Case 2:12-cv-08333-oDw-Jwfioocument 218 Filed 07/11/13 1983,? 1 of 100 Page ID #23808 - I 3 1 M888 -'88ach81;F '33 139 WED A cl-IK, gs. mamcfr mufif 1 Prase ORNIA napuw i?m'r?30 8188881116I5~im:- iflitfiss Qiwfig?ffia: -V W?lfififif *3 - fmai flaiteTGALZL 1 1 bar campiaifiis fii?d ia8ai3"%stt fiifiratii 3 Bar. m3m8pI'8iIfi8f?led1 I 89- 88$ w- tagaim Mr; 8:18 bar fzieci by ag;8;in;s11M'r. G~ibbs1 A 5? I 8 12+ :6 as: vs meyfl. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - 2 Pa e|D #23809 Case Document218 Filed 0 9 2 1m OF CALIFORNIA 3 INGENUITY 13 4 Plairrtfi 5 in V. Judge: 6 %i JOHN 005, 1 fl' 7 CERTIFICATE or SERVICE 3 9 11' IS HEREBY CERTIFIED 1, thenndersigned. am a citizen ofthe United States and am at least eighteen years ofage. 10 My addness is 1111 Lincoln Rd. Ste 400, Miami Beach, FL 33139. Ihave causebd service: of: 12 EXHIBITS or mm. COMPLAINTS AGAINST BRETT mass 13 0n the following parties via U.S. Mai I postage prepaidre" al-'WW: PC 16 3200 59! West Broadway, Suite 600 1' "mm" San Diego, California 92191 I7 Telefzhonc: (619) 239-8131 Fax: (619) 233-3797 13 e-mafl: I 9 - e-mail: Ing:nuityl3, LLC se 20 Spfingates East 0 21 - Government Road . maariestown Nevis 22 Livewim Hoidings, LLC Pm se 2109 Street Nmhwest, Suite 110-41 7 23 'Wash? on D.C. 2003? 688} Forensics, LLC pm Se -H Government Road 25 - Charlestuwn. Nevis 26 37' AF Holdings, LLC Pro Se I CASE NO. (J63) Case as 19 2933; 2: 22 24 25 25L 'as: j" Document218 Filed 3 of 100 Page ID #23810 Springatcs East Guvermnent Road Chariestown, New-is Brett L. Gibbs Pro Se 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA949-41 Mark Lutz Pro Se 2100 Suite 170-417 Washington, D.C. 20037 John Steele Pro Sc 1111 Lincoln Rd Ste. 400 Miami Beach FL 33139 Paul Hansmeicr Pro Se Alpha Law Finn, LLC 900 IDS Center 80 South St. Wmimeamlis. MN 55402 Peter Hansmeicr Pro Sc 2100 Street Northwest, Sum: . Washimzton, 20037 . Angela Van Den Hemci Pm Se 2190 Suits: I70-417 13.6. 20637 -Nw3:i--Pa11y Putative John Doe Morgan Pietz (SEN 260629) The Rim. Law Firm 3770 Highland. Ave., Ste. 206 - Manhattan Beach. CA 90266 . Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo Heiler Edwards Lawrence E. Heller 9454 Wimhira Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverhr Hifls, CA 90212-2983 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and corneal. Executed on July I I, CASE NO. (JCX) Case Document 218 Filed 4 of 100 Page ID #:3811 2 Exhibit A 2: 3 ., sli- Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake The State Bar of California 1149 South Hill Street Los Angeles, California 90015-2299 July 8, 2013 Dear State Bar of California: This 'letter is a formal complaint against California attorney, Brett Gibbs (Bar 251000). I would respectfully ask your office to review this complaint on an expedited basis because it involves misconduct that is not only ongoing, but is also inflicting daily harm against the interests of my company, AF Holdings, LLC. I have forwarded a copy of this complaint to Mr. Gibbs so I can see if he has any explanation for his behavior. Background My name is Mark Lutz and I am the manager of a company, AF Holdings, LLC, 218 Filed 5 of 100 Page ID #:3812 that until July 3, 2013, was represented by Mr. Gibbs. The thrust of this complaint is that I AF's attorney, Mr. Gibbs, is actively assisting AF's adversaries in exchange for his own personal financial gain. 1. Mr. Gibbs is actively aiding hisformer client is' adversaries On June 4, 2013, Mr. Gibbs executed a declaration that now forms the factual backbone of a sanctions motion against AF filed by attorneys Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo in a case titled, AF Holdings, LLC v. Navasca. (Exhibit A). Mr. Gibbs previously represented AF in the Navasca matter. Six days later, on June 10, 2013, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Pietz submitted a joint stipulation that relieved Mr. Gibbs of his obligation to post security for an $83,000 sanctions award that was entered against Gibbs in a case titled LLC v. John Doe. (Exhibit B). In other words, there was a quid pro quo between Messrs. Gibbs and Pietz: if Mr'. Gibbs submitted a declaration against AF, Mr. Pietz would cut him a deal in a separate matter. As a side note, the joint stipulation in the Ingenuity! 3 matter also harmed AF by making AF responsible for Mr. Gibbs' portion of the $83,000 bond. Mr. Gibbs neither sought nor received my approval to do this. Up until, July 3, 2013, Mr. Gibbs was representing AF in a matter titled AF Holdings, LLC v. Magsumbol. (Exhibit C). In his declaration, Mr. Gibbs paints my company as a sham company that I apparently do not even run and attempts to minimize his involvement in the cases where he served (by his own admission) as my attorney. Yet, in private, Mr. Gibbs has repeatedly acknowledged my status as the manager atAF. For example, when he attempted to part ways with AF, he issued a letter to me in which he identified himself as AF's lead 218 Filed 6 of 100 Page ID #:3813 at - 5* I counsel. - (Exhibit D.) Further, when he attempted to withdraw in the Magsumbol matter, he sought and received a declaration from me. (Exhibit E.) In addition to being false, these statements plainly undermine my company"'s (and his client's) interests and are outrageous for my attorney to make. In light of the fact that Mr. Gibbs' statements undermine AF's interests. I hope the California Bar takes action against Mr. Gibbs to protect Californians from his behavior. 2. Mr. Gibbs to on attorneys 'jbes award against AF without my consent A week or so after Mr. Gibbs struck a deal with Messrs. Pietz and Ranallo regarding the facts discussed in Mr. Gibbs submitted a statement of non-opposition to a motion for attorneys' fees filed by Mr. Ranallo in a case titled AF Holdings, LLC v. Magsumbol. (Exhibit F). Mr. Gibbs did not consult with me before filing this statement, did not obtain my consent and would not have been able to obtain my consent if he had triedbest interests for Mr. Gibbs to consent to me paying an attorney's fee award that I did not even know about. ?The fact that the money is to be paid to the very attorney that Mr. Gibbs is working with (Mr. Ranallo) is also improper. I want to be as clear as I can: until very recently I never even heard of any motion for attorneys fees being filed in the Magsumbol case, let alone my attorney agreeing to the fees. 3. Mr. Gibbs represented AF in ct matter where he had a serious conflict of interest, and repeatedly sabotaged AF is interests for his personal benefit In February, 2013, Judge Wright issued an order to show cause solely against Mr. Gibbs with respect to a case where he was representing AF. (Exhibit G) Mr. Gibbs did not inform me of this hearing. I later learned that at the hearing, Mr. Gibbs repeatedly lied to the Court, making such claims as he was "essentially a secretary". and that other attorneys that I had never spoken to about that case were AF 's attorneys. (Exhibit H) As a side note, I would like to inform the California bar that Mr. Gibbs has filed and supervised hundreds of cases on behalf of AF all across the country. Mr. Gibbs was the only attorney I EVER spoke with about the case before Judge Wright. After the March 11, 2013, hearing, Judge Wright issued another order to show cause and scheduled a hearing for it on April 2, 2013. (Exhibit I) Because of Mr. Gibbs' testimony at the March 11 hearing, AF was now a defendant in the new order to show cause. In other words, my own attorney nansformed an OSC against him into an OSC against my company based on complete lies to the judge. Between the