All the lawsuits in "Table 1" below are related and claim "breach of contract/warranty" as their basis. The defendants are investors in Point Center trust deed mortgage loans. The loans went bad. The borrowers defaulted, Point Center foreclosed and took title to the real estate that secured the loan.
The investors being sued hold titles to fractional portions of the collateral real estate. Dan Harkey wants them to transfer their titles to an LLC in exchange for a commensurate "financial" share of the LLC; a share that has no voting rights and is under the sole control of the one individual who has grossly failed in his fiduciary duty to protect his investors, Daniel J. Harkey.
When the LLC sells the real estate, history reveals that it will be sold for less than ten cents on the dollar. Harkey does not pay the property taxes but allows them to accrue. Harkey neglects his properties, allows them to fail into disrepair, and only expends enough (investor) money to keep the local authorities off of his back. When the properties are finally sold, and after the property taxes and Harkey's "fees" are paid, his investors are left with nothing; literally.
When you look at the list below you won't see Point Center pursuing the investors as consolidated groups, you see them preying on each investor individually. Think about it for a moment. Why expend the cost to litigate 35 cases separately?
The complaint for each lawsuit is almost identical and was crafted to exact the strongest psychological reaction from its designated defendant. The damages claimed by Point Center were unjustified and inflated well above the proportional asset value shares of the properties in question. Most if not all of the claims were contrived and the lawsuits themselves may be fraudulent.
Had each defendant known about the others they would have had a fighting chance to consolidate all their cases into one case under a single legal firm and fight back. Each investor's proportionate legal fees would have been substantially less than the cost to fight on their own, or none at all if they prevailed and the court awarded costs.
Instead, isolated, without support, and facing disproportionate legal fees, most of the investors in the cases below had no choice but to cave in to Harkey's unreasonable demands and trade their property for a worthless position in an LLC they never wanted to join.
"Table 1" below lists each "breach of contract/warranty"lawsuit that Dan Harkey and Point Center have filed against his investors since late September 2012. Each lawsuit claims that Point Center should receive damages between $70,000 and $120,000 plus legal fees. In the Johnsson/Gomberg case Point Center sought $399,000 plus fees. These are known as "unlimited" civil cases as defined under California state law and described on the California Courts website here. Harkey has to seek damages over $25,000 for the suit to qualify as "unlimited".
Yet, when the dust settles and property is sold, each investor's fraction share value will won't be worth more than ten cents on the dollar, and less after taxes and fees. This is because the Dan Harkey who is suing these investors is the same Dan Harkey who failed to perfect the personal guarantees and insurances after foreclosure that would have preserved the asset value of the very properties contemplated in these lawsuits.
TABLE 1:
|
Date Filed
|
Case
|
PCF Loan
|
Defendant
|
Current Status
|
Status Date
|
Judge
|
|
2/22/2013
|
30-2013-00632565-CU-BC-CJC
|
Burnett
|
JOHNSSON & GOMBERG
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
3/1/2013
|
DI CESARE, JAMES
|
|
2/14/2013
|
30-2013-00631488-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
SHORE, O.D.
|
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY SHORE, O.D., DAVID ON 03/04/2013
|
3/4/2013
|
GLASS, GEOFFREY
|
|
2/14/2013
|
30-2013-00631480-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
VITATERNA
|
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY VITATERNA, NICHOLAS; VITATERNA, BARBARA ON 03/04/2013
|
3/4/2013
|
COLAW, THIERRY
|
|
2/14/2013
|
30-2013-00631440-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
CORZBERG
|
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY CORZBERG, LESLIE; CORZBERG, EVELYN ON 03/04/2013
|
3/4/2013
|
MOSS, ROBERT
|
|
2/13/2013
|
30-2013-00630709-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
KRASNER
|
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY KRASNER, PAUL ON 03/04/2013
|
3/4/2013
|
GRIFFIN, CRAIG
|
|
2/13/2013
|
30-2013-00630680-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
LOUIE
|
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY LOUIE, SID; LOUIE, JESSICA ON 03/04/2013
|
3/4/2013
|
MOBERLY, JAMOA
|
|
12/19/2012
|
30-2012-00619441-CU-BC-CJC
|
Witzman
|
LITTLE PENGUIN, LLC
|
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC.
|
2/21/2013
|
HUNT, DEREK - PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE: CASE REASSIGNED TO DAVID MCEACHEN
|
|
12/18/2012
|
30-2012-00619011-CU-BC-CJC
|
Witzman
|
RAWITZ
|
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC. ON
|
2/21/2013
|
GASTELUM, JOHN
|
|
12/18/2012
|
30-2012-00618997-CU-BC-CJC
|
Witzman
|
PAOLETTI & MAMEESH
|
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC.
|
2/21/2013
|
HUNT, DEREK - PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE: CASE REASSIGNED TO THIERRY COLAW
|
|
11/16/2012
|
30-2012-00612154-CU-BC-CJC
|
Witzman
|
FISHER
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/16/2013
|
MILLER, FRANZ
|
|
11/15/2012
|
30-2012-00612101-CU-BC-CJC
|
Witzman
|
SCHLEEDE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/16/2013
|
SCHUMANN, TAM NOMOTO
|
|
11/6/2012
|
30-2012-00609985-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
SPARLING
|
MINUTES FINALIZED FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY RE:CRC 3.110B 02/11/2013 08:30:00 AM.
