Request To Review CONCLUSIONS Lita Abella 10-16-17.compressed

Nancy Duffy McCarr'on~ CBN 164780
950 Roble Lane
Santa Barbara~ CA 93103
nancyduffysb@yahoo.com
805·450·0450
October 16~ 2017
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Steven J. Moawad
The State Bar of California RE: Request to Review CONCLUSIONS in Case 16·0·16202
Complaint Review Unit Respondent: Richard N ahigian, Robert Williamson
Office of the General Counsel Aggravating Factors: 2 Public Reproval Cases (Nahigian)
180 Howard Street 1 Private Reproval Case (Nahigian)
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617 CONFLICTS Bar Investigator Lita Abella failed to disclose
I represent Martin Jacinto and wife Carolina Ramirez - complainants in this Case No. 16-0-16202,
in Stubblefield v. Jacinto (CIVDSI208547) and Martin Jacinto v. Richard Nahigian (CIVDSI604759).
English is their second language so at times it is difficult for them to understand what is happening.
The July 21,2016 bar complaint was filed against Richard Nahigian and Robert Williamson related
to unethical collusion in CIVDS1208547 resulting in a $190,499.00 fee award on a $10,000 mobile home.
LITA ABELLA is the State Bar Investigator assigned to Case 16-0-16202. Ms. Abella never disclosed the
inherent conflicts in her purported investigation resulting in "closing" the case against both respondents.
Our request to review CONFLICTS of Lita Abella is submitted under separate cover on October 16, 2017.
Ms. Abella's conclusions after a purported investigation must be reviewed as they are inaccurate and not
supported by evidence, which shows that Richard N ahigian and Robert Williamson violated bar rules.
Ms. Abella did not cite to any evidence to support her naked and erroneous conclusions as there is none.
Attached are documents (bookmarked in the electronic version of this complaint filed October 16, 2017)
which show indisputable evidence of various rule violations, unethical acts and abandonment of the client.
The documents are in chronological order and the following chronology of events are proved by documents.
The first document is a complaint (3 torts) Stubblefield Properties filed against Martin Jacinto on 8/16/12.
In the early spring of 2011 Jacinto purchased a mobile home in Stubblefield's park to relocate his wife's
mother (who livesllived in Mexico at the time) to the Highland area so his wife could provide care for her.
Jacinto proposed renting the unit until Carolina Ramirez's mother could be physically relocated there.
Stubblefield's park manager Marvin Freeman, and Stubblefield's Company CEO Thomas Parrish, approved
the plan and encouraged Jacinto to remodel the home he bought for $lO,OOO.OO. Freeman told Jacinto he
had to pay rent during the remodeling process which they paid from 6/1/11 to 12/1/11. After Jacinto fixed
and remodeled the home the managers set out to steal the home by notifying Jacinto they could not bring
Carolina's mother into the park because "Mexicans are too noisy." Jacinto then tried to sell the home via
a local realtor but the park would not cooperate or allow prospective buyers into the park to see the home.
The manager would not approve any prospective tenant Jacinto presented for approval to occupy the home.
When it became clear the park would not approve any purchaser or renter Jacinto decided to cut his
losses by executing a grant deed to convey ownership of the mobilehome back to the park and delivered
the grant deed to the front office. Jacinto stopped paying rent. The park then stripped the home of all the
new appliances and furnishings Jacinto had installed and refused to record the grant deed conveyed to them.
Instead, Stubblefield filed 3 torts claims (ejectment, trespass, and nuisance) against Jacinto on 8/16/12.
page 1
The following descrihes the nightmare Jacinto & Ramirez have endured for five years, resulting in the
suicide of Carolina's son (from all the family stress and financial pressures of relentless pursuit for money).
DATE EVENT
8/6/12 Stubblefield sued Jacinto for 3 torts (ejectment, trespass & nuisance) Stubblefield alleged no contract with
Jacinto, did not cite MRL in allegations, did not allege attorney fees as damages, and did not pray for any fees.
7/3/13 Court authorized Jacinto to file cross claims for discrimination and manager's sexual harassment of Carolina.
9/24/13 Court denied Stubblefield's motion to strike portions of Jacinto's cross complaint; litigation ensued to 2014.
11/13/13 Attorney Aviles notified Mr. Williamson of the death in the family 2 days earlier (Carolina's son's suicide)
4/8/14 Court directed verdict for Stubblefield on liability & against Jacinto on cross claims (denied jury trial)
Judgment for $41,166.58 damage was entered with order to Jacinto to remove his mobile home from the park
Judgment ordered plaintiffto issue partial satisfaction against $41,166.58 for the cost to remove mobilehome.
5/20/14 Jacinto authorized hard money lender Bruno Ehlert to arrange a loan on his property to settle the debt.
7/3/14 Williamson filed a motion for $190,499 attorney fee award (unauthorized under law) setting hearing 1l/191l4.
Fee agreement was Nahigian's standard criminal client agreement (reciting it did not cover appeal of conviction)
This was/is a civil matter. Nahigian was so unambitious and careless he did not even alter the agreement to civil
9/11114 Jacinto paid Richard Nahigian $10,000 cash (part of a $25,000 retainer). Nahigian signed a fee agreement.
Jacinto paid the remaining $15,000 on 11/12/14; Nahigian did notldoes not deny receiving $25.000 cash retainer.
Jacinto delivered the hundred+page attorney fee motion his former attorney had mailed to him to Nahigian.
Jacinto told Nahigian he would remove the mobilehome, pay the judgment and wanted Nahigian to negotiate
a settlement with Williamson on attorney fees. Nahigian told Jacinto Mr. Williamson went to his alma mater
and they were "lawyer buddies." Nahigian said he could get his buddy Williamson to agree to take much less.
Jacinto had no reason to distrust N ahigian, relied on his promise, and told Nahigian if he could not settle with
Williamson to file an opposition to the fee motion and appear for oral argument at the hearing set on 111l9/14.
9/30/14 Nahigian signed substitution of attorney and served it on Williamson by mail. He later filed it in court.
10/1114 Next morning Nahigian appeared for ex parte hearing Williamson set to add $16,721.92 costs to the judgment
Court entered amended judgment adding $16,721.92 "costs" to a $41,166.58 judgment for new total $57,888.50
Order expressly recited plaintiff must issue partial satisfaction for Jacinto's costs to relocate the mobile home.
Transcript shows Nahigian never objected to adding $16,721.92 to the judgment despite no authority for costs.
The complaint was for 3 torts and alleged no contract. MRL was never alleged nor fees as damages. Attorney
fees were never prayed for in the complaint. Williamson alleged Jacinto's cross·c1aims invoked fees and cost
awards under state & federal discrimination fee-shifting statutes. However, awards are for prevailing plaintiffs.
Defendants are not entitled to fees or costs under the "Christianburg rule"; i.e. unless the trial court makes an
expressed written fmding the claim was frivolous, which finding was never made by the court in this litigation.
We further conclude that in awarding attorney fees and costs, the trial court's discretion
is bounded by the rule of Christiansburg; an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff should not be
ordered to pay the defendant's fees or costs unless the plaintiff brought or continued
litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit.
Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist. (2015 -San ~ernardino Ct) 61 Cal.4th 97, 99-100
[citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412 [Christiansburg rule]
At best Nahigian is incompetent; at worst he colluded with buddy Williamson (to add $16,721.92 more)
(in their email exchanges they addressed each other as "Richard" and Robert" (first names only)
Nahigian clearly violated Rules 3·110; 6·601; Nahigian failed to deposit funds in his client trust fund.
N ahigian never submitted any invoice for "services performed" or accounting at any time to Jacinto.
NOTE: Investigator Lita Abella posted her award for attending the Bar's "client trust accounti:g,g school"
Lita Abella is either incompetent or complicit in Nahigian's blatant violations of 4-100; 4-200
page 2
Zitnyv. State Bar of California (1966) 64 Cal.2d. 787
10/14/14 Nahigian ordered Jacinto to mail am $11,000.00 cashier’s check to Hart/King Law Firm for a “deposit”
for the “privilege” of moving their home out of the park (purportedly $5,000 deposit and $6,000 “back rent”)
The six months rent was for purported “delay” in moving; however it was because every contractor who was
contacted to bid on the job said they “could not deal” with the CEO Tom Parrish and Marvin Freeman, mgr.
At least 6 contractors rejected the job at any price. Tom Parrish did it to extract $6,000 more from Jacinto.
Jacinto mad no choice because he was under court order to move it and Williamson threatened contempt.
NOTE: Ms. Abella’s conclusion Nahigian was hired to “address post judgment concerns in the underlying action”
sounds right out of Williamson’s playbook. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Nahigian was hired to oppose
Williamson’s outrageous request for $190,499.00 in “fees” for a 5 month litigation and 6-day trial. Williamson’s
own fee matrix attached to the motion shows he billed Stubblefield a total of $155,000 for the entire litigation.
The other $40,000 was fraudulently “padded” to the bill by cleverly requesting to be paid “market rates” as
opposed to being reimbursed for the fees actually paid. Even if he were entitled to fees (he clearly was not) a
defendant cannot obtain “market rates” reimbursement. That is only used to compensate pro bono attorneys
who represent underprivileged plaintiffs who prevail. It is compensate pro bono work for the public good---
not to enrich sleazy, dishonest, unethical attorneys who pad their bills by $40,000.00. It was unconscionable.
As to Nahigian’s failure to appear at any subsequent hearings (after his gratuitous conveyance of $16,721.92)
Ms. Abella concluded, “Mr. Jacinto failed to appear” at a debtor’s exam resulting in a warrant for his arrest.
If the incompetent or complicit Abella had actually read Jacinto’s chronology, and looked at the evidence,
she would have seen that Jacinto appeared 3 times for debtor’s exam, for which Williamson regularly appeared
by court call (making Jacinto show up in court each time to harass and intimidate him) just to “continue it.”
This is shown in the minute orders (in dark blue color on Index of bookmarked documents). The only time
Jacinto failed to appear was on 2/18/15 because Nahigian told him not to show up because he would appear
to ask for a continuance again (after 3 prior continuances at which time Jacinto appeared each and every time).
2/18/15 8:14 email Nahigian to Williamson (which he admits receiving & calling Nahigian back within 3 minutes)
On all 3 prior continuances of debtor’s exam and fee motion, the minute order recites the court is “informed”
the parties are continuing because they are trying to ‘work out a settlement on the case” (see minute orders)
Nahigian’s declaration recites Williamson called him back 3 minutes later and said if Nahigian agreed to pay
the reporter and interpreter’s appearance fees he would continue it a fourth time. Nahigian purportedly relied
on his word and thought it would be continued. (telling Jacinto not to appear as he had gotten it continued).
Yet, the 2/18/15 transcript shows a different story. Williamson did not tell the court Nahigian was stuck in
federal court in San Diego and they agreed to continue it a fourth time. Instead he implied Nahigian and his
client just “blew off” the hearing. The outraged judge granted the fee motion in toto for $190,599 and issued a
$250,000 bench warrant for Jacinto’s arrest. Sleazy Williamson walked away laughing all the way to the bank.
Both of these attorneys violated Rules of Professional Conduct, ethical standards and common decency.
They both got richer and Jacinto paid the price by a warrant for his arrest and unfairly then owing $190,499.00.
The Judge made no findings. Williamson then called Nahigian to say “the court refused to continue it again.”
That was a boldfaced lie as shown by the 2/18/15 transcript (the evidence; people lie; documents don’t lie.)
When Nahigian showed up in the pm session at 2:30 on 2/18/15 the judge retorts that no one asked for a
continuance and told Nahigian to “move for reconsideration.” Judge noted Nahigian never filed an opposition.
Did Ms. Abella really believe an attorney could take $25,000 retainer to oppose a $190,499.00 fee motion, fail to file
an opposition, fail to appear was not a violation of Nahigian’s duty to the client after taking $25,000 cash.
Did Abella not even consider that Nahigian has been disciplined 3 times in the past (one private reproval, and
two public reprovals) for doing the same thing! (taking large cash deposits and then failing to appear or oppose).
Ms. Abella’s conclusions are clearly either incompetent at best, complicit, or in direct dereliction of her duty.
By the way Ms. Abella was rude, abrasive and condescending with Carolina Ramirez during a curt, short interview of
a few minutes, after talking to Nahigian and Williamson. Ms. Abella was also rude, abrasive and condescending
to me when she called for a purported “interview.” After 1-2 minutes she cut me off and said “I heard enough.”
Ms. Abella in no way acted as if her mission was to “protect the public.” She acted as an advocate for Nahigian
despite his 3 prior reprovals for the same bad acts. No wonder he continues the pattern. There are never any
consequences (so long as he agrees to hire Abella & Associates as private investigators on his cases).
page 3
2/25/15 (the same day the $190,499 fee award was entered as a judgment – after the 2/18/15 unopposed hearing)
Nahigian purportedly “mail-served” a “motion for reconsideration” (so he testified to in an 8/24/15 affidavit)
(which was only one week after the fee award was entered by minute order on 2/18/15 when he failed to appear).
However, he willfully failed to include either a new fee waiver, or the filing fee, never SIGNED the motion, and
failed to call the calendar desk to check the availability of the Judge on the day he “entered” as the hearing date
3/4/15 the motion was “returned” by the court clerk by mail to Nahigian’s mailing address on file with the court.
NOTE: rather than simply correct the deficiencies (sign the motion, include the filing fee or new fee waiver, and
call calendar to clear the date set for the motion) and re-mail the motion, Nahigian did NOTHING to correct it.
Nahigian willfully and intentionally (in collusion with Williamson) never refiled the motion. When he Mail-served
the motion he also mailed it to Jacinto to create a pretext that he actually FILED A motion to reconsider it.
Jacinto relied on it. Nahigian never told Jacinto he never re-filed it and then waited past the six-month
deadline to re-file a motion to set aside the $190,499.00 fraudulent fee award obtained by total fraud on court.
5/21/15 Nahigian sent Jacinto (through Carolina’s daughter’s email address) a copy of his “settlement offer” to
Williamson for Jacinto to pay the full amount of the judgment, the fraudulent costs award, all accrued interest,
and a $15,000 cash bonus to Williamson, on top of keeping the $5,000 deposit paid to his firm on 10/14/14.
Nahigian told them this would “settle the case.” Jacinto obtained a hard money loan (12%) on his property,
which went from carrying a $128,000 loan to carrying a $200,000 loan at 12% interest to pay off $63,106.40.
6/2/15 Nahigian told Jacinto to submit a cashier’s check for $15,000 payable to “Robert Williamson, Jr.” which he did
8/24/15 Kathrine Faulise submitted a “demand for $63,106.40” which was paid out of the hard money loan escrow.
Williamson had Faulise submit the demand because he knew the court had ordered him to provide a partial
satisfaction of judgment for the moving costs ($31,000 in this case) which he knew he never provided.
Williamson had Faulise submit so he could not be charged with contempt of the court’s order in the judgment.
Jacinto thought this would “take care of” reasonable fees to Williamson (the $31,000 not credited; the $5000,
and the $15,000) They believed nearly $50,000 in fees (paid under these conditions was fair enough).
Under the Christianburg rule, supra Williamson was never entitled to any fees or costs.
8/26/15 $63,106.40 check was paid to Stubblefield as Nahigian ordered. $200,000 new loan now on Jacinto’s property
8/24/15 Nahigian filed CCP 473 motion to set aside judgment which after the 8/17/15 6-month deadline had expired.
This was gross negligence at best, collusion with Williamson to defraud his own client at worst. How could
Ms. Abella miss this fraud and collusion, or is she just complicit with Nahigian and Williamson so long as they
hire Abella & Associates for their private investigator work on their future and pending cases?
9/17/15 Court denied the 473 motion to set aside the fee award as untimely (past the 6-month statutory deadline)
9/28/15 Nahigian filed a “motion to reconsider denial of his CCP 473 motion to set aside) which was a clear loser.
It is hornbook knowledge that a party must have new facts or evidence to file a CCP 1008 motion to reconsider.
Nahigian actually attached the old “motion for reconsideration” he timely “mail-served” a week after the order.
This is compelling evidence that he already had the motion prepared a week after the order; yet when it was
returned by the clerk he never re-filed it until after the 6-month deadline expired. This was willful collusion.
11/13/15 Court denied the improper CCP 1008 motion to reconsider (with no new facts).
12/4/15 An intern from the public defender’s office (Adam Birka-White) who was Nahigian’s friend, passed the bar.
Six days later, Adam signed proof of service for “Notice of Appeal” which he prepared but had Nahigian sign.
12/10/15 Nahigian made Jacinto pay $875 to file a Notice of Appeal fee on an appeal having no chance to prevail.
This was to generate even more fees for his buddy Williamson. He made Jacinto pay another $3,000 for his
work. Nahigian hired a criminal attorney, with no civil experience, and not appellate experience, to work on a
frivolous appeal Jacinto had no chance to win. Fortunately two attorneys advised them to dismiss the appeal.
4/26/16 Nahigian filed a request to dismiss the appeal, which was dismissed by presiding Judge Ramirez.
2012-2017 Spreadsheet shows Jacinto has paid over $190,000 already on trying to resolve a $10,000 mobile home.
Their son committed suicide over all the stress in the family and Williamson’s relentless chasing them for money.
page 4
NOTE: Ms. Abella advised Jacinto to apply for “arbitration” to settle the purported “fee dispute” with Nahigian.
First, there is no arbitration clause in the “criminal case” fee agreement. (wrong because this was a civil case).
Second, this complaint is not about “fees.” It is about extracting a $25,000 retainer to oppose a $190,499 fee motion,
then failing to file any written opposition the fee motion, failing to appear at the hearing, and then failing to
timely re-file a motion to reconsider already prepared and printed out a week after the order was entered.
Then, willfully waiting past the 6-month deadline to file a motion to reconsider which he knew would be denied.
Then, filing a frivolous appeal he knew had no chance to prevail. Collusion with Williamson is crystal clear!
A third grader could figure this one out. Ms. Abella must be grossly incompetent at best or at worst colluding.
Ms. Abella advises us to pursue the malpractice complaint and if there is a finding of misconduct refile a complaint.
First, a malpractice complaint for damages is irrelevant to whether the attorney violated a Professional Conduct Rule.
Secondly, this prejudices Jacinto in that if she made the correct finding under compelling evidence, we could invoke
Evidence Code 669 to shift the burden of proof to Nahigian to prove he did not breach his fiduciary duty.
Finally, there was a JUDICIAL FINDING OF MISDCONDUCT. See documents under Exhibit B CIVDS1604759
(Jacinto v. Nahigian). Judge Pacheco found misconduct at the default prove up hearing on 1/6/17. (see docs).
Judge Pacheco awarded $400,000 in punitive damages for misconduct at default prove-up. Judge Pacheco told the
Attorney he should notify the State Bar of what Nahigian did to Martin Jacinto. The Judge acted appalled by it.
However, Nahigian’s attorney field motion to set aside default which was granted to we are litigating the case now.
Finally, YOU MUST REVIEW Exhibit C. 2 public reprovals against Nahigian for the identical conduct to others.
These followed a prior private reproval to Nahigian. This is the FOURTH time Nahigian defrauded clients.
Apparently he is not deterred. Nahigian should be disbarred this time.
We respectfully ask you to review this case, and assign an investigator without conflicts!
