D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. vs. Michael Jay Berger

Motion in Limine

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 5, 2012

~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Ronald S. Hodges - Bar No. 150586 J. Ronald Ignatuk - Bar No. 150737 Samuel J. Romero - 232824 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 600 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 340-3400 Facsimile: (949) 340-3000 Email: RlIgnatuk @shbllp.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 01/22/2016 at 11:11:00 Aw Clerk of the Superior Court By Diana A Norman, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and DGB Contractor Services, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER D/K MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., DGB CONTRACTOR SERVICES, INC. AND BGD ENTERPRISES, INC,, Plaintiffs, Vs. MICHAEL JAY BERGER; THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL JAY BERGER AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. Case No. 30-2012-00603143-CU-BC-CIC [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Judge David Chaffee, Dept. C20] PLAINTIFFS D/K MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. AND DGB CONTRACTOR SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCES TO SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. ROMERO IN SUPPORT THEREOF Trial Date: January 25, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: C20 [Amount demanded exceeds $25,000, Unlimited Civil Case] 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department C20 of the Orange County Superior Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and DGB Contractor Services (collectively “Plaintiffs”) will move this Court for an order precluding the introduction of any evidence or argument: Reflecting internet postings or statements regarding the allegations, claims, and defenses in the matters of: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) In re Steve Sedgwick, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:12-bk-18323 TA (See Request for Judicial Notice (“RIN”), Ex. “B”); Steve Sedgwick v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, JAMS Arbitration No. 1200050185 wherein Defendant Michael Berger is attorney for Claimant Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “C”); In re Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, State Bar Case No. 14-0-06325 by Complainant Michael J. Berger obo Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “D”); Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00324474 (See RIN, Ex. “E”); Andra Sachs v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, Fourth Appellate Division, Division Three, Case No. G044116(See RIN, Ex. “F”); Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, American Arbitration Association, Claim No. 73 194 E 03302 09 NOLG (See RIN, Ex. “G”). Reflecting the nature of Shulman Hodges and Bastian LLP’s representation of Plaintiffs, whether by hourly, contingency or otherwise. This motion is made pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350, 352, and 403 and on the grounds that evidence regarding the above separate complaints, actions and arbitrations are not relevant to the issues in this action; and that the probative value, if any, of any evidence 1 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 1 [regarding the above claims and defenses are substantially outweighed by the dangers of undue 2 || prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. 3 This motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, 4 | the declaration of James Bastian, Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, and on such evidence and 5 [argument as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP ’ Dated: January 15, 2016 By: /s/ J. Ronald Ignatuk 10 Ronald S. Hodges J. Ronald Ignatuk 11 Samuel J. Romero Attorneys for Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, 12 Inc. and DGB Contractor Services 13 14 13 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 POBASTIAN LL 2 100 Spectrum Center Drive || 4417-002Z:\C-D\DK MechanicalBergen\TRIAL 1-25-16MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. | Exclude Iirelevant References to SHB Final.docx EE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Defendant Michael Berger (“Berger” or “Defendant”) may attempt to introduce evidence regarding internet postings and factual allegations regarding matters involving work performed by and claims made against Shulman Hodges and Bastian LLP (“SHB”) in six actions which are completely unrelated to the instant action. Specifically, in an apparent attempt to create leverage against Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and DGB Contractor Services (collectively “Plaintiffs”), Berger on behalf of Steven Sedgwick has filed state bar complaints and an arbitration action against Plaintiffs’ law firm, SHB and two of its attorneys. Moreover, Berger has questioned the nature of Plaintiffs’ representation by SHB in multiple pleadings, and has attempted to impugn SHB’s reputation by misrepresenting the merits of certain internet posting by third parties regarding SHB. By this motion, Plaintiffs seek (1) an order precluding the introduction of any evidence or argument regarding the facts and allegation underlying the six actions specifically identified in concurrently filed request for judicial notice and in the statement of facts; (2) an order precluding the introduction of evidence or argument regarding the work performed by SHB in the six unrelated actions, and (3) an order precluding evidence or argument regarding the nature of SHB’s representation of Plaintiffs in the instant action, whether by contingency or otherwise. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS This case involves claims by Plaintiffs that Berger's advice that Plaintiffs seek chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because of a temporary cash flow problem brought Plaintiffs’ business to a screeching halt resulting in the loss of valuable contracts and the complete demise of Plaintiffs’ business, resulting in significant damages. Romero Decl. 2. Plaintiff will present evidence that Berger was incompetent to advise Plaintiffs and that his advice, acts and omissions were far beneath the standard of care. Id. Plaintiffs allege that had they known that by following Berger’s advice there was little to no possibility of continuing their businesses, they would never have relied upon Berger's legal representation and would have never filed for bankruptcy protection, which has cost them in excess of $10 million dollars. Id. 1 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Plaintiffs have asserted three claims for breach of contract by each of the Plaintiffs and restitution for sums paid to Berger, three claims for legal malpractice by each of the Plaintiffs, and claims for fraud (intentional misrepresentation) and fraud (intentional omission of material fact). Id. at 3. None of these causes of action embrace services provided by SHB or internet postings or statements regarding the allegations, claims, and defenses in the matters of: 1) In re Steve Sedgwick, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:12-bk- 18323 TA (See Request for Judicial Notice (“RIN”), Ex. “A”); 2) Steve Sedgwick v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, JAMS Arbitration No. 1200050185 wherein Defendant Michael Berger is attorney for Claimant Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “B"); 3) In re Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, State Bar Case No. 14-0-06325 by Complainant Michael J. Berger obo Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “C”); 4) Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00324474 (See RIN, Ex. “D”); 5) Andra Sachs v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, Fourth Appellate Division, Division Three, Case No. G044116(See RIN, Ex. “E”); 6) Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, American Arbitration Association, Claim No. 73 194 E 03302 09 NOLG (See RIN, Ex. “F”). Id. at 4. Rather, the above action embrace services provided by SHB in other completely unrelated matters. Id. at 5. For example, the above matters numbers 1 through 3 (re: RIN, Exhs. “A” thru “C,”) relate to services provided by other SHB attorneys, Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, on behalf of Steve Sedwick in an action where Mr. Sedwick was a debtor-in- possession prior to SHB being substituted as counsel. Id. Mr. Berger substituted as counsel of record after SHB, and then filed a state bar complaint and an arbitration action in an apparent attempt to create leverage against SHB in this action. Id. Likewise, Mr. Berger forwarded emails to SHB and Plaintiffs in which he addressed disparaging internet posting related to the services provided by SHB which were addressed in the 2 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 above matters Nos. 4 through 6. Id. at 6. Matters 4 through 6 regard a fee dispute with a former SHB client, Andra Sachs, which was adjudicated against Ms. Sachs in an arbitration, judgment and appeal. Id. Plaintiffs have not alleged anything regarding these matters in their complaint, and Mr. Berger made no allegations regarding the above matters in his Answer. Id. at 7. Indeed, all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action relate to the deficient services provided by Mr. Berger by filing a highly ill-advised bankruptcy. Id. INI.LARGUMENT A. The Court Should Preclude The Introduction of Any Evidence and Argument Regarding the Six Unrelated Actions Because Any Such Evidence Is Not Relevant. Evidence which is not relevant must be excluded. Cal. Evid. Code § 350. In order to be relevant, evidence must relate to some matter at issue and have some probative value. Evid. Code § 210, Wegner, Fairbanks, Epstein & Chernow, Civil Trials in Evidence, { 8:103 (Rutter Group 2016). Evidence has probative value if it has a logical tendency to prove a disputed matter. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal. App. 4th 1200, 1211 (2001); People v. Cowan, 50 Cal. 4th 401, 482-483 (2010). In this case, evidence regarding services provided by SHB in unrelated matters, and fee disputes in unrelated matters, is not relevant because: (1) it will not prove or disprove any matter which is in dispute as a result of Plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) it will not prove or disprove any matter which is in dispute as a result of Defendant’s defenses. 1. Evidence of SHB Services and Fee Disputes in Other Unrelated Actions Will Not Prove Or Disprove Any Matter Which Is In Dispute As A Result Of Plaintiffs’ Claims All of Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon advise provided by Mr. Berger to Plaintiffs to file for bankruptcy protection without first seeking or exploring the benefit of other much superior workout options. Alleged services provided by SHB and fee disputes unrelated to the subject transaction is not remotely relevant to any of Plaintiffs’ claims. 3 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 2: Evidence of SHB Services and Fee Disputes In Other Unrelated Actions Will Not Prove Or Disprove Any Matter Which Is In Dispute As A Result Of Defendant’s Defenses. The only conceivable argument that Berger may raise regarding the relevance of SHB’s services and fee disputes in other unrelated actions is that they somehow reflect on SHB services after SHB substituted for Mr. Berger in the bankruptcy action and workout. Building on this tenuous argument, Mr. Berger will assert that SHB’s services to Plaintiff were somehow deficient which led to Plaintiffs’ damages. However, this is an illogical and irrational leap, SHB has twenty plus attorneys and has handled thousands of matters. The review of just two unrelated matters handled by other SHB attorney has no probative value on whether Plaintiffs’ damages may have been caused by SHB’s representation of Plaintiffs’ in the workout. Quite simply, SHB’s services and fee disputes in other unrelated actions is not relevant to any of Mr. Berger’s defenses. Thus, the court should exclude this evidence because it is irrelevant. B. The Court Should Preclude The Introduction Of Any Evidence Or Argument Regarding SHB Services And Fee Disputes In Other Unrelated Actions Because The Probative Value Of Any Such Evidence Is Substantially Outweighed By The Dangers Of Undue Prejudice, Undue Consumption Of Time and Confusion Of The Issues, And Misleading The Jury. The court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the dangers of undue consumption of time, undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. Cal. Evid. Code § 352. As discussed above, evidence regarding SHB services in other unrelated matters has no probative value. However, even if the court determines that there is some minimal probative value, there is a substantial danger of undue consumption of time, undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, and the jury being mislead if such evidence is introduced. Accordingly, the court should exercise its discretion and exclude this evidence. 4 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 1. Introduction of Evidence Regarding Services by SHB in Unrelated Matters and the Nature of SHB’s Representation of Plaintiffs Will Result in Undue Prejudice to Plaintiffs. Evidence Code § 352 provides: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will . . . create substantial danger of undue prejudice . . .” Evidence is unduly prejudicial when it is “of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors’ emotional reaction.” Vorse v. Sarasy, 53 Cal. App. 4th 998, 1009 (1997); see also Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App.4th 21, 45 (2005). A deliberate attempt by counsel to appeal to economic prejudices of a jury against any party is prohibited misconduct, and prejudicial to that party. Taylor v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 132 Cal. App. 434, 439 (1933); Stone v. Foster, 106 Cal. App. 3d 334, 355 (1980) (characterizing a party as having assets but trying to appear as poor.) Here, introduction of evidence regarding services rendered by SHB in other unrelated matters would be unfairly prejudicial. SHB is a multi-attorney firm successfully handling thousands of matters for its clients. Berger's attempt to cherry pick two matters (relating to six actions) wherein client disputes have occurred to impugn Plaintiffs’ counsel and SHB’s services to Plaintiffs is highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. To refute this inference, Plaintiffs would be forced to provide evidence that SHB was successful or will be successful in defeating these former clients’ claims. However, Plaintiffs’ would still be at risk, that the jury would be misled and believe that how SHB handled two unrelated cases is relevant to the instant action. It is not. Introduction of evidence regarding SHB services in other unrelated matters and the retention agreement by Plaintiffs in this action will unduly prejudice Plaintiffs because: (1) the jury may improperly conclude that two of SHB’s client’s claims against SHB are true and that therefore, Plaintiffs’ damages are caused by SHB’s purported deficient services in this matter; (2) the jury may improperly conclude that Plaintiffs’ retention agreement, and their ability or inability to pay hourly or to seek contingency fees reflects negatively as whether Plaintiffs 5 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 should receive damages; (3) the jury may improperly decide to “punish” Plaintiffs due to claims made against Plaintiffs’ counsel in other matters or based upon the conditions of SHB’s retention by Plaintiffs and refuse to award damages based on such allegations; and (4) Plaintiffs’ will be required to devote a substantial amount of time, expense and effort to refute this evidence, thereby distracting from the relevant issues in this case. In order to avoid this prejudice, the Court should exclude this evidence. Cal. Evid. Code, § 352. Ds Introduction of Evidence Regarding Services by SHB in Unrelated Matters Will Lead To An Undue Consumption Of Time. In the event the court allows Defendant to introduce evidence regarding SHB’s services in unrelated matters and regarding SHB’s retention by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs will be required to introduce substantial evidence to rebut the evidence submitted regarding these unrelated matters or to place these alleged matters into proper context. In order to do this, Plaintiffs’ will need to introduce testimony from a number of additional witnesses to impeach, refute or vary Defendant’s testimony. This task will take hours if not a day to accomplish and bog the trial of this matter down into the trial of matters which have no relevance to this action. Given the fact that evidence regarding the above matters lacks any probative value, Plaintiffs’ efforts will result in an undue consumption of time and a waste of judicial resources. In order to avoid such an undue waste of time, the Court should exclude any such evidence. Cal. Evid. Code, § 352. 