March 11, 2013, hearing and the April 2, 2013, hearing, I was never contacted by Mr. Gibbs (except to learn that I had to show up to the hearing), who was still AF 's attorney on several cases, including the one in front of Judge Wright. I wish to be clear: Prior to the April 2 hearing, during the hearing, and for more than two months after the April 2nd hearing, Mr. Gibbs was still the attorney of record for Case Document 218 Filed 7 of 100 Page ID #:3814 1. '5 - AF. Throughout this time, I believed that Mr. Gibbs was the attomey for AF Holdings and that he would defend AF"s--and my own--interests in the matter before Judge Wright. Regarding the April 2, 2013, hearing, since AF was represented by Mr. Gibbs. I assumed he was taking care of things, and that he would reach out to me when he needed to. At no time prior to the April 2nd hearing did Mr. Gibbs inform AF or me that he would not be representing AF at the hearing. I would note that I never received the order from Judge Wright and I was never told by Mr. Gibbs that AF Holdings needed to appear on April 2nd. I was very surprised to see Mr. Gibbs appear in court on April 2nd with his attorney. At first, I thought he had brought in additional attorneys to represent me. I later learned that he had hired attorneys to defend him in regards to his actions in this matter. I also learned, at the hearing, that Mr. Gibbs was refusing to represent AP that day. Mr. Gibbs refused to even inform that court that AF was present in compliance with the Court's order. (Exhibit J) Mr Gibbs did not even notify the Court that he represented AF when the Court instructed all the attorneys to state their name and, clients to the Court. In fact, Mr. Gibbs did not utter a single word the entire hearing. Later, I learned why Mr. Gibbs had acted so strange. I learned that Mr. Gibbs had made a deal with the opposing counsel, Mr. Pietz. The crux of the I learned through later pleadings and affidavits filed by Mr. that if Mr. Gibbs agreed to file joint pleadings with Messrs. Pietz and Ranallo against AF, Mr. Pietz would stop including Mr. Gibbs in his many motions for sanctions and fees. In other words, AF 's attorney Mr. Gibbs agreed to file pleadings against his own client in exchange for Mr. Gibbs getting off for writing the very pleadings that led to the OSC in the first place. And Mr. Gibbs kept his word, filing a joint motion with Mr. Pietz shortly thereafter. As a side note, when AF filed its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Mr. Gibbs lied to the Ninth Circuit clerk and said he didn't represent AF in the district court. The Ninth Circuit originally believed him, but when I called the clerk's office, I personally spoke to the lady who had spoken to Mr. Gibbs only one hour previous. After I requested that the Ninth Circuit check the docket sheet from the district court. After the clerks office reviewed the docket I spoke with the clerl<'s office again and the lady agreed that Mr. Gibbs was still AF's attorney. After that, there was a document that AF needed to tile in order to prevent being sanctioned by the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Gibbs, even after I called him to ask him to file this document, flat--out refused to file the document and hung up on me. I assume this was just part of his deal with Mr. Pietz. As a non--attorney, I feel like Mr. Gibbs actions made my filing of the notice of appeal much more difficult, when it was still his job to help me. Not to belabor the point, but the record is clear that Mr. Gibbs was my attorney on the case in front of Judge Wright until May 29, 2013, when an order was entered by the Court granting Mr. Gibbs leave to withdraw. Mr. Gibbs attempted to withdraw only after the sanctions order was entered against AF. Further, Mr. Gibbs never said a word or filed a document in AF's defense during the whole order to show cause process, notwithstanding that he was AF's attorney. Nor did he attempt to withdraw before this time. Case 4.e ,%?Document218 Filed 563; - Mi'. Gibbs has refused ?29 wiih nae: get some straigIit.'answers ef'r0m'm_y attcirney Mr. and he has refined rte 'address thje>>-m. I haw them _be_fc~W. I .hep.e. your can get" some the foilowing: 4A Why .Gibb'$ r'aiseM any defense" even' talk) on 'bahaif thremghdut Wright orfifir--to siiew causa 'proc?a??ngs? Mr, Gibbs infenn AF _prior to t%3e.Apri1 2, 20.133 Zzearing that he was ggo'i_ng- to refuse to "say" a' single ward -on 'behalf? did -Gibbs: agree eii'1at- WOIJM pay fees' in the. isztpasee -wiihmri even --coniactirag AF first? did. Gibbs discfese priviiegjede 'iz'1fomzaticm AF the dec3.aratioz:, he-yrevided and Rwaifis? Whenwas the "last Gibbs spoke with his client, "What agreements did Mr; Gibbs Smack with :Messr's.. Pietz- and R-a'na1'l0 ~regard_ing; if Gibbffi claifmsg there is no _agreamLen?, why .tiLi.>>d M'e$s1f$. "Fiat:-* and against" Mr. aithe. $31123 t.i'mEUR: that Mr; Gibb$ siarte? with Why did Mr; "Gibbs hire his' awn atim:-niey_ fer the Judge Wrigirfi order- to "$31013? _EUR:'ause but not advise. me. it) do the .1 would iike in review all correspond.enc.e betwetan Mg. Giebhs and Mr. Pie-tz -and/or Mr. I'w0u1d.1ike tie Mr. Gibb'S:af1Ci AF durirzg the :'time -he-was rsapresmting AF mhundreds 1:0 reviewail written between .M_r.._Gibbs anci anyone- d'uringthe time representing AF in eases. I have aiready asked for 'hag mt 'spgken ta me since I askede far' this infennation. Sincem?y, 8 of 100 Page Case _:?Document 218 Filed 07/11/13 9 of 100 Page ID #23816 mew Case Document 218 Filed 10 of 100 Page ID #23817 Exhibit A Case Document 218 Filed rfigage 11 of 100 Page ID 8 '5 #23818 6' Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document94 FiIed07/O2/13 Pagel of3 'Ev at 31 I 3793 --493 1 '3 $31) 3-33 505-7'3 I Sm'kw-I. 'cam' - gm 243- ifimurt ii}? igim Ifiifmict of Effi?ki?afiafi hezmzietz. 2, if am-3. 13.; fer i-'mzxdae ms'. in in 8.12:: in the es 'wiei} muiihflaa 01811-er the szzaeie unm $2282 2133 1 was fi?tee?e and Ewiansnzaaier mas: ra2Igg:a.rd 1:0 Kai?' zmc? xarcmz the ewhzta as z-W' ?3 em_d_ rm": wi?fia was Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/13??W?age 12 of 100 Page ID 1 #.3819 Case-23:12-cv--O2396--EMC Document94 Filed07'/02/13 Pagez of3 ii that: Mark in this; i %m{?eve 133.33 -the "ii: Eim M71: 53 am-t an accumie I ziizai 3-mi '-"Ifmm time to tiemsf' seed {re-rtitEcai.eIs= fer Mr. Luiz 1.0; am -ei' afid the: a_1k2g_ed 1w"i::ia; in did must am: Lu?gzz was" with @1336 as am es? 1-has in i..irs:i5; 23; 'i 1 Wm hy Qua: -azxxezer 3% 12 Skfii. mad rmzi zzmi ms zmci fizai I 3' gm -ahe?kd am? fific. me that 3&1? I. 533%; Z: azgzaieix' "?3.23 'ihaz Wm: rem 3. ii} itiamgtxi?estfii Wiih file; amcgi his {gm '?1231 %2e?.d by 'imtw -i?mi i IE 10 {$523 an Eimi i E3-had. iiaisgz ifiazauiaglfi .32 mama: E312 ms: may beet} there ?1 35;, mt: iiezeic was it': fzm; -i?yrgmi. Ea; if iia?a Sieele -and "E7"%aefs; 2% miid 'Shea. flu: zaizai ixavaez me in ?kig miher i vim; in my fa-rzziuai zm?i _ie'2ga_i ef ibis mis?aar ?1ae:mit;:: under flu: ism/'5; cnsf' the Sam fizsat. am - . ii'; am: xmrmat, am. fizfias My Z?gaefl nanzi' Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/leffiifiage 13 of 100 Page ID r:uedo7/02/13 Page3 of3 3% A 'azalzayx aznzem {rm 2i}? 3, a zimd ihe ,3 with the illiiezrk efihe gsmsai? 3ys"iefi2. Lv .w -1.. 5 Case Document 218 Filed 07/11/13gff%age 14 of 100 Page ID #23821 Case Document 218 Filed 15 of 100 Page ID #23822 'am Exhibit Case Case- 1, Document 218 Filed O7/11/13?Bei?age 16 of 100 Page ID #23823 Document 178 Filed 06/11/13 Pwage 1of4 Page ID #:3317 Brett Gibbs 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 3 81-3104 brettgibbs grnaileom In Propria ersona UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, - CASE NO. 2: (JCX) Plaintifl; Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian JOHN DOE, Defmdam<<_ STIPULATION BETWEEN MOVANT BRETT L. GIBBS AND ATTORNEY MORGAN PIETZ STIPULATION Pursuant to the Central District of California Local Rules, L.R. 7-1, Movant Brett L. Gibbs and the Putative John 'Doe defendant in 8333, by and through counsel, Attorney Morgan E. Pietz (hereinafter "Stipulating Parties"), have agreed to certain terms regarding the May 6, 2013 "Order Issuing Sanctions" (hereinafter "May 6 Order," Doc. No. 130), the Court's May 21, 2013 "Order Denying Ex Parte Application for Stay of Enforcement; Order to Show Cause Re Attorney's Fee Award" ("May 21 Order," Doc. No. 164), and the Court's Order Denying in Part and Conditionally Granting in 1 STIPULATION NO. (JCX) Case Case- pa-I fin-I '14 7-4 l\J r--a U0 I-I 1--A O0 r--A E0 CD r--Document 218 Filed O7/11/1f-pnigage 17 of 100 Page ID #:3824 mini' Document 178 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #3318 Part Paul Duffy's Motion for Approval of Bond and Order Staying Enforcement of May 6 and May 21 Orders Imposing Sanctions and Penalties ("June 7 Order," Doc; No. 176). currently presented in this matter, the Stipulating Parties stipulate to the After meeting and conferring in good faith on the issues following: 1. In View of a bond having been posted in the above-captioned matter, and in consideration of Mr. Gibbs' current financial difficulties as 7 presented in his May 23, 2013 Response to the Court's May 21 Order, the Stipulating Parties agree that the entire amount of the $1,000 per day penalty should be vacated as to Mr. Gibbs, and only as to Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gibbs' position is that because the Court's May 6 Order imposed joint and several liability for the attorney's fee award on four individuals and three entities, and the Court's June 7 Order required that the bonds clearly set forth the joint and several liability of the parties, the posted bond effectively applies to and secures payment from all of the sanctioned parties, including Mr. Gibbs. The putative John Doe defendant, through counsel, does not object to this position. The Stipulating Parties agree that Mr. Gibbs should not accrue an additional sanction or penalty for failing to post the additional bond required by the Court's June 7 Order; however, if the additional bond required in the June 7 Order is not timely posted, this stipulation is without prejudice to the putative defendants right to seek further relief as against any party, including Mr. Gibbs. 2 STIPULATION NO. 2: (JCX) Case Case lDocument 218 Filed age 18 of 100 Page ID 38 A 25 Document 178 Filed Page3of4 Page ID #13319 4. As a "Prenda party," as defined in the Court's June 7 Order, Mr. Gibbs shall execute and acknowledge the Validity of the conditions presented in the June 7 Order within the seven-days allotted. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Respectfully submitted, DATED: June 11, 2013 Brett L. Gibbs Brett Gibbs 3 8 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 3816104 brett.gibbs@gmail.com DATED: June 10, 2013 Morgan E. Pietz Morgan E. Pietz THE PIETZ LAW FIRM 3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Facsimile: (310) 546--5301 Attorney for Defendant John Doe 3 STIPULATION NO. (JCX) Case Case Document 218 Filed 19 of 100 Page ID 'i%tt? #:3826 Document 178 Filed 06/11/l3 Pagge 4 of 4 Page ID #23320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My business address is 38 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941. The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 11, 2013, all individuals of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document using the Court's ECF system, in compliance with this Court's Local Rules. Further, on June 11, 2013 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was placed into the U.S. mail, which was delivered to the following addresses, postage paid, the list of which comprise the currently known service list of individuals with known addresses on this matter as required under the Local Rules: Angela Van Den Hemel Prenda Law, Inc. 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: paulduffy2005@gmail.com John Steele 1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 400 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (708) 689-8131 In Propria Persona Brett Gibbs Brett L. Gibbs 4 STIPULATION NO. (JCX) Case Document 218 Filed 20 of 100 Page ID #23827 Case Document 218 Filed 21 of 100 Page ID #23828 Exhibit . . Case Document 218 Filed age 22 of 100 Page ID #23829 Document58 FiIed07/03/1"? Pagel of 1 1 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-341-5318 has Attorney of Record for Piaintzfi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION AF HOLDINGS, LLC, N0. 3:12--cv--04221-SC A a 0- ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF TO ALLOW ATTORNEY BRETT L. GIBBS WITHRAW COUNSEL OF RECORD PURSUANT TO LOCAL A RULES 7-I1 AND 11-5 -..- ll-3 Plaintiff, V. ANDREW MAGSUMBOL, Defendant. For good cause shown, Mr. Gibbs' Adxninistrative Motion for Relief to Allow Attorney Brett L. Gibbs to Withdraw as Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and attorney Brett L. IT IS SO ORDERED. l\J r--Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/1C9Wrw%%age 23 of 100 Page ID Exhibit Case 2:12-cv-08333-ooggoac Document 218 Filed age 24 of 100 Page ID 3 8 3 J. BRETT L. GIBBS, ESQ. ATTORNEY AT LAW January 29, Brett L. Gil)l)S,rsc; 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mark L. Lutz Corporate Representative of AF Holdings LLC M111 Valley AF Holdings LLC California, 94941 Springates East p, Government Rcad Charlestown, Nevis Via Email and US Mail Re: AF Holdings Case Nos: 12-1064', 12-1066, 12-1067, 12-1068, 12-1075, 12-1078, 12- 1079, 12-2049, 12-2394, 12-2393, 12-2404, 12-2411, 12-2415, 12-1654, 12-1656, 12- 1657, 12-1659, 12-1660, 12-1661, 12-1663, 12-3249, 12-1519, 12-1523, 12-1525, 12- 4219, 12-4221, 12-1840, 12-2204, 12-2206, 12-2207, 12-4446, 12-4982. Confirmatioir of Withdrawal as Counsel Dear Mr. Lutz: Per our discussion this afternoon, I will be withdrawing as counsel of record in all of the above-referenced cases. Also, per our discussion, Mr. Paul Duffy will be substituting and entering his appearance as lead counsel in all of the above oases. Per our conversation, I will remain as counsel of record on Case No. 12-2396 through the Early Neutral Evaluation hearing; after which time, I will be Withdrawing as counsel and substituting with Mr. Duffy. This is letter is a confirrnation of these mutually agreed upon actions. As We both agree, Mr. Paul Duffy will be sufficient in handling the above cases as lead counsel. Sincerely, 52% Brett L. Gibbs,' Esq., CC: Paul Duffy, Esq. (via email) Case Document 218 Filed 25 of 100 Page ID #23832 Exhibit 24 Case 2:12-cv-08333-OD Document 218 Filed age 26 of 100 Page ID Case3:12-cv-04221-SC Page2 of 3 '1 . a 38 Avenue, #263 a mill e94941; . 4 La.) Us IN THE UNITED FOR N-ORTHERN {>12 Piaintiff25 No'. 3a:e12-ev-:04221-SC a--as SU??0RfremGe mafia -OF CQUNSEL ANDREW Defendant, 051? FUR N.- E, Mark Lutz, declare the PE-ainfiff in ibis matter; ms I race-ntly B131'-t G_ibbs' intent in wiihciraw as counsei sf this caseg and RD 20 we =agr-ee? -that Mr. Gibbs.' 'withdrawal wcmri be ;best suit; {was wide by Mr'. Gibbfi remizta reasenabie an.:mu111: of fimea as $123 LLCI cannot. on its own mfizout I understand. this -requireme-ni am I assured Mr. Gibbs "that I wouid. be 25 act}-wily' is .iitigaie ab'se_nce; 26 - I de?-Eare of perjury. that the foregeing is true and ce'rre'cft based on my 27 awn. those 's'ta'ted can inafon'na-flan and 28 2 MARK LUTZ No. sic: Case Document 218 Filed age 27 of 100 Page ID a Pages of 3 1 and thbs?: be1,ieve in "true. If calied upon to mmify, I can anti tesziifyvas set forth abow. mcrifinaz 27, 2013 By1.MARK Case Document 218 Filed 28 of 100 Page ID #23835 Exhibit Case r--Document 218 Filed 29 of 100 Page ID #2383 Case3:12-cv-04221-SC Document 6 Fiiedofi/25/I0" Pagel 0f2 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 38 Miller Avenue, #263 M111 Valley, CA 94941 415-341-5318 brett.gibbs@gmai1.com Attorney for Plaintifi' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION AF Holdings, LLC, N0. 3:12-cv-04221--SC <> I 3873 23 concerned that your name is being used as a corporate representative of some West Indian entities that you know nothing about; is that true? A Yes. That's correct. I want you to explain. I want you to elaborate. What is it that you have heard? A That my name is being signed and forged and used for whatever these offices or myself personally scams that they have going on. Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Steele about these concerns of yours? A He had, on one of his trips up to the cabin, all he had said was if anybody contacts you about any of my law firm or anything that has to do with me, don't answer and call me. Had he ever given you any advance notice that he was contemplating embarking on let me back up. Do you know what his legal specialty was, say, back in 2006? What kind of law was he practicing? A When I had first met him, he was still in law school. In law school, All right. And, then, what area of practice did he go into if you know? A He had originally said divorce, family law. Family law. All right. Did he ever indicate to Case Document 218 Filed 67 of 100 Page you that he was contemplating embarking on a different specialty in the law? A Yes. And best as you can recall; what was this new specialty? A Internet porn buyers. I don't know exactly how to word it for you. On. Internet porn piracy sounds pretty good. All right. Do you recall anything he said about that? A As far as? Anything about this new venture, this new method of practicing law. A I tried not to talk to him very much, but what he had what he had said on one of his trips was his goal was $10,000 a day, to have a mailing of these letters. What letters? A To people that illegally downloaded on the Internet. Did he explain what these letters would say and who these letters would be sent to? A I am not very Internet savvy myself, so it would be whoever downloaded something that they weren't paying for That or illegal. I don't know exactly how this works. he would just send out a letter stating that if they Case 100 Page ID 25 didn't send a check for a certain amount, that he would make it public to these people's family and friends what they were looking at. I see. Okay. Is that all you can remember him saying about this new venture? A At this time. Yes. All right. Now, let's put this in context. He basically told you that if you started getting any inquiry, that you were to, what, call him or direct the callers to him? A To contact personally, personally contact him. Qkay. Now, back up. If you received any calls or inquiries regarding what? A He said anything that seemed out of place. And you took that to mean what? A1 I took that to mean the very next day I went and talked to my father--in--law which is a retired sheriff and talked to him, and he said until anybody contacts you, he goes we have nothing to go to the court system with. And did that change? A 1 never heard anything from anybody. All right. So no one ever contacted you? A No. And so what is it that made you go off and hire Mr. Paul Godfread? Case Document 218 Filed 69 of 100 Page ID 3 8 7 6 we gsrfi' 26 A I had received a text asking if this was my signature on a particular document, and I said no. And that is when I was given a number to call an attorney to make sure that this didn't come back towards me. All right. I am going to assume that that copy of that document is probably in court; right? MR. PIETZ: Referring now to the copyright assignment agreement, your Honor? THE COURT: Right. MR. PIETZ: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Let me turn this over to you, sir. Go ahead. MR. PIETZ: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If it please the court, I have some documents which I can show on the monitor including to Mr. Cooper. I just want to make sure we have both the copyright assignments. MR. PIETZ: Are the monitors arrayed so that the court can see them? THE COURT: Yes. The court has its own. We got that before the sequester. MR. PIETZ: All right. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Cooper, my name is attorney Morgan Pietz. Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/13mm 100 Page ID >3 #23877 27 Thank you for coming here today. Did anyone ever ask you to become a corporate representative of AF Holdings A No. Did anybody ever ask you to become a corporate representative of Ingenuity 13 A No. Mr. Cooper, now, I would like to show you some documents, and Mr. Ranallo I believe just passed out copies of the first. So what we have here is a complaint. It is one of the consolidated cases presently before the court. For the record, it is Civil Action No. 212 CV 6636, an action filed here in the Central District of California. Mr. Cooper, have you ever seen this complaint before? A No. I I am going to skip now to the last page of this complaint or actually it is not quite the last page. It is the last page of the main document, or, sorry, it is actually Exhibit to the complaint. Here is the first page of Exhibit B, now, Mr. Cooper. It says copyright assignment agreement on the top, and then I will note for the record that the Case Document 218 Filed 07/11/13100 Page ID the ?#3878 pk;s 28 copyright at issue is Popular Demand which it states in the first paragraph. Moving down to the second page of the agreement, Mr. Cooper, you will note that there is a signature on the right where it says Alan Cooper. Is that your signature, sir? A No. That is not. You are quite sure about that? A Yes. I use a middle initial. Mr. Cooper, I would like to show you a similar document which has appeared in a different case. What we have here is a copyright assignment agreement. This is for a different Holdings copyright styled Sexual Obsession which it lists in the first paragraph. For the record, this is Northern District of California No. 12 CV 2048. Mr. Cooper, I am going to turn now to the second page of this copyright assignment agreement, or I guess it would be the third page. There is a signature there on the right that says Alan Cooper. Is that your signature, sir? A No, it is not. Did anybody ever ask you to become a corporate representative or otherwise involved with a company called AF Films A No. Case Document 218 Filed Page 72 of 100 Page ID #23879 29 And you are quite sure that is not your signature? A Very sure it is not mine. Mr. Cooper, I would like to show you now another document, and I will note for the record that this is a verified petition to perpetuate testimony filed in the Eastern District of California, 12 CV 8333, have you ever seen this document before, Mr. Cooper, prior to within the last couple of days? A No. MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would like to object to that question. THE COURT: Object to the question as to whether or not he has