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
10/16/17
page 5
i=1 EXHIBIT A Documents Related to: STUBBLEfIELD PROPERTlIS v. MARTIN JACDITO ClVDS120S547
I!l 8/16/12 Complaint 3 torts (ejectment, nuisance, trespass) no MRL, no Civil 798.85, no fees req uested in allegations or prayer
I!l 7/9/13 Court Granted jacinto leave to file Cross Complaint for Discrim nation
I!l 9/24/13 Court Denied Motion to Strike Portions of Jacinto's Cross·Complaint
I!l 11/13/13 Atty Aviles notified Atty Willillmson death In famity on 11/11/13 (suicide of Jacinto's wife's son)
I!l 4/S/14 Judgment $41,166.58 Jacinto to move biIehome - Pia·. tiff to issue partial S<ltisfaction of judgment for removal costs
I!l 5/40/1 4 Jllcinto authorized hllrd $ lender Bruno Ehlert to negotillte with Attorney Willillmson to IIrrange settlement to pllyoff judgment lind fees
I!l 9/U/14 Nahigian Fee Agreement; $25,000 retainer; matter was civil, not crBninal; no arbitration clause
I!l 9/U/14 J cinto paid Ilahigian $10,000 cash + $15,000 cashier's check on 11/12/14
I!l 9/30/14 Nllhiglari/Jllcinto Signed/executed substitution of attorney CIVDS1208547 served to Robert Wllllllrn son filed 10/9/14
I!l 10/ 1/14 Nllhigi!ln IIppellred ex pllrte hellring to amend judgment to add costs;he did not object to $16,721.92 lidded
1!l 1o/l/14 Amended Judgment S41,166.58 + $16,711.92 =W ,888.50 tota! judgment
I!l 10/ 1/14 Judge Ordered Pillintiff to issue pllrtial satisfaction of Judgment for Jacinto's costs to remove mobilehome
I!l 10/1/14 Transcript-Nllhiglan did not object to $16,721.92 added in costs despite NOT ALLOWABLE under the law
10/14/14 Jacinto paid $11,000.00 (S5,OOO "deposit" to move home; $6,000· "back rent" on vacant home
11/13/14 ORAP debtor exam JACDITO PRfSErfT; Williamson by COURT CAll - asked to continue to 11/19/14
I!l 11/19/14 FEE MOTION recited court informed· pllrties !Ire trying to settle C!lse- continued fee motion to 12/17/14
I!l 11/19/14 ORAP debt or exam JACUrro PRfSEffT; Williamson asked court to continue second time to 12/17/14
I!l 12/17/14 ORAP debtor exam JACUrro PRfSUfT; Wdiamson by COURT CALL-asked court to continue third time to 2/1S/15
I!l 12/17/14 FEE MOTION JACINTO PRESENT; Wl lIl!lmson by COURT CALL-!lsked court to continue to 2/1 8/ 15
I!l 2/ 18/15 8: 14 !1m N!lhigilln emailed Willi!lmson; asked him to postpone hearing beC!luse he was stuck in S!ln Diego Federal Court )
I!l 2/18/158:40!lm Court issued Bench W!lrr!lnt for J!lcinto (Nahigi!ln told Jaci nto the he!lring W!lS continued - not to !lppear)
I!l 2/18/158:40 am fee Motion Granted $190,499.00
I!l 2/1S/15 Transcript Will'aamson didn't teU court Ilahigian in san Diego, Nahigian appeared 2:30 warrant rifted
I!l 2/18/15 Transcript Court tells Nahigian "no opposition was fiI ed" - lIahigian should "do a reconsideration "
1!J 2/25/ 15 Order Gr!lnting Fees Entered (no objections from Nahlgi!ln filed) $1 90,499.00
3/4/1 5 Motion to Reconsider is "returned to N!lhlgian" by clerk (no signature; no filin g fee; date not !lvail!lble)
I!J 3/19/15 ORAP debtor exam JACI1fTO PRfSElfT; Wilfaamson continued debtor's exam to 4/16/15
I!l 4/16/15 ORAP debtor exam off calendar by request of moving party (Wdliamson for Stubblefield)
1!J 5/ 21/15 Nahiglan sent final settlement offer; keep $5,000 in trust; get $15,000 fees; get $63,000 lump sum
I!l 6/2/ J5 Ilahigian told Jacinto to pay $15,000 cashiers check to "Robert G. Williamson, Jr." for " fees"
8/ 25/15 Kathrine F!lulise (Ofs Mgr) sent "demand for pllyoff" to Title Co. J!lclnto's hllrd $ loan payoff
1!J B/26/15 $63,106.",,0 payoff delivered to Stubblefield Properties OffICe
I!l 8/26/15 $200,000 "new loan" (12% interest) put on Jacinto's property ($128,000 old loan paid off)
8/24/15 NiShiglan filed CCP 473 motion to set llside judgment entered 2/1 8/15 by minute order (past 6 months)
~4/ 1S}~ahigla"- a~rted he r.n..!~L~ledr.n~t!!I.I!Jor r.~~Il~~(~.!i.c:I.I! .m?L!.~~ut It W!lS ·re~~ned for defiCie!1des·
I!J 9/ 3/15 Opposition to 473 motion; asserting it was untimely filed more than 6 months after 2/18/15 order
I!J 9/ 3/15 Williamson asserted 473 motion is late ; 2/25/15 reconsideration motion w as "returned by co urt 3/4/15"
I!J 9/ 17/15 Min Order - Court denied 473 motion as untimely and no "new facts" to reconSider under CCP 1008
I!J 9/28/15 NClhiglM filed Motion to Reconsider Denial of 473 motion; no new fllcts under CCP 1008
I!J 8/28/15 Nahigian's attached "proposed" opposition - this was opposition formerly prep!lred & "mailed-served" on 2/25/ 15
l!J 11/13/1 5 Min. Order - Motion to Reconsider Denial of 473 motion DENIED
l!J 12/4/15 Adam Birka-Whlte admitted to b!lr LA County Public Defender's Office Employee (crfmlnallaw)
I!J U /10/ 15 Notice of Appe!ll of Deni!ll of Motion to Set Aside Judgment Awarding Fees [ CCP 473(b)]
I!J 12/10/15 Proof of Service Filed by Adam Birka -Whlte only 6 days after admission to CA Bar as attorney
I!J 12/10/ 15 Jacinto Paid $775+$100 filing fee for Appeal of Denial of 473 motion to set !lside $190,499 fees
l!J 1/13/ 16 Adam Birka-White invoice for appeal services (Jacinto) $323.28
l!J 2/3/16 Nahigian ordered Transcripts/Docs for appeal; paid $199.00 fee
I!J 4/26/ 16 Nahigian filed w ritten req,uest to dismiss the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED Judge Ramirez
I!J 2012-2017 Jacinto has spent $ 190,952.40 on a $10,000 mobile home "investment"
l!J EXHIBIT B Documents Related to MARTIN JACINTO v. RICHARD NAHlGIAN CIVDSl604759
!!J 1/6/17 Default Prove-Up Hearing Judge Pacheco Entered Judgment Again st Nllhigian for $734,061.90
I!l 1/6/17 JUDGMENT entered against Nahigian on Docket for $734,061.90
I!J 6/20/17 Court granted Nahigilln's Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Request for Default & QU!lsh Abstract
page 6
I!J EXHIBIT C 2 Public Reprovals CA State Bar against Richard Nahigian taking retainer and then not doing work
EXHIBIT A
page 7
8
Robert S. Coldren, Esq., Bar No. 81710 FI LED

SUPERIOR COURT
Robert G. Williamson, Jr., Esq., Bar No. 73176 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
2 Justus J. Britt, Esq., Bar No. 267352 SAN BERNAROINO DISTRICT
HART, KING & COLDREN

AUG 1 6.2012
3 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor
4 Santa Ana, California 92707 FW .. ~·~wJf).~,__
Telephone: (714) 432-8700 ' 'elL
5 Facsimile: (714) 546-7457
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES dba MOUNTAIN

SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY ,
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAIE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
,CIVDS1208SJJ'1
11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a Case No. 'l
z 12 California general partnership, dba Assigned for all purposes to:

2:§~S MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE
~~9r-
Q
0:: u,.N
~ 0
13
HOME COMMUNITY, Judge:
..) ~~ Dept:
°85:1 14 Plaintiff,
u~~S?
0i5:s .:;
~..J~6 15
~ ..-: 2: •
. S2lj~<
• - 0 ~
v.
... ~ 16 MARTIN C. JACINTO, an individual; and

~i1!~< (/)
ll COMPLAINT FOR:
(1) EJECTMENT;
~~8
CL.N~ 17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (2) NUISANCE; and
<
18
19
Defendants. l (3) TRESPASS .I
I
20 1
21
22 Plaintiff alleges as follows:
23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24 1. Plaintiff STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES ("Plaintiff") is, and at all times

25 mentioned herein was, a California general partnership. doing business as MOUNTAIN
26 SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY.
27 2. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was, and is, the owner and entitled to
28 possession of that certain real property situated in San Bernardino County, California, and
36:;68.050/4827·2650·395 Iv.1
COMPLAINT
page 8
1 described as Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Community (the "Park"), located at 4040
2 East Piedmont Drive, Highland, California 92346.-4834, including without limitation, Space
3 120.
4 3. The Park is a mobilehome park as dermed by and pursuant to the Mobilehome

5. Residency Law, California Civil Code section 798.4. All relations between the Park and
6 tenants residing within the Park are governed by ~e provisions of the Mobilehome
7 Residency Law, Civil Code § 798, et seq. (the "MRL").
8 4. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
9 MARTIN C. JACINTO (hereinafter "Jacinto"), is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an
10 individual residing in the City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, State ofCalifomia.
11 5. The true names and capacities of Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
z 12 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to P1aintiff who

ZS~b
=i
~ t- 13 therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names.
""~
9oi:~
Plaintiff will seek leave of this
8U8~ 14 Court to amend this Complaint to show said Defendants' true names and capacities when
III~""
~~~u
li2 :t •
15 same have been ascertained.
" ti ~I ~ 16
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
~~~~
<
17 Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were, and are, in some manner
18 responsible for the actions, acts, and omissions herein alleged, and for the damage caused by
19 the Defendants and are, therefore, jointly and severally liable for the damages caused to
20 Plaintiff.
21 7. Prior to April 2011, Plaintiff had a lease for Space 120 in the Park with Carol
22 Kirtland (''Kirtland''), the former owner of the Camelot mobilehome located thereon, Serial
23 Numbers S32561X and S32561U (the "Mobilehome"). Plaintiff is informed and believes
24 and thereon alleges that Kirkland vacated the Park. The Mobilehome is unoccupied and
25 vacant.
8. Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and based thereon alleges, that Kirt1and sold
26
27 the Mobilehome to Jacinto in or about April 2011, without notifying or obtaining the consent
28 of Plaintiff, and in violation ofllie parties' written lease and the MRL.
2
36568.05014821-2650-3951 v.1
COMPLAINT
page 9
.\
1 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Jacinto became the registered owner of
2 the Mobilehome upon his purchase from Kirtland, and that Jacinto either attempted to pay
3 rent on behalf of Kirtland, or paid the Park a storage fee for the use of Space 120 from June
4 201 J through December 20 11. Jacinto never had any written rental agreement for the use of
5 Space 120 with Plaintiff or the Park and no right of occupancy.

6 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes1 and based thereon alleges that, in or about
7 December 2011, Jacinto and Kirkland stopped paying Plaintiff any amounts for the use of
8 Space 120 at that time.
9 11. On or about January 12, 2012, Plaintiff served upon Kirtland, Jacinto and all
10 Residents in Possession, a Three (3) Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit and Sixty (60) Day
11 Notice to Tenninate Possession; and a Three (3) Day' Notice to Perform Covenants or Quit
12 and Sixty (60) Day Notice to Terminate Possession. Jacinto made no effort to, and did'not
§GC!r
=j"'" ~ ~ 13 cure, the Notices.
S i!::i
8 !i ~ 14 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in or after
~ ~~~ 15 December 2011, Jacinto andlor persons acting on his behalf entered into the Mobilehome for
~§2i
ti ~ ~ ~ 16 the purposes of damaging it, and did cause substantial damage to the Mobilehome, rendering
a3 f<N8;; 17 it uninhabitable and unsightly. The damaged Mobilehome remains on Space 120 in
18 PlaintifFs Park without Plaintiff's permission and consent, and Defendant has failed and
19 refused to remove it despite Plaintiff's request for possession of their real property upon
20 which the Mobilehome sits.
21
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Ejectment Against aU Defendants)
24 13. Plaintiff hereby real leges and incorporates herein by reference the above
25 paragraphs 1 through 12 as though fully set forth herein.
26 14. Defendant is now in possessi.on of Plaintiffs' real property, more specifically.
27 Space 120, and have been in possession of the property since in or about May 2011, when he
28 purchased the Mobilehome that occupies Space 120 without Plaintiffs knowledge and
3
)656f1.0SO/4827-26S()'39!1l'V,1
COMPLAINT
page 10
1 consent.
2 15. Since January 12, 20 12~ Plaintiff has demanded of Defendant on numerous
3 occasions, that he pay the Park a reasonable rental rate or storage fee for the MobjJehome~ or
4 that he removes the Mobilehome from the Par~ but Defendant has ignored these. demands, .
5 has refused to remove the Mobilehome from Space 120, has refused to pay storage fees, and
6 still unlawfully withholds possession of the premises by leaving the Mobilehome on the
7 premises.
8 16. The reasonable value of the rents and profits of the premises is, and was, the
9 sum of at least $9() 1.49 per month. Plaintiff has been damaged in this sum since January 1,
10 2012, and will continue to be damaged at the rate of$901.49 per month as long as Defendant
11 leaves and refuses to remove the Mobilehome from Space 120.

:z; 12
z9j'"
... F:
1iW~ ~
"0
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
~~~i
tJ:r oo 14 (Trespass/Waste Against all Defendants)

oliIjtJ..l:!l
~~~6 15
17. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates herein by reference the above
~~I~ 16
paragraphs 1 through 12. and 14 through 16, as though fully set forth herein.
~~~l
.(
17 18. Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and based thereon alleges, that commencing
18 in or about December 2011, and continuing to the present time, Defendants caused a trespass
19 upon the Park property by, among other things, refusing to remove the Mobilehome from
20 Space 120 and leaving it on Space 120 without Plaintiff's pennission or consent, for the
21 purposes of damaging it, and causing substantial injury to the Mobilehome, rendering it
22 uninhabitable and unsightly.
23 19. Defendant's conduct constitutes a trespass as well as waste. When Defendant
24 damaged the MobHehome and left it uninhabitable and unsightly, Defendant committed
25 waste by causing a blight on Plaintiffs property, thus contributing to the deterioration of
26 Plaintiffs property.
27 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's maintenance of the damaged
28 and unsightly Mobilehome on Plaintiff's 1and, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to
4
36S68.05014827·26S0·39S 1v.1
COMPLAINT page 11
1 suffer in the future, damages in an amount not yet fully ascertained. When the full amount
2 of damages is known to Plaintiff, it will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set
3 forth the fu]]amount of damages.
4 21. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause
5 injury to Plaintiff or was despicable conduct carried on by Defendant with a willful and
6 conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust
7 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights~ such as to constitute malice, oppression
8 or fraud, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
9 or set an example ofDefendant.
10 22. Defendant's wrongful conduct in continuing to maintain the damaged and
11 unsightly MobiIehome on Plaintiffs land and refusing to remove it. unless and until enjoined
:z 12 and restrained by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable injury through the
OOiS
~ ~ ~ ~ 13 ongoing injury to the property, and win deprive Plaintiff of peace of mind and of a safe and
=~j!~
8 8 ~ ~ 14 secure community environment for its other tenants in the Park.
~
lI?Jit&~
~ ~ ~ 6 15 23. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently being suffered
.,; I ~ ~
ir:1L(n~
16 and threatened to occur in the future in that Defendant will continue to maintain the damaged
~ ~ ~ ~ 17 and unsightly MobiIehome on Plaintiffs' land unless restrained, and Plaintiff would be
«
18 required to maintain a multiplicity ofjudicial proceedings to protect its interests.
19
20
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Nuisance Against All Defendants)
22 24. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates herein by reference the above
23 paragraphs 1 through 12. 14 through 16, and 18 through 23, as though fully set forth herein.
24 25. Defendant's Mobilehome remains on Space 120 on Plaintiff's pr.operty.

2S Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has caused a nuisance with respect to Plaintiffs use and
26 enjoyment of its property inasmuch as Defendant has, among other things, entered into the
27 Mobilehome for the purposes of damaging it, and caused substantial injury to the
28 Mobilehome, rendering it uninha.bitable and unsightly, and left the damaged, unsightly
36S611.(lS0I4827·26SIJ.39Slv.1
COMPLAINT
page 12
Mobilehome on Space 120 in Plaintiff's Park without Plaintiffs pennission or consent, thus
2 causing a blight and threatening the health, safety and security of the other tenants in
3 Plaintiff's Park.
4 26. These conditions have caused injury to Plaintiff in that they interfere with
5 ~laintjrrs free use of its property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life
6 and property in that the conditions are a danger to the health, safety and security of .
7 Plaintiirs tenants of the Park.
8 27. Plaintiffs use of its property is limited because of the nuisance created by
9 Defendants, and Plaintiff has suffered, and wilJ continue to suffer, damages in an amount
10 exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court as long as the nuisance exists. When the fujI
11 amount of damages is known to PJaintiff. it will seek leave of Court to amend this CompJaint
i~ ~ i
x
0...: ....
~ ~ ~ 13
u
12 to set forth the full amount ofdamages.
28. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause

14 injury to Plaintiff or was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendant with a willful and
<i!:Si!l:tL./!t
~ ~ ~ ~ 15 conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust
t~62<
~~~ 16 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, such as to constitute malice, oppression
0( o~ t;
:: f ~ ~ 17 or fraud, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
<
18 or set an example ofDefendant.
19 29. Plaintiff is infonned and b.elieves and thereon alleges that unless restrained or
20 enjoined by an order of this Court, Defendant will continue to engage in and allow the
21 nuis~nce. ~uch conduct will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff cannot
22 utilize certain portions 'of its land affected by the conditions on Space 120 and while the
23 Mobilehome remains on Space 120. The threat of such irreparable and pennanent damage
24 justify the issuance by this Court of an injunction as well as an award of monetary damages
2S as authorized by law.
26 36. Plaintiff notified Defendant of the nuisance and that the nuisance was
27 interfering with Plaintiff's free use and enjoyment of its land. Plaintiff demanded that the
28
6
36S68.0S0I4827-2650-3951v. J
·COMPLAINT page 13
1 nuisance be abated. Defendants nevertheless refused, and continue to refuse, to abate the
2 nuisance.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows:
4 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
5 1. For restitution of the premises by removal of the Mobilehome;

6 2. For damages for the Defendants'. unlawful detention and/or or possession of
7 Space 120 at the rate of $901.49 per month from and after January 1, 2012~ until delivery of
8 possession thereof;
9 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
10 . 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
:z 12 1. For general and special damages subject to proof;
!~i~~~
~~ 13 2. For punitive and exemplary damages;
..Jo~~
8 u 8~ 14 3. For an order requiring Defendant to show cause, if any they have, why he
~~tt:.!!J
c I!! 6 15 should not be enjoined,as hereinafter set forth during the pendency of this action;
2~~.{
.,: ~ e ~ 16
,,/;]« 4. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent
« t:JfI)~.
=Eo ~
<
fI) 17 injunction, all requiring Defendant and his agents, servants, and employees, and aU persons
] 8 acting under, in concert with, or for him, to refrain from maintaining the damaged and
19 unsightly Mobilehome on Plaintiff's land, including without limitation, on Space 120;
20 5. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
21 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22 ON TIlE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION;
23 1. For general and special damages subject to proof;
24 2. For punitive and exemp]ary damages;
25
3. For an order requiring Defendant to show cause, if any they have, why he
26 should not be enjoined as hereinafter set forth during the pendency of this action;
27 4. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction. and a permanent
28 injunction, all requiring Defendant and his agents, servants, and employees, and aU persons
7
36S68.0S()/4827·26SO·3!15Iy.1
COMPLAINT
page 14
1 acting under, in concert with, or for him, to refrain from maintaining the damaged and
2 unsightly Mobilehome on Plaintiffs land, including wi1hout limitation, on Space 120;
3 5. For costs ofsuit herein incurred; and
4 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
5
6 Dated: August l1, 2012 HART, KING & COLDREN
7
8
BY:~~~__~H-~__
Ro rtS.Co en
L------------
9
Ro rt W. Wi iamson
10 Justus J. Britt
Attorneys for Plaintiff STUBBLEFIELD
11 PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
z 12
0"',...
~~~:::
IX ~ 13
~.~~ ~
I;,)u 0 14
~~(.L.!=
C .sw:.!
z:;!~u 15
r2~~l
p.;i~< 16
1X1l!(I)~
<~
=':(~Vl 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
36568.050141127·2650·3951'1.1
COMPLAINT
page 15
rVDS 1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-cQurt.org/civil!civi Iminutes.asp? courtcoll-~l
Images
Case Type:
Case Number:
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

Action: (Choose)
< ~,m~"M~.~ •• _•• •• _. ____ __
d~.' ~ ~~ ~
MOTION RE: LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT MARTIN C

JACINTO
07/09/2013 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
DAVID COHN, JUDGE
CLERK: GAIL ANDERSON
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS 4420
COURT ATIENDANT I ROMO
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR. PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFfPETITIONER.
ATIORNEY MOISES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.
THE COURT FINDS NO BAD FAITH SHOWING: DEFENDANT HAS NEW COUNSEL WHO IS PURSUING THE CASE
ON HIS
BEHALF.
THE PROPOSED XCOMPLAINT IS DEEMED FILED AND SERVED THIS DATE.
30 DAYS TO ANSWER.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
page 16
lofl 7122/17,2:09 PM
CIVDSl208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/CiVilJCiVilminutes.asP?Courtcod~flk.1l{!?..
Case Type:
Case Number:
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V..JACINTO

Action:
MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY CROSS DEFENDANT

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA, THOMAS PARRISH
09/24/2013 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
DAVID COHN, JUDGE
CLERK: GAIL ANDERSON
COURT REPORTER REGINA VEGA 12612
COURT ATTENDANT R BRUCATO
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
ROBERT WILLIAMSON APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.
ATTORNEY MOISES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT JACINTO.
PROCEEDINGS:
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OCROSS-COMPLAINT IS
HEARD.
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. A CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT IS
DENIED.
THE COURT FINDS THAT PARAGRAPH #12 (AND TO SOME EXTENT PARAGRAPH #13) IS SUFFICEINT TO
SUPPORT
THE ALLEGATION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AT THE PLEADING STAGE.
DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATES IS DECLINED AT THIS TIME. ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED
BY
STIPULATION OR EXPARTE APPLICATION.
NOTICE WAIVED.
page 17
1 of I 7/22/17.2:16 PM
Robert G. Williamson Jr.
From: maviles1232@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:37 PM
To: Robert G. Williamson Jr.
Subject: Re: 36568.050/lnspection.
The Jacinto's are fP'ng thorugh a traumatic situation as we speak. A close family member unexpectedly passed away two
days ago. Tney wiH '1ot be available for sometime.
Best regards
Moises AVIles
-Original Message-
From: Robert G. Williamson Jr. <rwilliamson@hkclaw.com>
To: mavi!es1232 <maviles1232@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 13, 2013 4:18 pm
Subject RE: 36568.050Ilnspection.
Mr. Aviles:
Contentious postu~ng is not helpful. Obviously. there is access to the park and your client controls access to their home.
My request was simply to arrange a mutually convenient time for all parties to inspect the interior of your client's home. If
you or your clients are unwilling to cooperate and participate please just let me know. We may then take it up with the
Court.
VTY
I
Robert G. Williamson Jr. Partner
Hart, King & Coldren
4 Hutton Centre Drive. Suite 900 I Santa Ana. CA 92707
Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax. 714-546-7457
lWiliiamson@hkclaw.com I www.hkclaw.com
From: maviles 1232@aol.com [mailto:maviles 1232@aol.comJ
Sent: Wednesday. November 13. 20133:42 PM
To: Robert G. Williamson Jr.
Subject: Re: 36568.050Ilnspection.
Without access from th mobilehome park is almost impossible to accomplish the inspection since the mobilehome park
has in essence prevented access and has unlawfully acquired the mobilehome through default
---Original Message--
From: Robert G. Williamson Jr. <lWiliiamson@hkclaw.com>
To: maviles1232 <maviles1232@aoLcom>
Sent Wed. Nov 13. 20131:07 pm
Subject: 36568.050/Inspection.
Mr. Aviles:
Please call me to arrange a time mutually convenient when we may inspect the interior of your client's mobilehome.
