Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.05.12
15:08:59 +03'00'

1 BRYANCAVELLP
John W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166)
2 Jenna Moldawsky (CA State Bar No. 246109)
3 120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
4 Telephone: 310-576-2100
Facsimile: 310-576-2200
5
6 Sanford Shatz (CA State Bar No. 127229)
Todd A. Boock (CA State Bar No. 181933)
7 5220 Las Virgenes Road, MS: AC-11
8 Calabasas, California 91302
Telephone: 818-871-6045
9 Facsimile: 818-871-4669

10 Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

11

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
14

15 NIVIE SAMAAN, et aI., Case No. SC087400

16 Plaintiffs, NON-PARTY COUNTRYWIDE HOME
17 LOANS, INC.'S REPLY TO
vs. DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK'S
18 OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW
19 JOSEPH ZERNIK, et ai. CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT;
20 Defendants. DECLARATION OF JOHN W.
AMBERG
21
DATE: March 7, 2008
22
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
23 DEPT: J (Hon. Terry B. Friedman)

24

25 I. Introduction
26 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") is not a party to this action, nor has it
27 ever sought to intervene. Countrywide became involved in this case only after Defendant
28

SMOIOOCS6712SS.I COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 Joseph Zernik ("Zernik") served Countrywide with four document subpoenas. Though

2 Countrywide fully complied with all of Zernik's subpoenas, Zernik has continued to harass

3 and badger Countrywide officers and employees for almost a year in an attempt to discover

4 additional documents and information, well after Countrywide complied with the subpoenas

5 and discovery was cut off. Zernik has sought this information, none of which exists, to

6 support his incorrect belief that Countrywide, plaintiff Nivie Samaan, various superior court

7 judges and others have conspired to defraud him. Nothing could be further from the truth,

8 and there is no evidence to support Zernik's outrageous claims.

9 Countrywide wants no part of this lawsuit and has no stake in its outcome. It simply

10 wants to be left alone, but Zernik has shown that he will not stop harassing Countrywide

11 unless there are consequences for his actions. Countrywide was forced to seek relief from this

12 Court to stop the harassment. Countrywide did not pursue contempt proceedings against

13 Zernik simply for the sake of punishment. Zernik has been freely harassing Countrywide

14 officers and employees for many months without consequence, which has merely emboldened

15 him. Countrywide believes that monetary sanctions and a contempt ruling are the only means

16 of finally putting an end to Zernik's harassment.

17 Zernik's Opposition to the Court's Order to Show Cause ("Opposition"), aside from

18 being procedurally defective 1, is replete with irrelevant "facts," misrepresented legal authority,

19 and conspiracy theories, and completely fails to provide any justification for his repeated

20 violations of the Court's Protective Order. Further, Zernik's contention that he was not

21 properly served with the Court's contempt order is disingenuous, as Countrywide made every

22 reasonable effort to personally serve Zernik with the contempt order, and Zernik simply

23 evaded service. Zernik's avoidance tactics should not be rewarded.

24 Countrywide can - and will - establish all the elements of contempt beyond a

25 reasonable doubt. The Protective Order is a valid and enforceable order, established most

26 recently by this Court's imposition of sanctions against Zernik for his violations thereof on

27
1 California Rule of Court 3.1113(d) provides that "no opening or responding memorandum may

28 exceed 15 pages." Cal. Rule Ct. 3.1113(d). Zemik's Opposition is 20 pages.

SMOIDOCS671255.1

2 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 February 15,2008. Zernik had actual knowledge of the Protective Order, as evidenced by his

2 presence at the hearing on July 23, 2007 granting the Order and submission thereon, was

3 capable of complying with the Order, and willfully chose to disobey it. Punishment for

4 contempt is clearly warranted. Countrywide is not requesting that Zernik serve any jail time;

5 in fact, Countrywide would oppose such a punishment. Rather, Countrywide only asks that

6 the Court find Zernik in contempt for his repeated willful violations of a valid court order.
7 Zernik continues to show no respect for the Court's rulings and he should be held in

8 contempt and sanctioned accordingly.

