Iloward D.

Pilch
I
2
3
41
Howard D. Pilch, Esq. (SBN 54330)
LAW OFFICES OF HOW ARD D. PILClI
180 I Century Park EaSl, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2326
Telephone: (310) 553-5344
FacsImile: (310) 553-5359
5 Attorney for Plainti fr, ABRAHAM TZEMACl I ROSENFELD
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY LOS ANGELES
10 ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD I
II Plaintiff,
12 . v. )
CASE NO. BC 378 264
(Related Case :.lumber BS 100 826)
(The Honorable Charles F. Palmer)
13'
14
15
RABBI BINYOMIN LISBON. an
individual, CARRIE LISBON, an
individual, and KSA,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD IN
RESPONSE TO ORD.ER TO SHOW
CAlJSE RE DISMISSAL
HATE:
TIME:
October 3, 2012
8:30a.m.
a non-profit business; BAIS BEZALEL
CHABAD, and DOES 1 through] 00,
16 inclusive DEPT.: 33
17 Defendants.
18
19 T, ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD, declare as tallows;
20 L I am Plaintiff in this matter. I submit this Supplemental Declaration in response to
21 the Court's OSC re Dismissal of tbis action (based on completed arbitration). If called upon to
22 ! testify, I could and would competently testify to the following facts as I have personal knowledge
23 I thereof, except those stated on information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.
24 2. I offer my declaration in lieu of per so nul testimony pursuant to 2009, 20 15.5 of the
25 Calitllrnia Code of Civil Procedure; Rule 5, 118, California Rules of Court: Reiflerv. Sup"rior Cour!
26 (1994) 39 Cal. App, 3d 479; \1arriage of Stevenot (l984) 154 Cal, App. 3d 1051.
FAc:::TS ASSERTIONS WHICH LiSBON AND KSA DO :'<lOT DENY:
28 l' 3. In my earlier Declaration. I made certain factual assertions relating to the Beth
J Sill Century Park E.
Suire 2400
-1-
LA, CA 90067
3]
, POISD SlJPPLElvlENTAL OF ABRAHAM ROSI,"NFELD IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S OSC
Din proceedings. IlQlle of whieh were challcJlged or denied by Defendants RlIbbi Binyomin
Lisbon (Lisbon) and KSA in their reply pleadings in response to my ca.rlier filed Declaration:
A. The Beth Din do.es nothave the jurisdiction to adjudicate the tort. labor
4 : and other statutory claims 1 in my Complaint. pursuant to Jewish Law (Halachal. such llli
5 reguests fj;J1..lJUnitive distress. penalties and interest. A eopy of the cover page
6 : of my Complaint (atlached as exhibit to my earlier declaration). in which I allege fourteen (14)
7 causes of action, some based in contract, and others based in lort, labor and/or employment law was
8 attached to my earlier filed declaration, is attached hereto as Exhibit" 1" and is incorporated herein
9 by reference as though set forth herein in full;
B. My tort"labor and other statutory claims under California law were
nev.,y addressed bYJhe Beth Din;
C. At no time during the before the Beth Din did Lisbon,
13 KSA or their counsel (their current counsel as well). Mr. ShemJan, ever argue mv tort and California
14 ! statutOry claims:
15 D, The Beth Din's rulings did not specifically encompass. address or even
16 ,derto my lort-labor and emplovme.nt claims; More specifically, the Rabbinical Court Ruling oflhe
17 Beth Din did
18
19
20.
21

23 I
!
24
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Address my tort
Address my claims for punitive damages;
Address my claims of violations of the California Labor Code:
Address my claims of violations of the California Business and
J:'rgfessionJi Code; and
(5) Address or consider my claims under California Jaw.
At no point during the proceesJings before the Bell] Din ever
notified or advised \hat any of my claims in tort, labor and/or employment were being considered
26 t'lr any purpose by, the Beth Din.
