I SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X R. S. RAGHAVENDRA a/k/a Randy S. Raghavendra, Founder, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CLIENTS AGAINST DISHONEST ATTORNEYS Plaintiff, - against- Index # 604419/2015 LOUIS D. STOBER, Jr., et al. Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Order to Show Case to Change Venue Out of Nassau County and in Support of His Cross-Motion for Sanctions and Injunctive Relief August 2015 National Association for Clients Against Dishonest Attorneys P.O. Box 7066 Hicksville, NY 11802-7066 Phone: (646) 229-9971 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2015 10:42 PM INDEX NO. 604419/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2015
24
Embed
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
I
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Article 5 of the CPLR………………………………………………………...…1,18
C.P.L.R. 5104…………………………………………………………………..…18
CPLR 321………………………………………………………………………..…9
Judicial Law 487………………………………………………..1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 17
Section 503…………………………………………………………………...…1,18
1
Plaintiff, Randy S. Raghavendra (Founder, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
CLIENTS AGAINST DISHONEST ATTORNEYS) respectfully submits this Memorandum of
Law in Opposition of Defendants’ Order to Show cause for change of venue and in Support of
his Cross-Motion for Sanctions and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff also refers to the Exhibits
included in his June 2015 Verified Complaint and his Affidavit (Pl. Af) in support of this cross
motion:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Plaintiff has been a resident of Nassau County for over the past 25 years (Pl.
Af. Exhibit A). Further, the “Primary Defendant and Most Important Witness” in this action, his
own One-of-Four-Cases (06-cv-6841)/”Client-Betraying” Attorney, Mr. Louis D. Stober. Jr., is
also a long term attorney of Nassau County (Pl. Af. Exhibit B) and his law office is in 5–minutes
walking distance of this Nassau County Supreme Court. Plaintiff has a right to litigate all of his
FORTY different causes of action against the primary defendant (Stober) in this Court. Clearly,
the Proskauer Rose defendants are seeking an (illegal) change of venue, in violation of Article 5
of the CPLR and Section 503, to further aid and abet and cover-up the massive fraud, deception,
perjury, deliberate misrepresentations and repeated violation of judicial law 487 by Defendant
Stober in the Manhattan Courts including the First Judicial Department (Appellate Division) to
allow for further bias and deception to their benefit.
Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Proskauer Rose defendants’ order to show
cause to change venue is yet another example of their continuing pattern and practice of
deliberate lies, perjury , intentional misrepresentations, “BRIBERY” and related “Forum
Shopping”, cover-up and intent to commit further fraud on the Courts. Further, this is also an
another obvious attempt to DENY Plaintiff his constitutional right to any fact-finding and
2
or evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding a 2009 “Illegal & Still INCOMPLETE Private
Mediation” and the resulting 1-page “PRELIMINARY/Incomplete” Term Sheet
Agreement (Pl. Af. Exhibit H) for the LIMITED settlement of JUST ONE and ONLY ONE (or
the relatively minor 06-cv-6841 or 2005-2009 Back-Pay Damages) action of the Plaintiff’s four
separate civil rights, employment discrimination, and illegal retaliation actions and on which the
Plaintiff had retained One-of- Four-Cases/Out-Going Attorney/Defendant Stober.
After deceiving both his own Client (Plaintiff) and the “Private Mediator” (Mr.
Martin Scheinman, a Nassau County Resident) into attending the 2009 “Illegal & Still
INCOMPLETE Private Mediation “ at Defendant Proskauer Rose firm, One-of-Four-Cases
/Out-Going Attorney/Defendant Stober deceived the Plaintiff into signing the July 30, 2009
Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet after the “Private Mediator” had already left for the day.
After seeking a “BRIBE” in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (in the guise of “BOGUS”
attorney fees) from the Proskauer Rose and Columbia Defendants, One-of-Four-Cases
Attorney/Defendant Stober has continued to betray, harass, intimidate, and coerce his own Client
(Plaintiff) to extract any “Involuntary Releases” for the Plaintiff’s three other pending actions
which were never settled at the 2009 “Illegal & Incomplete Private Mediation.”