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 6 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the law and facts discussed above, Plaintiffs’ requests that this Court enter an orders (1) precluding the introduction of any evidence or argument regarding the facts and allegation underlying the six actions specifically identified in concurrently filed request for judicial notice and in the statement of facts; (2) precluding the introduction of evidence or argument regarding the work performed by SHB in the six unrelated actions, and (3) precluding evidence or argument regarding the nature of SHB’s representation of Plaintiffs in the instant action, whether by contingency or otherwise. Respectfully submitted, SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP Dated: January 15, 2016 By: /s/ J. Ronald Ignatuk Ronald S. Hodges J. Ronald Ignatuk Samuel J. Romero Attorneys for Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and DGB Contractor Services, Inc. 7 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and DGB Contractor Services, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through his counsel of record Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP, hereby requests, pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, that the Court take judicial notice of the content of the following documents in connection with Plaintiffs Motions in Limine No. 5 to exclude references to the dissolution of DGB Contractor Services, Inc. JUDICIALLY NOTICED DOCUMENTS 1. A substitution of attorney substituting Kent Salveson for Leonard M. Shulman in an action entitled In re Steve Sedgwick, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:12-bk-18323 TA, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. A Preliminary Hearing Order in the matter of Steve Sedgwick v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, JAMS Arbitration No. 1200050185 wherein Defendant Michael Berger is attorney for Claimant Steve Sedgwick, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 3. A California state bar complaint in the matter of In re Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, State Bar Case No. 14-0-06325 filed by Complainant Michael J. Berger obo Steve Sedgwick, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 4. A judgment entered in the matter of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00324474, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 5. A notice of appeal in the matter of Andra Sachs v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, Fourth Appellate Division, Division Three, Case No. G044116, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” nn nn nn nn nn 1 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 6. An arbitration award in the matter of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra 2 || Sachs, American Arbitration Association, Claim No. 73 194 E 03302 09 NOLG, a true and 3 | correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “F.” 4 3 Respectfully submitted, 6 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP ’ Dated: January 15, 2016 By: /s/ J. Ronald Ignatuk 8 Ronald S. Hodges J. Ronald Ignatuk 9 Samuel J. Romero Attorneys for Plaintiffs D/K Mechanical Contractors, 10 Inc. and DGB Contractor Services, Inc. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 SHULMAN HODGES & || 4417-002Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Bergen\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irelevant References to SHB Final. docx 00 Spc Coe rv MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Irvine, CA 92618 EXHIBIT A Case 8:12-bk-18323-TA Doc 63 Filed 03/18/13 Entered 03/18/13 17:10:13 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 3 I Attorney or Party Name, Address, Telephone & FAX Nos., State Bar No. & FOR COURT USE ONLY | Email Address Leonard M. Shulman, Bar No. 126349 Mark Bradshaw, Bar No. 192540 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: 949-340-3400 Fax: 949-340-3000 Email: LShulman@shibllip.com Email: MBradshaw@shbllp.com Attomey for: Steve Sedgwick UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA ANA DIVISION in re: | “49 he. i STEVE SEDGWICK, SABENA BN ERASER 2S | ADVERSARY NO.: (if applicable) | CHAPTER: 11 Debtor(s). | Plaintiff(s), vs. SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY | { Defendant(s). | 1. The name of the party making this Substitution of Attorney is (specify name): Steve Sedgwick 2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the new attorney are (specify): Leonard M. Shulman Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: 949-340-3400 Fax: 949-340-3000 Email: LShuiman@shblip.com 3. New attorney hereby appears in the following matters: the case Hl the above adversary proceeding This form is optional. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. December 2012 Page 1 F 2090-1.4.SUBSTITUTION ATTY Case 8:12-bk-18323-TA Doc 63 Filed 03/18/13 Entered 03/18/13 17:10:13 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 3 4. The new attorney is substituted as attorney of record in place and stead of the present attorney. (Specify name of present attorney): Kent E. Salveson Date: 03/15/2013 Zc Signature of party Steve Sedgwick Printed name of party | consent to the above substitution. Date: Hisliz Signature of present attorney Kent E. Salveson Printed name of present attorney | am duly admitted to practice in this district. The above substitution is accepted. Date: Cor 3 ( Signature of new attorney Leonard M. Shulman Printed name of new attorney IMPORTANT NOTICE The filing of the within Substitution of Attorney form does not obviate the need to be employed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. See LBR 2014-1 regarding the requirements and procedures for making an application to employ an attorney. This form is optional. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. December 2012 Page 2 F 2090-1.4.SUBSTITUTION.ATTY Case 8:12-bk-18323-TA Doc 63 Filed 03/18/13 Entered 03/18/13 17:10:13 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 3 PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT | am over the age of 18 and not a party fo this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 8105 irvine Center Drive, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92618 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On (date) ! ol Ly | 2 1 checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the ollowing persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On (date) 2 4 |2 I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary broceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Judge Theodor C. Albert, U.S.B.C., Central District of California Kent E. Salveson Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse Law Office of Kent Salveson 411 West Fourth Street, Suite 5085 / Courtroom 5B 28391 Avenida La Mancha Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 | Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) , | served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or {for those who consented in writing fo such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. [1 Service information continued on attached page | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. A [6 |2 Tammy Walsworth Is Tammy Walsworth Date Printed Name Signature This form is optional. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. December 2012 Page 3 F 2090-1.4.SU BSTITUTION.ATTY EXHIBIT B HON. SHEILA PRELL SONENSHINE, (RET.) JAMS 500 N. State College Blvd. 14" Floor Orange, CA 92868 Tel: 714-939-1300 Fax: 714-939-8710 Arbitrator JAM S ARBITRATION No. 1200050185 SEDGWICK, STEVE Claimant, and SHULMAN, HODGES & BASTIAN, LLP Respondent. Preliminary Hearing Order Number One No. 1200050185 Counsel: For Claimant: Michael Jay Berger L/O Michael Jay Berger 9454 Wilshire Blvd 6th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2929 Phone: 310-271-6223 Fax: 310-271-9805 Email: Michael.Berger@Bankruptcypower.com Ori Samuel Blumenfeld L/O Michael Jay Berger 9454 Wilshire Blvd 6th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2929 Claimant Phone: 310-271-6223 Fax: 310-271-9805 Email: Ori.Blumenfeld@bankruptcy.com 1 For Respondent: Tommy Q. Gallardo Nemecek & Cole 15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5399 Phone: 818-788-9500 Fax: 818-501-0328 Email: Tgeallardo@nemecek-cole.com Michael McCarthy Nemecek & Cole 15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5399 Phone: 818-788-9500 Fax: 818-501-0328 Email: mmccarthy@nemecek-cole.com Arbitrator: Justice Sheila Prell Sonenshine (Ret.) JAMS 500 N. State College Blvd, 14™ Floor Orange, CA 92868 Phone: 949-497-9040 Fax: 949-497-4440 Email: ssonenshine(@jamsadr.com 1: Case Management Conference: A case management conference was held by telephone before the Arbitrator on August 5, 2015. Mr. Michael Berger, Mr. Ori Blumenfeld, Mr. Tommy Gallardo and Mr. Michael McCarthy participated on the calls. 2. Arbitration Agreement: The Parties arbitrate their claims pursuant to the Parties March 13, 2013 letter re “Legal Representation by Shulman, Hodges, & Bastian, LLP”. (Agreement) \\ \\ Applicable Rules: a. C. Any award is final and conclusive with no right to any appeal. A Judgement rendered thereon may be entered in any court having jurisdiction of any dispute. JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures govern. In the event any provision of the JAMS Rules is inconsistent with any provision of the Agreement, the provision contained in the Agreement shall govern unless the Rules expressly require otherwise in which case the Rules shall be enforced. The Arbitrator shall follow the laws of California, including the rules of evidence, and may not invoke any other basis (including, but not limited to, notions of “just cause”) to rule on the claims. Nothing prohibits the pursuit of provisional relief in the courts or other tribunals. Discovery and Discovery Disputes and Schedules: Fees: The Parties shall meet and confer regarding the scope and schedule for discovery, schedule for dispositive motions, if any, and arbitration briefing and pre-hearing submissions. (JAMS Rules, 17, 18, 20 and 21) The Parties shall file a stipulation with the Arbitrator regarding the above by 5:00 p.m. August 19, 2015. If the Parties are unable to agree on any of the above, they shall delineate their differences and the Arbitrator will set the matter for hearing and/or take the matter under submission. Thereafter the Parties shall promptly notify JAMS when a dispute exists regarding discovery issues. A conference shall be arranged with the Arbitrator, either by telephone or in person, and the Arbitrator shall decide the dispute. Pursuant to the Agreement, the cost of the arbitration shall be split evenly among the Parties to the arbitration. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (including administrative expenses associated with the arbitration) incurred in connection with the arbitration. Arbitration Hearing: The arbitration hearing is scheduled for April 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, 2016. The hearing will commence at 9:00 a.m. and will take place at the JAMS Resolution Center, 500 N. State College Blvd, 14" Floor, Orange, CA 92868. JAMS shall give notice of the hearing date. Pleadings: The pleadings in this matter are a Demand for Arbitration filed on behalf of Claimant and Respondent’s Amended Response. Submission of Documents: The parties shall serve all documents directly with the Arbitrator (in Word format, with pdf exhibits) by email to ssonenshine@jamsadr.com. If documents are of a large size, please send via overnight mail to 2437 Monaco Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. Case Manager, Tricia Lunceford shall be copied on any email to tlunceford@jamsadr.com and the face sheet of any submission shall also be served on the Case Manager at the JAMS Resolution Center located at 500 N. State College Boulevard, 14" Floor, Orange, CA 92868. Further Pre-Hearing Conferences: The Arbitrator shall conduct such further pre-hearing conferences as may be requested by the parties and/or as in the discretion of the Arbitrator may be necessary for the efficient administration of the arbitration. DATED: 8/7/15 It is So Ordered oe Erne Justice Sheila Prell Sonenshine (Ret.) Sitting as Arbitrator EXHIBIT C ~ THE STATE BAR OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL SE ENFORCEMENT / / zd OF CALIFORNIA Jayne Kim, Chief Trial Counsel > 25) 845 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2515 TELEPHONE: (213) 765-1000 OSH 4) FAX: (213) 765-1318 Lr 20 VIB http://www.calbar.ca.gov DIRECT DIAL: (213) 765-1710 February 10, 2015 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Leonard Shulman Shulman Hodges Bastian LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Case Number: 14-0-06326 Complainant: Michael Berger obo Steve Sedgwick Dear Mr. Shulman: This letter is sent to you based upon information that you are not currently represented by counsel in this matter. If this is incorrect, please advise me within five days so that future communications may be directed to your counsel. The State Bar received a complaint from Michael J. Berger obo Steve Sedgwick alleging the following: REDACTED Leonard Shulman February 10, 2015 Page 2 REDACTED Leonard Shulman February 10, 2015 Page 3 REDACTED Leonard Shulman February 10, 2015 Page 4 REDACTED Leonard Shulman February 10, 2015 Page 5 REDACTED Leonard Shulman February 10, 2015 Page 6 Upon request, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel will consider granting you additional time within which to submit a written response to the allegations and the requested information and documents. A request for an extension of time must be in writing and state good cause as to the specific constraints on your practice which are claimed to necessitate the additional time. Any request for extension of time must be received by the undersigned on or before February 27, 20185. Please feel free to call me at (213) 765-1710 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Colie Dillon Investigator cfd EXHIBIT D NO 0 N N n s W N N O R R O N N N N m a I VW A L L D R E S 0 ® a e d » R S S 28 SBUULMAN RODGES & BASTIANLLP 26632 Towne Centre Drive Suite 300 Foothill Raach, CA 92610 ® . . ® et Ji sue CEN FORA M07 am FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA BY N.DORFMAN LCR CE ERE JUL 212010 ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court bgt BY FRAHS &) SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIANLLP, ) Case No. 30-2009-00324474 a California Limited Liability Partnership, ) ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Plaintiff, ) Frederick P. Hom, Dept{31] VS. ) ) ANDRA SACHS, a/k/a Andra Lacho a/k/a ) fPROpesem JUDGMENT Andra Lacho Sachs, individually, ) ) Defendant. ) ) } ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date Action Filed: November 25, 2009 ) ) [Amount Demanded Exceeds $25,000] ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 2913-007 GAWpiCases\S-TiSachs\Sachs Andra\Adbitration\PldJudgment 001 doc JUDGMENT = I H E E V E R O R OR N N N N - 8 68 R E V S RE 8 8 2 8 9 % a r o nD 2 3 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 26632 Towae Centre Drive Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 ® et v ® 3 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that: Petitioner Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP shall recover from Respondent ANDRA SACHS, a/k/a Andra Lacho a/k/a Andra Lacho Sachs the total amount of $77,519.20 representing $48,344.20 in principal, $26,625.00 in its attorney fees and costs incurred, and $2,550 in incurred arbitration fees and expenses, plus attorney fice anid costs that may be incurred in any post-judgment enforcement action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP is entitled to costs of suit herein in the amount of Ln hid attorney fees incurred in bringing the petition to confirm the arbitration award in the amount of $1,720.00 from Respondent ANDRA SACHS, a/k/a Andra Lacho a/k/a Andra Lacho Sachs. Judge of the Superior Court 2913-007 G\Wp\Cases\S-T\Sachs\Sachs Andra\Arbitration\Pid\Tud) 001.d0c JUDGMENT ! : WOW 00 J & WU H W O N R O N O N R O N N N W NI R&A B R B N m S D o ® A o a r m RD z B 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 26632 Towne Centre Drive Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Iam employed in the City of Foothill Ranch, County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300, Foothill Ranch, California 92610. On June 28, 2010, I served the documents named below on the parties in this Action as follows: DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: 1) [Proposed] Judgment SERVED UPON: Law Offices of Michael V. Wright Michael V. Wright, Esq. 16162 Beach Blvd., Suite 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 [X] (BY MAIL) I caused each such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Foothill Ranch, California. 1 am readily familiar with the practice of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, mail is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after deposit for mailing in affidavit. [Courtesy copy to Walter Weiss, Esq.] [1 (BY FACSIMILE) The above-referenced document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as completed and without error, Pursuant to C.R.C. 2009(i), I either caused, or had someone cause, the transmitting machine to properly transmit the attached documents to the facsimile numbers shown on the service list. [1 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I am readily familiar with the practice of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP for collection and processing of documents for overnight delivery and know that the document(s) described herein will be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or Overnite Express for overnight delivery or by Express Mail via the United States Postal Service. [1] (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses as listed above and/or on the attached Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [(X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 7, 2010 at Foothill Ranch, California. Maria Taylor 7 2913-007/56 W:ACASES\S-T\SACHS\SACHSANDRAVRBITRATIONWPLD\POS 6-21-10.00C PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT E SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE JUSTICE CENTER: Central Unlimited Civil Appellate Unit [FORNIA 700 Civic Center Dr. West SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF® Santa Ana, CA 82701 Jet mor ORR AUG 20 2010 PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER: SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT: SACHS By. ADANG DEPUTY NOTICE OF FILING - NOTICE OF APPEAL Unlimited Civil Appellate Unit CASE NUMBER: 30-2009-00324474 To: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, 4" DISTRICT - DIVISION III, P.O. BOX 22055, SANTA ANA, CA 92702 ANDRA SACHS 32955 CALLE PERFECTO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 RONALD S HODGES SAMUEL J ROMERO SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN 26632 TOWNE CENTRE, STE 300 FOOTHILL RANCH, CA 92610-2808 YOU AND EACH OF YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON _8/19/10Q A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE UNLIMITED CIVIL APPELLATE UNIT AT THE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, 700 CIVIC CENTER DR W,, P.O. BOX 22014, SANTA ANA CA 92702-0838. THE APPELLATE UNIT IS LOCATED IN ROOM D110 - WINDOW 40. ALAN CARLSON, CLERK OF THE COURT DATED:8/20/10 A. DANG A. Dang, DEPUTY CLERK CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that | am not a party to this action and that this notice was mailed in accordance with Section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of this notice was deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid addressed as shown above. The mailing and this certification occurred at Santa Ana, California. (Court of Appeals copy was delivered by courier.) ALAN CARLSON, CLERK OF THE COURT On:8/20/10 A. DANG A. Dang, DEPUTY CLERK NOTICE OF FILING - NOTICE OF APPEAL Lo 0 3 N N A W N = BN O N N O N N N N N N O e em em mk em je m em e k e d e d 0 0 N n Aa W N = OS CO 0 N S N R W N = ANDRA SACHS 32955 Calle Perfecto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Telephone (949) 240-4300 Defendant/Appellant in Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER Pr epAN HODGES & BASTIAN, Plaintiff, ANDRA SACHS, an individual; and DOES t through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Defendant/Appellant, ANDRA SACHS, appeals to the California Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District from the above-entitied Court’s Judgment entered on July 21, 2010. DATED: August 19, 2010 FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER AUG 19 2010 ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court BY: ___D.CHANG "DEPUTY CASE NO.: 30-2009-00324474 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE FREDERICK P. HORN DEPARTMENT “C 31” NOTICE OF APPEAL A Defendant/Appellant, In Pro Per NOTICE OF APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I, SCOTT A. ZIMMON, declare: I'am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 16162 Beach Boulevard, Suite 207, Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647. On March 21, 2010, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF APPEAL in the case entitled: Shulman Hodges & Bastain v. Sachs, et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2009-00324474, on the interested parties through their attorneys of record by placing a true and correct copy thereof addressed as shown on the attached service list, as designated below: (XX) BY FIRST CLASS MAIL (C.C.P. § 1013a, et seq.): I caused said documents(s) to be deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid at Fountain Valley, California, following the ordinary practice at my place of business of collection and processing of mail on the same day as shown as this declaration. ( ) BY HAND DELIVERY/PERSONAL SERVICE (C.C.P. § 1011, et seq.) I caused said documents(s) to be delivered to each addressee. ( ) BY TELECOPY/FACSIMILE (C.C.P. § 1012.5, et seq.) I caused said document(s) to be facsimiled to each addressee’s facsimile (“Fax”) number. ( ) BY EXPRESS MAIL (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d), et seq.) [caused said document(s) to be deposited with an express service carrier in a sealed envelope designated by the carrier as an express mail envelope, with fees and postage pre-paid. ( ) BY REGISTERED MAIL (C.C.P. § 1020, et seq.) [ caused said document(s) to be deposited with the United States mail, postage pre-paid, return receipt requested, signed by the addressee that said document(s) were received. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. A paren, Safe i. =m SCOTT A. ZIMMON SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN, LLP v. SACHS, et al OCSC Case Number 30-2009-00324474 “SERVICE LIST” Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP 26632 Towne Center Drive, Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 EXHIBIT F Apr 27 10 04:20p DRUMHMY 805 968 3567 p-2 AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION Commercial Arbitration Tribunal In the Matter of the Arbitration between Re: 73 194 E 03302 09 NOLG Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP “Claimant” and Andra Sachs “Respondent” AWARD OF ARBITRATOR I, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the arbitration agreements entered into between the above-named parties and dated February 5. 