-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
1/107
No. 15-35963
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LNV CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon, 14-CV-01836-MO
District Judge Michael Mosman
LNV CORPORATION’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
GABRIELLE D. R ICHARDS ERICK
J. HAYNIE MARTIN & R ICHARDS, LLP
JEFFREY M. PETERSON 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 PERKINS
COIE LLP503.444.3449 Portland, OR [email protected]
503.727.2000
[email protected] for Plaintiff-Appellee
[email protected]
LNV Corporation
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee April 13, 2016 LNV
Corporation
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 1
of 22
(1 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
2/107
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
I. INTRODUCTION
.........................................................................................
1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
........................................................................
4
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
...............................................................
4
A. U.S. District Court, District of Oregon,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO
..............................................................
5
B. Washington County (Oregon) Circuit Court,
Case No. C155181CV
.........................................................................
7
IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
................................... 10
V. ARGUMENT
...............................................................................................
11
A. The District Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to
LNV Was Not Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law
...................... 12
1. LNV is the indisputable holder of the Note
............................ 12
2. LNV is the indisputable beneficiary of the Deed of Trust
...... 13
3. District Court correctly concluded that LNV could
foreclose
..................................................................................
14
B. Petitioner Has Another Adequate Means to Obtain Relief
............... 14
C. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the
Desired
Relief
.................................................................................................
16
1. This Court cannot grant relief for actions taken in state
court
........................................................................................
16
2. This Court cannot impose sanctions or award damages .........
17
VI. CONCLUSION
...........................................................................................
18
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 2
of 22
(2 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
3/107
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
ii
Cases
Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court , 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.
1977) .................................... 11
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367 (2004)
................................................... 10
Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court , 586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009)
....................................... 12
Confederated Salish v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)
............................ 15
James v. ReconTrust Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Or.
2012) ............................. 13
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460
U.S. 1 (1983) ......... 15
Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.
2010) ...................................... 11
U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Chavez , 281 Or. 329, 574 P.2d
647 (1978) ............. 17
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
................................................................................................
16
28 U.S.C. § 1291
.....................................................................................................
16
ORS 24.125(2)
..........................................................................................................
7
ORS 90.110(5)
........................................................................................................
17
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 3
of 22
(3 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
4/107
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Plaintiff-Appellee LNV Corporation is a Nevada corporation and a
wholly
owned subsidiary of Beal Bank USA, a Nevada thrift. Beal Bank
USA is wholly
owned by Beal Financial Corporation, a Texas corporation. Beal
Bank USA and
Beal Financial Corporation are not publicly traded
corporations.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is (and always has been) a straightforward judicial
foreclosure.
Plaintiff-Appellee LNV Corporation (“LNV”), as the holder of a
Note and
beneficiary of a Deed of Trust duly executed by
Defendant-Appellant Denise
Subramaniam (the “Petitioner”), was entitled to the remedy it
sought and
ultimately received in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon in
October 2015. The Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the
“Petition”)
seeks to distort these basic facts by grossly misstating the
record, contorting the
law, alleging unsubstantiated criminal acts and improprieties,
and accusing the
Chief Judge for the District of Oregon of judicial misconduct.
The Petition
perpetuates a fiction that has failed to gain any traction
for Petitioner in four
1
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1,
Page 4 of 22
(4 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
5/107
2
federal cases, the last of which resulted in the District Court
imposing a pre-
filing restriction for all cases in which Petitioner is (or may
become) a litigant.1
LNV is not unsympathetic to Petitioner’s health issues and has,
on
numerous occasions, attempted to accommodate her situation while
also
pursuing the legal remedies to which it is entitled. To be
clear, however,
Petitioner was able to fully participate in the District Court
and was afforded
every opportunity to prove her theory of the case, i.e.
that certain of her
mortgage documents are forgeries. For example, Petitioner was
twice given an
extension of time to file her Answer, was granted a three-month
medical
continuance, and was given two months of additional discovery
specifically to
1 Petitioner filed suit against LNV and more than 50 other
defendants in September 2012,
alleging various tort claims relating to her loan documents.
(Subramaniam v. Beal, et al., Case
No. 3:12-cv-01681-MO). The Court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss in September2013, noting in its Opinion and Order
that despite being given an opportunity to amend her
complaint with the assistance of pro bono counsel,
Petitioner “failed to allege the facts necessary… even under the
liberal construction I have applied to this pro
se complaint.” ( Id., Dkt. 138.)
Petitioner then filed suit against D. Andrew Beal, an executive
at LNV, in September 2014,alleging (among other things) that Mr.
Beal had placed Petitioner under surveillance and was
stalking her. (Subramaniam v. Beal , Case No.
3:14-cv-01482-SI). The Court dismissed the case sua
sponte one month later pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
noting that “any appeal from this
Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith.” ( Id.,
Dkt. 5.)
Petitioner filed a third suit in October 2015 after the Court
rendered its opinion in the foreclosure
case, naming Mr. Beal, LNV and MGC Mortgage as defendants.
(Subramaniam v. Beal , Case No. 3:15-cv-02002-mo). The
Court dismissed the case sua sponte pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), noting that the complaint “states either claims
that already have been decided or
claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” ( Id., Dkt. 17.) Petitionerfiled a Notice of Appeal
on December 3, 2015, but the appeal was dismissed on January 11,
2016
for failure to prosecute. (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Case No. 15-35941.) It was in thisthird frivolous case that the
District Court imposed the broad pre-filing restriction.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 5
of 22
(5 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
6/107
3
gather evidence of fraud. Despite these accommodations, however,
Petitioner
failed to put forward any evidence to substantiate her claims
sufficient to
withstand LNV’s summary judgment motion. Petitioner’s suggestion
that she
has been discriminated against on the basis of disability and
that her disability
has been exploited by LNV is simply untrue and inconsistent with
the record.
Petitioner has repeatedly demonstrated a profound disregard for
the law
and a disturbing lack of respect for the Court. In fact, nearly
every person or
entity that has been involved in this case – including judges,
attorneys, non-
parties and corporations – has become Petitioner’s target
in pleadings, Bar
complaints and letters to the Department of Justice and Federal
Bureau of
Investigation. Having grown weary from the avalanche of
frivolous pleadings
and the toxicity of Petitioner’s theories, the District Court
sua sponte imposed
the blanket pre-filing restriction. Now, having lost in every
other forum,
Petitioner seeks refuge with the Ninth Circuit to provide
further cover for her
wild tales of conspiracy and malevolent machinations.
Aside from her baseless allegations, this Petition is nothing
more than a
tired restatement of discredited arguments Petitioner first
began making in
2012. These arguments are utterly bereft of any factually or
legal merit. As a
result, the writ of mandamus sought here is an inappropriate
remedy. For this
reason, and those set forth below, the Petition should be
denied.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 6
of 22
(6 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
7/107
4
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts were presented in LNV’s Motion for
Summary
Judgment and supporting declaration in District Court Case No.
3:14-cv-01836-
MO, Dkt. 53 and 54. They are repeated here for ease of
reference.
Petitioner refinanced her home in 2004 through People’s Choice
Home
Loan, Inc. (“People’s Choice”). The loan is evidenced by an
Adjustable Rate Note
dated February 10, 2004. Petitioner’s performance under the Note
was secured by
a Deed of Trust, which also was dated February 10, 2004.
People’s Choice transferred the Note to Residential Funding
Company, LLC
(“RFC”) by endorsing the Note to RFC with an allonge and
delivering the Note
and allonge to RFC. RFC transferred the Note to LNV by endorsing
it to LNV
with an allonge and delivering the Note and allonges to LNV. RFC
assigned its
beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to LNV on March
10, 2008. This
assignment was recorded in county land records on August 27,
2008.
Through these allonges and assignments, LNV became holder of the
Note
and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An overview of the procedural background of this case provides
context to
the Petition and is intended to be incorporated into the
arguments outlined in
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 7
of 22
(7 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
8/107
5
Section V. Although the foreclosure took place in federal court,
the proceedings to
return possession of the property to LNV took place in Oregon
state court.
A. U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Case No.
3:14-cv-01836-MO
LNV filed its Complaint on November 18, 2014 and its Amended
Complaint
on November 21. (Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 1, 5.) LNV twice
stipulated to
extensions of time for Petitioner to appear; Petitioner filed
her Answer on January
26, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 13, 17, 18.) Although the
District Court originally set March
18, 2015 as the deadline for discovery, pretrial motions and
dispositive motions,
LNV stipulated to an extension of this deadline to April 21,
2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 23.)
The Court stayed the case on March 12, 2015 so that Petitioner
could
recover from spinal surgery. ( Id ., Dkt. 33.) The
Court twice extended the stay on
Petitioner’s motion, first until May 4 and then until June 8.
( Id ., Dkt. 42, 51.) On
May 11, in its order extending the stay, the Court also set June
8 as the new
deadline for LNV’s response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss,
the completion of
discovery, and dispositive motions. ( Id ., Dkt. 51.)
LNV filed its response to the
Motion to Dismiss and its Motion for Summary Judgment on June 8.
( Id ., Dkt. 52,
53.) Prior to the case being stayed on March 12, Petitioner
served no discovery
requests on LNV but did file several pleadings, including the
Motion to Dismiss.
More than a week after the discovery deadline lapsed, Petitioner
filed a
motion to extend the discovery deadline to September 1, 2015.
( Id ., Dkt. 56.) The
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 8
of 22
(8 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
9/107
6
Court addressed Petitioner’s motion during a status conference
on July 8, 2015 and
asked Petitioner to specify which documents, and whose
depositions, she was
seeking. Petitioner’s response was wide-ranging and included
purchase
agreements, employment records and generally available public
documents. The
only arguably relevant request was to photograph the original
Note so that she
could have a document expert examine the signatures on the
allonges for
authenticity. (Declaration of Gabrielle D. Richards (“Richards
Decl.”), Ex. A, Tr.
of Proceedings, 8:13-20, 17:25-18:4.) The Court thereafter
limited the scope of
discovery Petitioner could pursue, allowing her to subpoena
certain employment
records from a third party and ordering LNV to make the Note
available to
Petitioner for a physical inspection and photographing.
( Id ., Ex. A, 17:5-24.) The
Court then issued an order extending the discovery deadline to
September 8,
2015. (Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 82.) Petitioner examined the
Note at length
at counsel’s offices and took any photograph she desired on
August 21, 2015.2
Petitioner filed her response to LNV’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on
September 8, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 94.) LNV filed a reply
memorandum in support of
its summary judgment motion on September 11, 2015.
( Id ., Dkt. 98.) On October
16, 2015, the Court granted LNV’s summary judgment motion and on
November
2 LNV began attempting to make the Note available to
Petitioner on July 14, but Petitioner was
unresponsive to numerous letters, emails sent and phone calls
made by counsel. LNV does notknow if Petitioner ever issued a
subpoena to obtain employment records from a third party.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 9
of 22
(9 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
10/107
7
4, 2015 the Court entered the Judgment of Foreclosure.
( Id ., Dkt. 111, 116.)
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on December 3, 2015.
( Id ., Dkt. 119.) The
appeal is currently pending; no briefs have been filed.
B. Washington County (Oregon) Circuit Court, Case No.
C155181CV
LNV filed the Judgment of Foreclosure in Washington County
(Oregon)
Circuit Court as a foreign judgment on or about November 19,
2015. (Richards
Decl. ¶ 4.) LNV mailed notice of the filing of the foreign
judgment to Petitioner
on or about November 23, 2015 pursuant to ORS 24.125(2)
(“[p]romptly after
filing the foreign judgment and the affidavit, the judgment
creditor must mail
notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment
debtor”). ( Id . at ¶ 5.)
LNV obtained a Writ of Execution in the Washington County case
on
December 9, 2015 that commanded the Sheriff to sell the
foreclosed property. ( Id .
at ¶ 6.) The Writ of Execution was then delivered to the
Sheriff’s office, which on
December 16 sent copies of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale, Notice
of Levy, and the
Writ of Execution to Petitioner via Certified Mail and
First-Class Mail. ( Id . at ¶ 7.)
The Sheriff posted a copy of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale at the
foreclosed property
on December 17. ( Id .) The Sheriff’s sale took place
on January 29, 2016, and the
foreclosed property was sold to LNV. ( Id . at ¶ 8.)
The Sheriff posted a Notice of
Completed Sale at the foreclosed property later that same day.
( Id .)
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 10
of 22
(10 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
11/107
8
Petitioner attempted to stop the sale by filing an emergency
motion for
injunctive relief in the federal court case. (Case No.
3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 120.)
Petitioner also filed a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment
and a motion to
disqualify Chief Judge Mosman. ( Id ., Dkt. 122, 124.)
The District Court,
construing the emergency motion as a motion to stay proceedings
pending appeal,
denied the motion, noting that Petitioner “has shown no
likelihood of success on
the merits.” ( Id ., Dkt. 126.) The Court also denied
the Rule 60 motion and the
motion to disqualify Chief Judge Mosman. ( Id ., Dkt.
125, 127.)
LNV, as purchaser of the foreclosed property at the Sheriff’s
Sale, had an
immediate right to possession pursuant to ORS 18.946(1)
(“the purchaser of real
property at an execution sale is entitled to possession of
the property from the date
of sale until a redemption of the property, if any”). LNV
demanded possession of
the foreclosed property on February 1, 2016 by posting a Notice
to Quit on the
front door and mailing a copy to Petitioner via First-Class
Mail. (Richards Decl.
¶ 9.) The Notice to Quit required Petitioner to vacate the
foreclosed property by
11:59 p.m. on February 8, 2016. ( Id .) Petitioner
failed to do so and remained in
possession of the foreclosed property. ( Id . at
¶ 10.) At no time did Petitioner
contact counsel for LNV to request additional time.
( Id .)
The Judgment of Foreclosure specifically authorized the issuance
of a Writ
of Assistance if Petitioner failed to surrender possession to
the purchaser at sale:
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 11
of 22
(11 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
12/107
9
[T]he purchaser is entitled to exclusive possession of the
Real Property from and after the date of sale and is
entitled to such remedies as are available at law to secure
possession, including without limitation a writ of
assistance, if Defendant or any other party or person
refuses to surrender possession to the purchaser
immediately on the purchaser’s demand for possession.
(Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 116.) Pursuant to Supplementary
Local Rule
5.061(3), counsel for LNV notified Petitioner via email on
February 8, 2016 that
she intended to appear ex parte the following day to move
the Court for a Writ of
Assistance.3
(Richards Decl. ¶ 10.) LNV obtained an Order for Writ of
Assistance
on February 9 and delivered the Writ to the Sheriff’s office
that morning. ( Id . at
¶ 11.) Later that same day, the Sheriff’s office enforced
the Writ and delivered
possession of the foreclosed property to LNV as allowed by
law. ( Id . at ¶ 12.)
Petitioner obtained the assistance of pro bono
counsel shortly after LNV
took possession of the foreclosed home. ( Id . at ¶
13.) LNV gave pro bono counsel
complete access to the home for more than an hour on February
11, 2016 to
remove Petitioner’s personal effects, including medications,
clothes, computers,
and documents. ( Id .) Petitioner was then allowed to
participate in the removal of
3 Petitioner alleges that LNV and its attorney have
“exploited” her disabilities by communicatingwith her by email
rather than by phone. The email address used to communicate with
Petitioneris the same address she uses to receive electronic
notifications from both the District Court and
Ninth Circuit and the same address she uses to contact
counsel for LNV. Moreover, Petitioner’svoicemail inbox is
frequently full, making phone messages impossible. LNV also notes
that
Petitioner has stated on numerous occasions, including in her
Petition, that she “does poorly inverbal communications.” No method
of communication seems to satisfy Petitioner.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 12
of 22
(12 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
13/107
10
items from the home over a two-day period when her remaining
personal property
was transferred to storage. ( Id .) She was given the
keys to three prepaid storage
units and allowed access to the garage and yard areas to remove
a trailer and other
personal effects. ( Id . at ¶ 14.) Petitioner
never expressed a concern about the
“toxicity” of the boxes being used to pack her belongings.
( Id . at ¶ 13.) Petitioner
has made no attempts in more than two months to contact the real
estate agent to
arrange for the removal of the remaining items at the property,
including the trailer.
(Declaration of Brenda Hereth ¶ 6.) LNV went above and beyond
the duties
imposed by Oregon law by providing pre-paid storage lockers and
additional
access to the foreclosed property after possession was restored
to LNV.
IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
A writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy
reserved for
really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court ,
542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)
(internal quotations marks omitted). “As the writ is one of the
most potent
weapons in the judicial arsenal,” three conditions must be
satisfied before it may
issue. Id . First, “the party seeking issuance of the
writ [must] have no other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Id .
Second, the petitioner’s right to
issuance of the writ must be “clear and indisputable.”
Id . at 381. Third, even if the
first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court “must
be satisfied that the
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 13
of 22
(13 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
14/107
11
writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Id .
The Court considers five factors
in determining whether mandamus relief is appropriate:
(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such as a
direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the
petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way
not
correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court’s
order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether
the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or
manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and
(5) whether the district court’s order raises new andimportant
problems or issues of first impression.
Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court , 557 F.2d 650, 654-55
(9th Cir. 1977). The absence of
clear error is dispositive. Perry v. Schwarzenegger ,
591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
petitioning party has the
“burden of showing that [her] right to the issuance of the writ
is clear and
indisputable.” Bauman, 557 F.2d at 656 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
V.
ARGUMENT
Petitioner seeks the following relief: (1) an order restoring
possession of
the foreclosed property to her; (2) an order vacating the
District Court’s
summary judgment order in the foreclosure case; (3) an order
disqualifying
Chief Judge Mosman and vacating orders dismissing Petitioner’s
three prior
cases; (4) an order imposing sanctions on LNV’s attorney; (5) an
order
directing the Washington County recorder to purge trust deeds
associated with
Petitioner’s loan documents; and (6) an order requiring LNV to
pay Petitioner
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 14
of 22
(14 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
15/107
12
damages. The Petition, like so many of the conspiracy theories
concocted by
Petitioner, is frivolous and for the reasons set forth below,
should be denied.
A. The District Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to
LNV Was
Not Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law
A writ of mandamus is inappropriate because the District Court’s
order
granting summary judgment to LNV was not clearly erroneous as a
matter of law.4
“The clear error standard is significantly deferential and is
not met unless the
reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been
committed.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court , 586 F.3d 703, 708
(9th Cir. 2009).
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the
absence of clear error
is dispositive, Petitioner’s petition should be denied.
1. LNV is the indisputable holder of the Note
Petitioner continues to offer nothing but speculation and
conjecture to
support her theory that the allonges to the Note are forgeries.
Even though she was
given additional discovery time to examine the Note and allonges
and take photos,
Petitioner did not have the photos examined by a document expert
as she told the
4 LNV notes that Petitioner is seeking mandamus relief
based on a wide range of court orders
and actions taken by Chief Judge Mosman and LNV, including: (1)
the District Court’s dismissal
of cases Petitioner filed in 2012, 2014 and 2015; (2) the
District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s
Motion to Dismiss in the foreclosure case; (3) the District
Court’s requirement that Petitioner provide a physician
affidavit to substantiate the need for a medical continuance; and
(4) theDistrict Court’s denial of several “notices” that were not
relevant to the foreclosure. LNV will
focus its response in this section of its argument on the only
order relevant to mandamus: the onein which the District Court
granted summary judgment against Petitioner in the foreclosure
case.
(LNV further notes that the Petition was filed in the appeal of
the foreclosure case; grantingrelief in any other case,
as Petitioner requests this Court to do, would be
inappropriate.)
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 15
of 22
(15 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
16/107
13
Court she would do when she requested extra time during the July
2015 status
conference. Instead, Petitioner continues to cast
herself as an expert in document
authenticity by discussing iridescence and “suspicious” marks.
As the District
Court noted in its Opinion: “[Petitioner’s] own efforts as a
handwriting analyst are
insufficient.” (Dkt. 111.) Moreover, Petitioner’s “evidence”
consists of photos of
a “Dana Lantry” signature on a canceled allonge that
has no bearing on this case.
Petitioner offers no evidence of forgery of the Lantry allonge
from People’s
Choice to RFC. See Exhibit G to the Emergency Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.
2. LNV is the indisputable beneficiary of the Deed
of Trust
Petitioner focuses much energy on three assignments of the Deed
of Trust
that predated the deed assignment from RFC to LNV on March 10,
2008.
Petitioner alleges that two of these “other” assignments were
recorded and one was
not. Petitioner continues to misunderstand (or disregard) the
law on this point.
When “the trust deed secures a promissory note, the beneficiary
of the trust deed is
the noteholder.” James v. ReconTrust Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d
1145, 1156 (D. Or.
2012). As the District Court noted in its Opinion, “even if
there were issues in the
chain of title for the deed of trust, because LNV has shown that
it is the holder of
the note, it is entitled to foreclosure.” (Dkt. 111.)5
5 Petitioner now disputes that the original Note and Deed
of Trust bear her authentic
signatures. The Petition is the first time she has made such an
argument. Petitioner has
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 16
of 22
(16 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
17/107
14
3. District Court correctly concluded that LNV could
foreclose
The District Court reached the legally correct conclusion when
it determined
that LNV was entitled to foreclosure. Given the “evidence”
Petitioner put forth in
opposition to LNV’s summary judgment motion, and the arguments
presented in
her Petition, the Court’s decision was not “clearly erroneous”
such that mandamus
is warranted. LNV notes that Petitioner has provided this Court
with an extended
and detailed discussion of her various health conditions.
Without trivializing the
effect of these conditions on Petitioner’s ability to function,
LNV respectfully
submits that Petitioner’s health conditions do not justify the
wholesale disregard of
the rules of procedure and evidence or the abandonment of
pleading requirements
and burden of proof. Similarly, Petitioner’s health conditions
do not suspend her
obligations under contract law or entitle her to remain in a
home mortgage-free
solely because it accommodates her disabilities. These arguments
should not
detract from the foundational facts of this case that entitled
LNV to foreclose.
B. Petitioner Has Another Adequate Means to Obtain
Relief
A writ of mandamus is inappropriate because Petitioner can
obtain a reversal
of the District Order’s summary judgment ruling by direct
appeal. Petitioner
argues that a writ of mandamus is necessary because the appeal
process “can take a
year or longer” and she “cannot continue to survive the
conditions [she has] been
admitted to refinancing her home and making payments through
2007 (and possibly one in2008). Questioning the authenticity at
this stage is disingenuous and should be disregarded.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 17
of 22
(17 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
18/107
15
forced to endure” since she was removed from her home after it
was sold. This
argument has no legal merit and the relief sought should be
denied.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2016. The
appeal is
currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. “A court of appeals
has no occasion to
engage in extraordinary review by mandamus … when it can
exercise the same
review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.” Moses H.
Cone Memorial Hosp.
v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 8 n. 6 (1983). See also
Confederated Salish
v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1994) (declining to
issue writ where
petitioner had “an adequate means to obtain the relief he
desires by direct appeal”).
Petitioner has adequate means to obtain the relief requested
through direct appeal.
Moreover, the situation in which Petitioner now finds herself
does not justify
an end-around of the appellate process. Petitioner knew in
November 2015, when
the Judgment of Foreclosure was entered, that her home would be
sold and that the
purchaser would be entitled to immediate possession.
Petitioner was made aware
of the sale date in December 2015 and was given notice that LNV
intended to
enforce its immediate right to possession. Petitioner, however,
took no steps to
vacate the property or plan for her needs – not a single item
was packed for
moving when LNV took possession of the property in February
2016, nor did
Petitioner contact counsel for LNV to request additional time.
Petitioner’s situation
is of her own making and does not justify mandamus relief.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 18
of 22
(18 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
19/107
16
C. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the
Desired Relief
1. This Court cannot grant relief for actions taken in
state court
This Court does not have jurisdiction over actions taken in the
state courts of
Oregon. Title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 1291 sets forth the
jurisdictional
boundaries of the federal appellate courts:
The courts of appeals … shall have jurisdiction of
appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of
the United States, the United States District Court for the
District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam,
and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where
a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
The power to issue a writ of mandamus comes from 28 U.S.C. §
1651(a), which
provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts
established by Congress may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions.”
The sale of the foreclosed property and the issuance of the Writ
of Assistance took
place in the Oregon state court system after the Judgment
of Foreclosure was
properly localized in Washington County. Respectfully, the
Ninth Circuit does not
have jurisdiction to “restore possession” of the foreclosed
property to Petitioner,
nor does it have jurisdiction to “direct the Washington County
recorder” to purge
trust deeds associated with Petitioner’s mortgage documents.
LNV submits that even if the Ninth Circuit did have
jurisdiction to grant the
aforementioned relief, the actions taken by LNV in the state
court case were
procedurally and legally proper. Petitioner argues that
she was never served with a
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 19
of 22
(19 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
20/107
17
summons and complaint to evict her from the foreclosed property.
This is true.
Petitioner’s argument, however, is based on the mistaken belief
that an unlawful
detainer action was required to remove Petitioner from the
property. As discussed
above, the Judgment of Foreclosure authorized issuance of a Writ
of Assistance to
effectuate possession to the purchaser at sale. The court’s
power to issue such a
Writ stems from its need to enforce court-rendered decrees
independently of
statute. U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Chavez , 281 Or. 329,
333, 574 P.2d 647
(1978). The Writ was issued in the state court case, notice of
which was mailed to
Petitioner and posted on her front door as required by law.
Petitioner’s suggestion
that her eviction materialized out of thin air, without notice
of any kind, is
inconsistent with the facts. Moreover, she is simply wrong on
the law.6
2. This Court cannot impose sanctions or award damages
This Court does not have the power to impose sanctions against
Chief Judge
Mosman or LNV’s attorney, both of whom Petitioner named as
additional
respondents in her petition. Neither Chief Judge Mosman nor
LNV’s attorney
were parties to the proceedings below, making their inclusion in
the mandamus
petition as respondents and the request for sanctions
against them inappropriate
6 ORS Chapter 90, the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act,
likely would not even apply to a
foreclosure situation, where there is no landlord-tenant
relationship between the purchaser at saleand a person in
possession of property. Petitioner and the other occupant of the
foreclosed
property would best be described as squatters, i.e.
persons with no legal right to possession.Squatters are
specifically excluded from coverage by Chapter 90. ORS
90.110(5).
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 20
of 22
(20 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
21/107
18
and far outside the scope of relief this honorable Court may
grant. Similarly, this
Court does not have the power to award damages for mental
anguish as Petitioner
requests. Such an award is outside the scope of a mandamus
proceeding and is a
clear attempt to sidestep Petitioner’s previous losses in
District Court.
VI. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to satisfy the three requisite conditions
for issuance of a
writ of mandamus because (1) Petitioner has an “adequate means
to attain the
relief” she desires through direct appeal, (2) Petitioner has
not shown that her right
to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” and (3)
Petitioner has not shown
that “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” For the
reasons set forth
above, LNV respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Petition.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards /s/ Erick J. Haynie
GABRIELLE D. R ICHARDS ERICK
J. HAYNIEMARTIN & R ICHARDS, LLP JEFFREY
M. PETERSON 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 PERKINS
COIE LLPPortland, OR 97204 1120 NW Couch St., 10th
Floor503.444.3449 Portland, OR [email protected]
503.727.2000
[email protected]@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
LNV Corporation
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 21
of 22
(21 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
22/107
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served the foregoing LNV CORPORATION’S
RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS on Defendant-Appellant Denise Subramaniam at the
address listed
in her Petition: c/o 1905 SE 24th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 by
depositing a
copy in the U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope at
Portland, Oregon on
the date set forth below.
DATED: April 13, 2016 /s/ Gabrielle D. RichardsGabrielle D.
Richards
[email protected]
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 22
of 22
(22 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
23/107
1- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards,
LL P 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: 503.444.3449
Fax: 503.296.5834
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LNV CORPORATION, a Nevadacorporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
C.A. Case No. 15-35963
DECLARATION OFGABRIELLE D. RICHARDSIN SUPPORT OF
LNVCORPORATION’S RESPONSEIN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’SEMERGENCY
PETITIONFOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
I, Gabrielle D. Richards, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with Martin & Richards, LLP,
counsel for plaintiff-
appellee LNV Corporation (“LNV”) in the above-captioned
matter.
2. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of
the facts
contained in this declaration and am competent to testify
thereto.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
of the
transcript from the District Court status conference held on
July 8, 2015, during
which the scope of discovery was discussed.
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2, Page 1
of 82
(23 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
24/107
2- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards,
LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: 503.444.3449
Fax: 503.296.5834
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy
of the Notice
of Filing of Foreign Judgment, which localized the federal court
Judgment of
Foreclosure in Oregon state court on or about November 19, 2015.
The Notice of
Filing of Foreign Judgment was accompanied by my affidavit and a
money
judgment as required by ORS 24.125(1).
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy
of the
Certificate of Service and Proof of Mailing, indicating that on
or about November
23, 2015 I mailed the pleadings associated with the filing of
the foreign judgment
in Washington County to Ms. Subramaniam as required by ORS
24.125(2).
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the
Writ of
Execution I obtained in the Oregon state court case on or about
December 9, 2015
that commanded the Sheriff to sell the foreclosed property. I
hand-delivered the
Writ of Execution to the Sheriff the same day.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy
of the Sheriff’s
Return of Writ of Execution – Real Property, indicating that on
December 16,
2015, the Sheriff sent copies of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale,
Notice of Levy and theWrit of Execution to Ms. Subramaniam by
Certified Mail and U.S. Mail. Exhibit
E also indicates that the Sheriff posted the Notice of Sale in a
conspicuous place at
the foreclosed property on December 17, 2015.
8. The Sheriff’s sale took place on January 29, 2016 and
LNV was the
purchaser. Exhibit E indicates that the Sheriff mailed the
Notice of Completed
Sale to Ms. Subramaniam and also posted a copy in a conspicuous
place at the
foreclosed property on January 29, 2016.
9. I had a process server post a Notice to Quit on the
front door of the
foreclosed property on February 1, 2016. The Notice to Quit
demanded possession
of the property and required Ms. Subramaniam to vacate by 11:59
p.m. on
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2, Page 2
of 82
(24 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
25/107
3- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards,
LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: 503.444.3449
Fax: 503.296.5834
February 8, 2016. I also mailed a copy of the Notice to Quit to
Ms. Subramaniam
via First-Class U.S. Mail. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a
true and correct copy
of the Notice to Quit, the process server’s Declaration of
Service and my letter.
10. Pursuant to Supplementary Local Rule 5.061(3), I
notified Petitioner
by email on February 8, 2016 that I intended to appear ex
parte the following day
to move the Court for a Writ of Assistance if she failed to
vacate by the deadline.
Ms. Subramaniam failed to vacate by 11:59 p.m. on February 8,
2016. She did not
respond to my email or contact me to request additional time to
leave the property.
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of my
email.
11.
Pursuant to the terms of the Judgment of Foreclosure, I appeared
ex
parte in Washington County on February 9, 2016 to
obtain a Writ of Assistance, a
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
I hand-delivered
the Writ of Assistance to the Sheriff later that morning.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true a correct copy
of the Sheriff’s
Return on Writ of Assistance, indicating that the Sheriff
enforced the Writ of
Assistance on the afternoon of February 9, 2016 by placing LNV
in possession ofthe foreclosed property.
13. I was contacted on February 10, 2016 by an attorney
who Ms.
Subramaniam retained on a pro bono basis to assist her
with removing personal
items from the foreclosed home. I gave counsel complete access
to the home for
more than an hour on February 11, 2016 to remove six large
containers of personal
items, including medications, clothes, computers, documents,
food, medical
equipment and blankets. Ms. Subramaniam was then allowed to
participate in the
removal of items from the home on February 13 and 14 when her
remaining
personal items were packed and placed into storage. Ms.
Subramaniam was
allowed to remove several carloads of items, which she hauled
away in her own
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2, Page 3
of 82
(25 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
26/107
4- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards,
LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: 503.444.3449
Fax: 503.296.5834
vehicle. Ms. Subramaniam never expressed any concerns to me
regarding the
“toxicity” of the boxes used to pack her belongings.
14. LNV prepaid three storage units and placed them into
Ms.
Subramaniam’s name to provide her with unfettered access. She
also was given
access to the foreclosed property, through the real estate
agent, to remove a trailer
and other remaining personal property.
I hereby declare that the above statement is true to thee
best of my
knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use
as evidence in court
and is subject to penalty for perjury.
DATED: April 12, 2016
/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards__________
Gabrielle D. Richards
Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 4 of 82
(26 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
27/107
1
1 E ED AE DC C
2 F E DC F E
3 CA, ), )
4 ), ) C . 3:1401836
5 ). )
6 )DEE BAAA, ) 8, 2015
7 )D. ) ,
8 )
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 AC F CEED
17 BEFE E ABE CAE . A
18 ED AE DC C DE
19
20
2122
23
24
25
ExhPage 1 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 5 of 82
(27 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
28/107
2
1
2 AEAACE
3
4 F E AFF: . D. . C .
5 C, 1120 .. C , 10 F
6 , 97209
7
8
9 F E DEFEDA: . D ,
13685 .. 10 B, 97005
11
12
13
14 C EE: B . , C, , C D C
15 1000 .. A., 301
, 9720416 (503) 3268188
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
ExhPage 2 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 6 of 82
(28 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
29/107
3
1 ( C E E D )
2 E CE: ,
3 C . 3:141836,
4 C . D .
5 C ,
6 .
7 . CAD: , .
8 . .
9 . E: , . C ,
10 .
11 . BAAA: , . '
12 D , .
13 E C: A .
14 . . F,
15 . ,
16 . ' ,
17 ' .
18 A
19 . '
20
21 ' 22 .
23 .
24 . , '
25 .
ExhPage 3 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 7 of 82
(29 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
30/107
4
1 . BAAA: ' .
2 E C: A ?
3 . BAAA: , .
4 ,
5 ,
6 ,
7 , .
8 A 8,
9 , '
10 , '
11 , '
12
13 . B ' .
14 A
15 ,
16 , '
17 ' . ' .
18 . '
19 . ' , ' .
20
21 .22 A '
23 "" , ",
24 ." ' . B
25
ExhPage 4 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 4 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 8 of 82
(30 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
31/107
5
1 ' .
2 A . A
3 , , ,
4
5 , :
6 . . A
7 ' ,
8 .
9
10 C ' , ,
11 , ' C
12 ,
13 ' . '
14 ,
15 ,
16 .
17
18
19 '
20
21 ' 22
23 .
24 E C: A . .
25
ExhPage 5 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 5 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 9 of 82
(31 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
32/107
6
1 . '
2 ' ?
3 . BAAA:
4 E C: ,
5
6 . BAAA: .
7 E C: . '
8 .
9 . BAAA: .
10 E C: , ,
11
12
13 .
14 . BAAA: , , .
15 , , .
16 E C:
17
18 ?
19 . BAAA: . , , ,
20 2012,
21 C 22 .
23
24 C,
25 C ,
ExhPage 6 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 6 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 10 of 82
(32 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
33/107
7
1 , '
2 E C: , '
3 '
4 . BAAA: ,
5 E C: . '
6 ' .
7
8 ? ' ,
9
10 ?
11 . BAAA: .
12 ,
13 ' C F, C,
14 F ,
15 C, AC,
16 ,
17 , ,
18
19
20 E C: A . . '
21 .22 ' .
23
24 , .
25 ' , " ,
ExhPage 7 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 7 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 11 of 82
(33 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
34/107
8
1 ."
2 .
3 . BAAA: .
4 A A, ' . ,
5 (),
6 ,
7 , , .
8 .
9 A
10 ,
11 . .
12 E C: A .
13 . BAAA: ,
14 C. ,
15
16 D E E,
17
18
19 . ,
20 ,
21 E C: ' . D' .22 . BAAA: . '
23 E C: ?
24 . BAAA:
25 '
ExhPage 8 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 8 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 12 of 82
(34 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
35/107
9
1 ' ' .
2 E C: A . ?
3 . BAAA: .
4 C , C
5 B .
6 C.
7 E C: ?
8 . BAAA: B
9 C,
10 .
11 E C: ?
12
13 ,
14
15 ' . B .
16 , ,
17 .
18 . BAAA: . .
19 E C: ' .
20 , ' .
21 . BAAA: B . 22 .
23 E C: ?
24 . BAAA: .
25 E C: ?
ExhPage 9 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 9 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 13 of 82
(35 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
36/107
10
1 . BAAA:
2 C
3 ACFC,
4 ,
5 . A
6 ,
7 ,
8 . A
9 10,
10 2008, .
11 A D ,
12 ,
13 .
14 E C: A . ?
15 . BAAA: . '
16 ' ' ,
17 E C: , ' .
18 . BAAA:
19 C .
20 E C: ?
21 . BAAA: B 22 ' . '
23 . A
24
25 E C: ?
ExhPage 10 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 10 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 14 of 82
(36 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
37/107
11
1 ' . ? ?
2 (C .)
3 . BAAA: ' , '
4 . . ' . '
5 . ' , .
6 . . C
7 E C: .
8 ' . ' '
9 ' . ?
10 . BAAA: , ' '
11 . ' '
12 , A B,
13 , , '
14
15 . A
16 E C: ,
17 ? , .
18 ' .
19 . BAAA: , .
20 E C: , '
21 , , 22 .
23 .
24 . BAAA: . , C
25
ExhPage 11 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 11 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 15 of 82
(37 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
38/107
12
1 C, ' . A
2
3 ,
4 . A
5 .
6 ' .
7 E C: A . .
8 ?
9 . CAD: , .
10 C
11
12 C , .
13 . B .
14 ,
15 C, B
16 .
17 E C: '
18
19 . ?
20 . CAD: , . ' .
21 E C: A .22 . CAD: A . '
23 '
24 , .
25
ExhPage 12 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 12 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 16 of 82
(38 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
39/107
13
1 .
2 E C:
3 ' . '
4 ?
5 . CAD: B
6 ,
7 ' .
8 E C: A .
9 ?
10 . CAD: '
11 .
12
13 ,
14 ' .
15 .
16 A
17 , '
18
19 .
20 .
21 E C: ' 22 ? ' .
23 . CAD: ' , .
24
25
ExhPage 13 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 13 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 17 of 82
(39 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
40/107
14
1 . ' .
2 A '
3 ,
4 .
5 ,
6 C
7 ,
8 .
9 A
10
11
12
13 .
14 E C: , ,
15 , ,
16 ?
17 . CAD: ' .
18 E C: , ,
19 ,
20 , ?
21 . CAD: ' 22 E C: ,
23 , ' ?
24 . CAD: '
25 ,
ExhPage 14 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 14 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 18 of 82
(40 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
41/107
15
1
2 .
3 E C: ' .
4 ,
5 , ' ?
6 . CAD:
7 .
8 .
9 E C: ' '
10 ,
11 ' . '
12 . '
13 ' .
14
15 ,
16 , . '
17 '
18 , '
19 , , ,
20 , ' ?
21 . E: , ?22 E C: . ' . '
23 ,
24 ?
25 . CAD: ' , .
ExhPage 15 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 15 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 19 of 82
(41 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
42/107
16
1 E C: ?
2 . CAD:
3 ,
4 .
5 , '
6 .
7 E C: , '
8 ' , '
9 , ?
10 , ' ? '
11 ?
12 . CAD:
13 , '
14 . , ,
15 C
16 ,
17 .
18 E C: D ?
19 . CAD: , .
20 E C: A . , ,
21 22 ?
23 . CAD: , . '
24 . .
25 E C:
ExhPage 16 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 16 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 20 of 82
(42 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
43/107
17
1 ?
2 . CAD: '
3 .
4 E C: A . .
5 . , '
6 .
7 F,
8 . '
9 .
10 . '
11 . ' '
12 , .
13 ' ,
14 , '
15 .
16 . BAAA: ' ?
17 E C: ' .
18 . BAAA: .
19 E C: ,
20 .
21 . ' , ' 22 ' ,
23
24 .
25 . BAAA: ,
ExhPage 17 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 17 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 21 of 82
(43 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
44/107
18
1
2
3
4 .
5 E C:
6 ' .
7 . BAAA: .
8 E C:
9 . . .
10 . BAAA: , ' .
11 .
12 E C: , , '
13 . . '
14 '
15 , '
16 , ' , '
17 . ' .
18 . BAAA: C,
19 C,
20 ,
21 A 1, 2007, 22 . A
23 C
24
25
ExhPage 18 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 18 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 22 of 82
(44 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
45/107
19
1 A 24, 2008,
2 .
3 E C: A . , '
4 . ' '
5 ' .
6 ' ,
7 '
8 .
9 , '
10 . .
11 A ' ' .
12 ' 60
13 .
14 , '
15 , '
16 .
17 . BAAA: ,
18 ?
19 E C: .
20 . BAAA:
21 ?22 E C: .
23 . BAAA: . . .
24
25 E C:
ExhPage 19 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 19 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 23 of 82
(45 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
46/107
20
1 .
2 ' ,
3 ' , '
4 ' ; ' .
5 '
6
7 ' .
8 ' . E
9 ' , ' ,
10 ' .
11 ' '
12
13 ' . E
14 ' . ' .
15 '
16
17 . ' , .
18 , ,
19 , '
20 ' '
21 .22 ?
23 . BAAA: .
24 ,
25 ,
ExhPage 20 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 20 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 24 of 82
(46 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
47/107
21
1 .
2 E C: '
3 . E
4 .
5 . BAAA: .
6 E C:
7 , ?
8 ?
9 . BAAA: , . A
10
11 ?
12 E C: D .
13 , ' .
14 ' , ' .
15 . BAAA: .
16 E C: A ?
17 . BAAA: .
18 E C: . ,
19 60 .
20 E CE: . 6.
21 E C: , 22 , , 6.
23 ' , ' 7
24 8.
25 . BAAA: .
ExhPage 21 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 21 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 25 of 82
(47 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
48/107
22
1 .
2 6, ?
3 E C:
4
5 ' 6.
6 . BAAA: , . B
7 6.
8 E C: , ' .
9 . BAAA: , . .
10 E C:
11 6, . A '
12 , '
13 .
14 . BAAA: . A
15 ' ,
16 . '
17 . ' . A
18 ,
19 '
20
21 .22 A
23 , ,
24 ' .
25 A '
ExhPage 22 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 22 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 26 of 82
(48 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
49/107
23
1 , .
2 E C: .
3 . BAAA: ? . '
4 .
5 E C: .
6 . BAAA: . A
7 ' , ,
8 ?
9 E C: .
10 . BAAA: , .
11 E C: . ' .
12 . BAAA: D '
13 ?
14 E C: , .
15 .
16 . BAAA: . B ' ?
17 E C: ' .
18 . BAAA: , .
19 E CE: .
20 ( .)
2122
23
24
25
ExhPage 23 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 23 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 27 of 82
(49 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
50/107
24
1
2 0
3
4 , ,
5
6 . A
7 .
8
9
10 BA . A, C, , C DAE
11 C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
ExhPage 24 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 24 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 28 of 82
(50 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
51/107
---o0o [1] 24/2
//s/Bonita [1] 24/9
11000 [1] 2/1510th [2] 2/5 10/91120 [1] 2/513685 [1] 2/91st [1]
18/21
2
2007 [1] 18/212008 [2] 10/10 19/12012 [1] 6/202015 [2] 1/6
24/924th [1] 19/1
3301 [1] 2/15326-8188 [1] 2/163:14-cv-01836-MO [1]
1/43:14-cv-1836-MO [1] 3/3
5503 [1] 2/16
660 [2] 19/12 21/196th [6] 21/20 21/22 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11
77th [1] 21/23
88188 [1] 2/168th [2] 4/8 21/24
99/2/2015 [1] 24/997005 [1] 2/1097204 [1] 2/1597209 [1] 2/6
Aabeyance [1] 3/20ability [1] 22/24able [3] 5/16 16/12
20/25about [10] 7/2 7/6 9/19 11/21 15/12 20/12 20/14 20/17
21/19 23/3
above [1] 24/6above-entitled [1] 24/6absolutely [1]
13/18accomplish [1] 19/7accurate [1] 17/22acknowledged [1]
11/13acquired [1] 10/3activity [1] 13/13actually [8] 4/10 6/3 7/17
10/22 14/13
15/11 18/22 18/24additional [2] 12/24 14/9address [3]
12/11 14/3 22/15addresses [1] 13/15adjourned [2] 23/19 23/20admit
[1] 9/14advise [1] 18/14after [3] 4/6 11/22 19/1afterwards [1]
22/21again [2] 5/3 18/12agreement [1] 10/2ahead [1] 17/7Aid [2] 8/4
8/4
all [24] 3/13 3/13 5/21 5/24 6/19 7/20 8/12 9/2 10/8 10/13
10/14 11/16 11/18
12/7 12/21 13/8 14/4 17/4 19/3 20/11
20/17 21/13 21/16 22/3
allegations [1] 14/25allegedly [2] 7/12 10/6allonge [3] 8/18
8/19 15/1allow [2] 17/5 19/6allowing [2] 14/9 14/10almost [1]
19/1along [2] 4/25 20/10already [5] 8/17 8/25 10/11 12/14 14/6also
[8] 3/10 5/21 6/1 10/7 10/23 14/6 16/3 19/15
am [2] 4/7 17/19
amend [1] 4/5amount [1] 18/25Andy [1] 11/12answer [12] 5/25 6/2
6/5 6/12 7/21 7/24 11/7 12/18 13/2 15/10 21/23 22/12
answered [1] 12/25answers [2] 6/7 6/8any [11] 3/20 12/18 14/14
14/18 14/25 16/16 16/21 16/25 17/2 21/14 22/24
anybody [1] 18/9anything [4] 4/13 4/19 5/1 13/3APPEARANCES [1]
2/2application [1] 22/15appropriate [1] 6/15April [2] 18/21
19/1April 1st [1] 18/21
April 24th [1] 19/1are [12] 3/14 4/2 7/7 7/15 9/11
11/21 11/22 12/11 14/13 14/13 15/2 16/4
argue [4] 8/21 12/13 13/23 19/4arguing [1] 8/21argument [5] 7/6
7/8 7/22 13/4 13/15arguments [1] 16/5as [5] 6/21 6/21 14/12 18/2
18/11aside [1] 14/25ask [1] 7/22asked [3] 3/24 4/15 22/22asking [4]
9/19 15/11 15/11 15/12assignment [2] 7/11 7/12assignments [2] 8/6
10/9associated [1] 16/25
assuming [1]15/4
at [9] 3/16 4/16 4/17 7/17 11/18 13/6 13/22 18/13 20/11
attorneys [1] 4/16authentic [1] 16/9authenticity [2] 8/16
14/19available [1] 17/20Ave [1] 2/15away [1] 17/23
Bback [5] 5/21 16/2 20/24 23/7 23/13bad [4] 11/21 20/12 20/13
20/13bank [8] 10/22 10/23 11/1 11/8 11/9 11/11 18/23 18/24
basic [3] 13/23 16/11 20/2
basically [1] 21/25be [25]Beal [1] 11/12Beaverton [1] 2/10became
[1] 4/11because [13] 4/5 4/6 4/18 4/21 5/1 5/15 5/20 7/1 8/14
8/24 9/8 10/21 18/1
because when [1] 7/1bed [1] 22/20been [12] 3/17 4/10 4/14 5/19
6/20 7/18 8/25 12/14 13/25 14/8 16/4 22/24
before [8] 1/17 6/17 12/11 13/5 16/15 17/6 20/24 22/7
being [2] 3/13 15/17believe [8] 9/12 9/16 15/7 15/8
15/12 15/25 16/12 19/9
believes [1] 14/13below [1] 24/4beneficial [1] 10/7beneficiary
[1] 13/24besides [1] 23/15between [1] 10/2blanks [1] 8/2bogus [1]
20/9Bonita [3] 2/14 24/9 24/10both [2] 7/15 14/7Brett [1] 9/5brief
[1] 19/25
brilliant [1] 9/14Brown [1] 12/15but [21] 4/13 4/23 4/24 4/25
5/7 6/8 7/9 9/15 9/21 10/7 10/16 12/13 14/6 15/18
16/3 17/12 18/3 18/15 20/19 22/6 23/16
Ccall [2] 17/9 18/11called [2] 7/12 18/2can [19] 3/5 5/18 5/18
6/17 15/15 16/17 17/7 17/11 17/12 17/22 18/5 18/9 18/13
19/10 19/15 20/3 21/18 22/1 22/6
can't [1] 10/16capacity [1] 5/1care [3] 12/17 20/14 20/17case
[23] 1/4 3/3 3/18 5/21 6/15 6/20 6/22 10/8 10/25 11/17 11/23
13/1 13/19
13/20 14/1 14/5 14/11 15/5 15/18 16/3
16/6 16/9 21/7
cases [3] 8/20 14/7 16/4cause [2] 9/14 24/6Cell [1]
11/2certified [1] 24/7certify [1] 24/4challenge [1] 14/18chance [2]
3/16 7/8change [1] 16/5charge [1] 8/9choice [2] 4/25 7/13claim [6]
10/3 10/4 10/21 10/22 12/23 19/1
claim they [1]10/3
claiming [1] 8/6claims [9] 6/24 6/25 7/18 8/14 9/4
9/10 11/6 18/18 18/19
cleared [2] 18/24 18/25clearly [1] 7/1clerk [1] 22/22clerk's [1]
23/7client [2] 16/19 16/25Cody [2] 2/4 3/9Coie [1] 2/5collected [1]
22/4come [3] 20/18 22/16 22/18coming [1] 23/12companies [2] 11/13
20/13company [1] 20/12
complaint [2] 4/15 19/18complete [1] 6/12conclusory [1]
14/25condition [3] 5/15 5/20 5/23conduct [1] 13/6conference [3]
1/15 3/3 12/10confirmed [1] 10/12conformed [1] 24/7Conner [3] 6/24
9/6 18/18constitutional [1] 5/13contained [1] 14/3contends [1]
15/14continue [1] 14/11
ExhPage 25 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 25 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 29 of 82
(51 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
52/107
Ccontrary [1] 9/16control [1] 18/13Corp [1] 8/14corporation [9]
1/3 1/3 3/4 10/2 10/19 11/6 11/11 11/12 11/24
corporations [1] 11/14correct [1] 24/5Couch [1] 2/5could [2]
16/16 16/21couldn't [5] 4/13 4/18 4/19 4/19 13/3Counsel [1]
3/5couple [5] 3/14 3/15 17/6 22/12 22/20course [1] 16/3
court [15] 1/1 1/18 2/14 5/10 5/11 9/9 12/1 12/10 12/12
12/15 14/6 16/15
18/23 23/19 24/11
courthouse [2] 2/14 22/18created [1] 11/14credibility [1]
12/5cross [3] 9/5 9/6 9/14cross-examination [1] 9/14cross-examine
[2] 9/5 9/6CRR [2] 2/14 24/10CSR [2] 2/14 24/10currently [1]
16/15cut [1] 6/8cv [2] 1/4 3/3
Ddate [3] 17/16 21/19 24/10day [4] 4/8 19/14 19/15 19/15days [4]
19/12 21/19 22/13 22/21dec [1] 6/23decide [1] 22/25decision [2]
22/24 23/1declaration [3] 6/23 9/8 18/20deed [9] 7/11 7/12 8/5 10/8
13/12 13/13 13/14 13/25 15/1
default [9] 13/25 16/6 16/7 16/8 16/10 18/22 20/2 20/4
20/20
defendant [8] 1/7 2/9 13/11 13/25 14/12 14/24 16/6
16/17
defendant's [1] 14/2denied [3] 5/19 12/14 14/6
DENISE [4]1/6 2/9 3/4 3/12
Depends [1] 21/12depose [1] 18/11deposition [1] 18/15depositions
[1] 14/10Diane [1] 10/11did [5] 4/1 4/4 4/22 5/9 14/3didn't [15]
4/9 4/10 4/16 4/17 5/1 5/10 5/11 5/21 11/3 11/4 13/7 15/9
20/10
22/8 23/3
disability [1] 22/20discover [1] 12/4discovered [1]
4/12discovery [15] 5/10 5/12 5/18 5/20 5/22 6/11 6/17 12/23
12/24 13/6 13/7 14/9
15/15 19/13 19/15
discs [1] 4/12dismiss [1] 20/23dismissed [2] 14/8 16/4dispute
[1] 13/11DISTRICT [4] 1/1 1/2 1/18 2/14do [27]document [1]
14/10Documentation [1] 8/16documents [17] 7/7 7/10 7/16 8/1
8/18 9/24 9/25 10/1 10/5 10/18 10/23 12/2
12/2 12/3 12/16 13/17 13/18
does [4] 9/9 11/16 14/18 23/12doesn't [6] 7/1 11/18 13/14 14/23
16/5
20/7
don't [28]done [5] 4/6 8/17 22/1 23/16 23/17down [3] 15/17 22/17
22/18due [2] 5/14 5/18during [2] 4/13 16/3
Eeither [2] 16/15 20/8electronically [2] 22/16 22/24elements [1]
18/1else [3] 9/2 10/14 23/1employed [1] 8/8employee [2] 9/4
9/5employment [5] 8/3 8/10 14/15 17/8
17/8end [3] 5/12 19/14 22/20endeavor [1] 15/19ended [1]
5/12engage [1] 15/14enhance [1] 10/25enough [1] 22/1entire [1]
19/1entitled [4] 12/1 20/8 20/20 24/6equal [2] 5/14 5/19evaluated
[1] 17/23evasion [1] 11/15even [4] 4/16 14/11 15/17 20/13eventually
[2] 4/12 5/3every [2] 21/3 22/17everything [3] 22/1 22/2 22/22
evidence [5] 9/17 15/23 16/15 16/16 19/4
examination [2] 8/15 9/14Examinations [1] 8/16examine [2] 9/5
9/6examined [1] 8/24Examiners [1] 8/16executed [1] 10/9exemption
[3] 11/25 12/1 12/5exist [1] 20/7expedition [2] 13/18
14/12explanation [1] 20/1extension [1] 3/24extensions [2] 4/20
5/2
Ffact [4] 8/7 11/14 14/3 15/19facts [2] 13/19 16/5factual [3]
7/10 7/23 13/11fail [1] 17/14failed [2] 18/21 19/2fear [1] 14/9file
[8] 4/4 6/17 19/13 19/16 22/15 22/17 22/18 22/24
filed [13] 3/15 3/17 3/23 4/8 5/25 6/23 7/17 12/13 20/23
21/3 22/2 22/5 22/6
fill [1] 8/2financial [2] 7/14 8/7fine [2] 12/20 19/5finish [1]
6/4first [4] 3/14 3/19 6/19 17/7
fishing [2] 13/17 14/12Floor [1] 2/5following [3] 7/25 8/1
22/11follows [1] 13/13foreclose [5] 20/7 20/8 20/13
20/17 20/21
foreclosure [2] 13/20 16/11foregoing [1] 24/4forged [7] 15/7
15/8 15/12 15/16 15/23 16/8 16/13
forgeries [1] 15/2forgery [1] 18/2forward [3] 3/18 5/7 16/17
foundation [1] 16/11free [1] 18/16fully [2] 4/7 5/7function [1]
4/19Funding [1] 7/13further [5] 6/11 6/17 17/6 19/12 19/13
GGabrielle [2] 2/4 3/8gave [3] 5/16 9/8 15/10general [1] 12/5get
[21] 4/6 5/4 6/10 7/8 8/3 8/10 9/22 10/5 10/18 11/4 12/18 17/7
17/11 20/13
20/18 21/23 21/25 22/2 22/3 22/12 23/7
give [8] 6/12 15/9 17/13 17/14 19/11
19/12 19/25 21/18GMAC [2] 7/15 10/3GMAC-RFC [1] 10/3go [8]
4/25 5/4 14/12 15/17 17/7 18/9 19/10 23/6
goal [1] 3/18goes [2] 14/23 16/2going [23] 3/19 4/25 5/12 6/8
7/21 7/22 7/24 7/25 9/11 10/17 13/17 14/11 15/16
17/5 17/13 17/19 18/14 18/16 19/11
19/12 21/2 21/4 22/25
good [5] 3/7 3/9 3/11 5/5 9/20got [1] 10/4granted [1] 23/2guess
[1] 6/1
Hhad [26]happen [1] 20/10happened [2] 4/6 20/25happens [3] 9/15
11/1 11/9hardship [1] 22/16has [14] 3/15 3/23 8/17 9/13
11/13 11/14 11/24 11/25 12/13 12/14 13/9
13/25 14/24 16/19
hasn't [2] 12/23 22/24have [53]haven't [3] 3/16 13/22
17/17having [3] 10/23 12/4 22/20he [6] 8/7 8/7 11/14 16/25 17/2
22/23he's [4] 18/13 18/16 18/16 18/17
head [1]10/16
hear [5] 7/2 7/3 7/5 7/6 7/7hearing [11] 21/1 21/10 21/13
21/14 21/22 21/23 22/1 22/7 22/10 22/11
22/12
heat [1] 22/18help [7] 4/11 11/17 11/18 12/3 15/17 19/9
20/11
her [11] 9/9 13/2 13/16 13/25 14/4 14/25 14/25 15/18 15/18
16/10 18/20
here [6] 3/13 11/20 11/21 13/11 17/9 18/15
Here's [1] 7/20herniated [1] 4/12him [3] 16/20 18/11
18/11history [1] 11/13
hold [8] 3/20 21/13 21/14 21/22 21/23 22/1 22/11 22/12
holder [2] 13/24 15/6Homecomings [1] 7/14honestly [1] 14/17Honor
[16] 3/2 3/7 3/9 3/11 6/14 7/25 11/5 12/9 12/20 13/23 15/21
15/25
16/23 17/25 23/10 23/18
HONORABLE [1] 1/17how [5] 9/11 9/23 10/25 11/16 22/6HR [1]
8/10
II'd [2] 15/9 22/15
ExhPage 26 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 26 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 30 of 82
(52 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
53/107
II'll [4] 18/15 19/6 20/11 21/13I'm [18] 3/11 3/19 5/7 6/7 8/4
8/22 11/3 11/4 11/5 15/11 15/11 15/12 15/18 17/5
17/13 18/14 19/11 19/12
I've [2] 5/19 12/17idea [1] 20/25identical [1] 10/8identically
[1] 8/19identify [1] 18/2if [26]ignore [1] 20/11immediately [1]
22/10impact [1] 12/5
impression [1] 15/18in [53]inauthentic [3] 14/22 15/4
15/16incapacitated [1] 4/10include [1] 22/23included [2] 8/17
22/22incorporation [2] 10/19 12/2indicates [1] 8/25information [6]
7/7 7/10 7/24 15/15 20/12 22/3
inquiry [1] 15/5instances [2] 18/14 18/16instead [1]
18/6institution [1] 8/7intention [1] 12/12interest [1] 10/7
interested [1] 18/17interject [1] 15/21interview [4] 8/1 9/4
18/8 18/9interviewing [2] 10/23 16/20into [1] 13/5introduce [1]
3/5involve [1] 19/8involved [1] 6/22IRS [1] 11/17is [61]isn't [3]
5/13 13/10 16/10issues [3] 13/12 20/17 20/18it [38]it's [12] 7/22
11/10 11/13 12/1 13/23 14/1 15/22 16/13 20/9 22/5 22/16
22/19
JJason [1] 8/19JUDGE [1] 1/18judgment [15] 3/19 3/21 3/23 6/1
6/13 6/18 12/19 13/22 14/3 14/4 17/6 19/20
19/22 21/3 21/7
judicial [2] 12/15 13/20judicially [1] 11/13July [1] 1/6jump [1]
5/4just [27]
Kkept [1] 4/23kind [1] 9/16
know [22] 3/17 4/6 4/9 4/16 4/17 4/22 4/24 5/9 5/10 5/11
6/19 6/20 7/9 10/16
11/3 11/4 14/17 16/23 17/11 17/22
22/25 23/3
knowledge [4] 6/25 9/10 17/2 18/20
Llack [2] 7/9 9/19last [1] 19/15Later [1] 20/18law [4] 5/14 5/19
13/13 18/14lawyers [2] 17/9 19/8least [1] 13/6
led [1] 4/12left [1] 11/5let [5] 5/24 6/4 7/20 11/4 19/25let's
[2] 11/8 19/11liberty [1] 18/13lied [1] 9/13lifted [1] 4/9like [8]
6/2 7/21 7/22 7/24 9/21 12/4 18/6 22/15
Litton [1] 18/24LLC [2] 7/13 7/15LLP [1] 2/5LNV [10] 1/3 3/3
6/21 8/14 10/2 10/19 11/6 11/24 13/24 15/6
loan [1] 14/1
Loans [1] 18/24look [2] 3/16 4/17looked [1] 13/22Lorraine [1]
12/15lose [2] 21/6 21/7lot [4] 5/4 5/4 11/21 15/19lying [1]
9/15
Mmade [1] 20/4main [1] 3/18Majesey [1] 8/5major [1] 22/19make
[6] 7/8 13/8 17/20 18/21 19/2 22/7Maloney [4] 9/5 16/20 16/24
18/9many [1] 14/5
March [1] 10/9March 10th [1] 10/9matches [1] 8/19material [1]
13/11materials [2] 13/18 14/13matters [2] 11/23 16/8may [4] 11/17
15/21 19/6 20/18me [14] 5/24 5/25 6/4 7/20 8/2 11/4 11/22
19/25 20/5 20/7 20/15 20/19
22/12 22/16
mean [6] 9/5 11/17 11/20 18/10 18/10 23/12
means [3] 4/23 4/24 23/14medical [18] 4/9 4/11 4/15 4/18
4/21 4/21 5/3 5/5 5/5 5/12 5/15 5/15 5/16
5/20 5/22 13/3 13/5 20/24
Meistad [1] 10/11Meyer [1] 10/24MGC [5] 6/21 6/25 9/4 9/4
18/19MICHAEL [1] 1/17Michelle [3] 6/24 9/6 18/18might [1]
23/1misunderstood [1] 22/9MO [2] 1/4 3/3months [3] 12/25 13/6
14/11more [5] 6/11 6/12 9/21 9/22 23/14morning [4] 3/7 3/9 3/11
3/16mortgage [5] 6/25 7/1 10/4 10/7 18/25MOSMAN [1] 1/17most [3]
4/3 18/14 18/15motion [19] 3/19 3/22 3/25 4/4 6/1 12/15
13/21 14/2 14/4 14/16 14/20 15/20 15/24 19/21 19/22
20/23 21/2 21/3 21/6
motions [5] 3/15 3/20 4/20 12/11 12/14move [1] 5/7moving [1]
3/18Mr [1] 2/4Mr. [3] 16/20 16/24 18/9Mr. Maloney [3] 16/20 16/24
18/9Ms [2] 2/4 2/9Ms. [8] 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/22 12/24 17/5
17/20 21/18
Ms. Richards [1] 17/20Ms. Stephens [1] 21/18
Ms. Subramaniam [5] 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/24 17/5
Ms. Subramaniam's [1] 12/22much [2] 4/5 23/10my [30]myself [2]
3/12 5/1
NN.W [1] 2/5name [1] 3/7named [1] 9/5Natalie [1] 10/24need
[26]needed [1] 5/6needs [1] 12/24
Network [1] 7/14Nevada [2] 1/3 10/19never [1] 9/15new [2] 16/4
19/14no [16] 1/4 3/3 4/18 4/24 5/17 5/17 5/18 5/18 12/20 15/7
15/22 18/16 19/19
20/25 22/8 23/14
nor [1] 16/16not [54]note [31]nothing [3] 13/19 17/10 19/9notice
[2] 6/23 12/15notices [1] 18/15now [13] 5/17 6/7 6/8 6/19 8/21
9/19 19/4 19/17 19/24 19/25 20/19 23/5 23/6
number [1] 12/14
Oo0o [1] 24/2objection [1] 4/4obvious [1] 20/3obviously [1]
12/12October [1] 4/10Odyssey [1] 8/5off [3] 6/8 10/16 11/4office
[1] 23/7Official [1] 24/11Oh [3] 17/18 22/6 22/9okay [27]OMNI [1]
8/16on [37]
once [1]18/12
one [7] 10/12 10/13 12/6 12/14 20/3 21/4 22/14
only [4] 10/6 12/11 14/5 16/3opponent [1] 15/10opportunity [4]
5/17 6/11 12/23 15/14option [1] 4/18or [19] 2/6 2/10 2/15 4/17 5/19
7/7 7/13 15/16 17/3 17/8 17/12 18/14 19/20 20/9
20/13 20/15 21/10 21/23 24/7
OREGON [4] 1/2 1/7 11/25 13/13original [13] 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/23
9/1 14/19 14/22 16/18 16/19 17/21 18/2
19/8 24/6
other [15] 3/20 4/18 5/11 6/21 8/20 12/3 13/16 13/17 14/7
19/7 19/8 20/5 20/18
21/3 22/14otherwise [1] 15/16our [3] 14/2 14/3 16/9out [3]
5/10 5/21 21/19over [1] 7/20owe [1] 11/17owner [1] 11/12
Ppain [1] 4/11part [2] 10/13 22/19particular [1] 7/16parties [4]
3/5 6/21 10/7 10/10
ExhPage 27 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 27 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 31 of 82
(53 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
54/107
Pparty [5] 7/18 10/3 10/4 17/9 18/17past [3] 7/2 7/6 20/18pause
[1] 5/24pay [1] 20/14paying [1] 20/15payment [4] 18/21 18/24 18/25
19/2payments [1] 20/4pending [1] 12/11people [6] 8/1 9/12 9/12
11/22 20/13 20/14
People's [1] 7/13perhaps [1] 14/11period [3] 5/6 5/10 5/12
perjured [1] 9/9Perkins [1] 2/5person [1] 8/9personal [3] 6/25
9/10 18/19pertaining [1] 8/5ph [1] 8/5phone [2] 10/11
11/2photocopies [1] 18/1photocopy [4] 17/21 17/22 17/23
18/6photocopying [2] 17/20 18/4photograph [2] 18/5 19/9photographs
[2] 18/1 18/3pieces [1] 7/7place [2] 3/2 13/6plaintiff [5] 1/4 2/4
3/8 3/10 3/23planning [1] 21/21
pleadings [3] 4/3 14/5 14/6Portland [3] 1/7 2/6 2/15position [1]
16/14positive [1] 23/1possible [2] 15/12 16/13possibly [1]
16/16potential [1] 18/2potentially [2] 9/1 16/21prejudice [1]
14/8preliminary [2] 8/17 8/25president [4] 6/24 7/19 8/6
18/19pressure [1] 4/5previous [1] 14/5previously [2] 14/7
16/4primary [1] 12/9
printer [1]22/17
prior [2] 6/20 22/2pro [1] 2/9probably [1] 10/15problem [6] 5/9
5/17 10/17 12/19 17/15 22/19
problems [1] 4/21proceedings [3] 1/16 23/20 24/5process [2] 5/14
5/19produced [2] 8/15 18/23proof [1] 14/25protection [2] 5/14
5/19prove [11] 5/16 9/11 11/1 11/8 11/9 11/16 11/21 11/22 12/3
12/4 16/12
purchase [1] 10/2purpose [1] 12/10
purposes [2] 11/15 21/21push [1] 5/10put [6] 5/20 9/13 13/5
16/17 19/4 20/24puts [1] 12/5
Qquestion [6] 7/21 11/7 15/3 15/3 15/11 15/22
questions [3] 6/5 21/13 21/14quick [1] 4/6quite [1] 22/16
Rraises [1] 13/12
read [1] 21/13ready [1] 4/2really [8] 9/16 12/1 13/10 20/7
20/9 20/10 20/16 22/19
reason [2] 5/5 15/7reasons [3] 4/9 12/6 20/24recently [2] 3/23
12/13recess [2] 23/11 23/12record [5] 3/6 16/16 18/20 21/11
24/5recordation [2] 13/12 13/14records [7] 4/15 4/18 8/4 8/11
14/15 17/8 17/11
recovered [2] 4/7 5/7recovery [1] 5/6referenced [1] 14/7
referred [1] 14/4regard [2] 12/22 13/16regarding [1]
13/12related [3] 6/21 8/20 10/8relevance [3] 14/14 14/18
15/13relevant [6] 14/13 15/4 15/23 16/14 16/22 17/11
relying [1] 4/20report [1] 8/25REPORTER [2] 2/14 24/11represent
[1] 3/8representing [2] 3/10 3/12request [2] 6/12 13/7requested [2]
13/9 15/13requesting [1] 12/10requests [3] 6/18 13/16 14/10
require [3] 3/20 13/14 17/19required [1] 5/15requiring [1]
12/18reserved [1] 4/4Residential [2] 7/13 7/15resolution [1]
14/15resolve [2] 3/19 21/4resolved [2] 3/21 21/4respond [5] 3/25
4/2 17/6 19/10 20/1response [9] 3/21 6/17 12/8 13/3 14/2 19/13
19/16 19/17 22/4
reveal [1] 15/15RFC [1] 10/3Richards [3] 2/4 3/8 17/20right [23]
3/13 4/5 5/13 5/24 5/24 7/20 7/21 7/24 8/12 9/2 10/14 12/7
12/21
13/8 15/23 16/9 17/4 19/3 20/6 20/16
21/16 22/2 23/9
rights [1] 5/14rings [1] 11/2Rite [2] 8/4 8/4RiteWay [5] 8/4 8/8
14/14 17/8 17/8RMR [2] 2/14 24/10Road [1] 2/9Room [1] 2/15ropes [1]
5/4route [1] 15/17rule [1] 21/10
SS.W [2] 2/9 2/15
said [4] 18/8 22/7 22/10 22/23same [6] 6/22 6/22 7/17 10/10
15/10 21/22
say [7] 7/25 11/7 11/8 11/21 18/16 20/20 22/8
saying [2] 4/23 6/1says [1] 18/20se [1] 2/9second [2] 7/5
17/19see [3] 17/21 19/11 21/12seek [1] 4/10senior [4] 6/24 7/18 8/6
18/19sent [2] 4/15 4/17
September [7] 21/20 21/22 21/23 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11
September 6th [6] 21/20 21/22 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11
September 7th [1] 21/23serve [2] 13/7 17/7served [1] 4/14set [2]
3/3 17/17several [3] 3/15 8/20 12/25sham [2] 11/11 11/14she [19]
7/1 9/8 9/9 9/10 10/12 12/23 12/25 13/2 13/6 13/6 13/9 14/3
14/4
14/7 15/14 15/15 15/18 16/12 18/20
she's [4] 15/13 15/22 16/7 16/8shell [2] 11/11 11/14
short [2] 6/7 6/8show [7] 8/18 16/17 18/3 18/3 20/3
20/6 20/19
showing [1] 18/23shown [1] 11/25shred [1] 16/15Shumway [3] 2/14
24/9 24/10shut [1] 11/4signature [2] 24/7 24/7signed [3] 7/18 8/5
8/18signers [1] 10/12signing [1] 24/4simple [1] 15/22simply [1]
5/20single [2] 13/7 14/3sixtieth [1] 19/14
so [46]so-called [2] 7/12 18/2solution [1] 12/19some [9] 5/2
6/11 9/16 9/18 9/18 9/21 9/22 12/3 20/9
somebody [1] 9/4somehow [1] 20/7someone [2] 9/12 18/12something
[2] 10/21 11/22somewhere [2] 14/23 20/10sorry [4] 8/4 11/3 11/4
11/5sort [1] 16/10sound [3] 7/21 7/22 7/24specific [3] 10/2 10/5
10/18spoke [1] 10/11
spoken [1]8/9
stand [1] 9/13standing [1] 8/18start [2] 7/20 21/2state [1]
11/25statement [1] 18/23statements [1] 15/1STATES [3] 1/1 1/18
2/14status [3] 1/15 3/3 12/10stay [11] 4/9 5/3 5/5 5/12 5/15 5/16
5/20 13/3 13/5 20/24 22/20
stayed [1] 13/1Stephens [1] 21/18still [3] 4/7 5/7 7/8stipulated
[3] 4/23 4/23 4/24stop [1] 7/5
straightforward [2] 13/20 14/1Street [1] 2/5stuff [1]
23/7subpoena [5] 8/10 9/24 10/1 17/7 17/9subpoenas [1]
14/10SUBRAMANIAM [9] 1/6 2/9 3/4 3/12 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/24
17/5
Subramaniam's [1] 12/22subsidiaries [1] 7/15substance [1]
12/12substitution [1] 7/16successful [3] 11/8 15/17 15/19sued [1]
6/21
ExhPage 28 o
Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 28 of
29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2,
Page 32 of 82
(54 of 1
-
8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of
Mandamus
55/107
Ssuggestion [1] 15/10summary [15] 3/19 3/21 3/23 6/1
6/12 6/18 12/18 13/22 14/2 14/4 17/6 19/20
19/22 21/3 21/7
supplement [1] 6/2supplemental [3] 19/16 19/17 22/4supposed [1]
22/23surgery [5] 4/7 4/7 4/13 5/6 5/6
Ttake [4] 3/14 6/10 17/23 18/5taken [1] 12/17tax [1] 11/15
taxes [1] 11/17tell [4] 5/25 18/15 20/7 20/15telling [1]
20/5testimony [2] 9/9 9/9than [1] 19/8Thank [8] 3/13 12/7 12/9 17/4
19/23 23/10 23/11 23/18
that [154]that's [17] 4/11 5/13 9/20 10/17 12/6 12/20 16/8
17/8 17/10 17/14 18/12 19/4
19/5 19/14 19/15 20/3 20/17
their [12] 5/25 6/12 6/17 8/10 8/18 12/4 12/5 18/13 19/18
19/20 20/1 20/6
them [10] 3/16 3/21 4/17 4/20 9/13 9/14 10/8 12/13 12/18
21/3
then [15] 5/2 6/4 6/10 7/14 9/13 9/20 11/1 11/9 16/8 16/13
17/14 17/22 21/7
21/13 23/6
theory [2] 13/21 20/2there [15] 3/14 5/2 5/3 5/18 5/18
5/24 6/20 12/19 13/10 16/14 16/16 18/22
19/6 21/10 22/23
there's [4] 8/25 10/15 19/9 20/3these [4] 11/12 16/4 17/9
19/8they [23] 4/8 4/12 4/16 4/23 4/25 6/23 8/14 8/17 8/18 10/3
10/3