Starting from July 2009, Defendant Stober has continued to betray and has
engaged in unprecedented litigation against his own Client (Plaintiff) on behalf of the Proskauer
Rose and Columbia Defendants by refusing to comply even with the expressly agreed upon
terms of that Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet that he himself had deceived the Plaintiff into
signing. Clearly, Defendant Stober has been openly colluding with the Proskauer Rose and
Columbia defendants against his own Client (Plaintiff) and has been obstructing the required
final negotiations in the “Still INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” under the expressly agreed
3
“exclusive jurisdiction” of Mr. Scheinman, who had authorized the “limited settlement” of just
one and only the 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay damages) case in compliance with the New
York State Rules of Mediation (Pl. Af. Exhibit F). On July 30, 2009, in a fax to the Federal
Magaistrate Judge Henry Pitman, the Stober defendants had specifically stated and had already
admitted that one and only the 06-cv-6841 cases was settled at that “INCOMPLETE Private
Mediation.” In their 1-page fax, the Stober defendants specifically admitted and wrote (See,
Exhibit G):
Dear Judge Pitman: This letter is to inform the Court that at a full-day mediation session on July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff….reached settlement of the above captioned (06-cv-6841) matter with the Defendants.
The defendants had also expressly agreed that the “Private Mediator” (Mr.
Scheinman) will have exclusive jurisdiction over the Preliminary Term Sheet in the last
paragraph of that 1-1/2 Page Preliminary/INCOMPLETE document (See, Exhibit H,
Page 2) by specifically stating that:
“(The Private Mediator) Martin F. Scheinman retains jurisdiction over the term sheet and any disputes regarding the language of the formal settlement agreement between Raghavendra and Columbia”.
Further, given the Plaintiff’s already pending attorney misconduct claims against
Defendant Stober, the Columbia defendants had also expressly agreed that there will not be
any (“bogus’) attorney fees deductions from the agreed upon 2005-2009 back-pay compensation
to the Plaintiff for the limited settlement of just his 06-cv-6841 case in exchange for Plaintiff not
pursuing his $150 to $200 Million Dollar (Coca Cola or TEXACO) “Class Action” Claims,
without prejudice to any of his individual discrimination claims in his other three pending
4
actions. This was expressly stated in the third paragraph of that complicated “3-Way”
Preliminary/ INCOMPLETE document as follows:
“There is an ongoing dispute between the Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC and Raghavendra………which will not affect Columbia’s obligation to make the $xxxxxxx payment described above.”
However, the Proskauer Rose defendants committed perjury and or made deliberate
misrepresentations and or repeated fraud on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts and the
Manhattan Supreme Court during the past six years and have been openly litigating on behalf of
One-of-Four-Cases/”Client-Betraying” Attorney/Stober defendants for the payment of a
“BOGUS” attorney fee in the hundreds of thousands of dollars even before the Plaintiff is paid a
single penny.
Even before the completion of the 2009 fraudulently induced “Illegal & Still
INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” under the expressly agreed “exclusive jurisdiction” of the
Sheet Agreement after the “Private Mediator” had already left for the day and
even before the completion of the mediation and even before the finalization
or clear understanding of the terms of the preliminary agreement that is to date
still only under the expressly agreed EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of only
the “Private Mediator”.
(6) Fraud on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in violation of Judicial Law
487 by the Proskauer Rose (and Columbia Defendants) in collusion with One-
Case-Only/Conflicts-of-Interest Attorney/Stober Defendants to obtain various
“Non-Appealable” Federal Court Orders/Decisions even before the completion
of the mediation and based on only on the Defendants’ deliberate misrepresentations
and lies (and without any fact-finding whatsoever and by repeatedly denying the
Plaintiff any full and fair opportunity to litigate.)
Defendants’ have used the “fraudulently induced and non-appealable” Federal Court
Orders from 2010 to 2014 not only to directly contradict the fact that one and
only the 06-cv-6841 supplementary action was settled on July 30, 2009 but they
have also used them in a fraudulent attempt to further:
(A) Intimidate, harass, and compel the Plaintiff to sign “Involuntary Releases”
for the withdrawal/dismissal of even the Plaintiff’s other three 100% Pro
Se actions by keeping the “Private Mediator” himself out of his own
mediation and or by illegally usurping and or suppressing the expressly
12
agreed “Exclusive Jurisdiction” of the “Private Mediator” for finalizing the
specific terms and conditions of the still “Incomplete Private Mediation” of
July 30, 2009; and
(B) Illegally or Improperly seek the Supplemental Jurisdiction of the
(Out-of-Jurisdiction) District Court to issue an arguably “Bogus” and
premature attorney fee determination for defendant Stober and for using
that “BOGUS Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel Effect” to prejudice
and dismiss all of the Plaintiff’s “Legal Malpractice Related Claims” in
State Court.
NOTE: On July 30, 2009, the “Private Mediator” had authorized the settlement
of just one and only “Non-Pro Se” 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay
damages) supplementary action, without any attorney fees whatsoever,
in exchange for Defendant Bollinger avoiding a $150 to $200 Million
Dollar Class Action for Institutionalized Racial Discrimination
Practices at Defendant Columbia University.
(7) Defendants’ further Fraud in violation of Judicial law 487 even on the New
York County Supreme Court and the First Department Appellate Division from
December 2011 to May 2015 to dismiss even the Plaintiff’s already remanded
Continuing Legal Malpractice and Breach of Contract related claims in his July
2012 Complaint (filed in his 600002-2011 action) and Continuing Employment
Discrimination claims in his February 2013 Complaint (filed in his 100389-2013
action) in the New York County Courts by using the previous fraudulently
induced and “Out-of- Jurisdiction” Federal Court Orders of February 2010 and
August 2012 and related fraudulently induced Second Circuit Mandate of
November 2011 and by presenting various “BOGUS Res Judicata and Collateral
Estoppel” arguments.
POINT II
Defendants’ Continuing Fraud and Deception on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction)
Federal Court and the State Courts and Deliberate Misrepresentation of
Material Facts, Abuse of Judicial Process, “Bribery” and Other Corrupt
Attorney Practices During the Past Six Years Warrants Sanctions
During the past six years, the Defendants have repeatedly lied and deliberately
misrepresented even the most important and material facts in both the Federal courts and the
State Courts and had forced the Plaintiff to engage in totally unnecessary “harassment” litigation
that has totally destroyed almost all of his professional and personal life. The Defendants have
13
deliberately lied and repeatedly misrepresented even the following most important facts to the
Federal Courts and now to the State Courts. The Defendants have fraudulently concealed or
deliberately misrepresented to the Court that:
\
(A) The July 30, 2009 Preliminary/Non-Final Term Sheet Agreement simply CANNOT
be litigated in any court of law at all because it is still under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the “Private Mediator” (Mr. Scheinman); and
(B) Only the 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay) case has been identified as a settled case
and that any other disputes regarding that term sheet have to be resolved only by the
“Private Mediator” in accordance with the New York State Rules of Mediation; and
(C) The July 30, 2009 “Private Mediation” has not been completed yet and that there is
no final settlement agreement whatsoever that has been mutually agreed and signed.
Clearly, the Defendants have knowingly committed repeated fraud on the Federal
Courts and now on the State Courts by using their “Bogus Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”
arguments to improperly dismiss his prior action by deliberate misrepresentations and or
fraudulent concealment of the most important facts before this Court. Defendants’ previous
violation of Judicial Law 487 to obtain the arguably illegal and fraudulently induced Orders in
the “Out-of-Jurisdiction” Federal Courts will, of course, now have to be litigated for the first
time before this Nassau County Supreme court.
The Defendants have also made several deliberate false and misleading
representations that warrant the imposition of sanctions against them by this Court pursuant to its
inherent power. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 139-1.1(d). It is well settled that the Court has the authority to
award sanctions against a party that “asserts material factual statements that are false.” Yenom
Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street Inc., 33 A.D.3d 67, 70 (2006). Clearly, the Defendants should be
appropriately sanctioned for causing the illegal or improper dismissal of his prior action(s) by
fabricating their “BOGUS Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel” arguments that were based on
14
the fraudulently induced and “Non-Appealable” Orders/ Decisions in the “Out-of-Jurisdiction”
Federal Courts and without any fact-finding or evidentiary hearings whatsoever. See In re
Gelbwaks, 260 A.D. 2d 47, 696 N.Y.S.2d 45, 47 (1st Dep’t 1999); In re Leff, 213 A.D. 2d 11,
14, 630 N.Y.S.2d 372, 374 (2d Dept 1995) (two-year suspension from practice of law was
appropriate sanction for, inter alia attorney’s violation in representing client …in
transaction in which he had pecuniary interest (in conflict with his client)).