|
2/11/2013
|
MILLER, FRANZ
|
|
11/6/2012
|
30-2012-00609835-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
BURGESS
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
MUNOZ, GREGORY
|
|
11/6/2012
|
30-2012-00609824-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
CREATIVE CHRISTIAN IMAGERY
|
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 03/19/2013 AT 08:45 C09 JUDGE GASTELUM
|
3/1/2013
|
GASTELUM, JOHN
|
|
11/6/2012
|
30-2012-00609797-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
MORAN & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
SCHUMANN, TAM NOMOTO
|
|
11/6/2012
|
30-2012-00609788-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
WILLIAMS & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
2/21/2013
|
FIRMAT, FRANCISCO
|
|
11/5/2012
|
30-2012-00609442-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
PATEL & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
MONROE, WILLIAM
|
|
11/2/2012
|
30-2012-00609386-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
SHIELDS
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
3/4/2013
|
FELL, SHEILA
|
|
11/2/2012
|
30-2012-00609315-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
LOPEZ & RIVERA
|
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE - ENTIRE ACTION FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC. ON 01/16/2013
|
1/16/2013
|
CHAFFEE, DAVID
|
|
11/2/2012
|
30-2012-00609307-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
STERLING & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
GASTELUM, JOHN
|
|
11/2/2012
|
30-2012-00609300-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
ROBBINS
|
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC
|
1/9/2013
|
SCHUMANN, TAM NOMOTO, REASSIGNED TO CRAIG GRIFFIN
|
|
11/1/2012
|
30-2012-00609014-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
LAXSTAR FAMILY LP
|
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FILED BY POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC. ON 02/08/2013
|
2/8/2013
|
SCHUMANN, TAM NOMOTO, REASSIGNED TO CRAIG GRIFFIN
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603753-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
NORMAN
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
2/21/2013
|
HORN, FREDERICK
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603708-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
WINKLER
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
HUNT, DEREK, REASSIGNED TO FRANZ MILLER
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603707-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
ROCHE
|
COMPLAINT DISPOSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL.
|
2/21/2013
|
LEWIS, GREGORY
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603705-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
VAZQUEZ
|
THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL IS SCHEDULED FOR 04/29/2013 AT 08:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT C23.
|
2/19/2013
|
MOSS, ROBERT
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603696-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
NAKAMURA
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
FELL, SHEILA
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603689-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
MOREHART
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
2/21/2013
|
MILLER, FRANZ
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603679-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
LYDON
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/9/2013
|
MUNOZ, GREGORY
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603670-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
LINGEGOWDA
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
3/5/2013
|
CHAFFEE, DAVID
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603650-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
HICKS & HAMMER & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
2/21/2013
|
GASTELUM, JOHN
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603637-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
HEARTH AND HOME INVESTMENTS
|
JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 10/28/2013 AT 09:00:00 AM IN C14 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.
|
2/15/2013
|
FIRMAT, FRANCISCO
|
|
10/10/2012
|
30-2012-00603615-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
CAMPBELL
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/4/2013
|
MONROE, WILLIAM
|
|
11/9/2012
|
30-2012-00603306-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
HOROWITZ
|
JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 10/07/2013 AT 09:00:00 AM IN C16 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.
|
1/29/2013
|
MONROE, WILLIAM
|
|
9/24/2012
|
30-2012-00600100-CU-BC-CJC
|
RCS Chandler
|
BAILEY & TRUSTEE
|
CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
|
1/16/2013
|
MONROE, WILLIAM
|
"Table 2" below shows the distribution of our 35 individual lawsuits. Notice how they are spread across 18 different judges? What's the real agenda here?
TABLE 2:
1
|
CHAFFEE, DAVID
|
1
|
2
|
COLAW, THIERRY
|
1
|
3
|
DAVID MCEACHEN
|
1
|
4
|
DI CESARE, JAMES
|
1
|
5
|
FELL, SHEILA
|
2
|
6
|
FIRMAT, FRANCISCO
|
2
|
7
|
GASTELUM, JOHN
|
4
|
8
|
GLASS, GEOFFREY
|
1
|
9
|
GRIFFIN, CRAIG
|
3
|
10
|
HORN, FREDERICK
|
1
|
11
|
LEWIS, GREGORY
|
1
|
12
|
MILLER, FRANZ
|
5
|
13
|
MOBERLY, JAMOA
|
1
|
14
|
MONROE, WILLIAM
|
4
|
15
|
MOSS, ROBERT
|
2
|
16
|
MUNOZ, GREGORY
|
2
|
17
|
SCHUMANN, TAM NOMOTO
|
2
|
18
|
THIERRY COLAW
|
1
|
The agenda is simple. Don't let any single judge know he has related cases, especially if any of the defendants are also plaintiffs in the Charton v Harkeys/Point Center lawsuit. If you were a judge and you were handed 35 related cases wouldn't you want to consolidate them into a single action? If you were a defendant, and you knew that there were 34 other defendants wouldn't you want to join forces and consolidate your cases and reduce your individual out of pocket expense to something reasonably affordable?
And if you were Dan Harkey wanting to dump of his foreclosures as quickly as possible before filing bankruptcy and leaving your investors high and dry, would you want any of these cases to trail behind the Charton lawsuit, the one legal action you've been stonewalling for over four years?
Point Center has no intention of paying to litigate against 35 defendants. Harkey's attorneys are executing a clever strong arm tactic that preys on the ignorance and fears of each individual defendant. Many defendants are retired. Most have never been involved in a lawsuit. Their resources have been depleted from years of Point Center mismanagement of their investments and mismanagement of the associated real property.
Point Center is counting on none of the plaintiffs knowing the other is involved in a lawsuit. It gives them a tactical advantage. None of the plaintiffs know one another, much less their fellow investors are being sued for the same things. The Harkeys, Point Center, and their attorneys are counting on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment