The National Law Journal's L.A. Legal Pad

Two O.C. attorneys disbarred in loan mod investigation

Two attorneys fell prey to the State Bar of California's investigation of loan modification scams this week.

Brian Colombana, who practiced in Irvine and Ontario, admitted that he represented nine struggling homeowners in states in which he was not authorized to practice. Representing himself in the matter, he said he believed that he could represent clients outside California under the American Bar Association's model rules about transactional matters in federal law. Colombana has agreed to disbarment.

Mark Alan Shoemaker, who practiced in Santa Ana, is being disbarred after homeowners paid a minimum of $1,000 a month for 3 months of his company’s services and did, according to the Bar, "little or nothing" to help them avoid foreclosure. Shoemaker also admitted to knowing or being “grossly negligent in not knowing” that employees of his company were giving legal advice even though they were not lawyers.

The Bar reports that 1,800 active investigations related to loan modification are still underway.

Click these for details.

New associate at Levene Neale in Century City

Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Brill L.L.P. has announced the appointment of Gwendolen D. Long as an associate in its Century City office.

Long joined Levene Neale from the New York office of Brown Rudnick LLP, where she represented individual creditors as well as ad hoc and official creditors’ committees in out-of-court and Chapter 11 restructurings involving such cases as Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc., Visteon, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. and Herbst Gaming, Inc.

She also has experience with debtor-in-possession financing, contested confirmations and complex litigation arising out of bond indentures.

Prior to attending Georgetown University Law Center where she earned her Juris Doctor in 2007, she worked as a paralegal for the U.S. Department of Justice. She also has a Masters degree in elementary education from Boston College and a Bachelor degree in sociology from California State University at Sacramento.

Real estate mogul indicted for fraud

Ezri Namvar, the real estate mogul who used to own the Marriott hotel in downtown Los Angeles among other high profile properties before allegations he was operating a Ponzi scheme collapsed his fortune, has been indicted on five counts of wire fraud charges.

The fraud is in connection with a company called Namco Financial Exchange Corp., which, according to defense attorney Marc Harris, sheltered proceeds from real estate transactions. Prosecutors claim that Namvar diverted money from five of the clients without their permission.

Harris says Namvar is working with federal prosecutors to set a date to appear voluntarily appear in court for arraignment.

Click these for details.

CA veterans want to be heard in Mojave cross case

The Liberty Institute, a Texas-based nonprofit, filed a motion in Los Angeles federal court yesterday seeking to include the VFW in the long-running dispute over the steel cross erected in the Mojave National Preserve as a memorial to war veterans.

Liberty argues that the VFW has a vested interest in the legal proceedings, since Congress authorized a land swap that meant to reposition the cross on land owned by the veterans organization. The Supreme Court ruled in April that a lower court erred when it invalidated the land transfer, and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for reconsideration.

The motion, filed on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of California and VFW Post 385 in Barstow, may be heard on October 25, the same day Judge Robert J. Timlin has set for a status hearing on the case.

Click these for details.

Holden joins Lewis Brisbois in L.A.

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith has announced the addition of Craig Holden as a partner in the Intellectual Property, Entertainment, and Commercial Litigation practice groups. He will be based in the Los Angeles office.

Holden has first-chair jury trial experience in federal and state court, and has served as lead appellate counsel before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been involved in some of the most notable and high-profile copyright, patent, trademark and rights of publicity cases in recent history, including In re Napster Copyright Litigation (representing the successful major record labels), Intergraph v. Intel et al. (representing Intergraph in its recovery of over $500 million in computer patent infringement litigation), trademark litigation involving world famous brands of Fortune 500 companies, and rights of privacy litigation involving famous celebrities. Mr. Holden was a member of the 2004 American Lawyer’s "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year," and has been honored by local and national organizations.

He has served as Faculty for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, and is Co-Chair of the IP Litigation Committee, for the California State Bar’s IP Section. Craig is also the Chair-Elect of the State Bar’s Council on Access & Fairness, a “think tank” on diversifying the legal profession.

