DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 29, 20211 || D. D. Hughmanick (Bar No. 061571) TERRA LAW LLP 2 ||333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 910 San Jose, California 95113 3 || Telephone (408) 299-1200 4 Facsimile (408) 998-4895 Attomeys for Claimants 5 || Mandy J. Brady and Joshua Rosenberg 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 || MANDY J. BRADY, an individual, Case No.: 21CV390115 MANDY J. BRADY, as trustee for the d JOSHUA ROSENBERG D.D. HUGHMANICK IN SUPPORT OF 13 |} , PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION 14 Claimants, AWARD AS WELL AS THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION 15 VS. AWARD AND PROVIDING CLAIMANTS WITH AN AWARD OF COSTS AND FEES 16 || LIAN WU, an individual, RESPECTING THIS PROCEEDING 17 Date: January 11, 2022 Respondent. Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 Dept.: 19 19 Judge: Hon. Peter H. Kirwan Arbitrator: Bradley A. Bening 20 21 I, D.D. Hughmanick declare as follows: 22 1. Ifsworn as a witness I could and would competently testify to the following facts 23 || of which I have personal knowledge, as I provided representation to claimants in the underlying 24 || arbitration and had dealings with Lian Wu. 25 2. Exhibit A hereto constitutes a copy of my email of October 25, 2019 to Ms. Wu, 26 || responding to her communication indicating that she was obtaining counsel, and in which I told 27 || her this was a very good thing. 28 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is my November 11, 2019 email to Ms. Wu telling 4887-8441-6520, v.1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF D.D. HUGHMANICK IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1/3/2022 3:15 PM Reviewed By: Tunisia Turner Case #21CV390115 Envelope: 7970870 21CV390115 Santa Clara - Civil Tunisia Turner 1 |) her that I could not represent her but urging her to obtain counsel. 2 4. Exhibit C hereto constitutes my November 20, 2019 letter with an arbitration 3 || demand included, together with a proof of service on Lian Wu, initiating arbitration 4 || proceedings. As indicated in the opening paragraph of the demand, proceedings were being 5 || initiated pursuant to the September of 2016 Settlement Agreement, containing the binding 6 || arbitration agreement. 7 5. Exhibit D hereto contains a copy of my December 6, 2019 communication 8 || indicating that the arbitration was being pared down because Ms. Wu had submitted the 9 || drainage and erosion issues to the County. 10 6. Exhibit E contains a copy of my communication of June 26, 2020 in which I 11 || addressed Ms. Wu’s belated claim of unconscionability, and in which I demonstrated that she 12 || had failed to support it. 13 7. Exhibit F hereto contains a copy of an August 10, 2020 communication which, in 14 || the second paragraph, again reveals that both I as well as the arbitrator had advised Wu to 15 || obtain counsel prior to the time that she entered into the January 30, 2020 agreement to 16 || arbitrate. 17 8. | have spent 17.75 hours in preparing the reply papers. My hourly rate is $400 per 18 |jhour. Thus, we request an additional $7,100.00 in attorney’s fees. When added to the $6,250 19 || amount in fees and costs referenced in the supporting papers the total requested is $13,350. An 20 || estimated additional $600.00 in fees are to be incurred in connection with preparation for and 21 || appearance at the contemplated hearing. 22 Executed this <> day of January, 2022, at Vi fo TY @_, California. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ’ 24 Fo cme fy va 29 D.D.Hughmanick =~ ~ 6 . | : m1 y 28 4887-8441-6520, v.1 2 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF D.D. HUGHMANICK IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD EXHIBIT AIBIT From: DHughmanick , Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 8:04 AM To: Lian Wu Ce: joshuawrosenberg@yahoo.com; Mandy Brady ; James McDaniel Subject: RE: property matters Lian: It is very good that you are getting a lawyer. |’ll hope to hear from the lawyer you hire within a week or two. When you hire the lawyer, and the sooner the better, please have that lawyer contact me as | will not respond to what you state or communicate with you further, other than through formal legal process at this point, unless you fail to hire a lawyer and leave me with no choice. Thanks. T. Hughmanick From: Lian Wu [mailto:liané@me.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 4:37 PM To: DHughmanick Cc: joshuawrosenberg@yahoo.com; Mandy Brady; James McDaniel Subject: Re: property matters Terry, I am on business trip right now and just saw your lengthy email with full of contradiction and flaw. It takes so much of my time, especially during business trip, repeatedly again and again to respond your endless quibbling over the issues that doesn't exist. All your threats are affecting my mental peace and my work. Finally, our expert Mr. Shires will be in the area Tuesday (tomorrow) afternoon. Please let us know if he can enter your property to most effectively evaluate the deficient Broquet work and what needs to be done to fix it correctly and ina manner which will hopefully avoid continuing and future loss and damage to the Brady property. 1 One more time, my answer is no one allow to enter my property without my permission. Hire expert on your cost is your business. Terry - Per our last conversation | have told you that | am in touch with lawyer and getting advise from professional. Will take legal actions as needed. From all that appears, you are now aligning yourself with Mr. Hazari and taking advice from him. As you know we are in litigation with Mr. Hazari. | have been advised by Mandy, Joshua and Terry since day one (before | moved in), that time you all know you are in litigation with Mr. Hazari and | didn’t know. All these months, you worked with Mandy and Joshua to manipulate me along the way you wanted me to go, and wanting me to distrust and hate my neighbors and feel you are friendly to me, and | should side with you. | trusted you until a few days ago, just before | left for business travel on 10/20, | met with Mr. Hazari and he is the one told me all history of easements dispute and litigation with Brady which | have never heard the details from you. Who should | trust? Can you tell me which Mandy’s neighbor has not have disputes with her? | could be ONLY one, unfortunately you took advantage of my kindhearted and turn the friendship into arbitration. You say that I agreed to mediation in our last discussion. Do you mean the last phone call we had that lasted 49 seconds, where you told me an expert called Benning will come to look at the properties and I said it is ok but never agreed to share any cost? I have never done that. And I never agreed to cost of mediation. That was why I asked you on the phone to send email to me to avoid any confusion, but you insisted and continue talking even I said I was in meet that moment. Terry you made me believe you are my advocate, but you use that 49sec phone call while | was in meeting to claim that | agreed to mediation. Who should | trust? You have now reversed yourself. On top of that, as noted above, you claim our efforts to get you to proceed as you had committed to do constitute harassment. After all this time has gone by, you now belatedly claim that a decades long existing easement drain pipe, which never caused problems before the illegal and unpermitted work took place on the Broquet land, somehow constitutes justification for your refusal to proceed. You remain adamant despite the pictures/videos | have sent you showing that any flow from this pipe was at most minimal and that it was the Broquet work which created the problems we now confront. You remained free to send evidence showing | was wrong if you thought this to be the case but you did not do so. This is unfinished email, I have to go to work right now and will continue after work. 2 Lian Wu On Oct 22, 2019, at 2:38 AM, DHughmanick wrote: Lian: Having returned from out of state | am saddened to see that the relationship between you on the one hand, and Mandy and Joshua on the other, has so badly deteriorated. In our last discussion | had understood you to be in agreement with a mediation to be handled by Mr. Bening, who of course would need to be compensated for his time. If | correctly understand what you have most recently communicated, you have once again reversed your position. Also, you seemingly now claim that our