Source: http://secondappellatecourt.com/California_Case_law.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:26:07+00:00

Document:
The Second Appellate Courts full Knowledge of Union Banks actions using Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Judge Colleen k . Sterne !
I have filed a Petition for Rehearing in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 8.268. Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Judge Colleen k . Sterne will not allow questions of Union Bank except through Union Banks Attorneys since 2011 and this should not be allowed by Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J in their September 28th 2016 ruling. I have refilled my July 18, 2016 Reply Brief in hopes that they will read it this time!
Can you explain why the Second Appellate Court ignored Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History as seen at www.secondappellatecourt.com ? This News and Commentary website has been set up to show Union Banks actions after Bankruptcy showing that no Res Judicata occurred with Union Banks June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History! The Appellate Court ignored this.
With the Second Appellate Courts Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J --September 28, 2016 Decision; Union Bank has never amended IRS 1099-A Accounting to the IRS and have claimed in their 2012 1099-A Form (Returned by the Second Appellate Court) that the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan was paid in full. This will now be the next lawsuit against Union Bank as Union Bank Falsified accounting in February 11th 2014 to myself without actually correcting IRS accounting to the IRS going back to 2007; per Union Banks claimed Rescission before the Second Appellate Court. This is continued Fraud and now Grand Theft by Union Bank with the Second Appellate Courts September 28, 2016 Decision. Please review Union Banks email bow on July 13, 2016 as Union Bank refuses to answer SBA Loan Questions with Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Judge Colleen k . Sterne Restraining orders talked about by Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J.
I have again attached Union Banks 2013 Accounting to the IRS showing the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan being paid in Full. Union Bank had been given 24 hours to respond as of 1:04 pm September 28, 2016, but failed to respond Please see this Email attached to Union Bank below!
The Second Appellate Court acknowledged Union Banks Restraining orders on P. 4 of their Decision. Full Discovery could not have been done until Union Bank provided its June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History. Union Bank has never informed the IRS of Union Bank changing Yearly IRS 1098 accounting going back to 2007 as discovered on September 20th 2016. Union Bank has not changed their IRS Accounting going back to 2007and I ask for this decision to be reconsidered with Union Banks use of restraining orders acknowledged by Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J that have been issued by Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Judge Colleen k . Sterne.
Please have Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J reconsider their decision. Union Banks restraining order actions acknowledged by Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J are made public and presented to the National News Media at www.secondappellatecourt.com along with www.unionbank.me and www.mufgunionbankna.com . Union Bank has again ignored the September 28th 2016 email below to the Union Bank Attorneys; I am required to communicate with by Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Judge Colleen k . Sterne.
The attached documents are returned to you unfiled. If you are unsatisfied with the decision, you may file Petition for Rehearing in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 8.268.
If you should have any further questions, please give us a call as this email should only be used for relaying court orders and not for ex-parte matters.
Can you explain why the Second Appellate Court ignored Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History as seen at www.secondappellatecourt.com ? This News and Commentary website has been set up to show Union Banks actions after Bankruptcy showing that no Res Judicata occurred with Union Banks June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History!
With the Second Appellate Courts September 28, 2016 Decision; Union Bank has never amended IRS 1099-A Accounting to the IRS and have claimed in their 2012 1099-A Form that the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan was paid in full. This will now be the next lawsuit against Union Bank as Union Bank Falsified accounting in February 11th 2014 to myself without actually correcting IRS accounting to the IRS going back to 2007; per Union Banks claimed Rescission before the Second Appellate Court. This is continued Fraud and now Grand Theft by Union Bank with the Second Appellate Courts September 28, 2016 Decision..
I have attached Union Banks 2013 Accounting to the IRS showing the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan being paid in Full. Union Bank has been given 24 hours to respond as of 1:04 pm September 28, 2016. Please see this Email attached to Union Bank below!
The Second Appellate Court acknowledged Union Banks Restraining orders on P. 4 of their Decision. Full Discovery could not have been done until Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History that Union Bank never informed the IRS of Union Bank changing Yearly 1098 accounting going back to 2007. Union Bank has not changed IRS Accounting going back to 2007and I ask for this decision to be reconsidered with Union Banks use of restraining orders.
Please have Justice Gilbert, PJ, Yegan, J. and Perren, J reconsider their decision.
Subject: RE: Show changes to Union Banks 2012 IRS 1099-A Form accounting within 48 Hours going back to 2007 or admit to Union-Banks monthly Grand Theft!
RE: Union Bank is to provide within 48 Hours any documents provided to the IRS showing Union Bank doing a Rescission of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 going back to 2007 or admit to Union-Banks monthly Grand Theft!
Union Banks SBA Loan Representative, Robert B. Forouzandeh sent acknowledgment of the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan Rescission dated July 13, 2016 in his response email below! (“Furthermore, I have no knowledge that the IRS has deemed any tax forms submitted by SBBT and/or Union Bank to the IRS with regard to your account as being deficient, incorrect or requiring additional information or documentation.” I am requesting full reimbursement for all of Union Banks fraudulent monthly claimed payments since February 22, 2012 when this SBA Loan was paid in full according to Union Banks 2012 1099-A Form. Any payments made until Union Banks actions are resolved must be fully reimbursed by Union Bank. Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, Again answer the questions asked of you below on June 30, 2016- July 1, 2016 and July 13, 2016! Union Bank SBA Loan Representative’s Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh are not qualified to answer Union Banks IRS Accounting questions, per the July 13, 2016 E-Mail from Robert B. Forouzandeh!
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, understand that all questions asked of you will be posted at www.unionbankna.com www.secondappellate.com and other news and commentary websites. Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen K. Sterne require at your request that all questions asked of Union Bank are asked through Union Bank SBA Loan Representative’s Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh.
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag. Has Union Bank amended the IRS 1098 Form changes made by Union Bank on June 25, 2013 showing the Additional Interest charged in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 with Union Banks claimed two sets of Union Bank accounting records and Rescission before the Second Appellate Court? Union Bank has not accounted for these June 25, 2013 SBA Loan changes made by Union Bank to the IRS or William A. Bookout. According to the IRS Accounting this SBA Loan was paid off in 2012 and Union Bank has not provided any additional accounting!
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag. Union Bank reported to the IRS in 2012 in the only 1099-A provided to the IRS, that the fair market Value of the Oceano Nursery SBA Loaned property was $189,000.00 and that the Balance of the Principal as of February 22, 2012 was $0.00! Union Bank had appraised the Oceano Nursery property at $265,000.00. How can Union Bank make this kind of Banking Fraud to the IRS and Debtor William A. Bookout? This is seen at www.secondappellate.com Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, Did Union Bank provide the IRS any accounting showing that money was owed Union Bank after February 22, 2012?
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag. Please immediately provide any and all of Union Banks IRS 1098 Form accounting changes going back to 2003 with any SBA Loan changes made by yourself, Robert B. Forouzandeh, Diana Jessup Lee or Union Bank! This will be provided to the IRS for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 IRS Audit.
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, From the February 22, 2012 Foreclosure of the Oceano Nursery SBA loan, as seen in the 2012 IRS 1099-A. No money has been owed Union Bank since February 22, 2012 and a THIRD DEMAND is Now made of Union Bank for full reimbursement of all Principal and interest paid since February 22, 2012! Explain if Union Bank has provided accounting to the IRS showing any money owed Union Bank after February 22, 2012. Has Union Banks SBA Loan Representative, Robert B. Forouzandeh been making falsified monthly payment notices?
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, Explain, why Union Bank did not account to the IRS, Union Banks $57,676.17 in Attorney fees taken on February 22, 2012 in the 2012 IRS 1099-A Form or the 1098 Form? Please immediately correct this as I will be amending my 2012 taxes!
Union Bank Senior Vice President Christine Sontag again, explain how Union Bank came up with an additional $45,171.20 not owed Union Bank against IRS 1098 Form accounting from 2007 to 2012 not seen in Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History? The IRS will need this accounting from Union Bank!
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, This is AGAIN NOTICE TO UNION BANK THAT SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 WAS RESCINDED BY DEBTOR WILLIAM A. BOOKOUT ON JULY 13, 2016 AND NO MONEY IS OWED UNION BANK. The IRS shows that this SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 was paid in Full in the Union Banks 2012 Form 1099-A Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Robert B. Forouzandeh responded on July 13, 2016 on your, behalf. The Questions asked of You need to be answered by You or Union Bank and not Robert B. Forouzandeh, who has admitted before the Second Appellate Court of Union Bank having two sets of accounting. UNION BANK IS TO REFUND ALL ATTORNEY FEES TAKEN BY UNION BANK ALONG WITH PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS AND INTEREST PAID SINCE FEBRUARY 22, 2012 within 30 days!
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, Explain this statement made by Robert B. Forouzandeh to myself and those attached! (“Furthermore, I have no knowledge that the IRS has deemed any tax forms submitted by SBBT and/or Union Bank to the IRS with regard to your account as being deficient, incorrect or requiring additional information or documentation.” Why would Union Bank put Robert B. Forouzandeh in charge of this statement instead of Union Bank? Union Bank is to provide within 48 Hours any documents provided to the IRS showing Union Bank doing a Rescission of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 going back to 2007 or admit to Union-Banks monthly Grand Theft!
Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag, Currently Union Bank is committing Grand Theft each month with the Monthly payment Notices made by Robert B. Forouzandeh against the 2012 IRS Form 1099-Accounting! If Union Bank disputes this then within 48 hours; Union Bank is to provide any documents provided to the IRS that shows that this SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 was not paid in Full in Union Banks 2012 Form 1099-A! The IRS was never provided a 1099-A Form Correction dated February 11, 2014 as claimed by Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh that Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen K. Sterne require I communicate through for questions asked of You and Union Bank!
I do not have any knowledge that the IRS has subpoenaed any documentation from Union Bank regarding your account. Furthermore, I have no knowledge that the IRS has deemed any tax forms submitted by SBBT and/or Union Bank to the IRS with regard to your account as being deficient, incorrect or requiring additional information or documentation.
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended and may not be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed upon a taxpayer or for the purpose of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.
This Appeal is from five rulings regarding Respondent MUFG UNION BANK, N.A (“Union Bank”) Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence. This Civil lawsuit was filed on May 18, 2015 within the four year Statute of Limitations for the May 19, 2011 Falsified Notice of Default and the Courts established Rescission Date of November 23, 2011. The Trial Court’s rulings of December 3, 2015 are an Abuse of Discretion as the judgments have been made in error and are not supported by the substantial evidence in the record or California Case law. Respondent Union Bank has successfully misled the Court to prevent Plaintiff/Appellant from a Jury Trial on the merits of this case, which has denied Appellant his right to trial. Appellant has pled that on several dates within the four year statute of limitations, there was Breach of Written Contract, showing that Appellant claims are not barred by the Statute of Limitations prior to May 19, 2011 and are within Civil Code section 337(1). Appellant Opposition (“Opp”) and Reply exhibits show no Res Judicata. Respondent never provided Union Bank’s December 26, 2011 Rescission until June 27, 2013 (“RT”P. 746- FAC Exhibit 9-5) Argued to the Court in (“RT” P. 521 to 525 Paragraphs 20 to 26). Union Bank’s Attorney Fees of $57,676.17 on February 22, 2012 is a Breach of Written Contract against the Deed of Trust and Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 within a Four year Statute of Limitations.
Pursuant to the December 3, 2015, hearing Oral Arguments on the Demurrer to First Amended Complaint, the Court refused to allow Opposition Exhibit # 27 (Augmented before this Court on April 28, 2016). The tape recording of this Bankruptcy confirmation hearing was provided to Appellant on November 10, 2015 (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 Paragraph 7) for the first time. See (“RT” Vol. 6. P. 1670 Opp Exhibit. 27). Appellant believed it was essential to have this transcript included in the record with Respondent’s November 24th 2015 comments and respondents December 7th and 11th claim of Attorney Fees, so Appellant filed the full typed version with the Court on December 21, 2015 in Appellants (Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendants Claim of Attorney Fees (Ex. 27 Augmented into the record April 28th 2016) showing the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation being approved “Without Prejudice”. Respondent Union Bank (“RT” Vol. 6. Pgs. 1594 -1595) were allowed to give testimony per (FAC Exhibit # 27“RT” Vol. 6. Pg. 1670). Respondent never provided an additional (Proof of Claim) until June 27, 2013 against Respondents arguments per (Exhibit # 27“RT” Vol. 6. Pgs. 1594 -1595). This June 25, 2013 (Proof of Claim) showed Respondents Fraud and undisclosed Rescission making this a Civil Case filed within the 3 and 4 year Statute of Limitations for Fraud and Breach of Contract.
Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, issued his Adopted Tentative ruling on December 3, 2015 and his Judgment on December 30, 2015 allowing Union Bank’s Attorneys Amortization Schedules (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 675 to 685 FAC Ex. # 5) created by Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh per his statements (“RT” Vol 3 P. 753) in place of Certified SBA loan Documents created later and (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 662 to 1178 Exhibits 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 25, Opp. Exhibit # 27, Opp. Reply Ex. 29-1 to 29-2.) The Court, refused Judicially Noticed Exhibits 26, 27 and 28 P. 1 (see footnotes) in his ruling (“RT Vol. 6 P.1629) without Commenting, on (Opposition Reply Exhibits # 29- 1 to 29- 17). The Court failed to understand Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh Extrinsic Fraud per the Amortization Schedules he created (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 675 to 685 FAC Ex. # 5). The Court failed to understand Union Bank’s Changed (Proof of Claim) provided to Appellant for the First time (“RT Vol. 3 P. 785 to 789) on June 27, 2013 (FAC Ex. 9-5 “RT P. 746 and “RT P.7-8 Ex.10-4) showing no res judicata as further explained below. The Court misunderstood the statute of limitations per amortization schedules (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 675 to 685 FAC Ex. # 5) created by Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh, per official Union Bank documents (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 10-4, 13 14-1, 20 “RT” P. 662 to 1178). The Court failed to talk about Civil Code section 338(d) and Civil Code section 337(3) Menioned throughout the (FAC). Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, Judgments became final and appealable pursuant to Civil Code section 904.1 on December 30, 2015.
The December 3, 2015 decision by Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera would not allow Judicially, noticed (Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29-1 to 29-17 “RT” Vol. 6 P. 1629 to 1632) showing no adjudication or Res Judicata and that Union Bank’s Breach of Written Contract/Rescission was not prior to May 19, 2011 pled in the (“RT”Vol. 2 P. 572 to 576 Paragraphs 101, 102 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111). This is an Abuse of Discretion as 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 (“RT” Vol 2 P. 572 to 576) after the May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial (“RT Vol. 2 P. 524 Paragraph 25). (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 541 to 542 FAC P. 30 to 31 Paragraph 55 shows as pled Union Bank’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 and no res judicata has occurred. The Court talks about the restraining orders issued by Union Bank for asking SBA Loan Question (“RT” P. 1629)- 1 under (foot notes) and Paragraph 3, but ignores the fact in the (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 524) that Respondent used these restraining orders as a prison for stopping Appellant from finding the facts behind Union Bank’s 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 Union Bank’s restraining order actions are the same as being imprisoned as Appellant could only ask SBA loan Questions of Union Bank’s Attorneys who would not answer questions per Union Bank’s (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 742 January 8, 2013 email Exhibit # 9-1 to 9-3 Ex. 9-4 “RT’ P. 745) Email dated January 24, 2013 and (“RT” P 748 RESPA Email 9-7) dated May 23, 2013 per the arguments in the (“RT” P. 521 to 523 P. 10, 11 and 12 Paragraphs 19 to 23). Appellant in the (FAC) Pled Civil Code section 337.( “RT” 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.
Appellant in the (FAC) with Union Bank’s undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission per “RT” P. 785 to789 Exhibit #10) June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History, Pled the facts under Civil Code section 337(3) . “RT” Vol. 2 and 3 Pages 522 to 613 (FAC) Pages 11-12-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-22-24-25-27-28-29-30-31-32-34-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-44-46-47-48-49-52-53-56-58-61-62-65-68-74-75-76-77-78-79-81-84-86-87-88-89-90-91-92-93-94-95-96-98-99-100-101-102. 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 (“RT” 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 Union Bank’s own records showed up to November 7, 2011; Union Bank had not done a Rescission and the Principal Balance was $390,996.61 in (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Ex. # 14-1) dated November 7, 2011! The Courts December 3, 2015 Decision claims Union Bank did their rescission on November 23, 2011 which is within the four year Statute of Limitations and is an Abuse of Discretion as this is an email from Union Bank’s Attorney and not an official Bank Rescission document. Union Banks Monthly Payment notice (“RT” Vol. 3 P 838 Ex. 13) September 23, 2011 Shows that Union Bank had not done a rescission prior and (“RT” P. 662 to 665 “RT Vol. 3 # 1-1, 1-3, 1-4) being the SBA Certified August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction History showed no Rescission, prior! The Court failed to understand that Union Bank never provided an accounting of their Rescission until June 27, 2013 or their June 25, 2013 Loan changes under Civil Code section 337(3). This could not have been argued eariler showing no Res Judicata or adjudication.
For the Court to claim (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 December 3, 2015 paragraph 8), that two May 6, 2011Amortization Schedules created by Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 753 Paragraph 2) with an interest rate of 6% starts the Statute of Limitations is an Abuse of Discretion and make this fully appealable from a June 24, 2011 restraining order answer. This June 24, 2011 restraining order answer is not Res Judicata per the (FAC Exhibits # 9-5 and 10-4 acknowledged by the Court paragraph 6th 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 and should not have been used in the courts starting point for Statute of Limitations and Res Judicata. This is an Abuse of Discretion.
Appellant’s (“RT Vo. 3 P. 788 Exhibit # 10-4) Union Bank June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History shows that the Courts November 23, 2011 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 783) email from Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 783Exhibit 9-43) Rescission did not occur until December 26, 2011. Res judicata could not happen as it took Union Bank 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 an accounting of their actions. “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). Defendant‘s December 26, 2011 Rescission was against Civil Code section 1689 under Rescission, as Defendants 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 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. For the Court to ignore this is an Abuse of Discretion with Respondent June 27, 2013 E-mail mentioned by the Court per (FAC Exhibit 9-5 “RT” P. 1630 Paragraph 6). The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion on December 3, 2015 decision (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 paragraph 9) ignored as Pled in the (“RT” 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 Exhibit # 10-4 dated June 25, 2013.
4. (“Courts have relied on the nature of the relationship between defendant and plaintiff to explain application of the delayed accrual rule. The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. The fiduciary relationship carries a duty of full disclosure, and application of the discovery rule ‘prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity for an initial breach of duty by a subsequent breach of the obligation of disclosure.’” (Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [37 Cal.Rptr. 2d 810, internal citations omitted.)“ See (FAC) Appellant (Exhibits 9-5 and 10-4) dated June 25, 2013 and June 27, 2013 showing the Courts Abuse of Discretion as Union Bank 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).
Defendants use of restraining orders in Plaintiffs (Exhibit # 8 “RT” P. 707 to741) as noted in the December 3, 2015 Superior Court decision for accounting questions per Union Bank’s May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules and May 19, 2011 Notice of Default, falls into the Four year Statute of Limitations for Breach of Written Contract. As pled in the (“RT” P. 616 P. 105 line 19 Exhibit 6-5 to 6-8) shows Respondents restraining order actions during this complaint on July 16, 2015. In a Second Amended Complaint, Appellant can further explain the restraining order actions by Robert B. Forouzandeh Per the July 6, 2015 (“RT” P. 698 Exhibit Testimony 6-10 to 6-20) showing that the only contact Appellant has been allowed to have with Union Bank’s has been through Union Bank’s Attorneys Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee who 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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P.698 Exhibit 6-13 Lines 9-13.
This is an Abuse of Discretion. The Court ignores Bankruptcy (“RT’ Vol. 3 P. 882 to 883Exhibit # 16-38 to 16-39) Explaining, Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 P. 3 lines 1 to 21 along with Defendants Pre Petition Attorney fees.
Plaintiffs (“RT” 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.
Appellant (Augmented Opposition Ex. # 27) Under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 shows no Res Judicata.
The Trial Court failed to acknowledge (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 1600 to 1627) November 30, 2015 Reply to Defendants Opposition (Exhibit # 29-1 to 29-2) explaining the June 30, 2011 Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Bank’s letter showing Defendants November 24 2015 Opposition to Pre-Bankruptcy claimed Rescission to be false. In a Second Amended Complaint the June 30, 2011 Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Bank’s letter will show that the Statute of Limitations had not run prior to December 26, 2011.
Honorable Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, is incorrect in his decision as stated above and below. This does not rule out the four year statute of limitations. Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh would not provide a loan accounting with (“RT” Vol.3 P. 748 FAC Exhibit 9-7 RESPA Denial “RT” 524 (FAC) P 13 Lines 12 to 24) until June 27, 2013(FAC Exhibit # 10-4). The Court States (“RT” 1631 P. 3 Paragraph 8) against the Courts claimed rescission date of November 23, 2011 regarding Res Judicata!
This is an Abuse of Discretion against Civil Code section 338(d) to Civil Code section 337(3) per the (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 695 to 405 Exhibit 6-10 to 6-20 July 6, 2015) Restraining order Court actions by Robert B. Forouzandeh. The Court has ignored (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 707 to 720 Exhibits P. 707 to 720) that Respondent’s claims are not accurate in (Exhibit 9-5) per (Res Judicata) talked about in depth by the Court.
The Court ignored restraining order (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 721 to 741Exhibits 8-15 to 8-35) that Union Bank claims are not accurate on June 27, 2013 in Exhibit 9-5 talked about in depth by the Court as also shown to be fraudulent in Judicially Noticed (FAC) Exhibits. It took Appellant until June 27, 2013 to acknowledge that the Restraining Orders accounting in 2011, 2012 and 2013 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 735 to 738 Exhibits 8-29 to 8-32) was Fraudulent per (FAC Exhibits 9-1 to 9-5). The Court ignores the fact that Union Bank had not done a Rescission on June 24, 2011 from its own Evidence!
It is an Abuse of Discretion for the Court (“RT” 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 (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 518 Paragraph 13lines 10 to 13) show the beginning of Union Bank’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 (RT” 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 Union Bank had not done a rescission per (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 9-5, 10-4, 13 and 14-1) along with (Opposition Ex. # 27). Union Bank had not recalculated the SBA Loan prior to December 26 2011 against the Courts date of November 23, 2011.
This is not the case as pled in the (“RT” 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) along with (Opposition Ex. # 27) as on December 26, 2011 Respondent changed Appellant’s (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 13, and 14-1) without informing Appellant or the Bankruptcy Court using Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 to withhold these SBA 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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Exhibit # 14-1) showed that Union Bank 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 Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh till January 5, 2015 to admit to creating the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules (“RT” 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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 753) against Certified Bank Records dated August 29, 2011 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 1-1 to 1-4) as the Court abuse of Discretion is seen (“RT” 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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 1-1 to 1-4)! The Court is incorrect in its Statute of Limitations in (“RT” Vol. 3 P 838 to 844) showing that Union Bank had not done a Rescission prior to December 26, 2011 and that the Statute of Limitations had not expired prior!
Union Bank’s use of restraining orders for stopping Bank Loan questions in June 2011 lead to Union Bank’s December 26, 2011 falsified Rescission (Extrinsic fraud) and Breach of Written Contract, per the Courts November 23, 2011 Rescission date findings, Union Bank’s December 26, 2011 Rescission did not make Appellant whole with (“RT” Vol. 4 P. 923 to 974) Changing of Loan documents! Thus, (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 557 paragraph 79 to 80) not amending IRS 1098 Forms per Defendants Rescission is fraud.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->A. <!--[endif]-->The Trial Court Applied the Incorrect Statute of Limitations for Breach of Written Contract with Union Banks Attorney admitting to making the Amortization Schedules used in the Courts claim that the Statute of limitations had expired from these Two Amortization schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh (“RT” Vol. 3. P.753).
Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411 equitably tolled (extended, suspended, put on hold). See Judge Colleen k. Sterne Statements (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 698 Exhibits 6-13 Lines 9-13). (Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449; Kimball v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 203 [30 P.2d 39]. The (Extrinsic fraud) in the December 26, 2011 Rescission (FAC Ex. 10-4) was provided by Respondent on June 27, 2013 against Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 pled in the (“RT Vol. 6 P. 1555) November 20, 2015 Demurrer (Opposition P. 9). “VI. PLAINTIFF HAS PLED ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF FRAUD.” The Court is fully aware of Respondents May 23, 2013 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 748 Exhibit 9-7 RESPA Denial as stated “RT” Vol. 2 P 524 Paragraph 25) by Union Bank, showing no Res Judicata per the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History.
Union Bank’s Ongoing Perjury will need to be addressed within the Bankruptcy Court.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->D. <!--[endif]-->The Trial Court Applied the Incorrect Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 753).
<!--[if !supportLists]-->F. <!--[endif]-->The Trial Court Failed to review and acknowledge “RT” Vol. 3 P. 753).
(FAC Exhibits 1-1,13, 14-1) as mentioned above showing that the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh and not by Union Bank per the (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. Robert B. Forouzandeh admitted in June 27, 2013 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 746) that these Amortization Schedules he created where not accurate. The Courts Abuse of Discretion is in the use of these Amortization Schedules starting the Statute of Limitations (“RT” Vo. 6 P. 1631 to 1632) as they are not Bank Records.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->G. <!--[endif]-->The Granting of Respondents Judgment on their Pleadings Deprived Appellant of his Right to Petition Union Bank’s Theft of $45,171.20 charged twice per (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 541 regarding Exhibit # 11).
This overcharging of Appellants SBA Loan is continued and ongoing yearly Bank Fraud and Grand Theft.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->H. <!--[endif]-->The Trial Court improperly applied the Statute of Limitations.
The Trial Court improperly applied the Statute of Limitations from Amortization Schedules created by Appellants Attorneys over actual Union Bank Loan documents, Substantially Prejudicing Appellant with the Courts determination of a November 23, 2011 Rescission against (“RT” Vol. 3 P.785 to 789 Exhibit 10-4 dated June 25, 2013). As noted (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 541 to 542). Defendants fraudulently correcting documents in June 2013 make this a Civil Case outside of Bankruptcy with no Res Judicata.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->I. <!--[endif]-->The Trial Court did not take Judicial Notice.
The Trial Court did not take Judicial Notice of Appellant’s Exhibit # 27 April 13, 2012 or Augmented (Opposition Ex. # 27) Conformation hearing showing Respondent were by June 24, 2012 under Federal Rule 3002.1 to provide an accounting of Pre and Post-Petition Attorney fees, in an amended (Proof of Claim), Substantially Prejudged Appellant as Respondents took until June 27, 2013 to provide a (Proof of Claim) that created on June 25, 2013 for the First time making this a Civil Case per (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 541 and 542 with Defendants Fraudulently correcting loan documents in June 2013.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->J. <!--[endif]-->Abuse of Discretion.
451, 452, 453, 455 and 459 with Judicial notice not being allowed in Opposition Exhibits # 26, 27, 28 as stated by the Trial Court.
The Trial Courts Abuse of Discretion is seen in this statement as the Court allowed judicial Notice to Defendants, but not to Appellant. The Court States (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 1629).
The following are code sections (E, G, under Section 452) (A, B under Section 453) (A, B,) Under Section 455 showing the Trial Court acknowledged Opp. (Exhibits # 26, 27 and 28) Along with (Opp Reply Exhibits 29-1 to 29-17) presented to the Court.
“Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.” (2 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, section 47.1, at pp. 1064-1065.) The court may in its discretion take judicial notice of any court record in the United States. (Evid. Code, section 451.) This includes any orders, findings of facts and conclusions of law, and judgments within court records. (See, e.g., Columbia Cas. Co. v Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904.)” The April 13, 2012 Tape Recording of the Bankruptcy Conformation is an official Record of the Confirmation hearing denied by the Court showing no Res Judicata. Appellant filed judicial Notice on December 21, 2015 with this document in Opposition to Defendants claim for Attorney fees.
The Trial Court Applied the Incorrect Statute of Limitation for Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence. The Trial Court ignored Judicially Noticed (FAC Exhibits # 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1 9-5,10-4, 13, 14-1, 20-1, and 27 seen in (“RT” Vol. 6 Pages 1661 to 1670), Judicially Noticed, (Opposition Exhibits 26, 27 and 28) Along with Respondents Pre Petition (Demurrer Ex. # 6) as Union Bank had not recalculated the SBA Loan prior to December 26 2011. This is an Abuse of Discretion as Respondents October 9, 2015 (“RT” Vol. 5 P. 1314 to 1328 Demurrer Exhibit # 6) was prior to Union Bank’s December 26, 2011 rescission changes made known on June 27, 2013. The two Amortization Schedules (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 675 to 685 Ex. # 5) letter does not start the four year Statute of Limitations for Breach of Written Contract with Union Bank’s June 27, 2013 email and Loan accounting, showing no Res judicata. Union Banks actions have not been litigated, nor judged on the merits of this case. There has been no final judgment. Under a “Transaction of Occurrence” test. Respondent’s actions could not have been argued prior to Union Banks June 25, 2013 (Proof of Claim) and Robert B. Forouzandeh finally admitting January 5, 2015 (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 753 Ex. 9-12) to creating Amortization Schedules that are not Bank Records seen in (“RT” Vol. 6 P. 746 Ex. 9-5) mentioned by the Court.
Honorable Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, Granting Respondent’s request for judicial notice of various pleadings including, but not limited to, the restraining orders and bankruptcy court proceedings prejudiced Appellant as this did not show the facts and Exhibits necessary to show that this action is not barred by res judicata. As Pled in the (“RT” P. 584 Vol. 2 Paragraph 134). 73 Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 809, 35 Cal.Rptr. 797, 110 P.3d 914. Casualty Insurance Company v. Rees Investment Company (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 716, 720, 92 Cal.Rptr. 857. Appellants, December 26, 2011 Rescission has not been litigated as provided June 27, 2013.
As pled in the October 9, 2015 (Demurrer Opposition) “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.) Union Bank’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 Union Bank’s May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial (FAC Exhibit 9-7 P 13 Lines 12 to 24) (FAC 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 9-5-10-4-9-12) 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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P.742 to 783 Exhibits). In Appellant (“RT” 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 (“RT” Vol. 4 P. 933Exhibit 17-2) shows the Court Abuse of Discretion as the Court established a date prior to Bankruptcy using two Amortization Schedules created by Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh.
Is a full Abuse of Discretion as during Bankruptcy up to November 7, 2011 Union Bank had not Re-Calculated or done a Rescission per (FAC) (Exhibits #1-1, 13 and 14-1) 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 BK Court with Respondent’s Extrinsic fraud (Restraining Orders until June 27, 2013). The Court has misunderstood the fact that Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh has admitted June 27, 2013 in (FAC) Exhibit 9-5 that his and not Union Banks prior loan calculations 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 from two Amortization Schedules!
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 (Opposition Exhibit # 27) per (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 9-5,10-4, 13 and 14-1).
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 (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.
Appellant responded to Respondent’s November 24, 2015 reply on November 30, 2015 explaining Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 left out in Respondent reply to Appellant’s Judicially Noticed (Opposition Exhibit # 27) showing No Res Judicata and that Appellant’s May 18, 2015 complaint was filed within Civil Code section 337.
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 by Union Bank until June 27, 2013. In this case (Siegel v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 143 F.3d 525, 529) should not be applied, but if it is then, this case should be allowed back into the Bankruptcy court to be heard (“without prejudice”) as stated by Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet.
Respondent’s October 9, 2015 (Opposition Exhibit (“RT” 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 $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.
(In re Mirzai, supra, 271 B.R. at pp. 652-653) Mirzai the creditor's claim was disallowed, whereas here, under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 and Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet's April 13, 2012 Conformation hearing overruled “without prejudice” and no decision; this claim has not been litigated to date, whereas Nathanson's claim was fully litigated before the bankruptcy court on its merits. Hence, the principle of res judicata would not have applied in Mirzai and should not apply in Bookout v. MUFG Union Bank N.A. for an entirely different reason than that relied on by the Mirzai Court. 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 . . . ."
Honorable Judge Barry T. LaBarbera has misunderstood the amortization schedules created by Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 753) January 5, 2015 compared to official loan documents per Union Banks June 27, 2013 email. This is an Abuse of Discretion.
Appellant, should have been allowed to do a Second Amended complaint as referenced in Appellant’s (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 883Exhibit 16-39) by Respondent and Appellant’s (“RT” Vol. 4 P. 987 Exhibit # 21-8) argued by Bankruptcy Attorney Richard Rossi, showing Union Bank not complying with Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1.
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. (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 569 Paragraph 97) Exhibit 20-1 explains the Bankruptcy Courts ruling “without prejudice”. The Court failed to acknowledge (“RT” P. 978 Ex. # 20-1) Bankruptcy Conformation hearing ruling “without prejudice”.
As stated in (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)” The trial court erred in granting summary judgment. [Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 158] Union Bank was to amend their January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim) per Judicially Noticed (Opposition Ex. # 27) denied by the Superior Court from the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing. Under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 Respondent withheld Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission from Appellant until June 27, 2013 using a May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial, (FAC Exhibit 9-7) which could not have been litigated until the discovery of (FAC Ex. # 10-4 dated June 25, 2013) as seen in Appellants (FAC Exhibits 9-5) June 27, 2013, acknowledged by the Court that also included Appellant’s (FAC) (Ex. 10-4). Respondent prevented Appellant from including the entire claim in the original Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing as allowed Under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. The doctrine of res judicata bars claims that have either been litigated or that could have been litigated from being litigated again. As pled in the November 20, 2015 (“RT” Vol. 6 Opposition P. 1558 lines 12-16). “―Where there is a duty to disclose, the disclosure must be full and complete, and any material concealment or misrepresentation will amount to fraud. ― (Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 235 [153 P.2d 325].) fn. 25 ” This is seen in (FAC Ex. # 9-5 and 10-4) that Respondent withheld till June 27, 2013 showing no Res Judicata and no final judgment on the merits. The Bankruptcy Court has not made a Final judgment with the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing conformed “Without Prejudice” (per Opp Ex. # 27). The Bankruptcy Court could not make a final judgment with Respondent withholding Post-Petition Attorney Fees as stated by Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet in (Ex. # 27) April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing: “Oh yes, you didn’t comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. Excuse me it hasn’t been 180 days.” The Bankruptcy Court could not make a final judgment with not being informed of Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission per the (FAC) arguments.
The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“RT” 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 believes that Amortization Schedules created by Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh are Bank documents???? Appellant Stated before the Court in the (FAC).
The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 612, Paragraph # 21), Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence taking $45,171.20 not owed and $57,676.17 in Attorney fees Post-Petition never included in a (Proof of Claim).
The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“RT” P. 592 and 593 Paragraph # 166, Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence.
The following are additional Bankruptcy Cases regarding Appellants, (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 9-5,10-4, 13, 14-1 and 20-1) (Opposition Exhibit # 27) per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 with Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission provided on June 27, 2013 in (FAC Exhibit # 10-4).
In re Ortega 2013 WL 2099726 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 14, 2013) – Court held that secured creditor could not recover post-petition fee incurred for preparing FRBP 3002.1 notice where the creditor offered no evidence as to the reasonableness of the fee.
In re Owens 2014 WL 184781 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Jan 15, 2014) – Court held that any fees assessed post-petition against debtor that are recoverable against the debtor’s principal residence must be noticed via the provisions of FRBP 3002.1.
In re Lighty 513 B.R. 489 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014) – Lays out 2 part test for analyzing post-petition fees noticed under FRBP 3002.1: 1) is payment of the fee required by the underlying agreement (mortgage) to cure a default by debtor; 2) is payment of the fee required by applicable no bankruptcy law?
In re Hale 2015 WL 1263255 (Bankr. D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2015) – Follows In re Pittman and favorably cites In re Lighty. Creditors must provide adequate descriptions of the fees being sought in their FRBP 3002.1 notices.
In re Kreider 494 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Penn. 2013) – Court denied secured creditor’s request to recover post-petition fees under FRBP 3002.1 when the secured creditor failed to timely respond to the trustee’s NOFC. The Court held that, per FRBP 3002.1, the mere filing a notice does not establish the existence of post-petition fees. The creditor must provide evidence of such fees.
In re Fuentes 509 B.R. 832 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014) – Under-secured debtor successfully contested post-petition, pre-confirmation fees creditor sought under its PPFN. Court found that anti-modification provisions of the bankruptcy code didn’t apply until the plan was confirmed. Therefore, fees incurred pre-confirmation could be successfully contested through FRBP 3002.1 process.
In re Roife 2013 WL 6185025 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2013) – Court further clarified the itemization requirements under FRBP 3002.1: creditors must complete the official form B 10; and 2) include dates late fees and legal fees were incurred. Court reiterated that creditors can’t recover fees for the mere preparation and filing of a FRBP 3002.1 notice.
Union Bank’s June 25, 2013 Proof of Claim was withheld by Respondent until June 27, 2013 by the use of a May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial, restraining orders and Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 per (“RT” 1594 to 1595 Opposition Ex. # 27) Testimony by Union Bank making the Civil Court the proper Court As Union Bank 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 Union Bank’s concealment of information as a fiduciary that took Respondent’s Attorneys until June 27, 2013 to inform Appellant as seen in (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 (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 690 to 705)-statements by Union Banks 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.
Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh withholding an amended (Proof of Claim) through restraining orders until June 27, 2013 is known to the Court per the Courts restraining order statements (“RT” 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 the 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 seen and argued in the (“RT” Vol. 2 P. 541 Paragraph 55 Lines 22 to 27 “RT” P. 542 Line 1 to 3 (“RT” Vol. 3-P. 790 to792 FAC Exhibit # 11-1 to11-3) per Union Bank’s changing Loan Documents in June 2013.
Appellant respectfully requests that the Second Appellate Court make new California Case Law with Union Banks June 25, 2013 Proof of Claim; ignoring Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 with Robert B. Forouzandeh Post Petition Attorney Fees and Notify the California Attorney General and California State Bar with Appellant Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh Amortization Schedules he created (“RT” Vol. 6 P.
For the foregoing reasons, 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, Negligence, Res Judicata, Adjudication, Statute of Limitations with Respondents Breach of Written Contract, Fraud seen in Union Banks June 27, 2013 (Proof of Claim). Allowing Appellant to file a Second Amended Complaint; Proceed to Trial or send this case back to the United States Bankruptcy Court with Appellants claimed rescission on November 23, 2011 from Amortization Schedules created by Union Banks Attorneys, Thus showing “No Four Year Statute of Limitation, Res Judicata or Adjudication with Union Banks November 7, 2011 Loan accounting (Proof of Claim) (“RT” Vol. 3 P. 839 to 840 and Union Banks August 29, 2011 Proof of Claim (RT” Vol. 3 P. 662 to 665).
Appellant hereby certifies that pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)(1) of the California Rules of Court, the enclosed brief of William A. Bookout, the appellant, is produced using 13-point Times New Roman and contains approximately 13,798 words, which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of court. Appellant relies on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this brief.
Content copyright . Oceano Nursery. All rights reserved.

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