Litigation from 2003-04 labor dispute finally settles

A contract dispute between management and workers at Vons, Albertsons and Ralphs supermarkets caused picket lines to be seen at supermarkets all across southern California in 2003 and 2004.  A lawsuit that arose during that time has finally been settled.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1442, filed that suit in 2004, alleging that police officers verbally abused picketers outside a Hermosa Beach Vons supermarket. Officials claim the officers threatened them with arrest if they spoke to supermarket customers and cocked their weapons at the picketing workers. Workers also said officers forced them from the police station when they tried to file a complaint.

The settlement reached last week cost Hermosa Beach $400,000 and Manhattan Beach $20,000.  It also requires officers in both departments to undergo training to deal with picket lines.

Full story here.

EEOC files racial discrimination suit against Chapman University

The federal EEOC has filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on behalf of a former professor who alleges she was denied tenure and fired because she is black.

Dr. Stephanie Dellande was hired by Chapman's Argyros School of Business in 2001 and applied for tenure after five years.  Although she'd received positive recommendations by students, peers, and superiors, her application for tenure was denied.  She was discharged two years later.

The suit notes that Dellande was the only black person in a department of roughly 30 people and alleges that non-black professors who were less qualified than Dellande were promoted. The suit seeks back pay, punitive damages, and an injunction to prevent racial discrimination at the university.

Full story here.

9th Circuit rejects student's sexual harassment policy challenge

Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College and self-described devout Christian, was giving a speech in class about marriage being solely defined as a union between a man and a woman and using two Bible verses as support when his professor, John Matteson, cut him off.  Matteson called the student a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish.  Matteson later wrote on Lopez's speech evaluation form, "ask God what your grade is" and "proselytizing is inappropriate in public school."

Lopez then filed suit against Matteson and other school officials, alleging that his First Amendment and equal protection rights had been violated.  He also said that because the school's sexual harassment policy is overly vague, he could be punished for his views on homosexuality. U.S. District Judge George H. King of the Central District of California agreed that Lopez had standing and enjoined the school from enforcing the policy.

The 9th Circuit, however, reversed that opinion, stating that Matteson's actions toward Lopez constituted a credible threat that the policy would be enforced against Lopez. Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote in her opinion, "Comparing Lopez’s past and proposed future speech to the plain language of the District’s sexual harassment policy, we do not see, nor does Lopez explain, how the policy applies to him, given that his statements and proposed topics do not, on their face, constitute 'verbal conduct of a sexual nature.' "

Click these for details.

Lone holdout in Wilson Sonsini office supply scam finally pleads guilty

Carlos Ivan Vargas, the former president of Attorney's Printing Supply and one of three men charged with defrauding Palo Alto law firm Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati of close to $1 million, pleaded guilty last week. He was the last of the three to do so.

Vargas, along with former business cohorts Daniel Dominguez and John Tashiro, have confessed to committing conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Originally facing 12 counts, each has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

They face a maximum of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and restitution of the $1 million.

Full story here.

 

Arguments filed by Prop 8 supporters in appeals bid

Proposition 8 sponsor ProtectMarriage.com filed written arguments in the 9th Circuit last week, urging the appeals court to overturn Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against the 2008 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.

The group cited a 1972 Supreme Court precedent in which a gay couple from Minnesota sought the right to marry and were rebuffed not only by the state's highest court but the nation's as well. In that case the Supreme Court refused to hear the couple's appeal.  ProtectMarriage.com says Walker "quite willfully" disregarded that case. The group also characterized Walker's conclusion that "moral disapproval" of gay men and lesbians was the main force driving approval of Prop 8 as defamatory.

Imperial County, whose residents voted overwhelmingly for the measure, maintain that they have grounds for appeal because counties issue marriage licenses. The county filed arguments shortly before midnight on Friday.

Should the 9th Circuit refuse to overturn, then Walker's decision should only apply to the specific couples in the suit, ProtectMarriage.com said, since it was not filed as a class action on behalf of all gays and lesbians.

Click these for details.