I
Robert G. Williamson Jr. Partner
Hart, King & Coldren
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 I Santa Ana, CA 92707
Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax. 714-546-7457
lWilliamson@hkclaw.com I www.hkclaw.com
page 18
1
page 19
page 20
/ May 20, 201~
To:
Robert Williamson Jr., Esq
From:
Martin C. Jacinto
3420 Broadmoor Blvd
San Bernardino, Ca 92404
Dear Mr. Williamson,
I authorize Mr. Bruno Ehlert to work with you in regards to settling the judgment for case number CIVDS
1208547.
,:~
Martin C. Jacinto
page 21
, .... "
TO.ALL p~_~ AN)) 1'I.JEl.a ATTQ:Q,NltYS OF REC0RD:
2·PLEA$ TAtE NOTICE ~ Qi).l'Jov¢m~ 19, ;lQi4, . ~t 8-!JO· ~m. pr $S $0Qt) lbet~a&
J the q.;uI.tter tttay ·be':heat.d. i:it De~n:tentS3SJ 'pf the :above;..entit1ed court,. located at 247 W. 3td
4, Stt~t. S~ EJem4l1'd1it6. C.aliforbia ~4U:. Plaintiff ana CJ!o~Defendants StUb'blerreldProperti~., 8.,
• .s· C~lJfom1a g~en;U partnersl1ip' dha Mountain 8hadGWSMQb~1:W.me Conlmvnjty Bn(i 'Tho~~s
6-. ParriSh. will., and hereby>qo mo:ve''fue; .C~ fot an D.rderfudng'~ ~t ofregQl1ahI~ attotiieys"
7 fees ~o wl1icll.~lanw.tf tln.\f CI'Q5S Oef~d$lt$ ate Imtitled to as. the prevailing parties against
t '. Dd'eildatlf and. Cf'ossCQmplainant" Martin C. JacintapursuaIltto the Judgment. AfierJUJ,Y Trial filed
'9." ,April 8~ 2{}14s Notice of Entry o.f JudgmJ~nt s~ M~y S" ~OI4. Ci:ViI·CQd~ $' 7~.8$4 Cbd~oft!Nil
fO' .l?roced,ure§: JQ~.s(~(l~}. (4).,and(¢X:4).(jo,~emmen.tCodc. i 12965{b).,,42 U~S.C. H1981",
11 1~8'5(3)t ~-004(~t 361J5and Ca'LRtiJes ofCOurl 3.1700 and 3.1702~ Plail'ltitrandCrossDefen~
r~( seek 811 a,y,,'ard 0.[ ~onaqle anom~yj'S fees :in the sum of.:Sl$S,640.00 and fQI pr¢~t:io.b,filing and
13 he2)Iipg on: th¢ U:1sfant Plp~Qn the· adQ.iliQnar$umaf~4,SD9.00",
.l4 . nb ~MPtiQn is based upon this Notice; of'Motio~ the attached ~o""'ldmnof Pf,}~~ attd
IS Aut6Qrittes! DetlrB'lition: ofR-Obert G. WiIUam5QIl. Jr. ill:support tb.er®f. the-~~ imdv..a~; on
16 .ale her.em n rapon .sucib '~!»' ttr.d . ~. ~iit,ary ev~d.en~ asma), bc::pte.senteo. at the time·,of
11 ~~ing,
1$.
r9 Dated: July 3~ 2014 Re$poo:tfuTIy SU:bmitted~
40 liARTjKING
21
n
.......~ ~
J I "
~
24,
:
~2$ .
'26
.27 .
2$ "--"-----'------......,,---....., ...-.--~---::;.-l~--~...---~--------
......,
page 22
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN
ATIORNEYATLAW
1122 EAST GREEN STREET
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91106
(626) 683-3991
(626) 796-2554 • fax
FEE AGREE:MENT
1. Nature of Agreement: This document is a written document for fees that
California requires a law firm to have with their clients. THE LAW FIRM
OF RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN (hereinafter the "Firm") agrees to provide
legal services to M "teo tv (!.. ':fA CJ IVnI
(hereinafter the "Client"), based on the terms set forth below. This
Agreement can be modified by a writing signed by both parties.
2. Firm'S 'Duties and Scope of Representation.
a) The undersigned hereby agrees to retain the Firm b;> represent the
Client and the Firm hereby' agrees to represent the Client in the case
of S-tab~I~£teJ} Pr-~.s V~· I
fflDctin <1. ·'1ACiM-v , Case Number Sa.-1t .

--~kvJ.:t> C~4 1f' e.
I V 0 5' 1:;2 {] <65' 'f)
b) Such representation includes ·liI aH J:'ire trial m8itt@1'8 a:eg;-tii:u::w:;n!lit=..

JHai. j f ida 1 fiC! , II:; fl~ll pre-1!ial matters~clu1.-ing a triaL The
undersigned will take reasonable steps to keep the Client informed of
the progress and to respond to inquiries by the Client.
c) Such representation does not include legal representation in retrial, or

I
other pending or future lawsuits or in any appeal from a conviction if

a conviction occurs.
d) If the Firm and the Client agree to additional or more extensive

representation, it is contemplated that a separate retainer agreement
will be signed.
3. Client's Duties. The Client agrees to cooperate with the Firm, to keep the
Firm reasonably informed of qevelopments about this matter which become
known to the Client, to abide by this Agreement, to pay on time all
amounts due for fees and expenses under this Agreement, and to keep the
firm advised of the Client's address, telephone number l;l1ld whereabouts.
FEE AGREEMENT
page 23
Page 10f3
4. Legal Fees. The Client agrees to pay the fee as set forth herein.
5. Costs and Other Charges.
a) In General. The Finn may incur various costs and expenses in

performing legal services under this Agreement. The Firm will pay, all
reasonable costs for messengers, photocopying, travel expenses, and
other normal office expenses. If there are extraordinary costs to be
incurred, the Firm shall obtain the prior written approval of the Client
prior to incurring them and Client agrees to pay for them upon
agreeing to do so.
b) Experts, Consultants and Investigators. To aid the preparation of

presentation of this matter, it may become necessary to hire expert
witnesses, consultants or investigators. The Client agrees to pay for
these services.
6. Firm's Fee. The Finn's fee for this matter shall be as follows:
a)
7. Completion of Services, Discharge and Withdrawal. The Client may

seek to discharge the Firm at any time. The Firm may seek to withdraw
with the Client's consent or for good cause. Good cause includes the
Client's breach of this Agreement, the Client's refusal to cooperate with the
Firm or to follow the Firm's advice in a material matter, or any fact or
circumstances that would render the Firm's continuing representation
unlawful or unethical. When the Firm's services conclude, all unpaid
charges will immediately become due and payable and the Firm will, upon
the Client's request, deliver the Client's file along with any funds or
Client's property that is in the Firm's possession. The Firm may retain
sufficient funds to pay for any outstanding fees and undetermined costs.
FEE AGREEMENT page 24

Page 2 of3
8. Disclaimer Guarantee. Nothing in this Agreement and nothing in the
terms guaranteed to the Client shall be construed as a promise or guarantee
about the outcome of the Client's matter. The Firm makes no such
promises or guarantees. Any comments about the outcome of the Client's
matter are expressions of opinions only.
LAW FIRM OF
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN
The undersigned has read this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages,
and has had the opportunity to ask questions regarding it and has had :the
opportunity to discuss it with another attorney or other person, and hereby
agrees to its terms .
.-?'
Dated;~
,'" .
FEE AGREEMENT
page 25
Page 3 of3
P't:R'S REcEJ'PT • RErAIN FOR YOUR REP
&!;CURlTY BANK
OF CAtIFO RNJA
s,.;r;p , . -
t.m~I-SOOC
PAYABLE TO
page 26
,
~ lIfTIJR"'ElORPNrfY'M1l-IOUTA.TTORNEY~State&lt_r,"";~:
. - Moises A. Aviles (SBN: 226569)
- ~_: ,,,~,
"""1111 a;..,
.
;:'1\;'; h j., ... i "
..
-")
FOR COURT USEONLY

MC-OSO
Aviles & Associates

560 N. Arrowhead Ayenue. Suite 2A
San Bernardino, CA- 92401
~NO': 909-383-2333 FAXNO.(OpIIoneI1: 909-383-9550
E-a.ADOFIESS~ aviles.assom.ates@gmai1.com
.1JP~'lED
A:ITORH!YFOR,..,..}:, MARTIC C. JACiNTO 0iPJ ~'li0F OAI.I/i'OANI.O.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CO"',.,.,. OF SAN BERNARDINO
S&RN 1H!a,~6~O
STREETNlORfSS; 247 West Third Street
MAUlGNJORw: 247 West Third Street
OCT -09 ,lO14

ClTYAND.llPCOIlE: San Bernardino. 92415
8IWOt NAME! Civil Division

BY. ~~.-tJwn+=e
CASE NAME: lEANDRA HENDRIX. DEPUTY
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES v. MARTlN C. JACINTO
SUBSTITUTION OFATTORNEY-CML
CAllE 1lUMBER:
(Without Court Order)
CIVDS 1208541 gyp
THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES ARE NOTIFIEO THAT (hame): MARTIN C. JAClNTO makes 1he following substitution:
1. Fonner legal represe~Uve C]Plir1y represented self 0 Attorney (name): MOISES A. AVILES
,2. New legal representative 0 Party is representing self" 0
AttC)lTley
H. Name: RICHARD NAHIOIAN b.State Bar No. (ifapplicabfe}:045675
:::. Address (number, street, city, ZIP, and law flfm nome, if Bpplic~ble):
I122 East GreenStreet
Pasadena, CA 91106
d. Telephone No. (include area code); 626-683·3991

3. The party making this substitUtion is a 0 plaintiff 12] defendant 0 petitioner 0 respondent 0 other (specify):
*NOTICE TO PARTIES APPLYING TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES
-Guardian • Pers.onal Represehtatlve • Guardian ad Iftem

•
• Conservator • Pro,bate fiduciary • Unincorporated ,
'Trustee • COrporation association
If you are applying as one of the parties on this list. you may NOT act as your own attorney in most cases. Use this fcnn
to substitute one attorney for another attorney. SEEK LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE APPLYING TO REPRESENT :YOURSELF.
NonCETOPARnES~THOUTATTORNEYS
A party representing himself or herself may wish to $eek legal assistance. Failure to take
timely and aPPfOprlate action In thiG case may result In serious legal consequences.
4. I consent to this substitution.

Date: 09/30/2014 ...
MARTIN C.IAClNTO M§1Cr:aJ c . ;r~ "-,..------........,..,~--,-;;:T--------
(TYPE Oft PRINT N1,I.E),
f. C?::r-:'.I.con$l!ntto thi/i SI./bstitulioo.

I"'l~: .o9/30/7,Q14
:¥f()lSES A. AVILES
(TYpe: OR PRINT NAME)
6. 0 1consent to this substitution.

Date; 09130/2014 /) _ 7'} .r (f4
RICHARD NAHIGIAN '4 .::;;7'-' ,
(TYPE'OR PRINT HAMEl
(See reverse for proof of service by mail)
SUBSTlTU1"lON OF A TTORNEY-C'V'L
(Without Court Order)
page 27
, ,
·. .
CASE N!'fiotE:
I- STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES v. MARTIN C. JACINTO
--
CASE NUMBER:
eNDS 1208$.47
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

,Substitution of Attorney-Civil
Inswdfons:AIW haY#i1g'aR PIJi'He$ ~byinalrWjthdhe Substitution £If AttoiiJey-Cjvi"l. hsvf1 the pef!X)(I WhO~'tIi& document
CQIripIefs this Piqof of ~iVice by UtJH. A!/'.in]§j(:Ir'Hjd Copy d the PfQOf of Se1V.k;& 'bY}lIfaiishould ~ compleleq Ilr'I4 s.eMKf with tire
cIocum~t. .GWe me SubstJNlkin of,AttottJey-CM1 ~nd the compJeted Pioof of SetViOO by MaN to the clerk ftirfiling. If. You ilm
representing yourself; someone else must mail these PIlPf'rS and sign 'the ProOf Of SerVice by Mall;
'1. I am over the age 0118. and !tot a par:t;y to thliS cause. I am a resident of or employed in the county Where themallngocQllred.My
rl?$idence or bu&i~s.add~ Is (specify); .
:60 N. A-trowh~4Av:enue, Sui~~2A; SanB~mardino~ CA 92401
2. : served .tlleSubstiMjpn of Attomey-ciliU 'by enc.lQ6ing a'true copy in a ~a/ed envaiQPea4dressed to each pel'S(lO ~ name
and'addr~isshown ~Iow and d~til'lQ 1h&enveiopein)he UnitedSfates mail with the pOS1agefi.d'y.ptePlIid,.
(1 ) Date ofmail"mg: 0913012014 , (2) Place of maillllQ (cityar:rd sta~): SanBemardino~ CA

3. I declare undel: penalty of perjury under theJ8WII$ of the State of CaJjfomia that the:fQfl!plJ$
Date: 09/3.012014
OeniseMata
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON TO WHO.M NOTICE W,AS MAILED
4. a. Name of~ri seN$(!:. Roberta. Williamson, Esq.; Hart King, A PrQfessiona:l Corporation
b. Address (humber; SU8eI, city, and ZIP):
4 Rutton. Centre DriVe, Sliit~ 9,<10
Santa Ana, CA 91707
c. Naroepfpers6r1 Served;
d. :Addreslt(m1171~(, sf!eel"C/ty, and ZIP):'
~, N8me~fpl;/rSon serv~:
f. Addre~ (number, street. r:ity, and,ZlP):
g. Name 01 person served:

h. Address (nriir/b6r, .«, city, sndZIp):
I. Name of-person served:

j. Address (numbet,stteet, city! end Zlpk
o Ustof·namesand addreS'sescootihued in attachment.
SUBsmU110N OFATrORNEY-CMl haa·bfZ

(Without Court Order) .
page 28
'.J" • ...... ,_
jlJ)
lOll! l; n..~ ~,A.,~~ k r~JlA~L'~ #//7- r~.;:.d -:-1. I
CIVDS1208547 'Minute o'rde: 1an Benlafdino Main ~., ...,~~. /"'J ')/,? z -Page 1 of 1'5;;:,olr 1
."-- , "
'-,
Pending CaM
Home ComplaintsfParUes Actions MInutes
Hearings Report Images
CINType:
, v]
I
CaM Mum...,. [ ': ] ['seareh]
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD .V..JACINTO

Action: [(~hoose) - - =-~: .: vI
. EX PARTE HEARING RE: FOR ORDER AMENDING JUDGMENT TO AOD COSTS

1010112014· 8:30 AM DEPT. S35X
BRYAN F FOSTER, JUDGE
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
COURT ATTENDANT R DELGADO
APPEARANCES: ('
j ATTORNEY ROBERT WlLL.IAMSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
PROCEEDINGS:
eX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED
EX PARTE ORDER SlGNED BY THE COURT.
AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND '
AGAINST DEFENDANT AFTER TRIAL.

ACTION - COMPLETE
===
MINUTE ORDER END ==
. ,
page 29
http://ooenaccess,sb~court.orWOpenAccess/CIVILlcivilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&casenum.., 81112016
lolt!l!
411Jt Legal Support (951)779-0100 00100/9
_~!Jr..~~
~~
OCT.;12014
~~)'~.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CIVIL D1VISION
10
11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. a ) Case No. eIVDS 1208547

)
California general partnership, dba
~)
12
MOUNTArN SHADOWS MOBILE
13 HOME COMMUNITY) tPftOfaSlW1 AMENDED JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
]4 Plaintiff, ~ STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A
CALIFORNIA GENERAL
15 v.
PARTNERSHIP DBA MOUNTAIN
SHADOWS MOBILE HOME
16 COMMUNITY, AND AGAINST
MARTIN C. JACINTO, DEFENDANT MARTIN C. JACINTO
17 . AFTER JURY TRIAL.
Defendant. .
l
18
19
--
20 The court having directed a verdict in favor Plaintiff and Cross Defendant
2) Stubblefield Properties, a California general partnership dba Mountain Shadows Mobile
22 Home Community and Cross Defendant Thomas Parrish, sued as Mr. Parrish, against
23 Defendant and Cross Complainant Martin C. Jacinto on the issue of liability and having
24 dismissed the Cross Complaint on March) 7.2014;
25 On March 18, 2014, the jury on a special verdict found that Defendant Martin C.
26 Jacinto's wrongful conduct caused hann to PlaintitTStubblcfield Properties entitling Plaintiff
27 to damages for past and future rental value lost and cost of removal of the mobilehome from
28 space) 20 and restoration of Il1obilehome site. and the Court Clerk having recorded and filed
1
page 30
I PROPOSED1 ,J}./t:NDf;D J Vf)(jMtNT
et legal Support (961)779-0100 00/0012_
the special verdict, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANI? DECREED,
2
Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Stubblefield Properties, a California general paltnersnip
3 dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Community and against Defendant Martin C. Jacinto
4 in the sum ofS41,166.58;
S That Defendant Martin C. Jacinto has no interest in or possessory right or rights to

6 space 120 in Mountain Shadows Mohilehome Community, 4040 E, Piedmont Drive,
1 Highland, CA; and
8 That Defendant Martin C. Jacinto shalf be and hereby is ordered to remove his
9 mobiIehome from Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community in accordance w]th

10 Plaintiff's reqUirements set forth in Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community's move out
11 letter dated April 17, 2013. Defendant's removal of his mobHehol1)c shall be partial
12 satisfaction of this
to the extent of his verified costs incurred for said removal.
13 Plaintiff to recover its costs in the sum of $ 16,721.92 for a total judgment in the sum
14 of$57,888.50.
15 The Court Clerk shall forthwitll enter this Amended Judgment.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 Dated:tJgsr'_ - - <)-_ _, 2014

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
(PROPOSED} .!Mt;NDElJ Jl!DGArEI>fT
page 31
Jill I!
,
.L
1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALI FORNIAi WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER I, 2014

2 DEPARTMENT NO. S-35 HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE
3 A.M. SESS I ON
4
5 THE COURT: On the ex parte number one, Stubblef ield

6 versus Jacinto.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, good ITOrnlng. Robert
8 vhlliamson appearing for plaintiff and the moving party.
9 MR. NAHIGIAN: Good morning , y our Honor. I am
10 Richard Nahigian. I have been retained by Mr. Jacinto.
11 I prepared the substitut i on of attorney when the ex
12 parte motion was seDJed and I have it prepared and I am
13 advised by your Honor's staff that I should file i t
14 dovrnstairs , but I do have it prepared and signed by all
15 parties and I have g i ven it to counsel.
16 THE COURT: Are you ob jecting to the application?
17 MR. NAHIGIAN: Well, yes, for the reason that I
18 believe that the rules provide that it has to be upon
19 emergency or gocd cause for some sort of relief that could not
20 be granted at the proper time. The verdict and judgment came
2 back in April and it was in your Honor's court, I bel i eve, and
22 the cost bill was filed -
23 THE COURT: Hold on a second.
24 MR . NAHIGIAN: Yes.
25 THE COURT: If we are going to argue this at this
26 point, I am considering it just an ex parte application for an
Kathy E. Sel l ers, Offic ial Repor t er

page 32
2
1 order shortening time so we will g o ahead and set it so they

2 have notice of your objections and so they can respond to it.
3 MR. NAHIGIAN: If I may, I don't think we need to do
4 that. My only thing is there is another motion pending, if I
5 may interrupt the court. May I?
6 THE COURT: Sure.
7 MR. NAHIGIAN: Counsel has filed a motion for
8 attorney's fees and it is an extensive motion with extensive
9 exhibits as to be argued in your Honoris court on
10 November 19th. My suggestion was that we put this over until
11 that date. I don't think there will be any prejudice because
12 there has not been any prejudice from May until October 1st.
13 MR. WILLIAJIIlSON: Here is the problem, your Honor. We
14 have attempted to get an Abstract of Judgment recorded and in
15 doing so we asked for what was in the judgment plus the
16 memorandum of costs, which came up to 50-some thousand and the
17 court kicked it back, the clerk kicked it back and said there
18 is no entry for award of memorandum of costs. We explained we
19 filed a memorandum, there was no motion to strike and tax, no
20 extension, that the costs should have been added automatically
21 and so there was no other way for us to have this accomplished
22 and through application to the court ex parte there is no
23 reason for a noticed motion; it is something that should have
24 been done under the code automatically after expiration of the
25 time within which there was a motion, could have been a motion
26 to strike and tax costs brought. That was sometime back in
Kathy E. Sellers, Official Reporter

page 33
3
1 Jillle.
2 THE COURT: This mot ion is just to add the cost.

3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Statutory cost.
4 THE COURT: For your cost bill, memorandum of costs
5 for the judgment; is that it?
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
7 THE COURT: What opposition could you have to tnat
8 since there is no motion to tax costs?
9 MR. NAHIGIAN: I can pick up the phone and call the
10 previous attorney, but all I can say at this point is I submit
11 based upon no need for emergency action or what have you.
12 THE COURT: I don't find it is In dispute so I am
13 going to grant the motion.
14 MR. NAHIGIAN: Well, the time has passed for the
15 time , yeah.
16 rrtE COURT: I understand -
17 MR. NAHIGIAN: It is moot.
18 THE COURT: there is no legal issue that - legal
19 standing that I can see that you could raise that wo lId
20 prevent the filing of this under the circumstances of the
21 case.
22 MR. NAHIGIAN: I hate to concede anything, but you
23 are right.
24 THE COURT: That's good. I can sleep tonight.
25 MR. NAHIGIAN: All right.
26 THE COURT: So the motion is granted and then we have
Kathy E. Se lle r s, Official Repor t e r

page 34
4
1 a motion for costs. There was a motion to be relieved. Is

2 that still on calendar?
3 MR. NAHIGIAN: I did not file it, your Honor, so I
4 don't know.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have not been served with a motion
6 to be relieved. I think it is by Mr. Avilas who was just
7 according to Mr . Nahigian's substitution of attorney he
8 substituted out.
9 THE COURT: So it is probably moot. I don't know, I
10 don t have it in front of me so I don t know.
I I
11 MR . NAHIGIAN: May I suggest something? I don't know

12 if the court is willing to make a ruling if he is not here.
13 I f perhaps the court can review his signature, the
14 substitution of attorney coupled with the fact that
15 THE COURT: It is not a problem. What happens first
l6 of all, we have a motion for attoD1ey ' s fees for
17 November 19th, which is before the date of that hearing so
18 obviously at that hearing if we go on the record and say that
19 a substitution has been filed, that will go off calendar.
20 MR. NAHIGIAN: His motion is pending. I didn't
21 unders tand. I thought it was for today.
22 THE COURT: No, it is pending.
23 MR. NAHIGIAN: I have misunderstood. Thank you; that
24 makes sense.
25 THE COURT: Motion lS granted and the next hearing is
26 on November 19th for motion for attoD1ey s fees.
i

page 35
5
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I submitted an order and amended
2 judgment.
3 THE COURT; I signed the amended judgment and order.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well. Thank you.
5 THE COURT: Thank you.
6 (The foregoing proceedings are concluded.)
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

page 36
HPRT ! I
ATTORNEYS AT lAW
RICHARD, E. NAHIGIAN
ATI'OllNEY AT LAW Robert G. Williamson. Jr. I Attorney at Law
~(62t»68J-~1 .. Hulton CenIre Drive, SUIte-900 ISanta Ana, Caiifomia 92707

ClUWLAR (lIl8) 41~5", ,.: 114.432.8700 I F: 714.546,7457
PAamIUIJ! (fIJEJ 196-25S.
rwiliarnson@harldnglaw.com!WW'N.harIIdrgaw.o:lll\
page 37
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main J!1
http://openaccess.sb-court.orgicivil/CiVilminutes.asp?courtc!!1L:}
Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes

Hearings
Case Type:
Case Number:
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V..JACINTO
Action: (Choose)
ORAP .- EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR
11113/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 535
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
NOT REPORTED
APPEARANCES:
~ ~OBERT","vyl.~LlAMSON JR APPEARS B~ COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA.
DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS:
POST-DISPOSITION HEARING HELD
HEARING CONTINUED AT REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF.
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING SONTINUED TO 11/19/14 A!..?8:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.
:t JUDGMENT DEBTOR ORDERED TO RETURN.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 38
· hl1p'I!OP"na<""".'b-CO."~.mWCiVil/<iVilminute,."",co...ld!J,.LL1
~t,'fn':,··-:·,~<,i .
-':
.: , ...
Pending Case
Home Complai nts/Parties Actions Minutes Images
He~uin9·· Report
eueT"",:
C88aN..-r:
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD ·V-JACINTO

Action~ (Choose)
MOTION RE; (7/3/14) FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH
11119/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 835
CLERK: LUANN GEESJNK
COURT REPORTER BERNADETIE GRANADO 10451
COURT AnENDANT R KRETZMEIER
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
J DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS:
POSTvD,SPOSITION HEARING HELD
THE COURT IS ADVISED THE PARTIES ARE ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER. MATTER IS RESET
AS....... -_.... . . ., . . w.,." .,.~-.-;-# ~ ~.- --.........-..-
STATED BELOW.
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 12/17/14 AT 08:30 IN DEPART
COUNSEL FOR PLAINnFF TO GIVE NO'TICE.
ACTION· COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END =::=
page 39
fJ i Ifill? l'",n 0""'

CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court. org/civi IIcivilminutes.asp ?courtco6l1~
Home Actions Minutes
Case Type:
Case Nurmer:
Action: 1 (Choose)
ORAP -- EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR
11/19/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
CLERK: LUANN GEESINK
COURT REPORTER BERNADETTE GRANADO 10451
COURT ATTENDANT R KRETZMEIER
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
~ ~EFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS:
THE COURT IS ADVISED THE PARTIES ARE ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER. MATTER IS
RESET AS
STATED BELOW.
HEARINGS:
f:L/ CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 12117/14 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.
~ MARTIN JACINTO ISiARE ORDERED TO RETURN ON CONTINUED DATE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE
\. OR SUBPOENA.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 40
1 nil.; /")1\1"7 l'"'\.c") n~,f

CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.orgJcivillcivilminutes.asp?Cf:IlrtC~deLttl?.

Hearings
Case Type:
Case Number:

.... -.-.----... ~..... -
Action: (Choose)
12117/2014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
COURT REPORTER ROCIO GONZALEZ 10911
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, THOMAS
-PARRISH. ' ••

PROCEEDINGS:
MATTER IS CONTINUED AS FOLLOWS
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 02/18/15 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.
JUDGMENT DEBTOR ORDERED TO RETURN.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 41
')/
Pending Cas&"
Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Images
Hearings Report
Casel)pe:
.... - " -
-.- -.---- .-.---'--- ".~
r:~~::
.. ' ," .~ ..
Case CIVDS1208547 .. STUBBLEFIELD -V..JACtNTO
Action: {Choose)
MonON RE: (713114) FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

1211712014 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 535
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
COURT REPORTER ROCIO GONZALEZ 10911
I APPEARANCES:
../ ' ROBERT ~I I IAMSONJR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. THOMAS
PARRISH. II b E.! _..,. b
'/'::}C DEFENDANT MARTIN CJACINTO PRESENT
"'-. PROCEEDINGS:
MOTION
COURT CONTINUES MATTER AS FOLLOWS
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED T
-~-
NorlCE TO BE GIVEN BY COUNseL
ACTION· COMPLETE
==: MINUTE ORDER EN D ==
page 42
i "f 1
c2!lK//.
't; J4. ,,"\
From: CRYSTAL VICTORIA LOPEZ <crystai.lopezm@hotmaiLcom>

Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 12:20 PM
To: christopherJockwood@ariaslockwood.com
Subject: FW: Jacinto
From: nahigian@yahoo.com
Subject: Fwd: Jacinto
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:17:09 -0800
To: crystal.lopezm@hotmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Nahigian <nahigian@yahoo.com>
Date: February 18, 2015 at 8:14:39 AM PST
To: "Robert G. Williamson Jr." <rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com>
Subject: Re: Jacinto
Reminding you that I am in Federal court ..... San Diego

today. Please eostpone. They are starting work this week. Will do everything on the punch
list. You may confer with Eva. Thank you. Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2015, at 9:13 AM, "Robert G. Williamson Jr." <rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com>

wrote:
Richard,
Per our tic: confirmed, 11 :00 a.m. today at Mountain Shadows you will meet with Mr.
Parrish at park office, sp. 4, just inside the gate to your right, for purposes of visiting sp.
120 to view punch list items that need to be completed.
Robert
Robert G. Williamson Jr. I Partner
Hart I King
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 I Santa Ana, CA 92707
Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax. 714-546-7457
Direct No. 657-622-4709
I
rwilliamson@hartkinqlaw.com www.hartkinqlaw.com
This e-mail any 15 for the and usc the intended recipient
page 43
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.orglcivil/civihninutes.asp?corrfrl&&bX&c...
Pending Case
Hearings Report
Case Type:
Case Nu.mer:
Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V·JACINTO

Action: (Choose)

02118/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
CLERK: PATRICIA VEGA
COURT REPORTER STEPHANIE AUSTIN 13119
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
RICHARD NAHIGIAN FOR MARTIN C JACINTO NOT PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS:
08:40
COURT FINDS THERE IS APPROPRIATE SERVICE.
JUDGMENT DEBTOR FAILS TO APPEAR FOR DEBTORS EXAM;BENCH WARRANT IS ORDERED ISSUED
FOR MARTIN
C. JACINTO IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00.
BENCH WARRANT TO BE ISSUED UPON RECEIPT OF SIGNED AFFIDAVIT AND PROCESSING FEE MADE
PAYABLE TO THE APPROPRIATE SERVING AGENCY.
11:56
AFTER THE MATTER IS CALLED, ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN FOR DEFENDANT TELEPHONES THE
COURT AND
REQUEST THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR THIS AFTERNOON WITH HIS CLIENT SO THAT THE
BENCH
WARRANT MAY BE RECALLED.
COURT WILL ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT TO APPEAR TODAY AT 2:30PM.
02:25
MATTER RECALLED.
page 44
CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civilfcivilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&c...
HART KING FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES NOT PRESENT
ATTORNEY RICHARD NAHIGIAN PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
COUNSEL REPRESENTS HE WAS NOT PRESENT DUE TO HIS APPEARANCE IN FEDERAL COURT IN
SAN DIEGO AND
THAT NO OTHER ATTORNEY APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF DUE TO MISCALENDERING THE MATTER.
COURT RECALLS THE BENCH WARRANT AND CONTINUES THIS MATTER.
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 02/27/15 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 45
10/15/2017,12:55 Pt
Pending Case
Home Com plalntsJPa rties Actions Minutes Images
Hearings Report
CaaeType:
Case CtVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACiNTO

Action: (Choose)
MOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR ATIORNEY FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD

0211812015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 535
COURT REPORTER s-rEPHANIE AUSTIN 13119
APPEARANCES:
ATIORNEY ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
RICHARD NAHIGIAN FOR MAR"nN C JACINTO NOT PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS:
08:40
MOTION
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH'S MOTION FOR ATTNY FEES IS HEARD.
NO OPPOSITION PRESENTED.
COURT FINDS:
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IS GRANTED.
ACTION - COMPLETE
13
page 46
1 of I 7/61'17.12:31 PM
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3 --000-
5 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,
6 Petitioner, Case No. CIVDS1208547
7 -vs
8 MARTI JACINTO,
9 Respondent.
10
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS
13 BEFORE HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE
14 DEPARTMENT S-24
15 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
16 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015
17
18 APPEARANCES:
19
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ROBERT WILLIAMSON
20 Attorney at Law
21
FOR THE DEFENDANT: RICHARD NAHIGIAN
22 Attorney at Law
23
24
REPORTED BY: STEPHANIE AUSTIN, CSR
25 Official Court Reporter
CSR No. 13119
26 COpy
Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter
page 47
1
1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA; v,7E DNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2 015
2 A.M. S ESSI ON
3 DE PART.ENT S- 35 HON. BRYAN F. FOS TER , JUDG2
4 A~PEARANCES:
5 The Plaintiff, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,
6 by thei r counsel, ROBERT WI LLI AM SON ,

.
f Attorney at Law.
8 (Stephanie Austin, C S~ , Official Court
9 Reporter, CSR No. 1 3119.)
10 -000
11 (Where up o n the followin g proceedings wer e
12 held in open court:)
13
14 HE COURT: Number five, St ubbl efield versus
15 Jac int o .
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good mo rni ng. Robert Williams on
17 appearing f or plaintiff, moving pa rty. I'm also on n u mber
18 e ight, the or der for appearance of judgment debtor.
19 THE COURT: Yea h.
20 I'm . vHLL IAMSON: I received a ca ll, I thin k i t was
21 th e day before yesterday, from the Jacinto a ttor n ey,
22 Mr. Nahig i an, who, again , ,sent me an e-mai l this morning,
23 saying h e's in federal court. He 's not go i ng to appear.
24 You k now, this motion has been pending for a l ong time.
-
25
THE COURT: I'm going to rule on the mot i on . If
26
he's not going t o appear, he should ha v e someone else
Stephanie Austin, Certified Shortha nd Reporter

page 48
2
1 appea r . The mo t io n for attorn e y f ees i n th e amo u n t of
2 1 9 0 , 2 49 i s gran t ed .
3 As far as t h e e xam ina t ion o f j udg me nt deb to r i s
4 c once r n e d -
5 t.tJR . WIL L I AMSON : I don ' t s ee Mr . Jacinto i n co ur t .
6 THE COURT: Wh a t wa s th e f u l l amo u n t of the
7 j u dgmen t ?
8 IvJR . I'H LL I AIvrSON : To t a l a mo u n t, I t hin k , was 57 , 00 0 .
9 T HE CO URT: I ' m g o in g t o i ssue a benc h wa r ran t f or
10 250 , 000 . If d o y ou wa n t to g i ve me a no ther da t e s o if
11 h e ' s pi cked up?
12 MR . WILLIA '1 ~ ON : Wha t eve r da t e is co n v e ni e n t f or
13 yo
14 THE COURT: We c oul d no t i f y y o u if s ome o ne s h o ws up
15 the next da y or -
16 MR . It JI LL I AMSON : Wi t hi n t e n days?
17 THE COU RT : Le t' s se t it ou t for t he h ow i s th e
18 e br u ary , F ri d ay?
19 MR . WILL I AMS ON : T ha t wou ld b e Li ne .
20 THE COURT : Okay . I f he g et' s a rr a'g ned o n th at -
21 th a t b e nc h wa rran t, we ' l l set it fo r that dat e. If nc t, y ou
22 mi ght ca ll in, a n d we wi ll j us t c on t i n u e i t . So y o u - so
23 y o u c a n a p p e ar .
24 L R . WI LL I AMSON : Very we l l , your Ho no r .
25 THE COURT: You c an c o n t a c t t h e Sh e r iff' s
26 Depa r t e nt ab o u t e nf o r c i n g t he b e n c h war r a nt .
S t ephanie il.U5 ti n , Ce rt i f ied Shor t han d Re porter

page 49
3
1 MR. WIL LI AMSON : Tha n k yo u , you r Honor .
2 (At wh ic h time , t he foregoi ng proce e d i ngs were co n cluded . '
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Step h a nie A usti n , Ce r ti fi ed Sho r thand Reporter

page 50
4
1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015
2 P.M. SESSION
3 DEPARTMENT S-35 BON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE
n APPEARANCES:
5 The Defendant, MARTIN JACINTO, ",ith his
6 counsel, RICHARD NAHIGIAN, Attorney at
7 La",.
8 (Stephanie Austin, CSR, Official Court
9 Reporter, CSR No. 13119.)
10 -000
11 (Whereupon the following proceedings were
12 held in op e n court:)
13
14 THE COURT: Okay. Come on forward.
15 MR. NAHIGIAN: Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Is this on this one?
17 THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT: Yes.
18 THE COU RT : This so Stubblefield Properties vers u s
19 Jacinto.
20 MR. NAH I GIAN: Yes. Good afternoon, your Honor.
21 My name is Richard Nahigian. I'm the attorney f o r Martin
22 ~Tacinto. rvIr. Jacinto is present. I understand that
23 proceedings took place in court this morning. It's not
24 proper for me to speak about those without Mr. Williamson
25 here. I want to speak about the aspect that I spoke with
26 him several times.
Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter

page 51
5
1 THE COURT : It wa s o n for a motion and creditor
2 exami n ation.
3 MR. NAHIGIAN: What happened is, your Honor, I had
4 the trial. There was a 40 or 41,000 verdict. There loJas 15
5 o r 16,000 in costs, which was not cha l le n ged when this case
6 came t o me se v eral months later. I spoke wi th fl.1 r .
7 Wi l l iam s on at length and met him here several ti me s about
8 th e bala n ce, and he wa n ted -- we wanted to do a g l obal
9 settlement. Before he wou l d discuss settl e ment, he gave a,
~o kind of, punch list of items which had not been done after
11 Mr. J a cin to received an adverse j udgment a nd verdict.
12 We g o t that list. It was, b a s ic a l l y, remo v al
13 o f a mob i le home. We cont a cted two di ff erent -
14 THE CO URT : Yo u may not ta l k about the me r it s.
IS fvlR. NAHIGIAN: I'm talking about the failure to
16 a p pear. He p a id 2 0 or $22,000.00. Monday, of this week, we
17 h ad a very short confere n ce. I went o u t p er so na l ly to th e
18 propert y , the mobil e home site, and I coordinated this with
19 Mr . Williamson and Mr. Parrish, and I got a very b r ie f punch
20 l is t. We did it and finished it this week. Mr. Jacinto
21 c a lled. I ta l ked to him Monday about that, and h i s wife,
22 and I s t a ted that is what we are doing.
23 Mr. Jacinto can address the Court, or I can
24 speak t o him, if y ou coul d tell him what the court date was.
25 THE COURT: Ju st to, kind of, shortcut th i s. You
26 mi s- c a l e nd ared this; is that what yo u are telling me?
St e phani e lw s t in r Ce r ti fied Shorth a nd Re por te r

page 52
6
1 MR. NAHI GIAN : Yes. Okay.
2 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I j u st want you to recall the
3 warrant.
4 THE COURT: What date did we put it over?
5 THE J UDICIAL AS SISTANT : The 27th of Fe br uary .
6 THE DE FEN DANT : I j i st -
7 THE CO UR T : You shouldn't talk. You a r e in g o o d
8 sha pe. You a re ordered back he r e o n the 2 7 th of February at
9 8:30 fo r a c re d itor's exam i nation. You can ta l k to the
10 oth er side , if th e y wa n t to work out a dif fe rent d a t e or
II s ome t h i ng of that nature. Unless t here's some agree ment,
12 and you n o tify the c ou r t, you are s uppose to be back here on
3 th e 27t h, ald I wil l reca l l the ben c h wa rran t.
14 MR. ~A HIGIAN: You will reca 1 and quas h -- rec al l
J5 the warran t ?
16 THE COURT : I wil l rec a ll the war r ant. I don't
17 know if it ' s been sent out. Pro babl y not.
18 MR. NAHIG I~.N : I can n ot d l SCU SS -- because h e' s not
19 here-
20 THE COURT: I made a ru ling because there wa s no
21 oppo si tion. ~o u ca n do a recons i d e rat io n or wh a teve r you
22 fe el is ne ce ssar y .
23 MR . NAHIG I AN: He ' s free t o leave?
24 THE COURT : Yes. That ' s it.

/
25 MR . NAH IGLz\N : Okay .
26 THE DEFENDANT: Oka y . Th ank you.
Stephanie Aust i n, Certified Shorthand Repor ... e r page 53

7
1
THE COURT: You can explain why yo u weren't here
2
this morning, but we set it for an OSC , a lso .
3
MR . NAHIG I AN: For me ?
THE COURT: Yeah .
5
MR. NAH IGIAN: I was in federal court i n San Diego.
6
I spoke to Mr . Williamson . He said if yo u pay for the
7
interpreter -- if you pay f or the court re porter, he would
8
be wil ling to co ntinue i t. But he said the Court was not
9
wi ll ing to co ntinue i t, so I -- I was in f ede ral court . I
10
no tif ied h i m yes t e rday, bec aus e I was down there wi th the
11
OA.
12
THE COUR I don't know why they said t he court
13
wasn 't will ing to continue it, it didn't come to me.
14
Explain it ne xt time, maybe you can work something out.
15
(At which time , the foregoing proceedings were concl ude d . )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2~
Stephan ie Austin, Certified Shorthand Re porter

page 54
,~ 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
4 DEPARTMENT S-35 HON. BRYAN F. FOSTER, JUDGE
6 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES,
7 Plaintiff, Case No. Civds1208547

vs.
8
MARTIN JACINTO,
9 E-065006
Defendant.
10
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 ss.
.
~ ~. 13
14
15 I, Stephanie Austin, CSR, Official Court
16 Reporter, of the State of California, for the County of San
17 Bernardino, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1
18 through 7, to the best of my knowledge and belief, comprise
19 a full, true and correct computerized transcript of the
20 proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on Wednesday,
21 February 17, 2015.
22
23 Dated this 1st day of March, 2016.
j~~'~
24
-
25 , CSR
26 Official Court Reporter, No. 13119
Stephanie Austin, Certified Shorthand Reporter page 55

., *'
2
3
5
6
7
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CIVIL DIVISION
10
11 STIJBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a ) . Case-No. eNDS 1208547
12 California genera) partnership, dba
MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE
13 HOME COMMUNITY,
l fil I I 10RDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF' MOTION FOR
14 Plaintiff, ATTORNEytS FEES AND AWARD OF
ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PLAINTIFF
15 v.
AND AGAINST DEFENDANT.
Date: February 18,2015
16 tviARTIN C. JACINTO! Time: 8:30 a.m.

17 Dept: S35
Defendant.
18
19
l
20 Plaintiffs, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
21 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY ("Plaintiff") Motion for Attorney's Fees set for November
22 19, 2014 and continued to December 17, 2014, came on for hearing by the Court on
23 February ]8, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S35 of the above entitled court. Plaintiff
24 appeared by counsel, Hart. King by Robert G. Williamson. Jr. and neither Defendant nOf
25 Defendant's counsel appeared;

26
Upon proof made to the satisfaction of the Court and good cause appearing therefor,
27
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.
28
Plaintiff shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees against Defendant Martin C.
36S6UISO/4814.(1J80-3938v 1
(PROPOSF.DJ ORnER GRANTING PI.AINT/F'F"S MOTION FOil ,Hl'ORNEY'S FEF.S
page 56
0/1
1 Jacinto in the amount of $190,499.00.
2
The C1erk ofthe Court shaH enter this Order forthwith.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated: ~ I
tI:5r' .2015
H .Bry
6
Court
7 BRYAN F. fOSTal
8
10
II
12
13
'.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
3656/105014814-0380-393311,1
{PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTJNG PI.A1NrII"F'S MOTION FOR <fi70RNEr'S FF.F:.~ page 57
IOU
··e . . >. .j.
~0UNT¥"OF .SAN:EiEF..NARDINO supmtH~. COURT·
SAN·Sli!RNARJ)INO -rr"tt'~""'T
247vtEST'rtp:~D
CENTER
SAN .B~RNAR~O,
: 1..CouttTREQUIRES
FAX/ELECTRONIC 2.. MUST
F:rLI~.7D,'m .. ·SE~VlNI,j/ IJO;CPMENT$...
~RENOT.AVAI~E.
INCLillJED·· . ONS·~VEb
1\JVER ON FI:(..E FOR DEF~ANT IS
OR SUBMITEEES OF
Court.
BY: NICOLE BYDUKOVrCH
- ......... _......... ~---
party aCiQ;ress
lowi:ng ordin?-ry
postage prepaid in
,mailed.to theintereated
shOwnorith~att<3.§Zheq
page 58
page 59
CIVDS 1208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civillcivilminutes.asp?courtc~dtl~~.
Home Actions Minutes Images
Case Type:
Case Nurmer:
Action: :(c:hoos~)
03/19/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
COURT REPORTER RACHEL PARRA 13566
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON PRESEI\!T FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
·-SPANrSH-INTERPRETE~R A~I:.jTONiOToPEi,·DULY SWORN OR BY OATH ON FILE TO INTERPRET FOR

MARTIN C JACINTO.
PROCEEDINGS:
MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT, DEBTOR SWORN, EXAMINED AND EXCUSED/DISCHARGED.
HEARING CONTINUED AT REQUEST OF COUNSEL.
REASON: IN ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION FOR COUNSELS REVIEW.
HEARINGS:
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/16/15 AT 08:30 II\! DEPARTMENT S35.
JUDGMENT DEBTOR ORDERED TO RETURN,
NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY COUNSEL.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 60
I / ",.
CIVDSl208547 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org/civil/civilminutes.asp?cof!tbJ~Jllc ...
Case Type:
Case Number:
Action: . (c:h0()5e)
04/16/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
CLERKS CALENDAR
CLERK: LORI MOWLES
NOT REPORTED
COURT ATIENDANT R DELGADO
APPEARANCES:
NO APPEARANCE.
PROCEEDINGS:
~ _ OFF-CALENDAR~EASON: AT REQl:JEST OF MOVING PARTY
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 61
>
> > Date; Thu. 21 May
> 2015 14:57:21-0700 <fIf<--------
>;.. From:
> nahigian@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Jacinto
> > To: rwilliamson@hartkinglaw.com
> > CC: crystalJopezm@hotmail.com
> > Robert,
> > New proposal:
> > Retain the $5,000 in your trust
> account;
> > Pay $15,000 cash re legal fees
> within 10 days of agreement;

»
> > AND (1) $65.000 lump sum within 27 days
> of agreement;
»
»or
»
>
> > (2) $45,000 lump sum within
> 27 days of agreement plus an additional $25..000, payabJe at
> $450 per month, encumbered by one of their properties .. no
> interest
»
> > They
> have to pay almost usurious interest to their lender.
»
"> > Richard Nahigian
»
>
page 62
No. 0936802298
Date 06102/1511:47:56 AM
iA.}.,f BERNARDINO l.\1AIN NAZ
>012 0000196 0084
Pay ¢<><><>=~g~UiL.. I!AliRR . ~*$12,OOO.OO

To The
Order Of
__________ Not-Negotiable
Customer Copy
Remitter (purchased By): CHRIS MARTINEZ Retain fur your Records
Bank ofAmerica. N.A. 457002931717
PHOENlX,AZ
Ot4892· .
,'. <, . • ~
0(2)- .T:l'A.L) I
'-....~. ····('MUL
: .- "0' ."'. i ".~ . .'> . .:~"9;'."~':' . ','. ,:
Ttt.~~k\l~*"i1fIlj,.. "'u,,~~~~m-m~~,,~, • ·•.

.' . . . . : . . . : ;. . ! ""'. , "':. MEM(l~~~ ..:· .
page 63
- .'
, .' .
4040-E.PIEQt.tONl'~:~ACE #4 • HIGHlAND- c.AL1.FORNIA .92346 • PHONE~) 862~400

2258BRADFtli~PAVBNE. HIGHI.ANO.
. CAl1FORNIA92346 • PHONE (909).1522
. ~
August 25; 2()1S
R0I'\81~ M. fermmdo.5r.
SenJorTitleOffker
Law.yer'$'Tltle
1615:) Von Karman Avenue #100
lr.vine/CA '92606
Dear
. ...FernandO':
Mr.· . .
Pursuant to yourreqllest, demand is.: hereby made for payoff of the judgmentaQd ttJepost Judgrnent
pn;l(ir i.,CIVD..s.12QSS47 on. be~lf of,St\JJlt;lefi~ld Properties} d,bil$ Mounw,in ~badoW$Mobiie .Home
Communftyenten!d on Octaber 1,.':2014,recotded as Jnstrument nvmher 2014:-0418050 and:.on
.' :'FebfOayY25.-161SFe(Orded aslnstfUmentnurnbet2.015-l30100, re$petJh'tHY'1l$fQJlb'S~
Date ofludgment 10/1/2014
Oateof Order
Ampuntof JUdgment $57,888.50
Amount ofOroer
Interest Rate
10%
Date Qf OelQClnd 8/~s/2,015
Dallv:lntE!rest:Afl!o®t $15.89
InterestO~dthru
Date of~moat1d $.5,2.02.04
. TotllAmolintowed
ASO{Date l)'fD.eman4 $63,tJ9Q.$4
4££ c.~ fD't-4i j6;:~::. <{O (P"'-tcrF oF 8~!(SJ

VefYtruly'P~'
stubblefield Properties
Oli l)ehJlfdfMo~ntpio Sh~dows Mobllehome .Community
page 64
23691-MT
AMOUNT $ $63,106.40
ELI..E VISTAESCROW,
; -..
lNC;~.Upland,CA91786.
'." ,,;
38622 . ··
'2369'1-MT ':'$63'106<40
. J. .
!
Payee Name: STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES DBA MOUNTAIN SHADO

Payee Address: ,,
Buyer/Seller: MARTIN C. JACINTO/ ,
Property Address: 363 WEST BASELINE AVENUE, .' SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
Reference: Comments:
page 65
~
BELLE VISTA ESCROW, INC.
273 North Euclid Ave., Upland, CA 91786

Tel.909-946-9188 Fax. 909-946-7846
BELLEVISl'A
ltSCROW. INC.
BORROWER(S) FINAL CLOSING STATEMENT
ESCROW NO: 23691 - MT DATE: 8/26/2015

ESCROW OFFICER: MISTY R. TEETER TIME: 11:44AM
CLOSING DATE: 8/2512015
BORROWER{S): MARTIN C. JACINTO and CAROLINA S. RAMIREZ
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 363 WEST BASELINE AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
DEBITS CREDITS
~
Encumbrances
Loan from: JDI HOME LOANS, INC. $ 200,000.00
Title Charges - LAWYERS TITLE

[Total Title Charges: $525.00]
Lenders Policy' For $200,000.00 $ 425.00
Title - Sub Escrow Fee $ 75.00
Endorsements $ 25.00
Recording Charges
[Total Recording Charges: $81.00]
RECONVEYANCE $ 32.00
DEED OF TRUST $ 49.00
Escrow Charges
[Total Escrow Charges: $550.00]
Escrow Fee $ 500.00
ARCHIVE FEE $ 50.00
New LoaD Charges

1st LOAN to: JD( HOME LOANS, INC.
[Total New Loan Charges: $7,437.60]
Interest @ $58.3330 Per Day From 8/24/2015 To 9/112015 $ 408.33
Loan Origination Fee $ 3,479.27
Tax Service Fee $ 125.00
PROCESSING FEE $ 600.00
~
UNDERWRITIN FEE $ 795.00

WIRE FEE $ 35.00
LENDER DOC PREP $ 495.00
INVESTOR REBATE: LARRY RISDON $ 1,200.00
INVESTOR ADMIN FEE $ 300.00
Loan Payoff
2nd Loan Payoff to: MORTGAGE PAYOFF $ 128.300.00
Additional Disbursements
l( STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES DBA MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE

HOME COMMUNITY
$
, 63,106.40
, page 66
*Totals* $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00

Disbursement
New Loan $200,000.00
Existing Loan Principle Balance -$127,500.00
Per diem interest on existing loan from August 1st to August 24th -$800.00
Per diem interest on new loan from August 24th to August 31st -$408.33
Investor rebate -$1,200.00
Investor admin fee -$300.00
Investor wire fee -$35.00
$69,756.67
!Wire Breakdown $69,756.67

~udgment payoff -$63,106.40
ITitle charges -$606.00
Escrow fee -$500.00
Escrow archive fee -$50.00
Loan origination Fee -$3,479.27
ifax service fee -$125.00
Processing fee . -$600.00
Underwriting fee -$795.00
Document prep fee -$495.00
$0.00
page 67
"
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN. SB#45675
e SCANNED
1122 East Green Street

Pasaden~ California 91106
Office (626) 683·3991
Fax (626) 796-2554
Attorney for Defendant

MARTIN J. JACINTO
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO- CIVIL BRANCH
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A Case No.: CIVDS1208547

CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
DBA MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
HOME CCP §473(B), MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY
vs.
Hearing Date: September 17, 2015
MARTIN J. JACINTO,
Dept: S35 '3: ~o II· m.
Defendant. Judge: Honorable Bryan F. Foster
'.
"
qtl ?:>O< r$) {\

TOALLPARTIESANDTHEIRATTORNEYSOFRECO~e>'B'2-\'\J).O \..\.o~(~
, \~o%'2-'-\- '2O<i2. "
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and
department in the courthouse located at 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California, that
Defendant will move the court for an order requesting that the Judgment be set aside. This
motion is made on the following grounds: Inadvertence, surprise, mistake. or excusable neglect
(CCP §473(b»,
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, Declaration ofRichard E. Nahigian in support thereof, the records and papers on
file and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the
hearing.
DATED: August 21.2015 Respectfully Submitted,
BY:_~~""""""'--_ _-f--j~.y<-:,--y
RIC ARD E. NAHIGIA
page 68
AITORNEY FOR DEFENDA
MARTIN C. JACINTO
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SET ASIDE
I.
BACKGROUND
On August 16,2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court for ejection, nuisance and
o:.espass. In this original complaint, there was no request for attorneys fees made on behalf of
the plaintiff. On July 9, 2013, a cross complaint was filed by defendant. On March 17,2014,.
this Court directed a verdict on liability in favor of plaintiff and dismissed the cross complaint.
On March 18, 2014, the jury awarded damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $41,166.58 and
ordered to remove mobile home from Mountain Shadows Mobilehome Community. A Motion
for Attorney's Fees by Plaintiff was filed and set for November 19,2014. The Attorney's Fees
Hearing was continued to December 17,2014 and was heard on February 18,2015. Defendant,
Martin Jacinto, nor his counsel, Richard E, Nahigian appeared at the hearing. On February 25,
2015, this court ordered the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the amount of
$190,499.00. On February 25, 2015, defense attorney Richard Nahlgian served and mail filed
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion was rejected and returned for lack of
original signature, unavailable suggested court dates and fee waiver on file was expired. The
moving defendant is now asking for a set aside of the judgment for attorney's fees.
U.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §473(B), THE COURT

SHOULD SETASIDE THIS ADVERSE .JUDGMENT OR RULING BASED ON
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT .
A. Grounds for Relief.

On application, the court may, on any tenns as may be just, relieve a party or his or her
legal representative from a judgment, dismissal. order, or other proceeding taken against him or
her through his or her mistake. inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (Code Civ. Proc. §
473(b». In detennining whether the attorney's mist.ake or inadvertence was excusable, "the
court inquires whether'a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances'
might have made the same error.'" (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42
Cal.3d 270. 276. 228 Cal.Rptr. 190, 721 P.2d 71, italics added.) As demonstrated in the
Declaration, the excusable neglect of failing to attend the hearing and be able to argue the page 69
Motion for Attorney's Fees on the merits was due to a unforeseen and mandatory appearance in
enuy of the default. The Order Granting Attomey's Fees was dated and filed on February 25,
2015. The Motion for Set Aside of the Judgment is filed on August 24, 2015, within the six
month time limit
B. Policy of Law Favors Trial on Merits.

The policy ofthe law is that controversies should be heard and disposed of on their
merits (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 681,694-703,84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351;
Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 CaL App. 3d 900, 909, 95 CaL Rptr. 417). The Jaw "looks with
[particular] disfavor on a party who, regardless ofthe merits of his cause, attempts to take
advantage ofthe mistake, surprise" inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary." (Reed v.

Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244, 248,8 Cal.Rptr. 39.)
c. Court Has Wide Discretion in Granting Relief.

A trial co~ has wide discretion to grant relief under Code of Ci vii Procedure Section
473 (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr.417).
D. Liberal Construction of Statute.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) is a remedial measure to be liberally construed,
and any doubts existing as to the propriety of setting aside a default thereunder will be resolved
in favor ofa hearing on the merits (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 910, 95
Cal. Rptr. 417). "It is well settled that appellate courts have always been and are favorably
disposed toward such action upon the part of the trial courts as will permit, rather than prevent,
the adjudication of legal controversies upon their merits." (Benjamin v. Dalrno Mfg. (1948) 31
Cal.2d 523,525, 190 P.2d 593 (Benjamin)) Thus, "the provisions of section 473 of the Code of
Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and sound policy favors the determination of
actions on their merits." (Riskin v. Towers (1944) 24 Cal.2d 274, 279, 148 P.2d 611.)
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the state of the case law, the preference for a matter to be heard on it's merits
and the factual sc~nario presented in the attached declaration, this court should set aside the
judgment and allow for the issue of attorney's fees to be litigated.
page 70
ATTORNEY FOR 'FENDANT
MARTIN C. JACINTO
page 71
r
•
.,.
1 Robert G. Williamson, Jr.yEsq.y Bar No. 73176 FI LED

James S. Morse, Esq., Bar No. 126212 SUPERIOR COURT
2 HART I KING SAN B~RNARDINO DISTRICT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 SEP 03 2015
Santa Ana, California 92707
4 Tele{Jhone: (714) 432-8700 .0 16_
Facsimile: (714) 546-7457 BY 15..ML-124'11 d
5 , PUTY
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants, THOMAS PARRISH and STUBBLEFIELD
6 PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
7
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. a Case No. CIVDS 1208547
I
California general partnership, dba
12
~""'
..:I~
MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE Judge: Hon. Bryan F, Foster
!::&: 13 HOME COMMUNITY, Dept. S35
~
c~~ PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
:;~! 14 Plaintiff
~O'" DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET
_~::3
~~6
«( .[
:cox
15
v.
1
~
ASIDE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
C.C.P. §473(b); DECLARATION OF
x< 16 ROBEJlT G. WILLIAMSON IN
g~ MARTIN C. JACINTO. an individual; and ~ SUPPORT
...::c~
17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, j'
18 Defendants.
Date: September 17,2015
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 ----~--------------------) Dept: S 35
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

22 PlaintiffiCross·Defendants, mOMAS P ARRlSH and SJUBBLEFIELD
23 PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME COMMUNIlY
24 ("Plaintiff") hereby respectfully submits its Opposition to Defendant Martin J. Iacinto

25 ("Defendant") Motion to Set Aside Judgment Pursuant to C.C.P §473(b) ("Motion").
26
27
28
1
36568.0S0I4812-0449-9495v.1
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
page 72
J
r
1 L INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant's Motion fails to present "new or different facts, circumstances, or law"
3 that would justify reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure ("C.C.P.") section 1008.
4 Attorney fault, under C.C.P. section 413 (b). as asserted in the Motion, does not excuse
5 Defendant from the required showing for now bringing this Motion over six months after
6 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was heard and ruled upon.
7
.
The California Supreme Court, discussed below, has specifically denied such attempts
8 under C.C.P. section 473(b) as being inconsistent with Legislature's stated goal for c.e.p.
9 section 1008 motions. As stated by the Supreme Court, to allow otherwise would be "a
10 miserable result."
11
-12 n. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13 Judgment in this case was entered April 8, 2014; an Amended Judgment Adding
14 Costs was entered on October 1,2014 and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was heard
15 and ruled upon on February 18, 2015. This instant Motion was filed ~ six months later,
16 on August 21, 2015.
17 At no time throughout any of the discussions between counsel for the parties was
18 there an agreement or even a representation that Defendant would be allowed to introduce
19 further argument to the Court or that any time periods for filing a motion for reconsideration
20 or to set aside the attorney's fees ruling where somehow tolled. As the Court's docket
21 reflects, Plaintiff's attorney's fees motion was continued twice for the purpose of attempting
22 to resolve the matter, but no agreement was reached and the attorney's fees motion went
23 forward. (See, Declaration ofRobert G. Williamson, para. 2.)
24 In any event, as discussed below, the Motion fails as either a motion for reconsider
25 because it is untimely and substantively deficient or as a motion to set aside a <Judgment"
26 because it fails to comply with the statutory requirements of submitting with the Motion the
27 required pleading. here detailed opposition with supporting facts and authority.
28 /I /
----------------------------·~2~------------------------------
36S68.05014812-0449-9495v.1
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT page 73
1 m. LEGAL ARGUMENT
2 A. Defendant Has Failed to Comply with C.C.P. Section 473(b)
3 Defendant contends that due to attorney fault under C.C.P. section 473(b) he should
4 be allowed to set aside the judgment of the Court and, although this is unclear from the
5 Motion I, be allowed to bring a Motion for Reconsideration that was previously rejected.
6 This Motion fails for many reasons. First, the grounds for relief are specified in C.C.P.
7 section 473(b):
8 U(b) The court may, upon any tenns as may be just, relieve a party or his or her
legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding
9 taken against him or her througn his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a
10 copy of the aDswer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein,
otherwise the ap(JlicatioD shall Dot be granted, and shall be made within a
11 reasonable time, ID no case exceediDg six mooths, after the judgment,
dismissal, order, or proceeding was tal(eo." (Emphasis added.)
12
~S
~ .... Defendant has failed submit with this Motion any pleading that Defendant proposes to
::::>~ 13
~
"'<
I:!
z;>%
14 be filed herein. Although a previous Motion for Reconsideration is referenced in the Motion.
!2~~
-III::!
~~c.: 15 it does not accompany this Motion. Other than turning back the clock, Defendant fails to
<11.1<
:u z
:z;< 2
16 specify what relief is sought • On this ground alone the Motion can be denied.
§~
:;,~
:I: en 17 Defendant has further failed to comply with C.C.P. section 473(b) by filing his motion
~
18 over six montN after the proceeding was conducted. (February 18,2015 through August 21,
19 2015.)
20 III
21 III
22 III
23
24 Defendant alleges in bis Background section (second unnumbered page of Motion) thal "On February 25,2015,
defense attorney Richard Nahigian served and mail filed Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion was
25 rejected and returned for lack oforiginal signature, unavailable suggested rourt dates and fee waiver on file expired. The
moving defendant is now asking for a set aside of the judgment fOT attorney's fees."
26 2 In Defendant's Background section (unnumbered second page oftbe Motion) alleges that a prior Motion for
27 Reconsideration was rejected. It is unknown whether that previously rejected Motion for Reconsideration, or<some other
form of refie( is being sought by Defendant here. The Nahigian Declaration, para. 32, states that he intended to tile a
motion for reconsideration.
28
3
36S68.0S0I4812-0449-949Sv<1
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFnlDANT'S MOTlON TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT page 74
1 B. Relief Under C.C.P. Section 473(b) Does Not Relieve A Moving Party
2 From Compliance With the Requirements of C.C.P. Section 1008 that a
3 Motion For Reconsideration Must Present New or Different Facts,
4 Circumstances or Law.
5 The California Supreme Court has recently considered whether a request for relief
6 under C.C.P. section 473(b) for attorney fault relieves a moving party from the requirements
1 for motions for reconsideration under C.C.P. section 1008 on facts that are strikingly similar
8 to the facts here. The Supreme Court, in Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling. Inc. Y.
9 Bellaire Townhouses. UC (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 830, held:
10 "Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 imposes special requirements on

renewed applications for orders a court has t'reviously refused A party filin~ a
11 renewed application must; among other thmgs, submit an affidavit showmg
what "new or different facts, circumstances, or law are clairnedlt (id., subd. (b)
12 to justify the renewed application, and show diligence with a satisfactory
~S
elf"
explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier
I-M
13 (California Correctional Peace Djficers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 CaLApp.4th
i Ol
)0, 45-46 &[ns. 14-15 {J03 Cal.Rptr.3d 6997; see Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997)
e ~~ 14 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 688-690 [68 Cal Rptr.2d 228J), Section 1008 by its terms
~~g "applies to all applications ... for the renewal of a previous motion" and
-Itl<l
;~u 15 "specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to [such] applications." (§ 1008,
« -< szibd. (e).) This case raises the qnestion whether section 1008 ~verns
g<
:CUl!:
OS
:::ll!:
16 renewed applications under section 473, subdivision (b) (section 47J(b)), for
relief from default based on an attorney's "sworn affidavit attesting to his
...::c~ 17 or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or n~lect" (wid.). We conclude
section 1008 does g~lern .such applications. (Emphasis added.) (Even
18 Zohar, supra, 61 CalA atp. 833.)
19 Here, Defendant admits. in paragraph 36 of the Declaration of Richard Nahigian, that

20 he did not file an Opposition to the Motion for Attorneys' Fees. In Paragraph 35. Mr.
21 Nahigian opines that he believes that the Motion for Attorney's Fees would have had a
22 "substantially different outcome" had he been present for oral argument. Nowhere in this
23 Motion does Defendant list any new fact, any new law, or circumstance in an attempt to
24 support a Motion for Reconsideration under C.C.P. section 1008.
25 The Supreme Cour't; in Even Zohar, addressed just such a scenario:
26 «As courts have explained, to ~nnit a party to satisfy section 1008's
requirement of showing '''new or different' facts" Sim!l by offering "anything
27 not previously 'rresented' to the court" would have ''It he miserable result •.•
[of] defeat[ing the Legislature's stated goal of ueing the number of
28
4
36S68.050I4S12-0449-949Sv.1
PLAINTiFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT page 75
reconsideration motions and would remove an important incentive for
1 (James to efficiently marshall their evidence." (Garcia v. Hejmadi, supra, 58
Cal.AppAth at pp. 688-689; see California Correctional Peace OfJicers Assn. v.
2 Virga, s1:ffra, 181 Cal.AppAth at p. 47. [12. 15 [same].)" .) (Even Zohar, supra,
61 CalA atp.836.)
3
4 C. The Majority of Mr. Nahigian's Declaration Is Irrelevant
5 Filed herewith are Objections to the Declaration of Richard Nahigian. The gist of
6 much of Mr. Nahlgian's declaration relates to alleged efforts to settle the dispute between the
7 parties. Nothing in Mr. Nahigian's declaration is a "new fact, circumstance or law."

8 Nothing in Mr. Nahigian's declaration creates an equitable claim against Plaintiff that
9 somehow an extension to file this Motion outside of the requirements of C.C.P. section
10 473(b) was, or could be, given.
11 IV. CONCLUSION
12 For the grounds stated above, the Court is respectfully requested to deny the Motion
13 in its entirety.
14
15 Dated: September ~ 2015 HART I KING
16
17
J8
B.~2
========--=:::::::=c-
James S. Morse
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff ICross-Defendant
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, dba
20 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME
COMMUNITY and THOMAS PARRISH
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT page 76
:
1 DECLARATION OF ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON, JR.
2 I, Robert G. Williamson, Jr., declare:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
4 California, and am a partner with the law finn of Hart I King, attorneys of record for Plaintiff
5 Stubblefield Properties, a general partnership dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home
6 Community. The facts set forth herein are true ofmy own personal knowledge, except those
7 facts stated on infonnation and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true and
8 could and would completely testifY thereto.
9 2. At no time throughout any of the discussions between counsel for the parties was
10 there an agreement or even a representation that Defendant would be allowed to introduce
11 further argument to the Court or that any time periods for filing a motion for reconsideration
12 or to set aside the attorney's fees ruling where somehow tolled. As the Court's docket
13 reflects. Plaintiffs attorney's fees motion was continued twice for the purpose of attempting
14 to resolve the matter, but no agreement was reached and the attorney's fees motion went
15 forward.
16 3. Rather than here attempt to refute and argue each inadmissible statement of
17 misrepresentation or distortion contained in Mr. Nahigian's declaration, please see Plaintiffs
18 Objections to the Nahigian Declaration.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed th~/day ofSeptember, 2015 at Santa Ana, California.
22
23 ~L
24 ~ERT G. WILLIAMSON, JR
25
26
27
28
6
3OS68,OS0l4812-0449-9495v.1
PLAiNTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET If SIDE JUDGMENT page 77
'-.-'
.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Stubblefield Properties \I. Jacinto, et aI.
1 Court Case No. CIVDS 1208547
2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party
4 to the within action. Muusiness address is 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor. Santa Ana.. California 92707
0507. On September:.2..... 2015, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF'S
S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.c.P.
§473(b); DECLARATION OF ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON IN SUPPORT to be served on the
6 interested parties in this action as follows:
7 r8l!?x placing 0 the original 0 a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated below
or ~ by sending a copy as stated and addressed below:
8 SEE ATTACHED SERJlICE UST
9 0 BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that
10 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am
aware that on motion of the party served. service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage
11 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit
r8l BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by
12 an overnight delivety carrier and addressed to the persons identified herein. 1 placed the envelope or package
for collection and overnight delivety at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
13 carrier.
14 0 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic: transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
1S notification addresses listed herein. I did not receive. within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16 0 BY F ACSlMILE: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission. I
faxed the documents nom a fax machine, at Santa Ana, California, with the telephone number. (714) 546
17 7457 to the parties and/or attorney for the parties at the facsimile transmission number(s) shown herein. The
facsimile transmission was reported as complete without error by a transmission report, iSSued by the
18 facsimile transmission machine upon which the transmission was made. a copy of which is attached hereto.
19 0 . BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses
listed herein. (1) For a party represented by an attorney. delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's
20 office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being
served. with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning
21 and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
22 morning and six in the evening.
o BY MESSENGER SERVICE: I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package
23 addressed to the persons at the addresses listed herein and providing them to a professional messenger service
for service. A declaration by the messenger will be fi led separately.
24
r8l [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the foregoing
2S is true and correct
26 Executed on Septembe~ 2015, at Santa Ana, califo~ a~
0.'" /J
27 /SANDRAMOO~
28 _____________________________------------------------______
36S68.0S0I4845-S08I-4240v.J
PROOF OF SERVICE page 78
·~~
y
•
..
SERVICE LIST
Stubblefield Properties v. Jac/mo, el al.
1
Court Case No. CIVDS1208S47
2
4
Richard E. Nahigian, Esq. Attorney for Defendant, Martin C. Jacinto
5 1122 E. Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
6
Tel.: (626) 683-3991
Fax: (626) 796~2554

7
nahigjan@l!ahoo.com
8
10
11
12
~
... ...
CN
~
:;>CI' I3
""<
" ..r-
Z~~
S=l5_
14
-~-
!-' <
=;z:~ 15
<LI1<
lIn..> ~
16
~~
::c~ 17
'<f"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
36S63.050J434S-908I-424O¥.1
PROOF OF SERVICE page 79

811012016 CIVDS1208547 Minute Orders· San Bernardino ~'''in
Home Complaints/Parnes Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case 1)pe:
Case Number:

Action: .,
MOTION RE: SET ASIDE JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO

09/17/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
BRYAN F FOSTER. JUDGE
COURT REPORTER KIMBERLY MORROW 9396
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.
PROCEEDINGS:
MOTION
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION RE:SET ASIDE JUDGMENT IS HEARD.
MATTER TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION.
SUBSEQUENTLY. THE COURT RULES ON THE SUBMITTED MATTER AS FOLLOWS:
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION RE:SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS IS DENIED.
THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY. EVEN IF TIMELY THE MOTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CCP SECTION 1008 IN THAT
THERE IS NO SHOWING OF NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, OR LAW THAT WOULD BE
RELEVANT TO
THE ISSUE
CORRESPONDENCE COVERSHEET GENERATED TO MAIL COpy OF MINUTES/RULING ON SUBMITTED
MATTER TO COUNSEL OF RECORD.
NOTICE GIVEN BY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 80
11nll~
•
.;'
"<11...,..
i
J":>:O
'"
FI LED
RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN (SBN 45675) SUPERIOR COURT OF CAliFORNIA
1 Attorney at Law COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO·
. SAN BeRNAROIN~ICT
2 Pasadena, California 91106 SEP 28,2015 . __.....
Telephone: (626) 683-3991
J~~UTY
3 Facsimile: (626) 796-2554
BY
4 Attorney for Defendant
MARTIN C.1ACINTO
5
6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
8
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A . ) CASE NO.: CIVDS1208547
9 CALIFORNIA GENERAL )
PARTNERSHIP, DBA MOUNTAIN ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO
10 SHADOWS MOBILE HOME ) RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF
) DEFENDANT'S CCP473 MOTION;
11 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
12 v. ) ATTORNEY; ANSWER TO
) COMPLAINT
13
14
MARTIN C. JACINTO,
Defendant.
)
)
) Date: NO 'Vemb""'r f~
) Time: 8:30 A.M.
2£>1 ~
15 ) Dept.: 35
) HONORABLE BRYAN F. FOSTER, I
16 ) JUDGE PRESIDING I
. I
)
17 .--
18
Defendant hereby moves this court to set aside the denial of defendant's motion to set
19
aside judgment heard under submission on September 17, 2015 in Dept. 35 and notice having
20 been received by Attorney Nahigian and other parties on Monday September 20,2015. The
21 court's ruling on the submitted matters is as follows "Martin C. Jacinto's motion re: set aside
22 judgment is denied. The motion is untimely. Even if timely, the motion fails to comply withCCP'
23 1008 and there is no showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or laws that would be
relevant to the issue."
24
25
DATED: September 28,2015
26
27
Attorney for Defendant
28
Martin C. Jacinto
1
NOTICE OF TO RECONSIDER
page 81
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIIES-AND DISCUSSION
1
2 California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1008 (a) provides "When an application for
3 an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or
4 granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after
5
service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different
6
facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to
7
reconsider the matter and modifY, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the
8
9 application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge,
10 what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are
11 claimed to be shown." Therefore today's motion is timely made.
12 There are several items which will now be discussed which will confirm and support that
13
the original motion was filed timely. The date of the order and the entry ofjudgment for the
14
attorney's fee was made on February 25,2015.

15
The motion filed by Defendant to set aside the judgment pursuant to CCP473 (b) was
16
17 filed on August 24, 2015. That in and of itself suffices to show that it was within the six month
18 requisite period.
19 In further support of our contention is Exhibit 1 appended hereto which is a letter
20 prepared by Plaintiffs Counsel on February 25, 2015 wherein he address to the court a proposed
21
order granting motions for attorney's fees and awards. He further states that he has enclosed two
22
self-addressed return envelopes for return of a conformed copy to each counsel. The point being
23
24 is that the order must necessarily have been made on or after February 25, 2015 since counsel for
25 . Plaintiff is requesting this court to sign the proposed order for attorney's fee and award of
26 attorney's fees to Plaintiff and against Defendant. In further support of our contention is a CLTA
27 preliminary property report form for a judgment entered by Plaintiff against Defendant. The
28
judgment for attorney's fees states that it was entered on "February 25, 2015 under case number
2
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
page 82
1 CIVDS1208547" a copy of Exhibit 2 is appended.
2 Exhibit 3 is the court's own docket for this case which reflects that on February 15,2015
3 the subject order for attorney's fee was granted. It further reflects that on February 18 the file
4 was held in Dept. 35 for hearing.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

page 83
DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN
1
2
I, Richard E. Nahigian, hereby declares as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and have been so
4
licensed since January 1970.

5
2. I am attorney for defendant Martin 1. Jacinto in the case herein.
6
3. I had prepared the previous discussion and points and authorities based on my review and
7
my analysis ofplaintiffs award of legal fees. I believe the amount that I had suggested to
8
the court to award is more than appropriate.

9
10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
11
knowledge and belief.

12
13
Executed on SEPTEMBER~015, at Pasadena, California.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
page 84
HART KIN G
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Robert G. Williamson, Jr..
IWllliamson@hartkinglaw.com
February 25,2015
Our File Number: 36568.050/482()" 7142..§826v.1]
Clerk of the Court
DEPARTMENT S35
Superior Court of San Bernardino County
247 W. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
Re: Stubblefield v. Jacinto
Case No. CIVDS1208547
To Clerk of the Court:
Please find enclosed a [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Award
to Attorney's' Fees to Plaintiff and Against Defendant, and a copy of my correspondence to
opposing counsel enclosing same. I received no correspondence from opposing counsel
regarding the proposed order pursuant to CRC 3.1312(a). Accordingly, the enclosed order is
respectfully submitted for the Court's signature.
We have also enclosed two self-addressed return envelops for return of a conformed copy to
each counsel.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Should you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
~--=------~--=-~---
Robert G. Williamson, Jr.
Enclosure
RGW/sm
cc: Richard Nahigian, Esq., Attorney for Defendant
A Professional Corporation
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900, Santa Ana, California 92707

page 85
Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hartkinglaw.comIFx 714.546.7457
I
I. ,. -
HART KIN G
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Robert G. WilUamson, Jr.
rwliliamson@hartklnglaw'.com
February 18, 2015

Our File Number: 36568.050/4832-5093·6354v.1
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Richard Nahigian, Esq.

1122 E. Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
Re: Stubblefield Properties v. Jacinto. Case No. CIVDS1208547

Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey's Fees
Mr. Nahigian:
Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312{a), we are serving you with this letter and a proposed
order for your approval as conforming to the Court's order issued February 18, 2015 granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees. Please notify us within five (5) days whether the proposed
order is so approved or your reasons for disapproval. Otherwise, we will deem your non
response an approval.
Very truly yours,
Robert G. Williamson, Jr.

Enclosures
A Professional Corporation
page 86
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900, Santa Ana, California '92707
Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hartkinglaw.comIFx 714.546.7457
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11 STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, a Case No. CIVDS 1208547

12 California general partnership, dba
MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE
13 HOME COMMUNITY, [PROPOSEDl ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
14 Plaintiff, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND AWARD OF
ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PLAINTIFF
15 v.
AND AGAINST DEFENDANT.
16 MARTIN C. JACINTO, Date: February 18.2015
Time: 8:30 a.m.

17 Dept: S35
Defendant.
18
19
20 Plaintiff's, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, dba MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
21 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY ("Plaintiff') Motion for Attorney's Fees set for November
22 19, 2014 and continued to December 17, 2014, came on for hearing by the Court on
23 February 18, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S35 of the above entitled court. Plaintiff
24 appeared by counsel, Hart, King by Robert G. Williamson, Jr. and neither Defendant nor
25 Defendant's counsel appeared;
26 Upon proof made to the satisfaction of the Court and good cause appearing therefor,
27 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.

28 Plaintiff shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees against Defendant Martin C.
page 87
1
36S68.0S0f4814-038Q..3938v.!
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PI.A1NTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
1 Jacinto in the amount of$190,499.00.
2 The Clerk of the Court shall enter this Order forthwith.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated: _ _ _ _ _:,2015
6 Hon. Bryan F. Foster, Judge, Superior
Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page 88
2
36S68,050/4814-0380-3938v,1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
· Sandy Moore
From: Sandy Moore

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 20154:18 PM
To: 'nahigian@yahoo.com'
Cc: Robert G. Williamson Jr.
Subject: Stubblefield Properties v. Jacinto 36568.050
Attachments: Ltr to Richard Nahigian.pdf
Mr. Nahigian,
Attached please find a letter and Proposed Order from Robert WHliamson dated February 18, 2015 with regard to the
above-matter.
Thank you.
Sandy Moore I Legal Assistant

Hart I King
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 , Santa Ana, CA 92707
Tel. 714-432-8700 x337 I Fax. 714-546-7457
smoore@hartkinglaw.com I www.hartkinglaw.com
page 89
1
File No: 215532705
Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien
of any mortgage or deed of trust made In good faith and for value.
4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below,
Amount: $127,500.00
Dated: April 18, 2014
Trustor: Martin C. Jacinto and Carolina S. Ramirez, husband and wife as
jOint tenants
Trustee: Mission Hills Real Estate
Beneficiary: Larry G. Risdon and Alicia Risdon, or successor trustees under the
declaration of Trust of The Larry G. and Alicia Risdon Family Trust,
Dated December 10, 2009
Loan No.: Not Set Out
Recorded: April 30, 2014 as Instrument No. 2014-0154155, of Official Records
S. An abstract of judgment for the amount shown below and any other amounts due:
t ___
Amount: $57,888.50
Debtor: Martin C. Jacinto
Creditor: Stubblefiekd Properties dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home
Community
Date entered: .et October 1, 2014 ,
County: San Bernardino
Court: Superior
Case No.: CIVDS1208547
Recording Date: November 8, 2014
Recording No: as Instrument No. 2014-0418050 of Official Records
6. An abstract of judgment for the amOunt shown below and any other amounts due:
Amount: $190,499.00
Debtor: Martin C. Jacinto
Creditor: Stubblefield Propertes, dba Mountain Shadows Mobile Home
" Community
Date entered: "February 25, 2015 ..
County: San Bernardino
Court: ,~superior
Case No.: CIVDS1208547
Recording Date: .. July 15, 2015oe

Recording No: as Instrument No. 2015-0301010 of Official Records
7. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection and/or by a correct ALTNACSM Land Title Survey of
said Land that is satisfactory to the Company, and/or by Inquiry of the partie~ in possession thereof.
8. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rigfits are not
disclosed by the public records.
The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unre.cgrded agreement,
contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments
thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage.
The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements
after reviewing said documents.
CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) page 90

Page 6
~~ . ?
CI\{D-51208547 Actions - San Bernardino Main 9/16/1510:28AM
Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Case I

Hearings Report mages
Case Type:
Case Number:
Case CIVDS1208547· STUBBLEFIELD ·V·JACINTO
Next 50
IViewedilDate llAction Text IIDisposition Il/mage/

09/17/2015 MOTION RE: SET ASIDE
8:30 AM JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT
DEPT.S35
MARTIN C JACINTO - Minutes D
D
!
OPP RE:9/17/15 L&M TO S35 BIN Not

09/09/2015
FOR REVIEW. Applicable
OBJECTION TO THE
D 09/03/2015 DECLARATION OF RICHARD

NAHIG1AN FILED BY PLAIX-DEF
OPPOSITION TO MOTION RE: TO
SET ASIDE JUDGNIENT PER CCP
Not
~pplicable
D
473(B) SET FOR HEARING ON
Not II;
N 09/03/2015 09/17/15, FILED BY PLAINTIFF Applicable
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A
CALIFORNIA, THOMAS PARRISH
(IMAGED)
VOL 2 FILE RECEIVED AND
D09/01/2015 FORWARDED TO CAL PREP 'Not
l~pPlicable
D
I II II II II I
page
Page 91
lof6
C!VDS1208547 Actions - San Bernardino Main 9116/15 10:28 AM
U08/24/2015 DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO

FIRST PAPER FEE PAID IN FULL
Not
Applicable U
FILING FEE PAID BY MARTIN C
D08/24/2015 JACINTO FOR FIRST PAPER FEE
MOTION RE: SET ASIDE
Not
Applicable D
JUDGMENT SET FOR HEARING ON Not Ii:
N 0812412015
09/17/15, FILED BY DEFENDANT Applicable
MARTIN C JACINTO (IMAGED)
FILING FEE PAID BY
STUBBLEFIELD PR()PERTIES FOR Not
07/07/2015
ISSUANCE OF ABSTRACT OF Applicable
JUDGMENT
D07/07/2015 ISSUED
IABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT I.Applicable
Not
D
D 07/02/2015
NOTICE OF RETURN OF
DOCUMENT(S)
ABSTRACT AND $25CK IS
INot
.lApplicable D
RETURNED BY COURT FOR THE

FOLLOWING REASON(S): Not
07102/2015
JUDGMENT AMOUNT AND DATE Applicable
DO NOT MATCH COURT DOCUME
NTS, CORRECT AND RESUBMIT.
04/16/2015
D 8:30AM
DEPT.S35
ORAP -- EXAMINATION OF
JUDGMENT DEBTOR - Minutes
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF
JUDGMENT DEBTOR HEARING
Off
Calendar
Not
D
"
N 03/23/2015
FILED BY STUBBLEFIELD Applicable
PROPERTIES.
D 03/20/2015
NOTICE OF RETURN OF
DOCUMENT(S)
Not
Applicable D
JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS
RETURNED BY COURT FOR THE Not
I I page 92
http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/civil/civildetails.asp?cou ... er=DS1208547&casetype=CIV&dsn,,,,&movetodate,,,&startdate=&sort=&start=O Page 2 of 6

CIVDS1208547 Actions - San Bernardino Main 9/16/15 10:29 AM
.
FOLLOWING REASON(S): MARCH Applicable
U 03/19/2015
20TH COURT DATE DOES NOT
MATCH COURT RECORDS.
0 8:30 AM
DEPT. S35
Continued
Not
D
03/04/2015
NOTICE OF REJECTED MOTION
SENT.
I.Applicable
D
D
002/27/2015 ORAP -- EXAMINATION OF
8:30 AM Continued
DEPT.S35
ORDER GRANTING PLAS MOT FOR
ATTY FEES AND AWARD OF ATTY

Not
N 02/25/2015 Ii'
FEES TO PLA AGAINST DEF FILED Applicable
D 02/18/2015
02/18/2015
FILE HELD IN S35 FOR HRG ON
022715
Not
~pplicable D
0 8:30 AM
DEPT. S35
JUDGMENT DEBTOR - Minytes
MOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR

I
Continued
D
02/18/2015 ~TTORNEY FEES FILED BY
8:30 AM PLAINTIFF STUBBLEFIELD GRANTED
DEPT. S35 PROPERTIES, THOMAS PARRISH
Minutes
JUDGMENT DEBTOR HEARING
Not
N 12/18/2014 FILED BY STUBBLEFIELD Ill'
Applicable
PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA,
THOMAS PARRISH.
I
D
012/17/2014 ORAP -- EXAMINATION OF
8:30 AM Continued
DEPT. S35
III IIMOTION RE: (7/3/14) FOR I In page 93

http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/cillii/cillildetails.asp?cou ... er=oDS120S547&casetype-CIV&dsn ..&molietodate-&startdate-&sort=&start-O Page 3 of Ii
1 RICHARD E. NAHIGIAN (SBN 45675)
Attorney at Law
2 Pasadena, California 91106
Telephone: (626) 683-3991
3 Facsimile: (626) 796-2554
4 Attorney for Defendant
MARTIN C. JACINTO
5
6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
8
STIJBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A ) CASE NO.: CIVDS1208547
9 CALIFORNIA GENERAL )
PARTNERSHIP, DBA MOUNTAIN ) DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
10 SHADOWS MOBILE HOME ) PLANTIFF'S MOTION FOR
) ATTORNEY'S FEE; MEMORANDUM
11 Plaintiff, ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
) DECLARATION OF RICHARD E.
12 v. ) NAHIGIAN
)
13 MARTIN C. JACINTO, ) Date: N tt.:V r? 1,lItbe r ' , I :2 t? ( )
)
14 Defendant. ) Time: 8:30 A.M.
) Dept.: 35
15 ) HONORABLE BRYAN F. FOSTER,
) JUDGE PRESIDING
16 )
)
17
18
Defendant Martin C. Jacinto hereby opposes plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees.
19 1. There are no attorney's fee provisions in the rules and regulations of the Mountain
20 Shadows communities. Secondly, there is no showing that Mr. Jacinto even
21 saw the rules and regulations nor signed them. He was not put on notice and
they cannot be imposed upon him at this time.
22
2. On the original rental agreement, that is the original rental agreement signed by
23
Mr. Jacinto's predecessors and by Mountain Shadows, which we do not have,
24
we have no information to know whether there are attorney's fees provisions in
25 that original contract. Even if there were, there is absolutely no showing of
26 assignment ofthe contract and in fact the very contention and issues that
27 Plaintiff raised in the underlying lawsuit support the fact.
28 3. The big picture is that this is a simple trespass lawsuit. There was a trial, the
page 94
N~UliOM 'fO RECOr<I5IDER
o,. . p·r
. . /. c-
£/..J /
,
I -/ .
