Complaint Review: Attorney Robert Burch Irvine California Family Law Attorney - Newport California

ANOTHER LEGAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT!!! AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC COURT RECORDS ORANGE COUNTY

COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR

 

ATTORNEY ROBERT BRETT BURCH

ATTORNEY TODD COULSTON

BURCH, COULSTON & SHEPART

CASE NO. 0 0 3 0 0 G 0 2

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

I. LEGAL MALPRACTICE;

2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD;

3. RACKETEERING.

 

Mark B. Plummer, SBN 120098

LAW OFFICES OF MARK B. PLUMMER, PC

4676 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 102

Yorba Linda, California 92886

Tel: (714) 970-3131

Fax: (714) 970-3130

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

SLOBODAN CUK

• FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGEIJ'i'

CEN~~~U~~C;;;;~

ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court

~~d/..h-

BY S. HERRERA-WILSON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

SLOBODAN CUK,

vs.

Plaintiffs,

 

ROBERT BURCH; TODD P. COULSTON; )

SVEN D. BUNCHER; BURCH, )

COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP; BURCH )

& COULSTON, LLP; MALCOLM McNEIL; )

ALLAN 0 'CONNER, AARON DISHON, )

CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP, ALLAN )

EBRIGHT, OLE SANDBERG and DOES I )

through 100, inclusive, )

Defendants.

)

)

)

30-200~

CASE NO. 0 0 3 0 0 G 0 2

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

I. LEGAL MALPRACTICE;

2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD;

3. RACKETEERING.

JUDGE FRANZ E. MILLER

DEPT. C14

PLAINTIFF, SLOBODAN CUK, alleges as follows:

I.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Legal Malpractice- against all Defendants)

Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, is an individual, residing in the County of Orange,

State of California. At all times relevant, Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, employed Defendants to act

as his attorneys in a dissolution proceeding, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 04D08550.

2. Defendant, ROBERT BURCH, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

 -1-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, ROBERT BURCH, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud the

Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

3. Defendant, TODD P. COULSTON, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, TODD P. COULSTON, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud

the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

4. Defendant, SVEN D. BUNCHER, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, SVEN D. BUNCHER, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud

the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961.

5. Defendant, BURCH, COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP, is a law firm who at all

times relevant provided legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange,

State of California. At all times relevant, Defendant, BURCH, COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP,

conspired with the other Defendants to defraud the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as

that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961.

6. Defendant, BURCH & COULSTON, LLP, is a law firm who at all times relevant

provided legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of

California. At all times relevant, Defendant, BURCH & OULSTON, LLP, conspired with the other

Defendants to defraud the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by

18 U.S.C. §1961.

7. Defendant, MALCOLM McNEIL, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, MALCOLM McNEIL, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud

the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961.

8. Defendant, ALLAN 0' CONNER, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, ALLAN 0 'CONNER, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud

-2-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961.

9. Defendant, AARON DISHON, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, AARON DISHON, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud the

Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961.

10. Defendant, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP, is a law firm who at all times relevant

provided legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of

California. At all times relevant, Defendant, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP, conspired with the

other Defendants to defraud the Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is

defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

II. Defendant, ALLAN EBRIGHT, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, ALLAN EBRIGHT, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud the

Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

12. Defendant, OLE SANDBERG, is an attorney who at all times relevant provided

legal services to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, in the County of Orange, State of California. At all

times relevant, Defendant, OLE SANDBERG, conspired with the other Defendants to defraud the

Plaintiff and was part of a criminal enterprise as that term is defined by 18 U .S.C. § 1961.

13. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of the Defendants sued

herein as DOES I through I 00, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when

ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously

named Defendants is a partner or owner in one of the above identified entities, or is responsible in

some manner for the occurrences herein alleged herein and the Plaintiff's damages as herein

alleged.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that at all times herein

mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, representative or employee of each of the

other Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned was acting within the scope and course of that

-3-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

12

l3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

agency or employment.

15. The Plaintiff's injuries and damages were the natural and probable result of an

agreement by each of the Defendants, with each other, to perform wrongful or illegal acts.

