Brian Sarvak vs. Robert C. WolffMotion to Strike or Tax CostsCal. Super. - 4th Dist.December 21, 2016ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 ZFATY |BURNS ISAAC R. ZFATY, State Bar No. 214987 LAYA DOGMETCHI, State Bar No. 188064 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 398-8080 Facsimile: (949) 398-8081 irz@ zfatyburns.com ld@ zfatyburns.com BUCHALTER JASON E. GOLDSTEIN, State Bar No. 207481 18400 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 780-1121 Email: jgoldstein@ buchalter.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-D efendant, BRIAN SARVAK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE ENTER BRIAN SARVAK, an individual; Lead Case No.: 30-2016-00893828 [Related with Case No.: 30-2017-00896078] Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Deborah Servino VS. Dept. C21 ROBERT C. WOLFF, an individual; STEVEN PLAINTIFF BRIAN SARVAK’S NOTICE ARNOLD ROUTON and AMY SHO-SHU OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX CHEN, Co-Trustees of the Chen Routon Trust COSTS OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS- dated April 8, 2013; ROBERT C. WOLFF COMPLAINANTS ROBERT C. WOLFF, DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN: and ROBERT C. WOLFF DEFINED BENEFIT DOES 1-50. inclusive. PENSION PLAN, STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON AND AMY SHO-SHU CHEN, Defendants. CO-TRUSTEES OF THE CHEN ROUTON TRUST DATED APRIL 8, 2013, AND JAMES AND PATRICIA BENSON Hearing Date: June 1, 2018 Time: 10:00 a.m. Reservation No.: 72801635 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 ROBERT C. WOLFF, anindividual; ROBERT C.WOLFF DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN; and STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON and AMY SHO-SHU CHEN, Co-Trustees of the Chen Routon Trust dated April 8, 2013, Cross-Complainants, V. BRIAN SARVAK, an individual; IRON FINANCIAL, INC., a California Corporation; CRAIG HOWARD ALTERMAN, an individual; RON EUGENE READY, an individual; and ROES 1 THOUGH 20, inclusive, Cross-D efendants. TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Junel, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department C21 of the above-entitled Court, located at 700 Civic Center Dr. West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant BRIAN SARVAK (“Plaintiff”), will, and hereby does move this Court to tax costs sought by Defendants and Cross- Complainants ROBERT C. WOLFF, ROBERT C. WOLFF DEFINED PENSION PLAN, STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON AND AMY SHO-SHU CHEN AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE CHEN ROUTON TRUST DATED APRIL 8,2013, JAMES BENSON AND PATRICIA BENSON,(collectively “Defendants™). Plaintiff asks that Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs be stricken in its entirety as Defendants are not prevailing parties entitled to an award of costs in this action. Should, however, the Court consider Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, Plaintiff asks that Defendants’ costs listed below are stricken or significantly reduced: e Service of Process Fees, $15,595.23; e Court reporter fees, $20,156.59; e Photocopies of exhibits, $5,174; e Fees for electronic filing, $1,168; e Other - Parking and Travel fees for ex parte hearings and trial, $674.70. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS 1 This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. §§ 1032, 1033.5 and California Rules 2 [lof Courtrule 3.1700 on the grounds that: (1) Defendants are not entitled to recover costs in this 3 |laction and (2) Defendants are not entitled to excessive and unreasonable costs not necessary to 4 (the litigation. 5 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying M emorandum of 6 [Points and A uthorities, the pleadings, record and files in this action, such matters of which the 7 Court may take judicial notice, Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Prevailing Party and for 8 Attorney’s Fees and Costs filed concurrently herewith, and such further evidence and argument 9 [fas may be presented by Plaintiff at or before the hearing on this Motion. 10 11 Dated: April 27,2018 ZFATY |BURNS 12 13 THA 14 ISAACR.ZFATY Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-D efendant 15 BRIAN SARVAK 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZFATY | BURNS 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 -3- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 PlaintiffBRIAN SARVAK (“Plaintiffor “Sarvak”) respectfully submits the following Memorandum of Points and A uthorities in support of his Motion to Tax Costs of Defendants ROBERT C.WOLFF,ROBERT C. WOLFF DEFINED PENSION PLAN, STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON AND AMY SHO-SHU CHEN AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE CHEN ROUTON TRUST DATED APRIL 8,2013, JAMES BENSON AND PATRICIA BENSON (collectively, “Defendants”). MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendants are not the prevailing parties in this action, and thus, are not entitled to an award of costs. As discussed in great detail in Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action as he has achieved his litigation objectives and most significantly benefited from this action. For this reason, Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs must be stricken in its entirety. In the event the Court finds any reason to consider Defendants’ costs, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike or significantly reduce the costs requested by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike or reduce the following excessive and unreasonable costs: e Service of Process Fees, $15,595.23; e Court reporter fees, $20,156.59; e Photocopies of exhibits, $5,174; e Fees for electronic filing, $1,168; e Other - Parking and Travel fees for ex parte hearings and trial, $674.70. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard for Awarding Costs. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. § 1032 (b), a “prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) A “prevailing party”is a party with a “net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissalis entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code of Civ. Pro. § 1032 -1- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 (a)(4).) “A plaintiff will be considered a prevailing party when the lawsuit yields the primary relief soughtin the case.” (Pirkig v. Dennis (1989) 215 Cal.A pp.3d 1560, 1566.) California law recognizes three types oflitigation costs: (1) allowable; (2) disallowable; and (3) discretionary. (Code of Civ. Pro. § 1033.5 (a), (b), (c)(4).) For allowable and discretionary costs to be recoverable, they must also be both “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficialto its preparation” and “reasonable in amount.” (Code of Civ. Pro. § 1033.5 (c)(2)-(3).) Whethera costis “reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation”is a question of fact for the trial court. (Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1209.) “However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.A pp.4th 761, 774.) If specifically, allowable under the Code, the party challenging the costs has the burden of showing that the costs sought are not reasonable or necessary. However,if the costs not specifically allowable are objected to, then the burden of proof lies with the requesting party to demonstrate that the costs were necessary and reasonable. (Ladas v. Cal. State Automobile Ass., (1993) 19. Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) B. Defendants are Not the Prevailing Party and Are Not E ntitled to Costs. Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Prevailing Party discusses at length the reasons Plaintiff should be determined to be the prevailing party in this action for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff incorporates that Motion herein by reference. Asa summary, Plaintiff should be determined to be the prevailing party in this action based on the following: 1) Sarvak prevailed on all claims on the cross-complaints'; 2) Sarvak achieved most of his litigation objectives in this action, specifically to void the usurious interest on the Notes. And comparatively, Defendants achieved none of their ! Indubitably, Defendants will argue that they “prevailed” on their claim for breach of contract. However, the principal owed on the Notes was never at issue in this case, and Sarvak clearly received the “greater relief” on the competing claims. Moreover, Defendants prevented Plaintiff from paying off the loans when they recorded lis pendens against the properties at issue here. 22- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 ZFATY | BURNS 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 litigation objectives, inasmuch as: a. They lost their defense of the usury claims; b. They lost all of the affirmative claims, save for maybe one; and C. Asto the one thing that they did “win,” it was never in controversy. Sarvak stated in his complaint, his opening, and his closing that D efendants were unequivocally entitled to the principal in the promissory notes. That was never atissue here. The only ultimate issue was,if Plaintiff won, would the amounts due to Defendants be reduced; or of Defendants won, would the amount in the notes be increased. The amounts due were reduced, and accordingly, under the applicable law (and also common sense), Plaintiff won this case. Sarvak was specifically awarded $75,383 against Defendants Robert C. Wolff and Robert C. Wolff Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Wolff”), Steven Arnold Routon (“Routon”) and Amy Sho-Shu Chen (“Chen”) as Co-Trustees of the Chen Routon Trust dated April 8, 2013, representing the usurious interest and points paid by Sarvak on the W olff-R outon-Chen Note; Sarvak was also specifically awarded $75,375 against Defendants Wolff and J ames Benson and Patricia Benson (“Benson”), representing the usurious interest and points paid by Sarvak on the W ol ff-B enson Note; As the Court found the Notes to be usurious - and specifically found against Defendants on their defense that A lterman/Iron Financial brokered the loan - Sarvak is the prevailing party under the applicable law; By the Judgment, Sarvak has been relieved of obligations in the total sum of $210,597.89 in usurious interest payments on the Notes, plus reduced interest, calculated as follows: a. Interest paid on the Wolf-Routon-Chen Note: $75,383 b. Interest paid on Wolff-W olff-Benson Note: $75,375 ¢. Unpaid usurious interest voided on W olff-R outon-Chen Note: $5,750 -3- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 d. Unpaid usurious interest voided on W ol ff-W olff-Benson Note: $10,155.60 e. Post-maturity interest on Wolff-R outon-Chen Note (difference between usurious interest at 11.5% and 7% interest per the Judgment): $27,694.13 f. Post-maturity interest on W olff-W olff-Benson Note (difference between usurious interest at 12.5% and 7% interest per the Judgment): $16,240.16; 7) Defendants - who sought a judgmentin the total amount of $8,358,440.00 - gained de minimis actual relief at trial (just $2,465); 8) Even Defendants, who made shameless argument after shameless argument attrial, cannot argue that they achieved a “greater relief,” in light of the fact that note amount was reduced - and - Defendants received nothing on the $8,358,440 they tried to get by and through their Cross-C omplaint; 9) Defendants failed on their cross-claims (save for the $2,465 and post-maturity interest) and failed to prove their main, most time-consuming defense - that the Notes were brokered; 10) The Court found on Defendants’ Breach of Contract cross-claim that Defendants are entitled to repayment of the principal amount of the two Notes, without interest, plus late fees in the amount of $1,449 as to the W olff-R outon-Chen Note and $1,016 as to the Wolff-Benson Note, and post-maturity interest at the legal rate; 11) Defendants are not prevailing parties on their breach of contract cross-claims because the relief granted was not disputed by Sarvak and the amount of relief was not substantial or significant; 12) Defendants cannot now claim that they were “winners” - or even that there was “no prevailing party” - when it was their own actions that prevented Plaintiff from paying them off sooner, to wit: Defendants recorded lis pendens against Sarvak’s properties - and they still refuse to remove them. That makes title completely unmarketable, which completely preempts Plaintiff from paying Defendants off - even now. So, Defendants do not get to argue: a. We were only here to get our loan money back (even though we sued for “4 - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 $8 million); b. Werecorded lis pendens, preventing Plaintiff from paying us off (even though we had no need to do so, given the Trust Deeds that were already on the property). ¢. We “won” the reduced principal balances (that Plaintiff was totally prevented from paying off - by our own actions); and according, d. We arethe winners and Plaintiff gets no fees. 13) The late fees awarded to Defendants on the Notes, which collectively totaled $2,465, are de minimis and considerably less than Defendants’ collective request for damages of $8,358,440. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff should be determined to be the prevailing party in this action. Defendants are not entitled to costs and their M emorandum of Costs should be stricken in its entirety. C. Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs is Unreasonable. Defendants are not the prevailing parties in this action and are not entitled to any costs. If the Court, however, has any grounds to consider Defendants” Memorandum of Costs, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike or significantly reduce Defendants’ costs as they are excessive, unreasonable and not necessary to the litigation. a. Defendants’ Request $15,595.23 for Service of Process F ees. Defendants’ request for $15,595.23 for service of process fees is excessive, unreasonable, and includes several duplicative charges for service to the same party on the same day. Included in Attachment 5d to Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs are fees for service of the Cross-Complaint on Iron Financial, Inc. Ron Ready, and Craig Alterman. Defendantsfailed in each of their claims against these cross-defendants. There is no legal nexus between these cross-defendants and Plaintiff and thus, these costs should not be allocated to Plaintiff. Further, there are multiple charges for service of the same documents on the same party on the same day. For example, there are four charges for service to Iron Financial, Inc. on February 14, 2017 for a total of $406.98. Two charges are purportedly for service of the Routon 25. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 Cross-Complaint and two charges are for the Benson Cross-Complaint. There is no reason why one single act of service of two documents (the Benson Cross-Complaint and R outon Cross- Complaint) would require four separate charges. There are double charges with respect to service of the Cross-Complaints on Ron Ready and Craig Alterman as well. Double charges - two charges for service on the same party on the same day - are repeated throughout Defendants’ Attachment 5d with respect to every service charge, save for a few exceptions. These double service charges for service on the same day to the same party are unreasonable, unnecessary and should not be recoverable. As further evidence of Defendants’ unreasonable and excessive costs, Defendants have listed four charges for service of Trial Subpoenas for Appearance & On Call Agreement for Donald Josephson on January 11, 2018 for a total of $464 ($129, $80, $177, $78). There are also three charges for service of Trial Subpoenas for Appearance & On Call Agreement for Judith Josephson on the same day, January 11, 2018, for a total of $257 ($40, $40, $177). The double, triple and quadruple service charges are excessive and should be stricken. E xorbitant service charges for subpoenas should also be stricken. Defendants list two charges on December 6, 2017 totaling $1,372 for service of two Deposition Subpoenas for Appearance and Production of Business Records on lan Taylor. Similarly, Defendants list two charges for service on Eric S. Hart for service of Deposition Subpoenas for A ppearance and Production of Business Records on December 7, 2017 totaling $1,694. These service charges are excessive and unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks that the Court use its discretion to strike all other excessive costs which exceed $200 for service. Plaintiff strongly maintains that Defendants are not entitled to costs in this action; however, for the purpose of this Motion, Plaintiff asks that the double, triple and quadruple charges be stricken and Defendants’ costs with respectto service fees be reduced by no less than $10,798.71. 