without other actions including (without limitation): (a) An act of Edward Lasman in hyping an innocuous email mistakenly sent him in August 2011 by Mitchell J. Stein. A true and correct copy of the email which Lasman was obligated to maintain in confidence under written agreements but nonetheless disclosed anyway is appended hereto as Exhibit 3. Also attached in the front of Exhibit 3 is an email from Lasman that prompted the mistakenly sent email that Lasman hyped as wrongful in nature; and (b) Repeated acts of Ellen Pansky in corruptly lying to the general public for the motive of profit without disclosing to them the illegality of conduct of her co-conspirators in capping and falsely advertising -- an example of which is appended hereto as Exhibit 1. With all of the Defendants, the conspiracy package -- of lying, cheating, stealing money, taking away legal rights, and interfering with business marks of Plaintiffs -- could then be completed as a result of which Plaintiffs have been
40 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

damaged thereby in a sum according to proof. 399. Notwithstanding corruption, fraud, deceit, illegal mailers, and pretend and make believe lawyers, Plaintiffs shall not sit idly by while the bank servicers who have been found to have committed fraud by the United States Government benefit by the incompetence, fraud and greed of members of the Bar of the State of California acting in concert and in the manner set forth above. The Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and injunctive relief as a result of the scheme to funnel money to the Defendants all orchestrated by the Defendants in order to remove from the field of battle the lawyer Mr. Stein -- who since initiation of the Ronald litigation in 2009 until the entry onto the scene of Maloney never had a single foreclosure completed against one of his clients. Plaintiffs herein shall fight in the judiciary and use all lawful mechanisms to obtain the return of their money stolen based upon the promise that Mitchell J. Stein was their lawyer although that promise made by the Defendants was fraudulent (the truth having been concealed from them), Plaintiffs shall fight for their homes which the United States Government and other states Attorneys General (e.g., Nevada) have said are being wrongfully taken from them by bank servicers, and Plaintiffs shall fight for the recovery of damages as a result of the foregoing unlawful and unconscionable conduct. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud (By Plaintiffs Legaspi, Lawley , Frost, Silvestre and White Against All Defendants) 400. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint In or about February, 2011, Defendant Vito Torchia and through him all

as if fully set forth herein. 401.

Defendants, and by other staff members of Defendants -- represented to Plaintiffs, and hundreds more similarly situated Plaintiffs, that in the event they paid a minimum of $5,000.00 to the Defendants the Defendants would arrange to have Mitchell J. Stein as their lawyer and they were already scheduled to receive $75,000.
41 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

402.

At that time, co-conspirator of Brookstone Group and United Law Group

who manages the marketing for Defendants, were preparing hundreds of thousands of fliers to be sent in the mail, which claim the banks have settled and residents of Florida and California are entitled to up to $75,000 A true and correct copy of the Mailer is appended hereto as Exhibit 1. 403. At that time, all Defendants agreed amongst themselves as to how to split

up the millions of dollars of illegally obtained pursuant to the fraud and other misconduct alleged herein. 404. At the time of making the statements referenced above, all Defendants

knew the representations to be false. 405. At the time of making the statement referenced above, Vito Torchia long since directed that his offices show-case plasma screen televisions throughout the Defendants offices, running photographs of Mitchell J. Stein and his logo The Doberman. He did this in order to induce unsuspecting home owners like the Plaintiffs herein to pay money to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs herein (and more than 1,000 other plaintiffs) paid money, gave away legal rights by contract or had their marks and business names unlawfully taken by Defendants -- based upon the fraud set forth above. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint with leave of court as Plaintiffs learn the names of other aggrieved homeowner-clients resulting from Defendants fraud. 406. At the time of making the statements referenced above, Defendants knew

the statements of Vito Torchia were untrue. He knew the true facts were that no person working outside of the locked doors to the offices of Mitchell J. Stein was authorized to speak for Mr. Stein let alone bind Mr. Stein to represent them. 407. Each of the Plaintiffs herein relied upon Mr. Torchias misrepresentations

in believing Mr. Torchia to be telling the truth about Mr. Stein being involved in representing them. 408. If not for Mr. Torchias misrepresentations done at the behest of the

Maloney Group and with the assistance, aid and comfort of Kutzner, all for pecuniary
42 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

gain the Plaintiffs herein would not have paid the Defendants any money and would have sought other counsel who (a) were actually experienced in the kind of banking business at issue in foreclosure litigation and (b) would have otherwise legitimately protected their legal rights. 409. As a proximate and foreseeable result of the aforementioned fraud,

Plaintiffs herein have suffered damages in a sum according to proof but not in excess of $70,000.00 per Plaintiff in total which includes among other things -- money and legal rights stolen from them and compensatory damages from having Defendants representing their interests evenly and fairly. 410. In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants acted wrongfully and with oppression, fraud and malice desiring to place Defendants greed above telling the truth or providing competent representation to Plaintiffs and this entitled Plaintiffs to exemplary and punitive damages in a sum according to proof. 411. Under no circumstances shall any Plaintiff pray for or receive more than a

total of $75,000 under this Complaint. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Legal Malpractice (By All Plaintiffs Except Stein Against All Defendants) 412. Plaintiff hereby incorporate certain of the above paragraphs of this The acts of Defendants referenced above coupled with Defendants