9 II. Zernik Evaded Personal Service of the Contempt Order

10 Zernik was present at the February 15,2008 hearing on Countrywide'S motion to

11 enforce the protective order and for other relief when Judge Friedman set the contempt
CD
<X>
<">
12 hearing for March 7, 2008. Declaration ofJohn W. Amberg ("Amberg Decl."), ~ 2. Zernik
~
O~
00
<">~ 13 was present when Judge Friedman directed Countrywide to personally serve Zernik with the
Cl..0>0
-J:=:(J)
~~.~ 14 contempt order by Tuesday, February 19, 2008. ad. at~ 3.) Once Judge Freidman signed the
~ ~g
U:;:ro
C:"O() 15 contempt order on the morning of February 19, Countrywide diligently attempted to
'"~orn
~
'" 0
CD CD ·c
00
~~
16 personally serve Zernik with the order, a Notice to Appear, and Countrywide's motion. As
'"
"E
'"
en 17 detailed in the Declaration of Ed Fuchs, attached as Exhibit A to the Amberg Decl., a process

18 server attempted to personally serve Zernik at both his home and his last known business

19 addresses on February 19. See Exhibit A to Amberg Decl. When the process server was told

20 by another tenant that Zernik no longer practiced at the business address, he traveled to

21 Zernik's residence and attempted to serve him there. ad.) At that time, no one was at the

22 residence. ad.) Approximately an hour and a half later, a process server telephoned Zernik at

23 his residence and when Zernik answered the phone, the process server identified himself and

24 informed Zernik that he wanted to serve him with documents. ad.) Zernik immediately hung

25 up. ad.) Between the hours of7:15 p.m. and 9:15 p.m., the process server waited outside

26 Zernik's residence in an attempt to personally serve him with the documents. ad.) There

27 were lights on in the house and music was playing. ad.) The process server knocked on the

28 door and rang the doorbell three times, but no one ever came to the door. ad.) The process
SMOIDOCS6712SS.1

3 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 server walked around the side of the house looking for Zernik, but the drapes were pulled

2 closed. ad.) The process server telephoned Zernik two more times and Zernik hung up on

3 him both times. ad.) Eventually, the process server left copies of the documents on

4 Zernik's front doorstep. ad.)

5 Countrywide diligently attempted to serve Zernik with the documents by hand, but

6 Zernik made it impossible to do so. Zernik knew that Countrywide had been ordered to serve

7 him personally on February 19, and purposely avoided service. It is improper for Zernik

8 actively to evade service and then to dispute service by disingenuously claiming that he simply

9 "found an envelope from Countrywide outside his front door." (Opposition, p. 11, In. 23.)

10 Zernik has been dodging the consequences of his actions for many months, and his attempt

11 to evade service is just another example of his deceptive conduct.

12 III. Countrywide Has Standing To Instigate A Contempt Hearing

13 Zernik's Opposition states that "Countrywide's standing in Samaan v. Zernik to date

14 remains a mystery that the court is refusing to disambiguate." (Opposition, p. 13, In. 24-25.)

15 Despite Zernik's contention, Countrywide has consistently made it clear that it is not a party

16 to the underlying action. Indeed, the whole impetus of this proceeding is the fact that

17 Countrywide would like to be left alone and should have no more to do with this case. In all

18 of its briefs and submissions to the Court, Countrywide has referenced itself as a "non-party."

19 Countrywide'S continued involvement in this action was solely the result of Zernik's
20 intentional harassment of Countrywide officers and employees, and in no way has

21 Countrywide attempted to assert itself into the underlying action as a party in interest.
22 Zernik's unrelenting harassment of Countrywide officers and employees in search of

23 additional discovery led Countrywide to seek relief from this Court in the form of a Protective

24 Order. Once the Protective Order was granted by the Court, it became a valid standing order

25 and Countrywide, as a party to the order, was entitled to seek its enforcement.

26 Further, Zernik's legal authority for his contention that Countrywide has no standing

27 to pursue a contempt citation is irrelevant and misleading. Zernik cites Lohnes v. Astron

28 Computer Products, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1153 (2001) for the proposition that "for a third
SMOlDOCS671255.1

4 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 party to seek relief in a pending action, they must intervene." (Opposition, p. 14, In. 3.)

2 Lohnes dealt with a workers' compensation carrier who sought to intervene in an action by an

3 employee against her employer in order to obtain indemnification. Id. at 1152. The facts of

4 the present case are distinguishable and Zernik's reliance on this case is improper. The issue

5 of intervention is irrelevant - Countrywide is not in any way attempting to insert itself into

6 this case; indeed, it was Zernik who injected Countrywide into this case by serving it with four
7 document subpoenas and then repeatedly harassing its officers and employees. Countrywide
8 is simply asking the Court to punish Zernik for his willful violations of a court order that

9 Countrywide obtained for its protection in a discovery dispute.

10 Zernik also cites Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d 862 (1983) and Safer v. Superior

11 Court, 15 Cal. 3d 230 (197 5) to support his contention that Countrywide lacks standing to
(0
co
(")
12 pursue contempt proceedings. (Opposition, p. 14, In. 7-12.) However, in both of these cases,
~
O~
00
C""l~ 13 the parties pursuing contempt proceedings had no connection to the court order at issue, and
(l.Q)0
...J·s~
~ en·E 14 neither party was seeking enforcement of an order made on its behalf or for its protection.
~ ~g
e.)~ro
cue.)
roro 15 See Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d at 872; Safer v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d at 235. In
c:- 0
~
ro-
u
co co 'c
00
~~
16 Miller and Safer, the parties were unable to proceed with contempt hearings because they had
ro
C
ro
en 17 no "stake" in the order that was violated and no relationship to the order. Here, the

18 Protective Order was granted to protect Countrywide from Zernik's harassment, and

19 Countrywide was integral to its issuance. Countrywide has standing to pursue contempt

20 proceedings against Zernik, due to his willful violations of the Protective Order.

21 IV. The Protective Order Does Not Implicate Zemik's Free Speech Rights
22 Zernik's contention that the Protective Order "is an invalid prior restraint on free

23 speech" (Opposition, p. 15, In. 20-22) is incorrect. The Court's Protective Order does not

24 implicate Zernik's free speech rights in any way. The Protective Order simply directs Zernik
25 to "communicate solely with Counti)"'vide's designated counsel and no other officers or
26 employees regarding the present action." The Protective Order does not restrict the content

27 of Zernik's speech - Zernik is free .to say anything he wants to Countrywide's designated

28 counsel or the world at large. All the Protective Order requires is that Zernik, as a defendant
SMOIDOCS671255.1

5 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 in pro per, communicate with Countrywide's counsel regarding the present action and not

2 with Countrywide's represented officers or employees. The Protective Order is narrowly

3 tailored and limited in scope. Zernik's free speech rights are in no way threatened or eroded

4 by the Protective Order, and he is free to convey anything he wants to Countrywide's counsel.

5 v. Countrywide Will Establish That Zernik Is In Contempt of Court Beyond a

6 Reasonable Doubt

7 Zernik correctly states in his Opposition that a finding of contempt requires an

8 enforceable valid order, actual knowledge of the order, an ability to comply with the order,

9 and willful violation of the order. (Opposition, p. 14, In. 14-16.) Countrywide can - and will

10 - establish all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

11 A. Valid and Enforceable Order

cD
co
(")
12 An order is enforceable in an indirect contempt proceeding if the order is in writing or
~
0"-
00
(")'<t 13 entered in the Court's minutes, and if the order is definitive and certain. Ketscher v. Superior
Q..a>0
-.J~O)
~~.~ 14 Court, 9 Cal. App. 3d 601, 604-605 (1970). The terms of the Protective Order are clear and
~ ~g
03:«;
c:uo 15 unequivocal- Zernik was directed to communicate "solely with Countrywide's designated
'"~oni
~
'"
mm· c
0

