07-11-09 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) Transcript: Sheppard Mullin's Motion For Appointment of David Pasternak Receiver DKT #58 S

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 50
Digitally signed
by Joseph
Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik,
email=jz12345
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA @earthlink.net,
c=US
Date:
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2009.03.05
10:29:30 -08'00'
3 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
4
5 NIVIE SAMAAN,
6 PLAINTIFF,
7 VS. NO. SC 087400

8 JOSEPH ZERNIK,
9 DEFENDANT.
10
11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007
13
14 APPEARANCES:
15 FOR PLAIN~I~F SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
NIVIE SAMAAN: LLP
16 BY: MOS KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
17
18
FOR DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK
19 IN PROPRIA PERSONA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 AD~IANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370
OFFICIAL REPORTER
27
28
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

PAGE 571
1 CASE NUMBER: SC 087400
2 CASE NAME: NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH

ZERNIK
3
4 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007
5 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
6 REPORTER: ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.

12370
7
8 TIME: 9:18 A.M.
9 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
10
11 THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK, SC087400.
12 MR. KESHAVARZI: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MOE
13 KESHAVARZI FOR PLAINTIFF, NIVIE SAMAAN, MOVING PARTY.
14 MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, JOSEPH ZERNIK IN
15 PRO PER.
16 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOUR OPPOSITION IS TWO DAYS
17 LATE. I JUST GOT IT. SO I'LL HAVE TO READ IT. I HAVEN'T HAD
18 A CHANCE TO READ IT. I GAVE YOU UNTIL WEDNESDAY; RIGHT?
19 MR. ZERNIK: NO--
20 THE COURT: YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU GAVE IT TO ME YESTERDAY,
21 SO IT'S ONE DAY LATE, BUT ANYWAY, I HAVEN'T READ IT, BUT I
22 WILL.
23 MR. ZERNIK: I DELIVERED BY FAX TO PLAINTIFF COUNSEL BY
24 2:00 P.M. YESTERDAY AS YOU ORDERED.
25 THE COURT: OKAY. I'M SAYING I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
26 READ IT, BUT I WILL. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD EITHER ON
27 THE MOTION OR THE EX PARTE, MR. ZERNIK?
28 MR. ZERNIK: I SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH THE -- WHAT

PAGE 572
1 BY LAW IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST PRECEDENCE, AND THAT IS
2 THE ISSUE OF THE SCHEDULING OF HEARING FOR NEW TRIAL. THE LAW
3 SAYS IT IS PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
4 THE COURT: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

5 MR. ZERNIK: SO, YES, BASICALLY THE EX PARTE IS TO
6 ESTABLISH CALENDAR. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I --

7 THE COURT: HAVE YOU FILED YOUR -- THS MOTIONS?
8 MR. ZERNIK: IT IS AN EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
9 SHORTENED HEARING. WHAT I HAVE HERE IS AN EX PARTE
10 APPLICATION FOR SHORTENSD HEARING -- SHORTENED TIME FOR
11 HEARING ON THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH CALENDAR. BASICALLY, I'M
12 ASKING TO ESTABLISH WnEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT DONE BECAUSE
13 IT WAS FILED --
14 THE COURT: YOU CAN HAVE IT ANY TIME YOU WANT. JUST
15 RESERVE A DATE WITH THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT.
16 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MUS~ BE
17 HEARD AND RULED UPON WITHIN 60 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS
18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE --
1'9 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 ~AYS RUN?
20 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?
21 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS RUN?
22 MR. ZERNIK: THE 60 DAYS WILL RUN OUT -- JUST A SECOND.
23 IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I BELIEVE. JUST A SECOND.
24 THE COURT: JUST TELL ME WHAT DATE YOU WANT, AND I'LL
25 SET IT.
26 MR. ZERNIK: BUT THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS NOT FILED
27 YET OPPOSITION. THIS IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHERE WHICH I
28 FILED, B~T WITH THE CHANGES OF JUDGES, EVERY TIME IT WAS

