Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 This court previously relieved Marc Applbaum as counsel for plaintiff Johnny Kan, 

18 suspended Applbaum from the bar of this court, and referred him to the California State Bar for 

19 consideration of whether he violated California’s Rules of Professional Conduct. See Order 

20 (Oct. 12, 2023), ECF No. 83. Applbaum had, among other things, publicly divulged confidential 

21 communications between himself and Kan in an effort to illustrate the “irreconcilable 

22 differences” that had developed between them. See id. at 8–9. Kan did not retain substitute 

23 counsel after Applbaum was relieved, so the matter was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge 

24 under this district’s local rules. See Order (Dec. 1, 2023), ECF No. 90; E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). 

25 Two defendants, Shamus McClure and the Verdera Community Association, filed a 

26 motion for summary judgment in November 2023—after this court issued its order relieving 

27 Applbaum as counsel but before it became clear Kan would not obtain substitute counsel. See

28 Mot., ECF No. 88. Their motion is based on a set of requests for admissions they emailed to 

Johnny Kan, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Verdera Community Association, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00348-KJM-JDP 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 104 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 Applbaum in July 2023. See Mem. at 5–6, ECF No. 88-1; see also Rolfe Decl. ¶¶ 3–5 & Exs. A–

2 B, ECF No. 88-2. This was during the time Applbaum was claiming he and Kan were not 

3 communicating effectively. See Mem. at 5–6, ECF No. 88-1. Kan describes the relationship in 

4 even darker terms. He claims Applbaum “had been misappropriating and absconded with” his 

5 assets. See Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 97. McClure and Verdera never received a response to the 

6 requests for admissions they emailed to Applbaum, and for that reason, they argue Kan has 

7 admitted what they requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3). See Mem. at 5. 

8 The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion for summary judgment. See

9 F&Rs, ECF No. 102. McClure and Verdera offer no evidence to show they obtained Kan’s or 

10 Applbaum’s written consent to receive documents by email, as required by Rule 5(b)(2)(E), so 

11 neither Applbaum nor Kan actually received formal service of the requests for admissions. See

12 F&Rs at 6, ECF No. 102. McClure and Verdera object to that recommendation, but they “do not 

13 dispute they did not obtain a writing that explicitly confirms electronic service.” Objections at 3, 

14 ECF No. 103. 

15 The Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are both correct and just. The 

16 court adopts them in full. McClure and Verdera cannot selectively rely on the rules that serve 

17 their purposes while disregarding others that do not. That is especially true in circumstances such 

18 as these. It is unclear whether Kan—or even Applbaum—was aware of the disputed requests for 

19 admission. McClure and Verdera cite an email to prove Applbaum acknowledged receipt, but the 

20 email was not from Applbaum. It was from his paralegal. See Edgemont Email (July 24, 2023), 

21 ECF No. 103-1. Nor does the email mention any requests for admissions. See id.

22 In the alternative, McClure and Verdera request permission to serve their requests for 

23 admissions again on Kan directly, this time by mail. See Objections at 3–4. They may raise that 

24 request with the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

25 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 102) are adopted in full. 

26 2. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 88) is denied. 

27 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further pretrial 

28 matters. 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 104 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2 DATED: October 3, 2024. 

3 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 104 Filed 10/04/24 Page 3 of 3