Source: http://secondappellatecourt.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:16:29+00:00

Document:
----From the September 14, 2016 Appellate Court hearing-----Can Union Bank Steal SBA Loaned Money from Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (FAC Exhibit 10-4)? At the September 14, 2016 Appellate Court hearing the Court learned of Union Banks June 27, 2013 email and June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History showing no Res Judicata! The Appellate Court learned of Union Banks filing restraining orders for questioning the two Amortization Schedules that Union Banks Attorneys made Per (FAC Exhibit 9-5). Union Bank acknowledged in an email June 27, 2013 that these two Amortization Schedules in which Union Bank obtained a restraining order for in 2011, where not accurate! This is not Res Judicata!
California Case Law now needs to be made with Union Bank having two sets of accounting books as explained to the Second Appellate Court by Union Bank and Appellate with Union Banks June 27, 2013 Email that is not Res Judicata.
The Appellate Court Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. made its Decision September 28, 2016 without paying attention to the Evidence (FAC Exhibit 9-5 and 10-4) and Case law showing no Res Judicata! How could The Appellate Court ignore Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History as pled below to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ???
How could The Appellate Court Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. Not mention (FAC Exhibit 9-5 and 10-4) explained to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ??? In the Taped Appellate Court hearing thus Showing Union Bank accounting mistakes and Grand theft of SBA Loaned Money!!
This is the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History showing no Res Judicata to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.
CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times. How could the Second Appellate Court Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ???????? Make this statement regarding Union Banks use of restraining orders as stated by Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.
"The Bank obtained a restraining order against Bookout preventing him from contacting the Bank through anyone but the Bank’s counsel.
Discovery is ordinarily conducted through an opposing party’s counsel. In any event, if Bookout was prevented from conducting discovery by the restraining order, it is his own fault."
CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times. This is Union Banks June 27, 2013 email talked about and argued before the Second Appellate Court showing no Res Judicata. How could the Second Appellate Court Judges ignore this evidence as presented and pled to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.???????? Not once does the Second Appellate Court acknowledge Union Bank June 27, 2013 Email or Union Banks June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History showing No Res Judicata!!!
CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times. Union Bank admitted June 27th 2013 to its restraining order mistakes! Union Bank in its June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History has now committed Fraud to the IRS as Union Bank has never amended IRS 1098 Forms going back to 2007 as now claimed in its accounting. The Second Appellate Court Justices are wrong by claiming that this could have been tried during bankruptcy that was confirmed in 2012! There has been no Res-Judicata and the Appellate Court Justices should have talked about the Statute of Limitations!
without leave to amend. We affirm the ensuing judgment in favor of the bank.
residential and business real properties. Bookout defaulted on the loan.
In June 2007, Bookout and the Bank entered into a forbearance agreement.
amortization schedule to calculate monthly payments.
COURT OF APPEAL – SECOND DIST.
right to add $57,676.17 for attorney fees to its proof of claim in Bookout’s bankruptcy.
giving credit for the sale proceeds.
granted the Bank’s motion for judicial notice.
Bookout filed for bankruptcy under chapter 13 on September 15, 2011.
failure to make payments under the plan.
balance. The Bank filed an amended proof of claim to reflect the reduced balance.
approved the Bank’s claim in full.
was filed on May 18, 2015.
all facts properly pleaded, as well as facts of which the trial court properly took notice.
(Ibid.) But we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.
Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) We elect not to do so.
asserted against the same party, or those in privity to the party, in the prior litigation.
Bank’s proofs of claim and approved the second claim in full.
it is his own fault.
the Bank’s statute of limitations defense.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent.