PAGE 573
1 SCHEDULED AND THEN CANCELED, SCHEDULED AND CANCELED.
2 THE COURT: TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT IT HEARD. THERE'S
3 FOUR OF THEM. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ~OTION FOR -- WHICH ONES
4 YOU WANT HEARD AND TELL ME WHEN.
5 MR. ZERNIK: I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM HEARD NEXT
6 WEEK.
7 THE COURT: THESE FOUR RIGHT HERE?
8 MR. ZERNIK: YES.
9 THE COuRT: OKAY.
10 MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A TRIAL STARTING ON
11 NOVEMBER 19TH, AND I AM PREPARING FOR TRIAL, PREPARING
12 WITNESSES THAT ARE FLYING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN. I HAVE TO
]3 PREPARE FOUR OPPOSITIONS. THE 60 DAYS HAS RUN, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON AUGUST 9TH.
15 THE COURT: THEN YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE SHORT.
16 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS HE'S
17 FILED
18 THE COURT: HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THE CASE
19 WAS -- DEPRIVED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR HIS MOTIONS HEARD
7.0 BECAUSE THR CASE WAS BOUNCED AROUND FROM COURT TO COURT.
21 ~R. KESHAVARZI: THAT HAD NO EFFECT ON IT, YOUR HONOR.
22 HE FILED THE MOTION BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR -- BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR
23 RECUSED HERSELF. HE FILED
24 MR ZERNIK: UMM
25 THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO WAIT.
26 EXCEPT FOR THESE PARTICULAR MOTIONS, UNLIKE ALL
27 THE REST, FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE COURT HAS TO SET THOSE. IT'S
28 THE ONE OF THE FEW MOTIONS WHERE THE PARTIES DON'T SET IT. SO

PAGE 574
1 I HAVE TO SET IT.
2 MR. KESHAVARZI: JUDGE CONNOR DID SET THE HEARING FOR
3 HIM, BUT THEN HE WITHDRAW THE MOTIONS, YOUR HONOR. AND
4 THERE'S ALSO THE ISSuE OF THE FACT THAT MR. ZERNIK HAS ALREADY
5 FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, AND THE FILING OF THS NOTICE OF
6 APPEAL STATES EVERYTHING NOT RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
7 JUDGMENT.
8 THE COURT: SO YOU GOT ANOTHER ARGUMENT.
9 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, IF YOUR HONOR WANTS ME TO PUT
10 THOSE ON PAPER, I WILL, BUT IT'S
11 THE COURT: THE ONE AT LEAST FOR THE NEW TRIAL, I HAVE
12 TO SET, BUT THE LEGISLATURE SAYS I HAVE TO SET IT. SO THE
13 HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL -- I THINK IT'S
14 SECTION 661, ISN'T IT, THAT MAKES ME DO THIS? LET ME CHECK.
15 YES.
16 SO ~VHAT DATE h'OULD YOU LIKE.
17 MR. ZERNIK: MONDAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE --
18 THE COURT: MONDAY IS A COURT HOLIDAY.
19 MR. ZERNIK: TUESDAY.
20 THE COURT: TUESDAY. TUESDAY IS -- DOESN'T GIVE HIM
21 MUCH TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION.
22 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?
23 THE COURT: DOESN'T GIVE HIM MUCH TIME TO FILE AN
24 OPPOSITION.
25 MR. KESHAVARZI: I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR HONOR SET IT FOR
26 NEXT FRIDAY, IF POSSIBLE, SO I HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO --
27 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FRIDAY THE 9TH?
28 MR. ZERNIK: I'M CONCERNED -- DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S

PAGE 575
1 DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO COUNT TO START OF DAY, I WILL RUN
2 OUT OF 'THE 60 DAYS. THAT IS THE CONCERN.
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN PICK ANY DATE YOU WANT, BUT NOT
4 NOVEMBER 13TH. THAT'S THE NEXT COURT DAY.
5 MR. ZERNIK: SO 14TH.
6 THE COURT: DONE.
7 MR. ZERNIK: SO THAT IS WEDNESDAY?
8 THE COURT: YES. THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

9 NEW TRIAL IS NOVEMBER 14, 2007, 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT O.
10 THE OTHER MOTIONS YOU CAN SET. YOU DON'T NEED ME FOR THOSE.
11 MR. ZERNIK: YES. I'M ASKING FOR A SHORTENED NOTICE.
12 THE ISSUE IS THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO RESPOND TO WHAT

13 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SAID BECAUSE IT WAS FACTUAL ERRORS. I
14 FILED INITIALLY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE WAS
15 SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW ON THE SYSTEM WHETHER
16 OR NOT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. SO WE FILED MOTION FOR

17 RECONSIDERATION.
18 ONCE JUDGE CONNOR ESTABLISHED AND IT ACTUALLY
19 WAS FILED ON AUGUST 9TH, WE WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR

20 RECONSIDERATION, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WITH THE MOTION FOR
21 NEW TRIAL. THAT WAS FILED FIRST GNDER JUDGE GOODMAN. JUDGE
22 GOODMAN FILED WITH HIM THE NOTICE OF INTEN7 TO FILE MOTION FOR
23 NEW TRIAL, AN~ THEN THE MOTION ITSELF, ALWAYS UNDER JUDGE
24 GOODMAN, BUT NOT UNDER JUDGE CONNOR, AS PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
25 SAID I STATE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
26 AND NUMBER TWO, THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS THE START
27 DATE OF THE COUNTING IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT MAY HAVE TO

28 ESTABLISH IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF

PAGE 576
1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, ET CETERA.
2 ON THE OTHER MOTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO
3 YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY WERE NOTICED SO LONG AGO, FOR EXAMPLE,
4 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PER 128.7 WAS NOTICED FIRST BEFORE
5 AUGUST. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A SURPRISE. IT'S A SURPRISE
6 NOW TO PLAINTIFF, IF THERE'S A HEARING. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.

7 SO I'M ASKING, SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY DELAYS, TO HAVE A
8 SHORTENED NOTICE OF -- SHORTENED NOTICE HEARING ON THOSE
9 ADDITIONAL THREE MOTIONS.
10 THE OTHER MOTION IS ALSO A MOTION WHICH IS LONG
11 OVERDUE AND THAT IS TO CORRECT ALL KIND OF FACTUAL ERRORS IN

12 THE COURT FILE LIKE DATES AND NAMES, ET CETERA, THAT ARE MIXED
13 UP. THAT'S A MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS. THIS IS CORRECTION OF
14 FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE FILE. THAT'S LONG OVERDUE. IT WAS I
15 THINK, THE NOTICED MOTION WAS FIRST FILED UNDER ALSO JUDGE
16 GOOD~AN. THE THIRD ONE IS OF THE THREE -- EXCEPT FOR THE
17 FIRST ONE, IS THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. ALSO WAS FILED
18 UNDER JUDGE GOODMAN, AND I FILED IT AND REFILED SEVERAL TIMES
19 EACH OF THESE.
20 THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR RECEIVER.
21 DO YOU WANT TO BE -- APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.
22 MR. ZERNIK: SO YOU DENIED SHORTENED NOTICE AND I
23 SHOULD HAVE REGULAR NOTICED HEARING FOR THE THREE ADDITIONAL
24 MOTIONS? BECAUSE
25 THE COURT: I HAVEN'T RULED YET.
26 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
27 THE COURT: IT'S UNDER SUBMISSION.
28 MK. KESHAVARZI: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON

PAGE 577
1 MR. ZERNIK'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR
2 HIM TO SERVE ME HIS MOTION, AND WHEN IS MY DEADLINE
3 THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE IT ALREADY.
4 MR. KESHAVARZI: I DON'T THINK
5 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOU DO.
6 THE COURT: IF HE CAN SEND ANOTHER ONE. YOU CAN SEND
7 HIM ANOTHER ONE.
8 MR. ZERNIK: NO, NO. THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS
9 SERVED ON YOU BY JUDGE GOODMAN.
10 THE COURT: YOU WERE ORDERED TO SERVE ANOTHER COpy ON
11 HIM --
12 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. I'LL SERVE IT TODAY.
13 THE COURT: -- BY THE END OF TODAY.
14 MR. KESHAVARZI: AND OUR OPPOSITION, YOUR HONOR, WILL
15 BE DUE ON TUESDAY?
16 THE COURT: YES.
17 OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
18 OF RECEIVER. I HAVEN'T READ MR. ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION, BUT I
19 WILL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO KNOW?
20 MR. ZERNIK: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOME
21 fACTUAL ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION. FIRST OF ALL, THE PREMISE
22 OF THAT APPLICATION IS THAT THERE WAS A REFUSAL ON MY PART TO
23 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
24 SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT, IF ANYTHING, IT'S THE OPPOSITE.
25 ON THE BEGINNING OF THIS WEEK, I NOTICED THE
26 JUDGMENT. ALTHOUGH, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED BY THE
27 COURT TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT AND REFUSED TO DO SO EVEN AFTER I
28 REMINDED HIM. AND THE REMINDERS -- EVEN THE REMINDERS, I

PAGE 578
1 ENCLOSED HERE IN EXHIBITS. SO OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, I

2 SEVERAL TIMES REMINDED HIM "YOU'RE ORDERED BY THE COURT TO
3 NOTICE THE JUDGMENT," AND HE REFUSED TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT.