00
~:2
16 counsel and no other Countrywide officers or employees regarding the present action." The
'"
C
ltI 17 minute order from July 23, 2007 confirms that Countrywide's proposed order "is signed and
en

18 effective as of this date." See Ex. C to Declaration ofJohn W. Amberg in Support of

19 Countrywide's motion to enforce the protective order and for other relief ("First Amberg

20 Decl.") Zernik cannot, and has not, made any legitimate argument to contest the validity and

21 enforceability of the Protective Order. Further, at the February 15, 2008 hearing on

22 Countrywide's motion to enforce the protective order and for other relief, this Court affIrmed

23 the Protective Order and sanctioned Zernik for his repeated violations thereof. (Amberg

24 Decl,,-r 2.) Countrywide can meet its burden of proof.

25 B. Actual Notice

26 Zernik has been on notice of the Protective Order since July 23,2007. Zernik

27 represented himself at the July 23, 2007 hearing on Countrywide's motion for a protective

28 order, and submitted on the Court's tentative ruling granting the protective order. See First
SMOIDOCS6712SS.1

6 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 Amberg Decl. at ~ 3. Zernik was specifically told by Judge Connor that he was to

2 communicate only with corporate counsel and that the order had been granted. CId. at ~ 5,

3 Ex. D.) Zernik was served with a copy of the July 23 minute order which confirms that

4 Countrywide's proposed order "is signed and effective as of this date." CId. at ~ 15.) In his

5 emails to Countrywide's counsel, he refers to the Protective Order numerous times, indicating

6 that he is fully aware of the Protective Order. CId. at ~~ 10-12.) Countrywide can establish

7 beyond a reasonable doubt that Zernik had knowledge of the Protective Order.

8 c. Ability To Comply
9 Zernik was clearly able to direct his communication to Countrywide's counsel. This is
lOan action within his exclusive control, and something he has clearly shown to be capable of in

11 the past. The Protective Order did not restrict Zernik's ability to communicate with

12 Countrywide; it only mandated that Zernik was to communicate solely with counsel. Instead

13 of complying with the Protective Order, which he is perfectly capable of doing, Zernik

14 disobeyed it repeatedly. Countrywide can meet its burden.

15 D. Willful Violation

16 Zernik has shown contempt for the Protective Order and willfully violated it numerous
17 times. Zernik has acknowledged the existence of the Protective Order, telling Countrywide

18 counsel that "you recently threatened to enforce the protective (gag) order issued by Judge
19 Connor" and that "it appeared that such order was indeed issued to you by Judge Connor."

20 (See First Amberg Decl~ at ~ 12, Ex. K.) Despite admitting that the Protective Order is in

21 place, Zernik knowingly and intentionally violated the Protective Order numerous times by

22 directly contacting Countrywide officers. After Countrywide's counsel informed Zernik that

23 Countrywide would be seeking redress for his violations of the Protective Order, Zernik sent

24 an email entitled ''VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER? WHAT COURT ORDER?" and

25 asserted "it is difficult to believe it ever existed." CId. at ~ 14, Ex. M.) Zernik clearly indicated

26 his intention to violate or ignore the Protective Order.

27 Zernik contends that "obviously, willful violation could not be demonstrated when
28 Defendant engaged in intensive search for the order." (Opposition, p. 19, In. 16-17.) The
SM01DOCS671255.1

7 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPL Y TO ZERNIK 'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 only thing that is "obvious" is that Zernik is attempting to wiggle out of his court-imposed

2 obligation by claiming that he could not find a signed order in the court flle. However, Zernik

3 was present at the July 23 hearing granting the Protective Order, was directly told by Judge

4 Connor that he was to communicate solely with Countrywide's counsel, and was provided

5 with a copy of the minute order which states that the Protective Order was "signed and

6 effective as of this date." Where a party, with knowledge of the terms of an order and ability

7 to comply therewith, did not do so, it can be reasonably inferred that their inaction was

8 intentional, despite express disclaimers of contemptuous intent. City of Vernon v. Superior

9 Court, 38 Ca1.2d 509, 518 (1952). It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Zernik acted willfully

10 and intentionally in violating the Court Order and should be sanctioned accordingly.

11 VI. A Jury Trial Is Not Warranted

to
co
C')
12 There is generally no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings. See
~
o~
00
C')v 13 International Molders Local 164 v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 3d 395, 405 (1977). A person
a...&~
...J .-
...J~.!!!
Q) E 14 cited for contempt has a right to a jury trial only if the punishment imposed is "serious."
~ ~g
C)~ro
c:-oC)
roro 15 International Union United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826 (1994); In
?:,O<U
~ 0
a:l a:l 'c
00
~::2
16 re Kreitman, 40 Cal. App. 4th 750, 753 (1995). Though the standard for what constitutes a
ro
cro "serious" punishment is not readily ascertainable, the cases that have found "serious
C/)
17

18 punishment" have found it only where the punishment includes imprisonment for more than

19 six months and a fine of $52,000,000.00. See International Union United Mine Workers of

20 America v. Bagwell, supra, 512 U.S. 821,827. The circumstances of this case do not suggest

21 that serious punishment such as extensive prison time or excessive fines is warranted.

22 Countrywide is not requesting any jail time, and in fact would oppose Zernik's imprisonment.

23 Countrywide simply asks that the Court sanction Zernik in an amount to be determined by

24 the Court, but in any event not less than $1,000.00 for each violation pursuant to California

25 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a). As Zernik has violated the Protective Order a total

26 of nine (9) times, Countrywide asks the Court to sanction Zernik in an amount of $9,000.00. 2

27
2Where separate contemptuous acts are committed, contemptor may be punished for each separate
28 offense. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1209, 1211; See also Hawk v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 3d
SMOIDOCS671255.1

8 COUNTRYWlDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 Though not a paltry sum, even if the Court were to order Zernik to pay the entire $9,000.00, it

2 could not reasonably be determined to be a "serious punishment." Accordingly, a jury trial is

3 not warranted in this matter.

4 VII. Conclusion

5 Zernik's Opposition is full of accusations, complaints and conspiracy theories. What is

6 missing, however, is any legitimate reason why the Court should not hold Zernik in contempt

7 and sanction him for his repeated violations of the Court's Protective Order. The Court has

8 already sanctioned Zernik for deliberately violating the Protective Order, and Zernik has

9 provided no legitimate justification for his flagrant violations. Zernik does not apologize for

10 or attempt to properly explain his behavior, nor does he promise the Court that it will not

11 happen again. In fact, Zernik argues that he is entitled to continue harassing Countrywide.
<0
<0
M
12 Countrywide can establish all of the elements of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
C';'
O~
00
M'=t 13 Countrywide has no desire to punish Zernik for any reason other than to put an end to his
tl.2g
-l.-
-l=>1ll
<l>
>
en'§
-0
14 unrelenting harassment. Zernik has targeted Countrywide officers and employees for almost a
en ~~
U;:ro
c:-c()
rolll 15 year without consequence, and the harassment must fmally stop. Countrywide never inserted
~oni
~ 0
CO CO 'c
00
~~
16 itself into this action - it simply responded to Zernik's document subpoenas and Zernik has
III
cIII refused to leave Countrywide alone ever since. Zernik has now chosen to willfully disobey a
en 17

18 court order obtained for Countrywide's protection. The Court should find Zernik in

19 contempt of court and sanction him accordingly.

20
DATED: March 4, 2008 BRYANCAVELLP
21 John W. Amberg
J enna Moldawsky
22

23
By ~n.1.-Rde~<
24 enna Moldawsky ;
Attorneys for
25 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
26

27 108, 133 (1974) (affinning separate contempt punishments against attorney for making statements
during trial in violation of court order).
28
SMOIDOCS671255.1

9 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 1 DECLARATION OF JOHN W. AMBERG

2 I, John W. Amberg, declare:

3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of

4 California. I am an partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, counsel of record for

5 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set

6 forth in this declaration.

7 2. On February 15, 2008, I attended the hearing on Countrywide's motion to

8 enforce the protective order and for other relief (the "Motion"). DefendantJoseph Zernik

9 ("Zernik") was present at the hearing and represented himself. At the hearing, the Honorable

10 Terry B. Freidman affirmed the Protective Order and sanctioned Zernik for his repeated

11 violations thereof.
<D
co
(")
12 3. At the hearing, Judge Freidman also scheduled a contempt hearing for March 7,
~
o~
00
(")~ 13 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Judge Friedman ordered that Countrywide was to personally serve Zernik
Q..Q)O
--l'5 ~
~ (f) .§ 14 with the Court's Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt by February 19,2008.
~ ~~
O;=ro
c-oo
III III 15 4. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Ed
,=",octi
... 0
CD co 'c
00
~~
16 Fuchs, process server for First Legal, Bryan Cave's in-house attorney service, detailing his
III
"E
III
(f) 17 attempts to serve Zernik with the Court's Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt and
18 Countrywide's Motion. This declaration was originally flied with the Court and served on
19 Zernik on February 21,2008.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

21 foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed this 4th day of March, 2008, at Sant

23

24
25
26
27
28
SMOIDOCS671255.1

10 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT
 "J 1181HX3
-------------------------_./
 1 BRYANCAVELLP
John W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166) CONFORMED COpy
2 Jenna Moldawsky (CA State Bar No. 246109) OF ORIGINAL FILED
120 Broadway, Suite 300 Los Angeles Superior Court
3 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
Telephone: 310-576-2100 FEB 2 1 ?nnA
4 Facsimile: 310-576-2200 lehn Al Glarke Executive Officer/Clerk
j

5 Sanford Shatz (CA State Bar No. 127229)

Todd A. Boock (CA State BarNo. 181933)
6 5220 Las Virgenes Road, MS: AC-11
Calabasas, California 91302
7 Telephone: 818-871-6045
Facsimile: 818-871-4669
8
Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICt
(0
<0
M
12
~
o~ NIVIE SAMAAN, et aI., Case No. SC087400
00
M'ot 13
Q.41g
...J""
~ c?) .~
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF ED FUCHS
14 REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE
~ ~g
0;tn; TO APPEAR ON MARCH 7) 2008 AND
c-oO
<0 <0 15 vs. ORDER RE: CONTEMPT ON
~e~
CD CD 'c DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
00
~:E
16
<0
c JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al.
CIl
C/) 17 Date: March 7, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 Dept: J (Hon. Terry B. Friedman)
19

20
21

22
It-------------------J
23

24 I, ED FUCHS, declare:
25 1. I am employed as a messenger for First Courier Service/First Legal Support
26 Services CCFirst Legal')' First Legal is the in-house attorney service for Bryan Cave LLP,

27 counsel of record for non-party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide").

28

SMOIDOCS669843.I 1 DECLARAnON OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERV1CE OF

DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK

- - -- -- --. --- - ----- ~ -- -- -- -- - - - _. - _.-- -- - - _. -

 1 2. On February 19, 2008, attorneys at Bryan Cave provided me with copies of (1)

2 a Notice to Defendant]oseph Zernik ("Zernik") to Appear on March 7, 2008 to Show Cause

3 Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (which attached the Court's February 19,2008

4 Order re: Contempt as Exhibit A); and (2) Countrywide's motion to enforce the protective

5 order and for other relief, including an order to show cause re: contempt. I provided the First

6 Legal dispatch office with a copy of these documents.

7 3. The First Legal service order (Control No. 4023136) indicated that the

8 documents were to be personally served on Zernik on February 19,2008. The service order
.9 contained two addresses for Zernik: a residence address of 2415 Saint George Street, Los