Clearly, the Defendants committed fraud and deceived the Federal Courts by
deliberately concealing and misrepresenting the most important and relevant fact that the
extremely complicated July 30, 2009 Preliminary/Non-Final “3-way” (Implied, Columbia-
Plaintiff-Stober) based on that day’s “Illegal & Incomplete Private Mediation” at defendant
Proskauer Rose firm cannot be litigated in the Federal Court at all because it was expressly
agreed in that same term sheet document that the “Private Mediator” will have exclusive
jurisdiction on that term sheet until any settlement agreement has been reached between the
Plaintiff and Columbia. Because the term sheet was based only on the discussions and
negotiations involving just the one and the only 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay damages)
supplementary action on that date, the defendants had fraudulently sought the illegal or
improper supplemental jurisdiction of the (“Out-of-Jurisdiction”) Federal District Court to
improperly dismiss even the Plaintiff’s 09-cv-0019 and 06-cv-8120 action and to also obtain a
“bogus” or premature attorney fee determination even before the litigation of the legal
malpractice and other serious attorney misconduct claims in the New York State Supreme Court
and with the fraudulent intent to prejudice and dismiss all the Plaintiff’s initial claims in that
Court.
As evident from the facts, the Stober and Proskauer Rose defendants have
15
violated almost every one of the New York State Rules of Professional/ Attorney Conduct by
making a mockery of the justice system and have shown a complete disregard for the sanctity of
the legal system by committing fraud boldly and openly and by using the fraudulently induced
Federal Court Orders to fabricate a “Bogus res judicata and collateral estoppel” argument to
dismiss this 600002-2011 and 100389-2013 actions. Indeed, the Stober and Proskauer Rose
defendants have repeated conduct that is not only frivolous but also fraudulent and should be
sanctioned under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. In this regard, the Stober and Proskauer Rose defendants’
actions are the epitome of frivolous conduct as they are “completely without merit in law and
cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
existing law”, and are very clearly “undertaken to delay or prolong the resolution of the
litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another.” Stow v. Stow, 262 A.D.2d 550 (2d Dept
1999), Matter of Gordon v Marrone, 202 A.D.2d 104 (2d Dept 1994). Specifically, Section
130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts states in pertinent part:
(a) The Court, in its discretion, may award to any party in any civil action or proceeding
before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbursement
for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from
frivolous conduct as defined in this part……
(c.) For the purposes of this part, conduct is frivolous if:
it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument
for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, pr to harass
or maliciously injure another;
it asserts material factual statements that are false.
….In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider,
among other issues the (1) circumstances under which the Conduct took place, including
the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct; and
16
(2) whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was
apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the
party.
While the factors listed above are precatory in determining sanctionable conduct,
“what remedy [to impose] is dictated by consideration of fairness and equity.” Levy v, Carol
Management Corp., 260 A.D.2d 27, 33 (1999). Moreover, “[s]anctions are retributive in that
they punish past conduct. They are also goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring
future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the bar at large. The goals
include preventing the waste of judicial resources, and deterring vexatious litigation and dilatory
or malicious litigation tactics” id.
POINT III
Defendants’ CONTINUING ELABORATE SCHEME of Lies, Perjury,
Deliberate Misrepresentations of Material Facts, Fraud, Abuse of Judicial
Process, and Other Corrupt Attorney Practices and COVER-UP Before the
(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts and the State Courts During the Past
Six Years Warrants Appropriate Injunctive Relief, Including Mandatory
Discovery & Fact-Finding
During the past six years, the Proskauer Rose Defendants, in collusion with the
Plaintiff’s own One-of-Four-Cases/Out-Going/”Client-Betraying” Attorney/ Defendant Stober,
have engaged in an ELABORATE SCHEME OF FRAUD, DECEPTION, ABUSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCESS and other CORRUPT practices not only on the Plaintiff but also on the
Manhattan Courts, in violation of judicial law 487. By committing repeated perjury and or by
making various false statements and or by deliberately misrepresenting the most important
facts and or abusing the judicial process and making “BOGUS res judicata and collateral
estoppel” arguments, and or by tortiously interfering in the 2009 Preliminary/”Still Incomplete”
Term Sheet document, the Stober and Proskauer Rose Defendants have been abusing various
17
fraudulent “motions to dismiss” to PREVENT ANY FACT-FINDING and or EVIDENTIARY
HEARINGS WHATSOEVER in this matter.
The Plaintiff, therefore, respectfully requests the Court to grant injunctive relief
that would enjoin the Defendants from filing any other premature motions to dismiss or from
seeking any other relief even before (A) the completion of the July 30, 2009 “Illegal & Still
INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” and the finalization of the terms of the 2009 “3-Way”
(Implied, Columbia - Plaintiff-Stober) Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet Agreement under
the expressly agreed “exclusive jurisdiction” of only the “Private Mediator” (Mr. Scheinman);
and even before (B) the completion of all the required discovery including sworn depositions
of at least the named defendants in this action regarding the serious claims of fraud, continuing
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Judicial Law 487, and other serious
misconduct that was already committed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff and the Manhattan
Supreme/Civil Courts and (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in this action before the
Nassau County Supreme Court,
Plaintiff respectfully request an injunction thatwcould end the Defendants’
continuing and chronic pattern and practice of perjury, making false statements and or
deliberate misrepresentations, abusing the judicial process, and cover-up by committing
additional fraud on the courts and without giving the Plaintiff any full and fair opportunity
for any fact-finding and or evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding the July 30, 2009
“Illegal & Still INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” and what was actually agreed in
the resulting fraudulently induced Preliminary/Incomplete 1-Page Term Sheet “LIMITED
Agreement” and after the “Private Mediator“ himself had already left for the day.
18
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to
Grant this cross-motion and issue an Order pursuant to Article 5 of the C.P.L.R and
Section 503, C.P.L.R. 5104 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1:
1. Denying the Defendants’ request for change of venue or order to show
cause for transfer of this proceeding to the Manhattan Supreme Court,
given that both the Plaintiff and the primary Defendant in this action,
Mr. Louis D. Stober, Jr, are long-time residents of Nassau County, and
the Plaintiff’s forty separate causes of action against Defendant Stober
including Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty (by accepting an offer of
“Bribe”), Continuing Breach of Contracts, Fraud on the Manhattan
Supreme Court and First Judicial Department in violation of Judicial Law
487 and other serious claims have not yet been resolved in this Nassau
County Supreme Court.
2. Sanctioning Defendant Susan D. Friedfel and the Proskauer Rose
Defendants for committing perjury and or lying and or deliberately
misrepresenting the most important facts to deliberately mislead this
Supreme Court of Nassau County, even before any fact-finding and
evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding any of the Plaintiff’s very
serious claims of fraud, “bribery”, continuing breach of contracts, breach
of fiduciary duty and repeated fraud on the Manhattan Supreme Court
and the First Judicial Department (Appellate Division) and the (Out-of-
Jurisdiction) Federal Court(s), in blatant violation of Judicial Law 487,
against his own One-of-Four-Cases (06-cv-6841) Attorney/Defendant
Stober and who had also caused the “improper and fraudulently-induced
dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s prior actions.
3. Ordering the Defendants to immediately answer the Complaint and
proceed to discovery without any stay or further delay.
4. Enjoining the Defendants from filing any other premature motions even
before:
(A) the complet ion of the July 30, 2009 " l11egal & Sti l lINCOMPLETE Private Mediation" and the finalization of theterms of the 2009 "3-Way" (Implied, Columbia - Plaintiff-Stober) Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet Agreement under theexpressly agreed "exclusive jurisdiction" of only the "PrivateMediator" (Mr. Scheinman); and even before
(B) the completion of all the required discovery including sworndepositions of at least the named defendants regarding the seriousclaims of fraud, continuing breach of contract, breach offiduciary duty, violation of Judicial Law 487, and other seriousmisconduct that was already committed by the Defendants on
the Plaintiff and the Manhattan Supreme/Civil Courts and(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in this action before theNassau Countv Suoreme Court.
Dated; Nassau CountyAugus t 10 ,2015
Respectful ly Submitted,
'R -t Kry/*^.n-"^/-:--R (Randy) S. RaghavendraPlaintiffx* & FounderNational Associat ion fbr Cl ients
Against Dishonest AttorneysP.O. Box 7066Hicksville (Nassau County), NYr t802-7066Phone: (646) 229-9911(.. Plaint i f f wi l l be retaining an Attorney