/~ry
defendant lost, and the amount of the judgment was $41,000. Plaintiff contends
that because Mr. Jacinto's counsel filed a cross complaint that that constituted a
2
demand for extraordinary legal work. Mr. Williamson has contended and
3
shown that he is an extremely experienced attorney, long standing in mobile
4 home and mobile park litigation.
5 4. As I understand it that it now came out of the trial, there was at one time a few
6 very simple questions being asked of one of Plaintiff's witnesses regarding

purported prejudice. My understanding is that the witness testified that 80% of
7
occupants at Mountain Shadows were Hispanic thereby squelching any
8
contention that the mobile home was prejudice. This does not give rise to
9
complexity of any issues since cross complainant had to go forward with the
10 burden of showing some prejudice. Again as I understand it, one of the
11 witnesses recited only one statement that reportedly individually and in a
12 managerial capacity plaintiff made which they deemed to be prejudice.
l3
5. In traditional lawsuits, other than rico or certain federal rights or employment
litigation, the typical attorney's fee is 10-15%. Here, attorney's fees sought are
14
500% of the awards. That is unconscionable and unnecessary. Ifa few of the
15
entries could be noted on certain dates, there were $1,700 or $1,800 attributable
16 to an attorney and other costs to paralegal and lesser down the lines. These are
17 not warranted.
18 6. By plaintiff's counsel's own statement bifurcating the amount oflegal fees
attributable to the case before and after a cross complaint was filed showed that
19
the total amount was not necessary or contemplated. There were no compelling
20
intricate issues or doctrines or contentions of instances which has not been
21
raised before. These were mundane issues, which have been litigated
22 throughout the courts of these states, decades after decades and are rather
23 elementary .
24 7. For an individual such as Mr. Jacinto who expended approximately $10,000 for
the mobile home, and I believe was going to receive $1,000/month for rent, and
25
again pay $1,OOO/month to Stubblefield, which would net him zero money does
26
not warrant a lifetime attorney's fee provision. These items should be placed
27
into a common sense viewpoint and within reasonable parameters. What is
28 reasonable for this cow1 is for this court to decide.
__ ___._ _ 2
__.__"___._"'_ __"._._ _ _ _,__ ____,____·__ ___
page 95
.~ ~ ~, "4_~_,~._~,. ,~· ~_~ ·_·~·_·'_4~

8. We had offered somewhere between $25,000-$35,000 for legal fees in addition to
1
paying the total award which has now accrued to over $61,000 in costs which
2
were included in that award.
3 We have paid the total amount of the costs and paid the total amount of the
9.
4 principal and interest on the judgment. So based upon a $40,000 award we had
5 offered 60, 70, 80 percent of that as legal fees and I think that should be
6 appropriate. I recall several months of negotiating, no counter offers other than

the full amount being made by the plaintiff so for all of those reasons, we are
7
opposed to an award of attorney's fee in excess to $25,000-$35,000 to be paid
8
by defendant to plaintiff.
9
10
11 DATED: SeptemberlS,2015
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
page 96
811012016 CIVDS1208547 Minute On::!ers - San Bernardino.' -'->,
Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images

Case "tYpe:
Case Number:
MOTION RE: TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS CCP473 MOTION FILED BY

DEFENDANT MARTIN C JACINTO
11/13/2015 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S35
APPEARAN CES:
ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.
PROCEEDINGS:
MOTION
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFS CCP473 MTN IS HEARD.
THE COURT GIVES ITS TENTATIVE RULING.
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT ADOPTS ITS TENTATIVE RULING AS FOLLOWS:
MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DEFS CCP473 MTN IS DENIED.
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 97
Attorney Search: The State Bar of California http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fallMemberlDetaill306653
/211ft!:
The State Bar ofCalifornia
Adam Francis Birka·White - #306653
Current Status: Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.
Profile Information
The fol/owing information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Bar Number: 306653
Los Angeles County Public Defender
Phone Number: (213) 974-2811

210 W Temple St FI19
Address:
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3231
Fax Number: Not Available
Map it
Email: abirka-white@pubdef.lacounty.gov
County: Los Angeles Undergraduate School:Kenyon Coli; Gambier OH
District: District 2
U of San Francisco SOL; San
Sections: Criminal Law Law School:
Francisco CA
Status History
Effective Date Status Change

Present Active
12/412015 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
Disciplinary and Related Actions

This member has no public record of discipline.
Administrative Actions
This member has no public record of administrative actions.
© 2017 The State Bar of California
page 98
10114/2017,10:41 Pr.,
i.,
APP..oo2
Fa'f CO(,ftT use OM. y
m=~\I\IlTHO~m~$lilr(tMrOOmbt)r, and !Odd1llS$}:
Ie a glan, .
.....
I122 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106
1EI.EPHONENO.: (626) 683-3991 FAXNO./OplionsJJ: (626) 196·2554
E.uAIl. AOOR1:SS (OrItiottIIq: nahigian~ahoo.CQm
ATTO~YFOIl (N6me): Martin J. acinto

FI LED
SUPERIOR COURT Of' CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF San Bemandino COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STRE£TACORESS: 247 West Third Street SAN IiIERHARPINO Dl&1'RICT
MAILING ADOReS$: . DEC 1 0 2015
CIlYANOZII'COOE: San Bernadino 92401
~-
BRANCH NAME: Civil
Sf
PLAINTIFFJPETITIONER: Stubblefield Properties CV~
DEFENDANTJRESPONDENT: Martin J. Jacinto
CASE NUMBER:
o Nonce OF APPEAL D CROSS-APPEAL CIVDS1208547
(UNLIMITED C'VlL CASE)
Notice: Please read Infomuiltion on Appeal PI"Ocedures for UnHmited Civil CtIses (Judicial CouncR form
APP..Q01) before completing this form. This form must be flled in the superior court. not in the Court of Appeal.
:
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVSN that (nsme):

appeats from the 'oRowing judgment or order In this case, which was entll're<l on (date):
CJ Judgment after jury triel
o Judgment after court trial
D Oefaultjudgmenl
.0 Judgment alter an oro., granting a summary jlJdljlment Motion
o Judgmertt of dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure se(;tkms 58111. 563.250. 583.360. or 583.430
CJ Judgment of di$lT'Ii$salafter 8n order sustalning a demUlTllf
o An order /lifter judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (8)(2)
o An ord6r Of JU<fgment under Code of Civi Procedure sedion 904.1(a)(3H13}
o OII1er (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal):
Appeal of Denial of Motion to Set Aside Judgment Awarding Attorney's Fees (CCP § 473, subd. (b).)
2. For CfO$&oappeals only:
8. Date notice of appeal was filed in original appeal:
b. Oate superiQr court Clerk, malled notice Of original appeal:
c. Court of Appeal f.'3" number (If knOwn':
Date: December 10. 2015
Richard Nahigian
(TYPE OR PRINT NAMEl
NOTICE OF APPEAUCROS$~APPE:AL (UNUMITEO CIVIL CASe) Cal. Rulu Of

_ COU'l a,oo
rule
_Cllt.p
(AppeHate) page 99
APP.Q02
CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER:
Stubblefield Properties vs. Martin 1. Jacinto CIVDS1208547
NOTICE TO PARTIES: A COJ)y of this document must be mailed or personally delivered to the other party or parties to this appeal. A. PARTY TO
THE APPEAL MA'( NOT PERFORM THE MAILING OR DELIVERY HIMSELF OR HERSELF. A person who is at least 18 yealS old and is not a
party to this appeal must complete the lnfOfmation below and mail (by first-cl<lss mail, postage prepaid) or personally deliver the front and back of
this document. When the front and back of this document have been completed and a copy mailed or pelSonally delivered, the original may then
be flied with the court
PROOF OF SERVICE
o Mail Personal Service
1. At the time ofservk:e I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
2. Ml residenoe or business address is (specify):

621 North Benton Way, Apt. 5, Los Angeles, CA 90026
3. I mailed or personaHy delivered a copy Of the Notice 01 AppeeVCross-Appe81 (Unlimitsd Civil Case) as follows (complete either a or b):
a. ~ Mail. I am a resident. of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred.
(1) I enclosed a copy in an envelope and
(a) EZI deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Post'J1 Service. with the J)O$lage My prepaid.
(b) 0 placed l11e envelope for collection and maifmg on the date and al the place shown in Items below, follOwing
our ordinary businesS practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for coDecting and processing
comtSpondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid.
(2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
(a) Hame of person served: Robert G. Williamson
(b) ffaf!is~rtt~g:lo~utton Centre Drive, Suite 900, Santa Ana, CA 92707
(~) Date of mailing: December 10, 2015

San Bemandjno, CA
(d) Place of mailIng (city and state):
b. 0 Personal de,ivery. I personally delivered a copy as follows:

(1) Name of person selVed:
(2) Address where delivered:
(3) Date delivered:

(4) Time delivered:
I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
Date: December 10, 2015
Adam Birka-White
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
APPoOO2[Rev. July 1. 201 OJ

NOTICE OF APPEAUCROSS~PPEAl (UNLIMITED CIVil CASE) page 100
. (Appellate)
=• ...0==•
0
...0
0 L1'I
... ~
~
.
......
........
ru
ru ru
ru n.I'"
ru r
r r
r 0
0 ...
... [p
[p ••
•- •
...
r
Ln
...r
t.n U"I
Ln ...
... 0
0 ....c
...
.c .t"
r ;,
~
page 101
To: Richard Nahlgian
From: Adam Birka-White, 621 N. Benton Way #5. Los Angeles, CA 90026
Date: January 13,2016
Re: Invoice .
Case IDescription IDate , Time

, :
I
N/A
.-~-~
I Meeting in
Pasadena
~ I
LO
Jacinto
Notiee Designating
I
Prepare AppenaRt's 1-5_ -_.... 2.1
•.
r
Record on Appeal .. .
! Spoke with San i 1-6 1.0
Bernardino County
on phone regarding
mailing Notice
Designating Record
on Appeal; Ship
Notice at Fedex
I
(Shipping Costs
were $24.36; Adam
paid Shipping.)
Jacinto Prepare Civil Case 1-7 2.4
Information
Statement for Court
ofAppeal; Prepare
proof of service for
same for Court of
Appeal and
opposing counsel;
Prepare Certificate
of Interested
II Parties; Prepare
I
proof of service for
I !
. same; Prepare
I mailings for
, opposing counsel;
Printed tvIinute
Orders (copies I
required by Court of II
A eal) . . _ .._ _1,-'~_ _
Jacinto E-FiledCivil Case ... 111-8;1-15;1-17;1-8 1.5
Information
_ _---''-S_t_at_c_ml?nt, .. _ _ _ _ _ _~__L _ _ _. ~_ _.-J
page 102
Certificate. of
Interested Pru1ies,
Minute Orders, and
Proofs of Service to
Court ofAppeaJ
(shipping COli>'1:s were
$22.92; Adam paid
1-_ _ _ _ _ _....L-s~hiJ2pin )
page 103
SUPERIOR COUltT OFCALIF'ORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BER.l'>{ARDINO
8303 N. Haven Avenue; 1st l1'loor,Raucbo CucamQnga, CA 91730-3848
STUBBJ.EFIELD PROPERTIES
DEFENDANT (S) AND FEB ::1 lln6

MARTIN J. JACINTO
NOTIFICATION OF ESTIMATE OF COST OF TRANSCRIPTS

(8.122(c)(3), 8,130(l:l)(1), 8.147{a)~~. 8.. 155, 8.832(<1), 8.834(b"-!H2...::.},,-(S:.:..)}...;..._ __
TO:
RICHARO NAHIGIAN, ESQ. ROBERT G,Wlt"UAMSON, ESQ,
ATIORNEYFOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY )J'OR RESPONDENT
You are hereby notified, pursuant to the California Rules ofCourr, thlil)'ourestirnated CoSts to prepare the transcript on appeal in the amount listed
below are as follows:
.t'8l An Original and one copy on appeal (If a cro$s-appeal h~15eel1 filed, tl1einitial expense of preparing the record OIl appeal shall be borne
equally by the parties appearing.)
Augmcnt;:tlionoftherecord as ordered by the Court of Appeals
DUE DATE: FEBRUAR Y 13,2016

(Your noticc(s) designating preparation oftnwscripts shallnol be effective .unless compli:mce with tilcse rules have been met by the due
date.)
ANT - ORiGINAL AND ONE COPY - $187.00 - 100.00 paid = $87.00 Estimate Due
~ RESPONDENl (if desired) ..... ONE COpy - $9350 Estimate Due
COPY IN: $62.00
r2l PAPER $50,00 NOl1-refunctabr~ Trust Fee - DUE
o COMPUTER,.READABLEFORM.AT $112.00 Estimate Due
~ RESPONDENT
- (if desired)
ONE COpy IN: - $26.00
[8l PAPER $50;00 Non-refundabie Trust Fee - DUE
o COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT $76.00 Estimate Due .
NOTE: Please return a copy of tllis notice with your paymcnt to {headdress listed above.
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO "CLERK OF lIfE SUPEIUOR COL:'RT"
ATTN: CAROLYN DANIELS
Dated: February 3, 2016
TE OF COSTS OFTRANSCRIPTS
page 104
~
1832
1E-M!1 220 446~
RICHARD E jIIAHI(;IAN 2656.607199
2656 A9ERDEElI1l1VE
L9 S ANI$ELES.CA.90Q21£1222
l ••. ~'I"FI!ll"e""",1'!JI.
" ',!'.:lti1ajljit
!'~ W.e\hrall;lrl,((I~: ,_:
·CO b SOti~
.
\ ...
u: 220002 ... 71: 2bSbbO?,(gQu
l
o~aje
page 105
RECE.'VEl> IN AfiPEA~'SfOM
ROUte to 0 ~~ Court.Fif4>
COURT OFAPPEAL -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA .
FOURTH DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
10 II T~
ORDER ~ AP; 261016
COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH D!STRICT
STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, E065006
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1208547)
MARTIN C. JACINTO,
Defendant and Appellant. The County of San Bernardino /
THE COURT
The appellant has fileq a written request for dismissal ofthe appeal. The appeal is
DISMISSED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244.)
The clerk of this court is DIR,ECTED to issue the remittitur immediately.
RAMIREZ
Presiding Justice
cc;
Superior Court Clerk

San Bernardino County
8303 N. Haven Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Robert G. Williamson
Hart I King
4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard Elia Nahigian

Pasadena, CA 91106
Moises A. Aviles
Aviles & Associates
560 North Arrowhead Avenue, #2A
San Bernardino, CA 92401 page 106
INDEX of KEY DOCUMENTS Stubblefield v. Martin Jacinto CIVDS1208547 Removal COSTS related to: Martin Jacinto v. Richard Nahigian SBSC Case: CIVDS1604759
REMOVAL
Item Exh PAGES DATE DOCUMENT COSTS
GRAND TOTAL COMMENTS COMMENTS
alleged Jacinto paid rent 6/1/11-12/1/11 ( 7 mo); 1/12/12
Stubblefield's Complaint 3 TORT claims: served 3-day notice to pay/perform or quit; and served 60-
1 A 1-8 8/16/2012 Ejectment; Nuisance; and Trespass; named Space 120 day notice to terminate possession; plaintiff did not allege
Martin Jacinto (husband) only attorney fees as damages; plaintiff did not pray for fees; no
MRL allegations
asserts D stopped pymts Dec 2011; damaged home; 2-3
2 B 9-15 3/6/2013 Case Management Statement Justis Britt
days trial estimate; M&C w/Jacinto (not true)
3 C 17-21 4/17/2013 Parrish ltr to Jacinto--removal of home to Jacinto mailed to Jacinto's home address in SanBernardino
Docket shows no answer to Jacinto's cross- cross-complaint discrimination state law:Civil 51 Govt
4 D 22- 3/12/2014 trial set 3/12/14
complaint was filed; no "at issue" 12955;42 USC 1981,1985(3),3604(a);3605
Williamson never issued a partial satisfaction for the

Jacinto ordered to remove home; **costs to verified costs to remove the mobilehome despite being
Court directed verdict on liability and $41,166.58 judgmt
5 E 23-24 4/8/2014 remove shall be credit to partial satisfaction provided with copies of removal costs; no attorney who
dismissed Jacinto's cross-complaint entered on 4/8/14
of judgment represented Jacinto ever showed Jacintos a copy of the
judgment or explained removal costs were to be credited
6 F 25-30 5/8/2014 Notice of Entry Judgment 4/8/14 served to attorney Mosies Avila
Eva Stubblefield Hazard sent 4/17/13
Williamson encouraged Eva Stubblefield to
7 G 31- 5/14/2014 removal letter directly to Jacinto at his home -
talk to Jacinto (circumventing Avila)
not sent to his attorney Avila
Jacinto fired atty Avila; copy sent to Robert
$57,888.50 jgmt Aware Jacinto fired Avila on 5/20/14
Williamson with attached notice authorizing
8 H 32-33 5/20/2014 abstract recorded San Williamson served/mailed Costs memo to
Bruno Ehlert to "work with Williamson" to
Bernardino Cty Avila - knowing Jacinto had fired him
settle judgment
Fraudulent Costs Memo includes items
p.34: $1,484 copies; p.39: $3,115.95 pvt investigator; p.39:
Williamson filed fraudulent Costs Memo expressly excluded under CCP 1033.5 (b) and
$16,721.92 "costs" $3,497 online legal research; $320 court call; $1,277.93
including several line items expressly Ladas case as not recoverable; Williams v.
9 I 34-41 5/20/2014 added to $41,166.58 delivery svs; $509.32 travel; $85 fed ex; P served memo to
excluded under the costs statute. see CCP Chino Firt Dept (Christianson) precludes
jgmt atty Avila, despite knowing Jacinto fired Avila; Avila never
§1033.5(b) awarding costs or fees to Def. unless finding of
told Martin Jacinto he could challenge costs
frivolous
paid $5k deposit to demanded $5,000 deposit to start work Eva suggested that Jacinto "work through your atty"; Eva
10 J 42-43 5/23/2014 Eva sent letter directly to Jacinto home
remove home @ 120 (included in 11K below) knew Jacinto was not represented by atty
Civil §798.85 (MRL); Govt §12965(b) served motion on atty Avila despite knowing Jacinto fired
Motion-$190,449 atty fees p. 49; Williamson
11 K 44-52 7/3/2014 (discrimination); 42 USC §1981; Avila, who never notified Jacinto about the motion or ever
set hearing 11/19/14
§1985(3);§3604(a);§3505 federal disc mailed it to Jacinto
Signed $19,850 new contract to remove 4 contractors showed up to bid from May
home; Pacific returned $5,000 deposit check 2014 to Oct 2014; after each prospective
12 L 53-54 8/11/2014 paid Pacific $5,000 check was returned to Jacinto uncashed
as he could not work with CEO Thomas contrctor met w/CEO Tom Parrish they told
Parrish Jacinto they refuse to work w/Tom
Def agreed to pay
Fee Agreement-Richard Nahigian $10,000 p.59 cashier's check for $15,000 plus paid $10,000 cash on 9/30/14 as Nahigian would not sign
Nahigian $25K cash
13 M 55-59 9/11/2014 cash deposit; $25,000 retainer to oppose atty $25,000.00 Nahigian's note in red acknowledging Jacinto substitution of atty without partial payment; see Item 13
retainer to oppose
motion and negotiated removal of home had paid $10,000 cash initial deposit "M" p.59 $15,000 cashier chk 11/12/14
fees/costs
14 N 60-61 9/30/2014 Substitution of Atty - Nahigian paid Nahigian 2-pymt 3,000.00 would not sign substitution w/out pay paid $28,000 total to Nahigian to negotiate settlemt
Minute Order Granting Motion to amend amended judgment
Minute Order recited Richard Nahigian was
15 O 62-64 10/1/2014 judgment to add $16,721.92 fraudulent costs $57,888.50 - applied for
present during the hearing
to $41,166.58 jdgmt abstract that day
16 P 65-75 10/14/2014 $11,000 removal punch list-storage paid Hart/King $11,000.00 $11,000.00 work on punch list; storage, etc. RGW 8/11/17 aff.¶6:1-9 (5K dep;6K rent 4/1-oct-2014)
paid Palma Const. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 down pymt on contract to remove home see p. 71 paid Palma $2,500 deposit 10/14/14
despite just receiving $11,000 check from Jacinto and
1 Q 76- 10/17/2014 Order to Appear for Examination to Martin Jacinto Williamson applied for order 10/15/17
Nahigian purportedly working to settle the case
2 R 77- 11/8/2014 Nahigian settlement offer to P $53,000 lump sum page 107
3 S 78- 11/8/2014 $57,888.50 Abstract Jgmt recorded recorded abstract despite lump sum settlement offer
Williamson appeard by phone; asked for
4 T 79- 11/13/2014 Debtor Jacinto appeared for exam no appearance by Nahigian
continuance; crt continued to 11/19/14
Williamson "advised court parties are trying to
5 U 80- 11/19/2014 2nd Appearance by debtor Jacinto no appearance by Nahigian
settle" continue to 12/17/14
6 V 81- 11/19/2014 Motion for $190,449 atty fees continued to 12/17/14 no appearance by Nahigian
$4k progress pymt to
7 W 82- 11/23/2014 Palma Construction Invoice $4,000.00 $4,000.00 partial payment to Palma Construction
Palma Construct.
8 X 83- 11/24/2014 Jacinto Mot-be relieved as counsel off-calendar subsitution of attorney filed 10/9/14 Nahigian filed substitution of attorney 10/9/14
paid Palma $15K total
9 Y 84- 12/15/2014 Palma Construction Invoice for removal $8,500.00 $8,500.00 final removal costs to Palma 15K Palma Construction Removal Total $15,000.00
($2.5K+$4K+$8.5K)
10 Z 85- 12/17/2014 3rd Appearance by debtor Jacinto continued by Williamson by court call
11 AA 86- 12/17/2014 Continued Motion for Atty Fees continued by Williamson by court call
paid MTZ Creative Demolish wall and haul away existing concrete
12 BB 87- 12/30/2014 Contract-demolition and haul away $3,400.00 $3,400.00 MTZ Concrete Removal Cost $3,400
Concrete, inc. with pregrade after
13 CC 88-89 1/7/2015 email to Nahigian re: punch list
14 DD 90-91 2/4/2015 email to Williamson 4 contractors setl offer: 5K+15K fees+65K +45K+25K
in fed ct 2/18/15; please postpone hearings on
email: re: 2/17/15 mtg set up w/Tom Parrish
15 EE 92- 2/17/2015 atty fees and Jacinto debtor exam both set for
re:punch list to do
2/18/15
16 FF 93- 2/18/2015 court grants 190,499 atty fees no opposition; no appearance
atty must file affidavit Nahigian told Jacinto no need to appear because he would
17 GG 94-95 2/18/2015 4th hearing Jacinto debtor exam bench warrant issued for Jacinto arrest
w/sheriff to arrest appear and get a 4th continuance
18 HH 96-97 2/24/2015 Jacinto filed permit at HCD Department $196.00 $196.00 determine conformance w/codes $196 Permit Fee to HCD inspector
19 II 98- 2/25/2015 MTZ Creative Concrete Invoice paid MTZ Concrete $2,250.00 $2,250.00 concrete work demand by Tom Parrish $2,500 compact dirt w/tractor & water every ft at fill
20 JJ 99-102 2/25/2015 Fee Award $190, 499.00 recorded abstract of judgment
Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
21 KK 103- 2/27/2015
return on 3/19/15
22 LL 104- 3/9/2015 HCD inspected utility pedestal found no code violaitons; approved
M Jacinto debtor exam; testified; ordered to
23 105- 3/19/2015
M return on 4/16/15
24 NN 106- 4/16/2015 Jacinto debtor exam; off calendar by request of moving party
Jacinto believed Nahigian had settled with his "long-time
Jacintos paid $15K cash to atty Robert
setl offer:$5K+$15k fees;$65K in 27 friend" Williamson to accept cash settlement; Jacinto
25 OO 107-108 5/21/2015 Williamson, Jr. and took hard $ loan to pay
days;$45K in 27 days;25K @ $450/mo thought paying 15K fees+45K fees+25Kfees was accepted
$63,106.40 to satisfy 1st judgment
by Williamson to settle the case
paid to: Robert Nahigian told Jacinto's they were paying a fee to
26 PP 109- 6/2/2015 $12K+$3K cash: Robert Williamson, Jr. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 checks to: RGW, Jr ($12K+$3K)
Williamson, Jr. Williamson for "privilege to negotiate settlemt"
$41,166.58 jgmt + Nahigian did not require Williamson to provide an
Demand: $57,888.50+$5,202.04+15.86
27 QQ 110- 8/25/2015 $16,721.92 costs + no acknowledgement of judgmt provided acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment which is
($5,217.90 interest)+jdmt= $63,106.40
$5,217.90 interest standard procedure at an escrow closing
Nahigian never sought credit for removal costs despite that
28 RR 111- 8/26/2015 Belle Vista Escrow paid $63,106.40 paid Stubblefield $63,106.40 no credits for removal costs deducted
4/8/14 judgment expressly ordered it
1.4 yrs later ackknowledgment demand is Williamson sent unnotarized acknowledgment not
29 SS 112- 11/22/2016 Kent Sharp demands acknowledgment
finally served on Williamson complying with duty to notarize his signature
30 TT 113- 12/7/2016 Unnotarized acknowledgements sent Atty forced to request notarized docs Williamson receives ltr and resends new docs
atty sent to D&B Williamson resent notarized docs to Kent
31 UU 114- 1/9/2017 Notarized Acknowledgments re-sent No credit was ever issued for removal costs
escrow company Sharp; trying to retrieve acknowl.
32 hired Chris Lockwood to sue Nahigian retainer paid Apr '16 $5,000 had to hire Chris Lockwood sue Nahigian to recover damages
33 VV 115- 3/2/2017 hired Kent Sharp to work on 2 cases Paid to Kent Sharp $20,000.00 invoices to end of 2016 - invoice 3/27/17 paid Kent Sharp to prosecute default judgment
34 Total Removal Cost► $46,846.00 $162,952.40 ◄ Sub-total Post-Litigation Costs no credit despite order to issue credit 4/8/14
35 minus $ Williamson -$15,000.00 ADDED Costs Pre-Litigation Costs Mobilehome @ 120
36 $31,846.00 $11,000.00 purchase mobilehome approx April 2011
$10,000 remodel costs recommended by Tom
37 $10,000.00
Parrish and Mgr Marvin Freeman
38 $7,000.00 rent paid from June 2011-Dec 2011 page 108
39 $28,000.00 Sub-total Pre-Litigation Costs
40 $190,952.40 ◄GRAND TOTAL ALL COSTS ◄ doesn't include 12% interest on 2015 hard $ loan
EXHIBIT B
page 109
EXHIBIT B
page 110
[VDS1604759 Minute Orders ~ San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb~court.orgicivi1JclvlfmmUtt:s.a:;p 'Wu. ,'-'V~~ • ____ ..
Pending Case
Hearings Report
Case Type:
Case Number:
Case CIVD51604759 - MARTIN C JACINTO -V- RICHARD NAHIGIAN

Action: (Choose)
HEARING RE: DEFAULT PROVE-UP

01/06/2017 - 9:00 AM DEPT. 531
JOHN M PACHECO, JUDGE
CLERK: SUZANNE M SERRANO
COURT REPORTER TRACI TROll 13302
COURT ATTENDANT C SHELBY
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY KENT L SHARP PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
PLAINTIFF MARTIN C JACINTO PRESENT
PARTIES NOT PRESENT: RICHARD NAHIGIAN
PROCEEDINGS:
ACTION CAME ON FOR DEFAULT PROVE-UP HEARING.
CRYSTAL LOPEZ HAS TAKEN THE OATH TO INTERPRET SPANISH INTO ENGLISH AND ENGLISH INTO
SPANISH.
COURT FINDS THAT A CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED INTERPRETER IS NOT AVAILABLE.
MARTIN C JACINTO HAS WAIVED THE APPOINTMENT OF A CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED
INTERPRETER AND THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERPRETER FOUND PROVISIONALLY QUALIFIED BY
THE PRESIDING JUDGE.
THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE TO APPOINT AN INTERPRETER THAT IS NOT CERTIFIED OR
REGISTERED OR PROVISIONALLY QUALIFIED.
THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED INTERPRETER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF GC68561
AND THAT ALL PERTINENT JUDICIAL COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWED. THE COURT ALSO FINDS THAT THE INTERPRETER IS QUALIFIED TO INTERPRET IN
THIS PROCEEDING ONLY.
09:26
WITNESS -- MARTIN C JACINTO IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #1 FEE AGREEMENT DTD 9/11/14 BY R NAHIGIAN (3PGS) ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
page 111
eIVDS 1604759 Minute Orders - San Bernardino Main http://openaccess.sb-court.org!civiVcivilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&c ...
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #2 COpy OF SUBSTITUION OF ATTY DTD 100914 (2PGS) ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #3 COPY OF (3)MINUTE ORDERS CASE #1208547 ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #4 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTY FEES 2/25/25(4PG ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #5 (2)MINUTE ORDERS CASE #1208547 ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #6 NTCE OF APPEAL DTD 121015 #CIVDS1208547 (2PGS) ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #7 REQ FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL DTD 4/20/16 (3PGS) ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #8 APPELLATE COURT INFO (3PGS)CASE#E065006 ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #9 PROPERTY REPORT 2656 ABERDEEN AVE (3PGS) ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #10 (6PG)COPY OF REPORT/PHOTOS 2656 ABERDEEN AVE,L ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT(S) #11 {16PG)STATE BAR REPROVAL REPT DTD 2/10/11 ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
09:59
WITNESS MARTIN C JACINTO EXCUSED.
AFTER TESTIMONY AND DUE CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT:
COURT FINDS:
DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST RICHARD NAHIGIAN.
JUDGMENT FOR: MARTIN C JACINTO
JUDGMENT AGAINST: RICHARD NAHIGIAN
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF: PRINCIPAL $500,000.00 INTEREST $0.00 ATTORNEY FEES $0.00
COSTS $0.00 AND DAMAGES $234,061.90.
JUDGMENT TOTAL IS: $734,061.90
JUDGMENT SIGNED.
STAGE AT DISPOSITION: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT BEFORE TRIAL
(CIV)
DISPOSITION: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DEFAULT BY COURT BEFORE TRIAL (CIV)
ACTION - COMPLETE
page 112
? of? 10115/2017,10:37 Ai'

page 113
page 114
1
Superier Gouft of Calif, Courrty Of San Bernardino CIV-INT-240
06/20/17 5.7.22 Action and Minute Inquiry * SUN5YS * Inquiry
- - '" - - - - - - - - - "" ...... ,- -
,,;,. - - - .. - .... - - - - ,'" - - - - - - - -'- - -'- ...... - -- - - ... --- ..... -
'" ' ' '"'
,CIV ( 2) Case # : DS1604759 Status: A Active

Case Cat ... : PN Professional Negligence Juris: OS SAN BERNARDINO - C
,Case Name: •• MARTI N C JACINTO - V - RICHARD NAHIG
Date Action Oispo. Oper.

= 1 06/14/17 Case sent to doc control for next hrg 071717 in s3 - SSERR
=: 2 1
=3 06/14/17 Order GRANTING OEF NAHIGIANS MOTION FOR RELIEF FRO
=: 4 MDEFAULT JUDGMENT/QUASH ABSTRACT OF JDGMNT filed
=5 Set aside disposition of Defendant RICHARD NAHIGIA CSHEL
,,",6 N.
:::: 7 Set Aside Request tor Default as to RICHARD NAHIGI
:: a AN
= 9 06/14/17 Ruling on Submitted Matter Pre-D SSERR
=10 at 8:30 in Oepartment 831
=11 JOHN M PACHECO, JUDGE
=12 Clerk: Suzanne M Serrano
=13
#,, N'ext Action, BA'ek Action, rintl S how N' otes I
M'ora Minutes, Black Minutes : BA SE(B~E), =#SH'ow Entry
page 115
EXHIBIT C
page 116
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
In the Matter of: Richard Ella Nahigian

Case Number(s): 10-0-02178 and 10-0-03701
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page two, paragraph (A)(7) is not applicable.
FACTS:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the
specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code sections as follows:
Case #10-0-02178 <The Estrada Matter)
1. In or about April 2007, Martha Moto ("Moto") hired Respondent to represent her brother,
Nicomedes Estrada ("Estrada") at sentencing following his conviction for attempt murder
in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VA072145 ("Estrada matter'') and to
file a motion for a new trial. Estrada was over the age of 18.
2. Moto paid Respondent $6,500.00 in advanced fees for his services.
3. Respondent did not obtain Estrada's informed written consent before accepting
compensation from Moto to represent Estrada
4. On or about April 13, 2007 Respondent appeared on behalf of Estrada for sentencing and
informed the court that he intended to file a motion for a new trial. Sentencing was
continued to June 8, 2007 with the Motion for New Trial calendared for May 30. 2007.
5. Respondent sought and the court granted a continuance of the motion and sentencing
until June 27, 2007.
6. At no time prior to June 27, 2007, did Respondent file a Motion for New Trial on
Estrada's behalf.
7. On or about June 27,2007, Estrada was sentenced to life in prison plus 25 years to life.
8. At no time did Respondent contact Estrada and inform him that he would not file a
Motion for New Trial, or explain to Estrada the reasons why he did not file the motion.
Respondent took no further actions to inform Estrada of his legal options. Respondent
conveyed the information only to Moto.
9. Respondent did not refund any portion ofthe fee.
9
Nahigillll Stip Attachment
page 117
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By not informing Estrada in advance that he would not file a Motion for New Trial,
Respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments in a
matter in which he agreed to provide legal services in willful violation of Business and
Professions Code, section 6068(m).
2. By not obtaining Estrada's informed ",titten consent before accepting compensation from
Moto to perform services for Estrada, Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 3-310(F).
3. By failing to refund the $6,500 to Estrada, Respondent failed to promptly refund any part
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, RuLe 3-700(D)(2).
FACTS:
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations ofthe
specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code sections as follows:
Case #10-0-03701 ahe West Matter}
1. In or about May 2007. respondent was hired by Henry Clay West ("West") to represent
him in Los AngelesCounty Superior Court case numbers PA 059029 and PA 054907.
Case number P A 054907 was a vi01ation ofprobation matter, with a three year suspended
prison term as a condition of probation. On or about May 15.2007, West paid
Respondent $10,000 in advance legal fees for all legal services leading up to trial.
2. On or about August 3, 2007, West paid Respondent an additional $10,000 in advanced

fees to represent him through jury trial.
3. On August 27, 2007, case number PA 059029 was trailing day 8 of 10 for trial when
West entered a plea ofnolo contendre to certain charges in exchange for a total sentence
offour years in state prison to run concurrently with PA 054907.
4. In or about August, 2008. West wrote Respondent requesting a refund of the $10,000 in
advanced fees to represent West at trial. Respondent did not refund any portion ofthe
fee.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. By fai1ing to refund the $10,000 to West, Respondent failed to promptly refund any part
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(0)(2).
10
Nahigian Stip Attachment
page 118
WAIVER OF VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND CULPABILITY
The parties waive any variance between the Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed on
December 2. 20lO, and the facts andlor conclusions oflaw contained in this stipUlation.
Additionally, the parties waive the issuance of an amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges. The
parties further waive the right to a fonnal hearing on any charge not included in the pending
Notice of Disciplinary Charges.
DISMISSALS
The parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss the following alleged violations in
the interest ofjustice:
Case No. 10-0-02178 Count One Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-11 O(A)
Case No. 10-0-02178 Count Four Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-lOO(BX3)
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• Respondent acted in good faith by communicating through Moto, with the expectation all
infonnation would be conveyed to Estrada.
• Respondent has demonstrated remorse and has attempted to refund the fee in full in both
matters, however. because both Estrada and West are currently incarcerated in the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, both Respondent and the State
Bar have experienced certain difficulties in ascertaining an appropriate repository for the
funds.
• Respondent has been a member Jor 40 years with one prior minor incident of misconduct,
which, as discussed below should have little weight in aggravation.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY SANCTIONS
To detennine the appropriate level of discipline, the standards provide guidance. Drociafc
v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1085; In the Matter o/Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 119. A
disciplinary recommendation must be consistent with the discipline in similar proceedings. See
Snyder v. State Bar (1990) 49 Cal.3d 1302. Moreover, the recommended discipline must rest
upon a balanced consideration of relevant factors. In the Matter o/Sampson, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr.ll9.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3 of the Standards for Attorney Sancti.ons for Professional
Misconduct:
11
page 119
The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar
of California and of sanctions imposed upon a finding or acknowledgment of
a member's professional misconduct are the protection of the public; the
courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional
standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal
profession. Rehabilitation of a member is a permissible object of a sanction
imposed upon the member but only if the imposition of rehabilitative
sanctions is consistent with the above-stated primary purposes of sanctions
for professional misconduct.
Pursuant to Standard 1.5 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct:
Reasonable duties or conditions fairly related to the acts of professional

misconduct and surrounding circumstances found or acknowledged by the
member may be added to a recommendation or suspension or; pursuant to
rule 9.19, California Rules of Court, to a reproval. Said duties may include,
but are not limited to, any of the following:
1.5(b): a requirement that the member takes and passes an examination in

professional responsibility;
1.5(d): a requirement that the member undertake educational or rehabilitative

work at his or her own expense regarding one or more fields of substantive
law or law office management;
1.5(f): any other duty or condition consistent with the purposes of imposing a
sanction for professional misconduct as set forth in standard 1.3.
Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual

matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a
member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval
or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of
harm to the client.
Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the following provisions of the

Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or suspension depending
on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to
the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3: ... (a) Sections 6067
and 6068 ....
12
Nahigian Stip Attacbment
page 120
Misconduct:
Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and

Professions Code not specified in these standards or a willful violation of any
Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in
reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any,
to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in
Standard 1.3.
Pursuant to Standard 1.7(a) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for

'Professional Misconduct:
If a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in

which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior
imposition of discipline as defined by standard 1.2(f), the degree of discipline
imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior
proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the
current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in
severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be
manifestly unjust.
Reproval is the appropriate sanction in this matter. First, the parties submit a
deviation from Standard 2.6 is appropriate in this case based upon the factors enumerated
in mitigation in Section "e" above. The parties agree that while Respondent failed to
communicate directly with Mr. Estrada about Respondent's reasons for declining to file a
Motion for New Trial, Respondent did communicate this information to Moto
maintaining a good faith, albeit mistaken, belief it would be sufficient for Moto to
communicate to Mr. Estrada. .
Moreover, Respondent has been willing to make restitution by refunding the fees
in full to both Estrada and West without regard to any portion which might have actually
been earned. The parties submit that because both West and Estrada have been
incarcerated in facilities throughout the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
difficulties in locating an appropriate repository for these funds precluded Respondent
from acting earlier to refund these fees.
Furthennore, the conduct may be considered isolated when weighed against

Respondent's 40 years as a member, although the parties acknowledge Respondent has
one prior incident of discipline. .
Additionally. Respondent has demonstrated a level of remorse and cooperation

which reflects that he does not pose a significant future threat to the public or his clients.
13
page 121
The parties further submit that the intent and goals of Standard 1.3 are met in this
matter with the imposition of a Public Reproval with those probationary conditions
articulated herein.
, COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed
Respondent that as of February 9,2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,925.00.
Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from
the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further
proceedings.
14
page 122
(00 not write above this line.)
I In the Matter of Case number(s):
, Richard Nahigian 1()"()-O2178 and 10-0-03701
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with .
each of the recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Date
','
, It,,,l-,
Respondent's Signature
t~' f;l- H f,?
Print Name
Nil H 1$1 il kJ
Date Print Name
~ .. 1-H
Date
:t---:~~~~'-T--- £~ u.Cr~ ht-y
(Stipulation form approved by SBC Executive Commi1tee 10/16100. Revised 1211612004; 1211312006.) Signature Page
15'
page 123
(Do not write above this line.)
In the Matter of: Case Number(s):

Richard Nahigian 10-0-02178
10-0-03701
REPROVAL ORDER
Finding that the stipulation protects the public and that the interests of Respondent will be served by any conditions
attached to the reproval. IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without
prejudice, and:
0'" The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
o The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the
REPROVAL IMPOSED.
o All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation. filed
within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved
stipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F). Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective is days after
service of this order.
Failure to comply wHh any conditions attached to this reproval may constitute cause for a separate
proceeding for willful breach of rule 1.110. Rules of Professional Conduct.
Date Judge of the State Bar Court
RICHARD A. PLAThT
(Effective January 1, 2011)

Reproval Order
Page A page 124

Request To Review CONCLUSIONS Lita Abella 10-16-17.compressed

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Request To Review CONCLUSIONS Lita Abella 10-16-17.compressed

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nancy Duffy McCarr'on~ CBN 164780

950 Roble Lane

Santa Barbara~ CA 93103

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Robert S. Coldren, Esq., Bar No. 81710 FI LED

2 Justus J. Britt, Esq., Bar No. 267352 SAN BERNAROINO DISTRICT

HART, KING & COLDREN

200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor

4 Santa Ana, California 92707 FW .. ~·~wJf).~,__

Telephone: (714) 432-8700 ' 'elL

5 Facsimile: (714) 546-7457

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES dba MOUNTAIN

z 12 California general partnership, dba Assigned for all purposes to:

... ~ 16 MARTIN C. JACINTO, an individual; and

24 1. Plaintiff STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES ("Plaintiff") is, and at all times

4 3. The Park is a mobilehome park as dermed by and pursuant to the Mobilehome

z 12 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to P1aintiff who

5 Space 120 with Plaintiff or the Park and no right of occupancy.

11 leaves and refuses to remove the Mobilehome from Space 120.

tJ:r oo 14 (Trespass/Waste Against all Defendants)

8 8 ~ ~ 14 secure community environment for its other tenants in the Park.

21 (Nuisance Against All Defendants)

24 25. Defendant's Mobilehome remains on Space 120 on Plaintiff's pr.operty.

28. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows:

4 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

5 1. For restitution of the premises by removal of the Mobilehome;

24 2. For punitive and exemp]ary damages;

27 4. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction. and a permanent

3 5. For costs ofsuit herein incurred; and

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V-JACINTO

MOTION RE: LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT MARTIN C

DAVID COHN, JUDGE

CLERK: GAIL ANDERSON

COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS 4420

COURT ATIENDANT I ROMO

ATTORNEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON JR. PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFfPETITIONER.

ATIORNEY MOISES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD

MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS HEARD.

ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.

MARTIN C JACINTO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

THE PROPOSED XCOMPLAINT IS DEEMED FILED AND SERVED THIS DATE.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

Case CIVDS1208547 - STUBBLEFIELD -V..JACINTO

MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY CROSS DEFENDANT

DAVID COHN, JUDGE

CLERK: GAIL ANDERSON

COURT REPORTER REGINA VEGA 12612

COURT ATTENDANT R BRUCATO

ROBERT WILLIAMSON APPEARS BY COURTCALL FOR STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES.

ATTORNEY MOISES AVILES PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT JACINTO.

PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OCROSS-COMPLAINT IS

ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.

STUBBLEFIELD PROPERTIES. A CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT IS

THE ALLEGATION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AT THE PLEADING STAGE.

STIPULATION OR EXPARTE APPLICATION.

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

Hart, King & Coldren

4 Hutton Centre Drive. Suite 900 I Santa Ana. CA 92707

Tel. 714-432-8700 I Fax. 714-546-7457

From: maviles 1232@aol.com [mailto:maviles 1232@aol.comJ