10 Angeles, California 90027, and a business address of9675 Brighton Way, Beverly Hills,

11 California, 90210. I was also provided with a telephone number for Zernik, which was (310)
12 435-9107. A true and correct copy of the service order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13 4. On February 19,2008 at approximately 4:15 p.m., a First Legal process server

14 attempted to personally serve Zernik at his business address in Beverly Hills and was

15 informed by an individual at the office building that Zernik no longer works at that address.
16 5. On February 19,2008 at approximately 4:30 p.m. and again at 5:03 p.m., a First

17 Legal process server attempted to personally serve Zernik at his residence, but no one was

18 home at either time. The process server slid a copy of the Notice to Appear (with the
19 attached Court Order) under Zernik's front door.

20 6. The same day, I called Zernik's phone number at 5:30 p.m., right before I left
21 the Bryan Cave offices to attempt to personally serve Zernik myself. When I called, Zernik
22 picked up and I identified myself as a process server who wanted to serve him with

23 documents. Zernik immediately hung up.

24 7. Between the hours of 7:15 p.m. and 9:15 p.m., I waited outside Zernik's

25 residence in an attempt to personally serve him with the documents. When I arrived, there

26 were lights on in the house and music was playing. I knocked on the door and rang the

27 doorbell three times. No one ever came to the door. I walked around the side of the house
28 looking for Zernik, but the drapes were pulled closed. I also called Zernik two more times
SMOIIXXS669843J 2
DECLARATION OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERVICE OF
DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
 1 and hung up on me both times. I left copies of the documents on Zernik's front doorstep.
2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
3 foregoing is true and correct.
4 Executed on February2Q., 2008, at Santa Monica, California.
5
6 ~~---......."
7
8
9
10

11
<0
co
<')
12
~
O~
00
<')'¢ 13
Q.Q)O
-J~O)

~ ch·~ 14
i; ~~
O~tii
<:-00 15
'"~e~
'" -
alale:
00
~:::E
16
l!
<:
'"
(I)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMO Irxx:S669843.1 3
DECLARAnON OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERVICE OF
DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
EXHIBIT A
 Ul"t
/~tftf'~~~~l
'!IV .~~ , 5 , H4J
LosAnge~- (213) 250-1111 • Fax (213) 2""SO- 9-r"
Direct line to ~ (213) 250-9111 • Fax (213) 25Q..: 197
Los Angeles (West) (310) 277-9111 • Fax (310) 277-9153
Direct line to legal (310) 277-7101 • Fax (310) 277-9153

;:- ':~i~ _:; Support Inland Empire

S3nDiego
(909) 779-1110
(619) 231-9111
•
•
Fax (909) 779-0100
Fax (619) 231-1361
,~rJ
San Francisco (415) 626-3111 • Fax (415) 626-1331
.-.l'.
.J
Services Santa Ana (714) 541-1110 • Fax (714) 541-8182
sacramento ___--ttH>OI-'~:5111 • Fax (916) 443-3111

SERVICE OF PROCESS FORM ATE: 02/19/08

web address: firstlegalsupport.com
FIRM
NAME: BRYAN CAVE LLP
120 BROADWAY SUITE 300
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
DOCUMENTS:
PHONE: (310) 576-2326 Notice of Hearing
FAX:

AnY I SECRETARY: Frank EXT: 2354

CHARGE REFERENCE I AnY. CODE: ADVANCE WITNESS FEES DYES 0 NO

0211679/FR4
CASE NO: SC087400 LAST DAY TO SERVE ~d • •~

Short title of case:

HEARING 3/7/08 9:30 a.m. J
Samaan, et al. v. Zemik, et al. SET FOR: AT DEPTIDIV _

SERVE: Joseph Zernik TYPE OF SERVICE

o PERSONAL ONLY

(PLEASE INDICATE NAME EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD APPEAR ON PROOF OF SERVICE) o SUBSTITUTED OK

RESIDENCE ADDRESS:
2415 Saint George Street
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
o DEUVER I DROP SERVE

Los Feliz, CA 90027 LEVEL OF SERVICE

D SPECIAL

III ASAP (Same Day)

TELEPHONE #: (310) 435-9107 TELEPHONE #: o RUSH (Next Business Day)

HOURS WORKED: 9-5 D REGULAR (3-4 Day)

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: WITNESS

FEES
PERSONALLY SERVE CHECK WRITTEN BY:
CALL WHEN DELIVERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! o CLIENT 0 FLSS

AMOUNT:

CHECK#:

COMMENTS:

HEIGHT WEIGHT HAIR EYES AGE SEX RACE ADDITIONAl

DATE SERVED TlMESERVED PROCESS SERVER PERSON SERVED {TITLE

 PROOF OF SERV1~E

2 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa
3
Monica, California 90401-2305.
4
On February 21, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described as
5 DECLARATION OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
APPEAR ON MARCH 7,2008 AND ORDER RE: CONTEMPT ON DEFENDANT
6 JOSEPH ZERNIK, on the interested party(s) in this action, as follows:

7 Joseph Zernik DMD PhD David J. Pasternak

2415 Saint George Street Psternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP
8 Los Feliz, California 90027 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Telephone: (310) 435-9107 Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
9 Facsimile: (801) 998-0917 Telephone: 310-553-1500
jz 12345(iv,earthlink.nct Facsllnile: 310-553-1540
10
djp@paslaw.com
II
Robert J. Shulkin, Esq. Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
<D
co
<"'>
12 Legal Department Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP
C';
o~ Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
00
13
~~g
<",>V
11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
..J"ro
Q> (/) 'E 14 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Facsllnile: 213-620-1398
~ ~g Facsimile: 310-447-1902 mkeshavarzi@shcppanimul1in.com
O~<v
cuo
rom 15 robcrt.shulkin@~camoves.com
~o«i
~ u
CO CO
00
·c
16
o (BY MAIL) I placed a true copy of the foregoing document in a sealed envelope
~~ addressed to each interested party as set forth above. I placed each such envelope, with postage
m
C thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, California. I
m
U)
17
am readily familiar with Bryan Cave LLP's practice for collection and processing of
18 correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the
correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the
19 ordinary course of business.
20 [2J (BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited in a box or other facility maintained by
21 Ovemite Express, an express carrier service, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized
by said express carrier service to receive documents, a true copy (or original) of the
22 foregoing document, in an envelope designated by said express service carrier, with
delivery fees paid or provided for.
23
Executed on February 21, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the
25
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
26

27

28
SMOI D<XS669843. I

DECLARATION OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERVICE OF

DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
 PROOF OF SER lICE

2 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa Monica,
3 California 90401-2305.
4 On March 4, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described as NON-PARTY
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JOSEPH
5 ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD
NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT; DECLARATION OF JOHN W. AMBERG, on the
6 interested party(s) in this action, as follows:
7
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. Joseph Zernik
8 Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP 2415 Saint George Street
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor Los Feliz, California 90027
9 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (310) 435-9107
Facsimile: 213-620-1398 Facsimile: (801) 998-0917
10
mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com jz12345@earthlink.net
11
Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.
<.D
00
C")
12 David J. Pasternak Legal Department
~ Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company
o~
00
C")'<t 13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floor
n.a>0
....1=0">
....I"''''
(l) (f) 'E 14 Los Angeles, California 90067-2523 Los Angeles, CA 90049
> • 0
ro ~~ Telephone: 310-553-1500 Facsimile: 310-447-1902
U;;:rn
cuU 15 Facsimile: 310-553-1540 robert.shulkin@camoves.com
'">.oro
~ '" u
~
djp@paslaw.com
co co ·c
00
~~
16
c'"
'"
(f)
17 ~ (BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited in a box or other facility maintained by
18 Overnite Express, an express carrier service, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said
express carrier service to receive documents, a true copy (or original) of the foregoing document, in
19 an envelope designated by said express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for.

20 Executed on March 4, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.

21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMOI DOCS671255.1

11 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TOZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CO TEMPT