2003, February 26, 2003 and May 31, 2006, and having been duly sworn, and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the Claimant, and the Respondent having failed to appear after due notice by mail in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, hereby, AWARD, as follows: Claimant, Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP shall recover from Respondent Andra Sachs the sum of $44,334.27 for unpaid past services and costs incurred, together with pre-award interest thereon in the sum of $4,009.93 for a total due of FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FOURTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($48,344.20). Claimant, Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP shall also recover from Respondent Andra Sachs its attorneys fees and costs in this Arbitration, exclusive of American Arbitration Association administrative costs and arbitrator compensation, in the sum of TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($26,625.00). The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association totaling $1,500.00 shall be bome entirely by Respondent, and the compensation of the arbitrator totaling $1.050.00 shall be borne entirely by Respondent. Therefore, Respondent shall reimburse Claimant the additional sum of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($2,550.00) representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by Claimant. All amounts awarded above shall bear interest at the rate of ten percent ( 10%) per annum from the date of this Award until paid. This Award is in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby, denied. 1, Stephen C. Drummy, do hereby affirm upon my oath as Arbitrator that I am the individual described in and who executed this instrument which is my Award. “2 Date Ail 32, 2010 cD Stephen C. Drummy. pe Received Time Apr.27. 3:(B8PM ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. ROMERO I, Samuel J. Romero, declare: 1. I am an associate attorney at the law firm of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP. If called as a witness in this matter, I could and would competently testify to all facts set forth in this declaration from my personal knowledge. 2. This case involves claims by Plaintiffs that Berger's advice that Plaintiffs seek chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because of a temporary cash flow problem brought Plaintiffs’ business to a screeching halt resulting in the loss of valuable contracts and the complete demise of Plaintiffs’ business, resulting in significant damages. Plaintiff will present evidence that Berger was incompetent to advise Plaintiffs and that his advice, acts and omissions were far beneath the standard of care. Plaintiffs allege that had they known that by following Berger's advice there was little to no possibility of continuing their businesses, they would never have relied upon Berger's legal representation and would have never filed for bankruptcy protection, which has cost them in excess of $10 million dollars. 3- Plaintiffs have asserted three claims for breach of contract by each of the Plaintiffs and restitution for sums paid to Berger, three claims for legal malpractice by each of the Plaintiffs, and claims for fraud (intentional misrepresentation) and fraud (intentional omission of material fact). 4. None of these causes of action embrace services provided by SHB or internet postings or statements regarding the allegations, claims, and defenses in the matters of: a. In re Steve Sedgwick, US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:12-bk-18323 TA (See Request for Judicial Notice (“RIN”), Ex. “A”); b. Steve Sedgwick v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, JAMS Arbitration No. 1200050185 wherein Defendant Michael Berger is attorney for Claimant Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “B”); C. In re Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, State Bar Case No. 14-0-06325 by Complainant Michael J. Berger obo Steve Sedgwick (See RIN, Ex. “C”); 1 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - DECLARATION ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618 d. Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00324474 (See RIN, Ex. “D”); e. Andra Sachs v. Shulman Hodges & Bastian, LLP, Fourth Appellate Division, Division Three, Case No. G044116(See RIN, Ex. “E”); f. Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP v. Andra Sachs, American Arbitration Association, Claim No. 73 194 E 03302 09 NOLG (See RIN, Ex. “F”). 3. I have reviewed the files underlying each of the above actions, and they embrace services provided by SHB in other completely unrelated matters. For example, the above matters numbers 1 through 3 (re: RIN, Exhs. “A” thru “C,”) relate to services provided by other SHB attorneys, Leonard Shulman and Mark Bradshaw, on behalf of Steve Sedwick in an action where Mr. Sedwick was a debtor-in-possession prior to SHB being substituted as counsel. Mr. Berger substituted as counsel of record after SHB, and then filed a state bar complaint and an arbitration action in an apparent attempt to create leverage against SHB in this action. 6. I have reviewed our firm’s email files regarding and this matter. I have identified emails bearing Mr. Berger's email address listed in the California Bar website, I am informed and believe that Mr. Berger forwarded emails to SHB and Plaintiffs in which he addressed disparaging internet posting related to the services provided by SHB which were addressed in the above matters Nos. 4 through 6. As I was personally involved in litigating the above matters 4 through 6, I can attest that they regard a fee dispute with a former SHB client, Andra Sachs, which was adjudicated against Ms. Sachs in an arbitration, judgment and appeal. 1" 1" 1" 1" 2 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berger\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - DECLARATION 7. Plaintiffs have not alleged anything regarding these matters in their complaint, and Mr. Berger made no allegations regarding the above matters in his Answer. All of Plaintiffs’ causes of action relate to the deficient services provided by Mr. Berger by filing a highly ill- advised bankruptcy. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true ~N O Y a B A W and correct. Executed at Irvine, California on January 14, 2016. 9 /s/ Samuel J. Romero Samuel J. Romero 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SHULMAN HODGES & 4417-002\Z:\C-D\DK Mechanical\Berge\TRIAL 1-25-16\MIL\Final Docs\MIL No. 1 Exclude Irrelevant References to SHB Final.docx 108 Spee fm Ceci De MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 -- DECLARATION Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92618