seen the document? MR. WAXLER: Well, this inquiry is beyond the scope of the OSC. The OSC is about four cases that was filed in the Central District of California. Now, we have heard about a Northern District case and Eastern District case that he is being questioned about which we did not address in our papers, and it is not what this OSC is about. THE COURT: Well, it has become about it. It has become about fraudulent filings in federal court. MR. PIETZ: I would add, your Honor, that it all goes to a pattern and practice. Mr. Cooper, looking now at the verified petition, I Case Document 218 Filed 73 of 100 Page going to skip to the last page. You will note that it is signed by Mr. Gibbs. On this page which reads at the top notarized verification, there is a slash S, type--printed signature that says Alan Cooper, and it says Alan Cooper, Manager of Ingenuity l3 LLC. Did you ever sign a notarized verification for this document? A No, I did not. Did you ever give anyone permission to sign your name for you on this document? A No. MR. PIETZ: Mr. Ran, would you pass out Exhibit 53. I will note for the record that I am moving now to what has been previously filed with this court as Exhibit which is the declaration of Nicholas Ranallo in opposition to a motion to shorten time filed in the Northern District of California. And I am going to move now to an exhibit to this motion. It is actually the second to last page in that filing, Exhibit 8, and what we are looking at is a business entity detail for an entity called VPR, Inc. from the Minnesota Secretary of State website. Mr. Cooper, you will note there that under officers, it says Alan Cooper and it lists an address of 85032. 4532 East Villa Teresa Drive, Phoenix, Arizona, Case _xC Document 218 Filed #23881 . Ki Mr. Cooper, have you ever been to Arizona? A No, I haven't. So that is not your residence, is it? A No. Do you have any knowledge of that address whatsoever? A No, I do not. Did anybody ever ask you to be the president of VPR, Inc.? A No. Did anybody ask you to be any other role in connection with that company? A No. Mr. Cooper, I am going to move now to what has been previously identified in the record as Exhibit T. What we have here is a notissues.com registration. Mr. Cooper, did you ever register an Internet domain name called notissues.com or perhaps it is pronounced notissues.com? A No, I did not. I am going to zoom in now. Mr. Cooper, I will note that on the second page it says registrant Alan Cooper, and it lists that same Phoenix address that we mentioned a moment ago._ Am I correct in presuming that there where it says administrative contact, and it lists the ewmail age 74 of 100 Page ID 31 Case Document 218 Filed #:3882 at 5' Wage 75 of 100 Page ID 32 address, johnsteele@gmail.com. Am I correct in assuming that johnsteele@gmail.com is not your e--mail address, Mr. Cooper? A No, it is not. Mr. Cooper, after you hired attorney Paul Godfread, and he let the other side know that he was going to be representing you in actions in Minnesota, did you hear from John Steele? A Yes. He called me twice and left two voicemails and sent me two texts. So this was after Mr. Godfread let Prenda know that he was your attorney; isn't that correct? A Yes. How many times in a row did Mr. Steele call you 'when that happened? A I think five or six times right in a row. And that was, more or less, to your understanding, was that more or less immediately after your attorney Paul Godfread let the other side know that he was going to be representing you? A, Yes. It was right after Paul let him know. Within a matter of minutes, would you say, sir? A Yes. Have you heard from Mr. Steele recently, Mr. Cooper? Case Document 218 Filed 76 of 100 Page ID #:3883 iicmmwak 33 A _He had left two other voicemails on my phone and two other texts within the last couple of weeks, I think it was. And, more recently than that, have you heard from him again? A Yes. Yeah. There was a two week spell between them that he had called me twice. And, Mr. Cooper pardon me, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead, sir. A He left four voicemails altogether and four text messages. And, Mr. Cooper, my understanding is that you brought copies of these voicemails to potentially play for the court; is that correct, sir? A Yes. If the court will indulge me a moment, I will play those into the microphone for the record. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PIETZ: If it is okay with the court, I would like to ask Mr. Stoltz to assist me with this. He is the brains of the operation on the technology here. Apologize, your Honor. We are starting from the beginning. (Audio recording played.) BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Cooper, have you spoken with John 6 3. Case Document 218 Filed 77 of 100 Page further. 34 Steele enough times to recognize his voice? A Oh, yeah. That is his voice. That is him. So that was Mr. Steele on those recordings that we just heard a moment ago? A Yes. The three lawsuits that Mr. Steele was referring to, do you think he means the three defamation cases recently filed against you and your attorney, Paul Godfread by John Steele, Paul Duffy and Prenda Law in Florida, the Northern District of Illinois and the Central District of Illinois? Do you think that is what he was talking about? A Yes. Mr. Cooper, I, for my part, don't have anything Perhaps the court does, but, before I step I would like to thank you for coming here today? down, THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. MR. BRODSKY: Very briefly, your Honor. Thank you. CROSS--EXAMINATION BY MR. BRODSKY: Mr. Cooper, you have never met Mr. Gibbs; is that correct? A Yes. 15% Case Document 218 Filed age 78 of 100 Page #23885 35 And you have never spoken to him as well; is that correct? A . No, I have not. And you have exchanged no correspondence with him whatsoever; is that correct? A That is correct. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Grant Berry, A Yes, I do. Who is Mr. Berry? A He is the one that introduced me to John when I was selling my house. And what type of relationship if any do you have with Mr. Berry? 1 A He was the realtor for he was a realtor that I had for selling my house. And did you ever tell or ask Mr. Steele in Mr. Berry's presence how is my porn company doing? A. No, I have not. You sure about that? A Yes. MR. BRODSKY: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further. THE COURT: All right. Same questions that he asked with respect to what about Mr. Paul Duffy, do Case Document 218 Filed #23886 Wgage 79 of 100 Page ID 36 1 you know him? 2 THE WITNESS: No, I do not. 3 THE COURT: Ever heard of him? 4 THE WITNESS: Through these things that are going 5 on, yes. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 THE WITNESS: That way only. 8 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else? 9 MR. PIETZ: 'Your Honor, just very briefly, as a 10 technical matter, I would like to ask that the documents 11 I went through with Mr. Cooper be admitted into evidence. 12 That was the copyright assignment with Popular 13 Demand. I would ask that that be admitted into evidence 14 as Exhibit 1. The copyright assignment agreement for 15 sexual obsession, I would ask that that be admitted as 16 Exhibit 2. The verified petition in the Eastern District 17 of California matter previously identified in this action 18 as Exhibit L, I would ask that it be admitted now as 19 trial Exhibit 3. The declaration from Mr. Ranallo which 20 has the printout for VPR, Inc. previously filed here as 21 Exhibit S, I would ask that be admitted as trial Exhibit 22 4. And the notissues.com registration previously 23 identified here as Exhibit T, I would ask be admitted as 24 trial Exhibit 5. 25 THE COURT: Any objection? Case Document 218 Filed 80 of 100 Page #:3887 37 MR. BRODSKY: Yes, your Honor. As to Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, we would object on the ground of relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Everything else comes in. What about the audio? Is there a transcript of the audio? MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, we can prepare it. THE COURT: Would you. Thank you. MR. PIETZ: We would be happy to, and we will lodge it with the court, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. That will be received as well. All right. Anything, gentlemen? Nothing. You may step down, sir. Appreciate you coming. MR. PTETZ: Your Honor, at this time, I think it might be helpful for me to suggest a few other things that I am prepared to discuss today for the court. We have heard from Mr. Cooper. What I might propose now is turning to Gibbs has noted in his declaration or Mr. Gibbs. Mr. attempted to characterize himself as merely a, quote, independent contract attorney for Prenda Law. I am prepared to present evidence today showing that, in fact, Mr. Gibbs is really what amounts to a de facto chief Case Document 218 Filed 81 of 100 Page #23888 38 operating officer of Prenda Law. And I have a number of documents and exhibits I am prepared to go through with Mr. Gibbs on that account. In addition, I am prepared to show through cross--examination of Mr. Gibbs that his investigation in these cases was objectively unreasonable. Although I was not able to contact Mr. Larguire(phonetic) or Mr. Denton, a former client of mine in a previous case who was previously named by Mr. Gibbs as a result of what I view as a shoddy online investigation is here to testify that the main fact that Mr. Gibbs relied upon in that case turned out to be completely incorrect. Fourth, your Honor or I should said say third, there are representatives here today from both and Verizon who can conform that the court's discovery orders were unambiguously violated in this case. Fifth, and, finally, your Honor, if the court is inclined to hear it, I am prepared to explain my understanding of how Prenda is organized and present evidence showing that the court does indeed have personal jurisdiction over Mr. Steele, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Paul Hansmeier and Ms. Angela Van Den Hemel. THE COURT: Let's begin with the ISP's. MR. PIETZ: Very well, I would ask now that Mr. Huffman come forward. Is he here? Case Document 218 Filed 07/11/13a #3889 nage 8210f 100 Page|D 39 (The witness was sworn.) THE CLERK: Please have a seat. Please state your full and true name for the record, and spell your last name? THE WITNESS: My name is Bart Huffman, THE COURT: One second. THE CLERK: Counsel, I think we are going to first have our 2:30 matter. I think it will be a little shorter. So I am going to call the next matter and then we will have you guys come back. (Recess from 2:30 to 2:31 THE COURT: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Let's go back on the record in the AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13 LLC. All right. Go ahead, counsel. MR. PIETZ: Thank you, your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Huffman, what is your job, sir? A I am an attorney. With what firm? A Look Lorde. And do you represent in that capacity, sir? Case Document 218 Filed 83 of 100 Page ID 40 A Yes, I do. And how long have you been how long have you been representing sir? A I have been representing for about six or seven years, I suppose. And do you have personal familiarity with matters before that involve the Prenda law firm? A I do. So on-a day--to--day basis over the past few years, have you handled Prenda matters for A A number of them. Very well.' You prepared a declaration which I submitted with the court in this matter; isn't that correct, sir? A That is correct. And that declaration was based on an investigation performed by your client, is that correct? I A Well, that declaration recounts a series of events where Angela Van Den Hemel who has contacted us on a regular basis to follow--up on subpoenas contacted us with respect to the subpoenas in the case that was consolidated with others in this proceeding. And as we looked into it, we discovered that the case had been stayed as far as discovery goes. So you are familiar, then, with this court's Case Document 218 Filed 84 of 100 Page ID 3 8 9 1 41 October 19th, 2013 discovery order vacating the subpoenas in the AF Holdings cases now before this court? A Yes. And as far as is aware, did Prenda in fact stop seeking subpoena returns on the cases consolidated before this court after October 19th, 2013? MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I am not aware that they did. did not, to my knowledge, receive any notice of the order and furthermore Ms. Van Den Hemel, I think I am saying her name right, contacted us seeking to follow--up and obtain information presumably with respect to the subpoenas in that case. And we received, I should add, we received, I and my firm receive the information pretty much directly as it comes in from CT Corporation so with respect to these type of subpoenas. BY MR. PIETZ: So with respect to these type of subpoenas, then, the receipt or non receipt by would come into your office; is that correct? A Typically, it would. MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Hang on. What is your objection? MR..WAXLER: Calls for speculation, your Honor. This witness is being asked to say whether received something, and I think that is speculative Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/13ye?yage 85 of 100 Page ID 355#23892 42 for him to be able to testify as to whether might have received it or not. THE COURT: I understood it to be how mail is handled in his office, but let's walk through it again. MR. PIETZ: Very well. So did your office receive a copy of the October 19th, 2013 order vacating the subpoenas in this case? A Not independently. When we looked on Pacer as we we routinely do with respect to production requests and the like, we found the order. So your office was not served by Prenda or anybody affiliated with Prenda with this court's October 19th discovery order? A That is correct. And did you investigate with your client, as to whether or not received a copy of the court's October 19th order? A I did not specifically ask them that, no. And were you contacted only the once by Angela Van Den Hemel regarding the court's October 19th order in this action? A No. She contacted my paralegal twice and my paralegal would routinely refer those type of inquiries to me. Case Document 218 Filed 86 of 100 Page #23893 4 .-, 3; hkxumwf 43 So she actually asked twice for subpoena returns to be made after the October 19th discovery order? A That's correct. And when I looked at the Pacer records and saw the order, I then responded to Ms. Van Den Hemel saying that the discovery had been stayed and we of course would not be producing discovery in the case at that time. MR. PIETZ: I would ask that the declaration of Bart Huffman be admitted as evidence in this hearing. I think we are on Exhibit 6. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: And would you also want to have the declaration of my paralegal admitted as well? MR. PIETZ: Yes. I would ask as well that that be admitted as Exhibit 7. It is the next filing on the docket. THE WITNESS: Camille Kerr. BY MR. you spell her name for the record. A Certainly. C-A-M--I--L--L--E, THE COURT: All right. Any objection, gentlemen? MR. BRODSKY: Is she going to be testifying, your Honor? THE COURT: I have no idea. MR. BRODSKY: Object on the ground of hearsay. Case Document 218 Filed 87 of 100 Page #:3894 44 THE COURT: Is she here? BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Huffman, is Ms. Kerr here today? A Ms. Kerr is not here today. I can testify though that I oversaw and reviewed all of the items stated in her declaration, and they are part of our regularly kept records and they are consistent with our files, were overseen by me at every single step and reviewed and they are, in fact, true and correct. So you are personally familiar with the facts in Ms. Kerr's declaration? A I am, and I reviewed it in detail. THE COURT: What is the substance or the subject matter? I THE WITNESS: Ms. Kerr submitted a separate declaration simply because she was the addressee on the ewmails from Ms. Van Den Hemel. THE COURT: All right. And her declaration attests to? THE WITNESS: Her declaration attests to the truth and authenticity of the e--mails that I attached thereto. THE COURT: That is all? THE WITNESS: That is all. THE COURT: All right. I will permit it. Okay. Gentlemen? MR. BRODSKY: No questions, your Honor. Case Document 218 F-iled O7/11/13yw?age 88 of 100 Page ID #:3895 45 THE COURT: "All right. Sir, you may step down. Thank you. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Ms. Van Den Hemel, learned from Pacer subpoenas, did she THE WITNESS: THE COURT: MR. PIETZ: is an attorney for please the THE COURT: (The witness THE CLERK: your full and true last name. THE WITNESS: BY MR. PIETZ: Thank you, your Honor. I do have one question. when you advised her that you had of the court's order quashing.those sound surprised? She never responded at all. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, also in attendance today Verizon, Mr. Benjamin Fox. If it court, I would suggest we offer him. Yes. Please. was sworn.) Please have a seat. And please state name for the record and spell your Benjamin Fox, DIRECT EXAMINATION Mr. Fox, what is your occupation, sir? A I am a partner at Morrison and Foerster here in Los Angeles. I am a lawyer. And do you represent Verizon in that capacity? Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/lfsfimgage _89 of 100 Page 3896 'it; 3: 46 A I do. And how long have you represented Verizon in that capacity? A I can't tell you the date. I know that the first matter was the Eastern District of California Rule 27 proceeding filed by Ingenuity 13, and that is the case that you had a copyright assignment for that you showed earlier this afternoon. So you appeared on behalf of Verizon in that Rule 27 petition action in the Eastern District of California; is that correct? A Correct. And I believe that was in 2011. Since then, have you had occasion to deal with litigation matters involving the Prenda law firm? A Yes. So you have handled those issues for Verizon on a day-to--day basis in the past two years? A Yes. Many of them. Very well. You prepared and submitted, filed, I should say, a declaration with the court earlier today; isn't that correct, sir? A I prepared for Verizon and obtained a signature from Mr. Sean Moriarty who is a Verizon representative in Arlington, Virginia. Yes. Case Document 218 Filed 90 of 100 Page Ewaxuwfifi? #:3897 47 So you are familiar with the facts that were averred in the declaration filed with the court today? A Yes, I am. And did you investigate whether the facts are correct prior to filing the document here today? A I did. And can you explain to me the substance of the declaration with respect to whether or not Verizon received a copy of the court's October 19th discovery order? A Sure. Verizon has been the recipient of I think literally hundreds of subpoenas from the Prenda firm, and Verizon is a party in a DC Circuit appeal where AF Holdings was the plaintiff based on one of the copyright assignments that bears the name of Mr. Cooper. Verizon is very focused on what has been happening in these cases and has been paying close attention to it. So if Verizon had received the October 19 order from this court, Verizon would have known that, and I would have received it as well. My emmail doesn't have any record of it. I have searched. I know that Verizon has now searched. Is there some theoretical possibility that maybe it was sent to someone at Verizon and not Possible. forwarded to the correct people? But having not seen anything from Mr. Gibbs that suggests it was Case Document 218 Filed 91 of 100 Page ID #23898 48 sent, you know, my conclusion is that it was not sent to Verizon. So, then, in terms of the usual channels, the custom and practice, the way subpoenas would normally come in from Verizon, did you check all of these means of receiving subpoena information? A I checked. MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation, your Honor. MR. PIETZ: Let me rephrase. THE COURT: What is your objection? MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation. He is asking this witness to speculate about what Verizon's policies are in receiving subpoenas. THE COURT: I thought you were talking about Morrison and Foerster's policy. MR. PIETZ: That's right. I will rephrase and make it more clear, your Honor. Let me rephrase. So did you personally check Morrison and Foerster's, the way that Morrison and Foerster would normally receive information about a subpoena? Did you check and make sure that no notice was received of the October 19th discovery order? A Yes. I made a reasonable search, and I looked wherever that I thought was appropriate to look. And you communicated with your client that you -- Case Document 218 Filed 92 of 100 Page #3899 49 well, let me back up. The gentleman who executed the declaration that was filed with the court today, what was his name, again, sir? A Sean Moriarty. And is that somebody you normally communicate with these type of matters. A Yes. And you spoke with Mr. Moriarty, and can you explain, did you have him investigate, from Verizon's end, whether notice was received? A The Verizon team investigated. Yes. Including Mr. Moriarty? A Yes. Very well. And so, then, to the best of your knowledge, based on both his investigation and a review of Morrison and Foerster's own records, Verizon did not receive a copy of the October 19th discovery order; isn't that correct? MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, it is basically taking hearsay. Calls for speculation. He is asking the witness what Verizon did. Verizon has given a declaration that says it does not appear. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Correct. Case Document 218 Filed O7/11/13ye@age 93 of 100 Page MR. PIETZ: I would ask, then, that the declaration submitted by Mr. Moriarty with the court earlier today be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. Sorry. Pardon. Exhibit 8. THE COURT: It will be admitted. All right. Mr. Brodsky, do you wish to inquire? MR. BRODSKY: I do not, your Honor. I have no questions. THE COURT: Sir, you may step down. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Now, I would also like to hear from your former client? MR. PIETZ: Very well. Mr. Nason, are you in attendance today? (The witness was sworn.) MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would object to this line of questioning please. THE COURT: He hasn't asked any questions yet. MR. WAXLER: I know that, but this witness has no relevant testimony to this subject matter. He is not a party to any of the four cases at issue in this OSC. It is not even a federal court case that he was a defendant in, your Honor. He has no relevant testimony that he could state in connection with this OSC. Case Document 218 Filed 94 of 100 Page THE COURT: Maybe yes. Maybe no. If we are talking about a pattern and practice, and from what I have seen, this is a cookie--cutter litigation. Sometimes the only thing that I see changed on the complaints are the ISP's addresses and the name of the film, but, in all other respects, they seem to be all the same even the declaration from the technical expert as to what he did in order to identify the infringer. It is the same document. So I hear your point. If I don't find it to be relevant, I will discard it. MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, just for the record, Mr. Gibbs' declaration does go through exactly the different things that he did in order to determine whether in the two cases that you cited in the OSC whether he was able to locate the infringer and who that was. And there is nothing cookie cutter about that effort that he put in his declaration. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Go ahead. THE CLERK: Please state your full and true name for the record and spell your last name. THE WITNESS: Jessie Nason. That is like Nancy, counsel. THE COURT: Go ahead, Is that one or two? Case Document 218 Filed 95 of 100 Page #3902 THE WITNESS: 'One S. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: Well, two in Jessie. Sorry. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Nason, have you heard the name Brent Gibbs before? A Yes. And in what context, sir? A He was the lawyer who brought the case against me, Media versus my name. And where was that and I represented you in that case, did I not, sir? A Correct. And was that in the Los Angeles Superior Court filed in 2012? A Yes. I will note for the record that the case is Media Corporation versus Jessie Nason, Los Angeles Superior Court No. NCO57950. MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would like to object again. This case is not even a copyright case. It was a case where the individual here was alleged to THE COURT: Where are you from? 52 Case Document 218 Filed 96 of 100 Page IDMR. WAXLER: I am from Los Angeles, your Honor. THE COURT: There are no speaking objections in Los Angeles. MR. WAXLER: I'm sorry, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. What is this case about? MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, if I might speak to that very briefly. What we have seen from Prenda Law is a different twist in some of their cases on copyright litigation, and what it is is essentially an attempt to address a copyright infringement case in state law clothing, well, state law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. So the causes of action at issue in the case was a computer fraud and abuse act claim which essentially alleges that downloading and distributing content, and the content is nebulously specified in the complaint amounts to Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations. And then there were a variety of related claims all of which were preempted by the Copyright Act for conversion, unjust enrichment and the like. But, really, what it was, and, in fact, and can speak to this longer although perhaps it is getting off on a tangent, in reality what happened, was at some point somebody probably hacked into a password protected website, but, then, Prenda started logging IP addresses 53- Case Document 218 Filed 97 of 100 Page ID #23904 54 and suing people in CFAA claims even though really the 2 gravamen of the case was the use of BitTorrent. So it is 3 similar, but, in any event, the issue in Mr. Nason's case 4 that I think is relevant here is the same, and that 5 I specifically what was the investigation that was 6 performed prior to naming Mr. Nason as the defendant in 7 the case, and it is fairly bread and butter. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 9 Mr. Nason, are you familiar with the reason that 10 Mr. Gibbs stated that he had named you as a defendant? ll A Yes. 12 MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation. 13 THE COURT: he said stated. You did say stated; 14 right? l5 MR. PTETZ: Yes, your Honor. l6 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. 17 BY MR. PIETZ: So, in any event, what was that l8 reason, Mr. Nason. 19 A I believed it to be that he supposed I lived by 20 myself in my apartment, and so he considered me a single 21 male. 22 And, Mr. Nason, is that correct? Do you live 23 alone? 24 A No, I do not. 25 And who do you live with, Mr. Nason? Case Document 218 Filed 98 of 100 Page ID #3905 55 A My wife of nine years. I And have you lived with her for the past nine years? A Correct. 1 So, at any point, you know, save perhaps for a vacation, consistently for the past nine years, you have always lived with your wife; is that correct? A That's correct. MR. PIETZ: That is essentially all I need from Mr. Nason, your Honor. I might have some questions about Mr. Gibbs, or perhaps now 1 could show the court the section of the transcript from the hearing in the Nason matter where Mr. Gibbs, when pressed by the court justified having named Mr. Nason as a defendant, Mr. Gibbs specifically stated, well, because we determined that he lived alone. It is just incorrect. And, indeed, the court denied my motion on that basis even though it turned out to be incorrect. MR. BRODSKY: Your Honor, for the record, may we move to strike the testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant and beyond the scope of the court's OSC. THE COURT: sir. You may step down, Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. PIETZ: I am looking now for the specific section of the transcript. Case Document 218 Filed 99 of 100 Page THE Don't worry about it. MR. PIETZ: All right. I can find it afterwards. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's now switch to the jurisdictional issue. MR. PIETZ: Oh, you know what, your Honor, I have here the actual original copy of the transcript which perhaps I will lodge with the court and move to mark as Exhibit 9, I believe we are on. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PIETZ: And, Mr. Ranallo, if you can find the pin cite, we will go ahead and add it. May I approach to give this to the clerk, your Honor? MR. WAXLER: We would object to the inclusion of that transcript as an exhibit. THE COURT: I will take a look at it. We will see. Where was this? Was this in Torrance? MR. PIETZ: Yes, it was, your Honor. Judge Vicencia. THE COURT: Small world. My old court reporter. Okay. MR. PIETZ: I am just looking now for the diagram which I think will assist in explaining all of this. Case Document 218 Filed 100 of 100 Page 'were. #:3907 57 We seem to be a bit off kilter there, don't we. Interesting. Well, in any event -- MR. WAXLER: What exhibit is this? MR. PIETZ: Yes. Marked as -- I will tell you in just a moment. it would be, it. THE electronic MR. Honor. THE laptop? MR. Honor. THE MR. THE it? MR. document. THE MR. In any event, but I COURT: source? PIETZ: COURT: PIETZ: COURT: PIETZ: COURT: PIETZ: 'It will COURT: PIETZ: can look for that. Double H, previously on the record. perhaps less useful than I hoped can at least talk the court through What is your source? I mean, This is a demonstrative exhibit, your I know that. What are you using, It is Trial Pad on my iPad, your It is on your iPad? Yes, sir. And you can't do anything to adjust We do have a color paper copy of the take just a moment to pull it. Okay. Go ahead. In any event, Mr. Ranallo, perhaps you