Specifically, the Defendants agreed among themselves to violate the fiduciary duty that they each

individually owed the Plaintiff, and to in concert with each other advise a course of conduct that

they each knew was contrary to the Plaintiffs best interests for the purpose of being personally

enriched by many times the amounts that they otherwise would have received. It was the fact that

the Defendants acted together to unanimously advise said improvident course of conduct that

overcame the Plaintiff's reservations.

16. On or about January 2005, Defendants, ROBERT BURCH, TODD P. COULSTON

and AARON DISHON, undertook the representation of Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, regarding the

dissolution of an 18-month marriage that did not involve any custody issues, under the aspices of

The Law Offices of Aaron Dishon.

17. On or about August 2005, BURCH & COULSTON, LLP, also undertook the

representation of Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, regarding the dissolution of an 18-month marriage

that did not involve any custody issues, in conjunction with the Defendants identified in paragraph

16, above.

18. On or about August 2005, Defendants, MALCOLM McNEIL; ALLAN

O'CONNER, ALLAN EBRIGHT, OLE SANDBERG, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP, also

undertook the representation of Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, regarding the dissolution of an 18-

month marriage that did not involve any custody issues, in conjunction with the Defendants

identified in paragraphs 16 and 17, above.

19. On or about Spring 2006, Defendants, SVEN D. BUNCHER and BURCH,

COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP, also undertook the representation of Plaintiff, SLOBODAN

CUK, regarding the dissolution of an 18-month marriage that did not involve any custody issues, in

conjunction with the Defendants identified in paragraph 16, 17 and 18, above.

20. Although said Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff's total

exposure for spousal support and property claims with a dissolution was under $100,000.00, said

-4-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

Defendants advised Plaintiff to pursue a "nullity" claim through trial that said Defendants knew or

should have known was not warranted by the existing evidence and which made no economic

senses for Plaintiff to pursue, because even if viable, the cost was huge as was Plaintiff's exposure.

21. Since it was the unanimous advice of 8 attorneys and 4 law firms that Plaintiff

pursue a "nullity" claim through trial, rather than proceed with a dissolution proceeding, Plaintiff

acquiesced to the advice of the Defendants and assisted as best he could.

22. In advising and pursuing a "nullity" claim through trial, rather than proceeding with

a dissolution proceeding, the Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to possess and/or

exercise, in the performance of the legal services that they provided to Plaintiff, SLOBODAN

CUK, that reasonable degree of knowledge and skill that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by

other attorneys, in good standing, in the State of California.

23. As a legal and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and each of

them, as alleged herein, the Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, has incurred incidental and other special

damages, which include: approximately $450,000.00 already paid to the Defendants, $350,000.00

that the Defendants claim Plaintiff still owes them, $100,000.00 in sanctions for pursuing a

"nullity" claim through trial that was not warranted by the evidence and $325,000.00 owed to

Plaintiff's ex-wife's counsel for pursuing a "nullity" claim through trial that was not warranted by

the evidence, all many times in excess of the cost of the dissolution of an 18-month marriage with

no custody issues, as well as the lost opportunity cost ofthese funds.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Constructive Fraud- against all Defendants)

24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 of the First Cause of Action as though

fully stated herein.

25. At all times relevant, the Defendants, and each of them, agreed to and did act in

confidential and fiduciary capacity relative to Plaintiff, and acted as Plaintiff's attorneys relative t

the dissolution of his 18-month marriage with no custody issues. The nature of this relationship wa

such that Plaintiff was required to rely on the honesty and integrity of the Defendants, and each o

them, which specifically included a duty on behalf of each of the Defendants individually to disclos

-5-

COMPLAINT

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

all material facts to Plaintiff that the Defendants knew or should have known might affect th

Plaintiff's decisions or the motives of the Defendants. Salahutdin v. Valle of California Inc.

(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555

26. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

advising Plaintiffto pursue a "nullity" claim through trial that was not warranted by the evidence.

27. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

pursuing a "nullity" claim through trial that was not warranted by the evidence.

28. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

failing to advise Plaintiff that the cost of a dissolution proceeding was a small fraction of the cost of

pursuing a "nullity" claim through trial.

29. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

failing to advise Plaintiff that he would have a huge exposure for fees and sanctions if he pursuing a

"nullity" claim through trial, rather than engaged in a dissolution proceeding.

30. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

failing to advise Plaintiff that he would be paying them many times the amount that he otherwise

would in fees if he pursuing a "nullity" claim through trial, rather than engaged in a dissolution

proceeding.

31. The Defendants, and each of them, breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff by

failing to advise Plaintiff that they were "churning his file" for the purpose of charging him

unconscionable fees rather that acting in his best interest, which was to complete the dissolution of

his 18-month marriage at minimal cost.

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach of their duty, Plaintiff,

SLOBODAN CUK, suffered injured in his health, strength, activity and emotional well being, all to

his general damage, in an amount that will be proven at trial.

33. Defendants, ROBERT BURCH; TODD P. COULSTON; SVEN D. BUNCHER;

BURCH, COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP; BURCH & COULSTON, LLP; MALCOLM McNEIL;

ALLAN 0 'CONNER, AARON DISHON, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP, ALLAN EBRIGHT, OL

SANDBERG, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, did the things described herein

-6-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

among other things, fraudulently, maliciously and oppressively. The conduct of said Defendants, an

each of them, as described herein, was and is despicable, vile, base, contemptible, miserable

wretched and loathsome, and was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights o

Plaintiff. The Defendants, and each of them, knew and intended that their conduct as describe

above would caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff the harm and damages as alleged herein.

That by reason of said conduct as described herein, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages agains

each of the Defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Racketeering - Against all Defendants)

34. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs I through 32 of the First Cause of Action as though

fully stated herein.

35. After the Defendants, and each of them, conspired with each other to violate the

fiduciary duty that they each individually owed to the Plaintiff, and to act in concert to defraud the

Plaintiff by charging the Plaintiff unconscionable fees for pursuing a course of conduct which they

each knew was contrary to the Plaintiffs best interests, for the purpose of being personally enriched

by many times the amounts that they otherwise would have received, the Defendants, and each of

them utilized the United States mail to facilitate said fraud by mailing Plaintiff invoices in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §1341, on at least 100 occasions.

36. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, constituted

"Racketeering Activities" as defined by 18 U.S. C. §1961. Specifically, the Defendants utilized the

United States mail with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff as alleged herein.

37. The association of Defendants, ROBERT BURCH; TODD P. COULSTON; SVEN

D. BUNCHER; BURCH, COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP; BURCH & COULSTON, LLP;

MALCOLM McNEIL; ALLAN O'CONNER, AARON DISHON, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP,

ALLAN EBRIGHT, OLE SANDBERG, and Does I through 50, inclusive, constituted an

"enterprise" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961 because they worked in concert to utilized the United

States mail with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff.

38. The association of Defendants, ROBERT BURCH; TODD P. COULSTON; SVEN D.

-7-

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• •

BUNCHER; BURCH, COULSTON & BUNCHER, LLP; BURCH & COULSTON, LLP;

MALCOLM McNEIL; ALLAN O'CONNER, AARON DISHON, CARLSMITH & BALL, LLP,

ALLAN EBRIGHT, OLE SANDBERG, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and have engaged i

"pattern" of Racketeering Activity, pursuant to United States v. Freeman (9th Cir. 1993) 6 F.3d 586,

because they have engaged in at least 2 interrelated incidents of racketeering conduct within the last

10 years. Plaintiff is informed and believes that this racketeering enterprise has perpetrated

substantially similar frauds and on other victims in the past and that there is a substantial

probability that this racketeering enterprise has perpetrated substantially similar frauds on other

victims in the future.

39. As a legal and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them,

as alleged herein, the Plaintiff, SLOBODAN has incurred attorney's fees and will continue to incur

attorney's fees in pursuing the subject action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SLOBODAN CUK, prays for judgment against the Defendants, an

each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

6.

7.

For special damages according to proof;

For general damages according to proof;

For exemplary damages according to proof;

For interest and other incidental damages according to proof;

For attorney fees according to proof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964;

For treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964;

For costs of suit incurred herein;

For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: September 4, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF MARK B. PLUMMER, PC

-8-

COMPLAINT

CONSUMERS BEWARE - ATTORNEY ROBERT BRETT BURCH, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASES EXIST IN PUBLICH COURT FILINGS.  PLEASE CONDUCT DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE MAKING ANY IMPORTANT PURCHASE.