Appellant presents this reply to Respondent Union Banks July 1, 2016 Breif. Respondent did an undisclosed rescission on December 26, 2011and changed SBA loan documents during Bankruptcy using two Amortization Schedules created by Respondent’s Attorney’s (Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal (“CT”) 675-685.) Respondent did not provide this rescission information until June 27, 2013 after the April 13, 2012 Bankrupty Conformation (“CT”) 746). Respondents on December 26, 2011 changed actual Union Bank loan documents (“CT”) 838)-(933-973). (“CT”) 838) is a September 23, 2011 Monthly Payment Notice during bankruptcy, showing an interest rate of 6% at $4,121.06 per month, (“CT”) 662-665) is a Certified August 29, 2011SBB&T Loan Transaction History prior to Bankrupty each showing that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to December 26, 2011 and that the Four Year Statute of Limitations under Civil Code section 337 had not expired. This is backed up in (“CT”) 839-841) Respondents November 7, 2011online accounting. Respondents (“CT” 686-689 (FAC Exhibit 6-1 to 6-4) May 19, 2011 letter from Union Banks Attorneys does not claim a rescission with the two amortization schedules created by Respondend’s Attorneys.
Respondents, Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence and Perjury prior to May 19, 2011 going back to the 2007 Forbearance agreement was not argued before the San Luis Obispo Superior Court per Respondent’s (“CT” 686-689.) and (“CT” 675-685) The Civil Code section 337four year Statute of limitations has not expired for Respondents actions after respondent changed their November 7, 2011 online accounting Loan Transaction History (“CT” FAC Exhibit 839- 841).
Respondents Breif P. 7 refers to Respondents fraud prior to Bankruptcy and not the SBA Loan changes made after (“CT” 675-689) (“CT” FAC Exhibit 839- 841) on June 27, 2013 by respondent.
Respondent Breif P. 8 does not account for the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (“CT”) 785-789) and June 27, 2013 email (“CT”) 746) showing Respondents undisclosed December 26, 2013 Rescission not provided during Bankruptcy thus, showing no res judicata per the (“CT”) 1630-1633.
Respondent Breif P. 9-10 “STATMENT OF FACTS” A and B. Refers to actions prior to May 19, 2011 that are not being litigated. Respondent refers to the two amortization schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee that are not bank records (“CT”) 753) Paragraph 2. Respondent Breif P. 9-10 B “Harassment of Respondent by Appellant” Admits to the use of restraining orders only allowing communication with Respondents Attorneys.
Respondent Breif P. 10 “C. Appellant’s Bankruptcy” ignores (“CT”) 14-1) dated November 7, 2011as argued and ignores the undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission (“CT”) 788.) with Respondents use of restraining orders.
Appellant was granted Augumentation of the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing by the Appellate Court on May 26, 2016 (FAC Opposition Exhibit # 27) showing no res judicata as the Bankruptcy Court was not made aware of Respondents December 26, 2011 Rescission that could not have been argued at conformation. Augumtated (FAC OPP Exhibit # 27) shows that Respondent Breach of Written Contract had not occurred prior to May 18, 2012.
Respondent “Summary of Claims Against Respondent in the FAC” are misguided P. 11-12. (“CT”) 790-792 # 3) shows Appellants mistakes in accounting by adding $45,171.20 back into the SBA loan. This is seen in the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (FAC (“CT”) 534-566 # 5) $57,676.17 was not put a Proof of Claim.
Respondent “F The Demurrer and the Judgment” P. 12-13 shows the Court December 3, 2015 findings coming from prior actions by Respondent per restraining order communication in June 24, 2011. This has nothing to do with the undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission by Respondent (“CT”) FAC 545-546) provided by Respondent on June 27, 2013 after the Bankruptcy Conformation.
Respondent “V ARGUMENT” P. 15 Failed to provide its June 25, 2013 loan accounting prior in Bankruptcy showing no Res Judicata. Respondent prior to Bankruptcy actions in the Forbearance Agreement are not at issue. Respondents changing the Forbearance agreement on December 26, 2011 and providing this information on June 27, 2013 is at issue. Respondent P.18 # 3 Respondent now shows on June 25, 2013 that it was not owed $45,171.20 added onto the SBA loan. This Fraud was not litigated in Bankruptcy as respondent failed to provide this June 25, 2013 accounting using Restraining orders into 2013.
Respondent Breif P. 23 (“B.”) Breach of Contract, ignores the Four Year Statutute of Limitations from the December 26, 2011 Rescission provided by Respondent on June 27, 2013.