4 LATER ON, THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE
5 OPPORTUNITIES WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE JUDGMENT AND
6 RELEVANT PAPERS. FOR EXAMPLE, PLAINTIFF SUPPLIED THE PROPOSED
7 REFEREE WITH THE PAPERS RELEVANT TO HIS FGTURE WORK. THE
8 JUDGMENT OBVIOUSLY IS CRITICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE REFEREE ON

9 EXECUTION. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SUBSTITUTED -- INSTEAD OF THE
10 JUDGMENT, HE FILED AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH

11 IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
12 SAME THING EVEN UNDER THIS COURT, WHEN
13 PLAINTIFF CAME HERE, I THINK IT WAS LAST WEEK, FOR A MOTION TO
14 COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR APPRAISAL, THE BASIS FOR THE COMPEL WAS
15 THE JUDGMENT. AND IN THE TEXT IT SAID THAT HE'S DOING THE
16 JUDGMENT, BUT IN THE EXHIBIT ITSELF WAS ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
17 JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, EVEN IN THE MOTION FOR APPOINTING OF
19 A ~~CEIVER IN THIS INSTANT MOTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, HOW

70 CAN THAT RECEIVER WORK IF HE NEVER IS NOTICED OF THE JUDGMENT?
21 SO INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL INSERTED ORDER
22 GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WH~CH IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY

23 DIFFERENT AND WILL NOT GIVE THE REFEREE ANY GUIDANCE ON WHAT
24 HE'S SUPPOSED TO NOTICE.

25 SIMILARLY, I CONSIDER THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT
26 EITHER THE REFEREE OR RECEIVER, ANYBODY WHO'S EXECUTING THE
27 THIS JUDGMENT, MUST HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM THE CONTRACT
28 BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT REFERENCES THE CONTRACT. AGAIN, IT DOES

PAGE 579
1 NOT APPEAR IN THE MOTION THAT IT WAS PROPOSED BY ATTORNEY
2 KESHAVARZI.
3 SO HOW COULD A RECEIVER OR REFEREE, ANYBODY,
4 EXECUTE A JUDGMENT WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS NOT INCLUDED AND THE

5 CONTRACT IS NOT INCLUDED? WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
6 GOING TO BE OF? THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE OF
7 THE CONTRACT, AND THE CONTRACT IS SPECIFIED IN THE JUDGMJ<:NT.
8 NEITHER THE JUDGMENT NOR THE CONTRACT ARE INCL~DED IN THE
9 MOTION.
10 SO I CONSIDER IT COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE. BEYOND
11 THAT, IT SHOWS ALSO SOME -- I WOULD SAY, A PERSON REVIEWING

12 THE CASE AS A WHOLE WOULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT FACT THAT
13 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY DELETES THE CONTRACT AND THE
14 JUDGMENT FROM ANY RELEVANT DOCUMEN7 THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
15 INCLUDE THEM, IS REASONABLY GOING ~O LEAD ANYBODY REVIEWING

16 THE CASE TO THE CONCLUSION, COMBINED WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, MINUTE
17 ORDER OF AUGUST 21ST, AND SOME OTHER INSTANCES, IT WILL LEAD

18 ANY REVIEWER REVIEWING THIS CASE TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT
19 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS INTENTION TO EXECUTE SOMETHING WHICH
20 IS OTHER THAN THIS SPECIFIC CONTRACT AND THAT IS SOMETHING
21 OTHER THAN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOR
22 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC CONTRACT.

23 SO THAT'S WHY TODAY I AM GOING TO NOTICE THE
24 CONTRACT ITSELF AS WELL BECAUSE IT NEVER APPEARS IN THE MOTION

25 FOR RECEIVER THAT WAS FILED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL.
26 BEYOND THAT, THE CLAIMS THAT I REFUSED TO
27 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AGAIN, ARE BASED ON
28 FALSE STATEMENTS BECAUSE HOW COULD I REFUSE TO COOPERATE IF

PAGE 580
10
1 THE REFEREE -- IF AT THE SAME TIME THE REFEREE FILED WITH ME
2 OR -- AND WITH ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, A NOTICE THAT HE TOOK
3 NO ACTION.
4 SO THOSE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY BY
5 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL OR SOME OTHER PEOPLE WORKING FOR
6 PLAINTIFF, BUT WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.

7 I WAS CONSTANTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE PROPOSED
8 REFEREE. THE PROPOSED REFEREE AND I HELD THE POSITION THAT
9 HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, NEVER FINALIZED.
10 THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED REFEREE, JUDGE, O'BRIEN SENT A NOTICE
11 TO ME AND A~SO TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT HE NEVER TOOK ANY
12 ACTION IN THIS CASE. YET PLAINTIFF SENT AN APPRAISSR ON MY

13 PROPERTY, STARTED TITLE ACTIO~. AND THOSE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED
14 BY ANYBODY. NOT BY REFEREE, NOT BY THE COURT, NOT BY ANYBODY.

