1

2
3
4
5

Payman Taheri, Esq. SBN 217308

Law Offices of Payman Taheri, Esq.
4929 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 915
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone:
(213) 986-7577
Facsimile:
206 309 0945
Attorney for Deft. Gianfranco Interlandi

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK
9
10

PACIFIC WEST GROUP, INC.

Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: BC342152

Hon. Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF
DISQUALIFICATION OF HON.
BORNSTEIN; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHOTIES
DECLARATION OF PAYMAN TAHERI,
ESQ.; VERIFICATION

Place: 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles,

California, 90012

27
28

-1VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION

I am a member of the State BAR of California, in good standing and the Attorney for
2

Defendant / Movant Interlandi and as such have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts and if
3

called on to testify to same, I could and would and do hereby Declare:

4

The Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, is disqualified from hearing the

above-entitled matter because of the following facts as evidence by the following conduct. Any
6

reasonable person knowledgeable about the law and the facts of this case would come to the
7

conclusion that Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, is an impartial referee of these
8

proceedings and would rightfully conclude that Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, is
9

biased against Defendant Interlandi or his counsel.

10

The use (abuse) of judicial powers by Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding is

11

evidenced by the following facts and undertaken with actual bias and partial treatment of the

12

Defendant and Defense counsel warranting disqualification of Hon. Marc Bornstein, Judge
13

Presiding, pursuant to Code of Civ Proc 170.1 et seq, 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), 170.1(a)(6)(B),

14

170.1(a)(6)(C)1:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The standard for disqualification of a judge provided for in CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C), is

fundamentally an objective one. If a reasonable member of the public at large, aware of all the
facts, would fairly entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is
mandated. The existence of actual bias is not required. While the objective standard clearly
indicates that the decision on disqualification not be based on the judge's personal view of his or
her own impartiality, it also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not provide
the applicable frame of reference. The facts and circumstances prompting the challenge must be
evaluated as of the time the motion is brought and the evaluation of the challenge must not
isolate facts or comments out of context. The challenge must be to the effect that the judge would
not be able to be impartial toward a particular party. Flier v. Superior Court (1994, Cal App 1st
Dist) 23 Cal App 4th 165, 28 Cal Rptr 2d 383.

28

-2VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

a.

On July 20, 2016, Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding takes issue

with Mr. Taheri, Esq. regarding the supplemental pleading filed on July 18, 2016. See Ex. A,

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

i.

From page 1 of the transcript to 3:20 Honorable Marc

Bornstein, Judge Presiding, vehemently berates the legal acumen of Mr.

Taheri for the July 18, 2016, court filing and cited to local rules and

then to Code of Civil Proc1005 as authority that the filing of the

supplemental briefing was untimely. The references to the local rule

and the Code of Civil Procedure 1005 were a sham and an effort by

10

Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding to cause an accusation of

11

impropriety on the part of Atty. Payman Taheri, when no such

12

impropriety had taken place. Either Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge

13

Presiding didnt know the law and was misapplying it or he was berating

14

Mr. Taheri, attorney for the defendant improperly and without cause.

15

This conduct has been found as grounds for disqualification. Dodds V.

16

Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 12 Cal 4th 163, 176 177;

17

Hall v. Harker (1999), 69 Cal App 4th 836, 843; To ensure that the

18

proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their

19

confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the

20

objective person." "quoting United Farm Workers of America v.

21

Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 97, 104-105 [216 Cal.Rptr. 4];

22

see also Yagman v. Republic Ins. (9th Cir. 1993) 987 F.2d 622, 626

23

(under federal statutes recusal is appropriate where 'a reasonable person

24

with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's

25

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.') The reason given for the

26

change [in the statute] is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased

27

unless the judge so admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are

28

-3VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

not furthered when a judge who is reasonably thought to be biased in a

matter hears the case." United Farm Workers of America v. Superior

Court, supra, 170 Cal. App. 3d at p. 103.)

b.

On July 20, 2016, the hearing before Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge

Presiding concluded at 10:00 a.m. with the Defendant through counsel agreeing to submit the

Defendant to a limited scope inquiry for purposes of the identity theft issue raised by the

Defendant. The Proceedings as evidenced by the Court Reporter were CONCLUDED and

no other date was set for the parties or their counsel to return. See Reporter's Transcript (RT)

7:15.

10

i.

In violation of the most basic of due process rights to notice and

11

statutory due process to a fair hearing, Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge

12

Presiding conducted at 1:30 p.m. Exparte proceedings with the Plaintiffs

13

counsel that Defendant and his counsel were completely unaware of and

14

had not been ordered to appear at. This conduct has been found as grounds

15

for disqualification. Dodds V. Commission on Judicial Performance

16

(1995) 12 Cal 4th 163, 176 177; Hall v. Harker (1999), 69 Cal App 4th

17

836, 843; To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be

18

impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be

19

viewed through the eyes of the objective person." "quoting United Farm

20

Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 97, 104-

21

105 [216 Cal.Rptr. 4]; see also Yagman v. Republic Ins. (9th Cir. 1993)

22

987 F.2d 622, 626 (under federal statutes recusal is appropriate where 'a

23

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the

24

judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.') The reason given for

25

the change [in the statute] is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased

26

unless the judge so admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are

27

not furthered when a judge who is reasonably thought to be biased in a

28

-4VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

matter hears the case." United Farm Workers of America v. Superior

Court, supra, 170 Cal. App. 3d at p. 103.)

ii.

At the Exparte hearing of 1:30 p.m. on July 20, 2016, Honorable

Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, invited Plaintiffs counsel to seek

sanctions against defense counsel(!). In the words of Mr. Tulac,

Esq. counsel for the Plaintiff, the Judge asked me, and I candidly

told him so. See Ex. B attached hereto and incorporated herein

by reference.

iii.

At the Exparte hearing of July 20, 2016, Honorable Marc

10

Bornstein, Judge Presiding made a finding of fact and rulings that

11

adversely affected the Defendant in this case. Namely, based on whatever

12

data Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding received at the ex parte

13

proceedings of July 20, 2016 (which were not reported by a court reporter

14

as the court reporter had been excused alongside defense counsel from the

15

morning session without any order that he or the court reporter appear at a

16

later time) or simply because of bias towards the Defendant and Defense

17

counsel Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding concluded and

18

ordered that The stay under Civil Code section 1788.18 is lifted.

19

Conducting hearings in the absence of a party who did not have notice of

20

the proceeding is contrary to you today United States, as well as the

21

California Constitution and repugnant to the procedural due process rights

22

of any litigant in the court and is grounds for disqualification of a judicial

23

officer for actual bias or the appearance of bias as disruption of a

24

fundamental constitutional right is in derogation of the judges solemn

25

oath to carry out judicial duties. Ibid.

26

iv.

27

ordered that Defendant is ordered to complete his deposition at the office

The Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding on July 20, 2016

28

-5VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

of plaintiffs counsel by August 15, 2016. The Ordering of the

Deposition is an act in excess of powers of Honorable Marc Bornstein,

Judge Presiding to Order. As the Defendant is in default, Code of Civil

Proc 2025 do not apply to him. As the Defendant is contesting the

subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, it is repugnant to the most

fundamental of judicial inquiries; stated namely, a court has to be satisfied

that it has jurisdiction, before it proceeds. This is not a new law but

multi-centuries old bedrock of jurisprudence. Havemeyer v Superior

Court, 84 Cal 327, 403 (1890). The Ordering of the deposition without

10

any authority to do so, and in derogation of the fact that by admission, the

11

Court had not at the time of July 20, 2016, satisfied itself that Plaintiff has

12

standing to sue the Defendant (to state it in the 20th century vernacular: (I)

13

the Plaintiff is not the real party in interest in the case as it has sued in the

14

wrong name, (II) does not have an assignment of a debt, (III) the

15

underlying debt is one that was not incurred by the Defendant and even if

16

it was, (IV)the anti-deficiency judgment prohibits a judgment against the

17

Defendant as the home was foreclosed of in Texas in 2004(!!)) Code of

18

Civ Proc 367. Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding in ordering

19

the Deposition to take place issued a void on its face order (See Ex. C) and

20

tried to impose his own brand of justice on the elderly Defendant. Such

21

conduct shows a bias and abusive use of judicial powers against the

22

receiving party so as to cause a reasonable person to doubt the impartiality

23

of Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, and Honorable Marc

24

Bornstein; Judge Presiding is therefore disqualified. Dodds V. Commission

25

on Judicial Performance (1995) 12 Cal 4th 163, 176 177; Hall v. Harker

26

(1999), 69 Cal App 4th 836, 843

27

v.

On July 20, 2016, in an ex parte fashion Honorable Marc

28

-6VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

Bornstein, Judge Presiding Ordered that No further documents to be filed

as to these two motions.. See Ex. C. By giving the express right to the

Plaintiff to file documents by ordering plaintiff to file and serve a

supplemental opposition to defendants July 17, 2016. Supplemental brief

by August 10, 2016 but then ordering that no objection could be taken to

the evidence filed (Evidentiary Objections, etc..) Honorable Marc

Bornstein, Judge Presiding was insulating whatever decision that he came

to on the continued hearing date of August 20, 2016, to be insulated from

appellate review and was another stab at depriving the defendant of his

10

procedural due process right to object on the veracity and the compliance

11

with the code and the law of whatever the Plaintiff was giving permission

12

to file. No reasonable person would reflect on the facts and the methods

13

with which judicial decisions were made by Hon. Burstein would come to

14

the conclusion that Hon. Bornstein was anything other than a biased and

15

partial Judge, and that his conduct and bias warrants disqualification.

16

Dodds V. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 12 Cal 4th 163, 176

17

177; Hall v. Harker (1999), 69 Cal App 4th 836, 843.

18

Respectfully submitted,

19
20
21
22

Dated: August 11, 2016

By
Payman Taheri, Esq.
Atty. for Gianfranco Interlandi

23
24
25
26
27
28

-7VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

VERIFICATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

I, Payman Taheri, Esq., am the attorney for the Defendant, Mr. Gianfranco Interlandi in
the above-entitled matter. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED STATEMENT OF
DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHOTIES DECLARATION OF PAYMAN TAHERI, ESQ.; VERIFICATION for the
disqualification for cause of the Honorable Marc Bornstein, Judge Presiding, as a judge in this
matter and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge and if called on
to testify to the same, I could and will.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

12
13

Executed on August 11, 2016, in Los Angeles, California.

14
15

___________________________
Payman Taheri, Esq.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. BORNSTEIN

MASTER

JULY 20, 2016

CHRONOLOGICAL AND ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

3
4
5

INDEX

PLAINTIFF'S:

DIRECT

CROSS

REDIRECT

RECROSS

REDIRECT

RECROSS

(NONE)

6
7
8
9
10

DEFENSE'S:

11

(NONE)

DIRECT

CROSS

12
13
14
~5

EXHIBITS

t:
19

NUMBER:

FOR I.D.

IN EVD.

WITHDRAWN
OR REJECTED

(NONE)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.4 71.2966 I www.ccrola.com

EXHIBIT

CASE NUMBER:

BC342152

CASE NAME:

PACIFIC V. INTERLANDI

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2016

DEPARTMENT 44

HON.

APPEARANCES:

REPORTER:

DINA CORRADO, CSR NO. 10908

TIME:

A.M. SESSION

(AS

MARK

BORENSTEIN, JUDGE

HERETOFORE NOTED. )

--000--

10
11

12
13
14

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ALL OF THE PARTIES

ON NUMBER 11, PACIFIC WEST VERSUS INTERLANDI.

MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, PAYMAN TAHERI FOR

MR. INTERLANDI.

15

THE COURT:

GOOD MORNING.

16

MR. TULAC:

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

17

JOHN TULAC FOR

PLAINTIFF.

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. TAHERI:

20

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

PAYMAN TAHERI FOR DEFENDANT.

MR. TAHERI, I 'M CALLING THIS OUT OF ORDER

21

BECAUSE I RECEIVED YESTERDAY LATE IN THE DAY A DOCUMENT

22

ENTITLED "CONTINUED HEARING

23

VACATE."

24

MR. TAHERI:

26

THE COURT:

28

BRIEFING RE: MOTION

TO

DID YOU FILE IT YESTERDAY OR ON WEDNESDAY?

25

27

AND

YEAH.

I FILED IT TWO DAYS AGO.

WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR FILING THAT TWO

DAYS AGO?
MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, THE FACTS THAT ARE CONTAINED

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.471.2966 I www.ccrola.com

IN THAT PAPER CAME TO LIGHT SOLELY AFI'ER FERMENTED WHEN

:MR. TULAC FILED HIS PAPER LAST THURSDAY, SO I FILED IT THE

MONDAY, WHICH WAS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY I HAD AFI'ER REVIEWING

THE PAPERS.
THE COURT:

OKAY.

I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF YOU HAD A

JUSTIFICATION FOR FILING IT.

FOR FILING A BRIEF IN THIS COURT UNDER OUR RULES 'IWO DAYS

BEFORE THE HEARING?

YOU ANY --

10

:MR. TAHERI :

11

THE COURT:

12

:MR. TAHERI :

13

I'M SAYING WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY

I CERTAINLY -- I CERTAINLY DIDN'T GIVE

THE COURT
I'M SORRY?
I DID IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE COURT.

THE COURT DIDN'T SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE.

14

THE COURT:

YOU DIDN'T DO IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE

15

COURT.

16

AUTHORITY.

17

IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL BRIEFING,

18

THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SECTION.

ll.9

AND IF YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU NEEDED TO DO IT BECAUSE OF

20

SOMETHING HE DID, THE PROCEDURE IS TO FILE AN EX-PARTE

21

APPLICATION AND SEEK PERMISSION.

22

YOU WANI'ED TO GET A LAST WORD IN AND - - WITHOUT

I DIDN'T ORDER ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FROM YOU OR

:MR. TAHERI :

INSTEAD YOU GIVE IT TO

IF THERE'S NO BRIEFING SCHEDULE, YOUR

23

HONOR, I DID IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE COURT.

24

COURT DOESN'T WANT THE INFORMATION, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY

25

TO ANNUNCIATE IT.

26

HERE, ONLY REASON THAT I'M ARGUING, IS THERE IS NO ASSIGNMENT.

27

IF THE COURT CAN GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THOSE PARTICULAR BOUNDS

28

ON AN ORAL PRESENTATION, THAT'S FINE.

IT'S VERY CLEAR.

IF THE

THE ONLY REASON THAT I'M

BUT IF THE COURT WISHES

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.471.29661 www.ccrola.com

.1

2
3
.4
5

TO HAVE A SPECIFIC BRIEFING SCHEDULE, THEN THE C'OURT SHOULD

HAVE SAID IT.

ARE YOU --

THE COURT:

EXCUSE ME.

EXCUSE ME.

EXCUSE ME.

ARE YOU

FAMILIAR. WITH CIVIL PROCEDURE C'ODE 1005?

MR. TAHERI:

ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.

AND I ASK YOU TO

DIRECT ME WHERE IN THERE AT ALL TO PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE

C'ONTINUED HEARING TO HAVE A BRIEFING SCHEDULE IF THE C'OURT

DOES NOT SET IT?

I 'M VERY FAMILIAR. WITH 1005, YOUR HONOR.

THE C'OURT:

IT'S YOUR VIEW -- EXCUSE ME.

IT'S YOUR

VIEW YOU C'OULD HAVE JUST WALKED IN HERE TODAY WITH A BRIEF AND

TIIAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY?

MR. TAHERI:

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE UNTIMELY,

YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT FOR THE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SCHEDULES AND

WHATNOT; TIIAT THERE'S SOME MOTIONS TIIAT ARE SPECIFICALLY IN

THE C'ODE TIIAT YOU NOTED.

REC'ONSIDERATION.

NOTICE PERIOD.

TO THE C'OURT TIIAT SET THE ADDITIONAL HEARING TIME TO SAY YOU

NEED TO GO AHEAD AND FILE A PARTICULAR PAPERS - -

TIIAT IN THE C'ODE REQUIRES A PARTICULAR

SO OUTSIDE OF TIIAT, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LOOK

THE C'OURT:

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY?

1
2

LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, MOTION FOR

THANK YOU.
DID YOU

RECEIVE IT?
MR. TULAC:

YES, I DID, YOUR HONOR.

I RECEIVED IT BY

E-MAIL ON THE DAY TIIAT HE STATED.

IT'S NONRESPONSIVE TO THE

REASON WHY THIS WAS C'ONTINUED TO THIS DAY AND TIIAT WAS BECAUSE

THERE WAS A CLAIM OF IDENTITY THEFT.

INVESTIGATE.

OUR FINDINGS.

YOU ASKED US TO

WE INVESTIGATED AND I REPORTED BACK TO THE COURT

I ALSO HAVE A C'OURT REPORTER AND TRANSLATOR

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.471.2966 I www.ccrola.com

HERE FOR MR. INTERLANDI'S DEPOSITION BECAUSE THAT WAS

SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN.

MAKE HIM AVAILABLE TO COME TO CLAREMONT, SO I PITT IT HERE.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AS WELL.

MR. TAHERI REFUSED TO

THAT

ls

WAS REALLY THE ONLY OTHER REASON WHY WE WERE COMING BACK HERE

'6

TODAY WAS THE IDENTITY THEFT CLAIM.

8
9

THE COURT:

RIGHT.

I SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE

CIVIL CODE BECAUSE OF THE IDENTITY CLAIM.

MR. TULAC:

AND I HAVE NOTHING BACK FROM MR. TAHERI ON

THAT ISSUE AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BRIEF THAT HE FILED THAT

RELATES TO THE IDENTITY THEFT CLAIM.

3
4

THE COURT:

YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE YOUR RESPONSE.

WHEN

WAS THAT FILED?

MR. TULAC:

THAT WAS FILED LAST WEEK, YOUR HONOR, I

BELIEVE ON WEDNESDAY, POSSIBLY THURSDAY.

I THINK IT WAS

WEDNESDAY.
THE COURT:

OKAY.

THAT PROBABLY WASN'T TIMELY EITHER.

DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COPY WITH YOU?

our, YES.

MR. TULAC:

I CAN GET ONE

THE COURT:

YOU KNOW, MR. TAHERI, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING

1
2

NEW, ANYTHING THAT WAS - - THAT REQUIRED A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.

MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, IT DID.

LAST TIME WHEN WE

WERE BEFORE, YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO GRANT BOTH OF OUR

AMENABLE REQUESTS OF MR. TULAC TO TAKE A DEPOSITION AND ME TO

GET ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE FILE BECAUSE THE COURT WAS

CONCERNED, AS I PROVIDED A COPY OF THE --

THE COURT:

I DON IT NEED AN - - I DON IT NEED AN

EXPLANATION, MR. TAHERI .

HOW ARE WE GOING TO - -

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.471.2966 I www.ccrola.com

MR. TAHERI:

THE COURT:

YOU JUST ASKED FOR IT.

YOU TOLD ME.

I SAID I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING

NEW AND YOU STARTED TELLING ME WHAT I DID AT THE LAST HEARING.

I KNOW WHAT I DID AT THE LAST HEARING.

RESPONSE.

MR. TAHERI:

THE COURT:

I DON'T NEED A

YOUR HONOR - I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS NEW IN YOUR BRIEF

THAT YOU JUST FILED THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE TOLD ME ABOUT AT

THE FIRST HEARING OR THE SECOND HEARING.

MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, THAT'S FINE.

WHEN YOU GRANTED

US TO TAKE THIS ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY, MINE WAS SPECIFICALLY

GEARED TOWARD THE ASSIGNMENT ISSUE.

COURT'S TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CONVERSATION WHEN YOU GO "I DON'T

KNOW."

YOUR OWN STATEMENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

THAT THAT ASSIGNMENT DOES NOT EXIST.

7
8

NOW I'M PROVIDING YOU THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION TO

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHI'.

I 'M LETTING YOU KNOW

HOW WERE YOU GOING TO CONDUCT

THE DEPOSITION?

9
0

THAT'S WHY I PROVIDED THE

MR. TULAC:

I HAVE A COURT REPORTER AND A TRANSLATOR IN

THE HALLWAY.

THE COURT:

I KNOW, BUT HE'S NOT HERE.

MR. TULAC:

HE'S NOT HERE.

THE COURT:

MR. TAHERI, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONDUCT

THE DEPOSITION?

5
6

MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, THE CASE IS STAYED.

THE MOTIONS BEFORE YOU.

THE COURT:

7
8

HE HAD NOTICE.

ISSUE.

I HAVE

YOU GRANTED RELIEF --

IT WAS STAYED BECAUSE OF THE IDENTITY THEFT

ALL RIGHI'.

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.4 71.2966 I www.ccrola.com

MR. TAHERI:

THE COURT:

EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR.

AND HE - - GO AHEAD.

AND HE -- I ALLOWED HIM IN CONNECTION WITH

THE IDENTITY THEFr ISSUE TO TAKE A DEPOSITION OF YOUR CLIENT

BECAUSE OF THE INTERESTING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ATTENDING TO

THIS CASE.

YOU ARE NOT HERE?

SO HOW IS THAT DEPOSITION GOING TO GO FORWARD IF

MR. TAHERI:

YOUR HONOR, A CAUSE FOR ME AGREEING TO

A DEPOSITION COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ORDERED.

THAT I AGREED TO IT.

BE PROVIDED, GIVING THEM ANY RIGHT TO EVEN COLLECT ON THE

DEBT.
THE COURT:

DO

IT WAS NEVER ORDERED

IT WAS THE FACT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT WOUI..D

I'M -- MR. TAHERI, I'M NOT GOING TO RULE ON

YOUR ASSIGNMENT ISSUE.

I WANT THE DEPOSITION.

I WANT HIM THE

OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH YOUR MAIN ISSUE; THAT THIS IS NOT THE

SAME DEBTOR.

SAID, YOU KNOW, I THINK TODAY IS A GOOD DAY.

SO YOU WANT TO - - HE'S READY TO GO FORWARD.

IS THE DEFENDANT HERE?

7
8

MR. Tm.AC:

I HAVE NO.

MR. TAHERI:

IF HE'S

GOT

A COURT REPORTER THERE

AND

HE'S

OF THOSE PEOPLE'S TIME.

LIMITED AS TO WHERE HE COULD GO WITH THIS, SO I DON'T MIND

DRIVING DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE AND HAVING THIS DEPOSITION TAKE

PLACE.

7
8

A TRANSLATOR THERE, I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE EITHER ONE

THE COURT:

5
6

GOT

OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW.

THE ISSUES ARE VERY

WHAT ABOUT - - YOUR CLIENT WILL BE

HERE?
MR. TAHERI :

MY CLIENT IS RETIRED, YOUR HONOR.

GET HIM THERE.

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.4 71.2966 I www.ccrola.com

I CAN

THE COURT:

OKAY.

GET HIM HERE AS SOON AS YOU CAN

WITHIN THE NEXT HOUR.

MR. TAHERI:

CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

HOW ABOur IF WE

JUST SET IT FOR 1:30 SINCE NEXT HOUR HE'S IN WOODLAND HILLS
AND I CAN'T GAUGE TRAFFIC -THE COURT:
MR. TAHERI:

THE INTERPRETER IS NOT AVAILABLE AT 1:30.

SHE'S FOR MY -- 11:15 oursIDE YOUR

COURTROOM?
THE COURT:
ENOUGH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE LONG

WHY DON'T YOU SHOOT FOR 11: 00.

MR. TAHERI:

WE' LL SEE YOU THEN.

ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:

THANK YOU.

MR. TULAC:

YOUR HONOR, MAY I SUBMIT?

THE COURT:

YEAH.

BYE-BYE.

OKAY.

( PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED. )

1
2

27

28

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.4 71.2966 I www.ccrola.com

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

HON. MARK BORENSTEIN, JUDGE

DEPARTMENT 44

4
5

PACIFIC WEST GROUP, INC.,

)
)

PLAINTIFF,

6
7
8
9

10

)
)

vs.

NO. BC342152

GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI,
DEFENDANT.

_______________

)
)

REPORTER'S
CERTIFICATE

)
)
)

I, DINA CURRADO, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DID CORRECTLY REPORT THE
PROCEEDINGS CONTAINED HEREIN AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1
THROUGH 7 COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON JULY 20, 2016.

DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2016.

DINA CORRADO, CSR NO. 10908

OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Coalition Court Reporters I 213.471.2966 I www.ccrola.com

From:

Sent:

John Tulac <jwtulac@omail.com>

Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:34 PM

To:

Subject:

Notice of Ruling

formal notice out before the week is out, but I am informing you as follows:
ruled today that Plaintiff demonstrated that Defendant Interlandi is the responsible debtor. He lifted
the stay posed because of the claim of identity theft.
ordered the deposition, which could not be completed, since Mr. Interlandi arrived shortly before
noon an the interpreter had to leave at 12:15 (she graciously stayed until around 12:30), to be completed at my
office by August 15 (I might have managed to complete it today had he gotten there a little earlier and but for
repetitiv and unfounded objections that took up a good amount of time. Your instructions?).
continued the hearing on my motion to compel and your motion to August 17 at 9: 15. He asked for a
supplem ntal brief from me by August 10 regarding the issue of the assignment raised in your last, late
pleading He specifically ordered that you are NOT to file anything further with the Court.
FYI, I a ised Ms. Jalivand that the Judge wanted us back in his courtroom at 1:30. She declined to return and
did not r turn.
Here's the commentary:
wasted a lot of your time for a "freebie" or a lot of Mr. Interlandi's money, if it isn't a freebie. I don't
e. However, you are wasting my time and my client's money. That I do care about. I will be seeking
sanctio with respect to your game-playing with the deposition.
based on past conduct is tough,
knowledge that getting sanctions in state court fo
possible, and I am motivated to find a way;
Judge asked me, and I cand1 y tol
m so.
dandy clear on a going-forward basis, I am placing you on notice right now that any farther
obstrepe us interference, improper conduct, non-factual allegations, frivolous pleadings or the like from you
will resu t in a motion for sanctions. That part isn't tough at all.
way: Mr. Interlandi admitted receiving letters and doing nothing. He filed them in the "whatever
also stated that only his family worked at Interstone Supplies where his financial records were faxed.
got a kick out of Mr. Interlandi. He has a sense of humor. So I'm going to do him a favor. I will cut
him a de , not a big one, but a deal, ifhe agrees to pay up and pays. If ~'OU keep doing what you are doing,
there wil be not so much as a penny left on the table or the floor. Tell him.
John

~IBIT

John W. ulac, Attorney at Law

414 Yale venue, Suite H
Claremon , California 91 711
909-445-1100 Phone

909-445-1104 Fax
www.o
ulac.com

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPI'. 44

07 /2

HONORABLE

KA. BORENSTEIN

JUDGE

B . GREGG

DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGE PRO TEM

HONORABLE

11.

. AVALOS,

C.A.

Depu1y Sheriff

9:15 am BC342152

ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

PRO TEM
DINA CORRADO #10908
Plaintiff

Reponer

JOHN W. TULAC *

Counsel

PACIFIC WEST GROUP, INC.

vs

Defendant

PAYMAN TAHERI

Counsel

BY COURTCALL

GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI
NO FILE
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC WEST GROUP INC. TO COMPEL

ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTION TO POST JUDGMENT DEBTOR
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
C/F 7-5-16
MOTION OF DEFENDANT GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI TO VACATE
DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT:
C/F 5-20-16

The Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as

Official Reporter Pro Tempore is signed and filed
this date.
Matter is called for hearing.
Matter is heard re Defendant's late filed documents)
Court rules that the deposition is to proceed prior]
to rulings on the motions.
tter is called again for hearing at 1:30 p.m.
Court finds.no appearance by the Defendant or"
Defendant's counsel.
~
Plaintiff's counsel states that the deposition
is not completed.

MINUTES ENTERED

Page

1 of

DEPT. 44

07/20/16
COUNTY CLERK

EXHIBIT

G.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. 44
HONORABLE

KA. BORENSTEIN

JUDOE

B. GREGG

JUDOE PRO TEM

HONORABLE

11.

. AVALOS,

C.A.

Deputy Sheriff

9:15 am BC342152

DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

PRO TEM
DINA CURRADO #10908
Plaintiff

Reporter

JOHN W. TULAC *

Counsel

PACIFIC WEST GROUP, INC.

Defendant

vs

Counsel

PAYMAN TAHERI *
BY COURTCALL

GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI
NO FILE
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

The Court continues both motions to

AUGUST 17, 2106, 9:15 A.M., DEPARTMENT 44.
The stay under Civil Code section 1788.18 is lifte~.)
Defendant is ordered to complete his deposition)
at the office of Plaintiff's counsel by 8-15-201~:,>
laintiff to file and serve his supplemental
opposition to Defendant's July 17, 2016 supplemenata
brief by 8-10-2016. Document to be filed in
Department 44.
to be filed as to these.=>

Plaintiff to give notice.

MINUTES ENTERED

Page

of

DEPT. 44

07/20/16
COUNTY CLERK

John W. Tulac SBN#78201

414 Yale A venuel Suite H
Claremont, CA 9 711
Telephone: 909-445-1100
Facsimile: 909-445-1104
Email: jwtulac@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff Pacific West Group,

Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PACIFIC WEST GROUP, INC.,

Case No. BC342152

Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF RULING

v.

Date: July 20, 2016

Time: 10:00 AM
Dept: 44

GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI,

Defendant.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 20, 2016, in Department 44 of the above-entitled
court. the Honorable Mark A. Borenstein ruled as follows:
1.

As to Defendant's claim of identity theft, the Court ruled that :'Plaintiff detennined

in good faith based on its investigation that Defendant Gianfranco Interlandi is the responsible
party for the debt

Accordingly, the Court lifted the stay on enforcement of the Judgment

imposed on July 20, 2016.

2.

The deposition of Oianfranco Interlandi, which commend at the courthouse, but

could not be completed due to Mr. Interlandi's late arrival (near noon) and unavailability of the
translator to return in the afternoon, is to be completed before August 15 at the law offices of
John W. Tulac, 414 Yale Avenue, Suite H, Claremont, CA.
-1NOTICE OF RULING

3.

Plaintiff's motion tu cumpeljudgment debtor discovery and L>efondant's motion to

vacate judgment are continued to August 17, 2016 at 9:15 AM in Department 44.
4.

The Court accepted Defendant's late-filed supplemental brief and ordered that

Plaintiff's written response be filed on or before August 10 directly in Department 44. The Court
further ordered that Defendant Interlandi not file any additional pleading or document for the
continued hearing on the motions on August 17.
July 25, 2016

W. Tulac
ttomey for Plaintiff
Pacific West Group, Inc.

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2

-2NOTICE OF RULING

1
2

3
4
5
6

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my
business address is: 414 Yale Avenue, Suite H, Claremont,
California 91711.
On July 25, 2016, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

7
8

NOTICE OF RULING

On the 1.nterested parties in this action by placing the true copies

thereof enclosed In sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

10
11

12

18
14
15
16
17

18

Payman Taheri, Esq.

Law Office of Payman Taheri, Esq.
4929 WIishire Blvd., Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90010

BY MAIL as follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice

qf collection and proce~sing correspondence for mailing under that
practice, It would be deposited with U.S. Postal service on .that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Claremont,
California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service Is presumed invalfd if postal
c;ancellatlon date or postage meter date is more than one day after
date of deposit for malling affidavit.

19

BY EMAIL on July 25, 2016 as follows:

20

Pav.man Taheri, Esq.

p@ptaheri.com
Executed on July 25, 2016 at Claremont, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.