efforts to remind you of your commitments and our efforts to get you to honor them, constitute harassment. You seem to also suggest that communications about the goats in the well area constitute harassment. This is so even though they have been in the well area at least twice and even though a prior order of the Arbitrator prohibits this. This being the case, | will not initiate any further efforts to communicate with you. You remain free to initiate communications with me should you want to do so. | understand you to be a sophisticated business person working for Apple. Most business people remain true to what they say. | am disappointed to see this has not happened here. Months and months ago | was your advocate. | was your advocate because you told us that you were taking responsibility for correcting the deficient work done by Mr. Broquet. You indicated you needed more time because of business commitments and your recent move, but you indicated matters would clear up for you later and that you would then proceed. You indicated that you recognized that the remedial work should occur before the winter rains. | took the position that you should be given the time you needed. From all that appears, my trust in you was misplaced. You have now reversed yourself. On top of that, as noted above, you claim our efforts to get you to proceed as you had committed to do constitute harassment. After all this time has gone by, you now belatedly claim that a decades long existing easement drain pipe, which never caused problems before the illegal and unpermitted work took place on the Broquet land, somehow constitutes justification for your refusal to proceed. You remain adamant despite the pictures/videos | have sent you showing that any flow from this pipe was at most minimal and that it was the Broquet work which created the problems we now confront. You remained free to send evidence showing | was wrong if you thought this to be the case but you did not do so. inexplicably, after agreeing work on the common road way was needed you now change your position on that as well. Additionally, you have not responded to what we told you about the Felter Road gating obligation being covered by earlier recorded documentation. You likely have been told that the well qualified company that will do the work has indicated that no safety issues will exist on completion of the necessary work. The work will be permitted and the gate will operate reliably. You also know that Mandy Brady owns the underlying property, that certain problematic issues have already arisen and that a potential for other serious problems exists if the Felter Road gating is not made operable. You no doubt were provided with disclosure documents showing the concerns which exist. Your failure to adequately respond on this point suggests you know that recorded documentation requires that you cooperate and contribute to the cost. Disclosure documentation given to you at the time of your purchase likely also references the fact that recorded documentation requires this. From all that appears, you are now aligning yourself with Mr. Hazari and taking advice from him. As you know we are in litigation with Mr. Hazari. You are free to review the Court files in both the case he filed against Mandy and the one he unjustifiably filed against me for representing my client and as to which a motion to dismiss and for ail attorney’s fees incurred is pending against Mr. Hazari. You are free to learn of the reasons for our distrust of Mr. Hazari by reviewing the Court files and of the fact that sanctions have already been awarded against him and that more are being claimed at upcoming hearings. You, from our perspective have your own obligations, which are separate and apart from the obligations of Mr. Hazari. This is particularly true respecting your obligations based on the illegal and unpermitted work done on your 3 property and the runoff coming from it which has damaged the Brady property. As you have been told, Mandy and Joshua were prepared to advance Mr. Hazari’s share of any costs so necessary work can proceed. Delays will likely only cause further damage, expense and potential liability. It is our position that you will have responsibility for these damages and expenses. Simply put, they should not and need not occur. At this point it appears we are out of time and out of options. We have prepared a draft arbitration claim. It is being sent to you in a separate email. This will be formally served upon you after our work has been completed and it has been finalized. As you will note from the text of the document, we are now forced to seek fees and costs from you as you are responsible for the ongoing delays and the fact that | have been forced to become involved in attempting to hold you to hold you to your commitments and address issues such as repair of the common roadway, an issue which should never have become the problem it now is. It will be up to you to determine whether you should hire an attorney to defend yourself respecting the arbitration proceeding. Finally, our expert Mr. Shires will be in the area Tuesday (tomorrow) afternoon. Please let us know if he can enter your property to most effectively evaluate the deficient Broquet work and what needs to be done to fix it correctly and ina manner which will hopefully avoid continuing and future loss and damage to the Brady property. D.D. Hughmanick TERRA LAW LLP 50 W San Fernando Suite 1315 San Jose, CA 95113 USA Tel (408) 299-1200 Fax (408) 998-4895 PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR SUITE NUMBER HAS CHANGED TO 1315 NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then please delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of electronic communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thank you for your cooperation. 4 EXHIBIT BIBIT From: DHughmanick Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 12:55 PM To: Lian Wu Cc: Joshua Rosenberg ; Mandy Brady ; James McDaniel Subject: property matters Lian: | received your email to me of Oct. 25, 2019. | decline to.either-represent.you'or.refer you to another attorney. However, | urge you:to-retain'a California Bar licensed attorney as soon as you are.able.to. Taking legal advice from your neighbors is, in my opinion, not a good idea as they aren't trained in legal procedure and have their own agendas. While Mr. Hazari has indicated that he attended law school, you will rely on him at your own risk. You can check the Court file in the case brought by Mr. Hazari against Mandy Brady which reveals that sanctions/attorneys’ fees have been awarded against Mr.Hazari, To my way of thinking, such orders make it all the more apparent that you should consult with counsel rather than basing your decisions on what someone such as Mr. Hazari tells you. | might also note that Mr. Hazari submitted a declaration purportedly signed by you in opposition to a recent dismissal motion in a case he filed against me which, putting it politely, in my opinion lacks candor. You in my view would do well to discuss such matters with counsel prior to taking such actions. Having viewed what was done by Mr. Broquet on the property you recently acquired, Mr. Shires believes the work done by Mr. Broquet, and for which you indicated you had taken responsibility, remains inadequate. It is his view that ongoing problems and damage of increasing severity will occur to the Brady property if a proper fix is not implemented. We now have a schematic from Mr. Shires showing the type of work which he feels would solve the ongoing drainage/erosion concerns which have arisen only because of Mr. Broquet’s illegal and unpermitted work. A copy of his schematic is attached. The structure that Mr. Shires proposes could be placed further into your property than the drawing shows. The key would be to keep the water/runoff, flowing down from the area where Mr. Broquet’s unpermitted work was done, entirely on your land and off of the Brady property. We have a signed agreement with Mr. Broquet in which he in essence takes responsibility for stopping runoff onto Mandy's land. He did not refuse to take responsibility based on the disingenuous argument you now raise to the effect the water from the easement drain pipe causes the now problematic erosion/run off onto the Brady property. Consistent with acknowledging his responsibility he apparently gave you a very substantial reduction in your purchase price. While we have not relinquished rights against Mr. Broquet, we understand from statements you have made that you have by your agreements with him stepped into Mr. Broquet's shoes with regard to having responsibility for fixing this drainage issue. | had asked for clarifications on the proposal prepared by your contractor. The information | had requested was never provided. This being the case, we have no choice other than to rely on Mr. Shires’ opinion concerning what should be done. | remain disappointed that the contemplated mediation will not proceed. With your concerns over incurring even the cost of Mr. Bening’s mediation fee (and his arbitration fee will be far greater), perhaps you would be most comfortable if we requested the County to appear at your property. The County could evaluate matters, determine how we might best proceed and advise all concerned of whether a “fix” would be acceptable that would not require complete reversal of all the illegal and unpermitted work done by Mr. Broquet. 1 | do think you should communicate through counsel. Please consider retaining a lawyer and communicating with me through that lawyer. We, of course must also address the needed roadway and gating repair work. If any lawyer you retain wishes to propose an approach for resolving these matters without proceeding with a formal arbitration we will be happy to consider it. Please respond by the end of the week. Absent hearing from you it is our intent to proceed as we have indicated. Because of the manner in which this matter has been handled and delayed by you we will in any event be forced to seek, inter alia, any and all properly recoverable attorneys’ fees and cosis together with such additional damages (whether from erosion and run off caused by upcoming winter rains or otherwise) that may be incurred because of your tactics. . Thank you. D.D. Hughmanick 2 EXHIBIT CIBIT Mi TERRA LAW up vera com D.D. Hughmanick , dhughmanick@terralaw.com November 20, 2019 Via U.S. Mail Bradley A. Bening, Esq. Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook, Inc. 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 400 . San Jose, California 95113 Re: Brady vs. Broquet Dear Brad: Unfortunately, issues have arisen with Lian Wu, the new owner of the Broquet property. Based on the Settlement Agreement of September 20, 2016, we are to proceed with arbitration before you respecting these issues. A copy of the Arbitration Demand, which is at this time being sent to the new owner, is enclosed along with a proof of service. As you will note, we have requested a pre-arbitration conference as to certain matters that we believe should be addressed prior to the formal evidentiary hearing. We solicit your input as to when we might proceed with such a conference. Also, please let us know what amounts should be deposited with you to cover your contemplated fees. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, : TERRA LAW LLP f D.D. Hughmanick DDH:dh Enclosure / ce: Lian Wu (via U.S. Mail, Certified Mail, and Email) / : Clients 4815-4735-6077, v. 1 50 W. San Fernando St., Suite 1315 # San Jose, CA 95113 m 408.299.1200 @ Fax: 408.998.4895 1 || D. D. Hughmanick (Bar No. 061571) James A. McDaniel (Bar No. 300041) 2 || TERRA LAW LLP 50 W. San Fernando St., Suite 1315 3 || San Jose, California 95113 Telephone (408) 299-1200 4 || Facsimile (408) 998-4895 5 || Attorneys for Claimants 6 Mandy J. Brady and Joshua Rosenberg 7 8 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION AND 9 SUBMISSION OF ISSUES FOR ARBITRATION 10 11 || In the Matter of: 12 || MANDY J. BRADY, an individual, 13 MANDY J. BRADY, as trustee for the . ; MANDY JENG BRADY LIVING TRUST, __| Arbitrator: Bradley A. Bening 14 and JOSHUA ROSENBERG, an individual, 15 Claimants, '7 | LIAN WU, an individual, the Purchaser of the 1g || Broquet Property located at 5400 Felter Road, San Jose, California, and the successor to 19 |} ALEXANDER BROQUET, under the September 20, 2016 settlement agreement and 20 || the obligations arising from it, 1 Respondents. 22 23 Demand for Arbitration oA Following Pre-Arbitration Conference 25 Mandy J. Brady and Joshua Rosenberg (“Claimants”) hereby request formal arbitration 26 || (following the preliminary conference requested below) pursuant to the September 16, 2016 27 || Settlement Agreement as against Lian Wu (“Wu”) (the purchaser of the Broquet property and 28 || successor in interest to Alexander Broquet ). 4815-8806-0041, v. 2 1 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION | Issues on Which a Determination of the Arbitrator is Requested 2 Issues to be addressed by the arbitrator include, inter alia, the following: 3 1. A determination that Wu is the successor in interest to Alexander Broquet and 4 || succeeds to and must honor his obligations under the above referenced settlement agreement. 5 2. A determination that adequate measures must be taken, and a determination of what 6 || measures must be implemented and a deadline for completing necessary work, so as to prevent 7 || further damage/erosion and diminution in value to the Brady property arising from, inter alia, 8 || unpermitted work on and illegal alterations of the Broquet property; together with a determination 9 || of and implementation of appropriate injunctive relief requiring that such measures be timely 10 || implemented so as to bring to an end the current continuing nuisance; attorney’s fees, arbitration 11 || fees and other costs, expenses and losses incurred by reason of Wu’s failure to proceed as she had 12 || represented she would do and as she should have, as well as reservation of jurisdiction to issue 13 || additional orders and relief should such measures not be fully and properly implemented in an 14 || expeditious and effective manner. Such relief is necessary as Ms. Wu has now reneged on prior 15 || statements that she had taken responsibility for deficient Broquet work and that she would 16 || undertake remedial work to correct it. 17 3. If not resolved at the below requested preliminary conference, a determination that 18 || Wu must cooperate and allow Brady’s expert, if necessary, to enter onto her land in order to 19 || evaluate and determine what needs to be done to effectively remedy the illegal and unpermitted 20 || work (which took place on her land) which causes continuing damage to Brady and the Brady 21 |} land. 22 4. A determination that Brady is entitled to take her concerns to the County for its 23 || determination as to what needs to be done to remedy illegal and unpermitted work on the Broquet 24 || land which causes continuing damage, including but not limited to damage from run off onto the 25 || Brady land and erosion emanating from it. 26 5. A determination of what damages Wu must pay by reason of damage and expense 27 || suffered by claimants as a consequence of what has occurred and what will occur in the future 28 || respecting the above matters including but not limited to reduction in value to the Brady property, 4815-8806-0041, v. 2 2 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION as 1 || clean -up costs, repair work expenses including but not limited to dry well repairs, 2 || expert/consultant fees, arbitration fees, as well as attorneys’ fees incurred and to be incurred in 3 |j connection with this matter.. 4 6. A determination of the respective obligations of the parties respecting needed Felter 5 || Road gating work and a determination of what damages and fees Ms. Wu must pay by reason of 6 || her failure to acknowledge her responsibility for a portion of the costs of this work and delays 7 || experienced by her intransigence, including but not limited to Arbitrator’s fees and attorney’s fees. 8 7. A determination of the respective obligations of the parties respecting needed 9 || common driveway repairs and work and a determination of what fees, costs and damages Ms. Wu 10 || must pay by reason of her current refusal to acknowledge the need for such work and her 11 || responsibility to pay for a portion of it. Such relief is necessary because Ms. Wu has now reneged 12 || on her prior agreement to allow such work to proceed and to pay for a portion of it. 13 8. A determination that the $10,000 paid by Brady pursuant to the Settlement 14 || Agreement be returned as the money was not used for its intended purpose and a determination of 15 || the arbitrator concerning whether this money should be returned. 16 9. A determination of steps to be taken for enforcement of the Arbitrator’s prior order 17 || excluding animals from the well area, as there have now been two instances of goats getting into 18 || the well area in violation of the order. 19 10. A determination of such other issues that Claimants elect to submit in writing to the 20 || Arbitrator for his determination. 21 Request for Evidentiary Hearing Following Pre-Arbitration Conference 22 Claimants request an evidentiary hearing (after completion of the below requested 23 || preliminary hearing) and completion of pertinent requested discovery as referenced below, at 24 || which evidence may be submitted, testimony may be taken from experts and other witnesses 25 || including but not limited to witnesses from governmental agencies whose testimony may be 26 || necessary to a full understanding of the issues and the measures which should have been taken and 27 || which should now be undertaken to adequately address the existing erosion/run off issues 28 || emanating from the illegal and unpermitted work which was known by Ms. Wu to have taken DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION 1 || place on her property at the time of her purchase, and because of which she received a very 2 || substantial reduction in her purchase price. . 3 Such other relief as the Arbitrator may deem to be just and proper. 4 Such costs and attorneys’ fees as the Arbitrator may deem to be just and proper and 5 || allowable under the circumstances of this case. 6 Request for Pre-Arbitration Conference 7 Claimants request a pre arbitration conference to determine and enforce pertinent 8 || discovery needs, including an inspection of the Wu land by Brady’s expert, as may be necessary (if 9 || not allowed by Ms. Wu before the conference), in order to determine measures needed to remedy 10 || conditions arising from illegal and unpermitted work on the Broquet land which causes damaging 11 || runoff onto and damage to the Brady property so that all necessary evidence will be available at 12 || the needed formal hearing. Claimants will also address needed subpoenas including those to 13 || certain governmental entities/officials. Needed discovery also includes discovery respecting the 14 || purchase contract (and related documents) between Wu and Broquet to determine if, as asserted 15 || by Wu in the past, she alone (as between Wu and Broquet) bears responsibility for the cost of 16 || remedial measures and repair work, or whether it will be necessary to include Broquet as a party. 17 ||Needed discovery also includes, inter alia, documents and communications related to acquisition 18 || by Ms. Wu of the Broquet land showing the disclosures made to her relating to the above issues 19 || and price reductions given respecting them, disclosures made to Wu by Broquet respecting the 20 || role of the arbitrator and the prior orders made by him, as well as communications between and 21 || among Wu, Cyrus Hazari, (on whom Wu now seemingly in part relies to justify her failure to 22 || honor her obligations) and David Duarte (whose goats appear in the well area contrary to a prior 23 || order of the arbitrator), and Broquet concerning matters now in issue. 24 ||Dated: November 20, 2019 TERRA LAW LLP 25 So C : 2 ' 26 oy” SLE j 17 D. D. Hughmani Attorneys for Clpimants 28 4815-8806-0041, v. 2 4815-8806-0041, v. 2 4 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Il am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the 3 || a8e of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 50 W. San Fernando St., Suite 1315, San Jose, California 95113. On the date below I served the 4 || documents described as: 5 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION ‘ FOLLOWING PRE-ARBITRATION CONFERENCE on the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 7 || envelope addressed as follows: 8 || VIA U.S. MAIL VIA U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL 7012 2210 0002 1593 2250 9 |) Lian Wu 5400 Felter Road Lian Wu 10 |] San Jose, CA 95132-0340 5400 Felter Road 1 San Jose, CA 95132-0340 VIA EMAIL 12 Lian Wu 13 || lian6é@me.com 14 [X] (BY U.S. MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be 15 placed in the United States mail at San Jose, California. 16 [X] (BY U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with Certified Mail postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at San Jose, California. 7 [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). 18 [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) I caused such document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile on this date to each facsimile machine number listed above. 19 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I transmitted such documents via e-mail to the parties listed above. 20 { ] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in a Federal Express drop box at San Jose, California. 1 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 2 { ] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 23 Executed on November 20, 2019, at San Jose, California. 24 Wyo | Naw 2° ude Hawes 26 27 79, || 4826-5799-8765, v. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DHughmanick From: Douglas Hawes Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 3:42 PM To: lian6@me.com Ce: DHughmanick Subject: Brady v. Broquet Attachments: Letter w) Demand for Arbitration_11.20.19.pdf Ms. Wu, Please find attached a letter to Bradley A. Bening, and a Demand for Arbitration, from D.D. Hughmanick. The letter and Demand for Arbitration are also going out today by U.S. Mail and U.S. Certified Mail. Douglas Hawes Assistant to D.D. Hughmanick Terra Law LLP Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Letter w) Demand for Arbitration_11.20.19 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 1 4 U.S. Postal Service: o CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT Ly _(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance ee elo malay : mn For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come 8 o- 4 Postage oO Return Receipt Fee Postmark 5 (Endorsement Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee 1 ~ (Endorsement Required) fC ci 1 Total Postage & Fees mu nu Sent To i an LA/ J cl Streel Apt NO Fi ap m+ OP ee fe | or PO Box No. Sto Felter Roack Cli; Sais, ZB Re EN A RALLA : i Sila I Ao se, Ok F5VS2Z- O90 Ss oe eo oo onc, e . : _ if | 26 ‘ : Gs a e an . / of | 22 0 | eo > n > a nee & a rn . ~ ea all “ U . * , ut cm. noe, : ote . wot ~s : j oe nes as g ns ‘eo = : oe x I A o = 3] %, G12 : 5 ee we a vu ge YB E a oy ae ed ome ae “f, eee : . a ‘ < “ <. . mt of “ we oe ew | hn goth oe a ft QO ye oo wo WA Be aw See ee NO o eae 3” ttre oO ' ioe : ' OMe ee eS $ : "sae Oe a = : . : = oS say G2 ; 1 =n we yn te st oe --~t: i) 25) = nee wT gg tee) & le ot e gL AT Spal Se Le gt ee t ef = ---_--- = aa pe . a a Fe -----e pax) = TT B me. yak ae a lent = : fe u -------- R. ~~ yok ------ = =. z SS = 0 -- FS = -----s =" Yo cee , = EEE 4 = oO . 4 = = no | = al . , “ : : = FY soxoancs ye =e & 2 wo “ ie oac poo Ry ( mm SBo. Og : a 3 = = ; Sheila Smith Ce: Lian Wu ; Mandy Brady ; Joshua Rosenberg ; James McDaniel Subject: RE: Ms. Wu's email to you of earlier today Brad: Thank you for your email..Yes:we.can go to the County first on drainage. We will want the roadway maintenance and gating issue to get resolved but.l'll first send you something in writing on that. Thanks. D.D. Hughmanick TERRA LAW LLP 50 W San Fernando Suite 1415 San Jose, CA 95113 USA Tel (408) 299-1200 Fax (408) 998-4895 NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then please delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of electronic communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Brad Bening Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 2:38 PM To: DHughmanick ; Sheila Smith Ce: Lian Wu ; Mandy Brady ; Joshua Rosenberg ; James McDaniel Subject: RE: Ms. Wu's email to you of earlier today 1 lam assuming that the arbitration will be on hold until you advise. From: DHughmanick [mailto:DHughmanick@terra-law.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 12:31 PM To: Brad Bening; Sheila Smith Cc: Lian Wu; Mandy Brady; Joshua Rosenberg; James McDaniel Subject: Ms. Wu's email to you of earlier today Dear Brad and Sheila: | am surprised Ms. Wu has not been completely candid with you. At:the outset, the full email she had sent:to me, which is included below, shows she has gone to the County. This reference appears in the below email to me_under paragraph 10. (It was for some reason deleted in what she sent to you.) This is a good thing and we are certainly.willing toJet the County.proceedings move forward.and believe this should occur. Indeed now that this is underway we believe arbitration respecting the drainage issues should await the outcome of the proceedings with the County. We look forward to discussing this and other issues in next week’s call. | might further note that we tried to get Ms. Wu to participate in a mediation as she had apparently, with full disclosure having been made to her and a substantial discount in the purchase price having been given to her for doing so, “stepped into Mr. Broquet’s shoes.” We had understood that she was initially willing to do so. She later elected to refrain from doing so. As shown by lengthy email chains, efforts to be ameliorative were ultimately met by claims that we were in effect harassing her and proceeding in bad faith. Thank you. D.D. Hughmanick TERRA LAW LLP 50 W San Fernando Suite 1415 San Jose, CA 95113 USA Tel (408) 299-1200 Fax (408) 998-4895 NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then please delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of electronic communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thank you for your cooperation. From: DHughmanick Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 2:11 PM To: Lian Wu Cc: Mandy Brady ; Joshua Rosenberg ; James McDaniel Subject: your email to me of Dec. 3, 2019 Ms. Wu : You operate under some misconceptions. | do not intend to comprehensively respond as there will be time enough to deal with the pertinent issues in arbitration. In any event you ignore recorded documents incorporated within the settlement agreement and the fact that the Arbitrator issued orders which are binding on you. That being said, please provide me with the March 7 letter which you claim constitutes an acceptance of the work along with any report indicating that the Broquet work was evaluated by an expert after it was done and determined to be a solution to the runoff/erosion problem cause by the illegal Broquet work. Also, please give us the name of the County official you are dealing with concerning obtaining permits for the illegal and problematic work performed by Mr. Broquet. The involvement of the County may influence how we proceed. Thank you. 2 D.D. Hughmanick TERRA LAW LLP 50 W San Fernando Suite 1415 San Jose, CA 95113 USA Tel (408) 299-1200 Fax (408) 998-4895 NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then please delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of electronic communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Lian Wu Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:56 PM To: DHughmanick ; James McDaniel ; Douglas Hawes Cc: Mandy Brady ; Joshua Subject: Re: arbitration exhibit Mr. Hughmanick, Sorry for the late response since | just got back from business trip right before Thanksgiving. As always, | prefer direct dialogue with my neighbor Ms. Brady and Mr. Rosenburg to settle any disputes without involving attorneys/arbitrators. However, to show good faith, | respond to your Demand for Arbitration as below. #1 - Yes, no problem #2 - Already completed by Mr. Broquet. The improvement made by Mr. Broquet has been examined by licensed hydrologist from Exponent. See Dr. Cohen- Waeber’s report on March 1st. and your acceptance letter on March 7. e Licensed hydrologist from Exponent has onsite visited during a heavy downpour rainstorm in late Feb. and exams the water flow first hand. e Hydrologist from Exponent Dr. Cohen-Waeber has concluded that Mr. Broquet and his contractor's approach of using berms and wooden erosion buriers is effective. #3 - page2 line 20 & 21, | have not seen any proof of evidence about damages caused by drainage after | bought my relevant property on 3/16/2019. 3 * | * 20 work (which took place on her land) which causes « 21 || land. #4 - Same as #3 #5 - Same as #3 #6 - Felter gating work is not in September 16, 2016 Settlement Agreement. The gate is in 2005 settlement agreement which Mr. Hazari is a party too. #7 - The common driveway repairs is not in the September 16,2016 Settlement Agreement. BTW, | have responded to you by email numerous times already, last email was dated October 2, 2019. Lian Wu Re: Property matters To: DOMuahmarnick, Ce: Atandy Grady, Joshua Souenbera, Jaren Melon) Mr. T.Hughmanick Want to make very clear to you all again, 1. Drainage Issues - please focus on issue and fix the #2: Current siiuation: e #} has been tixed by Groguets and you have aecepled the work. Dam responsible cin didn’t wark e #2 need your cooperation to lia i completely to prevent future dispane The drainage issues is now Drainage from your land. Waiting for your solution to fix it. 2. Felter road gate - | said no before and now again. It is not necessary. 3. Common driveway re-paving - | have asked to get Hazari involved and get his agreement. Also including me when Thanks! Lian See Mare 2c Oiughina nck #8 - Per Mr. Broquet he had spent the $10,000 per the agreement between Ms. Brady & Mr. Broquet. Mr. Broquet said the receipts had been sent to Ms. Brady already. Please show and be specific about the issues & evidence? 4 #9 - There is no mention of excluding animals from the well area in September 16, 2016 Settlement Agreement. #10 - | think this arbitration demand is completely not necessary and unreasonable. | want to do things the right way and hence | have already initiated the process of checking the construction permit status of relevant.improvements on my-property and obtaining these permits if not already issued. | don't believe Arbitration is necessary and hence whoever wants to go down that route shall have to solely bear the associate cost. Your 26 emails to me in the last 26 weeks have caused great stress to me and have made the situation worse so please consider this email as my last correspondence to you. If a direct face to face meeting among Ms. Brady, Mr. Rosenburg, and me can not settle this dispute, | would love to hear what a judge has to say about this case and be happy to comply with any and all court orders. Thanks! Lian Wu US: +1 408-504-2592 lian6 @me.com On Nov 27, 2019, at 3:55 PM, DHughmanick wrote: Lian: In preparing our arbitration brief and in assembling our Exhibits my new computer is not showing the Shires schematic (which work he estimates would cost around 150k) as an attachment to what | sent you previously. |! am assuming you received it as | got nothing from you indicating it was not attached to my Nov. 11 email. In any event, so there can be no doubt, | send it again. | wish you a nice Thanksgiving and find it regrettable that your intransigent approach has forced us to proceed with an arbitration. D.D. Hughmanick TERRA LAW LLP 50 W San Fernando Suite 1415 San Jose, CA 95113 USA Tel (408) 299-1200 Fax (408) 998-4895 NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then please delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. 5 No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of electronic communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thank you for your cooperation. From: DHughmanick Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:45 PM To: DHughmanick Subject: FW: On site visit tomorrow 6 EXHIBIT EIBIT From: DHughmanick Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:57 PM To: The Legal Coop Cc: Brad Bening ; Sheila Smith Subject: FW: Mr. Schuman's email to you of late yesterday afternoon Mr. Schuman: Don’t see that this was sent to you so here it is. T. Hughmanick From: DHughmanick Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:29 AM To: 'Brad Bening’ Ce: 'Sheila Smith’ ; James McDaniel Subject: Mr. Schuman's email to you of late yesterday afternoon Dear Mr. Bening: Having once again been given an opportunity to respond to your jurisdictional question, Mr. Schuman advances an ill-conceived argument that his client may avoid arbitration on the theory of unconscionability and again disingenuously argues that Ms. Wu never agreed to arbitrate. He forces retirees Mandy Brady and her husband Joshua, who suffers from severe cardiac medical issues, to spend more time and money in dealing with ill- conceived claims. This tactic only demonstrates why attorney’s fees are appropriate and a request for an additional five hours of time at $400 is requested below. 1 The unconscionability argument is legally and factually baseless. A recitation of platitudes is not enough. The cases cited by Mr. Schuman show that a party asserting unconscionability has the burden of proving it. Otto v. Kem Kho 8Cal 5" 111 at 126 and Pinnacle v. Grand Prospect 55 Cal 4" 223 at 247. There is no proof at all whether by declaration or otherwise and Mr. Schuman’s unsupported arguments are objectionable and carry no weight at all. Nothing more need be said. The Arbitrator should issue his award forthwith. Even if more were needed, the cases in question do not stand as support for the arguments which Mr. Schuman advances. In Otto, supra, the Court explained that the law favors arbitration and that it is supposed to be a speedy and inexpensive remedy. Otto involved an employment related dispute in which the party claiming unconscionability was forced to immediately sign an unexplained document which was not understood and which waived important “Berman” rights. Otto has no relationship whatsoever to any facts present here. In Balazar (62 Cal 4‘" 1237) the Court dealt with an employment dispute in which no unconscionability was found to exist. In Grand Prospect v. Ross 232 Cal App 4" 1232 the Court again rejected an unconscionability argument and explained that whether unconscionability is present depends on facts establishing unconscionability, and none are present or offered in the arbitration proceeding now pending before you. In Pinnacle v. Pinnacle 55 Cal 4‘ 223 the Court found that an arbitration provision in recorded documentation was not unconscionable and explained that an agreement to arbitrate may be implied and binding even if the party required to arbitrate did not sign it. Pinnacle at 236. Mr. Schuman advances arguments which have no basis in fact. His sophisticated client (who has held a very responsible position with Apple, holds a master’s degree and who has run a factory) made considered judgments and decisions and in no respect was unduly pressured. Remarkably the Schuman submission ignores the fact that, well before her express agreement to arbitrate, set forth in her Jan 30“ email and later again acknowledged in her April email, she was informed by the Arbitrator in a Dec. conference call of his powers including his ability to award fees. As our submissions show, our side tried to be ameliorative and | personally also had advised Ms. Wu well before she agreed to arbitration that she should obtain counsel. The claim that this sophisticated business woman was unfairly treated is simply hogwash. This is apparent from the fact that neither Schuman or Wu, despite having had repeated opportunities to do so, have never offered any declaration or other evidence showing that Ms. Wu lacked an understanding of the process or that she was treated unfairly. That Mr. Schuman must be distrusted is underscored by the fact that he references an arbitration demand which preceded Mr. Wu’s Jan 30 agreement and her April acknowledgment that she had expressly agreed to arbitration. Mr. Schuman does not even attempt to address that fact that Ms. Wu’s Jan 30 agreement to arbitrate (as did her April acknowledgement of what she had agreed to) as well as to the procedure which the parties followed, came long after she was fully apprised of the fact that she should obtain counsel and of the Arbitrator’s powers. He does not even attempt to address language in the recorded easement agreement (Exhibit C to our Feb 28, 2020 letter brief to you) which in recital C indicates that the easement and the Settlement of Sept 20, 2016 settlement agreement were parts of the same resolution and that the agreement was binding on and inured to the benefit of “successors in interest of any nature including but not limited to successor’s in ownership.” And see the Sept 30 2016 settlement agreement itself (Exhibit B to our Feb 28 2020 letter brief) containing language to the same effect in Section 4.3 and Attachment A at para 1a.) He cannot provide any authority indicating that such provisions would not be binding on Wu as covenants, equitable servitudes, equitably or otherwise or based on ratification as she has accepted the benefits of the arrangement including affirmation of common road easement rights. No declaration whatsoever has ever been offered that Wu was not aware of all the pertinent documentation and did not agree to it at the time of her purchase. Had she submitted a declaration attempting to do so it would have been false. Also, had she done so, other witnesses could have been brought in to refute this. Broquet and his broker would no doubt have assisted in establishing Ms. Wu was thoroughly informed of all the issues and negotiated a substantial price reduction because of them. Of equal importance are contract theories which Mr. Schuman tacitly indicates are in play including but not limited to those such as estoppel, waiver, performance and others based on Wu’s representations, conduct and her performance on which Mandy and Joshua relied at very substantial expense. Nowhere does Schuman offer any authority to suggest that Wu, having gone down and induced my clients’ to go done the expensive arbitration path, could at the eleventh hour rightfully negate all that has gone before. it is time for issuance of an award. Mr. Schuman has not in any way demonstrated that you lack jurisdiction or that the issues are outside of those to which Ms. Wu agreed and confirmed in her emails, nor does he suggest that that the issues are outside the scope of the broad parameters of the arbitration provision contained in the pertinent 2 settlement documentation The process should long since have been concluded. Wu and her attorney may be likened to a baseball batter who, although having taken three strikes and missed, repeatedly gets more chances. This is unfair to Mandy and Joshua and the process needs to be brought to a conclusion. Consistent with your prior observations that Ms. Wu did agree to arbitrate and that the parties are in arbitration it is (absent you needing anything further from us) time to end this with the parties being able to pursue such rejection or confirmation proceedings as they deem to be appropriate under applicable law. | hereby state under penalty of perjury that at least an additional five hours of time has been expended on this matter since our submission requesting fees at the rate of $400 per hour and a fee award for this additional amount is also requested in this proceeding. | might finally note that Mr. Schuman’s references to the requested mediation before Mr. Hammerslough do not pertain to something that is pending. Such a mediation has been unequivocally rejected. Thank you for your consideration. T.Hughmanick From: Ray Schumann Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 4:58 PM To: Brad Bening ; DHughmanick Subject: Brady's Petition to Arbitrate with Ms. Wu Dear Mr. Bening and Mr. Hughmanick, As | understand it, the threshold issue of whether a person is a subject to the jurisdiction of any given arbitrator is established by finding an Agreement to Arbitrate. That analysis proceeds through contract formation principles as recently affirmed in Oto LLC v. Kem Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111. MS. WU, WITHOUT CONCEDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN AWARD NAMING HER, FACTUALLY REFUTES THE EXISTENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE BY HER Because of ongoing pressure and threats from Petitioners | will here argue why Ms. Wu is not subject to arbitration proceedings because she did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate. This argument as all others | have submitted are on the threshold question of whether she is a party to arbitration, and does not concede to arbitrate any issues. She does not consent to arbitration As a side-note, | sympathyze with the Arbtrator's situation. Yet the facts betray the absence of any enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Petitioner has simply failed to meet its burden. A failure candidly admitted at the very beginning of this case, most tellingly put as the as its very first request on the Demand for Arbitration, on Page 2, Issue 1, Paragraph 1: "A Determination that Wu is the successor in interest to Alexander Broquet and succeeds to and must honor his obligations under the above referenced settlement agreement." Counsel cannot simply ask his burden away. The fact is Peititoner has not met its burden to prove up an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. This is exarcebated by the lack of conference, 3 discovery, process, parameters and procedure, briefing, or hearing to support any arbitration award. Not conceding to jurisdiction, | would imagine that any 'award' under the circumstances would not name Ms. Wu, and would simply end at a declaration that the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove an enforceable arbitration agreement exists with Ms. Wu. LEGAL ANALYSIS REFUTES THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE Here, as most rural areas, a parcel is divided into smaller lots, resulting in three landowners commonly sharing ownership in easement rights. Instead of seeking agreement and sharing on common costs, however, someone has resorted to threatening and browbeating others to get their way. In fact the escrow papers bear the issue, framed as a legal battle before the ink dried on the deed. What followed was a confusing and ever shifting quicksand of legalese and menace; foisted through dozens of attorney writings and legal staff emails. That barrage was pasted onto a person who was born in China, whose first language is Chinese, who went to College in China, whose entire career has been devoted to mechanical engineering, whose legal sophistication is zero, who spent much of her time dealing with jetlag from over a hundred days a year working across the pacific, and who was completely unrepresented throughout. An arbitration agreement was there misrepresented as a foregone conclusion already ‘legally’ agreed to by the victim. The solemn invocation of inapplicable legal doctrine masked a hide-the-nut game - "successor in interest / successor in ownership" - an invocation which fails the statute of frauds, but Ms. Wu remained completely unaware of this legal subtlety. The resulting 'process' consisted of lobbing inches worth of emails, briefs, memos, and declarations, most chock-full of misleading and conclusory legalese, several sporting official sounding "COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA captions, all at an unrepresented and unsophisticated person; endcapping with an $18,000 legal bill for the exertion. The obvious threat was that any further resistance or delay in bowing down was not only futile and reprehensible, but would result in exorbitant liability, fees, and costs. Ms. Wu was unwilling to participate in and completely at a loss to understand the 'substance' or the 'process' she allegedly agreed to. She was aware of an obligation to maintain, and at every turn sought to dispense with lawyers, legal process and legalese; to try to come to agreement on the actual costs of maintenance. Repeatedly duressed by four legally sophisticated parties including two attorneys, and even their staff, she was repeatedly pressed by an alleged pending urgency. She still managed to repeatedly say she wanted nothing to do with the legal 'process.' When it was represented as a foregone conclusion and her resistance misrepresented as the official cause of further liability, she finally did ‘agree’ to discuss the issues. 4 She thought she was agreeing to a framework of discussion for the issues, but had no idea what arbitration is, never mind what binding arbitration is, nor how attorney fees could be shifted in such a proceeding, nor the slightest idea she would relinquish substantial due process rights, nor what specific arbitration provisions would govern such a private contract. If a preprinted Settlement Agreement signed by some unrelated party, and an ensuing barrage of 'take-it-or-leave-it' emails be considered an Arbitration Contract, then it is most definitely a Contract of Adhesion. Contracts of Adhesion, as here, are presented as "standardized, generally ona preprinted form, and offered by the party with superior bargaining power ‘on a take-it-or-leave-it basis." Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1245. Ms. Wu was not only piled upon four on one by a superior bargaining power, but knowledge and expertise was at a definite inbalance, with two attorneys on the other side of her. The very initial Demand for Arbitration and Opening Brief of Petitioner thus factually misrepresented Ms. Wu as a Successor in interest and party to an existing, preprinted settlement agreement. She was not given a choice as to what terms could be employed, explained what the process was, or even clearly told that she could walk away from this proceeding. The entire course of Arbitration was thus mis-represented as mandatory, unavoidable, and ‘take it or leave it' meeting the definition of a contract of adhesion under Baltazar. The pertinent question, then, is whether the "circumstances of the contract's formation created such oppression or surprise that closer scrutiny of its overall fairness is required. Baltazar, 1245-1246 Oppression occurs where a contract involves lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, surprise where the allegedly unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form." Pinnacle v. Pinnacle (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 247. in turn, Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross, Dress for Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1348, provides the factors given for establishing oppression : (1) the amount of time the party is given to consider the proposed contract; Here alleged arbitration provisions were alleged from a settlement agreement, previosuly unseen by Ms. Wu, signed by a party unreleated to Ms, Wu; and combined with as sequence of rapid-fire email chains usually sent during work hours, each having little response time, none presented as a whole document with sufficient warning as to the gravity of agreeing thereto. Absent prodigious powers of recall and legal experience there would be insufficient time with these 'terms' to ever properly consider their meaning or combined effect. (2) the amount and type of pressure exerted on the party to sign the proposed contract; Two attorneys and two parties appeared on official looking "COUNTY" captioned documents, inflicting stacks of confusing legalese where any failure to immediately abide was represented as incurring certain and overwhelming liability to quickly exhaust all equity and savings the victim held. Culturally, the victim was also derided as the cause of trouble and mocked for her lack of sophistication. There was so much pressure 5 that Ms. Wu repeatedly asserted stress, and harassment. (3) the length of the proposed contract and the length and complexity of the challenged provision; An arbitration agreement is here alleged contained a long and previously unseen settlement agreement and in ensuing volleys upon volleys of emails. Arbitration itself being a special type of legal contract, it is far more complex than even sophisticated parties could handle without legal representation. Nowhere does Ms. Wu state she signs onto any existing settlement agreement. Further, reading through these emails one finds any specific terms allegedly agreed to are frankly incomprehensible. (4) the education and experience of the party; Ms. Wu could affectionately be called a consumate ‘gearhead.’ Born in China, with Chinese as her first language, who went to college in China, and whose legal sophistication is zero. Her technical prowess with materials and manufacturing are as out of place crafting an arbitration proceeding, as any standard lawyer would be amiss designing various iPhone manufacturing processes. (5) whether the party's review of the proposed contract was aided by an attorney. Ms. Wu was unrepresented throughout the entire period the alleged arbitration agreement was formulated and reviewed; or more accurately, foisted upon her by volleys of emails. In Oto LLC v. Kem Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111 the above analysis is once again proven as the route for establishing whether a Agreement to Arbitration exists. In this case no enforceable agreement exists. Ms. Wu once again notes the stress, damage to her title, and further expenditures inflicted upon her by this proceeding and demands that it cease immediately. Ms. Wu has already begun efforts to initiate a jointly arranged mediation with a jointly selected mediator, and awaits the response of Petitioner with respect to resolving these issues amicably. Sincerely, Ray Schumann for Lian Wu Private and confidential, potential attorney-client privilege and work product protected material. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal law. Access to my website, information, or communications does not create an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice or opinion. {create attorney-client relationships and provide legal advice or opinion solely through express signed legal fee agreements with a named client. 6 Before you act or rely on any information or communication, you should speak directly to an attorney you have expressly hired to be your lawyer. Absent an express signed legal fee agreement with me, any reliance on my communications is taken at the recipients own risk. | will not dispense legal advice to new clients through the Internet or over the telephone. If you’ve received this email by mistake, we’d appreciate it if you would reply to let us know, and then delete the email. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 7:03 AM, Brad Bening wrote: Mr. Schuman, My intention is to complete the award as | did understand the matter was in arbitration. | also believe that it is within the purview of the arbitrator to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement and jurisdiction. | would be happy to address this, and whether | have such jurisdiction, if the gatherings would like. Can | understand your position at this point as to why the issues raised by Ms. Brady are not subject to arbitration? | am sure you appreciate, my job is to complete an award if it is appropriate. | look forward to hearing from you. From: DHughmanick [mailto:DHughmanick@terra-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:03 PM To: The Legal Coop Cc: Brad Bening; Sheila Smith; James McDaniel Subject: RE: RE: Mediation for Felter Road, Including Wu/Brady and Case No. 16CV295730 Mr. Schuman: This is shameful. Over and over and over again you improperly make the same ill conceived arguments. Please go back and reread what we have submitted before, including but not 7 limited to your client’s own writings. Your ill-conceived baseless threats are equally shameful and you should be mindful of the professional responsibilities you have to refrain from making them. We await the award that Mr. Bening indicated he is in the process of finalizing. T.Hughmanick From: The Legal Coop Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 5:28 PM To: Brad Bening ; DHughmanick Subject: RE: RE: Mediation for Felter Road, Including Wu/Brady and Case No. 16CV295730 Dear Mr. Bening, and Mr. Hughmanick, | urge you to consider the lack of agreement to arbitrate, and the resulting lack of jurisdiction prior to issuing any award. Ms. Wu has been grieved for many months with recurrent threats of financial loss if she did not comply with an Arbitration that was mis-presented by Mr. Hughmanick and Ms. Brady as a foregone conclusion. An award that names her as a willing party in the proceeding may continue to damage her and her interests in the real property. As | understand it, there would be no litigation privilege applicable to such a result. 8 Thank you for your professional courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Ray Schumann For Lian Wu Private and confidential, potential attorney-client privilege and work product protected material. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal law. TLC is a Legal Coop presently in the making, to engage in fact gathering, education, and litigation. Access to TLC information or communications does not create an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice or opinion. TLC creates attorney-client relationships and provides legal advice or opinion solely through express signed legal fee agreements with a named client. Before you act or rely on TLC information or communication, you should speak directly to an attorney you have expressly hired to be your lawyer. Absent an express signed legal fee agreement with TLC, any reliance on communications from TLC is taken at the recipients own risk. TLC will not dispense legal advice to new clients through the Internet or over the telephone. TLC neither seeks nor accepts currently classified information. If you’ve received this email by mistake, we’d appreciate it if you would reply to let us know, and then delete the email. 9 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:20 AM, Brad Bening wrote: All, | am in the process of finalizing an arbitration award. From: DHughmanick [mailto: DHughmanick@terra-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 6:25 AM To: The Legal Coop; Brad Bening Cc: Brad Bening; Sheila Smith Subject: RE: RE: Mediation for Felter Road, Including Wu/Brady and Case No. 16CV295730 Mr. Schuman: Your belated proposed mediation of issues between Brady and Wu before Mr. Hammersiough is, as | told you, completely unacceptable. We long ago offered to do this. Your client first agreed and then reneged. She forced a costly arbitration and now we await Mr. Bening’s decision. Your attempt to influence Mr. Bening by copying him with your email is inappropriate and wrong. We trust that your highly questionable tactics will not in any way further delay his decision. Mr. Bening we ask that you please immediately issue your decision so that these costly and prejudicial delays so negatively affecting my retiree clients may come to anend. T.Hughmanick From: The Legal Coop Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 10:04 PM To: DHughmanick ; Brad Bening 10 Subject: Fw: RE: Mediation for Felter Road, Including Wu/Brady and Case No. 16CV295730 Dear Mr. Hughmanick, Easement co-owners Ms. Wu and Mr. Hazari have now offered to mediate the Felter Rd issues and there is agreement by all parties on who could hear issues related to the Felter Rd. real estate. All that is missing is third co-owner Ms. Brady's agreement to finally resolve this controversy. This is an opportunity to have these matters fully resolved through a jointly arranged proceeding with clear terms. Kindly reconsider. Ray Schumann, for Lian Wu Private and confidential, potential attorney-client privilege and work product protected material. 11 Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal law. TLC is a Legal Coop presently in the making, to engage in fact gathering, education, and litigation. Access to TLC information or communications does not create an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice or opinion. TLC creates attorney-client relationships and provides legal advice or opinion solely through express signed legal fee agreements with a named client. Before you act or rely on TLC information or communication, you should speak directly to an attorney you have expressly hired to be your lawyer. Absent an express signed legal fee agreement with TLC, any reliance on communications from TLC is taken at the recipients own risk. TLC will not dispense legal advice to new clients through the Internet or over the telephone. TLC neither seeks nor accepts currently classified information. If you’ve received this email by mistake, we’d appreciate it if you would reply to let us know, and then delete the email. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 22, 2020 12:09 PM, DHughmanick wrote: 12 To clarify, there is no interest in pursuing mediation with Ms. Wu at this time. She had agreed to mediation but then reneged forcing my clients to expend a great deal of time effort and money in pursuing the arbitration process which is now nearly complete. At this point we await the Arbitrator’s decision respecting the issues involving Ms. Wu.. 13 EXHIBIT FIBIT From: DHughmanick Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 5:02 PM To: Brad Bening Cc: Sheila Smith ; The Legal Coop ; James McDaniel Subject: FW: arb award delay Dear Mr. Bening. Over one half year has passed since Ms. Wu expressly agreed to participate in the arbitration and nearly five months have passed since the parties completed the agreed upon procedure, with the matter having become ripe for decision as neither side requested a formal arbitration hearing. .Our final submissions (along with our closing letter brief showing that Wu’s admissions demonstrate that Mandy and Joshua are entitled to the relief requested), along with a proposed order were submitted to you on March 26, 2020. My clients proceeded to pay both their own deposit against your fees along with the deposit Ms. Wu was obligated to advance but refused to pay. As has been emphasized repeatedly, Ms. Wu expressly agreed on Jan 30, 2020 to arbitration. In her April 11 email to you she acknowledged “| did agree to the procedure including arbitration back in January...” While she claimed we had “altered” the issues to be arbitrated, we demonstrated in our April 13 email to you that this was not true.