Respondent Breif P. 24 (“C.”) FRAUD, ignores the Three Year Statutute of Limitations from June 27, 2013; when respondent provided an accounting of the December 26, 2011 Rescission.
Respondent Breif P. 25 (“E.”) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, ignores the Three Year Statutute of Limitations from June 27, 2013; when respondent provided an accounting of the December 26, 2011 Rescission/Deceit for the first time using restraining orders stopping Appellants discovery of the December 26, 2011 Rescission changing SBA Loan documents. (“CT”) FAC 606-614.) Respondent Breif P. 26 (“E.”) Negligence, ignores the (“CT” FAC 614-622.) Respondent Breif P. 27 (“G.”). Regarding the Court denying Appellant Leave to Amend his Complaint, is an Abuse of Discretion with the Court refusal of Appellants Augumented Oppossition Exhibit # 27 (“CT”) 1631.) The Court acknowledged the June 27, 2013 Email (“CT”) 1631.) Respondent Breif VI. Has not madeAppellant whole from its December 26, 2011 rescission made known in 2013..
In The December 3, 2015 decision by Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, he would not allow Judicially, noticed (Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29-1 to 29-17 “CT” Vol. 6 P. 1629 to 1632) showing no adjudication or Res Judicata and that Respondent’s Breach of Written Contract/Rescission was not prior to May 19, 2011 pled in the (“CT”Vol. 2 P. 572 to 576 Paragraphs 101, 102 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111). This is an Abuse of Discretion. Appellant November 30, 2015(Reply OPP (“CT”) Ex. 1621-1622) June 30, 2011 letter from the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks showed the Court that Respondent had not done a rescission prior to June 30, 2011. The Courts Abuse of Discretion comes from believing two Amortization Schedules created by Respondents Attorneys are bank documents against the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 Accounting (“CT”) 1621-1622) Request for Judicial Notice (“CT” P. 1610-1620).
Respondent December 26, 2011 Rescission is within the Statute of Limitations for Civil Code section 337, Civil Code section 338(d) and Civil Code section 337(3) that Respondent finally provided June 27, 2013 as pled in the (“CT” Vol 2 P. 572 to 576) after the May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 524 Paragraph 25). (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 541 to 542 FAC P. 30 to 31 Paragraph 55 shows as pled Respondent’s Loan changes in June 2013 as Respondents have no claim for Res Judicata with their continued 2013 Loan changes. This case has not been litigated prior and no res judicata has occurred with Respondents loan changes in their June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History.
The Court talks about the restraining orders issued for asking SBA Loan Question (“CT” P. 1629)- 1 under (foot notes) and Paragraph 3, but ignores the fact (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 524) that Respondent used these restraining orders as a prison for stopping Appellant from finding the facts behind the December 26, 2011 Rescission until June 27, 2013 showing no res judicata. This is an Abuse of Discretion under Civil Code section 352.1 as Respondent’s restraining order actions are the same as being imprisoned as Appellant could only ask SBA loan Questions of Respondent’s Attorneys (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 742 January 8, 2013 email FAC Exhibit # 9-1 to 9-3 Ex. 9-4 “CT’ P. 745) Email dated January 24, 2013 and (“CT” P 748 RESPA Email 9-7) dated May 23, 2013 per the arguments in the (“CT” P. 521 to 523 P. 10, 11 and 12 Paragraphs 19 to 23). Appellant in the (FAC) Pled Civil Code section 337. ( “CT” Vol. 2 P. 518 to 526) that the Court ignored and did not discuss. For the Court to ignore Civil Code section 337 is an Abuse of Discretion with Respondent restraining order actions.
Appellant in the (FAC) with Respondent’s undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission per (“CT”) P. 785 to789 FAC Exhibit #10) June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History, Pled the facts under Civil Code section 337(3) . “CT” Vol. 2 and 3 Pages 522 to 613 (FAC) For the Court to ignore Civil Code section 337(3) is an Abuse of Discretion.
The Courts Abuse of Discretion in ignoring (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 10-4, 13 14-1, 20-1) to claim (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1630 Paragraph # 6) in his December 3, 2015 decision. “Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.” Is a full Abuse of Discretion as Respondent own records showed up to November 7, 2011; Respondent had not done a Rescission and the Principal Balance was $390,996.61 in (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Ex. # 14-1) dated November 7, 2011! The Courts December 3, 2015 Decision claims Respondent did their rescission on November 23, 2011 which is within the four year Statute of Limitations and is an Abuse of Discretion. Union Banks Monthly Payment notice (“CT” Vol. 3 P 838 Ex. 13) September 23, 2011 Shows that Respondent had not done a rescission prior and (“CT” P. 662 to 665 “CT Vol. 3 # 1-1, 1-3, 1-4) being the SBA Certified August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction History. The Court failed to understand that Respondent never provided an accounting of their Rescission until June 27, 2013 Civil Code section 337(3). This could not have been argued eariler showing no Res Judicata or adjudication.
For the Court to claim (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 December 3, 2015 paragraph 8), that two May 6, 2011Amortization Schedules (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753 Paragraph 2) with an interest rate of 6% starts the Statute of Limitations is an Abuse of Discretion and makes this fully appealable. The June 24, 2011 restraining order answer is not Res Judicata per the (FAC Exhibits (“CT”) 746) # 9-5) and (“CT”) 788) FAC EX. 10-4) acknowledged by the Court paragraph 6 December 3, 2015 decision. In a Second Amended complaint this can be explained further as the two Amortization Schedules created by Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh are not Bank documents (“CT” 977 FAC Exhibit 19-1) and should not have been used in the courts starting point for Statute of Limitations and Res Judicata with Respondent’s use of restraing orders in 2011, 2012 and 2013. This is an Abuse of Discretion.
Appellant’s (“CT Vol. 3 P. 788 FAC Exhibit # 10-4) June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History shows that the Courts November 23, 2011 (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 783) email from Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 783Exhibit 9-43) Rescission did not occur until December 26, 2011 and was not provided until June 27, 2013. Res judicata could not happen as it took Respondent until June 27, 2013 within the 3 year Statute of Limitations under Civil Code section 338(d) Fraud and Civil Code section 337(3) Rescission to provide their Concealment of their December 26, 2011 rescission. “An action for fraudulent misrepresentation lies when the defendant is charged with knowledge of falsity and an intent to deceive (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, sections 586, 588, at pp. 2224-2227). Respondent December 26, 2011 Rescission was against Civil Code section 1689 under Rescission, as Respondent did not notify Appellant or make Appellant whole. ―When the defendant is guilty of fraudulent concealment of the cause of action the statute is deemed not to become operative until the aggrieved party discovers the existence of the cause of action. (Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449; Kimball v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 203 [30 P.2d 39].” Appellant in the (FAC) Pled Civil Code section 338(d) --On Pages (“CT” 519- 614) pages 8-12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-25, 27-32, 34, 36-42, 44-45, 47-49, 53, 56, 57, 60, 62-63, 65, 67, 70, 74-79, 81, 83-85, 87-103. The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion on December 3, 2015 decision (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 paragraph 9) ignored as Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 593, 594, 595 # 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) Civil Code section 338(d) and Civil Code section 337(3) .
3. (“With respect to actions based on fraud, the statute of limitations is tolled when plaintiff is able to show the defendant fraudulently concealed facts which would have led him to discover his potential cause of action. ‘Technical rules as to when a cause of action accrues apply therefore only in those cases which are free from fraud committed by the defendant. Said section 338, subdivision 4, . . . recognizes the non-applicability of those technical rules where the fraud of the defendant may be so concealed that in the absence of circumstances imposing greater diligence on the plaintiff, the cause of action is deemed not to accrue until the fraud is discovered. Otherwise, in such cases, the defendant by concealing his fraud would effectively block recovery by the plaintiff because of the intervention of the statute of limitations.” (Snow v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 120, 127—128 [211 Cal.Rptr. 271, internal citation omitted.).
See (FAC) Appellant (Exhibits (“CT” 746) 9-5) and (“CT 788) FAC 10-4) dated June 25, 2013 and June 27, 2013 as Respondent withheld the December 26, 2011 Rescission from Appellant until June 27, 2013 by use of Restraining orders in 2012 and 2013, per the (FAC Exhibit # 8 “CT” 707-741 ). Respondent’s Attorneys Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee created the amortization schedules used in the Courts December 3, 2015 decision, contributing to the Appellants delay in filing suit. [Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411 equitably tolled (extended, suspended, put on hold). See (“CT” Vol. 3 P.698 FAC Exhibit 6-13 Lines 9-13).
Appellant’s (“CT” Vol. 4 P. 978 FAC Ex. 20-1) is an email from Bankruptcy Attorney Chris Gautschi showing the Bankruptcy Courts Conformation, hearing was held “Without Prejudice” regarding Attorney Fees Etc.
It is an Abuse of Discretion for the Court (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 paragraph 9 December 3, 2015 decision to establish Union Bank’s Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty from December 26, 2011 as Union Bank failed to comply with Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 per (FAC Ex. 20-1) and (Opposition Ex. # 27) not allowed by the Court filed on November 20, 2015 and refilled on December 21, 2015 as Augmented April 28, 2016 into this record.
As pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 518 Paragraph 13lines 10 to 13) show the beginning of Respondent’s Breach of Contract as stated and pled in the (FAC): “Defendant’s actions on December 26, 2011 are the basis for this Breach of Written Contract law suit. Plaintiffs discovery on June 27, 2013 falls under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) and Code of Civil Procedure section337(3).”.
The Courts statement (CT” Vol. 6 P. 1630 Paragraph 6). “Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.” Is a full Abuse of Discretion as during Bankruptcy up to November 7, 2011 Respondent had not done a rescission per (Augumented Opposition Ex. # 27 (“CT” 839 Respondents own accounting).
This is not the case as pled in the (“CT”) 662 to 665-746, 787, 838, 839 FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 9-5, 10-4, 13 and 14-1(“CT” 839) along with Augumented (Opposition Ex. # 27) as on December 26, 2011 Respondent changed Appellant’s (FAC Exhibits without informing Appellant or the Bankruptcy Court using Restraining orders and Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 to withhold these loan Rescission changes against Civil Code section 338(d) – Civil Code section 337(3) pled throughout the (FAC).
This is a full Abuse of Discretion under Civil Code section 1689 as the November 7, 2011 online accounting (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Exhibit # 14-1) showed that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to bankruptcy and that Appellant’s Breach of Written Contract claim is within the Four Year Statute of Limitations under California Civil Code section 337. Respondent cannot claim Res Judicata with their withholding the December 26, 2011 Rescission through Restraining orders into 2013! Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1 use of a California Court applies to respondent actions. It took Respondent Attorneys till January 5, 2015 to admit to creating the two May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) as stated by Robert B. Forouzandeh: “I stated that my office “in conjunction with Union Bank” created the amortization schedules.” No Current California Case law allows Bank Attorneys to make their own Bank Records (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) against Certified Bank Records dated August 29, 2011 (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 1-1 to 1-4). The Court abuse of Discretion is seen (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 to 1632) as stated by the Court. “Contrary to plaintiff’s allegation that the breach occurred on May 19, 2011, the FAC contains other allegations that affirm that Plaintiff was fully aware of his breach of contract claims prior to May 19, 2011, such that the first cause of action is barred by the four year statute of limitations.” The Court is incorrect with the Certified August 29, 2011 Proof of Claim (“CT” P. 662-665 Vol. 3 )! The Court is incorrect in its Statute of Limitations in (“CT” Vol. 3 P 838 to 844) showing that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to December 26, 2011.
As pled to the October 9, 2015 (Demurrer Opposition) on November 20th 2015 (“CT”) FAC 1552). “Res Judicata is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint was filed. (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.) Respondent’s 12/26/2011 Rescission could not have been argued in Bankruptcy as it arose after the Bankruptcy was filed and Respondent withheld this information until June 27, 2013. The Court is fully aware of Respondents’s May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial (“CT”) 748 FAC Exhibit 9-7 (“CT”) 524 P 13 Lines 12 to 24) (FAC (“CT”) 574-576) P. 63 to 65Arguments Paragraph 105 to 111) showing no Res Judicata.
If the plaintiff is unaware of facts when filing a complaint, res judicata will not bar subsequent litigation. (Id. At p. 914, original italics.) Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (7th Cir.1993) 985 F.2d 908, in which a second suit was filed after plaintiff discovered new facts.” New facts per the (FAC) are the June 27, 2013 email and June 25, 2013 Proof of Claim (FAC Exhibits (“CT)746, 788 and 753) as pled in the (FAC).
In September 2011 Appellant was forced to file Bankruptcy on his SBA Loan from Respondent, Attorneys emails from May 19, 2011 to September 7, 2011 Appellants (“CT” Vol. 3 P.742 to 783 Exhibits). In Appellant (“CT” Vol. 3 and 4 P. 900 to 922) November 18, 2011 Bankruptcy CASE NO. ND11-14393RR Doc 31 Entered 11/8/2011--Respondent had not done a Rescission or changed Respondent’s Certified SBA Loan documents Per the FAC Bankruptcy, Attorney Richard Rossi in his arrears accounting of $107,186.12 included Defendants claimed legal fees, late charges etc. on top of actual Principal and interest at 6% owed Respondent per Respondents August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) Appellant (“CT” Vol. 4 P. 933Exhibit 17-2).
Is a full Abuse of Discretion against the Statute of Limitations as during Bankruptcy up to November 7, 2011 Respondent had not Re-Calculated or done a Rescission. Similar to (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)” Appellant’s fraud claim for Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission is not barred by res judicata because it did not accrue until after the Bankruptcy was filed and was withheld from Appellant and the Bankruptcy Court with Respondent’s Extrinsic fraud (Restraining Orders until June 27, 2013). The Court has misunderstood the fact that Respondent’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh admitted June 27, 2013 in (FAC) Exhibit 9-5 (“CT” P. 746) that his Amortization Schedules are not accurate! This has not been litigated and there currently is no California Case law allowing Bank Attorneys to make up their own Bank loan documents! This should be new Case Law Bookout V. MUFG Union Bank. As the Court acknowledges the June 27, 2013 email from Respondent (“CT” 1630 Exhibit 9-5 (“CT” P. 746)) showing that Amortization Schedules are not official Bank SBA Loan documents.
The purpose of res judicata is “to prevent repetitive suits involving the same cause of action.” (Ripplin Shoals Land Co., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, (8th Cir. 2006) 440 F.3d 1038, 1042.) To determine whether res judicata bars a party from asserting a claim, three elements must be considered: (1) whether the prior judgment was entered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) whether the prior decision was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) whether the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases. All Three of these fail in the December 3, 2015 decision as seen in Appellants Judicially Noticed Augumented (Opposition Exhibit # 27).
In ruling on a demurrer based on res judicata, a court may take judicial notice of the official acts or records of any court in this state. (Id. at p. 481; Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tholen (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 685, 696 [173 Cal. Rptr. 23]; Evid. Code, section 452.) Appellants Judicially Noticed Augumented (Opp Exhibit # 27) records and testimony by Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet was not allowed by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, showing no res judicata.
Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet made her Bankruptcy Conformation “without Prejudice” under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 without having a hearing or deciding on a decision as to what has been pled in the September 4, 2015 (FAC). Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet gave no ruling or decision on Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence with Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission withheld until June 27, 2013.
Respondent’s October 9, 2015 (Opposition Exhibit (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1528 to 1532) shows that the prior (Proof of Claim) was not approved per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. Respondents only claim Pre-Petition Attorney fees of $15,922.92 and not the $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees Post-Petition charged on February 22, 2012 per (FAC Exhibit # 10-4). The February 22, 2012 $57,676.17 Attorney Fees from Robert B. Forouzandeh should be tried per the May 18, 2015 Civil Complaint. Respondent under bankruptcy rule 3002.1 failed to account for 2012 Post-Petition charges of $26,500.00 and $39,750.00 charged on February 21, 2012 which is within Civil Code section 337 and has not been litigated, showing no Res Judicata.
Title 11 United States Code section 502(j) states in relevant part, "A claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case . . . ."
The Court has misunderstood the amortization schedules created by Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) January 5, 2015. This is an Abuse of Discretion.
Respondent’s misrepresentation, Extrinsic fraud per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 and May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial is similar to (Kettelle v. Kettelle (1930) 110 Cal.App. 310, 312.)” and (Yager v. Yager (1936) 7 Cal.2d 213, 217. ) as Respondent was required to Amend their Proof of Claim as explained in Judicially Noticed (Opposition Ex. # 27) denied by the Court. (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 569 Paragraph 97) Exhibit 20-1 explains the Bankruptcy Courts ruling “without prejudice”. The Court failed to acknowledge (“CT” P. 978 Ex. # 20-1) Bankruptcy Conformation hearing ruling “without prejudice”.
The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. P. 593, 594, 595 # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence. The Trial Court instead (“CT” 1630) believes that Amortization Schedules created by Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh are Bank documents as Appellant Stated before the Court in the (FAC).
The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“CT” P. 592 and 593 Paragraph # 166, Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence.
Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission was withheld until June 27, 2013 by the use of a May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial, restraining orders and Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 per (“CT” 1594 to 1595 Augumented Opposition Ex. # 27) Testimony by Respondent making the Civil Court the proper Court as Respondent changed loan documents in June 2013. Extrinsic fraud is found where fiduciaries have concealed information they have a duty to disclose. (See, e.g., Adams [181 Cal. App. 3d 597] v. Martin (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 246, 248 [44 P.2d 572]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 598, 601 [177 Cal. Rptr. 520]; Morgan v. Asher (1920) 49 Cal. App. 172, 176-179 [193 P. 288].) Appellant cannot be expected to object to matters not known from Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission because of Respondent’s concealment of information as a fiduciary that took Respondent’s Attorneys until June 27, 2013 to inform Appellant as seen in (“CT” P. 746 785-789 FAC Exhibits 9-5 and 10-4). Extrinsic Fraud is explained. In Craney v. Low (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 757 [298 P.2d 860], As Respondent’s Attorneys put themselves in Charge of Answering SBA loan questions for Union Bank as seen in (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 690 to 705)-statements by Respondent’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh. "The commonest ground for equitable relief is extrinsic fraud, a broad concept which covers a number of situations. Its essential characteristic is that it has the effect of preventing a fair adversary hearing, the aggrieved party being deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense." 5 Witkin, California Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, section 183, page 3752.
Respondent’s withholding a Loan Transaction History through restraining orders til June 27, 2013 is known to the Court per the Courts restraining order statements (“CT” Vol.6 P. 1629 to 1632. FAC Ex. # 10-4). In Stenderup v. Broadway State Bank (1933) 219 Cal. 593 [28 P.2d 14], defendants withheld requested information, without which plaintiff was unable to show fraud in accounting. The court held this constituted extrinsic fraud. As said in Caldwell v. Taylor, supra, 218 Cal. 471, at page 479.
The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." (Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 810-811 [122 P.2d 892]; see 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, section 188, p. 621) This is not the Case as argued (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 541 Par. 55 Lines 22 to 27 P. 542 Line 1 to 3 (“CT” Vol. 3-P. 790 to792 FAC Exhibit # 11-1 to11-3) per Respondent changing Loan Documents in June 2013.
Respondent’s Amortization Schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh and not by Respondent Union Bank per the (“CT”746) FAC Ex. 9-5) Acknowledged by the Court in its Directed Judgment Pursuant to Civil Code section 631.8 is not Substantiated by the Record and should not have been abused by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons and those contained in Appellant’s Opening Breif, Appellant respectfully requests that the Second Appellate Court reverse Hon Judge Barry T. LaBarbera’s December 3, 2015 ruling for Judgment on Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence. Allow Appellant to file a Second Amended Complaint or Proceed to Trial, with Respondent’s claimed rescission on November 23, 2011 from Amortization Schedules created by respondent’s Attorneys.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.