The court granted the defendants' motion to amend the judgment to add additional judgment debtors. Specifically, the court ruled that several entities and trusts are alter egos of the judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero and added them and their trustee as judgment debtors. The court found the defendants presented sufficient evidence to establish the alter ego relationship and that the judgment debtors' arguments against the motion were precluded or barred.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
When A family use to work togather they communicated with one another and the elders would give council doing everything they could to keep the family togather.
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
A case heard by the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Ohio in which a landowner claimed that the relatively little drilling done on a small portion of their land should allow them to reclaim title to the mineral rights and release the unused portions of the land to another driller. The court disagreed, ruling the language in the lease does not allow it.
Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan was sanctioned as shown by this court order where Scott McMillan , McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, had to notify the court he paid the money ordered by the court. Scott McMillan has a long history of losing cases. This is just one case where he suffered an adverse result.
When A family use to work togather they communicated with one another and the elders would give council doing everything they could to keep the family togather.
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
A case heard by the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Ohio in which a landowner claimed that the relatively little drilling done on a small portion of their land should allow them to reclaim title to the mineral rights and release the unused portions of the land to another driller. The court disagreed, ruling the language in the lease does not allow it.
Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan was sanctioned as shown by this court order where Scott McMillan , McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, had to notify the court he paid the money ordered by the court. Scott McMillan has a long history of losing cases. This is just one case where he suffered an adverse result.
LEGAL SYSTEM ABUSE REPARATION BILLS
LONG-TERM WIDESPREAD FRAUD
JUDGES ABOVE THE LAW- NO RULE OF LAW-NO REMEDY AT LAW
WHISTLEBLOWER LAW FIRMS/LAW CLINICS/HUMAN RIGHT DEFENDERS
https://judicialcriminal.com/ (USA)
BOOK/AMAZON: JUDICIAL CRIMINALS The Greatest fraud upon American society America’s Legal System
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G4K3QFY?ref_=k4w_oembed_YSuOoH1t7Ab8kJ&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd (USA)
See Case No. 3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986);
2. RACKETEERING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT OF 1970 (18 U.S.C. § 1962);
3. FALSE ADVERTISING (15 U.S.C. § 1125);
WHISTLEBLOWER LAW FIRMS/LAW CLINICS/HUMAN RIGHT DEFENDERS
LEGAL SYSTEM ABUSE REPARATION BILLS
LONG-TERM WIDESPREAD FRAUD
JUDGES ABOVE THE LAW- NO RULE OF LAW-NO REMEDY AT LAW
https://judicialcriminal.com/ (USA)
BOOK/AMAZON: JUDICIAL CRIMINALS The Greatest fraud upon American society America’s Legal System
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G4K3QFY?ref_=k4w_oembed_YSuOoH1t7Ab8kJ&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd (USA)
See Case No. 3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986);
2. RACKETEERING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT OF 1970 (18 U.S.C. § 1962);
3. FALSE ADVERTISING (15 U.S.C. § 1125);
PA Superior Court Decision: Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty CompanyMarcellus Drilling News
In the Northern Forests case, the surface rights owner (Northern Forests) claimed they should also own the subsurface rights due to a legal principal called adverse possession. In reviewing the case, a PA trial court found the original case from 1989 awarding Northern Forests the mineral rights, was in error and the rights revert back to the original rights owners. PA Superior Court agreed and upheld the decision.
The decision handed down on Dec. 19, 2013 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that upholds the right of local towns to zone for oil and gas drilling within their boundaries. This decision nullifies (strikes down) provisions part of the Act 13 law passed by the PA legislature in early 2012. The decision throws the drilling industry into some turmoil as to how to proceed. Some town boards are packed with anti-drillers with their own agenda and this decison will embolden them to further abuse their power.
Similar to 5 30-12 notice of ruling re motion to amend judgment to add judgment debtors (20)
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...
5 30-12 notice of ruling re motion to amend judgment to add judgment debtors
1. a...
--l
--l
0:::
L!J
--l
--l
::2
1 RANDALL A. MILLER (Bar No. 116036)
AUSTA WAKILY (BarNo. 257424)
2 MILLERLLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
4 Facsimile: 888.749.5812
CONFORMED copy
ORIGIN1IjEDSUPERIOR comIT ~CA.LlFORNIA
COUl'ITV OF L AWt;ELES
MAY 30 2012
John A'I('E.ecutive Officer/Clerk
BY ,Deputy
Gina Grider
5 Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
6 M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; an individual;
PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT, INC., a
Corporation; GINGERBREAD COURT LP, a
Limited Partnership; 511 OFW, LP a Limited
Partnership; MALIBU BROAD BEACH LP, a
Limited Partnership; MARINA GLENCOE
LP, a Limited Partnership; BLU HOUSE LLC,
a Limited Liability Company; BOARDWALK
SUNSET LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
TRUSTEE of GIGANIN TRUST, JOSEPH
PRASKE; TRUSTEE of ARENZANO
TRUST, JOSEPH PRASKE; and TRUSTEE of
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION, JOSEPH
PRASKE,
Plaintiffs and Judgment Debtors,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEPHEN
RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS and
ANDRE JARDIN!,
Defendants and Judgment Creditors.
CASE NO.: BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24]
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD
ADDITIONAL JUDGMENT DEBTORS
[PROOF OF SERVICE]
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Honorable Robert L. Hess
NOTICE OF RULING
2. 0....
....J
....J
0:::
w
....J
....J
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 29, 2012 in Department 24 of the above-entitled
3 court Defendants and Judgment Creditors KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE's, STEPHEN RAY
4 GARCIA's, STEPHEN M. HARRIS', and ANDRE JARDINI's (Collectively "KPC") Motion to
5 Amend the Judgment to Add Judgment Debtors came on for hearing before the Honorable
6 Robert L. Hess.
7 Austa Wakily of Miller LLP appeared for KPC and David Chatfield of Westlake Law
8 Group appeared on behalf of the Judgment Debtor Stephen Gaggero. Specially Appearing for
9 Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP,
10 Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske as the Trustee
11 of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aquasante Foundation was David Esquibias of the
12 Law Offices of David Esquibias.
13 The Court, having considered the arguments heard on May 29, 2012, ruled as follows:
14 I. KPC presented sufficient evidence in support of the Motion to Amend the Judgment to
15 establish that Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP,
16 Malibu Broad Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC,
17 and Joseph Praske as the Trustee of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aquasante
18 Foundation, are the alter egos of Judgment Debtor Stephen Gaggero;
19 2. The Judgment Debtors1 were precluded from raising new arguments for the first time
20 during the oral argument;
21 3. The Judgment Debtors were precluded from relying on documents that were not
22 presented in the opposition and/or have been withheld from KPC in support of their
23 opposition;
24 /II
25
26
27
28
1 Judgment Debtors refers collectively to Stephen Gaggero, Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511
OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC,
Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske as the Trustee of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust,
and Aquasante Foundation
-2-
NOTICE OF RULING
3. 0::
W
.....J
.....J
1 4. Reverse Corporate Piercing did not bar KPC's request to add Joseph Praske, Trustee, of
2 the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aquasante Foundation as judgment debtors as
3 Stephen Gaggero's alter ego;
4 5. Reverse Corporate Piercing did not bar KPC's Motion to Amend the Judgment to add
5 Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad
6 Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset LLC as judgment
7 debtors as Stephen Gaggero's alter ego;
8 6. Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata did not bar KPC's Motion to Amend the Judgment
9 to Add Additional Judgment Debtors;
10 7. KPC's Motion to Amend the Judgment is granted in its entirety, a copy of the signed
11 order is attached as Exhibit A.
12
13 Dated: May 30, 2012
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLERLLP
By: ~k..:9(J~ty~~~;;4'l~)::.:.!....:/'./:=::::..cJF--) __RANDALL A. MILLER, ESQ. :J
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
-3-
NOTICE OF RULING
5. ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a... 12
.....I
.....I
13
0::: 14
W
.....I 15
.....I
:2:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RANDALL A. MILLER
SCOTT NEWMAN
AU STA WAKlLY
MILLERLLP
(Bar No. 11 6036)
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2 150
Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE. STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. R.I,.RRlS and ANDRE JARD])'!]
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STEPHE . M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff,
Y.
KNAPP_ PETERSE 1 & CLARKE,
STEPHTh RAY GARCIA. STEPHEN 1.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINl,
Defendants.
CASE j 0.: BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24)
---[i'.D.R""e-'pO""S:!1tITD) ORDER GRANTING KPC's
MOTION TO Af:END JUDGMENT TO
ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
May 29.201 2
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
I______________...JI Judge:
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
Having considered Defendants and Judgment Creditors Knapp, Petersen and Clarke,
Stephen Ray Gru'cia, Stephen Harris. and Andre Jardini (KPC) motion to amend the judgment to
add judgment debtors pursuant to the Code Civil Procedure Section 187, and the papers and
pleadings submitted in support of and in opposition, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby
grants KPC's motion. Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu
Broad Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset LLC, are the
Stephen Gaggero' s alter egos and are hereby added as judgment debtors. The Giganin '1 rust,
Arenzano Frunily Trust. and Aquasante Foundation are Stephen Gaggero's alter egos. Joseph
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT
6. 0..
.....J
.....J
0:::
ill
.....J
.....J
~
•
1 Praske in his capacity as the trustee the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust. and Aquasante
2 Foundation is hereby added as a judgment debtor.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ - -,. 4' - I "L-L .. '''~ f ' I...: C"
Honorab e Judge Robert Hess
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT
-2-
7. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0...
12....J
....J
13
0:: 14
W
....J 15
....J
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150, Los
Angeles, CA 90071·2201. On May 30, 2012, I served the within documents:
NOTICE OF RULING RE MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD ADDITIONAL
JUDGMENT DEBTORS
D
D
D
D
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set
forth below.
by causing to be personally served to the person(s) at the addressees) set forth below
on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office ofthe
addressees as set fOlth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed
such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the envelope/package
for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on May 30, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
Joseph Dirkx r
-4-
NOTICE OF RULING
8. 1
2
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.
3 WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
4 Westlake Village, CA 91361
5
David Esquibias, Esq.
6 Tracy Kitzman, Esq.
Law Offices ofDavid Esquibias
7 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
8
9
10
11
a.. 12--.J
--.J
13
0::: 14
W
--.J 15
--.J
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SERVICE LIST
Attorney Judgment Debtor, STEPHEN M.
GAGGERO
Ph. (805) 267-1220
Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec@hotmai1.com
Attorneysjor Judgment Debtors, PACIFIC
COAST MANAGEMENT, 511 OFWLP,
GINGERBREAD COURT LP, MALIBU
BROAD BEACHLP, MARINA GLENCOE
LP, BLU HOUSE LLC, BOARDWALK
SUNSET LLC, AND JOSEPH PRASKE AS
THE TRUSTEE OF THE GIGANIN
TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
-5-
Ph. (805) 267-1141
Fax: (805) 267-1140
Email: dae@califomiatrustattomey.com
thk@califomiatrustattomey.com
NOTICE OF RULING