15 SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE
16 JUOGMENT, WHEN, IN FACT, ~HAT I DID IS I CALLED THE PEOPLE WHO
17 SENT THOSE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THEM, "~mo AUTHORIZED YOU?" IT
18 TURN OUT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY A COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF
19 PLAINTIFF.
20 ONE TIME THE TITLE ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY
21 PHONE CALL, AND THE APPRAISAL WAS AUTHORIZED BY E-MAIL FROM

22 THE COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PLAINTIFF. THAT IS NOT THE
23 WAY JUDGMENT BY COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SXECUTED. THIS WAS
24 SOME KIND OF A FLY-BY-NIGHT EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT.
25 AGAIN, THE REFEREE HIMSELF SENT A NOTICE, WEICH
26 IS INCLUDE~ IN THE EXHIBIT, SAYING I TOOK NO ACTION IN THIS
27 CASE. SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE

28 EXECUTION IS ENTIRELY LACKING IN BASIS.

PAGE 581
11
1 AT THE SAME TIME, I REQUESTED THAT THE
2 REFEREE'S APPOINTMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
3 THEN I DID IT IN THE SAME WAY, I CONSIDERED THE MOTION FOR
4 APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE, FOR
5 EXAMPLE, THE ?ROPOSED ORDER IS MISSING THE SECTION OF THE LAW
6 THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE RECEIVER.

7 HOW COULD IT BE THAT A PROPOSED ORDER OF TH~
8 COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER WOULD NOT EVEN SPECIFY WHAT'S THE
9 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION, WHAT'S THE JUDGEMENT TO BE
10 ENFORCED AS FAR AS THE SECTION OF THE CODE. NO SECTION OF
11 THE CODE IS MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSED ORDER.

12 FURTHERMORE, HOW CAN A RECEIVER OPERATE WITHOUT
13 A JUDGMENT? NO JUDGMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE ORDER. HOW CAN A
14 RECEIVER OPERA~E WITHOUT A CONTRACT? NO CONTRACT IS INCLUDED
15 IN TH2 ORDER.
16 SO THAT'S WHY THIS WEEK I NOTICED BOTH THE
17 JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT TO INDICATE THAT MY INTENTION IS TO
18 COOPERATE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE JUDGMENT AND
19 THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT. NOT SOME KIND OF DIFFUSED OR
20 ILL-DEFINED WISHES OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. IT HAS TO BE
21 ACCORDING TO WHAT THE COURT ORDERED.
22 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.
23 MR. ZERNIK: AND LAST ISSUE IS THAT IN CASE THE COURT
24 DECIDES THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME VALIDITY FOR THE ACTION
25 ON THE TITLE AND THE APPRAISAL, THEN I ASSuME -- I MEAN, THE
26 FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF OR SOME PEOPLE OPERATING ON HER BEHALF
27 INITIATED ACTION ON APPRAISAL AND TITLE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
28 OF THE REFEREE. IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES THAT THAT WAS A

PAGE 582
12
1 VALID ACTION, THEN I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLARIFY ITS
2 POSITION, BECAUSE THEN ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT ESCROW WAS
3 OP~NED AT SOME POINT. AND THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CALLS FOR
4 EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACT HAD A 45-DAY ESCROW.
S SO IF THE COURT DECIDES THERE WAS ANY VALIDITY TO THAT, THAT
6 MEANS ESCROW WAS OPENED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA
7 WHEN THAT IS. AND ESCROW HAS TO CLOSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
8 I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THAT IS.

9 SO IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES THER~ WAS ANY
10 VALIDITY TO THOSE ACTIONS, I REQUEST THAT THE COURT WILL
11 DETERMINE WHAT'S THE START DAY OF ESCROW AND THE END OF

12 ESCROW. SO I PROPOSE ORDER AT THE END, ONE, IN CASE THS COURT
13 DECIDES THAT THERE WAS NO VALIDITY TO DO THOSE TITLE AND
14 APPRAISAL ACTIONS. IN THAT CASE, I REQUEST WE GO BACK TO WHAT
15 JUDGE CONNOR ORDERED, AND THAT IS THAT THERE WILL BE A REFEREE
16 APPOINTED. BUT THE FINALIZING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
17 REFEREE IS WHAT WAS MISSING LAST TIME. THIS TIME WE CAN DO IT
18 ALL THE WAY AND COMPLETE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE REFEREE WITH
19 THE JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT AND THE CORRECT ORDER FOR
20 APPOINTMENT, BECAUSE BY MISTAKE IT WAS ORDERED AS A REFEREE
21 FOR DISCOVERY, BUT IT WAS NOT WHAT JuDGE CONNOR INTENDED TO
22 DO. SHE INTENDED TO HAVE A REFEREE FOR ESCROW.
23 SO HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, AND
24 THAT'S WHY HE NEVER TOOK ACTION. SO I SUGGESTED THE MOST
25 REASONABLE DECISION FOR THE COURT AT THIS POINT IS JUST TO
26 VISIT BACK THAT ISSUE AND APPOINT A REFEREE AS REQUIRED BY
27 LAW.
28 ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE DECISION THAT THERE WAS
EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS

PAGE 583
13
1 NO VALIDITY TO THE TITLE APPRAISAL ACTION WITHOUT ANY ACTION
2 B't lYlE REFEREE, I RE'Q'0ES'r 'rHA'r 'rHE COUR'r - - AN'i) 'THIS IS 'THE
3 SECOND PROPOSED ORDER ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE COURT CLARIFIES

4 WHA'1' WAS THE DATE THAT THE ESCROW STARTED AND WHAT WAS THE
5 DATE ESCROW WILL CLOSE WITHIN THE 45-DAY THAT IS SPECIFIED IN
6 THE CONTRACT.
7 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.
8 MR. ZERNIK: NO, THE LAST --
9 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI.
10 MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU,
11 YOUR HONOR.
12 YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, MR. ZERNIK'S CLAIMS THAT
13 HE'S WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT ARE BELIED BY HIS
14 CONDUCT. AND MOST RECENTLY
15 THE COURT: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE'S WILLING OR

16 UNWILLING TO COMPLY. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER A REFEREE
17 -- A RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED.
18 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE A
19 RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO CARRY OUT THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE
20 MR. ZERNIK ON HIS OWN IS UNWILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE
21 JUDGMENT AND SEE THE JUDGMENT THROUGH, YOUR HONOR.

22 SECTION 7. -- 708.62 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
23 PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT A

24 RECEIVER WHERE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SHOWS THAT CONSIDERING
25 THE INTEREST OF BOTH THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND THE JUDGMENT
26 DEBTOR, THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS A REASONABLE METHOD
27 TO OBTAIN THE FAIR AND ORDERLY SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.
28 AND: ORDERLY: I THINK IS THE KEY HERE, YOUR HONOR.

PAGE 584
14
.....-------=-------------
1 MR. ZERNIK CLAIMS THAT HE WANTS TO COOPERATE
2 WITH US AND SEE THE JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THROUGH, TO CARRY THE
3 JUDGMENT INTO EFFECT, BUT SINCE THE BEGINNING, SINCE THE DAY
4 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, HE'S DONE EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO
5 AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT.

6 HE RECOMMENDED THAT JUDGE O'BRIAN BE APPOINTED
7 AS A REFEREE. HE RECOMMENDED MR. O'BRIAN, AND THEN WHEN IT
8 CAME TIME FOR JUDGS O'BRIAN TO SET A HEARING, MR. ZERNIK
9 DIDN'T SHOW UP. HE NEVER EVEN PAID MR. O'BRIAN'S BILLS. AND
10 IT REACHED A ?OINT WHERE JUDGE O'BRIAN HAD TO GET OUT OF T~E
11 CASE. HE DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF, BUT HE WROTE A LETTER TO YOUR

12 HONOR IN WHICH HE SAID "I CAN NO LONGER SERVE AS A REFEREE IN
13 THIS CASE."
14 THE COURT: ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE WHOLE ADR
15 ORGANIZATION.
16 MR. KESHAVARZI: HE DID, YOUR HONOR. SO ADR IS CLOSED
17 TO US NOW. WE CAN'T EVEN USE THEM IF WE WANTED TO FOR A
18 REFEREE. WE COULDN'T EVEN USE THEM TO GET A RECEIVER BECAUSE
19 TH2Y WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH TH~S.
20 WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, WE WANTED TO GET
21 THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY STARTED TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.
22 WE WANTED TO GET A TITLE REPORT. SO PEOPLE WHO WERE PREPARING
23 THE TITLE REPORT CONTACTED MR. ZERNIK. MR. ZERNIK SAID --
24 THE COURT: I THINK YOU'RE REPEATING WHAT'S IN YOUR

25 PAPER, AREN'T YOU?
26 MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR.
27 THE COURT: I GOT IT.
28 MR. KESHAVARZI: LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT TO

PAGE 585
15
1 YOUR HONOR. MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE
2 CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE
3 VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND

4 BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AGAINST EVERY JUDGE THAT HAS
5 BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND AGAINST MY CLIENTS.
6 THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE.
7 MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO,

8 YOUR HONOR. IT GOES TO HIS INTENT. IF I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
9 ALLOWED TO, I WOULD HAV2 BEEN HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR YOUR HONOR
10 WITH AN EX PARTE ASKING FOR A TRO AND INJUNCTION. I BELIEVE
11 HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

12 MY PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT WEB
13 SITE ALONG WITH HIS ACTIONS SO FAR, SHOWS THAT HE'S UNWILLING
14 TO SEE THIS JUDGMENT CARRIED THROUGH.
15 YOUR HONOR, MY CLIENTS HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT
16 SUMS OF MONEY IN ATTORNEYS FEE GETTING THIS JUDGMENT
17 ENFORCED -- GETTING THIS JUDGMENT. AND NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE
18 JUDGMENT SINCE AUGUST 9TH, MR. ZERNIK HAS NOTICED OVER 45
19 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS, YOUR HONOR, 45 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.
20 THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?
21 MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.
22 JUDGE CONNOR, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JUDGMENT SAID THAT WE WERE
23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE
24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.
25 SHE WASN'T SURE ABOUT PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT SHE SAID
26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.
27 SO WITH RESPECT TO PREJUDGMENT, WHO KNOWS. IT
28 MAY BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES,

PAGE 586
16
r--------..;;-------------
1 BUT POST JUDGMENT WE CERTAINLY DO INTEND TO BRING THAT MOTION.
2 YOUR HONOR, WE MADE THE ARGUMENTS IN OUR
3 PAPERS. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR HONOR'S TIME. IF YOU
4 DON'T APPOINT A RECEIVER, THIS JUDGMENT IS NEVER GOING TO GET
5 ENFORCED, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. WE'VE TRIED
6 SENDING HIM A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, SENDING HIM A COpy OF THE
7 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. WE TRIED CALLING THE REFEREE.
8 IF HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE REFEREE NOT HAVING
9 THE CONTRACT, WHY WOULDN'T HE JUST SHOW UP AND GIVE THE
10 REFEREE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT? MR. ZERNIK IS ELEVATING FORM
11 OVER SUBSTANCE. HE'S TRYING TO FIND TECHNICALITIES AND TR~ TO
12 GET OUT FROM THE JUDGMENT BEING ENFORCED AGAINST HIM ON
13 TECHNICALITIES.
11 ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT MY
15 DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THE SCMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD
16 OF THE JUDGMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON
17 THAT. THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN ~ COpy OF THE JUDGMENT. I
18 BELIEVED -- AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I
19 SAID, "WE NEED A JUDGMENT ENTERED." SHE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
20 THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COpy OF THE ORDER AND
21 SAID THAT THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF
22 THE JUDGMENT, AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. THE
23 SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY
24 THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS
25 THAT IT'S A LIT~LE BIT SHORTER.
26 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOU GET THE LAST WORD.
27 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I'M REA~LY CONFOUNDED BY EVERYTHING
28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI SAYS FROM BEGINNING TO THE END BECAUSE

PAGE 587
17
1 HE'S A LAWYER. I'M NOT. I START FROM THE END. HOW CAN YOU
2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,
4 NOT TO HIM.
5 MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT
6 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.
7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.

8 THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCUSSES
9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE
10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO
11 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP.
12 FOR EXAMPLE, HE GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ATTORNEYS
13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS
14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED
15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A
16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE
17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR
19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH
20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.
21 THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
22 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BEYOND THAT, HE'S MADE CLAIMS WHICH
23 ARE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED ABOUT WEB SITE, ET CETERA. IF HE
24 HAD SUCH CLAIM, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT. HE SHOULD HAVE FILED
25 THE DOCUMENTS, BUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DID
26 NOT BRING BEFORE THE COURT, THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
27 BEYOND THAT HE SAYS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. JUDGE
28 O'BRIAN DID NOT HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DONE. JUDGE O'BRIAN