 

 plaintiff's attorney of record in a family law matter, defendant committed professional malpractice by, among other things:

(l)Failing to provide legal services adequate to meet the standard of care followed in the legal profession in California,

(2) deliberately and/or negligently causing the Underlying Matter, the routine dissolution of a four marriage without children, to be attenuated over a period of more than 22 months for the purpose of, or thereby causing the billing and collecting excessive attorneys' fees,

(2)entering into agreements for trial continuances with the opposition and the court without plaintiff's permission for the purpose of billing and collecting excessive attorneys' fees,

(3) failing to renew expert reports, evidence and testimony which were rendered irrelevant at trial due to delays in the process caused by defendant, thereby causing a loss of expert fees and the exclusion of expert reports and testimony by the trial court,

(4)billing and receiving payment for services not rendered.

Liberto v. Burch

CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence 

ATTORNEY OR. PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY

Shelley M. Liberto SBN 132304

Law Offices of Shelley M. Liberto

9042 Garfield Ave., Ste. 312

Huntington Beach, CA 92646

TELEPHONE NO ( 7 1 4 ) 7 3 3 - 7 2 7 0 FAX NO (Optioo0/) ( 7 J 4 ) 9 6 2- l 8 5]

ange

STREET ADDRESS

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY AND ZIP CODE CA 92683-4593

BRANCH

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT: Robert 8. Burch

 

PLD·PI-001

FOR COURT USE ONLY

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANG!

WEST JUSTICE CENT~R

APR 20 2011

ALAN CARLSON Clerk of tho Coun

BY _______ ,DEPUTY

all that apply) : CASE NUMBER

IX) ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE

Amount demanded 0 does not exceed $10,000

IX) exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000

 

1. Plaintiff(nameornames): Shelley M. Liberto, in pro per alleges causes of action against defendant: Robert B. Burch

Judtctal Counctl of Caltfornta ~#

www.courtmro.ca.gov

Shelley M. Liberto v. Attorney Robert Brett Burch - Burch, Coulston & Shepard

PLD-PI-001

PLD-PI-001 !Rev. January 1, 2007

Page 2 of 3

PLD-PI-001

Liberto v. Burch

CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence 

 

ATTACHMENT TO IX) Complaint 0 Cross-Complaint

(Use a separate cause of action fonn for each cause of action.)

GN-1. Plaintiff(name): Shelley M. Liberto

alleges that defendant (name): Robert B. Burch

IX) Does .L__ to --'---'"'-----

was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant

negligently caused the damage to plaintiff

on (date): May 1, 2 0 0 9

at (place): Santa Ana, California

(description of reasons for liability)

As plaintiff's attorney of record in a family law matter,

defendant committed professional malpractice by, among other

things: (l)Failing to provide legal services adequate to meet the

standard of care followed in the legal profession in California,

(2) deliberately and/or negligently causing the Underlying

Matter, the routine dissolution of a four marriage without

children, to be attenuated over a period of more than 22 months

for the purpose of, or thereby causing the billing and collecting

excessive attorneys' fees, (2)entering into agreements for trial

continuances with the opposition and the court without

plaintiff's permission for the purpose of billing and collecting

excessive attorneys' fees, (3) failing to renew expert reports,

evidence and testimony which were rendered irrelevant at trial

due to delays in the process caused by defendant, thereby causing

a loss of expert fees and the exclusion of expert reports and

testimony by the trial court, (4)billing and receiving payment

for services not rendered.

Page 1 of 1

Form Approved for Optional Use

Jud1c1al Counc11 of CalifOrnia

PLD-PI-001 (2) [Rev January 1, 20071

CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence Code of Civil Procedure 425 12

~ E~;;;T~L"fnRMl"

W'hW.courtmfo ca gov

PLD-C-001

SHORT TITLE: NUMBER

LIBERTO v. BURCH

CAUSE OF ACTION-Fraud

(number)

ATIACHMENT TO CZJ Complaint 0 Cross-Complaint

(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)

FR-1. Plaintiff(name): Shelley M. Liberto allegesthatdefendant(name): Robert B. Burch and Does 1-10 on or about (date): June 1, 2 0 0 9 defrauded plaintiff as follows:

FR-2. CZJ Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation

a. Defendant made representations of material fact D as stated in Attachment FR-2.a CZJ as follows:

(1)Defendant attorney had entered into an agreement with opposing parties in the Underlying Matter that the case would be mediated, that a mediator had been engaged to mediate, and a date had been set for mediation; and

(2)Defendant had indeed rendered legal services for which plaintiff was billed and paid; and

(3)Legal services and costs for which defendant billed plaintiff and for which plaintiff paid were reasonable and necessary for plaintiff's representation in the Underlying

Matter.

b. These representations were in fact false. The truth was CZJ as stated in Attachment FR-2.b D as follows:

(1) Defendant attorney had not entered into an agreement to mediate the Underlying Matter, no mediator had been engaged, and no date had been set for a mediation;

(2) Defendant did not render legal services for which plaintiff was billed and paid; and

(3) Legal services rendered by Defendant were neither reasonable nor necessary to plaintiff's representation in the

Underlying Matter.

c. When defendant made the representations,

(ZJ defendant knew they were false, or

(ZJ defendant had no reasonable ground for believing the representations were true.

d. Defendant made the representations with the intent to defraud and induce plaintiff to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff did not know the representations were false and believed they were true. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations.

FR-3. CZJ Concealment

a. Defendant concealed or suppressed material facts D as stated in Attachment FR-3. a CZJ as follows:

Defendant attorney was unprepared for trial, had surpassed procedural deadlines, and therefore required multiple trialcontinuances to avoid prejudice to plaintiff's case.

b. Defendant concealed or suppressed material facts

CZJ defendant was bound to disclose.

I]) by telling plaintiff other facts to mislead plaintiff and prevent plaintiff from discovering the concealed or suppressed facts.

c. Defendant concealed or suppressed these facts with the intent to defraud and induce plaintiff to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would not have taken the action if plaintiff had known the facts.

Page

Page 1 of 2

Form Approved for Optional Use

Judicial Council of CalifOrnia

PLD-C-001(3) [Rev January 1. 2007]

CAUSE OF ACTION-Fraud Code of CIVil Procedure. § 425.12

www courtmfo ca gov

lRJ ~~~~;;~;'["ioRMI'"

..

SHORT TITLE: NUMBER

LIBERTO v. BURCH

CAUSE OF ACTION-Fraud

(number)

FR-4. 0 Promise Without Intent to Perform

a. Defendant made a promise about a material matter without any intention of performing it D as stated in Attachment FR·4.a 0 as follows:

b. Defendant's promise without any intention of performance was made with the intent to defraud and in·duce plaintiff to rely upon it and to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of defendant's intention not to perform the promise. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the promise.

FR-5. In justifiable reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff was induced to act 0 as stated in Attachment FR-5

IX) as follows

(l)Agreed to a continuance of the first trial date set for

June 16, 2009;

(2)Paid bills as submitted by defendant to plaintiff;

(3)Acquiesced to costly procedures that were neither reasonable nor necessary in the Underlying Action and paid for legal services and costs associated therewith; and

(4)Retained and paid for an exper witness, testimony and

report.

FR-6 Because of plaintiffs reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff has been damaged 0 as stated in

Attachment FR-6 IX) as follows:

(l)Paid amounts reflective of redundant and repetitive legal services and costs as defendant redoubled work in preparation for four different trial dates over a period of seven months according to proof;

(2) Pa~d amounts for legal services not rendered according to proof;

(3) Pa~d excessive amounts for legal services and costs related to unnecessary legal procedures; and

(4) Paid the fees of an expert witness for testimiony, report and appearance at trial twice.

FR-7. Other:

Page

PLD-C-001(3) IRev. January 1, 2007] CAUSE OF ACTION-Fraud Page 2 of 2

~ E;'SEN;~t"fBRMI"