27 F. The Beth Din does not recognize the laws or statutes nor
28 . tbs.: .. causcs of action and relief arising therefrom or relating
Howard D_ Pilch
180] Ce:r.t:.:ry Park: b
Suife 2400
2-
LA, CA 900,1
3105535344 P01SD SI'PPLEME\;TAL DECL.ARAT10N OF ABRAHAM ROSENFELD IN RESPO'lSE TO COliRT'S OSC
(i, I was never represented bv counsel with respect to any oIthe written
2 documents presented 10 the Court, writings upon which Lisbon and KSA base their claim that I either
3 allegedJy waived my prospective tort, labOL employment and/or other California statutory claims or
4 unknowingly agreed to submit to a Beth Din unknown prospective claims,
5 H,
At no pOlm prior to my signing the General Agreement (my employment
6 agreement with KSA) or Agreement to Submit to Arbitration was I ever advised to retain counsel;
7 r. Lis,b,gn and KSA were represented hy io<;lenendent connsel with respect
8 to both the General Agreement (Rosenfeld's employment agreement with KSA) and Agreement to
9 Submit to Arbitration, including their current counsel, Robert Sherman, Esq,
!O J. The General Agreement between me and KSA (to which Lisbon is not
II lULany), cited by Lisbon and KSA in support oftheirppsition ofinc1usion. does uQ\address. identify
12 or f",J!;rence tort,iab9r, employment or statutorY claims under Califomia law.
13 K, The Court'sOrder oU1[10/07 does not identifY or spccitlcally refer to
14 rPy alleged tort, labor, employment and/or other California statutorv claims;
15 L Agreement (between .. me and KSA) does not rcJi;Jcncc or
16 include issues between me and Lisbon. only me and KSA); and
17 M. At no point prior to signing anY;Jgreement (including thost: during
18 which Me, Sherman represented KSA and Lisbon) did KSA, Lisbon or ML Sherman reguest (or
19 evt:n mention) that my t01i, labor, employment and/or olher slatutoryclaims be included, including
20 all four (4) written agreements executed hetween 1994 and 2007, 101' which I never had counseL
21 I CONSIDERED THAT IN SIGNING THE GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT t
22 WAS BEIN(; ASKED TO WAIVF; PROSPECTIVE CALIFORNIA STATUTORY CLAIMS.
23 4. When presented with the General Agreement for signature, despite my being
24 without counsel (while KSA had counsel), no one (including Mr. Shennan, KSA and Lisbon)
25 suggested or requested that I waive or compromise potential knowl: and unknown claims.
26
5, At no time did I ever understand or believe that in signing the Genera!
27 Agreement lhat I was being asked to waive or compromise potential unknown tort and statutory
28 claims against KSA and/or LISBON, In fact, [ did not even know allhe lime of the signing what
I Inward 0, Pilch
ISC; CentllfY Pmk E
Suite 2400
-3-
LA, CA 900<i7 ,
3105535344 I P01SD SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ABRAHAM ROSENFELD TN RESPONSE TO COUKf'S OSC
rights I would subsequenlly have under California law pursuant to
California Labor Code or
2 California Bllsiness and Prolessions Code, let alone other statutory rights afforded to me.
3 6.
At the slgning of the General Agreement, ilO one said, or even suggested
4 that the Agreement called for me to waive all n.llure claims against KSA andior LISBON, including
5 those of which I was nnaware even potentially existed.
6 7. I certainly would never have signed any document which pnrported to deprive
7 me of my rights as an employee and individual under Califomia law, particularly since J did not bave
8 legal counsel at any slage of the negotiations or signing of the Agreement.
9 8. I never discussed with KSA or LISBON, or their counsel, that they desired
10 (or even considered) thaI I submit ali (including tort, lahor andior employment violations) claims to
11 the Beth Din, irrespective of their nature, including my rights under Califomia law.
12 THE AGREMENT TO Sl'BMlT TO ARIUTRA nON MAKES 1\0 RF,J;ERENCE TO MY
13 TORT, EMPLOYlVIEl'T AND OTHF,:.R CALIfORNrA STATl'TORYCLAIMS.
14 9. The Agreement to Submit to Arbitration makes absolutely no reference to
15 my tort, labor. employment and other Califomia statutory claims, nor my seeking of punitive
16 damages against both KSA and Lisbon.
17 10. In fact, the Agreement to Submit to Arbitration, makes absolutely no reference
18 to the pending Los Angeles Superior Court litigation or the claims thereunder.
19 11. 1 submit that if KSA and Lisbon intended for the Beth Din proceedings to
20 include my tort, labor and other 'tatlltory claims, it woul.d have been quite casy to clarify so at the
21 I time orthe signing orthe Agreement tu Submi.t to Arbitration, not after the Court's ruling - a ruling
22 which makes absolutely no reference to any of my pending tort,labor, employment or otber statutory
23 claims under California law.
24 Despite Mr. Sherman being present at and having input into the draJ1ing and
signing oflhe Submission to Arbitration Agreement on which KSA and Lisbon he never even
26 sought to have inserted into the Agreement any reference to the Los Angeles Superior COllrt cases
27 and my claims and causes of action asserted therein.
28 [n fact, the Submission to Arbitration Agreement only mentions disputes
Howard D. Ptlch
1801 Century P(;rk E,
Suite 2400
-4.
LA. CA 90067
SliPP:.EMENTAL DECLARATION OF ABRAHAM IWSLNFELD IN TO COURI'S OSC
Howard D. Pilch
1 regarding our Agreement, and makes no reference to other types of claims which I have asserted
2 ; tram the inception of this litigation.
3 EVEN MR. LEITER TO THE BETH DIN RE ISSU]'S FOR SUBMISSION
4 FAILS TO IN{:LUDE ALL OF MY CLAI\1S FOR SUBMISSION.
5; 14.
In his own reply declaration. Mr. ShCn11an includes a copy of a letter dated August
6 8,2007, he sent to Rabbi Teichman (orthe Beth Din) outlining tbe issues for submission to the Beth
7 : Din. In his letter to the Beth Din prior to arbil"atlon, Mr. Shennan onlv rcfersto tour (4) ofJnY
8 ; claims, not the fourteen (14) in mY .. Complaint, none of which referenccclmy statutory rights under
9 California lawjj,nd requests for punitive damagq. A copy ofthis letter to Rabbi Teichman is attached
10 hereto as Exhibit "2" and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth herein in fulL
I I ! IS. Mr. Sherman has never provided in his declaration why he chose not to
12 identify all of my claims to the Beth Din - claims he now contends to have been presented in their
13 entirety to the Belh Dil: for adjudication.
14 AT ALL UID;S I PARTICIPATED THE BETH DINWITH THE UNDERSTANDING
15 THAT MY TORT, LABJIR AND STATUTORY CldAIMS WERE THE i
16 BETH DIN, BLX RESERVED FOR TU.E SUPERIOR COURT,
17 16. During the proceedings before the 13eth Din, I did not provide evidence to the
18 Beth Din on the tort, labor, employment and/or statutory claims under Califomia law, as I knew and
19 believed then, and continue to believe, that these claims wcre never beiore the Beth Din.
20 17 There is substantial and significant evidence (0 support my tort, labor,
21 employment and/or statutory daims under California law, but it was not produced to the Beth Din
22 due to its not addressing my tort and statutory claims.
23 18. Some of this evidence focused on the conduct of Lisbon which I, and others,
24 feared could have repercussions on KSA, Bet Bctzaiel Chabad Congregation (of which
25 Lisbon was and is the Rabbi and of which I was a member), and the entire Lisbon and Rosenfeld
26 families, ltside from my concerns for my [amily, I also fell it my responsibility to do what I could
27 to protect KSA for whil.:h 1 was the primary residence producer, the oldest son-in-law of Lisbon, and
28 the only son-in-law working in the family business. This conduct induded, but not exclusively;
]gOl Century Park E.
Suite 2400
LA, CA 90067
3! P-Ot8D S['PPLEME"TAL DEC .ARAT!Ol\ OF ABRAIII,M ROSENFEl.D IN Rf'SPONSE TO COURT'S OSC
Howard 0 _ Pilch
1
.
R
C.
Lisbon cavorting with females not his wife;
Lisbon was arrested for solicitation of prostitution multiple times;
A KSA client observing Lisbon in a strip cluh dancing with a woman
4 not his wife, and
5 D, Sexual harassment of two former KSA employees which was the
6 I genesis of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against KSA,
7 \9,
This conduct ofLi5bon, not presented to the Beth Din, contributed to and supports
8 my claim lor tort and labor claims against KSA and Lisbon, as this conductlcd to severe pressures
9 . OIl me in my role and employment with KSA More support lor these claims arc set forth in my
10
!
, Complaint, For example, I was so concerned with the potential impact of Lisbon's condnct on KSA
II 11ila1 I retained the services ofa private investigatorto follow Lishon at a time when his wile was out
{
oflown (in order to protecl her and him), The investigator's reports some of Lisbon's involvement
with other women and will be available to the COUl1 to {e'new At no time did the Beth Din or any
14 fbird party see the investigation report, nor did! usc it for my own financial gain,
15 20, While the above-described conduct of KSA and Lisbon was extensive and
16 burdensome for me, it is important that the Court understand that my tort, labor, employment and
17 California statutory claims were also based on other overbearing and wrongful actions ofKSA and
18 Lisbon, which included, but are not limited to, improper and unlawful withholding of wages, efforts
19 by KSA and LIsbon 10 hide information from me whicb would have given rise to commissions, such
20 as demonstrated in the Declaration of Rochelle EXIlI11, previously filed with the Court and now
21 attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth herein in
\. fulL My Complaint identifies additional bases which support my torI, labor, employment and
23 !i California statutory claims,
I
241
Over the years of my service to KSA and Lisbon, I far exceeded the
25 I reasonable demands of my employment position in addressing Lisbon's personal choices and
!
26 . difficulties which required m} attention and interfered to a great extent with my responsibilities and
271
duties at KSA, a period covering many years, By way of example:
28
1.
A, Lisbon asked me to contact females with whom he was involved (inciuding
1801 Century Park E.
Sllite 24-00
I
-6-
I
', ---------.-
P,lIlSD DECLARATION OF ABRAliAM ROSENF!':,!) IN RLSPONSE TO COURT'S OSC
},I\, CA 90067
3
1 a female congrcgant), to inform them that he would no longer see them as others were aware and
2 fearful that his wife would discover his affairs;
3
I undeltook soie responsibility for addressing the defense oEthe
4 sexual harassment lawsuit as Lisbon was rehabilitation at the time and unavailable to participate.
S It was this lawsuit which also confimled to me that Lisbon had not ceased his cavorting with other
6 women, despite his promises and assurances that he had done so;
7 c J often took Lisbon to his therapy sessions, sessions designed to address
8 ; his sex addiction, among other issues, and communicated with his therapists at his request;
10 asking me to hold,
Lisbon demanded my constant with his panic attacks, at times
and kiss him, at times requiring oxygen (1 was a certified EMT at the time)
1 I on the floor of my office;
12
13
14
E.
F,
Lisbon at times threatened his suicide to me;
Lisbon insisted on discussing his extensive marital problems with me;
Lisbon consistently asked my help in hiding the sexual harassment
15 I lawsuit and his other issues with women from his wife (despite his insistencc that I meet with her),
16 daughter (my wife), clients, his congregation and the greater Orthodox Jewish community,
17
!
H. When Lisbon was committed on an emergency basis to a mental health
18 ' hospital to address his issues, he begged me, crying incoherently, including calling me in the middle
19 of the night, to get him released and not to tell his about his episodes with other women and his
20 hospitalization, and to keep the iniormatioll from his Congregation and family, Ultimately, Lisbon
2\ did escape from the Torrance hospital, only to he captured later by the Los Angeles County SheritT
22 i in iront of his family and returned to the mental ward, It was [rom this series of events that this
23 family discovered the very things he did not want them to know.
24 These efforts and demands of Lisbon 011 me came at great medical, emotional
and finarlcia: expense to me. J sufkred a great deal, dealing with insomnia, eating disorders, severe
26 back pain, numbness in my extremities and face, hives, skin disorders, need for my own therapy, and
medications for anxiety, depression and sleep, all of which wcre work stress related, I had never
28 been treated for these ailments prior to my employmental KSk This also, unfortunately, negatively
Howard D, Pllch
J801 CM11ury Park E.
2400
t-/\, CA 90067
310-553-5344 DlLARATION OF ;(OSENFELD iN RESPONSE TO COI.RT'S USC
Howard D Pilch
impacted and caused significant marital discord with Lisbon's daughter, my wife at the time,
2 None of these issues and resulting difficulties and damages for me were ever
3 reviewed, heard, ruled upon, adjudic;!ted by the Beth Din, Emotional distress, retaliatory action bv
4 <In emplover, bad faith, punitive danlages, Califomi" Labor Code provided rights for employees are
5 not:'>.vithin Halachic parameters,_ and))ot addressed bv the Beth Din.
6
7
8
9
10
II
I
'J !

24,
There were twenty-nine (29) sess;ons of the Beth Din, and I attended every one of
them, Lisbon did not attend a majority of the sessions, once during these numerous sessions did
the Beth Din address, consider or discuss my tort, labor, employment and California statutory claims,
Further supporting my contention that the Beth Din did not and could not
address my ton and Ca;j fornia statutory claims was the fact that Beth Din procedures preelude and
do not allow a non-Jew to testify, altl:lOugh I had then and still do have percipient non-Jewish
witnesses to testifvin my behalf I have witnesses who have witnessed Lisbon's actions and his
13 : consequent demands on me, including women who were previously involved with Lisbon, A simple
141: example of the impact of this restriction on process by the Beth Din, which 1 contend to be a
15 I deprivation of my right to due process, is that it would not consider testimony by numerous non-
16 i Jewish percipient witnesses, including, KSA bookkeepers, KSA <;:mployees, police officers and
17 : KSA clients A speciEe example of such restriction is :he Declaration of Rochelle Exum in Support
18 of n:y Application for Writ of Attachment, tiled on February 27, 200H., a copy of which is attached
19 hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein hy reference as though set forth herein in full, This
20 ' declaration would not and was not considered by the Beth Din, as Rochelle Exum is not Jewish,