1111 1111 -6- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ZFATY | BURNS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N N N N N N N N N R B B B R B P B B B B9 3 9 3 3 p m ~ ~ o o U U B A W N H H O V W 0 N N O o U l A W N N + L o O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 398-8080 b. Defendants’ Request for Court Reporter Fees, Exhibit Copying, E -Filing F ees and Travel Costs are Unreasonable, E xcessive and Not Necessary. Defendants have listed the following as costs: $20,156.59 for court reporter fees, $5,174.70 for photocopies of exhibits, $1,168 for e-filing fees, and $674.70 for travel and parking fees for ex parte hearings and trial. These fees totaling $27,173.99 are excessive and unreasonable. Defendants’ court reporter fees are nearly $7,500 more than the Plaintiff’s fees. Defendants’ expense of over $5,000 for photocopying and $1,168 for e-filing are also unreasonable. Further, “the only travel expenses authorized by section 1033.5 are those to attend depositions.” (Ladas v. California Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775.) The parking and travel costs listed under “other” by Defendants were not incurred “to attend depositions,” but are described as being related to ex parte hearings and trial. As these costs are not expressly authorized by statute, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike these “other” costs totaling $674.70, in their entirety. I11.CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Courtstrike Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs on the basis that Defendants are not the prevailing party in this action. If, however, the Court finds any grounds to consider Defendants’ costs, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike several items of Defendants’ requested costs and appropriately significantly reduce the costs requested. Dated: April 27,2018 ZFATY |BURNS ISAACR.ZFATY Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-D efendant BRIAN SARVAK -7- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS © O 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N O N N N N D N N N D N N N F P FP F F P F P F P F F P F P P = c o N N o o u n B A W N F P O O V U 0 0 N N o u l B A W N M H O O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE. |, LARA ESPOSITO, am employed in the County. of Orange, State of California. | am over the age of 18 years of age and not a party to the within action. My business address is 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470, Newport Beach, CA 92660. On April 27, 2018, | served the foregoing document(s) described as: on the following interested parties in this action: PLAINTIFF BRIAN SARVAK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONTO TAX COSTS OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS- COMPLAINANTS ROBERT C. WOLFF, ROBERT C. WOLFF DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON AND AMY SHO-SHU CHEN, CO- TRUSTEESOF THE CHEN ROUTON TRUST DATED APRIL 8,2013, AND JAMES AND PATRICIA BENSON SERVICE LIST [ 1 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: On this date | caused a true copy of the above- referenced document to be delivered by handto each of the parties listed on the SERVICE LIST by using the services of Nationwide Legal Support. [ X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: | caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent by electronic mail to the e-mail addresses of each party listed on the SERVICE LIST. [X] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: | caused the above-referenced document(s) to be placed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited said envelopein the U.S. Postal Service mailbox at 660 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California on the date stated above, addressed to each of the named parties listed onthe SERVICE LIST. Executed on April 27, 2018 at Newport Beach, California. [X ] (STATE) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Su Pons LARA ESPOSITO © 0 0 d N o o u r B A W w W N D R N O N N N D N D N N N D N N N F P FP F F P F P FP F F P FP F F P F P c o N N o o u i B A W w W N N P O V U 0 0 Y N o O U l B A W N + P , o O o SERVICE LIST Brian Sarvak v. Robert C. Wolf OCSC Case No.: 30-2016-00893828-CU-OR-CJ C (Related Case No.: 30-2017-00896078) Rich Collins James R. Rouse Daniel J. Callahan Stephen E. Blaine CALLAHAN |BLAINE 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 Email: RCollins@ callahan-law.com | Rouse@ callahan-law.com SEB @ callahan-law.com Attorneys for Defendants, ROBERT C. WOLFF, STEVEN ARNOLD ROUTON, AMY SHO-SHU CHEN, Co-Trustee of the Chen Routon Trust dated April 8, 2013; and ROBERT C. WOLFF DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN Thomas K. Emmitt 24328 Vermont Ave, Suite 300 Harbor City, CA 90710 Tel: (310)891-1959 Fax: (310)997-1484 Email: tkemmitt@ yahoo.com Attorneys for Cross-D efendants, CRAIG HOWARD ALTERMAN, RON EUGENE READY and IRON FINANCIAL, INC. Jason E. Goldstein, Esq. BUCHALTER 18400 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irving, CA 92612 igoldstein@ buchalter.com