Complaint as if fully set forth at length: To wit, paragraphs 1 through 399. 413. insistence that they represent all clients that Mitchell J. Stein represents has resulted in extensive instances of malpractice where Defendants have taken actions in behalf of Plaintiffs without approval, without authorization and that were negligent. As a result, Plaintiffs legal rights have been bartered away by Defendants in their zeal to conduct their PR campaign against Plaintiffs and their lawyer Mitchell J. Stein. 414. These acts constitute professional malpractice entitling Plaintiffs to damages
43 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in the sum of $70,000 each. Under no circumstances shall any Plaintiff pray for or receive more than a total of $75,000 under this Complaint. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Concealment and Deceit (By All Plaintiffs Except Stein Against All Defendants) 415. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate certain of the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth at length: To wit, paragraphs 1 through 399. 416. The aforesaid conspiracy by all Defendants was dependent upon

Defendants concealment from all Plaintiffs named herein (a) that Mitchell J. Stein did not agree to allow Defendants to speak for him, (b) that Mitchell J. Stein was not the counsel on the Defendants various litigation matters, (c) that the reason for the Defendants actions adverse to Plaintiffs, was to stall and delay so that Defendants could send out mass mailers and infomercials with false claims therein and with the intention to induce members of the public to pay Defendants money, (d) that the Defendants intended to defraud each home owner they represented, so that Defendants would not actively prosecute their cases while continually concealing from all Defendants the aforesaid facts which were material to Plaintiffs and intimately affected their rights to save their homes. 417. As a proximate and foreseeable result of the aforesaid concealment,

Plaintiffs have been damaged in a sum no greater than $70,000 per each Defendant. 418. In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants acted wrongfully and with oppression, fraud and malice desiring to place Defendants greed above telling the truth or providing competent representation to Plaintiffs and this entitled Plaintiffs to exemplary and punitive damages in a sum according to proof. 419. Under no circumstances shall any Plaintiff pray for or receive more than a

total of $75,000 under this Complaint. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Contribution and Indemnity by All Plaintiffs Except Mitchell J. Stein Against all Defendants
44 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

420.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein. 421. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

Plaintiffs are legally entitled to be indemnified and held harmless by Defendants from all actions or foreclosures or proceedings against them appertaining or relating to their primary residences. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Appropriation of Name and Likeness -- by Plaintiff Mitchell J. Stein against all Defendants) 422. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint Defendants used and continue to use Plaintiffs name, likeness, and identity

as if fully set forth herein. 423.

without his permission in mailers, telecommunications programs and other interactions with home owners nationwide. 424. Plaintiff Mr. Stein has been damaged by the use of his name in the sum of

more $50 million according to proof. 425. Plaintiff Mr. Stein is entitled to injunctive relief restraining and enjoining

Defendants from continuing to use Plaintiffs name, likeness and identity. 426. Defendants acted with the specific intent to violate California law and to

harm Plaintiff and with the intent to abscond with monies that persons paid Defendants based solely or primarily on the use of Plaintiff Mitchell J. Steins name and likeness. These actions were done with malice, resulting in Mr. Steins entitlement to exemplary and punitive damages in a sum according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Use of Name and Likeness by Mr. Stein Against All Defendants) 427. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint Defendants knowingly used Plaintiffs name, likeness, and identity as
45 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

as if fully set forth herein. 428.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

aforesaid to obtain commercial gain and the use was tied directly thereto. 429. That use did not occur in connection with a news, public affairs or sports

broadcast, or a political campaign. It occurred when Defendants represented to members of the general public nationwide that Mitchell J. Stein had been retained by them as the lawyer against 14 bank-servicers, although such a statement was untrue and only used to dupe unsuspecting home owners to advance money to defendants. 430. 431. Defendants did not have Plaintiffs consent to do the foregoing. Plaintiff Mr. Stein is entitled to injunctive relief restraining and enjoining

Defendants from continuing to use Plaintiffs name, likeness and identity. 432. Plaintiff was harmed as described herein in the sum of at least $50 million, Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm, if

according to proof. 433.

not the sole factor. 434. Defendants acted with the specific intent to violate California law and to

harm Plaintiff for their own pecuniary gain. They acted with malice. As a result of Defendants intentional and malicious misconduct, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in a sum according to proof. // // // // // // // // // // //
46 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against each Defendant as follows: A. General damages according to proof as set forth in each applicable cause of action set forth above, but in no event shall any Plaintiff except for one Plaintiff, Mitchell J. Stein -- receive more than a grand total of more than $75,000 hereunder; B. The exact damages in favor of Mr. Stein and against Defendants set forth in each applicable cause of action set forth above; C. Injunctive relief as specified and prayed in favor of Mr. Stein, all as set forth above; D. Punitive damages under the pertinent causes of action set forth above; E. F. G. Costs of suit and pre and post-judgment interest; Reasonable attorneys fees as applicable; Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, provided,

however, that no Plaintiff herein (other than one, Mitchell J. Stein) shall receive more than a grand total of $75,000 as a result of this entire Complaint or any portion thereof. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 19, 2011 MITCHELL J. STEIN By:_________________________ Mitchell J. Stein, In Propria Persona Dated: September 19, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON M. DAVIS

By:_________________________ Erikson M. Davis Attorneys for Plaintiffs

47 COMPLEX TORT COMPLAINT