21 KSA AN)) LISBON CONTEMPLATED THAT MY TORT, LAQOR AND STATUTORY
22 CALIFORNIA CLAIM;:; NOT INCLUDED IN THE BETH DIN PROCEEDINGS.
23
26, Even the Court's order of December 7, 2007, granting Defendants' Petition for
24 ' Arbitration, drafted by Mr. Sherman himself, fails to identify the issues being referred to arbitration,
25 It only specillcally states that the granting of the Pctilionerto Compel Arbitration "is granted on the
26 grounds set forth in the moving and reply papers."
27 27, Even in their reply pleadings, KSA and LISBON, acknowledged that the
28 General KSA Employment Agreement may not include the tort, labor and/or employment claims of
180 j CcnlUlY Park E.
Suite 2400
I P-OJ8D
LA, CA 9()067
J;
Howard D. Pilch
1 ROSENFELD, when they stated at page 9, lines 1416:
2 if a coun determines that the parties have asserted
3 ..issues or claims that are not subject to it may
4 stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the claims
5 Ihatarc not arbitrable." (emphasis added)
6 THERE IS NO PLEADING WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT MYTORT,
i
7 ! LABOR .AND CALIFORNIA STATETORY CLAIMS WERE SEBJECT TO
8 II ARB1'IRA nON BY TH.E BETH DIN ..
,
91 28. I submit that there is no document which specifically states that this Courl,
10 I intended that my tort, laboL employment and California staLUlory causes of action were
11 ! included in its order that the Beth Din adjudicate certain issues.
12 29. I submit that Mr. Sherman is incorrect in his assertion (his declaration dated August
13 31,2012) that the claims in my Cnmplaint arc substantially identical to those in my Complaint,
14 subsequent to tbe Petition to Compel Arbitration. There is absolutely no reference in the Petition
15 to Compel Arbitration to tort, lahor, employment or other statutory claims under California law
16 NEITHER KSA NOR LISBON EVER RFAJUESTEJ.:L.THAT THE CASE BE
17 I DISMISSED UPON. ISSUANCE OF THE RULING OF THE BETH_ DIN.
lsi 30. Since the Beth Din issued its Psak (ruling), neither KSA nor Lisbon ever
19 I sought dismissal of this Superior Court litigation.
20 . 31 If KSA and Lisbon believed that the Beth Din litigation addressed all of my
21
22
25
26
27
28
claims, including all of those in the Complaint (filed aller Petition to Compel Arbitration),
they have never provided an explanation for their leaving this current litigation pending.
CONCLUSION:
32. I respectfully request and submit that this action should not be dismissed, but
continue witb respecl to each lort, labor and/or employment claims under Califomia law asserted in
my Complaint
I never understood or believed that my rights under California law were
being negated or waived by any Arbitration Agreement or clause. and neither KSA nor LISBON has
! 801 Century Park F,
Suilc 240()
LA, C/o. 90067
31 f;-553-:'i344 S\;PPLEME"TAL D"CLARAT10N OF N1RAHAM RCSI,NFELD IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ()SC
I ever, to my knowledge, specifically asserted (in pleadings or other writing) to me or my counsel that
2 ! the Beth Din arbitration proceedings were inc'usive of my tort, labor and/or employment claims,
6
7
8
9
34, To my knowledge neither KSA nor LISBON ever contended to the Beth Din
that the proceedings included ail of my claims, irrespective oftheir hasis or nature, despite numerous
opportunities to do so, even including the Order After Hearing prepared by Mr, Sherman himself),
I never considered that r was waiving any tort, labor and/or employment rights
in signing any Agreement, particularly as I was not represented by counsel (while KSA and Lisbon
had their own independent counsel at all
36, I funher opine that I should not be deemed to have inadvertently and
10 unknowingly waived any tort or California statutory rights at any time, particularly when I was
11 without counsel while Defendants were represented.
12 37, I submit that the Beth Din did nol address, nor could it have addressed, my
13 claims against KSA and/or LISBON based in ton. labor and/or employment law, as to do so w[)uld
14 be outside itsjurisdiclion. In fact in its ruling/award, the Bctll made no reference to tort, labor
IS andlor employment claims, consistent with its lack of jurisdiction to address such claims, It did not
16 even address or reference this Court's peoding case,
17 38, I should not be deprived of the protections and rights afforded 10 me, as to all
California citizens, of the Califol1.1ia Labor Code and CaJifomi<,!Business and Professions Code, as
i
18
1
19: well as other statutory provisions,
')0 I:
I
I
39, ! respectfully request and submit that the proceedings on the toli, labor and/or
21 employment causes of action should remain before this Court for adjudication, that these claims be
decided in 11 trird on the as they were not and could not have been adjudicated by the religious
23 I tribunaL
241
I I declare under p\.'l1alty of perjury that the is tnl and correct, and that (his
\ Ii.:t..h / I V
declaration is executed this 11 itay September, 201 at LosAhgcle' California.
28
Rosenfeld, Declarant
Howard D. Pilch
1801 Century Park E.
Suite 2400
-10
LA, CA 90067
P,OI8D SUPPLEMI'NTA:, DECl.ARA nON :IF ABRAHAM ROSENFELD IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S OSC
I
RA;.JDY A. BERG, ESQ., [CSBN \28445]
2 STEPHEN H. MARCUS, ESQ [(S8"! 48294]
GITTLER& BRADFORD .
3 . 10537 Santa Monica Boulevard, Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-4952
4 Telephone (310) 474-4007
Facsimile (310) 474-4407
5
ORIGINAL
I Attomeys for PLAINTIFF, ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSEJ\FELD
6 .
7 II
8
CONFORMED
OF ORIGINAL FILED
Los Superior Co
SEP ! 72007
9
SUPERIOR COUHT OF THE STATE OF CALlFOHNJA
fOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT /
RJSLAW
'AN ;"",e;(JRED Cc.FiPORIITt: lEGA[. !)I:RViCi"
August 08, 20(r?
RZibbi Avrohom Tefchman
345 North La Brea, Suite 2(;7
Los Angeles, GA 90(;36

Re: of Claims By and Between Av:oroo:n Roserfeld\ Rahb: 8ioyOf!'lm:n listJc:'!, Carrie
Lisbo;), 3:ld KSA
f am provldipg this. Forrndi [It)tk'e that Habbl 8ir:ycmi:l Liston, Con,s Lisbon and KSA hLive retained
Shmuel Fried a'S their co!lectivi? "Rorer" i:t Up;", c:)(I'r1lencerncnt of a Bois Din pro::eedlng,
a::::;:::;:;r:!ing to UH':l rulB of "Z/ .. BLA", resQ!;;'e aU perle! 1"".-g cir)im S Blbol/e.-rained parties.
1. c:a:im aga\<1st. Lisbors and KSA tor unp5:;:!
3. r;;:oson1Clffs Claim ar:s KS/\ io l of t.he proceeds of any sale
of KSA's client accounts; !
4. RC$enfeld's claim aiF3inst L;:stx:ms and KSA lor current commissions;
5 KS.A."s c.:i.:lirn for dd:Tl:;.'1ges dc,w,,,,.K.osenfeld out of wrongtll
of KSA's Information:
(3 KSAs claim for damnges ag8lnst Rosenfeld out of Ros:0r;fe'd's wrongful ,
inte:f-efl'mce with its prospectiv: ec.or)Or'l1ic 8dvamage; :
7. KSA's :-:;iaim for (jarrouges ag<3inst Rosenfeid arisiqg ou: of Rosenfeld's rtlISQPr-rop(iation!
KSA revenues;
8, KSA"s cl<:frm (}f r:ght;Q l"lnbrcc the written ag;-eement concern!rlg Rot.enfeld's s?rvtcc-s
andqJmpensation for hrs services to KSA;
I
/
'[1 9. KSA's claim fo' damages against Roo:;enfei(j ;;;:;sing out of Rosenfe'd's actual a;"1d I
antieJpatory breach of th'3 wdtte:l agreement ccncernic;] his ekiHes and cumpe0sation for servICes prov((l.ed to
KSA: Ro:ply 10'
Kobert 1 5:"tnh.1.n
1 OAO: 5,.:: h03
I.o.\. Aflgt:ks., (A 9006.4
r .. :<' )1(l.4'r':,..,704
PfI!)"": ,311)
rnt9.rt.s!il((Man I !!Pve.ril:o 11. uel
EXHIBIT 2


10" KSAs objection to Rosenfeld's t"rf75t to name 'm;:] 18WS',Jit f!ed in S0Cl)larcoLlrt
11_ LisbQrls' claim aga:nst RosenfeJd for arising out of Rosenff:;cfs- invHsbn of
the',r personal prIV,3(;Y. Ilis p,fea! to make Dubre disdoSLf<?S about uniess he IS paid :TIoney, his
d;sparaging about li:;oons to rnembers of the (',om
r
f1ur:ty, and his intentional inf!ict:on upor, Usoons cf
distress:
12. Lisbons' claim Roscr.feld tor d3mages out of Rosenfe!d's
interferefl<:e with lisbon!;;' prospectivG adv3ntJ.ge;
i3, of right to enforce the written agreerYH:mt concerning Rosenfeld's
services arId compensation for 7!is services to KSA:
14. ..)il'$' cl<,,)jm for d8rnage3. Rosenfeld arisipg out of Rosenfe:cfs Zlcto;;)l and
antlt;lpalDrY LxefiG" of the 'Nfiltc:'l agreement RGsen=e1cJ's ,jut:es a,""d for S(vvices
provided KSA; ,
Ver:I tr:Jly yr.::UiS,
lSI SHERM/\N
Ri\NDY A. BERG, ESQ., CSBN 128445
ORIGINAL FILED
DEPARTME1\Yf 66
2 STEPHEN II MARCUS, ESQ., CSBN 48294
CUTLER & BRADFORD
FEB 27 Z008
3 10537 Santa Monica Boulevard. Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025 .
4 Telephone: (3 '0) 474-4007
facsimile: (310) 4744407 LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT
6 Allomeys for Plaintiff, ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD
7
8
9
;0
1 i
12
13
14
IS
Hi
17
:8 :
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE OF CALIFOR.N!A
FOR TIlE COUNTY OF LOS ANGI,LES
KOSHER SUPERVISION OF AMERICA AND) CASE NO. BS 110826
f3[NYOMIN LISBON, )

ABRAHAM ROSENFELD,
Respondent.
CASE NO. Be 378 2(A
19 ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD
20
21
24
25
DECLARATION OF
Plaal11E. ROCHELLE EXUM IN
PPORT OF APPLICATION
v. ) FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
)
RABBf B1NYOMIN LISBON, an Individual, ) Dale: February 29, 2008
CARRlE LISBON, an individual, and KSA, a 'I' T' l) '()
nne: :.' c' a.m.
nonprofit business; BAIS BEZALEL CHABAD,) Dept.: 66
and DOES 1 through Il){), :ilCHlSlvC,
Defendants.
j
)
---............ ..... )
1. ROCHELLE EXllM, declare as fo!:ows:
I, The: t3CtS set torth hereinbc10vi arc true of n1y own personal knowledge anti: if
EXHIBIT d
2
RANDY A. BERG, ESQ., CSEN 128445
STEPHEN H. YIARCUS, ESQ, (SBN
GITTLER & BRADFORD
1 Santa fv10nica Boulevard, 'Third Floor
I.os Angeles, 90025
4 Telephone: (31 OJ" 74-4007
FaCSlll1de: (31 474-4407
5
6 Allomeys ;0] PlanFifC ABRAHAM TZEMAC!-l ROSENFELD
7
')
10
11
12
13
:: I
l/il
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR 'fln: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
KOSHER SUPERVISION OF AMERICA AND) CASE NO. BS 110826
BJ:\YOMfN LISBON, )
Petitioner,
ABRAHAM ROSENFElD,
Respondent.
18/ ___________ _____ _
CASE NO. Be 3n
I'! ABRAHAM TZEl\1ACH ROSENFELD
DECLARATION OF
) ROCHELLE KXUM IN
v,
) SUPPORT Of' APPLICATION
) FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMEl'.'T
)
RABBI Bli'iYOMIN LISBON, an individual, ) Date:
23 : CARRlE LISBON, all indivlduaL and KSA, a ) Time:
February 29, 2008
9:30 a.m.
: non-profit busincs,: BAIS BEZALEL CBABAD, I') t
I
"P ,:
26: and DOES i through! nn, i;lClusive,
2), Defendants.
.... ... --..
k' \
66
I, ROCHELLE EXUM, declare as follows
28 :
I.
The facls set forlh herembelow are :rue of my own personal knowledge and, if
FailedMessiah.com
2
3
5
6
8
:1
II
12
13
14
16
17
IR
I were S\V()J11 as n ] would and could testiCy co,llpetenlly there
1
o.
2
From March 20G7, through Jarmary 4,2008, I was employed as the accounts
receivable cJerk
Kos:,er SupervIsion of Amcr:ul, Inc. ("KSA") Dur:ng thai period, 1 was
known by my malden l18.me; RocheUe Kir:g. My boss, and v,i}lom I understood to be the
owner of KSA, was Rabbi Benyomin Lisbon. Among my duties were collection of accounts
recei vab Ie for
Abraham Rosenfeld also worked tor KSA, managJl1g the accounts of
KSA.
In tate
I was laId by Rabb, LJsbon not to advise Mr. Rosen reid as to
what paYlllents on acC,)lmlS receivable wete being reCeived by KSA.
4.
OCCaliJOnS, when the rccords ofl(SA ;;howcd that a clicn,', renewal
fee was past due,.i called that client about the past
renewal fee, and was told by the client
th(\1 lhc fcc had already been paid. :ha: occlJ!Tcd, 1 Jsizcd the CEC;1t to fax to me a copy
and the cl;ent did so, On each occas:oTI, j discovered that the check
bookkeepe, for KSA, ;lad no
5.
other nc,"n""""
KSA recelved Hpplicilt:OllS from new clients thal were
19 refen'ills r-vlr Rosenfeld.
Lisbon told 111C not to tell Mr. Rosenfeld of Ihese new
20
2lCCOlll1tS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 :
28
2
3
4
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PROOF at'SKRViCE
) 55.
)
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
5 I 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address 10537 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90025.
61
71
I
On February 27, 2008, I served the following document(s): DECLARATION OF
ROCHELLE EXUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICA nON FOR WRIT OF
8 ATTACHMENT on the Vvithin parties in this action by serving a tme copy upon the party
addressed below:
9
10
I J
12
Frank Melton, Esq.
Bernard M. Resser, Esq.
RUTTER HOBBES & DAVIDOFF, INCORPORATED
1901 Avenue ofttle Stars, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
[ j [BY MAIL] I am "readily familiar" with the business' practice for collection and
13 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. [know that
14 I the correspondence is deposited with the United State Postal Service on the same day this
I
declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was
sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date,
15: following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California.
16
1 r 1 [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices ofthe
1 7 ,! addressee.
i
18
[ ,/ 1 [BY OVElli'iIGHT COURIER] J caused the above-referenced docurnent(s) to be
19 delivered to an overnight courier service (Federal Express), for delivery to the above
addressees) on February 28, 20118.
20 II [I
21 . the numbers listed above, tbe above-named document, pursuant to Rule 2008. The
lHY FACSlMILli: TRANSMISSIO:!'!] r transmitted to the above-named person, at
facsimile machine that I used complies with Rule 2003(3) and no crror was rcported by the
22 machine. Pursuant to Rule 200S( e), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the
lrdllsmission, a copy of which is attached to this document.
23
24
25
26
27 !
28
lv] (Slale) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that
the above is true and correct.
[1 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the offiee of a member of the bar of this Court at
whose direction the service was made. /,
/" ,/
Executed on February 27,2008, at
I, {'Jv/

Ha\;a I
PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-MAIl,;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COU"iTY OF LOS ANGELES:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, Slate of California.
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, California 90067.
On September! 4, 20 I I served the foregoing document described as
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLAI.<'ATlON OF ABRAHAM TZEMACH ROSENFELD IN
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAlJSE RE DISMISSAL on the interested parties in
this action by placing a true and eorrect copy thereof addressed as follows:
By E-MAIL: Per Agreement of the parties' respective counseL. I caused the above-
referenced documcnt(s) to bt, transmitted via e-mail as follows:
Date
September 14, 2012
Transmitted To
Robert J. Sherman, Esq.
EMAIL ADDRESS
robert.sbermaniW,vedzon.net
I declare under penal1y of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on September 14, 201 Los Angeles. California.
A1Jfd:-'
IIclen M. Eaton
Page I of 1
Iris Mejia
From: Iris Mejia
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 153 PM
To: 'robert. sherman@verizon.net'
Cc: Howard Pilch; Helen Eaton
Subject: Rosenfeld v. lisbon ~ Supplemental Declaration of Abraham Rosenfeld in Response to OSC Re
Dismissal, etc
Mr. Sherman:
Attacheo please find the following docJr1ents.
I. Supplemental Deciaration of Abraham Rosenfeld In Response to OSC Re Disr1issal;
2. Declaraton of Howard Pilch In Opposit,on to OSC Re Dismissal: and
3. PlaintifFs Abraham Rosenfeld's Argument and Supplemental Memorandum of POints and Authorities.
Thanks,
Iris Mejia
Law Offices of Howard D. Pilch
1801 Centu)' Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067
(3
1
0) 5 5 3 ~ 5 3 4 4
(310) 5 5 3 ~ 5 3 5 9 Facsimile
Email: iris@howardpilch.com
9/14/701 ')