PAGE 588
18
1 HIMSELF SIGNED, WITH COOPERATION OF PLAINTIFF, A PROPOSED
2 ORDER FOR HIS OWN APPOINTMENT, WHICH CAME BEFORE THE COURT IN
3 SOME KIND OF UNUSUAL LODGING MECHANISM BEFORE JUDGE GOODMAN
4 AND JuDGE GOODMAN DENIED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I WAS FOR IT.
5 I WAS LOOKING FOR A REFEREE THAT IS APPOINTED AS -- DULY
6 APPOINTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
7 BUT INS~EAD, HE WAS NOT APPOINTED. HE DID NOT
8 HAVE THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS. HE SHOULD HAVE -- HE RECEIVED
9 FROM THE COURT WITH THE ORDER APPOINTING HIM THE CORRECT
10 DOCUMENT. INSTEAD HE RELIED ON PLAINTIFF TO GIVE HIM THE
11 DOCUMENTS. AND HOW CAN PLAINTIFF SAY HE NEVER SAW THE
12 JUDGMENT? SO HOW DID YOU EXPECT TO EXECUTE IT? HOW COULD YOU
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE REPEATING
15 YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOU'RE DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS TO COUNSEL,
16 NOT TO THE COURT. THE MATTER IS UNDER SUBMISSION. YOU WILL
17 BE NOTIFIED IN THE MAIL.
18 MR. KESHAVARZI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
19 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
20
21 (AT 9:42 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS

PAGE 589

07-11-09 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) Transcript: Sheppard Mullin's Motion For Appointment of David Pasternak Receiver DKT #58 S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07-11-09 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) Transcript: Sheppard Mullin's Motion For Appointment of David Pasternak Receiver DKT #58 S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 50

3 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

7 VS. NO. SC 087400

12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

1 CASE NUMBER: SC 087400

2 CASE NAME: NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH

4 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

5 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

6 REPORTER: ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.

8 TIME: 9:18 A.M.

9 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

11 THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK, SC087400.

12 MR. KESHAVARZI: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MOE

13 KESHAVARZI FOR PLAINTIFF, NIVIE SAMAAN, MOVING PARTY.

14 MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, JOSEPH ZERNIK IN

16 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOUR OPPOSITION IS TWO DAYS

18 A CHANCE TO READ IT. I GAVE YOU UNTIL WEDNESDAY; RIGHT?

19 MR. ZERNIK: NO--

20 THE COURT: YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU GAVE IT TO ME YESTERDAY,

23 MR. ZERNIK: I DELIVERED BY FAX TO PLAINTIFF COUNSEL BY

24 2:00 P.M. YESTERDAY AS YOU ORDERED.

25 THE COURT: OKAY. I'M SAYING I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO

26 READ IT, BUT I WILL. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD EITHER ON

27 THE MOTION OR THE EX PARTE, MR. ZERNIK?

28 MR. ZERNIK: I SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH THE -- WHAT

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

1 BY LAW IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST PRECEDENCE, AND THAT IS

3 SAYS IT IS PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

4 THE COURT: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

6 ESTABLISH CALENDAR. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I --

10 APPLICATION FOR SHORTENSD HEARING -- SHORTENED TIME FOR

11 HEARING ON THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH CALENDAR. BASICALLY, I'M

12 ASKING TO ESTABLISH WnEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT DONE BECAUSE

15 RESERVE A DATE WITH THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT.

18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE --

1'9 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 ~AYS RUN?

20 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?

21 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS RUN?

22 MR. ZERNIK: THE 60 DAYS WILL RUN OUT -- JUST A SECOND.

23 IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I BELIEVE. JUST A SECOND.

26 MR. ZERNIK: BUT THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS NOT FILED

27 YET OPPOSITION. THIS IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHERE WHICH I

28 FILED, B~T WITH THE CHANGES OF JUDGES, EVERY TIME IT WAS

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

1 SCHEDULED AND THEN CANCELED, SCHEDULED AND CANCELED.

2 THE COURT: TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT IT HEARD. THERE'S

4 YOU WANT HEARD AND TELL ME WHEN.

5 MR. ZERNIK: I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM HEARD NEXT

7 THE COURT: THESE FOUR RIGHT HERE?

8 MR. ZERNIK: YES.

9 THE COuRT: OKAY.

10 MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A TRIAL STARTING ON

11 NOVEMBER 19TH, AND I AM PREPARING FOR TRIAL, PREPARING

12 WITNESSES THAT ARE FLYING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN. I HAVE TO

]3 PREPARE FOUR OPPOSITIONS. THE 60 DAYS HAS RUN, YOUR HONOR.

14 THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON AUGUST 9TH.

15 THE COURT: THEN YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE SHORT.

16 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS HE'S

18 THE COURT: HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THE CASE

19 WAS -- DEPRIVED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR HIS MOTIONS HEARD

21 ~R. KESHAVARZI: THAT HAD NO EFFECT ON IT, YOUR HONOR.

22 HE FILED THE MOTION BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR -- BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR